It will cost about $460 million for the new NASA Phoenix lander to land on Mars and search for evidence of life in the Martian soil (scheduled to land this Sunday). I’d prefer to defer most discussion of otherworldly happenings on NN to Jeff but I wanted to reflect on why as a culture humans feel the need to spend profligate amounts of money to send little robots to Mars. I suppose the type of money we’re talking about here isn’t that absurd. After all, the annual NIH budget is something like $28 billion. But imagine investing $460 million into one experiment with no real back-up plan. That is essentially what’s going on here with NASA’s Phoenix.
I asked a reporter for the Washington Post in an online discussion forum this week (link) about what would happen if the rover didn’t find any evidence of life, and he suggested “an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” True, but that sure is a lot of money to be throwing at one large-scale, big question type experiment with very long-term implications (i.e. for human missions to Mars, possible inhabitation and/or resource extraction, etc—what did you think, this was actually about astrobiology?).
Isn’t it amazing that one agency of the U.S. federal government has enough foresight to spend $460 million in the just the beginning stages of our interest in Mars, while others are so incredibly short-sighted and stubborn that they cannot commit to simple legislation that will protect the future of our own planet? This is how projects like grizzly bear surveys are considered a waste of money , but open-ended missions to a craggy planet of rusty soil are inspiring, unifying, and capture the imagination of millions. Sure, the science will be interesting, but probably not anything revolutionary (side note: why does the lander have an atomic force microscope aboard? People who are familiar with AFM will understand my astonishment). But because it’s on Mars, there will be a ton of papers in Nature, Science, and the like, reporting on basic geochemistry that we’ve been doing on Earth for ages. What will they see? If history is any indication (i.e. the Viking missions), not much.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a geek for Mars. I’ve read The Martian Chronicles and Red Mars. A little bit of me still wants to be an astronaut. But isn’t there an obvious contradiction behind the press coverage, the publications, and of course, the money that gets invested into that little red dustbowl while many refuse to admit that our own planet is in peril? Does anyone else get the impression that we’ve given up hope on Earth and are looking into other prime real estate?
Pedantic correction: Phoenix ain’t a rover, it’s a lander.
But because it’s on Mars, there will be a ton of papers in Nature, Science, and the like
Only if they’re good papers (I can speak only for Nature, obviously).
doh! Thanks Matt
edit: fixed in original post
Henry, I didn’t mean to imply that the science isn’t good or the papers aren’t well written. And by “not much” I was referring to the evidence of life. But it seems like every time there is a new set of data collected from Mars, a bunch of these papers pop up. I can understand why that is; we (as scientists) are discovering new soil, new climate, new history—a new geology. That is certainly interesting. I just wanted to put that in context with research that is focused on our own planet.
But it seems like every time there is a new set of data collected from Mars, a bunch of these papers pop up.
I think that’s largely a function of the way the research is organized. Each lander has an array of instruments, each one tended by its own research group, each one of which will want its own place in the sun (if not the _Sun_).
Great post, Nick, and I’m with you all the way. Well, most of the way. Consider me an idealist, but I think each new Mars mission really does bring something new to the table. Viking was a bit of a dud, true, and I couldn’t really tell you much about Pathfinder’s findings, but the MERs have been pretty remarkable. Think of the blueberries, the silica, the (relatively) massive craters they’ve stumbled into. Before these rovers, evidence for water was circumstantial, now it’s a given.
Phoenix offers important new contributions in the form of its landing site (prime real estate for water ice) and some unique hardware (the robotic “arm” that will dig to the ice layer). So I think the science is there, but you’re right, if we’re completely honest with ourselves, it’s about much more than just the science.