Author Topic: New Bill to Require Mars Mission and NASA Human Exploration Strategy  (Read 3033 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/content/cornyn-culberson-introduce-bill-require-mars-mission-and-nasa-human-exploration-strategy


Cornyn, Culberson Introduce Bill to Require Mars Mission and NASA Human Exploration Strategy

In: All News   Posted 01/24/2017

    Directs Agency to Prioritize Missions and Destinations, Develop Long-Range Plan for Future of U.S. Human Spaceflight

WASHINGTON –U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and U.S. Representative John Culberson (TX-07) today introduced a bill to require the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to develop plans for the future of U.S. human space exploration, with the goal of landing an astronaut on Mars.  The Mapping a New and Innovative Focus on our Exploration Strategy (MANIFEST) for Human Spaceflight Act is based on the recommendations of a 2014 National Academies report.

“By requiring a strategic plan from NASA, this bill will help focus existing resources towards achieving our long-term goal of landing a human on Mars,” said Sen. Cornyn.  “This bill reaffirms our nation’s longstanding commitment to advancing science and exploring the expansive universe around us.”

“Americans are at their best when they’re conquering new frontiers and this legislation ensures that NASA continues to push the boundaries of space exploration by landing an American astronaut on Mars,” Rep. Culberson said. “It also focuses NASA’s long-term plans so that America’s leadership in space remains unchallenged.”

More information on the MANIFEST for Human Spaceflight Act:

    The legislation would require NASA to regularly provide Congress a human exploration strategy outlining goals and destinations for future manned space missions.
    To ensure the agency considers independent views, NASA is directed to partner with the National Academy of Sciences to provide input and further recommendations that would be included in the final strategy.
    The exploration strategy would be updated every five years, consistent with an independent review cycle applied to other NASA programs.
    For the first time, the bill would amend NASA’s guiding exploration goals to specifically designate a human presence on the surface of Mars as the long-term goal, a position supported by the Spaceflight Committee’s report as well as the broader space exploration community.
    The legislation is based on the recommendations of a 2014 report from the National Academies’ Committee on Human Spaceflight.


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
« Last Edit: 01/25/2017 06:32 pm by Blackstar »

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Here is the actual bill:

https://www.congress.gov/.../CREC-2017-01-24-pt1-PgS447.pdf

Recheck the link.  That pdf results in a "not found."
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
I guess the bill says nothing about congress having to reserve funds for said strategy?

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
I guess the bill says nothing about congress having to reserve funds for said strategy?

Or funds to cover the return trip (as the posting only says 'land' someone on Mars)  ;)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
I guess the bill says nothing about congress having to reserve funds for said strategy?

No, but it does call for "a comparison of architectures and approaches based on—
(i) assessed value of factors including cost effectiveness, schedule resiliency, safety, sustainability, and opportunities for international collaboration..." (Sec. 3(b)(2)(F); emphasis added).  That's a step in the right direction.

I'm trying to figure out whether Sec. 3(b)(2)(E) mandates the use of Orion and SLS or merely requires they be considered:  "In developing the strategy under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall include ... a range of exploration mission architectures and approaches for the missions identified under paragraph (1), including capabilities for the Orion crew capsule and the Space Launch System...."  I think that if you read it very strictly, Orion and SLS need only be considered, but I have a hard time imagining that such an interpretation is intended or likely.



Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
This is called an "unfunded mandate". 


Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I'm curious to see whether they get anything really different from NASA under Charlie B...
« Last Edit: 01/26/2017 12:24 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 619
  • Likes Given: 2127
Quote
amend NASA’s guiding exploration goals to specifically designate a human presence on the surface of Mars as the long-term goal,
IMHO that provision would be useful, especially if NASA resists the temptation to pretend that an Apollo redux would help get us to Mars. I'm not a fan of the other provisions, which require paperwork of questionable value.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Finally reading into the PDF Blackstar supplied (thanks for correcting the link btw Blackstar)...

It is good that they emphasize Mars chiefly.  Beyond that it seems like a mix of hope and fluff with the SLS, Orion, and ISS mentioned specifically.  Clearly they're trying to keep options open, suggesting utilizing cis-Lunar space with the possibilities of landing on either the Moon, asteroids, or Phobos/Deimos prior to Mars.  It's enough to please most people, although I'm sure Zubrin would shake his head and retort on the need to go to Mars directly, with or without practice floating around the Moon.

This is called an "unfunded mandate". 

Indeed.  If approved it's barely qualify as a paper victory.  The flaw is, while stating Mars as the goal, there are no set deadlines or even pressure to at least chose how we'll practice for Mars.  I wholly agree Mars (the surface furthermore) should be the ultimate goal, but they've got to get more specific.

I guess the bill says nothing about congress having to reserve funds for said strategy?

No, but it does call for "a comparison of architectures and approaches based on—
(i) assessed value of factors including cost effectiveness, schedule resiliency, safety, sustainability, and opportunities for international collaboration..." (Sec. 3(b)(2)(F); emphasis added).  That's a step in the right direction.

I'm trying to figure out whether Sec. 3(b)(2)(E) mandates the use of Orion and SLS or merely requires they be considered:  "In developing the strategy under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall include ... a range of exploration mission architectures and approaches for the missions identified under paragraph (1), including capabilities for the Orion crew capsule and the Space Launch System...."  I think that if you read it very strictly, Orion and SLS need only be considered, but I have a hard time imagining that such an interpretation is intended or likely.

I have to agree, at the least with evaluating the cost effectiveness of SLS or Orion applied toward Mars.  The SLS itself I'm certain could be of use...at least until the options of ITS or New Glen open but there's no certainty (they'll eventually happen, but not soon enough [i.e. less than 5 years if I have to belch out a guess]).  However, a cost effective stradegy should at least pull commercial into a hybrid architecture (as in half gov-NASA, half commercial) until we have large, flight-proven HLVs with crew vehicles from commercial available; at that point I'd merrily ditch SLS.

Getting back to this bill...it's a start.  Firmly establishing a Martian landing as NASA's goal and reevaluating the SLS and Orion are all things I wouldn't complain about.  I just desire a few more specifics on how we get from A to B, as have others.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
This bill is a great start, but it's just a foundation really. We still need a solid plan with solid leadership behind it.

And I am expecting one to come in the not too distant future from the white house.

What I am hoping we get ultimately is a plan which utilizes both SLS and commercial vehicles, and not one at the expense of the other. Basically, whichever vehicles are ready to fly at each synod, we mount missions on and fly. Hopefully said plan will focus on providing funding for payloads and mission infrastructure in this case. Ultimately, I would be happier if SLS were not in this picture because the money saved from it could really help in this area, however politically speaking, I don't see that happening. Whatever plan we get will probably include SLS.


All in all though I think things are looking alot better for HSF and exploration in general.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1