It is a fact that NASA wants to launch a manned mission to Mars. The reasons for doing so
however is wrong, in my opinion. When considering the reasons for sending a man/woman safely
to Mars and back, you also have to consider the price which by NASA’s own estimate will be
more than 100 billion dollars.
I can see 5 reasons why NASA would want to go to Mars. But I can also argue against every one
of them.
When considering the 5 reasons you always have to remember, that the success of a Mars
mission depends on the reason or reasons to be fulfilled. If a reason is not fulfilled, the mission is
a failure.
- Reason 1: The technological challenge. This the same argument that John F. Kennedy used for the Moon mission: “to do it not because it is easy, but because it is not”.
Of course there is a technological challenge in making such a spacecraft, but it is not the same kind of challenge as with the Moon mission. Nobody doubts that it is possible to go to Mars and back. So the challenge is not can we do it, but rather how do we do it.
I know that even the “how do we do it” is a big challenge, but in my opinion it is not reason enough, considering the price. - Reason 2: The first man on Mars shall be from the U.S.A. This reason of course has to do with pride and honor. I know that this is important to a lot of people, especially in U.S.A. and NASA. But is it really worth it at that price? And by the way, who says it is going to a man/woman from U.S.A. who is to be the first? A project of this magnitude may need the full corporation of NASA, ESA, NADA and the Russians. So when the crew is selected it may be 1 man/woman from either space organization. And if this is so, then the odds that the first man/woman on Mars is from NASA is only 1 to 4. All in all this is not enough reason to go to Mars.
- Reason 3: To find present life or evidence of past life. This is the official main reason why NASA wants to send a man/woman to Mars.
Of course the question whether life on Earth is unique or whether life also came to existence in other places like Mars, is a mind breaking question. However when sending a man/woman to Mars looking for life, we have to consider 4 situations.- Situation 1: There is no and has never been any life on Mars.
In this situation of course it would be a total loss to send a man/woman to Mars. - Situation 2: There is or has been life on Mars, but only in a few places.
In this situation sending a few men/women to Mars will be a gamble with the success of the mission. In fact even sending one thousand men/women to Mars would be a gamble.
This is the paradox of finding life or evidence of life on Mars. Since a manned mission to Mars can only be a success if life or evidence of life is found, you already have to know where to look for it before the men/women arrives. The only way to do that is to use Remote Operated Vehicles. But once the ROV’s have found life or evidence of life, there is really no need for a manned mission.
So in my opinion, unless NASA wants to gamble with the success of the mission, we don’t need to send a man/woman to Mars, when ROV’s have to do the main job anyway. - Situation 3: There is or has been life on Mars, not everywhere but in many places.
Except for the higher chance of actually finding life or evidence or life, the arguments here are the same as in situation 2: For a successful manned mission you first need to find life or evidence or life by the use of ROV’s, and then you really don’t need the manned mission. - Situation 4: There is or has been life all over Mars.
Basically the arguments here are the same as in situation 2 and 3: For a successful manned mission you first need to find life or evidence or life by the use of ROV’s, and then you really don’t need the manned mission.
Of course if it is that easy to find life or evidence of life, then the risk of a failure is low. But still, we don’t know that before the ROV’s have been there.
- Situation 1: There is no and has never been any life on Mars.
- Reason 4: Terra forming Mars. This is probably the worst reason for a (first) manned mission to Mars.
Maybe terra forming Mars is possible, but with a time span of over one hundred years, and the necessary technologies not yet developed, this is defenately the wrong reason for a first manned mission to Mars.
By the way, why does NASA want to terra form Mars? To me it sounds like NASA has given up on Earth, and wants to try again on Mars. Its is true there is a lot of problems with Earth, but with the kind of money NASA will spend for a manned Mars mission as well as for a terra forming project, it is possible to fix a lot of these problems.
In my opinion fixing problems on earth is exactly what we should do. - Reason 5: Using Mars industrially. This is actually the only good reason for a manned mission to Mars. Wanting to use Mars indutrially by ex. mining makes sence. But as in reason 3, the way to a manned mission must be preceded by ROV’s that find the areas in which mining could be possible.
I think it is clear that in my opinion a manned mission to Mars is a wast of money. Missions with
ROV’s is much cheaper, safer as well as simpler. And the money should instead be used to fix
the problems that we have on Earth.