wavePod

Get Wave AI

This Week in Space 153: Pathways to Mars - All TWiT.tv Shows (Audio) | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Back to All TWiT.tv Shows (Audio)

This Week in Space 153: Pathways to Mars

All TWiT.tv Shows (Audio)

Fri Mar 21 2025

With Dr. Robert Zubrin

Summary

Podcast Summary: This Week in Space 153: Pathways to Mars

Podcast Information:

Title: All TWiT.tv Shows (Audio)
Host/Author: TWiT
Description: Leo Laporte brings some of the most interesting personalities in technology together to talk about the most important issues. Fun, relaxed, informative, and always entertaining, count on TWiT for the best tech podcasts in the world.
Episode: This Week in Space 153: Pathways to Mars
Release Date: March 21, 2025

Introduction and Light-hearted Segments (00:00 - 05:04)

Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tarek Malik

The episode kicks off with Rod Pyle introducing the theme: "Pathways to Mars," and welcoming Dr. Robert Zubrin, a renowned figure in the space community and founder of the Mars Society.
Rod Pyle engages the audience with a "Mars Haiku" and a space-themed dad joke to set a relaxed and entertaining tone.

Notable Quote:

Rod Pyle [01:50]: "Red desert planet, a lonely rover crosses the sand, dreaming of Earth's blue skies."

News Segment: Crew 9 Landing and SpaceX Achievements (05:04 - 16:16)

Hosts and Dr. Robert Zubrin

The hosts discuss the successful landing of Crew 9, highlighting SpaceX's impressive splashdown operations. They address a conspiracy theory suggesting that dolphins were staged around the capsule, debunking it by explaining dolphin behavior and referencing high-resolution footage.

Notable Quote:

Dr. Robert Zubrin [06:50]: "I've seen a lot of SpaceX splashdowns, and this one off the Florida coast in the Gulf was one of the most spectacular splashdowns I've ever seen."
Isar Aerospace's Orbital Launch:
- Dr. Zubrin introduces Isar Aerospace's upcoming orbital launch from the Andøya Spaceport in Norway, marking the first orbital launch from Europe. He expresses excitement about Europe joining the space race and the potential technological advancements it brings.
Notable Quote:

Dr. Robert Zubrin [08:04]: "Whenever there's a new rocket, I get really excited because I'm like the spaceflight person."

Deep Dive: Mars Direct Mission Plan (16:16 - 28:42)

Hosts and Dr. Robert Zubrin

Tarek Malik shares his personal journey into space exploration, inspired by witnessing Sputnik at a young age and fueled by a passion for Mars as a potential site for human settlement.

Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [17:08]: "From a very young age, I became interested in space and wanting to get involved in it."
Mars Direct Overview:
- Dr. Zubrin elaborates on the "Mars Direct" mission proposal, which he co-authored. This plan advocates for a direct flight to Mars using existing technology, bypassing the need for costly space stations and advanced propulsion systems.
- The mission involves two launches: the first sends an uncrewed Earth Return Vehicle to Mars to produce return propellant on-site using Martian resources. The second launch transports astronauts to Mars, where they live in a Habitation module for a year and a half before returning to Earth.
Notable Quote:

Dr. Robert Zubrin [20:15]: "Mars Direct was a complete break with the von Braun architecture. It didn't need any space station, any on-orbit assembly, any advanced propulsion."
Reception and Impact:
- The Mars Direct plan received positive feedback from NASA centers, particularly from the conservative Marshall Space Flight Center, which appreciated its practicality.
- Despite initial enthusiasm, the plan faced pushback from proponents of space stations, leading to debates within NASA about mission priorities and funding.

NASA's Design Reference Missions vs. Mars Direct (28:42 - 53:05)

Hosts and Dr. Robert Zubrin

Critique of NASA's Approach:
- Tarek Malik contrasts the mission-driven approach of Mars Direct with NASA's vendor-driven strategies, exemplified by the Artemis program. He criticizes Artemis for its fragmented architecture, involving multiple separate projects and contractors, which leads to inefficiencies and inflated costs.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [32:07]: "Unlike Apollo, which was mission-driven, Artemis is vendor-driven, resulting in an extremely inefficient program architecture."
Dr. Zubrin's Insights:
- He discusses how the Mars Direct philosophy emphasizes simplicity and cost-effectiveness, advocating for the utilization of in-situ resources on Mars to support human missions.
- The conversation highlights the importance of aligning NASA's initiatives with clear, purpose-driven goals rather than accommodating diverse vendor interests.
Notable Quote:

Dr. Robert Zubrin [35:41]: "Administrations are fleeting. They have four years, and then space policy can flip-flop."

Budget Cuts and Their Implications for Space Science (53:05 - 57:41)

Hosts and Dr. Robert Zubrin

Threat to NASA's Space Science Program:
- The hosts address proposed significant budget cuts to NASA's space science programs, including potential reductions to prestigious missions like the James Webb Space Telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope.
- They argue that such cuts would not only hinder scientific progress but also damage America's reputation as a leader in space exploration.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [56:54]: "Destroying them is an act of vandalism against America's property and against America's reputation and against science."
Call to Action:
- Tarek Malik urges listeners to support campaigns aimed at reversing these budget cuts, emphasizing the cultural and scientific importance of maintaining NASA's legacy missions.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [53:05]: "If you care about space science or if you just care about this program, you got to insist that these cuts be absolutely reversed."

Mars Colonization and Mission Architecture (57:41 - 70:16)

Hosts and Dr. Robert Zubrin

Human Impact on Mars:
- The discussion turns to ethical considerations of introducing humans to Mars, addressing concerns about planetary protection and the potential contamination of the Martian environment with Earth-based life forms.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [44:14]: "Human values need to be based around human flourishing."
Advocating for Science-Driven Missions:
- Dr. Zubrin and Tarek Malik emphasize the necessity of robust scientific missions to Mars, arguing that human presence would vastly enhance our understanding of the planet.
- They propose leveraging SpaceX's Starship in conjunction with a smaller, specialized vehicle they refer to as the "Starboat" to optimize mission efficiency and versatility for both lunar and Martian exploration.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [63:54]: "Starship plus Starboat gives you Mars. Starship plus Starboat gives you the moon."
Political and Strategic Considerations:
- The conversation touches on the geopolitical dynamics of space exploration, particularly the competition with China. They advocate for a collaborative approach with allied nations while maintaining a competitive stance against rivals to foster innovation and leadership.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [57:41]: "We should cooperate with our true allies... but compete with China."
Future Prospects:
- Looking ahead, the hosts discuss the potential timelines for human missions to Mars, suggesting that with aggressive planning and international cooperation, crewed expeditions could commence by the early 2030s.
- Dr. Zubrin mentions his upcoming book, The New World on Mars, which delves into the specifics of colonizing the Red Planet and the societal structures that would support such endeavors.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [67:37]: "If Musk's Mars architecture involves making your return propellant methane, oxygen on Mars out of Martian water and CO2... it needs government involvement."

Conclusion

Hosts and Dr. Robert Zubrin

The episode wraps up with a call to support the Mars Society's initiatives, including their upcoming conference at the University of Southern California and promoting Dr. Zubrin's publications.
Rod Pyle and Tarek Malik encourage listeners to engage with the Mars Society's efforts to advocate for science-driven space exploration and to resist budgetary setbacks that threaten ongoing and future missions.

Key Takeaways:

Mars Direct presents a viable, cost-effective pathway to Mars, emphasizing mission simplicity and in-situ resource utilization.
NASA's current strategies, particularly the Artemis program, face criticism for being vendor-driven and inefficient compared to mission-driven approaches.
Significant budget cuts to NASA's space science programs pose a threat to established missions and America's leadership in space exploration.
Ethical considerations of human missions to Mars are debated, with a focus on scientific benefits outweighing contamination risks.
Strategic collaboration with allied nations and competitive engagement with rivals like China are essential for the future of space exploration.

Final Notable Quote:

Dr. Robert Zubrin [70:06]: "Focus on one topic at a time and make sure we're answering that question as thoroughly as possible."

Additional Resources:

Mars Society Website: mars Society.org
Books by Dr. Robert Zubrin:
- The Case for Mars
- The New World on Mars (Available on Amazon)

Connect with the Hosts and Dr. Zubrin:

Tarek Malik: Available on Space.com, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube at Space Tron Place.
Rod Pyle: Accessible at pilebooks.com, AstroMagazine.com, and the National Space Society.

Follow the TWiT Podcast Network:

Twitter: TWiT on Twitter,
Facebook: TWiT on Facebook,
Instagram: TWiT on Instagram.

This summary encapsulates the key discussions and insights from the "Pathways to Mars" episode, providing an informative overview for those who haven't listened to the podcast.

Loading summary...

Transcript

Rod Pyle (0:00)

On this episode of this Week of Space, we talk to Dr. Robert Zubrin of the Mars Society about Pathways to Mars. Stay with us.

Tarek Malik (0:09)

Podcasts you love from people you Trust. This is TWiT.

Rod Pyle (0:17)

This is this Week in Space, episode number 153, recorded on March 21, 2025. Pathways to Mars. Hello and welcome to another episode of this Week in Space, the Pathways to Mars edition. I'm Rod Pyle, editor in chief, Mad Astor magazine. I'm joined by my possibly a Martian pal, Tarek Malik, editor in chief@space.com. hello, Tarek.

Dr. Robert Zubrin (0:41)

Hello, Rod. Happy spring. Look, I got my flower shirt on because it's spring. I got my Mars shirt on because it's Mars.

Rod Pyle (0:47)

You're just trying to sneak USC colors in there because I have my Stanford flag over the alien in the background. I know how your mind works. But more important than our discussions of alma maters, today we'll be joined by Dr. Robert Zubrin, who's a very well known figure in the space community, founder and current president of the Mars Society, has authored multiple books which are very worth checking out on space exploration, other topics, and whose Mars Direct mission proposal years back helped NASA formulate its own human Mars exploration strategies. So this is going to be a big one today. Before we start, please don't forget to do us a solid and make sure to like, subscribe and other cool podcast things to keep our masters happy and keep us coming to you and in. Thanks for that. Today, in a sharp right turn, I've got Mars Haiku.

Dr. Robert Zubrin (1:38)

Mars haiku. I was. That was not on me Bingo card today. Rod, are you ready? He did. By the way, everyone, he didn't clear this with me earlier, so I don't know what's coming at all.

Rod Pyle (1:48)

So by design. Okay, you ready?

Dr. Robert Zubrin (1:50)

Yes.

Rod Pyle (1:51)

Let me see if I can get my haiku voice. Red desert planet, a lonely rover crosses the sand, dreaming of Earth's blue skies.

Dr. Robert Zubrin (2:02)

Oh, that's so sweet.

Rod Pyle (2:06)

Oh, my groupies.

Tarek Malik (2:07)

Wow.

Rod Pyle (2:08)

Tarek Malik (20:15)

Sure. In 1989, on the 20th anniversary of the moon landing, the first President Bush got up on the steps of the Air and Space Museum, flanked by Armstrong and Algen and Collins, the Apollo 11 crew, and said, you know, this is the 20th anniversary of the moon landing. That was great. That's what America's all about. And therefore, I, as president, they're committing us to go back to the moon and on to Mars and this time to stay. It's great stuff. And so in response, NASA went off and conducted a gigantic study which took 90 days to do. And so the report was called the 90 Day Report on how this might be accomplished. And what they went with was a variation on the von Braun mission architecture, which was build a giant space station to use the giant, construct gigantic interplanetary spaceships and also lunar bases and so forth, and then sell this thing off to Mars. And they set a 30 year timeline on this and a price tag of $400 billion, which immediately tanked the program in Congress from sticker shock. And I and a number of other engineers at the Martin Marietta Company, which is where I was working at that time, went to the management, we said, look, you know, this doesn't make any sense. They're designing the most complex mission they possibly can in order to make everyone's pet program mission critical. And it's killing the program. And unless someone comes up with a more sensible plan, there will be no initiative. And management agreed. And by the way, that was very brave of them because the conventional wisdom in the aerospace industry is agree with whatever NASA is saying, no matter how stupid, because they don't want to be contradicted. But the Martin management at that time said you're, you're right. And so they pulled together a team of 12 people from the whole huge Martin company, which was like a hundred thousand people, so it was 12 of us, I was one of them and it was called the scenario development team. And we were charged with coming up with an alternative plan. And because there a lot of creative spirits in this group, we could not agree with each other. And we actually came up with three different plans. And management once again thinking very clearly, did not try to reconcile all three plans into one to come up with a company line because the plans had very different philosophies behind them. They really couldn't be reconciled. And they just said, okay, we're going to float all three and we'll see which one catches fire. And the one of them that did catch fire was the one that was developed by me and another engineer named David Baker, which was the Mars Direct plan. And this was a complete break with the von Braun architecture. It was didn't need any space station, any on orbit assembly, any advanced propulsion. It was direct flight to Mars with two launches of a heavy lift vehicle comparable in capability to a Saturn V. The first would send to Mars an Earth return vehicle with no one in it. And it would then make its return propellant, methane, oxygen out of CO2 and water which is available on Mars. And then once that is done, then you shoot the astronauts out to Mars in a Hab module that flies one way to Mars. And you land it near the Earth Return Vehicle. And they use it as their house on Mars for a year and a half until the launch window opens up to go back to Earth. And then you get in the Earth Return Vehicle and you fly home. And each time you do this, you add another habitat to the base. And before you know it, you have the beginning of the first human settlement on a new world. And there was frankly nothing in this that was beyond the technology of the 1990s looked at in 1990, which is when we first set this thing forth. This was humans to Mars by 1999. And, you know, we were invited to go brief this at a variety of NASA centers. And to our surprise, actually, but very pleasant surprise, we got a very powerful reception, including at places like Marshall Space Flight center, which we have the most conservative center in NASA. They liked it precisely because this was radically conservative. They had already seen all these briefings from other people showing in giant solar electric spacecraft with kilometer square solar panels doing this and that. And they said, that's science fiction. This was Apollo times two. And in 1990, there were still a lot of people in NASA who actually had done Apollo, okay? And they said, this is something that we could do. And so it caught fire. But then it became controversial because the space station people were very upset because they felt we were de. Justifying their program. At that time, the justification being advanced for the space space station was that it was a necessary platform to build interplanetary spaceships on, and we weren't using it. So there was a big pushback. And what started as a blitzkrieg turned into trench warfare, but nevertheless, it made an impression. And then a couple of years later, Mike Griffin became associate administrator for exploration at NASA and he liked the plan. And he had me go back to Johnson Space center and say, I want you to brief them on this again and I'm going to tell them they have to listen. And they did. And so they then went and composed their own version of Mars Direct, and it was altered somewhat. Instead of two ships, it was three ships. And instead of a crew of four, it was a crew of six. And they had more of different kinds of equipment, but fundamentally it was the same philosophy. Direct flight to Mars, no on orbit assembly, no advanced propulsion, use of in situ resources, starting on the very first mission. And then the same team that costed out the 90 day report at $400 billion, costed out this new architecture at 55 billion. And then, you know, and I was there saying, well, you know, you don't need this and you don't need that. And we could get it down to 30 billion. And Carl Sagan actually intervened and he said, look Bob, it doesn't matter whether it's 50 billion or 30 billion. It matters that it's tens of billions, not hundreds of billions. Okay? And so I said, okay, yeah, okay, sure. So, and, and, and, and there, and there it was and that by Carl Sagan. And you can actually see the result of that study. That was NASA Devant Design Reference mission number three. And it's the best.

Tarek Malik (28:42)

Well, the Design Reference missions was attempts by NASA to design a Mars mission so as to see what technologies are actually needed to do it. And there were elements of DRM3 that in my opinion were not necessary because you always have this effect when you have large NASA teams that there are people there who want to make sure their pet technology is included in the script. And so there was some of that happening in Design Reference 3 Design Reference Mission 3, but much less of it than what happened in the other DRMs and the. And this is really important because this is the whole problem in NASA. If you want to know, this is the problem in Artemis right now. Okay. There's two ways NASA does things. In one case, they have a purpose driven approach in which they spend money to do things in. In other cases, they have a vendor driven approach in which they do things in order to spend money. And the vendor can be an aerospace company, it can be a NASA center, it can be a technology program, it can be a congressional district. Okay, but in other words, are you running your company to please your vendors or do you simply make minimum use of your vendors to get from them what you need to do, what you want to do do? Okay, and the problem with the Artemis program, you see, is that unlike Apollo, which was mission driven, where they said we got to get to the moon by 1969, what's the simplest way to do it? Okay, here's the plan. Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. We can do it with a Saturn 5, a command module and a LEM, and we'll design this whole thing as one piece and it all will fit together and it's going to go okay. That's how Apollo was designed, okay? They, they didn't do Apollo in order to give business to the LEM people, okay? Right. Now Artemis, on the other hand, is, for instance, has five primary flight elements, which is the sls, the Orion capsule, the Starship, the National team lander, and the Gateway. And these are five separate projects which each have been funded for their own reasons, for their own terms. And they're trying to create a mission architecture that somebody will give everybody a part in the play, okay? So it's like trying to rewrite macbeth to give the ballerina and the football star a role, okay, in the school play. And, and, and that's what you get. So it, and it becomes extremely inefficient. That is, the Artemis, unlike Apollo, is a vendor driven program, okay? And if you look around NASA at various programs, well, unfortunately it is the human space flight program which has deviated most in the direction of being vendor driven rather than purpose driven. Whereas the Science Directorate, for example, they didn't land Spirit and Opportunity on Mars in order to give money to the airbag people, okay? You know, the big airbag consortium was. No, they just for that mission, they felt the airbags was the right landing system and so they gave it to them. And if they thought they could do it cheaper with something else, they would have chose something else.

Tarek Malik (39:39)

We can have that too. But what we really have to have is a powerful science expedition so that we can show the science community the gains they can get out of not only this introduction of heavy lift that we now have here starship, but heavy landing capability. Okay. That Mars science can be improved by two orders of magnitude doing this. And now you get buy in from the science community and the university based science community. Tilts left. Okay, so now you can get Democrat support for this. Because if this is just about Musk landing his mannequin on Mars, as soon as the political fortunes of war shift, this program is dead. Okay. And by the way, this cannot be done. Musk's Mars architecture, which is a derivative of the Mars Direct mission plan, involves making your return propellant methane, oxygen on Mars out of Martian water and CO2 that requires power on the surface. And if you do it with a return vehicle as large as the starship, which is six times as large as the Earth Return vehicle that I designed for Mars direct, instead of 100 kilowatts of power, you need 600 kilowatts of power, means you got to have a nuclear reactor on the surface, surface of Mars. And that can certainly be done. We had nuclear power in this country before we had color television, okay? But it's a new development and it involves controlled materials, which means it's not going to happen at SpaceX. It needs government involvement. And so this has got to be a public private partnership. We got to bring the country together around this. And preferably I'd like to bring the free world around this, but at least we got to bring, make this bipartisan within the United States. And so by making it about science rather than Musk's fascination with the, you know, the Isaac Asimov foundation series where they put the colony on the planet Terminus so that when the Galactic Empire falls, I mean, Musk actually calls his Mars colony Terminus, you know, okay, the, the, the, the. So we get, we get out of Asimov and we get into something that the nation can buy into and in fact the world scientific community can buy into and we show everyone really a great thing that we're doing. And yes, we also, as Apollo did, astonish the world with what free people can do and re establish American leadership in space and on Earth.

Tarek Malik (44:14)

Yeah, I do. These people are not arguing ethics, they're arguing aesthetics and they're adopting an anti human aesthetic. Okay, you know, what a beautiful planet there would be if not all these ugly life forms were here, you know. You know, it's sort of like the aristocratic aesthetic. Oh, what a beautiful country this would be if not for all these ugly little shacks. This is an anti human point of view. It is not valid. Human values need to be based around human flourishing. Okay? And look, okay, they're taking a anti interference argument and they're extrapolating it into a domain where it does not work, okay? What I mean by that is, okay, when I was a kid, Christopher Columbus was a hero, okay? We had Columbus State, okay, that, you know, to the world he gave a world that that's what it. On the side of the monument to Christopher Columbus in Columbus Circle. And now in the more recent period, the people have questioned that. They said, well, you know, Columbus is pretty brutally treated. The Indians in the Caribbean, pretty bad. And look what he led to. The destruction of the Native American cultures in North America and the exterminate or near extermination of the bisons and the redwood trees and all this, okay, Now I will concede the point that in the colonization of America, for example, by Europeans, that there was a lot of value that was destroyed. There were the Native American cultures, the bisons, the redwood trees, the carrier pigeons, all that kind of stuff. On the other hand, something was Created, okay? A nation of 330 million people committed to liberty, which has invented steamboats and telegraphs and light bulbs and airplanes and nuclear power and the Internet. Okay, that. So something was destroyed. Something was greater. I happen to believe that more was created than war was destroyed. But I will admit that something was destroyed. However, if there had been nothing here when Columbus landed except an absolutely barren desert with no Native Americans, no bison, no redwood trees, no grass, nothing but some bacteria in the groundwater border, and from that we built this continental nation committed to liberty, which made all these inventions and set up all these universities and used bookstores and stuff. Okay? Would there be people picketing Columbus Day parades today? I don't think so. Okay, so this is. And, and furthermore, look, everyone, and I'm certainly with the Sierra Club on this one, if anybody proposed that we take Earth as it is now and turn it into a planet that looks like Mars, that this would be crazy. This would be a crime against life and everything. Okay, sure, I'm with you on that. And it would be an act of environmental devastation and civilizational devastation. Well, if that is true, if we take something that looks like Mars and turn it into something that looks like Earth. Earth, okay, that has got to be a tremendously constructive act, okay? If humans can make the environment worse, humans can make an environment better. Okay, you, you can't just say that whatever we do, it's wrong, okay? That's simply anti human bigotry. What? Whatever you do, any change is. Makes things worse. Okay, no, that, that has, has no validity. Now, as far as the planetary protection is concerned, there is one argument that they bring up which it's not insane, which the previous argument was, okay, but it's simply wrong, okay? Which is that it will hurt Mars science if humans go to Mars because we will let loose bacteria and then you'll never know if the microbes you found on Mars were native or if they were introduced by you. Okay, now this is a rational discussion. Russian. But they are mistaken, okay? Because look, if you go to Mars and you find microbes that are different either fundamentally or even superficially than Earth microbes, then you know you didn't bring them, okay? Now if you find microbes that are identical to Earth microbes, if they are native, they will have created residues, biomarkers, fossils. This is how we know there was life on Earth before there were people, okay? We, because we. They left behind records. This is how if you fly to Paris, you know, the French were there before you got there, because there's all these buildings Here.

Tarek Malik (58:59)

Okay. And I discussed this in some length in this article in the New Atlantis that you showed the, the listeners. Okay, the, the starship is a great reusable launch vehicle and it could be a great tanker to put into lunar orbit or Mars orbit, but it is actually defective to use as an ascent vehicle from either of those places because it is so heavy. Heavy. Okay. This is the weakness in the SpaceX mission architecture. One size fits all. And what is needed here to make this work right is something that's a lot like a Starship, but about a factor of 5 or 10 smaller. So I call it the star boat. And so, you know, I mentioned that you. If you want to get a starship to take off of Mars and fly back to earth, you need 600 kilowatts. If you used a star boat to take off Mars and go back to earth, you need 100 kilowatts. If you use the star boat to take off of Mars and go to Mars orbit. To rendezvous with a starship, you need 50 kilowatts. Okay? And the. To make the propellant. And similarly, if you put a starship in low lunar orbit and then you go back and forth to the surface with the starship starboard, which is a methane oxygen vehicle, it would use the same propellant as starship. Okay? So the starship could be a tanker for Starboat. And you go up and down with that. We could get five times as many missions for a given amount of launch activity as you can with the current architecture. You know, instead of each mission requiring, you know, four, 14, excuse me, Starship launches, you could do it with two or three and the. And do much more competent exploration of the moon. Now, I believe the system should be designed for Mars. And then you say it's designed for Mars, it can also do the moon. So therefore, the star boat would have thermal protection, which it does not need on the moon, of course, unless it wanted to actually take off the moon and fly all the way home to Earth, which is what it might do on certain occasions. But the idea is, look, in Apollo, we didn't need a space station to do Apollo, but we did use the Saturn 5 to launch the Skylab space station after we went to the moon. Interesting. So there were all these people who are running around saying, you can't go to the moon without a space station. And we said, phooey, we certainly can. And we did. But nevertheless, the space station has certain value in its own terms, okay? And by designing the Apollo hardware, we were able to do the moon and also, incidentally, do Mars. Okay. Excuse me. Also incidentally, do the space station station. Okay? And so similarly, you know, you might buy a car for certain purposes, but you can also, you know, sleep in it overnight by the side of the highway if you don't want to check into a motel. That's not why you bought the car, but it's something that it'll. You can do with it. And the, the similarly, we designed this mission architecture. Starship plus Starbucks boat gives you Mars. Starship plus Starboat gives you the moon. And we don't need the Gateway and we don't need SOS and we don't need Orion and the national lander. I believe that contract should be turned into a Starboat contract. Okay? It was ridiculous for NASA to get, okay, national team got that contract because they had sufficient pull that when the human landing system was given to starship, they yelled and they screamed, demanded they get a contract too, or they would hate NASA. And the. And so they said, fine, here's your contract. Have a good day. And NASA didn't even have the guts to say to the national team, we'll give you your, your $3 billion, but you got to use methane oxygen, so we could use you as a landing craft refueled by starship in orbit. They allowed it to be an incompatible lander, which is crazy. Okay? Since they were already funding starship, you know, it's, it's like someone going to the Air Force and say, got a new fighter plane for you, but it uses cleaning as fuel in the Air Force, instead of saying, no, we use jet fuel, saying, sure, do whatever fuel you like. So this is what you do. Okay? You, you, you, that, that contract needs to be rewritten into being a Starboat contract. And it has to be made compatible with starship in terms of the connectivities and everything to allow it to be refueled off a starship. And then with those two mission elements, you got the moon and you got Mars. Mars.

Tarek Malik (64:08)

Yes, well, a couple things. As people know, I'm the head of the Mars Society, and the Mars Society is as, as about to launch a campaign in alliance with the Planetary Society to stop these cuts in the NASA space science program. This, the science program needs to be defended in its own terms. It is the jewel in the crown of NASA and frankly, it's one of the jewels in the crown of America. Okay? That, that's what it is. It's, it's one of those things. America is controversial in many ways, but one thing we do that is universally admired is our space exploration. And it's by far the most effective part of NASA because it's the part of NASA that is purpose driven as opposed to vendor driven. Okay? So we want to save that for its own purpose. But also if it is allowed to be cut, it will, it will put the mark of Cain on the Mars initiative that Musk is trying to start. He may not see that. He is apparently a bit drugged with power right now. But believe me, this is so we, we have to make this program one that says this is not something that was used to destroy science. This is something that is going to be used to greatly increase our science beyond anything we had ever thought we could do. And so there's that. And so we want people to support that campaign. And people could start supporting that campaign right now by calling or writing their congressman and say, say no to the cuts in NASA science budget. Okay, that's, it's crazy. It should not be done. Okay, we paid for Hubble, we paid for Webb. Destroying them is an act of vandalism against America's property and against America's reputation and against science. And then secondly, the Mars Society is having its next conference at the University of Southern California, which is in Los Angeles. It's going to be October 9th through 11th. And we actually have, our call for papers is posted on the Mars Society website, mar. Society. Org right now. And so you can register for the conference and if you have an idea you want to talk with about to the conference. And we are taking abstracts on everything from near term ideas for, you know, life detection experiments to be landed on Mars or instruments, instruments to how to do a human Mars mission to how to have a human Mars city on Mars or you know, you know, in, in what the form of government should be or how to terraform Mars, everything from the near term to the furthest out. We're interested in hearing about you. You write an abstract of 300 words and if you're accepted, you get a chance to talk to the convention and, and, and possibly have be published in proceedings as well. And finally, one last thing is if you haven't read it, of course the book that explains most of my ideas on how to do missions to Mars is my book the Case for Mars. But I also have a new book out this year called the New World on Mars, which is my ideas on colonizing Mars. That is because we soon will be able to go to Mars in significant numbers. And the big question is going to be what are we going to create once we're there? And that's what I address in my book, the New World on Mars, which is on Amazon.

Summary

Podcast Summary: This Week in Space 153: Pathways to Mars

Podcast Information:

Title: All TWiT.tv Shows (Audio)
Host/Author: TWiT
Description: Leo Laporte brings some of the most interesting personalities in technology together to talk about the most important issues. Fun, relaxed, informative, and always entertaining, count on TWiT for the best tech podcasts in the world.
Episode: This Week in Space 153: Pathways to Mars
Release Date: March 21, 2025

Introduction and Light-hearted Segments (00:00 - 05:04)

Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tarek Malik

The episode kicks off with Rod Pyle introducing the theme: "Pathways to Mars," and welcoming Dr. Robert Zubrin, a renowned figure in the space community and founder of the Mars Society.
Rod Pyle engages the audience with a "Mars Haiku" and a space-themed dad joke to set a relaxed and entertaining tone.

Notable Quote:

Rod Pyle [01:50]: "Red desert planet, a lonely rover crosses the sand, dreaming of Earth's blue skies."

News Segment: Crew 9 Landing and SpaceX Achievements (05:04 - 16:16)

Hosts and Dr. Robert Zubrin

The hosts discuss the successful landing of Crew 9, highlighting SpaceX's impressive splashdown operations. They address a conspiracy theory suggesting that dolphins were staged around the capsule, debunking it by explaining dolphin behavior and referencing high-resolution footage.

Notable Quote:

Dr. Robert Zubrin [06:50]: "I've seen a lot of SpaceX splashdowns, and this one off the Florida coast in the Gulf was one of the most spectacular splashdowns I've ever seen."
Isar Aerospace's Orbital Launch:
- Dr. Zubrin introduces Isar Aerospace's upcoming orbital launch from the Andøya Spaceport in Norway, marking the first orbital launch from Europe. He expresses excitement about Europe joining the space race and the potential technological advancements it brings.
Notable Quote:

Dr. Robert Zubrin [08:04]: "Whenever there's a new rocket, I get really excited because I'm like the spaceflight person."

Deep Dive: Mars Direct Mission Plan (16:16 - 28:42)

Hosts and Dr. Robert Zubrin

Tarek Malik shares his personal journey into space exploration, inspired by witnessing Sputnik at a young age and fueled by a passion for Mars as a potential site for human settlement.

Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [17:08]: "From a very young age, I became interested in space and wanting to get involved in it."
Mars Direct Overview:
- Dr. Zubrin elaborates on the "Mars Direct" mission proposal, which he co-authored. This plan advocates for a direct flight to Mars using existing technology, bypassing the need for costly space stations and advanced propulsion systems.
- The mission involves two launches: the first sends an uncrewed Earth Return Vehicle to Mars to produce return propellant on-site using Martian resources. The second launch transports astronauts to Mars, where they live in a Habitation module for a year and a half before returning to Earth.
Notable Quote:

Dr. Robert Zubrin [20:15]: "Mars Direct was a complete break with the von Braun architecture. It didn't need any space station, any on-orbit assembly, any advanced propulsion."
Reception and Impact:
- The Mars Direct plan received positive feedback from NASA centers, particularly from the conservative Marshall Space Flight Center, which appreciated its practicality.
- Despite initial enthusiasm, the plan faced pushback from proponents of space stations, leading to debates within NASA about mission priorities and funding.

NASA's Design Reference Missions vs. Mars Direct (28:42 - 53:05)

Hosts and Dr. Robert Zubrin

Critique of NASA's Approach:
- Tarek Malik contrasts the mission-driven approach of Mars Direct with NASA's vendor-driven strategies, exemplified by the Artemis program. He criticizes Artemis for its fragmented architecture, involving multiple separate projects and contractors, which leads to inefficiencies and inflated costs.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [32:07]: "Unlike Apollo, which was mission-driven, Artemis is vendor-driven, resulting in an extremely inefficient program architecture."
Dr. Zubrin's Insights:
- He discusses how the Mars Direct philosophy emphasizes simplicity and cost-effectiveness, advocating for the utilization of in-situ resources on Mars to support human missions.
- The conversation highlights the importance of aligning NASA's initiatives with clear, purpose-driven goals rather than accommodating diverse vendor interests.
Notable Quote:

Dr. Robert Zubrin [35:41]: "Administrations are fleeting. They have four years, and then space policy can flip-flop."

Budget Cuts and Their Implications for Space Science (53:05 - 57:41)

Hosts and Dr. Robert Zubrin

Threat to NASA's Space Science Program:
- The hosts address proposed significant budget cuts to NASA's space science programs, including potential reductions to prestigious missions like the James Webb Space Telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope.
- They argue that such cuts would not only hinder scientific progress but also damage America's reputation as a leader in space exploration.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [56:54]: "Destroying them is an act of vandalism against America's property and against America's reputation and against science."
Call to Action:
- Tarek Malik urges listeners to support campaigns aimed at reversing these budget cuts, emphasizing the cultural and scientific importance of maintaining NASA's legacy missions.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [53:05]: "If you care about space science or if you just care about this program, you got to insist that these cuts be absolutely reversed."

Mars Colonization and Mission Architecture (57:41 - 70:16)

Hosts and Dr. Robert Zubrin

Human Impact on Mars:
- The discussion turns to ethical considerations of introducing humans to Mars, addressing concerns about planetary protection and the potential contamination of the Martian environment with Earth-based life forms.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [44:14]: "Human values need to be based around human flourishing."
Advocating for Science-Driven Missions:
- Dr. Zubrin and Tarek Malik emphasize the necessity of robust scientific missions to Mars, arguing that human presence would vastly enhance our understanding of the planet.
- They propose leveraging SpaceX's Starship in conjunction with a smaller, specialized vehicle they refer to as the "Starboat" to optimize mission efficiency and versatility for both lunar and Martian exploration.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [63:54]: "Starship plus Starboat gives you Mars. Starship plus Starboat gives you the moon."
Political and Strategic Considerations:
- The conversation touches on the geopolitical dynamics of space exploration, particularly the competition with China. They advocate for a collaborative approach with allied nations while maintaining a competitive stance against rivals to foster innovation and leadership.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [57:41]: "We should cooperate with our true allies... but compete with China."
Future Prospects:
- Looking ahead, the hosts discuss the potential timelines for human missions to Mars, suggesting that with aggressive planning and international cooperation, crewed expeditions could commence by the early 2030s.
- Dr. Zubrin mentions his upcoming book, The New World on Mars, which delves into the specifics of colonizing the Red Planet and the societal structures that would support such endeavors.
Notable Quote:

Tarek Malik [67:37]: "If Musk's Mars architecture involves making your return propellant methane, oxygen on Mars out of Martian water and CO2... it needs government involvement."

Conclusion

Hosts and Dr. Robert Zubrin

The episode wraps up with a call to support the Mars Society's initiatives, including their upcoming conference at the University of Southern California and promoting Dr. Zubrin's publications.
Rod Pyle and Tarek Malik encourage listeners to engage with the Mars Society's efforts to advocate for science-driven space exploration and to resist budgetary setbacks that threaten ongoing and future missions.

Key Takeaways:

Mars Direct presents a viable, cost-effective pathway to Mars, emphasizing mission simplicity and in-situ resource utilization.
NASA's current strategies, particularly the Artemis program, face criticism for being vendor-driven and inefficient compared to mission-driven approaches.
Significant budget cuts to NASA's space science programs pose a threat to established missions and America's leadership in space exploration.
Ethical considerations of human missions to Mars are debated, with a focus on scientific benefits outweighing contamination risks.
Strategic collaboration with allied nations and competitive engagement with rivals like China are essential for the future of space exploration.

Final Notable Quote:

Dr. Robert Zubrin [70:06]: "Focus on one topic at a time and make sure we're answering that question as thoroughly as possible."

Additional Resources:

Mars Society Website: mars Society.org
Books by Dr. Robert Zubrin:
- The Case for Mars
- The New World on Mars (Available on Amazon)

Connect with the Hosts and Dr. Zubrin:

Tarek Malik: Available on Space.com, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube at Space Tron Place.
Rod Pyle: Accessible at pilebooks.com, AstroMagazine.com, and the National Space Society.

Follow the TWiT Podcast Network:

Twitter: TWiT on Twitter,
Facebook: TWiT on Facebook,
Instagram: TWiT on Instagram.

This summary encapsulates the key discussions and insights from the "Pathways to Mars" episode, providing an informative overview for those who haven't listened to the podcast.