(Capt. Grey) “Of course, Senator. I’m going to put Dr. Frederick on the spot and let her respond to your question.”
(Dr. Frederick) “Thank you. Yes, there are many different ideas regarding the best approach. All have their pluses and minuses and, as you suggest, Senator, there is certainly a direct correlation between the scale of a mission and its anticipated cost. However, with but very few exceptions, all of the current proposals for manned flight to Mars have the same fatal flaws: they require technology or systems – or both – that do not yet exist, are still in the early stages of development, have not been tested or flown or, in some cases, defy the laws of physics and exist solely in the realm of science fiction.
“Our approach is a bit more pragmatic: as Captain Grey noted previously, every system and protocol currently exists, is proven and flight tested and, to the maximum extent possible, is presently in service and commercially available. No system or procedure in our program comes with the footnotes, ‘To be invented’ or ‘This should work… in theory.’
“The widely held consensus is that multiple launches with multiple individual payloads are required. This is only logical as a single giant vehicle could not be launched in one piece, would have to be assembled in orbit and, once assembled would be of such great mass that no existing or near-term projected boost vehicle could possibly provide sufficient thrust to get it out of orbit and on its way to Mars. We certainly concur.
“Our plan involves two launch sequences approximately 26 months apart. This is necessitated by the availability of launch vehicles and facilities and, of course, launch windows based on the proximity of Earth and Mars. Our first launch cycle, scheduled for this coming December, will involve four launches from Cape Canaveral: two Atlas Vs, one Delta IV Heavy, and one Falcon Heavy.
“One of the most difficult problems in landing multiple payloads on Mars is accuracy. As you no doubt recall, the landing target for the Mars Exploration Rovers was a 150-kilometer wide ellipse, encompassing an area of more than one thousand square miles. Obviously, for a manned mission, this degree of accuracy is unacceptable as supplies and equipment would be scattered all over, some possibly out of reach or never to be found. The Mars Science Laboratory, given its Apollo-based lifting aeroshell, which provides some degree of guidance, reduced the landing target ellipse width to twenty kilometers; a dramatic improvement but still a large area. Our goal is to further improve landing precision by 50% by providing the landers with an actual electronic target. As such, in this first launch sequence, we will send up a Tactical Air Navigation system, or TACAN, to provide highly accurate omni-directional range and distance information to both incoming landers and for our own navigational reference for surface exploration missions once we are on the planet.
“Following the TACAN will come a remote control vehicle capable of autonomous operation that will retrieve cargo and equipment and relocate it to the site of our intended base of operations on the east side of the Margaritifer Basin. This rover is fundamentally based on nothing more esoteric and complex than a Kawasaki Mule utility vehicle, and will run on methane or carbon monoxide and oxygen which, except for its initial fuel load, will be produced in situ by a Sabatier reactor that will likewise arrive with the first cargo lift. Navigation, control, and collision avoidance systems on the rover were designed by the Stanford Racing Team at Stanford University and are evolved directly from their autonomous vehicle, Stanley, which, as you may recall, won the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge race. I would note, I have personally driven this rover and it works… and it’s fun. The Sabatier reactor is derived directly from the unit currently servicing the ISS and built by the same firm, Hamilton Sundstrand.
“Also in the first cargo lift will be an airlock for the surface habitat, three surface habitat modules, a surface exploration trailer, based on the Bigelow Aerospace Genesis inflatable module, two of which have successfully performed in Earth orbit for some seven years now, a complete supply of food for the entire surface mission, multiple overlapping power supplies including solar, hydrogen fuel cell, internal combustion, and radioisotope thermoelectric, and a supply of consumables to support the crew and Sabatier reactor; specifically, water, hydrogen and nitrogen to buffer the habitat atmosphere.
“I would add, all equipment will be deposited on the surface in landers evolved directly from the successful MSL and MER descent vehicles, or a combination of the two.
“At that point, all the systems and supplies necessary to support the crew’s seventeen month stay on Mars will be in place. More will come with the second launch, but even if none of that makes it, what is there at that point will be adequate.
“Only after all of that has been successfully landed and found to be operating as designed will we proceed to the actual crew launch, presently scheduled for March 2016. This will again involve multiple launches. As there currently exists no tested and proven super-heavy lift launch vehicle, the crew transport vehicle will have to be launched in four parts which will be docked in low Earth orbit then boosted into transfer trajectory by a Jupiter derived Earth Departure Stage, or EDS.
“The crew transfer vessel will include a habitat, a virtual duplicate of the Bigelow Sundancer currently in Earth orbit, the crew lander, again derived directly from MSL, and a command/service module of Apollo Program origin to provide in flight propulsion and guidance.
“Accompanying the crew in separate payloads launched directly to transfer orbit will be additional habitat modules, a second Sabatier reactor, a booster to get us out of Mars orbit and on our way home, a second rover, the ascent vehicle, and additional consumables and scientific equipment.
“The fueled ascent module is too heavy to be landed on Mars given available technology. Thus, it will be landed in pieces and assembled on the surface. This, frankly, is one of the least of our concerns. The ascent module is simplicity personified, little more than a box on a rocket motor with fuel tanks and a guidance system sufficient to get us off the surface and back into orbit where we will dock with our awaiting ship for the return home.
“Obviously Senator, there is much more to it, but that’s the Cliffs Notes version.”
(Sen. Garrett) “Thank you Dr. Frederick, very enlightening. As opposed to other manned Mars mission scenarios this Committee has heard over the years, your approach seems remarkably simple. Are you certain that for such a lengthy and dangerous mission you have not over-simplified your plan?”
(Capt. Grey) “If I may, Senator, simplification is the entire point. There is no reason to make this any more complicated than absolutely necessary. In the 1960s, NASA spent a considerable sum of money designing a pressurized ballpoint pen that would work reliably in the weightlessness of space. The Soviets used pencils. Pencils are good enough for us. They may not create jobs in the aerospace industry, but pencils are effective and reliable.”
(Chairman Stoddard) “Thank you. Senator Ramirez.”
(Sen. Ramirez) “Thank you Madam Chairman. Mr. Grey, I note that in Dr. Frederick’s detail of your mission plan there is no mention whatsoever of planetary protection. How do you propose to protect Mars from contamination by microorganisms from Earth and, more to the point, protect Earth from potentially devastating – even life ending – contamination by organisms from Mars?”
(Capt. Grey) “That is an excellent question, Senator, and I will ask our medical expert, Dr. Lú, to address it.”
(Dr. Lú) “Senator, this is a complex problem…”
(Sen. Ramirez) “Go ahead Dr. Lú, I think we’re up to the intellectual challenge.”
(Dr. Lú) “Of course, Senator, I did not in any way mean to imply the answer to your question was beyond the understanding of the Committee, only that the subject is quite involved, possessing many as yet unanswered questions and a full and complete discussion of the subject would likely exceed the time limitations of this hearing.”
(Sen. Ramirez) “Try us, Dr. Lú.”
(Dr. Lú) “Yes, of course. First, Senator, there is to date
no evidence of any life on Mars, past or present. There is some evidence – open to numerous interpretations – that environmental conditions may have existed several billion years ago under which some form of microbial life or organic precursor may have been able to evolve but, again, no evidence that it actually happened. Further, any conditions conducive to life that may have existed no longer do, as Mars is a geologically dead planet. As such, any life that may have spawned billions of years ago has long since disappeared. All evidence to date indicates that Mars is a lifeless rock. Of course, that does not mean that Mars is in fact devoid of life. One cannot prove a negative, and until we have searched every square inch of Mars, inside and out, the argument can be made that life on the planet may exist. But in all honesty, Senator, the odds are extremely remote.
“Nevertheless, we understand the public concern. With regard forward contamination of Mars by Earth-originated microbial organisms, our intent is to adhere to COSPAR guidelines as closely as is practical – Level III for the overall mission and Level IV for any instrumentation we may use in the search for Martian biologics – realizing, or course, that some degree of forward contamination is inevitable due to the fact that we are intentionally sending Earth-based life forms – humans – to the planet. There is, practically speaking, a finite limit to the level of sterilization one can perform on a human being and complete Level V isolation of the surface living habitat from the Martian environment is a practical impossibility. Even if we could maintain complete isolation during our presence on the planet, in the years following our departure, the integrity of the habitat will inevitably decline, eventually exposing the planet to whatever is in the habitat. And, if we assume that life of some form can survive for billions of years in the harsh Mars climate, there is no reason to believe it will not survive for many years within the habitat following its abandonment. The only practical solution would be that suggested in the film Aliens, ‘nuke the site from orbit,’ but we don’t view that as a viable option. Suffice to say, if we send humans to Mars – ever – forward contamination is unavoidable and inevitable.
“Nevertheless, it should be noted that every experimental attempt – every attempt – to demonstrate the survivability of Earth-borne life forms in a Martian environment has failed. 99.9% of microbial life subjected to a Martian environment dies in fifteen seconds. Anything that survives longer, does so only in a state of stasis, failing to thrive or multiply. Ladies and gentlemen, Mars is the perfect killer. It is 100% lethal. Without life support systems, it kills everything.
“Now, back contamination is a somewhat easier problem to deal with. Our intention is not to return anything that has been on the surface except ourselves. The crew will decontaminate upon entry into the return vehicle in orbit, the ascent vehicle will be jettisoned and absolutely nothing else will be returned to Earth. Further, the docking point for the ascent vehicle will be the habitat module, not the Earth reentry Command Module, thus breaking the contact chain, as the habitat module will be jettisoned prior to reentry. As far as any microbes that we, the crew, may have picked up, the trip back is seven months and, combined with our seventeen months on the planet, should prove a more than adequate incubation period. If we should contract some Martian disease, we will either become permanent Mars residents or skip reentry and spend eternity as just another piece of space junk orbiting the sun.
“And, I would note, we will come into direct contact with Martian soil, as one of our experiments will be to test, in part, the idea of terraforming, utilizing untreated native soil in a greenhouse, and it is wholly impractical to conduct this experimentation in a bio-isolated manner. If mankind is ever to colonize Mars, we may as well get used to the idea that we will have to deal with what is there.”
(Sen. Ramirez) “Dr. Lú, am I to understand that you do not intend to bring back rock samples?”
(Dr. Lú) “That is correct, Senator, no return samples.”
(Sen. Ramirez) “That’s preposterous! You would deny the scientific community such a vast source of incredibly valuable research material leaving the world nothing to go on but your say so?”
(Capt. Grey) “Excuse me, my turn. Senator, the sample return protocols and costs are simply too great. Procedures suggested by COSPAR, NEPA and the CDC are unattainable. Further, any suggestion of sample return would likely bring not only NEPA, but presidential directive PD/NSC-25 into play as well, mandating additional governmental launch approval only after a comprehensive multi-agency review and interdisciplinary analysis of all potential environmental, health, safety and even economic concerns, public hearings and, of course, the inevitable litigation. Senator, no one in this chamber will live long enough to even read the resultant environmental impact statement. It cannot be done. Samples from Mars will not likely be seen on Earth in our lifetimes. As such, we will avoid the entire morass by not doing it.”
(Sen. Ramirez) “Mr. Grey, you do understand that this is of great public concern and the regulations governing sample return exist for a very good reason, do you not?”
(Capt. Grey) “Senator, I do not recall taking issue with that point. Indeed, that being the goal, I would assert that the regulatory process is quite efficient, as it will effectively prevent the return of any samples for the foreseeable future. Senator, don’t get me wrong, we would love nothing more than to bring back boxes and boxes of samples. Their scientific value, as you note, would be invaluable. But within the current regulatory environment, it simply cannot be done.”
(Chairman Stoddard) “Thank you, let’s move on. Senator Grayson?”
(Sen. Grayson) “Thank you Madam Chairman, and thank you Dr. Lú, most enlightening. Captain Grey, I’d like to follow up on that line of testimony, if I may. Supposing just for argument’s sake that the regulatory requirements for sample return were somehow met and the cost borne by, um, someone other than you, would you then be willing to return samples?”
(Capt. Grey) “Senator, we would, of course, consider it. But we can ill afford to invest the time in participating directly in what we anticipate would be a regulatory review process of monumental proportions, nor would we be interested in sample handling protocols of such stringency that the time and effort involved would impose serious constraints on our ability to perform the other goals we have set for ourselves. Thus, Senator, it would all depend on, shall we say, the strings attached. And I might add, the regulatory process, in my opinion, would be almost inconsequential compared to the litigation that would surely follow. All of which is why we have no interest whatsoever in pursuing this matter. But if someone else wants to, be my guest. Just leave us out of it.”
(Sen. Grayson) “I completely understand and sympathize with your position, Captain Grey. I’m curious, in response to an earlier question, Dr. Frederick noted that you intend to land on Mars utilizing an MSL-like lander? MSL, as we all know, is a robotic rover. How is this going to work?”
(Capt. Grey) “Well, since Commander Nolan will be piloting the vehicle, I’ll let her explain it.”
(Lt. Cmdr. Nolan) “Senator, given the payload mass involved, the MSL is, to date, the only platform with the demonstrated ability to perform the task. In essence, we will simply replace the MSL rover with a crew module. Assuming a successful landing of our habitat modules utilizing a bent biconic lifting body aeroshell, that may well be another option. However, time constraints for design and construction of a biconic crew lander effectively preclude that option. So, we intend to go with what we know works.
“From orbit, we will utilize the native MSL cruise stage for deorbit burn and entry alignment. After we are properly aligned on the TACAN and have jettisoned the cruise stage, we will enter Mars’ upper atmosphere wherein deceleration will occur due to atmospheric friction. Owing to its offset center-of-mass, the capsule is steerable, similar to the Apollo command modules, and, using the Reaction Control System, we will continually adjust our course as necessary, homing in on the TACAN. When we have slowed to mach two, the parachute will deploy, furthe
r slowing our decent. That will be followed by jettison of the heat shield and backshell separation, and engine ignition and deployment of the descent stage, eventually bring us into a stationary hover approximately thirty feet above the planet surface. From there, the sky crane will, we hope, gently lower us to the ground.
“By that time, our rover should already be on its way to us, having been remotely informed of our landing position, and we will exit the lander and, well, wait for the bus.”
(Sen. Grayson) “Commander, I stand in awe of your courage. Are you really certain you want to do this?”
(Lt. Cmdr. Nolan) “Senator, I wouldn’t miss it for the world.”
(Chairman Stoddard) “Thank you. Senator Ellis.”
(Sen. Ellis) “Thank you Madam Chairman. Dr. Lú, I apologize for continuing to harp on this issue of planetary protection, but it is one of primary concern to both this body and the public. Isn’t it true that no matter what precautions you might take, there is a distinct possibility of both forward and backward planetary contamination, as analysis of parts returned from the Surveyor 3 probe by Apollo 12 proved conclusively that bacteria can survive in space for years?”
Margaritifer Basin (Margaritifer Trilogy Book 1) Page 28
