CHARLES A. ORDAHL : Countdown to Mars Mission : Rocket Researchers Already Plotting Trip to Red Planet

For many of us, the words “Mission to Mars” bring to mind the futuristic ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland.

But in a speech a year ago--on the 20th anniversary of the first Apollo landing on the moon--President George Bush, in what he called a “journey to tomorrow,” proposed a real manned flight to Mars.

With that speech, Bush ignited an ongoing debate about how much the nation should be spending on its space program and what its long-term goals should be. Congress is debating whether to provide seed money during the 1991 fiscal year to study the prospects for establishing a manned base on the moon and sending a manned space flight to Mars--two projects that together are known as the Space Exploration Initiative.

For now, the Mars mission will take a back seat to other National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs. NASA’s first order of business is to begin launching the initial components of the Space Station Freedom by 1995 and build an outpost on the moon by 2005.

Meanwhile, a host of aerospace companies have begun exploring technologies that could be used for a Mars mission. Among them: McDonnell Douglas in Huntington Beach; Ford Aerospace in Newport Beach; Lockheed in Calabasas; General Dynamics in San Diego; Rockwell International in Pittsburgh, Pa., and Martin Marietta in Bethesda, Md. Each team is busy generating a range of options about how to undertake the costly and technologically difficult 35-million-mile journey to the Red Planet. Mars enthusiasts with each team are putting their science fiction-like ideas to paper and preparing to submit proposals for the Space Exploration Initiative.

Times staff writer Dean Takahashi discussed the subject of a mission to Mars with one such enthusiast: Charles A. Ordahl, vice president and general manager of the advanced product development and technology division at McDonnell Douglas Space Systems in Huntington Beach.

Ordahl, a 34-year veteran at the company, was chief engineer for the Delta rocket program and is currently in charge of the firm’s strategic planning and research on the Space Exploration Initiative.

Q. How long have we thought seriously about going to Mars?

A. It’s always been within the aspirations of the United States space program that someday we would go on to Mars. But we’ve taken a steppingstone approach with early exploration on the moon, the shuttle, the development of the space station, and finally plans leading to Mars. If you take our space station efforts as the first steppingstone, we started as early as 1960. We’ve been working on it more intensively within the past year since President Bush’s speech.

Q. So President Bush’s speech was a motivating force behind renewed efforts to go to Mars?

A. I think the President wanted to provide a new and inspiring goal for the nation. He decided we should have a long-range space program with many facets to it. He said we should first complete the building of Space Station Freedom, which is already under way. We would then go from that base back to the moon and build a base for scientific research, then go to Mars and explore it, because it is the planet in our solar system most like the Earth. It was in part a response to criticism that we didn’t have a long-term goal for a long time.

Q. What was the time frame?

A. There wasn’t any at first, but the President said in May that by the year 2019 we would be on Mars. That makes it much more credible.

Q. What are the technical challenges of a trip to Mars that make it such a long-range mission?

A. We’ve already conquered the idea of going to space. But we’re dealing with a much longer period of time. A shuttle flight lasts seven days, a flight to the moon was about three days, and a flight to Mars would be six months to a year, one way. So one of the big problems is the length of time man would have to spend in space. That exposes him to things we don’t fully understand yet, such as cosmic radiation and zero-gravity environment. There may be psychological effects. With the space station, we will learn how to address some of those questions, such as having people in space for longer periods of time.

A second challenge is simply to build the life-support systems for maintaining life for extended periods of time. That will require new technological advances such as a life-support system that recycles (either food or waste).

We’ll also need better propulsion systems. We have shown so far that we can do a Mars mission with some of the types of chemical propulsion systems we have today, but some of the things we’re looking at are reducing the amounts of propellants required and increasing the speed of the spaceship. There is a possibility of using nuclear propulsion.

Other challenges are building infrastructure on the moon for a permanent presence. We’d want to use materials on the moon to do that. That would be an altogether new way of doing things.

Q. Do you have to have a base or space station to get to Mars?

A. That has been a subject for debate. Some people argue that we should go straight to Mars and save money that way. But the President’s position appears to be it’s a more prudent approach to go to build the moon base first and learn along the way. It would probably be easier to build the Mars ship in space or on the moon base.

Q. Is it settled that the spaceship will be manned?

A. Nothing has been settled. We believe so far that this will involve a combination of manned and unmanned missions. It’s generally felt robotic missions should go first because you can afford to learn how to proceed. It is also felt that ultimately we want to send humans because no matter how much you try, you cannot replace the intellect or dexterity of man. He can adapt to his own senses on the site.

Plus it’s also more exciting to the American people. It was exciting to me to watch the first Viking probe land on Mars. But it was far more exciting to watch man put his foot on the moon 20 years ago. Man is an important part of this mission for lots of reasons that touch the soul of humankind.

Q. Will that mean it will take a lot longer to get there?

A. Some problems are unique to man and that could mean more time. But man has always been a very basic part of our space program, from Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the shuttle, the space station. This is just the next step. A lot of what we talk about here is a long-term perspective of where we as a world are going.

Q. Estimates of the cost are $300 billion to $500 billion, right?

A. It’s very difficult for me to assess costs. We have made our own assessments, based on a particular architecture and plan. The government has made some estimates in the range you mentioned. It’s an expensive program, but it’s also a great investment in the future. And though the number is large, when you spread it over 30 years, you’re getting a better perspective. It adds up to less than 1% of what government spends in a year. You have to put that in the context of what we spend each year on defense.

Q. Will this be a hard sell for the American people?

A. I don’t think so. Polls I’ve seen show there is a great deal of support for the program. It’s very important we have a certain investment in the future.

Q. What are the benefits?

A. It’s difficult to quantify. One has to think in terms of things that have been achieved so far in the space program. For instance, it has benefits for our education system. We hear about a lot of problems in science and math, where we are in a competitive battle with other nations. Programs such as a trip to Mars have a way of inspiring people to go into these fields. Whether they ever work in the space business is incidental. When kids are in the fifth or sixth grades and they see things happen with this program, they will want to learn more. That’s only one benefit for the education system.

You have to invest, and it usually pays off with something entirely different from what you expected. You can tell that story many times. In the medical area, you can point to CAT scans as benefits from the space program. This moves technology forward.

There are other reasons. There is an imperative to explore, like with Columbus moving to the New World. The pursuit of new knowledge. We make progress as a nation because we learn new things. If you look at the geology of Mars, the experts tell us it used to be very much like Earth a long time ago.

Today, Mars is very unlike Earth. Once it had liquids flowing in channels. Why did Mars evolve so differently? Maybe there is a clue to ensure the well-being of our own planet. We don’t know for sure, but we can try to find out.

Q. With the conversion of the defense industry, more aerospace companies are going to have to build something besides weapons. Is that a selling point for Mars?

A. I think so, especially with the political conditions in the world today. Most people believe conversion (of the defense industry) will happen. There will be a fair amount of distortion in the economic impact of that. The nation needs a certain amount of this kind of investment in defense, and it’s important we not do too much to change the amount of work going into defense research. I believe that Mars is a good investment, a source where you can put the funds during the transition. That’s a fairly potent argument for the program.

Q. Can you outline an example of current thinking for a mission to Mars?

A. The main example we’ve looked at is building a large rocket that can deliver several hundred thousand pounds of payload into low Earth orbit, which is well above the 50,000 pounds the shuttle could carry.

Since it would be too heavy to launch from Earth, we would carry the parts up and assemble a spaceship at the space station. It would have a crew compartment for about four people. A large amount of the weight would be propellant. Once it was assembled with robots, it would take off on a trajectory to Mars.

When it neared Mars, it would enter into Mars orbit. A portion of the ship would land on the planet itself. The first mission might stay on the surface for 30 days. It would use aerobrake technology, which is a device that works like a parachute, to assist in slowing down the vehicle for the landing. That would be more efficient than carrying fuel for reverse rockets to slow the ship down.

Overall, it would not be unlike the exploration of the moon. The astronauts could use space suits and rovers and explore. Once having completed the mission, they would have to take off from the surface. Here we could use several scenarios, with one lander (that would be) used going down (to Mars) and another to take off. The return vehicle would dock with the ship, and then it would take six months to a year to get back to the space station.

Once we neared Earth, we could either land at the space station and catch a ride down in the shuttle or enter the Earth’s atmosphere directly. Aside from the time, space and propulsion capability, it’s not different from going to the moon. But it’s a long reach and a lot of new technology is required.

Q. What are some of the projects your people are working on?

A. Some of us are working on specific research and development projects, trying to develop life-support systems that recycle energy, making propellants out of lunar soil or thinking about how to make a ship that could use solar energy.

Some of our people are looking at solar sails as an exotic way of powering a spaceship. This would be a large device like a sail that would absorb rays from the sun and use the solar photons as fuel so you could reduce the weight of the spaceship and save on costs.

Altogether, there are more than 60 projects under way.

Q. Earlier you mentioned nuclear propulsion.

A. I’m no expert, but nuclear propulsion could cut the flight time at least in half and maybe more. We did have some nuclear propulsion programs 20 years ago, but nothing since. One difficulty here would be testing. You have to test these propulsion systems. Twenty years ago, you could do it. Part of it is just going out and picking up where we left off.

Q. Among Mars enthusiasts, what’s the level of satisfaction about how fast things are moving?

A. I would be happy if things went faster. But I’m thrilled we are going as fast as we are because the President is a great leader on this issue. We would be moving a lot slower without him. I understand the constraints and priorities that limit how fast we can do it. But there should be no limits on the resolve to do it. Sure, I would have been happier if we picked up after Apollo and progressed like (pioneer rocket scientist) Wernher von Braun wanted to so that we would have been on Mars in the 1980s. In the meantime, we have a working shuttle program and the space station is being built.

Q. So it’s a combination of gathering political support and building the technology you need to go to Mars?

A. Right. There needs to be more time put into some of the issues. They have to be discussed with the American people, policy makers in Washington and the rest of the world. It will take some time to get people into it.

Q. Is it more difficult in this age of big deficits?

A. Sure. But during the Apollo program, we spent 4% of our national budget on our space program. Today we spend about 1%, and we’re talking about spending another 1%. Our priorities are different now. During Apollo, we were competing with the Russians, and that gave it a high priority.

Q. How much has been budgeted so far?

A. In January, President Bush submitted a budget for $188 million in 1991, a reasonable amount of money to begin the project planning for a Mars mission. His intent was to have government find the right plan. To move it forward, it’s important we appropriate the funds in the 1991 budget. Without it, we could see a reduction in resolve in the short term. With it, more companies could be brought in and we are more likely to find some solutions.

Q. When would full-scale work on contracts begin, given the 30-year plan?

A. Full-scale design and development would have to start around 1995 to meet the President’s expectations. We are counting on this project as a major source of revenue in the late 1990s and after. In 10 years, Space Station Freedom will be flying and we should be working very hard on this Mars project.

Q. Is there much prospect of a joint mission with the Soviets?

A. Yes. I think there will be an international mission of some type. We have the precedence for it with the space station. Major portions of the space station are being built in Europe, Japan and Canada. It has become a learning experience for us as we think toward a mission to Mars. One reason it would be good is to share costs, but an international mission will also bring synergies as international partners each bring something to the table.

Q. On an international mission, if you brought a rock back from Mars, who would own it?

A. I’m no expert on international space law. I suspect the parties would make an agreement on this issue. The United Nations treaties that have been put in place regarding the moon would probably be extended.

Q. How many people does McDonnell Douglas Space Systems have working on the Mars program?

A. We have 30 people on it, plus a team of subcontractors. It varies since some programs are generically related to space more than Mars. Overall, about eight or 10 companies are working together and each of those has teams of subcontractors.

Q. How much is being spent right now?

A. I don’t know exactly. Industry is putting a lot of funds into it even though at this time there isn’t a lot of government money available. Anticipating the long-term program, we are investing at a reasonable level so that we can be a major contributor on system-level architectures and eventually we’d build hardware.

Q. When you step off the spacecraft, what will you see on Mars?

A. You will see large mountains and plains, a small atmosphere. It’s a fairly arid place without vegetation. There will be rocks and dust. It has more character to it than the moon. The vision is that, in time, we will have a permanent presence on other planets. I don’t know how long it will take. Ultimately, we will see colonies on Mars. We will have expeditions and, in time, settlements.