A Renewed Optimism

The politically driven financial constraints came at a time of renewed scientific optimism about the potential for life on Mars. The optimism derived mainly from discoveries on Earth and the distant cosmos. Research since Viking was turning up increasing evidence that hardy microbes and other organisms could thrive on Earth in the most unlikely and hostile places, where it was incredibly hot or cold. Indeed, these beings were accorded the name “extremophiles.”

Mike Carr commented to the media, “We’re in a different world. Our under­standing of biology has advanced so much in the past 20 years. The probability that life could have started on Mars has greatly increased.”3Another stimulus for renewed scientific optimism about Mars lay with discoveries far from Earth and the Red Planet. Scientists in the mid-1990s were beginning to discover evidence of planets around distant stars. These discoveries, which were of Jupiter-sized planets, gave hope that, sooner or later, astronomers would detect Earth-like planets.4

These remarkable discoveries on Earth and in the cosmos not only stim­ulated renewed hope about Mars but also helped spawn planning for a new initiative at NASA called “Origins” which would link planetary research with research in the cosmos around a theme of how the universe and life began. It was a theme that echoed much of Sagan’s writing, and Sagan continued as a close Goldin advisor. Goldin and Huntress strained to find money to nurture the new venture, which they hoped would help reignite public interest in the space program. Michael Meyer, who headed exobiology studies under Huntress, recalled that Goldin “knew taxpayers were not interested in NASA for science’s sake. The public cared about human exploration and the search for life. Goldin also was interested in biology. He thought that was the next frontier. Goldin had Huntress and me in for talks. He spoke with me alone. I would get a call from him. It was a ‘heady’ experience.”5

Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), a staunch NASA supporter, was alarmed about NASA’s fiscal future and pressure to downsize employment, especially as it affected facilities in her state.6 She pressured Clinton and Gore to have a “space summit” to discuss NASA’s perilous future and what could be done about it.

In July 1996, the last Case for Mars conference took place at Boulder—at least under Underground auspices. Most of the original leaders of the Mars Underground had moved on. Chris McKay and Carol Stoker had gone to work for NASA. The current leaders of the Underground believed they had accom­plished their objectives in keeping the dream of Mars exploration alive. Now Robert Zubrin, a firebrand engineer formerly of Martin Marietta, was poised to take a leadership role in outside advocacy, writing and speaking evangeli­cally about Mars.7 In two years, he would form a new organized interest group, the Mars Society. Its orientation was emphatically on the human program (in contrast to the Planetary Society, which emphasized exploration in general). He would also publish a book in 1997 called The Case for Mars, the title being that used by the Mars Underground for its conferences.8

All Mars advocates knew that the human and robotic Mars programs were potentially mutually supportive. But Zubrin held that human spaceflight should drive the robotic program and its priorities. Advocates of robotic efforts, in con­trast, emphasized that science objectives were significant in themselves. In July, Ed Stone, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, argued that the robotic program deserved support on its own merits. At this point in history, Stone de­clared, robotic explorers were essential. “At least for the questions we’re smart enough to ask right now, robotic missions will suffice,” he said. “Eventually, we may get to a set of questions where humans on the surface may be crucial,” he declared. But not now, Stone insisted. Zubrin and those who followed him strongly disagreed.9

The dilemma for NASA was that there was not enough money for the desired robotic Mars program, much less human spaceflight to Mars. NASA needed cooperation among its conflicting constituencies in a time of threat. Huntress and Goldin believed that Origins conveyed an all-embracing purpose for space exploration, whether by machines or humans. Origins was not a specific pro­gram, but a theme to which various activities of NASA could contribute and which might be exciting to the public. Now the question was how to market this theme.