Here’s why many in aerospace remain skeptical of the journey to Mars

Wouldn't it be easier to deploy a permanent base in the Moon, and then leverage it for a Mars mission?

 

[jdale]

Among those questions that will be asked are these: What is the plan for NASA to get to Mars? And can the space agency make it there within a reasonable budget?

This presumes it's up to NASA to make a plan. But how can they make a plan when the funds aren't available to carry it out, and when congress specifies how they must spend the majority of their funds?

The question really needs to be asked of the president and congress. Are you actually interested in making this happen? Or is it just to provide a sufficiently long-term goal so that its execution or non-execution will occur after you are out of office anyway?

 

[kirby14]

I know this is off topic and plenty of people have already brought it up but I'm still amazed that when Ars does the A/B title testing the buzzfeed-esque titles always win out. You'd think the Ars readers would be better than that

 

[afidel]

arcite[/url]":3drrb9wy]What would be the scientific value of a manned trip to Mars anyway? Big picture...what could be learned by human exploration that could not with cutting edge robots and probes?

The total amount of surface exploration done by robot probes to date could be accomplished by a manned mission in an afternoon.

 

[Statistical]

Among those questions that will be asked are these: What is the plan for NASA to get to Mars? And can the space agency make it there within a reasonable budget?

This presumes it's up to NASA to make a plan. But how can they make a plan when the funds aren't available to carry it out, and when congress specifies how they must spend the majority of their funds?

You can still make a detailed plan. Granted it will never be executed without funding but you can have a plan and we don't even have that today. I mean read the Mars Evolved plan and then download and read something like the Mars Design Architecture and compare the level of detail.

Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0 (2009)
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373665main_NAS ... 09-566.pdf

Mars Evolved (i.e. Mars "plan" 2015)
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... 08_508.pdf

Just skim both if you don't have time to read (but honestly the MDRA is a good read if you ever wondered how you would get humans to Mars). Now be honest which one looks like a plan and which one looks like vaporware you would expect from a startup which won't exist in a two years?

Don't get me wrong Congress is a huge part of the problem but we don't have a plan today and that goes beyond just underfunding. It shows a lack of vision or clear direction. Today we have a nebulous idea that it would be nice to eventually go to Mars or maybe somewhere else in space involving people.

 

[joshv]

I know this is a very unpopular opinion here at Ars, but our space exploration dollars are substantially wasted sending human bodies into space vs robotic explorers.

If you are worried about a "backup" for the human population, there are probably much cheaper things we can do to make our population more sustainable and guard against existential threats (asteroids) - and those things should be done. But, if you are just interested in the glory of putting human bodies on other planets, that's great, please spend your own money in pursuit of that goal.

 

[John@smokenmirrors.com]

I think NASA is doing about as well as can be expected with current funding levels. If congress wishes to mandate a Martian colony then they should do it, and fund it appropriately. Until then enjoy the pictures of Ceres and Pluto.

 

[Shlazzargh]

It must actually be incredibly frustrating for folks like Dava who are, I'm sure, as excited about space as many of us are but are constantly fighting to get anything done. Her 'answers' really tell me that she has been specifically instructed by PR folks to not commit NASA to any particular path. There are probably folks at NASA who have much more detailed goals and closely guarded plans; however, tipping those plans risks having a congress person shoot them down right away. Thus, she has to answer like the kid who waited until the last minute to do a book report.
We really, really need an overall goal and vision statement to come from the top. Perhaps one will be imposed on us by other countries and private companies.

 

[caldepen]

Greason said the documents do not make it clear what the overall goal of the Journey to Mars is: Flags and footprints? A base? Human settlement? “If you don't know why we're doing it, it's hard to know whether it is worth doing,” he said.

Was this rhetorical? If not, kind of silly. A base or human settlement are surely not the goal for the first time. Flags and footprints and perhaps leaving some experiments and equipment are surely the goal...

 

[caldepen]

arcite[/url]":xb22goci]What would be the scientific value of a manned trip to Mars anyway? Big picture...what could be learned by human exploration that could not with cutting edge robots and probes?

What's the point of getting out of bed in the morning?

Also as an aside, is Ars' servers on Miller's Planet? Why is the timestamping all mixed up?

 

[chromal]

Greason said the documents do not make it clear what the overall goal of the Journey to Mars is: Flags and footprints? A base? Human settlement? “If you don't know why we're doing it, it's hard to know whether it is worth doing,” he said.

How soon we forget our past.

"We choose to go... We choose to go... and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. " -JFK 09/12/1962

If we were willing to invest US$1.7T in the Iraq War, why the hell wouldn't we do this?

 

[jpcg]

avant[/url]":1u048k15]Wouldn't it be easier to deploy a permanent base in the Moon, and then leverage it for a Mars mission?

This! Build a moon base with space elevator and than look further. From what I've read a space elevator is rather archivable b/c of the lower gravity. Add the fact that there is water on the moon (i.e space fuel) and you can get anywhere in the solar system from there.

As an added bonus, if we have a moon base we all might get to the moon (as a tourist, with reasonable budget) before we die. I think thats pretty much impossible for Mars.

Edit: Since this got downvoted somewhat, here a quick reference to the lunar space elevator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator and the Lunar water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water since those are the building blocks needed for "my" plan. Oh and those guys want to build it http://liftport.com/lunar-elevator/ (no affiliation)

 

[pusher robot]

joshv[/url]":23yg89no]But, if you are just interested in the glory of putting human bodies on other planets, that's great, please spend your own money in pursuit of that goal.

??? Are you, on behalf of scientists, claiming governmental money as "yours?" If so, then I never want to hear another complaint about NASA budget cuts.

 

[CraigJ ✅]

So this is about NASA's plan (or lack thereof) to get to Mars, not Mars feasibility in general?

Personally I agree. NASA's problems aren't really NASA's, they are Congress' issues, and as long as there are no terrorists or pedophiles on Mars, NASA isn't getting the budget it needs. Particularly when said budget has to spread the pork to 50 states.

 

[arcite]

What would be the scientific value of a manned trip to Mars anyway? Big picture...what could be learned by human exploration that could not with cutting edge robots and probes?

 

[JohnDeL]

jdale[/url]":3amfyts4]

Among those questions that will be asked are these: What is the plan for NASA to get to Mars? And can the space agency make it there within a reasonable budget?

This presumes it's up to NASA to make a plan. But how can they make a plan when the funds aren't available to carry it out, and when congress specifies how they must spend the majority of their funds?

The question really needs to be asked of the president and congress. Are you actually interested in making this happen? Or is it just to provide a sufficiently long-term goal so that its execution or non-execution will occur after you are out of office anyway?

You forgot NASA's real reason for existing, at least from the perspective of a Congresscritter: to provide jobs in their district via pork (e.g., the Senate Launch System). That's the real reason that Congress likes long-term goals - it means that the pork goes on forever.

 

[fragile]

chromal[/url]":3u10tmsw]

If we were willing to invest US$1.7T in the Iraq War, why the hell wouldn't we do this?

I presume that you realise that there is no oil on Mars ????

 

[Skelator123]

joshv[/url]":1qqjp3i8]I know this is a very unpopular opinion here at Ars, but our space exploration dollars are substantially wasted sending human bodies into space vs robotic explorers.

If you are worried about a "backup" for the human population, there are probably much cheaper things we can do to make our population more sustainable and guard against existential threats (asteroids) - and those things should be done. But, if you are just interested in the glory of putting human bodies on other planets, that's great, please spend your own money in pursuit of that goal.

Sometimes the point of doing something is simply to DO it. Not because it's easy, but because it's hard.

 

[JohnDeL]

arcite[/url]":2o6xe99x]What would be the scientific value of a manned trip to Mars anyway? Big picture...what could be learned by human exploration that could not with cutting edge robots and probes?

Two words: Genesis rock. Without astronauts, the Genesis rock would not have been spotted as an anomaly and the sample would not have been returned to Earth. The presence of a human on the scene was important for the Moon with its measly 2.6 light-second distance. How much more important do you think it will be for Mars, where the distance varies from 4 light minutes to 20 light minutes?

 

[CraigJ ✅]

arcite[/url]":321a2uc2]What would be the scientific value of a manned trip to Mars anyway? Big picture...what could be learned by human exploration that could not with cutting edge robots and probes?

How to live there for starters...

 

[Dan Homerick]

arcite[/url]":2gftm79j]What would be the scientific value of a manned trip to Mars anyway? Big picture...what could be learned by human exploration that could not with cutting edge robots and probes?

Add the qualifier for the same amount of money and I think the answer is pretty much nothing. That said, I don't think we'll ever commit the sort of money it would take to send humans to purely robotic missions instead. For better or worse, sending people is a requirement for getting the funding for any large-scale project.

Personally, I'm convinced that nothing big will happen unless we get caught up in another dick-measuring space race. Even with the sort of radical reductions in cost that companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin may bring, it's just too long-term of a project for politicians to ever support on the scale that's required.

 

[melgross]

It strikes me that the entire concept of a Mars mission is flawed from the start. The main reason for this is the funding that so often mentioned.

Back when I was in elementary school, we had an interruption in our class. The teacher announced that the Soviets had launched Sputnik. We had a discussion as to what that meant (at the level an elementary student could understand).

That launch began the "space race". Our landing on the moon. Some 12 years later, ended it. Since then, space has continued to slip in the public's interest, and therefor, the interest of those in Washington who provide the funding. We've seen many efforts to change this perception that spending the large monies on this is a waste. I used to hear, from many people, that we should stop spending "money in space". Of course, no money is spent in space, it's all spent here.

But convincing all of those people who have been convinced that lower taxes is ALWAYS better, is going to be a tough fight. Even though NASA's budget is no more than a rounding error in the $4 trillion budget this year, it has an outsized proportion of those criticizing its size, and is an easy target for those who want to cut from the budget. Since there aren't enough people in the voting population who care enough, those who are for increasing this budget are few and far between.

A problem is the long term cost. If we were just talking about $10 billion over 10 years, there would be little problem. But the cost can be over $100 billion, possibly more. SpaceX isn't going to change these numbers either.

Mars is really a very long term goal. It's an end process to a much more sophisticated program which includes a more modern space station, much better people capsules, and very likely, a successful working base on the moon. In addition, if we're to have even a small ease on Mars, with people just there for a month or so before coming back, we need a way to help them if something goes wrong. There is no known way to do that right now. In addition, just getting there and back is a maximal problem that goes beyond what we think of as a normal craft. People need protection from high levels of radiation that we don't encounter in low earth orbit, or even in a moon run that just lasts a few days.

 

[NoMorePosting]

avant[/url]":iw9csp7z]Wouldn't it be easier to deploy a permanent base in the Moon, and then leverage it for a Mars mission?

Of course it would be easier. Its also an essential first step. But its not sexy enough. I don't entirely blame congress either :

“Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned,” Obama said at the John F. Kennedy Space Center in Florida. “But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before.”

What a stupid ignorant statement.

 

[EricBerger]

JohnDeL[/url]":1zyt6g60]

jdale[/url]":1zyt6g60]

Among those questions that will be asked are these: What is the plan for NASA to get to Mars? And can the space agency make it there within a reasonable budget?

This presumes it's up to NASA to make a plan. But how can they make a plan when the funds aren't available to carry it out, and when congress specifies how they must spend the majority of their funds?

The question really needs to be asked of the president and congress. Are you actually interested in making this happen? Or is it just to provide a sufficiently long-term goal so that its execution or non-execution will occur after you are out of office anyway?

You forgot NASA's real reason for existing, at least from the perspective of a Congresscritter: to provide jobs in their district via pork (e.g., the Senate Launch System). That's the real reason that Congress likes long-term goals - it means that the pork goes on forever.

I believe I have addressed that in some previous articles!

 

[vrDrew99]

We are decades, if not centuries, away from the technology that will make a manned mission to Mars a viable proposition.

The difference is distance between traveling to the moon and back (roughly 1 million KM round trip) versus a roundtrip to Mars (1 billion KM) is akin to the difference between walking to a corner store down the street, and hiking from Chicago to Denver.

For the bulk of that time, human astronauts would be outside the protection from radiation provided by the Van Allen belts. We have no practical means of shielding a human crew from the damage such deep space radiation would inevitably cause.

Mars has gravity that is approx. 40% of the earth - yet virtually no atmosphere to enable a parachute-based entry vehicle. Any craft that landed on the Martian surface needs to be large enough to blast off and dock with an orbiting mother-ship. We simply have no practical means of accomplishing that goal with current chemical rocket propellants. The amount of fuel required to achieve orbit from the surface of a planetary body increases (roughly) with the square of gravity. If you do the math, comparing the flight of NASA's lunar landing module with a hypothetical Mars lander - it just doesn't work out. We can just about land a decent sized vehicle on the Martian surface - but until we solve the fundamental propellant problem - it is doomed to be a one-way trip.

 

[JohnDeL]

avant[/url]":69xzvydk]Wouldn't it be easier to deploy a permanent base in the Moon, and then leverage it for a Mars mission?

Yes and no. According to NASA, it takes about the same amount of delta V to get to and from the Moon as it does to get to and from Mars. So you've nearly doubled your fuel requirements if you use the Moon as a direct stop. However, if you use the Moon as a supply base (e.g., for the water we think is at the poles) and launch the supplies to meet the Mars craft, either in Earth-orbit or in lunar orbit, then you might save some effort in the long run. In the short run, it still ends up being a distraction.

Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of good and valid reasons to go back to the Moon. There are also good and valid reasons to go to Mars and to go to the asteroids. The problem is that our current political climate is such that we have to pick and choose - and then our choices are over-ridden by Congress.

 

[bjavor]

arcite[/url]":2n52i1du]What would be the scientific value of a manned trip to Mars anyway? Big picture...what could be learned by human exploration that could not with cutting edge robots and probes?

Grinding for XP to level up our space flight skills?

 

[J3RRAX]

afidel[/url]":2bslnyor]

arcite[/url]":2bslnyor]What would be the scientific value of a manned trip to Mars anyway? Big picture...what could be learned by human exploration that could not with cutting edge robots and probes?

The total amount of surface exploration done by robot probes to date could be accomplished by a manned mission in an afternoon.

After talking to a current JPL operator at length regarding the man hours put into ops and data analysis of Curiosity for a single sol I can tell you with full confidence that it would take a lot more than an afternoon stroll on Mars to catch up to years of probe data.

 

[Quiet Desperation]

melgross[/url]":5hi10luu]Mars is really a very long term goal. It's an end process to a much more sophisticated program which includes a more modern space station, much better people capsules, and very likely, a successful working base on the moon. In addition, if we're to have even a small ease on Mars, with people just there for a month or so before coming back, we need a way to help them if something goes wrong. There is no known way to do that right now. In addition, just getting there and back is a maximal problem that goes beyond what we think of as a normal craft. People need protection from high levels of radiation that we don't encounter in low earth orbit, or even in a moon run that just lasts a few days.

I've evangelized this idea for years, but too many geeks get too erect for the glory shot to Mars. Most were not alive to see Apollo fizzle out because there was no "what next"- just the legacy of a dead president politicians were afraid to touch. They quote his flowery speech with little understanding of what was going on at the time.

Building up a permanent space infrastructure in the Earth-Moon system (don't forget the LaGrange points) is vital to our future in space. We need to get past these prestige based concepts, or simply satisfying the fantasies of SF fans. The serious, long term work needs to begin now. It's not sexy, but without it we're not going anywhere.

 

[Dan Homerick]

vrDrew99[/url]":1cb7o2f2]We can just about land a decent sized vehicle on the Martian surface - but until we solve the fundamental propellant problem - it is doomed to be a one-way trip.

I'm sure people will hold up the idea of generating the fuel for the return trip on Mars. If that's a key requirement for doing a large scale Mars expedition, we should be developing and testing the technology now. As far as I know, there hasn't even been a "Challenge" style program to get this idea started. I expect that resource extraction of any form is going to be ridiculously hard. It's energy intensive, requires move large masses of material, and isn't useful unless done on a pretty large scale.

 

[blazeoptimus]

I firmly believe that NASA in its current form lacks the wherewithal to make this happen any time soon. I'm currently 37 but I think it's entirely possible I won't see a Mars landing in my life time. The government will keep playing politics with NASA direction/money to make it look like there moving towards the future while actually doing nothing. And NASA will continually focus on over budget rockets to keep Sls in business (I know that's an oversimplification). It's odd, when I was young the space shuttle was new and the future of space travel seemed bright. Here we are 30+ years later and almost no progress has been made. It still very much looks like the space program in the 70s. To be fair, I think there is finally hope of progress on the space front, but at this point, that hope doesn't lie with NASA.

 

[new2mac]

Massive example of why it's time to get rid of the vast majority of government. It's become a hinderance to society. NASA will never go to Mars except as a SpaceX passenger. By the time the government finds its ass on this, SpaceX will be roasting smores by a Martian sunset.

 

[flatrock]

jdale[/url]":1kf8dpjg]

Among those questions that will be asked are these: What is the plan for NASA to get to Mars? And can the space agency make it there within a reasonable budget?

This presumes it's up to NASA to make a plan. But how can they make a plan when the funds aren't available to carry it out, and when congress specifies how they must spend the majority of their funds?

The question really needs to be asked of the president and congress. Are you actually interested in making this happen? Or is it just to provide a sufficiently long-term goal so that its execution or non-execution will occur after you are out of office anyway?

Creating a solid plan means you are planning on using known technologies. NASA needs a plan on how to approach developing the needed technologies. Long term goals are good, but there are too many unknowns to make a step by step plan or to have fixed deadlines for anything more than short term goals.
This is research, not the assembly of something from clearly developed plans. They will have to investigate promising technologies while realizing the majority of their efforts won't produce the desired results. Learn from the failures and build on the successes, and eventually you are developing something usable rather than researching.

 

[new2mac]

jpcg[/url]":15lh2laf]

As an added bonus, if we have a moon base we all might get to the moon (as a tourist, with reasonable budget) before we die. I think thats pretty much impossible for Mars.

I'm totally with you on this. I'd rather see SpaceX focused on a Moon colony. They can still do their Mars missions, but a Moon colony first would be vastly more likely to grow quickly. I think the one massive flaw in Musk's plan to colonize Mars is that he is vastly overestimating people's willingness to leave Earth permanently. But a Moon colony, people would do that anytime.

 

[photochemsyn]

The reason there is no specific plan is that the specific costs are so high - for example, why not build a replica of the International Space Station in orbit around Mars?

The estimated cost-to-date of the ISS is $150 billion. Sending all the parts to Mars and using robots to assemble it there, would cost much more. However, having something like that in orbit around Mars seems like a necessary step for human exploration.

It could be done, but the world would have to give up other things - like the U.S. nuclear weapons program, which is budgeted at $1 trillion over the next 30 years, and a good deal of global military spending as well, to even think about making it a feasible concept.

 

[Statistical]

For the bulk of that time, human astronauts would be outside the protection from radiation provided by the Van Allen belts. We have no practical means of shielding a human crew from the damage such deep space radiation would inevitably cause.

It all depends on what you consider acceptable risk. The long term cancer risk for increased radiation exposure in the 12 month round trip (spaceflight portion only) is about 6.6%. Most NASA astronauts would accept that. Hell I would accept that. To put it into perspective Kelly's year long mission on the ISS increased his lifetime cancer risk by about 2%.

 

[Ushio]

blazeoptimus[/url]":2to5eori]I firmly believe that NASA in its current form lacks the wherewithal to make this happen any time soon. I'm currently 37 but I think it's entirely possible I won't see a Mars landing in my life time. The government will keep playing politics with NASA direction/money to make it look like there moving towards the future while actually doing nothing. And NASA will continually focus on over budget rockets to keep Sls in business (I know that's an oversimplification). It's odd, when I was young the space shuttle was new and the future of space travel seemed bright. Here we are 30+ years later and almost no progress has been made. It still very much looks like the space program in the 70s. To be fair, I think there is finally hope of progress on the space front, but at this point, that hope doesn't lie with NASA.

People born in the year 2100 won't see a human on Mars in their lifetime. Not when every few years there is a change in government.

Apollo ended over 43 years ago and unless long term planning is allowed (and I mean over decades not two presidential terms) and funded nothing is going to change.

 

[JohnDeL]

Dan Homerick[/url]":117lcj6i]

vrDrew99[/url]":117lcj6i]We can just about land a decent sized vehicle on the Martian surface - but until we solve the fundamental propellant problem - it is doomed to be a one-way trip.

I'm sure people will hold up the idea of generating the fuel for the return trip on Mars. If that's a key requirement for doing a large scale Mars expedition, we should be developing and testing the technology now. As far as I know, there hasn't even been a "Challenge" style program to get this idea started. I expect that resource extraction of any form is going to be ridiculously hard. It's energy intensive, requires move large masses of material, and isn't useful unless done on a pretty large scale.

Darn this new comment listing! I can't tell if anyone has brought these up yet or not, so here goes (and please accept my apologies if someone has already mentioned them):

In Situ Resource Utilization is a fairly large part of NASA's future plans. Of course, it is hard to make those plans come to fruition with Congress micromanaging the work, but NASA is still trying to do good work.

Mars Oxygen In-Situ Resources Utilization (MOXIE) has been tested in the lab. Further tests await funding.

Project Morpheus is a NASA program that is testing the generation of methane from the ISS and other in situ sources and the use of methane as fuel for a lander.

Similarly, the ROxygen program of in situ utilization of Moon dust has been field tested but waits funding for development.

Edited for clarity

 

[JournalBot]

Asked about the "plan" for Mars, a senior NASA official can't give a direct answer.

Read the whole story

 

[DannyB]

avant[/url]":2yr0u6jn]Wouldn't it be easier to deploy a permanent base in the Moon, and then leverage it for a Mars mission?

Let me give you an even better plan.

Well, "better" depending on who you are.

1. Let's keep NASA focused on going to Mars.
2. Let's never provide NASA the money to go to Mars.

Think of how every single congress critter can get a slice of the pork into their own congressional district. "Hey, I'm creating jobs!"

And other grandstanding politicians: "NASA has a mission and a budget to go to Mars!"

And the pork will never stop.

3. Get re-elected. (Or should I put Profit, which is usually the number three item. I suppose the lazy dinosaur contractors who get the pork will lobby congress critters, and so "Profit" might be more appropriate.)