textfiles/computers/CYBERSPACE/carlsonv

91-01/Mars.VR.story
From: scarlson@csa1.lbl.gov (Shawn Carlson)
Subject: Virtual Mars
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 01:52:36 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley CA



        What follows is an article I wrote for "the Humanist" 
magazine.  I'm posting it here to hopefully spark discussion about 
using Virtual Worlds techniques for extraterrestrial 
exploration.  (Expected publication date - March 1991.)  What do 
you think about the idea?  How should such a mission be designed? 

                                                        -- S.C.

=========================================================

                              Virtual Mars?

                           Shawn Carlson, Ph.D. 
                            January 1st, 1991

     Exploration is the hallmark of humanity- the great shaper of 
our history,  the great motivater of our kind.  I don't have to 
imagine the excitement most Spaniards felt when Columbus 
returned with a cargo hold full of exotic treasures from the New 
World.  Although I was only nine, I remember vividly the awesome 
exhilaration I felt while staring into a black and white picture 
tube and watching as Neil Armstrong took control from a 
faltering guidance computer and coolly landed the Eagle on the 
surface of a new world.  Perhaps the noblest thing about our 
species, the most uniquely "human" quality of our experience, is 
the purity of our lusts; for life, for knowledge, and for challenges 
that force us to go beyond ourselves. We thrive on- we need great 
adventures. 
     But since our technology opened up the frontier of space, 
adventures in the grand tradition have been harder to get off the 
ground; sadly, there have been damn few since NASA's finest hour.
     Recently there has been a push to make a mission to Mars 
humankind's next great voyage.  This effort has gained the 
administration's favor.President Bush has personally called for 
the creation of a manned Mars program.  However, Congress has 
been skeptical of, if not hostile to, the plan.  NASA's sterling 
image, so magnificently polished in the Apollo days, has been 
tarnished by the Challenger disaster, the Hubble Telescope 
debacle,and a crippling sequence of design errors uncovered in 
the plans of the proposed space station.  This combined with the 
attached $500 billion price tag has made Congress reluctant to 
loosen the nation's purse strings for putting people on Mars. 
     However, despite NASA's (I hope) transitory incompetence and 
Congress's typical recalcitrance, I believe that Mars looms too 
big in our imaginations for the human odyssey not to draw us 
there.  It is the next logical great space adventure.  The question 
then is not so much when are we going, but how should such a 
mission be designed to best serve humanity?
     Many space advocates assert that a Mars mission should be 
manned and give noble reasons for why we should commit the 
lives of an international crew to the two to four year journey.  
They argue that the huge international collaboration of talented 
technologists needed to land 30 folks on Mars for 40 days (the 
typical scenario) would help bring the world together, open 
vistas of multinational cooperation and foster transcultural 
understanding.  Further,they hope that seeing Soviets and 
Americans working glove in glove on Mars would so inflate the 
world with the spirit of cooperation that it would never again 
flatten into war.  
     Other exploration enthusiasts prefer sending robots in lieu of 
people.  They believe the political benefits of a manned mission 
have been oversold and point out that any mission would itself be 
only a symbol.  Real political progress, they argue, must be made 
on the ground by international cooperation.  However, such 
cooperation could head-up either a human or mechanized mission 
equally well.  Further, they maintain that robot reconnaissance of 
Mars is a better option because it's much cheaper and far safer 
than sending people. 
     Indeed, robots could explore Mars for far less money because 
they don't need any of the myriad of environmental supports we 
require to sustain our biological frailties.  Most of the money for 
a human mission would go just into keeping the astronauts alive.  
Every dollar so spent would be a dollar not used on science, every 
kilogram of payload so dedicated would be a kilogram taken from 
sophisticated instruments of exploration.  In short, astronauts 
would only get in the way of the science- we would learn more 
for a lot less money without them. 
     A robot mission would safeguard more than just astronauts.  
After all,if a Mars bound robot "bought it" the nation would cross 
its arms and cock a collective eyebrow at NASA.  But if people 
died in space the whole Mars program would likely die with them.  
And this, I fear, would be a very real possibility.  Despite 
extensive ground maintenance between each flight, the multi-
billion dollar space shuttles routinely break down in orbit- 
toilets clog, cooling vents fail, computers burn out. . .  In a 
mission lasting just a week or so, and which can be aborted with 
a few hours notice, these failures are merely annoying.  However, 
a series of uncorrectable annoyances appearing throughout a two 
to four year voyage, which cannot be aborted and from which 
there is no hope of rescue, could well cascade into a fatal 
catastrophe before the astronauts could get home.  Also, the 
fragments of Challenger now littering the ocean floor don't 
exactly inspire confidence in NASA's talents in safety 
engineering either.  
     However, there is one crucial place where astronauts totally 
outshine their mechanical competition- public thrills.  Even if 
our robot alternates were as cute as R2-D2 they just wouldn't 
have the same public appeal as an international gaggle of scruffy 
space-suited ruffians toasting marshmallows on the Martian 
outback.  And let's face it, while every epic voyage throughout 
history has been justified with copious platitudes about the 
innate nobility of the human spirit that's not why they happened.  
Adventures have never been primarily moral- they have been 
sensual!  The discovery, the achievement, mastering the 
unexpected, risking and winning- these are the psychological 
primers of the experience, but it is the thrill we seek.  To put it 
crassly,we are willing to spend billions to indulge in a few 
rounds of orgiastic self congratulatory backslapping.  If going to 
the Moon didn't make people feel good we never would have done 
it.  Indeed, history shows that the greatness of any "great 
adventure" is set by how deeply and completely it thrills the 
masses who bankrolled the damn thing, and that the money keeps 
coming only so long as people get their dollar's worth of 
excitement.  
     Therefore, the ideal mission would blend the thrill of human 
exploration with the safety and cost effectiveness of robot 
surrogates. Impossible?  Not anymore.  In fact, I believe that now 
maturing technologies make it inevitable.
     Suppose we begin our Martian adventure by deploying a few 
satellites to take high resolution pictures of the entire surface 
of Mars.  The second  part begins when a mother craft carrying a 
brood of sophisticated robot explorers is launched.  Upon arrival, 
the mother settles into orbit and, as ordered from the earth, 
dispatches her children to perform many missions each featuring 
the landing of a laboratory craft and several reconnaissance  
vehicles at some particularly interesting place.  The laboratory's 
computer controls the collection and analysis of its rovers' booty 
and transmits the results to the mother ship which in turn relays 
it to a gang of a hand wringing gray-beardsback on earth.  
     So far it sounds just like a robot mission, right?  Here's the 
new idea.Even though people would have never physically been 
there, the sites for robot exploration would have been chosen by 
direct human exploration of Mars!
     Here's how.  Imagine you've completed one week of training in 
geology and planet morphology at NASA.  You're not an astronaut, 
just an intelligent someone with a compulsion for adventure. 
You've have been assigned  to explore sector 15A027PC- about a 
thousand square miles of Mars.  You strap yourself into a 
remarkable vehicle and take a breath as you push the button 
marked"Launch Sequence Initializer".  The belly of the mother 
craft opens up and you see Mars beneath you for the first time.  
Your rockets kick in, thrusting you back into your chair as you 
descend rapidly.  Your position appears on the overhead monitor 
as your approach vector hones you in on your assigned area. Once 
there, you float 500 meters above the surface buzzing over 
breathtaking terrain never before seen. Your mind and your 
sensual experience glides above Mars, yet your body is actually 
still on earth.  You are flying a simulator and exploring a 
computer generated "virtual world" that blends those high 
resolution satellite photos into moving 3-D images and is 
therefore identical in every detail to the real Martian surface.  
You look out of your port window to see Phobos, Mars' largest 
moon, just peeking over the horizon.  You hear the Martian wind 
blowing over your cockpit.  You feel your craft move, bank and 
roll as you change course and speed.  You see an ancient and now 
barren river bed cutting through the valley below you.  To your 
left you spot a fascinating possibility. There, about 1000 meters 
away, is a large rocky overhang which completely shields part of 
the river bed from the sun.  Could some ancient form of life have 
once clung to those rocks when the river coursed though this 
valley?  Could that overhang have protected the evidence of that 
life until now?  You log your discovery and fly on.  Later, NASA 
scientists will confirm it and send their intrepid robots to 
investigate. This Virtual World technology exist to impressive 
extent already. The Mars simulator I'm postulating is likely only a 
few years away.
     Human exploration of a virtual Mars has important advantages 
over human exploration of the real one.  Yes, it's safer and much 
less costly, but it's also a much more efficient.  By breaking up 
the surface into a thousands of pieces the whole of Mars could be 
searched by an army of volunteer explorers at our leisure.  
Important sites could be carefully selected and scrutinized, 
instead of having to do everything with 30 over worked space-
suited explorers in only 40 days.  
     But what's most important about all this is how it opens 
extraterrestrial exploration to all of us, and that is very 
exciting!  You won't have to be physically perfect with a lifetime 
of dedicated training to explore strange new worlds.  Any 
intelligent person would be able to do it. When teenagers and 
grandparents, waitresses and executives, the poor, the 
handicapped and the advantaged can queue up to make original 
discoveries about the earth's red sister the dividends to science 
and society will be incalculable.  When we take space exploration 
out of the theoretical and make it part of peoples lives, let them 
"touch the magic", we will turn kids on to scientific carriers and 
generate a new public enthusiasm for the powers of technology 
which will benefit humanity far into the future.  How naive, 
wasteful and even useless it seems to send a few people to Mars 
when we can in a real way bring the entire planet home to 
everyone.
     Let's liberate ourselves from the medieval notions of chivalry 
that have guided our explorations for a thousand years.  
Exploration, the experience of some new place, no longer requires 
the explorer to physically travel there.  It's time to bring our 
fantastic technological prowess to bear on opening up the cosmos 
to all of us, to turn kids on to science as never before possible 
and instill in humanity a sense of the true majesty of space 
exploration.  
     So keep your fingers crossed and your flight suit pressed.  The 
next "new world" adventures just might be waiting for you.             
  
END

"Never attribute to malice what incompetence is sufficient to 
explain."

Shawn Carlson
50/232      
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Berkeley, CA 94720
(415) 486-7433
scarlson@csa1.lbl.gov


[Moderator's note:  Mike McGreevy of NASA Ames Research Center 
has also touted the ability of virtual worlds to deliver 
experiences not available to manned spaceflight, or inappropriate 
for it (like extreme environments).  If someone would get Mike on 
here, we could have a swell dialogue.  Thanks.  -- Bob]