Big Idea: Start the Countdown for a Mission to Mars

Private companies are taking up the challenges of near-earth spaceflight, and a new space race is brewing. What better time for NASA to go to Mars?

When SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft docked on Friday with the International Space Station some 230 miles above the earth, it was the first time a commercial astrovessel performed such a complex maneuver in space. The age of commercial space travel, we are told, is here. As we reported last week, the link-up was a victory for both the Space Exploration Technology Company, founded in 2002 by serial entrepreneur Elon Musk, and the venerable National Aeronautics and Space Agency, which worked together symbiotically to produce this moment.

But unless we act soon as a country to raise the bar for space exploration, we may find it difficult to build on this success. That’s why we need to make it a public goal to send astronauts to Mars.

Doing so would boost our commitment to science and technology, make us more competitive on Earth, and help inspire humanity’s next steps to the stars. And in a time of global warming and potential asteroid collisions, shouldn't we make sure we have some options down the road?

While the Obama administration technically supports a manned mission to the Red Planet as NASA’s post-Space Shuttle raison d’etre, this year’s budget cut spending on a number of projects designed to pave the way by sending probes and robotic rovers to the planet; it looks like the U.S. will drop out of a joint Martian venture with European Space Agency at a time when momentum toward solar exploration is starting to build.

Abandoning those plans in the face of the economic troubles and federal budget belt-tightening would be a mistake. The $300 million cut to NASA is budgetary chump change, especially compared to budgetary boondoggles like the $21 billion in subsidies the highly profitable oil industry will receive over the next decade.

But we shouldn’t just be maintaining our investment in space, we should be increasing it to take advantage of all the benefits we could harvest.

First, there’s innovation. It’s hard to create new technologies if we’re not finding new problems to solve, and getting to Mars is a big one. NASA in its golden era helped develop more major commercial innovation than you can shake a stick at: cordless tools, smoke detectors, advanced plastics and metals, imaging technology. Even Silicon Valley helped get its start when NASA needed better chips for its computers. The agency’s advocates say that every dollar of investment in NASA has produced seven dollars' worth of benefits.

We Earthlings would feel the spin-offs of a big space push. Investing in major centers of science and engineering will increase the number of Americans with those skills, benefiting other industries and the economy at large. It’s not just about the money: Neil de Grasse Tyson, astrophysicist and space advocate, argues convincingly that Martian ambitions will inspire kids to learn the science and math skills that will help them in the new century.

All that may sound a bit pie, er, planet-in-the-sky, but the fact is that economic competitors like China are investing heavily in space technology—not just for symbolic reasons, but because they think it can drive their economy. With Russia talking about setting up a moon base, we may have another space race on our hands that the U.S. can't afford to sit out, especially when cooperative international space efforts help promote good relations on the ground.

The United States, however, still has an advantage, and it’s the same advantage that is making the SpaceX mission a success: private sector interest and skill.

The idea behind NASA’s partnership with SpaceX was to find a cheaper, more effective way to put people and things into orbit. While the technology to do this has existed since the beginning of the space program, a lack of scale and competition limited the refinement of this technology. By contracting this work out to SpaceX, which hopes to get more customers than just the government, NASA created an incentive for iteration while saving money, just like it did with silicon chips back in the day.

Theoretically allowing it to focus on tougher stuff—like putting people on Mars. Like research into new propellants and energy sources and figuring out how to ensure people can survive in strange new environments. Combining that fundamental research with more private partnerships, whether or directly or through more prize contests to encourage inventors, is NASA’s secret sauce.

After all, the last great age of exploration was driven by public-private partnerships. When European monarchs funded adventurers and state-chartered companies for the purposes of exploration and commerce, they benefited and the world changed forever.

There’s a lot we don’t know yet about Mars, and the urge to explore it is driven just as much by the romance of the next frontier than down-to-Earth data. But a mission to Mars could be the national project we need to help repair some of the differences between right and left, private and public, and regain some of the can-do attitude that made this country great. It took World War II to get us out of the Great Depression, but nobody thinks a war is a particularly good economic tool. Maybe a space race is.

Illustration by Bijan Berahimi

via Alan Levine / Flickr

The World Health Organization is hoping to drive down the cost of insulin by encouraging more generic drug makers to enter the market.

The organization hopes that by increasing competition for insulin, drug manufacturers will be forced to lower their prices.

Currently, only three companies dominate the world insulin market, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. Over the past three decades they've worked to drastically increase the price of the drug, leading to an insulin availability crisis in some places.

In the United States, the price of insulin has increased from $35 a vial to $275 over the past two decades.

Keep Reading Show less

Oh, irony. You are having quite a day.

The Italian region of Veneto, which includes the city of Venice, is currently experiencing historic flooding. Venice Mayor Luigi Brugnaro has stated that the flooding is a direct result of climate change, with the tide measuring the highest level in 50 years. The city (which is actually a collection of 100 islands in a lagoon—hence its famous canal streets), is no stranger to regular flooding, but is currently on the brink of declaring a state of emergency as waters refuse to recede.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet

Since the International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in 1986, whale populations have been steadily recovering. However, whales in the wild still face other dangers. In the summer of 2018, four Russian companies that supply aquariums with marine animals captured almost 100 beluga whales and killer whales (aka orcas). After a public outcry, those whales are swimming free as the last of the captive whales have been released, the first time this many captured whales have been released back into the wild.

In late 2018 and early 2019, a drone captured footage of 11 orcas and 87 beluga whales crammed into holding pens in the Srednyaya Bay. The so-called "whale jail" made headlines, and authorities began to investigate their potentially illegal capture.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
via Twitter / Bye,Bye Harley Davidson

The NRA likes to diminish the role that guns play in fatal shootings by saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Which is the same logic as, "Hammers don't build roofs, people build roofs." No duh. But it'd be nearly impossible to build a roof without a hammer.

So, shouldn't the people who manufacture guns share some responsibility when they are used for the purpose they're made: killing people? Especially when the manufacturers market the weapon for that exact purpose?

Keep Reading Show less
via Gage Skidmore / Flickr

The 2020 election is a year away, but Donald Trump has some serious ground to cover if he doesn't want it to be a historical blowout.

A Washington Post- ABC News poll released Tuesday shows that Trump loses by double digits to the top Democratic contenders.

Vice President Joe Biden (56%-39%); Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (54%-39%); Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (56%-39%); South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (52%-41%); and Sen. Kamala Harris of California (52%-41%) all have big leads over the president.

Keep Reading Show less