The document discusses the societal impacts of a potential future human mission to Mars. It first outlines existing challenges for such a mission and then identifies various stakeholder groups that influence public opinion, such as governments, space agencies, companies, scientists, media, and taxpayers. A stakeholder matrix is presented that analyzes each group's interest and potential concerns regarding a Mars mission. The document concludes that managing public information and involving diverse international partners will be important to generate support for undertaking the complex endeavor of sending humans to Mars.

1. Physics Procedia 38 (2012) 176 – 185
1875-3892 © 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Integrity Research Institute.
doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2012.08.021
p
Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum - 2012
The Societal Impacts of a Mars Mission in the Future of
Space Exploration
Azam Shaghaghi *a
, Konstantinos Antonakopoulosb
a
International Space University, SSP09 Alumni, NASA Ames Research Center
b
Research Fellow, Dept. of Computer and Information Science, NTNU, Sem Selandsvei 7-9, Trondheim, 7491, Norway
Abstract
The human race has evolved, grown and expanded through the exploration of Earth. After initial steps on
the Moon, our next challenge is to explore the solar system. From the Mars mission viewpoint stepping
on this planet will bring social impacts which may influence the society to a great extent. Never before
have there been so complex mission settings. This implies as an inherent impediment for the future of
space exploration since it is most likely to be scrutinized and challenged by the public. The goal of this
paper is to outline the societal impacts of a Mars mission in the future of space exploration by first
introducing the existing challenges and then identifying the primary groups that form public opinion and
concludes where efforts should be focused.
© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Institute for
Advanced Studies in the Space, Propulsion and Energy Sciences
PACS:
Keywords: Societal impacts, Mars mission, space exploration
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Azam Shaghaghi Varzeghani <ashaghag@ryerson.ca>
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
© 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Integrity Research Institute.

2. Azam Shaghaghi and Konstantinos Antonakopoulos / Physics Procedia 38 (2012) 176 – 185 177
1. Introduction
Myriads of experiments have confirmed the possibility of life on Mars, e.g., canyons carved by water on
the landscape [1]. On the other hand, in the recent years, the search for past or present microbial life has
been intensified with the robotic rovers Spirit and Opportunity dispatched to the Red Planet in 2004 and
the Mars Phoenix Lander in 2007. End of 2011, NASA launched the Mars Science Laboratory to
investigate the Mars habitability, before sending humans for exploration and ultimately colonization.
The space exploration endeavour first requires a strategy that will actively plan both the generation and
the subsequent management of all critical information to ensure that key audiences can obtain the
necessary information in a timely fashion. Possible ignorance when it comes to societal issues, especially
for mission planning may increase the frustration or opposition of the public, project budgets and missed
launch windows.
Martian missions are inevitably more complex from technological, human spaceflight and most
importantly socio-economic and socio-political point of view. It will take the most of each nation towards
human space exploration. In addition, public attitudes about health, safety and environment (HSE), have
changed considerably since the Apollo program. Society has grown more risk averse over time and a
trend that is expected to increase in the future.
In a democratic society, technological policy making can be viewed in two different ways; by technical
considerations and by democratic and social values. What that means is that traditionally NASA experts
have been accustomed to reaching decisions through a highly technical process with minimal input from
the public [2], and since society is actually the part of the world we live in, to be able to identify and
characterize the parts of our everyday life that will be influenced (towards for better), is crucial.
2. Identifying the stakeholders of this endeavor
An initial human settlement on Mars is a venture that can only be enabled by international collaboration.
This enterprise involves not only the crew, or the thousands directly working for the success of a mission,
but it also involves all people on Earth. Furthermore, the different cultural aspects must be taken into
account to stimulate public opinion [3].
A stakeholder analysis was undertaken in [4], identifying the primary groups that form public opinion
and concludes where efforts should further be focused. The analysis was performed in terms of a
stakeholder matrix. The purpose of the stakeholder matrix is to determine the importance of each interest
for the type of stakeholder. The significance of each interest relative to a specific stakeholder and the
overall importance of that interest to the mission were determined. This was done by allotting an opinion
based interest value to each stakeholder and weighting these values by multiplying by a power value for
each stakeholder. These results are summarized in the stakeholder matrix of Table 1. A description of the
stakeholders involved in the analysis is essential to better identify and define responsibilities and
jurisdiction:
Governments: Governments have a unique opportunity to ensure that this generation is remembered as
pioneers of human exploration of the solar system. For this reason, government interest in
undertaking a human mission to Mars is to gain votes and support from their citizens, to
establish stable international alliances to ensure freedom, and to support the exploration
vision. Involving governments from all over the world will help to discourage short-term
thinking by government officials for personal political gains.
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): NGOs will generally be in favor of a mission that expands
mankind’s horizons. However, some mission aspects such as nuclear propulsion may raise
concerns from environmental policies of NGOs.

3. 178 Azam Shaghaghi and Konstantinos Antonakopoulos / Physics Procedia 38 (2012) 176 – 185
Space Agencies: Space agencies act to transform the goals of the space science community into reality,
while succeeding to the political will of their supporting nations. Their main interest is to
conduct space missions in accordance with their space rationales, within budgetary
constraints, and to safeguard jobs within national space industries. With international
cooperation space agencies can profit in many ways.
Large Aerospace Companies: Large aerospace companies are the integrators of future missions to Mars,
directly delivering the mission for the space agencies. Their interest in the success of such
missions relates to new business opportunities and job creation.
Small and Medium Aerospace Companies: Small and medium sized aerospace companies will be
indirectly involved in the mission. They will be mostly subcontractors for the integrators.
Their interest in the success of human missions to Mars relates to new business
opportunities, job creation, and access to knowledge through technology transfer from the
integrators.
Private Entrepreneurs: There is a unique window of opportunity for private entrepreneurs from different
business areas to use their participation as a showcase for worldwide exposure.
Furthermore, the outlook for future spin-ins and spin-offs will certainly be interesting for
this stakeholder group, as space technology is already an inducer of cutting-edge
technological advancements.
Taxpayers: A program such as human missions to Mars will have costs of such magnitude that will
impact taxpayers to a great extent. Taxpayers will desire that their money be spent rationally
and with visible results.
Space Lobbyist Organizations: Space lobbyist organizations, such as, The Mars Society actively advocate
for a human mission to Mars. They have high interest in the complete success of this
mission. On the other hand, the stage for the liaison officers should broaden to ease
communication.
Scientific Foundations: Scientific foundations collect funding from governmental budgets or private
donations and allocate these resources through researchers in the scientific community.
The success of a human mission to Mars will provide scientific foundations with increased
funding and negotiating power.
Academia: The scientific and technical community is the main advocate for a human mission to Mars.
Mars is the prime location for seeking answers to the question of whether there is or was
extraterrestrial life. The technical community will benefit from the challenge of developing
new technology for this mission.
Entertainment Industry: The entertainment industry has great potential to influence large sectors of the
public opinion through their products. Their main interest is to be inspired and acquire
stories for their projects and sell them worldwide. Also, entertainment industry celebrities
have the potential to become effective advocates for space exploration.

4. Azam Shaghaghi and Konstantinos Antonakopoulos / Physics Procedia 38 (2012) 176 – 185 179
Cultural Institutions: Artists reflect the different cultures on Earth, and culture is the only rationale for
space exploration [5]. Artists are stakeholders in the sense that they will want to translate
the first missions to Mars into a shared human experience.
Mass and Social Media: A human mission to Mars has the potential to become the greatest story of its
generation and the main interest of mass media. Journalists will report on every aspect of
the mission. Mass media have a major role in influencing public opinion. Furthermore,
social media like blogs, micro-blogs (e.g., Twitter), social networks and social news have
the potential to become the primary influence on public opinion as they acquire news in
real-time and spread it though their networks.
Table 1. Stakeholder Matrix
Interest
Stakeholder
Governments
Non-governmental
organizations(NGOs)
SpaceAgencies
Largeaerospacecompanies
Smallspacecompanies
Privateentrepreneurs
Taxpayers
Spacelobbyistorganizations
Scientificfoundations
Academia
Entertainmentindustry
Culturalinstitutions
Mass&socialmedia
Science discovery 37 14 62 37 14 1 23 22 27 24 36 6 31
Technology
engineering
37 7 62 62 34 3 35 22 27 24 27 2 21
Social impact 62 34 49 25 21 2 58 22 22 10 45 10 51
Political 62 34 62 49 21 2 47 27 11 10 9 4 31
Educational 49 27 49 25 14 1 47 16 22 24 18 8 21
Cultural 25 27 37 25 14 1 47 16 16 14 36 10 41
Financial 49 7 37 62 34 3 47 11 11 10 45 4 21
Economical 62 21 37 62 34 3 47 5 11 10 27 6 41
Legal/insurance 49 14 37 49 27 2 23 11 5 10 9 2 21
Regulatory / policy 62 27 49 37 21 2 12 27 5 10 9 2 10
Environmental impact 37 34 37 25 21 1 35 16 22 19 18 8 41
Total 530 247 518 456 253 23 419 197 181 163 276 64 329
From Table 1, it concludes that the main focus should be given to Governments (sum 530), Space
Agencies (sum 518), Large Aerospace Companies (sum 456), Taxpayers (sum 419), and Mass and Social
Media (sum 329), especially in the areas of technology engineering, economic prosperity and social
impact. These results show the areas of society that have the most influential impact on the Mars mission;
thus further time and effort need to be dedicated to these stakeholders to ensure a successful mission.
3. Societal impacts from a stakeholders view
In this section, we deepen our analysis by exposing the involvement of each stakeholder in the view of
society is essential to be able to identify the impact of each stakeholder taking into account several
societal factors mentioned in [6]. Table 2, holds the cross-impact matrix of stakeholders’ impact in

5. 180 Azam Shaghaghi and Konstantinos Antonakopoulos / Physics Procedia 38 (2012) 176 – 185
societal parameters. The societal parameters considered herein are: Taxpayers, Special-interest Groups,
Education/Research & Development, Economy/Growth, Culture, and Health.
Table 2. Cross-impact matrix of stakeholders impact in society.
Social
Parameter/
Stakeholder
Taxpayers
Special-
interest
Groups
(SiG)
Education /
R & D
Economy /
Growth
Health Culture
Governments
Promote
human-space
exploration
benefits
Understand
and take
action for
SiG's
concerns on
society
Promote
human-space
exploration
benefits
Civilian &
military
advanced
projects [7]
New political
gate system &
strategy to deal
with the space
treaties in a vast
global level
Economic
expansion in
technological
sector
Space economy
Agricultural
resources
Industrial
productivity
Government &
Commercial
inventions
Invest on more
broad projects
on cancer, heart
Public safety
Promote
human-space
exploration
benefits
Non-
Government
Organizations
Promotion of
societal
benefits in
science and
technology
from human
space
exploration
Create
common a
understanding
and promote
SiG interests
for society
Increased
investment in
basic R&D,
promotion of
education in
science and
technology
Create space-
based
technological
innovations
Boost world-
wide programs
in multi-
cultural
aspects in the
society
Space
Agencies
Share
scientific
space-based
knowledge,
expand our
understanding
of Cosmos
Minimize
scientific and
technological
interdependence
Manned flights as
a marketing tool
New world-
competition
perspective
[8]
Investing on
commercial
services in
space
exploration
for the
cultural
institutes [9]
Large
Aerospace
Companies
Create space-
based
technological
innovations
Kick off advanced
technology to
boost the
economy&
quality of life [10]

6. Azam Shaghaghi and Konstantinos Antonakopoulos / Physics Procedia 38 (2012) 176 – 185 181
Small/Medium
Aerospace
Companies
Create space-
based
technological
innovations
Private
Entrepreneurs
Space
technology
directed at
applicable
commercial
spin-offs,
Technological
innovations
Space
commercialization
[11]
Sub-orbital flights
& hotels [12]
Spin-offs for
biomedical &
medical use
Presence of
the media /
entertainment
industry in
space [13]
Taxpayers
Advanced
lifestyle
Renewable
efficient energy
sources; energy
conserving
consumer
products
Leave developing
countries in
modernity era
Extraterrestrial
intelligence
projects
Environmental
hazards using
satellites on
critical weather
less than billion
light years
Distributing
multi-cultural
packages &
info
Experience
space flights
for every
individual
Space
Lobbyist
Organizations
Cooperated
programs to
leverage
individuals
efforts
Leading the
money stream
into effective
investments
towards
society
growth
Education
coordinator to
encourage the
outreach
Negotiate
technology
enhancement
project between
space agencies &
private entities
Escalate the
international
relations
culture
Scientific
Foundations
Promote space
technology at
scientific /
research level
Academia
Promote
space
technology at
scientific /
research level
Promote space
technology and
exploration
benefits at
school/
university levels
Brain-drain
prevention
Pharmacological
and mechanical
prevention
treatments.
Prevention,
detection, and
treatment of
illnesses ranging
from
osteoporosis to
cancer [14]
Creates a
more
understanding
ground to
pursue the
terrestrial
bodies
Entertainment
Industry
New variety
of shows &
programs
New version of
scientific and
educational film
industry
The multi-million
dollar industry in a
huge dimension
New era of
sports
programs &
microgravity
sports

7. 182 Azam Shaghaghi and Konstantinos Antonakopoulos / Physics Procedia 38 (2012) 176 – 185
Cultural
Institutions
Promote and
reflect the
different
cultures
Providing new
principles &
course studies
Promote culture
through space
tourism
Mass and
Social Media
Influence
through
public media
World-wide
participatory
activities in
space science
through instant
data &
information [15]
Up raising
new outlook
towards space
culture
From Table 2 we see that there is a strong inter-correlation among the stakeholders and the social
parameters investigated. Almost each and every stakeholder can potentially influence (at a different
capacity), almost all of the social parameters. In order for this ‘scheme’ to work best and become
successful, one should think on a massive scale: international cooperation.
4. Towards an International Cooperation
The scale of a program that would allow for an initial human settlement on Mars is unprecedented. For
this reason it is very likely that only a worldwide cooperation effort within a concerted international
exploration strategy could succeed. This section assesses the potential of countries to contribute to an
international human mission to Mars, in terms of technical capabilities. An overview of the relevant
technical space capabilities for current space-faring nations is shown in Table 3.
While most of the capabilities listed in Table 3 already exist or are anticipated, some are missing.
Some capabilities, like cargo transportation to LEO, are available worldwide; other capabilities, such as
an Entry, Descent and Landing on Mars, are limited to a small number of space faring nations. In
addition, some countries may offer specific expertise, such as space robotics in Canada, which is another
factor to take into consideration for international cooperation.
Table 3. Overview of Relevant Technical Space Capabilities as of 2011
Capacity USA Russia China Europe Japan India
HUMAN
Access To LEO Yes Yes Yes No No No
Earth Re-Entry Yes Yes Yes Anticipated Anticipated No
Life Support System Yes Yes Yes Anticipated No No
LEO Rendezvous Yes Yes No No No No
Transfer to Moon/Mars
Orbit
Yes No Anticipated No No No
Mars EDL Anticipated No No No No No
Moon Landing Yes No No No No No
Surface Habitat Anticipated No No No No No
Rover/Mobility
Capability
Yes No No No No No
Moon Surface to Low
Lunar Orbit
Yes No No No No No

8. Azam Shaghaghi and Konstantinos Antonakopoulos / Physics Procedia 38 (2012) 176 – 185 183
Mars Surface to Low
Mars Orbit
No No No No No No
ROBOTIC
Access To LEO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Transfer to Moon/Mars
Orbit
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Earth Re-entry Yes Yes Yes Anticipated Anticipated No
Moon Landing Yes Yes Anticipated Anticipated Anticipated No
Mars EDL Yes Yes No Anticipated No No
Rover/Mobility
Capability
Yes Yes No Anticipated No No
Autonomous
Rendezvous
Anticipated Anticipated No Yes No No
Moon Surface to Low
Lunar Orbit
Yes Yes No No No No
Mars Surface to
Low Mars Orbit
No No No No No No
These factors demonstrate that international cooperation is absolutely required to ensure a safe voyage
and landing on Mars. International cooperation can provide the redundancy needed in the mission critical
path to achieve the high level of safety required for such a mission. For example, redundancy in the ISS
transportation architecture (having the Shuttle and Soyuz), has proven to be vital to the program.
Likewise, a concerted global exploration strategy should be established for a human Mars mission, where
responsibility for each part of the mission is assigned to a given country, or countries, when redundancy is
deemed necessary and financially viable.
5. Conclusions
In this work, we investigated the societal impacts of a Mars mission from a stakeholders’ viewpoint,
where the stakeholders were previously identified in [4]. It is the authors’ belief that the realization of
successful Mars missions is linked to the following three factors: a. International cooperation, b.
Economic growth & development for sustained stability in funding and resource allocation and c.
enabling technologies.
While the technology exists, the first two factors remain the most critical. This is because resources are
not always unlimited (or a priority) and secondly because international cooperation entails the unstable
factor of society. In addition, the quality of living increase and economic growth to a great extend
depends also on scientific and technological awareness and on our ability to incorporate this knowledge in
the economy and lives of the people. Finally, it should be the stakeholders’ responsibility to play their
role towards the advancement of human space exploration with ‘societal awareness’ in mind.
6. Acknowledgment
In the context of the International Space University (ISU) Space Studies Program, NASA Ames Research
Center in 2009, 56 individuals from 15 different countries and various backgrounds took on the task of
presenting a feasibility analysis of cave habitation for an initial settlement on Mars, from which this paper
stems. The ACCESS Mars team members are: A. Al Husseini, L. Álvarez Sánchez, K. Antonakopoulos,
J. Apeldoorn, K. Ashford, Jr., D. Atabay, I. Barrios, Y. Baydaroglu, K. M. Bennell, J. Chen, X. Chen, D.
Cormier, P. Crowley, G. de Carufel, B. Deper, L. Drube, P. Duffy, P. Edwards, E. Gutiérrez Fernandez,

9. 184 Azam Shaghaghi and Konstantinos Antonakopoulos / Physics Procedia 38 (2012) 176 – 185
O. Haider, G. Kumar, C. Henselowsky, D. Hirano, T. Hirmer, B. Hogan, A. Jaime Albalat, E. Jens, I.
Jiv nescu, A. Jojaghaian, M. Kerrigan, Y. Kodachi, S. Langston, R. MacIntosh, X. Miguélez, N. Panek,
C. Pegg, R. Peldszus, X. Peng, A. Pérez-Poch, A. Perron, J. Qiu, P. Renten, J. Ricardo, T. Saraceno, F.
Sauceda, A. Shaghaghi Varzeghani, R. Shimmin, R. Solaz, A. Solé, R. Suresh, T. Mar Vaquero
Escribano, M. Vargas Muñoz, P. D. Vaujour, D. Veilette, Y. Winetraub, O. Zeile
The ISU SSP09 and the work on this Team Project were made possible through the generous support of
NASA Ames Research Center and the NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) and ISU
for the opportunity to conduct this research with the support of dedicated experts and resources at the
Space Studies Program 2009 (SSP09). Special thanks to the ACCESS Mars project faculty Rene Laufer,
Beatriz Gallardo, Alfonso Davila and Jhony Zaveleta. The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous
guidance, support and direction provided by the following individuals during the course of this work:
Khalid Al-Ali Carnegie Mellon University; Cristina Borrera del Pino, CRISA Astrium; Penny Boston,
New Mexico Tech, Nathan Brumall, NASA Ames Research Center; Natalie Cabrol, NASA Ames Research
Center; Axelle Cartier, Excaliber Almaz; James Chartres, NASA Ames Research Center; Ed Chester,
CTAE; Stephen Clifford, Lunar and Planetary Institute; Marc Cohen, Northrop Grumman; Cassie
Conley, NASA HQ; Joseph Conley, NASA Ames Research Center; Joy Crisp, Jet Propulsion Laboratory;
Pascale Ehrenfreund, GWU; Alberto Fairen, NASA Ames Research Center; Lauren Fletcher, NASA Ames
Research Center; Steve Frankel, NASA Ames Research Center; Arthur Guest, MIT; Felipe A. Hernandez,
Universidad Central Santiago de Chile; Scott Hovland, ESA/ESTEC, Donald James, NASA Ames
Research Center; Hajime Jano, JAXA; Dave Kendall, CSA; Mark Kliss, NASA Ames Research Center;
Larry Lemke, NASA Ames Research Center; Gary Martin, NASA Ames Research Center; Tahir Merali,
International Space University; Chistopher McKay, NASA Ames Research Center; David Miller,
University of Oklahoma; John M. Olsen, NASA HQ; Laurie Peterson, NASA Ames Research Center;
Ricardo Amils Pibernat, Centro de Astrobiologia; Florian Selch, Carnegie Mellon University; Raj Shea,
NASA Ames Research Center; Michael Sims, NASA Ames Research Center; Paul Spudis, Lunar
Planetary Institute; Carol Stoker, NASA Ames Research Center; Jim Thompson, The Explorers Club; and
S. Pete Worden, NASA Ames Research Center.
References
[1] Martian chronicles, Economist 2001;359(8216):85–98.
[2] Race MS. Societal issues as Mars mission impediments: Planetary protection and contamination concerns, Adv. Space
Res, 1995;15(3):285-92.
[3] Ehrenfreund P, Peter N, Schrogl KU, Logsdon JM. Cross-cultural management supporting global space exploration, Acta
Astronautica, 2010;66(1-2):245-56.
[4] ACCESS MARS team, Final Report, International Space University, Space Studies Program, NASA Ames, 2009.
[5] Dator J. Cultural rationales for space activities. International Space University, NASA Ames, 2009.
[6] Sadeh E. Societal Impacts of the Apollo Program. The Astrosociology of Space Colonization session, AIAA Space, 2006.
[7] Blamont J, Stetson D, Farquhar R, Zimmerman J, Clark B, O'Neil W, Bourke R, Foing B. International Space
Exploration: Cooperative or competitive?, Space Policy, 2005;21:89–92.
[8] Huntress W, Stetson D, Farquhar R, Zimmerman J, Clark B, O'Neil W, Bourke R, Foing B. The next steps in exploring
deep space. Acta Astronautica, 2006;58(6-7):304-77.
[9] http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Space_Exploration_Strategy/SEMKTM0YUFF_0.html
[10] Jasentuliyana N. Basic space science and developing countries, Space Policy, 1995:11(2):89-92

10. Azam Shaghaghi and Konstantinos Antonakopoulos / Physics Procedia 38 (2012) 176 – 185 185
[11] Ehlmann BL, Chowhury J, Marzullo TC, Collins RE, Litzenberger J, Ibsen S, Krauser WR, DeKock B, Hannon M,
Kinnevan J, Shepard R, Grant FD. Humans to Mars: A feasibility & cost benefit analysis, Acta Astronautica, 2005;56:851-8.
[12] Wilson JR, http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html
[13] Ehrenfreund P, Peter N. Toward a paradigm shift in managing future global space exploration endeavours, Space Policy,
2009;25(4)244-56.
[14] Ocampo A, Friedman L, Logsdon J. Why space science and exploration benefits everyone, Space Policy, 1998;14(3)137-
143.