left
right
left
right
left
right
left
right
left
right
left
right
left
right
left
right
left
right
left
right
left
right

FEATURE

How to Go to Mars--Right Now!

Human exploration of Mars doesn't need to wait for advanced rockets, giant spaceships, or lunar base stations


PAGE 123 // VIEW ALL

Illustration: Bryan Christie Design

For more details and a closer view, see our slide show.

BY Robert Zubrin // June 2009

This is part of IEEE Spectrum's Special Report: Why Mars? Why Now?

Many people believe that a manned mission to Mars is a venture best left to the next generation. They’re wrong. We have in hand all the required technologies; we don’t need to build giant spaceships, a lunar base, or a space station grander than the one we have. Instead, we can go straight to Mars in relatively small spacecraft powered by boosters like those that carried Apollo astronauts to the moon 40 years ago.

With this ”Mars Direct” approach, traveling light and living off the land whenever possible, humans could reach the Red Planet within a decade. Here’s how it might work.

In the spring of 2014, a heavy-lift booster similar to Apollo’s Saturn V launches from Cape Canaveral and uses its upper stage to throw an unmanned payload weighing 40 metric tons onto a trajectory to Mars. The payload includes an Earth return vehicle (ERV) that will eventually bring a human crew home; it’s carried to Mars with its two methane-oxygen propulsion stages empty. Also on board are 6 metric tons of liquid hydrogen, a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor mounted in the back of a truck that is also fueled by methane and oxygen, a set of compressors, an automated chemical-processing unit, and a few scientific rovers.

Arriving at Mars eight months later, the payload uses atmospheric friction to brake its way into orbit and then lands with the help of a parachute. Next, the rovers explore and characterize the landing site while a human operator back on Earth telerobotically drives the truck a few hundred meters and then deploys the reactor, which powers the chemical-processing unit and the compressors. The chemical-processing unit begins to create a reaction between the bottled hydrogen brought from Earth and the Martian atmosphere, which consists largely of carbon dioxide, to produce methane and water. It electrolyzes the water, producing oxygen and hydrogen, and the compressors liquefy the methane and the oxygen, which are stored in the propellant tank of the ERV. The hydrogen, meanwhile, is recycled to produce more methane. Still more oxygen is produced by dissociating carbon dioxide in what’s called a reverse water-gas-shift reactor; some of that oxygen will go into the ERV’s tanks, and the rest will be stockpiled, both for breathing and for synthesizing water later on.

From start to finish, the process takes 10 months and yields 108 metric tons of methane-oxygen propellant. That’s 18 times as much as the amount of hydrogen brought from Earth. Of that, 96 metric tons will fuel the ERV for the flight back to Earth, and 12 metric tons will be stored for later use by human crews.

Two more rockets fly in 2016—the next good launch window. The first payload is another unmanned fuel factory and an ERV. The second is a habitation module containing a human crew of four, food and other provisions sufficient for three years, and a pressurized rover fueled by methane and oxygen. During the six-month trip, the habitat spins around the burned-out upper stage of the booster, attached by a tether. The spinning creates enough artificial gravity to counter bone loss and other physiological problems brought on by weightlessness.

Arriving at Mars, the manned craft drops the tether, aerobrakes, and lands at the 2014 landing site, where a fully fueled ERV awaits. The second ERV lands several hundred kilometers away, at landing site 2, and starts making propellant for the third mission, to take place in 2018. The third mission, in turn, will fly a crew to site 2 and an additional ERV to open up landing site number 3, and so on.

The first crew spends 18 months exploring Mars; they’ll have enough fuel to drive the pressurized rover a total of 24 000 kilometers. That should suffice: The circumference of Mars is about 21 000 km. Among other things, the crew will be able to conduct a serious search for evidence of past or present life.

By remaining on the surface, the crew will benefit from the planet’s natural gravity (about one-third that of Earth) and will be protected by the Martian environment against most of the cosmic rays and all of the solar flares. Thus there will be no need for a quick return to Earth, a problem that plagues conventional Mars mission plans that envision living aboard an orbiting mother ship that sends down landing parties for brief jaunts.

Finally, the crew returns to Earth in the ERV. Meanwhile, a second crew is on its way to Mars. Thus every other year, two heavy-lift boosters are launched: one to carry a crew, the other to prepare a site for the next mission. As the missions progress, they leave behind a string of bases that open up ever broader stretches of territory. At an average launch rate of just one booster per year to pursue a continuing program of Mars exploration, this plan is clearly affordable. In effect, it removes the manned Mars mission from the realm of megafantasy and reduces it to a task whose difficulty is comparable to that faced in launching the Apollo missions to the moon.

But why do it? First, for the knowledge. We are now fairly certain that Mars once possessed oceans in which life could have developed. If we discover fossils on Mars or extant life surviving in subsurface water, it would be the most important discovery since Copernicus theorized that Earth revolves around the sun.

Second, for the challenge. People thrive on challenge and wither without it. The space program also needs a challenge. Between 1961 and 1973, with the impetus of the moon race, NASA produced a rate of technological innovation immeasurably greater than anything it has shown since, for an average budget that was only about 25 percent bigger than today’s. It did so because it was reaching for a seemingly impossible goal. The Apollo program also strongly stimulated the U.S. economy and inspired a generation of schoolkids to pursue science and engineering. A humans-to-Mars program would do the same.

Third, for our future. Mars is not just a scientific curiosity. It is our New World. Someday, millions of people could live there. Today we have the opportunity to be the founders, the parents, and the shapers of a new and dynamic branch of the human family. It is a privilege we should embrace.

For more articles, go to Special Report: Why Mars? Why Now?

About the Author

Robert Zubrin, says, ”Growing up in the Sputnik-Apollo era, it was apparent to me that the greatest possibilities for the human future lay in space.” President of the Mars Society, Zubrin has written several Mars books, including How to Live on Mars: A Trusty Guidebook to Surviving and Thriving on the Red Planet (Three Rivers Press, 2008).

To Probe Further

For an illustration of the plan, view the slide show "Go to Mars"






1

1
1

Comments will appear after moderation 

Rick Deckard 10.14.2009
We spend a ton of time worrying about getting people back from these kinds of missions, which is, of course, noble. And it ultimately will be important. In the meanwhile, send some courageous person with a terminal disease. Having survived cancer, and caught it early, if I knew I had only a few years to live, I would totally volunteer for this. Surely there are those who would, too. The first man or woman to walk on Mars will have Martian states or countries named after themselves, and plenty of earthbound geography as well. Any school history book has about 700 people in it. None of those people were normal, typical people. We need more heroes..
Michael E. Camburako 09.15.2009
I watched "Go to Mars" which you advertised as an illustration of the "plan" in Robert Zubrin's article, only to be surprised to find an editorial on Mars Movies! What's worse is that you failed to talk about what I believe to be one of the best movies on the subject, "Mission to Mars". Instead you declare "Total Recall" as the best Mars movie. In my opinion, as much as Arnold is always entertaining, that movie was a piece of garbage and "totally" ridiculous at best..
M Reale 06.26.2009
"The hell lives on details"... It's seems that the average solution to such Mars mission is known since the 60's, but today we're in a less romantic era, specially when we realize that we need a solution to fix our "home", the Earth... .
Dennis Nilsson 06.20.2009
Check out the great documentary "The Mars Underground" by Robert Zubrin, for inspiration. http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=zubrin%2Bmars%2Btorrent&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=&aq=f&oq=.
TomC 06.18.2009
Zubrin's plan is good, but we could make the mission much safer now. There are two main potential failure points in Mars Direct that are risky for humans: Will the crew vehicle be able to aerobrake into orbit and land; and will the ERV be able to lift successfully from Mars? -------- Reduce both risks by simply not landing humans in the first few missions. Instead, land robots to be tele-operated from a Mars orbital station. Eliminating the mass of the lander and aerobraking shield allows the ship to arrive with enough fuel to get into Mars orbit using the 3rd stage rocket. Even better, use two rockets, providing backup, and to act as each other's counter-balance when rotating for artificial gravity - no need to discard the 3rd stage rockets. Instead, the crew can return to Earth on the same ship(s) in which they arrived. They just need fuel for the return trip - and Zubrin's approach can be used to generate and deliver that to orbit before the crews even leave Earth. --------- That eliminates the two biggest human risks of Mars Direct, but brings back the risk of radiation. Cosmic rays might be partially shielded by orbiting very close to Deimos. Water tanks over the crew quarters, and the rockets and fuel tanks below crew quarters, can provide more shielding. In the event of a solar flare warning, they can "duck" behind Phobos. It should be possible to reduce the overall exposure to no greater than that experienced on Mars' surface. Later missions can test un-manned landers, until we have proven landing and return to orbit capabilities..
Mathias Macharia 06.17.2009
I want to go to Mars on 2015.
Mathias Macharia 06.17.2009
Would lke to go to Mars On 2015.
David Green 06.13.2009
Quite a few untried technologies here. Despite the current availability of the parts, actually assembling them and making them work reliably, intelligently and automatically on Mars seems quite a step. It would need commitment on the scale of Apollo for sure. Not sure where the $$$ would come from in the current climate! Great idea though. Maybe funding is a form of climbing out of the recession. Now we're on the right track let's have an international power grid fed by solar cells and cooled by liquid hydrogen too!.
jgelover 06.11.2009
Sounds reasonable to me..
Luc Rolland 06.11.2009
Yes, indeed a great challenge that would inspire people, however useless since the time is not close when we will live outside our actual planet. By the way, we all have now a formidable common foe that we have raised by our foolish abuse of the planet ressources: to move away from our dependance upon petrol. We have ten years before the ecosystem starts collapsing and maybe eradicate all life on earth. This is a real challenge. .
Luc Rolland 06.11.2009
Yes, indeed a great challenge that would inspire people, however useless since the time is not close when we will live outside our actual planet. By the way, we all have now a formidable common foe that we have raised by our foolish abuse of the planet ressources: to move away from our dependance upon petrol. We have ten years before the ecosystem starts collapsing and maybe eradicate all life on earth. This is a real challenge. .
Jeff Spears 06.06.2009
Here's another good question: Why not? Zubrin's plans for reaching Mars answers several of the issues faced by the bigger and more expensive plans. Who has issues with Zubrin's plans, and what are the issues? Let's go! Jeff Spears .
k.sathiyamoorthy 06.05.2009
nice .
Chris Yorke 06.04.2009
I would like to support the enthusiasm of the author, but I can't deny the risks and the substantial costs of this enterprise. Scientific knowledge is important, but there is plenty of competition for scarce funds for other projects. There are disastrous risks at every stage and component of this ambitious goal. If you could greatly reduce the risks without increasing the costs, it could be more credible. I might have been overjoyed to volunteer for this kind of mission when I was ten, but I then had too much juvenile faith in possibilities that are yet to materialise. If we cannot even guarantee safe return by space shuttle in the nearest 100 km through the earth's atmosphere, you would never bet the house on success. Thus, astronauts on this mission will need to be prepared to dedicate their lives to the endeavour. Their sacrifice would only be reasonable if there were to be some compelling short-term terrestrial rewards. What exactly are they, again?.
Scott Jones 06.04.2009
It is so important to go to Mars with a purpose. One worthy goal would be to ensure the continuation of the human race. A seed bank and a gene bank should be created on Mars. Also developing commercial interests would accelerate the pace. My generation, Gen-X, has been disappointed by the folks that would study a rock for 50 years for science's sake..
James E Tillman 06.04.2009
Manned Mars & K-8 Education Proposal National Commission on Space J. E. Tillman Stanford University Nov. 20, 1985 This proposal resulted from being told in 1984 by two US entities at the Case For Mars II conference, that the USSR was testing Nerva class thermonuclear propulsion systems; they were obviously preparing a Manned Mars Mission. As a consequence, I proposed the below program to the National Commission on Space in 1985, visited and briefed NASA Administrator Beggs (since NASA was not aware of the USSR development) and wrote a letter to President Reagan. I recounted these relevations to Sagdeev in 1996 during the Q&A portion of his keynote presentation at our 20th Viking Anniversary, and asked when the USSR was planning to execute a Manned Mars mission. His reply was that Gorbachev proposed a joint mission to Mars during his visit with President Reagan, (in 1998, 3 years after my proposal), see below. (Sagdeev was Gorbachyev's head of Space Sciences, and other Space activities.) * US, USSR, proposal including K-8 education and joint Military spending reductions * Economic reasons * Other reasons .