For or against Travel to Mars

Introduction

Whether we “should” send people to Mars depends on what you value and what future you would like to see. Some scientists see the Red Planet as a planetary fail-safe: if humans go into extinction here, at least several might survive there. A second group advocates the terraforming of Mars; we should make it an Earth 2.0 either as a backup or in case we will never be able to stabilize Earth. A third group sees opportunity. Colonizing Mars as an economic and technological spinoff from a renewed push into space can eventually create cheap access to resources.

But there is also skeptical opposition. There is also the risk that befalling pioneers will result in unease and blindness to the treasures the colonization of Mars might imply. How valuable are we as a step in the ladder of evolution? The near future of human colonization of Mars is driven by and offers many new possibilities. There are scientific and business plans for Martian exploration; almost every month there are new results and discussions of the latest discoveries on Mars. The idea has to be contrasted with other missions to other celestial bodies. But we need to reflect on the pros and cons, the rational arguments, and the emotions involved in colonizing Mars. Some questions are: Are we ready for it? Is the immediate economic profit sufficient to drive a Mars colony? What would be the possible cost-benefit perspective on expanding humanity to Mars? This essay series debates whether we should go to Mars or not. It is like a talk around a fireplace about a future topic. We will cover the core of the Mars colonization subject from trajectories to ethics, including discussions concerning self-sufficiency, psychology, physiology, the Dutch perspective, and terraforming.

Advantages

In terms of science, a Mars mission would provide a monumental leap toward transforming our understanding of exo-life and planetary formation. Additionally, the technological advancements required to overcome obstacles of future space travel could directly stimulate scientific and industrial research and innovation on Earth. As an international collaborative effort, a Mars mission has the potential to unite global interests in exploration and minimize conflicts. Human space travel holds great potential for pure research and broadening our understanding of the cosmos. In particular, sending humans to the planet Mars is considered by many to be one of the most exciting prospects. Not only would this endeavor extend the limits of human exploration, it would also represent our earliest direct contacts with and search for extraterrestrial life. The results of issues related to the search for life and the characterization of planetary systems gained from Mars will undoubtedly deepen our knowledge of space and alternate life forms.

The human spirit for exploration serves as a catalyst for technological and industrial advances as well as the very core of human social growth. Greater frontiers will challenge mankind with new ideas and demand the unification of skills as the old world technology unites with that of inter-earth research. As the moon landing has been described as one of humanity's proudest achievements and an inspiring symbol of triumph over the impossible, a human opening of the previously unopened Martian system will prove to be an emotional, unifying experience. In addition, the development of new technology in space and industry could provide dramatic improvements in many areas of civilian development, including energy, medicine, pollution control, and advanced materials. In particular, the energy required and developed would help our race to significantly reduce reliance on oil and gas. Finally, such energy may assist in the rapid colonization of Mars or allow us to use it, combined with currently underdeveloped nanotechnology, to provide valuable resources for Earth in a closed, sustainable loop type of system. Research lost in the cutting room was the value of the Apollo project in inspiring youth to pursue careers in science and technology. The level of interest and appeal of a human Mars journey extends that of the internet. Furthermore, the human colonization of Mars figures as an essential factor of any serious, long-range human space strategy.

Challenges and Risks

While the idea of colonization of a new planet on Mars has appeared in numerous discussions, there are many problems with such an idea. Firstly, there are the technical problems. It is difficult to design a spacecraft that will protect the passengers and contents from space, provide propellants for a journey to Mars, and carry the infrastructure human beings require to keep them alive on the journey to, from, and on Mars. It must also fulfill these needs on a low budget because the means of funding will be derived from the profits from the colonists. Next, the colonists will be restricted and confined forever on a 500-square-foot habitat. Furthermore, any journey to Mars and back lasting about 270 days or longer would affect an astronaut’s physical and psychological health. While we have some knowledge about the effects of the human body and mind in the environment of microgravity, long-duration missions beyond the Moon are also disruptive and harmful to the functioning of various organ systems. On such a mission, astronauts will also suffer non-technical stress from such things as isolation and confinement. Even before space travel, research on submarines showed these risks. Physical health risks related to travel to Mars include dehydration and loss of electrolytes, collapse of the cardiovascular system, muscle atrophy and bone loss, loss of the immune system, and possibly causing cancer. Concerning space radiation, numerous experimental studies and models simulation experiments clearly showed that heavy ion-induced biological effects are much more damaging than those induced by the same dose of gamma or X-rays. With these in mind, any private space venture business would fear the investment loss since it costs them enormous resources and human lives. Thus, we need the technology and political leadership to deal with these new risks and tests beyond the Moon. Finally, a mission to Mars is a one-way mission. A Martian colony is effectively a high-priced prison. Many directions for Mars colonization are unreasonable, such as conquering and takeover. Hence, during an advanced concept study, it is important to estimate as accurately as possible the benefits that a manned Mars mission has to offer. Only a detailed benefits estimation permits proper assessment and evaluation of the proposed venture. Only with evidence of good benefits can one hope to secure the future financial and political support vital to see a Mars manned landing to its successful conclusion.

Ethics and Environmental

To what extent do we have the right to change the ecosystems on other planets? Before it is possible to answer this particular question, we need to consider carefully what all the consequences of the activity of human beings on the red planet would be. If we alter the ecosystems on Mars, even in such a small way as autotrophic anaerobic organisms, could they themselves live? If so, would they not have the same right to call this planet "their own," "home," or "planet" as we do? Finally, what would we do if we met other advanced rational inhabitants there?

Of course, we would try to describe our own system of views and not describe Martian creatures in too much detail. As we do not know any details about other environments of our own dead world, this is hopeless; however, they are probably the same or similar to us. What do we then want for the first question in the direction of the red giant? Exploration of these complexes requires power, water, food, and volunteers sent to a likely fatal danger. Is this fair enough? Aversion towards human exploration of Mars is also made for ethical reasons. Critics argue that space enthusiasts should not interfere with the potential habitats of other organisms, if they exist. There would even be a way of preventing biocontamination: building a sterilized spacecraft that ensures that no microbes will survive on Mars is the general suggestion of experts. Scientists have a name for the post-sterilized solar system — the second phase of cosmo-vision or the Age of Responsibility. Instead, efforts to explore Mars will only trigger further unnecessary and costly space missions. It is suggested that it is either ethical to invest in exploration of Mars before addressing the significant problems on Earth, such as pollution or climate change.

Finally, societies can be affected, as can also the originals, by social values and obligations to the world for the ethical and environmental effects of Martian colonization and terraformation; so that an advanced debate with the settlers about the balance between human development and maintenance of the Martian essence may be too expensive. Therefore, the changing relationships between scientific facts, values, and uncertainties about the environment exist on Mars' horizon, which is the indispensable prerequisite to the realization of long-lasting cohabitation and, ultimately, to the respect for any local law. Value considerations guide the decision as to whether to care to avoid environmental contamination combined in planetary protection; they have the potential to shape international principles of space law. Consequently, ethical arguments must be addressed to be effective in addressing environmental concerns on Mars. Twin relations, as a result of long-term mutual investigation, have already generated substantial changes in values and are considered to form the basis for the joint exploration of the living area and the planetary systems they give rise to. This sensitive and balanced process of sifting different conceptions of the possibilities and constraints of Martian colonization should therefore begin long before microbial and potentially more than human rovers.

Conclusion

In this essay, we presented arguments for and against human travel to Mars. There is no doubt about the fact that exploring another planet is an exciting adventure and that Mars is the most likely candidate for such adventure. The travel of humans to Mars is very feasible as technological advances would make it possible for all needed systems to be in place. Solutions for many of the fundamental challenges – such as food, water, communication, power, propulsion, crew quarters, waste, etc. – have all been developed. Furthermore, the travel to Mars would address the following challenges; the need to reduce population pressures on Earth, the search for alternative locations for the maintenance of humanity in the face of devastation of planet Earth and a sense of curiosity to explore.

In contrast, current trends in carbon dioxide levels show that we are aligning more with predictions that already include the total collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets even with a very noticeable and significant reduction in the global emissions of greenhouse gases following the discouragement of the use of fossil fuels. Considering the high rate of atmospheric escape predicted for Mars we are tempted to characterize Mars as a potential “Earth-Like Preservation Plan” for at least a few decades or millions of years for humans at the expense of the “Virgin Sisterhood” of publicity called Mars. Thus, we would like to see a planetary consensus on safe and righteous moral activities and possible terraforming activities if Mars is selected. We face the probably unanswerable question of “whether we have a right to expand into extraterrestrial planetary environments or exploit extraterrestrial planetary resources” as opposed to devoting all efforts to terrestrial care and concerns prior to the time of the duration of a gradual climate collapse. Thus, “is the future of humanity on a small rocky planet (Mars) or among the stars?” The answer to this question brings us to perhaps one of the greatest ethical challenges facing ethicists and policy planners today, which is climate change. In other words, do we even have the right to make the catastrophic decision to purchase a living space for a couple of decades or even millions of years in the possible at the expense of understandable and predictable damage to a neighboring mild climate terra sphere floating in space?

Did you like this example?

230

12