Mars Direct 3 | A Proposal for SpaceX's Mars Program | Miguel Gurrea

Mars Direct 3 is a Mars mission architecture developed by Miguel Gurrea with permission and based on the work of Dr. Robert Zubrin and the technology of SpaceX, and is intended to be a serious proposal for SpaceX. The concept has and may continue to evolve and adjust based on feedback. The paper, presentations and video have been published by The Mars Society with permission.
To read the full paper, click here: www.marspapers....
Intro music "Andor 1975" by Auralnauts: fanlink.to/And...
For more Mars Direct 3 content, you may visit: / @marsdirect3
You may contact the author on Twitter at: @Xene1042
If you are interested in hiring any of the animators, you may contact them at:
Gustavo Higón: [e-mail]
Juan Rodríguez: [e-mail]

[@antonnym214]

Where we land is just as important as how we land. I like the Noctis Labyrinthus region at the west end of Valles Marinaris because there's a giant glacier there and it is near the equator and the terrain is sufficiently low elevation to provide relatively good atmospheric pressure.

[@MarsDirect3]

It's an interesting option

[@KennyG_420]

Woah, didn’t even think of that area. You’ll have access to water/ice and be just little warmer closer to the equator…

[@placeholdername0000]

The problem with mini Starship is that it is a waste of development time. It will only be needed for the first few years, and after that it can be retired. It would be better to spend the money on extra Starships and send them on a one way trip to Mars. That way you can refuel the Starship using either methane or hydrogen brought from Earth. Better yet, fuel can be delivered to the orbit of Mars, which will allow for a partially refueled Starship to launch to Mars orbit, where it can be refueled.

[@Damian-Church-NZ]

It's like having a small truck to do a big job... not the best idea.

[@ErnestCF]

Yeah but a high number of launches ads complexity and risk also the Mini Starship ads a lot of safety to the ecuation

[@placeholdername0000]

@@ErnestCF Not really, it's another vehicle that you have to prove.

[@SeanReed-ls5dl]

Tbh at the rate SpaceX is working mini starship might as well be a drop in the bucket

[@matthewakian2]

That mini Starship is a really nice design.

[@MarsDirect3]

Thanks! The merit goes to Gustavo Higón

[@jaceksiuda]

This is one of the most well-thought presentations I've seen, I could locate only a few issues: * I can't see any considerations about the energy necessary to keep the fuel liquid long-term. I hope to find that in the paper. * Starship requires man-rating to land the Caravel, thus later argument that it is cheaper to man-rate the Caravel rather than the Starship becomes void. * Designing and man-rating a new ship is orders of magnitude more complex and expensive than producing and launching an already man-rated one (vide: SLS). * Putting the Caravel inside the Starship cargo bay is a no-go for NASA AFAIK. This may change somewhat later, but not soon enough I'm afraid.

[@MarsDirect3]

Thank you! 1- You're right. I'm not an engineer and this is not my area of expertise. However, given that the fuel is there before the astronauts even launch and the energy infrastructure is there, the entire energy infrastructure could be devoted to keeping it cryogenic. I'm quite confident that it can do it with a lot less power than it needed to create the fuel in the first place. If this plan is considered, more detailed planning should go into this, for sure. But I'm confident that it isn't an issue. At least not in terms of power. 2- That is a valid point. In the upcoming Moon Direct video I address this (I should've done it in this one too). If the Starship isn't trusted for the job, a Crew Dragon can launch inside of it, dock with the Caravel and land the astronauts while the Starship lands the empty ship. These details should also be discussed if the plan is considered. It depends on what SpaceX decides, and I didn't want to spend too much time delving into many posibilities that end up just depending on what they decide. I leave it to them. 3- SLS is expensive and unsustainable. 2 launches of the SLS cost less than crew-rating a vehicle. I think the Caravel would be easier to crew-rate than the full-size Starship. 4- Safe rocket + escape system is designed for when rockets launch just a few times and aren't very reliable. SpaceX hopes to launch hundreds of Starships before they launch a single human. Hopefully that'll convince them.

[@antonnym214]

This is a tremendous plan with a lot of good thinking about redundancies and contingencies. All good wishes.

[@MarsDirect3]

Thanks!

[@ErnestCF]

Please send this plan to SpaceX!!!

[@theOrionsarms]

The launch phase that includes orbital refueling and maneuvering into elliptical orbit seems unnecessary complicated, much simpler would be to put the "Caravelle" on top of a non-reuseble starship as a third stage, that would allow sending such vehicles directly to Mars, and if the capacity of 250 tonnes into LEO for a non-reuseble starship is a realistic expectations, seems to be a simpler and maybe cheaper solution.

[@MarsDirect3]

Sure, could be done. But it would be a lot more expensive. You'd be loosing a Starship and Super heavy.

[@theOrionsarms]

@@MarsDirect3 how much would cost one expandable launch versus multiple reuseble isn't clear, but are another two possible advantages first you're not constrain to the size and the shape of starship cargo bay, so you can chose a better shape(and size to) that fit for that specific purpose, and second you can put a escape system on that upper stage that would allow vehicle to be human rated, even one of those things alone can justify a higher price. PS also depending on configuration in some cases superheavy can be reusable, for example if you choose to use the single raptor as a abort method,then you can't launch that smaller third stage fully loaded with propellant,in that case total mass would be around 100 tons, so you only loose middle stage, and obviously you need to refill in orbit, but if that version would have slightly enlarged tanks that refilling can be made into LEO and still being simpler and more reliable than one in a eccentric orbit.

[@MemeMan_MEMESQUAD]

This is a very strange plan. Mars direct was a product of constraints that Starship was specifically designed to eliminate. All this extra hardware development seems like more of a hassle than just sending more Starships.

[@Reyajh]

A beautiful proposal! I hope whichever plan is ultimately implemented is at least as robust. For, as you have clearly reminded, failure will likely cause another 50 years delay. Who knows, we wasted 50+ years after multiple successes.

[@fernandobernardo6324]

What's the hurry?

[@user-qf6yt3id3w]

It's an interesting point that even though the astronauts are willing to die the people planning the mission should not allow it to happen.

[@mattybirchall]

Excellent video and well thought through plans. I wondered about 3 other options here - the first would be to use an expendable starship to deliver the mini-starship to LEO with full tanks; the second would be the send 2 starships with circa 90 tonnes of propellant each to Mars so that there would be no need for any ISRU on the first trip; and then thirdly, how about sending both mini-starships at the same time for back-up on the journey and prior to landing plus the option to tether them together for artificial gravity (return with only 1 mini starship still applies though).

[@MarsDirect3]

Thank you! An expendable Starship could absolutely deliver a fully fueled Caravel to LEO, and maybe even to HEO. But, since Starship relies on reusability, three reusable launches seem like a better option than an expendable one. It's for SpaceX to decide. Sending fuel to Mars is fine, and sending the whole requirement is an option (though boiloff may be a problem). However, since oxygen ISRU doesn't require finding any specific resource (just CO2 is fine), I think it's fine to just send the methane. I don't know precisely what you mean by back-up on the journey. Artificial gravity would certainly be nice, but sending both Caravels at once can be problematic. For instance, in which launch window would that be? There would be no testing to see if it can land before launching humans in it. And besides, how to rendevouz them on the way? This could be complicated, since they can't be launched together in one launch.

[@Chris.Davies]

Problem is this: A SpaceX Starship will never land on another body in our solar system. Thinking it will shows a very serious lack of ability to actually think, or to understand what's involved. Anyone attempting to travel to Mars on a Starship is already dead.

[@timtruett5184]

Assertions without reasons are worthless.

[@sakiraDelusu]

Spring romnia 1 minut fac nopta pe marte apoi fac siua egel Gabriel bursann fesbook

[@MarsDirect3]

Hi everyone! I hope that you liked the presentation. I've answered a few questions in the comments, in case you want to check those out. For instance, about the animation showing an astronaut with a Russian flag: The animation was made before the war I'm afraid. It was added by the animator to have some diversity. I thought about asking him to change it, but he'd already helped me too much 😅

[@wikkid1show569]

Mini Starship will serve a greater purpose. It will have 3 operational programs. The Mars moon is one the second is orbital repair or maintenance of the satellites for optimal performance. The third is the most important because landing on Mars with Starship is a whole new ball game .Gravity and Atmosphere are the biggest problem which will take another exciting turn in the mathematics and rate of fuel consumption , also necessary would be the amount. Until then, mini is the better option and they may even add Parachutes just like crew Dragon. Many factors aren't so easy

[@Arch757]

@@wikkid1show569 I think you answered to the wrong comment. Your answer is better suited for the user above this one.

[@matthewakian2]

Very interesting presentation.

[@MarsDirect3]

Thanks!

[@dalechristopher3917]

I mean… i like the design, but it seems redundant. Starship would already exist and be able to perform whatever role the mini starship could, and wouldnt require the development of another type of ship. Just do it with Starships o_O

[@mkMacHaShaBoWThworkshop]

I love this, This Makes sense, Elon would do well to take into consideration this concept.

[@MarsDirect3]

Thanks!

[@vantongerent]

There’s so many things to love about this plan, but I do think the ship names will be rejected (not everyone loves Christopher Columbus). Seems like we should just use fresh names for a fresh start on a new planet.

[@MarsDirect3]

The names are definitely the least important part about MD3 haha

[@wingsley]

This was a truly fascinating presentation. Both Mars Direct III mission reviews (either deploying the "Caravel" "mini-Starship", or the Starship-only version) are impressive and thoughtful. There are a couple of fuzzy areas that weren't really covered: (1: While the proposed "Caravel"-class spacecraft reminds me of SpaceX's Starhopper pathfinder test craft, I'm not clear on whether either SpaceX and/or NASA would be interested in fully developing such a vessel. If both or either of them did, they could take what they learned from the current pending Artemis HLS Starship project and scale it down to Caravel. But this would also bring up other issues: Could this Caravel be refueled in space? And could it be launched atop other rockets than just SpaceX's Starship booster? Could a Falcon Heavy be used to launch an empty Caravel from Earth? Or Blue Origin's New Glenn? (2: I've watched some earlier speeches that Dr. Zubrin made. In earlier talks on Mars Direct and Mars Semi-Direct, he mentioned connecting two ships, or an HLS ship and an expended booster, via long tether that would be hundreds of meters in length. Zubrin proposed using the tether in a spinning simulated-gravity scenario for the health of the astronauts. This spin-in-flight activity was not mentioned in this video. Has it been discarded? Dr. Zubrin seemed to suggest that this spin-in-flight activity was an important component for the crew. It looks like the Starship-only mission could make spin-in-flight possible. Could it work in the Caravel version as well? (3: These mission simulation scenarios go at length to discuss ways to avoid risk of mission breakdown/failure, outlining several contingencies including Martian dust storms. What I did not see is an evaluation of how deploying and using so-called "kilopower" atomic reactors to enhance the mission's power component could further safeguard the mission from dust storms. I'm just a layperson with no background to aerospace but it looks to me like a Mars mission without kilopower reactors is essentially a crippled and more-vulnerable one. I am also unclear as to how kilopower reactors could be protected from dust storms. Is there a way? (4: This Mars Direct III simulation video is excellent, but it has one key mission omission: visiting the Martian moons. Why risk astronauts' lives, spending all that time and effort, to visit the Martian surface, and pass right by the Martian moons? Phobos and Diemos are like very large asteroids. Visiting both, or either, of these moons would give NASA valuable experience in exploration of very small planetoid-like bodies, and be useful in preparing for a day when astronaut-explorers, or space-industrial operators, will want to explore and/or exploit other near-Earth asteroids. If an expedition can land on Mars, why not plan a simulation of a Caravel or Starship gently landing on a Martian moon? (5: NASA seems to be leaning toward the 2030s or later for the timing of a possible Mars mission and seems to be hinting at a dual-mode atomic rocket for a new class of interplanetary vehicle. NASA and others also talk about sending a task force of robotic construction machines to build ISRU-based regolith-concrete base-camp shelters to house inflatable base-camp habitat modules. [ kzbin.info/www/bejne/o6Lcg3h8esSVjdU ] There's no clear indication if this is actually going to happen or if it's all just hot air. But if any, or all, of this does come to pass, could any of the intensive planning done on Mars Direct III be developed to harness all of this gee-whiz technology and make the mission better, safer and more worthwhile? Given how long it took just to get the boondoggle SLS vehicle for Artemis I off the launchpad, I'll believe astronauts are going to the Moon when I see it happening... Thanks again for this great presentation and keep up the good work. At least someone is trying to accomplish something constructive.

[@MarsDirect3]

Thanks for the interest! These are great questions. 1- The presentation is a proposal so that NASA or SpaceX may become interested in the developement. Whether the Caravel can refuel in space or not I leave to them if they decide to develop it. The plan works either way. The Caravel would be too wide for Falcon Heavy, but could be launched atop a New Glenn with little fuel, most likely. 2- It's not like I've discarded it, but I haven't made it a priority. In the original Mars Direct, the teather connected the ship to an expended upper stage. There is no expended upper stage to teather to in MD3, since the Caravel is launched by a Starship and starships land back on Earth. Given the long stay on Mars (no rush to set foot the first day) and our experience in the ISS, I haven't prioritized it too much. Zubrin didn't include it in Mars Direct 2 either. But I would be open to ideas if someone thinks of a practical solution. 3- It's not like reactors would enhance the power. I just presented two different scenarios, one with reactors and the other with solar. As far as I know, dust storms are not a problem for nuclear reactors. The thing is, MD3 presents a way to survive dust storms even if only solar is used. Though, if they work well, I'd prefer reactors. I just wanted the mission to be doable and safe even if reactors aren't available. 4- I think I agree with Zubrin in saying that the Martian moons offer very little interest in comparison to Mars. MD3 is a missin to Mars. I think missins to explore those moons could be done from Mars once fuel production is steady, but I disagree that they should be a priority. I think missions to the moons of Mars have been proposed to cover for the incapacity to land on Mars of some other mission architectures. First comes Mars, then the asteroids. MD3 is a specific mission architecture for the first Mars mission or missions. If NASA or SpaceX decides to visit other places, another plan is needed for that. 5- NASA hasn't been too reliable when it comes to long term planning for human missions to Mars. They change plans too often. I don't think they'll settle until there is a clear way of doing things. MD3 can benefit from many such technologies, though I don't think it's necessary to have the infrastructure other than the fuel there before astronauts arrive. The first crews have habitats in the form of their ships, and they can build bases brought by the huge cargo capacity of the Starship. Sending a few robots to build habitats there is a mentality useful for when cargo capacity is extremely limited. With Starship that isn't the case. The first habitats and modules can be brought from Earth no problem. ISRU for consctruction starts to make sense in the long term.

[@orbitsix]

Much better to set up a logistics base on Phobos, importing a large amount of ammonia (mainly as a means of getting hydrogen). Decouple transits between Earth and Mars from the transits between orbit and the surface.

[@saturn7_dev]

Interesting video. I've just been thinking how a live broadcast of all mars exploration and achievement and loss would be very interesting to watch on any human expeditions (yes, 30 min delay I know). Sadly, real world politics and human "face saving" cover ups would never allow for such a thing - no not ever. You would never be allowed to view and hear live broadcasts from Mars on all their success and failures but only successes mainly due to human pride and the need for accomplishment. You wont be allowed to view people dying slow deaths from radiation or crashes or other accidents live without massive editing.....just my thoughts atm...we humans are very sensitive to hurt feelings and loss of pride...we would mainly see all the achievements after being edited. I still prefer the truth, the whole truth and nothing less imo...

[@GtDowns]

The thing that I don't like about the 'mini' Starship is that it isn't very good for much more than a 'flags and footprints' type of mission. Most of the risks mentioned in this video can be addressed by sending some number of cargo Starships ahead of the crewed flight(s). This would get multiple redundant copies of rovers, drilling equipment, solar panels (or nuclear reactors) and Sabatier reactors.

[@MarsDirect3]

That is also expensive. I makes the logistics more messy and increases the scale of everything a lot. But it’s doable too

[@pauldannelachica2388]

This is very cool

[@MarsDirect3]

Thanks!

[@Upuauta]

35:09 Not with an russian astronaut included I hope!

[@MarsDirect3]

The animation was made before the war I'm afraid. It was added by the animator to have some diversity. I thought about asking him to change it, but he'd already helped me too much 😅

[@PaulSpades]

why not? what about a taikonaut?

[@gagarinone]

Why is this so important!? In 10,000 years, all our human constructs like national borders will be forgotten. At best, our survivors will still be around then. If we fail, the cockroaches will probably rule.

[@Upuauta]

@@gagarinone It´s not important in 10000 years (humans will be gone by then). But it is something that is quite important in this time. But of cause it is a bit off topic for this otherwise very good viideo, I understand.

[@bubbajones6907]

I would expect SpaceX will have specialised tankers deployed permanently in orbit, with extra large tank capacity, no flaps, no reentry shield, just a sun shield. It would make sense to use NTR engines to push these tankers when full, into a higher orbit, or even Mars orbit.

[@MarsDirect3]

Not sure if that could work

[@karlthemel2678]

Mars Direct always existed in a vacuum. There were no launchers! SLS lacks payload capacity, and Super Heavy/Starship lacks a third stage for interplanetary insertion. There still is no launcher for refilling a Starship with 1100 t of propellants.

[@MarsDirect3]

SLS could do the original Mars Direct. And, as explained here, there is no need for a third stage in MD3. In a sense, the Caravel is the third stage.

[@Peoples_Republic_of_Cotati]

What progress is there with the in orbit refueling step? It seems to be a big unanswered problem.

[@MarsDirect3]

What do you mean? On orbit refueling is necessary so that Starship can do part of the burn.

[@Peoples_Republic_of_Cotati]

@@MarsDirect3 how exactly is fuel transfered to another tank while in microgravity?

[@MarsDirect3]

@@Peoples_Republic_of_Cotati Oh, I see. I leave that to the engineers at SpaceX.

[@erickay123]

@@Peoples_Republic_of_Cotati Someone said all it takes is a little 'push' and the transfer from full to empty can be done passively

[@archigoel]

most of the earlier missions will be Human-free, and will probably have OPTIMUS robots. You have a whole Herd of robots working to prepare the site, all of them controlled by AI. They may need a Nuclear power to recharge, but they can effectively be an immortal workforce.

[@MarsDirect3]

Would be great if possible. I'm not saying it isn't, but MD3 doesn't rely on it

[@stevej7139]

I know this is a month ago so it's no surprise you didn't know about the Raptor 3 engine running at 350 bar chamber pressure it produces 269 tons of thrust while losing 200kg of mass, somewhat more than the Raptor 2 at 230 tons of thrust and lighter at the same time. I don't think there will be a shortage of Starships by the time a Mars mission happens there will be at least 5 ships or more available to go there with at least 2 already there waiting.

[@MarsDirect3]

If the engine is better, MD3 becomes even more viable. And, if sending many Starships isn't a problem, MD3 Starship-only could be a great option

[@karlthemel2678]

NASA never agrees to a crewed launch without a launch aboard system, same with the launch of nuclear reactors. Remember the Challenger?!

[@MarsDirect3]

SpaceX plans 100+ uncrewed launches before the first crewed one. A vehicle with a 99.9% safety rate is safer than one with an 95% safety rate and an 80% safe launch abort system. It’s all about how safe the overall system is. Reusability allows for a lot more practice, it will slowly become similar to air travel.

[@chadleach6009]

If spacex is already landing on the planet then they don't care about how much fuel it takes, assuming they are able to produce it there. The addition of a smaller craft just adds needless complexity to an already complex task.

[@MarsDirect3]

The key is in that "assuming they are able to produce it there (they way they intend to)". It adds a lot of risk, as it isn't guaranteed. "Assuming the car doesn't crash", there is no need for seatbelts.

[@vernepavreal7296]

Great presentation very thought-provoking I have one question is liquid oxygen also delivered along with the 45 tons of liquid methane? Cheers

[@MarsDirect3]

Thanks! No, it isn’t. The idea is to get rid of the need to take water from underground to take the hydrogen. The oxygen is produced automatically via collecting CO2 from the atmosphere. It should be ready before the astronauts launch from Earth.

[@iamarokotmanson]

Could you link the presentation document again? The one in the description isn't working for me

[@MarsDirect3]

The one in the description works for me, I just checked. But, in any case, here it is again. Hope it helps: www.marspapers.org/paper/Gurrea_2021.pdf