The Case for Mars
Luke Ellerbrock
When looking at the past one hundred years of human history, it is obvious that one of our greatest achievements was sending one of our own to the distant surface of the moon. For the past thirty or so years though, our exploration of the unknown has stagnated. Robert Zubrin has taken the time to compile the efforts of modern scientific thought concerning interplanetary space travel and also gives us his reasoning and arguments for why the future of humanity is tied directly to our continual exploration of uncharted territory. The next logical stepping stone in space is Mars, the next furthest planet in our solar system, and Zubrin’s arguments and data are found in The Case for Mars. Are his arguments well thought out and convincing? Let’s investigate.
In 1989, the 90-Day Mars Report made the conclusion that we would need to assemble a large ‘Mars-worthy’ spacecraft in orbit around earth and make a round trip while carrying all the necessary supplies on board for the 18-month round trip voyage. The estimated cost of this endeavor was roughly $500 billion. This plan was put on indefinite hold by congress due to being cost prohibited.
Zubrin successfully makes a case for ‘in-situ propellant production’ on the surface of Mars using nuclear power, the carbon-dioxide rich Martian atmosphere, and hydrogen carried from Earth. Zubrin even goes to great lengths to point out that the fuel production process is one of the only aspects of such a mission that can be so thoroughly tested that it is almost guaranteed. In fact, Zubrin and his colleagues have working prototypes of the machinery required to make fuel for the return trip. The great advantage of this plan is that we can use currently obtainable lift capabilities to propel these missions straight from the surface of the Earth to the surface of Mars, with no orbital assembly required. What is the estimated cost for such a mission? This plan is estimated to cost $50 billion, smaller by a factor of ten than the original ‘Battlestar Galactica’ plan.
There are also certain potential risks that are brought up in order to postpone or suppress any attempt to put a human on mars. Examples of these potential risks include space radiation, zero gravity, dust storms, back contamination, and even the resilience of the human psyche. Again, Zubrin carefully and thoughtfully addresses all of these concerns.
Research shows that a human spending eighteen months on a Mars trip will increase his or her chance for fatal cancer by one percent, (up to 21 percent, from a 20 percent fatality rate.) This risk should be taken into consideration, but most likely will be an increased risk, known ahead of time, that astronauts choose to take for the opportunity to visit Mars.
The zero gravity risk is also small when considering the rest of the mission. Astronauts (and cosmonauts) have spent enough time in zero gravity situations for us to know that the negative effects are reversible and bearable. Zubrin also notes that astronauts on the surface of Mars will in fact be experiencing over one third of the Earth’s gravity, hardly a zero-g environment. Another way of negating this risk is by rotating the in-transit spacecraft in a way that artificial gravity can be generated.
Dust storms on Mars have cost the Russians two missions in the 70s, but our experience during the same storm has shown that it is possible to wait for a clearing to land. Once on land, dust storms hardly are a reason for alarm, as the atmosphere is so thin that even at high speeds, the winds have not disrupted our unmanned Mars explorers. Similarly, if a manned mission were planned to land at a specific time that happened to be during a storm, the astronauts could simply stay in orbit long enough to wait for the storm to settle and land afterward. Again, once landed, a surface storm would be of small concern for the safety of the astronauts and the mission.
Back contamination is a risk that
is described simply as bringing back Martian pathogens that could destabilize
and even threaten life as we know it on Earth.
Zubrin contends that we have been subject to Martian rocks in the form
of meteorites that would house such pathogens, if they exist. In addition to this, he compares a Martian
pathogen attacking humans to sharks trying to attack and control the plains of
Finally, let us consider the fragility of the human psyche. Some critics of the Mars program don’t believe that it is possible for astronauts to stay sane while performing a mission for a year and a half away from the rest of civilized Earth, citing the absence of instant communication between Mars and Earth. I find this argument to be utterly preposterous. Only in the past hundred years or so have we perfected instantaneous communication across Earth. Astronauts on mars will wait only a scant hour or so for a return transmission to be made, instead of waiting for weeks or more as a settler would receive sparse mailings.
Robert Zubrin has at least conceptually proven to us that a manned mission to mars is possible within the next few decades. The other rather enormous question that Zubrin attempts to answer is this: Should we go to Mars?
Zubrin uses two somewhat effective ways to motivate us to promote the exploration and eventual colonization and terraformation of Mars: Economic gains, and more importantly, the propagation and continued survival of the human race. If colonizing Mars is an effective way to harvest the asteroid belt in the local solar system area, then I think that’s a great idea. If we can go to mars and harvest heavy water, and transport it back to Earth to help fuel nuclear power plants and do so efficiently, that’s all for the better. I’m still not sold on the idea that we as a human people need to make permanent steps off of this world and colonize the rest of the galaxy. Given the ever increasing population of Earth, and the relative luck we’ve had throughout history surviving plagues, famines, war, nuclear holocaust, and obliteration from large space objects, survival does in fact hinge upon colonizing other places within the universe.
In conclusion, Robert Zubrin has laid out a plan that can be financially and technologically successful in the very near future. He adequately addresses most of the objections by critics of manned mars missions and is able to give us reason to make such a trip, and such a goal.