42 thoughts on “Misdirection On Mars”

  1. It’s interesting that Zubrin explicitly mentions SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy now as a launch vehicle for putting stuff in orbit and orbital assembly. He used to be a hardcore supporter of reusing the Shuttle stack because he needed a big Saturn V-class rocket for directly launching payloads to Mars. I guess NASA didn’t go anywhere in the last twenty years and SpaceX did.

    1. He’s in favor of whatever works. Remember he used to propose a nuclear salt water rocket?

  2. Like I said here before I’m in favor of a skipping stone approach to nearspace development. So I think we should the Moon before Mars. Many of the problems are similar and the Moon is much closer so the turn-around is quicker.

    We want to do the heavy propellant and consumable extraction in space or from a low gravity well. Not to ferry everything from Earth. You posted a table with the ISS Progress payloads the other day. Most of the mass was with things which can relatively easily be extracted in space to begin with.

    Unless this recent EMdrive hype turns out to be substantiated I don’t see the need to have a reaction mass changing. I find it funny that people are calling it the “NASA drive” when it was invented by a UK Electronics Engineer which used to be laughed at. But I digress.

    2. I don’t know if you caught my comment on the cat thread (now on page 2), but new research indicates that cosmic ray intensities outside the Van Allen belt cause permanent brain damage, memory loss, and confusion, probably in a few months. The ionization trails destroy dendrites.

      This means Mars will probably have to wait until we fully shield the spacecraft, and lunar missions would be the ideal proving ground to make sure we’ve got it right.

      1. I’ve heard many arguments saying that the radiation dose rate is way out of kilter with the rates humans-to-Mars travelers will face. Those sorts of details don’t make it into the spectacular headlines.

    3. I hope to live long enough to see humans on Mars. That said, we aren’t ready to go to Mars. There’s a lot of critical technology that needs to be developed first, such as long endurance life support systems, better space suits, dust mitigation systems, etc. Those will take time and money. Even more, we need to develop operational experience on deep space missions.

      Project Mercury proved that a man could survive in space. Project Gemini tested a host of new technologies and techniques to include EVA, orbital rendezvous and docking, long (enough) duration, computers in space, fuel cells in space, etc. Just as important, Gemini provided flight and ground crews a wealth of operational experience at flying missions and resolving anomalies. Gemini paved the way for Project Apollo to succeed from first manned flight to first lunar landing in only 5 missions.

      Virtually (if not literally) all of those flight and ground crew personnel are now retired or dead. The current generation has a lot of experience flying in LEO but deep space is a different situation. There is no quick lifeboat to escape critical problems and you can’t count on multiple resupply missions every year. So, IMO going back to the moon makes a lot of sense before going to Mars. We can develop and test the new technologies needed. We can train the ground and flight personnel on long duration deep space missions.

      Going to the moon to test and learn these things will, IMO, greatly accelerate and improve the chances of successfully going to Mars. Who knows, I might live long enough to see it. I’m 58 and based on the way things are going now, I don’t expect to see people on Mars unless someone like Elon Musk makes it happen.

  3. I agree with the first part of the column – it doesn’t have to be as expensive as Spudis says it does, and Zubrin sketches out a good solution. However, he’s wrong about the moon – and I’ve gotten into a pretty big argument with Paul Spudis about the moon. We are going to need lunar propellant, just as we’d need the propellant we can derive from Mars atmosphere. The argument I had with Spudis (from hazy memory, this was years ago) was over what comes first. I was saying we need to develop orbital propellant depots first, he wanted to go to the moon and produce propellant there first.

    Here’s how I’d do it:

    Develop LEO depots first. Propellant is a commodity. Pay whomever brings propellant to the depot, and charge slightly more to the end user, whomever that happens to be. Turn prop depots into profit centers.

    Then put a depot in lunar orbit (L1 is often mentioned, but it doesn’t matter as long as it is orbiting the moon). Again, pay whomever brings propellant, and charge more for whomever takes it. Use the depots in LEO and lunar orbit to enable cheaper launches to the moon – you only need enough propellant on board to get to orbit, not all the way to the moon and back, so the vehicle can be smaller and cost less.

    Then you land your mining equipment on the moon, probably somewhere close to the peak of eternal light, near Shackleton or de Gerlache crater. Start mining ices on the moon and producing propellant there. Much of that propellant would be destined for the lunar orbit depot, thus making the lunar base a revenue-generator.

    Then you start sending stuff to Mars: just get it to orbit, refuel in LEO, refuel again at L1, and then on to Mars. However, the surface of the planet isn’t the target yet. Instead, you’re sending materiel to Phobos. Once there, the propellant tanks of your initial vehicles become the Phobos propellant depot. Then set up mining equipment on Phobos, and start generating propellant.

    Thereafter, any trips to Mars are leveraging the propellant depots along the way, enabling much more materiel to be sent per dollar.

    This is probably starting to sound familiar to anyone who watched Jeff Greason’s keynote address at ISDC 2011.

    1. The problem with building the depots without exploring orbital resources first is that the most cost effective lunar propellant may not be LOX/LH2 or whatever.
      I remember reading someone proposing LOX/Al monopropellant engines before. Which might make sense since you don’t need that much delta-v to escape the Moon. I agree with what you talk about but there needs to be something else driving the economy other than propellant.

      The first step should be Earth orbit fuel depots and allowing commercial space stations. Eventually manned circumlunar tourist trips and other things like that. Then actual Moon surface development.

    2. I hope to live long enough to see humans on Mars.

      I’ve never understood comments like these. If all you want to do is watch pictures, rather than participate, Hollywood can produce those pictures right now, for a fraction of the cost of a human expedition.

      1. I’m 58 years old. By the time they’re ready to send humans to Mars, I’ll be far too old to be selected even if I had the requisite skills.

        1. I’ll be far too old to be selected even if I had the requisite skills.

          That’s the problem: the notion that space is only for the “selected.”

      2. I don’t want to participate, I don’t want to go to Mars. I prefer to stay on Earth with my kids and grandkids. However I would like to live long enough (I am 52) to see the event happen. And no watching a Hollywood fiction is not, in any way, shape or form, the same as it actually happening.

        1. watching a Hollywood fiction is not, in any way, shape or form, the same as it actually happening.

          True. Hollywood pictures can afford much higher production values than any images NASA may return from Mars. It’s bizarre that people would believe otherwise.

      3. If all you want to do is watch pictures, rather than participate, Hollywood can produce those pictures right now, for a fraction of the cost of a human expedition.

        If Hollywood can put men on Mars right now, then sure, I’ll agree with what you’re saying. But if you’re trying to claim that movies are the same as reality to us, then maybe you should try selling that Brooklyn Bridge to a different audience.

        1. Karl, you don’t need to actually put people on Mars merely to create pictures of people on Mars. If you believe that, you don’t understand motion-picture technology.

          When people wanted to see Godzilla destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, it was done with computer-generated imagery. It wasn’t necessary to destroy a bridge.

      4. If all you want to do is watch pictures, rather than participate, Hollywood can produce those pictures right now, for a fraction of the cost of a human expedition.

        You seem to be saying that, if you can’t go to Mars yourself, it’s a matter of complete indifference to you whether your watching images from an actual Mars expedition or watching images from a movie depicting how Hollywood imagines such an expedition would be like.

        That’s an interesting attitude.

        Are you similarly disinterested in the forthcoming images from Pluto by New Horizons? Since you aren’t flying by Pluto yourself?

        1. I don’t believe the U.S. government has an obligation to provide me with pictures of Mars or Pluto.

          You’re apparently confusing me with the Planetary Society.

    3. I was saying we need to develop orbital propellant depots first, he wanted to go to the moon and produce propellant there first.

      The big problem here is the Royal “we.” The assumption of space development as a collectivist, national endeavour warps every discussion of space policy.

      It’s like having a national debate on where “we” should take our next vacation or build or next house — Las Vegas or Orlando? You will never come up with the right answer, because it’s the wrong question.

      1. “The assumption of space development as a collectivist, national endeavour warps every discussion of space policy.”

        True enough. However, NASA exists, and it’s the 800 pound gorilla.

        2. We could implement a colony plan today using just 2% of the gorilla’s mars budget (see comment below.)

          Why don’t we?

    4. **Here’s how I’d do it:

      Develop LEO depots first. Propellant is a commodity. Pay whomever brings propellant to the depot, and charge slightly more to the end user, whomever that happens to be. Turn prop depots into profit centers.

      Then put a depot in lunar orbit (L1 is often mentioned, but it doesn’t matter as long as it is orbiting the moon). Again, pay whomever brings propellant, and charge more for whomever takes it. Use the depots in LEO and lunar orbit to enable cheaper launches to the moon – you only need enough propellant on board to get to orbit, not all the way to the moon and back, so the vehicle can be smaller and cost less.**

      I would have NASA establish depot at LEO. Then have lunar program
      which explored the Moon with the sole purpose of determine if and where there is commercial minable water.
      Then NASA doesn’t mine it, but rather with the information from NASA lunar exploration program, investor can decide whether it’s economical to mine the lunar water. Of course other States may decide to subsidize or become involved with lunar water mining, as Europeans did in terms of GEO satellite market.
      But anyhow, NASA shouldn’t become a player in the lunar mining business. Also NASA should not build a lunar base- rather it focuses on lunar exploration for minable water, then shifts to a Mars exploration program.
      NASA should not expect or count on lunar water mining to significantly lower it’s costs of rocket fuel for Mars exploration. Or lunar rocket fuel
      shipped to lunar orbit would be at competitive price and compared to shipping rocket fuel from Earth. Though lunar water and LOX maybe fairly cheap as there will be a shortage H2 and shortage of available electrical power to make lunar rocket rocket fuel- it requires a lot energy to split 100 tons of water, and far less energy to mine water.
      So mining 100 tons of water is easy, splitting it into rocket fuel takes longer, and one make 8 LOX to 1 H2 and for rocket use 6 LOX and 1
      H2, so could be extra LOX. Anyhow there should lots of water to ship and perhaps surplus LOX, so they could priced significantly lower than cost to ship from Earth. But in terms NASA to run a Mars program, the cost of rocket fuel is not very important. Though having competitive market for rocket fuel would be significant cost. So NASA wants a competitive market for rocket fuel in Earth high orbit [and Mars high orbit] and this is not solely dependent lunar rocket fuel- it’s just one competitor.
      The situation of having any commercial activity on the Moon is very supportive of Mars exploration- it should insure that Mars exploration continues to get funded and allows for decades of operating this program.
      And in a decade or so, one might get very cheap lunar rocket fuel- but even cheap rocket fuel does significantly lower exploration costs- or Earth launch cost are as important. And if NASA using SLS- the cheapest thing one could do would be to stop using it.
      But launch cost and rocket fuel cost, is more significant for various commercial activity [mining lunar water, lunar tourism, lunar material returned to Earth, lunar iron mining, etc].
      So what needed from NASA is exploration, not agency focused making better launch vehicles, and showing everyone how good they can mine stuff at low cost [which they are utterly incapable of doing].

      1. I think NASA could eventually build a lunar base and rent part of the facilities to private corporations as a sort of lunar business incubator. It is not that farfetched. What NASA needs to do is to give the private sector the ability to do its own thing and eventually not need any NASA help at all.
        NASA can continue itself by continuously pushing near the edges of the manned presence in space. There will be someone further away to be in for a long time to come…

  4. Moon first.
    Answer this – what will be produced on Mars and sold for a profit on Earth?
    The answer is – whatever can wait for a space infrastructure to be developed.

    1. –Answer this – what will be produced on Mars and sold for a profit on Earth?–
      How about a Mars lake?

      10 km in diameter and 10 meters deep- 20 billion
      Or 1.1 million per acre or $600,000 per 1/2 acre lot.

      Or 1/2 acre lot, 2 bedroom underwater house, small greenhouse
      1/5 atm, with living areas at 1/3 atm, with a submerged two car garage.
      radiation protected. Asking price: 5 million..

    2. What will be produced on Mars and sold for a profit on Earth?

      Absolutely nothing like that is required for earth to participate in martian wealth. However, the answer is quite a few things, none of which requires a mass transfer.

      The rest is left as an exercise for the reader… because the answer is so simple with a moments thought and continues to grow with further thought.

      BTW, to that you can add what mars sells that goes to places other than earth, including mass even to LEO.

  5. The point is the debate is not honest.

    It reminds me of engineering meetings I stopped attended. In one, they would identify a problem. In the next, a week later, nothing would have been done in regard to testing solutions.

    Moving forward requires doing. Naysayers are valuable for identifying potential problems. Doers should investigate any reasonable argument so they can move past it.

    Are cosmic rays a problem? Easily tested in space. Human volunteers orbiting the moon can be tested continuously and conclusively. We’ve done worse in the past with people that weren’t informed and didn’t give consent. Bypassing informed consent is the ethical problem.

    Is gravity a problem. No. That’s been tested. We go and observed all those types of issues during a mission. It’s just another misdirection to keep us from actually doing.

    Do we even need to test the cosmic ray issue? We can find that out by taking a closer look at the experiments already done. Did they overdose the test specimens? If so, it’s just another false flag operation and we don’t need to send anybody to circle the moon because the volunteers going to mars accomplish the same thing without wasting more time. Informed consent should be law.

    1. If there was gold on Mars or whatever then it would make sense to go there first. But things are never quite so simple.
      It’s not like Europeans discovered gold in the USA first time they went there. Supposedly the Vikings tried to establish a colony in North America and they failed miserably despite being having a quite self-reliant Iron Age economy. Supposedly the problem was the natives. I just attribute it to not enough resources to be self-sustaining and a harsh environment. Which is much less harsh than the Moon. Then there are those stories of learning farming in North America from the natives.

      You should not expect to find the “killer app” before starting the exploration proper. You do the exploration, some initial presence, and as the presence expands the “killer apps” will show up.

      If like the envirowackos so like to claim we actually had an overpopulation problem the pressure of that alone would be enough to provide incentive for space settling. Just like it was in the Age of Discovery. Unfortunately overpopulation is not a problem.

      1. Of course there’s gold on mars, but no, that is not a reason for going. It appears that mars has every natural element that earth has, if perhaps in different proportions. Even that is not the reason for going, although it does eliminate a large variety of showstoppers.

        If humans could focus we’d have filled the solar systems hundreds of years ago, but we can’t. We can’t even reach an agreement among the handful of extremely intelligent commentors that visit here.

        If we could agree, we could get anywhere in an amazingly short time. Then we could pick another location and do it again even faster. …and again, but we don’t because we argue instead.

        I imagine mars an independent industrial world that would directly raise the quality of life right here on earth. We would participate in mars growing wealth without ever having any significant mass transported from mars to earth. That doesn’t happen if we don’t go.

        By independent I mean each individual, not just the planet itself. Even Thomas has agreed the moon will not be that. His view, that others share, is the moon is the best place to get water to open up the rest of the solar system. He’s not wrong exactly, but it’s a trap, that going to mars may avoid.

        I say may because the trap is mind set which we could bring to mars almost as easily as anyplace else.

        Collectivism isn’t entirely wrong either, but it has killed millions in the last century. It slows progress. Slow progress also kills people but in a way that isn’t so visible as death camps, but just as certain. Yes, going to mars is for me a moral issue.

        I want us to go to the moon and every where else. Lunar water is tantalizing. But doing it would reinforce the wrong mindset and would actually slow progress relative to the alternative.

        Anyone saying we need lunar water to get to mars is provably wrong. Not only that, we even have a metric to test if it even helps get us there, about $10m/ton. If you can use moon water to get us to mars orbit for less than that, you have a reasonable argument, otherwise you don’t.

        How long will it take to get the lunar water mining operation going, decades? Then you have to consider opportunity costs. We can send colonist now (after proving the red lander works by sending supplies to mars) and follow that with colonist at a constantly reducing cost. We have no need to wait for lunar mining operations which actually could proceed in tandem because the cost to get to mars is actually lower than Zubrin indicates in his article.

        I’m for one way, but that doesn’t mean we don’t put a MAV on mars and ERV in orbit. It’s just not required for getting to mars and can be considered a separate mission. Nothing to argue about.

        1. Agreement isn’t required. As long as you have more than one person in any discussion there will be some sort of disagreement. What there has been a lack of is in doing things.
          This, to a high degree, is due to the expense of space launch and regulatory barriers. Hopefully SpaceX is one of the first companies to break with this and we will see Blue Origin and others continue this effort.

          1. Agreement isn’t required when you’re hierarchy includes a boss that can close debate.

            We can be doing things (right now) even without closing debate. Any mission requires supplies on mars before colonists. It cost’s a fraction of what we continue to spend to do that. Why don’t we?

            One FH w/ payload per launch window would cost would cost about $100m per year. The last rover cost $2.5b and what for SLS/Orion? So for about 100/5000 or 2% we could start the colonization process now with no need to come up with any final plan. They can continue to argue that SLS/Orion has anything to do with mars, meanwhile we stop another 20 year delay.

  6. Unfortunately overpopulation is not a problem.

    Yeah, that really sucks, doesn’t it?

  7. If you want to use something like nuclear thermal or solar-thermal rockets to push cargo and eventually people around the solar system (to, say, actually set up a base on the moon/mars), then hydrogen is what you will need for propellant.

    Reading the research on lunar water deposits a few years ago, I didn’t get the impression that there was a lot there. The article discussing the orbital neutron reflection scan seemed to imply something like an extremely diffuse presence in tons of sand in the permanently shadowed regions of the moon. If so, blowing it away as reaction mass might not be sustainable. (Man, the greens have poisoned that word! 😛 ) You might want to keep it around for use in moon-bases.

    Ceres seems to be the closest object with lots of water and a shallow gravity well. (It’s also, and for that reason, far enough out that deriving serious power from solar energy is problematic.)

    I think that colonizing Mars / beginning to fling large masses around the solar system with space derived propellant, may require robotically colonizing Ceres as a first step.

    1. The LOX/LH2 propellant depot in Earth orbit makes sense as the resupply from Earth is relatively easy. I have heard other people talk about LOX/LCH4. Both are viable near Earth. Further away I suspect other kinds of propellants may be more viable. Like I said before the LOX/Al monopropellant or whatever.

    2. You’re not thinking big enough. I’m sure there’s a rock circle some star less than a hundred light years from us with lots of water. We could use that to get to mars! (Is my sarcasm showing? Darn.)

    3. > Reading the research on lunar water deposits a few years ago, I didn’t get the impression that there was a lot there [on the moon].

      Which is why a program of prospecting is needed. Landing suitably instrumented rovers at the promising sites to find out what is really there would seem to be a good idea.

  8. > it’s a lot better than anything that NASA has put forward.

    In the sense that something is better than nothing? At the moment, NASA has put forward absolutely nothing in the way of a moon/Mars program(*) and shows absolutely no sign of doing so for the foreseeable future.

    (*) Program = proposed mission architectures, schedules, budgets, etc. Saying “Mars! SLS! Orion!” falls short of that.

    1. Oh, my bad. Mr. Bolden has just set the record straight:

      ============

      http://thehill.com/policy/technology/241046-nasa-head-humanity-closer-than-ever-to-mars

      The Obama administration has for years been working on a plan to launch a manned mission to Mars at some point in the 2030s, for which the government has devoted billions of dollars.

      “There is a new consensus that is emerging around this timetable and this goal,” Bolden said at the Humans to Mars conference in Washington. “This plan is clear, this plan is sustainable and this plan is affordable.”

      ============

      It would be nice to see this clear, sustainable and affordable plan laid out in a bit of detail.

  9. I hope to live long enough to see humans on Mars.

    Tell me, what prevents us from shipping precursor supplies to a colony site today and continuously, regardless of the eventual architecture?

    Let companies bid for it. Let us build an abundance on mars until sending colonists becomes irresistible.

    Let Elon say, “I want that stuff for my colony.”

Comments are closed.