
NASA Announces Journey to Mars Challenge - T-A
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-journey-to-mars-challenge-seeks-public-input-on-establishing-sustained
======
iwwr
There's the old plan of Zubrin and Baker: Mars Direct. It involves
manufacturing methane fuel on Mars from a small import of Earth hydrogen. 95%
of the return fuel mass is manufactured on Mars, giving significant mass
fraction savings for a launcher.

Not only that, by using a nuclear thermal upper stage you double the payload,
or halve the size of the Earth launcher.

If on Mars you also bring along a nuclear rocket vehicle (Nerva-style) you can
have unlimited, reusable global range, including Mars surface-orbit
operations. Suck and liquefy Mars CO2 and use it as a reaction mass.

All this was hashed out 24 years ago by Zubrin and Baker and NASA needs only a
firm commitment to Mars to put it into practice.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct)

[http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4069.p...](http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4069.pdf)
\- Gashopper, a concept derived from the larger NERVA hopper, this time solar
powered small robot for exploration

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA) \-
compact nuclear reactor for space applications

~~~
tokenadult
_All this was hashed out 24 years ago by Zubrin and Baker and NASA needs only
a firm commitment to Mars to put it into practice._

The lessons of history suggest that a lot of ideas that only need firm
commitment to be put into practice also need a lot of engineering debugging
during the development process to solve unexpected problems. The Space Shuttle
was based on engineering studies that somehow didn't anticipate that the whole
spaceship would blow up if launched on a cold day[1] nor anticipate that the
shuttle could break up on reentry if it was nicked by a piece of its own
booster rocket while being launched.[2]

Just as there were astronauts who took that risk on the Space Shuttle, there
are surely astronauts who would risk taking Mars Direct to Mars. They might
find out that the mission would end up being called Mars Direct and Bust, and
never get back home.

Disclosure: I am a big fan of the space program, including manned space
flight, and my ambition in high school was to be the first man to set foot on
Mars. I find it dismaying that I could STILL be the first man to set foot on
Mars, as I thought that event would have happened by the 1980s, before many
participants here were even born.

[1]
[http://www.asktog.com/books/challengerExerpt.html](http://www.asktog.com/books/challengerExerpt.html)

[http://williamwolff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tufte-
cha...](http://williamwolff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tufte-
challenger-1997.pdf)

[2] [https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-
msg?msg_id=...](https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-
msg?msg_id=0001yB)

~~~
programd
> The Space Shuttle was based on engineering studies that

> somehow didn't anticipate that the whole spaceship would blow

> up if launched on a cold day[1] nor anticipate that the

> shuttle could break up on reentry if it was nicked by a piece

> of its own booster rocket while being launched.[2]

However it is worth noting that the engineers correctly predicted about a 2%
catastrophic failure rate - that is loss of orbiter. Sure enough we lost two
shuttles by mission 107. You can find the prediction in one of the two volume
histories of the Space Shuttle project [1], [2].

Incidentally I think the books should be required reading for all engineers to
understand how truly ambitious national projects such as the Shuttle are done.
That includes the political, economic, and of course engineering issues
involved.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Shuttle-Decision-1965-1972-History-
Vol...](http://www.amazon.com/Shuttle-Decision-1965-1972-History-
Volume/dp/1588340147)

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/Development-
Shuttle-1972-1981-History-...](http://www.amazon.com/Development-
Shuttle-1972-1981-History-Volume/dp/1588340090)

------
throwaway12357
I think it's a mistake to attempt a "naked" human settlement. You should start
with a robot settlement.

That means sending robots that can set the basic infrastructure (extract
water, fuel, set up hydroponic farms, 3D printing, etc) for humans to live
there. This will give you a considerable safety net to succeed.

One thing that echoes my mind -- not for today but in 20-100 years from now --
is the question of Mars land ownership. And how likely will cessation occur.

------
hoopism
They should just ask Mark Watney. His biography had lots of details on how to
accomplish this.

~~~
jprince
You've just won the internet. We can all go home now.

------
apetresc
> NASA expects to make up to three awards at a minimum of $5,000 each from a
> total award pool of $15,000.

Considering that these ideas (if this challenge was meant to be taken
seriously) would be part of a likely dozens-of-billions-of-dollars project,
$5,000 seems like a deliberate insult.

~~~
flogic
I don't think the purpose is to develop an actual plan that will be used so
much as inspire writers and students. It's a PR stunt meant to drum up
interest and maybe help a couple of kids. Not that there is anything wrong
with that, public interest helps them pry money from congress.

~~~
archon
Yes. This is to get people to start thinking about manned Mars missions as a
real possibility. Any useful ideas they get out of this program would be an
unexpected side benefit.

------
Shivetya
I was going to say, just start reading some recent fiction on the subject and
your bound to find many ideas rooted in science and industry that could set
you on the right path.

any manned landings are going to follow years of sending robots to make a home
for them and redundant supplies already there or on their way.

------
7952
Maybe the simplest way to establish a permanent presence is actually a space
station in Martian orbit.

That would build the launch and transit infrastructure necessary for
sustaining a permanent settlement.

It also has some interesting advantages:

* Low latency connection to rovers and manned landers giving a near instant mission control capability.

* Trips to the surface could be made as a short excursion rather than the sole purpose of the mission. This would allow for failure of individual landings without jeopardising the entire program.

* Could build on what was developed for the ISS.

The biggest advantage is that it would require a long term political
commitment instead of a one time mission that would be cancelled on return.

------
bcg1
This was the exact subject of my first website:

[http://wayback.archive-
it.org/3635/20130719200949/http://lib...](http://wayback.archive-
it.org/3635/20130719200949/http://library.thinkquest.org/10274/data/city/map.htm)

Think I'll get a prize if I submit it? :)

------
brianmcconnell
There's also solar electric propulsion, which when combined with water as
propellant, leads to dramatic (10-100x) cost reductions due to increased
propellant efficiency plus the synergies created by using water as reaction
mass (it can be used for everything from radiation shielding to crew
consumables prior to being sent to the engines, which effectively turns most
of your consumables mass into propellant).

This approach also benefits from ongoing improvements in component
technologies (thin film PV, electric propulsion, and inflatable structures),
so a reusable spacecraft based on this design pattern could be upgraded as
things improve.

(Release early, release often, versus the 30 year Gantt chart methodology
favored by space agencies).

[http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=33078](http://www.centauri-
dreams.org/?p=33078)

------
rwallace
My suggestion would be to work on uploading brains to digital substrate
(starting with the Open Worm project and working up from there) on the grounds
that interplanetary settlement would be dramatically less difficult for solid-
state minds. Sadly, that's probably not the sort of suggestion they're looking
for.

------
SEJeff
I suspect SpaceX has a massive leg up on the competition for this, but doubt
seriously they will compete for $15k.

~~~
throwaway12357
They have more to gain than just $15k.

------
bra-ket
they should get an amendment to Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and resurrect Project
Orion:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propul...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29)

------
cdnsteve
To infinity and beyond!

