Before last weekend鈥檚 , a reporter asked me what I thought of the Trump administration鈥檚 plan to send astronauts to the moon. No doubt he expected me to explain why the Red Planet is a much more suitable goal, but I told him this was about more than the moon versus Mars. I am certainly prepared to make the case for prioritising聽the Red Planet though.
Mars was once that could have evolved life, and if we can find fossils or extant examples, we could learn fundamental truths about the potential prevalence and diversity of life in the universe.
Taking on Mars would also mobilise the imaginations of millions of young people around the world, inspiring a wave of recruitment into science and engineering not seen since the Apollo era 鈥� if then. Mars is also the closest planet that has all the resources needed for human settlement, making it potentially the first giant step in transforming humanity into a multi-planet, spacefaring species.
Advertisement
In short, Mars is where the science is, Mars is where the challenge is and Mars is where the future is. Mars should be the goal.
Unfortunately, that argument assumes that those making space policy in the US believe it is important for NASA鈥檚 human spaceflight programme to have any goal at all. This is far from evident.
Boondoggle
For example, while the Trump administration says that it is setting its sights on a return to the moon, its actions do not lend credence to such claims.
If it actually intended to return to the moon, it would be funding the development of a lunar lander, which is essential for such a purpose. Instead it is funding something it calls the Lunar Orbit Platform-Gateway, a boondoggle that will cost tens of billions of dollars at the least and serve no useful purpose. Just last week US Vice President Mike Pence , saying it was not a question of if, but when the first crews circle the moon in it.
What he failed to say is that we do not need a lunar-orbiting station to go to the moon, or to Mars, or to near-Earth asteroids. We do not need it to go anywhere.
Not only that, if it were actually built, missions to anywhere beyond would be designed to use the gateway as a staging post, unnecessarily adding to their propulsion requirements and decreasing the load they can carry accordingly, which is why I鈥檝e called it the Lunar Orbit Tollbooth instead.
Intelligent direction
Yet the problem with the project is much bigger than the waste of time and money and the harmful distortions it would impose on subsequent mission planning. The deeper problem is the form of thinking it represents.
NASA鈥檚 astronomy and robotic planetary-exploration programmes have achieved epic accomplishments because they are purpose-driven. In contrast, since the end of Apollo, NASA鈥檚 human-spaceflight programme has been purpose-free. As a result, its accomplishments have been negligible.
The science programmes spend money to do things. The human spaceflight programme is doing things to spend money.
The situation is truly ironic. With the success of the Falcon Heavy launch system that has the ability to send crew to the moon and Mars, the US could be poised for a breakthrough into deep space. The cash available is adequate.
The Lunar Orbit Tollbooth funds, if spent on developing landers and ascent vehicles instead, could enable a return to the surface of the moon within four years and human missions to Mars in eight. What is lacking is intelligent direction. We will never get to Mars if we allow our human-spaceflight programme to be run as a random walk.
Read more: Whoops! NASA burned best evidence for life on Mars 40 years ago,听Mars has complex organic material that may be from ancient life
