MARS So much spent on space project while there’s great need at home

MARS

So much spent on space project while there’s great need at home

Sunday, January 11, 2004

Great news! The $820 million NASA project has met with partial success. NASA officials rejoiced when their twin rover, Spirit, landed on Mars; the second, Opportunity, is expected to arrive later this month (“Picture-perfect rover landing on Mars brings cheers from NASA,” Jan. 5).

The project had been described in somewhat pessimistic phrases, such as “harrowing trip,”"a gust of wind or a single sharp boulder could doom the entire enterprise” or “riskiest portion of trip” (“Unmanned NASA rover prepares for Mars landing,” Jan. 3).

Please enlighten me why it is imperative to learn whether the Red Planet was ever warmer or wetter or sustained life. I ponder the concept of what $820 million could accomplish on Earth for those at the poverty level, homeless souls in overcrowded shelters, the unemployed seeking jobs while struggling to keep families fed, clothed and housed, and prevalent world famine.

Even Ed Weiler, NASA’s associate administrator for space science, had called Mars the “death planet.”

Are there so many positives about this endeavor to warrant such gross expenditure? Will we be able to aid the needy, build low- income housing, schools and playgrounds, abate world hunger, etc., because of Mars exploration?

Let us instead strive even more diligently to enhance the “life planet” and the lives of those who occupy it.

Betty Grafwallner Milwaukee

One has to wonder . . .

While looking at the dramatic pictures of the Mars landscape, I couldn’t help but wonder how long it will take for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to fine NASA for landing in what may have been a wetland.

Wayne Stoll Ladysmith