Mars Direct

Transcription

[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]