Opinions

Louis Friedman, executive director of the Planetary Society, calls fora stepped-up program of Mars exploration, in the wake of evidence of water on Mars.

What do you think? Send us your feedback .

NASA Administrator Dan Goldin recently testified that NASA needs no additional funds, beyond those already requested of Congress, to carry out its Mars exploration program. That the agency doesn’t need more funds for its program is a redundancy -- the program has been defined by the level of funding the administration is willing to request.

Even so, this position by NASA is controversial. The Mars Program Independent Assessment Team and other reviewers have said additional funds are needed to carry out a program consistent with the stated goals for Mars exploration.

But whether the money is enough for the existing program or not, NASA's program of Mars exploration is sinking below the level it should be at. Instead of a firm commitment to meet the U.S. national policy of "sustained robotic presence on the surface of Mars," and "sample returns from the bodies of the solar system," the program is shedding its goals and diminishing its ambitions. It is also dropping its link, albeit tenuous, with the acknowledged popular goal of human exploration.

Mars accounts for a very small fraction of NASA's budget -- about 2 percent. Yet it's the core of NASA's raison d'etre.
     

In the aftermath of the 1999 mission failures, the U.S. dropped plans for a 2001 lander; reconsidered whether or not to do a 2003 lander; broke up the international team working on a Mars sample return and suspended the liaison between the science program and human program for cooperative mission planning.

Budget constraints were a major part of all these decisions, though they were also rationalized by scientific and engineering considerations. Caution replaced faster, better, cheaper as the program driver.

On June 22, 2000, I waited -- in vain -- for Rep. James Sensenbrenner to point out that the superb performance of Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) vindicates faster, better, cheaper, and to compliment Mr. Goldin's decision to initiate the MGS project after the Mars Observer failure.

The startling Mars water evidence, and the agency’s ability to react to it in time to influence plans for the 2001 orbiter and the 2003 mission, is just what faster, better, cheaper is all about. So instead of losing heart after the failures of the 1998-99 missions, the mistakes should have been corrected and the course stayed for Mars exploration. And now, the exploration should be accelerated.

The public reactions to Mars-program successes -- Pathfinder, the hints of past life and now evidence of possible Martian water -- and to the failures is the same: A determination to continue Mars exploration, and a willingness to increase funds and support missions. People understand the agency works on the scientific and technical edge, where there are deep disappointments as well as great accomplishments.

A recent national poll further confirmed public interest and support for human Mars exploration. Even though NASA finds it politically incorrect to mention sending humans to Mars, the public understands that this is where the space exploration program is heading. In fact, it is my belief, based on extensive interaction with the public, that people generally assume we are preparing to send humans to Mars.

Mars accounts for a very small fraction of NASA's budget -- about 2 percent. Yet it's the core of NASA’s raison d’etre. The public interest in it far exceeds the investment NASA puts in it.

Instead of hiding Mars exploration goals, NASA should be conducting a vigorous program in both the human and space-science offices to develop Mars landing sites, outposts and technologies for sample-return missions -- human and robotic.

Instead of breaking up the international Mars sample-return team, NASA should take a leadership role in bringing the world’s space resources -- including those of Russia -- together for Mars.

There may or may not be life on Mars. So far, we have only hopes, based on the apparent extraordinary capacity of life to take hold on Earth, and on some very sketchy evidence from a sister planet. There may or may not be future Martians -- colonists who become indigenous to the planet. So far, that is a science- fiction dream, but it is based on the exciting discoveries of science and exploration today.

For both these great objectives -- the search for life beyond Earth and the quest for humans to evolve into a multi-planet species -- the action is at Mars. NASA may not need more money for Mars exploration -- but humanity does. It is part of our finding our place in the cosmos.