Only the space agencies of the Soviet Union, the
US and the EU have landed anything on Mars. This week Elon Musk’s rocket
company SpaceX said it would put its Dragon spacecraft on the red planet “as soon as 2018″—making it the first private company to go interplanetary.
It’s easy to get impatient with crackpot plans to head for the red planet. (I’m guilty of it, too.) But SpaceX is unique in combining its dreams of Mars with well-funded, hard-nosed engineers.
And as it turns out, the company’s long-running quest to build reusable rockets, with the aim of making it cheaper to launch satellites into Earth’s orbit, has had a stealthier goal too. SpaceX’s
successful landing of a rocket at sea
earlier this month was just one more step towards Musk’s bigger
ambition, which is to land on Martian soil in a way that has never done
before: Without parachutes, airbags or “skycranes,” but rockets alone.
SpaceX wouldn’t allow any of its employees to
speak with me for this story, but I hunted down aerospace engineers who
collaborate with the company and could speak about the technology behind
its bold claims.
How to land on Mars
You may think that we already land on Mars with
rockets. But while it’s true that rockets will carry whatever we send to
Mars, landing on the surface once they get there is a different
challenge.
It’s
a quite different challenge from landing on either Earth or the Moon.
Mars’s gravity is more than twice as strong as the Moon’s, so a landing
craft needs a lot more help decelerating than the Apollo lunar missions
did. But Mars’s atmosphere is more than 100 times thinner
than that on Earth. So while parachutes can bring a Soyuz space capsule
to a gentle splashdown in the Earth’s ocean, they can’t slow a Mars
lander to anywhere near a safe landing speed.
And the nature of the challenge depends a great deal on how big a package you’re sending.
The first rovers NASA sent to the red planet used
parachutes to lose as much speed as possible, then fell to the surface
ensconced in a protective bubble of airbags. But as the rovers got
bigger, airbags became impractical.
So when NASA wanted to drop a 900 kg (1 ton)
robot called Curiosity—essentially, a nuclear-powered car with arms—onto
the surface of Mars in 2012, it had to get creative. The task fell to a
team including Miguel San Martin, a senior engineer at NASA’s Jet
Propulsion Lab. They devised a contraption known as the “skycrane” to
lower the rover gently to the ground, wheels-first.
Essentially the landing has three stages. (Here’s an animation.)
First a heavy heat shield absorbs the atmosphere’s initial impact. Then
a parachute slows the craft from supersonic speed to about 220 miles
(350 km) per hour. Finally, rockets kick in to slow it further, until
it’s hovering 25 feet (8 m) above the ground, at which point it lowers
the rover to the surface on a tether.
“People were saying, ‘it’s not going to work,'” San Martin says. But eventually NASA recognized the skycrane as “the right kind of crazy” (paywall).
Losing the ‘chutes
Sending humans to Mars, however, requires a whole new kind of crazy.
“You’re
going to have to land a two-story house on Mars, if you’re going to
send humans,” says Bobby Braun, a veteran space engineer and former NASA
chief technologist, who is currently a professor at the University of
Georgia, “[and] land it right next to another two-story house that’s
been pre-positioned and powered up and has all the fuel and food that
humans will need to survive on Mars. Imagine the size of the parachute
that one would need for that system. It gets to the point that its
preposterous.”
This is where the engineering behind SpaceX’s
terrestrial landings comes in. “The idea, essentially, is to skip the
parachute and go right to the rocket,” San Martin says.
The notion was first outlined in a 2012 white paper
(pdf) co-authored by Steve Davis, one of SpaceX’s more original
thinkers. It noted that the Dragon space capsule, which SpaceX is
developing to fly to the International Space Station and back, has
powerful built-in engines to allow it to land on Earth (as well as
recover safely from a failed launch). It suggested that those same
engines, in conjunction with a heat shield, could instead be used to
slow the Dragon from a high-speed entry into the Martian atmosphere all
the way to a landing on the surface.
Doing that requires mastering a technique called “supersonic retropropulsion.” The Curiosity mission used subsonic
retropropulsion: firing its rockets towards the surface of Mars to slow
the craft’s descent, after parachutes had already brought it below the
speed of sound. The Dragon would have to do the same while traveling
much faster than sound.
Under those conditions, the thrust from the
engine and the sonic shock wave in front of the craft can interact in
surprising ways that scientists don’t fully understand. For example,
disrupting the shock wave could make the rocket go faster (rather than
slower as you might expect), or cause dangerous turbulence. NASA wasn’t
prepared to tolerate that level of uncertainty when designing missions
like the Curiosity rover.
But SpaceX demonstrates the technology every time
it attempts to land the first stage of one of its Falcon 9 rockets on
Earth. When the rocket first begins firing its engines to slow its
descent, at an altitude of around 140 km, it is moving at a speed of at
least 1,300 meters per second, close to Mach 4. But the real magic
happens at about 70 kilometers above the earth.
“When they’re up high at altitude and turn on
their engines to do the entry burn, they actually fire their engines in
conditions here on the Earth that are almost identical…to the planet
Mars” due to the thin atmosphere, Braun says. “SpaceX
has actually the first operational system that does supersonic
retropropulsion…It’s technology that we will use when we send humans to
Mars.”
SpaceX has been sharing the data from those
landings with NASA, and Braun has been studying the data to learn how to
design a a next-generation Martian lander. One NASA official said in 2014 that sharing the data had saved taxpayers millions of dollars.
Robot, take the wheel
Mastering supersonic retropropulsion isn’t the
only challenge SpaceX will face. Landing on Mars will also mean putting
an autonomous system in charge. The communications delay between Earth
and Mars ranges from four to 24 minutes, making remote control impossible.
Solving that problem isn’t easy. NASA learned
this in 1999 when it lost contact with a probe sent to study the Martian
south pole. The failure is suspected to have occurred when the rockets
intended to slow the probe’s descent cut off early, mistaking vibrations
in the landing legs for a successful touchdown.
Figuring out how to prevent failures like that is
part of the job description for Brian C. Williams, a former NASA
scientist who now runs an MIT laboratory dedicated to remote, autonomous
systems.
One of Williams’ PhD students was Lars Blackmore,
now the head of SpaceX’s reusable rocket program. Blackmore and another
student, Masahiro Ono, developed an innovative way to give an undersea
robot the tools needed to navigate, called “risk allocation.”
“The way that you and I deal with uncertainty, we
don’t think about probabilities, we have a rule of thumb that says,
‘I’ll have some safety margin, stay three feet from the curb,'” Williams
explains. “The algorithms that Lars and Hiro have developed take that
intuition, turn that mathematically into a safety margin.”
So when you watch SpaceX’s rocket adjust its fins
to direct its descent toward a landing platform, the computer inside is
trying to balance the optimal path to the ground with the amount of
risk it should take to get there.
The software directing those movements is
directly applicable to many different autonomous systems, but
particularly to space exploration. Many of Williams’ students, Ono among
them, have wound up at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a kind of Top
Gun for space geeks. But many others have taken their talent to Musk’s
operation.
“I’ve had half a dozen of my students go to JPL,
about five of them now are at SpaceX,” Williams says. “The hope that I
have for SpaceX is that they’ll be able to take the talent that these
engineers have, to deploy the system and explore some of these concepts
in new missions.”
In the innovation business
Now that SpaceX has announced its intention of
sending the Dragon to Mars, its first obstacle is to finish developing
the Falcon Heavy rocket that would carry it there. Tests of the rocket
have been repeatedly delayed, but it is expected to fly for the first
time in the fall of this year. (When Davis’s white paper first mooted
the idea in 2012, the Falcon Heavy was expected to begin testing in
2013.) The Dragon itself can carry more than one metric ton of cargo to
Mars, with multiple egress points if any of that cargo includes robots.
Still, to some people—notably the astronomer and
space pedant Neil deGrasse Tyson—the idea of SpaceX leading the charge
to get to Mars is absurd. Under this view, the private sector doesn’t
have the patience for the kind of long-term investment or risk involved
in interplanetary exploration. That’s what government agencies like NASA
are for. “The delusion is thinking that SpaceX is going to lead the
space frontier. That’s just not going to happen,” Tyson told an interviewer recently.
As an analogy, Tyson invoked Christopher
Columbus, funded by the Spanish crown. And it is certainly true that
SpaceX was reliant on NASA for early funding and assistance, and now
serves as a workhorse for the US space agency. “They’re bringing cargo
back and forth to the space station, as should have been happening
decades ago,” Tyson said. “You don’t need NASA to move cargo, you get
NASA to do the things that have never been done before.”
But that distinction is swiftly blurring. While
NASA is providing technical assistance to SpaceX’s Mars mission, it
isn’t providing any funding. In return, it will get important data about
technology it cannot deploy itself but will need to fulfill its own
Martian aspirations.
Meanwhile, SpaceX is doing more than just moving
cargo back and forth. Each time it flies to the International Space
Station on a NASA contract, it takes an opportunity to test the next
iteration of its new systems. That kind of product development may have
advantages over NASA’s approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment