Here's the "Mars or Moon Landing" article mentioned above, from the KPCC website (one of L.A.'s National Public Radio affiliates, 89.3 FM). It's a balanced mix of philosophical and economic arguments about the reasons for and against exploring and colonizing the Moon and (especially) Mars. It's heavy on the politics of the issues. The article is presented in a "question and answer" format, with a list of Pro arguments first, then all the Con arguments. This was on the KPCC.org site four years ago but no longer is, so I've pasted it here.



SHOULD THE U.S. SEND A MANNED MISSION TO MARS?


INTRO

Mars has fascinated Earth-bound humans since prehistoric times, due to its captivating red hue, and proximity and similarity to Earth. Amateur and professional astronomers alike wonder if there might have been Martian residents at some time, gazing back at Earth from above. Mars fever swept the United States on Halloween, 1938, with Orson Welles' broadcast of The War of the Worlds, which described the crash of a meteor from Mars and the creatures it delivered to the Earth.

The romance of space travel and the exploration of new worlds is a major tenet of the arguments in favor of a manned mission to Mars. Supporters argue that humans -- and Americans, in particular -- are meant to explore and conquer new frontiers. Other proponents also point to the practical benefits of exploring and colonizing the moon and Mars: a better understanding of Earth, insight into the origins of life, natural resources to supplement those found on Earth, national security, and more.

In 1998, a group of enthusiasts formed the Mars Society to "further the goal of the exploration and settlement of the Red Planet." The group now has 130 chapters in 43 countries and all 50 U.S. states. Its steering committee has 30 members from science and political backgrounds, including astronaut Buzz Aldrin. With President Bush's recent announcement of his plans to send a manned mission to Mars by the 2020s (via a lunar launching pad), colonization of the Red Planet has moved from the realm of science fiction to a line item on a government budget.

But detractors of the President's plan assert that the work of exploring Mars could be performed by robots rather than humans, potentially saving human lives and vast sums of money that could be better spent on domestic programs to improve life right here on Earth.

According to a poll conducted by The Associated Press, Americans are evenly split regarding Mars exploration. Between January 9 and 11, 2004, Ipsos-Public Affairs asked 1000 adults nationwide, "[T]he United States is considering expanding the space program by building a permanent space station on the moon with a plan to eventually send astronauts to Mars. Considering all the potential costs and benefits, do you favor expanding the space program this way or do you oppose it?" The results: 48 percent in favor, 48 percent against, with the remainder undecided.

In his speech "A Renewed Spirit of Discovery" at NASA headquarters on January 14, 2004, President Bush said, "We will build new ships to carry man forward into the universe, to gain a new foothold on the moon and to prepare for new journeys to worlds beyond our own. With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond."


*********

PRO


WHAT IF YOU KNEW THAT MANY ASSERT THAT HUMANS ARE INHERENTLY EXPLORERS AND THAT A MANNED MISSION TO MARS IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE HUMAN SPIRIT?


"Direct human experience in space has fundamentally altered our perspective of humanity and our place in the universe," President Bush said in a speech he delivered at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C. on January 14, 2004. "Just as Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo challenged a generation of Americans, a renewed U.S. space exploration program with a significant human component can inspire us -- and our youth -- to greater achievements on Earth and in space."

For many, his words seemed to echo those of John F. Kennedy in 1962, when Kennedy announced his plans to send astronauts to the moon. "We choose to go to the moon in this decade... because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills..." he said, "[S]pace is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked."

The success of the Apollo program in the 1960s and '70s created a generation of astronaut heroes that inspired the nation. "In 1969, America sent men to the moon, not machines," Ben Wattenberg said on PBS' Think Tank. "[H]uman beings are exploratory creatures... mankind needs big ideas and big projects to ennoble and inspire society. Don't our little boys and girls need heroes and heroines to say, 'Look at him, look at her, she's there'?"

Neuk de Grasse Tyson, astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, told The Boston Globe that the expense and danger of space travel are justified by the role models it creates. "I have yet to see anyone give a ticker-tape parade for a robot," he said. "Even if you can't recite the names of the last 30 astronauts who went into orbit, every one of them is a hero in his hometown."

In a Time magazine article, Jeffrey Kluger seemed to agree. "People don't hold parades for a manufacturing spin-off... They do that for astronauts -- men and women in puffy suits who climb on top of 30 stories of exploding stuff and ride it to places none of the rest of us will ever get to see. That's the most compelling reason we spend the money we spend."

The Mars Society asserts in its Founding Declaration that heroes' ability to inspire younger generations is essential to the future of science and technology. "If a Mars program were to inspire just a single extra percent of today's youth to scientific educations, the net result would be tens of millions more scientists, engineers, inventors, medical researchers and doctors," it said. "These people will make innovations that create new industries, find new medical cures, increase income, and benefit the world in innumerable ways..."

Others argue that it is human nature to explore. In his article "Spaced Out" in Salon, Patrick Di Justo wrote, "Throughout human history, we've never been content with just looking at far-off hills; there's always someone in the village who wants to know what's on the other side."

According to a poll conducted by The Associated Press, 73 percent of Americans said the United States should continue to send humans into space, even "in light of the [Columbia] space shuttle accident... in which seven astronauts were killed." One of the respondents, Paul Steiner of Jacksonville, Florida, said, "It's human nature. There's always been an instinct in human beings to explore to see what's going on elsewhere."

And in his speech, President Bush said, "Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn to unknown lands and across the open sea. We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives and lifts our national spirit."

Others contend that it would be irresponsible not to explore space. "[W]hat if the frontier is gone? What happens to America and all it has stood for? Can a free, egalitarian, innovating society survive in the absence of room to grow?" Robert Zubrin asked in his book The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must.

He continued, "Without a frontier from which to breathe new life, the spirit that gave rise to the progressive humanistic culture that America has represented for the past two centuries is fading... [W]ithout a frontier to grow in, not only American society, but the entire global civilization based upon values of humanism, science, and progress will ultimately die."

Thomas Gangale, aerospace engineer and former member of the Voyager mission control team, believes that the most profound discoveries humans might make in space are spiritual. "The image of the full Earth brought back by the last crew to return from the moon is an enduring icon of environmental responsibility and human unity," he wrote. "The most important thing we discovered on the moon was part of ourselves."
*********


WHAT IF YOU KNEW THAT MANY SCIENTISTS ARGUE THERE ARE PRACTICAL BENEFITS TO SENDING A MANNED MISSION TO MARS?
MANY PROPONENTS OF MANNED TRAVEL TO MARS ARGUE THAT BECAUSE OF ITS SIMILARITY TO EARTH, MARS OFFERS OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCOVER THE ORIGINS OF LIFE AND WAYS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT ON EARTH.


"We cling to the hope of a neighboring planet that harbors... at least some primitive forms of life. If Mars contains even nanobacteria -- or indisputable evidence of past life of the simplest forms -- this will profoundly change our conception of our place in the universe," wrote Thomas Gangale. "If Mars is dead now, but was once alive, understanding how Mars died may give us a crucial understanding of how close we are coming to killing the Earth."

The Mars Society shares that opinion. In its Founding Declaration, the Society wrote, "As we begin the twenty-first century, we have evidence that we are changing the Earth's atmosphere and environment in significant ways... Mars, the planet most like Earth, will have even more to teach us about our home world. The knowledge we gain could be key to our survival."

And many scientists assert that the best way to attain that knowledge is with human scientists. "Robots can do a lot," Chris Welch, a lecturer in space technology at Kingston University, told the BBC. "But having multiple trained human beings there would tell us so much more."

Dava Newman, associate professor of aeronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, agreed. "It's risky and it's also very costly, but there's just so much humans can do as explorers that we don't have any other way to accomplish."

For Rita Colwell of the University of Maryland, Mars may offer answers to biological and evolutionary questions. "[I] think that it's an opportunity to understand the evolution of life on Earth..." she said in a Think Tank discussion on PBS. "It gives us clues about life beyond this planetary system... it would give us a sense of the actual beginnings of life in terms of the chemistry, the structure, and the evolution [of life]."

Scientists say there is some evidence that meteors and asteroids -- bits of rock that were left over when the planets originally formed -- delivered the earliest forms of life when they collided with the Earth. William Sheehan, author of the book The Planet Mars, said on Think Tank, "Since we have meteoritic material that has landed on the Earth, it's possible that life has been seeded through the solar system and may have started in one place."

He continued, "[If] life did originate on Mars independently, then that means that the preconditions for life are fairly common in the cosmos. And that doesn't mean intelligent life. But, it means that metabolism, the cellular structure, all of these things, can be assembled within a relatively short time of the beginning of the solar system."

In its Founding Declaration, the Mars Society stated that Mars research has significant value because it might provide proof that Mars hosted "life's origin... [F]ossils on the Martian surface or microbes in groundwater... would show that the origin of life is not unique to the Earth, and, by implication, reveal a universe that is filled with life and probably intelligence as well. From the point of view learning our true place in the universe, this would be the most important scientific enlightenment since Copernicus."
*********


WHAT IF YOU KNEW THAT SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE U.S. BEAT OTHER COUNTRIES TO MARS?


China, Russia, and the European Union have all announced plans to boost their space programs in coming years, including sojourns to the moon and Mars. Some people believe it's essential to U.S. international status that America lead the way in space exploration. "Republican officials said conservative lawmakers who might balk at the cost [of a manned mission to Mars] are likely to be lured by the chance to extend the U.S. military supremacy in space when China is pursuing lunar probes and Russia is considering a Mars mission," Mike Allen and Eric Pianin wrote in The Washington Post.

In March, 2004, Beijing announced that its lunar program Chang'e (named after a Chinese goddess who flew to the moon) will send a satellite into orbit around the moon by 2006. According to The Associated Press, China's space program "shifted into high gear following the successful [October 2003] launch of the Shenzhou 5 spacecraft with astronaut Yang Liwei aboard." Future plans include a second manned flight in 2005 and a space station.

In a 2002 interview with the BBC, then-chief scientist of the moon exploration program, Ouyang Ziyuan, said, "The moon could serve as a new and tremendous supplier of energy and resources for human beings... Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first. As for China, it needs to adopt a strategy based on its concrete economic power and technology level. We are also looking further out into the Solar System -- to Mars."

In his Time article, Jeffrey Kluger said of China's bid for the moon. "If China's lander cruises anywhere near the U.S. outpost it may touch off a Sino-U.S. space competition reminiscent of the old U.S.-Soviet space race."

Russia's Nikolai Moisayev, Deputy Director of the Rosaviakosmos space agency, announced in January, 2004, that that country is preparing a federal space program with an eye toward missions to both the moon and Mars. "Before the end of the year, we intend to develop a federal space program until 2015, and it is possible that such projects would be included," he said.

Mark Belakovsky, a member of the Institute for Medical and Biological Problems, said, "Russia has unique expertise in long-term space flights, particularly in the field of space medicine and biology." The record for the longest space mission is held by Russian cosmonaut Valery Polyakov. He spent 438 days in 1994-1995 in space; the estimated length of a round trip to Mars is thought to be at least that long.

European nations are also on a path to expand their presence in space. According to an article posted by the Center for Defense Information, "As the [European Union] expands from 15 to 25 countries this year, they are preparing for a stronger and more self-sufficient presence in space."

The European Space Agency (ESA) has developed a long-term plan -- known as Aurora -- that will use robotics to first explore low-Earth orbit and then move further out into planetary excursions, including Mars. The ESA intends to send a rover to Mars by 2009 and a manned mission to the moon by 2024 that will "demonstrate key life support and habitation technologies as well as aspects of crew performance and adaptation." The final step in the Aurora program is a human mission to Mars in the 2030s.

Said Dietrich Vennemann, head of the Aurora long-term planning team, "We see this objective as an ambition for humanity. Aurora is Europe's opportunity to fulfill this ambition."

According to The New York Times, the dominance the U.S. once had in science and innovation has declined in recent years, as the number of international prizes and journal publications awarded to European and Asian researchers has increased. William J. Broad wrote in The New York Times article that this trend has "implications for jobs, industry, national security or the vigor of the nation's intellectual and cultural life." Jennifer Bond, vice president for international affairs for the Council on Competitiveness said, "Many other countries have realized that science and technology are key to economic growth and prosperity. They're catching up to us." She warned that Americans should not "rest on their laurels."

A poll from The Associated Press seems to indicate that many American agree with her. U.S. Seventy-two percent of respondents in the poll deemed it important for the U.S. to be the "leading country in the world in the exploration of space."

One of those polled, Paula Steiner of Jacksonville, Florida, said, "Part of it's mindless patriotism, I suppose. I remember in the early days when we were racing with the Russians. I'd still prefer that we be first."

But some other thought leaders believe that the necessity of being first is more pressing than patriotism. "America is not going to remain at peace, and we're not going to remain the most prosperous nation, and we're not going to remain a free nation unless we remain the technological leader of the world," said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. "And we will not remain the technological leader of the world unless we are the leaders in space."

Her opinion was supported by James Clay Moltz, the Deputy Director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. He said, "Politically, the moon remains a symbol, and having a U.S. presence there (especially if the Chinese fulfill their plans of reaching the moon within a decade) could be important for keeping the United States as a leader in the future of space exploration."
*********


WHAT IF YOU KNEW THAT SOME PROMINENT AMERICANS ARE IN FAVOR OF SENDING A MANNED MISSION TO MARS?


Though leaders and average Americans from a variety of professions and backgrounds advocate human exploration of Mars; some have publicly expressed their support for the President's plan to establish a lunar colony as a launching pad for a manned mission to Mars.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) joined President Bush on January 14 at Arlington National Cemetery for the dedication of the Columbia memorial, commemorating the lives of the astronauts who died in the explosion of their space shuttle in February, 2003. "The seven astronauts we lost last February will never be forgotten, nor will their tragedy deter America from her mission of discovery in space," he said.

"There is no more fitting tribute to these heroes than to send other men and women into space to attempt the most daring adventures, to witness what we on Earth could never imagine, and to dream the impossible," DeLay continued. "A bold, unifying mission that honors America's forty-year legacy of triumph and sacrifice in human spaceflight will pay tribute to the Columbia astronauts and regain our momentum in space."

Enthusiasm for space travel is also expressed by some Democrats. In an online national town meeting conducted by The Washington Post and the Concord Monitor in November, 2001, Howard Dean said, "I am a strong supporter of NASA and every government program that furthers scientific research. I don't think we should close the shuttle program but I do believe that we should aggressively begin a program to have manned flights to Mars." He added that a balanced budget was also important.

In February, 2004, The Associated Press asked Democratic Senator John Kerry (along with fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich), "Do you support the plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 in preparation for manned missions to Mars?"

John Kerry replied, "Our civilian space program represents a great opportunity for scientific research. Sending a person to Mars is a great mission worthy of a great nation like America." Although Kerry supported the notion of a Mars mission, he expressed some reservations about the Bush plan for getting there. "Given the Bush budget deficit, it is imperative that we balance funding for a manned mission to Mars against critical domestic needs as well, such as education and health care."

But House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-NY) told The Washington Post, "Sure, the money is a big question. But I think the president was realistic."

NASA engineers, experts, and officials have said they're pleased that the President has formulated a comprehensive plan for the future. "We haven't had a space program," said Eugene A. Cernan, commander of the crew members of Apollo 17, who in 1972 were the last humans to set foot on the moon. "We've had a series of space events."

And former astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first American to walk on the moon, said he thinks President Bush's plan is key to helping the nation recover from the shock of the Columbia disaster. "Our president has introduced a new initiative with renewed emphasis on the exploration of our solar system and expansion of human frontiers," he said. "This proposal has substantial merit and promise."

Some average Americans seem to agree with Armstrong and the President. In a letter to the editor of Time Magazine, William Hubbell of Miami Florida wrote, "We must aggressively venture into space to exploit the vast resources of other planets and asteroids... We must colonize the moon, Mars and then other worlds to ensure that our species goes on should Earth suffer a cataclysmic disaster."
*********


WHAT IF YOU KNEW THAT SOME EXPERTS ASSERT A MANNED MISSION TO MARS IS IMPORTANT TO U.S. SECURITY?


In 2002, Peter Teets, Undersecretary of the Air Force, said, "This war on terrorism is a very, very real thing, something that we're going to be faced with for, not weeks or months ahead, but for years ahead." Referring to the war in Afghanistan, he said, "I think the recent military conflict has shown us, without a doubt, how important the use of space is to national security and military operations. GPS accuracy and capability... has been vitally important to our efforts in the war in Afghanistan."

In his speech on January 14, 2004, President Bush alluded to the benefits that would result from exploring space and establishing the U.S. as a leader there. "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program."

According to Reuters, "Supporters and critics alike say Bush's proposal would also help extend U.S. military supremacy further into space, at a time China, a growing strategic power, is planning a series of lunar exploration missions."

The race for space dominance with China was also mentioned by Bruce Gagnon (coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space) in an interview with the magazine Dollars & Sense. In its March/April 2004 issue, the magazine asked Gagnon about the timing of the President's announcement of the new space initiative. Gagnon replied that one reason was to establish the program in the budget and the other was "fear that China... will beat us to the moon. Whoever has bases on the moon will be able to control the 'Earth-moon gravity well' -- the pathway between the moon and Earth. The administration wants to gain control over the shipping lanes there and back before any other country does so first."

A January, 2004, Reuters article stated, "U.S. security officials have stressed a need to ensure U.S. military dominance in space..." and members of Congress and the military have made public statements that support this view.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) is the chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space. He told Reuters that he was excited about President Bush's proposal because, "You always want the (strategic) high ground."

At the Geospatial Intelligence Conference in 2003, Lieutenant-General Edward Anderson, deputy commander of the U.S. Northern Command, said, "In my view it will not be long before space becomes a battleground... Our military forces... depend very, very heavily on space capabilities..."

Rich Haver, a former space adviser to the U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made a similar remark. "I believe space is the place we will fight in the next 20 years..." he said. "I think if we ever wind up in a confrontation again with any one of the major powers who has a space capability we will find space is a battleground."

For some others, like John Pike -- director of GlobalSecurity.org and former director of space policy at the Federation of American Scientists -- the American way of life may depend on U.S. dominance in space. "Neil [Armstrong] and Buzz [Aldrin] did not go to the moon for science," he told The Boston Globe. "Neil and Buzz went to the moon for truth, justice, and the American way. Human space flight is a way of demonstrating national greatness. I'm interested in this as a tool of foreign policy."
*********
*********




CON



WHAT IF YOU KNEW THAT MANY EXPERTS CONTEND THAT SPACE TRAVEL IS INHERENTLY DANGEROUS AND THAT MISSIONS COULD BE CONDUCTED BY ROBOTS INSTEAD OF HUMANS?


An editorial in the January 15 edition of the Chicago Tribune stated, "Human exploration is not necessarily the best way to advance science or technology, and it certainly is the most expensive and riskiest way to do so. Time and again over the past decades NASA has proved one thing: remote exploration with probes and space telescopes yields far greater scientific benefits than manned exploration."

For many opponents of manned flight to Mars, the risk to human life is too high to outweigh the benefits. They name several high-profile space disasters which they say prove their point: Apollo 1 in which three astronauts died in 1967; the Challenger explosion in 1986 that killed all seven crew members, including Christa McAuliffe, the first teacher in space; and the loss of all seven crew members of the Columbia Space Shuttle in February 2003.

They also argue that travel to a planet as far away as Mars (at least 35 million miles, depending on its location in its orbit) has inherent dangers that even the best technology may not be able to overcome. "The first set of problems has to do with getting astronauts there and back without them turning to jelly," wrote William Speed Weed in Salon.

He pointed out that humans evolved within the throes of gravity. "We're meant to be bipeds that pound the Earth as we move about every day... Our skeleton needs the repeated stress of our walking weight to break down old, brittle bone, release the trapped calcium, and use it to grow sturdy new bone. Likewise, our muscles... require the daily motions of moving about and carrying our weight to stay healthy." wrote Weed. "[G]iven what we know about debilitation in zero gravity... a 30-year-old astronaut would come back with the osteoporotic bones of an 80-year-old woman."

As Jeffrey Luger explained in an article in Time, travel to Mars "can also be lethal because of radiation exposure in deep space, where the absence of Earth's magnetic field leaves astronauts far more exposed to deadly cosmic energy than they are in orbit or on the way to the moon." Experts say that the best way to decrease exposure to the radiation is to limit transit time. The Mars Society estimates that a mission to Mars would take approximately 640 to 910 days, including round-trip travel to Mars and time spent on its surface. Many proponents worry that is simply too long a time period for safety, and that even at its closest point, Mars is too far away.

Some scientists have publicly urged the president to send robots, rather than humans, to Mars. In an online discussion hosted by The Washington Post, Dr. John Gibbons, former science and technology advisor to President Clinton, commented on Bush's plan. "I'm sad about the focus on human space flight when we're doing so well with robotics which extend human presence," he said.

Robert Park, professor of physics at the University of Maryland, echoed his sentiments on the PBS program Think Tank. He explained that robots placed on Mars are, in effect, an extension of the humans who control them safely here on Earth. "It is not that we're putting a robot up there that has to do our thinking for us," he said. "We can react. We see what the robot sees. We tell the robot what to do."

Opponents of manned missions assert that NASA has had great success with robotic exploration. In 1997, the miniature dune buggy Sojourner was sent to Mars and relayed "razor-sharp photos of the planet that astonished the world," wrote Hiawatha Bray in The Boston Globe. And since their launch in January, 2004, the Spirit and Opportunity rovers have sent more than 18,000 photographs and 250,000 measurements from Mars' surface, without risk to human life. Other robotic or telescopic successes include photos of Saturn's rings, evidence of water on the moons of Jupiter, and the discovery of more than 100 planets outside the Earth's solar system.

In his PBS interview, Park pointed out that in some ways, robots are actually more effective than humans might be on Mars. "[W]hen a human being is on Mars, it's not a like a human being on Earth. He's locked in a space suit. He has no sense of touch. He has no sense of smell. There is nothing to hear. The only sense he's got left is his eyes. And we can put better eyes than human eyes on Mars."

He also asserted that scientists are "accustomed to making measurements with their instruments. You don't stick your finger in a hot liquid to see how hot it is, you put a thermometer in... every year our robots, our machines get better. Human beings haven't changed in 30,000 years. We are a pretty fragile device to try to send to Mars."

And, ultimately, that human fragility may be the most compelling argument for some opponents of President Bush's plan. When the Columbia space shuttle tragedy occurred in 2003, A.N. Wilson wrote in the London Evening Standard, "There is a tendency in America to believe that it is possible to do very dangerous things, such as fly into space, or fight wars, without any Americans being killed. The tragedy of the space shuttle reminds them that this is not necessarily so."
*********


WHAT IF YOU KNEW THAT MANY AMERICANS FEEL THAT A MANNED MISSION TO MARS WOULD BE TOO EXPENSIVE AND THAT THE MONEY COULD BE BETTER SPENT ON DOMESTIC PROGRAMS?


According to reports, in order to finance a manned mission to Mars, President Bush will request $800 million from Congress in 2005, along with a five percent increase in NASA's $15 million annual budget over the next five years. Estimated costs of a manned mission to Mars range from $30 to $40 billion (The Center for Defense Information) to as high as $80 billion. But Senator John McCain (R-Ariz), the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation thinks that estimate is too low. He cited reports that the president's new space plan could actually cost between $170 billion and $600 billion. "When we look back on the past cost of programs at NASA, there has been one constant and that's been that the costs have exceeded the initial estimates," said McCain.

At least one other Senator shares that opinion. "Space flight: You can't do it on the cheap and I just don't think a billion dollars increase over five years -- that's $200 million a year -- is going to do it," said Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla).

In his speech on January 14, President Bush compared the Lewis and Clark expedition to his vision to send humans to Mars. But Gregg Easterbrook argued in Time that that is not a valid comparison. "First, Lewis and Clark were headed to a place amenable to life... Second, Lewis and Clark were certain to discover places and things of immediate value to the new nation. Third, the Lewis and Clark venture cost next to nothing by today's standards," he wrote.

He explained that in 1989, the estimate for a man-to-Mars program was $400 billion, which "inflates to $600 billion today... A Mars mission may be the single most expensive non-wartime undertaking in U.S. history. If Mars proponents expect taxpayers to foot their bill, then they must make their case against the... needs for health care, education, poverty reduction, reinforcement of the military and reduction of the federal deficit..."

This point of view is shared by the organization Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). Tom Schatz, president of CAGW, said, "Under the current budget conditions, taking a trip to Mars is the equivalent of a family with two kids in college, one parent unemployed, and the other parent working only part-time, taking a two-week vacation to the Caribbean."

And according to the poll conducted by The Associated Press, the average American also agrees. One thousand adults were asked, "On the whole, do you think our investment in space research is worthwhile or do you think it would be better spent on domestic programs such as health care and education?" The response: fifty-five percent said they thought the money would be better spent on domestic programs. "You can't have a war, cut taxes, have the economy in a garbage pail, and spend billions going into space," said Dallas Hodgins, a retired University of Michigan researcher from Flint, Michigan. "How are they going to pay for all this? I don't see how it's morally justifiable. In Flint, there isn't a school roof that doesn't leak."

Those comments seem to echo a statement made by Ed Koch in 1971. Despite the romanticism of the U.S. space program, especially in the sixties and seventies, not all Americans thought it was the right expenditure of resources. "I just can't for the life of me see voting for monies to find out whether or not there is some microbe on Mars, when in fact I know there are rats in Harlem apartments," said Koch.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has also shared her objections. "As we go forward with any initiative, we have to examine our priorities," she said. "We have serious challenges here on Earth."

In a letter to the editor of Time magazine, Corey Brunish of Lake Oswego, Oregon wrote, "Why should we spend vast amounts to reach Mars when there is a very high chance of its not providing anything that would improve our lot here on Earth? Why not allocate those billions for 'home improvement'? Think of the progress that could be made in curing cancer, aids and other diseases; in cleaning our water, air and soil; and in feeding hungry nations. Why confront the hazards of outer space when we should be fighting homelessness, poverty and unemployment on Earth?"
*********


WHAT IF YOU KNEW THAT MANY SCIENTISTS ARGUE OTHER SPACE PLANS WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE?


The plan outlined by President Bush in January 2004 calls for humans' return to the moon by 2015 -- the first trip there since 1972 -- to build a permanent space station that could be used as a launching pad for human missions to Mars, asteroids, and other destinations in deep space. The new program would also provide for the completion of the International Space Station and the decommission of the space shuttle program (by 2010) to focus on developing a new type of spacecraft that would launch astronauts to Mars by 2020.

Some opponents of the President's plan argue that rather than use the moon as a launching pad, NASA should be working toward a direct path to Mars. "We can go directly from Earth orbit to Mars, and it would probably be simpler and less costly," Larry Bell, space architect at the University of Houston told Time magazine. "Some of us don't see the necessity of going to the moon first."

Robert Zubrin is the author of The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must. In an interview with Think Tank's Ben Wattenberg, Zubrin outlined his Mars Direct plan. "If you want to go to Mars, you don't build a giant Battlestar Galactica spaceship filled with the propellant to come home, you go to Mars in relatively small spacecraft, and you make your return fuel and oxygen there."

He continued, "Here's how you do it... with your first launch, you shoot out to Mars a medium-sized payload consisting of an Earth return vehicle, which flies to Mars unfueled. And you land this thing on Mars after an eight-month trip out to Mars on a low energy trajectory." He explained that Martian air, which is 95 percent carbon dioxide, would then be used to create the fuel needed for the return mission to Earth. Although to lay people it may sound like science fiction, many experts agree with Zubrin. Astronomer Carl Sagan said, "[Z]ubrin really... changed our thinking on this issue."

John Glenn, the first American to orbit Earth, has also argued in favor of a direct-to-Mars plan, rather than attempting to build a colony on the moon. "When you think about it, every single thing that humans consume -- oxygen, food, water, whatever -- has to be taken up there for those people, and then re-supplied," Glenn told Reuters. "In effect you're making a Cape Canaveral out on the moon. It would be a smaller one, I'm sure, but it would be enormously complex."

Glenn also said he believes it would be a mistake to cut funding to the International Space Station. "I think we're voluntarily stopping some of the most unique, cutting-edge research in the history of the whole world."

Other opponents of the new space plan assert that the Hubble Telescope -- maintenance of which has been put on hold in the wake of the Columbia disaster in February 2003 -- might be a better project to which to allocate resources. During an online discussion with The Washington Post, Dr. John Gibbons said, "I think the Hubble is one of our best investments... It would be a tragedy to cut its lifetime short... The Hubble is a glorious instrument and has paid off rich rewards in terms of the nature of the universe."

In an article entitled "NASA'S Comeback Kid," published in the National Review, David Raven (a pseudonym for an insider in the U.S. space program) lamented the loss of the Hubble Telescope. "NASA announced on January 16 that Servicing Mission 4, once scheduled to take place [in 2004], will not happen. As a result, Hubble's scientific growth will be stunted, and it will probably fail in 2007 and burn up in Earth's atmosphere sometime after 2010. Astronomy's great time machine will die, because NASA is plotting its untimely demise."

Raven asserted that the Hubble Telescope represents the best of the American technology and spirit of exploration -- without an overly exorbitant price tag. "Hubble is already taking the world all the way to the edge of the cosmos, and for a relatively cheap price... It is one of the most complex, yet reliable, machines ever built... In losing Hubble, America is losing not only the greatest observatory ever built and the single most important telescope since Galileo's. America may well lose the best example of one of the things that the world admires most about us: Our ability to rise above the clouds of adversity and take in a universe worth exploring."
*********


WHAT IF YOU KNEW THAT MANY AMERICANS AND OPINION LEADERS DO NOT SUPPORT PRESIDENT BUSH'S NEW PLAN?


According to a poll conducted by The Associated Press, 52 percent of respondents said they opposed "building a permanent space station on the moon with a plan to eventually send astronauts to Mars." A similar Time/CNN poll reported that 61 percent of Americans "oppose spending billions for the project."

Dr. John Gibbons, former science and technology advisor to President Clinton, told participants in an online discussion with The Washington Post that he opposes the proposed space plan. "There's a quote from Max Born," he said, "'Intellect distinguishes between the possible and the impossible, reason distinguishes between the sensible and the senseless. Even the possible can be senseless.'"

"And I think that's what we have here," he concluded. "I would much rather have our president address the issues that lay before us in this first decade of the 21st century and to address critical issues like climate change and species loss, population explosion... it's a long list... so that we could become captains of our own ship in this century."

U.S. astronaut John Glenn said that the new plan "pulls the rug out from under our scientists." Glenn argued that NASA shouldn't abandon current projects -- including the International Space Station -- in favor of a quest for Mars. "We have projects that are planned or in the queue now, projects that people -- academics and laboratories and companies -- have spent millions of dollars to get ready," Glenn said.

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) said that they believe President Bush's moon-to-Mars initiative is a "noble idea," but deemed it too risky, too expensive, and "not feasible at this time." Said CAGW President Tom Schatz, "Cost estimates for the new programs range from $550 billion to $1 trillion. Until the federal government brings the record deficit back down to Earth, it should not launch expensive new space programs of questionable scientific value."

And Senator Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota) worries that the projected budget will expand beyond current estimates. "Space flight is costly," said Dorgan. "I don't want to be a wise guy, but we've been promised the moon before."

Gregg Easterbrook is a fellow at the Brookings Institution, an independent, nonpartisan research organization to improve U.S. public policies. He wrote in Time magazine, "The drive to explore is part of what makes us human... Dreams must be tempered by realism, however. For the moment, going to Mars is hopelessly unrealistic. "

Two large U.S. newspapers also expressed their skepticism about the Bush plan on January 15, 2004. The Washington Post wrote, "[A] directive to return to the moon and ultimately use it as a 'launching point for missions beyond' seems more likely to result in yet another ambitious but unfocused and underfinanced goal for NASA..."

And The Chicago Tribune wrote, "Human exploration is not necessarily the best way to advance science or technology, and it certainly is the most expensive and riskiest way to do so. Time and again over the past decades NASA has proved one thing: remote exploration with probes and space telescopes yields far greater scientific benefits than manned exploration. Nothing in the president's plan should jeopardize that."

While you said much in your long entry that I agree with, and you said it intelligently and articulately, I disagree with a few things. First, I want to say that I agree that the idea of expansion to other worlds is dangerous insofar as it acts as a release valve for our motivation to keep our earth a good place to live. You make good points about that.

Yet, nations do many things at once, and space exploration isn't incompatible with solving world problems. Why shouldn't both of them become causes we can get behind and that inspire us? It's not a strike against space exploration that it doesn't solve all our political and ecological problems for us. In fact, even as we explore the solar system and beyond, the problems we face on earth will force us to deal with them, one way or another, whether we have a vigorous program of space exploration or not.

I also disagree with your alleged refutation of a "duty to future generations and ourselves to spread beyond Earth to ensure we survive the severe natural or human-made disasters that periodically occur." It's hard to see how anyone has or can refute that duty. No matter how well we take care of our planet and its inhabitants, some threats to the survival of humans and other species (e.g., a very large asteroid strike, a *really* bad plaque-- natural or otherwise) cannot be protected against if we don't spread to other worlds. (At least, it cannot be protected against with any technology we are even close to developing.) If civilization lasts long enough, it will almost certainly be possible to live on other worlds, and it would be negligent not to do so.

Though this goes beyond the issue of space exploration, in terms of economic theory (as opposed to ethics) I want to briefly disagree with what you say and imply in the following line, "Expansion, in turn, is bound up with the unsustainability of the national base, which has necessitated a never-ending source of new wealth from the frontier (and from outside the U.S., once the contiguous land had been colonized)."

First, expansion doesn't have to entail exploitation, so long as the expansion is onto other planets, asteriods, and such, unless we run into other living things out there (unlikely for a very long time).

Second, the generating of wealth for the U.S. from outside the country doesn't necessarily require exploitation, though it has often done so, unfortunately. Many forms of wealth-creation are win-win for both those in this and the other country.

Third, our nation isn't *dependent* on the search for new wealth from other countries, in the sense that we'd fall apart if we hadn't done so. Of course, the search for new wealth from outside the country has increased our wealth, as is true of all countries that have increased the size of their economy by business dealings in other lands. We'd have a much smaller economy without it, but we'd still exist as a nation. (Since this isn't a thread on economic theory, however, I'll stop here.)