Nasa Mole Insight Lander on Mars
NASA's InSight lander used its robotic arm to move the support structure for its digging instrument, informally called the "mole." This view was captured by the fisheye Instrument Context Camera under the lander's deck. NASA/JPL-Caltech

Here’s a surprising notion about the ongoing preparations of NASA to once more reach the Moon and to bring humans to Mars: It’s not necessary.

Although it’s a major international achievement to bring people to the lunar or Martian surface, some actually believe that there’s more at stake than just bringing glory to a country or a government administration. In a report, it was pointed out that there is no longer a good reason to once more start sending people any farther than the Moon and that people’s “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” fantasies should be turned into something more practical.

The reason behind this is simple. Although it has been proven that men are capable of spending a significant amount of time away from Earth (the longest is 438 days), it is not ideal. Mars, our closest planetary cousin, is located approximately 34 million miles from Earth. That means it would take at the very least two years of travel.

The feat is not impossible and space agencies like NASA have been coming up with new technologies that will help the human body cope with the extreme changes in gravitational force and atmosphere. However, the psychological toll on astronauts could be extreme and jeopardize not only their well-being but the success of the mission, as well.

Another concern is the cost. For a Mars mission to be successful, NASA would need to bring a conservative load of around 3.5 million pounds to build a Mars station. This would entail building more rockets just to ferry the materials, something that’s sure to cost the space agency a lot.

As it is, a successful Mars mission would need around $1.5 trillion but once government contractor costs get factored in, the amount would balloon to $5 trillion.

It doesn’t mean that NASA should stop exploring space altogether, but it might be more practical to do this using today’s most high-tech machines instead of trying to survive a place that’s inhospitable, to begin with.

For perspective, the Mars 2020 rover, which is roughly as big as a car and with functions like drilling, chemical analysis, seismic testing, and gathering weather data, would only cost the agency $2.4 billion.

RELATED STORIES
NASA Mars