Comment: Curiosity could restart case for space

By TIFFANY JENKINS
Published on 01/10/2012 00:00

WITH a laboratory on Mars taking samples and sending back information, how could we not be re-engaged asks Tiffany Jenkins

When the astronaut Neil Armstrong died recently, I found myself wishing; not just that I had been alive to see his moon walk, but mourning that I did not live in a time that put a man in space. It seemed as if one of the most adventurous periods in human history was relegated to the past.

Developments taking place some 34 million to 250 million miles from earth (depending on relative orbits), give me hope that that could change.

We are just seven weeks into a mission set to last two years (one Martian year) and Nasa’s “Curiosity”, also known as the Mars Science Laboratory, has already encountered proof that there was once water on the rocky surface.

Curiosity is a one-tonne, car-sized robot, currently exploring the Gale Crater on the planet Mars. It is on a quest to assess whether conditions for life once existed, with water being a key, essential ingredient to life.

As the robot drove towards an area the scientists have named “Glenelg” (after a rocky region of Canada, not the village in Wester Ross), it took photographs of a rock outcrop, which on close analysis reveals that a “vigorous” stream once coursed across the 96 mile-wide crater, according to scientists.

Geologists confirm that the size and smooth, rounded shape of stones provides evidence that the water flow was deep, powerful and stretched for up to 40km. They don’t know yet the age of the stream bed, but some estimate that it may be only 1,000 years old.

A dried-up ancient river bed is rarely cause for excitement. But in the case of a different planet to ours, these crusty, liquid remains should be celebrated. This may be a sign that microbial life once thrived. And this is just the beginning of a long-term research project.

The Gale Crater was chosen after orbiting missions spotted possible evidence of water. The sedimentary rocks that it will investigate contain a geological snapshot of the history of the planet that, under analysis, will reveal what Mars was like. Curiosity carries equipment that is gathering samples of rocks and soil, that can process them and distribute them to on-board test chambers.

The mission is a significant achievement and should mark a turning point in our relationship with space. Failures in such quests are common. Many of the previous similar attempts have ended in disappointment, so much so that there is often reference to a “Mars Curse” or “Martian Curse”.

Remember Beagle 2? The British landing spacecraft that went to Mars to search for life in 2003 quickly lost contact with its mothership after attempting to land, and has not been heard from since. Beagle 2 is presumed lost.

Indeed, it is the highly difficult procedure of entering, descending and landing on Mars that already marks Curiosity out as a success, a great technical achievement. This is no easy task. It involved “precision landing technology”, parachutes, “retro rockets”, a “sky crane”, and “seven minutes of terror” – for Mission Control, as it landed.

It was all done without a pilot or human intervention, on a planet so far away that it takes 13.8 minutes for communications travelling at the speed of light to reach us. It will cost $2.5 billion, but is worth it. Curiosity also tweets.

Yet, despite this, it was notable when, in early August, Curiosity landed, UK broadcasters didn’t deem this important event worth showing. You had to watch it on the internet.

Okay – this was a launch of a heavy robot, not human beings, and broadcasters didn’t know it would be successful. But they should have shown it, made something of it – it’s not as if there aren’t enough channels, or the footage wasn’t available.

The lack of commentary on these developments, beyond the news reports confined to specialist pages, is questionable. Why not try and inspire a new generation? Our enthusiastic, optimistic relationship with space that marked Neil Armstrong’s time has sadly cooled. It has been off the political and cultural agenda for some time, with a slow-down in missions and interest in them.

Last year saw what amounts to a cancellation of the US-manned space programme with the retirement of the shuttles. It is quite possible that had Curiosity failed, the US might have called a halt to further attempts.

What has changed? The reasons for space exploration in the past are complex, and not always enlightened. Politics fuelled the space race, in particular the Cold War and relations between the Soviet Union and the US.

As John F Kennedy explained of the moon landing: “This is important for political reasons, international political reasons. This is, whether we like it or not, an intensive race.”

But it wasn’t all narrow, political interest. Kennedy also said: “We choose to go to the moon and do other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard.”

These were times when there was a sense of human possibility, when caution did not outweigh adventure, when money spent did not have to show immediate return, and when the price of progress was not deemed too great.

The high-profile failure of missions such as the Space Shuttle Challenger, and the death of its seven crew members, has helped people to wonder if it is worth the risk to human life.

Rather than merely feeling nostalgic for a past long gone, I hope that there could be a turning point in our relationship with space, that we could reignite our interest in what is beyond earth, when we deem the potential of unknown possibilities worth the risk. And not just for robots.

The success of this mission is important for the future and the possibility of human habitation. Landing a large mass on this planet is especially challenging. Without overstating its significance, Curiosity has shown something along these lines is possible.

Part of this mission is also to assess the radiation on Mars, with the Radiation Detector instrument. The planet Earth is protected from radiation by a magnetic field and a very dense atmosphere. Not so on Mars, which is effectively sterilised by radiation from the sun and the rest of the cosmos.

This is a major barrier to putting a man on Mars. Understanding and addressing this problem is key to getting human beings on to the planet.

It is not yet possible to see how astronauts could land safely on the Red Planet. It is difficult enough to land a heavy robot. But that it has done so well, so far, is a small step in the right direction.

Charles Bolden, Nasa’s administrator, stated optimistically at the launch of the mission: “Today, the wheels of Curiosity have begun to blaze the trail for human footprints on Mars.”

Let us hope that he is right. Mankind should follow in the footsteps of Curiosity.