Print, email, or fax this article for free.

START

space exploration

The Case for Staying Off Mars

		START
		Hype List
		The Transparent Burger
		Mmmm ... Innoculicious
		How to Avoid a Heat-Seeking Missile
		Power Ball
		Love, Algorithmic Style
		One Click, One Vote
		Super Hoe
		Data Storm
		jargon watch
		Not Just for Abortion Anymore
		Quit Squeezing the Fruit!
		Plastic on Steroids
		The Case for Staying Off Mars
		Wired l Tired l Expired

Danger, danger, George W.! In calling for a human mission to Mars, President Bush envisions the next great leap for mankind. But Lawrence Krauss, chair of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University, thinks Bush is lost in a space fantasy. The near future of interplanetary exploration, Krauss argues, belongs to robots, not people. The acclaimed researcher knows the territory: In books such as The Physics of Star Trek, Krauss deftly separates real science from science fiction.

Photo by Hayley Murphy

WIRED: What's wrong with a manned mission? Watching robots on TV is boring.
KRAUSS: Robots are cute! I'll bet they sold more R2-D2 toys than Luke Skywalkers. And there are significant problems sending people into space - they're bulky, fragile, and expensive to maintain. Almost all of the cost of a manned mission goes into keeping the humans alive and getting them back to Earth.

But the Mars robots have a high failure rate. If they don't conk out on landing, they get stuck behind their own air bags.
Humans can probably change plans on the fly better than robots. But they have a lot more to lose, too. I'm sure Beagle 2 meant a lot to the scientists who built it, but they can build an exact replica in a few months. No one would think of saying that to the families of the Columbia crew.

Can't humans do better research and exploration in space than remote probes? Wernher von Braun famously said, "Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft."
Not at all. When it comes to flying the spacecraft and analyzing scientific data, humans cannot compete with computers. The mysteries of the universe can be better unlocked by Earth-based scientists with space-based machines.

What about a manned moon base?
Despite the expense, there are reasons to consider it. It would teach us about the possibilities of extracting resources, new construction techniques that might be useful for future exploration, and the remote possibility that launching spacecraft from the moon makes economic sense.

Isn't there anything a human mission to Mars could teach us?
What we learn by sending astronauts into space is how humans can survive there. Let's be honest: We send humans into space for the adventure of it, not for science. I have no problem with that - I'd certainly go if asked!

So you think that space travel advocates, such as the Mars Society, don't know their science?
They do. Some of their ideas, like manufacturing fuel on Mars for the return trip to Earth, are among the best around. Eventually, we'll follow our robots into space, but there are years of work left before we can. Bush doesn't let science get in the way of his decisions. But a manned Mars mission will be safe politics for any president for a while, because it won't happen while he's in office.

- Paul Boutin

Previous Story: Plastic on Steroids

Next Story: Wired l Tired l Expired

Copyright © 1993-2003 The Condé Nast Publications Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 1994-2003 Wired Digital, Inc. All rights reserved.