“We will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars.”
-Inaugural statement by President Trump on January 20, 2024. He may want to check with NASA on the Artemis program given that the planned trip to the Moon has already cost taxpayers billions of dollars. He might also want to read a recent Politico story that discusses congressional preference for a Moon first program. The story quotes Texas Republican Brian Babin, who stated, “To bypass the moon would be a mistake.” It might also look bad to give the Moon to the Chinese long before we figure out a way to safely get to Mars. For all of Musk’s talk on this matter, the loss of a Starship rocket last week was not encouraging. We are having trouble enough getting ready to return to the Moon.
Image (Credit): An artist’s rendering of NASA’s Europa Clipper spacecraft over Europa. (NASA/JPL-Caltech)
Another list worth highlighting at year-end covers all of the space missions from 2024. For example, this list from Freethink, “the top 10 space stories of 2024,” includes the launch of the Europa Clipper, China’s Chang’e 6 round-trip to the Moon, and a successful commercial launch to the Moon (Odysseus lunar lander).
Image (Credit): The Roman god Mars. (worldhistory.org)
While Elon Musk has talked endlessly about going to Mars with his Starship, it seems the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) in the service of Mars, God of War, has other ideas for his rocket.
A recent Washington Post article, “Elon Musk’s Martian Dreams are a Boon to the U.S. military,” stated that DOD is looking to use the Starship for Earthbound battles, such as the quick deployment of soldiers and materiel into the Chinese theater. Sending rockets directly into the war zone with troops and supplies can turn a multi-week trip into a 90 minute trip. Another option is to keep key military supplies in Low-Earth Orbit so that they can be timely delivered when needed (in the way the DOD already pre-positions military equipment at sea and elsewhere).
The article states that the U.S. Air Force already has a five-year contract with SpaceX to make this rocket-based delivery possible. Space News reported on the $102 million contract award to SpaceX back in January 2022, which was to help “determine exactly what a rocket can achieve when used for cargo transport, what is the true capacity, speed, and cost of the integrated system.” A similar contract was awarded to Blue Origin in December 2021.
The space domain remains completely underdeveloped regarding providing terrestrial materiel support and offers an ideal platform to sustain smaller units of action within the joint force, which would otherwise divert aircraft or naval vessels that could be used to support larger formations…Space-based logistics can facilitate the delivery of blood, weapons, 3D-printed parts, power, and food to the joint force and has the potential for delivery time to be measured in minutes, not hours or days. The impetus for this idea can be traced to the Cold War.
The Army story makes reference to a separate 2022 The Journal of theJoint Forces Staff College article, “The World in 90 Minutes or Less: Rocket Logistics and Future Military Operations,” that discusses the pros and cons of this rocket-based approach. The article also cites numerous companies in addition to SpaceX that should be considered for this new approach, including United Launch Alliance (ULA), Rocket Lab, Northrop Grumman, and Blue Origin.
In terms of advantages, the journal article notes:
The most significant difference between Rocket Logistics and conventional methods is the speed of delivery; rockets are expected to transport tons of material across the planet in under ninety minutes by using an orbital trajectory to reduce transit time. This presents a variety of logistical options to deliver valuable cargo within tactically relevant timelines, as opposed to hours or days (e.g. fourteen hours of flight time for a plane traveling from New York City to Nairobi, Kenya). The second advantage of Rocket Logistics is that movement above 100 kilometers in altitude is not governed by national airspace regulations. This means that the rocket would only need permission to access the nation’s airspace from which it departed and the nation in which it will land.
Of course, there are some limitations, including limited launch facilities, specific fuel needs, long turnaround time, and G-forces that may limit the types of cargo carried. For instance, the journal article notes:
While cargo aircraft are relatively sedentary in their acceleration profiles, a rocket can produce more G-forces than fighter aircraft. NASA and civilian space companies recognize this and limit flight parameters for the protection of cargo. Despite acceleration limitations, G-forces must be considered when planning the operational usage of rocket cargo.
There is a lot of money to be made in wars, and potentially more ongoing demand than a risky mission to Mars. Is this the future of SpaceX? Will it become further wrapped into the military-industrial complex (with its Starlink and other assets) at the expense of missions off planet?
The planned review of NASA and other federal agencies by the Trump administration may have an answer. But one thing you can be sure of, particularly with Musk in the middle of the review, is that SpaceX will be making plenty of money whether its goal is landing on the Red Planet or defeating Red China.
Image (Credit): NASA’s Space Launch System on the tarmac. (NASA)
“To be clear, we are far from anything being settled, but based on what I’m hearing it seems at least 50-50 that Nasa’s Space Launch System rocket will be canceled.”
The Chinese Mars rover Zhurong is adding an exciting twist to the story and history of water on Mars. After landing in southern Utopia Planitia on Mars in May 2021, the now-defunct Zhurong rover went to work exploring the Martian surface, and its latest findings might just change the way we think about the Red Planet. Bo Wu and a team of researchers from Hong Kong Polytechnic University believe they’ve found compelling evidence of an ocean shoreline for a massive body of water that once covered Mars’ northern lowlands.
Something’s not quite right about the moons of Mars. They are too small — Phobos is 17 miles across, and Deimos is a mere nine miles in length. And they aren’t round, but lumpy, misshaped objects. Frankly, they don’t resemble moons at all…A study published Wednesday in the journal Icarus makes a case that the moons did indeed start out in asteroid form. But it’s not the genesis everyone was expecting. Using supercomputer-powered simulations, scientists describe a situation in which a large-enough asteroid was captured by Mars long ago and torn to shreds by the planet’s gravity, briefly forming a debris cloud — and possibly a ring system — around Mars that ultimately clumped together to form two moons.
An asteroid struck Mars 11 million years ago and sent pieces of the red planet hurtling through space. One of these chunks of Mars eventually crashed into the Earth somewhere near Purdue and is one of the few meteorites that can be traced directly to Mars. This meteorite was rediscovered in a drawer at Purdue University in 1931 and therefore named the Lafayette Meteorite. During early investigations of the Lafayette Meteorite, scientists discovered that it had interacted with liquid water while on Mars. Scientists have long wondered when that interaction with liquid water took place. An international collaboration of scientists including two from Purdue University’s College of Science have recently determined the age of the minerals in the Lafayette Meteorite that formed when there was liquid water. The team has published its findings in Geochemical Perspective Letters.
Our Awesome Universe 