Colonizing Mars: Must or Bust?
For the better part of the last century, the thought of landing man outside our planet has been an inviting target for international space agencies, distinction seeking engineers, grandeur adventurists, and dreamers of all ages. Carrying on the momentum from the Space Race and mankind's giant leap towards the moon, the next great phase in our mission to colonize outer space has been the Red Planet, Mars. The fact of the matter, however, is that the amount of resources that went into the Apollo moon missions were enormous in pre-2000s costs. A modern, significantly larger mission to Mars would be beyond reasonable scope. More importantly in a morality sense, should such a task be undertaken when the cost would be greater than any program in history and take away from more internal pressing matters? And this would not include any costs that are without price tags. As the modern era version of Christopher Columbus sailing for the unknown world, this mission requires a thorough ethical perspective in terms of its feasibility argument. …show more content…
This is not to refute the potential technological or cultural benefits of colonizing Mars, but to enlighten on the highly inevitable weakening of social infrastructures because of both the expected and unforeseen costs. Going back 55 years, President John F. Kennedy gave his famous “we choose to go to the moon” speech that accelerated the Space Race. At the time, it was a period in which America could more easily unify together behind a significant and emotional cause to accomplish a goal. Back then, the consequences were viewed by the public and government only as good or bad as compared to the success or failures of the Soviet Union. As the Space Race continued and had its fair share of success and failure, what inevitably followed was a new technological and industrial wave that has since not slowed down going into the 21st century. In today’s modern times, the primary changes since then have been mainly technological and social as far as a risk & consequences Utilitarian style thinker is concerned. If conquering our moon was such a historical success, could such a feat be replicated or surpassed by landing humans on Mars? Can the risk be justified by the potential benefits? Are the consequences accepted as the best possible solution by the clear majority over any other alternative means? Unfortunately, since the 1960s and 70s the standard for such a program is considered as a luxury as the risks at stake could questionably be equal in terms of scaled magnitude, but due to inflation and growth the true costs go beyond billions into the trillions and beyond. So, what is truly at stake? It would be generally expected to say that an economist would say trillions of dollars, a politician would say the pride and reputation of all nations involved, an engineer would say the cultivation of decades of research and technological advances, and so on. But ethically speaking, do the trillions of dollars …show more content…
As a researcher for one of NASA’s top research laboratories, Brent Sherwood of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory strongly feels “the benefits of a manned Mars mission may not justify its enormous costs” [1]. It is instinctive of human nature to initially consider this risk only in terms of monetary cost. This is just a small sense of what some members of the political, science, and internal communities feels that “NASA's overarching goal of sending astronauts to Mars may not be worth the time, money and trouble”. Sherwood added that "our rationale for exploring Mars, I think, is perhaps fatally weak". Sherwood stated this during a presentation with NASA's Future In-Space Operations working group. As the pressures for completing different stages of the mission continue to pile on, the weight felt by those working directly on the mission will be more than just mental stress. As engineers, there is a moral duty to the public and its safety and welfare. While astronauts are essentially sent to their deaths, how are we fulfilling our moral duties? Despite being expected to demonstrate a professional and loyal manner to the welfare of the companies or organizations we work for, we are also obligated to protect ourselves and others from harm. If history has not already proven this in cases such as the Challenger accident, it is
For the better part of the last century, the thought of landing man outside our planet has been an inviting target for international space agencies, distinction seeking engineers, grandeur adventurists, and dreamers of all ages. Carrying on the momentum from the Space Race and mankind's giant leap towards the moon, the next great phase in our mission to colonize outer space has been the Red Planet, Mars. The fact of the matter, however, is that the amount of resources that went into the Apollo moon missions were enormous in pre-2000s costs. A modern, significantly larger mission to Mars would be beyond reasonable scope. More importantly in a morality sense, should such a task be undertaken when the cost would be greater than any program in history and take away from more internal pressing matters? And this would not include any costs that are without price tags. As the modern era version of Christopher Columbus sailing for the unknown world, this mission requires a thorough ethical perspective in terms of its feasibility argument. …show more content…
This is not to refute the potential technological or cultural benefits of colonizing Mars, but to enlighten on the highly inevitable weakening of social infrastructures because of both the expected and unforeseen costs. Going back 55 years, President John F. Kennedy gave his famous “we choose to go to the moon” speech that accelerated the Space Race. At the time, it was a period in which America could more easily unify together behind a significant and emotional cause to accomplish a goal. Back then, the consequences were viewed by the public and government only as good or bad as compared to the success or failures of the Soviet Union. As the Space Race continued and had its fair share of success and failure, what inevitably followed was a new technological and industrial wave that has since not slowed down going into the 21st century. In today’s modern times, the primary changes since then have been mainly technological and social as far as a risk & consequences Utilitarian style thinker is concerned. If conquering our moon was such a historical success, could such a feat be replicated or surpassed by landing humans on Mars? Can the risk be justified by the potential benefits? Are the consequences accepted as the best possible solution by the clear majority over any other alternative means? Unfortunately, since the 1960s and 70s the standard for such a program is considered as a luxury as the risks at stake could questionably be equal in terms of scaled magnitude, but due to inflation and growth the true costs go beyond billions into the trillions and beyond. So, what is truly at stake? It would be generally expected to say that an economist would say trillions of dollars, a politician would say the pride and reputation of all nations involved, an engineer would say the cultivation of decades of research and technological advances, and so on. But ethically speaking, do the trillions of dollars …show more content…
As a researcher for one of NASA’s top research laboratories, Brent Sherwood of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory strongly feels “the benefits of a manned Mars mission may not justify its enormous costs” [1]. It is instinctive of human nature to initially consider this risk only in terms of monetary cost. This is just a small sense of what some members of the political, science, and internal communities feels that “NASA's overarching goal of sending astronauts to Mars may not be worth the time, money and trouble”. Sherwood added that "our rationale for exploring Mars, I think, is perhaps fatally weak". Sherwood stated this during a presentation with NASA's Future In-Space Operations working group. As the pressures for completing different stages of the mission continue to pile on, the weight felt by those working directly on the mission will be more than just mental stress. As engineers, there is a moral duty to the public and its safety and welfare. While astronauts are essentially sent to their deaths, how are we fulfilling our moral duties? Despite being expected to demonstrate a professional and loyal manner to the welfare of the companies or organizations we work for, we are also obligated to protect ourselves and others from harm. If history has not already proven this in cases such as the Challenger accident, it is