What costs $820 million dollars and goes thud? Answer: NASA's six-wheeled roving robot. When the taxpayer funded rover landed safely on Mars late Friday, it sent a tone transmission back to the good ol' USA. Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory celebrated their achievement with bear hugs and whoops that would do a hyena proud. But is the project worth a near-billion dollars? Bearing in mind that our tax dollars are funding such government projects, I have some questions to ask.

* Do Americans really want it? The cost for the mission is about $3 for every American. That's every American, from the smallest baby to the eldest senior. If you were to go door to door, asking your neighbors to donate $3 per household member to 'a very important project," they would wonder what you are up to. If you would explain the money will be spent to find life on Mars, you would likely find yourself beset with numerous slamming doors. Still, considering the cost of the rover project is about one-tenth the price tag of the war in Iraq, some would make the argument that it's a quite a bargain. Others, however, would want to know if the project is really worth that much money. Consider me one of the "others."

* Is the purpose worth the price? According to NASA, the purpose of the rovers (another is scheduled to land January 24) is more than taking pretty pictures of the rusty Martian landscape. Soil samples will offer scientists a clue as to the red planet's history. Specifically, they want to know if Mars was warmer, wetter and capable of supporting life. While the inquiring minds at the government's space agency are to be admired, scientists have been aware of the Mars atmospheric history for decades. They know, for example, that the planet is so cold and dry that it would take less than a second for a drop of water to evaporate. They also know that, in its warmer, wetter youth--3.5 billion years ago--Mars was host to an abundance of water. With this already common knowledge, one would wonder if NASA's rover project is a gross waste of tax-dollars.

* Does the end justify the expense? Some suggest that, if remnants of life are found on Mars, that, alone, will justify the cost. And that begs the question, are there traces of life on Mars? Yes, there are. There is little doubt that rovers Spirit and Opportunity will find evidence of primitive life. Scientists are aware that, as microorganisms have escaped Earth's atmosphere over billions of years, they littered other rocky planets with traces of life. According to astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, 'NASA has a shot at discovering life's remains on Mars." The scientist notes that, 'Just as meteors travel from Mars to Earth so also do they travel from Earth to Mars. Over the past four billion years at least several billion tons of Earth material, much of it life-carrying material, has landed on Mars." While the Mars project may find remnants of life, it will be nothing that couldn't be found in our own backyard. An $850 million expense to confirm what scientists already know seems, well, ridiculous.

* Could the money be better spent? Granted, new data from the rovers will add a few pieces to the puzzle. But the mission's real objective has more to do with our national ego than with usable scientific data. As such, the funds could be better spent elsewhere. One case in point is the school system in Reading, Pennsylvania. Forced to conform to President Bush's 'No Child Left Behind Act," educators in that city are unable to meet the cost of educating thousands of Hispanic immigrants. Though designed to shake up the nation's educational systems, many educators view it as a poorly conceived, unfunded shake down. Another case in point is the burdensome income tax. According to one economist, the federal government spends $21,000 per year per American household. Rather than sending millions to Mars, that money should be returned to the nation's taxpayers.

--Kenn Gividen, coordinator of the Libertarian Party Writers' Bureau