Posted on 01/12/2004 3:45:28 PM PST by RightWingReader
The pictures of the surface of Mars, beamed back from NASA's Spirit Rover, were fantastic. The photos show a flat, barren, rock-speckled surface, awash in a red glow, leading into absolute nothingness; a maroon of desolation and emptiness – like wearing 3-D glasses and looking at Anna Nicole Smith's CAT scan.
If President Bush has his way, manned missions to the Red Planet may in the not-too-distant future, but would the eventual colonization of Mars really make us a happier species?
One of the first problems will be convincing qualified people to even consider going. A simple observation of the success, or lack thereof, of the attempts of many countries to land probes on Mars over the years could make even the bravest of daredevils run away in fear and dampened shorts. The Martian surface is littered with the crashed remains of our vehicles – throw in an old sofa and we've turned the place into a hillbilly's front yard.
Whether they'll admit it or not, everyone who is pro-exploration, such as I am, has a different story for wanting to go. Some of us are simply fascinated by the unknown, some want to go for scientific endeavors, and some want to go because it offers a tremendous feeling of leaving their problems behind. If you're in the latter group, you could be sorely disappointed.
As long as politicians are in charge of the funding, you may only end up in a vacuous, distant, bureaucratic microcosm of Earth – except with really bad television reception.
If you're one of the first to land on Mars, upon reaching the planet, you'll not only be facing danger in an unforgiving environment, but you'll have to do it according to politically correct government plan. Adding to your stress level will be the long wait while Congress debates on whether or not to appropriate enough money to bring you home.
The talk concerning financing a mission is always confined to the mission itself, and never the unforeseen inside-the-Beltway manufactured red-tape expenses. For example, let's say the trips and early colonization run up to $2 trillion. This will quickly become $2.5 trillion if they decide to rename the planet after some politician who had nothing to do with planning the mission. Changing the name "Mars" in school textbooks to "Byrd-land" would alone run a few billion.
That cost will further rise after government bureaucrats spend a few hundred million on a study to determine which of the astronauts has the most worthy cause, because this should be the person who first sets foot on the surface. "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for the plight of the Tibetan people"**
**On the off chance that we send Richard Gere first
The government will also have to shell out another several billion dollars for the inevitable "environmental impact study." This brings us to another problem that Mars already has – orbiters have detected a thinning ozone layer. The fact that it's thinning would suggest that either there are natural reasons for the ozone depletion, or this is an unmistakable sign of extraterrestrial life using aerosol hairspray.
With the ozone troubles on Mars, any visiting astronauts should be prepared to scrap their SUV-like surface transportation systems, and get around the planet by bicycle, lest they face scorching, finger-pointing diatribes from Al Gore and Arianna Huffington.
As far as the expense of the project, I personally believe that corporate sponsorship is the way to go. Why take the taxpayers' hard earned coin, when businesses would be lining up to sponsor a Mars mission? Just tell them their logo will be on the field at the first Martian bowl game and plastered on the side of the rocket, and it's a done deal. The entire trip could be paid for by a wireless company, simply by one astronaut agreeing to stand on the surface of Mars, pull out a flip-phone, and say "can you hear me now?"
I'm all for space exploration. However, our natural instinct of escape may never be satisfied by the colonization of other planets. Some people say the Earth will someday run out of room and resources, so off to Mars you'll go, searching for respite from the misery of earth's overpopulation, illness and disastrous environmental conditions.
After arriving on the Red Planet seeking solace, you'll sit in a crowded Starbucks, elbow to elbow with a thicket of people who are voicing concern about Mars' depleting ozone layer, debating over whether or not to allow oil drilling in the Valles Marineris canyons, and aiming a hacking cough directly into your mocha latte.
Back to the drawing board.
--------
By Doug Powers
:-(
Not typical of the Martian surface. It is considerably larger than the land area of the Earth. Landforms are at least as diverse than those of the Earth, possibly more so due to reduced gravity and erosion.
They chose a flat boring area to land in for obvious operational reasons.
Personally, I am waiting for a hyperspace drive so I can visit another star. Present a challenge, they will come.
Your post is proof of the author's bias...or stupidity.
I say..."Make it so."
For space travel to be truly practical, we need to come up with some sort of reactionless (or almost) drive. We're never going to get anywhere by the high-tech equivalent of throwing rocks out the back to make the car move forward.
Of course, to get such a drive will require amazing advances in theoretical and practical physics.
I see nothing unlikely in that prospect. Personally, I expect we will have such a drive in this century.
The vast majority of the surface of Mars (95%) is out of bounds for landing with a craft like Spirit and Opportunity due to unacceptable engineering risks. Acceptable landing zones must be; 1) located in a narrow band at the equator of Mars where solar radiation is sufficient to power the rover, and 2) in lower altitudes of the equatorial band where the parachute has sufficient time to work in the descent phase. Even given these restrictions, there are safer places to land on Mars than Gustav crater. For example, Meridiani Planum where Opportunity will land on Jan 24th is considered a safer landing. Treacherous surface winds known to exist at Gustav crater posed special risks in the descent and landing phase for Spirit. Additional engineering safeguards were added to insure acceptable risk for a landing there.
The MER science team was very keen on landing at Gustav crater because it holds great potential to provide physical evidence of liquid water on the surface of Mars at some time in the past. Gustav crater is located at one end of a long, winding canyon that appears to have been carved out by water on Mars.
That's BS. There are about a billion who would do it even if it were one-way and live there forever after.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.