In order to achieve the first human mission to Mars, there are four analyzed pathways in

the Campaign Perspective. Create a comparison of the four (4) pathways, and describe the

advantages and challenges of the in-space transportation elements for each pathway.

Each pathway provides a viable approach to a sequential build up in readiness for a

mission to Mars. The success of each pathway first relies on the completion of objectives that

prove the capabilities of equipment and devices that will be needed for long term missions to

mars and determine the extent to which humans can operate in microgravity and deep space

environments. The foundation of each pathway relies on “Exploration activities in low Earth

orbit (LEO) [to] address whether humans can live and operate for approximately 1,000 days in

microgravity.” (EMC, Page 3) To live and operate in microgravity and deep space environments

like mars will require the development of many new pieces of technology and life support

devices. By utilizing the ISS, the effects of microgravity and long duration missions in space on

humans can be analyzed in a controlled environment.

The development of new technology in LEO will then lead to the ability to test the

knowledge and capabilities developed on the ISS in the Proving Ground phase. In this phase the

objective is “to demonstrate the ability to live and work beyond LEO.” (EMC, Page 3) Similar to

the LEO Phase but to a greater extent, the proving ground phase will allow NASA to validate

key elements that will be needed to support missions to deep space environments.

Among the 4 pathways stated, the last 2-3 phases differ in the chosen destination as well

as overall mission objectives and the duration of the mission. Because each phase after cislunar

space requires the completion of different objectives, the materials needed to support them will

differ, and the time frames for completing these objectives will not be the same. “Changes in

assumptions for mission timing, initial destinations, partners, pace of capability development,
objectives, and budget may result in significantly different concepts.” (EMC, Page 3) Each

pathway provides a way to study the environments of Mars, but the equipment needed to support

crewed missions for each pathway is quite varied, as is the time frame by which each objective

must be completed.

While each pathway would result in very different programs, the goal of each pathway is

still fundamentally the same; through eventual continued missions to Mars, become increasingly

less dependent on mission control assistance and maintain autonomous operations in the Martian

environment. According to the EMC “To become Earth Independent, humans will increasingly

become less dependent on assistance from mission control and increase their autonomous

operating capability. This begins with mission focus on human access to the Mars system,

without requiring surface access.” (EMC, Page 4) The Next step of each pathway is to complete

some type of near mars mission that does not include landing on the surface of mars. “There are

several alternative approaches for this phase, which include going only to Mars orbit […], a light

touch at Phobos (a short duration stay at Phobos with the remainder of time in Mars orbit), a

more comprehensive Mars moon exploration […], or skipping the phase altogether and

proceeding directly to the Mars surface.” (EMC, Page 4) Pathway 1 and 2 allow NASA to prove

descent systems by landing on the moon of mars, Phobos, as well as prove the capacities of crew,

and capabilities of the equipment used for either short duration (pathway 2) or long duration

(pathway 1) missions. “Human missions to Mars’s moons would result in the development and

operation of new technologies, systems, and operational concepts, many of which will be

required for eventual Mars surface missions, without the added complexity and risk associated

with Mars descent, ascent, and long-duration surface systems and operations.” (EMC, Page 4)

Pathway 1 and 2 provide a way to reduce potential hazards associated with future missions to
Mars surface. The crew will need habitation systems that will need to fulfill a variety of different

requirements. Habitation systems that are to be used for in space transportation will be needed,

as well as those that can fulfill the role of short duration habitation systems while on Phobos. In

the case of pathway 1, long duration habitation systems will be needed. “These habitats each

support a crew of four, providing all required logistics and spare items and varying amounts of

power generation, power storage, and extra-vehicular activity (EVA) functionality for each

mission.” (EMC, Page 4) Pathway 1 (and to a lesser but significant extent pathway 2) would

provide an opportunity to test many critical systems that would be needed in future long term

missions to mars.

Pathway 3 (Mars flyby) and Pathway 4(Mars orbit) provide alternate options to explore

the Martian environment that allow NASA to focus on proving the in space transportation

systems and short duration habitation systems, while delaying the cost and development of

descent, landing, ascent, and long term habitation systems that will be need for missions to mars

surface. In the case of pathway 3, missions to Phobos will take place which pushes surface

missions to Mars to a later date. Pathway 3 represents a more incremental build up to a presence

on Mars and allows NASA to focus more on individual components critical to each phases of a

the pathway. For example, during the fly by the in space transportation systems are proven, in

the next phase short term habitation is proven by landing and staying on Phobos for 2-4 weeks,

and in the last phase long term habitation is proven by landing on Mars. Phase 4 also provides

NASA with the opportunity to test descent, ascent and landing systems in an environment in

deep space near mars that uses fewer resources than landing on mars itself.

Pathways 1, 3, 4 lead up to long duration missions to the mars surface, while pathway 2

culminates on a short duration mission to mars. All of the pathways will potentially lead to
continued human missions to Mars and potentially a permanent human presence on Mars. “Once

a sufficient number of Mars system missions are completed, addressing access to the Martian

surface and whether humans can break the supply chain with Earth to enable a sustained

presence on the surface of Mars is the next step.” (EMC, Page 4) The ultimate goal is to be able

to transport just the crew needed to complete mission objectives, and have that crew rely on their

capabilities to extract resources from the Martian environment with previously established

infrastructure.

Among the 4 pathways the challenges of in space transportation (IST) differ somewhat in

relation to the requirements needed to support the mission objectives for each pathway. Each

pathway could potentially use multiple IST approaches or could use the same IST approach for

each phase. Each pathway is also affected by the max lifetime of the elements used in a mission

and the need to have resources needed for a return trip from Mars in orbit before any crew leaves

earth. “The MCPS maximum lifetime in the SEP-Chemical campaign is 9 years and the

maximum lifetime in the All Chemical is 6 years. These are determined by the desire to

preposition the return stages in Mars vicinity prior to crew departure from the Earth’s sphere of

influence.” (EMC, Page 13) The main difference then in each pathway’s choice of IST is due to

the type of propulsion used to place return stage elements near Mars.

Pathway 1 requires in space transportation to support its 3rd phase mission to Phobos (full

duration), and its 4th phase long duration mission to Mars surface. During both phases the “SEP-

Chemical” approach (EMC, Page 5) could be used as IST to deploy mission equipment, and the

chemical return stage resources. The chemical part of this system uses a methane cryogenic

propulsion stage (MCPS) which relies on the same engines used in the descent and ascent

vehicles. The commonality among equipment for different missions reduces cost. Compared to a
hybrid IST approach, the SEP-Chemical concept has a reduced max lifetime of 8 years less (6

years for SEP-Chemical). (EMC, Page 13). The hybrid approach is another potential option that

combines “components of two 159 kW ARM-derived EP systems are integrated into the HPS…”

(EMC, Page 5) With this option the cargo and crew transport systems share a common design

and require only 1 mars-capable IST vehicle. One downside is that this approach require the

development of new technologies for refueling the chemical portion of this IST system.

Compared to the other three pathways, pathway 1 requires the greatest expenditure of resources

for use on the surface of mars and its moon.

Pathway 2 also requires in space transportation to support its 3rd phase mission to Phobos

(short duration), and its 4th phase short duration mission to Mars surface. Because the missions

are shorter they would require less fuel to transport required materials. Like pathway 1, these

missions could also make use of either the Hybrid or SEP-Chemical approach or a combination.

A benefit of the hybrid approach is that it has more potential for reuse. “The Hybrid approach

has the potential for reuse of in-space transportation elements, however this requires refueling of

the SEP and bi-propellant systems in cislunar space before transit to Mars and after returning

from Mars for use on future missions.” (EMC, Page 5) While there are many benefits to the

capability of refueling the systems in orbit they must be weighed against the risks to crew that

operate them. The SEP-chemical approach will not reuse the IST elements. While it requires the

development of 2 propulsion stages that need to be replaced for each mars mission it will

“leverage propulsion technology development investments that are either already underway”(

EMC, Page 14).

Pathway 3 has three phases that require IST; a flyby, a short mission to Phobos, and long

duration mission to mars. This means that pathway 3 will require the greatest expenditure of IST
resources. The fly by in phase 3 will require the IST means to be human rated. This excludes the

SEP-Chemical approach as this IST means is not human rated. “Hybrid approach requires the

SEP to be human rated as it is used to transport the crew whereas the SEP-Chemical approach

SEP will not need human rating.” ( EMC, Page 14) Phase 4 and 5 will require more IST

resources because of the need to have return trip vehicles placed in orbit around Mars before a

crew leaves for the planet. A combination of the hybrid and the SEP-chemical approaches will

need to be used. While the hybrid system has a larger bi-propellant system that can be used for

impulsive burns (great for changing orbits), the SEP-Chemical approach does not. ( EMC, Page

14) For the hybrid approach refueling is required. The SEP-Chemical approach required pre-

deployment which creates challenges. “Any failures of the stage/engine or the cryogenic fluid

management system would also prevent the crew from returning to Earth” ( EMC, Page 14) It’s

then very important this technology is proven capable at each step in the pathway.

Pathway 4 will similarly require a combination of the SEP-Chemical and Hybrid

technologies. Since phase 3’s mission is to orbit Mars it likely would require the ability to

change orbital position. This requires the bi-propellant system in the hybrid IST approach. It’s an

effective vehicle for a simple orbital mission because the “Hybrid spaceship does not stage any

of the propulsion system and can potentially be refueled and reused for another trip to Mars after

return to cislunar space.” ( EMC, Page 5) It also uses existing chemical propulsion systems, but

requires development of refueling capabilities for nitrogen tetroxide. ( EMC, Page 5) Because of

the need to transport cargo and crew and pre-deploy return resources, phase 4’s mars surface

mission will require a combination of SEP-Chemical, and hybrid IST systems. When comparing

the transit time the hybrid approach is longer and results in slightly shorter mission durations.
While the SEP-Chemical system can perform longer missions, it’s lack of reusability limits it’s

long term usefulness.

The necessary elements required for a human mission to Mars will vary based upon the

destination and duration of the mission. In your own words, explain how destination and

duration of the mission affect habitation systems and entry, descent, landing, and ascent

(EDL&A).