Craig Cohen: A Mission to Mars misfires mightily

On July 20, 1969, finally fulfilling President Kennedy's promise to the people, Neil Armstrong descended onto the surface of the moon, taking "one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind." At the time, Armstrong and every other American thought we were ushering in a new age of scientific achievement and technological innovation as we explored the world beyond. However, as the fascination with men on the moon waned and the cost spiraled out of control, NASA stopped sending manned missions to the moon in December of 1972.

Over 30 years later, on the heels of NASA's successful trip to Mars (complete with 3-D pictures), President Bush announced a bold new proposal to reshape the focus of the space agency. Among the president's many goals were the completion of the international space station -- which has already cost us $25 billion, according to The Economist -- the retirement of the antiquated space shuttle, the renewal of efforts to put men on the moon and the most ambitious goal of all: to send a manned mission to Mars in the next 20 to 30 years.

I think that such a mission would be a useless waste of time and resources.

In the speech, President Bush referenced the adventures of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, who explored the lands bought in the Louisiana Purchase "in the spirit of discovery, to learn the potential of vast new territory and to chart a way for others to follow." It is within these guidelines that the President wants to send men back into the final frontier instead of a few hundred miles above the surface to do experiments that could be done much more easily and cheaply on the ground.

A lofty goal indeed.

When President John F. Kennedy initially stated his desire to put a man on the moon, his reasons were much more ideological than scientific. We wanted to beat the Russians to the moon and show our technological superiority. The Air Force actually intended to detonate a nuclear weapon on the surface of the moon at one point in the late 1950s. But times have changed since the Cold War. We are no longer in a rush to get to space. If China wants to go ahead and put a man in orbit, let them enjoy themselves. We have plenty of other problems to deal with on this planet.

The price, the burden and the risk of sending a man to Mars are, if you pardon the pun, astronomical. If Bush wants to discover something, let him send a submarine down into the ocean. Or better yet, let him discover new holes he can drill for oil; he seems to enjoy doing that. Justifying a manned mission to Mars simply on the basis of the tautology, "human beings like to explore, therefore we should explore" is not good enough.

This "because of A, therefore A" does not fly in a logic class nor should it work when rationalizing extravagant missions to the great beyond that cost billions (if not trillions?) and put human lives at risk.

What are we trying to achieve? Lewis and Clark explored land that we purchased with the intent of expanding and understanding our fledgling nation. We're not looking for new land. We're not looking to uphold some grandiose notion of manifest destiny. What do we achieve by being the first person to put a man on Mars? How will this help the average American?

Ah, but there's the rub, cry supporters. Space exploration has given us tons of practical benefits that we use every day. NASA has even gone so far as to put up a Web site detailing all of the great things that space exploration has afforded us. Among the great things that NASA provided us are cordless power tools, prosthetics, MRIs, CT-scans, Teflon and a host of other useful items.

This does not leave me satisfied for two reasons. First, it strikes me as implausible to believe that these things would not have been invented on the ground at some point. I find it hard to accept the fact that no one would have gotten around to saying, "Hmm. It's annoying carrying my power drill around with the cord. There must be another way."

Secondly, companies like Dow and General Electric have think tanks and engineers designed especially for this purpose -- to come up with products that people use on an everyday basis. I do not find it justifiable for NASA to say, "Look, we know we spent tens of billions of dollars to bring back some rocks, but hey! Now, your eggs won't stick to your pan!"

This new extravagant venture does not seem justifiable on practical grounds. Human beings may have some innate ability to explore the cosmos, but there are better ways (i.e. unmanned machines like the Mars rover) that do not come at such a lofty price and can achieve the same science. President Bush would do well to get his head out of the clouds.

Craig Cohen is a Wharton sophomore from Woodbury, N.Y. He Hate Me appears on Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.