We should rethink how to send humans to Mars — a goal now getting much discussion. With proposed budgets and current technical difficulties in human spaceflight development making such a goal unrealistic, it may be time to change the focus from humans getting to Mars to sustainable exploration of Mars by humans. To that end, we need to deal with how unrealistic the human-to-Mars goal is. Only then can we put forward a new approach that’s more affordable, more achievable and ultimately more exciting for humans to explore Mars.
Four United States Presidents have declared a national goal of sending humans to Mars (Bush 41, Bush 43, Obama and now Trump.) None gained any political or budgetary support. There was no political rationale. This is being borne out right now as the administration proposes a diminished space program. The only two human space initiatives which have succeeded are Apollo and the International Space Station — both solely based on geopolitical rationales (and both under presidents with no interest in space). The first to demonstrate American technological superiority over communism; the second to prevent post-Soviet Russia selling their nuclear arms. It takes meeting a national interest, not just a space interest, to provide a rationale for something as big as humans-to-Mars. The weakness of budgetary and political support for Artemis suggests that the lack of geopolitical rationale will be its downfall, just like previous human space initiatives. Space interests are trying to invoke competition with China. But for all of our competition with China on the seas, on trade, on AI chips, on electric cars, in cis-lunar space and Earth orbit weaponry; civil space exploration is in a much smaller arena, more susceptible to cooperation than competition.
Even if we wanted to compete, Artemis is floundering. Every key component of the Artemis program is behind schedule with technical and financial problems. The architecture requiring dozens of cargo flights with in-orbit refueling is unproven, as is the crew capsule. Its so-called moon-to-Mars architecture is fictional. The robotic precursor Mars Sample Return has just been cancelled and the one key technology identified by the architecture team, that of nuclear fission, has no place in the moon program and no development for Mars. Neither do any of the other technologies for humans-to-Mars beyond the rockets. It seems likely that this moon-to-Mars program, like the previous three, is unsustainable as budgets decrease and public interest wanes.
Conversely, China has a real moon-to-Mars program, inexorably making progress with two automated lunar sample returns, a Mars rover, an expanding space station and a scheduled Mars Sample Return. It is likely that their astronauts will get to the moon by 2030; it is quite uncertain if ours will. We could try to make it a space race, but that will take a lot of money, political and popular support — none of which is in evidence. Re-running a space race, possibly to lose, after we won the original space race has not resonated with the public.
Instead of trying to repeat the 1960s with far less national purpose, maybe it is time to realize that the 21st century will be different than the 20th — with new technologies enabling human exploration by millions, not just by a few astronaut emissaries. Telerobotics, artificial intelligence, interactive communications, information processing and virtual and augmented reality will take us to other worlds, and bring those worlds to us. With astronauts as tele-operators in orbit (around Earth, the moon and Mars) human spaceflight could be devoted to exploration rather than to trying to survive on an airless, cold moon or a toxic, radiation-intense Mars. Scores of telerobotic rovers are far better suited for hostile environments than we are, and they could work extensively on the moon and Mars while humans interact with them and their scientific data at farther distances, faster and for longer than they could in clumsy space suits on the surface.
We are a world leader in those technologies, and applying them in space exploration will be good for the country and good for science and exploration. In this scenario, the moon-Mars program is serving a national interest, not merely a space interest. Those technologies and the science from robotic exploration would engage far more of the civil and commercial sectors in our society, than does the human program. That broader participation should lead to real commercial investment, synergistic with Earth applications, rather than the unrealistic ones like Helium-3 or rare mineral mining that currently dominate space literature. Widespread exploration of the moon, Mars and beyond by humans and robots working together, distinguishes us by working on the future instead of trying (and failing) to repeat the past.
Louis Friedman is the co-founder and Executive Director Emeritus of The Planetary Society. Prior to that he was Manager of Advanced Programs and the post-Viking Mars Program at JPL.
SpaceNews is committed to publishing our community’s diverse perspectives. Whether you’re an academic, executive, engineer or even just a concerned citizen of the cosmos, send your arguments and viewpoints to opinion@spacenews.com to be considered for publication online or in our next magazine. The perspectives shared in these op-eds are solely those of the authors.