Is there life on Mars? Probably not. However, there might be in the relatively near future. But I'll get to that in second.
First, I want to pay tribute, in my own small way, to David Bowie, who died of cancer about a week ago. Bowie was probably number one on my list of "Artists I Love But Don't Own Much of Their Music." Somewhere I have a Bowie's greatest hits album that I bought about 20 years ago, but that's about it. I don't own any of his studio albums, and I haven't downloaded any of his songs individually. I just kinda picked up Bowie along the way -- like, somebody burned me the Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou soundtrack and he has some good songs on it (including the eponymous "Life on Mars"). Or when I worked at The Sports Authority one summer, they would play the same prepackaged mixed tape over and over throughout the store, and David Bowie's collaboration with Trent Reznor "I'm Afraid of Americans" was on it (odd selection, huh?). Then there is Queen's "Under Pressure," on which he makes a guest appearance. (It's a song I hear randomly all the time, but still one I really like.) And, of course, his bizarre "Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy" duo with Bing Crosby. I first started listening to this song ironically, because it's such an unusual pairing and the video has that ridiculous, campy intro, but after a while it grew on me, and I legitimately like it now. They actually harmonize really well. I guess that's what happens when people have genuine talent -- even when they make something incredibly cheesy, it still comes out really good.
Anyway, R.I.P. David Bowie.
In other news, I was listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson's Startalk podcast the other day, and he had a fellow on named Bas Lansdorp, who heads a nonprofit called Mars One, whose mission is to put human beings on Mars by 2027. I don't think this will happen, but I do find the project fascinating all the same.
What makes Mars One different from any previously proposed Mars missions is that Lansdorp doesn't plan on bringing his astronauts back. He wants to create a permanent colony on Mars. This has advantages -- apparently a return trip is where a large percentage of the difficult and the cost lies -- but it has the obvious disadvantage in that the colonizers might get to Mars, run into problems and die. There are huge logistical obstacles to keeping people alive indefinitely on Mars, and we probably don't have the technology to do this.
Yet.
To me, that is the key word: yet. When President Kennedy announced in 1961 that man would walk on the moon by the end of the decade, I'm sure not all the technology existed. But eight years later his pronouncement came to fruition, because smart people developed the technology that needed to be developed and other smart people solved the engineering problems that needed to be solved. Why can't smart people do that for a Mars mission too?
One obvious answer: money. Putting people safely on Martian soil, if even possible, is going to cost billions and billions of dollars, and Mars One doesn't appear to have that much money. In fact, according to Wikipedia (see above link), they have less than $1 million. One of Lansdorp's solutions to this is to make the Mars mission into a TV show and sell it to a network, which, I don't think is a terrible idea, but it is problematic for a few reasons. For one thing, this is essentially turning the mission into a reality TV show, which denigrates it in many people's eyes (right or wrongly) because of our perception of reality TV. For another thing, what happens if things start going badly, like, really badly? Is the public going to tune in to watch a group of explorers die in space or starve to death on another planet? Actually, they probably would -- I would -- it would beyond fascinating, but the backlash would probably set back any future Mars missions for decades.
It was very interesting to listen to the commentators on the podcast. Not including people involved directly with the Mars One project, there were three people with technical knowledge -- Tyson, Bill Nye, and a former NASA astronaut name Mike Massimino -- and it was two-against-one. Both Nye and Massimino dislike the Mars One project -- or, at least, look upon it askance -- and Tyson was kinda in favor it. I'm with Tyson. Mars One is mostly getting shit on; people in the media have called it "unrealistic", compared it dismissively to the TV show "Big Brother", and even labeled it a "scam" -- but I think this criticism is mostly off-base.
1. If it's unrealistic, then let's work to make it realistic, like the countless other major engineering feats that seemed impossible at first blush. The steam engine, rail travel, homes powered by electricity, the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, Apollo 11, driverless cars, rockets that can land -- how many of these would people have believed 10 or 20 years before they were invented? If we only did things that were "realistic," we would never do anything cool. One thing I noticed that we do as a society is we say "that will never happen" to a lot of things, and then when they actually do happen, we just kinda shrug our shoulders and get on with our lives. And then after that thing becomes the new normal, we move on to the next thing that can't happen. This is most prominent in politics, but I think it applies to technology as well.
2. The TV show aspect of Mars One strikes me more as a means than an end. If there was a better way to raise funds, it might not part of the deal at all. (In fact, Lansdorp has said before that he hopes a multibillionaire will come along and fund his project.) And why would it be a "reality TV" show? Why couldn't it be a legitimate documentary style series? I mean, if people actually did land on Mars, and it was broadcast to the masses, can you imagine that moment? It would be the most watched event in the history of the world.
3. After listening to Lansdorp and one of the finalists to be on the maiden voyage, I definitely don't think it's a "scam." If you think it's a pie-in-the-sky idea, fine, but to call it a scam involves an element of underhandedness that I don't think is there. So far as I can tell, Lansdorp has been very transparent with the intent and expectations of the mission. I mean, he is telling people there is a decent chance they will die; it's not like anybody is being tricked. Personally, even if I didn't have a family, I don't think I would ever consider taking a one-way trip to Mars, but I think I would think about it.
I guess the bottom line is, I'm not saying that I believe in Lansdorp and that Mars One is going to succeed, but I am saying I would like to see it try. If it all goes horribly wrong, and everybody drifts off into space, so be it. The crew is signing up for that possibility, and our history is littered with noble pioneers who died trying. Plus, think if they actually do get to Mars, even if they starve to death within two months (which is what many experts believe), it will be one of the most remarkable accomplishments in human history. Sure, it will be sad if a crew of young people die before their time, but look at what they got to do. I mean, we are all going to die -- would you pick to do it at age 85 in relative anonymity in a hospital with tubes stuck into every limb in your body, or would you do it at age 35, a hero to millions, on a planet on which no human had ever set foot before you arrivied? I would probably pick the former, but I know a lot of people who would pick the latter, and I don't think it's crazy, by any means.
Okay, that's all I got. Until next time...
First, I want to pay tribute, in my own small way, to David Bowie, who died of cancer about a week ago. Bowie was probably number one on my list of "Artists I Love But Don't Own Much of Their Music." Somewhere I have a Bowie's greatest hits album that I bought about 20 years ago, but that's about it. I don't own any of his studio albums, and I haven't downloaded any of his songs individually. I just kinda picked up Bowie along the way -- like, somebody burned me the Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou soundtrack and he has some good songs on it (including the eponymous "Life on Mars"). Or when I worked at The Sports Authority one summer, they would play the same prepackaged mixed tape over and over throughout the store, and David Bowie's collaboration with Trent Reznor "I'm Afraid of Americans" was on it (odd selection, huh?). Then there is Queen's "Under Pressure," on which he makes a guest appearance. (It's a song I hear randomly all the time, but still one I really like.) And, of course, his bizarre "Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy" duo with Bing Crosby. I first started listening to this song ironically, because it's such an unusual pairing and the video has that ridiculous, campy intro, but after a while it grew on me, and I legitimately like it now. They actually harmonize really well. I guess that's what happens when people have genuine talent -- even when they make something incredibly cheesy, it still comes out really good.
Anyway, R.I.P. David Bowie.
In other news, I was listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson's Startalk podcast the other day, and he had a fellow on named Bas Lansdorp, who heads a nonprofit called Mars One, whose mission is to put human beings on Mars by 2027. I don't think this will happen, but I do find the project fascinating all the same.
What makes Mars One different from any previously proposed Mars missions is that Lansdorp doesn't plan on bringing his astronauts back. He wants to create a permanent colony on Mars. This has advantages -- apparently a return trip is where a large percentage of the difficult and the cost lies -- but it has the obvious disadvantage in that the colonizers might get to Mars, run into problems and die. There are huge logistical obstacles to keeping people alive indefinitely on Mars, and we probably don't have the technology to do this.
Yet.
To me, that is the key word: yet. When President Kennedy announced in 1961 that man would walk on the moon by the end of the decade, I'm sure not all the technology existed. But eight years later his pronouncement came to fruition, because smart people developed the technology that needed to be developed and other smart people solved the engineering problems that needed to be solved. Why can't smart people do that for a Mars mission too?
One obvious answer: money. Putting people safely on Martian soil, if even possible, is going to cost billions and billions of dollars, and Mars One doesn't appear to have that much money. In fact, according to Wikipedia (see above link), they have less than $1 million. One of Lansdorp's solutions to this is to make the Mars mission into a TV show and sell it to a network, which, I don't think is a terrible idea, but it is problematic for a few reasons. For one thing, this is essentially turning the mission into a reality TV show, which denigrates it in many people's eyes (right or wrongly) because of our perception of reality TV. For another thing, what happens if things start going badly, like, really badly? Is the public going to tune in to watch a group of explorers die in space or starve to death on another planet? Actually, they probably would -- I would -- it would beyond fascinating, but the backlash would probably set back any future Mars missions for decades.
It was very interesting to listen to the commentators on the podcast. Not including people involved directly with the Mars One project, there were three people with technical knowledge -- Tyson, Bill Nye, and a former NASA astronaut name Mike Massimino -- and it was two-against-one. Both Nye and Massimino dislike the Mars One project -- or, at least, look upon it askance -- and Tyson was kinda in favor it. I'm with Tyson. Mars One is mostly getting shit on; people in the media have called it "unrealistic", compared it dismissively to the TV show "Big Brother", and even labeled it a "scam" -- but I think this criticism is mostly off-base.
1. If it's unrealistic, then let's work to make it realistic, like the countless other major engineering feats that seemed impossible at first blush. The steam engine, rail travel, homes powered by electricity, the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, Apollo 11, driverless cars, rockets that can land -- how many of these would people have believed 10 or 20 years before they were invented? If we only did things that were "realistic," we would never do anything cool. One thing I noticed that we do as a society is we say "that will never happen" to a lot of things, and then when they actually do happen, we just kinda shrug our shoulders and get on with our lives. And then after that thing becomes the new normal, we move on to the next thing that can't happen. This is most prominent in politics, but I think it applies to technology as well.
2. The TV show aspect of Mars One strikes me more as a means than an end. If there was a better way to raise funds, it might not part of the deal at all. (In fact, Lansdorp has said before that he hopes a multibillionaire will come along and fund his project.) And why would it be a "reality TV" show? Why couldn't it be a legitimate documentary style series? I mean, if people actually did land on Mars, and it was broadcast to the masses, can you imagine that moment? It would be the most watched event in the history of the world.
3. After listening to Lansdorp and one of the finalists to be on the maiden voyage, I definitely don't think it's a "scam." If you think it's a pie-in-the-sky idea, fine, but to call it a scam involves an element of underhandedness that I don't think is there. So far as I can tell, Lansdorp has been very transparent with the intent and expectations of the mission. I mean, he is telling people there is a decent chance they will die; it's not like anybody is being tricked. Personally, even if I didn't have a family, I don't think I would ever consider taking a one-way trip to Mars, but I think I would think about it.
I guess the bottom line is, I'm not saying that I believe in Lansdorp and that Mars One is going to succeed, but I am saying I would like to see it try. If it all goes horribly wrong, and everybody drifts off into space, so be it. The crew is signing up for that possibility, and our history is littered with noble pioneers who died trying. Plus, think if they actually do get to Mars, even if they starve to death within two months (which is what many experts believe), it will be one of the most remarkable accomplishments in human history. Sure, it will be sad if a crew of young people die before their time, but look at what they got to do. I mean, we are all going to die -- would you pick to do it at age 85 in relative anonymity in a hospital with tubes stuck into every limb in your body, or would you do it at age 35, a hero to millions, on a planet on which no human had ever set foot before you arrivied? I would probably pick the former, but I know a lot of people who would pick the latter, and I don't think it's crazy, by any means.
Okay, that's all I got. Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment