The scramble for Mars: Marcal Sanmarti discusses the prospects and implications of engagement with the red planet.

• Author: Sanmarti, Marcal

In the NZIR's May/June 2021 issue (vol 46, no 3), we saw how dozens of countries have plans to reach the Moon. They range from giants like India, populated by approximately a billion and a half of people, to tiny states like Luxembourg, a country that has approximately the population of the Wellington region. This has been possible thanks to New Space, a revolution mostly caused by the exponential increase in data demand on Earth and technological developments. Nanosatellites and reusable rockets, for example, have dramatically cut the cost of the space-related activities needed to supply such data and geo-localisation demand. Google Earth and Tinder are just two examples.

But a mission to Mars is way more complex and expensive than deploying a net of satellites or even returning to the Moon. The trip takes much longer; reaching our satellite takes approximately three days, but the red planet is seven months away. Each way. Also, you would have to wait at least three months on Mars until Earth's orbit is close enough to start your return trip. This longer time in space means greater exposure to solar radiation and low gravity as well. These conditions, among many other difficulties, make such a trip not just very expensive but also very hazardous and dangerous to humans. Mars is not just really far away from Earth, it does not orbit it either; it cannot be considered an orbiting continent of our planet, as some analysts consider the Moon. It neither offers the military higher ground in respect to Earth nor offers the opportunities of the forthcoming cislunar economy, such as low gravity factories or tourism.

Still, apart from international science collaboration, we find an intense international competition to deploy missions, even crewed ones. But few countries have either the resources or will to reach Mars in comparison to those willing to send missions to the Moon. Even so, the United States and China are not alone in their aspirations. Other powers such as India, the European Union, Russia, Japan and the United Arab Emirates have plans. But why spend so many resources competing in a theoretical common goal of human exploration of the solar system? Furthermore, why risk human lives on a mission that can be quite well undertaken using current robotic technology?

Giant leap

When Neil Armstrong landed on our satellite, he claimed to be making 'one small step for man but one giant leap for humankind' but left behind a US flag. The Moon landing was about human exploration outside our planet Earth, but first and foremost it was impelled by geopolitical competition between the United States and the Soviet Union.

There is an essential importance in political leadership in having a human stepping on an astronomical object first. Initially it was our satellite; now the next level is to deploy the first human in a planet outside Earth. And here lies the appeal of Mars in contrast with other planets such as Venus. With similar size, mass, composition and gravity, Venus is de facto our sister planet. It is the closest planet to Earth. Furthermore, the recent detection of a gas in its atmosphere turned scientists' gaze to the search for extra-terrestrial life. So where is the problem then? Why Mars and not Venus? Well, Venus is pretty much a hell. Its atmospheric pressure is 90 times that of Earth, while temperatures on its surface reach 462oC. Lead literally melts in Venus' atmosphere. Super strong Soviet landers sent to Venus in the Venera programme in the 1980s were able to survive these hellish conditions for a couple of hours at most. Venus could teach us a lot about how planet Earth might end up should we not stop climate change, but with our current technology humans could not set foot on Venus. And for eager competitors to reach other celestial bodies that rules out Venus. You cannot film an arrival, nor show it (off) to the rest of humankind. Does that mean that Venus has no geopolitical value? or let us better say, no astro-political value? No, but that is going to be discussed in a separate article.

Then we have Mars. Its atmosphere is not breathable either. But on the other hand, the red planet is kind of cold. The average temperature on Mars is -63oC--something like the highest parts of Antarctica. It has 38 per cent of...