E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
An artist's conception dating back to the 1990s shows a space vehicle powered by an electric propulsion drive approaching Mars. Electric propulsion is still the preferred technology for getting to the Red Planet.
Now that the International Space Station is complete, NASA is touting it as a test bed for future voyages to Mars. But when will those voyages start? Would you believe Oct. 9, 2033?
That's one of the best dates available for launching a Mars mission, according to Ben Donahue, space exploration engineer at Boeing Advanced Systems. At this week's International Space Station and Mars Conference, presented in Washington by Explore Mars, Donahue explained that the alignments of Earth and Mars make 2033 an "easy year" for interplanetary navigation. And after all, President Barack Obama did call for a mission to the environs of the Red Planet by the mid-2030s.
But in reality, the prospects for a Mars mission depend less on the celestial almanac and more on national priorities. If getting humans to Mars somehow became a national imperative, as getting humans to the moon did a half-century ago, the job could be done "before the end of the decade," said Larry Williams, vice president of strategic relations for SpaceX.
SpaceX is one of the fastest-rising stars in the aerospace industry, but even Williams acknowledges that any effort to send astronauts beyond Earth orbit would probably have to be government-led, not industry-led.
Williams compared beyond-orbit exploration to the creation of ARPANET, the federal government's forerunner to the Internet. "I would say there's probably a good return on investment" for government-led projects, in the form of economic competitiveness and prestige, he said. He wouldn't go so far as to predict that spaceflight would be the next big thing, "but I can't think of anything that's going to be more of that 'next thing,'" he said.
What's to be gained? The space race of the 1960s led to a revolution in satellite technology, opening the way to benefits ranging from global telecom and data networks to GPS navigation. The Internet's rise in the 1990s transformed the world economy again. Travel beyond Earth orbit may well lead the way to new resources, markets and frontiers in the 2020s and 2030s. And some folks, such as SpaceX founder Elon Musk, believe it's imperative for us Earthlings to spread out through the solar system in order to guard against a planet-killing catastrophe like the one that killed off the dinosaurs.
But the "why" question is a huge tale unto itself. For now, let's concentrate on the "how." Here's how the experts at the ISS-Mars Conference sized up the road between the space station and the Red Planet:
Simulating scenarios: Six volunteers are more than halfway through their simulation of a 500-day mission to Mars and back, conducted inside an isolation chamber at a Russian institute. NASA is considering a different kind of simulation next year, which would involve transmitting voice communications to and from the station with a 10-minute delay. Several experts at the conference, including Apollo 11 moonwalker Buzz Aldrin, suggested that a prototype Mars transit module should be attached to the station for a series of on-orbit simulations leading up to a full-length mock Mars trip. One of the potential prototypes is an inflatable module built by Bigelow Aerospace.
However things work out, NASA and the space station's other international partners should have a lot more time to draw up their tests. The current plan is to extend operations on the space station to at least 2020, and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said the partners are already talking about a further extension to 2028.
Testing technologies: One of the big problems for interplanetary travelers is the heightened exposure to space radiation. To address that issue, NASA is looking at active-shielding systems that could set up a protective magnetic field around a spacecraft. Another strategy calls for packing the food, water and supplies stored up for the astronauts (as well as the waste material they produce) in such a way as to shield them during the trip to Mars.
Other potential technologies include measures to counter the health effects of spending long periods in zero-G, as well as next-generation propulsion systems. The International Space Station could serve as a test bed for all these technologies. NASA already has agreed to test an experimental VASIMR plasma engine at the space station. The consensus at the conference was that solar electric or nuclear electric propulsion systems were the way to get to Mars, perhaps boosted initially by chemical rockets.
Doing dry runs: The current vision for space exploration doesn't call for going straight from the space station to Mars. Rather, NASA plans to take a series of incremental steps along the "flexible path" through deep space. Obama has called for a trip to a near-Earth asteroid by 2025, for example. That would serve as a "dry run" for deep-space transportation systems, said Bret Drake, exploration architect at NASA's Johnson Space Center.
Even though the White House nixed the Constellation Project's back-to-the-moon goal, a limited number of lunar trips could serve as dry runs for surface operations on Mars. A trip to Mars orbit and back, without touching down on the Red Planet, would represent another step along the way. The early missions may actually send astronauts to a deep crater on one of the Red Planet's moons, Phobos, from which they can manage a remote-controlled army of robots on the Martian surface itself.
Relying on robots: If and when humans go to Mars, robots will have already blazed the trail. One such robot, the Curiosity rover, is being prepared for launch this November. NASA and its international partners are deep into negotiations over a series of robotic missions leading up to the transport of fresh soil and rock samples from Mars to Earth for study.
Eventually, robotic production facilities will be sent to Mars to manufacture the fuel and oxygen that will be required for the astronauts who follow. When the complete scenario for a human mission is worked out, Donahue says robots should be sent out first to conduct a full dress rehearsal.
The long road vs. the short road: How long would a human mission last? It depends. One type of trip, known as an "opposition-class" mission, would get the astronauts to Mars in 217 days, give them a 30-day stay, and bring them back in 403 days. In contrast to that 650-day trip, the "conjunction-class" mission would last 916 days: 210 days to get there, 496 days at Mars, and 210 days on the return trip.
The 210-day transit time is "nearly identical" to the length of a typical tour of duty on the International Space Station, said former astronaut John Grunsfeld, who is now deputy director of the Space Telescope Science Institute. So taking a trip to Mars, or coming back, may not be all that much different from what space station astronauts are experiencing now. The big difference is that when their stint in space is done, returnees from the space station get to rest or recuperate. That won't be the case when astronauts finish a 210-day trip to Mars.
NASA
This graphic compares the trajectories for an opposition-class mission to Mars (left) with a conjunction-class mission (right). Both missions are launched in 2037, but the shorter mission returns to Earth in 2039 while the longer mission doesn't end until 2040.
"I think it's still an open question in terms of what it will take ... when crews do land on Mars so they can get to work," Grunsfeld said.
That's not the only open question. I've intentionally glossed over the biggest one: Is this trip really necessary? In the past, we've talked about the prospects of finding evidence of past or present Martian life, or creating a second home for Earth's species ... but I'd love to hear what you think. Tell me why we should go to Mars, or why not, in your comments below.
More about NASA's future course:
- Scientific shortfalls limit NASA's spaceflight ambitions
- Gallery: Seven out-of-this-world destinations
- Which way for NASA? A step-by-step path
- NASA lines up jobs for Robonaut
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about my book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
We need to go asap! The advances in technology gained from going to Mars will be amazing. It'll be just one of the first steps we need to take to explore beyond our solar system and what lays beyond. Then there is the idea of terraforming. imagine not one but two planets in our solar system populated by humans. Now if the people of Earth would stop bashing heads over stupid things and get their act together. We definitely could put man on Mars by the end of the decade if people prioritized and actually wanted to get there.
I think a trip to Mars, would be an absolute amazing acheivement for humans, the mission should include many different experiments, like sampling of rocks, atmosphere, setting up a permanent base, the mission should take different modules that will land first with oxygen ,hydrogen, and energy creating systems. Then send out the astronauts. See if we can grow crops in small oxygen labs, and maybe we will create a colony that can sustain life as we know it, on Mars. very cool. I dream it will happen in my life time I'm 28 but something tells me that wont happen, maybe the first missions with astronauts but not a colony
There are only two motivations that will drive a mission to Mars: Political or economic. Scientific interests must always bow to the god of politics to get funding.
The Moon mission was politically driven - there sure wasn't any money to be made by going there, and there may never be unless we discover a really cheap way to get there. Mars is the same situation, a thousand times multiplied. Far as we know, there is NOTHING so valuable on the surface of Mars that we should risk an expensive manned mission to bring it back.
It's the same reason we explore the South Pole - not because it's economically practical, but because it's interesting. But without public funding, it doesn't happen. There's no monetary profit in it.
So, if we ever go to Mars, it will probably be for one of two reasons:
1. Beat the Chinese or the Russians there; or
2. Elon Musk has figured out a cheap way to get there, and the surface of Mars is covered with diamonds (or something)
I have often wondered, wouldn't the conditions be just right for diamond formation on Venus?? There is a lot of heat and pressure there. It'll be tough to figure out how to get anything to last on Venus long enough to mine the planet but it seems worthwhile to me.
Diamond's value is artificially inflated. Many are kept off the market to drive up the price.
Not a good idea, unless you could market them as Venus Diamonds and charge 10x the cost.
one word....UNOBTAINIUM!!!!
Unobtainite! (since it's a mineral)
We didn't NEED to build a railroad or interstate highway system because we already had boats for transportation and exploration. Before development of these 19th & 20th Century Transportation Systems could the average person truly list their benefits? With this in mind, YES, we NEED to go to the Moon, Mars and beyond! But I don't know why...
The cost benefits of the transcontinental rail system linking California to the eastern states were well understood before the project was undertaken. The individual and commercial benefits of the interstate highway system were also well anticipated. The demand may have been underestimated, but the benefits were known.
Also, the interstate highways were built so that the American military could get around our big country easier. Look it up, it's true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System Heck, there is even an "interstate" highway in Hawaii. The military usefulness made the interstate a reality.
The Mars Society thinks we can go to Mars for around $50 billion according to Michael. I personally think that's rather optimistic, but even 200billion in a 40 year timeframe still works out to 5 billion a year which isn't too expensive to handle.
Mitchell
The reasons to go to Mars, and really Jupiter, are monetary. By developing the ability to travel from Earth to Mars and Jupiter quickly and efficiently will result in better and faster travel here on and around the Earth. When the cost of travel about the Solar System is reduced, then the cost to mine asteroids or other planets is also reduced. There is a very real possibility that once that travel cost is down, the cost to mine asteroids, etc, will be less than to go about destroying our planet to get to the minerals here. Humans have the ability to survive in space. We've shown that. Risks? Yeah, but are they that much greater than getting on a plane or in your car everyday here on Earth? When people see that we can mine asteroids and not have to tear up our planet, more and more will start asking why didn't we do this earlier?
Oh, and I think space advocates have been going about getting support from the wrong places. I bet if they were to get the churches behind their goals, they'd have much wider support.
The Church, in the large sense, has always been opposed to science and engineering, except when it's used for constructing giant gothic cathedrals.
If we were to reach Mars, and discover actual evidence of life there, that would blow another big fat hole in the church's orthodoxy regarding the exceptionalism of Earth and their myth of god creating life here.
Send that annoying Snooki chick on Jersey Shore there - one-way of course. She'll feel right at home and we won't have to listen to her any more - a win-win.
Quit watching and she'll go away.
Back during NASA's "Golden Age", there were projections of having permanent Moon Bases by the 1990's, and Mars exploration by 2010. Little did we realize that when the last Apollo mission left its footprints on the Moon in 1972, that we would never return. I have seen the proposed plans for the Orion Lander, and it is nothing more than the original LEM on steriods. I cannot believe how little we have progressed in the past 40 years.
While not considered by some to 'be sexy', we really need to visit the Moon, set up bases there, and use that as a test platform for an eventual mission to Mars. It is safer to test while only 4 days away, as opposed to sending a crew on a potential one-way trip to the othere side of the sun. Yes, we have learned a lot about human physiology through Skylab, Meir, and now the ISS, but equipment needs to be tested, etc. A mission to Mars can only be properly done after demonstrated sucesses on the Moon.
The Spirit and Opportunity rovers and performed way above expectations, and we have learned a lot about the Red Planet. I advocate the continuance of robotic explorers, while at the same time we 'colonize' the Moon, and work out the issues of an extended stay on another celestial body.
Now, for a fun comment: "Scotty, how soon before the warp engines are finally online?"
To: "Mitch from Sycamore"
Exactly which "wars" (or any war) are we fighting in order to keep rare earth minerals available?
I work in space weather, and am familiar with the energies in radiation. That will present a formidable problem to a long journey in space. Electrons and protons may be deflected by a strong magnetic field (how exactly to do that without affecting the instruments is a problem, and it require's a LOT of energy), but cosmic radiation would have to be blocked with some sort of shielding that would be excessively heavy (e.g., water "walls' up to 6-feet thick).
If it could be solved with some sort of revolutionary shielding, however, it would have a lot of practical applications here on Earth!
@DavInDnvr - Dead on. This is a huge problem. An alternative to all that sheilding would be , and this will sound very scifi, but let's think smaller and use nanotechnology to counter the effects of radiation by repairing the damaged cells as they become damaged. The medical aspects of this on Earth would be huge.
First off, we are not anywhere near a technological level to be able to ship resources from mars to earth at a price that would be reasonable. Look at how much it would cost to send a few people to mars. Then think about doing the same thing in reverse without the infrastructure to support it. No. We need to go to the moon, mine it for H3, use that to power ships to mine the asteroids and, eventually, move all heavy industry into space. Oh, and somewhere along the way we need a beanstalk.
You may be right, but I would only mention that transporting cargo is much cheaper and easier than transporting people. It will all happen in steps. Right now, we are barely taking baby steps, really we are barely crawling. After many MANY years we will develop the industrial side of space industry and that will kick off a new industrial revolution.
Actually, we have all the needed tech - it's all off the shelf. And the 'Mars to Stay' mission plan is remarkably affordable, both relative to other Mars mission proposals and even relative to space programs in general (for example, the unbelievably expensive Space Shuttle and the useless and redundant International Space Station.)
"Useless" ISS? ...and what makes you form that opinion?
Slowly, slowly all things are accomplished...expedition to Mars will happen in time and there is plenty of that left in the current Universe. OK so the adventurers get there and land safely, then they start to "do work" What are they gonna do? Pick up rocks? Tool arround in a dune buggy? Will they accomplish anything in 30 days or so that a robot can't? Will this expedition be anything more than a courageous engineering stunt? 30 days on the planet? how about 300? Or 30 years? If we want to colonize The Moon and Mars we will have to send those willing to go out and stay there, not just 'daytrippers'. That means living there, dying there. All early efforts will have to be entirely supported from Earth. It will take 100 years to develop a return on investment, but the pay off will be huge in available resources. Every mineral on the chart is waiting for us and there is no biosphere to pollute. Mr. Smith mentions fist sized opals...others point out so called 'rare earth metals' (which are abundant on The Moon as well as aluminum, magnesium, titanium, helium3, silicon etc)) Monetary gain and profit will be the propulsion system that drives human colonization of the Hi-frontier. We are already seeing the development of co-op NGO corporations looking forward to explorations in space that will return useable products, ores , or semi-refined minerals that have trade value on Earth. Colonization does not mean elite, pricey scientific outposts. It means creating a civilization that can survive in the exTer environs comprising the rest of this solar system. Big challenge! 'Journey of a thousand miles begins with first step'
We need to re-purpose NASA to near earth mission whihc can directly have benefit to the USA and maybe add energy and under sea exploration (minerals and other valuable resouces for the US) . They have great engineering and project management skills whihc should not go to waste.
But Mars... is a waste. When we have the "World Space Federation" ... then Mars.
NASA: The National Aquatics and Submarine Administration...
"REpurpose NASA" - here is a link to just one of many ways NASA already helps explore the oceans... http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_M08025_Endurance.html
and here is a link to just one way in which NASA is helping provide another option to fuel jets. Chicken Fat http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/aafex2.html
The great engineering at NASA is not going to waste. NASA does more, clearly, than you are aware of. Heck, they do more than I am aware of and I actively try to learn as much as I can about what they do! I will just end this one with my opinion: Mars is not a waste.
As far as I'm concerned, the Moon is near Earth.
Well that's just great. Thanks NASA. You go to the Moon before I was born. Now you're going to Mars after I'm dead. Could you shorten the timetable a bit? Or at least come up with some technology up there in that space station that will allow me to live to be 500?
The ability of a species to survive lies in it's ability to adapt. This is how we survive climate changes, natural disasters, disease, etc. Humankind's primary adaptability comes from our high intelligence. (as evidenced by our lack of fur, thick skin, claws, and sharp teeth.) To help ensure our continued existence, we must constantly challenge ourselfs intelluctally. It doesn't really matter that we actually need to go. Nor does it matter that we actually make it. It's the discoveries we make along the way that will determine our future.
Get'er done!
"ourselfs intelluctally" s.b. "ourselves intellectually"
:) Baby steps.
"I feel good, I feel great, I feel wonderful." - Bill Murray, What about Bob
Another Pie in the Sky piece. Sorry folks, although we have the tech. to get there we DON'T have the tech to do it fast enough or safely enough... wake me up when we develop a better propulsion system and radiation shielding.(artificial gravity would be nice too!!LOL)
Maybe we'll just let you sleep this one off.
;-p
We do actually have the appropriate tech to do it fast and safe. The problem is funding. To build a fast ship that could transport humans safely in the manner you describe would simply require appropriate funding.
Or about a quarter of the funding and a competent space agency.
Humans will eventually go to Mars, but the US won't have anything to do with the mission. NASA, as a government agency, is incapable of doing anything fast or inexpensively so any administration that directs funding to NASA will just be canceled out by the next administration. A mission to Mars will require long term focus and determination. I think it will be a Chinese / Russian partnership that lands on Mars - the US isn't even in the running.
ah!!! but the risks they are going to take!! Still, hurrah to Whomever finally gets there....
China may have an economy on the rise and they are heavily funding the education of their scientifically minded people but if they and the Russian's form a partnership it will probably be more like a Russian/China partnership since China doesn't have the necessary experience to pull of such a thing, they'll basically be a bankroll for Russian experience. But that's just my opinion.
Wouldn't it be great if we could commit to the idea of whatever money we spend on fighting wars, we match for projects such as this. A trip to mars would be far more beneficial than invading Iraq and would cost just a fraction. I fear that in the current political environment, funding for space exploration will be eliminated, while we continue to spend huge amounts on fighting wars.
Setting up an establishment on Mars is infinitely easier than setting one up on Venus. A protective dome over a crater, heated, with radiation sheilding and air scrubbers (or set up in a lava tube, sealed, heated and air scrubbers). Venus would require extensive terraforming/climate change to even set foot down there, or even send a manned probe in and back up like a bathysphere to the bottom of the ocean.
Settlement on a the Moon, settlement on Mars, settlements in orbit of all planets, as well as L4s and L5s.
"Because it's there." - George Mallory
I begged to stayed home from school as a young boy just to watch Shepard and later Glenn launch into space. I was mezmerized by Armstrong and Aldrin when they first stepped on the moon. I was not overly concerned at the time, when we learned that Cernon would be the last man to step on the moon, because I believed back then that it wouldn't be too long before plans would be made for a journey to Mars. I became dismayed when the talk began to center around a near earth orbitting space station.
It will be 50 years this coming May 5th since Shephard first left this earth for his short trip into space. The space station is complete. To keep the USA in the forefront we must strive to become the key nation to lead a new global effort that challenges the world. Lets set a date this May 5th even if it has to be 2033 and with all our determination and know-how lead the technologically willing on a manned mission to Mars.
No, VASIMR Electric Ion Propulsion is NOT the best way to go to Mars! The transit time is too long and the vehicle is too heavy. We can, however do this within a decade either with existing chemical rocket technology using in situ resource utilization via "Mars Direct" or by NERVA-type solid core nuclear thermal rocket technology upon which our nation spent more than $1.5 billion between 1955 and 1973.
More to the point, why was Dr. Robert Zubrin not interviewed for this article?
True, indeed. While Bob Zubrin sometimes gets a bit over the top, he has crafted the strongest core plan to do a human exploration of Mars in my view. The NASA viewpoint, and that of it's "groupies" in the press, sadly has far too much of "not invented here" and not enough careful honest critique to provide worthy competition to the ideas of Mars Direct.
OK and who is going to pay for this little ditty out in space?
Probable cost of a 10 year survey human mission: $75B.
Probable cumulative return on investment though the U.S. economy: 20:1. The new ideas and techniques might be major contributions to eliminating the nation debt.
It's a lot more cost effective that our "credit card wars" in the middle east. We would be smart to pay for it.
and who is going to pay for this little ditty?
Hmm..nice way to help the economy. Creates jobs, develops new technologies, nice to get away from the Home world every once in a while. Sure why not? If we could do this as a global venture that would be an even better benefit to all. But then there's the bottom line. It takes money to make money. And then what is the real end-goal? Some say it's for money, others say it's a national priority, and then others say it's a waste of time.
I wonder if Columbus had the same dilemma?
Columbis DID have the same dilemma. I beleive he made his exploration offer to a handful of countries before spain took him up on it (and only with a great deal of lobbying and some good fortune on his part). Offers were also made to Portugal, Venice, and England that were all rejected.
One word....UNOBTAINIUM!!
Are you referring to the movie "the Core" or to "Avatar?"
Don't forget the Unobtainium cages in Pokemon.