Last month, President Bush outlined an ambitious U.S. space initiative that will include putting a man on the moon—something that hasn't been done since Dec. 1972—and human exploration of Mars—an unprecedented feat. "Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn to unknown lands and across the open sea," the president declared at NASA headquarters. "We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives and lifts our national spirit. So let us continue the journey."

But such a journey to the moon and to Mars—a six- to nine-month flight from Earth—represents an astronomical expense, critics assert. The program will require billions of dollars—money that could be better spent on reducing the deficit, for example, or generating much-needed jobs or expanding educational programs. In fact, some say traveling to Mars will come at the expense of such programs. In a recent TIME editorial entitled "Why We Shouldn't Go to Mars," Gregg Easterbrook, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, writes, "Present systems for getting from Earth's surface to low-Earth orbit are so fantastically expensive that merely launching the 1,000 tons or so spacecraft and equipment a Mars mission would require could be accomplished only by cutting health-care benefits, education spending or other important programs—or by raising taxes." Easterbrook also points out that automated probes could perform the task of analyzing rocks, removing the risk to human safety and the cost of sending people to Mars.

Meanwhile, other critics call the president's program a scheme to distract attention from hot-button issues like the economy and the war in Iraq. Still others believe it's a way to draw the votes of unemployed aerospace engineers in an election year.

Moreover, some point out that inhabiting Mars is simply unrealistic. Says sci-fi author Bruce Sterling, "I´ll believe in people setting Mars at about the same time I see people settling the Gobi Desert, which is about a thousand times as hospitable as Mars and five hundred times cheaper and easier to reach."

If the president does manage to get his program launched, it will be the most extensive and aggressive space agenda since President Kennedy kick-started the Apollo program in 1961. And like that program, Bush's proposal could end up being a "big step for man," enriching our knowledge, say proponents.

Moreover, like the Apollo program, setting our sight on Mars could inspire children across America to excel academically, pursue an engineering degree and join NASA. In a recent Design News editorial entitled "Why We Need a Mission to Mars," chief editor Karen Auguston Field writes, "A manned mission to Mars just might single-handedly salvage what's left of the engineering profession here in the U.S., where interest in anything involving second-order differential equations has been on the wane since the mid-1980s." In every year since 1985, Field says, the number of engineering degrees conferred in the U.S. has dropped constantly, except for 1995, which saw a slight increase. Experts anticipate a major shortage of engineers in the near future as many start to reach retirement age.

So is the president's proposed manned mission to Mars an untenable financial burden or the inspiration that the field of engineering desperately needs? Obviously, it depends on whom you ask. For now, with the president not yet setting a timetable for such an ambitious mission, the trek to Mars will remain decidedly Earth-bound.

Sources:

Why We Need a Mission to Mars
Karen Auguston Field
Design News, February 2, 2004
www.designnews.com

Why We Shouldn't Go to Mars
Gregg Easterbrook
TIME, January 26, 2004
www.time.com

Bush Proposes Manned Mission to Moon by 2015
Traci Watson and Richard Benedetto
USA Today, January 14, 2004
www.usatoday.com/news/science/2004-01-14-bush-space_x.htm