Why Humans Should Not Travel to Mars: The Case Against
This essay argues against making human travel to Mars the primary goal of the American space program. Drawing on sources from National Geographic, the New Statesman, and NASA's own literature, the paper outlines the enormous financial cost of a crewed Mars mission — estimated at upward of $600 billion — alongside serious health and safety risks, including muscle and bone degeneration from prolonged weightlessness and dangerous radiation exposure beyond Earth's atmosphere. The paper also examines the geopolitical dimension of space exploration, including U.S.–Russia collaboration and the troubled history of the International Space Station. It concludes that available space-program funding would be better spent on robotic exploration and broader solar-system study than on a crewed Mars mission.
- Introduction: Revisiting the Case for Human Space Exploration: Historical context and thesis against crewed Mars missions
- The Prohibitive Cost of a Crewed Mars Mission: Cost estimates reach $600 billion or more
- Technical Limitations and Safety Risks: Fuel constraints, radiation, and weightlessness endanger crews
- Geopolitical Considerations and U.S.–Russia Collaboration: Cooperation with Russia complicates political and funding calculus
- NASA's Vision Versus Financial Reality: NASA promotes Mars but avoids discussing true costs
- Conclusion: A More Productive Use of Space Funding: Recommends robotic exploration over crewed Mars flight
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in concrete financial figures — the $600 billion cost estimate drawn from a peer-reviewed politics journal — giving the central claim immediate, measurable force.
- It addresses counterarguments directly, acknowledging the competitive and diplomatic appeal of a Mars mission before systematically dismantling those justifications.
- The essay draws on a genuinely varied source base: scientific journalism (National Geographic), political commentary (New Statesman), international news (Pravda), and official government literature (NASA), lending credibility across multiple angles.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of building a cumulative argument: each section adds a distinct category of objection — financial, technical, geopolitical, institutional — so that by the conclusion the reader has encountered a multi-front case rather than a single repeated claim. This layering strengthens persuasive essays by preventing any one counterargument from dismantling the entire position.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with the Apollo moon landing as a historical anchor before pivoting to skepticism about a Mars mission. It then addresses cost, followed by technical and health barriers, geopolitical dynamics, and finally NASA's institutional framing of the issue. The conclusion synthesizes all threads into a recommendation for reorienting space spending toward robotic and broader solar-system exploration.
Introduction: Revisiting the Case for Human Space Exploration
"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 humankind first strode upon the moon (Stephen, 2004). It was hard to believe — after the first, sputtering attempts to build a United States space program in the wake of the shock of the Soviet Sputnik launch — that an American now stood upon the moon. It seemed as if anything were possible in the eyes of a nation watching one of their own upon the cratered surface.
Today, however, many Americans find it difficult to believe that sending human beings into space, whether via a national or an international program, remains a worthwhile priority. This skepticism is partly a result of the reconfigured geopolitical balance between Russia and America, and partly a consequence of the increased costs and perceived risks of the space program. And perhaps those doubting Americans are right. Although it may one day become technically possible for humans to boldly go where none have gone before — namely to Mars, the fourth planet of our solar system and the one that most closely resembles Earth in climate and gravitational force — this essay argues that human travel to Mars should not be the primary goal of the American space program ("Mars," Columbia Encyclopedia, 2001).
Works Cited
"Mars." The Columbia Encyclopedia. Sixth Edition. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.
NASA. Official Website. "The Vision for Space Exploration." [17 Mar. 2005].
Perepelkin, Stephan. "Russian Cosmonauts Will Travel to Mars in 2005." PRAVDA.Ru. 1 Apr. 2002. [17 Mar. 2005].
Querna, Betsy. "Human Travel to Mars May Happen Sooner Than Expected, Scientists Say." National Geographic. 18 May 2001. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/0515_mars1.html. [17 Mar. 2005].
Querna, Betsy. "Health Risks May Pose a Hurdle for Travel to Mars." National Geographic. 18 May 2001. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/0517_mars2.html. [17 Mar. 2005].
Stephen, Andrew. "Bush's Announcement of a Mission to Mars." New Statesman. 2 Feb. 2004. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4673_133/ai_n6109896. [17 Mar. 2005].
Zimmerman, Robert. Leaving Earth: Space Stations, Rival Superpowers, and the Quest for Interplanetary Travel. New York: J. Henry Press, 2003.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.