1-s2.0-s1875389212025096-main

Physics Procedia 38 ( 2012 ) 176 – 185

1875-3892 © 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Integrity Research Institute.doi: 10.1016/j.phpro.2012.08.021

p Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum - 2012

The Societal Impacts of a Mars Mission in the Future of Space Exploration

Azam Shaghaghi *a, Konstantinos Antonakopoulosb

a International Space University, SSP09 Alumni, NASA Ames Research Center b Research Fellow, Dept. of Computer and Information Science, NTNU, Sem Selandsvei 7-9, Trondheim, 7491, Norway

Abstract

The human race has evolved, grown and expanded through the exploration of Earth. After initial steps on the Moon, our next challenge is to explore the solar system. From the Mars mission viewpoint stepping on this planet will bring social impacts which may influence the society to a great extent. Never before have there been so complex mission settings. This implies as an inherent impediment for the future of space exploration since it is most likely to be scrutinized and challenged by the public. The goal of this paper is to outline the societal impacts of a Mars mission in the future of space exploration by first introducing the existing challenges and then identifying the primary groups that form public opinion and concludes where efforts should be focused. © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Institute for Advanced Studies in the Space, Propulsion and Energy Sciences PACS: Keywords: Societal impacts, Mars mission, space exploration

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: Azam Shaghaghi Varzeghani <[email protected]>

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

© 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Integrity Research Institute.

Azam Shaghaghi and Konstantinos Antonakopoulos / Physics Procedia 38 ( 2012 ) 176 – 185 177

1. Introduction

Myriads of experiments have confirmed the possibility of life on Mars, e.g., canyons carved by water on the landscape [1]. On the other hand, in the recent years, the search for past or present microbial life has been intensified with the robotic rovers Spirit and Opportunity dispatched to the Red Planet in 2004 and the Mars Phoenix Lander in 2007. End of 2011, NASA launched the Mars Science Laboratory to investigate the Mars habitability, before sending humans for exploration and ultimately colonization.

The space exploration endeavour first requires a strategy that will actively plan both the generation and the subsequent management of all critical information to ensure that key audiences can obtain the necessary information in a timely fashion. Possible ignorance when it comes to societal issues, especially for mission planning may increase the frustration or opposition of the public, project budgets and missed launch windows.

Martian missions are inevitably more complex from technological, human spaceflight and most importantly socio-economic and socio-political point of view. It will take the most of each nation towards human space exploration. In addition, public attitudes about health, safety and environment (HSE), have changed considerably since the Apollo program. Society has grown more risk averse over time and a trend that is expected to increase in the future.

In a democratic society, technological policy making can be viewed in two different ways; by technical considerations and by democratic and social values. What that means is that traditionally NASA experts have been accustomed to reaching decisions through a highly technical process with minimal input from the public [2], and since society is actually the part of the world we live in, to be able to identify and characterize the parts of our everyday life that will be influenced (towards for better), is crucial.

2. Identifying the stakeholders of this endeavor

An initial human settlement on Mars is a venture that can only be enabled by international collaboration. This enterprise involves not only the crew, or the thousands directly working for the success of a mission, but it also involves all people on Earth. Furthermore, the different cultural aspects must be taken into account to stimulate public opinion [3].

A stakeholder analysis was undertaken in [4], identifying the primary groups that form public opinion and concludes where efforts should further be focused. The analysis was performed in terms of a stakeholder matrix. The purpose of the stakeholder matrix is to determine the importance of each interest for the type of stakeholder. The significance of each interest relative to a specific stakeholder and the overall importance of that interest to the mission were determined. This was done by allotting an opinion based interest value to each stakeholder and weighting these values by multiplying by a power value for each stakeholder. These results are summarized in the stakeholder matrix of Table 1. A description of the stakeholders involved in the analysis is essential to better identify and define responsibilities and jurisdiction:

Governments: Governments have a unique opportunity to ensure that this generation is remembered as

pioneers of human exploration of the solar system. For this reason, government interest in undertaking a human mission to Mars is to gain votes and support from their citizens, to establish stable international alliances to ensure freedom, and to support the exploration vision. Involving governments from all over the world will help to discourage short-term thinking by government officials for personal political gains.

Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): NGOs will generally be in favor of a mission that expands

mankind’s horizons. However, some mission aspects such as nuclear propulsion may raise concerns from environmental policies of NGOs.

178 Azam Shaghaghi and Konstantinos Antonakopoulos / Physics Procedia 38 ( 2012 ) 176 – 185

Space Agencies: Space agencies act to transform the goals of the space science community into reality,

while succeeding to the political will of their supporting nations. Their main interest is to conduct space missions in accordance with their space rationales, within budgetary constraints, and to safeguard jobs within national space industries. With international cooperation space agencies can profit in many ways.

Large Aerospace Companies: Large aerospace companies are the integrators of future missions to Mars,

directly delivering the mission for the space agencies. Their interest in the success of such missions relates to new business opportunities and job creation.

Small and Medium Aerospace Companies: Small and medium sized aerospace companies will be

indirectly involved in the mission. They will be mostly subcontractors for the integrators. Their interest in the success of human missions to Mars relates to new business opportunities, job creation, and access to knowledge through technology transfer from the integrators.

Private Entrepreneurs: There is a unique window of opportunity for private entrepreneurs from different

business areas to use their participation as a showcase for worldwide exposure. Furthermore, the outlook for future spin-ins and spin-offs will certainly be interesting for this stakeholder group, as space technology is already an inducer of cutting-edge technological advancements.

Taxpayers: A program such as human missions to Mars will have costs of such magnitude that will

impact taxpayers to a great extent. Taxpayers will desire that their money be spent rationally and with visible results.

Space Lobbyist Organizations: Space lobbyist organizations, such as, The Mars Society actively advocate

for a human mission to Mars. They have high interest in the complete success of this mission. On the other hand, the stage for the liaison officers should broaden to ease communication.

Scientific Foundations: Scientific foundations collect funding from governmental budgets or private

donations and allocate these resources through researchers in the scientific community. The success of a human mission to Mars will provide scientific foundations with increased funding and negotiating power.

Academia: The scientific and technical community is the main advocate for a human mission to Mars.

Mars is the prime location for seeking answers to the question of whether there is or was extraterrestrial life. The technical community will benefit from the challenge of developing new technology for this mission.

Entertainment Industry: The entertainment industry has great potential to influence large sectors of the

public opinion through their products. Their main interest is to be inspired and acquire stories for their projects and sell them worldwide. Also, entertainment industry celebrities have the potential to become effective advocates for space exploration.


Cultural Institutions: Artists reflect the different cultures on Earth, and culture is the only rationale for space exploration [5]. Artists are stakeholders in the sense that they will want to translate the first missions to Mars into a shared human experience.

Mass and Social Media: A human mission to Mars has the potential to become the greatest story of its

generation and the main interest of mass media. Journalists will report on every aspect of the mission. Mass media have a major role in influencing public opinion. Furthermore, social media like blogs, micro-blogs (e.g., Twitter), social networks and social news have the potential to become the primary influence on public opinion as they acquire news in real-time and spread it though their networks.

Table 1. Stakeholder Matrix

Interest\ Stakeholder

Gov

ernm

ents

Non

-gov

ernm

enta

l or

gani

zatio

ns (N

GO

s)

Spac

e A

genc

ies

Larg

e ae

rosp

ace

com

pani

es

Smal

l spa

ce c

ompa

nies

Priv

ate

entre

pren

eurs

Taxp

ayer

s

Spac

e lo

bbyi

st o

rgan

izat

ions

Scie

ntifi

c fo

unda

tions

Aca

dem

ia

Ente

rtain

men

t ind

ustry

Cul

tura

l ins

titut

ions

Mas

s & so

cial

med

ia

Science discovery 37 14 62 37 14 1 23 22 27 24 36 6 31 Technology engineering 37 7 62 62 34 3 35 22 27 24 27 2 21

Social impact 62 34 49 25 21 2 58 22 22 10 45 10 51 Political 62 34 62 49 21 2 47 27 11 10 9 4 31

Educational 49 27 49 25 14 1 47 16 22 24 18 8 21 Cultural 25 27 37 25 14 1 47 16 16 14 36 10 41 Financial 49 7 37 62 34 3 47 11 11 10 45 4 21

Economical 62 21 37 62 34 3 47 5 11 10 27 6 41 Legal/insurance 49 14 37 49 27 2 23 11 5 10 9 2 21

Regulatory / policy 62 27 49 37 21 2 12 27 5 10 9 2 10

Environmental impact 37 34 37 25 21 1 35 16 22 19 18 8 41

Total 530 247 518 456 253 23 419 197 181 163 276 64 329

From Table 1, it concludes that the main focus should be given to Governments (sum 530), Space Agencies (sum 518), Large Aerospace Companies (sum 456), Taxpayers (sum 419), and Mass and Social Media (sum 329), especially in the areas of technology engineering, economic prosperity and social impact. These results show the areas of society that have the most influential impact on the Mars mission; thus further time and effort need to be dedicated to these stakeholders to ensure a successful mission.

3. Societal impacts from a stakeholders view

In this section, we deepen our analysis by exposing the involvement of each stakeholder in the view of society is essential to be able to identify the impact of each stakeholder taking into account several societal factors mentioned in [6]. Table 2, holds the cross-impact matrix of stakeholders’ impact in


societal parameters. The societal parameters considered herein are: Taxpayers, Special-interest Groups, Education/Research & Development, Economy/Growth, Culture, and Health.

Table 2. Cross-impact matrix of stakeholders impact in society.

SocialParameter/ Stakeholder

Taxpayers

Special-interest Groups(SiG)

Education / R & D

Economy / Growth

Health Culture

Governments

Promote human-space exploration

benefits

Understand and take action for

SiG's concerns on

society


benefits Civilian &

military advanced

projects [7]

New political gate system & strategy to deal with the space

treaties in a vast global level

Economic expansion in technological

sector

Space economy Agricultural

resources Industrial

productivity Government &

Commercial inventions

Invest on more broad projects

on cancer, heart

Public safety


benefits

Non-Government

Organizations

Promotion of societal

benefits in science and technology from human

space exploration

Create common a

understanding and promote SiG interests for society

Increased investment in basic R&D,

promotion of education in science and technology

Create space-based

technological innovations

Boost world-wide programs

in multi-cultural

aspects in the society

SpaceAgencies

Share scientific

space-based knowledge, expand our

understanding of Cosmos

Minimize

scientific and technological

interdependence

Manned flights as a marketing tool

New world-competition perspective

[8]

Investing on commercial services in

space exploration

for the cultural

institutes [9]

LargeAerospaceCompanies

Create space-based


Kick off advanced technology to

boost the economy&

quality of life [10]


Small/Medium AerospaceCompanies

Create space-based


Private Entrepreneurs

Space technology directed at applicable

commercial spin-offs,

Technological innovations

Space commercialization

[11]

Sub-orbital flights & hotels [12]

Spin-offs for biomedical & medical use

Presence of the media /

entertainment industry in space [13]

Taxpayers

Advanced lifestyle

Renewable efficient energy sources; energy

conserving consumer products

Leave developing countries in

modernity era

Extraterrestrial intelligence

projects

Environmental hazards using satellites on

critical weather less than billion

light years

Distributing multi-cultural packages &

info

Experience space flights

for every individual

SpaceLobbyist

Organizations

Cooperated programs to

leverage individuals

efforts

Leading the money stream into effective investments

towards society growth

Education coordinator to encourage the

outreach

Negotiate technology

enhancement project between

space agencies & private entities

Escalate the international

relations culture

Scientific Foundations

Promote space technology at

scientific / research level

Academia

Promote space

technology at scientific /

research level

Promote space technology and

exploration benefits at

school/ university levels

Brain-drain prevention

Pharmacological and mechanical

prevention treatments.

Prevention, detection, and treatment of

illnesses ranging from

osteoporosis to cancer [14]

Creates a more

understanding ground to pursue the terrestrial

bodies

Entertainment Industry

New variety of shows & programs

New version of scientific and

educational film industry

The multi-million dollar industry in a

huge dimension

New era of sports

programs & microgravity

sports


CulturalInstitutions

Promote and reflect the different cultures

Providing new principles &

course studies

Promote culture through space

tourism

Mass and Social Media

Influence through

public media

World-wide participatory activities in

space science through instant

data & information [15]

Up raising new outlook

towards space culture

From Table 2 we see that there is a strong inter-correlation among the stakeholders and the social parameters investigated. Almost each and every stakeholder can potentially influence (at a different capacity), almost all of the social parameters. In order for this ‘scheme’ to work best and become successful, one should think on a massive scale: international cooperation.

4. Towards an International Cooperation

The scale of a program that would allow for an initial human settlement on Mars is unprecedented. For this reason it is very likely that only a worldwide cooperation effort within a concerted international exploration strategy could succeed. This section assesses the potential of countries to contribute to an international human mission to Mars, in terms of technical capabilities. An overview of the relevant technical space capabilities for current space-faring nations is shown in Table 3.

While most of the capabilities listed in Table 3 already exist or are anticipated, some are missing. Some capabilities, like cargo transportation to LEO, are available worldwide; other capabilities, such as an Entry, Descent and Landing on Mars, are limited to a small number of space faring nations. In addition, some countries may offer specific expertise, such as space robotics in Canada, which is another factor to take into consideration for international cooperation.

Table 3. Overview of Relevant Technical Space Capabilities as of 2011

Capacity USA Russia China Europe Japan India

HUMAN

Access To LEO Yes Yes Yes No No No

Earth Re-Entry Yes Yes Yes Anticipated Anticipated No Life Support System Yes Yes Yes Anticipated No No

LEO Rendezvous Yes Yes No No No No Transfer to Moon/Mars

Orbit Yes No Anticipated No No No

Mars EDL Anticipated No No No No No

Moon Landing Yes No No No No No

Surface Habitat Anticipated No No No No No Rover/Mobility

Capability Yes No No No No No

Moon Surface to Low Lunar Orbit Yes No No No No No


Mars Surface to Low Mars Orbit No No No No No No

ROBOTIC

Access To LEO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Transfer to Moon/Mars

Orbit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Earth Re-entry Yes Yes Yes Anticipated Anticipated No Moon Landing Yes Yes Anticipated Anticipated Anticipated No

Mars EDL Yes Yes No Anticipated No No Rover/Mobility

Capability Yes Yes No Anticipated No No

Autonomous Rendezvous Anticipated Anticipated No Yes No No

Moon Surface to Low Lunar Orbit Yes Yes No No No No

Mars Surface to Low Mars Orbit No No No No No No

These factors demonstrate that international cooperation is absolutely required to ensure a safe voyage

and landing on Mars. International cooperation can provide the redundancy needed in the mission critical path to achieve the high level of safety required for such a mission. For example, redundancy in the ISS transportation architecture (having the Shuttle and Soyuz), has proven to be vital to the program. Likewise, a concerted global exploration strategy should be established for a human Mars mission, where responsibility for each part of the mission is assigned to a given country, or countries, when redundancy is deemed necessary and financially viable.

5. Conclusions

In this work, we investigated the societal impacts of a Mars mission from a stakeholders’ viewpoint, where the stakeholders were previously identified in [4]. It is the authors’ belief that the realization of successful Mars missions is linked to the following three factors: a. International cooperation, b. Economic growth & development for sustained stability in funding and resource allocation and c. enabling technologies.

While the technology exists, the first two factors remain the most critical. This is because resources are not always unlimited (or a priority) and secondly because international cooperation entails the unstable factor of society. In addition, the quality of living increase and economic growth to a great extend depends also on scientific and technological awareness and on our ability to incorporate this knowledge in the economy and lives of the people. Finally, it should be the stakeholders’ responsibility to play their role towards the advancement of human space exploration with ‘societal awareness’ in mind.

6. Acknowledgment

In the context of the International Space University (ISU) Space Studies Program, NASA Ames Research Center in 2009, 56 individuals from 15 different countries and various backgrounds took on the task of presenting a feasibility analysis of cave habitation for an initial settlement on Mars, from which this paper stems. The ACCESS Mars team members are: A. Al Husseini, L. Álvarez Sánchez, K. Antonakopoulos, J. Apeldoorn, K. Ashford, Jr., D. Atabay, I. Barrios, Y. Baydaroglu, K. M. Bennell, J. Chen, X. Chen, D. Cormier, P. Crowley, G. de Carufel, B. Deper, L. Drube, P. Duffy, P. Edwards, E. Gutiérrez Fernandez,


O. Haider, G. Kumar, C. Henselowsky, D. Hirano, T. Hirmer, B. Hogan, A. Jaime Albalat, E. Jens, I. Jiv nescu, A. Jojaghaian, M. Kerrigan, Y. Kodachi, S. Langston, R. MacIntosh, X. Miguélez, N. Panek, C. Pegg, R. Peldszus, X. Peng, A. Pérez-Poch, A. Perron, J. Qiu, P. Renten, J. Ricardo, T. Saraceno, F. Sauceda, A. Shaghaghi Varzeghani, R. Shimmin, R. Solaz, A. Solé, R. Suresh, T. Mar Vaquero Escribano, M. Vargas Muñoz, P. D. Vaujour, D. Veilette, Y. Winetraub, O. Zeile

The ISU SSP09 and the work on this Team Project were made possible through the generous support of NASA Ames Research Center and the NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) and ISU for the opportunity to conduct this research with the support of dedicated experts and resources at the Space Studies Program 2009 (SSP09). Special thanks to the ACCESS Mars project faculty Rene Laufer, Beatriz Gallardo, Alfonso Davila and Jhony Zaveleta. The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous guidance, support and direction provided by the following individuals during the course of this work:

Khalid Al-Ali Carnegie Mellon University; Cristina Borrera del Pino, CRISA Astrium; Penny Boston, New Mexico Tech, Nathan Brumall, NASA Ames Research Center; Natalie Cabrol, NASA Ames Research Center; Axelle Cartier, Excaliber Almaz; James Chartres, NASA Ames Research Center; Ed Chester, CTAE; Stephen Clifford, Lunar and Planetary Institute; Marc Cohen, Northrop Grumman; Cassie Conley, NASA HQ; Joseph Conley, NASA Ames Research Center; Joy Crisp, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Pascale Ehrenfreund, GWU; Alberto Fairen, NASA Ames Research Center; Lauren Fletcher, NASA Ames Research Center; Steve Frankel, NASA Ames Research Center; Arthur Guest, MIT; Felipe A. Hernandez, Universidad Central Santiago de Chile; Scott Hovland, ESA/ESTEC, Donald James, NASA Ames Research Center; Hajime Jano, JAXA; Dave Kendall, CSA; Mark Kliss, NASA Ames Research Center; Larry Lemke, NASA Ames Research Center; Gary Martin, NASA Ames Research Center; Tahir Merali, International Space University; Chistopher McKay, NASA Ames Research Center; David Miller, University of Oklahoma; John M. Olsen, NASA HQ; Laurie Peterson, NASA Ames Research Center; Ricardo Amils Pibernat, Centro de Astrobiologia; Florian Selch, Carnegie Mellon University; Raj Shea, NASA Ames Research Center; Michael Sims, NASA Ames Research Center; Paul Spudis, Lunar Planetary Institute; Carol Stoker, NASA Ames Research Center; Jim Thompson, The Explorers Club; and S. Pete Worden, NASA Ames Research Center.

References

[1] Martian chronicles, Economist 2001;359(8216):85–98. [2] Race MS. Societal issues as Mars mission impediments: Planetary protection and contamination concerns, Adv. Space

Res, 1995;15(3):285-92. [3] Ehrenfreund P, Peter N, Schrogl KU, Logsdon JM. Cross-cultural management supporting global space exploration, Acta

Astronautica, 2010;66(1-2):245-56.[4] ACCESS MARS team, Final Report, International Space University, Space Studies Program, NASA Ames, 2009. [5] Dator J. Cultural rationales for space activities. International Space University, NASA Ames, 2009. [6] Sadeh E. Societal Impacts of the Apollo Program. The Astrosociology of Space Colonization session, AIAA Space, 2006. [7] Blamont J, Stetson D, Farquhar R, Zimmerman J, Clark B, O'Neil W, Bourke R, Foing B. International Space

Exploration: Cooperative or competitive?, Space Policy, 2005;21:89–92. [8] Huntress W, Stetson D, Farquhar R, Zimmerman J, Clark B, O'Neil W, Bourke R, Foing B. The next steps in exploring

deep space. Acta Astronautica, 2006;58(6-7):304-77. [9] http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Space_Exploration_Strategy/SEMKTM0YUFF_0.html

[10] Jasentuliyana N. Basic space science and developing countries, Space Policy, 1995:11(2):89-92


[11] Ehlmann BL, Chowhury J, Marzullo TC, Collins RE, Litzenberger J, Ibsen S, Krauser WR, DeKock B, Hannon M, Kinnevan J, Shepard R, Grant FD. Humans to Mars: A feasibility & cost benefit analysis, Acta Astronautica, 2005;56:851-8.

[12] Wilson JR, http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html [13] Ehrenfreund P, Peter N. Toward a paradigm shift in managing future global space exploration endeavours, Space Policy,

2009;25(4)244-56. [14] Ocampo A, Friedman L, Logsdon J. Why space science and exploration benefits everyone, Space Policy, 1998;14(3)137-

143.

1-s2.0-s1875389212025096-main

Documents