Latest NASA Moon to Mars Planning Document Heavy on the Details with the Exception of Food

If the latest blueprint timelines remain doable, the earliest NASA human missions to Mars will probably occur in 2039. That’s what’s in the “Moon to Mars Architecture Definition Document” that NASA recently published. It states its purpose in exploring space is to establish “national strength in science and technology innovation and competitiveness, which supports economic growth and global position.” It notes that the hard technology challenges solved in space help in achieving success with “Earth-based challenges.”

NASA has through its work produced spinoffs that have seen $7 to $14 in new revenue for every dollar spent and impacted food safety standards, terrestrial navigation systems, aerospace, telemedicine, materials science and other innovations. NASA dollars have inspired private enterprise to get into the business of space. Space companies are now a big thing in the United States and other countries. SpaceX’s recent evaluation is $350 billion.

The word “moonshot” comes from the audacity of the Apollo Program in the 1970s that put a human on the surface of the Moon in 1969. NASA wants the Artemis Program to be the next moonshot that will take humans back to the Moon and onto Mars.

Why go back to the Moon and then Mars? NASA cites its past achievements and the benefits from the science and technological innovation of Apollo and other agency activities to improve “the human condition.”

The following infographic outlines the decisions, relationships, capabilities and reasons for the Artemis Program addressing the when, who, what, where, how and why.

As for the when, the transportation systems represent the earliest objectives of the Moon to Mars architecture including launch systems, orbiters, landers, and surface exploration vehicles. Right now, major delays have pushed back Artemis milestone dates. Why?

• The development of the Space Launch System (SLS), a non-reusable launch system, has slipped repeatedly with the dollars spent an embarrassment to the agency. Some within NASA and the U.S. government question using the SLS beyond the first two crewed missions.
• The progress in the development of the SpaceX Starship isn’t keeping pace with the original timetables established for an Artemis 3 landing on the Moon. A Starship is to be used to take crews to the lunar surface and back to orbit. There are several milestones still to be achieved before Starship can meet NASA’s requirements. Once Starship passes muster, along with its mega booster, it could substitute for the SLS.
• The tools and infrastructure needed to support exploration and habitation on the lunar surface have only recently been tendered to private industry by NASA. Prototyping and testing on Earth will take time and likely will see missed milestones as well.

Human activity in space has been limited to low-Earth orbit since the end of Apollo. Even in this sphere, the in-place infrastructure which includes the aging ISS, will need a refresh to support activities that take us to the Moon and eventually Mars. For example, in low-Earth orbit, getting back to Earth in an emergency takes hours, not days (remember Apollo 13) in the case of the Moon, or months in the case of Mars.

We have conditioned humans to long-term microgravity conditions within the protective envelope of low-Earth orbit. We haven’t conditioned them to micro and partial-gravity environments of the Moon and Mars which will require having humans condition and decondition their systems for extended durations. What will that do to the human body? We won’t know until we test our physical capabilities on the Moon before setting out on a journey to Mars and back.

We face infrastructure challenges for both the Moon and Mars. Much of what we build for the Moon should translate to a future mission to Mars, but much will not. For example, components and systems to support the long transit time between Earth and Mars cannot be duplicated in a three-day journey to the Moon. We will be able to leverage much from our lunar experience but not enough to meet all the challenges a voyage to Mars and back and a prolonged stay on the planet’s surface will present.

For the Moon, the first Artemis outward-bound objective, the South Pole is the destination. Apollo landings were in the mid-latitudes of the Moon. The longest stay on the surface during Apollo lasted three Earth days. Apollo destinations are out of the question because they would be in darkness half the time. That’s why the South Pole has been chosen where the Sun is continuously visible low on the horizon.

The South Pole terrain with its peaks, ridges and craters, provides both advantages and disadvantages. Getting around will require lunar vehicles capable of dealing with highly variable terrain. A big advantage with the Sun continuously visible will be access to uninterrupted solar power. Another advantage is the expected presence of water ice (hydrogen and oxygen) at the bottom of lunar craters. Abundant water ice means fuel and breathable air don’t have to be transported to maintain long-term habitability.

For Mars, NASA is working on developing small nuclear power generation systems. Subsurface ice on Mars will require delivering or building in-situ drilling rig and pipeline capacity.

Another challenge is the requirements for “a robust, secure communication and position, navigation, and timing system.” Apollo technology will not do. Data volume requirements will be astronomical with multiple simultaneous data streams and telemetry. The communication and data streaming challenges for Mars represent an even more significant challenge. Roundtrip communication delay will vary from 20 to nearly 45 minutes.

The energy needed to get to the Moon doesn’t compare to what will be needed for Artemis to get to Mars. The distance between the Earth and Moon varies by about 43,000 kilometres over time meaning it takes about the same amount of energy to get there and back. The closest Mars ever gets to Earth is 54.6 million kilometres. The furthest distance is 400 million kilometres. The energy requirements are highly variable depending on timing and the position of the two planets. Optimizing the best timing for a Mars mission means picking the shortest transit time and creating a waiting period on the planet for the return trip to occur at a similar optimal trajectory time.

It is difficult to believe that chemical propulsion systems will be adequate for a trip to Mars. NASA and commercial space companies are looking at alternate propulsion systems with nuclear, ion and other technologies under consideration. Perfecting these alternate methods of powering spaceflight will add years to the ready-for-mission timeline.

The architecture document for a Mars mission states, “shorter mission duration also results in shorter stay time at Mars.” What would be a shorter mission? A trajectory transit time of between 180 and 300 Earth days each way with a short stay of between 10 and 50 Earth-equivalent days on Mars, means a mission lasting two years. Lots of machine and human challenges are bound to occur when talking about such long-duration missions beyond the comparable comfort of low-Earth orbit.

Then there is food which doesn’t appear in the Moon to Mars Architecture Definition document. I’m not sure if this is an oversight or if NASA has it covered elsewhere.

Of course, Artemis objectives to reach the Moon and Mars can only come to fruition if there are three key sustainability commitments in place:

• Financial sustainability within reasonable spending limits involving both public and private capital over a long period well beyond the 4-year cycle of presidential politics in the U.S.
• Technical sustainability to provide operational capability with acceptable levels of risk, something NASA and its partners have demonstrated successfully in the past with few exceptions (the two U.S. shuttle disasters).
• Policy sustainability to provide government support in the U.S. and by other partner countries to meet long-term national and international interests.