Should NASA Pivot Artemis Towards Mars?

[Nathan2go]

This may sound premature, but should NASA pivot Artemis towards Mars?

By this, I don't mean they should abandon the Lunar landings and Lunar base construction.  However I would argue that instead of merely paying lip-service to a future Mars mission, they should dictated that the Artemis mission would be used to test systems which are designed for Mars.

To some extent, the previously targeted 2024 date caused a very near-sighted focus on the Moon, which frankly broke any symbiosis for a future Mars mission.  (The previous suggestion of using solar electric propulsion to go to Mars, with the Lunar gateway as the assembly point was unconvincing due to the very slow transit involved).

Of course the very large rockets required for Mars can also service the Moon, but also things like rovers, habs, and ice-mining & processing equipment can be made to work at either location.

A far as the Artemis HLS (Human Landing System), these systems could be designed to also serve as Mars ascent vehicles (the round trip between Gateway and Lunar surface is about 10,000 mph delta-V and one-way from Mar to low Mars orbit is about 9100 mph with gravity loss).  With the current set of offerings, only Starship is well suited to the dual role.  Of the others, the rejected Boeing proposal (two stages burning hypergolic fuel) was the next most suitable.

For the National Team, the hydrolox in the Blue Moon lander seems problematic.  I suppose they could pitch cryocoolers to prevent boil-off, or transit/storage with water/ice to be electrolyzed and cryocooled upon arrival of the crew.  But both of those sound more risky than simply delivering a lander fully fueled (which is also a better backup, when your primary plan is making fuel for a Starship).

For the Dynetics team, the horizontal tank layout seems terrible for ascent through a planetary atmosphere.  Perhaps they should switch to a conventional vertical engines/tanks/cabin stack, and keep the methalox propellant and drop-tanks.

The low funding for 2021 means that NASA has to make some changes anyway, and this is a change that I think makes the program better.

[MATTBLAK]

Artemis; twin sister of Apollo and Goddess of the Moon. A Martian project should be called Ares, at least. I'm an eternal optimist but even I say 'we' are not ready for Mars yet; it's just too hard. At the current pace that Artemis is going; they are not going to make it there by 2024 and if they pivoted instead to Mars, who knows  how many more years after that! 2035? 2050? I'm not even gonna guess...

Let someone with very deep pockets - Elon - keep shooting for Mars. It's his dream and his money - and we can all enjoy the show. But NASA and it's International and Commercial partners should really keep 'shooting for the Moon', but perhaps they should pivot away from SLS a little (or a lot) and try and keep the cost down and the efficiency as high as possible.

Ha! a guy can dream, can't he..?

[Phil Stooke]

Nooooooo... if Artemis pivots to Mars we will never get anywhere. 

[Eric Hedman]

Nooooooo... if Artemis pivots to Mars we will never get anywhere.

I completely agree.  Another reset by NASA would delay things even more.  Let SpaceX shoot for Mars and see if their approach works.  If it does, they can help with the Moon also.

[ncb1397]

Artemis; twin sister of Apollo and Goddess of the Moon. A Martian project should be called Ares, at least.

On the other hand, Apollo is the god of the sun but was a mission to the moon. We could always just keep Artemis.

For the National Team, the hydrolox in the Blue Moon lander seems problematic.  I suppose they could pitch cryocoolers to prevent boil-off, or transit/storage with water/ice to be electrolyzed and cryocooled upon arrival of the crew.  But both of those sound more risky than simply delivering a lander fully fueled (which is also a better backup, when your primary plan is making fuel for a Starship).

I don't think the ascent stage is hydrolox. Modifying the ascent element to get a bit more delta-v on the order of 1-1.5 km/s should still be doable. I guess a bit more if the ascent element needs to land itself as well. But yes, using the Artemis HLS landers as a starting point works to an extent.

For the Dynetics team, the horizontal tank layout seems terrible for ascent through a planetary atmosphere.  Perhaps they should switch to a conventional vertical engines/tanks/cabin stack, and keep the methalox propellant and drop-tanks.

It shouldn't be a huge problem. Air density is about 65x lower on Mars than earth sea level. As such, you can travel almost an order of magnitude faster before experiencing similar drag. Imagine a dune buggy (which isn't exactly aerodynamically optimized) travelling at 70 mph, that would be pretty comparable to the aerodynamic forces experienced while traveling at 700 mph. And at 700 mph, you would be traveling the scale height of Mars roughly every 30 seconds. In a minute of vertical travel, the air would be thinner by an order of magnitude, etc. A minute of gravity loses is about 220 m/s so holding the vehicle back until you clear the vast majority of the atmosphere can be done with minimal loses.

[su27k]

Yes and No.

No, NASA should not pivot to Mars wholesale, getting to the Moon is hard enough both technically and politically, adding Mars at this stage will just be a distraction. Besides, the Moon is a worthy destination on its own right, it shouldn't just be a testing ground for Mars.

Yes, NASA should start working on a plan for a joint human mission to Mars with SpaceX using Starship. It's a bit early to bet everything on Starship, but I think that date is fast approaching. NASA should realize, even though it can't say right now, Starship is the only hope NASA can get astronauts to Mars in the foreseeable future, it's time to start acting like it.

[jackb]

Yes, NASA should start working on a plan for a joint human mission to Mars with SpaceX using Starship.

It would be interesting to see the terms of a joint plan like this. On the one hand SpaceX will need a host of diverse technologies beyond Starship to make a trip possible (e.g., nuclear power, propellant production/storage/handling, long-term life support systems) and getting NASA or other subcontractors to pitch in could give Musk more R&D bandwidth. On the other hand if NASA gets involved then they dictate the timeframe, and suddenly you're at the mercy of Congress and how much you need to spread things around to appease them.

The bold move would be to flip the idea of competitive bidding: SpaceX provides transport, and the US and China compete to deliver components X, Y, Z for the mission. The first to come through gets the first manned trip to Mars. Turn it into an actual space race.

[DreamyPickle]

No, the Moon is a much better target for many reasons. It's much easier to get to, communication is close to real-time and there is plenty interest from commercial companies and international parteners. NASA should try to push for a permanent presence on the Moon's surface together with international partners like ESA.

This would allow research into actual space mining and manufacturing based on local resources and bring the construction of space habitats out of the sci-fi realm. An orbital space station (like ISS or Gateway) can't do that.

Even if HLS is underfunded building a commercial transportation link to the Moon's surface is extremely valuable.

[MATTBLAK]

Tell me: has the 'Exploration Upper Stage' design been finalized and it's budget been set yet? No? Then with only the Delta IV-H upper stage only in place; it isn't going to send anything anywhere that masses much more than 26 metric tons...

[hektor]

Mars is the favorite next human spaceflight destination of the ones who want to kill human spaceflight.

[the_other_Doug]

No.  Artemis is currently designed to support lunar operations.  The last four years have seen everything about the program tailored to the lunar goal.

There is another crewed system under development that has been designed for Mars operations from the get-go.  That, of course, is the SpaceX Starship.  Let SpaceX pursue Mars, and Artemis pursue the Moon, eh?

[ulm_atms]

NO!

NASA should go to the moon with SpaceX's and BO's help.

SpaceX should go to Mars with NASA's and BO's help.

If NASA pivots..all it will do is drag schedules EXTREMELY right and NASA will still be stuck in LEO 10 years from now.

Look, I know this has been hashed out as long as I have been here, but the moon IS a good place to go to start.  If they can't figure out how to support(both physically and monetary) a colony/base on the surface of the moon......Mars is a lost cause.  The amount of money and know how goes up to the ^ power going to Mars compared to the moon.

[Nathan2go]

... If they can't figure out how to support(both physically and monetary) a colony/base on the surface of the moon......Mars is a lost cause.  The amount of money and know how goes up to the ^ power going to Mars compared to the moon.

I'm not convinced that a permanent presence on Mars is that much harder than the Moon.  Apollo style quick Lunar sorties are easier of course, but once you say "permanent presence" or "base", the problems become similar (other than the transit delay; the expensive part is the hardware, the delay is just an inconvenience).

...
No, NASA should not pivot to Mars wholesale, getting to the Moon is hard enough both technically and politically, adding Mars at this stage will just be a distraction.

Ok, I'm coming to accept that the transportation aspect should not be combined; NASA is years into this HLS path which is too different than what is needed for Mars.

However, for things like habs, life support, and rovers, I think a duel Luna/Mars destination will greatly strengthen the program.  It will be all too easy for a Luna-only Artemis to degenerate into flags&footprints rather than the permanently occupied base that we hope; instead of a bike with training wheels that can be removed, we'll get a tricycle that can never go far or fast.  But co-targeting Mars will force a focus on long-term sustainability.  It will also make it politically easier to have a successful sustained Moon program, since with the currently stated goal of "landing the next man and first woman", the obvious managerial strategy is to cancel the program after the first landing; mission accomplished.

Yes, NASA should start working on a plan for a joint human mission to Mars with SpaceX using Starship. It's a bit early to bet everything on Starship, but I think that date is fast approaching.

That's an excellent point. I think if Starship SN9 lands successfully, NASA should consider coming "out of the closet" next month.  Also next month the Perseverance rover is scheduled to land; it has the MOXIE ISRU oxygen generator which will help make the case too.


But to clarify, NASA should endorse the Starship architecture, but not sole-source everything to SpaceX. After all, convergent evolution is a real thing, and NASA helped (a little) pioneer the nose-first-entry, tail-first-landing on the DC-X program.  Surely Blue Origin understands this too, but it may take several years for them to get it flying.

NASA should realize, even though it can't say right now, Starship is the only hope NASA can get astronauts to Mars in the foreseeable future, it's time to start acting like it.

Agreed.

[freddo411]

This may sound premature, but should NASA pivot Artemis towards Mars?

By this, I don't mean they should abandon the Lunar landings and Lunar base construction.  However I would argue that instead of merely paying lip-service to a future Mars mission, they should dictated that the Artemis mission would be used to test systems which are designed for Mars.

To some extent, the previously targeted 2024 date caused a very near-sighted focus on the Moon, which frankly broke any symbiosis for a future Mars mission. 


 ...  snip

No, I don't think so.   

At this point, a "pivot" to Mars would simply be an excuse to abandon the goal of the last 3 years of making a serious attempt to launch SLS and fly toward the moon and make a landing.    Descoping our ambitions is the last thing that NASA needs.

I do think that NASA should invest in systems and techniques that can be used on Mars where it makes sense.   The Moon and Mars are significantly different, and (excepting SpaceX) the time scale when things would be needed are very, very far apart.

Here's an idea:   Invest in SpaceX's architecture .. they are going to both the Moon and Mars and are using as much common equipment as they can.   They are working on doing both simultaneously. 

[Coastal Ron]

This may sound premature, but should NASA pivot Artemis towards Mars?

No. The Artemis program is already too undefined and ambitious, without the required funding to support it. Adding more requirements will only waste more money.

By this, I don't mean they should abandon the Lunar landings and Lunar base construction.  However I would argue that instead of merely paying lip-service to a future Mars mission, they should dictated that the Artemis mission would be used to test systems which are designed for Mars.

I think it is a fiction that there is enough overlap between a Moon outpost and a Mars outpost to merit common assets. The requirements for getting to the surface, and surviving on the surface of the Moon and Mars are wildly different, and I'm not sure where anyone thinks there is commonality enough to merit standardizing hardware or procedures.

Of course the very large rockets required for Mars can also service the Moon...

We have never needed "very large rockets" to take us anywhere beyond LEO. ULA stated in their 2009 paper called "A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture":

The use of smaller, commercial launchers coupled with orbital depots eliminates the need for a large launch vehicle. Much is made of the need for more launches- this is perceived as a detriment. However since 75% of all the mass lifted to low earth orbit is merely propellant with no intrinsic value it represents the optimal cargo for low-cost, strictly commercial launch operations. These commercial launch vehicles, lifting a simple payload to a repeatable location, can be operated on regular, predictable schedules. Relieved of the burden of hauling propellants, the mass of the Altair and Orion vehicles for a lunar mission is very small and can also be easily carried on existing launch vehicles. This strategy leads to high infrastructure utilization, economic production rates, high demonstrated reliability and the lowest possible costs.

In other words, we need to remove the fiction that hardware must be launched fully assembled from the surface of the Earth, which would mandate "very large rockets". Instead we should do what we did with the ISS, and do in-space assembly of our exploration hardware. That means we don't have to build a new rocket every time we have a new destination.

But the bottom line for your question is no, there is no synergy in mutating the Artemis program into a Moon and Mars program. And I'm not even sure the current Artemis program is liable to survive due to a lack of a clear business case - which is part of the reason the Constellation program was cancelled.

My $0.02

[Eric Hedman]

Tell me: has the 'Exploration Upper Stage' design been finalized and it's budget been set yet? No? Then with only the Delta IV-H upper stage only in place; it isn't going to send anything anywhere that masses much more than 20 metric tons...

The EUS passed CDR late last year.

https://www.asdnews.com/news/aerospace/2020/12/21/space-launch-system-exploration-upper-stage-passes-cdr

As the article says, NASA is transitioning into building hardware for EUS,  It has a budget line item.

[Rocket Science]

Yes, NASA should start working on a plan for a joint human mission to Mars with SpaceX using Starship.

It would be interesting to see the terms of a joint plan like this. On the one hand SpaceX will need a host of diverse technologies beyond Starship to make a trip possible (e.g., nuclear power, propellant production/storage/handling, long-term life support systems) and getting NASA or other subcontractors to pitch in could give Musk more R&D bandwidth. On the other hand if NASA gets involved then they dictate the timeframe, and suddenly you're at the mercy of Congress and how much you need to spread things around to appease them.

The bold move would be to flip the idea of competitive bidding: SpaceX provides transport, and the US and China compete to deliver components X, Y, Z for the mission. The first to come through gets the first manned trip to Mars. Turn it into an actual space race.

Welcome to the forum!

[Rocket Science]

Get back to me after we land on the Moon again...

[Kansan52]

It should be 'do both' not either/or.

[butters]

We can barely land on the moon with what's left over after spending $4B a year to enable a single SLS/Orion mission. Lunar HLS is underfunded. Mars HLS would be dramatically more expensive. Oh, but NASA has taken care of the crew launch segment! Gee, thanks NASA for solving the hard stuff and leaving only the easy stuff like transfer orbit and Mars EDL and ISRU.