Going to Mars is stupid

Going to Mars is stupid. I know, there are hundreds to thousands of people in the United States and around the world who have financial and other reasons for pushing spacefaring nations and private enterprises into sending humans to Mars. To them I will gladly double down and say that going to Mars is stupider than stupid.

Elon Musk tops the list of those pushing to send people to Mars. Do I believe that Musk is a genius? Yes. Do I believe that his uniquely gifted mind holds within it hope for a better future for humanity? Yes. And that’s all the more reason that he should snap out of his fantasy of sending humans to Mars, which will only succeed in pouring tens of billions or hundreds of billions of dollars — his money and others’ — into a black hole in space. It’s a truly wasteful investment.

Hollywood has romanticized the notion of going to Mars. Just look at the character played by Matt Damon in “The Martian,” bounding about the surface. Well, actually, his character is trapped there and in big trouble, but it’s still super cool that he’s about to maybe get killed on the Red Planet. Hollywood makes it all look so awesome.      

Except, it’s not. It’s stupid.

Going to, and trying to exist on, Mars is fraught with unnecessary risk. The logistical and spacefaring reasons for not attempting the journey are many, each compelling in its own right. Here are but a few lowlights:

• The launch window for Mars opens only every two years. When that window is open and Mars is in opposition to our sun, the one-way journey still would take 6 to 10 months. Danger No. 1 is the risk of medical or mechanical emergencies. The crew would be on their own.
• A round-trip journey of up to two years would subject the crew to immense physical and psychological challenges from living in the tiny confines of their spacecraft. Solar and cosmic radiation would constantly bombard the craft. At what point does such risk become unacceptable?

• Once the crew reaches Mars, what then? They’ll plant a flag — say, one from the United Nations — on the surface, look around a little and then begin the journey home. In essence, it would be a $100 billion+ trip to plant a flag.
• Or, let’s say the crew attempts to stay for a few weeks before heading back to Earth. This would require building a multibillion-dollar facility with an artificial atmosphere and protections. But again, to what end? To prove that humans can stay a few weeks before acknowledging the waste of money?

• What is the actual point of going to Mars, other than, perhaps, to prove it can be done? Wasting the resources to do so makes it stupider than stupid. There is zero benefit to humanity.

What is a better alternative for those who believe that humanity must find a permanent home away from Earth? Perhaps the moon. It’s a three-day trip, with virtually unlimited launch windows, and the moon’s surface is teeming with helium-3, a gas that could provide an efficient form of nuclear power.  

First, let’s examine the “humanity needs a place to survive” argument. Well over a century ago, Russian rocket pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky correctly pointed out, “Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever.”

If that is a bit too esoteric for some, then we have the opinion of English physicist Stephen Hawking, who flat-out warned that Earth faces many existential threats — perhaps an asteroid or comet impact, a worse virus than COVID-19,  a nuclear war, or even artificial intelligence gone rogue — and if humanity hopes to survive, we must colonize other bodies in space.

Both Tsiolkovsky and Hawking are correct. The past two years of the pandemic have made that clear for anyone paying attention. The government should find a way to get some sustainable representation of humanity off our planet permanently, to increase the survival chances of our species.  

The easiest body in space to colonize would be our moon. Again, it’s not only closer than Mars but it’s a body littered with lava tubes beneath the surface, tailor-made to help protect and sustain human life.

If one doesn’t really care about the “survivability” argument, then let’s examine the “limitless supply of energy” argument. This brings us back to helium-3, an isotope that could provide safe, clean, green energy.

It is estimated that the moon’s surface holds over 1 million metric tons of helium-3. Some studies argue that just 25 metric tons could fuel the United States’s energy needs for a year. Of course, helium-3 can be a clean energy source only if we go and retrieve it. A number of companies are willing to do so, if we can get them there.

Should we ignore the moon and its untapped natural resources for the foolish fantasy of reaching Mars? I assure you, one nation will not make that mistake: the People’s Republic of China. 

I will make a prediction now, but let’s hope I am proven wrong when the time comes: When China finally lands its taikonauts on the moon’s surface in the next decade, and they plant their flag on its helium-3-covered surface, they’ll declare the moon to be China’s sovereign territory and it will forever come under the guardianship and protection of China’s military.

Going to Mars is stupid.

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.