Margaritifer Basin (Margaritifer Trilogy Book 1) (33 page)

“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.”