This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

226
227

Verified AMAWe just released the Humans Orbiting Mars report: a concept for NASA to get humans to Phobos by 2033 and the on the surface by 2039. Ask Us Anything! (self.space)

submitted by CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society

Update Thank you for all of your great questions! Hoppy and I have to call it a day, though I (Casey) may sporadically jump on and answer a few lingering questions later tonight.

We're live! Proof Pic 1 & Proof Pic 2

Hi Reddit! We are Casey Dreier, Director of Advocacy for The Planetary Society (one of the report authors), and Humphrey (Hoppy) Price, Supervisor of the Pre-Projects Systems Engineering Group at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (one of the study team members for the JPL concept). Casey can answer questions about the report and policy, Hoppy is here to provide expert technical feedback on specific questions about the JPL study team's concept plan.

Last week, The Planetary Society released a report called "Humans Orbiting Mars" that explored an orbit-first approach to getting humans on the red planet. This proof-of-concept plan was presented by a JPL study team and suggested that a program of human Mars exploration could happen without a massive increase in NASA's budget--just break the first mission into two pieces: land on the Martian moon Phobos in 2033, then follow up with a surface landing in 2039.

Casey helped organize the workshop which was the source of this report, and Hoppy worked on the JPL study team that created this concept. Ask Us Anything about the concept, motivation, technology, engineering, or whatever about the idea of Humans Orbiting Mars first before landing.

We're posting this thread early to give you time to see some of the details:

We'll begin answering questions at 11am PDT / 2pm EDT / 18:00h UTC.

all 149 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 60 points61 points  (0 children)

I want to clarify that this is a Planetary Society AMA and not an official NASA or JPL AMA. My responses are just my opinions and not NASA's.

[–]Oscuraga 17 points18 points  (3 children)

How would the narrative for this mission be presented to the public? Landing on Phobos would give some amazing sights of Mars just below, yet it would probably take many more years before we could land down there. If a Phobos mission is successful, wouldn't it be inherently bittersweet? Both for the astronauts and the public? Mars would be so close, yet so, so far away at the same time.

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 22 points23 points  (1 child)

It would be analogous to Apollo 8, which I don't think was disappointing to anyone. All of the plans I've seen would have a Mars landing following within 4 years.

[–]Oscuraga 11 points12 points  (0 children)

That makes sense :) And I guess my concern is that, unlike the Apollo program, the commitment for Mars seems to be going (from what I've read) on a step-by-step basis, were each leap forward is authorized only after the previous one is accomplished. There's no Kennedy speech stating the final goal, and thus each mission always seems on the verge of being the last.

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I think it would whet the public's appetite! The narrative is clear "stepping to Mars" and a Phobos mission would require that humans undertake the most ambitious, risky, daring, and exciting mission in history.

[–]0thatguy 16 points17 points  (12 children)

What, in your opinion, is the biggest technological challenge we have to surpass before we can send people to Mars?

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 23 points24 points  (6 children)

I think the biggest technological challenge is a reliable life support system for the ~900 day mission.

[–]5skandas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And what about protecting personnel from radiation?

[–]za419 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Are there any major technical challenges with a manned landing on a body like Phobos with very low gravity (as opposed to, say, the moon or Mars)?

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yes, it's different than the Moon or Mars. We have data from robotic missions like NEAR and Hayabusa, and we will get good info from OSIRIS-REX. One of the benefits from the Asteroid Redirect Mission will be experience with landing on a low gravity body using landing legs and a very massive vehicle. The ARM asteroid landing will be a very good analog for landing a human habitat on Phobos.

[–]mediocrelife99 11 points12 points  (8 children)

Which 2016 presidential candidate is most likely to support NASA in their efforts to get to the red planet? Also, oddsmakers are giving 80:1 on NASA being first to Mars. Any insider info you'd care to share?

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

There are so many candidates that it's hard to say. At this point in the game, space policy doesn't play much in the process. Candidates usually develop that once they assemble proto-transition teams after becoming the party's nominee.

In pure speculation mode: Jeb Bush would likely be a strong supporter of NASA and human spaceflight given his father's relationship to that program as well as being the governor of Flordia. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have represented states with major human spaceflight NASA centers.

Broadly speaking, Mars is widely accepted as the horizon goal for human spaceflight across party lines. That's one of the great features of space exploration.

[–]s0x00 2 points3 points  (6 children)

which other entity other than spaceX has a higher probability at being first at Mars than NASA? - the 80:1 does not sound realistic to me

[–]astrofreak92 14 points15 points  (4 children)

It's not realistic. The same oddsmakers give Mars One a higher chance than NASA, which is preposterous.

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

That should tell you all you need to know.

[–]Senno_Ecto_Gammat 3 points4 points  (2 children)

It's not about what they think is most likely, it's about what they think other people think is most likely.

[–]astrofreak92 1 point2 points  (1 child)

As in, the oddsmakers make money when other people don't?

[–]seanflyon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes, oddsmakers are generally not gambling themselves. They set the odds so that no matter the outcome there are enough losers to pay the winners without the house losing any money.

[–]maizenblue91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not higher, but in contention: China, ESA, and Blue

[–]HarbingerDe 10 points11 points  (12 children)

Why can't a Mars mission be an international affair? Didn't we collectively scrounge up some $400,000,000,000 over the course of the ISS's construction? Imagine what kind of Mars mission could be concocted with such cooperation.

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 15 points16 points  (6 children)

The Planetary Society report argues that NASA needs to better articulate a plan first. That way it can reach out to international partners to find ways in which they can participate. Everyone feels this is necessary.

Also, where are you getting the $400B number for ISS? I've only seen far less (around $100B) with NASA contributing the majority of the funding.

[–]HarbingerDe 6 points7 points  (5 children)

Oh, yeah I think the $400B figure is innacurate, can't remember where I was informed on it. $150B is the official number.

My thought was that doesn't the mission seems somewhat small scale for an international effort? Isn't it designed to be operated on NASA's 8 billion dollar human space exploration budget? Without factoring in aid from any of the numerous space agencies.

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

The ISS is anything but small scale. It's the size of a football field! In space! The US spends $3 billion per year just to operate and supply the thing. It's amazing. I consider it the 8th wonder of the world (or the 1st wonder off the world).

[–]HarbingerDe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No no, I was referring to the Mars mission plan as somewhat small scale, 2 humans landed for a couple weeks.

The ISS is definitely not small scale.

[–]Zucal 0 points1 point  (2 children)

8 billion

A little over 18b.

[–]Karriz 3 points4 points  (1 child)

8 billion of that is for human spaceflight.

[–]Zucal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, gotcha.

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 3 points4 points  (4 children)

NASA has consistently indicated that human missions to Mars would be international.

[–]HarbingerDe 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Yes, but they're still acting as though they running on pennies and dimes, because they are. Why are we not seeing a true collaboration? Why are the mission plans so small scale?

If we had another ISS like situation, with 400,000,000,000 dollars being expended over a decade or two, we could have multiple much larger scale missions to Mars well before 2040.

[–]Karriz 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Making the mission even more expensive isn't a way to get international partners on board, it'd be a quick way to get the whole thing cancelled by the next president.

There needs to be some kind of a formal meeting between space agencies where they figure out a mutual plan, but that's difficult to pull off. ESA has a tiny budget, but to some extent they're already a partner, because they're making the Orion service module as a part of their ISS contribution. Some kind of a deal could be made with them for further collaboration. In exchange, they'd get one seat per mission.

Russia is problematic, they don't owe anything to NASA and because of all the political issues going on, I don't see them joining in anytime soon.

[–]HarbingerDe 0 points1 point  (1 child)

While the other countries with significant space agencies have pretty small budgets 1-5 billion dollars. If they all contributed in some way it would be quite significant. There's JAXA, ESA, Russia (maybe), China (maybe), India, and several others.

[–]Karriz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, it'd be really good to get all these countries together and work on a plan. But making a really expensive plan in advance isn't a good idea, that'd only scare everyone away. The plan can be expanded if enough partners join in.

[–]SomniaStellarum 16 points17 points  (1 child)

On the lighter side, was there Kerbal Space Program running in the background during the workshop to iron out some of the proposals kinks?

[–]Haschlol 21 points22 points  (17 children)

Must NASA cooperate with companies such as SpaceX and ULA to make Mars happen?

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Yes! The report authors and I called that out specifically. Historically, industry has always had a critical relationship with NASA in all of its spaceflight efforts. I think everyone expects major roles for SpaceX, Boeing, Lockheed, etc.

The report argues that NASA should better define a plan in order for industry to better define its place within future exploration efforts. I think it's hard to do so absent that.

[–]Bleyddyn 9 points10 points  (8 children)

A better question, imho, is do SpaceX and other companies need to cooperate with NASA to make it happen? Now, almost certainly yes, but a decade from now? Maybe not.

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 24 points25 points  (2 children)

I think that will really depend on the profit SpaceX generates from its business. There is no historical precedent for this, so hard to speculate. I certainly hope so. Apple, for example, could independently fund all of NASA for over a decade just with its existing cash reserves. One could do a lot with that....

[–]idlestabilizer 16 points17 points  (1 child)

And that wouldn't be the worst thing to support for Apple. But they would maybe ask you to call it the iLander or so...

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I'd take that over an Apple Car any day.

[–]BinaryIdiot 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Even better: can SpaceX beat NASA to landing on the red planet?

[–]astrofreak92 10 points11 points  (5 children)

1) It's not a race 2) How would they pay for that while maintaining profitability?

[–]BinaryIdiot 1 point2 points  (4 children)

  1. No one said it was a race but you can still speculate as to when events happen. Honestly I think it's more likely SpaceX and NASA would partner up if SpaceX makes enough headway.

  2. SpaceX's satellite internet idea? Also they can do things significantly cheaper than a government agency so there is cost savings built in.

[–]pandemonichyperblast 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Care to expound on point 2? Just curious.

[–]Proclaim_the_Name 6 points7 points  (1 child)

You might enjoy this: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html

[–]danielravennest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Space industry was a $323 billion business worldwide in 2014. NASA only accounts for 5.5% of that. Most of it is the 1250 or so active satellites in Earth orbit that do communications, weather, navigation, photography, etc. There's plenty of money to be made in space, and new industries to expand once the cost comes down, as SpaceX is working on.

[–]The_Brett_ 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Does the plan include the cost of rovers and a better set of satellites/orbiters to relay signals back and forth between the crew in orbit and the robots on the ground?

It seems like you'd need rovers and satellites capable of significantly higher data-rates to get your money's worth out of an orbital mission, especially if you want to actually give the crew the ability to monitor and guide the probes in real-time (or jump in if something goes wrong). One of your articles over at the Planetary Society mentioned that was an issue when they though about doing real-time control with Lunar Prospector on the Moon.

Otherwise, I think it's a great idea. We're just not capable at this point of designing a lander and spacesuits that can be sterilized to COSPAR Category IVc levels of sterilization, although I don't think that will be the case forever.

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Human missions to Mars would require robotic surface vehicles and orbiters to support those missions. They were not included in the cost analysis.

[–]0thatguy 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Why Phobos and not Deimos?

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Phobos likely has a lot more of Mars splattered on its surface (from large impacts on Mars that kick up ejecta into orbit). It's bigger and provides more radiation shielding. But it's something NASA must ultimately decide, which is stated in our report.

[–]astrofreak92 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Phobos is bigger and in low Mars orbit. Getting there better demonstrates abilities needed to land on Mars than the higher-orbit Deimos.

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 11 points12 points  (0 children)

There are pros and cons of Deimos vs. Phobos. Both are interesting targets. Phobos is considered more interesting scientifically because it probably has some Martian materials on the surface. Deimos is easier to get to propulsively.

[–]kamundo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Deimos is a useless piece of crap."

[–]0thatguy 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Would your Humans Orbiting Mars be possible with current human space flight funding if the ISS was intentionally de orbited?

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The example of the JPL Minimal Architecture was costed to show that it could fit within the current NASA human spaceflight budget if ISS funding tapered off starting in 2028. It wouldn't necessarily need to be deorbited then. I think it would be great if ISS could be transitioned to commercial space, freeing up government money for more intensive deep space exploration.

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Absent major increases to NASA's budget, it is very difficult to maintain a balanced NASA portfolio of Science, Aeronautics, and exploratory Human Spaceflight program, and the ISS. It's a good lesson in the impact of ongoing operations costs. At some point, ISS will have to be transitioned so that NASA isn't the primary funding source and those funds can be applied to exploratory space. Alternatively, we can keep the focus on the ISS, and exploratory human spaceflight becomes far less ambitious. Right now, NASA is committed to the ISS through 2024. Many are looking to extend this to 2028, if not beyond.

[–]SomniaStellarum 2 points3 points  (1 child)

If NASA isn't the primary source for the ISS in the future, would you want to see commercial entities take over operations? What would this theoretical organization look like and what would their business model look like? Do you think this could be an organization that is around right now or could you forsee an organization created specifically for this purpose (maybe a commercial spinoff from NASA)?

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's the general consensus, though I have yet to be convinced of a sustainable business plan for this.

For answers to your other questions, check out the Alliance for Space Development.

[–]DrKilory 4 points5 points  (1 child)

How would you convince NASA and the public to adapt this plan?

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Well, I'm working on both, so we'll see if I actually know the answer or not.

The interesting thing to me is that we are actually just reinforcing current national space policy as defined by President Obama. It came out in 2010, and declares that NASA should work to send humans to Mars orbit in the 2030s (and return them safely). So this isn't a radical idea. In fact, it's deeply pragmatic and would solve a lot of problems and provide structure for technology investments now, help build a coalition of partners in support of the mission, and so forth. I don't think we're too far out of sync, and the rationales behind this approach (a Phobos mission as a critical step toward the surface) are so strong that they're hard to ignore.

For the public, we're trying to attack the myths about cost (the JPL study team presented an initial cost estimate for their concept—something unheard of at this point in the game) and demonstrated that it could plausibly fit within a budget growing with inflation. Honestly, that's a huge deal. Mars exploration gets sunk by cost myths that have persisted since the late 1980s, and we made an effort in our report to demonstrate how those are no longer relevant.

I honestly think the public will be supportive of NASA in pretty much whatever it does (we discuss this in our report). The hard part is convincing existing space advocates, actually, who want NASA to advance on a much faster timeline than budget will currently allow. I sympathize with this, but at the same time I worry that rejecting some very basic structural challenges in terms of political and budgetary reality will prevent the space community from being strategic in its support. Optimism is great, but a dash of realism can make the difference between success and continued frustration.

[–]spacegurl07 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I am very, very interested in helping to determine if there is indeed life on Mars and getting involved as much as possible with Earth's mission to Mars. Do you have any recommendations on what I should study in graduate school (my primary academic background is in Neuroscience, GIS/remote sensing, Geography/Atmospheric Science, and Chemistry), that would make me suitable to help out NASA (and the Planetary Society) with helping to get Earth to Mars in the next 20 (ish) years?

On a side note: its an absolute honor to 'talk' to people from the Planetary Society and from the JPL. I am very thankful that I am not only a volunteer of the Planetary Society, but a member of the Planetary Society as well. I look forward to what the Society accomplishes in the future.

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think all of the fields of study you mention will be needed to support the implementation of human missions to Mars.

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It depends how you want to help. Mars science is heavy into geology and remote sensing, and places like NASA and aerospace industry need top-quality engineers and managers. It really depends where your interests are.

And thank you for being a member! I literally could not do this job without you and the other 45,000 members of the Society.

[–]lukelhg 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Hi guys. Love the idea, it's a fresh take on getting humans to Mars apart from the vague "we'll send humans there one day" we're used to hearing.

On your site you say that this concept is "something we believe is worth consideration by NASA."

Have NASA read this report yet? If yes, what's their response and if no, how serious are they likely to take it? Will they even read it? and what are the odds that they'll actually implement these plans or ideas?

Thanks and good luck with the report!

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Yes, top level NASA leadership has read the report. I don't know their impressions though, they keep this stuff close-to-the-chest. The Planetary Society report isn't all that radical—we're just pushing them to articulate a clear plan that matches President Obama's current space policy (which is to get humans to Mars orbit by the 2030s).

The JPL study concept team did some very smart work that responds to many of the problems raised in a National Academies report that came out last year. Once you start looking at the problem from a very pragmatic perspective (accepting cost limits, using existing programs like SLS/Orion, and the like) the martian moons start to look pretty attractive. Other people in NASA are looking at this concept, and I know it's something in consideration.

[–]lukelhg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply. I really hope NASA take it seriously and consider your ideas as I like how realistic they are. Hopefully this will only help to get us to Mars. All the best :)

[–]Senno_Ecto_Gammat 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Why does the report show a chart of NASA budget as a percentage of the federal budget over time but not a chart of the NASA budget adjusted for inflation over time?

Do you think that your decision accurately makes the point or do you think it is misleading, given that NASA's budget as a percentage of the federal budget is something like 1/8 the highest ever, but only something like 1/3 of the highest ever adjusted for inflation, meaning their actual purchasing power is much higher than it appears by looking at the chart you showed?

What is the latest work can begin on the transfer vehicle to reach your target dates?

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The chart you refer to is a good way of representing NASA's priority within federal government spending over time. It helps to see not just the actual purchasing power, but the percent of all spending NASA receives given how much money is actually out there. As all federal expenditures have increased, NASA has not kept parity.

Here's a plot of NASA's adjusted budget over time, though, which shows pretty much the same structure: http://imgur.com/v317jqa

Personally, I'm always surprised that NASA's peak funding in the Apollo era is not too much higher than where the Department of Energy is today. There are more complex factors, though, in that aerospace industry costs don't necessarily change with inflation 1:1 with the consumer price index, and that NASA at the time was much more focused on Apollo within the agency, with less of a broad portfolio of other programs.

[–]SheTypist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Phobos versus Deimos comparison highlighted in Appendix C, has a pretty obvious bias toward Deimos prevailing. Is it just the "ocean front" view of Mars from Phobos that y'all think will appeal most to the public for their support and interest? The investigation of Phobos' origins is exciting and all and I'm a huge fan of the idea of any and all lunar bases, but the whole point of going out to the Mars neighborhood is to eventually land on the big red guy. Y'all's report made it pretty obvious that Deimos really harnesses the practicality of achieving that landing. The Phobos choice seems to be a desire coming from the backseat passengers wanting to pull over for ice cream on this cross-cosmic road-trip. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[–]ghunter7 2 points3 points  (1 child)

In the report the need to engagement with commercial space sectors is addressed. Can you please elaborate on the scale and scope of this commercial engagement and the vision for this?
Is there any potential to leverage space mining start ups to invest or provide services in the ARM mission(s)? The use of the SLS is heavily mentioned throughout the report but little on commercial launch services supplementing this. Are there to be further studies on how utilizing both current and future launch capabilities can further contribute to the affordability of Mars exploration (such as Falcon Heavy, Vulcan, distributed lift and future SpaceX vehicles)? How can these dynamically be implemented in a flexible manner not pigeon holing to one launch architecture?

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 3 points4 points  (0 children)

These are all great topics for study. It's important to note that the JPL Minimal Architecture is just an EXAMPLE of a potential Mars program. There may be other better approaches. My favorite metrics are: 1. Is it safer for the crew? 2. Is it lower cost? 3. Will it get people to Mars and returned to Earth safely at an earlier calendar date?

You might have other metrics (like colonizing Mars), and that's fine.

[–]MartySeamusMcfly 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Hi, guys!

As someone who is terribly interested in space and keeps up with as much news and information as I can (and also a PS member), what hope do I have of being tangentially involved in the industry when my profession is illustration and animation? I've thought about outreach, but that requires someone else needing you and not something you could spearhead yourself.

[–]elakdawallaEmily Lakdawalla - The Planetary Society 4 points5 points  (1 child)

A good place to start is to play with the wide variety of data from planetary missions, all of which is made public eventually. I have some tutorials posted here and there's a discussion forum here. And hey, check out the brand new images from New Horizons that just got posted an hour ago.

[–]MartySeamusMcfly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you, Emily. There is nothing more inspiring than the photos and data themselves. I always incorporate as much real inspiration and iconography into my admittedly simple style of illustration as I can.

As an aside, thank you so much for all of the coverage you do for the goings on in our solar system. I love to hear your segments on Planetary radio, because I always know I'm in for an informative treat.

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 2 points3 points  (1 child)

There are many contractors in illustration and animation who are supporting NASA and commercial aerospace companies for visualization and communication. I hope you can find something!

[–]MartySeamusMcfly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope so, too! I am a creative director at a service animation studio, but hardly ever get a scientific project cross my desk, let alone astronomy/space travel related. In my free time I make space themed illustrations and post to my online portfolio, but my style is very mid-century in design and cartoony, and not at all realistic. I would love to do some kind of youth outreach for space organizations. I feel like that's where I'd shine most. Anyway, thank you for your response and well-wishes. Keep doing the awesome things that you do. :)

[–]nordasaur 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What are your thoughts or opinions on establishing operations on the moon, as a testing phase and build up to Mars operations?

[–]blackramb0 1 point2 points  (1 child)

What, if any, limiting factors exist to partnership between NASA and other national space agencies in achieving a permanent base on mars? Aside from their willingness of course. If we did it with the ISS why can we not so for mars? If the technology already exists to accomplish these goals then is budget and willingness really the only factor holding us back from landing on big red?

I am also interested in any knowledge you have to offer about the additional challenges with landing and returning on a planetary body with an atmosphere, however thin it may be, and a significant amount of gravity.

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Don't forget that the ISS benefited from many geo-political issues related to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the aftermath of the cold war. We don't have the same situation now in which space is the solution, though there are many good arguments about leveraging international space partnerships to spread U.S. soft power around the globe.

[–]SomniaStellarum 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Many have suggested variable gravity research would be very beneficial to determine what environments would be more/less livable. Would it be a good idea to develop a variable gravity lab that could be added to the ISS? This would provide lots of data into what conditions on the moon, mars or the Martian moons would do the humans, especially in terms of longer stays. How would this fit in this overall plan?

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 5 points6 points  (5 children)

That would be a great thing to do. The main issue is cost. Current studies at NASA have not included artificial gravity due to the higher vehicle mass requirements, the development and test costs, and the operational risks of implementing it. The current approach is to demonstrate the acceptability of the ~7 month flight times to Mars and ~7 months back in zero g. The effects of spending ~15 months on Mars at 1/3 g in the middle of the mission are unknown. The Phobos mission would have a full 900 days in zero g; however, and that's why the Mars simulation mission(s) in the Lunar Proving Ground are important.

[–]HarbingerDe 5 points6 points  (3 children)

What do you think of a design like this for a transfer craft, designed by francisdrakex (deviantart) it's inspired by the Hermes from The Martian. http://francisdrakex.deviantart.com/art/Hermes-Infographic-486185729

Much unlike the vast and cinematic depiction of the Hermes in the film adaption of The Martian, it adds no mechanical complexity or mass, by simply rotating the entire craft about its center of mass to provide artificial gravity.

[–]SomniaStellarum 2 points3 points  (2 children)

It's probably about as trimmed down as that type of craft could get, but there's still extra mass and complexity, even if it doesn't look like it. The boom to connect the hab to counterweight and central compartments is by no means straightforward or light. I could see it being a tether, but there's still some complex dynamics to consider. Then there's the whole issue of how to start the craft spinning (thrusters?) and all kinds of control issues. And all this to put the astronauts into an environment where we don't know how the human body reacts (say 1/3 g). These reasons are likely why you see most proposals with a simple hab for transfer to mars, though eventually I could see rotating spacecraft becoming the norm for interplanetary travel (those will be the days!).

The benefits of variable gravity research though is we would find out how our bodies react on the moon or mars before we go for longer periods. For boots on the ground missions it would be a nice to have. For colonization, it's a necessity. One I hope happens sooner rather than later.

[–]HarbingerDe 2 points3 points  (1 child)

As for how the rotation is started on this design specifically, the Ion engine mounts can rotate, and face opposite directions to slowly build up rotational velocity, and cancel it out when necessary.

[–]SomniaStellarum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get the concept. It's still a bit of extra delta v and mass in the end plus the complexity of controlling it, rotating the engines. Contingency becomes big too. What if you need a mid course correction? What if an asteroid is found that would enter your "safe" zone? For simplicity it makes sense to remove those issues. Cool concept. I'd just say... Not yet. ;)

[–]SomniaStellarum 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do the studies on the ISS put a baseline on the 1/3 g on mars? Or are some thinking small gravity like that could cause other issues while aleviating some?

Also, do you think it's possible to use "Scrap" parts before a deorbit. I'm thinking in particular if the ISS were to be deorbited. Send a boom and other hardware up, then use Canadarm to move 2 or so modules onto boom with counterweight so as to reuse modules for that purpose and save on launch weight?

[–]Karriz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would it be beneficial to run some kind of a commercial competition for Mars payload launches, like NASA is now doing with ISS resupply and crew missions? That way, NASA wouldn't necessarily need so many SLS launches per mission.

[–]idlestabilizer 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Hi there, is there some sci-fi literature you would recommend as being quite realistic about a Mars landing / colonialisation? Or even unrealistic but still worth a read?

(just reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy)

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well, of course, The Martian is great, and quite realistic. I would also recommend Rescue Mode by Bova and Johnson, and The Martian Race by Benford. There are others too, and I apologize for not being able to remember them off the top of my head.

[–]cupecupe 1 point2 points  (2 children)

A friend of mine, who has a medical PhD and used to work with ESA astronauts as a physician, said that adequate radiation shielding for a multi-month trip to Mars is beyond current technical capabilities (if I remember correctly). So:

  1. To what extent are radiation dangers known? Do we know both the conditions in the environment and the effects of long-term exposure to these conditions?

  2. Are there concrete countermeasures that can be developed today - given the funding - that will make the trip reasonably safe? Water tanks on the outside? Tons of metal shielding? drugs?

Thanks so much for what you are doing!

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

NASA currently states that there are no health-related 'showstoppers' for humans going to Mars. I think it's more of an ethical question regarding disclosure of the increased cancer risk any astronaut would be subjected to.

Check out a recent presentation to the NASA Advisory Council by Steve Davison from NASA HQ: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/1_NAC_HEO_SMD_Committee_Mars_Radiation_Intro_2015April7_Final_TAGGED.pdf

[–]xCaffrey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

See FAQ for Q1: The threat of radiation on the health of astronauts is a manageable problem. NASA has stated that “there are no crew health risks at this time that are considered ‘mission-stoppers'” [April 2015 presentation to the NASA Advisory Council, PDF, slide 3] for a human mission to Mars.

Radiation is now an ethical question: how much of a percentage increase in cancer risk is NASA willing to ask of its astronauts?

[–]3jt 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Thanks for doing this AMA!

Why will it take another 20 years to get people to Mars? How can that time be reduced?

Have you considered the impact of up and coming technologies such as VASIMR changing key assumptions between now and then?

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's primarily a function of budget. A budget rising faster than inflation would likely mean a faster program. That money, right now, is hard to come by. And I say that as a person who is deeply committed, both personally and professionally, to increasing funding for NASA.

As I point out in our report: these long-term programs are actually the norm for human spaceflight after Apollo. The Shuttle program began in 1972 and lasted through 2011. The ISS began in the early 1990s (with studies going back to the 1980s) and will last through at least 2024. It's definitely not ideal, but it does demonstrate that NASA/Congress/White House is capable of sustaining long-term programs in human spaceflight.

The JPL study team focused their concept on high-heritage hardware to avoid potential cost overruns. VASIMR has certain potential, but it is far from being ready to be a part of a critical path for a program like Mars exploration. Maybe that will change as the technology matures, but right now it would be too risky to count on it (or any other advanced tech that hasn't been demonstrated).

[–]PwnerTrainee 1 point2 points  (3 children)

What do you feel is advantageous about your architecture versus others, such as the Mars Direct approach proposed by the Mars Society?

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It fits within a realistic budget profile, uses high-heritage hardware, engages a wide base of existing programs, and gradually builds complexity with intermediate missions to lunar space.

But, as we note in the report itself, the JPL study team's concept plan is just the starting point of this. NASA needs to articulate its strategy to get us to Mars—the JPL concept is a good starting point that serves as a proof-of-concept for affordability and sustainability.

[–]Jimla 2 points3 points  (0 children)

All of your points except the last could also apply to Mars Direct.

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Our goal was to offer an example of an affordable and implementable program and not to compare it to other proposed architectures. If other approaches can be shown to be implementable and affordable and have more favorable metrics (see my earlier post), then that's good.

[–]niav 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its sad to see only 500 people have watched the video:/. What is one way you plan on getting the public more excited and involved. More importantly how do you plan on getting investors more interested?

[–]mendahu 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Just wanted to pop in and say thanks for all your hard work. I'm a Planetary Society member and I love everything about the work your organization does! Here's hoping Congress likes you as much as I do (one day).

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! Our membership is the most unique thing about our organization and we literally could not exist without the commitment by so many in the public.

[–]Pmang6 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What is the best way to get involved with a career at JPL? Also, what kinds of experiments could be performed on the surface of Phobos that a rover or probe couldn't do? Lastly, has either of you read Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson?

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Get a degree in math, science, engineering, or physics. Work experience as an intern or coop in aerospace is good. Then apply! Humans on Phobos could probably explore larger areas of the surface more quickly, be able to analyze samples on the spot, and notice things of interest that a robotic vehicle might not. I think the crew could do a more effective job of rooting out the stuff on Phobos that came from Mars. Yep, I've read Red Mars.

[–]HarbingerDe 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Have you guys come to terms with NASA's budget and decided to hopefully just stick with what it currently is, or will you still be trying to push for a budget increase over the coming years, to hopefully expedite the mission.

[–]CaseyDreierCasey Dreier - The Planetary Society[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The JPL study team's concept plan, which is featured in the Society's report, requires the NASA budget to grow with inflation. Last year's Pathways to Exploration report on human spaceflight by the National Academies basically stated that no human spaceflight program can exist under a flat budget. At minimum we need to grow with inflation—right now about 3% per year. We're pushing for that across the board. This would greatly help many areas of NASA, both human exploration and its science programs.

The President's 2016 budget request proposed an inflationary increase from 2015. The House of Representatives adopted that in its NASA budget, but the Senate didn't. I'm hoping that will make it through whatever final agreement they reach in December, though, if you haven't noticed, Congress is having a hard time right now.

[–]Asassin37 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Just in case you end up coming back to this, by what year do you believe the first manned landing on Mars will take place?

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In our example concept, with a requirement to stay within the NASA budget adjusted for inflation, the first crewed landing on Mars could be in 2039, if ISS funding began ramping down in 2028. If ISS funding began ramping down in 2024, or if NASA's budget were increased by a couple of $B, then the first landing could be in 2037.

[–]ohreallyok 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Am curious as to why Phobos before Mars itself? My (completely ignorant) intuition would be that it would be much easier and far more efficient simply to land on the surface of Mars than it would be to use Phobos as an interim destination. I mean, it has a mean radius of 11km and an escape velocity of 11m/s (if Wikipedia is right). What could orbiting or landing on such an object teach us that would in any way be relevant to a Mars landing?

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Two reasons: 1. There are two parts of the transportation infrastructure to perform a Mars landing mission. One is to get from Earth to Mars orbit and then back to Earth. The other part is to get from Mars orbit to the surface and then back to Mars orbit. Trying to do both on the first try would be ambitious. The Phobos mission would get the first part under our belt and retire those risks before getting to the landing part on the next mission. This is why Apollo did a Lunar orbit mission before the landing mission was attempted. They didn't just go straight to Apollo 11. 2. It takes schedule time and funding to get the Mars lander developed, tested, and ready to fly on mission to Mars. You can do the Phobos mission before the lander is ready, which gives you an earlier mission opportunity. Otherwise, you would have to wait until later to send the first mission to the Mars system.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

For your manned Phobos mission proposal it seems that the entire 2.5 duration will be spent in almost zero gravity. Wouldn't this have serious health effects? The current record is 437 days on Mir.

I'm assuming that Phobos gravity (~0.05% of Earth) is too low to matter from a physiological perspective, but I might be wrong. Martian gravity is 37% of Earth.

[–]HoppyPriceHumphrey Price - Jet Propulsion Laboratory 2 points3 points  (2 children)

That is correct. We're talking about 2.5 years in 0 g. This is why it is important to perform some very long duration missions in Lunar orbit to understand and retire those risks before committing a crew to a Mars mission.

[–]WanObiJunior 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And that's the problem of your plan in my opinion. To avoid a direct landing on Mars because it's too risky you replace it with an another risk.

And all the studies of period of weightlessness for more than a year are not useful for Mars or the Moon.

[–]HarbingerDe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why not use a tether and a spend fuel stage to create artificial gravity, Mars Direct style?

[–]HarbingerDe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you guys at the Planetary Society think of Mars Direct?

[–]Jeansybaby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2039I might actually be alive to see that, can't wait :D

[–]JagdPhoenix_13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

example significant engine failure)

Also, is there any consideration of launching two rockets, one with the astronauts+ supplies for the journey, and the second with supplies for the duration of the stay/ return trip.

[–]Keif_Stones_0-o 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ten years from now, SpaceX will be very much closer to sending men/women to Mars. Any government with a capable space program will look terrible in the history books if they let a private company beat their space program. (Russia, USA, Europe, China, maybe more!).

I think In turn this will cause (and is causing) a space race much larger than the cold war. Do you think that we will see a rapid increase in spaceflight around the world in the coming 10-20 years? What effect will this have on new space programs like India? And lastly, do you think there will be a more colavorative approach?

[–]tchad49 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Why do we want to land on Mars? After going to all the expense and trouble of getting up out of our own gravity well, why descend into another? This feat requires public funds, and I fear it might succeed, as the Apollo Program did... to be followed by another 50 years of public exhaustion. Space advocates should set their sights on a broader goal: human expansion into the solar system. Not pick the destination based on scifi fantasies or our primitive need to walk on a flat surface and see the horizon. Two essential enabling objectives are needed to reach that goal: (1) economic sustainability and (2) physical sustainability. Mars might help with the latter, but so might other destinations. Mars is unlikely to help us reach the first objective. At this stage, we should remain agnostic about destinations.