Mars Needs Women In Defense of the Space Program by Hilary Jacquim The exploration of space has been one of the defining scientific and cultural milestones of our era. Baby boomers who revered John Glenn for his daring (though immobile) orbit of the earth were thrilled further by the sight of the first man on the moon. Generation X was similarly - and soberly - marked by the Challenger explosion. Today’s children have been deeply affected by the discovery of the Mars Rock and the Pathfinder expedition (the JPL website recieved over 556 million hits in 1997). But at the dawn of the third millenium, in a century that was once thought of as the epitome of the future and man’s progress beyond Earth, the program that created an ideology about American success and Cold War competition is coming under new public scrutiny. After NASA experienced a string of high-profile, billion-dollar failures in the early ‘90’s, Dan Goldin, its chief administrator, announced a new mission statement in 1992. The agency would continue to explore the cosmos and collect extraterrestrial data, but its missions would strive to be “cheaper, faster, and better.” It has been eight years since this mandate was handed down, and indeed, the missions have become both cheaper ($100-250 million each vs. several billion) and faster (many each year vs. one every 18 months). But the renewed upsets which plagued NASA in 1999, especially the loss of both the Climate Orbiter and the Polar Lander, have led many to question whether NASA is really getting better. We must not forget that 1999 was also a year of great success. Researchers found concrete evidence for the existence of ancient oceans on Mars and confirmed the presence of both dry and liquid ice at the poles; the Hubble telescope, which has been gleaning invaluable data from the stars since the 1980’s, was repaired; the Chandra X-Ray telescope discovered new planets and nearby black holes; NASA succesfully recalibrated its systems and satellites worldwide to avoid Y2K problems. But critics say that this is not enough. Some argue the space age ended with the passing of the Soviet threat. They feel that NASA is now obsolete. Still others point out that NASA’s emphasis on the search for life is a faulty one that could prove crippling in terms of public relations if further evidence is not uncovered. Journalist David Beers takes a different tack, claiming that Americans “are unwilling to draw a clean line between the extravagent joys of sci-fi and the downright dull reality of human life as lived in space.” He questions the human exploration of the solar system, arguing that people are limited where machines are not; that the emphasis on earthlings in space is romanticized in that it ignores the difficulties inherant in sending men to other planets; that the cost of non-mechanized treks will cut too deeply into NASA’s overall budget and prevent later and more appropriate nonsentient missions. However, NASA’s shaky record in 1999 clearly disproves such theories. The human element allows for adjustments if errors or problems are encountered. It also means that on-site experiments and observations can be made, discoveries evaluated at the moment, and accurate conclusions (or at least first-hand ones) drawn. We are able to exceed our programming, to extend the line of questioning, and to go deeper than any probe. Despite these accusations, those involved in space research don’t gloss over the difficulties involved; their’s is not a “Star Trek”-style effort, but one constantly tempered by realizations of the inevitable strains and challenges that are a part of rocket science. Geoffrey Landis, a physicist in the Power Technology Division at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Ohio who has had several experiments performed on shuttle flights, believes “risks are a part of life anytime you try to do great things.” While NASA is involved in a groundup reevaluation at the moment, Landis feels that the last thing that is needed is excess caution. After all, nothing works all the time, and testing can be detrimental if it leads to an impasse. For technology to progress and make substantial gains, risk-taking is necessary. This method isn’t as impractical as it sounds - both the Soviet and U.S. programs have demonstrated a significant learning curve in terms of launch success, and time has proved NASA to be excellent at fixing spacecrafts, even in mid-flight. Carl Sagan pointed out that we must expect to lose crafts if we harbor any hope of future success. And to improve the statistical success rate would be incredibly expensive - “cheaper, faster, better” remains the most sensible mandate. Diane Linne, an aerospace engineer who deals with space propulsion at Glenn, is also not shaken by media accusations that NASA has outlived its usefullness in the aftermath of the Cold War. The public outcry has been considerably less than she expected; she believes that many Americans continue to support the space program and understand the complexities involved in the development of cutting-edge technology that must travel long distances through deep space. She sees such endeavors as the space station, slated to go up in 2001, as tangible symbols which will end any lingering discontent by showing a group of Americans who live and function well in space. Linne and Landis emphasize benefits which outway both costs and potential catastrophes. They point out that not only is NASA’s budget a miniscule part of the federal budget (a struggledfor $13.6 billion, or less than 1%), it is also impractical to harbor designs for chanelling this money directly into social ends. In terms of easing poverty, they speak of the creation of new technology and of the importance of aerospace industry jobs in stimulating the economy and maintaing a high quality of life. Carl Sagan counters this argument, however; he writes that the 1994 Congressional Budget Office study proved such a “multiplier effect” to be unsubstantiated. Any gains tend to cycle back into the field itself. It can be difficult to trace the exact benefits of space research and development, but inventions such as the ion rocket engine (the process of ionization is now used to manufacture circuits, which is critical to computer technology) have obvious applications. Technologies, Landis reminds us, don’t stay in neatly defined boxes - they can have surprising and multiple uses. Thus, exploration can be seen as a practical way to invent and refine new technologies. While Sagan supports this theory, he also believes that the potential for “spinoffs” hardly justifies such dramatic efforts in the first place, unless it is paired with more compelling results. An argument can also be made that exploration aids education. But in this age, when schooling is such a debated topic, it is generally agreed that money invested directly into education is more helpful. Also stressed by some Mars proponents is the possibility of harvesting materials on other worlds. However, the likelihood of finding sources of valuable minerals and fuels is rather low. How, then, in the face of such stay-at-home rationale can we justify the journey? A trip to Mars is not so far-fetched as popular belief indicates. Logistically, as well as monetarily, such a journey is still impossible, but scientists such as Linne have been at work for more than a decade solving the problems. Linne’s specific area involves the in situ (on-site) utilization of resources, which not only dramatically scales back costs, but also greatly reduces the weight of the shuttle. By converting available carbon dioxide on Mars’ surface into carbon monoxide or (with a small amount of hydrogen) into methane (a superior fuel), astronauts would be able to return home with less expense and difficulty (the cost has dropped from an estimated $450 billion to $50 billion - not cheap, but considerably less). Machines capable of such conversion have already been built and tested on Earth - they perform well. Missions slated for 2003 and ‘05 will experiment further with such techniques on the planet itself. Linne stresses that this idea is not a new concept; it has history behind it. But the process to reach Mars remains a complicated one. Since neither of these fuels is used for rockets today (because better ones are available on our planet), new engines must be developed that effectively channel these chemicals. Meanwhile, a practice colony is being established on Antarctica, and another base will probably also be placed on the Moon, in order to simulate the climate and working environment of Mars and prepare astronauts for the arduous living conditions. We are moving substantially closer to an actual manned mission, perhaps as early as 2018. But why Mars? Indeed, why travel beyond our Earth at all, considering the severity of the problems that face us on our home world? One of the strongest reasons for the trip is environmental in nature. We have significantly altered our climate. To fully understand and help balance the global environment, comparative planetology is an extremely useful tool. Mars, Earth and Venus shared similar beginnings and early histories, but diverged greatly over time. By examining factors such as weather (Earth’s is water-based, while Mars’ is caused by dust) we can further comprehend our planetary changes and understand how to halt large-scale situations like global warming. The search for life should also be a factor - not because other lifeforms might pose either danger or quantifiable benefits, but to increase our knowledge and satisfy our need for contact. Even the verification of ancient fossil life would be a monumental discovery, one which would cause us to reevaluate our own place in the cosmos and help us to understand our distant origins. Some fear that we will corrupt space with our militaristic attitudes. However, a joint planetary effort could unite peoples and ease hostilities. Such a mission will probably also be necessary because of cost concerns and the need for foreign specialists. Then there is simply the data to be gained about the human body under extreme conditions and about the composition of the universe. Mars is a good choice not only because of its relative proximity to Earth, but because its temperatures, while generally quite cold, are nonetheless acceptable for humans. Space is not our collective redemption. It will probably not result in sweeping social or economic change. Nor will exploration save us from a disastrous fate on our own polluted shores - we must continue to protect the Earth. But those who would deny the need for examination and fact-seeking are living in a fairy tale that claims we can deny our own progress and potential. Surely, in the face of Kansas’ removal of evolution from the curriculum, coupled with statistics concerning the high percentage of Americans who believe in ESP and angels, we should be willing to support scientific endeavors. Truth must be pursued, both on the atomic level and across the galactic plane. We should continue forward to Mars and beyond, bringing men and women to unknown worlds - as Tennyson wrote, “to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield!”