Commerce and Space Development: foster the expansion of the economic sphere beyond Earth orbit to support U.S. industry and innovation.
TH-1L: Develop cislunar systems that crew can routinely operate to and from lunar orbit and the lunar surface for extended durations.TH-2L: Develop system(s) that can routinely deliver a range of elements to the lunar surface.TH-3L: Develop system(s) to allow crew to explore, operate, and live on the lunar surface and in lunar orbit with scalability to continuous presence; conducting scientific and industrial utilization as well as Mars analog activities.
Still a lot of generic, flaky garbage. To pick on one... “Operate surface mobility systems”? I did that driving my kid to school this morning. What lunar surface mobility capability will Artemis achieve or demonstrate that is either on the critical path to other goals or represents a step change in capability since Apollo?
Operations Goal: Conduct human missions on the surface and around the Moon followed by missions to Mars. Using a gradual build-up approach, these missions will demonstrate technologies and operations to live and work on a planetary surface other than Earth, with a safe return to Earth at the completion of the missions.
RT-1: International Collaboration: partner with international community to achieve common goals and objectives.RT-2: Industry Collaboration: partner with U.S. industry to achieve common goals and objectives.RT-4: Crew Time: maximize crew time available for science and engineering activities within planned mission durations.RT-5: Maintainability and Reuse: when practical, design systems for maintainability, reuse, and/or recycling tosupport the long-term sustainability of operations and increase Earth independence.RT-7: Interoperability: enable interoperability and commonality (technical, operations and process standards) amongsystems, elements, and crews throughout the campaign.RT-9: Commerce and Space Development: foster the expansion of the economic sphere beyond Earth orbit tosupport U.S. industry and innovation.
Some of the transportation and habitation systems objectives are interesting:Quote from: page 10 of the Moon to Mars objectivesTH-1L: Develop cislunar systems that crew can routinely operate to and from lunar orbit and the lunar surface for extended durations.TH-2L: Develop system(s) that can routinely deliver a range of elements to the lunar surface.TH-3L: Develop system(s) to allow crew to explore, operate, and live on the lunar surface and in lunar orbit with scalability to continuous presence; conducting scientific and industrial utilization as well as Mars analog activities.Arguably SLS and Orion meets some of these goals. However, these goals can be also fulfilled by other HLV and spacecraft options. In my opinion, this confirms once more that the Artemis/Moon to Mars program is not the same as SLS and Orion and that Artemis could survive, even if SLS and Orion were to be replaced by commercial options.
Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 09/20/2022 03:18 pmStill a lot of generic, flaky garbage. To pick on one... “Operate surface mobility systems”? I did that driving my kid to school this morning. What lunar surface mobility capability will Artemis achieve or demonstrate that is either on the critical path to other goals or represents a step change in capability since Apollo? You have to read that subgoal with the overall goal and the recurring tenets to give it its full meaning:Quote from: page 11 of the Moon to Mars objectivesOperations Goal: Conduct human missions on the surface and around the Moon followed by missions to Mars. Using a gradual build-up approach, these missions will demonstrate technologies and operations to live and work on a planetary surface other than Earth, with a safe return to Earth at the completion of the missions.
Quote from: page 5 of the Moon to Mars objectivesRT-1: International Collaboration: partner with international community to achieve common goals and objectives.RT-2: Industry Collaboration: partner with U.S. industry to achieve common goals and objectives.RT-4: Crew Time: maximize crew time available for science and engineering activities within plannedmission durations.RT-5: Maintainability and Reuse: when practical, design systems for maintainability, reuse, and/or recycling tosupport the long-term sustainability of operations and increase Earth independence.RT-7: Interoperability: enable interoperability and commonality (technical, operations and process standards) amongsystems, elements, and crews throughout the campaign.RT-9: Commerce and Space Development: foster the expansion of the economic sphere beyond Earth orbit tosupport U.S. industry and innovation.The addition of the recurring tenets is a big improvement over the objectives released in May.
RT-1: International Collaboration: partner with international community to achieve common goals and objectives.RT-2: Industry Collaboration: partner with U.S. industry to achieve common goals and objectives.RT-4: Crew Time: maximize crew time available for science and engineering activities within plannedmission durations.RT-5: Maintainability and Reuse: when practical, design systems for maintainability, reuse, and/or recycling tosupport the long-term sustainability of operations and increase Earth independence.RT-7: Interoperability: enable interoperability and commonality (technical, operations and process standards) amongsystems, elements, and crews throughout the campaign.RT-9: Commerce and Space Development: foster the expansion of the economic sphere beyond Earth orbit tosupport U.S. industry and innovation.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/20/2022 03:07 pmSome of the transportation and habitation systems objectives are interesting:Quote from: page 10 of the Moon to Mars objectivesTH-1L: Develop cislunar systems that crew can routinely operate to and from lunar orbit and the lunar surface for extended durations.TH-2L: Develop system(s) that can routinely deliver a range of elements to the lunar surface.TH-3L: Develop system(s) to allow crew to explore, operate, and live on the lunar surface and in lunar orbit with scalability to continuous presence; conducting scientific and industrial utilization as well as Mars analog activities.Arguably SLS and Orion meets some of these goals. However, these goals can be also fulfilled by other HLV and spacecraft options. In my opinion, this confirms once more that the Artemis/Moon to Mars program is not the same as SLS and Orion and that Artemis could survive, even if SLS and Orion were to be replaced by commercial options.1 is worthless. What does NASA mean by “routinely operate”? One crew every two years? Or is the agency trying to build to something more, like four crews per year? If the agency doesn’t know, then why does the program exist in the first place?And you gotta love that “routine” is similarly undefined even in the glossary as “Recurring subject operations performed as part of a regular procedure rather than for a unique reason.” Basically, routine means regular. But what do either mean in terms of a cadence that the program needs to achieve or is shooting for? How would Artemis managers know whether Orion/SLS is sufficient or not based on this meaningless, circular doublespeak?2 is worthless. What does NASA mean by a “range of elements”? Roughly how much mass does the program need delivered to the lunar surface in certain timeframes or in single landings? Does the program plan to improve this over time to enable increased lunar surface activity 3 sorta gets at something concrete by aiming for “scalability to a continuous presence”. But what does scalable mean in terms of program, hardware, and mission decisions? Is a 30-day stay on the lunar surface “scalable to a continuous presence”? 60-days? 180-days? What specifically needs to be demonstrated?To be clear, I’m not picking on yg1968 or expecting answers to these questions here. But I hope this gets across how useless this is as a planning document.
Doesn’t help. Doesn’t tell the folks building surface mobility systems what capability they’re aiming for or mission planners what demonstration they’re aiming for.
I’m all for common sense principles (the “how”), but they don’t make up for the lack of concrete direction (the “what”) in the rest of the document. And #9 is not a tenet or “how”. It’s a goal or “what”. Economic goals should be under the objectives.
Lunar Infrastructure (LI) Goal: Create an interoperable global lunar utilization infrastructure where U.S. industry and international partners can maintain continuous robotic and human presence on the lunar surface for a robust lunar economy without NASA as the sole user, while accomplishing science objectives and testing for Mars.
In case that it wasn't obvious, the current plans meet these goals.
Making "building a lunar economy", a common goal for all objectives is especially important. It was already in the Artemis plan but re-emphasizing in the objectives is good.
In terms of mission durations, I don't expect that this will change. The Appendix P BAA was released last Friday and it still talks about a 33 days mission. So it is possible that 6.5 and 33 day lunar missions are scalable to longer missions but it's still not clear if NASA has plans for missions that are longer than 33 days.
These requirements would be in the RFP or in the BAA.
Furthermore, the building a lunar economy goal also appears in the infrastructure goals. Quote from: page 9 of the Moon to Mars objectivesLunar Infrastructure (LI) Goal: Create an interoperable global lunar utilization infrastructure where U.S. industry and international partners can maintain continuous robotic and human presence on the lunar surface for a robust lunar economy without NASA as the sole user, while accomplishing science objectives and testing for Mars.
You absolutely do not want high-level "mission statement" type objectives dictating "how" something should be done. There may be multiple valid ways to achieve the objective and you do not want to constrain the ways that objective might be accomplished.
These are statements that outline the "why" they're doing Artemis and "what" they would like to be accomplished.
I would recommend terminating Artemis based on this document.
"based on this document."Or based on whether water is wet, or the day ends in "y".You want to cancel Artemis, the document has nothing to do with it.
I think that this document is the Biden's Administration efforts to put their own stamp on the program. One thing that Nelson is trying to do is re-emphasize the Journey to Mars component of the Moon to Mars/Artemis program.
Just to be clear, this is a NASA document. It has not gone thru a formal White House review. It would look very different if it had.
https://spacenews.com/nasa-updates-exploration-objectives/
Melroy said NASA planned a “regular cadence” of workshops to provide new input into that architecture and set of objectives. “We’re going to be revisiting the architecture on an annual basis,” she said. “Our watch words are refinement, analysis review and engagement, and that’s a cycle we intend to repeat.”
Still a lot of generic, flaky garbage. To pick on one... “Operate surface mobility systems”? I did that driving my kid to school this morning. ...
(hey fun fact... VSECOTSPE helped write the Vision for Space Exploration back in the day. I was attempting to agree with VSECOTSPE). So what I am wondering (genuinely) is what would VSECOTSPE want to add to this already multi-trillion dollar set of objectives?? What were VSECOTSPE ‘s higher hopes?
Yahbut: Don't you think the acronyms are cool? TH-1L, TH-2L and so forth?
Well, to mix metaphors, he fought the law and the law won...I thought VSE was an excellent plan. I would have tweaked it here and there, but any plan that large is bound to have various problems, all of which could have been solved, had VSE been implemented. Instead, the PTB scrapped VSE, and the end result was the typical state of non-accomplishment that is so familiar.
engineering taxonomy
I thought I pretty clear upthread about how this Artemis objectives document needs to change...
On Moon-to-Mars, if Nelson or someone else at NASA was serious about that, then this document (or another) would set clear, substantive goals with respect to lunar launch cadence and mission duration that are on the scale needed for Mars (at a minimum). This document obviously does not.
The thing that people have been asking, as Artemis is growing, is: are you going to the Moon to go to Mars or are you going to the Moon to develop a sustainable [lunar] economy? We say that's not the right question, the answer is yes, we are doing both, we want to enable that community and on the way that will help enable us to get to Mars.
NASA Is Returning to the Moon This Week. Why Do We Feel Conflicted?https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/opinion/nasa-moon-artemis.html
[...] in the past getting to the moon was a race, with a mix of national pride, national security and science as the passenger. Now it seems perhaps more economically driven.
At the 10m of the video, Melroy says that we weren't starting with a clean sheet of paper, so we knew that we needed to start with our aspirations, look where we are and meet in the middle. At 19m, Melroy says that for each planetary body, there is 2 goals: practice for for the next step but we also want to have some presence. At 28-29 minutes, Melroy said that you will see more science objectives integrated into Artemis III and then really kicking in after that.
Quote from: yg1968 on 11/13/2022 02:00 amAt the 10m of the video, Melroy says that we weren't starting with a clean sheet of paper, so we knew that we needed to start with our aspirations, look where we are and meet in the middle. At 19m, Melroy says that for each planetary body, there is 2 goals: practice for for the next step but we also want to have some presence. At 28-29 minutes, Melroy said that you will see more science objectives integrated into Artemis III and then really kicking in after that.Emphasis mineLet's just get EUS up and online on its new Mobile Launcher(ML) before we worry too much about science.
Quote from: Hog on 11/15/2022 11:38 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 11/13/2022 02:00 amAt the 10m of the video, Melroy says that we weren't starting with a clean sheet of paper, so we knew that we needed to start with our aspirations, look where we are and meet in the middle. At 19m, Melroy says that for each planetary body, there is 2 goals: practice for for the next step but we also want to have some presence. At 28-29 minutes, Melroy said that you will see more science objectives integrated into Artemis III and then really kicking in after that.Emphasis mineLet's just get EUS up and online on its new Mobile Launcher(ML) before we worry too much about science. Why? Artemis 3 doesn’t need those, and science doesn’t either since the lander(s) launch separate. Artemis 3 can have science objectives.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/15/2022 11:40 pmQuote from: Hog on 11/15/2022 11:38 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 11/13/2022 02:00 amAt the 10m of the video, Melroy says that we weren't starting with a clean sheet of paper, so we knew that we needed to start with our aspirations, look where we are and meet in the middle. At 19m, Melroy says that for each planetary body, there is 2 goals: practice for for the next step but we also want to have some presence. At 28-29 minutes, Melroy said that you will see more science objectives integrated into Artemis III and then really kicking in after that.Emphasis mineLet's just get EUS up and online on its new Mobile Launcher(ML) before we worry too much about science. Why? Artemis 3 doesn’t need those, and science doesn’t either since the lander(s) launch separate. Artemis 3 can have science objectives.The Artemis III crew could actually perform more science on that mission than the entire Apollo Lunar Landing program. Load up all the equipment needed for the science experiments on the HLS prior to launch.
Let's just get EUS up and online on its new Mobile Launcher(ML) before we worry too much about science.
Quote from: Hog on 11/15/2022 11:38 pmLet's just get EUS up and online on its new Mobile Launcher(ML) before we worry too much about science. No offense, but that’s backwards. Science requirements should have been one of the drivers of the program from the get-go. Tacking them on as an afterthought is piss-poor program formulation.That said, Artemis III is unlikely to go off on the schedule and/or with the program elements currently planned, so there is a certain angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin quality to the discussion now.
FIND ICE, MINE ICE, MAKE WATER.Water supplies have always been essential for human settlements, and finding that on the moon is transformational. Currently there is a lot of evidence for a widespread hydrogen containing compound on the moon. There is limited evidence for water in a few locations. It could be in the form of hydrated minerals, it could be ice mixed with soil, or it could be patches of pure ice. There is no information about how deep the water bearing deposits are. There is no information about how difficult it would be to extract water from whatever resources the moon has. Without that, talk of permanent presence or a lunar economy is premature.
Going back to the Moon to stay doesn't mean that humans will be on the lunar surface 365 days per year, it simply means that the Artemis program doesn't have an end, there will constantly be missions to the Moon. If you listen to Nelson and Melroys' comments, it's obvious that is what they meant (since they were explaining the difference between Apollo and Artemis) and it is also what Jim Bridenstine meant when he used that expression. That is all that it means. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.msg2401166#msg2401166Having said that, a 365 days per year lunar presence is the ultimate goal in the Moon to Mars program but that is likely tied to the lunar economy goal in the sense that the 365 days per year presence would probably only be accomplished if you take into account missions by commercial providers and international partners. That is more of a distant goal. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.msg2419652#msg2419652
Mr. Bridenstine. Absolutely. So going back to--I think it was February 2017 the President signed Space Policy Directive 1. In that space policy directive he said we're going to go to the moon. We're going to go sustainably. In other words, this time when we go, we're actually going to stay. It doesn't mean we're going to have a permanent human presence on the surface of the moon necessarily, but what it means is we're going to have permanent access to the surface of the moon with humans but also with landers and robots and rovers. But we're going to go, we're going to go sustainably, we're going to go with commercial partners, we're going to go with international partners, and we're going to retire risk, prove capability, and then we're going to take that to Mars.
The goals for moon will place all infrastructure in place to enable commercial exploitation of moon. NASA will help setup power, navigation, ISRU pilot plant for fuel and water, landers. Its up to industry to build on these and in process reduce cost of accessing moon and its resources.Hopefully remove need to have NASA as anchor customer and get to stage their custom isn't essential for financial survival. This is target for LEO over next decade.
I can't help but feel that "moon to mars" is just a PR way of making it sound like they are not abandoning anything mars. Even though there obviously isn't any serious "get people to mars" work happening whatsoever.
The significance of the Apollo program was transforming “the impossible and making it possible,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said. “Now we are going to do that again, but for a different purpose. This time we go back to the moon to learn, to live, to work, to invent, to create in order to go out into the cosmos to further explore.”
"The difference between Artemis and Apollo and other programs is that we're going for a sustainable presence on the surface of the moon to learn to live sustainably outside of Earth's influence, and we're not just going to learn that by flying Orion," he said.
@v_wyche tells @JoelAchenbach, "There's many reasons for wanting to go [to the moon.] NASA of course is looking at it from a scientific discovery, as well as us learning how to live and work on a body, that's close to home, that will allow us to then move onto Mars."
Pam Melroy says Expl Systems Division will hold the first architectural concept review for Moon to Mars next week, the first of what will be an annual process to evaluate architecture against her list of 60+ objectives that came out last year.
Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy says the agency's Exploration Systems Development directorate will host its first architecture concept review next week, building on the Moon-to-Mars objectives unveiled last year.
Today is the start of @NASA's Architecture Concept Review, where we'll gain concurrence on our Moon to Mars architecture amongst our colleagues, enabling us to work toward the same plan. This review is the first of its type that we'll conduct annually.It's an honor to lead this critical review as we fine-tune this process. Key products will come out of this review over the next few months, including a comprehensive architecture definition document and white papers that show our work.Today, we discussed the review's success criteria and our exploration strategy. Our architecture is driven by @NASA's Moon to Mars objectives, with an emphasis to conduct science at the Moon and test the systems and technologies needed to send humans to Mars.Our architecture is open and will evolve over time as we prioritize objectives and review the available tradespace. I'm looking forward to the discussions we'll have over the next few days as we progress through the review.
Good discussion on day two of our Architecture Concept Review. This first review is about getting our process down, ensuring we reach consensus as an agency on how we'll define the architecture.Architecture Concept Reviews will be held annually, and each time, we'll better define and evolve the architecture, using @NASA's Moon to Mars objectives as guideposts. We'll define functions from the objectives.These functions could be addressed through different elements, giving us flexibility to decide how best to achieve an objective.
Yesterday and today, we worked on resolving comments to the document from our colleagues - again coming to consensus to ensure we are recommending an architecture that follows what we want to achieve at the Moon and Mars that everyone can see themselves in.We've had fantastic discussion, and I appreciate everyone's participation. We still have more updates to make to the document before we release it publicly, but this review was a critical step to getting a baseline architecture. Stay tuned - exciting activities are happening!
Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 02/08/2023 12:39 amAnd still working Moon-to-Mars org:https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-awaiting-congressional-approval-for-moon-to-mars-program-office/From the article:Quote from: Marcia SmithNASA developed a set of 63 Moon to Mars objectives, a “blueprint for shaping exploration throughout the solar system.” Free just completed a week-long Architecture Concept Review to begin developing an evolvable plan to achieve those objectives. He wants to get the group — which includes all of NASA’s Center Directors, Mission Directorates, and technical authorities — together again later this month before finalizing a report to NASA’s Executive Council in mid-March. NASA Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy will share the results with the public at the Space Symposium in April if all goes according to plan.
And still working Moon-to-Mars org:https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-awaiting-congressional-approval-for-moon-to-mars-program-office/
NASA developed a set of 63 Moon to Mars objectives, a “blueprint for shaping exploration throughout the solar system.” Free just completed a week-long Architecture Concept Review to begin developing an evolvable plan to achieve those objectives. He wants to get the group — which includes all of NASA’s Center Directors, Mission Directorates, and technical authorities — together again later this month before finalizing a report to NASA’s Executive Council in mid-March. NASA Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy will share the results with the public at the Space Symposium in April if all goes according to plan.
Apr 6, 2023NASA Details Strategy Behind Blueprint for Moon to Mars ExplorationAs NASA evolves its blueprint for shaping exploration throughout the solar system, the agency is detailing its process to develop a sustainable, resilient path forward for exploration. In a document published April 5, the agency explains the methodology behind developing NASA’s Moon to Mars objectives that drive its architecture, plans, and efforts to enable long-term human presence and exploration throughout the solar system.NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development provides insight into how NASA developed and refined its Moon to Mars objectives released in 2022, and describes how the agency is establishing an objectives-driven architectural review process to ensure efforts to develop, build, and achieve exploration activities at the Moon and Mars are resilient for decades to come.NASA’s overall Moon to Mars strategy seeks to develop a roadmap with input from a wide variety of U.S. and global stakeholders to define overarching exploration goals to enable the agency and others to build capabilities to meet those goals, a shift from a capabilities-driven approach to exploration.Under Artemis, NASA has set a vision to explore more of the Moon than ever before. With the crew for Artemis II recently named, the agency plans to return humans to the Moon and establish a cadence of missions including at the lunar south polar region. These missions set up a long-term presence to inform future exploration of farther destinations, including Mars, and other potential future destinations in the solar system.The Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development document is available online at:go.nasa.gov/3zzSNhpLast Updated: Apr 6, 2023Editor: Erin MahoneyTags: Artemis, Moon to Mars
The Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development document details NASA’s Moon to Mars strategy and top-level goals and objectives, designed to achieve the vision to create a blueprint for sustained human presence and exploration throughout the solar system.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-details-strategy-behind-blueprint-for-moon-to-mars-explorationQuoteApr 6, 2023NASA Details Strategy Behind Blueprint for Moon to Mars Exploration...NASA’s overall Moon to Mars strategy seeks to develop a roadmap with input from a wide variety of U.S. and global stakeholders...
Apr 6, 2023NASA Details Strategy Behind Blueprint for Moon to Mars Exploration...NASA’s overall Moon to Mars strategy seeks to develop a roadmap with input from a wide variety of U.S. and global stakeholders...
...to define overarching exploration goals...
...to enable the agency and others to build capabilities to meet those goals, a shift from a capabilities-driven approach to exploration.
[Bill Nelson:] We return to the Moon to stay. To learn and to live and to create. To do incredible science we can do nowhere else. To continue to build our Nation’s capabilities in space, creating positive effects on our economy, our security, and our daily lives. And we go to inspire the Artemis Generation to extend human presence and exploration throughout the solar system – and beyond.
The strategy is not static; it requires ongoing review and feedback to continue to evolve based on new minds, new technology, and new developments. Annual iterative reviews form the strategic next steps, with the goal of implementing change with detail, rigor, and consistency such that the vision, goals, and objectives are not altered, but improved.
The purpose of this document is to outline NASA’s Moon to Mars strategy as well as the development process used to define the overarching Moon to Mars objectives. This framework will drive NASA’s architecture, plans, and efforts in enabling sustained human presence and exploration throughout the solar system.
With an eye toward future exploration, the strategy allows for humanity to learn to adapt, live, thrive, navigate, produce, and prosper in each new domain – which then prepares for the next. From the dawn of time, this has been humanity’s exploration tactic. As an example: low-Earth orbit. First, humanity arrived, then thrived, then learned to live and produce, and a robust low-Earth orbit commercial economy blossomed soon after.The same will be true in the Moon to Mars endeavor. The Moon is a proving ground to develop and demonstrate capabilities that will lay the foundation for humans to thrive, while at the same time offering opportunities to learn and prepare for an initial Mars campaign. The arrival at Mars will offer the same duality to extend humanity’s reach farther into the solar system.
From 2010 to approximately 2020, NASA leadership and U.S. legislators created the compromise that led to the Space Launch System, Orion spacecraft, and the Exploration Ground System – the formation of the Artemis program. Changing goals and budget questions regarding legislated technology solutions and affordability caused anxiety – internal and external to NASA – and led to the “capability-based” approach. These capabilities would enable the agency to go to any destination legislators chose –cislunar space, the lunar surface, near-Earth asteroids, Mars, or anywhere else – while not necessarily accounting for the specific needs of each destination. The capability based approach addresses the question: What can be done with the existing budget? While the capability-based approach makes progress, it’s not the same progress enabled by an objective-based strategy. It allows for the development of technology but lacks a vision of the end state for that work. [...]The capability-based framework and the agency’s space exploration work since the 1950s forms the foundation of human exploration systems on which a new strategy can build. Moving forward, an objective-based strategy will achieve a blueprint for sustained human presence and exploration throughout the solar system. The new Moon to Mars strategy steps back to consider what has been done and what must be done to step forward farther and more meaningfully into space exploration. The new strategy must be specific, rigorous, and consistent, creating resilience – in technical, financial, and political terms –for it to gain universal understanding and unification of effort. At the same time, the strategy must be flexible, for new minds, new technologies, new approaches, and new learning to help shape any evolution in the coming decades in a similarly rigorous manner. [...]In several critical ways, the new space exploration landscape is different than it was between 1989 and 2022. At this inflection point, NASA has had the opportunity to stay the course over two consecutive political and agency administrations. At the same time, the threat of international space exploration competition looms. The first wave of commercial space sector partners are successfully operating, and the cost to orbit and the size of robotic spacecraft have reduced dramatically. The commercial sector has proven that once NASA demonstrates a technology, it can successfully carry technologies forward and provide space transportation as a service. It’s an era where a new generation of innovators is revolutionizing space exploration and operations. An objective-based strategy founded on excellence in systems engineering will continue the forward progress and inspire the investments necessary to forge ahead in space exploration.
Objective-Based Approach Architect from the Right / Execute from the Left Architect from the right– work backwards from the defined goal and establish a complete set of elements that will be required for success.The first principle is a shift from a capability based framework to an objective-based framework, in which top-level goals and objectives lead, guiding the integrated plan to meet them. The objective-based approach looks to the future and codifies an envisioned long-term state (the “what” in the systems engineering process). In a schedule vernacular, this envisioned long term goal is how things look all the way to the right on the schedule. Through goals and objectives developed in detail, with rigor, with consistency across years and administrations, and with a mind toward value, an objective based approach can guide the agency through external influences toward the strategic vision. Strategically developing the Moon to Mars endeavor lays the foundation for the long-term vision (“create a blueprint for sustained human presence and exploration throughout the solar system”) and allows for demonstration of the blueprint on Mars. Going to the Moon is in part to prepare for that initial Mars campaign.
NASA’s Cross-Directorate Federated Board, an internal coordination body whose membership includes senior leadership from each of the mission directorates, was created to ensure the directorates are cohesively focused on and integrated with common strategic goals and direction for the agency. The Federated Board promotes excellence in communication across NASA, helps drive consensus, fosters efficient conflict resolution, and provides advice to decisionmakers. The Federated Board promoted the agency’s first steps in Architecting from the Right in a collaborative way by drafting the initial set of top-level objectives, as well as soliciting public feedback and utilizing that feedback to refine the objectives. The Federated Board is also the primary author of this document, which is the cornerstone of communication efforts surrounding the Moon to Mars strategy.
The Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate will conduct strategic, iterative review of the blueprint architecture through Strategic Analysis Cycles (SAC), which will occur annually with the goal of prioritizing the work and studies needed to address open questions, coordinate with industry and international partners, and identify and resolve gaps in the architecture to achieve progress. [...]Once complete, the iterative SAC effort will be reviewed at annual NASA internal Architecture Concept Reviews (ACRs). [...] ACRs will be scheduled to support the yearly budget planning process by enabling analysis and understanding of architectural updates and changes in advance. [...] The iterative approach ensures ongoing attention to constancy of purpose, thereby supporting a multi-decadal endeavor for human exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
Preserve Humanity“Thriving away from Earth”The Moon to Mars enterprise lays the foundation to expand human presence into deep space and develops the ability to keep humans healthy and productive in space for longer than ever before. Living and working in isolated locations in the most extreme extraterrestrial environments will teach humanity how to survive and even thrive without Earth’s support.
Economy“Creating a sustainable ecosystem for innovation, exploration, and public benefit”Economic opportunity has followed and supported humanity in its global expansion, throughout history. Likewise, trade will be essential to humanity’s early steps into the solar system. The Moon and Mars are the most remote, hostile, and difficult environments humans will have ever visited, even in comparison to the most extreme Earth environments, such as Antarctica. Like today’s Antarctic research bases and the International Space Station, early human efforts on the Moon and Mars will rely on a network of commercial, international, and other partners working together to support NASA’s efforts. Over time, through the development of innovative new technologies and operations adapted to these extreme environments, these early efforts will pave the way toward more capable, sustainable, and increasingly Earth-independent operations. These contributions will come from a variety of participants, with the potential to unlock benefits for all of humanity.
[...] engagement with respondents from academia, industry, and space advocacy organizations occurred in an in-person workshop held in June 2022 at Space Center Houston. [...] During this workshop, industry raised the need for architectural consistency to guide investments, along with the need for a signal from NASA that it would be the anchor tenant for services that industry would provide.To engage international partners, NASA led a Moon to Mars objectives workshop in July 2022, hosted by the United Kingdom Space Agency (UKSA) at the Royal Institute in London. Sixteen international space agencies participated in the two-day summit. Again, attendees could engage directly with mission directorate subject matter experts corresponding to the four tracks through open dialogs involving all attending space agencies. The resulting conversations raised a key question beyond the objectives: how can space agencies partner with NASA?
Summer ScrubThe inputs from these feedback streams were then synthesized in an activity dubbed the “summer scrub” to update and polish the Moon to Mars objectives and strategy features. As part of the feedback review, several format and overarching updates to the objectives documentation were implemented, including:• Establish a single, concise statement that summarizes the process and the end state that the objectives enable: “Define the overarching Moon to Mars objectives for NASA to drive its architecture, plans, and efforts in enabling sustained human presence and exploration throughout the solar system. [...]• Rename the Overarching Objectives Principals to Recurring Tenets, which were expanded from four to nine.
Here are some of the highlights of NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development report:...
P.S. I didn't quote from the goals and objectives since those were already public and can be found here:https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/m2m-objectives-exec-summary.pdf
RT-3: Crew Return: return crews safely to Earth while mitigating adverse impacts to crew health.
You can recognize AI generated narratives with an intersection of multiple circles in a Venn diagram that includes many themes or buzzwords. Most conversations by humans don’t communicate with this type of complexity. It’s just word salad for the purpose of maintaining the status quo without needing to deliver anything tangible ever again.
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/07/2023 04:26 pmHere are some of the highlights of NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development report:...Too many words, too few measurable goals.QuoteP.S. I didn't quote from the goals and objectives since those were already public and can be found here:https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/m2m-objectives-exec-summary.pdfThat document does [not] list goals and objectives, it only lists objectives.
Lunar/Planetary Science (LPS) Goal: Address high priority planetary science questions that are best accomplished by on-site human explorers on and around the Moon and Mars, aided by surface and orbiting robotic systems.Heliophysics Science (HS) Goal: Address high-priority heliophysics science and space weather questions that are best accomplished using a combination of human explorers and robotic systems at the Moon, at Mars, and in deep space.Human and Biological Science (HBS)Goal: Advance understanding of how biology responds to the environments of the Moon, Mars, and deep space to advance fundamental knowledge, to support safe, productive human space missions, and to reduce risks for future exploration. Physics and Physical Science (PPS)Goal: Address high-priority physics and physical science questions that are best accomplished by using unique attributes of the lunar environment. Science-Enabling (SE) Goal: Develop integrated human and robotic methods and advanced techniques that enable high-priority scientific questions to be addressed around and on the Moon and Mars.Applied Science (AS)Goal: Conduct science on the Moon, in cislunar space, and around and on Mars using integrated human and robotic methods and advanced techniques, to inform design and development of exploration systems and enable safe operations. Lunar Infrastructure (LI) Goal: Create an interoperable global lunar utilization infrastructure where U.S. industry and international partners can maintain continuous robotic and human presence on the lunar surface for a robust lunar economy without NASA as the sole user, while accomplishing science objectives and testing for Mars.Mars Infrastructure (MI) Goal: Create essential infrastructure to support an initial human Mars exploration campaign. Transportation and Habitation (TH) Goal: Develop and demonstrate an integrated system of systems to conduct a campaign of human exploration missions to the Moon and Mars, while living and working on the lunar and Martian surfaces, with safe return to Earth. Operations (OP)Goal: Conduct human missions on the surface and around the Moon followed by missions to Mars. Using a gradual build-up approach, these missions will demonstrate technologies and operations to live and work on a planetary surface other than Earth, with a safe return to Earth at the completion of the missions.
Goal: Target set by an organization to achieve its vision. Goals are broader than objectives, but shorter-term than an endeavor or vision.Objective: Statement that defines a goal more specifically and helps achieve desired outcomes.
JohnF, [assuming this is addressed to me: JF]When you say you’re going to drive to Pittsburgh or really anywhere… then somebody asks you, you know, “why”?
If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man and his quest for knowledge and progress is determined and cannot be deterred.
There is not a consensus on the items at the intersection of all the circles. Those items in this diagram being: Leadership, Economy, Human Condition, and Norms. For example, what does "Norms" even mean?
Intersection of Inspiration and National PostureNorms“Be the example; influence the rules of the road”History is replete with examples of leading nations having the opportunity to set the practices for those that follow: air traffic management, maritime rules, frequency management in the geosynchronous Earth orbit belt, etc. Through exploration of the Moon, Mars, and other bodies, NASA and its partners create the rules of engagement that best serve their citizens, including norms for operational activities and advanced demonstrations of science and technology to shape the safe and sustainable use of space.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/09/2023 12:33 pmThere is not a consensus on the items at the intersection of all the circles. Those items in this diagram being: Leadership, Economy, Human Condition, and Norms. For example, what does "Norms" even mean?Reading is hard.QuoteIntersection of Inspiration and National PostureNorms“Be the example; influence the rules of the road”History is replete with examples of leading nations having the opportunity to set the practices for those that follow: air traffic management, maritime rules, frequency management in the geosynchronous Earth orbit belt, etc. Through exploration of the Moon, Mars, and other bodies, NASA and its partners create the rules of engagement that best serve their citizens, including norms for operational activities and advanced demonstrations of science and technology to shape the safe and sustainable use of space.
Of course. Teh M2M graph there misses this entirely.
…At the same time, China doesn't have the term "fair play" in its vocabulary.
Couldn’t agree more with John’s statement that “They won't do anything until they can do everything.”To quote SpongeBob, “I smell the smell of something that smells smelly.”
Makes NASA’s objectives seem rather duplicative and uncollaborative.
During her keynote, “Our Next Steps to the Moon and Beyond,” NASA Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy will discuss progress toward a blueprint for sustained human exploration throughout the solar system at 11:15 a.m. EDT, on Tuesday, April 18.Melroy’s keynote will be followed by the Moon to Mars Strategy Implementation panel, which she will moderate, at 4 p.m., on Wednesday, April 19. Participants include:Kenneth Bowersox, deputy associate administrator, Space Operations Mission DirectorateNicola Fox, associate administrator, Science Mission DirectorateJames Free, associate administrator, Exploration Systems Development Mission DirectorateRobert Gibbs, associate administrator, Mission Support DirectorateJim Reuter, associate administrator, Space Technology Mission DirectorateNASA will broadcast both key events with Melroy on NASA TV, the NASA app, and the agency’s website.
NASA releases architecture for human exploration of the moon and Mars:https://spacenews.com/nasa-releases-architecture-for-human-exploration-of-the-moon-and-mars/
Space Symposium 2023 Panel: NASA Leaders on 'Moon to Mars' Strategy Implementation
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/18/2023 06:44 pmNASA releases architecture for human exploration of the moon and Mars:https://spacenews.com/nasa-releases-architecture-for-human-exploration-of-the-moon-and-mars/Procedural question for the mods: This is basically Mars DRA 6.0, with some detailed Artemis architecture work thrown in to muddy the waters. Does it belong here in Moon-to-Mars Objectives, or should it have its own thread?Just following down one set of links from the SpaceNews article, here's the landing pad for the entire suite of docs that NASA released.
The most important part of the presentation is at 39m of the video where Jim Free says that:-NASA will have more than one site with habitats to go to in order to have more flexibility as to when they can launch and still have appropriate lighting conditions-The equipment will be built, so that it doesn't need maintenance for 3 years-Landers can land in the south pole and the equator (certain science missions will need to land at the equator)-NASA built flexibility for missions as to when they can launch: for example, Artemis IV went from 0 days where it could launch to do what it needs to do to 70 days where it could launch each year (they learned more about Orion propellant availability which helped in that respect). -LTV can do science without humans during uncrewed periods (we already knew that).
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 04/19/2023 08:10 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 04/18/2023 06:44 pmNASA releases architecture for human exploration of the moon and Mars:https://spacenews.com/nasa-releases-architecture-for-human-exploration-of-the-moon-and-mars/Procedural question for the mods: This is basically Mars DRA 6.0, with some detailed Artemis architecture work thrown in to muddy the waters. Does it belong here in Moon-to-Mars Objectives, or should it have its own thread?Just following down one set of links from the SpaceNews article, here's the landing pad for the entire suite of docs that NASA released.The document also covers the Moon. The architecture covers 4 segments:-Human Lunar Return Segment-Foundational Exploration Segment-Sustained Lunar Evolution Segment; and-Humans to Mars SegmentOnly the last segment relates to Mars. However, surprisingly enough, it is the most detailed segment. I suggest that any discussions of the Mars segment be moved to the Mars thread that you just created:https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58670.msg2477244#msg2477244
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/19/2023 09:19 pmThe most important part of the presentation is at 39m of the video where Jim Free says that:-NASA will have more than one site with habitats to go to in order to have more flexibility as to when they can launch and still have appropriate lighting conditions-The equipment will be built, so that it doesn't need maintenance for 3 years-Landers can land in the south pole and the equator (certain science missions will need to land at the equator)-NASA built flexibility for missions as to when they can launch: for example, Artemis IV went from 0 days where it could launch to do what it needs to do to 70 days where it could launch each year (they learned more about Orion propellant availability which helped in that respect). -LTV can do science without humans during uncrewed periods (we already knew that).To me, this sounds like a tacit admission that the lunar Starship can mostly act as its own hab. I wouldn't be surprised to see the SLT lander restricted to a primary base with a hab and the LSS able to serve as its own hab for the alternate bases, with HDL landers dropping rovers and aux power systems at the alternates to keep the SLT service provider fed enough missions to avoid financial starvation.The lighting conditions are becoming an operational problem. Rather than an architecture that works around the lighting conditions, maybe an architecture that could land in more diverse lighting conditions would be a good goal?
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 04/19/2023 10:10 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 04/19/2023 09:19 pmThe most important part of the presentation is at 39m of the video where Jim Free says that:-NASA will have more than one site with habitats to go to in order to have more flexibility as to when they can launch and still have appropriate lighting conditions-The equipment will be built, so that it doesn't need maintenance for 3 years-Landers can land in the south pole and the equator (certain science missions will need to land at the equator)-NASA built flexibility for missions as to when they can launch: for example, Artemis IV went from 0 days where it could launch to do what it needs to do to 70 days where it could launch each year (they learned more about Orion propellant availability which helped in that respect). -LTV can do science without humans during uncrewed periods (we already knew that).To me, this sounds like a tacit admission that the lunar Starship can mostly act as its own hab. I wouldn't be surprised to see the SLT lander restricted to a primary base with a hab and the LSS able to serve as its own hab for the alternate bases, with HDL landers dropping rovers and aux power systems at the alternates to keep the SLT service provider fed enough missions to avoid financial starvation.The lighting conditions are becoming an operational problem. Rather than an architecture that works around the lighting conditions, maybe an architecture that could land in more diverse lighting conditions would be a good goal?I think that nuclear power should help in that respect but Free mentioned that it would be a good idea from a science perspective to have a diversity of landing locations.
3.3 SUSTAINED LUNAR EVOLUTION SEGMENT3.3.1 Summary of ObjectivesIn the Sustained Lunar Evolution (SLE) campaign segment, NASA aims to build, together with its partners, a future of economic opportunity, expanded utilization, including science, and greater participation on and around the Moon. [...]3.3.2.2 Increased Economic OpportunityEconomic opportunity on and around the Moon in the context of this discussion means that governments are no longer the sole source of support for the funding of the lunar activities and that non-governmental entities would like to invest in, and profit from, activities at the Moon. NASA aims to reduce the barriers of entry for activities on and around the Moon and to provide capabilities others can leverage. Currently there is limited economic rationale for exploring the Moon, but given the cost of getting to and from the Moon, knowledge and access are perhaps the first areas where economic opportunity exists for the non-governmental sector. Artemis is making the foundational investments for access to the Moon from a transportation, exploration, and science perspective. The opportunity for industry at this point is to leverage that investment to enable lunar access (both robotic and human) to additional governmental entities, scientific institutions, international entities, and industry partners. As mentioned in the increased science capability narrative, additional investments in communications, navigation, ISRU, power, and transportation sub-architectures will be needed to enhance access and return, facilitating the beginning of new supporting service economic opportunities in those areas.Economic opportunity/profitability could progress along the lines of 1) information transfer, 2) delivering goods, 3) providing services at the Moon to enable others, and 4) bringing goods from the Moon to other destinations. Larger-scale economic opportunity begins to emerge when lunar reach and access are expanded, as small-scale ISRU propellant grows to industrial-scale, as aggregate power grows from kilowatts to megawatts, and using in-situ material and as manufacturing becomes more economical than importing everything from Earth. Once ISRU production is of sufficient scale, exporting propellant and material beyond the lunar surface is manifested as an economic opportunity.3.3.2.3 Increased Duration and PopulationIncreased science capability influences economic opportunity, which overlaps with the need to increase both the population of humans at the lunar South pole region and the need for them to stay there longer. However, humans currently require a significant quantity of resources imported from Earth to survive, along with large amounts of pressurized volume in which to live safely. In order to increase the size and duration of the lunar population significantly, local resources will eventually be required to provide water, support food growth, and build out infrastructure, with commercial or internationally provided crew transportation systems infused to increase mission frequency and crew population. As an interim step, small modular systems could be supplied by multiple partners to act as a bridge between the initial Foundation Exploration capabilities and the full-up ISRU systems to provide additional habitation and logistics. Fission power augmentation will also be required to achieve a year-round population at the lunar South Pole region, as available sunlight oscillates as a function of month and season. At some point in this evolution the possibility of lunar tourism appears, possibly at first with Earth-provided modular systems at a higher cost, then later at a larger, more affordable scale once lunar resources can be fully leveraged. 3.3.5 Open Questions, Ongoing Assessments, and Future WorkIncreased science capability, economic opportunity, and duration/population at the lunar South Pole region have the potential to evolve and merge in the future to form the first sustained human civilization beyond Earth. The capabilities put in place during the initial Artemis segments feed forward and enable the future enhancements, and the partnerships forged grow to incorporate a broader community. As Artemis solidifies its implementation of the previous segments, planning for the SLE segment needs to begin in earnest, as the ideation of both the future lunar state and the path(s) for getting there will impact what comes before it. Given the objective decomposition process as described in Section 1.3.1, the notional use cases and functions described in this section need to be replaced with ones developed by the segment stake holders.
-Landers can land on the south pole or the equator (certain science missions will need to land at the equator)
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/19/2023 09:19 pm-Landers can land on the south pole or the equator (certain science missions will need to land at the equator)Anyone know what science missions need to be at the equator? I'm sure there's plenty of science that can be done at the equator, but what science can only be done there?(Beyond the general "every site is different/interesting" and "more is better", what science can't be done at high latitudes?)
Moon to Mars Architecture (podcast):https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/audio/ep297_moon_to_mars_architecture.mp3https://www.nasa.gov/johnson/HWHAP/moon-to-mars-architecturehttps://twitter.com/NASA_Johnson/status/1679887984408109057
Cathy Koerner: [...] We are enabling that low-Earth orbit economy. I envision the same kind of thing eventually happening in the cislunar environment where NASA goes and we set up the infrastructure and we create the capability there, and then we slowly start handing things off. Because in doing that and handing things off to commercial industry and developing a cislunar economy, we can then say, “OK, NASA, we're going to back out because we want to go to Mars next.” Right? And we can take the next step to Mars and then the next step after that. So it actually, again, I used the term earlier, it becomes a blueprint for how we do exploration where NASA is the one leading the way, doing the really hard upfront kind of work, and then industry can step in behind us and take over and do the things that industry is best at doing, which is optimizing for productions and services. [...]Host: It's already embedded into the plans we have for the human lunar return, right? The human landing system, the spacesuits, they're all with that idea.Cathy Koerner: All services, right?Host: All services. Exactly.Cathy Koerner: All the services there, because we want those economies to develop so that tourism or mining or whatever industry sees as value-added for them where they can make money, again, generating more economic engine for the cislunar environment, whatever they see that as, we're helping facilitate that. [...]Host: [...] But one thing that's sort of sticking with me is do you see a time where we won't be using the Moon? [...]Cathy Koerner: Our intent is to go to the Moon to stay.Host: OK. Yeah. That's where I was going…Cathy Koerner: Going to go to the Moon to stay. And again, kind of the analogy I'd like to use is the one that we have for a space station where we create a station, right? And then that helps create, we set up an infrastructure and a capability and we help develop a low-Earth orbit economy, so that then industry can come in and take over doing some of those activities. I see that potential on the lunar surface as well, right? We set up an infrastructure of power and communications and a transportation system that by the way, is a service the way we've set it up today, right? With HLS.Host: Yep.Cathy Koerner: Now industry can come in and they can create their own habitats. They can create, you think about it, a Marriott on the Moon, right? I mean, spend a short week-long vacation, fly to the Moon, spend a couple days on the surface, come back home, maybe someday that'll be a possibility, right?Host: Yeah.Cathy Koerner: That's the kind of thing that I see us doing is setting up again for NASA to first to be the primary user and then, eventually NASA to be one of many users of the services and the infrastructure that are on the lunar surface.
Jim Free mentions at 19m of this video that the architecture concept review fine tuned their plans for Artemis missions through Artemis V:
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/01/2023 02:43 amJim Free mentions at 19m of this video that the architecture concept review fine tuned their plans for Artemis missions through Artemis V:Which is only the Moon, right? Not related to Mars?
SLS + Orion? Nope. They can barely reach the Moon, and are too expensive.
The Gateway? Unlikely, since it is a mini space station, not a spaceship.
The Starship HLS? Not in that configuration, and regular Starships are being built by SpaceX, not NASA, to go to Mars. So not part of the NASA "Moon to Mars" program.
Spacesuits? No, because they are being built for the environment on the Moon, not the environment on Mars.
Moon rover? Maybe, since simple transportation can be adapted to go anywhere.
Gateway + CLD are renewing knowledge of modular vehicle development, and their required sub-systems. NASA's design reference for Mars is a modular interplanetary vehicle.Likewise, BO's HLS includes a refuellable, apparently modular deep-space tug from LM. It includes a deep-space-rated crew module. Both of those fit nicely into NASA's design reference architecture.
Quote from: Paul451 on 12/12/2023 10:55 pmGateway + CLD are renewing knowledge of modular vehicle development, and their required sub-systems. NASA's design reference for Mars is a modular interplanetary vehicle.Likewise, BO's HLS includes a refuellable, apparently modular deep-space tug from LM. It includes a deep-space-rated crew module. Both of those fit nicely into NASA's design reference architecture.But the whole reason for modularity goes away when you have really big spacecraft available. NASA found that out when Starship HLS crushed the competition for HLS. A Starship HLS has a larger habitable volume than Gateway or any proposed CLD, and a Mars Transport Starship would have even more, probably more than ISS. As with HLS, NASA should basically abandon their "reference architecture".
...Convincing Congress to put an end-date on SLS/Orion is critical to even beginning a manned Mars program.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/12/2023 02:19 amThe Gateway? Unlikely, since it is a mini space station, not a spaceship.Gateway + CLD are renewing knowledge of modular vehicle development, and their required sub-systems. NASA's design reference for Mars is a modular interplanetary vehicle.
Likewise, BO's HLS includes a refuellable, apparently modular deep-space tug from LM. It includes a deep-space-rated crew module. Both of those fit nicely into NASA's design reference architecture.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/12/2023 02:19 amThe Starship HLS? Not in that configuration, and regular Starships are being built by SpaceX, not NASA, to go to Mars. So not part of the NASA "Moon to Mars" program.This is really, really stretching your desire to be negative way too far. Starship is a vehicle intended for Mars. That's its origin and purpose. Artemis is funding part of the development.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/12/2023 02:19 amSpacesuits? No, because they are being built for the environment on the Moon, not the environment on Mars.Artemis is creating a new generation of spacesuit engineers. Those are the people who will design Mars suits.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/12/2023 02:19 amMoon rover? Maybe, since simple transportation can be adapted to go anywhere.As with suits, Artemis is training a new generation of engineers in building space-rated surface vehicles.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 12/12/2023 11:14 pmQuote from: Paul451 on 12/12/2023 10:55 pmGateway + CLD are renewing knowledge of modular vehicle development, and their required sub-systems. NASA's design reference for Mars is a modular interplanetary vehicle.Likewise, BO's HLS includes a refuellable, apparently modular deep-space tug from LM. It includes a deep-space-rated crew module. Both of those fit nicely into NASA's design reference architecture.But the whole reason for modularity goes away when you have really big spacecraft available. NASA found that out when Starship HLS crushed the competition for HLS. A Starship HLS has a larger habitable volume than Gateway or any proposed CLD, and a Mars Transport Starship would have even more, probably more than ISS. As with HLS, NASA should basically abandon their "reference architecture".Even with people like Sen. Shelby gone from the Senate, it isn't politically viable for NASA to chuck it all at once. It will have to be done in steps like it is with HLS. There still may also be a lot of resistance to change within NASA. People don't change from what they know very easily.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 12/12/2023 11:14 pmQuote from: Paul451 on 12/12/2023 10:55 pmGateway + CLD are renewing knowledge of modular vehicle development, and their required sub-systems. NASA's design reference for Mars is a modular interplanetary vehicle.Likewise, BO's HLS includes a refuellable, apparently modular deep-space tug from LM. It includes a deep-space-rated crew module. Both of those fit nicely into NASA's design reference architecture.But the whole reason for modularity goes away when you have really big spacecraft available. NASA found that out when Starship HLS crushed the competition for HLS. A Starship HLS has a larger habitable volume than Gateway or any proposed CLD, and a Mars Transport Starship would have even more, probably more than ISS. As with HLS, NASA should basically abandon their "reference architecture".Modularity is the future, integrated architecture is not.Because of interstellar navigation, you always need a larger spaceship. And larger spacecraft can only be built through modularization.Actually, many people also use Starship for modular design.Interstellar navigation requires spacecraft that are hundreds of meters or even kilometers long (competitors in the United States are already researching).Starship is also very small. 1000 ^ 3 meters, only slightly larger than the pressurized space of ISS. The permanent population of ISS is 7 people.
Quote from: native chicken on 12/13/2023 03:42 amModularity is the future, integrated architecture is not.Because of interstellar navigation, you always need a larger spaceship. And larger spacecraft can only be built through modularization.Actually, many people also use Starship for modular design.Interstellar navigation requires spacecraft that are hundreds of meters or even kilometers long (competitors in the United States are already researching).Starship is also very small. 1000 ^ 3 meters, only slightly larger than the pressurized space of ISS. The permanent population of ISS is 7 people.Modules the size of Starships, yes. Itty-bitty modules, no. We already know how to do those.The habitable volume of Starship HLS is maybe 600 m3. However, the actual pressurized volume is more than 2500 m3, because it includes the tanks. After conversion to a module, that space is usable.
Modularity is the future, integrated architecture is not.Because of interstellar navigation, you always need a larger spaceship. And larger spacecraft can only be built through modularization.Actually, many people also use Starship for modular design.Interstellar navigation requires spacecraft that are hundreds of meters or even kilometers long (competitors in the United States are already researching).Starship is also very small. 1000 ^ 3 meters, only slightly larger than the pressurized space of ISS. The permanent population of ISS is 7 people.
The most important value proposition for the Starship is not the payload size, but that it is fully reusable. Stopping that reusability makes no sense, not when for far less cost you can just transport up more 8m diameter x 8 meter in length modular spacecraft/ship components to assemble something far larger than one Starship.
Quote from: Paul451 on 12/12/2023 10:55 pmNASA's design reference for Mars is a modular interplanetary vehicle.Both of those fit nicely into NASA's design reference architecture.But the whole reason for modularity goes away when you have really big spacecraft available. NASA found that out when Starship HLS crushed the competition for HLS. A Starship HLS has a larger habitable volume than Gateway or any proposed CLD, and a Mars Transport Starship would have even more, probably more than ISS. As with HLS, NASA should basically abandon their "reference architecture".
NASA's design reference for Mars is a modular interplanetary vehicle.Both of those fit nicely into NASA's design reference architecture.
This is a stretch. Show me where the "Moon to Mars" program includes refreshing the space industrial base... Besides, SpaceX is making their own suits, so obviously there already exists engineering talent in this sector.
[...] an objectives-based approach focuses on the big picture, the “what” and “why” of what NASA should be doing in terms of deep space exploration before prescribing the “how” (e.g., a specific launch vehicle, technology, or acquisition approach).
TH-1 Develop cislunar systems that crew can routinely operate to and from lunar orbit and the lunar surface for extended durations. [...]ROUTINE: Recurring subject operations performed as part of a regular procedure rather than for a unique reason.
It was explained that the goals and objectives were purposely broad, so that changes could be made to certain elements of the architecture (e.g., to future elements) without having to change the goals and objectives. For the same reason, the goals and objectives do not contain a timeline.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/14/2023 01:57 amIt was explained that the goals and objectives were purposely broad, so that changes could be made to certain elements of the architecture (e.g., to future elements) without having to change the goals and objectives. For the same reason, the goals and objectives do not contain a timeline.Wait, what? Is that your interpretation and/or are those your words? Or did someone at NASA actually write or state that the Moon-to-Mars goals/objectives are written purposefully vague so as not to affect architecture/element choices? If so, when/where is this recorded?Holy moly…
Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 12/14/2023 03:15 amQuote from: yg1968 on 12/14/2023 01:57 amIt was explained that the goals and objectives were purposely broad, so that changes could be made to certain elements of the architecture (e.g., to future elements) without having to change the goals and objectives. For the same reason, the goals and objectives do not contain a timeline.Wait, what? Is that your interpretation and/or are those your words? Or did someone at NASA actually write or state that the Moon-to-Mars goals/objectives are written purposefully vague so as not to affect architecture/element choices? If so, when/where is this recorded?Holy moly…No that's not what I meant. They would affect future choices. I might be conflating the architecture and the goals. I think that Jim Free said that the Architecture doesn't generally have specifics for future elements (as to the precise elements and their timeline) in order to leave future choices open. I extrapolated that the same is also true for the goals and objectives. Pam Melroy did say that they weren't starting from a clean slate. So I think that is why some of the objectives are kind of drafted in a way that SLS and Orion can meet them but she didn't actually say that (but it seems fairly obvious).
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/14/2023 03:34 amQuote from: VSECOTSPE on 12/14/2023 03:15 amQuote from: yg1968 on 12/14/2023 01:57 amIt was explained that the goals and objectives were purposely broad, so that changes could be made to certain elements of the architecture (e.g., to future elements) without having to change the goals and objectives. For the same reason, the goals and objectives do not contain a timeline.Wait, what? Is that your interpretation and/or are those your words? Or did someone at NASA actually write or state that the Moon-to-Mars goals/objectives are written purposefully vague so as not to affect architecture/element choices? If so, when/where is this recorded?Holy moly…No that's not what I meant. They would affect future choices. I might be conflating the architecture and the goals. I think that Jim Free said that the Architecture doesn't generally have specifics for future elements (as to the precise elements and their timeline) in order to leave future choices open. I extrapolated that the same is also true for the goals and objectives. Pam Melroy did say that they weren't starting from a clean slate. So I think that is why some of the objectives are kind of drafted in a way that SLS and Orion can meet them but she didn't actually say that (but it seems fairly obvious).The problem is that the Architecture is specific enough to exclude Conjunction class missions for the first mission or three. This is a dangerous, risky choice, even though it's ostensibly done for risk reduction.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/14/2023 03:42 amQuote from: yg1968 on 12/14/2023 03:34 amQuote from: VSECOTSPE on 12/14/2023 03:15 amQuote from: yg1968 on 12/14/2023 01:57 amIt was explained that the goals and objectives were purposely broad, so that changes could be made to certain elements of the architecture (e.g., to future elements) without having to change the goals and objectives. For the same reason, the goals and objectives do not contain a timeline.Wait, what? Is that your interpretation and/or are those your words? Or did someone at NASA actually write or state that the Moon-to-Mars goals/objectives are written purposefully vague so as not to affect architecture/element choices? If so, when/where is this recorded?Holy moly…No that's not what I meant. They would affect future choices. I might be conflating the architecture and the goals. I think that Jim Free said that the Architecture doesn't generally have specifics for future elements (as to the precise elements and their timeline) in order to leave future choices open. I extrapolated that the same is also true for the goals and objectives. Pam Melroy did say that they weren't starting from a clean slate. So I think that is why some of the objectives are kind of drafted in a way that SLS and Orion can meet them but she didn't actually say that (but it seems fairly obvious).The problem is that the Architecture is specific enough to exclude Conjunction class missions for the first mission or three. This is a dangerous, risky choice, even though it's ostensibly done for risk reduction.What is a Conjunction class mission?
Modules the size of Starships, yes. Itty-bitty modules, no. We already know how to do those.The habitable volume of Starship HLS is maybe 600 m3. However, the actual pressurized volume is more than 2500 m3, because it includes the tanks. After conversion to a module, that space is usable.
The most important value proposition for the Starship is not the payload size, but that it is fully reusable. Stopping that reusability makes no sense, not when for far less cost you can just transport up more 8m diameter x 8 meter in length modular spacecraft/ship components to assemble something far larger than one Starship.There will be Starship vehicles that for whatever reason can't return to Earth, but they will be a minor part of the total material needed for expanding humanity out into space.This "Moon to Mars" effort is a jobs justification effort by NASA to support current funding levels, but pretty much the entire Artemis Moon architecture is the wrong architecture if you want to travel to, and land on, Mars.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/13/2023 08:24 pmThe most important value proposition for the Starship is not the payload size, but that it is fully reusable. Stopping that reusability makes no sense, not when for far less cost you can just transport up more 8m diameter x 8 meter in length modular spacecraft/ship components to assemble something far larger than one Starship.If you can come up with a transport for a 9 meter diameter 50 meter long stainless steel tube that is cheaper than six raptors, then by all means implement it.
As soon as you need something bigger, then by all means start hooking them together. But first, think about using 12 meter diameter by 100 meter long one-way SS on top of the existing SH. When those are too small, start hooking those together.
SpaceX has one explicit contract, already signed: HLS. They are already working on this contract, with customer reviews and everything. The mission plan for an HLS mission includes the use of the reusable tanker, which will comprise most of the launches per mission. Only HLS and Depot are non-EDL.SpaceX has Starlink as the major near-term customer for Starship, with huge financial consequences (i.e., paying for multiple F9 launches launching sub-optimal satellites) for every month of slip. They are highly motivated to implement reuse. No need to worry about any other missions to justify the major reuse effort.After Tanker and Starlink dispenser, SpaceX will have the experience they need to design and build other EDL Starships.
This old thread had some interesting posts on "why we need to go back to the Moon":https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19150.0