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.

[ZChris13]

...
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).

The benefit of the moon is that you can always abort your long-term stay on rather short notice, while on Mars you're locked in for years at a time. It's also much easier to bring your own propellant to Luna, due to a variety of reasons, which greatly helps abort options.

[Nathan2go]

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. ...

I had not seen the ULA paper; thanks for that. It was also interesting to see their estimate of 60 lbs/day, 10t/year of H2 boil-off for their LEO depot; that is encouraging for New Glenn's future options.  Certainly Falcon Heavy and New Glenn are adequate for small Lunar missions, particularly using distributed lift (whether that is using depots, or simply LEO and/or cis-Lunar rendezvous). 

However, the Artemis program did not choose the existing_commercial_rockets + depots option.   SLS and Starship have sufficient momentum behind them that we might as well accept the greater capability of these larger vehicles, and the superior missions that they enable.  Starship, at least, is likely to be commercially viable.

I acknowledge that getting to Mars is very different from getting to the Moon (and have backed away from suggesting common transportation).  But you haven't made any arguments that the equipment that is deployed on the surface should be any different.

The presence of a thin atmosphere makes Mars easier in several ways (e.g. CO2 is free, can make O2 very easily).  Mars and the Lunar south pole are both cold and sunny (the Moon is worse for both).  But I could still imagine rovers, habs, lab modules, construction equipment, digging equipment, electrolyzers, fuel cells, and cryo-coolers that work on either (i.e. all the stuff that makes the difference between flags&footprints and a productive long-term stay).

Like it or not, Starship will very likely go to Mars sometime in this decade, even if the only commercial market for Starship is a dozen ride-share missions per year (including Starlink), and the only Mars customer payloads they can find are a few student cub-sats.  It will look very bad for NASA if they don't participate at all.  Even if they don't have funding to send a crew, they could send, for example, a rover and test it by remote control (assuming their Lunar rover was designed to be Mars capable).

[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 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.

While I have seen low key announcements about it's CDR recently I wouldn't count on NASA and the political infrastructure getting serious about EUS until SLS has successfully flown at least once. I've wondered if the Vulcan's Centaur V upper stage wouldn't make a decent compromise, budget-wise; it has twice the thrust and propellant load of the Delta IV stage and is already under development and 'cutting metal'.

[Nathan2go]

Everything SLS needs to do both Moon and Mars is designed.  ...

Ok, but Artemis is not just SLS; there are many new pieces of hardware that need to get built to support an Artemis landing.  The only pieces that NASA has said are relevant both to Luna and Mars missions are SLS and the Gateway.

By "Pivot to Mars", I'm suggesting that the other elements (habs, rovers, etc) should be specified to be Luna and Mars compatible.

[Coastal Ron]

I had not seen the ULA paper; thanks for that.

That is the document I have literally quoted the most over the years, both here on NSF and on SpaceNews (my other favorite space site).

However, the Artemis program did not choose the existing_commercial_rockets + depots option.

NASA, the organization, works for the NASA Administrator, who is a political appointee, and they work for the President. Plus with the Trump Administration the NASA Administrator couldn't do anything without the approval of the National Space Council, which was run by the Vice President. And then of course NASA was told to build the SLS and Orion by Congress without NASA input. So no surprise that the SLS and Orion were assumed to be used for Artemis.

SLS and Starship have sufficient momentum behind them that we might as well accept the greater capability of these larger vehicles, and the superior missions that they enable.

Please DO NOT put the Starship in the same category as the SLS. The SLS does not have any inherent "greater capability" that outweighs its tremendous liabilities. And again, I point you back to that ULA study which shows why SHLV's are NOT needed.

As a note, that study assumed that rocket technology would not change much, meaning costs would not change much. The Starship is such a HUGE change to the economics of rockets that it was not foreseen by the authors of that paper, but their assumptions were based around cost, and the Starship is able to do cost AND payload size at the same time. The SLS can't do that.

I acknowledge that getting to Mars is very different from getting to the Moon (and have backed away from suggesting common transportation).  But you haven't made any arguments that the equipment that is deployed on the surface should be any different.

It is pretty clear if you research the topic:

A. Landing on Mars requires the ability pass through an atmosphere, whereas landing on the Moon does not. So not the same vehicle for both.

B. Mars has pretty close to an Earth type day cycle, so the temperatures and availability of sunlight is regular enough that you only need to design your systems to survive overnight and through dusty days. On the Moon it will be night for 2 weeks at a time, unless you are at the only two locations on the Moon where the sun can be seen at all times. But those two small locations mean you are not really exploring "the Moon" if you stay there, so for exploring "the Moon" you have to have systems that can withstand two weeks of night, and two weeks of day. Completely different power requirements for Mars.

C. Ignoring gravity, on the Moon the sharpness of the lunar dust will likely kill humans the fastest (i.e. lung damage), whereas on Mars it is the perchlorate soil. So again, completely different environments.

There is more, but those three categories mean that whatever hardware you are building for the Moon won't be the same hardware you need for Mars.

Artemis, as currently envisioned, is only focused on going to the Moon, and the hardware under development is solely useful for the Moon. To change the program to make everything work on Mars would require a halt to the current program, the cancelling of current contracts, and the delay of years.

So no, again, NASA should NOT pivot Artemis towards Mars. If they want to send humans to Mars, then they should define a new program that is separate from Artemis.

[kkattula]

Everything SLS needs to do both Moon and Mars is designed.  ...

Ok, but Artemis is not just SLS; there are many new pieces of hardware that need to get built to support an Artemis landing.  The only pieces that NASA has said are relevant both to Luna and Mars missions are SLS and the Gateway.

By "Pivot to Mars", I'm suggesting that the other elements (habs, rovers, etc) should be specified to be Luna and Mars compatible.

Artemis is not synonymous with SLS & Orion.  SLS & Orion are Exploration capability programs.  Artemis is a Moon exploration program utilizing SLS & Orion.  A follow on program for Mars would have a different name, and use or develop whatever capabilities are necessary for Mars.

The Moon and Mars are actually quite different environments. Mar has more than twice the surface gravity and a thin atmosphere that enables heat-shield & parachute braking, plus convective cooling of surface equipment. Mars' months long dust storms are a concern for solar power, whereas the Moon's 14 day long nights, and extreme temperature swings present other issues. ISRU on Mars can be based on CO2 and H2O, on the Moon probably initially just H2O and only at the poles.  Moon dust is very sharp and abrasive whereas Mars dust is thought to be more weathered. 

So designing equipment specifically for both is likely to be slow, expensive and counter-productive.  However, the supply chain of manufacturers building parts is what matters.  We're already seeing this with the various Gateway and HLS programs. The vendors are designing mission specific vehicles, that are heavily derived from existing designs, e.g. Cygnus, Dragon, Orion, MEV, Canadarm, etc. 

Thus if industry develops to establish and support a permanent Moon presence, it will necessarily have gone a long way towards what's needed for Mars.

[Cherokee43v6]

Something to think about...

SLS is a system capable of many different missions.

Artemis is a mission assigned to SLS.

Missions are best done when they have concise parameters for accomplishment.  Scope creep is one of the quickest ways to kill off a mission on which the system you need is dependent.

A better choice would be to develop a concurrent/subsequent mission building off of Artemis leveraging developments of the Artemis equipment.  A program with its own  budget separate from Artemis for the additional developments necessary.

Smushing them together just makes the whole thing easier to kill.

[zodiacchris]

Sure, just rename Artemis into Sisyphus and point NASA at Mars. Just like the failed programs from DCX to Ares I and V, NASA will start rolling that rock uphill and not get anywhere. As long as the overpriced single use SLS is the backbone of the program, Mars is forever out of reach, physically and financially. The thing can hardly support a lunar program without bespoke landers, depots etc, and all that at a price tag that induces nausea...

The sane approach for NASA would be to kill off SLS, tag along as customer with SpaceX and tick the moon off the list during the ramping up for the first Mars missions this decade. But NASA is hobbled by political realities and allegiances, so yeah, don’t hold your breath...

Just my 2c...

[Coastal Ron]

Something to think about...

SLS is a system capable of many different missions.

The SLS is an expendable mass pusher. There are plenty of expendable mass pushers, and now an increasing number of semi-reusable (and soon fully reusable) mass pushers. Cost matters, and the SLS can be replaced.

Artemis is a mission assigned to SLS.

The SLS is one of a number of mass pushers Artemis is planning to use. But returning to the Moon doesn't require the SLS, so it's not like things can't change...

Smushing them together just makes the whole thing easier to kill.

I agree that piling too many goals into one program is a bad idea.

[zodiacchris]

Wow, that argument holds about as much water as a colander! Starship is being developed for Moon, Earth and Mars, there are multiple prototypes and a production line. In that vein, SLS is one first stage booster prototype which hasn’t even done a green run yet, never been fired up and a year away from first unmanned flight. So arguably Starship is further ahead, by about 12.5km.

Holy Saint Leibowitz...

[high road]

NASA Artemis can do both!  Artemis can do multi-mission/multi-role operations to the Moon and Mars simultaneously, plus launch/sustain Gateway and a crewed Asteroid mission as well as crewed missions to a few moons around Jupiter and Saturn.  Oh, and Venus.  And a valiant crewed sustainment mission to fix JWST.

Oh yes, all they need to do all of that simultaneously is a 1960's budget.

The only thing that needs to get figured out is how to certify Artemis for launch of highly enriched nuclear materials as well as a lot of other mission hardware. All you have to do is use Shuttle derived components and infrastructure designed in the 1970s.

The current Shuttle derived system is currently costing billions per year, steadily increasing for a decade now, and is yet to do its first static fire. 18.5 billion already down the drain, not counting the Constellation programme it was rescued from.

SpaceX is not going to Mars.  They have money.  But their location isn’t clearly able to produce the vehicles with the volume needed to colonize the local solar system while balancing sustainment of Starlink.

So what if their site to test their vehicles is not able to produce vehicles in large amounts? The whole effort is to learn how to build Starship. The factory to produce them has not been built yet. Although I do set the bar at exploration, as colonization is beyond the revenue generated by any of their efforts, IMO.

If they move their HQ to Texas, maybe they’d get their first PowerPoint charts within about 50 years.  There’s no easy way to have Starship return to Earth from Mars because production of propellant is a key challenge.

Send the hydrogen along, Mars Direct style.

SpaceX propellant is carbon based. NASA wants environmental sustainability.

They literally need to produce the fuel from atmospheric carbon dioxide. How can launching rockets be any more environmentally sustainable than that?

Not only can SLS deliver crews and payloads to a single predefined surface destination. 

But it can also deliver many payloads all over the surface with missions changed at any point during the mission.  Assuming the car keys are in the ignition, one can fly Artemis crews really anywhere in the solar system. 

It’s like a wood paneled station wagon.

I assume you mean Orion? SLS doesn't leave earth orbit. And Orion can't sustain crew on the 5 month trip to Venus or the 6 month trip to Mars, let alone a 2.5 year return trip, it can't land anywhere other than Earth, and it can't launch from anywhere.

Everything SLS needs to do both Moon and Mars is designed.  There is always this narrative that something isn’t ready or doesn’t have funding.  It’s just a psychological barrier.  It’s beyond ready. It could fly a crew to Mars this year with the exact same SLS. 

The only thing SpaceX could do to help at this point is think about adding F9 boosters to the side of SLS to replace shuttle boosters.

Starship is not ready to go to Mars in the modern age.

Well, for the moment it's not even ready for its green run static fire yet. And at 2 billion per rocket, SLS is hardly fit for spaceflight in the 21st century. If it flies a crew to Mars now, they would die when Orion supplies run out, and be reduced to a pulp when Orion adds a new crater to the Martian surface. Neither launcher is ready for Mars missions, and Starship is probably further away from carrying crew, but who's 'readier' to even make it to orbit still remains to be seen.

Starship doesn’t work for the Moon, Mars or Earth.  It is an IR&D system. 

You cannot have NASA procure a service from SpaceX to explore these places.  So when NASA (for lack of a better term) adopts the Moon or Mars mission, if it were to procure Starship, it would then destroy what Starship is/does.  The specification practice would be like going back to square 1, even if it did a proof of concept.  Then it would not work as the modifications would be out of control. 

Where you go shouldn’t change the design of the vehicle.  Starship is missing wholesale mission capabilities for real exploration, because it is a prototype.  Folks are just drunk and stupid because it flies (kind of)

In the parlance of Michael Griffin, Starship is not an elegant solution.

Just stick to using SLS. It can do ANYTHING.

If nothing else, exploration could be done privately without NASA.  But that would end up being a one off mission.  Not something that is sustainable.

Well, SLS's can't start its engines yet. Starship can lift off and do a controled descent. SLS costs 2 billion per rocket, if it ever stops costing 2.5 billion per year without launching anything. How is that sustainable? There is a reason only one crewed mission is planned so far for Artemis, which has been my issue with Gateway as well.

Where the current status of the programme is figuring out how to build the rocket and how to make it do what it needs to do, the whole programme has cost less than a single year of SLS, and is advancing at breakneck speed. It has dozens of times more missions planned than SLS: all F9 missions, and a trip around the moon like Artemis 2. Starship is likely to carry payload before SLS carries crew. And to launch its thirtieth payload before SLS does a third mission.

Although I do suggest we take all this to the poll section where there is a thread to discuss whether Starship or SLS will make it to orbit first. I'll copy this post there for my personal future reference.

On topic: Artemis is unlikely to make it given the current funding even with the current limited scope. Having it focus on Mars, which is way, waaaaay more difficult and requires much more never-before-tried technology, would seal its fate.

[Cherokee43v6]

Something to think about...

SLS is a system capable of many different missions.

The SLS is an expendable mass pusher. There are plenty of expendable mass pushers, and now an increasing number of semi-reusable (and soon fully reusable) mass pushers. Cost matters, and the SLS can be replaced.

Artemis is a mission assigned to SLS.

The SLS is one of a number of mass pushers Artemis is planning to use. But returning to the Moon doesn't require the SLS, so it's not like things can't change...

Smushing them together just makes the whole thing easier to kill.

I agree that piling too many goals into one program is a bad idea.

We actually agree across the board.

I realize on re-reading that I left out an important line that I had intended to include:

Artemis is not SLS and SLS is not Artemis.

My intent was to make the point to previous posters that the two were not 'intrinsically linked'.  Currently, the existence of Artemis justifies the existence of SLS because of its internal requirements (which can be changed).  Those arguing the pointing of Artemis at Mars also seem argue that SLS should be used for that.  My point being that piling additional requirements onto Artemis moves its functionality further out, increasing the likelihood of program cancellation resulting in the cancellation of the now missionless vehicle as well.

(Personally I'm a fan of SpaceX and Starship and think they're the future, but you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater either...)

[high road]

SLS is designed to do much more than a lunar mission.  See the attached Payload planners guide.  Thus ARTEMIS is a generational program toe. the ARTEMIS generation) that is enabled by SLS.

Starship is only designed for Earth flight demos.  It isn’t applicable to Artemis.

Starship is designed primarily for for Mars missions, and they are in the HLS (as in Artemis 3) programme at least until the downselect 🙄. SLS/Orion would only take crew to lunar orbit. If SLS can even fit inside Artemis budget. A launch on Crew Dragon and crew transfer in Earth orbit would be an order of magnitude more affordable.

[yg1968]

I am also a no on the OP's question. CLPS and HLS are both great programs that must be preserved.

[Coastal Ron]

SLS is designed to do much more than a lunar mission.

The core stage of the SLS never makes it to space, and all rockets are just mass pushers. So let's not glorify the SLS.

Thus ARTEMIS is a generational program to go anywhere (I.e. the ARTEMIS generation) that is enabled by SLS.

NASA doesn't need an SHLV to return humans to the Moon - that is Apollo-style thinking. ULA even agrees with that, and they published a study in 2009 that explains why - "A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture"

Read the first page and you'll understand. This is the quick summary:

The use of smaller, commercial launchers coupled with orbital depots eliminates the need for a large launch vehicle.

In other words, Artemis, or whatever we want to call sending more humans back to the Moon, DOES NOT need to use the SLS. America has plenty of alternative transportation architectures that we could use, and ALL OF THEM would cost less than the SLS. All of them.

Starship is only designed for Earth flight demos.  It isn’t applicable to Artemis.

I don't even understand how you could conclude that, what with Elon Musk explaining that he is building Starship to colonize Mars. That means not only people being shipped interplanetary, but equipment and supplies too. In fact according the Starship Payload Guide:

Starship was designed from the onset to be able to carry more than 100 tons of cargo to Mars and the Moon.

So no, Starship is not just designed for Earth flight demos. And you should have known that since NASA has contracted with SpaceX to build a version of the Starship that can land humans and cargo on the surface of the Moon.

To summarize:

- The SLS is the MOST expensive way to move people and cargo off of Earth

- The SLS is NOT the only way to move people and cargo off of Earth

- The Starship COULD be used as an alternative to the SLS, but so could a lot of other existing and future launchers.

And none of this changes the fact that merging the Artemis Moon program into a Mars program is NOT a good idea. Too unfocused.

[Cherokee43v6]

SLS is designed to do much more than a lunar mission.  See the attached Payload planners guide.  Thus ARTEMIS is a generational program to go anywhere (I.e. the ARTEMIS generation) that is enabled by SLS.

I specifically disagree with the underlined.

ARTEMIS is a 'lunar exploration program' that uses the SLS architecture.  Expanding the mission scope of ARTEMIS beyond its Lunar focus is a dangerous and potentially program threatening risk.  It increases both the expense and the timeline of development as additional, non-lunar necessary capabilities become requirements in the program.

It is far better, and provides for a much more stable, and thus robust and survivable program, to have missions to other planets and bodies to have their own specific programs, with separate budgets, that are able to leverage the equipment and knowledge of each other.  Lets call them Project NIRGAL (Mars) and Project APHRODITE (Venus) as examples.

ARTEMIS would be the primary active track, developing Lunar Architecture and deploying that equipment.

NIRGAL would be a secondary track, studying what is learned from ARTEMIS to develop a Mars Architecture and eventually develop that equipment

APHRODITE would be a tertiary track, studying each of the above and preparing for Venusian study and exploration.

The idea here is that by separating out the missions from each other, if there are budget constraints then less critical missions can be released without endangering the existence of the over-all program. 

If they're all smushed together, then a budget reduction would severely impact the whole thing resulting in significant delays to even the earliest steps, or even out-right cancellation of the whole thing in favor of yet another annoyingly far off from doing a damned thing clean-sheet design.

[Robotbeat]

SLS sucks up the money NASA needs for Mars.

The ideal scenario is to continue ISS and increasingly commercialize it and LEO until ISS retirement and replacement with private stations. While establishing a base on the Moon serviced commercially. And leveraging at least commercial launch and other developments to build a large base on Mars.

To do all this at the same time is possible but requires being extremely thrifty. That’s basically impossible with SLS.

[Coastal Ron]

Artemis will use SLS.  SLS will go also beyond the moon.  Payloads are already in development to go to Mars on SLS.  All that is/was Moon to Mars is now Artemis.  Artemis is already funding payloads to Mars.

Ooooookkkkkaaaayyy. Right. Whatever you say... 

Starship payload planners guide says N/A for payload mass to Moon and Mars.

Starship Payload Guide, page 5, the "CARGO CONFIGURATION" section:

Starship was designed from the onset to be able to carry more than 100 tons of cargo to Mars and the Moon.

Then you wrote:

It is dependent on another large launch vehicle to be developed in order to do so.

The SpaceX Starship is designed to be the second stage, but it does not need the Super Heavy booster stage to operate on the Moon or on Mars.

In comparison the SLS core stage NEVER leaves Earth, and the 2nd stage goes into a useless disposal orbit after it pushes its payload off to its destination. So the SLS NEVER goes to the Moon or Mars, only the payloads.

Super Heavy is well behind SLS to be demonstrated.

Um, yeah, you should know that the Starship program is on a faster development path than the SLS, and the Super Heavy is planned to fly months before the SLS. Haven't you been following Starship development? The SLS development is glacial in comparison. 

New Glenn is well behind SLS.  An upgraded Vulcan is well behind SLS.

The ULA study showed that ANY commercial launcher could be used, which today is Falcon 9/H and Atlas V here in the U.S., and plenty of other launchers with our space partners.

It’s a waste for NASA to spend money to go develop yet ‘another’ next launch vehicle to go to the Moon and/or Mars.

If NASA uses already developed launchers, it never has to.

Just stick to SLS.  It has a high TRL with the major components because it has Shuttle program heritage.

Other than the SSME's, which have been modified, there is literally nothing substantial on the SLS that is the same as on the Shuttle, and has no flight history. Plus, pieces are not certified, systems are, and as a system the SLS will take years to build up enough flight history to prove it is safe.

The Falcon 9 and Atlas V are already certified for crew & cargo, and the Falcon Heavy is certified for cargo. Plus both can fly many times per year, whereas the SLS is only planned to fly once every 12 months.

There are far less costly alternatives. Whether the Biden Administration proposes them is an open question...

[punder]

Mr. Scott: How can SLS ever accomplish anything, if it can fly only once a year, at most?

Can you provide any evidence that SLS can fly more than once a year?

[Steven Pietrobon]

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.

You would think that Falcon Heavy at only $150M for 63.8 t to LEO would have killed off SLS. That didn't happen. The same could apply to Starship.

[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.

[kevinof]

Ok this is garbage.

You quoted my post but you still haven't read it or answered it. You seem to be hellbent on making some other point. I'm am done with this thread until the quality improves.

Way too much noise, not near enough thoughtful debate.
Adios.

[Robotbeat]

Starship isn’t a one way trip to Mars. It’ll use ISRU to return.

[woods170]

People...please, please don't feed the troll named Mr. Scott.
Also: report to moderator usually works a lot better than trying to out-argue a troll.

[Lar]

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.

Mr Scott is a long time forum participant. Many many years now.  Mr Scott's post count is 50, at the moment, I think.

That's not because Mr Scott doesn't post a lot, he does.... oh my yes, so many!!!

...it's because almost none of them stick.  I hope that helps.

[DigitalMan]

Here are some reasons why I think NASA should continue with Moon exploration:

1) There are international partnerships that have been established
2) Inertia. NASA, other space agencies, many citizens and numerous private companies are interested in missions to the Moon.
3) The Moon is hardly explored at all. Been there, done that can only be a reference to flags and footprints. It is time for Explorers to get involved and learn, live, discover and utilize natural resources, etc.

My personal tilt is towards Mars. I think the operational experience conducting Moon missions will be invaluable while working towards Mars, especially for private companies like SpaceX.