Space Archaeology II

The Archaeology of Mars

It looked for a while as though I may have had to prepare a presentation at short notice for the Brown Bag series at Leicester. I get bored presenting on my PhD, because so much of the basics need to be repeated again and again. For a 20 minute talk I can be certain that 10 minutes will have to be old stuff. So inspired by Dr Space Junk’s weblog I threw together some slides on the Exploration of Mars. After reading her article I’m pretty sure the field is sound, but I’m not so sure about my talk. It’s a possible entry for CHAT* this year in the neocolonial section.

There are two hooks in the talk. The first is looking at the quantative data. The slide below shows how Mars has come in and out of fashion in space exploration. The graph underplays the drop. NASA stopped sending probes in the mid 70s and didn’t really return in any great numbers till the mid 90s. You would expect some clustering of probes. There are times when it’s easier to send something to Mars, so there’s nothing especially sinister about Spirit, Opportunity and Beagle2 arriving around the same time. This clustering occurs because Mars comes into opposition every two years, so that doesn’t explain the 80s.

This shows where it’s possible to go badly wrong. The simplistic explanation would be that the Cold War wound down in the 80s, so the space race was over. A more likely explanation is that the Shuttle was a huge burden on NASA’s budget. Rather than abandoning space, Mars exploration was a victim of the satellite boom of the 80s and the militarisation of space.

Further the graph doesn’t show the types of probes being sent and this is the second hook. It would be easy to get carried away here too. You could, if you wished, say that the mobility of the recent American probes represents a desire to claim territory while Beagle2 limited its effect on Mars. Alternatively if you want the Americans to be the good guys you could argue that Spirit and Opportunity were non-invasive, while the British probe had a phallic drill to penetrate the planet in a quest for life. Neither interpretation would make much sense.

However I think there is a qualitative change in the sort of probe that is being sent that is worth talking about. Until now probes have gone out, done their experiments and reported back. This year the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is launched to arrive 2006. Along with the science NASA notes “The orbiter will also establish a crucial service for future spacecraft, becoming the first installment of an “interplanetary Internet.” Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter will be the first link in a communications bridge back to Earth to be used by numerous international spacecraft in coming years.” It will also act as a ‘lighthouse’ to guide travellers in, which is essential when you remember around half of Mars probes fail to get to Mars.

In 2009 the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter launches to arrive in 2010. Again NASA notes “NASA’s Mars Telecommunications Orbiter will be the first spacecraft to travel to another planet for the primary purpose of relaying communications to and from Earth.” This is no longer the earliest steps of exploration. This is the arrival of the first infrastructure at Mars. It’s the first step to colonisation.

What will this mean for control of Mars? NASA isn’t fortifying the planet. They’re not even consciously pushing forward any territorial claims. This is entirely the product of scientific endeavour. Nevertheless by building the communications hub NASA is may the USA in the position of having a large degree of control over Mars. Consider the position of the ESA. If you’re building Mars Express 2 and you can save money, or give payload space to more instruments if you use the MTO as the relay station what would you do? Assert independence and take a big risk of failure, or minimise the risk and maximise the payback? With no sinister motives and no aggressive policy the USA could become the gatekeepers of Mars.

I’m not sure whether to develop this. I think it would be a very easy talk to do badly. Much of this is the archaeology of probes which haven’t flown yet, or even been built. It’s hard to imagine how it could be more speculative. On the other hand some of the questions are fascinating.

Colonisation on Earth has tended to define itself as moving into pristine territory. An example would be the colonisation of South Africa, where white settlers had the myth of an empty land that the Zulu were moving into from the north. Which works, but only if you ignore the San. Colonisation of Mars will be a move into a culturally pristine territory. How will that affect land claims? Because if something peculiar, like mineral wealth, is found on Mars then there’ll certainly be a scientific base over the site. Will the early arrivals act as though they are the First Nations of Mars?

Another common colonisation myth is the duty of the colonisers to civilise and protect the savage natives? If we find life on Mars will we protect it or act in its best interests? Judging from history so far we can expect a lot of casualties. Who will be the agents of colonisation? Governments or multi-national companies? Already much of the Mars data is run through Malin Space Science Systems.

I don’t honestly know if I have the time to fully develop this beyond a preliminary talk. I’d need to talk more with the people in Physics and Astronomy, because some of the above could well be bunk. But some of the problems like the potential American dominance of Mars communications would seem to turn some basic assumptions about centralisation of power on their head. I’d tended to think of the development of Bronze Age hill forts as a symbol of an individual gain power over their community. This would seem to suggest an alternative would be an voluntary investing of power in a central authority is plausible. It certainly would require a firm grasp of the science as well as the social aspects of the space exploration programme to avoid some fatuous conclusions. I’ll sleep on it for now.

*CHAT = Contemporary and Historical Archaeology in Theory. I helped out when it was held at Leicester last year and I enjoyed what I heard. The presenters seemed interested in what theory could do in Archaeology, rather than exploring Theory for Theory’s sake. —–