NASA Announces Journey to Mars Challenge(nasa.gov)
nasa.gov
NASA Announces Journey to Mars Challenge
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-journey-to-mars-challenge-seeks-public-input-on-establishing-sustained
26 comments
All this was hashed out 24 years ago by Zubrin and Baker and NASA needs only a firm commitment to Mars to put it into practice.
The lessons of history suggest that a lot of ideas that only need firm commitment to be put into practice also need a lot of engineering debugging during the development process to solve unexpected problems. The Space Shuttle was based on engineering studies that somehow didn't anticipate that the whole spaceship would blow up if launched on a cold day[1] nor anticipate that the shuttle could break up on reentry if it was nicked by a piece of its own booster rocket while being launched.[2]
Just as there were astronauts who took that risk on the Space Shuttle, there are surely astronauts who would risk taking Mars Direct to Mars. They might find out that the mission would end up being called Mars Direct and Bust, and never get back home.
Disclosure: I am a big fan of the space program, including manned space flight, and my ambition in high school was to be the first man to set foot on Mars. I find it dismaying that I could STILL be the first man to set foot on Mars, as I thought that event would have happened by the 1980s, before many participants here were even born.
[1] http://www.asktog.com/books/challengerExerpt.html
http://williamwolff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tufte-cha...
[2] https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=...
The lessons of history suggest that a lot of ideas that only need firm commitment to be put into practice also need a lot of engineering debugging during the development process to solve unexpected problems. The Space Shuttle was based on engineering studies that somehow didn't anticipate that the whole spaceship would blow up if launched on a cold day[1] nor anticipate that the shuttle could break up on reentry if it was nicked by a piece of its own booster rocket while being launched.[2]
Just as there were astronauts who took that risk on the Space Shuttle, there are surely astronauts who would risk taking Mars Direct to Mars. They might find out that the mission would end up being called Mars Direct and Bust, and never get back home.
Disclosure: I am a big fan of the space program, including manned space flight, and my ambition in high school was to be the first man to set foot on Mars. I find it dismaying that I could STILL be the first man to set foot on Mars, as I thought that event would have happened by the 1980s, before many participants here were even born.
[1] http://www.asktog.com/books/challengerExerpt.html
http://williamwolff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tufte-cha...
[2] https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=...
> The Space Shuttle was based on engineering studies that
> somehow didn't anticipate that the whole spaceship would blow
> up if launched on a cold day[1] nor anticipate that the
> shuttle could break up on reentry if it was nicked by a piece
> of its own booster rocket while being launched.[2]
However it is worth noting that the engineers correctly predicted about a 2% catastrophic failure rate - that is loss of orbiter. Sure enough we lost two shuttles by mission 107. You can find the prediction in one of the two volume histories of the Space Shuttle project [1], [2].
Incidentally I think the books should be required reading for all engineers to understand how truly ambitious national projects such as the Shuttle are done. That includes the political, economic, and of course engineering issues involved.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Shuttle-Decision-1965-1972-History-Vol...
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Development-Shuttle-1972-1981-History-...
> somehow didn't anticipate that the whole spaceship would blow
> up if launched on a cold day[1] nor anticipate that the
> shuttle could break up on reentry if it was nicked by a piece
> of its own booster rocket while being launched.[2]
However it is worth noting that the engineers correctly predicted about a 2% catastrophic failure rate - that is loss of orbiter. Sure enough we lost two shuttles by mission 107. You can find the prediction in one of the two volume histories of the Space Shuttle project [1], [2].
Incidentally I think the books should be required reading for all engineers to understand how truly ambitious national projects such as the Shuttle are done. That includes the political, economic, and of course engineering issues involved.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Shuttle-Decision-1965-1972-History-Vol...
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Development-Shuttle-1972-1981-History-...
The Space Shuttle was expensive and this was apparent even at the end of the design stage. It was hobbled by the partnership with the Air Force, where it needed a large minimum payload and specific dimensions for the cargohold. Design considerations and technology limitations also made it not very reusable.
It was expensive as a human and cargo launcher and eventual savings from learning (many launches) weren't feasible to begin with. The Air Force realized their mistake and went on to develop their own separate launchers.
The Shuttle continued because it had acquired momentum and had large constituency support, it was a jobs program. Nixon also favored doing one thing over and over (i.e. Earth orbit) over potentially more risky one-off deep space missions. The ISS was eventually pushed through as a way to give the Shuttle something to do, absent any other US deep space aspirations.
Mars Direct lays the trail for a continued program of exploration, not just a 'footprints and flag' operation. It has interesting savings and synergies even without necessarily having reusable launchers (except for the NERVA-style hopper). Technologically it's also very conservative.
It was expensive as a human and cargo launcher and eventual savings from learning (many launches) weren't feasible to begin with. The Air Force realized their mistake and went on to develop their own separate launchers.
The Shuttle continued because it had acquired momentum and had large constituency support, it was a jobs program. Nixon also favored doing one thing over and over (i.e. Earth orbit) over potentially more risky one-off deep space missions. The ISS was eventually pushed through as a way to give the Shuttle something to do, absent any other US deep space aspirations.
Mars Direct lays the trail for a continued program of exploration, not just a 'footprints and flag' operation. It has interesting savings and synergies even without necessarily having reusable launchers (except for the NERVA-style hopper). Technologically it's also very conservative.
I think it's a mistake to attempt a "naked" human settlement. You should start with a robot settlement.
That means sending robots that can set the basic infrastructure (extract water, fuel, set up hydroponic farms, 3D printing, etc) for humans to live there. This will give you a considerable safety net to succeed.
One thing that echoes my mind -- not for today but in 20-100 years from now -- is the question of Mars land ownership. And how likely will cessation occur.
That means sending robots that can set the basic infrastructure (extract water, fuel, set up hydroponic farms, 3D printing, etc) for humans to live there. This will give you a considerable safety net to succeed.
One thing that echoes my mind -- not for today but in 20-100 years from now -- is the question of Mars land ownership. And how likely will cessation occur.
> NASA expects to make up to three awards at a minimum of $5,000 each from a total award pool of $15,000.
Considering that these ideas (if this challenge was meant to be taken seriously) would be part of a likely dozens-of-billions-of-dollars project, $5,000 seems like a deliberate insult.
Considering that these ideas (if this challenge was meant to be taken seriously) would be part of a likely dozens-of-billions-of-dollars project, $5,000 seems like a deliberate insult.
I don't think the purpose is to develop an actual plan that will be used so much as inspire writers and students. It's a PR stunt meant to drum up interest and maybe help a couple of kids. Not that there is anything wrong with that, public interest helps them pry money from congress.
Yes. This is to get people to start thinking about manned Mars missions as a real possibility. Any useful ideas they get out of this program would be an unexpected side benefit.
if this challenge was meant to be taken seriously
If the roadmap contained a clear vision for manned missions to Mars followed by permanent colonization, they wouldn't even be bothering with public input.
It's a PR stunt, with prizes that fit into a PR budget. Note that the announcement says nothing about NASA doing anything with the winning submissions.
NASA has done -- and continues to do -- great things with robotic exploration of Mars. But they are hamstrung by politicians: both the ones that hold offices in their organization and the ones on Capitol Hill who hold the purse-strings.
The NASA of today doesn't do things today because they are easy, but because they will look cool and funnel money to the right states and congressional districts. Full stop.
If the roadmap contained a clear vision for manned missions to Mars followed by permanent colonization, they wouldn't even be bothering with public input.
It's a PR stunt, with prizes that fit into a PR budget. Note that the announcement says nothing about NASA doing anything with the winning submissions.
NASA has done -- and continues to do -- great things with robotic exploration of Mars. But they are hamstrung by politicians: both the ones that hold offices in their organization and the ones on Capitol Hill who hold the purse-strings.
The NASA of today doesn't do things today because they are easy, but because they will look cool and funnel money to the right states and congressional districts. Full stop.
[deleted](2)
As with startups, execution counts for a lot more than ideas.
I was going to say, just start reading some recent fiction on the subject and your bound to find many ideas rooted in science and industry that could set you on the right path.
any manned landings are going to follow years of sending robots to make a home for them and redundant supplies already there or on their way.
any manned landings are going to follow years of sending robots to make a home for them and redundant supplies already there or on their way.
Maybe the simplest way to establish a permanent presence is actually a space station in Martian orbit.
That would build the launch and transit infrastructure necessary for sustaining a permanent settlement.
It also has some interesting advantages:
* Low latency connection to rovers and manned landers giving a near instant mission control capability.
* Trips to the surface could be made as a short excursion rather than the sole purpose of the mission. This would allow for failure of individual landings without jeopardising the entire program.
* Could build on what was developed for the ISS.
The biggest advantage is that it would require a long term political commitment instead of a one time mission that would be cancelled on return.
That would build the launch and transit infrastructure necessary for sustaining a permanent settlement.
It also has some interesting advantages:
* Low latency connection to rovers and manned landers giving a near instant mission control capability.
* Trips to the surface could be made as a short excursion rather than the sole purpose of the mission. This would allow for failure of individual landings without jeopardising the entire program.
* Could build on what was developed for the ISS.
The biggest advantage is that it would require a long term political commitment instead of a one time mission that would be cancelled on return.
This was the exact subject of my first website:
http://wayback.archive-it.org/3635/20130719200949/http://lib...
Think I'll get a prize if I submit it? :)
http://wayback.archive-it.org/3635/20130719200949/http://lib...
Think I'll get a prize if I submit it? :)
There's also solar electric propulsion, which when combined with water as propellant, leads to dramatic (10-100x) cost reductions due to increased propellant efficiency plus the synergies created by using water as reaction mass (it can be used for everything from radiation shielding to crew consumables prior to being sent to the engines, which effectively turns most of your consumables mass into propellant).
This approach also benefits from ongoing improvements in component technologies (thin film PV, electric propulsion, and inflatable structures), so a reusable spacecraft based on this design pattern could be upgraded as things improve.
(Release early, release often, versus the 30 year Gantt chart methodology favored by space agencies).
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=33078
This approach also benefits from ongoing improvements in component technologies (thin film PV, electric propulsion, and inflatable structures), so a reusable spacecraft based on this design pattern could be upgraded as things improve.
(Release early, release often, versus the 30 year Gantt chart methodology favored by space agencies).
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=33078
My suggestion would be to work on uploading brains to digital substrate (starting with the Open Worm project and working up from there) on the grounds that interplanetary settlement would be dramatically less difficult for solid-state minds. Sadly, that's probably not the sort of suggestion they're looking for.
I suspect SpaceX has a massive leg up on the competition for this, but doubt seriously they will compete for $15k.
They have more to gain than just $15k.
they should get an amendment to Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and resurrect Project Orion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propul...
To infinity and beyond!
Not only that, by using a nuclear thermal upper stage you double the payload, or halve the size of the Earth launcher.
If on Mars you also bring along a nuclear rocket vehicle (Nerva-style) you can have unlimited, reusable global range, including Mars surface-orbit operations. Suck and liquefy Mars CO2 and use it as a reaction mass.
All this was hashed out 24 years ago by Zubrin and Baker and NASA needs only a firm commitment to Mars to put it into practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4069.p... - Gashopper, a concept derived from the larger NERVA hopper, this time solar powered small robot for exploration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA - compact nuclear reactor for space applications