Author Topic: NASA considers SLS launch sequence for human Mars missions (SLS to 2040s)  (Read 56416 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline SimonFD

Great articles! Both good reads and gave me slight goosebumps as this is the first I've seen what look like actual planning for Mars.
I know the plans are of the "this is what we could do if the cash were available" and I do wonder if a cost estimate is also in the works.

One thing did occur to me after reading this: They spend all this time and money and effort to get a few people to Mars and after landing one of the expedition turns to the others and says "now what?"  :P
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so

Offline NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1440
  • Likes Given: 1301
Honestly... I find it really hard to get excited about any of this anymore. Twenty four years...

Offline eric_astro

  • Member
  • Posts: 51
  • USA
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 134
Great articles! Both good reads and gave me slight goosebumps as this is the first I've seen what look like actual planning for Mars.
I know the plans are of the "this is what we could do if the cash were available" and I do wonder if a cost estimate is also in the works.

One thing did occur to me after reading this: They spend all this time and money and effort to get a few people to Mars and after landing one of the expedition turns to the others and says "now what?"  :P

lol

Like demonstrated for the Moon, human observation and sampling for geology and potential biology will be vastly more efficient than robotic investigations.

Honestly... I find it really hard to get excited about any of this anymore. Twenty four years...

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8861
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Like demonstrated for the Moon, human observation and sampling for geology and potential biology will be vastly more efficient than robotic investigations.

That was not demonstrated on the Moon, especially considering the level of robotic technology we had in 1969 compared to today.  No matter how we get to the Moon or Mars (or ??), robotic systems will be force multipliers since they don't need sleep or to come back in for bathroom breaks and air.

And come to think about it, compared with the sophisticated robotic systems we have on Mars today (and soon), this Mars plan sure seems to be light on robotic precursors and helpers.  I wonder if that's an oversight, or if it is driven by some philosophical reason we don't see in the public?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45

Honestly... I find it really hard to get excited about any of this anymore. Twenty four years...
And at the same tim the whole scenario looks totally overly optimistic to me. Look at all these payloads that would have to be built and developed.
This is something at least three times the size of the Apollo program.

I'm afraid it's simply not going to happen.

So let's see whether Elon's approach of simply throwing mass at the problem is more realistic.

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 26

Honestly... I find it really hard to get excited about any of this anymore. Twenty four years...
And at the same tim the whole scenario looks totally overly optimistic to me. Look at all these payloads that would have to be built and developed.
This is something at least three times the size of the Apollo program.

I'm afraid it's simply not going to happen.

So let's see whether Elon's approach of simply throwing mass at the problem is more realistic.

Agreed, the money simply does not exist in the current NASA budget (or near future outlook) for most of these payloads. It will require a political decision that Mars is a goal worth pursuing, similar to Apollo. I'm afraid I simply do not see what will be successful in justifying it.

Also given that most of these payloads will probably take 5-10 years to develop, NASA would also have to start the budget planning for most of them in the near term or this timeline will not be realistic either.
« Last Edit: 09/24/2015 11:26 pm by spacetraveler »

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 152
Those mission plans are utter monstrosities and will never fly.

You would think the purpose of electric propulsion would be to dramatically lower the amount of launches need for missions. Apparently not..they want to use electric propulsion and double digit SLS launches! I think you can be too minimalist..like say that Falcon Heavy Mars Direct mission Zubrin proposed. But this is the 90 day report all over again.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Quote
24 years

Yea there is no way any of this happens. Also double digit SLS flights for this? Doesn't make much sense or seem necessary.

I prefer commercial options at this point. I think SLS is useful for political reasons and also initial deep space applications like the asteroid missions, but it should be something that opens doors for the commercial world not something that seeks to do the job of the commercial world for much higher prices and timelines that constantly slip to the right.

2040 is ridiculous. We have the technology needed to do most of this NOW and there are private companies already well into development to go do this themselves, much sooner and more effectively. Should be funding them more at this point not this pork.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Thanks!

I think that looks interesting. There aren't many different elements actually.

5x18t landers. Small but apparently sufficient in size. The smaller the better if you ask me.

6xHSP. One for every lander and one for the Hab.

+ lots of Tanker vehicles.

Now I'm a bit surprised they launch so many tankers for the first Mars mission. Shouldn't the HSPs still be full in cis-lunar space when launched with SLS Block 2?

Either way, they're within 2 SLS launches per year. As other threads have shown repeatedly (and yet people refuse to listen), 1 or 2 SLS launches per year won't make a big difference in terms of cost.

I like it.

2040 is ridiculous.

It has been clear for quite a while that there won't be a Mars landing before 2039 at the earliest. Not sure why everyone is acting so surprised. 
« Last Edit: 09/25/2015 12:12 am by Oli »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Thanks!

I think that looks interesting. There aren't many different elements actually.

5x18t landers. Small but apparently sufficient in size. The smaller the better if you ask me.

6xHSP. One for every lander and one for the Hab.

+ lots of Tanker vehicles.

Now I'm a bit surprised they launch so many tankers for the first Mars mission. Shouldn't the HSPs still be full in cis-lunar space when launched with SLS Block 2?

Either way, they're within 2 SLS launches per year. As other threads have shown repeatedly (and yet people refuse to listen), 1 or 2 SLS launches per year won't make a big difference in terms of cost.

I like it.

2040 is ridiculous.

It has been clear for quite a while that there won't be a Mars landing before 2039 at the earliest. Not sure why everyone is acting so surprised.
Quote
before 2039

There is no technical nor logistical reason for this. Only funding and political reasons in my book. And I don't mean simply in terms of the NASA program, I mean in terms of the entire envelope of what we have available CSF wise in addition to SLS.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
This does not just add up.  They cannot get away from grandiose, large scale, multi-flight schemes as put forth by von Braun in the 1950s.  The "Battlestar Galactic" scheme and its epic failure of planning and fiscal responsibility certainly does not seem to have driven any lessons learned.

With one pad and a slow production rate, they think they can craft multi-year launch campaigns of 10, 12, or 14 boosters to send stuff to Mars?  While Mars Direct with 2 or 3 launches may be too small and optimistic, this once again goes over the top.

I have to think with using a combination of SLS, Vulcan, and Falcon Heavy, a plan could be executed using around 6 of those boosters (if any of them are ever built), launched in less than a nine-month window to meet the most favorable orbital departure time to send a mission to Mars.  I could even support a precursor campaign of 3 launches 2 years prior to the "main event" to preposition logistics and other systems at the destination for a nine vehicle launch campaign.

Of course, I am no rocket scientist (my dad was though), so I my plan is worthless...  :)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
This does not just add up.  They cannot get away from grandiose, large scale, multi-flight schemes as put forth by von Braun in the 1950s.  The "Battlestar Galactic" scheme and its epic failure of planning and fiscal responsibility certainly does not seem to have driven any lessons learned.

With one pad and a slow production rate, they think they can craft multi-year launch campaigns of 10, 12, or 14 boosters to send stuff to Mars?  While Mars Direct with 2 or 3 launches may be too small and optimistic, this once again goes over the top.

I have to think with using a combination of SLS, Vulcan, and Falcon Heavy, a plan could be executed using around 6 of those boosters (if any of them are ever built), launched in less than a nine-month window to meet the most favorable orbital departure time to send a mission to Mars.  I could even support a precursor campaign of 3 launches 2 years prior to the "main event" to preposition logistics and other systems at the destination for a nine vehicle launch campaign.

Of course, I am no rocket scientist (my dad was though), so I my plan is worthless...  :)

It would probably cost less and be much quicker to ya know, leverage all available platforms rather than what they are trying to do here.

But like you intimated, that would make too much sense!
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
This does not just add up.  They cannot get away from grandiose, large scale, multi-flight schemes as put forth by von Braun in the 1950s.  The "Battlestar Galactic" scheme and its epic failure of planning and fiscal responsibility certainly does not seem to have driven any lessons learned.

There's nothing grandiose about this plan. Since when is a 18t ton lander grandiose? That's the smallest possible lander. In total 80t on the Martian surface. What's grandiose about that?

You realize Musk wants to land 100t on the surface with a super monstrous Earth-Mars SSTO vehicle?

Jeez people, look at the stuff before making such statements.

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 699
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 263
  • Likes Given: 49
I have been reading the old Mars plans from the 1960s in DSFP's blog, and to be honest the main difference is that in the current plan we know more about Mars. Otherwise, while some of the required items for development have a higher TRL than on the first plans in the 1960s, most materials are still somewhere on the wish list rather than the developed list. The biggest issue is that it has proven very difficult to commit the future administrations 20+ years down the line on your plan. When Nixon approved the space shuttle in 1972 it strongly implied a space station down the line. Bill Clinton did give the final approval to the ISS in 1993, after he had already cancelled it and after it turned into a merger of the world's space programs. This is the exception, not the rule.

This plan is useful, it tells you what is necessary to go to Mars. It lacks budgetary realism considering that getting 1 SLS per year is difficult, let alone 2. Also down the line it will be revised, and usually revisions tend to be towards more complexity rather than less. Personally I see the next president, whoever he or she is, asking for a status report and then cancelling ARM but moving up the DRO station. I also him or her developing a lunar lander and potentially a lunar base. He or she can realistically expect a return to the moon around the end of his or her second term. A Mars trip though is several presidents down the line especially if we decide to extend the ISS beyond 2024.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
This does not just add up.  They cannot get away from grandiose, large scale, multi-flight schemes as put forth by von Braun in the 1950s.  The "Battlestar Galactic" scheme and its epic failure of planning and fiscal responsibility certainly does not seem to have driven any lessons learned.

There's nothing grandiose about this plan. Since when is a 18t ton lander grandiose? That's the smallest possible lander. In total 80t on the Martian surface. What's grandiose about that?

You realize Musk wants to land 100t on the surface with a super monstrous Earth-Mars SSTO vehicle?

Jeez people, look at the stuff before making such statements.
The "grandiose" part is the cost model and the timeline, as well as the mission model itself. It simply does not leverage very many (or any) things that outright could make this easier, quicker, and cheaper, and fly sooner. It is very much a blast from the past 50's era model of mission planning.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
I have been reading the old Mars plans from the 1960s in DSFP's blog, and to be honest the main difference is that in the current plan we know more about Mars. Otherwise, while some of the required items for development have a higher TRL than on the first plans in the 1960s, most materials are still somewhere on the wish list rather than the developed list. The biggest issue is that it has proven very difficult to commit the future administrations 20+ years down the line on your plan. When Nixon approved the space shuttle in 1972 it strongly implied a space station down the line. Bill Clinton did give the final approval to the ISS in 1993, after he had already cancelled it and after it turned into a merger of the world's space programs. This is the exception, not the rule.

This plan is useful, it tells you what is necessary to go to Mars. It lacks budgetary realism considering that getting 1 SLS per year is difficult, let alone 2. Also down the line it will be revised, and usually revisions tend to be towards more complexity rather than less. Personally I see the next president, whoever he or she is, asking for a status report and then cancelling ARM but moving up the DRO station. I also him or her developing a lunar lander and potentially a lunar base. He or she can realistically expect a return to the moon around the end of his or her second term. A Mars trip though is several presidents down the line especially if we decide to extend the ISS beyond 2024.
Quote
several presidents down the line
Unless of course we leverage the commercial model and stop trying to do things the old way.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Nascent Ascent

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 106
Great way to inspire the youth of our country. 

Inspire them to have kids so that their grandkids might live to see an SLS launch to Mars.   :-\

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Great way to inspire the youth of our country. 

Inspire them to have kids so that their grandkids might live to see an SLS launch to Mars.   :-\
Oh wait I can top this. Let me give this a whirl.

"Inspire them to vote for pork, so one day of their grand kid's kid's, might one-day become a congress critter who get's to control the pork and get rich from it!
Remember, be a good citizen, do what your told, and vote pork barrel! "

-
The congress of the United State's subcommittee on subcommittee's approves this message.

 ;D

« Last Edit: 09/25/2015 01:01 am by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
How do you "leverage the commercial model" here?
Throw money at Elon? NASA's not going to do that.

The LV is not the issue here, IMHO. Nor is the flight rate. But the complex mission architecture with all these components to be developed. This is not a slow schedule for this kind of endeavor, it's actually very aggressive. No, these things are not just lying around waiting to be flown.

And how do you "commercialize" that? Compete the payloads? Sure, you can do that and it would probably happen anyway. Compete the flights? With people developing ADDITIONAL HLVs? Nah.

So the only option would be to let someone else do the whole thing like Musk is saying he wants to with his MCTs but these are HUGE investments. Probably much more expensive than the whole NASA plan. It might work if he somehow can get the funding for it since it's less complex but I don't see any government writing blank cheques the size of the whole NASA budget to a single company to "commercialize" a Mars landing? What would be the purpose?
« Last Edit: 09/25/2015 01:05 am by pippin »

Tags:
 

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