Mars: It's not a Science Experiment

Mars. We hear a lot about it in the news today and it sure seems like we’re going. Not just Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, but NASA, China, Russia, and people like you. What we are forgetting is that colonization isn’t pretty. It’s dangerous and ethically messy. However, people have done it and will do it again. Some will go for grandiose reasons, others out of desperation, and still others for open opportunity. This is a simple commentary to remind us that going to Mars is not a science experiment. It will be deadly and rife with ethical conflict. This is important to keep in mind because space travel is currently viewed as a slightly-risky, heroic, noble endeavor focused on science. With history as our guide, it won’t be viewed that way much longer.

First, compare the technology risk we accept in science and what a would-be Mars colonist would accept. Mars One, whatever you think of them, got 200,000 volunteers for a one-way trip with little certainty about their chance for survival after arrival. If you give people a “fifty-fifty” chance of living out a natural lifetime, my money is on many others wanting to go. If science and engineering can provide plausibly survivable transportation, shelter, food, air, and water, it’s game over. People will go because they believe their ingenuity, hard-work, or good fortune will overcome any difficulties.   

Many of those people will, of course, be very wrong and very dead. European colonies in North America were still failing nearly 200 years after Columbus, but the ships kept coming. We’ve been designing serious rockets since the 1930s. The big technical challenges remaining for Mars are in the life-support systems, and there is progress everyday there. Recall the spirit of aviation pioneers: it took mega-guts to climb into a single engine plane with rudimentary instruments and immature weather forecasting and fly off into the dark night sky. Many early pilots died in what today would be a routine flight. To their credit, despite the Memorial Grove at the Johnson Space Center, there is no shortage of gutsy astronauts wanting to head to Mars. It was 24 years from Kitty Hawk to Lindbergh. From Apollo 11 to Mars, the bureaucrats and budgeteers are on the clock. In the end, those who demand technical certainty in the success of a colony before embarking will be left far behind preparing slides for the preliminary design review of some sub-system or the other. 

In addition to technology, there are ethics. Ethics are a key component in a science experiment. Ask anyone who has ever been before an Institutional Review Board for human subjects research. In colonization, ethics must share the stage with opportunity, greed, luck, and political power. When a colony ship finally lifts, some “stay-behinds” will no doubt challenge the ethics and call the project cruel, racist, foolish, and destructive. Why so? “Cruel” because the crew, likely including women, children, and animals, may not survive. “Racist” because billionaires or powerful nations will have initiated the project and some desperate for a new beginning will be among the crew. “Foolish” because it’s simply a waste of money that could be better spent on Earth. And lastly “destructive,” because the crew will go with all their bio and genetic engineering to alter Mars to be more friendly to humans, and to alter humans to be more friendly to Mars.

That just covers the ethical issues of the stay-behinds. From the colonists’ perspective, they won’t care much about what stay-behinds think because, after all, colonization is not a science experiment. Managing to survive is what they will expect. Previous value constructs based on religion, politics, and influence will be challenged. Survival offers an edge to those who can be negotiate, steal, protect, and destroy.

Depending on your point-of-view, you could read this description as a very dark characterization of space colonization or as a call to jump in an “air-tight wa’a kaulua” and head for Mars. If you realized it’s both, you might be a politician. At the top of this technological and ethical dichotomy, are governments—the “Queen Isabellas” if you will. With the technology almost there and the will to go among people, what remains is to get permission and what largesse one can from the Queen Isabellas who drive Earth’s agendas. The dreamers, be they in government agencies or billionaires, need adventurous colonists; and these wanna-be adventurers need dreamers. However, they both also need their Queen Isabellas. Without Earth-bound agendas that support colonization, whether those agendas are ethical in today’s context or not, half-built ships will rot in low-earth orbit. Many stay-behinds would be delighted if colonization stalled. My guess though, is that while earthling talking-heads endlessly debate, the risk takers will push the limits of exploration until colonization is merely a question of having the will to go. At first the Isabellas might demur, but in the end they won’t accept the risk that another power will succeed in colonizing Mars first. The ships will lift.   

So there it is. We’re almost to Mars. The remaining technical piece is merely a plausible chance for survival. It is much more complicated than just packing a tent and food for a few years, but we are a clever species with demonstrated wanderlust. It’ll be messy getting there, and even more messy after we land.