A Really Cool Blog

… about science & space, people & politics, various musings & other cool things too.


The Least Realistic Part of “The Martian?” China. And Why That Matters.


By now, you’ve likely seen or, at the least, heard about the critically acclaimed, space-themed blockbuster hit “The Martian.” Perhaps you have read the equally acclaimed book off of which the film is based. If neither of these apply to you, stop what you’re doing right this instant and go find it at your local bookstore or movie theater – you’re in for a real treat. “The Martian” is the latest in a series of high-budget, high-profile space films – 2013’s “Gravity,” Ron Howard’s “Apollo 13,” and Stanley Kubrick’s iconic, pre-Apollo-era “2001: A Space Odyssey” come to mind – which have served to excite the general public about space exploration, demonstrating through gripping plots and incredible imagery the many challenges, dangers, and triumphs that space travel entails. Dealing in themes resonant with both the human condition and our civilization’s technological capabilities – and technological failures – “The Martian” embodies the notion and interplay of “man and machine” which has driven the United States through the Space Age. Its no small wonder that NASA has used the film as a centerpiece in its publicity efforts for an eventual real-life mission to Mars.

"The Martian" - one of the most realistic space movies ever made, for the most part.

“The Martian” – one of the most realistic space movies ever made… for the most part. Credit: Twentieth Century Fox.

Above all other selling points, “The Martian” has been touted as being one of the most technically and scientifically realistic space movies ever released, perhaps even the most. The book’s author, Andy Weir, spent years doing research into the intricacies of a human Mars mission, along with details on orbital mechanics, biology, and NASA technology, prior to beginning his writing. Yet the effort to make “The Martian” a scientifically accurate story extended beyond simple research. In order to make the film as close to real-life as possible, the film team partnered with NASA, which provided significant consulting during the movie’s filming. The United States’ space agency answered hundreds of questions – on a weekly basis – on everything from radioisotope systems to the look of potential Mars habitations. NASA also sent hundreds of Mars images and images of its facilities to the film team, to help them design the most realistic sets possible. This marked what is probably the closest collaboration between NASA and Hollywood in history, and the effort definitely paid off – most, if not all, of the film’s few inaccuracies involve elements key in the development of the plot; that is, most of what’s unrealistic about “The Martian” is so because the story needed it to be. Even then, unless you’re a rocket engineer or a planetary scientist, most of these inaccuracies probably passed by unnoticed.

Yet there’s one glaring inaccuracy in “The Martian” that I, being a bit of a space policy buff, couldn’t help but notice; and while admittedly a crucial part of the plot, which the movie couldn’t do without, there are alternatives which could’ve been substituted in its place so as to make the movie more realistic. That said, I think the presence of this inaccuracy is a great thing, for a number of reasons. I’m talking about the subplot involving China’s space agency, the CNSA.

The CNSA (China's space agency) logo. Source: Spacenews

The CNSA (China’s space agency) logo. Source: Spacenews

The premise of China’s involvement in “The Martian” is, without giving away too many spoilers, simple enough. A NASA rocket carrying critical supplies to an astronaut stranded on Mars explodes during launch because of rushed preparations. In the panic which follows, there’s a miraculous turn of events – the Chinese announce that, unbeknownst to anyone, the CNSA has a secret rocket booster capable of making the journey to Mars which is already prepped and ready to go. NASA jumps on the offer, lest a stranded American astronaut die of starvation some 249 million miles from home, and the Chinese send their rocket, laden with supplies, skyward. Toward the movie’s end, the CNSA’s leadership is seen standing next to NASA’s administration, celebrating a positive conclusion to the harrowing series of events. In the book, the Chinese are rewarded with a seat on the next Mars mission for the help they provided NASA. It seems to be a watershed moment in international space relations, a testament to the benefits and goodwill that cooperation in outer space can bring.

And, in real life, it would never happen. That’s because, according to present day policy, it just can’t happen.

Space Cooperation with China? Read the Rules.

One could write a doctoral thesis on the myriad reasons why the cooperation seen between the United States and China in ‘The Martian” would never play out in real life. Arguments of geopolitics, foreign policy, military superiority and secrecy, and sensitive technologies abound when people discuss the factors behind a preclusion to Sino-American cooperation in space. Yet there’s a far simpler and far more definitive answer to why NASA would never accept a Chinese offer for an emergency resupply mission: the United States’ space agency is explicity prohibited, by law, from cooperating in any form or fashion with the Chinese.

In April 2011, the 112th Congress of the United States of America passed Public Law 112-55, SEC. 539. Written into this law was language which stated the following:

“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) or the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China.”

A Chinese "Long March 9" rocket. Don't expect to see it launching anything involving the United States. Source: CSNA

A Chinese “Long March 9” rocket. Don’t expect to see it launching anything involving the United States. Source: CNSA

This is, in effect, a blanket ban on any cooperation between the United States’ space program and China. So, while other space-fearing nations such as the UK and Russia are working jointly with China on a number of potential future missions, NASA is banning Chinese scientists from astronomy conferences. China’s calls for international cooperation on a future space station get no response from NASA. So to think that NASA would gladly accept any Chinese offer to cooperate in space, even to help rescue a stranded astronaut, is, to say the least, unrealistic. For doing so would force the Federal Agency to break Federal law.

And, unlike the renegade astronauts in the film who refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer (and to whom this point also applies), I highly doubt that NASA would choose to just “do it anyway.”

So Why Choose China?

So “The Martian,” in both print and film version, represents a dedicated effort to make the most realistic and accurate space story ever created. It was written, filmed, and produced in close collaboration with NASA, which provided the production team much guidance and information on all things space. Then why is China – perhaps the most unrealistic option out there – the country that was chosen to swoop in and save NASA in its time of need? After all, there are far more realistic options out there that could reasonably substitute in China’s place – Russia, for example, which is noticeably absent throughout the film. The Russians have a history of cooperation with the United States in space, both in a limited fashion during the Soviet era and to a significant extent in recent times with the International Space Station. They have a number of rockets capable of launching a payload to Mars. Even if the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, has had to deal with a number of high-profile failures and institutional issues in recent years, at least it isn’t against the law to work with them.

The answer, I suspect, lay in marketing motivations and what I’ve termed the “congressional movie-goer.”

"The Martian" - bound to be a big hit in China. Credit: Twentieth Century Fox.

“The Martian” – bound to be a big hit in China. Credit: Twentieth Century Fox.

As for the marketing: China is expected to be the film’s largest income source overseas. Something tells me that Chinese moviegoers would be more than happy to flock to a film which paints them in an entirely benign and glamorous light – in the print version of “The Martian,” but not the film, at least some of China’s space leadership have reservations about helping the Americans, citing geopolitical and military concerns – in order to see the Chinese space program rescue the Americans. The Chinese space program, as some scholars have noted, is a source of significant pride for many of China’s citizens. Playing off that pride by having China serve as a rather faultless protagonist in the film is therefore quite a brilliant business decision by Twentieth Century Fox. We’ll need to wait until October 22nd, when the film opens in Chinese theaters, to see whether this really was a motivation behind China’s presence in the film, and whether it indeed payed off.

Yet the greater significance to China’s role in “The Martian” is, I believe, that it serves as a subtle yet targeted lobbying move aimed at the “congressional movie-goer;” that is, aimed at members of the policy-making world who go watch the film. The film is an attempt to make space cooperation with the Chinese appear more benign and appealing; it is an example of the hypothetical good that could come out of working with China. The hope is, I would suspect, that members of Congress or their staff who go watch the film will leave wondering if the cooperation ban written into law is really so rational after all, and whether something should be done to make it at least a little less stringent. So that, perhaps, China actually could help NASA if the time or need ever came.

"The Martian" - bound to change Congressional policy?

“The Martian” – bound to change Congressional policy? Credit: Twentieth Century Fox.

The motivation behind this is rather clear: NASA does not like being barred from cooperating with China. The United States’ space agency has made that much clear time and time again. NASA scientists have boycotted past conferences in protest against the ban. The agency has broached the issue of cooperation with the Chinese to the White House on at least a number of occasions. NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden has written blog posts that implicitly hint at the need for future cooperation with China in space activities. Bolden went as far as to say that the ban on Sino-American cooperation in space was “temporary” during the recent International Astronautical Conference – about as thinly veiled a statement of hope that a U.S. government employee required to represent American policy during international events can make, given the circumstances.

Yet, as space policy expert John Logsdon pointed out to space.com, getting the United States to work with China in space will require a long policy battle, one that extends beyond NASA’s ability to influence events. He writes: “The first step is the White House working with congressional leadership to get current, unwise restrictions on such cooperation revoked.” Changes to the United States’ Federal law will require Congressional action and leadership, and the views of Congress, if the current ban says anything, do not always correspond with the views of NASA or the space community. If NASA hasn’t been able to convince Congress to change policy through its lobbying efforts alone, then perhaps some blockbuster magic – brought into fruition through, in part, NASA’s support and suggestions – might just do the trick. After all, NASA has played “The Martian” up in its publicity (and lobbying) efforts to win support for an eventual Mars mission. Its not too unbelievable to suspect that its doing the same when it comes to cooperation with the Chinese.

Why it all Matters.

Cooperation with China in the realm of space will be crucial for the United States if it hopes to maintain its leadership as the world’s eminent space power in the 21st century. There are some who disagree, citing geopolitical reasons, military rationales, or economic/technological concerns. They raise valid and understandable points, and any arguments to the contrary should not serve to underscore the importance of preserving American security and superiority against foreign rivals, especially those rapidly rising on the international stage. Yet the fact remains: the Chinese space program, along with China proper, is rapidly developing in capabilities and ambition, while the United States’ space program faces a period of stagnation brought on by low budgets and inconsistent goals. Mr. Bolden is correct in his blog posts: if the United States hopes to accomplish a Mars mission in the coming decades, or any other mission of major scale and scope for that matter, it will require the help and cooperation of the international community, including the world’s third most developed space program – China’s. There is a significant contradiction in the United States continuing to refuse to work with China on any matters related to space, even if they are for a purely civil, exploratory purpose, while also declaring itself the world’s leading space-fearing power. Meanwhile, other space players, such as Russia and the European Space Agency, with whom the United States will gladly work, are looking toward China for possible joint missions in the future. The United States is ceding its place as a true space leader, as the country capable of coordinating and overseeing an international effort in space akin to its role on the International Space Station, because it is refusing to cooperate with one of the most significant players at the table.

There are also the arguments to be made about the general “nature” of space as it pertains to international relations. Space is one of the few, if not the only, realms where rivals and competitors can come together and work in joint cooperation toward a peaceful goal. Humanity’s activity in outer space represents a shared spirit, that of reaching for what lays beyond and of exploring the unknown. This is a motivation which transcends ideology or nation. The impetus for exploration on the part of Chinese scientists and mission planners is the same for NASA’s. Cooperation in space is symbolic of the broader humanity, and the more fundamental pioneering spirit, that exists in all of us, regardless of our country of origin or economic system of choice. At the least, NASA should be enabled to cooperate with China on matters of exploration, so as to unlock the greater potential of that spirit which as of today is being kept in. The effects of a “handshake in space” have far reaching consequences, after all.

The "Apollo-Soyuz Handshake," a key moment in U.S.-Soviet space relations.

The “Apollo-Soyuz Handshake,” a key moment in U.S.-Soviet space relations. Source: NASA

The 1975 “Apollo-Soyuz” mission, the first joint United States-Soviet mission in space, was marked by a handshake between astronaut and cosmonaut in orbit. More than a simple rendezvous maneuver, it was symbolic of the broader detente that was occurring between the two Cold War adversaries at the time. Sharing mission information and precious spacecraft technology with the Soviets – the same fears which today are keeping NASA engineers from working with their Chinese counterparts – entailed vulnerability on both countries’ parts. Sharing technology could lead to the recognition of key weaknesses or shortcomings; it could give the opponent the upper hand. Those very vulnerabilities, if seen in another light, were the underpinnings of a more peaceful world in the making – they represented trust. It is hard, in this current geopolitical environment and this present day, to “trust” the Chinese in many aspects. They are the United States’ quickly emerging rival in the Asia-Pacific; they are a developing military competitor; they are a significant source of foreign espionage and theft. Yet these are the messy realities of our international system, and are perhaps unavoidable. There are areas abound where differences can and will divide the United States and China, where our two countries will have disagreements, perhaps even tensions. We are headed, with policies that preclude cooperation and mutual support, toward another chilly “Cold War.” Yet space, as the Apollo-Soyuz “handshake” demonstrated powerfully in 1975, offers the opportunity to set aside our Earthly differences for a bigger and more timeless goal – that of exploration, that of discovery. And, to a degree and in its own way, cooperation in space, the building of trust in space, trickles down into Earthly affairs as well.

With this in mind, perhaps the presence of the Chinese in “The Martian” – as faultless protagonists, no less – is one of the movie’s stronger aspects, despite its glaring inaccuracy. For, perhaps its important that we recognize that cooperation is always stronger than confrontation and containment and strike the ban in place on working in space with our future Asian rival. After all, we may one day have a Martian who will owe them his life.

Why Water on Mars Poses Problems for NASA

On September 28th, 2015, in what could rightfully be considered one of the most significant announcements in the history of space exploration, planetary scientists studying Mars revealed a spectacular discovery – liquid water is, most likely, currently flowing on the surface of our solar system’s dry and rusty 4th planet. While astronomers and scientists widely suspected that liquid water had existed on the planet’s surface at some point in its 4 billion year history, as made evident by in-situ and in-orbit experiments and analysis carried out by a panoply of spacecraft, landers, and rovers, the present day status of that water was an uncertainty. Orbital and surface observations of Mars revealed a landscape rich in the types of surface topography and chemical composition that correspond to the presence of liquid water, but no water itself. Perhaps the last of Mars’ liquid surface water had sublimated into and out of the planet’s thin atmosphere; perhaps it was left trapped in the planet’s icy polar caps or in reservoirs underneath the planet’s surface. Mars may have once been a wet planet, but is it at all a wet planet any longer?

The dark streaks seen running down these Martian hillsides are examples of "recurring slope lineae," thought to be evidence of liquid water flows.

The dark streaks seen running down these Martian hillsides are examples of “recurring slope lineae,” thought to be evidence of liquid water flows. Source: NASA

At last, this uncertainty was shattered with some confidence by a report analyzing photographs taken from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has been studying the planet from orbit since 2006. These photographs were of peculiar Martian surface features called “recurring slope lineae,” dark streaks on the slopes of Martian hills which appear to ebb during Mars’ cooler seasons and flow during warm seasons. While these features would by appearance alone seem to hint at the presence of some flowing liquid darkening the Martian soil, the authors of this report went further with their investigation by exploring the “recurring slope lineae” using the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter’s imaging spectrometer, an instrument that analyzes the chemical composition of the Martian surface. What they found in these downhill flows was a clue crucial in resolving their nature – the presence of hydrated salts.

The relationship between hydrated salts, liquid water, and seasonal downhill flows is a complex yet connected one. Hydrated salts lower the freezing point of Martian liquid water, similar to how salts on Earth cause ice and snow to melt more rapidly. The specific composition of the hydrated minerals found by the imaging spectrometer, known as perchlorates, have been shown to keep liquids from freezing even when conditions are as cold as negative 94 degrees Fahrenheit. During Mars’ warmer months, the freezing point would be low enough to allow shallow subsurface water to wick to the surface and darken and muddy the Martian soil as it is dragged downhill. Taken together, the dark streaking effect of the “recurring slope lineae” and the presence of hydrated salts around them is the most significant evidence yet of liquid water on the surface of today’s Mars.

Obviously, this announcement has left many in the space community excited, in particular the astrobiologists and scientists studying the possibility that Mars had, or has, life. As anyone who’s taken a high school biology course would know, water is a crucial ingredient in the conditions we understand to be conducive to the formation and sustenance of life. Indeed, life as we know it wouldn’t exist without the presence of water, and our search for extraterrestrial life is accordingly narrowed on the places where conditions are suitable for liquid water. Mars, with its wet past, is a prime candidate for potential life beyond the Earth – hence the unparalleled attention and effort given to exploring and studying the planet. The discovery of flowing liquid water on the planet’s surface thus offers a tantalizing opportunity to learn more about Mars’ wet past and present conditions, and perhaps even provides the chance of finding the signs and evidence of life. Even if the water producing the “recurring slope lineae” is inundated with salts, and thereby chemically unsuitable for life, studying it will offer clues about its as-of-yet unknown source. Figuring out where the water comes from, whether it be from ice melting underground, underground liquid reservoirs, or some other potential source, will be a key first step in determining the characteristics and composition of Mars’ present-day water and whether it may indeed be conducive for life.

"Recurring slope lineae" on Mars. Source: NASA

“Recurring slope lineae” on Mars. Source: NASA

To that end, the opportunities for future study seem limitless. NASA’s Curiosity Rover, currently operating on Mars and studying the planet for signs of habitability, is within driving distance of a mountain called Mount Sharp, which might contain these “recurring slope lineae.” The Mars 2020 Rover, scheduled to arrive at the planet early in the next decade, will be equipped with sensitive instruments that could analyze these spots with far greater detail than the orbiting satellites today, and indeed could even detect the bio-signatures of life past or present. Future human expeditions to the planet could conduct investigations on the water that would far exceed any robotic mission in scale and scope. With all this, it would seem there is great incentive to explore these peculiar Martian surface features and potentially answer one of humanity’s greatest and most lingering questions – can and does life exist elsewhere?

But, not so fast. While liquid water on the surface of Mars offers the opportunity for tremendous scientific and exploratory insights, it also poses an enormous problem which will need to be dealt with – that of contamination.

Life on Earth has proven itself to be extremely resilient and adaptable to even the harshest of conditions. Indeed, some “extremophiles” have shown themselves capable of surviving the deathly conditions of interplanetary space. Some organisms on Earth have demonstrated the ability to survive in conditions similar to those on Mars, and even in the exotic extremities of Jupiter’s icy moon Europa. As such, there is a sincere and credible fear among planetary scientists and mission planners, dating back to the beginning of the “Space Age,” that the exploration of these other worlds could lead to their contamination by organisms of an Earthly origin. While this may be a concern of marginal worth for “dead” worlds such as our Moon or Mercury and for extremely inhospitable planets such as Venus, it is of far more validity when it comes to a potentially habitable place such as Mars. Indeed, now that flowing liquid water has been found on Mars, water which very well may harbor or support life, these concerns are of an utmost importance. Should this water be contaminated through any in-situ study, its scientific worth toward discovering and analyzing extraterrestrial life would be tainted and therefore negligible.

Recurring slope lineae on Mars

“Recurring slope lineae” on Mars. Source: NASA

Far from just a noble goal held by scientists, the effort to prevent the contamination of other worlds, known as planetary protection, is explicitly enumerated in decades-old policy and practice. The primary piece of international law dealing with conduct and activity in outer space, known as the Outer Space Treaty, contains a section specifically dealing with planetary protection. The United States, as a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty, is therefore bound to an adherence of its provisions. Article IX of the treaty states that “Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose.” As is the case with most of the language in the Outer Space Treaty, which was written with a degree of ambiguity so as to not unduly constrain state activity in outer space during the active era of the “Space Race,” there exists a legal uncertainty over what “harmful contamination” entails. For NASA, this language has been interpreted as entailing the protection of scientific investigation; indeed, NASA policy explicity states that “the conduct of scientific investigations of possible extraterrestrial life forms, precursors, and remnants must not be jeopardized.” One can easily see how the study of flowing liquid water on present day Mars may jeopardize that aim.

To put these policy provisions into practice, NASA follows a set of planetary protection guidelines issued by an interdisciplinary, international committee known as the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR). The COSPAR guidelines establish a set of categories, dependent on the characteristics of the world being visited and the nature of the exploration mission, which delineate what steps and practices must be taken to ensure that contamination from Earth-origin organisms does not occur. In the case of Mars exploration, which falls under Category IV of the COSPAR guidelines, contamination controls included requirements to reduce biological contamination of the spacecraft, constraints on spacecraft operating procedures, the taking of inventories of organic constituents of the spacecraft and organic samples, as well as the documentation of spacecraft operations, impact potential, and the location of landing or impact points on the planetary surface. Often, a rigorous sterilization process within a biologically-contained “clean room” is a major step in ensuring that biological contaminants are accounted for and dealt with.

NASA's Curiosity Rover being assembled in a "clean room," a biologically-controlled space designed to minimize biological contamination.

NASA’s Curiosity Rover being assembled in a “clean room,” a biologically-controlled space designed to minimize biological contamination. Source: NASA

Yet, even then, the current processes for dealing with biological contaminants are inadequate for the scope of a mission hoping to directly investigate Mars’ “recurring slope lineae.” The most advanced of NASA’s Mars rovers, the Curiosity Rover, which itself is on a mission to determine the habitability of the planet and whether life exists or existed there, fell under Category IV-B of the COSPAR guidelines; the category above it, Category IV-C, which entails even more stringent measures for preventing biological contamination, would be the baseline for any mission coming into direct contact with Martian surface water. As such, even the Curiosity Rover, if it were to find liquid water flows on or around Mount Sharp, would be prohibited from the direct study and analysis of them. To date, no spacecraft or interplanetary mission has been designed and sterilized per the COSPAR Category IV-C guidelines.

Herein lies the matter of why water on Mars poses problems for NASA’s future missions of scientific investigation. Any spacecraft sent to the “recurring slope lineae” would need to be sterilized entirely  per COSPAR Category IV-C guidelines, yet the sterilization process established by this category may be prohibitive. As mentioned by UNSW astrobiologist Malcolm Walter, the intense heat and ultraviolet radiation used to kill biological contaminants residing on space-bound rovers and landers would, if used to meet Category IV-C requirements, also destroy or severely cripple these spacecrafts’ sensitive electronics and instruments. Any human missions to Mars, aside from still being decades away, would undoubtedly carry far more contaminants and entail more significant possibilities for contamination than a robotic mission; aligning a human mission with the COSPAR guidelines has yet to be seriously attempted.

As such, while there is tantalizing evidence of liquid water currently flowing on Mars and while the insights to be gained from the direct study of this water are clearly recognizable and scientifically desirable, actually conducting such an investigation is currently prohibited – and may be for the considerable future. NASA will need to develop strategies, technologies, and procedures, or revisit and revise existing ones, which will allow spacecraft designers and mission planners to bring their hardware in line with the COSPAR Category IV-C sterilization requirements. Fortunately, significant thought and effort has been made and is being made toward that end. In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences released a comprehensive report which analyzed the potential contamination of Mars and issued recommendations to NASA which could resolve the current issues surrounding Category IV-C and future Mars exploration missions, particularly those interacting with areas on Mars where life may be present. In short, the report found that many of the existing policies and practices for preventing the contamination of Mars are outdated in light of new scientific evidence about Mars and current research on the ability of microorganisms to survive in severe conditions on Earth. It concluded that a host of research and development efforts are needed to update planetary protection requirements so as to reduce the uncertainties in preventing the contamination of Mars.

"Recurring slope lineae" on Mars. Source: NASA

“Recurring slope lineae” on Mars. Source: NASA

However, the report noted that updating planetary protection practices, so as to enable a robotic or human exploration mission to areas such as Mars’ “recurring slope lineae,” will require additional budgetary, management, and infrastructure support and will require a roadmap, including a transition plan with interim requirements, as well as a schedule. This could pose a significant challenge for the United States’ cash-strapped space agency, which may not have the money or resources to undertake such an effort. Yet, until it does, or until another approach toward resolving the issue of possibly contaminating Mars’ flowing liquid water is found, NASA will, for better or worse, need to stay away from directly interacting with this tremendous discovery.

Of course, even despite these challenges, NASA still has it within its present-day capabilities to investigate these fascinating features in further depth. Orbital observations of the “recurring slope lineae” could shed further insight on the patterns and characteristics of their flow, which would allow for a more accurate modeling of the surface water and its possible subsurface sources. If the Curiosity Rover, or any other Mars rover, found “recurring slope lineae” within its line of sight, it could take photographs and make direct observations from a distance. Up-close surface observations of these water flows would be of far more scientific value than those currently taken by spacecraft miles up in orbit. Alternatively, in a more unconventional approach, NASA could deploy hardware upon the Martian surface which would self-produce 3D-printed sterile robots that would then be sent to directly study the water. NASA is already working on such technology.

The recent announcement of liquid water found flowing on today’s Mars is of tremendous significance, and raises a number of major questions. Could this water harbor life? What does it say about the present or past state of Mars’ habitability? Perhaps most importantly, how will NASA develop the capabilities to actually investigate this discovery directly? The water is there; now its on NASA along with the scientific and technological community to develop strategies for “tasting” it. Water on Mars may pose problems for NASA today, but it need not in the future.

Rethinking NASA’s Approach to Mars: Policy Options and Alternatives for Our Exploration Roadmap

With the end of the Shuttle Era marked by the last Space Shuttle flight in 2011, the cancellation of the “Constellation Program” and George W. Bush’s “Vision for Space Exploration” in 2010 (Chang 2010), and President Obama’s call for human exploration of Mars by the 2030s (Matson 2010), the United States’ space program has been reshaping its exploration goals and long-term strategic roadmap. NASA has now adopted a new direction for its manned spaceflight program, one which hopes to take American astronauts to a captured asteroid and, by the 2030s, to Mars. This new policy lays out the future of the American manned space program for the coming decades, and is bound to serve as the basis for long-term strategic decisions. Yet it has also come under considerable criticism and backlash from various members of Congress and the space industry, who claim that it is too expensive for NASA’s current budget, without direction, and will fail to meet goals within the established timeframe (Achenbach 2014). At a time when America’s leadership in space is being threatened by budgetary constraints and emerging space powers, it is imperative that our space program adopt the most effective and efficient policy approach to exploration possible. To that end, this policy analysis explores NASA’s current exploration policy and the problems associated with it. It lays out a series of policy alternatives which provide different directions the agency can take toward accomplish the goal of a manned mission to Mars, such as increasing NASA’s budget, abandoning current exploration goals, or fostering greater cooperation with commercial space companies. A policy recommendation gauged by a number of criteria, such as cost and effectiveness, is further provided.

The goal of a manned mission to Mars by the 2030s is commendable for being both inspiring and practical. Ambitious undertakings enthuse and excite the population, as evidenced by the Apollo Program and Moon Landings of the 1960s creating national pride and unity in a time of civil strife and inspiring a generation of scientists and engineers (Dick 2007). Of course, the Moon Landings were a product of the “space race,” the competition between the Soviet Union and the United States for prestige and dominance in outer space. Yet while the Cold War era of space competition is over, a new one may be starting; China and Russia are both planning returns to the Moon and possible missions to Mars in the coming decades (Howell 2014). If the United States wishes to maintain its leadership and preeminence in outer space, it must be accomplishing great things and expanding frontiers. With an American flag still firmly planted in the Moon, a manned mission to Mars would be the next logical step toward maintaining that leadership.

Since President Obama’s call for a manned mission to Mars and NASA’s strategic redirection, the agency has taken concrete steps toward accomplish its goals. The Orion spacecraft, a carry-over technology from the cancelled “Constellation” Program that is capable of taking astronauts to Mars, is expected to make its first test flight in December 2014 (“Orion” 2014). To carry the craft into space and onward toward Mars, NASA has begun the construction of a heavy-lift rocket called the Space Launch System. Expected to first fly in 2017 or 2018, it is poised to be the largest rocket ever constructed (“NASA’s Space Launch System” 2014). Plans for spacecraft technologies needed for a transit, orbit around, and landing on Mars are in the process of being considered and developed (“Exploration Systems Development” 2014). In terms of missions, NASA has planned for a manned “Asteroid Redirect” mission in the early 2020s. Using spacecraft technologies developed for an eventual Mars mission, NASA will “capture” an asteroid, redirect it into lunar orbit, and send astronauts to explore it. The agency has framed the mission as necessary to develop the technical expertise and capabilities needed for a mission to Mars (“What is NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission” 2014).

While NASA’s exploration goals are commendable and actual progress towards those goals has been made, they have nonetheless faced significant criticism. Republican congressmen have called the mission uninspiring and a waste of money (Achenbach 2014). Members of the scientific community have called the purpose of the mission into question, arguing that it distracts from the overall focus on a mission to Mars (Khan 2014). Significantly, the National Research Council’s review of NASA’s human spaceflight program, a $3.2 million investigation mandated by Congress, called numerous parts of NASA’s current exploration policy into question. It agreed that the “Asteroid Redirect” mission distracts from the goal of Mars exploration, and would provide a number of “dead-end” technologies that would not get the United States any closer to Mars. It also cautioned that the flight schedule designed by NASA, which calls for a test flight of the SLS in 2017 or 2018 followed by the “Asteroid Redirect” mission in the 2020s, does not provide a frequency required to maintain competence and safety (Achenbach 2014).

There is then the added issue of federal funding. NASA’s recent budget has been among the lowest levels it has received in its history, yet the levels of funding needed to continue the development of the SLS and Mars missions are increasing (NASA OIG 2012). Lofty expectations by Congress and NASA’s leaderships do not correspond with the reality of NASA’s limited finances. In a report on NASA’s budget, the Government Accountability Office found that budget shortfalls put the current exploration goals at “high risk” of failure. The GAO predicted that there is at least a 90% chance the SLS will slip past the scheduled date for its test flight, with further slips expected if funding doesn’t increase. Without a set mission portfolio outside the “Asteroid Redirect” mission, concerns are raised whether there will be continued political will to sustain SLS and Orion funding. Furthermore, without increased funding, NASA will have to make the difficult choice between funding its human spaceflight program and funding its unmanned, robotic space science programs. In order to meet deadlines for its manned programs, NASA may have to cancel or significantly cut back on its science, education, and unmanned exploration missions (GAO 2014).

There is thus a significant and justified question about whether NASA’s current policies and levels of funding can meet the exploration goals it has set out to accomplish. Though progress has been made toward an eventual manned mission to Mars, many are rightly concerned that the agency’s current direction will not be able to meet the goal in the timeframe it has established. NASA has done a poor job justifying its “Asteroid Redirect” mission, which falls outside the scope of the focus on Mars and which has not demonstrated any value for an eventual Mars mission. Already burdened with financial constraints, the American space program will not be able to sustain the progress it is making should current levels of funding be maintained. With concerns over the United States’ manned space program representing a threat to continued American leadership in space and the future of NASA’s exploration activity, the agency is faced with a clear policy problem. As such, a number of policy alternatives which diverge from the current exploration framework need to be explored.

These policy alternatives provide different options for achieving the United States’ long-term space exploration goals, and therefore offer possible solutions to the criticism NASA is currently facing. However, they should be judged by a series of criteria in order to gauge their viability. The task of exploring Mars is a momentous undertaking; at a time when NASA’s budget is strained, accomplishing that goal will necessitate minimizing costs while maximizing possible gains. Among the most significant criteria by which these options can be evaluated, then, is their cost and whether they would be effective in advancing NASA’s progress toward Mars exploration. America’s victory in the “space race” of the 1960s, its leading role in the construction of the International Space Station, and its development of global positioning and communication satellite networks prove that the United States’ space program plays a significant role in ensuring national security and global prestige. Recognizing this, it is important to judge whether these policy alternatives preserve American leadership and preeminence in space. Additionally, the development of a mission as complex as the exploration of Mars is bound to stimulate the economy and inspire interest in the sciences and technology; these policy options should be evaluated at least in part by whether they will positively impact American industry.

In light of the criticism NASA has faced on its roadmap for achieving the exploration of Mars, the first, and perhaps most drastic, policy alternative that should be considered is scrapping the current exploration goals altogether. Tasked with the significant goal of exploring Mars yet developing missions which have faced significant criticism and backlash, NASA is, some contend, an agency without direction (Achenbach 2014). Abandoning that current direction could allow for a reconsideration of strategic goals and decisions. Developed spacecraft and allocated finances could be redirected away from the “Asteroid Retrieval” mission toward a different purpose, such as the exploration of lunar space and the Moon. Such was the suggestion of the National Research Council in its review of NASA’s human spaceflight program, which argued that, while, the current approach will create a number of “dead-end technologies” getting America no closer to Mars, a renewed effort on Moon landings will (Achenbach 2014). Abandoning existing space strategy is not without precedent, either. Indeed, the “Asteroid Retrieval” mission and agency focus on Mars exploration is a part of President Obama’s “National Space Policy,” which cancelled President Bush’s “Vision for Space Exploration” approach of renewed lunar exploration (National Space Policy 2010).

Abandoning the current exploration roadmap could, depending on the new approach that is then developed, provide considerable savings. The Space Launch System is projected to cost $7 billion between February 2014 and its maiden flight in November 2018 (GAO 2014). The Orion Capsule, according to information presented during a joint Senate-NASA presentation in 2011, is projected to cost $6 billion, and upgrades to launch facility infrastructure to support planned missions will cost at least $2 billion (Smith 2011). The Asteroid Retrieval Mission will likely cost in the billions (GAO 2014). With a freed budget, NASA could begin work on developing a cheaper roadmap toward a manned Mars mission, and would not need to worry about the high costs of its various spacecraft and rockets currently in development. However, abandoning the agency’s current direction would not help maintain American leadership in space, nor would it further advance progress toward an eventual Mars mission. With the cancellation of the “Constellation” Program in 2010 and the scrapping of the already-developed Ares rocket, a significant amount of effort and money was put to waste. In the time spent redeveloping its exploration strategy and designing the SLS, NASA has been left without its own usable man-rated rocket and has done little in the way of manned exploration (Moskowitz 2010). Indeed, the cancellation of the “Constellation” Program left NASA open to criticism that the agency was adrift (Achenbach 2014). Abandoning this program, especially after it has already made a considerable amount of progress, would likely only worsen the perception that NASA is an agency without direction and forestall any progress to be made toward getting American astronauts to Mars. Similarly, abandoning current progress would do little to help American industry; as the SLS and Orion capsule are currently being built, significant parts of the space industry have been geared toward their production. Scrapping their development would leave these industries with little to work on, and would represent an enormous loss in terms of finances invested. Innovation and technological advances made toward “exploration systems development” would also be lost should exploration goals be scrapped, representing a further loss in American space preeminence and progress.

A different policy option, which takes the opposite approach as the last, would be to maintain the current exploration polices and roadmap but focus on increasing NASA’s federal funding. NASA currently receives less than .5% of the overall federal budget (“Budget” 2014). At the height of the “Space Race,” Apollo Program, and Moon Landings – missions similar in scope and scale as the current planned missions – NASA was receiving over 3% of the federal budget (Rogers 2010). Though there are concerns and criticisms targeted at NASA’s “Asteroid Redirect” mission, they are framed in the context of a limited budget. The proposed mission to an asteroid is a “distraction,” for example, only because it will divert funding from the overall goal of a mission to Mars. The issues which the GAO raised about SLS funding and the problems the National Research Council addressed involving the SLS’s launch frequency would both be easily addressed if NASA had more money to dedicate to the program. Indeed, with more funding, NASA would be able to explore more options for achieving the goal of a manned mission to Mars and develop a broader range of technologies and missions for that end.

It is hard to dispute that giving NASA more money would positively affect its ability to realize its exploration goals. With increased finances, the agency would be able to broaden the scale and frequency of its missions, hasten and increase development of its spacecraft and rocket systems, and justify the devotion of finances to “side-missions” such as the “Asteroid Redirect” mission for the purposes of building capabilities and technical expertise. As such, increasing NASA’s funding would be an effective way to dispel issues with agency direction and get American astronauts on Mars. Enabling NASA to devote more resources toward broadening the scale of its missions and hastening their timeframe would positively impact American leadership in space. The sooner the United States is able to begin deep-space exploration with new technologies and accomplish the yet-accomplished, the sooner it will reassert its preeminence and prestige in outer space (GAO 2014). Increasing NASA’s funding will also have significant economic impacts. Private contractors and space industries working on the Orion capsule, the SLS, or associated technologies are paid by NASA; the industry is indeed supported by funding coming from the space program. If increasing NASA’s funding means that NASA can spend more money on the development of its spacecraft and technologies, as well as increase the rate at which it will use those spacecraft, then the industries which produce and support those spacecraft will benefit positively. In general, NASA’s activities benefit the broader economy. Supporting a space program creates high-caliber, high-paying jobs, inspires a wealth of spin-off technologies, and promotes interest in higher education, science, and technology (Barth 2012). Spending more on NASA would entail a higher return on that investment.

Yet when discussing increasing NASA’s budget, the issue of cost must be taken into consideration. Where would the increased money being allocated to NASA come from? As NASA’s funding is part of the federal budget, increasing its funding would either necessitate a rise in taxes or the diversion of funds from some other part of the budget. Though public support for the American space program is high, legislators are hesitant to increase the agency’s funding because of public ignorance over how much the agency actually receives and a lack of perceived political benefit for supporting the program (Dick 2007). Without a “space race” environment to excite people about spaceflight, it has become increasingly difficult for people to see how the space program impacts national security or global leadership (Dick 2007). Arguing that increased funding for NASA should come out of the bloated defense budget, a common contention among supporters of the space program, is thus a difficult argument to make. The question must also be raised of whether increasing budgetary costs to fund NASA at higher levels is actually worth it. The “Constellation” program was cancelled in large part due to budgetary over-runs, slips in development timelines, and funding constraints (Chang 2010). Though the SLS and Orion are not over-budget, they are under-funded and at threat of slipping past their scheduled development dates. While providing NASA more money to support these programs, there is a legitimate argument to be made that throwing more money at them will not resolve their issues.

A third policy option straddles between the previous two; maintain the current exploration policy, keep NASA funding levels consistent, but either redirect NASA finances to the manned space program or explore deeper cooperation with the commercial sector. NASA is made up of multiple directorates which receive funding, of which the human space program is only one. In NASA’s FY2015 budget request of $17.5 billion, the human space program is given $7.8 billion (“Agency Budget Fact Sheet” 2014). If the agency were to reallocate the remainder of its budget to the manned space program, it would potentially be able to deal with the concerns of funding that have plagued its current policy. Alternatively, NASA could explore deeper cooperation with the commercial space sector, with which it has fostered close ties already. In recent years, NASA has signed contracts with a number of space companies to develop private spacecraft capable of ferrying American astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station (“Commercial Crew Program” 2014). The “Commercial Crew” program, which represents a deeper connection between the national space program and independent space activity and which intends on driving spaceflight costs down, could serve as a framework for a private-public mission to Mars. The leaders of some of these private industries have expressed interest in working with NASA to achieve a manned Mars mission (Clough 2014), and already some level of cooperation exists between the private and public sector toward such a goal (Williams 2014).

Adopting such a policy approach would not entail a change in costs. Rather than increasing or decreasing NASA’s overall budget, the already allocated finances would be redistributed to address the financial concerns surrounding the manned space program. Money would either be given to the manned program at a higher priority, or diverted toward contracts with the commercial sector. As is the case with increasing NASA’s overall budget, reallocating funds toward the manned space program or commercial sector would be effective in helping achieve the goal of a manned mission to Mars. Yet it would come at the cost of NASA’s other missions, such as its educational outreach programs, its science programs, and its unmanned, robotic exploration of the solar system. As such, pursuing such a policy would have mixed results for ensuring continued American leadership in space and for the American economy. Though humans planting flags on foreign worlds represent a major symbolic feat, so too do the images of other planets and distant galaxies returned from robotic spacecraft. American leadership in space, especially currently, is built around its scientific endeavors and the discoveries made by its robotic spacecraft. The images and science returned greatly support interest in NASA and space. Drastically cutting the budget of these programs to support the manned space program could therefore severely undermine the pillars upon which American space leadership is currently built. Meanwhile, while the industries which support the manned space program might benefit from increased funding, those which support unmanned spacecraft or the science derived from them will undoubtedly suffer.

In light of these recommendations, and taking into consideration the criteria by which they should be judged, it is the opinion of this policy analyst that NASA’s best course of action would be to seek increased federal funding. Ultimately, the biggest issue facing NASA, its current policies, and the direction it is taking is that it is attempting to do too much with too little money. The other policy options suggested, while providing alternative approaches to dealing with the issue of underfunding, do not directly address that problem itself. Scrapping the progress made so far is not a viable alternative, for too much has already been done, and abandoning agency direction would add to fears that NASA is adrift. Reallocating NASA funding away from other programs to the manned space program offers a temporary solution to funding concerns, but at the great detriment to all of NASA’s equally important activities. What is needed is more funds overall.

Of course, lobbying for extra funding will be a difficult task for NASA. As pointed out, many legislators are hesitant to spend extra money on NASA, for doing so does not provide any direct political gain nor are the benefits immediately apparent. While eager to give NASA lofty goals and have high expectations, they are not so eager to actually provide the resources to meet those challenges. Yet NASA’s leadership and congressional leadership on the Space subcommittee have a strong case to make with the current situation the agency is facing. Agencies within the United States government, such as the Government Accountability Office, and research groups sponsored by Congress, such as the National Research Council, both make the argument that NASA is severely underfunded. They both reach the conclusion that NASA will never be able to accomplish the goal of manned exploration of Mars under the current financial constraints it faces. As the support for such an argument mounts, NASA’s and Congresses’ leadership can make the point that, if American leadership in space is to be maintained, if American industry and the economy is to continue to be stimulated by the spin-off technologies and innovation manifest from a space program, and if the American people wish to build the national pride and prestige that comes with great accomplishments such as a manned landing on another world, NASA’s funding must go up. Otherwise, as is becoming increasingly apparent, the American space program will continue to be plagued with cost over-runs, slips in development, and mission drift. For an agency which landed men on the Moon and a country which dared to dream of such an achievement, more can and should be expected of the space program.

Works Cited

Achenbach, Joel. 2014. “NASA Strategy can’t get humans to Mars, says National Reseearch Council spaceflight review.” The Washington Post. June 4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nrc-human-spaceflight-report-says-nasa-strategy-cant-get-humans-to-mars/2014/06/04/e6e6060c-ebd6-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html (November 25, 2014).

Barth, Chris. 2012. “Neil deGrasse Tyson: Invest in NASA, Invest in U.S. Economy.” Forbes. March 13. http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2012/03/13/neil-degrasse-tyson-invest-in-nasa-invest-in-u-s-economy/. (November 25, 2014).

Chang, Kenneth. 2010. “Obama Calls for End to NASA’s Moon Program.” The New York Times. February 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/science/02nasa.html (November 25, 2014)

Clough, Richard and Julie Johnsson. 2014. “Musk Seeking Mars Mission After NASA Picks SpaceX-Boeing.” Bloomberg News. September 17. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-09-17/musk-seeking-mars-mission-after-nasa-picks-spacex-boeing. (November 25, 2014).

Dick, Stephen J., and Roger D. Launius, eds. 2007. Societal Impact of Spaceflight. Washington DC:Government Printing Office

Howell, Elizabeth. 2014. “New Space Race? US Eyes Asteroids As Other Nations Shoot for the Moon.” Space.com. July 23. http://www.space.com/26613-manned-moon-missions-china-russia.html (November 25, 2014).

Khan, Amina. 2014. “NASA’s plan to capture an asteroid? Bad idea, scientist says.” The LA Times. October 30. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-nasa-asteroid-redirect-mission-distract-mars-astronaut-20141030-story.html. (November 25, 2014).

Matson, John. 2010. “Obama’s Goals for Space Exploration Include a Manned Mission to Mars Orbit in the 2030s.” Scientific American. April 15. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obama-space-plan/ (November 25, 2014).

Moskowitz, Clara. 2010. “NASA Signs New $355 Million Deal to Fly Astronauts on Russian Spaceships.” Space.com. April 6. http://www.space.com/8158-nasa-signs-335-million-deal-fly-astronauts-russian-spaceships.html. (November 25, 2014).

NASA. 2014. “Agency Budget Fact Sheet.” http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/508_agency_budget_fact_sheet_final.pdf. (November 25, 2014).

NASA. 2014. “Budget.” http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/. (November 25, 2014).

NASA. 2014. “Commercial Crew Program – The Essentials.” http://www.nasa.gov/content/commercial-crew-program-the-essentials/#.VHZoKsmvEXX. (November 25, 2014).

NASA. 2014. “Exploration Systems Development.” http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/index.html#.VHZOfcmvEXU (November 25, 2014.)

NASA. 2014. “Orion.” http://www.nasa.gov/orion/#.VHZOJ8mvEXU. (November 25, 2014).

NASA. 2014. “NASA’s Space Launch System.” http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html. (November 25, 2014).

NASA. 2014. “What is NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission?” http://www.nasa.gov/content/what-is-nasa-s-asteroid-redirect-mission/. (November 25, 2014).

NASA Office of Inspector General. 2012. “NASA’s Challenges to Meeting Cost, Schedule, and Performance Goals.” September 27. http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY12/IG-12-021.pdf. (November -25, 2014)

Rogers, Simon. 2010. “NASA Budgets: US Spending on space travel since 1958.” The Gaurdian. February 1. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/01/nasa-budgets-us-spending-space-travel. (November 25, 2014).

Smith, Marcia. 2011. “New NASA Crew Transportation System to Cost $18 Billion Through 2017.” Space Policy Online. September 14. http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1867:new-nasa-crew-transportation-system-to-cost-18-billion-through-2017&catid=67:news&Itemid=27. (November 25, 2014).

The White House. 2010. “National Space Policy of the United States of America.” June 28. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf. (November 26, 2014)

United States Government Accountability Office. 2014. “Space Launch System, Resources Need to be Matched by Requirements to Decrease Risk and Sustain Long Term Affordability.” July. http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/664969.pdf (November 25, 02014).

Williams, Matt. 2014. “How NASA and SpaceX are Working Together to Land on Mars.” Universe Today. October 21. http://www.universetoday.com/115408/how-nasa-and-spacex-are-working-together-to-land-on-mars/. (November 25, 2014).

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén