NASA Exploration Roadmap: A return to the Moon’s surface documented

[space nut]

I would hope reusable technology is used.
attachment is just fyi +/_ as you would like.

[robertross]

Part 1 on up to the Moon, but an overall reference with Mars. Part 2 will be on NEAs.

That's awesome Chris. Can't wait for Part 2! 

I personally am thinking the reason Gen. Bolden didn't tip his hand during the congressional hearings is to lay out the limitations he is facing with a limited budget. If he had said "look at all the palces we are now going", Congress could have easily said:

A) We're obvioulsy giving you enough money
B) Just where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for all of that?

But by playing it low, congress funds the rocket development now, and in the next couple of budget cycles (a time when the money for development of these missions starts to become necessary), NASA can then say: with sufficient funding we can do these missions with the rocket you helped us get to build.

[Chris Bergin]

Thanks Robert

"....As listed in the Con Ops, this mission – based on just SLS related hardware – would involve two Block 1A SLS vehicles, launching 121 days apart. The first SLS would launch the Lunar Lander, with a Block 1 CPS, followed by the second SLS launching a crew of four on Orion for a 19 day mission, with seven days on the Moon...."


I don't understand the "launching 121 days apart"...does the lunar lander sit in Earth orbit for 121 days waiting for the Orion to launch, rendezview, dock and depart to the Moon for the 19 day mission ??

There's a "120-day minimum launch spacing capability assumed for multi-launch DRMs" at the moment, per the Con Ops.

[apace]

I miss other rockets in this roadmap. A real roadmap would include Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc... And list the possibilities and advantages of the rockets and the mix of rockets for the outlined missions.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I miss other rockets in this roadmap. A real roadmap would include Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc... And list the possibilities and advantages of the rockets and the mix of rockets for the outlined missions.

FWIW, I've thought for some time that EELV Phase-I and Falcon Heavy with a high-energy upper stage could be used as the basis of a CRS-Lunar to support the Gateway Station as a crewed outpost.  Ultimately, of course, this would include loading cargo canisters from CRS freighters onto the reusuable landers to support a surface lab.

[Longhorn John]

I miss other rockets in this roadmap. A real roadmap would include Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc... And list the possibilities and advantages of the rockets and the mix of rockets for the outlined missions.

You want to spend even more money, on less capable vehicles?

[Robotbeat]

Part 1 on up to the Moon, but an overall reference with Mars. Part 2 will be on NEAs.

That's awesome Chris. Can't wait for Part 2! 

I personally am thinking the reason Gen. Bolden didn't tip his hand during the congressional hearings is to lay out the limitations he is facing with a limited budget. If he had said "look at all the palces we are now going", Congress could have easily said:

A) We're obvioulsy giving you enough money
B) Just where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for all of that?

But by playing it low, congress funds the rocket development now, and in the next couple of budget cycles (a time when the money for development of these missions starts to become necessary), NASA can then say: with sufficient funding we can do these missions with the rocket you helped us get to build.

EXACTLY! I love all these exploration plans, but if you saw how Gingrich's plan was received, it's pretty understandable why Bolden wasn't out there bragging about all the stuff NASA has powerpoints for. In fact, I'm a little upset with how the article seems to be painting Bolden as some sort of enemy. I think that's pretty unfair, given the fact that NASA really doesn't have the budget to pay for all these really awesome plans and Congress seems pretty darned willing to play along with the $17 billion budget (as long as they get theirs, of course).

[apace]

I miss other rockets in this roadmap. A real roadmap would include Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc... And list the possibilities and advantages of the rockets and the mix of rockets for the outlined missions.

You want to spend even more money, on less capable vehicles?

If the plan shows, that using other rockets than SLS costs more, than of course not. But if this studies are not done or not available for public, I have my questions.

[clongton]

Thank you Chris. I really appriciate you keeping on top of stories like these.
I have long been a vocal advocate for lunar surface operations and it's very gratifying to see plans like these being researched and reported on here on NSF.

Really fine writting!

[Chris Bergin]

Thanks Chuck.

. In fact, I'm a little upset with how the article seems to be painting Bolden as some sort of enemy. I think that's pretty unfair, given the fact that NASA really doesn't have the budget to pay for all these really awesome plans and Congress seems pretty darned willing to play along with the $17 billion budget (as long as they get theirs, of course).

As noted, that's what the guys at the business end of this effort feel, and thus it's reportable as it's all relevant. If it upsets a reader's personal opinion/alternative stance, then that's unavoidable.

I've got to man up on this content too. I can't avoid things out of fear it'll upset a few people. If I've got a heavyweight NASA manager telling me Bolden is an utter failure of a leader (quote), and another who backs that up and explains why, and another who notes the challenges that creates, all dismayed at him being dull about exploration while crying over JWST (I'm being dramatic), it's relevant.

If anything, I toned it right down.

[clongton]

In fact, I'm a little upset with how the article seems to be painting Bolden as some sort of enemy. I think that's pretty unfair, ...

I thought the depiction of Mr. Bolden was accurate. I know some people don't like that but it is what it is. Yes, he was "very passionate" about SLS, as he said. But he chose and uttered his words very carefully. His passion was not in support of SLS. Whether on his own or at his boss' direction (does it really matter?), he was the chief "passion" of the attempt to kill the SLS. This is extremely well documented in several different places on NSF.

The Congress was having none of it and after calling him out several times, twice politely in public and several times away from the cameras in stern and in totally unambiguous terms, they side-stepped him and got SLS funded and going in spite of him. The "painting" if you wish to call it that is accurate.

Never-the-less, the fact now is that the program is proceeding. SLS will fly, and Orion will take us back to the moon, on to NEO's and then to Phobos and the surface of Mars. But perhaps we will also see a trip to CERES before a Martian surface mission, depending upon what Dawn learns when she arrives there. If there is as much water on Ceres as is believed, then that would be a game-changer for the entire human exploration program.

[Rocket Science]

I did some of my best work doing all-nighters, well done Chris!

[Robotbeat]

Thanks Chuck.

. In fact, I'm a little upset with how the article seems to be painting Bolden as some sort of enemy. I think that's pretty unfair, given the fact that NASA really doesn't have the budget to pay for all these really awesome plans and Congress seems pretty darned willing to play along with the $17 billion budget (as long as they get theirs, of course).

As noted, that's what the guys at the business end of this effort feel, and thus it's reportable as it's all relevant. If it upsets a reader's personal opinion/alternative stance, then that's unavoidable.

It's being portrayed as fact when it is just the perspective of some individuals. That's my problem.

I've got to man up on this content too. I can't avoid things out of fear it'll upset a few people. If I've got a heavyweight NASA manager telling me Bolden is an utter failure of a leader (quote), and another who backs that up and explains why, and another who notes the challenges that creates, all dismayed at him being dull about exploration while crying over JWST (I'm being dramatic), it's relevant.

If anything, I toned it right down.

Okay, then it should be portrayed as what it is (opinion held by NASA managers) instead of as an objective fact. This is not an editorial, is it? Because that's how those parts read. (If it is an editorial, that's fine with me.)

EDIT:I know you insert "it is claimed" and "it is noted by some," but it still reads more like an editorial.

[simpl simon]

Thanks Chuck.

. In fact, I'm a little upset with how the article seems to be painting Bolden as some sort of enemy. I think that's pretty unfair, given the fact that NASA really doesn't have the budget to pay for all these really awesome plans and Congress seems pretty darned willing to play along with the $17 billion budget (as long as they get theirs, of course).

As noted, that's what the guys at the business end of this effort feel, and thus it's reportable as it's all relevant. If it upsets a reader's personal opinion/alternative stance, then that's unavoidable.

I've got to man up on this content too. I can't avoid things out of fear it'll upset a few people. If I've got a heavyweight NASA manager telling me Bolden is an utter failure of a leader (quote), and another who backs that up and explains why, and another who notes the challenges that creates, all dismayed at him being dull about exploration while crying over JWST (I'm being dramatic), it's relevant.

If anything, I toned it right down.

Beware of being manipulated by others using you as a means to voice their discontent.
General Bolden, as all NASA administrators, was hired by the President to carry out presidential policy.

[Warren Platts]

This is what Mr. Bergin wrote: "As noted by some people working within the exploration effort, there is a level of frustration that the Agency’s own top boss appears more politically fixated in salvaging the remains of President Obama’s defunct FY2011 budget proposal, as opposed to promoting what they claim is an exciting exploration roadmap development process."

That's news, not an editorial. Is there a slant there? Sure: the slant is we need to get off our duffs and do some real exploring with humans for the first time in 50 years. So what! You think the New York Times doesn't have a slant!?!

Bottom Line: the President's space policy is all fouled up, and lucky for us, Creampuff Bolden was the man chosen to implement it, but yeah, there's bound to be some frustration in the trenches...