Is human exploration of Mars worth the costs and risks?
Should humans try to set foot on the Red Planet, or should it remain the work of robots?
We hosted a live debate on this topic with researchers Sylvia Ekström and Javier Nombela arguing that human exploration of Mars is too risky, and Swiss Mars Society President Pierre Brisson arguing that it’s possible and important to pursue. Highlights are in the video below.
What do you think?
Arguing we should live on Mars as a way to mitigate risks for our species is like being teenagers trashing the parents house and hoping to rebuild one with a snap of a finger in the woods...
We can have a treehouse in the woods and what could be a research lab with a few people, just like we have in Antarctica, but mass immigration to a world where we don't even know what effect will its 1/3 gravity have on our bodies or such basic things as growing up and pregnancy is sheer madness.
And the recent advances in AI prove we can design robots as capable as human beings in this harsh environment and that could engineer and build human worthy habitats way before any people inhabit them. And this is the only logical avenue right now we should pursue i.e robotic missions and perfecting those robots to do everything a human being there could.
There is mass starvation on earth, lands turning to desert, floods destroying crops and people, animals going to distinction because of mankind overuse and greed. Then there is Russia destroying the fertile lands of Ukraine and murdering people. And China refusing clean air and water provisions before it's too late to matter and ongoing pandemic. If the drought don't get you the floods and resulting bacteria will! So, aside from the elephant in the room, why spend billions on another sphere when its needed here?
Our species is very far from realizing our evolutionary potential if that means, as it does for me, taking the first step to fully understand our deadliest technology: language. Words set up wars and murders, theft and torture and, yes, stupid ideas like moving humanity to a distant, viable (an unpopulated!) earth requiring at least 15 or 20 generations to get there. Science gives us basic truths that are usually not dependent on language but language can, and usually does, determine which questions (sic!) scientists should pursue. Our current trend toward destroying Earth and one another is constructed on a foundation of words, manipulated to effect horrible, destructive ends. I am disgusted with our species but still hold on to a sliver of hope we will begin to see how the technology of language has been ignored for its clear, long and dishonourable history of cruelty and terror. We are making fantasy pictures of the long view, the absurdly distant horizon, and ignoring the foreground.
I hear you say, “Good Luck!”.
Thanks
No, we better use that money to explore our own world
It should be made private. The governments must use the money for the virus crisis.
Let private companies invest in going to Mars if they have a good business case for it.
Let Musk do it. He does a good job with Tesla.
Stop using tax money for NASA and the ESA. Elon will do it better and cheaper with his own profis in mind and we will benefit if he is successful. If he is not then at least we did not waste tax money on it.
The self-righteous doxa consisting of opposing Martian exploration to the preservation of the Earth's environment is becoming weary. In fact, do those who defend this position apply the same philosophy to their daily actions, renouncing any action that is not strictly favorable to our dear Gaia, ... such as the use of the Internet and social networks that we know to be very energy-intensive for example :-) ! Let these people be well aware that not a cent more will go to the preservation of the Earth's environment if we stop investing in space exploration (which, by the way, provides livelihood to many people on Earth, don't forget it!). One can even bet that the money thus saved will be used for even less ecological purposes. Besides, don't miss the target. If we really want a better allocation of resources, then why not first tackle military spending, several orders of magnitude greater than those invested in space and of an utility for mankind that seems much more questionable to me! It is in the DNA of the human being to always seek to push his limits and explore new horizons. Pretending that there was "better to do" and more immediate and important problems to be addressed could always have been an argument. If we had followed this ideology, we would not have left the Middle Ages, or worse! To give up exploring beyond our earthly cradle when we have the possibility would be a first in the history of Humanity and, I fear, a sign that this one is beginning to decline (which is quite possible after all, we often see in nature that a species goes through a population peak before quickly seeing its population decline and eventually disappear).
If any pay for it ... I would be fairly certain it would not be the Swiss.
No, certainly not! Robots are more efficient than humans in a dangerous or hostile environment. Thinking about living on Mars is just a pipe dream. We only have this earth, so we better take care. There might be another one in a remote galaxy but we shall never find out because of the astronomical distances.
Taking care of the Earth (which is of course absolutely necessary) is in no way in opposition with space exploration. It will never be possible to devote all our resources to a single objective. And many interesting fallouts for the Earth will come from developments made for space exploration ; it was already the case in the past and will be the same in the future.
Totally agree with you! Scientists do a lot of fundamental research and space exploration is a part of it. Not to forget the gain in technology. Without it, for example, "mobile" phones would still weigh some 20 pounds...
Yes - we need a Plan B (or Planet B). Another planet after humans have destroyed this one.
Mars might be a "Planet-B" if we don't succeed in mastering pollution on Earth, but it could also be a "Planet-Plus" if we succeed.
In the latter case, living on Mars would be a new way of expressing our human genius and the feedback to both communities, on Earth and Mars, would be an enhancement for both.
I think it is better to focus on reducing pollution and addressing global warming on Earth first. We can go to Mars once we have figured out how not to destroy our own planet - the one which sustains us at present.
If we wait until all our problems are solved, we will never go. If we go now, we get a chance to survive in case we fail.
Thank you all for your interesting comments and questions; we hope you can join our live debate on the topic today, April 15, at 16:30 CEST. Sign up here: [url]http://s.swissin.fo/WemUDp1[/url]
Barely kicked the dust on Mars, I’d say keep sending rovers and drones to really check it out.
But...perhaps the best use of resources could be in designing and building a long term exploratory type of spacecraft.
Now that we've found there's no water on Mars to make any use of, in fact nothing but iron dist and rock, trying to send humans there is an absolute waste of time and money. There are no natural resources to use to our advantage on Mars. A dead planet.
Let's put our efforts into larger and more practical space stations for medical research, food growth and ways to benefit Earth since this planet needs so much work and help.
Also, a trip to Mars would be devastating for any person to attempt a trip like that no matter how you try and condition them.
I’m almost 60 but I would be happy to jump into the quest, and much happier to die in the journey, than to die in this crazy reality that is set to be around for the coming years...
Looking at Mars is opportunity to look back at Earth, in this case degeneration of Western civilization. People in the 1980s-1990s considered obvious that Mars will be visited, if not already home to permanent bases, in the 2020s. What a deterioration of economy, plans and ambitions since then! I am ashamed of the West.
My immediate gut feeling would be 'NO'. On second thoughts of course the money is actually being spent on earth and new technologies are being invented, which may be of use on this earth too. Still, if I had that kind of money I would spend it to improve life on this earth.
Why strive to occupy Mars when humans have already destroyed our beautiful planet !
Destroyed the planet. I believe such histrionics are a bit over wrought. Need to get out more.
The resource and environmental costs of getting even a small number of people to Mars is enormous and the social benefits almost zero. Claims about the contribution such an endeavour would make to science are also massively overblown - there are very few real-world problem sets that will be resolved by investment in space exploration and, where they do exist, we can resolve them on earth without sending a rocket into space (to do the latter we would, by necessity, have to do the former - we'll not be using people as lab rats). Ultimately, the number of people who would benefit from this exercise is so small as to be statistically insignificant, which is why the current space race is a penis-measuring exercise among billionaires rather than a national priority for any of the space-capable nations.
SpaceX claims that their Starship will be able to take into orbit up to 100 people in a single launch. What they do seem to forget to mention, is that these 100 people are sitting on top of a huge highly explosive device. It is in essence a very similar technology to the Space Shuttle, with very similar risks. When something will go wrong, and one day it will go wrong, everybody aboard will die. Just one or two of these disasters will be the end of this endeaver, just as it has ended the Space Shuttle program. The public support for their space program will then fade away very fast, as no one is willing to accept these kind of human costs.
You're right, the risk is real and quite big. Like an airplane's, a spaceship's crash generally leaves no-one alive. But at the moment, Starship is not ready to carry a hundred passengers - it's not even fit for one, so there is time left to evaluate the risks. But, again the question is central, and I invite you to join the debate on Thursday to ask it our experts. Here's the link to register [url]https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_IuEU2t7BS0a2i1AuHRlE5Q[/url]
Centuries ago explorers challenged the unknown seas in wooden ships... a “crash” would also mean no survivors... but that was at the time the brave spirit of seafarers that lead to human development ... today we are to afraid of everything hiding at home washing our masks... how many millions died over past centuries to give us what we have today! But we spoiled descendants are afraid of flying afraid of spiders afraid of virus...and willing to die indoors without fighting for the future of our descendants... yes Mars colonization will be done by robots and drones because people it’s paralyzed by irrational fear... sadly...
In the beginning many people die, but progress doesn't stop because of that, scientists learn with errors and improve the technology. Also, there is a project to someday, a space elevator be built. In a few words we will put a massive steel cable from ground to the end of atmosphere, the end of the cable will be attached to a ship that will follow Earth rotation ("falling forever", just like the space station). So, to take the passengers ship off the grip of gravity, will be a process of scaling the elevator, and the fuel will be just to navigate the ship in space, not to overcome the gravitational pull.
Starships with 100 people will not fly to Mars in the near future because infrastructure and living places have to be built before. For the time being, only small crews (4 or 6 people) will fly with a lot of equipment.
And don't worry, experience has been taken into account. After Columbia, a set of 15 measures were taken by NASA to make it safer.
Then, of course, "zero-risk" does not exist. Planes do crash from time to time but not so frequently (Concord crashed only once). Our civilization will survive only if it accepts more risk than today.
A drone is developed and brought to Mars that could fly on Earth at an altitude of around 33 km above sea level. However, as far as I know, no drone is being developed to bring oxygen and medicine to mountaineers in distress on Mount Everest.
Is that progress when you go to Mars and don't help those in need?
There is great potential for spin offs in technological developments used in outer space just as there has been in nuclear medicine, for example, particularly in the advances in cancer diagnostics and treatments, developed as a result of particle acceleration experiments at CERN.
Thanks for this question and interesting example! We will certainly raise it during the debate. If you'd like to hear the experts' reactions, who have different views on this, you can join in the event on April 15 [url=https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/humans-on-mars--possible--or-pipe-dream--a-live-debate-/46510570]here[/url].
Why would you want to go to the top of the everest ? It is not a popular location, it is dangerous but you put it as if people go there every day and yet don't have any security support. Everest top is not suitable for living, why would we invest in it, just preserve the nature.
If we can develop (and we did with Ingenuity) a drone capable of flying on Mars, then we can use this drone to bring oxygen to mountaineers on Mount Everest in case of need. This has been made possible thanks to Mars research. This is cross-feeding and real progress.
Join the conversation!