Benefits of Going to Mars

“Minesweepers for Iraq, Not Rockets for Mars” (letter, Jan. 6) complains about the “almost $1 billion to land a craft on Mars,” calling it a “wasteful endeavor” and contending that the money would be better spent supporting American forces in Iraq. We need some perspective. It took nine years to spend about $800 million on the twin Mars lander missions, Spirit and Opportunity. The U.S. military is now spending about $1 billion per day, overall. Speaking to about 3,000 space enthusiasts at a Planetary Society event down the block from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on Saturday night, TV science advocate Bill Nye boiled the Spirit mission expense down to the cost of a caramel macchiato for every American taxpayer.

But that, of course, is just money; the true cost can only be measured in what it does for humanity. Addressing the same crowd, author Ray Bradbury said, “We are going to Mars because that is the future.” Watching a video feed from mission control displayed on a giant video screen and seeing the enthusiasm of the young scientists, the 83-year-old science fiction icon described space exploration as using the money for something creative, adding “all the things we do for the military protect us, but they do not create us.”

Alan Silverman

Culver City

*

What a pity the first letter on the new Mars rover Spirit that you published was the usual one -- complaining about the money spent on it. Your letter writer wants to divert the small amount of money to the rat hole that is Iraq. President Bush has already squandered at least $100 billion there with very little to show U.S. taxpayers for it.

Let’s celebrate this wonderful achievement and remember that the money was not sent aboard the spacecraft but was mostly spent right here in Southern California, pushing on the frontiers of science and technology for the benefit of all of us.

Julia Dunphy

Harbor City

*

Kudos to NASA for its recent successful accomplishments -- the Mars lander and the Stardust spacecraft’s comet fly-by (Jan. 3). These achievements prove that unmanned satellites can be more effective and provide greater knowledge than the space station and at a lower cost.

The space station is a bottomless money pit, without a scheduled completion date. NASA should discontinue support of this program. It follows that the space shuttle, in its present configuration, should also receive no further funding, as it is used mainly to support the space station. It is almost 25 years old, its systems are obsolete, and Band-Aids do not always work.

Virtually all satellites can now be launched on expendable boosters. If NASA bites the bullet and takes these steps, there will literally be billions of dollars available for research that NASA should be doing. I speak with 50 years of experience in the aerospace industry.

Paul Bernstein

Beverly Hills