[music playing]
- WELCOME TO
THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY
OF NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER
AND THE DIRECTOR'S
COLLOQUIUM SUMMER SERIES.
WE FIRST ACHIEVED HUMAN LANDING
ON THE MOON IN 1969.
AT THE SAME TIME,
VON BRAUN AND OTHERS
PITCHED THE IDEA
OF GOING TO MARS
TO THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.
THE QUESTION IS: WHY MARS?
FIRST, IT'S OUR NEAREST
NEIGHBOR, RIGHT?
IT'S THE NEXT-PLANET NEIGHBOR,
VENUS AND MARS.
SECOND, IT IS A WAY FOR US
TO UNDERSTAND OUR PAST
BY STUDYING THE NEIGHBORS
THAT ARE NEXT TO US.
IT'S ALSO POTENTIALLY A PLACE
TO COLONIZE IN THE FUTURE.
BUT I ALWAYS SAY THAT
SCIENCE-FICTION DRIVES REALITY.
WHEN WE FIRST STARTED
LOOKING AT MARS,
WE SAW WHAT LOOKED
LIKE CANALS AND CHANNELS
THAT ARE THERE CHANGING,
AND WE ENVISIONED
THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE
ON THAT PLANET.
SOME EVEN ENVISIONED
ATTACKS FROM MARS
ON OUR PLANET.
SO FAR, WE HAVE HAD
MANY MISSIONS TO MARS,
ROBOTIC MISSIONS
THAT ARE EXPLORING MARS.
BUT I PERSONALLY,
AND MANY OTHERS,
WANT TO SEE US THERE,
SEE HUMANS GO TO MARS.
WHEN DO WE DO THIS?
DO WE WAIT UNTIL
WE'VE RESOLVED ALL ISSUES,
UNTIL WE KNOW WE HAVE NO MORE
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT?
OR DO WE DECIDE A CERTAIN DATE
BY WHICH WE STOP
AND TAKE OUR TECHNOLOGY
THAT WE HAVE AND TAKE SOME RISKS
AND GO TO MARS?
WHEN YOU TAKE THOSE MISSIONS,
YOU WILL LEARN,
AND AS YOU LEARN
FROM THOSE MISSIONS,
YOU COULD HAVE
SAFER TRAVELS TO MARS
AND POTENTIALLY OTHER PLANETS.
TODAY'S TALK IS ENTITLED
"MARS DIRECT: HUMANS TO
THE RED PLANET WITHIN A DECADE."
IT WILL BE PRESENTED
BY DR. ROBERT ZUBRIN,
WHO IS THE PRESIDENT
OF PIONEER ASTRONAUTICS
AND ALSO THE SPIN-OFF
PIONEER ENERGY.
HE IS A FELLOW OF THE BRITISH
INTERPLANETARY SOCIETY
AND THE FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT
OF MARS SOCIETY.
HE HAS INVENTED
SEVERAL UNIQUE CONCEPTS
FOR SPACE PROPULSION
AND EXPLORATION,
THE AUTHOR OF HUNDREDS
OF PUBLICATIONS,
TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS
AND NON-TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS,
INCLUDING NONFICTION
AND FICTION BOOKS.
PLEASE JOIN ME
IN WELCOMING ROBERT ZUBRIN.
[applause]
- OKAY.
SO, THANK YOU
FOR THAT KIND INTRODUCTION
AND FOR INVITING ME
TO COME AND SPEAK HERE.
AND THANKS TO ALL OF YOU
FOR COMING,
LISTENING TO WHAT
I'VE GOT TO SAY,
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY,
FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING,
BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS TASK
OF OPENING SPACE,
OPENING THE UNIVERSE
TO HUMANITY
IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
GOING ON IN THE WORLD
AT THIS TIME.
THIS TIME WILL BE REMEMBERED
BECAUSE THIS IS WHEN
WE FIRST SET SAIL
FOR OTHER WORLDS.
I'M GONNA TALK HUMANS TO MARS
WITHIN A DECADE, OKAY?
AND I'M GONNA TALK
A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT WHY I THINK
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE
IN THAT KIND OF TIME FRAME
IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT.
I'M GONNA TALK AT SOME LENGTH
AS TO HOW I THINK
IT COULD BE DONE.
IN FACT, I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU
TWO DIFFERENT WAYS
IT COULD BE DONE,
A PREFERRED WAY
AND ANOTHER WAY
THAT WOULD ALSO WORK,
ALTHOUGH IT PUSHES THE LIMITS
OF MINIMALISM TO DO IT.
AND FINALLY,
I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT WHY IT NEEDS
TO BE DONE AT ALL.
AND BY THE WAY,
IF YOU WANT TO HEAR MORE
ON ESPECIALLY
THAT LATTER SUBJECT,
THE MARS SOCIETY IS HAVING
ITS CONFERENCE IN HOUSTON
AUGUST 7TH THROUGH 10TH.
YOU'RE ALL INVITED TO COME.
THERE'LL BE ALL KINDS
OF TALKS THERE
ABOUT WHY AND HOW
WE CAN GO TO MARS.
SO, HUMANS TO MARS
WITHIN A DECADE, OKAY?
IS THAT REALLY POSSIBLE?
NASA'S CURRENT, I MEAN, TIMELINE
IS TO DO IT
AROUND THE YEAR 2047,
MAYBE 3047.
[laughter]
THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER WE CAN DO
HUMANS TO MARS IN TEN YEARS
IS SOMEWHAT ANALOGOUS
TO THE QUESTION OF,
"HOW MUCH ROPE DOES IT TAKE
TO CONNECT TWO POSTS
SEPARATED BY A DISTANCE
OF 10 METERS?"
IN PRINCIPLE, IT CAN BE DONE
WITH 10 METERS OF ROPE.
ON THE OTHER HAND,
IF YOU LET THE ROPE
BE TANGLED EVERY WHICH WAY,
IT COULD TAKE AN INFINITE AMOUNT
OF ROPE, OKAY,
AND SO THE ANSWER
TO THE QUESTION IS DEPENDENT
UPON WHETHER YOU ACTUALLY WANT
TO CONNECT THE TWO POSTS
OR WHETHER YOU'RE TRYING
TO SELL ROPE.
AND "MARS DIRECT"
WAS ACTUALLY CONCEIVED
BY A TEAM LED BY ME
AND ANOTHER ENGINEER
NAMED DAVID BAKER
AT MARTIN MARIETTA,
WHICH BECAME LOCKHEED MARTIN,
IN 1990 IN RESPONSE
TO THE FAILURE,
OR THE IMMINENT FAILURE--
AT THAT TIME,
IT HADN'T QUITE FAILED YET--
OF THE FIRST PRESIDENT BUSH'S
SPACE EXPLORATION INITIATIVE,
WHICH WAS FOUNDERING
BASED ON STICKER SHOCK
DUE TO THE 90-DAY REPORT
WHICH HAD POSTULATED
A 30-YEAR PROGRAM
COSTING $400 BILLION
AND ALL SORTS OF EXERCISES
IN INFRASTRUCTURE
AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTS
BEFORE WE COULD GET TO MARS.
AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR
TO US AT MARTIN
THAT THE REASON
WHY THE 90-DAY REPORT
WAS SO LONG AND COSTLY
AND COMPLEX
WAS THAT IT WAS--
HAD BEEN DESIGNED
WITH THE IDEA OF MAKING
A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE HAPPY,
PEOPLE DEVELOPING THIS
TECHNOLOGY AND THAT TECHNOLOGY
IN THIS CENTER AND THAT CENTER
OR THIS COMPANY OR THAT COMPANY
OR HERE OR THERE OR EVERYWHERE.
THEY HAD BASICALLY
NOT DESIGNED A MISSION
BUT A CHRISTMAS TREE
UPON WHICH TO HANG
ALL THE ORNAMENTS
AND, YOU KNOW,
PROVIDE BUSINESS FOR EVERYONE.
AND THAT'S THE EXACT OPPOSITE
OF THE CORRECT WAY
TO DO ENGINEERING, OKAY?
YOU DON'T DESIGN SOMETHING
TO BE AS COMPLEX
AND COSTLY AS POSSIBLE
IN ORDER TO PLEASE YOUR VENDORS.
YOU DESIGN IT TO BE
AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE
AND AS INEXPENSIVE
AS POSSIBLE
IN ORDER TO DO THE JOB
MOST EFFICIENTLY.
SO THE QUESTION
WE ASKED OURSELVES
WHEN WE DESIGNED "MARS DIRECT"
IS, IF YOU WANTED
TO DESIGN A MARS MISSION
AND NOT PROVIDE EXCUSES
FOR PEOPLE WHO WANTED, YOU KNOW,
TO USE THIS TECHNOLOGY,
WANTED TO USE
ELECTRIC PROPULSION,
WANTED TO USE
NUCLEAR PROPULSION,
WANTED TO USE THIS,
WANTED TO USE THAT,
WANTED TO USE
BIOREGENERATIVE LIFE SUPPORT
AND PHYSICAL LIFE SUPPORT
AND THIS
AND HAVE A LUNAR BASE
AND HAVE A HANGAR
ON THE SPACE STATION
AND, YOU KNOW, THE ABILITY
TO REUSE RL-10 ENGINES IN ORBIT,
AND WHATEVER,
HOW WOULD YOU DO IT
IF YOU JUST WANTED
TO GET THE JOB DONE, OKAY?
AND THAT IS THE QUESTION
WE ASKED OURSELVES.
SO, FIRST, I'M GOING TO NOW
PRESENT THE DESIGN
AS WE DEVELOPED IT
IN THE SPRING OF 1990.
OKAY.
THIS IS THE MISSION
SEQUENCE CHART
FOR THE "MARS DIRECT" PLAN.
YOU CAN LAUNCH TO MARS
EVERY TWO YEARS,
SO WE'RE GOING TO BE LAUNCHING
TWO BOOSTERS
EVERY TWO YEARS TO MARS
IN ORDER TO DO THIS.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL,
ANY SPACE OPERATION
REQUIRES AN APPROPRIATE
LAUNCH VEHICLE,
AND WE SET OURSELVES THE TASK
OF DESIGNING ONE
IN THE SATURN V CLASS
OUT OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY,
SHUTTLE TECHNOLOGY.
AND ACTUALLY IT'S NOT
VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE SLS
THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING
DEVELOPED BY NASA.
I MEAN, WE'RE USING
SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINES
INSTEAD OF SOME OTHER MAIN
ENGINES AT THE BOTTOM,
AND THEY'RE OFFSET A LITTLE BIT
BECAUSE THESE WERE
GOING TO BE LAUNCHED
IN PARALLEL WITH THE SHUTTLE,
WHICH HAS ITS FLAME TRENCHES
POSITIONED THUS.
BUT, BASICALLY, HERE YOU GO.
YOU HAVE FOUR SHUTTLE
MAIN ENGINES, A COUPLE SOLIDS,
THE EXTERNAL TANK CORE,
HYDROGEN-OXYGEN UPPER STAGE,
AND A 10-METER FAIRING,
OR 33 FEET IF YOU WORK
AT LOCKHEED MARTIN.
AND THE--OKAY.
AND THIS COULD LIFT 120 TONS
TO LOW EARTH ORBIT,
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY,
IT COULD USE THIS UPPER STAGE
TO SEND 47 TONS
ON DIRECT TRANS-MARS INJECTION
OR 59 TONS
ON TRANS-LUNAR INJECTION.
AND THAT IS HOW
WE WANTED TO DO THE MISSION,
JUST LIFT AND THROW
AND LET IT GO,
SEND THE PAYLOAD TO THE PLANET,
THE SAME BOOSTER THAT
LAUNCHED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THAT'S HOW WE'VE DONE
EVERY REAL, UNMANNED
PLANETARY MISSION,
THAT'S HOW WE DID THE REAL
APOLLO MISSIONS TO THE MOON.
NO ONE'S EVER DONE
A MISSION TO ANYWHERE
BY LIFTING THINGS
TO THE SPACE STATION
AND WAITING
FOR THE INTERPLANETARY CRUISER
TO RETURN FROM SATURN
AND BE REFITTED
TO LOAD THE PAYLOAD ON IT
AND THEN GO BACK OUT.
NO, JUST LIFT AND THROW
AND LET IT GO.
AND RIGHT THERE, IF YOU CAN
DO THE MISSION THAT WAY,
YOU'VE GONE 90% OF THE WAY
TOWARDS TAKING THE MARS MISSION
OUT OF THE SCIENCE-FICTION
FUTURE
AND PUTTING IT IN OUR WORLD
OF REAL ENGINEERING.
BUT HOW CAN YOU DO THAT?
THE TYPICAL MARS MISSION
DESIGNS THAT WERE AROUND
WERE 700 TO 1,000 TONS IN LEO.
THIS IS 120 TONS IN LEO,
WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS A LITTLE
LESS THAN A SATURN V,
WHICH COULD DO 140.
YOU KNOW, A BOOSTER
THAT COULD LAUNCH
ONE OF THESE DEATH STAR
SPACESHIP CONCEPTS,
YOU'D BLOW AWAY ORLANDO
WHEN YOU TOOK OFF.
SO HOW COULD YOU
DO THIS MISSION
WITH A SATURN V CLASS BOOSTER?
WELL, IF YOU LOOKED
AT THESE OTHER MISSION PLANS,
WHAT YOU SAW WAS THAT
THE MAJORITY OF THE MASS
THAT THEY WERE SENDING TO MARS
WAS THE PROPELLANT
TO COME BACK.
WELL, THAT MAY
SEEM PRUDENT, OKAY?
SHOULDN'T YOU GO TO MARS
AND HAVE THE PROPELLANT
TO COME BACK?
WELL, IS THAT HOW
WE'VE EXPLORED ON EARTH?
DID LEWIS AND CLARK
CROSS THE AMERICAN CONTINENT
BRINGING WITH THEM ALL
THE FOOD, WATER, AND AIR
THEY WOULD NEED FOR THEMSELVES
AND THEIR HORSES
FOR A THREE-YEAR
TRANSCONTINENTAL
TRIP OF EXPLORATION?
NO.
IF THEY HAD DONE THAT,
THEY WOULD HAVE NEEDED
A WAGON TRAIN OF SUPPLIES
FOR EVERY MAN
AND ANOTHER WAGON TRAIN
FOR EVERY HORSE,
AND THEN, OF COURSE,
THE WAGON TRAIN MEN AND HORSES
WOULD HAVE NEEDED
FURTHER WAGON TRAINS,
AND IT WOULD HAVE
GONE EXPONENTIAL.
AND NOT ONLY WOULD IT HAVE
BLOWN THE BUDGET
OF THOMAS JEFFERSON'S AMERICA,
IT WOULD HAVE EXCEEDED
THE MASS OF THE EARTH.
OKAY, NOW, THE--BUT NO,
THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY DID.
THEY HUNTED THEIR WAY ACROSS,
AND IN CERTAIN WAYS THEY TRADED
WITH NATIVE AMERICANS
TO OBTAIN NECESSARY SUPPLIES.
BUT IN EITHER CASE,
THEY WERE MAKING USE
OF THE RESOURCES
THAT WERE AVAILABLE
IN THE ENVIRONMENT
THEY INTENDED TO OPERATE IN.
WELL, WHY ARE WE GOING TO MARS?
WE'RE GOING TO MARS
BECAUSE MARS IS THE PLANET
THAT HAS THE RESOURCES
THAT CAN SUPPORT LIFE
AND, THEREFORE, POTENTIALLY
TECHNOLOGICAL CIVILIZATION.
WELL, THE SAME RESOURCES
THAT MAKE MARS INTERESTING,
IF YOU MAKE USE OF THEM,
CAN ALSO MAKE IT ATTAINABLE.
SO THAT IS THE ORIENTATION
WE TOOK HERE.
WHAT IS THE TRAVEL-LIGHT,
LIVE-OFF-THE-LAND APPROACH
TO MARS EXPLORATION?
SO THE FIRST THING
THAT WE SEND TO MARS,
THE FIRST LAUNCH, HERE,
SENDS OUT
ON A MINIMUM-ENERGY TRAJECTORY
A EARTH RETURN VEHICLE, ERV.
AND WHAT THIS IS,
THIS IS A LITTLE ROCKET SHIP
FOR RETURNING FROM MARS TO EARTH
IN THE TERMINAL STAGE
OF THE MISSION.
BUT NO ONE'S IN IT
WHEN IT GOES OUT THE FIRST TIME.
SO IT IS UNMANNED.
IT'S GOT A LITTLE CABIN HERE,
15 FEET IN DIAMETER,
WITH SPARTAN QUARTERS
FOR A CREW OF FOUR
FOR A SIX-MONTH VOYAGE
FROM MARS BACK TO EARTH.
THEN IT'S GOT TWO
METHANE OXYGEN
CHEMICAL PROPULSION STAGES HERE
WHICH ARE UNFUELED.
THEY HAVE TO BE UNFUELED,
OR THIS WILL WEIGH
MUCH TOO HEAVY
FOR SOMETHING LIKE
A SATURN V CLASS BOOSTER
TO THROW TO MARS.
HOWEVER, IN SOME
OF THE LOWER STAGE TANKS
THAT ARE LATER
GOING TO CONTAIN METHANE,
WE'VE GOT ABOUT 6 TONS
OF LIQUID HYDROGEN
PROBABLY IN GEL FORM,
AND THEN SLUNG
BELOW THE VEHICLE,
NOT SHOWN IN THIS DIAGRAM,
IS A LITTLE TRUCK,
A LIGHT TRUCK,
LIKE A LITTLE PICKUP TRUCK.
IN THE BACK OF THAT TRUCK
IS A LITTLE NUCLEAR REACTOR
WITH A POWER
OF 100 KILOWATTS.
OKAY, 100 KILOWATTS
IS LIKE 130 HORSEPOWER,
SAME AMOUNT OF POWER
THAT POWERS A MEDIUM-SIZE CAR.
OKAY, SO IT'S NOT A GIANT
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
THAT POWERS A CITY.
IT'S JUST A NICE LITTLE
PUTT-PUTT NUKE
SITTING IN THE BACK OF A TRUCK.
NOW, AFTER YOU'VE LANDED,
THE TRUCK IS
TELEROBOTICALLY DRIVEN
A FEW HUNDRED METERS AWAY,
UNWINDING A CABLE
OFF THE BACK OF IT AS IT GOES,
AND THEN THE REACTOR'S
PUT ON THE GROUND,
PREFERABLY IN A DITCH
OR A CRATER
ON THE REVERSE SIDE
OF THE HILL,
ANYTHING TO PUT A NICE-SIZE
CHUNK OF DIRT
BETWEEN THE REACTOR
AND THE MAIN LANDING AREA.
AND THEN YOU GOT POWER
AT THE SHIP.
YOU TURN IT ON, OKAY,
AND WHAT YOU DO THEN IS,
YOU RUN A PUMP, AND YOU SUCK IN
THE MARTIAN AIR,
WHICH IS 95% CARBON DIOXIDE,
AND YOU REACT THAT
WITH THE HYDROGEN
THAT YOU BROUGHT FROM EARTH,
AND HYDROGEN CAN BE REACTED
WITH CARBON DIOXIDE
IN THE PRESENCE OF EITHER
RUTHENIUM OR NICKEL
ON ALUMINA CATALYST
TO PRODUCE METHANE AND WATER.
THAT'S KNOWN
AS SABATIER REACTION.
METHANE'S GOOD ROCKET FUEL.
YOU STORE THAT.
YOU TAKE THE WATER,
YOU ELECTROLYZE IT,
SPLIT IT INTO HYDROGEN
AND OXYGEN.
OH, HERE'S THE WHOLE DIAGRAM.
AND SO THIS MAKES
METHANE AND WATER.
THE WATER IS ELECTROLYZED,
GIVES YOU OXYGEN.
HYDROGEN IS RECYCLED.
THEN, TO MAKE ADDITIONAL OXYGEN,
YOU HAVE A THIRD REACTOR
IN WHICH YOU SPLIT
CARBON DIOXIDE
INTO CARBON MONOXIDE
AND OXYGEN,
KEEP THE OXYGEN,
DUMP THE CARBON MONOXIDE.
YOU CAN DO THAT ON MARS.
THERE'S NO EPA THERE,
WHICH IS A SUBSTANTIAL
GOOD REASON TO GO TO MARS.
[laughter]
AND NOW YOU'VE GOT A FULLY
FUELED EARTH RETURN VEHICLE
SITTING, WAITING FOR YOU
ON THE SURFACE OF MARS.
AND, IN FACT, WE MAKE
EXTRA PROPELLANT
BEYOND WHAT THE EARTH RETURN
VEHICLE NEEDS
SO THAT WE CAN OPERATE
CHEMICAL-POWERED VEHICLES
ON THE SURFACE OF MARS
FOR EXPLORATION PURPOSES.
AND WHY DO WE WANT TO DO THAT?
BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO MARS
TO EXPLORE,
AND CHEMICAL-REACTION VEHICLES
HAVE A MUCH HIGHER
POWER-TO-MASS RATIO
THAN YOU CAN GET WITH ELECTRIC
VEHICLES OR R.T.G. VEHICLES
OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT,
WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE SO MUCH
MORE POPULAR HERE ON EARTH.
AND IN A FRONTIER ENVIRONMENT
LIKE MARS,
WHERE YOU REALLY WANT THE SPEED,
THE LONG RANGE, THE TORQUE,
THE HAULING CAPABILITY,
AND ALL-AROUND MUSCLE YOU GET
FROM HAVING A REAL CAR
INSTEAD OF A GOLF CART,
YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE ONE.
BUT IT WOULDN'T BE PRACTICAL
IF YOU HAD TO BRING THE FUEL
FROM EARTH.
BUT BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE
THE FUEL ON MARS,
THEN YOU HAVE THIS
ADDITIONAL CAPABILITY.
SO THE POINT HERE
IS THAT THE ABILITY
TO MAKE USE OF LOCAL RESOURCES
IS NOT JUST THE KEY
TO MAKING THE MISSION CHEAP.
IT'S ALSO THE KEY
TO MAKING THE MISSION EFFECTIVE,
WHICH IS EVEN
MORE IMPORTANT, ACTUALLY,
BECAUSE THERE'S NO POINT
GOING TO MARS
UNLESS YOU CAN DO SOMETHING
USEFUL ONCE YOU GET THERE.
SO, OKAY, THE NEXT--
THIS BEING DONE,
AT THE NEXT LAUNCH OPPORTUNITY,
TWO YEARS LATER,
WE LAUNCH TWO MORE BOOSTERS
OFF THE CAPE.
ONE SENDS OUT
ANOTHER EARTH RETURN VEHICLE.
THE OTHER SHOOTS OUT A HAB
WITH A CREW
OF FOUR ASTRONAUTS IN IT.
NOW, BECAUSE OUR RETURN RIDE
IS WAITING FOR US
ON THE SURFACE OF MARS,
WE DON'T NEED TO FLY TO MARS
IN A GIGANTIC
DEATH STAR SPACESHIP, OKAY?
WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO FLY OUT
IN A COMPARATIVELY MODEST
"MILLENNIUM FALCON."
WE CAN FLY TO MARS
IN A TUNA CAN.
AND THAT'S A VERY GOOD THING,
BECAUSE WE KNOW
HOW TO BUILD THEM
AND THEY'VE BEEN PROVEN
IN INDUSTRY
TO BE A VERY EFFECTIVE FORM
OF PACKAGING.
NOW, OURS IS SOMEWHAT LARGER
THAN THE CHICKEN
OF THE SEA UNIT.
OKAY, THIS IS 8 1/2 METERS,
27 FEET IN DIAMETER.
TWO DECKS,
EACH WITH 8 FEET OF HEADROOM.
UPPER DECK IS WHERE THEY LIVE.
LOWER DECK IS MORE
OF A CARGO HOLD,
WORKSHOP KIND OF PLACE.
HERE'S ONE POTENTIAL LAYOUT
OF THE UPPER DECK.
FOUR LITTLE STATEROOMS.
THERE'S A CREW OF FOUR IN HERE,
IF I DIDN'T MENTION THAT.
SCIENCE AREA, GALLEY,
EXERCISE AREA,
AND IN THE CENTER IS
A SOLAR FLARE STORM SHELTER.
OKAY, THERE'S TWO KINDS
OF RADIATION
THAT CAN GET YOU IN SPACE:
SOLAR FLARES, COSMIC RAYS.
SOLAR FLARES COME FROM THE SUN,
BIG PULSES OF RADIATION
IN AN UNPREDICTABLE WAY.
THAT IS, YOU DON'T KNOW
WHEN IT'S GONNA HAPPEN,
MAYBE ONE BIG ONE A YEAR.
BUT THEY'RE BASICALLY PROTONS
WITH ENERGIES
OF ABOUT A MEGAVOLT
THAT CAN BE STOPPED
BY 5 INCHES OF WATER.
AND WE HAVE ENOUGH PROVISIONS
ON THE SHIP TO MASS THAT OUT.
SO THAT'S HOW YOU'RE SAFE
AGAINST THE SOLAR FLARES.
THE COSMIC RAYS, WHICH ARE A
LITTLE PITTER-PATTER CONSTANTLY
OF HIGH-ENERGY RADIATION
COMING IN FROM
INTERSTELLAR SPACE,
THAT CANNOT BE STOPPED
WITH 5 INCHES OF WATER,
BUT THE DOSE FOR THAT
IS MODERATE,
AS I WILL SHOW YOU LATER,
THAT THIS IS--
YOU'RE GONNA TAKE THIS
WHEN YOU GO TO MARS
NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO,
BUT IT REPRESENTS
A MODEST PORTION
OF OVERALL MISSION RISK.
NOW, LET ME JUST SAY THIS,
BY THE WAY.
THE TRAJECTORY THAT WE'RE
GOING OUT TO MARS ON
IS A SIX-MONTH TRAJECTORY.
AND THIS IS
THE CORRECT TRAJECTORY
TO SEND PEOPLE TO MARS ON
REGARDLESS OF THE PROPULSION
SYSTEM THAT YOU HAVE.
THAT IS, THERE'S PEOPLE
GOING AROUND SAYING,
"WE'VE GOT TO GO TO MARS FASTER.
WE'VE GOT TO GO TO MARS FASTER.
"IF WE HAD
NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKETS,
WE COULD GET TO MARS
IN FOUR MONTHS."
WELL, YOU COULD,
BUT YOU SHOULDN'T.
IF YOU HAD
NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKETS,
YOU SHOULD GET TO MARS
IN SIX MONTHS
AND USE THE SUPERIOR
PROPULSION CAPABILITY
TO DOUBLE YOUR PAYLOAD, OKAY?
WHY?
WELL, THERE'S TWO REASONS.
ONE IS, DOUBLING THE PAYLOAD
WILL DO FAR MORE
FOR MISSION SAFETY
THAN REDUCING THE TRANSIT TIME
BY TWO MONTHS, OKAY.
IN TERMS OF MORE REDUNDANCY,
OF CRITICAL SYSTEMS
AND SO FORTH, THAT'S POSSIBLE.
BUT THE OTHER IS THIS.
SIX MONTHS OUTBOUND TRANSIT
IS THE TWO-YEAR FREE RETURN
TRAJECTORY TO EARTH.
SO IF YOU HAVE TO
ABORT THE MISSION,
YOU CAN FLY BY MARS, COME BACK,
YOU GET BACK TO EARTH'S ORBIT
EXACTLY TWO YEARS
AFTER YOU LEFT IT,
AND EARTH WILL BE THERE.
IF YOU TRY TO GO TO MARS FASTER,
YOU NECESSARILY GO OUT FURTHER
ON A FREE RETURN.
YOU COME BACK
IN MORE THAN TWO YEARS,
AND EARTH IS NOT THERE, OKAY?
SO, BY TRYING TO GO TO MARS
FASTER THAN SIX MONTHS,
YOU LOSE ROBUSTNESS
AND YOU LOSE THE FREE RETURN,
SO YOU SHOULDN'T DO IT, OKAY?
BETTER PROPULSION IS BETTER,
BUT USE IT TO INCREASE
THE PAYLOAD.
OKAY.
NOW, THE ONE HEALTH EFFECT THAT
WE REALLY HAVE SEEN IN SPACE
HAS NOT BEEN FROM RADIATION.
IT'S BEEN FROM ZERO GRAVITY.
OKAY, AND SO WE MAKE
ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY ON THE SHIP
BY TETHERING OFF
THE BURNT-OUT UPPER STAGE.
THIS IS THE BURNT-OUT
UPPER STAGE OF THE ARES BOOSTER.
IT THREW US TO MARS.
IT'S COASTING TO MARS TOO.
IT CAN BE USED
AS A COUNTERWEIGHT
ON THE END OF A TETHER.
THIS THING IS ABOUT A MILE LONG,
1,500 METERS.
SPIN THIS AT 1 RPM,
YOU GET MARS GRAVITY IN THE HAB.
IF YOU SPUN IT AT
A LITTLE LESS THAN 2 RPM,
YOU'D HAVE EARTH GRAVITY
IN THE HAB
AND AVOID THE DECONDITIONING
ASSOCIATED WITH ZERO GRAVITY
AND OTHER HEALTH EFFECTS,
EYE EFFECTS AND SO FORTH,
THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.
THOSE ARE THE SERIOUS
HEALTH EFFECTS OF SPACE FLIGHT,
AND THEY CAN BE AMELIORATED
THIS WAY.
OKAY, SO--
I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT'S THERE.
OH, I KNOW WHY IT'S THERE.
OKAY, SO THEY FLY OUT TO MARS,
TAKE SIX MONTHS.
THEY FIRE PYRO, CUT THE CABLE,
AERO-BRAKE,
AND GO AND LAND
AT LANDING SITE NUMBER ONE,
WHERE THE FULLY FUELED
EARTH RETURN VEHICLE
IS WAITING FOR THEM.
OKAY.
IF THEY LAND OFF-COURSE,
THEY'VE GOT A PRESSURIZED ROVER
IN THE LOWER DECK OF THE HAB.
IT HAS A ONE-WAY RANGE
OF 600 MILES,
SO THEY REALLY SHOULD
BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE
THIS SURFACE RENDEZVOUS.
IF THEY CAN'T,
THEY HAVE A REAL PROBLEM
WITH THE PILOT
SELECTION PROCESS.
AND IF THAT'S THE CASE,
WE CAN STILL SAVE THE MISSION
BY TAKING THE SECOND
EARTH RETURN VEHICLE
AND LANDING IT NEAR THEM.
BUT, ASSUMING THAT
THEY DO LAND CORRECTLY,
THE SECOND EARTH RETURN VEHICLE
CAN BE LANDED ANYWHERE ELSE,
COULD BE LANDED CLOSE BY,
COULD BE ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE PLANET,
BUT I WOULD LAND IT
A FEW HUNDRED MILES AWAY,
BECAUSE IT WILL DEFINE
WHERE THE NEXT
EXPLORATION MISSION GOES.
BUT I WOULD STILL LIKE IT TO BE
WITHIN AT LEAST
ONE-WAY DRIVING RANGE
OF THE AVAILABLE
GROUND TRANSPORTATION.
SO THE CREW HAS TWO COMPLETE
EARTH RETURN VEHICLES,
EITHER ONE OF WHICH
COULD TAKE THEM HOME.
AND THEY HAVE THREE
HABITABLE VOLUMES,
THE BIG ONE IN THE HAB
AND THE CABINS
OF THE TWO ERVs.
SO THEY'RE MULTIPLY
BACKED UP IN THAT WAY.
BUT THE REAL PURPOSE
OF THIS ERV IS NOT FOR THEM.
IT'S TO START MAKING PROPELLANT
TO SUPPORT THE NEXT MISSION,
WHICH FLIES OUT TWO YEARS LATER,
ALONG WITH ANOTHER ERV,
WHICH IS THEIR BACKUP,
BUT WHICH OTHERWISE OPENS UP
LANDING SITE NUMBER THREE.
SO THIS IS AN ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPH
OF THE BASE.
[laughter]
WHAT YOU SEE HERE, HERE IS
THE EARTH RETURN VEHICLE.
THERE'S THE CABIN,
THE TWO PROPULSION STAGES,
THE INTAKES FOR THE CHEMICAL
PROCESSING UNIT,
WHICH IS BUILT
INTO THE LANDING STAGE
THAT ACTS AS THE TAKEOFF PAD
FOR THE REST OF IT.
HERE'S THE REACTOR AND THE
CRATER IN THE BACKGROUND,
THE HABITAT,
UPPER STAGE WHERE THEY LIVE,
UPPER DECK WHERE THEY LIVE.
LOWER DECK IS THE GARAGE
FOR THE LITTLE
PRESSURIZED ROVER,
COUPLE OF SOLAR PANELS
USED AS BACKUP POWER
IF YOU HAVE TO TURN
THE REACTOR OFF.
YOU ALSO HAVE BACKUP POWER
BY RUNNING THE ENGINE
OF THE ROVER
OR THE LIGHT TRUCK,
WHICH MAY BE HARD TO SEE,
BUT IT'S SITTING OVER HERE.
IT'S AN UNPRESSURIZED VEHICLE
WHICH IS ALSO THE BACKUP
FOR THIS ONE.
AND THEN THIS THING HERE
IS AN INFLATABLE GREENHOUSE.
THIS IS NOT
A MISSION-CRITICAL ELEMENT.
IT'S AN EXPERIMENT IN LEARNING
HOW TO GROW CROPS ON MARS
IN MARTIAN SOIL,
MARTIAN SUNLIGHT,
MARTIAN GRAVITY, MARTIAN WATER,
FOR THE BENEFIT OF FUTURE
MISSIONS AND FUTURE BASES.
NOW, AFTER A NUMBER OF THESE
MISSIONS HAVE OCCURRED
IN DIFFERENT PLACES,
YOU'LL KNOW WHERE YOU WANT
TO DEVELOP A MAJOR BASE,
AND YOU COULD DO THAT
BY LANDING A LOT OF THE HABS
IN THE SAME PLACE
AND MATING THEM UP.
THESE ARE
SECOND-GENERATION HABS HERE
WHOSE LANDING LEGS
CAN ARTICULATE
NOT ONLY UP AND DOWN
BUT ALSO SIDE-TO-SIDE,
THUS ALLOWING THEM TO WALK
MUCH IN THE MANNER
THAT THE MARTIANS DID
IN "THE WAR OF THE WORLDS."
SO THIS HAS HERITAGE.
[laughter]
AND THERE IT IS.
AND I DON'T HAVE TIME
TO GO INTO IT,
BUT I'LL ASSERT WITHOUT PROOF
THAT WE COULD USE
THE SAME FLIGHT ELEMENTS
TO BUILD A LUNAR BASE TOO,
SO WE COULD DO THESE THINGS
IN PARALLEL, OKAY.
WE DON'T BUILD A LUNAR BASE
IN ORDER TO GO TO MARS.
YOU DON'T NEED A LUNAR BASE
TO GO TO MARS.
BUT, IN FACT, IF YOU WANTED
TO MAINTAIN THE FLIGHT RATE
ASSOCIATED WITH HAVING
AN ACTIVE BOOSTER PROGRAM,
YOU DON'T WANT TO BE LAUNCHING
TWO EVERY TWO YEARS.
YOU NEED TO LAUNCH
MORE FREQUENTLY THAN THAT,
OR, FRANKLY, YOU'RE WASTING
A LOT OF MONEY
BY HAVING A STANDING ARMY
SITTING AROUND DOING NOTHING
AND, IN FACT,
GETTING OUT OF PRACTICE.
SO YOU WOULD PROBABLY ACTUALLY
DO THESE THINGS
AT THE SAME TIME.
AND SO THIS IS THE HARDWARE SET
THAT WE NEED
TO OPEN UP TWO NEW WORLDS.
NOW, OKAY, THAT'S HOW
I'D LIKE TO DO MARS,
AND I THINK WE CAN DO THAT.
HOWEVER, RECENTLY, YOU KNOW,
SPACEX HAS COME ALONG,
AND THEY ARE DEVELOPING HARDWARE
THAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED
RELATIVELY SOON,
OR SO IT WOULD SEEM,
INCLUDING FALCON HEAVY CAPABLE
OF LAUNCHING 50 TONS
TO LOW EARTH ORBIT.
NOW, 50 TONS IS NOT 120.
IT'S LESS.
IT IS.
AND--BUT, YOU KNOW,
I SET MYSELF THE TASK OF SAYING,
"WELL, LOOK, WHAT IF I DIDN'T
HAVE WHAT I WANT?
"WHAT IF I HAVE THAT?
"OKAY, CAN WE STILL
DO HUMANS TO MARS?
IS THERE A WAY THAT,
YOU KNOW--"
IN OTHER WORDS,
THIS IS NOT AN IDEAL WORLD.
YOU'VE GOT TO, YOU KNOW--
AS DONALD RUMSFELD SAID,
"YOU GO TO WAR
WITH THE FORCES YOU GOT."
OKAY, HE'S AN AUTHORITY.
AND, ANYWAY, YOU GO TO MARS
WITH THE FORCES YOU GOT.
SO HOW WOULD I DO IT?
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD TAKE
AN ALTERATION OF THIS PLAN
WHICH I CALL THE
"MARS SEMI-DIRECT" PLAN.
AND THIS, BY THE WAY,
IS THE MISSION ARCHITECTURE
THAT WAS ADOPTED
BY NASA JOHNSON SPACE CENTER
AND WAS D.R.,
DESIGN REFERENCE, MISSION 3.
OKAY, THIS IS A THREE-LAUNCH
MISSION ARCHITECTURE, OKAY,
IN WHICH ONE LAUNCH
SENDS TO MARS
THE EARTH-MARS ASCENT VEHICLE,
WHICH GOES TO THE SURFACE
AND MAKES PROPELLANT
ON THE SURFACE.
ONE SENDS THE HAB OUT
WITH A CREW,
AND ONE SENDS
AN EARTH RETURN VEHICLE
TO A HIGHLY ELLIPTICAL,
LOOSELY BOUND MARS ORBIT,
AND SO THAT THE MISSION PLAN IS,
FIRST, YOU SEND
AN ASCENT VEHICLE
WHICH FUELS ITSELF
ON THE SURFACE,
WHOSE PROCESS IS SIMILAR
TO "MARS DIRECT."
OKAY, AND THEN, IN THE NEXT
LAUNCH OPPORTUNITY,
YOU SEND OUT AN EARTH RETURN
VEHICLE AND A HAB.
NOW, IN FACT, THIS WOULD REQUIRE
THREE FALCON HEAVIES,
SO IT'S THREE LAUNCHES, OKAY.
AND WHAT WE DID HERE WAS,
THE FIRST TIME, I WOULD SEND
ALL THESE ELEMENTS OUT,
BUT WITH NO ONE
IN ANY OF THEM,
AND THEN AT
THE SECOND OPPORTUNITY,
YOU SEND OUT THE CREW IN A HAB
THAT RENDEZVOUS ON THE SURFACE
WITH THE ASCENT VEHICLE
AND ANOTHER EARTH RETURN VEHICLE
TO POSITION IN MARS ORBIT
AND ANOTHER ASCENT VEHICLE.
SO THE--AND THEN THE CREW
ASCENDS TO ORBIT
AT THE END OF A YEAR AND A HALF
ON THE MARTIAN SURFACE
IN THE PRE-POSITIONED
ASCENT VEHICLE.
AND WHILE THE OTHER ONE
IS THERE MAKING PROPELLANT,
THEN, IN FACT,
IT'S A BACKUP FOR THEM.
AND THE PRE-POSITIONED HAB
IS THERE
SO THAT WHEN THEY LAND
IN THEIR HAB,
THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO HABS.
NOW, WHAT WE-- WHAT I ASSUMED
FOR THIS
IS THAT WE HAD, ALSO,
THE DRAGON
WITH A LONG-DURATION
LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM
INSTALLED IN IT.
NOW, THE DRAGON
IS KIND OF SMALL
FOR LONG-DURATION HABITATION,
SO THE NOTION HERE WAS THAT
AN INFLATABLE EXTENSION
FOR THE DRAGON COULD BE MADE
THAT WOULD--
IN OTHER WORDS, THE CREW COULD
LAUNCH TO ORBIT IN A DRAGON,
AND THEN HERE IT IS.
IT TURNS AROUND,
DOES THE APOLLO MANEUVER,
AND PULLS OUT OF HERE,
OR THE INFLATABLE,
AND ALSO A TETHER THAT GOES
TO THE UPPER STAGE
AND CAN GIVE THIS
ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY
OFF THE TRANS-MARS
INJECTION STAGE.
NOW, I SAID I'D MENTION THIS
BUSINESS ABOUT RADIATION,
BECAUSE, ONCE AGAIN,
THIS HAS REALLY BEEN USED
AS A KIND OF SNOW DAY
BY THOSE IN AUTHORITY
WHO DON'T WANT TO GO TO MARS.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU KNOW,
WE RECENTLY HAD
RADIATION RESULTS
FROM "CURIOSITY" IN TRANSIT
WHICH WERE THE SAME AS THOSE
FROM "MARIE" IN TRANSIT IN 2001.
THE DATA WAS THE SAME,
BUT IN 2001 THEY SAID,
"THIS SHOWS THAT THE RADIATION
DOSE OF GOING TO MARS
IS A MODEST PORTION
OF TOTAL MISSION RISK."
THEN IN 2013, THEY SAID,
"THIS SHOWS THAT WE CAN'T
GO TO MARS--HA-HA, SNOW DAY."
BUT, IN FACT,
THE COSMIC RAY
RADIATION DOSE RATES
IN LOW EARTH ORBIT
ARE HALF OF THOSE
OF INTERPLANETARY SPACE.
AND THIS IS BECAUSE
THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD
DOES NOT BLOCK
AGAINST G-E-V COSMIC RAYS.
THE EARTH BLOCKS OUT
HALF THE SKY,
AND THAT'S WHY
IT'S A FACTOR OF TWO LESS.
BUT IT'S THE SAME STUFF,
AND IT'S JUST HALF
THE DOSE RATE.
AND, AS YOU CAN SEE,
THERE'S ABOUT TEN COSMONAUTS
AND ASTRONAUTS
WHO HAVE RECEIVED,
DUE TO LONG-DURATION ACTIVITY
ON THE MIR OR THE SPACE STATION,
COSMIC RAY DOSES THAT ARE
QUITE COMPARABLE
TO WHAT YOU WOULD GET
DOING A ROUNDTRIP TO MARS.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO
RADIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES
AMONG THIS GROUP.
NOR WOULD WE EXPECT
THERE TO HAVE BEEN,
BECAUSE THE RADIATION RISK
IS ABOUT 1%.
AND SO THE IDEA
THAT WE CANNOT GO TO MARS
UNTIL MUCH MORE ADVANCED
PROPULSION SYSTEMS
THAT ARE AVAILABLE THAT CAN
GET US TO MARS IN 30 DAYS
IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT,
AND I BELIEVE
IT'S DISINGENUOUS AS WELL.
GIVEN THE FACT,
GIVEN THE FACT, FIGURE IT OUT.
OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS,
SPACE STATION WILL BE
CONTINUALLY OCCUPIED,
OKAY, WITH A CREW
ABOUT THE SAME SIZE
AS A MARS MISSION CREW, OKAY,
SO TEN YEARS
CONTINUAL OCCUPATION
AT HALF THE DOSE RATE
OF HUMAN MARS MISSIONS
WHICH SPEND 40% OF THEIR TIME
IN TRANSIT, OKAY.
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSON REMS
BOTH PROGRAMS WOULD RECEIVE,
THE SPACE STATION
OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS
OR A PROGRAM OF SENDING
FIVE HUMAN MISSIONS TO MARS
OVER TEN YEARS,
USING EVERY OPPORTUNITY
FOR FLIGHT,
IS THE SAME.
SO RIGHT NOW, NASA,
WHILE WAVING ITS HANDS
IN HORROR
OVER THE RADIATION RISK
OF GOING TO MARS,
IS ACTUALLY IMPOSING
THAT SAME RADIATION RISK
ON THEIR CREWS
WITHOUT GOING ANYWHERE.
NOW, ALL RIGHT.
SO I WORKED OUT THE MASSES
ON THIS,
AND THE MARGINS ARE TIGHT,
BUT THIS LOOKS DOABLE.
ASSUMING 8 TONS, METRIC TONS,
FOR THE DRAGONS THEMSELVES,
YOU GO THROUGH
THE VARIOUS CONSUMABLES.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE
WATER RECYCLING.
AND THAT, BY THE WAY,
IS KEY FOR ANY MARS MISSION,
BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF WATER
THAT YOU USE, OKAY,
NASA--WELL, AT LEAST IN SOME
AMES DOCUMENTS
THAT I SAW A DECADE AGO--
THEY WERE SAYING 32 KILOGRAMS
PER DAY PER PERSON
WITHOUT RECYCLING.
IN OUR MARS--ARTIC AND MARS
DESERT RESEARCH STATIONS,
WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO GET IT DOWN
TO 12 A DAY PER PERSON.
BUT EVEN THERE,
IF YOU HAVE FOUR PEOPLE
AND ROUND IT OFF
TO 1,000 DAYS,
4,000 TIMES 12 WOULD BE
48 TONS OF WATER
IF YOU HAD NO RECYCLING.
IF YOU HAVE 90% RECYCLING,
IT'S 4.8 TONS OF WATER.
SO THAT BECOMES DOABLE,
BUT YOU'VE GOT TO DO THAT.
THE KEY TECHNOLOGY HERE
IS WATER RECYCLING.
IT'S NOT IMPORTANT
TO MAKE YOUR FOOD.
YOU CAN BRING YOUR FOOD.
THAT IS A MODEST MASS.
IT'S WATER
THAT REALLY WEIGHS IT.
AND, WELL, IT'S ALL HERE.
NOW, THE CREW IS A CREW OF TWO.
AND, BY THE WAY,
IN DOING THIS,
I ASSUMED TWO AVERAGE PEOPLE
IN TERMS OF SIZE.
NOW, THAT COULD BE ALTERED.
WHY DO WE HAVE TO SEND
AVERAGE-SIZE PEOPLE TO MARS?
WHY NOT SEND SMALL PEOPLE?
WE TRY TO MAKE EVERYTHING ELSE
SMALL AND LIGHTWEIGHT
ON THE MISSION,
AND A 100-POUND PERSON
EATS HALF AS MUCH
AS A 200-POUND PERSON.
AND SO, YOU KNOW,
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE
ARE CULTURAL ISSUES HERE,
BUT IF ONE WANTED
TO BE PRACTICAL,
YOU MIGHT START THINKING
IN THOSE DIRECTIONS.
AND, IN FACT, THOUGH,
IF WE DID USE SMALL PEOPLE,
WE PROBABLY COULD HAVE
A CREW OF THREE.
OKAY, AND THEN THIS IS JUST
AN ARTIST'S DEPICTION
OF THESE THINGS LANDED ON MARS.
THE NOTION HERE IS THESE HABS.
YOU DON'T DO ENTRY AND LANDING
WITH THE HABS INFLATED.
THEY WOULD BE DEFLATED,
STUFFED BACK INSIDE,
AND THEN INFLATED AGAIN
ONCE THEY'RE ON THE SURFACE.
AND THIS LOOKS VERY VULNERABLE
TO BEING BLOWN OVER BY THE WIND
OR SOMETHING,
BUT, IN FACT, THE DYNAMIC
PRESSURE OF WINDS
ON THE SURFACE OF MARS
IS QUITE LOW.
AND THESE THINGS HERE,
BY THE WAY,
THE NOTION OF THIS ONE
WAS THAT IT WOULDN'T TRANSPORT
HYDROGEN TO MARS.
IT WOULD TRANSPORT
HYDROCARBON FUEL
AND JUST MAKE THE OXYGEN,
WHICH IS 3/4 OF THE PROPELLANT,
BECAUSE THE SMALLER SIZE MAKES
IT HARDER TO TRANSPORT HYDROGEN.
NOW, THIS MISSION...
IS DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH, YOU KNOW,
JUST THREE FALCON HEAVY LAUNCHES
PER OPPORTUNITY.
SLS, IN ITS EARLIEST
INCARNATION,
IS 75 TONS TO ORBIT.
THAT WOULD INCREASE
THE MASS MARGINS BY 50%.
OR YOU COULD SAY, OKAY,
WE'LL DO TWO FALCON HEAVIES
FOR EACH OF THESE
THREE PACKAGES,
MATE AND DOCK,
AND THAT WOULD DOUBLE IT.
WHAT I AM SAYING HERE
IS NOT TO ADVOCATE
THIS DESIGN IN DETAIL,
BUT TO SAY,
IF YOU WANT TO GET TO MARS,
YOU WANT TO TRY TO APPROACH IT
IN A SPIRIT
OF RUTHLESS MINIMALISM,
TO SAY, "HOW COULD WE ACTUALLY
DO THIS WITH WHAT WE HAVE
OR WHAT WE'RE LIKELY TO HAVE?"
AS OPPOSED TO SAYING,
"WELL, YOU KNOW,
WHEN I GO TO MARS,
"I WANT TO HAVE THIS
NAUTILUS SPACESHIP
"WITH A, YOU KNOW, SPA
AND A SAUNA AND THIS AND THAT,
"AND A POOL ROOM, BECAUSE
REALLY, WITHOUT A POOL ROOM,
ASTRONAUTS WON'T BE HAPPY."
YOU WANT TO SAY, "HOW CAN WE
ACTUALLY GET THIS DONE
"WITH THE SORT OF THING WE HAVE
AND DESIGN THE MISSION
IN THAT WAY?"
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS,
WHETHER WE DO IT WITH
A TRUE HEAVY-LIFT BOOSTER
LIKE "MARS DIRECT" IS,
OR WE DO IT IN THIS SORT OF--
THIS FALCON DIRECT ARCHITECTURE
WITH A SEMI-HEAVY BOOSTER,
THERE'S WAYS TO DO THIS.
WE DO NOT NEED
SCIENCE-FICTION SPACESHIPS
TO GO TO MARS, OKAY?
WE JUST DON'T.
SO, OKAY.
I'LL LEAVE IT THERE.
THANKS.
[applause]
- SO WE HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS.
WAIT FOR THE MICROPHONE,
AND PLEASE STAND UP
WHEN YOU ASK A QUESTION.
- SO, NASA LEADERSHIP NOW
SEEMS TO EMBRACE MARS
AS THE PRIMARY DESTINATION.
AND THEY CERTAINLY ARE AWARE
OF YOUR PLAN.
SO, WHAT IS THEIR RESPONSE?
WHY WOULD NOT THEY GET
INTERESTED IN THIS PLAN
AND TRYING TO ADOPT IT?
BECAUSE IT'S SO MUCH CHEAPER,
IT SEEMS TO ME.
NOT ONLY FASTER, BUT CHEAPER.
- OKAY, WELL, I UNDERSTAND WHY
YOU JUST SAID WHAT YOU SAID,
BUT I DISAGREE WITH YOUR PREMISE
THAT NASA HAS EMBRACED MARS
AS A DESTINATION.
IF NASA HAD EMBRACED MARS
AS A DESTINATION,
IT WOULDN'T BE PLANNING
AN ASTEROID-REDIRECT MISSION,
BECAUSE THE ASTEROID-REDIRECT
MISSION HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH HUMANS TO MARS.
OKAY, THE--THEY'VE CHOSEN
TO INVOKE HUMANS TO MARS
AS SIZZLE BUT NOT THE STEAK,
OKAY?
IN OTHER WORDS--
AND THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL.
YOU CAN'T GET TO MARS
WITH A PROGRAM
THAT IS DESIGNED AROUND PLEASING
VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES
WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION.
FOR INSTANCE,
THE ASTEROID-REDIRECT MISSION,
THE PURPOSE OF IT
IS TO PROVIDE A MISSION
FOR AN ELECTRIC PROPULSION
SYSTEM
WHICH HAPPENS TO HAVE THE EAR
OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATOR.
OKAY, IT IS--
NO ONE IN THEIR WILDEST DREAMS
EVER PUT REDIRECTING
A 500-TON BOULDER
FROM THE NEAR-EARTH
ASTEROID BELT
INTO A RETROGRADE LUNAR ORBIT
ON THE CRITICAL PATH TO MARS.
OKAY, I MEAN, YOU KNOW,
THIS IS NEW.
AND THE--NOW, SOME PEOPLE
HAVE ARGUED THAT A LUNAR BASE
IS ON THE CRITICAL PATH
TO MARS,
AND I DISAGREE,
BUT AT LEAST THEIR ARGUMENT
HAS THE MERIT
THAT A LUNAR BASE
IS ON THE CRITICAL PATH
TO HAVING A LUNAR BASE.
AND SO, IF YOU BUILD
A LUNAR BASE,
YOU WILL AT LEAST
GET A LUNAR BASE.
OKAY, SO, YOU CAN BE SANE
AND ARGUE THAT.
BUT THE--
BECAUSE, IN FACT,
THE PEOPLE WHO ARGUE
THAT WE NEED TO BUILD THE LUNAR
BASE BEFORE WE GO TO MARS
ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT
TO HAVE A LUNAR BASE.
NOW, THE--
THE PROBLEM HERE IS,
IT'S ENTROPY.
IT'S ENTROPY.
THIS IS WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS
WITH THE 90-DAY REPORT,
FUNDAMENTALLY, WAS ENTROPY.
IT'S LIKE RUNNING A COMPANY
AND HAVING YOUR DECISIONS
DETERMINED BY YOUR VENDORS.
"WHY DON'T YOU BUILD THIS
SO WE CAN SELL IT TO YOU?"
OKAY.
THE RIGHT WAY TO DO--
IF YOU WANT TO GET TO MARS,
YOU DECIDE--YOU DECIDE THAT,
AND THEN YOU JUST FIND OUT
WHAT IS THE SIMPLEST
AND MOST DIRECT PLAN
WITH THE LEAST
DIVERSIONS FROM IT.
AND GIVEN THE FACT
THAT THE NASA BUDGET IS FINITE,
IT MEANS NOT DOING A WHOLE BUNCH
OF OTHER ACTIVITIES
THAT ARE NOT RELATED
TO THAT GOAL, OKAY?
AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED.
YOU CANNOT--
YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T GET
TO THE MOON
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, ONE DAY,
YOU KNOW, THERE WAS
THIS LEM PROGRAM
AND A COMMAND MODULE PROGRAM
AND A SATURN V PROGRAM,
AND ONE DAY THE DIRECTORS
RAN INTO EACH OTHER
IN THE CAFETERIA AT MARSHALL
AND SAID,
"YOU KNOW, WITH YOUR LEM
AND MY COMMAND MODULE
AND HIS BOOSTER,
WE COULD GO TO THE MOON."
NO, THESE THINGS--
FIRST, THERE WAS THE DECISION
TO GO TO THE MOON.
THEN, THEY DEVELOPED A PLAN
ON HOW TO DO IT.
FROM THE PLAN CAME
THE HARDWARE ELEMENTS.
FROM THE HARDWARE ELEMENTS
WERE DETERMINED THE LIST
OF TECHNOLOGIES THAT NEEDED
TO BE DEVELOPED.
AND THAT'S HOW YOU DID IT.
IT WASN'T THAT THERE WERE
ALL THESE TECHNOLOGIES
BEING DEVELOPED AND SUDDENLY
THEY CAME TOGETHER
AND MADE THE MOON HAPPEN.
SO THAT'S IT.
THERE HAS NOT BEEN
A DECISION TO GO TO MARS.
- I WONDER WHAT
YOUR THOUGHTS ARE
ON THE RECENT NATIONAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL REPORT
THAT CAME OUT
A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
- OH, OKAY.
THAT'S GOOD.
WELL, ACTUALLY, I HAVE--
I GIVE IT MIXED REVIEWS.
THE POSITIVE PART IS, THEY MADE
THE POINT THAT I JUST MADE,
OKAY, WHICH IS THAT
YOU CANNOT HAVE
A "TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN PROGRAM"
BECAUSE THAT, IN FACT, IS
A CONSTITUENCY-DRIVEN PROGRAM,
AND IT'S JUST ENTROPY,
AND YOU WILL NOT GET TO MARS
OR ANYWHERE ELSE THAT WAY.
NOW, THE PEOPLE
WHO WROTE THAT REPORT,
IN FACT, WERE LUNAR ADVOCATES,
AND IF YOU READ THAT REPORT
AND CAN KIND OF
GET PAST THE FOG,
WHAT IT BASICALLY SAYS IS,
THE UNITED STATES
SHOULD BUILD A LUNAR BASE.
OKAY, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.
OKAY, IT NEVER SAYS IT THAT WAY.
INSTEAD, WHAT THEY SAY IS,
"THE UNITED STATES NEEDS
"A DEFINITE AND INSPIRATIONAL
GOAL FOR ITS SPACE PROGRAM,
AND THAT SHOULD BE
HUMANS TO MARS."
OKAY.
THEN, THEY SAY, "NOW, THERE'S
THREE WAYS TO GET TO MARS.
"ONE IS, YOU COULD DO
THE ASTEROID-REDIRECT MISSION
"AND THEN DO MISSIONS TO PHOBOS,
"AND THEN DO MISSIONS
TO MARS.
"OR YOU COULD BUILD
A SPACE STATION IN L2,
"THEN BUILD A LUNAR BASE,
"THEN DO MISSIONS
TO THE NEAR-EARTH ASTEROIDS,
"THEN DO MISSIONS TO PHOBOS,
"AND THEN DO MISSIONS TO MARS.
"OR YOU COULD BUILD
A LUNAR BASE
"AND THEN DO MISSIONS TO MARS.
"OKAY, NOW, THE FIRST
TWO CHOICES ARE ABSURD,
SO CHOOSE ONE
OF THE ALTERNATIVES."
OKAY, AND THAT'S BASICALLY
WHAT THE REPORT SAYS.
NOW, THE REPORT SAYS--
IT IDENTIFIES CORRECTLY
THAT ONCE AN OBJECTIVE
IS CHOSEN,
IT NEEDS TO BE STUCK TO, OKAY,
THAT THE CHURN THAT WAS
INTRODUCED INTO THE PROGRAM,
FOR EXAMPLE,
BY OBAMA CANCELLING
THE BUSH-GRIFFIN
MOON BASE PROGRAM,
AND THEN GOING OFF
IN ANOTHER DIRECTION,
WAS NOT HELPFUL, OKAY.
AND THEN THERE'S FURTHER CHURN,
IN THAT NASA ACTUALLY ABANDONED
OBAMA'S PLAN
TO SEND PEOPLE
TO NEAR-EARTH ASTEROIDS
BECAUSE THAT WOULD GET US
INTO HELIOCENTRIC SPACE.
SAYS, "NO, WE DON'T WANT TO GO
INTO HELIOCENTRIC SPACE,
SO WE'LL JUST RETURN
A CHUNK OF AN ASTEROID."
YOU KNOW, THIS KIND OF THING.
THEY--
AND IN MANY PLACES,
THEY MADE IT VERY CLEAR:
"LOOK, YOU KNOW,
A MOON BASE IS DOABLE.
"WE'RE FOR IT.
"THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO.
LET'S JUST STICK WITH IT
AND DO IT."
NOW, THEY MADE
IMPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS HERE,
AS YOU CAN SEE,
THAT HUMANS TO MARS--
IF YOU WANT TO SEND
HUMANS TO MARS,
AN ALTERNATIVE IS
TO SEND HUMANS TO MARS, OKAY.
THAT WOULD BE ONE ALTERNATIVE
WAY OF DOING THAT.
AND THE--NOW, THEY DON'T
ADMIT THAT.
THEY DON'T EVEN INCLUDE IT
WITHIN THEIR TRADE SPACE,
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DO
A LUNAR BASE,
AND SO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO--
THEY COME UP WITH TECHNOLOGY
CHALLENGES THAT MUST BE MASTERED
BEFORE WE CAN START
A HUMANS TO MARS PROGRAM.
OKAY, AND THEY NAME
THREE PRIMARY CHALLENGES.
ONE IS ENTRY, DESCENT,
AND LANDING
OF LARGE PAYLOADS ON MARS.
THE SECOND IS ADVANCED
PROPULSION AND POWER.
AND THE THIRD IS
RADIATION SAFETY.
NOW, EDL OF LARGE PAYLOADS
ON MARS
IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL TECHNOLOGY.
IT IS AN ENGINEERING
DEVELOPMENT, OKAY,
AND IT WILL BE DONE.
I MEAN, IT'S HARD WORK.
WORK WILL HAVE TO BE DONE.
BUT IT CAN BE DONE,
AND IT WOULD ONLY BE DONE
IN THE CONTEXT
OF A HUMANS TO MARS PROGRAM.
OKAY, SURFACE POWER, SAME THING.
ADVANCED PROPULSION?
IT IS NOT DEMONSTRATED
THAT ADVANCED PROPULSION
IS NEEDED TO SEND
HUMANS TO MARS.
AND, IN FACT, ONE OF THE GOOD
THINGS THE AUTHORS DO IS,
THEY DISMISS OUT OF HAND
THESE CLAIMS OF
FRANKLIN CHANG DIAZ
THAT ELECTRIC PROPULSION
PROVIDES A WAY
TO DO QUICK TRIPS TO MARS.
OKAY.
THEY DO THAT.
BUT, NEVERTHELESS, THEY JUST
KIND OF LEAVE THAT IN THERE,
THAT SOMEHOW WE NEED
TO GET TO MARS FASTER.
OKAY, THEN THE THIRD THING IS
RADIATION PROTECTION.
AND THIS ONE, OKAY,
WE HAVE HAD 70 YEARS
SINCE THE MANHATTAN PROJECT
OF SERIOUS WORK
ON RADIATION PROTECTION,
RADIATION HEALTH EFFECTS,
WITH LOTS OF MONEY BEHIND IT.
OKAY, 20 MORE YEARS
OF SUCH RESEARCH
IS NOT GOING TO ADD
ANYTHING TO THAT, OKAY?
FURTHERMORE,
AS I POINTED OUT HERE,
THE RADIATION DOSE
OF COSMIC RAYS
THAT NASA IS EXPERIENCING
IN THE COURSE OF RUNNING
ITS SPACE STATION PROGRAM
IS EQUIVALENT TO THAT IT WOULD
BE DOING
DOING AN ACTIVE PROGRAM
OF HUMAN MARS EXPLORATION.
SO THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD
DO 20 YEARS
OF RADIATION HEALTH
EFFECTS RESEARCH
BEFORE WE GO TO MARS
IS VACUOUS.
AND, ONCE AGAIN,
IT'S A SNOW DAY.
IT'S ARGUED
WITH ALL THE SINCERITY
OF A 10-YEAR-OLD SAYING
THAT THE 3 INCHES OF SNOW
THAT FELL LAST NIGHT
MEANS THAT CHILDREN SHOULD NOT
HAVE TO GO TO SCHOOL TODAY
BECAUSE IT'S TOO DANGEROUS.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
AND SO THEY DO THAT.
AND THEN FINALLY, THEY MAKE
THE IMPORTANT POINT
THAT I MADE
A LITTLE BIT EARLIER
WHERE IF YOU DO
SET AN OBJECTIVE,
IT MEANS THAT YOU SHOULD NOT
BE DOING A WHOLE BUNCH
OF OTHER THINGS,
ESPECIALLY MAJOR PROGRAMS,
THAT ARE NOT RELATED
TO THE OBJECTIVE.
OKAY.
NOW, THESE PEOPLE
WANT TO DO A LUNAR BASE.
LET'S STIPULATE THAT'S
WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
SO, WHERE'S THE SPACE STATION
FIT IN WITH THAT?
OKAY, THEY DO NOT CALL FOR
TERMINATING THE SPACE STATION
AT AN EARLY DATE.
IN FACT, THEY DISCUSS
PROLONGING IT UNTIL 2028.
HOW IS THE SPACE STATION
ON THE CRITICAL PATH TOWARDS
SENDING HUMANS TO THE MOON
AND OPERATING A MOON BASE?
NOT AT ALL, OKAY?
SO THEY'RE LEFT WITH SAYING
THAT WE CANNOT DO
ANY OF THESE THINGS
WITHIN NASA'S CURRENT BUDGET.
AND ONLY IF WE HAVE
LARGE INCREASES IN NASA'S BUDGET
WILL ANYTHING BE POSSIBLE.
WELL, LET ME TELL YOU,
YOU'VE GOT $17 BILLION A YEAR.
THERE ARE A LOT
OF THINGS POSSIBLE
WITH $17 BILLION A YEAR.
BUT YOU'VE GOT
TO MAKE DECISIONS.
AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE
THE COURAGE OF THEIR CONVICTIONS
TO SAY, "LOOK, THE PROPER ROLE
OF ASTRONAUTS
"IS TO BE EXPLORERS, OKAY,
OF OTHER WORLDS.
SOME MAY PREFER MARS.
WE PREFER THE MOON."
BUT THAT'S WHAT ASTRONAUTS
ARE FOR.
THE REASON FOR GOING INTO SPACE
IS TO GO ACROSS SPACE
AND EXPLORE AND DEVELOP
THE WORLDS
ON THE OTHER SIDES OF SPACE,
AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING PEOPLE
IN SPACE
TO OBSERVE THE NEGATIVE
HEALTH EFFECTS OF ZERO GRAVITY
ON PEOPLE,
WHICH IS REDUCING ASTRONAUTS
TO THE ROLE OF GUINEA PIGS
INSTEAD OF EXPLORERS.
IT'S DEGRADING.
YOU KNOW, IT'S AS IF
HENRY THE NAVIGATOR,
YOU KNOW, WHEN HE LAUNCHED
HIS PROGRAM
OF EUROPEAN OCEANIC EXPLORATION,
INSTEAD OF TELLING PEOPLE
TO GO FURTHER AND FURTHER
DOWN THE COAST OF AFRICA
TO FIND A WAY TO THE INDIES,
SAID, "NO, I WANT YOU
TO GO OFFSHORE,
"PARK YOUR SHIP
100 MILES OUT AT SEA,
"AND, YOU KNOW,
TAKE OBSERVATIONS
OF HOW LONG IT TAKES
YOUR SAILORS TO DIE OF SCURVY."
[laughter]
THE--OKAY.
YOU KNOW, SO THEY REALLY--
AND WHILE THEY CLEARLY--
THEY WERE DOWN ON THE
ASTEROID-REDIRECT MISSION,
AND THAT'S VERY GOOD.
THEY POINTED OUT
THAT IT INVOLVED
A WHOLE BUNCH OF
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTS
THAT WERE DEAD-END,
THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO
WITH SENDING HUMANS TO MARS.
NEVERTHELESS, THEY DIDN'T...
FRONTALLY ASSAULT IT.
THEY DIDN'T STICK THE KNIFE IN
ALL THE WAY.
THEY DIDN'T PUNCH
FOR THE BACK OF THE THROAT.
THEY PUNCHED FOR THE FRONT
OF THE CHEST.
AND BY LEAVING IT THERE
AS ONE OF THREE ALTERNATIVES,
ACTUALLY ALLOWED
NASA HEADQUARTERS TO SAY,
"WELL, WE AGREE
WITH THE REPORT.
THE ASTEROID-REDIRECT MISSION
IS ONE OF THREE PATHS."
WHEREAS, IF YOU READ THE REPORT
AND LOOKED THROUGH
THEIR TRADE STUDIES,
THEY SHOW THAT, YOU KNOW,
IT INVOLVES TEN USELESS ELEMENTS
INSTEAD OF THE OTHER ONE,
WHICH INVOLVES ONLY ONE,
AND WHATEVER.
AND THE--AND THEN,
WHILE THE TWO PATHS
THAT THEY DID NOT SUPPORT
INVOLVED GOING TO PHOBOS,
THEY DID NOT DO AN ADEQUATE JOB
OF EXPLAINING WHY PHOBOS
IS NOT A PATH
ON THE WAY TO MARS.
SO I'LL CORRECT
THAT OMISSION HERE.
BECAUSE JUST LAST WEEK,
SOME GUY AT HEADQUARTERS SAID,
"WELL, THE ASTEROID-REDIRECT
MISSION IS A WAY TO GO TO MARS,
"BECAUSE WE'LL LEARN HOW TO DO
THE KIND OF ISRU THERE
"THAT WE WILL DO
NOT ON MARS, BUT ON PHOBOS,
WHICH IS THE KEY POSITION
TO MARS,"
SO THAT THEY'RE USING PHOBOS
TO JUSTIFY
THE ASTEROID-REDIRECT MISSION,
WHICH IN TURN WAS CREATED
TO JUSTIFY THE DEVELOPMENT
OF HIGH-ENERGY
ELECTRIC PROPULSION.
BUT, IN FACT, IT'S NOT.
LET ME TELL YOU WHY, OKAY,
BECAUSE AT FIRST GLANCE,
IT MAY SEEM TO SOMEONE THAT
BASING ON PHOBOS MAKES SENSE,
BUT IT DOESN'T,
BECAUSE HERE'S WHY.
PHOBOS IS IN A CIRCULAR,
EQUATORIAL ORBIT AROUND MARS,
CIRCULAR AND EQUATORIAL.
EQUATORIAL MEANS IT ONLY HAS
READY ACCESS
TO THE EQUATOR OF MARS,
AND THEREFORE IT RESTRICTS
YOUR OPERATION.
BUT EVEN WORSE THAN THAT
IS THE CIRCULAR.
OKAY, IN ORDER TO GET
INTO THAT CIRCULAR ORBIT,
ASSUMING AEROBRAKING AT MARS,
AND THEN YOU HAVE TO RAISE
THE PERIGEE IN ORDER TO--
LET'S SAY YOU CAN
AEROBRAKE AT MARS
AND THE APOGEE IS DOWN
AT PHOBOS' ORBIT,
BUT NOW YOU HAVE
TO RAISE THE PERIGEE
UP TO PHOBOS' ORBIT, OKAY.
THAT'S 1.1 KILOMETER A SECOND
DELTA V.
THEN, TO GET OUT OF THAT
IN ORDER TO GET BACK DOWN
INTO THE ATMOSPHERE,
TO AEROBRAKE AND GET
TO THE SURFACE,
IS ANOTHER
KILOMETER A SECOND DELTA V.
SO NOW YOU'VE ADDED
2 KILOMETERS A SECOND DELTA V
TO THE MISSION
ON THE WAY DOWN.
AND THEN IT'S A LITTLE BIT
MORE COMPLICATED,
BUT I'LL TELL YOU
WHAT THE ANSWER IS: 2.2.
AND ON THE WAY BACK UP,
GOING UP FROM PHOBOS
INSTEAD OF JUST GOING UP
TO A HIGHLY ELLIPTICAL ORBIT
AND THEN INJECTING FOR EARTH,
YOU ADD ANOTHER 1.6.
SO THAT ADDS 3.8 KILOMETERS
A SECOND DELTA V TO THE MISSION,
WHICH IS CATASTROPHIC, OKAY?
I MEAN, THAT'S HUGE.
IT'S A DISASTER.
SO BASING ON PHOBOS
IS NOT A GOOD IDEA.
BUT HERE'S THE THING.
IF WE GO THIS ROUTE
WHERE PEOPLE JUSTIFY MISSIONS
OR COME UP WITH MISSIONS
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE RATIONALES
FOR PREVIOUS DECISIONS,
OKAY, THEN WE GO TO PHOBOS
IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE A.R.M.,
WE GO DO THE A.R.M. IN ORDER
TO JUSTIFY A MAJOR
ELECTRIC PROPULSION DEVELOPMENT,
OKAY,
BUT YOU'RE DEVELOPING
AN ENTIRE THING HERE
WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH MARS.
AND NOW, IF SOMEBODY COMES ALONG
AND DESIGNS A MARS MISSION
WITHOUT GOING THROUGH
YOUR PHOBOS TOLL BOOTH,
THEY ARE DE-JUSTIFYING
YOUR PROGRAM.
IN FACT, THIS WAS A MAJOR
PROBLEM WITH THE 90-DAY REPORT.
THEY INSISTED
THAT LUNAR MISSIONS
MADE CRITICAL USE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION,
BECAUSE IF THEY WEREN'T,
THEY WERE DE-JUSTIFYING
THE SPACE STATION PROGRAM,
BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT WAS,
THE SPACE STATION
WAS CRITICAL PATH ON THE WAY
TO THE MOON.
SO, IN ORDER TO DO
A MOON MISSION
IN THE 90-DAY REPORT,
YOU HAD TO HAVE
THREE SHUTTLE-C LAUNCHES
TO THE SPACE STATION
WHERE THEY WOULD BE ASSEMBLED
INTO A LUNAR CRAFT
IN DOUBLE HANGARS THAT HAD TO BE
BUILT ONTO THE SPACE STATION,
AND THEN A SHUTTLE LAUNCH
AS WELL,
AND THEN IT WOULD FLY
TO THE MOON,
AND IT WOULD HAVE TO FLY BACK,
AND IT WOULD BE REUSED
IN RL-10 ENGINES
WHICH COST $2 MILLION EACH,
WOULD BE REFITTED AT A COST
OF ABOUT $2 BILLION EACH
AT THE STATION, AND SO FORTH.
AND IT WAS SO COMPLICATED
THAT IT WAS BEYOND 1990s
OR TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY,
AND PEOPLE SAID,
LOOKING AT THIS MESS,
"IF WE COULD PUT
A MAN ON THE MOON,
WHY CAN'T WE PUT
A MAN ON THE MOON?"
OKAY, AND THE REASON WHY THEY
COULDN'T PUT A MAN ON THE MOON
IN THE 1990s
BUT THEY COULD IN THE 1960s
WAS BECAUSE IN THE 1990s
SOMEONE WAS TELLING THEM,
"YOU HAD TO GO
TO THE MOON THE HARD WAY,
"OR YOU'RE SHOWING THAT THE
DECISIONS WE MADE WERE WRONG,
AND WE CAN'T HAVE THAT."
WELL, WHO'S CALLING
ON THE QUESTIONS?
- SO, WHEN YOU ORIGINALLY
STARTED TALKING,
YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU WERE
GOING TO ADDRESS
THE "WHY YOU'RE GOING TO MARS,"
BUT YOU NEVER ACTUALLY MENTIONED
ANYTHING ABOUT THAT
IN YOUR TALK.
- ALL RIGHT.
- COULD YOU GO OVER THAT?
- SURE.
OKAY, AS I SEE IT,
THERE'S THREE REASONS
WHY MARS SHOULD BE THE GOAL
OF OUR SPACE PROGRAM.
AND IN SHORT, IT'S BECAUSE MARS
IS WHERE THE SCIENCE IS,
IT'S WHERE THE CHALLENGE IS,
AND IT'S WHERE THE FUTURE IS.
IT'S WHERE THE SCIENCE IS
BECAUSE MARS, OKAY,
WAS ONCE A WARM AND WET PLANET.
IT HAD LIQUID WATER
ON ITS SURFACE
FOR MORE THAN A BILLION YEARS,
WHICH IS ABOUT
FIVE TIMES AS LONG
AS IT TOOK LIFE TO APPEAR
ON EARTH
AFTER THERE WAS
LIQUID WATER HERE.
SO IF THE THEORY IS CORRECT
THAT LIFE IS A NATURAL
DEVELOPMENT FROM CHEMISTRY
OR IF YOU HAVE LIQUID WATER,
VARIOUS ELEMENTS,
AND SUFFICIENT TIME,
LIFE SHOULD HAVE APPEARED
ON MARS,
EVEN IF IT SUBSEQUENTLY
WENT EXTINCT,
AND IF WE CAN GO TO MARS
AND FIND FOSSILS OF PAST LIFE,
WE'LL HAVE PROVEN THAT
DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE
IS A GENERAL PHENOMENON
IN THE UNIVERSE.
OKAY, OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
IF WE GO TO MARS AND FIND
PLENTY OF EVIDENCE
OF PAST BODIES OF WATER
BUT NO EVIDENCE OF FOSSILS
OR DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE,
THAT COULD SAY
THAT THE DEVELOPMENT
OF LIFE FROM CHEMISTRY IS NOT
SORT OF A NATURAL PROCESS
THAT OCCURS WITH
HIGH PROBABILITY,
BUT INCLUDES
ELEMENTS OF FREAK CHANCE,
AND WE COULD BE ALONE
IN THE UNIVERSE.
FURTHERMORE, IF WE CAN GO
TO MARS AND DRILL,
BECAUSE THERE'S LIQUID WATER
UNDERGROUND ON MARS,
REACH THE GROUNDWATER,
THERE COULD BE LIFE THERE NOW.
AND IF WE CAN GET HOLD OF THAT
AND LOOK AT IT
AND EXAMINE ITS BIOLOGICAL
STRUCTURE AND BIOCHEMISTRY,
WE COULD FIND OUT IF LIFE
AS IT EXISTS ON MARS
IS THE SAME AS EARTH LIFE,
BECAUSE ALL EARTH LIFE,
AT THE BIOCHEMICAL LEVEL,
IS THE SAME.
WE ALL USE THE SAME
AMINO ACIDS,
THE SAME METHOD
OF REPLICATING
AND TRANSMITTING INFORMATION,
RNA AND DNA, ALL THAT.
IS THAT WHAT LIFE HAS TO BE,
OR COULD LIFE BE
VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT?
ARE WE WHAT LIFE IS,
OR ARE WE JUST ONE EXAMPLE
DRAWN FROM A MUCH VASTER
TAPESTRY OF POSSIBILITIES?
THIS IS REAL SCIENCE.
THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS
THAT THINKING MEN AND WOMEN
HAVE WONDERED ABOUT
FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS:
THE ROLE OF LIFE
IN THE UNIVERSE.
THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT
FROM GOING TO THE MOON
AND DATING CRATERS
IN ORDER TO PRODUCE ENOUGH DATA
TO GET A CREDIBLE PAPER
TO PUBLISH IN THE JOURNAL
OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH
AND GET TENURE, OKAY?
[laughter]
OKAY.
THIS IS, YOU KNOW,
HYPOTHESIS-DRIVEN,
CRITICAL SCIENCE.
THIS IS THE REAL THING.
SECOND: THE CHALLENGE.
OKAY, YOU KNOW...
I THINK SOCIETIES
ARE LIKE INDIVIDUALS.
WE GROW WHEN
WE CHALLENGE OURSELVES.
WE STAGNATE WHEN WE DO NOT.
A HUMANS TO MARS PROGRAM
WOULD BE A TREMENDOUSLY BRACING
CHALLENGE FOR OUR SOCIETY.
IT WOULD BE TREMENDOUSLY
PRODUCTIVE,
PARTICULARLY AMONG YOUTH.
OKAY, HUMANS TO MARS PROGRAM
WOULD SAY TO EVERY KID
IN SCHOOL TODAY,
"LEARN YOUR SCIENCE,
AND YOU COULD BE AN EXPLORER
OF A NEW WORLD."
WE'D GET MILLIONS OF SCIENTISTS,
ENGINEERS, INVENTORS,
TECHNOLOGICAL ENTREPRENEURS,
DOCTORS, MEDICAL RESEARCHERS
OUT OF THAT.
AND THE INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
FROM THAT
WOULD ENORMOUSLY BENEFIT US.
IT WOULD DWARF
THE COST OF THE PROGRAM.
AND THEN, FINALLY,
IT'S THE FUTURE.
MARS IS THE CLOSEST PLANET
THAT HAS ON IT
ALL THE RESOURCES NEEDED
TO SUPPORT LIFE AND,
THEREFORE, CIVILIZATION.
IF WE DO WHAT WE CAN DO
IN OUR TIME,
IF WE ESTABLISH THAT LITTLE
PLYMOUTH ROCK SETTLEMENT
ON MARS,
THEN, 500 YEARS FROM NOW,
THERE'LL BE NEW BRANCHES
OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION ON MARS
AND, I BELIEVE, THROUGHOUT
NEARBY INTERSTELLAR SPACE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, LOOK,
I ASK ANY AMERICAN,
"WHAT HAPPENED IN 1492?"
THEY'LL TELL ME, "WELL, COLUMBUS
SAILED IN 1492,"
AND THAT IS CORRECT. HE DID.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY THING
THAT HAPPENED IN 1492.
IN 1492, ENGLAND AND FRANCE
SIGNED A PEACE TREATY.
IN 1492, THE BORGIAS
TOOK OVER THE PAPACY.
IN 1492, LORENZO DE'MEDICI,
THE RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD,
DIED, OKAY.
A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENED.
IF THERE HAD BEEN NEWSPAPERS
IN 1492, WHICH THERE WEREN'T,
BUT IF THERE HAD, THOSE WOULD
HAVE BEEN THE HEADLINES,
NOT THIS ITALIAN WEAVER'S SON
TAKING A BUNCH OF SHIPS
AND SAILING OFF TO NOWHERE,
OKAY.
[laughter]
BUT COLUMBUS
IS WHAT WE REMEMBER,
NOT THE BORGIAS
TAKING OVER THE PAPACY.
OKAY, WELL, 500 YEARS FROM NOW,
PEOPLE ARE NOT
GOING TO REMEMBER
WHICH FACTION CAME OUT
ON TOP IN IRAQ,
OR SYRIA, OR WHATEVER,
AND WHO WAS IN
AND WHO WAS OUT.
AND, YOU KNOW--
BUT THEY WILL REMEMBER
WHAT WE DO TO MAKE
THEIR CIVILIZATION POSSIBLE.
OKAY?
SO THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
THING WE COULD DO,
MOST IMPORTANT THING
WE COULD DO IN THIS TIME.
AND IF YOU HAVE IT
IN YOUR POWER
TO DO SOMETHING GREAT
AND IMPORTANT AND WONDERFUL,
THEN YOU SHOULD.
- HI, DR. ZUBRIN.
THANKS FOR COMING.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU
CAN CLARIFY THE STATEMENT
ABOUT THE SIX-MONTH
FREE RETURN TRAJECTORY,
BECAUSE ANYTHING LAUNCHING
BESIDES, YOU KNOW,
USING CHEMICAL PROPULSION,
IS GOING TO BE THRUSTING
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE LAUNCH,
SO THERE WOULD BE
NO FREE RETURN AFTERWARDS.
IT WOULD ONLY BE APPLICABLE
TO A CHEMICAL TRANSFER.
SO I REALLY HOPE YOU CAN
CLARIFY THOSE STATEMENTS.
- IT WOULD BE--
IT ANSWERS FOR ANY
IMPULSIVE TRANSFER, OKAY?
ELECTRIC PROPULSION HAS
NO FREE RETURN TRAJECTORY,
AT ALL, EVER.
BUT IMPULSIVE TRAJECTORIES
CAN HAVE
FREE RETURN TRAJECTORIES,
AND THAT WOULD BE
EITHER CHEMICAL
OR NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKETS.
AND, TO BE FRANK,
IF YOU'RE TALKING ADVANCED
PROPULSION FOR MARS,
THE MOST CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE
TO CHEMICAL
IS NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKETS.
IT IS.
NOT HIGH-ENERGY
ELECTRIC PROPULSION,
WHICH IS UTTERLY FANTASTICAL.
I MEAN, WE'VE HAD THIS THING
BEING PROMOTED HERE
WITH FRANKLIN CHANG DIAZ
CLAIMING
THAT HE CAN GET YOU TO MARS
IN 39 DAYS
IF ALL HE HAS IS A 200,000
KILOWATT POWER SYSTEM, OKAY,
WHICH IS TO SAY A POWER SYSTEM
20,000 TIMES THE SIZE
OF ANY NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEM
EVER FLOWN IN SPACE,
AND IT HAS A POWER-TO-MASS
RATIO, PER-UNIT POWER,
100 TIMES WHAT HAS
EVER BEEN DONE.
OKAY, THE--
YOU KNOW, SO IT'S NONSENSE.
IT'S LIKE TALKING ABOUT
BUILDING, YOU KNOW,
FLYING, STEEL DIRIGIBLES
BECAUSE STEEL
DOESN'T WEIGH ANYTHING,
YOU KNOW, FOR THE BALLOON PART.
AND, THE--
SO NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKETS
OR CHEMICAL ROCKETS
ARE BOTH REALISTIC
POSSIBLE PROPULSION SYSTEMS
FOR HUMANS TO MARS.
NTR IS BETTER IN THE SENSE
THAT, FOR THE SAME LAUNCH MASS,
YOU COULD DOUBLE THE PAYLOAD.
CHEMICAL IS BETTER IN THE SENSE
THAT WE HAVE IT NOW.
NOW, SO I THINK WE CAN START
THE HUMANS TO MARS PROGRAM
WITH CHEMICAL PROPULSION
AND WORK ON NTR
AND INTRODUCE IT
INTO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE.
BUT, IN EITHER CASE,
YOU TAKE THE SIX-MONTH
TRAJECTORY,
WHICH IS LEAVING EARTH
WITH A C-3 ABOUT 25, AND--
IF YOU UNDERSTAND
WHAT THAT MEANS--
BUT--AND THEN THAT
TAKES YOU OUT
ON AN ELLIPTICAL TRAJECTORY
WHICH INTERSECTS MARS
IN SIX MONTHS,
AND IT DOESN'T COST
THAT MUCH EXTRA DELTA V
COMPARED TO THE MINIMUM-ENERGY
8 1/2 MONTH TRAJECTORY.
THE 8 1/2 MONTH TRAJECTORY
IS A DELTA V
LEAVING LOW EARTH ORBIT OF
AROUND 3.8 KILOMETERS A SECOND.
THIS ONE'S ABOUT 4.2.
SO IT'S A HIT THERE,
BUT IT'S NOT THAT BAD.
AND YOU--AND IF YOU DECIDE
NOT TO STOP AT MARS,
YOU JUST LOOP OUT
TO ABOUT 2 A.U.,
AND YOU COME BACK,
AND YOU HIT THE EARTH EXACTLY
TWO YEARS AFTER YOU LEFT.
- BOB, YOU'VE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT THIS APPROACH FOR YEARS,
AND I THINK THAT'S GREAT.
IN THAT TIME,
HAVE YOU SEE ANY CHANGE
IN THE POLITICAL SUPPORT
THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY
TO INITIATE SUCH A MISSION?
- WELL, THERE'S BEEN
A NUMBER OF CHANGES
THAT HAVE OCCURRED
OVER THE YEARS.
FIRST, OF COURSE, THERE WAS
THE COLLAPSE OF THE SEI
IN THE EARLY '90s,
AND THERE WAS A PERIOD
IN WHICH WE DID NOT HAVE
HUMAN EXPLORATION BEYOND LEO
ON THE BOOKS AT ALL,
DURING THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION.
THEN, BUSH IN 2004 SAID,
"BACK TO THE MOON, ON TO MARS,
AND BEYOND,"
AND INITIATED THAT.
AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT,
I HAD SOME INPUT
INTO THAT PROCESS.
MANY OTHER PEOPLE DID.
AND SO IT WAS A COMPROMISE
OF DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW.
THE MOST FATAL PART OF THAT WAS,
"BACK TO THE MOON,
ON TO MARS, THIS TIME TO STAY,
BUT BUSINESS AS USUAL
UNTIL 2010."
THAT IS, "BEFORE WE DO
ANY OF THAT,
"WE'RE GONNA BUILD
THE SPACE STATION AND SO FORTH,
"AS OPPOSED TO REDIRECTING
RESOURCES
TO SERIOUSLY ATTEMPT THAT."
AND THUS, BY THE TIME
ADMINISTRATIONS CHANGED IN 2009,
NOT THAT MUCH
HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED
TOWARDS, WELL, THE MOON,
AND SO THE PROGRAM
WAS RELATIVELY EASY
FOR OBAMA TO CANCEL.
I THINK THAT
IF THERE HAD BEEN--
AND HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY CANCEL
UNTIL 2010,
BECAUSE IN 2009
THEY WERE JUST INTERESTED
IN STIMULATING EVERYTHING.
BUT THE--
IF THEY HAD REALLY
HAD THE COURAGE
OF THEIR CONVICTIONS
IN 2004 WHEN THEY
STARTED THAT PROGRAM,
THEN BY 2010
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN
SIX YEARS INTO
THEIR RETURN TO THE MOON, OKAY.
IT ONLY TOOK EIGHT YEARS
THE FIRST TIME, OKAY.
AND WE WOULD HAVE BEEN
PRACTICALLY THERE,
AND I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
VERY DIFFICULT
TO DEFEND CANCELLATION
OF A PROGRAM
WHEN IT WAS SO CLEAR TO--
SO NEAR TO SUCCESS.
AND THAT, BY THE WAY, IS WHY,
IF YOU WANT TO DO
HUMANS TO MARS,
YOU CANNOT DO IT
IN 30 YEARS OR 20 YEARS.
YOU HAVE TO DO IT
IN TEN YEARS OR LESS
FROM PROGRAM START,
OR YOU'RE MORE OR LESS
GUARANTEEING
THAT THE POLITICAL CONDITIONS
THAT ALLOWED YOU
TO INITIATE THE ACTION
WILL NOT REMAIN IN PLACE.
AND BY THE WAY,
I HAD A MEETING
WITH MIKE GRIFFIN
IN HIS OFFICE
SHORTLY AFTER HE WAS
APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR IN 2005,
AND HE WASN'T IN THERE IN 2004.
A YEAR HAD BEEN WASTED
BY O'KEEFE
DOING ROADMAPPING
AND BLAH-BLAH.
OKAY, THE--
BUT GRIFFIN WAS IN THERE
AND WAS GONNA DO SOMETHING.
AND I SAID, "LOOK, YOU KNOW,
"YOU'VE GOT EVERYTHING
RIGHT NOW, OKAY.
"YOU'VE GOT A PRESIDENT
THAT SUPPORTS YOU.
"THE REPUBLICANS HAD CONTROL
OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS,
"AND WE'VE GOT YOU
AS NASA ADMINISTRATOR.
"OKAY, BUT THESE FOUR
POSITIVE CONDITIONS
"ARE NOT GONNA REMAIN
IN PLACE FOREVER, OKAY?
"THEY ARE GUARANTEED
TO DISAPPEAR
"ON JANUARY 20TH, 2009,
REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING, OKAY,
SO YOU NEED
TO GET ON WITH THIS."
AND THAT MEANT CERTAIN THINGS,
AND A CERTAIN CHANGE
OF DIRECTION NEEDED TO BE DONE.
AND HIS ANSWER TO ME WAS,
"YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.
"I AM NOT THE LEADER OF NASA.
I AM THE ADMINISTRATOR OF NASA.
AND THEREFORE," HE SAID,
"YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
THE CONSTRAINTS
THAT I'M WORKING UNDER."
AND I UNDOUBTEDLY DIDN'T.
BUT, NEVERTHELESS,
THOSE CONSTRAINTS
NEEDED TO BE BROKEN,
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
YOU GET YOUR TIME ON THE STAGE,
YOU BETTER SAY YOUR LINES,
BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA COME
WITH THE HOOK SOONER OR LATER.
NEXT?
THEY'RE COMING
WITH THE HOOK RIGHT NOW.
[laughter]
[applause]
[musical tones]
[electronic sounds of data]
