Going straight to Mars?
Published on May 29, 2007 at 3:34 pm.
16 Comments.
Filed under Mars, conference blogging, space exploration.
Dr. Robert Zubrin was at the conference this weekend. For those of you who don’t know him, he is an aerospace engineer who has been a driving force behind a movement promoting a direct Mars mission. By a direct Mars mission, I mean that he proposes that we set a goal to go to Mars and direct our efforts directly towards that goal, without taking detours along the way.
Decades ago, Wernher von Braun had also proposed a Mars mission. His original plans called for rockets into space to build an orbiting space station. That was to be followed by a mission to the Moon. And, the technology used to get to the Moon would be coupled with advances in propulsion to get to Mars. He felt that we could get to Mars within 10 years of the end of Apollo if we were to continue developing technology and working towards that goal as much as we had to get to the Moon in the first place. All that has fallen by the wayside. We quit going to the Moon, and we even let the expertise in rocketry that got us to the Moon fade. Now that we are talking about going back to the Moon, we are having to start all over with a lunar program. We can not just extend Apollo anymore. It is too late.
Zubrin, though, feels that the way things go with NASA, as space station, and even another Moon program, just distract from the goal of a manned Mars mission. Going to Mars isn’t easy, and it will take a huge effort. NASA can’t focus on too many things at once. The International Space Station is often seen as too expensive for what we are going to get out of it. In terms of lunar and planetary exploration, the ISS is a dead end. We will not be using it as a staging area, so we don’t need it to go to the Moon or Mars. He also makes the case that building a spacecraft in lunar orbit and going to Mars from there is a bad idea. It costs energy and money to get to the Moon, and then more energy and money to get from the Moon into interplanetary space. And, since we don’t have a self sustaining moonbase, any spacecraft built in lunar orbit will mostly come from parts shipped from Earth, so why not just start at Earth? He makes a good point. He also claims that the technology to go to Mars currently exists, and it is only a matter of a bit of development and refinements needed to build the hardware. 
He presented a very good plan that sounds like it would work. If you want to read more about his plan, he has written and excellent and easily understood book called The Case for Mars, and I highly recommend it.
Now, I won’t say that I totally agree with him. I am not so sure that the technology really exists to get to Mars. However, I do think that we are close, and we probably could get a mission to Mars off in ten years if we tried. But, we aren’t even trying. And, he makes a valid point that the space station is a dead end. However, I really think that a lunar program is essential to a Mars mission. If nothing else, an extended lunar mission would be an analog mission to a Mars mission. The difference is that if something terrible went wrong with the lunar mission, the astronauts could come home, or help could reach them in just a matter of days. If something went wrong on a Mars mission, then the astronauts are on their own. There is no hope of aborting the mission or of rescue. So, the Moon mission seems to me to be a test of the technology. Even Zubrin would agree with that, I think. However, he would likely point out that a Moon mission designed as an analog Mars mission would not only be a test of Mars exploration technology, but it would also be able to meet all of the science and engineering goals of a Moon mission. But, a Moon mission designed only for lunar exploration would likely fail to meet all of the goals needed for an analog Mars mission. So, we need to be thinking beyond the Moon on any lunar mission.  The way things are now, the NASA leadership might be unwilling to do that.
I haven’t really thought very hard about the Mars Direct strategy, but Zubrin has just about convinced me that it is the only way that we’ll really get to Mars in a reasonable time frame. There are plenty of reasons for going to Mars, and I’ll blog more about them later. Suffice it to say, though, that we are really limiting ourselves by staying on this one planet. While unmanned space probes have gotten better and better, I believe that there is still a place for manned exploration. I also think that colonizing other worlds will be something that we’ll need to do eventually if we want to ensure survival of the species. Zubrin has another good book called
Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization in which he gives some of his reasons for believing that we should go into space.  This, too, is a book well worth reading (buying both together new through Amazon gives you free shipping!).
One argument that so many people have against space exploration is that there are so many problems here on Earth that need fixing. Well, we’ve been working on those problems for thousands of years, and we haven’t gotten very far. Zubrin makes the point that perhaps we need a different approach. It is possible that the solution to many of the problems on Earth is in space. After all, if we open up the Solar System, then overcrowding, depletion of resources, and pollution become less of an issue, since we can expand, use the resources of other worlds, and move polluting industries off world. If we can grow food in space or on Mars, then hunger becomes much less of an issue, since we’d be able to grow more than we could use. Yes, it is expensive, but the costs are so high partly because space exploration is so new and so uncommon. Transporting someone or something by aircraft used to be ridiculously expensive, but eventually the cost dropped to the point that air transport is the preferred means of transport much of the time. Maybe space travel could be that way one day.
Just a thought.
-Astroprof
Ed Davies on May 29, 2007 at 6:40 pm: 1
One thing which would make the ISS worthwhile would be if it was a prototype interplanetary spacecraft. Unfortunately, it’s not designed that way. It’s designed very specifically for its place in Earth orbit with reliance on regular resupply, holding an Earth oriented attitude and being mostly within the Earth’s magnetic field’s radiation protection. A big opportunity missed, I think.
Astroprof on May 29, 2007 at 9:47 pm: 2
I agree. And that is rather Zubrin’s point. If the ISS were designed as a prototype interplanetary spacecraft then it could act as an analog to a Mars mission, AND be able to do all that it is currently doing. But, it’s design limits it to its current status.
ISDC News Wrap-up - Out of the Cradle on May 29, 2007 at 11:19 pm: 3
[…] AstroProf - AstroProf’s Page 2007 International Space Development Conference Suborbital Space Tourism A virtual presentation Blogging about space blogging Going straight to Mars? […]
A Ler…-- Rastos de Luz on May 30, 2007 at 11:39 am: 4
[…] “HD155358, um desafio?“, no Radiante. Ainda sobre este tema, a ler “Um desafio à s teorias?“, no AstroPT; “Going straight to Mars?” no Astroprof’s Page; […]
Brian on May 30, 2007 at 12:18 pm: 5
Zubrin is without a doubt a really smart guy. And his approach is probably spot-on but there are a whole lotta details to work out before a Mars Direct mission would work.
Such as the cost of getting all that hardware to orbit.
Astrolink [Global Edition] » Astrosphere for May 30, 2007 | Latest astronomy news in 11 languages on May 30, 2007 at 1:24 pm: 6
[…] The Astroprof spoke with Mars Society’s Bob Zubrin about going directly to Mars. […]
von Dawson's Express on May 31, 2007 at 11:26 am: 7
Let’s just get on with it, if every book, paper, written concept was piled high, it would probably reach Mars let alone the moon (To paraphrase a old saying…)
I have been a space watcher when I was a kid in the ’60’s and all I see is wasteed concept’s. Seeing NASA reinvent Apollo (the wheel…) must be one of the biggest steps backward of all time AND it could all be cancelled. Come NASA DO something and get going…
Astroprof on May 31, 2007 at 12:14 pm: 8
NASA, and any other government agency, can talk a topic to death. There have been a number of very promising projects that enormous amounts of money and man-hours have been spent studying, with nothing coming of them but a lot of reports and talk. Your point is part of what frustrates Zubrin. We’ll never go to Mars unless we actually decide to go to Mars instead of talking about going to Mars.
Brian on June 1, 2007 at 11:33 am: 9
Come NASA DO something and get going…
To wait for the government to do something is to be a bystander in your own life.
Ed Minchau on June 2, 2007 at 12:19 pm: 10
In order for Zubrin’s dream of a Mars Direct mission to occur, there has to be a compelling reason for it to occur. Ceretainly stopping everything else NASA is doing just for a one-shot trip to Mars to plant a flag and footprints isn’t compelling.
And really, what is the point of getting ourselves up out of one gravity well, only to go back down another? What compelling reason is there to go there?
I presented a plan for achieving the VSE here. While it isn’t a direct Mars mission, it would actually provide the necessary infrastructure for a whole range of possible missions: to the Moon, to Near Earth Asteroids, and yes, even to Mars. It would most likely cost less than the return to the moon as currently envisioned by NASA, and would leave in place a real industry.
Astroprof’s Page » VSE Comments on June 6, 2007 at 6:43 am: 11
[…] Ed (Robot Guy) left an interesting comment on my post about Zubrin’s Mars Direct mission. He makes a very valid point that deserves consideration. It raises a question, too. Is NASA’s administration really committed to the NASA Vision for Space Exploration (VSE)? Ed has a very good post on his views on how VSE should be done. He brings up the NASA vs. private sector argument. Personally, I don’t think that NASA is actively trying to thwart the private sector. Rather, NASA is a government agency, so it responds as a government agency. During the 1960’s, NASA had a clear and well defined goal: land men on the Moon and bring them back to Earth. But, once they did that, there was no clear goal. Yes, the rank and file within NASA, the astronauts, the engineers, etc, all had ideas of building space stations and going to Mars. But, the NASA administrators had no external mandate, so the agency began to wander. Without a defined goal, the budget dropped. And, the agency became, well …, a government agency. Look at NASA’s own web page for VSE, and compare that with Ed’s. It is nowhere near as detailed. Ed also references Jon Goff’s post detailing some of the technologies needed for a truly successful spacefaring society. Now, for sure, many of NASA’s scientists and engineers have the same ideas. But, if the agency as a whole doesn’t share these ideas, then progress won’t be made. […]
Frank Stratford on June 8, 2007 at 12:13 am: 12
Going to Mars direct has been debated for years, and will continue to be debated. The problem is there is so far only one candidate for making a human Mars mission happen- NASA.
Perhaps it is time to more seriously consider other alternative mission enablers? Like an international co-operative effort or private mission or a combination of both. Beating our heads against the brick wall of “Will NASA/won’t NASA?” is limiting our options and if we really want to see humans on Mars sooner it’s time we took other ideas for getting there seriously.
The fact is there are still big issues to deal with for a human Mars mission- like the Entry, Descent and Landing of human rated spacecraft and any plan to get there must take into account research and development expenses and timeframes also. I would love to see NASA get to Mars soon, but I’m not going to put all my hopes in that one option. Mars Direct is a great strategy for going to Mars but among its flaws is a reliance upon NASA as the only way to make it all happen. At MarsDrive we are exploring in earnest other alternative means to get to Mars because as the saying goes- “If you want something done right- do it yourself”.
Astroprof’s Page » Mars Mission: The Human Factor on June 22, 2007 at 12:29 pm: 13
[…] About three weeks ago, I posted about Bob Zubrin’s Mars Direct mission plans. He insists that the technology to go to Mars is either already here, or just about to be developed. However, one of the chief arguments against his Mars Direct mission is the human factor. Mars is a long way from Earth. It takes a very long time to get there. The lowest energy trip (using the least fuel) is nearly a three year round trip. That can be shaved a bit by using larger rockets and more fuel, But at the very least, the trip will still likely be more than a two year round trip. […]
Astroprof’s Page » 2008 Regolith Excavation Challenge on September 22, 2007 at 2:00 pm: 14
[…] NASA plans to return to the Moon with a goal of establishing a moonbase by the year 2020, as reported last year in an article by Space.com. There are several reasons for returning to the Moon. Besides the rather obvious science reasons for sending humans to study the Moon in situ, there are engineering reasons for establishing a moonbase. Despite Bob Zubrin’s contention that the best way to do a Mars mission is to go straight to Mars, bypassing the intermediate steps, many scientists and engineers believe that it may be prudent to first establish a moonbase. There are some similarities in moonbase and Marsbase designs. Mars has such low atmospheric pressure that it is nearly a vacuum as far as astronauts are concerned. Both sets of astronauts will need sealed, airtight, pressurized living quarters. Both will need specialized transportation systems on the surface of their respective worlds. And, both will be isolated from the rest of humanity is small enclosed spaces. However, one big difference is that is something bad goes wrong, a moonbase can be abandoned and the astronauts can return to Earth. That is not an option with Mars. A direct return form Mars is not possible at any time. Only when the planets Earth and Mars are properly aligned can a rocket be sent from one to the other. That happens about every two years. So, the argument goes, it would be better to field test a Mars mission with an analogous Moon mission. There is considerable debate about the validity of this argument, of course, but NASA seems committed to this plan, so that is what I will assume may happen. […]
Robin on November 7, 2007 at 9:36 pm: 15
Yes, there are many reasons for going to Mars and there seem to be reasons for not going to Mars. Some reasons for going are currently being revealed in the science that is uncovering the processes, patterns and balances of the sun and our home planet. Things could get dicey real quick with no alternative for our species. Having that alternative (another place to evacuate to) in place should have a higher priority than what is currently in place. On the other hand, it appears that a substantial manned mission to Mars may reveal more information than a good deal of our species might be willing to accept. And then, there is the science of gravity and what it really entails…
Jason mission to mars on February 18, 2008 at 1:00 am: 16
I Love this quote, I think a lunar program can be of good value in a Mars Mission.
“a lunar program is essential to a Mars mission.”
Also, I believe an Higher Orbit Space Station Orbiting Earth can be very helpful in supporting a Manned Mission to Mars.