Tuesday, March 09, 2004
By Joseph B. Verrengia, Associated Press
NASA's celebration last week of gritty evidence that Mars once
had enough water to support life has spawned more questions: Where's
the water now? When did it disappear? Are there any fossils of living
creatures, or even microbes?
But prominent scientists outside the space agency are beginning
to ask a harder question: Does Mars represent what is out of whack
in American science and exploration?
"So what if there is water up there?" said George Washington
University sociologist Amitai Etzioni, who served as a domestic
affairs adviser in the Carter White House. "What difference
does it make to anyone's life?" he said. "Will it grow
any more food? Cure a disease? This doesn't even broaden our horizons."
Even some physical scientists who understand the incremental nature
of research are less than enthralled.
"It's all very exciting," deadpanned marine biologist
Sylvia Earle, who holds the world's record for untethered undersea
exploration, the oceans' equivalent of spacewalking. "It confirms
what many of us had suspected for a long time."
Mars enthusiasts say the discovery of water evidence in the rocks
by one of NASA's two roving robots is important precisely because
it confirms what researchers had been discussing for years. Science
is strewn with plausible ideas that experimentation has disproved.
"In this case, there was no substitute for finding out directly,"
said Case Western Reserve University physicist Lawrence Krauss.
"This shows that Earth is not a closed system, that there was
water elsewhere. It is a precursor to potentially something far
more exciting," he said. "If we discover a fossil? Boy,
that will rank up there with the all-time greats."
Today's $820 million mission using the robotic rovers Opportunity
and Spirit may be just the beginning of Mars spending, and that
has scientists in all fields a little worried.
The Bush White House wants to return to the moon and eventually
send astronauts to Mars, perhaps by 2035, an effort that would cost
hundreds of billions of dollars.
Considering the projected $477 billion federal budget deficit and
the competition for scarce taxpayer dollars, many scientists say
it makes more sense to concentrate on pressing scientific issues
that would improve life down here.
Both Etzioni and Earle, in separate interviews, suggested the world's
oceans are the most obvious, and promising, scientific target.
Earth's oceans have been barely explored. New potential marine
sources of energy and medicine as well as knowledge about climate
and origins of life on Earth 4 billion years ago remain largely
unexamined.
Ocean research is divided among several agencies and laboratories.
Its primary agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) receives about $3.2 billion annually, as compared with NASA's
$15.5 billion. In his 2005 budget, the president wants to cut 8.4
percent from NOAA's budget while boosting NASA's by 5.6 percent.
The annual budget of the National Institutes of Health — the government's
premier biomedical research arm — has been doubled over the past
several years to about $27 billion. But that money is spread among
27 divisions, from cancer to Alzheimer's to drug addiction.
To some degree, Mars has divided space scientists too. Astronomers
bemoan NASA's decision to stop servicing the Hubble Space Telescope
and let it die years ahead of schedule as the agency refocuses from
stars to planets.
And Earle, the ocean explorer-in-residence at the National Geographic
Society said, "I don't want to cut a penny from space. But
the resources going into the investigation of our own planet and
its oceans are trivial compared to investment looking for water
elsewhere in the universe."
For decades the question of whether our nearest and most similar
neighbor once supported life has been the subject of intense interest.
That Mars is so unforgiving — more than half of the 36 previous
missions have ended in disaster, including a European one last December
— serves only to make it a more tantalizing target.
Space enthusiasts don't claim the current twin rover mission to
be a historic turning point on par with the conquistadors' arrival
in the New World or Darwin's voyage to collect specimens for his
theories of evolution. Nor does it compare to Neil Armstrong's giant
leap for humankind on the surface of the moon.
Today, scientific exploration is performed incrementally because
of the enormous distances and technological complexities involved.
That's one reason NASA attaches importance to what Opportunity found
in an outcropping nicknamed "El Capitan" at the landing
site in Mars' Meridiani Planum region.
Previously, the assumption that Mars was wet was based on circumstantial
evidence, such as satellite imagery of what appeared to be canyons
and surface channels carved by water now missing.
The rovers landed in January specifically to check its rocks for
evidence that they were formed in a persistently wet environment.
Mission accomplished, said James Garvin, NASA's lead scientist for
Mars and lunar exploration.
In a finely layered rock, Opportunity detected concentrations of
jarosite, an iron sulfate mineral that forms with water, as well
as layers of salts that match evaporation sequences found on Earth
when briny water pools dry up.
Visual examination also showed several features of rocks formed
in watery environments, including signs of dissolved salt crystals,
BB-sized spheres of minerals, and crossbed patterns of rock layers.
"This really is the smoking gun of a watery past for Mars,"
said David Grinspoon, principal scientist at the Southwest Research
Institute in Boulder, Colo., and author of Lonely Planets. "We're
not just chasing ghosts."
Not that future exploration necessarily will be accomplished by
humans. Some NASA critics, like Colorado astrophysicist Robert Zubrin,
strenuously argue that humans should go to Mars soon, traveling
light and making their fuel from rocks on the Martian surface for
the trip home.
But the current thinking is that robots and computers can do a
cheaper, safer job in a hostile environment. The very thin Martian
atmosphere contains almost no oxygen and it exerts only a trace
of the pressure that helps make Earth habitable.
"We're in a new phase and one we had better get used to, Krauss
said. "The more adventurous we get, the more we have to count
on robots."
The value of robotic exploration is one area in which Mars supporters
and critics like Etzioni and Earle can agree — up to a point.
After all, submersibles have been trolling the oceans for decades.
Earle argues that remote marine studies have found that life — our
lives, really — is not guaranteed as the oceans decline.
Most of the seas' big fish — tuna, sharks, and swordfish — have
been depleted. Half of the coral reefs are dead or dying. Around
the world, runoff pollution has created more than 50 dead zones
in coastal waters. Sea levels are rising, and the oceans' role in
the planet's changing climate is poorly known.
Real oceans need scientific attention more than the dried-up remnants
on Mars, Earle contends. "Every time I jump into the ocean
I see things I've never seen before," she said. "We have
better maps of Mars than our own ocean floor. That's just not right."
Source: Associated Press
|