Humans on Mars Humans Upon

Humans on Mars Humans upon Mars -- Resist the Pull of the Red Planet! That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind," said Neil Armstrong on that fateful day of July 20, 1969, when for the first time humankind strode upon the moon. (Stephen, 2004) it was hard to believe after the first, sputtering attempts to bring a United States program into being in the wake of the horror of the Russian Sputnik launch that an American now stood upon the moon.

It seemed as if anything were possible in the eyes of the nation staring at 'one of their own' upon the cratered surface. But now, however, it is difficult for many Americans to believe that sending human beings into space via the national or even an international space program is such an important effort today. This is partly in the light of a reconfigured geopolitical balance between Russia and America, and partly due to the increased costs and perceived risks of the space program.

And perhaps such doubting American may be right. For although it may become technically possible for humans to stride and boldly go where none have gone before, namely to Mars, the fourth planet of out solar system and the one that most closely resembles our own earthly sphere's climate and gravitational force, this paper will argue that human travel to Mars should not be the primary goal of the American space program. ("Mars," Columbia Encyclopedia, 2001) First of all, travel to Mars would be expensive, perhaps prohibitively so.

The peer-reviewed journal of politics and economics the New Statesman soberly calculates that "a trip to Mars would take as long as three years, travelling a good 100 million miles.

A crew would have to consist of at least six -- doctors to cope with medical emergencies, a geologist and a biologist, as well as at least two trained astronauts." To provide a point of contrast, "the launch cost of a space shuttle mission is around $20m per-ton and just getting 1,000 tons of Mars equipment into space would cost $20bn, more than Nasa's annual budget.

The Apollo spacecrafts that carried astronauts to the moon weighed just 45 tons at departure, and carried enough material to support three people over ten days in a journey of around 750,000 miles. The probes that have just landed on Mars each weigh a single ton and cost a total of $820m to despatch.

Using the same cost scale, a single Mars mission at today's prices would set the country back at least $600bn." (Stephen, 2004) Also, according to National Geographic Magazine in 2001, there are still considerable technical glitches to be worked out, given "the only means of extended space travel is by chemically propelled rockets, similar to those used today.

Using such rockets, it would take about six months to fly to Mars, and the amount of fuel needed just to get there would be so large that the fuel would make up a huge part of the spacecraft's volume.

Moreover, there would not be enough fuel for the spacecraft to turn around and come back to Earth if the mission needed to be aborted." (Querna, "Human Travel to Mars" May 2001) Additional space safety concerns on a flight to Mars surround the question of what would happen to the human bodies involved if things went wrong. Because of the necessary duration of the mission, "being weightless for the entire mission" would cause inevitable "degeneration of muscles, bones, and the heart," of even the healthiest astronauts.

"Another issue that must be addressed is the huge amount of radiation exposure that occurs outside the atmosphere." (Querna, "Health Risks May Pose a Hurdle for Travel to Mars," 2001) Given these health and safety risks, one must ask, is travel to Mars worth it? Of course, there is the 'competitive' aspect, still. The Russian newspaper Pravda reported in 2001 "Russian cosmonauts will go to Mars in 2005.

Preparations for the flight are in full swing, and the participants of the expedition have already been chosen." Needless to say, these 2001 reports were somewhat exaggerated -- and even then, a Mars flight by the Russians would likely be collaborative, between the United States and America. "NASA refused to comment on the information about the Russian expedition to Mars, but they said that they are studying the project with great interest.

An American astronaut might possibly join the Russian cosmonauts, taking into account of the fact that Russia and the U.S.A. manage to settle economic discrepancies," in terms of financial support for the program. Still, "America plans to spend money to help prepare for this grand project," in the future, the only question is how much and how fast, continued the Russian newspaper in 2001.

Now, while such collaboration bodes well for diplomacy, it also acts as a deflating influence in terms of competition between nations -- the less necessary Mars flights are for American or Russian national security and reputation, the less apt politicians are to fund such efforts in financially strapped times.

(Perepelkin, 2001) Also, despite the good political will collaborations have generated in the past, moreover, Andrew Stephen cautioned in the peer-reviewed journal of politics, New Statesman, that "first, the International Space Station," the last collaborative project beween Russia and America, "has become a hugely costly project that does not do anything very useful.

Nasa would be quite happy to abandon it, but America has binding agreements with Russia to continue its partial funding of it." (Stephen, 2004) Stephen admits that cost is a concern for the U.S., but pride does also force it to carry on, even though, "very embarrassingly for the U.S., NASA now even has to rely on Russia for transporting astronauts to and from the station. The ageing space shuttle fleet has been grounded since the Columbia disaster a year ago. As a result, the U.S.

cannot at present get human beings even into earth orbit." (Stephen, 2004) the embaressment of the shuttle difficulties has caused many, including President Bush himself, to keep alive the dreams of a mission to Mars as a form of image rehabilitation. (Zimmerman, 2003) but can the financial and safety costs justify so much, for comparatively little scientific or even political return? For NASA, Mars remains an important long-term goal and a way of establishing political capital in Washington D.C.

during a time where even necessary, earthly social services programs are finanically strapped, given the war on terrorism at home, and the reconstruction of Iraq abroad. Its official literature directed towards the public promotes Mars exploration, in the.