The Oxford Political Review interviews Dr. Jim Green, Chief Scientist at NASA and one of planetary and space science’s leading contemporary voices. Dr. Jim Green discusses NASA’s exploration of Mars, the link between climate change and space exploration, and the future of space exploration in politically transformative times.
Dr. Jim Green’s booming voice sonorously greets me over the phone – it is late evening at NASA, and his busy day is just winding down when I finally get through to him, after repeated technical difficulties on my part.
Is there life on Mars?
Our conversation begins with a rather stereotypical question that most tabloids enjoy spinning out of proportion and context – “Given the results from the Curiosity rover, which suggest signs of possible life of Mars, could you tell us if there is life… intelligent life, even, on Mars?”
The upshot is, water probably existed on Mars in the past, and at a level that was significant enough to support life.
Jim eagerly launches into an in-depth discussion of the Curiosity rover’s work – namely, in canvassing the Gale crater and extracting samples of soil and minerology. He remarks that such research has enabled mankind to go after some of the biggest questions out there concerning life on Mars – more specifically, whether area that Curiosity was operating in had the potential to have housed life in the past. Digging under the planet’s surface and extracting materials that contain carbon, hydrogen, phosphorus, sulphur, and nitrogen – materials that we know, for a fact, constitute life, the rover’s investigation has yielded the insightful conclusion that the Gale crater plausibly sits on the shoreline of an ancient ocean, one that has previously poured over the crater ram and into the crater. There is further evidence (hitherto undisclosed to the public) that suggests that there exist complex inorganic and organic molecules on Mars’ surface – whilst it remains unclear as to how they have been assembled (by nature or by force), such discoveries are positive and reassuring signs that portions of Mars’ surface could have been habitable to potentially intelligent life.
“If there were microbes on Mars at the time when there was water – roughly 4 billion years ago – it would be the case that they would survive, multiply, and evolve. The key clarification is that Mars was potentially habitable – this does not imply for certain that it contained life.”
Here the clarificatory imperative is essential – public hearsay and media speculation conventionally tend towards spinning NASA’s discoveries into hyperbolic, untruthful statements. Jim cautiously and prudently flags that the potentiality for life to have existed in the past does not equate the imminent and present existence of life. Whilst there exist signs and traces of water’s previous existence – the rover identified rounded and accumulated pebbles that resembled those found in all dried-up streams – it remains an unanswered question as to what concrete evidence could be supplied to demonstrate the existence of life on Mars.
Yet the nature of space exploration – as with all science – is never set in determinate language or certainty. Jim’s professionalism and insights come at the culmination of decades of working at and helming various divisions of NASA’s research – starting out as a researcher in the Magnetospheric Physics Branch, then managing the nascent Space Physics Analysis Network, and eventually ascending to positions such as spokesman for NASA on planetary missions, and his current post. Jim’s meticulous attention to detail does not obstruct his ability to communicate perspicuously – it only reflects his veteran identity as a seasoned traveller in space science.
Jim offers a valuable preview into the next Mars mission, which is likely to be subterranean in digging deeper into Mars’ surface. He anticipates that future rover expeditions would involve detailed exploration of underground aquifers for potential life. For NASA in particular, the priority is the Mars 2020 mission, which would feature further exploration of the confluence where ancient rivers appeared to conjoin with the lake structure on the crater. If such expeditions would yield positive results – e.g. the existence of traces of plankton left over from millions ago, the evidence would be a remarkable addition to the case for life having previously existed on Mars.
More peculiarly, perhaps, the geological record would also aid humanity in understanding how climate change took place on Mars – potentially shedding insights, even, into the precarities confronting us today.
Our conversation shift quickly into the Artemis programme, of which I was previously informed by Jim’s assistant that he is most keen to discuss – it is a pioneering project that aims to land the first woman and another man on Moon, but that is also ground-breaking in many crucial technical ways. Jim views the Artemis programme as a key stepping stone for Mars and outer space exploration – “the Moon has a whole host of advantages as a site of experimentation – it is very close to us in spatial and distance terms; it enables us to develop the capacity of adapting to and living in the space; there is a fair amount of water on the Moon in its north and south poles.” In short, the Moon is the ideal site for preparing humanity for sustained presence and exposure in space.
More crucially, the Moon’s environment shares several core similarities with Mars’, which paves the way for astronauts and scientists to familiarise with Mars-like environments prior to attempting “the real deal” – the old North Pole of Mars features an Arizona-sized glacier, and the Artemis programme provides the perfect launch pad for understanding the dynamics and obstacles surrounding glacier exploration.
Is There Life in Space?
How does the scientist feel about the prospects of other lifeforms existing in space in general?
“I’m quite excited about it – and we’re doing everything we can to verify such existence.”
He nevertheless cites Hawking in noting the renowned scientist’s fears that we would not be ready in communicating with or contacting extraterrestial life. The irreverent NASA head honcho professes that he is “not concerned about that”; yet he does express his reservations as to whether we are, as a collective and planetary community, ready in embracing our findings. In an impressive display of popular culture knowledge, he cites the movie Life (2017) and the aggressive, destructive attitudes harboured by humans towards the extraterrestial lifeform.
Jim does not see as productive the fixation with “killing ET life”, or the more general, impetuous, irrational paranoia about alien life. Our aim should be to understand, to develop an informed and reflexive relationship with life forms beyond Earth – as opposed to treating such life as our Nemesis. He notes that we want to know more about the nature of life – “how it works, how it evolved”; given the innate differences Martian life (to the extent it exists or existed) is likely to have relative to us, we should embrace the unknown with a level of open-mindedness that sadly few have displayed in contemporary politics.
As to life beyond the solar system, Jim makes a somewhat pensive observation about the tendency of the media to misrepresent scientists – there is indeed evidence that there existed water on exoplanets, but this finding is far less surprising or ground-breaking than the media portray it to be.
“Scientists will say, ‘we have found Earth-sized planets with inhabitable areas.’, and the media will translate this into ‘we have found Earth-like planets that are inhabitable.’” He marks, with an awkward laugh. The former is statistically far more likely than the latter – it is imperative that media reporting ought to be clear and precise about the details; yet it is equally unlikely that they do so, given the temptation in sensationalising their reporting and coverage of scientific discoveries.
Space and the Future
I press Jim on a pertinent political question that many of his colleagues in other scientific sectors have seemingly encountered under various recent administration shifts in the US: have recent political intrigues and tensions left space exploration funding significantly undercut or reduced under opportunitism?
Jim adamantly rejects this view – he cites the increase in the budget from 2billion to 2.2billion in NASA’s spending, and flags that the Trump administration remains willing to support and back space travel, which is increasingly a bipartisan and mutually supported venture across Democrats and Republicans.
Is There Space for the Living?
Does Jim see space “colonisation” and “inhabitation” a distinct and substantial possibility?
“In the next 100 years, we’ll be seeing humans working for extending periods of time in space – working there and returning to Earth. There’ll be many more humans on the Moon, conducting research of relevance to our technological and economic developments.”
As a scientist, he knows full well that vast volumes of change could emerge from a hundred years of human persistence and aspiration. Here he proudly cites the construction of the space station – now operated and run by a large number of international parties, who have set aside political differences in collaborating and “doing science” for the common good of humanity.
Such multilateralism – perhaps rare and seen only in the aspirations of the most optimistic when it comes to international relations today – is what Jim views as integral to humanity’s attempts of settling on the Moon and Mars, or beyond. The USA is continually looking for new partners, and the future of space travels appears to be, contrary to its counterparts on Earth (for now, at least), one intricately linked with global cooperation and synergy.
Would space exploration be the answer to the calamities posed by climate change?
“I don’t think space is our answer to climate change. We must go into space regardless of whether there is major climate change.”
“As a planetary scientist”, he adds, “when you look over the 4.6 billion years of Earth history, the climate has done nothing but change – climate is constantly changing. Yet what is critical is the rate at which it is changing.” The NASA Chief Scientist argues that the most imperative objective is to address the rate at which the climate is changing. Whilst mitigatory strategies remain in the talking stage, we – as a collective – must be more proactive and committed to implementing these strategies. What space travel and combating climate change have in common, perhaps, is that both require humanity to learn to work together, in setting aside differences whilst working across cultural-political divides. Perhaps, contra Arendt, the future of humanity can lie in both the recreation of the polis on Earth, and the pursuit of society beyond the confines of our green, lonely planet.