Should NASA Pivot Artemis Towards Mars?

[high road]

However! Taking a look at SH, it seems a successful Superheavy demo would simply melt NASAs plans and then they would HAVE TO pursue a Mars demo mission.  The reason is that they would not be pursuing a mission that is perceived to be ‘relevant’.  Assuming SpaceX actually dumps the moon as a distraction.

I’d say a successful SH with a successful Starship landing would seriously change NASA’s plans away from SLS pretty quick to aim directly toward Mars.

Why? It will take years more work for SpaceX to develop ECLS systems for Mars missions, test landing one or more Starships there and do proofs of concept of the fuel production. In the meantime, the moon continues to be an interesting destination in its own right, that is still the furthest out humans have ever been, and at that point achievable at a cost where it no longer holds NASA hostage to a single purpose.

SH + SS flight demo on Earth could just be that funked up Sputnik moment.

Actually, SN8 was. Even though it only did 99% of the flight successfully and you seemingly were not impressed, it showed NASA, ULA, Blue Origin and Arianespace that 'shit, this is actually possible'. It tested everything that had never been done before successfully on the first try.

So if you REALLY want to go to the Moon and Mars.... the real question is actually, “what is needed to sustain a permanent human spaceflight missions on the Moon and Mars simultaneously?”

I came up with an answer for the year 2040 that there needs to be approximately 50 ‘highly’ certified launch vehicles to be in production each year which includes spares.

Not exactly sure where you get that number, but the most launched vehicle last year was F9, at half that number. Starship is supposed to replace F9, so if any company can handle those production numbers at the moment, it's them.

Call me cray cray, but I would say stick to a common launch vehicle configuration and architecture for Moon and Mars.  Otherwise, it gets too tricky.

As common as possible for Earth, moon and Mars. Again, Starship is the only architecture that does that.

I’m skeptical there is anything viable within reach at NASA for this type of mission cadence anywhere in the US. SLS was the only known launch vehicle on my radar at the time. It was a no-brainer about the low production rate when thinking about SLS.  But no other known solutions will exist with any legacy.

I honestly don’t know what Superheavy has in terms of its design or production rate.  Seems like a yet to be considered alternative.  Perhaps Starship+SH could be made at the rate of one per week?  Multiply the number of engines on the SH and SS times 50 per year (~1850 Raptors per year?).  This production rate seems iffy, but reusable systems would be helpful if possible.

If a SH can be reused 10 times (F9 is at 7 times and counting), you're down to five SH per year. I don't know where you ge the 50 missions from so it's a bit hard to imagine what you think these 50 Starship (upper stages) would be doing. And the factory to build these in big numbers has not even been built yet. The current facility that builds them as completely unique pieces made 9 last year, and that number is bound to increase. More engine production facilities can be built if necessary.

Don’t think sustained lunar or Mars missions are likely given the climate in DC.  Not clear any company could privately sustain this frenetic production rate.

True. I'm not convinced it would take that much, but IMO no amount of effort can sustain more than small outposts until there is a commercial reason to do so.

[bottom line:] Nobody can sustain crewed missions to the Moon or Mars within the next 100 years.  Maybe a one-off flags and foot prints mission will happen.  Might be fun.
[/quote]

It will be much better than whatever we have now.

[zodiacchris]

This seems to be evolving into a conversation with a troll me thinks, Mr Scotts arguments are all over the place and he either doesn’t know what the Starship/ Superheavy system is, and is designed for, or he pleads ignorance. I for one am done here...

[MATTBLAK]

This seems to be evolving into a conversation with a troll me thinks, Mr Scotts arguments are all over the place and he either doesn’t know what the Starship/ Superheavy system is, and is designed for, or he pleads ignorance. I for one am done here...

You kind of took the words out of my mouth; either 'Mr Scott' is some sort of paid lobbyist for Boeing or... Or more likely he's just someone familiar with the subject matter who happens to be messing with us. We'll see.

[Coastal Ron]

The real question might be if SpaceX is going to pivot to Mars.

I suggest you read up more on Elon Musk and why he started SpaceX - to colonize Mars. That has always been their goal. The Starship Moon proposal is just taking an already in development Starship and adding some mid-level landing engines - and having the U.S. Government help fund the Starship program as a whole.

Mars has ALWAYS been the primary goal for SpaceX.

Doesn’t sound like Artemis or SLS is on track or ever near a track.

That would be true.

However! Taking a look at SH, it seems a successful Superheavy demo would simply melt NASAs plans and then they would HAVE TO pursue a Mars demo mission.

No, because NASA does not make their own plans. NASA works for whoever is President, and is funded by Congress. It is up to the President and Congress to decide what America's plans are for NASA.

The President and Congress would also have to agree that they want NASA to pursue two destinations in space, the Moon and Mars, at the same time, and there is little support for that at this moment in history. Especially while we're still in the middle of a global pandemic that has ravaged our economy and put so many people out of work.

[VSECOTSPE]

However I would argue that instead of merely paying lip-service to a future Mars mission, they should dictated [sic] that the Artemis mission would be used to test systems which are designed for Mars...

... things like rovers, habs, and ice-mining & processing equipment can be made to work at either location.

No.

Lunar surface systems and operations and Martian surface systems and operations are different because the environments are different.  Different local gravities, solar fluxes, day/night cycles, thermal regimes, atmospheres (or lack thereof), communications delays, terrains, health hazards, resources, etc. drive different solutions in power, thermal, mobility, life support, and ISRU systems, structures, mission control, etc.

In the lead up to the VSE, I led a short internal study on destinations, including systems commonality, testing regimes, and feed forward.  In short, the Moon is not on the path to Mars.  It’s a great myth going all the way back to Von Braun’s Collier’s articles.  But there is little hardware that would carry over, there are better and/or less expensive test regimes out there for some of the big Mars risks (transit time, communications delays), and other big risks (EDL) simply have to be knocked down at Mars.  I’ll repeat what we told the NASA Space Architect and NASA Comptroller at the time.  If you want to go to the Moon, go to the Moon.  If you want to go to Mars, go to Mars.  If you want to do both, do both.  But one is not dependent on, or even benefits much from, the other.

If you’re smart, plan ahead, and can design with lots of margin and robustness, maybe there can be some commonality on lander structures and engines.  Starship may succeed at this.  Maybe.  But even then, the TPS, guts, and software of a lunar Starship and a Martian Starship will be different.

Dictating that heritage systems and subsystems be used for different planetary environments, or even just similar functions, without going through the engineering and cost trades first is a recipe for overruns and delays at best or programmatic or technical failure at worst.  We’ve witnessed some of this play out in SLS/Orion and Ares I/Orion over the past couple decades.

So again, no.

[ncb1397]

No.

Lunar surface systems and operations and Martian surface systems and operations are different because the environments are different.  Different local gravities, solar fluxes, day/night cycles, thermal regimes, atmospheres (or lack thereof), communications delays, terrains, health hazards, resources, etc. drive different solutions in power, thermal, mobility, life support, and ISRU systems, structures, mission control, etc.

I guess the counter example being that Mars 2020 (the flight hardware) seems to do okay both on earth and mars. Temperatures, local gravity, atmospheric pressures, atmospheric composition are all very different on the two planets.  Maybe not everything on the rover would work but basic functionality is preserved.



If you test on both the Moon and Earth, you are actually creating a bounding box on most metrics that encompass Mars as well. Atmospheric pressure is between moon and earth. Temperatures are more extreme (both on the high and low side) on the moon than Mars, etc. Gravity on Mars is between Earth and the Moon. The dust environment is most hazardous on the moon. As far as Mars 2020, both the Moxie O2 generator and helicopter wouldn't work as that depends on the atmosphere to function. Lunar night or lunar noon would be difficult to survive but RTG powered spacecraft have survived similar conditions to lunar night so the basic architecture is compatible with possibly some thermal insulation or heater location changes.

[VSECOTSPE]

I guess the counter example being that Mars 2020 (the flight hardware) seems to do okay both on earth and mars. Temperatures, local gravity, atmospheric pressures, atmospheric composition are all very different on the two planets.  Maybe not everything on the rover would work but basic functionality is preserved.

If “basic functionality” includes destroying the rover upon landing because you used a Mars EDL system designed to brake in the Martian atmosphere on the airless Moon, sure.

Moreover, the OP was about crewed systems.  Moon does nothing for testing life support, filters, seals, etc. against the Martian perchlorate hazard.  Moon, even/especially only 60 days on Gateway, does nothing for knocking down the hazards of long transit under microgravity and high radiation conditions on astronauts.  Moon does nothing to test out mission ops with a communications time lag (can do that on Earth).  Etc.

Even if we disregard the crew, heat rejection, night duration, solar power generation, fluids, structures with low margins, EDL, comms, ISRU, etc. are all different.  Depending on the terrain where you land, even the mobility solutions can be different.

None of that is a knock against Artemis, which may (or may not) stand on its own merits.  But the path to Mars does not go through, or even benefit much from, the Moon.  Yanking Artemis around with late-arriving Mars requirements isn’t wise either.  And rarely (almost never) does the promise of “heritage” systems in aerospace pan out.

[Nathan2go]

...
Moreover, the OP was about crewed systems.  Moon does nothing for testing life support, filters, seals, etc. against the Martian perchlorate hazard.  Moon, even/especially only 60 days on Gateway, does nothing for knocking down the hazards of long transit under microgravity and high radiation conditions on astronauts.  Moon does nothing to test out mission ops with a communications time lag (can do that on Earth).  Etc.
...
But the path to Mars does not go through, or even benefit much from, the Moon.

Oh, I should say, I agree a Lunar landing does not produce much technical value.  It can be a low-cost add-on to a Mars program (in the same way that Skylab was a low cost add-on to Apollo), and the public really likes the idea of Lunar landings.

I also believe that worries over  "long transit under microgravity and high radiation" are way over-blown.  If the crew is weak on Martian arrival, they can spend a few days adjusting before doing any heavy lifting.  The radiation is of the same order of magnitude as for long LEO missions.

So if you REALLY want to go to the Moon and Mars.... the real question is actually, “what is needed to sustain permanent human spaceflight missions on the Moon and Mars simultaneously?”
...

Fair question.  In 1996 book, "The Case for Mars", Zubrin argues that a sustained Mars program requires exactly two exploration-class rockets every two years (a crewed hab and an Earth return vehicle); each would deliver 140 tons to LEO, and 25-30 tons of cargo/crew to the Marian surface. 

NASA's JPL later (2009) designed an "Austere Human Missions to Mars" which used 6 exploration-class rockets every two years.

I'll modernize the plan, and say we'll land two Starships every two years (one of which carries a crew+cargo, and the other is LH2+cargo).  Every four years, one of the crew vehicles will return.  The hydrogen for one return trip masses 60 tons but uses 850 m^3 (nearly the whole cargo volume), so splitting it across two cargo ships allows for more cargo.  Or you could follow Musk's suggestion that no one comes home until they learn to mine water; there's plenty of it.

If each Starship landing requires 5 tankers, that's 6 launches per year for Mars.

With three more Starship launches (or Vulcan or New Glenn) each year, you could refuel and re-provision a Dynetics Lunar lander, as well as delivering the crew to Gateway.

Add 10 more Starship launches for commercial payloads, and that is 19 launches per year.  Falcon9 has done that.  It would be affordable even if Starship does not produce any cost reductions compared to Falcon9.

[Endeavour_01]

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

No, I do not believe so. Pivoting to Mars at this point would be yet another demoralizing whiplash of HSF priorities that would have the result of damaging the good progress that has been made to get humankind out of LEO again for the first time in 50 years.

The bottom line is that the moon is achievable in the near term. A major part of the progress that has been made in the last few years both on the NASA side and the commercial side has been because of a hard but achievable near term goal. For example commercial crew had the goal of creating a modern domestic crew launch capacity to the ISS. That success has created the ability for commercial companies to bid on and construct lunar landers for Artemis.

Near term goals inspire the workforce and generate buy-in from commercial and international partners. It also cuts down on costly endless development practices by vendors which can result when the requirement to deliver is far off in the future.

More than likely a pivot back to Mars would effectively be "Journey to Mars 2.0". Lots of words and powerpoint presentations by TPTB at NASA but Mars would continue to remain 20 years in the future. 

NASA and commercial space are playing it right in my view. You have to crawl before you can walk and you have to walk before you can run. Going back to the moon as currently envisioned by the Artemis program is the way to build a BLEO infrastructure that will actually allow humanity to go to Mars faster than just treating the moon as a sideshow.

[ulm_atms]

* Artemis and SLS should not go to Mars or the Moon.
* There will be a more practical solution for human exploration rather than by the Artemis program.
* Starship isn’t a solution. It’s a prototype.  But will lead to another exciting configuration that is to be realized.

How is Starship not a solution to go to Mars when that is exactly why it is being built?  Sure they are going to use it for other things...but it's main stated goal of design is to get to Mars.

The only way to say Starship is not a solution is to basically state SpaceX is lying about why they are designing/building Starship. 

[Coastal Ron]

No.  I think you misunderstand.

Starship is in a stage of development. It will spiral many times before it‘ll go to Mars. They’re showing a common design for Moon and Mars.  It should morph quite a bit.

You are not making sense. What SpaceX is building today IS the configuration that will eventually go to Mars - 9m diameter and able to land 100 tons on Mars or the Moon. And yes, it is in development, just like the SLS is still in development.

Starship has fired engines and flown test flights, the SLS has not. So lets not assume the SLS is ahead of Starship when it is obviously on a much slower development schedule.

[Coastal Ron]

But the path to Mars does not go through, or even benefit much from, the Moon.

Oh, I should say, I agree a Lunar landing does not produce much technical value.  It can be a low-cost add-on to a Mars program (in the same way that Skylab was a low cost add-on to Apollo), and the public really likes the idea of Lunar landings.

Polls show that "the public" does not really care about landing humans on the Moon - it is one of the least supported space activities, just behind going to Mars. Remember this is the average taxpaying Americans voicing their opinions, not the small population of space enthusiasts like us. And if you were to redo the poll today, with all of the pandemic related economic issues, I bet support would fall even more.

Plus, if you're going to go to the bother of landing humans on the Moon, you have to have a reason for them to be there. Just landing, then immediately taking off again is kind of meaningless. And if the humans step foot outside, well now you have to have surface assets, decontamination abilities, etc. Not simple.

...I'll modernize the plan, and say we'll land two Starships every two years (one of which carries a crew+cargo, and the other is LH2+cargo).  Every four years, one of the crew vehicles will return....

I've never read any of Zubrin's plans, as he never seemed to be able to make them happen. Elon Musk is making things happen, so I do follow his plans, and his plans call for doubling (or more) the number Starship going to Mars each synod. So the rest of your math is WAY off.

And none of this has anything to do with changing the Artemis program so that it goes to Mars instead (or in addition). Artemis is designed for our Moon, and if we want to go to Mars just make a new program for Mars. I don't understand why we need to waste time on this simple concept - NASA has multiple programs running simultaneously all the time.

[whitelancer64]

No.  I think you misunderstand.

Starship is in a stage of development. It will spiral many times before it‘ll go to Mars. They’re showing a common design for Moon and Mars.  It should morph quite a bit.

You are not making sense. What SpaceX is building today IS the configuration that will eventually go to Mars - 9m diameter and able to land 100 tons on Mars or the Moon. And yes, it is in development, just like the SLS is still in development.

Starship has fired engines and flown test flights, the SLS has not. So lets not assume the SLS is ahead of Starship when it is obviously on a much slower development schedule.

The prototype design currently being flight tested in TX won't be delivering 100 tons of cargo to Mars, it's still double-digit tons too heavy and they haven't worked out the landing legs, thermal tiles, in-flight refueling, cargo bay doors, etc. yet.

I think where Mr. Scott is wrong is that while none of that is trivial, the overall structural design shouldn't change all that much.

And while the SLS is technically "in development" its design will not be changing anywhere near the degree that Starship's design will be changed.

[kevinof]

Why do you keep focussing on "Starship for Mars" and "Nasa" in the same (again and again) argument. Right now Mars is a SpaceX only deal and Nasa is not involved. What they (SpaceX) decide to do and what plans they make on how to get there have zero to do with Nasa.

You remind me of someone.

Biggest gripe I have with Starship for Mars is that it seems like a one way trip.  NASA likely does not have explicit requirements for a return trip.  So I’d really expect a lot of changes ahead.  But what do I know

[Rocket Science]

Leave NASA in the current direction towards a lunar return and let the agency focus their R&D on a true deep spacecraft such as Nautilus-X IMHO...

[kevinof]

Whoa there sunshine.
I'm confused? My post was about SpaceX/Starship/Nasa and Mars. Nothing about the moon and what do you do - you start putting in stuff about the moon.

Who's confused? If you want to debate a point, do so but do not keep moving the goalposts and then blaming it on others.

Focus young man. Focus.

Why do you keep focussing on "Starship for Mars" and "Nasa" in the same (again and again) argument. Right now Mars is a SpaceX only deal and Nasa is not involved. What they (SpaceX) decide to do and what plans they make on how to get there have zero to do with Nasa.

Here’s the link showing how NASA and Starship and Artemis and the Moon.  They’ve paid $100M thus far.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-names-companies-to-develop-human-landers-for-artemis-moon-missions

I was trying to discuss SLS first.  But er’body wanted to talk SpaceX Starship and NASA and Mars.  Sure, doesn’t make sense to me for the OP.

Think if SpaceX wants to go to Mars on a one way trip, sure, do it without NASA. 

NASA is planning missions to the Moon and Mars and the rest of the solar system thru the Artemis program via the mighty power and technological leadership that is SLS. 

There are two or three different programs focused on Mars.  So I can understand why you’re so confused.  Maybe we could have a discussion about NASA’s programs pivoting to Mars independent of SpaceX’s plans.

[whitelancer64]

Why do you keep focussing on "Starship for Mars" and "Nasa" in the same (again and again) argument. Right now Mars is a SpaceX only deal and Nasa is not involved. What they (SpaceX) decide to do and what plans they make on how to get there have zero to do with Nasa.

You remind me of someone.

Biggest gripe I have with Starship for Mars is that it seems like a one way trip.  NASA likely does not have explicit requirements for a return trip.  So I’d really expect a lot of changes ahead.  But what do I know

NASA is already involved with Starship, for the human lunar lander program, and regardless SpaceX would be foolish to not have them be involved, after all, SpaceX is first and foremost a transportation company. They need customers to have things for them to transport. NASA will 100% guaranteed have some people on board the first Starship to send humans to Mars.

[Coastal Ron]

NASA is planning missions to the Moon and Mars and the rest of the solar system thru the Artemis program...

You keep saying this. NO! The Artemis program is ONLY for our Moon.

NASA has had programs focused on Mars for decades, but they are NOT the Artemis program.

...via the mighty power and technological leadership that is SLS.

Oh gosh, this is WAY over the top, and lacks perspective... 

[kevinof]

Go back and re-read the post. It was whether the first Mars starship would change considerably due to NASA's involvement (ie requirements).

It won't because they are not involved with sending Astros to Mars.

Why do you keep focussing on "Starship for Mars" and "Nasa" in the same (again and again) argument. Right now Mars is a SpaceX only deal and Nasa is not involved. What they (SpaceX) decide to do and what plans they make on how to get there have zero to do with Nasa.

You remind me of someone.

Biggest gripe I have with Starship for Mars is that it seems like a one way trip.  NASA likely does not have explicit requirements for a return trip.  So I’d really expect a lot of changes ahead.  But what do I know

NASA is already involved with Starship, for the human lunar lander program, and regardless SpaceX would be foolish to not have them be involved, after all, SpaceX is first and foremost a transportation company. They need customers to have things for them to transport. NASA will 100% guaranteed have some people on board the first Starship to send humans to Mars.

[whitelancer64]

Go back and re-read the post. It was whether the first Mars starship would change considerably due to NASA's involvement (ie requirements).

It won't because they are not involved with sending Astros to Mars.

Why do you keep focussing on "Starship for Mars" and "Nasa" in the same (again and again) argument. Right now Mars is a SpaceX only deal and Nasa is not involved. What they (SpaceX) decide to do and what plans they make on how to get there have zero to do with Nasa.

You remind me of someone.

Biggest gripe I have with Starship for Mars is that it seems like a one way trip.  NASA likely does not have explicit requirements for a return trip.  So I’d really expect a lot of changes ahead.  But what do I know

NASA is already involved with Starship, for the human lunar lander program, and regardless SpaceX would be foolish to not have them be involved, after all, SpaceX is first and foremost a transportation company. They need customers to have things for them to transport. NASA will 100% guaranteed have some people on board the first Starship to send humans to Mars.

NASA is already working with SpaceX on Starship for the Moon, that work will roll into anything going to Mars.

Additionally, NASA is working on planetary protection rules for human landings on Mars, doubtless with SpaceX input.

NASA experiments and people will be onboard the first Starship to Mars. 100% guaranteed.