Should our current focus in human space exploration be the Moon or Mars? That is the controversial question that looms over discussions of humanity’s next step in space exploration. Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced a bill that would make Mars the priority (listen to a thorough discussion of the issues here), but not everyone agrees.
Before I get into this question a bit, I want to address why a Presbyterian Pastor would or should write on the subject of space flight. I did not have a science major, and I certainly am no expert in the matter.
I have a couple of reasons. First, I think that God has called us to explore the universe. He created the universe, and we know Him through the universe. The created reveals the Creator. So, in order to know God better, we should explore the macrocosmic and microcosmic as a creational duty (HT: James W. Skillen for the terminology and idea, via Charles Strohmer). We are made to explore.
Second, I believe that citizens need to talk about these issues. It is general interest in these topics that will help drive a vision to move us forward into exploration of the solar system. For good or ill, the average citizen must make decisions about space flight and innumerable other issues, so we need to do our best to think through them.
Third, it’s fun to think about. It’s exciting to think of humans traveling through space and discovering new things. I have always loved science fiction and astronomy and been fascinated by the prospect of space exploration.
So, here’s a few considerations on this difficult issue. To begin with, in some ways, I don’t really care what we do as long as we do something. We need to move forward with human spaceflight and get humans out of low earth orbit. Whatever we do to get us flying further out will teach us more than we know now and open up further possibilities.
Some people might ask, why can’t we just have robots explore the universe for us? In studying this issue, I was surprised to learn how inefficient robots are at exploring. Frances Westall, an astrobiologist at the National Center for Scientific Research in France said, “A human geologist can do in a week what the Mars rovers can do in a year” (Meghan Bartels, “Why We Can’t Depend on Robots to Find Life on Mars”; see also this paper on the topic).
One reason people want to consider robots for exploration is because the Moon and Mars are not very hospitable to humans. One thing that becomes very clear when you study this issue is how difficult it is for people to actually live on these bodies. Living in Antarctica or the Sahara Desert is incomparably easier than living on Mars or the Moon.
The problems go beyond the obvious problems of a lack of oxygen, running water, and food supply. Both the Moon and Mars do not have earth’s protective atmosphere, an atmosphere that keeps us from being bombarded by the sun’s radiation and other assorted cosmic rays. In addition, it is unclear how long-term life in a low gravity environment will affect a variety of human functions. There is much more, and you can read a somewhat gloomy description of the problems here.
The Moon has most of the same challenges as Mars with a few extra. The dust on the Moon is like broken glass that can cut into the smallest structures in our body. It has less of an atmosphere, and the water is much harder to access. The good news, by the way, is that both the Moon and Mars do have water that visitors or those stationed on these bodies can use (Marina Koren, “The Pros and Cons of a Lunar Pit Stop”).
Over against these problems, you have the relative closeness of the Moon. If you are going to have all sorts of problems, wouldn’t it be better to have them at closer proximity to earth? This would enable us not only to deal with emergencies but a much shorter time between seeing problems and being able to fix them. This video illustrates how close the Moon is compared to Mars:
That’s a lot closer!
IF it’s so much further, why even consider Mars? The answer: it’s inspiring. It would be an awesome thing for humans to explore Mars. It could totally change the way we look at the universe. It hasn’t been done before. People make many arguments for going to Mars, but beneath them all seems to me to be the sheer wonder of humans exploring another planet so distant from earth.
There are other options besides the Moon and Mars. We could go to an asteroid that is closer to the Earth. We could build a colony or station there, but there does not seem to be much momentum for this, even though it is feasible and potentially profitable because of the possibility for mining. However, this idea has not really captured many people’s imagination (thought it may eventually capture some big corporation’s wallet book).
So, what should we focus on? I lean toward the Moon for several reasons. One, it just seems like we should have a station there. I mean, why not? Why not make a permanent base on the moon? Second, the closeness allows us the opportunity to figure out relatively quickly what it looks like to live in a hostile environment in space. Third, there seems to be international interest in the project.
That said, I think G. Ryan Faith is probably right. We need to have some sort of plan for both in order to harness the enthusiasm of Moon and Mars advocates. So, we need some sort of long-time plan for both. That involves its own questions, but we’ll leave that for now.
What do you think? The Moon or Mars? Where should our focus be? I’d welcome your thoughts.