Author Topic: Moon to Mars Objectives  (Read 40019 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Moon to Mars Objectives
« on: 09/20/2022 01:57 pm »
NASA has released its final (63) Moon to Mars objectives:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/m2m-objectives-exec-summary.pdf

NASA’s Stakeholder Collaborations Help Inform Moon to Mars Planning
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-stakeholder-collaborations-help-inform-moon-to-mars-planning

https://twitter.com/Astro_Pam/status/1572252468674699265

P.S. See the prior discussions of these (50 at the time) objectives here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.msg2369459#msg2369459

These build on the objectives in the Artemis Plan:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/artemis_plan-20200921.pdf

It also builds on the ones in NASA’s Plan for Sustained Lunar Exploration and Development:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/a_sustained_lunar_presence_nspc_report4220final.pdf
« Last Edit: 09/20/2022 08:12 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #1 on: 09/20/2022 02:55 pm »
I like this new objective in the recurring tenets (common themes across objectives) section:

Quote from: page 5 of the Moon to Mars objectives
Commerce and Space Development: foster the expansion of the economic sphere beyond Earth orbit to support U.S. industry and innovation.

It was already in the Artemis Plan but it's worth emphasizing it again.

See this link for a prior discussion on this principle in the Artemis Plan:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.msg2401764#msg2401764
« Last Edit: 10/14/2022 03:32 am by yg1968 »

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #2 on: 09/20/2022 03:06 pm »
RECURRING TENETS
Common Themes Across Objectives

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-3: Crew Return: return crews safely to Earth while mitigating adverse impacts to crew health.
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 to
support the long-term sustainability of operations and increase Earth independence.
RT-6: Responsible Use: conduct all activities for the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes
consistent with international obligations, and principles for responsible behavior in space.
RT-7: Interoperability: enable interoperability and commonality (technical, operations and process standards) among
systems, elements, and crews throughout the campaign.
RT-8: Leverage Low-Earth Orbit: leverage infrastructure in low-Earth orbit to support Moon to Mars activities.
RT-9:
Commerce and Space Development: foster the expansion of the economic sphere beyond Earth orbit to
support U.S. industry and innovation.

SCIENCE OBJECTIVES
Lunar and Planetary
Heliophysics
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.

LPS-1LM:
Uncover the record of solar system origin and early history, by determining how and when planetary bodies
formed and differentiated, characterizing the impact chronology of the inner solar system as recorded on
the Moon and Mars, and characterize how impact rates in the inner solar system have changed over time as
recorded on the Moon and Mars.
LPS-2LM:
Advance understanding of the geologic processes that affect planetary bodies by determining the interior
structures, characterizing the magmatic histories, characterizing ancient, modern, and evolution of
atmospheres/exospheres, and investigating how active processes modify the surfaces of the Moon and Mars.
LPS-3LM: Reveal inner solar system volatile origin and delivery processes by determining the age, origin, distribution,
abundance, composition, transport, and sequestration of lunar and Martian volatiles.
LPS-4M:
Advance understanding of the origin of life in the solar system by identifying where and when potentially
habitable environments exist(ed), what processes led to their formation, how planetary environments and
habitable conditions have co-evolved over time, and whether there is evidence of past or present life in the
solar system beyond Earth.
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.
HS-1LM: Improve understanding of space weather phenomena to enable enhanced observation and prediction of the
dynamic environment from space to the surface at the Moon and Mars.
HS-2LM: Determine the history of the Sun and solar system as recorded in the lunar and Martian regolith.
HS-3LM: Investigate and characterize fundamental plasma processes, including dust-plasma interactions, using the
cislunar, near-Mars, and surface environments as laboratories.
HS-4LM: Improve understanding of magnetotail and pristine solar wind dynamics in the vicinity of the Moon and around
Mars.

Superscript text indicates the applicability to Lunar (L), Martian (M) or both (LM).

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, support safe, productive human space missions and
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.

HBS-1LM:
Understand the effects of short- and long-duration exposure to the environments of the Moon, Mars,
and deep space on biological systems and health, using humans, model organisms, systems of human
physiology, and plants.
HBS-2LM: Evaluate and validate progressively Earth-independent crew health & performance systems and operations
with mission durations representative of Mars-class missions.
HBS-3LM: Characterize and evaluate how the interaction of exploration systems and the deep space environment
affect human health, performance, and space human factors to inform future exploration-class missions
PPS-1L: Conduct astrophysics and fundamental physics investigations of space and time from the radio quiet
environment of the lunar far side.
PPS-2LM: Advance understanding of physical systems and fundamental physics by utilizing the unique environments
of the Moon, Mars, and deep space.

SCIENCE OBJECTIVES
Human and Biological
Physics and Physical

SE-1LM: Provide in-depth, mission-specific science training for astronauts to enable crew to perform high-priority or
transformational science on the surface of the Moon, and Mars, and in deep space.
SE-2LM: Enable Earth-based scientists to remotely support astronaut surface and deep space activities using advanced
techniques and tools.
SE-3LM:
Develop the capability to retrieve core samples of frozen volatiles from permanently shadowed regions on the
Moon and volatile-bearing sites on Mars and to deliver them in pristine states to modern curation facilities on
Earth.
SE-4LM: Return representative samples from multiple locations across the surface of the Moon and Mars, with sample
mass commensurate with mission-specific science priorities.
SE-5LM:
Use robotic techniques to survey sites, conduct in-situ measurements, and identify/stockpile samples in
advance of and concurrent with astronaut arrival, to optimize astronaut time on the lunar and Martian surface
and maximize science return.
SE-6LM: Enable long-term, planet-wide research by delivering science instruments to multiple science-relevant orbits
and surface locations at the Moon and Mars.
SE-7LM:
Preserve and protect representative features of special interest, including lunar permanently shadowed regions
and the radio quiet far side as well as Martian recurring slope lineae, to enable future high-priority science
investigations.
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.

AS-1LM:
Characterize and monitor the contemporary environments of the lunar and Martian surfaces and orbits,
including investigations of micrometeorite flux, atmospheric weather, space weather, space weathering, and
dust, to plan, support, and monitor safety of crewed operations in these locations.
AS-2LM: Coordinate on-going and future science measurements from orbital and surface platforms to optimize humanled
science campaigns on the Moon and Mars.
AS-3LM:
Characterize accessible lunar and Martian resources, gather scientific research data, and analyze potential
reserves to satisfy science and technology objectives and enable In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) on
successive missions.
AS-4LM: Conduct applied scientific investigations essential for the development of bioregenerative-based, ecological life
support systems
AS-5LM: Define crop plant species, including methods for their productive growth, capable of providing sustainable and
nutritious food sources for lunar, Deep Space transit, and Mars habitation.
AS-6LM: Advance understanding of how physical systems and fundamental physical phenomena are affected by partial
gravity, microgravity, and general environment of the Moon, Mars, and deep space transit.

SCIENCE OBJECTIVES
Science-Enabling
Applied
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.

INFRASTRUCTURE OBJECTIVES
Lunar
Mars
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 initial human Mars exploration campaign.

LI-1L: Develop an incremental lunar power generation and distribution system that is evolvable to support continuous
robotic/human operation and is capable of scaling to global power utilization and industrial power levels.
LI-2L: Develop a lunar surface, orbital, and Moon-to-Earth communications architecture capable of scaling to support
long term science, exploration, and industrial needs.
LI-3L: Develop a lunar position, navigation and timing architecture capable of scaling to support long term science,
exploration, and industrial needs.
LI-4L: Demonstrate advanced manufacturing and autonomous construction capabilities in support of continuous
human lunar presence and a robust lunar economy.
LI-5L: Demonstrate precision landing capabilities in support of continuous human lunar presence and a robust lunar
economy.
LI-6L: Demonstrate local, regional, and global surface transportation and mobility capabilities in support of continuous
human lunar presence and a robust lunar economy.
LI-7L: Demonstrate industrial scale ISRU capabilities in support of continuous human lunar presence and a robust
lunar economy.
LI-8L: Demonstrate technologies supporting cislunar orbital/surface depots, construction and manufacturing
maximizing the use of in-situ resources, and support systems needed for continuous human/robotic presence.
LI-9L: Develop environmental monitoring, situational awareness, and early warning capabilities to support a resilient,
continuous human/robotic lunar presence.
MI-1M: Develop Mars surface power sufficient for an initial human Mars exploration campaign.
MI-2M: Develop Mars surface, orbital, and Mars-to-Earth communications to support an initial human Mars
exploration campaign.
MI-3M: Develop Mars position, navigation and timing capabilities to support an initial human Mars exploration
campaign.
MI-4M: Demonstrate Mars ISRU capabilities to support an initial human Mars exploration campaign.

TRANSPORTATION & HABITATION
Transportation and Habitation 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 surface, with safe return
to Earth.

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.
TH-4LM: Develop in-space and surface habitation system(s) for crew to live in deep space for extended durations,
enabling future missions to Mars.
TH-5M: Develop transportation systems that crew can routinely operate between the Earth-Moon vicinity and Mars
vicinity, including the Martian surface.
TH-6M: Develop transportation systems that can deliver a range of elements to the Martian surface.
TH-7M: Develop systems for crew to explore, operate, and live on the Martian surface to address key questions with
respect to science and resources.
TH-8LM:
Develop systems that monitor and maintain crew health and performance throughout all mission phases,
including during communication delays to Earth, and in an environment that does not allow emergency
evacuation or terrestrial medical assistance.
TH-9L: Develop integrated human and robotic systems with inter-relationships that enable maximum science and
exploration during lunar missions.
TH-10M: Develop integrated human and robotic systems with inter-relationships that enable maximum science and
exploration during Martian missions.
TH-11L: Develop systems capable of returning a range of cargo mass from the lunar surface to Earth, including the
capabilities necessary to meet scientific and utilization objectives.
TH-12M: Develop systems capable of returning a range of cargo mass from the Martian surface to Earth, including the
capabilities necessary to meet scientific and utilization objectives.

OPERATIONS
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.

OP-1L:
Conduct human research and technology demonstrations on the surface of Earth, low-Earth orbit
platforms, cislunar platforms, and on the surface of the moon, to evaluate the effects of extended mission
durations on the performance of crew and systems, reduce risk, and shorten the timeframe for system
testing and readiness prior to the initial human Mars exploration campaign.
OP-2LM:
Optimize operations, training and interaction between the team on Earth, crew members on orbit, and a
Martian surface team considering communication delays, autonomy level, and time required for an early
return to the Earth.
OP-3LM: Characterize accessible resources, gather scientific research data, and analyze potential reserves to
satisfy science and technology objectives and enable use of resources on successive missions.
OP-4LM: Establish command and control processes, common interfaces, and ground systems that will support
expanding human missions at the Moon and Mars.
OP-5LM: Operate surface mobility systems, e.g., extra-vehicular activity (EVA) suits, tools and vehicles.
OP-6L: Evaluate, understand, and mitigate the impacts on crew health and performance of a long deep space
orbital mission, followed by partial gravity surface operations on the Moon.
OP-7LM: Validate readiness of systems and operations to support crew health and performance for the initial
human Mars exploration campaign.
OP-8LM: Demonstrate the capability to find, service, upgrade, or utilize instruments and equipment from robotic
landers or previous human missions on the surface of the Moon and Mars.
OP-9LM: Demonstrate the capability of integrated robotic systems to support and maximize the useful work
performed by crewmembers on the surface, and in orbit.
OP-10LM: Demonstrate the capability to operate robotic systems that are used to support crew members on the
lunar or Martian surface, autonomously or remotely from the Earth or from orbiting platforms.
OP-11LM: Demonstrate the capability to use commodities produced from planetary surface or in-space resources to
reduce the mass required to be transported from Earth.
OP-12LM:
Establish procedures and systems that will minimize the disturbance to the local environment, maximize
the resources available to future explorers, and allow for reuse/recycling of material transported from
Earth (and from the lunar surface in the case of Mars) to be used during exploration.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #3 on: 09/20/2022 03:07 pm »
Some of the transportation and habitation systems objectives are interesting:

Quote from: page 10 of the Moon to Mars objectives
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2022 03:08 pm by yg1968 »

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Liked: 4670
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #4 on: 09/20/2022 03:18 pm »

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? 

Still lazily falling back on an unnecessary, duplicative, cumbersome glossary.  To pick on one... if a term in an objective has to be defined in a glossary as numbers, then stop using that term and just put the numbers in the objective.

Improved but barely.  Still mostly worthless in terms of driving program goals and mission objectives.  Just a committee’s high-level laundry list of areas a lunar program could do stuff in.  Provides little clarity on what’s important and what’s not for the people running the program or what specifically they’re supposed to achieve in each area.  Most of the value of this document is as a PR tool.  The program needs higher quality direction that this if it is going to do more than become another Apollo stunt.

I would recommend terminating Artemis based on this document.  Disappointing show by Melroy.  I had higher hopes.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #5 on: 09/20/2022 03:36 pm »
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?

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 objectives
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.

Quote from: page 5 of the Moon to Mars objectives
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 to
support the long-term sustainability of operations and increase Earth independence.
RT-7: Interoperability: enable interoperability and commonality (technical, operations and process standards) among
systems, elements, and crews throughout the campaign.
RT-9: Commerce and Space Development: foster the expansion of the economic sphere beyond Earth orbit to
support U.S. industry and innovation.

The addition of the recurring tenets is a big improvement over the objectives released in May.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2022 04:17 pm by yg1968 »

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Liked: 4670
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #6 on: 09/20/2022 03:36 pm »
Some of the transportation and habitation systems objectives are interesting:

Quote from: page 10 of the Moon to Mars objectives
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.

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.

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Liked: 4670
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #7 on: 09/20/2022 03:49 pm »
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?

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 objectives
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.

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.  At all.  An astronaut could roll a ball down a ramp, return to Earth safely, and meet the objectives. 

Quote
Quote from: page 5 of the Moon to Mars objectives
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 to
support the long-term sustainability of operations and increase Earth independence.
RT-7: Interoperability: enable interoperability and commonality (technical, operations and process standards) among
systems, elements, and crews throughout the campaign.
RT-9: Commerce and Space Development: foster the expansion of the economic sphere beyond Earth orbit to
support U.S. industry and innovation.

The addition of the recurring tenets is a big improvement over the objectives released in May.

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.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2022 03:50 pm by VSECOTSPE »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #8 on: 09/20/2022 04:16 pm »
Some of the transportation and habitation systems objectives are interesting:

Quote from: page 10 of the Moon to Mars objectives
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.

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.

In case that it wasn't obvious, the current plans meet these goals. The goals were probably written so that they could but that shouldn't come as a surprise. However, the goals might have an impact on future programs. 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. 
« Last Edit: 09/20/2022 04:45 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #9 on: 09/20/2022 04:29 pm »
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.

These requirements would be in the RFP or in the BAA.

Quote
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.

Tenets are principles, they don't have to be hows. I prefer it it in the principles, otherwise it becomes one of many goals. If you define it as a core principle, it affects all of the other goals. Furthermore, the building a lunar economy goal also appears in the infrastructure goals.

Quote from: page 9 of the Moon to Mars 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.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2022 04:42 pm by yg1968 »

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #10 on: 09/20/2022 04:54 pm »
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.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Liked: 4670
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #11 on: 09/21/2022 04:12 am »
In case that it wasn't obvious, the current plans meet these goals.

Those objectives are so vaguely worded — routinely, regular — that anything could meet them, including systems with a slower cadence than Orion/SLS.  Before we can discuss whether the objectives should push the program beyond current capabilities, the objectives have to say something meaningful in the first place.  These don’t.  They’re meaningless.

Quote
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.

I get your point, but if you really want to build a lunar economy, then this would be better off as a separate header with its own set of objectives.  There’s lots of objectives in this document, like most of the science objectives, that have little or nothing to do with building a lunar economy.  But if economic development was its own section, there could be objectives for demonstrating extraction of resource A or manufacture of product B or co-investment by at least X industrial partners of $Y over decade Z.  But because this goal is relegated to an overarching principle of the whole program, crunchy, meaty objectives for economic development are largely/entirely missing from the document.

Quote
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.

The question remains... what does the program have to demonstrate to be scalable to a continuous presence?  The objective doesn’t provide any clarity on this with which to drive the program.  Is the 30- or 33-day stay long enough?  Or does it need to be longer?  If the program doesn’t know, then what the heck is the program doing in the first place?

Personally, if these are really “Moon to Mars” objectives, I’d tie the mission duration objectives to Mars conjunction- and opposition-class mission durations, which get up into a year or two on surface and in space.  That would actually prepare for Mars and has the added benefit of demonstrating an actual (as opposed to scalable) 365/24/7 continuous human presence for the Moon.  That demand would also drive the program in a much more sustainable direction.

These requirements would be in the RFP or in the BAA.

No, the procurements need a substantive objective or two from which to derive requirements.  The surface mobility objective just says that there will be surface mobility systems.  It says nothing at a high level about what those systems are supposed to be capable of or achieve.  Is the program going for 2x, 4x, or 10x LRV range?  Or something else?   Or is landing a Tesla and remotely it driving ten yards before its drivetrain gives out good enough?  There’s little to nothing in this document to guide those procurements.

You don’t have to specify procurement requirements to give a program a North Star or two by which to drive those requirements.  JWST didn’t start with mirror size, mirror precision, cooling temp, and instrumentation known.  But it did start with the objective of observing the light from the first galaxies in the universe umpteen-billion years ago.  To survive like JWST, Artemis needs equivalent objectives. This document should have provided them.  It did not.  At all.

Quote
Furthermore, the building a lunar economy goal also appears in the infrastructure goals.

Quote from: page 9 of the Moon to Mars 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.

What mix of human presence and robotic-only presence constitutes a “continuous robotic and human presence”?  What’s a “robust lunar economy”?  What needs to be in “tested for Mars”?  Again, there’s nothing here with which to drive projects, procurements, and missions.

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.

There are program principles — competition or sole-source, hardware-rich or model-reliant, risk-taking or risk-averse, etc.  And then there are implementation “how’s” — this much payload per launch, this many launches per mission, this contractor base versus that one, etc.  The former is fair game in a policy or high-level planning document.  The latter is not.

Quote
These are statements that outline the "why" they're doing Artemis and "what" they would like to be accomplished.

This document has very little meaningful “what” and doesn’t touch “why” much at all either:

https://nasawatch.com/artemis/17439/

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2181
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #12 on: 09/23/2022 10:23 am »
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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #13 on: 09/23/2022 12:45 pm »
My own view of the document is that it is consistent with the Artemis plan. It doesn't really change things. It has an equal number of objectives for the exploration of the Moon and Mars. 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. Having said that, at this point, the Mars human exploration program is more of a R&D project than anything else.
« Last Edit: 09/23/2022 06:17 pm by yg1968 »

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Liked: 4670
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #14 on: 09/23/2022 03:01 pm »
"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 want NASA to have a vibrant, productive, goals-driven human space exploration program.  I wrote the VSE.  I’ve been waiting the better part of two decades for the agency to get its act together and execute on that or similar direction.  Artemis could be the program that does so.  But the extremely poor mission cadence of Artemis limits it to less than Apollo, and the lack of substance and clarity about what Artemis is supposed to achieve dooms it to a similar fate as ISS even if the cadence issue is fixed.

To be goals-driven, Artemis needs goals that can actually drive the program.  The “objectives” in this document are not that.  They’re mostly a list of activities that a human lunar program could undertake.    They’re not a list of actual objectives that will inform development procurement decisions or operational mission planning.  It’s a PR-ish document.  It’s not a planning document.

Maybe there’s another document in the works that will provide Artemis with the substantive, clear goals that the program needs to drive smart decisions on hardware and missions.  But if you held a gun to my head and said “this document is it, do you recommend going forward with the program,” I would say “no” and recommend termination. 

To put all my cards on the table, I also covered NASA programs and made similar recommendations thru seven budget seasons at the White House Office of Management and Budget.  From training and hard experience, I have a fairly solid understanding of what high-level planning and programmatics are necessary to make good, executable, effective civil space programs.  This document ain’t that.

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.

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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #15 on: 09/23/2022 06:27 pm »
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.

I don't expect that the White House will get involved in the Moon to Mars program. VP Pence was very involved in Artemis (especially when it comes to the timeline) but I don't expect that VP Harris will be.

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Liked: 4670
  • Likes Given: 2

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #17 on: 09/23/2022 11:19 pm »

https://spacenews.com/nasa-updates-exploration-objectives/

Pam Melroy said that the objectives would be updated on a regular basis:

Quote from: the article
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.”
« Last Edit: 09/23/2022 11:23 pm by yg1968 »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #18 on: 09/25/2022 02:05 pm »

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.  ...

Yahbut:  Don't you think the acronyms are cool? TH-1L, TH-2L and so forth?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #19 on: 09/25/2022 02:15 pm »

(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?

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.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Liked: 4670
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #20 on: 09/25/2022 05:18 pm »
Yahbut:  Don't you think the acronyms are cool? TH-1L, TH-2L and so forth?

Ha.  Yeah, the document sets out an engineering taxonomy for a lunar program but does little to set substantive goals/objectives for Artemis.  I saw this before during my second stint at HQ in the Office of the Chief Technologist, what later became the Space Technology Mission Directorate.  That org set out to document their technology priorities but just produced an engineering taxonomy of every known space technology discipline with no clear or obvious prioritization.  The organization survived but never recovered from that mistake and is still underfunded and earmarked to the hilt to this day

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.

I don’t want to feed the troll, but I thought I pretty clear upthread about how this Artemis objectives document needs to change if it’s going to drive Artemis and help the program survive.

As for the the VSE, to be clear, it was Griffin, not anonymous powers-that-be, who trashed it with Apollo-on-Steroids.  A couple years before the VSE, I had a couple meals with Griffin when he was at OSC to pick his brain from his time as AA for the prior exploration org under Bush I.  So I knew what was coming when Griffin was nominated Administrator and wanted no part of it.  Unlike Steidle, Griffin never asked me for a briefing on the VSE, and I doubt he even read it.   If I had still been an OMB civil servant, I might have had an opportunity or two to bring Apollo-on-Steroids to an early halt.  But I had been a NASA civil servant for over a year by that point and was no longer in a position where I could actually fight Griffin.  After the VSE rollout, I had moved into ESMD to manage COTS, prizes, and other novel programs.  When Griffin became Administrator, all I could do from there was make sure those programs got off to a solid start and then get out of Dodge.  COTS got a good start despite Griffin cutting the budget in half to feed Ares I/Orion.  Prizes not so much — Griffin’s astronaut-managers zeroed the outyear budget.  I came back to HQ in the technology org after Griffin was out.  But when it became clear that Bolden had no spine, the agency was just going to do the Congressional version of Apollo-on-Steroids, and even the new Chief Technologist was leaving after just a year, I got out of Dodge again and have not been back.
« Last Edit: 06/26/2023 04:27 am by VSECOTSPE »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #21 on: 09/26/2022 01:01 pm »
engineering taxonomy

Translation for newbs:  Moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.  In the world of Dilbert, it's the pointy haired boss creating a new management chart.

Quote
I thought I pretty clear upthread about how this Artemis objectives document needs to change...

You were very clear.  And thanks also for the précis.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #22 on: 09/26/2022 02:28 pm »
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 2021 NASA Authorization bill has a couple of provisions that suggest 2 SLS/Orion missions per year if practicable. I have doubts as to how useful these provisions are since I don't think that a second SLS/Orion mission is practicable, from a budget perspective.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53827.msg2388089#msg2388089

In terms of mission duration, this document has some details (the Moon missions would be a maximum of 32 days):
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022080/downloads/HEOMD-007%20HEO%20SCOPE%20-%2009-28-2021%20NTRS.pdf

But I think that the main reason that cadence and time on the Moon or Mars aren't in the objectives is because it depends on the budget.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2022 05:10 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #23 on: 09/26/2022 03:16 pm »
I just noticed that NASA already had exploration objectives in HEOMD-001 but they haven't been updated since 2017 (before Artemis was announced):
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/heomd-001-heomd-exploration-objectives-revision-a-cr-08032017.pdf

See also slides 23 and 24 of this presentation for more on HEOMD-001:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2-human_exploration_operations_committee_report.pdf
« Last Edit: 09/26/2022 03:45 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #24 on: 10/15/2022 03:35 pm »
There is a series of posts in the Artemis Updates and Discussions thread that relate to the goals of the Artemis program. I am linking it here since it is also relevant to this thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.msg2419097#msg2419097

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #25 on: 10/21/2022 01:57 am »
At 18 minutes of this video, Jim Reuter of STMD explains that each set of goals has a lead:

-Science is led by NASA Science
-Lunar Infrastructure is led by STMD
-Transportation & Habitation is led by Exploration Systems Development
-Operations is led by Space Operations Mission Directorate

https://vimeo.com/event/2474343

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #26 on: 10/24/2022 04:45 pm »
Pam Melroy talks about the 63 Moon to Mars objectives at 44 minutes of this video:

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #27 on: 10/24/2022 04:50 pm »
At 52-53 minutes, Melroy said that sustained human presence and exploration throughout the solar system is the end goal (not the Moon or Mars). She also added that the framework is for 2 or more decades. At 55-56 minutes, Melroy said that if we want to maximize the science, we will have to stay. She compares it to the ISS where 24/7 presence is necessary. She adds that we need the infrastructure for long duration in space.
« Last Edit: 10/24/2022 08:06 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #28 on: 10/24/2022 06:20 pm »
Some of the examples of the changes that were made to the initial objectives.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #29 on: 10/24/2022 06:23 pm »
Looking ahead at 1hr of the video (see also the attached slide):
« Last Edit: 10/24/2022 08:18 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #30 on: 10/24/2022 06:30 pm »
We came in peace. We return for all humanity.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #31 on: 11/03/2022 04:39 pm »
At 56-57 minutes of the video linked below, Jim Reuter of STMD said the following concerning the objectives of the Artemis/Moon to Mars program:

Quote from: Jim Reuter of NASA
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.

youtube.com/watch?v=JwQoi-TNKTo
« Last Edit: 11/03/2022 04:50 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #32 on: 11/13/2022 01:13 am »
GNF MOON TO MARS OBJECTIVES - IAC 2022 - Tuesday 20 September


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #33 on: 11/13/2022 02:00 am »
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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #34 on: 11/14/2022 01:46 pm »
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

Quote from: David Grinspoon as quoted in the NY Times article
[...] 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.


I agree that creating a lunar economy is what justifies going back to the Moon and it is what differentiates Artemis from Apollo.
« Last Edit: 11/14/2022 01:47 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #35 on: 11/15/2022 11:38 pm »
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.
Emphasis mine
Let's just get EUS up and online on its new Mobile Launcher(ML) before we worry too much about science. 
Paul

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #36 on: 11/15/2022 11:40 pm »
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.
Emphasis mine
Let'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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline AmigaClone

Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #37 on: 11/16/2022 12:17 am »
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.
Emphasis mine
Let'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.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4323
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #38 on: 11/16/2022 12:28 am »
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.
Emphasis mine
Let'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.
Two astronauts can only work a certain number of hours a day, so it will be hard to do as much science as all six Apollo lunar landings. Yes, they can have more total scientific downmass, and yes, the HLS is a more comfortable environment, but it's not clear that it's enough to make up the difference in time.

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Liked: 4670
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #39 on: 11/16/2022 01:54 am »
Let'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.

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #40 on: 11/16/2022 02:03 am »
Let'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.
Of course plan for your science requirements, but get the car running before you toss the kids in for a ride.
Paul

Offline Don2

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Liked: 296
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #41 on: 11/16/2022 08:18 am »
One thing Apollo did is bring back a large quantity of samples. People are still working with those. An unmanned mission costs about $1 billion for 1kg of sample. So bringing back 50-100kg of samples helps to justify some of the cost. You will want to seal most of those samples on the moon to protect them from oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. Icy samples will benefit from refrigeration. You need to allow mass and volume for that in the initial design.

How do you collect the samples? A small core drilling rig would help to find underground ice and sample layered lava flows. And a manned lunar rover would be a huge improvement over having to walk to outcrops. You need enough landed mass, power and volume to accommodate that. The Apollo lunar rover was 210kg. That needs to be designed in from the beginning.

A big objective is to find ice and produce water. For thousands of years, human settlements have needed a good water supply. A second desirable resource would be CO2 ice. Hydrogen and CO2 react to give CH4, which is easier to store than hydrogen. With CO2 and oxygen you can grow plants and produce food.

A final resource is the lunar soil itself. An automated machine could fill sandbags with lunar soil and astronauts could use them to build small structures to provide thermal insulation and radiation shielding.

Sample collection requirements will tend to determine landing sites and the number of man hours needed on the surface. If you decide you need 20 work hours with a two man crew and a 20km traverse at a polar site then that will drive the size of the mission.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2022 08:22 am by Don2 »

Offline Don2

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Liked: 296
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #42 on: 11/18/2022 07:52 pm »
I think you can boil the key objective down to a simple slogan.

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.

#KEY ARTEMIS QUESTION 1: Where do we land?

Many of those questions could be answered by a long range lunar rover exploring for volatiles. VIPER is a start, and is a hugely important strategic mission for NASA. That will give NASA one pre-surveyed landing site for the first landing. Far more capable rovers are possible. The planetary decadal survey studied a nuclear powered rover with a 750km range. That would be invaluable in finding landing sites for Artemis, and understanding the kinds of volatile resources present.
https://cosmiclog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Intrepid-Endurance-INSPIRE-Comparison.pdf   
(The Inspire rover is the one needed for Artemis)

#KEY ARTEMIS QUESTION 2: Are carbon or nitrogen containing ices present on the moon?

Finding CO2 ice would expand the range of products a lunar economy could produce. Water and CO2 would allow you to grow plants and produce food. Hydrogen and CO2 can be reacted to produce hydrogen and CO (carbon monoxide). That mixture, sometimes known as syngas, can be used to synthesize a wide range of chemicals. Existing chemical plants on earth produce methanol, methane and synthetic kerosene via that route. Methanol has a boiling point of 65˚C at 1 bar, so it has potential as a storable fuel. Methane (boiling point -162˚C at 1 bar) is easier to store than hydrogen (boiling point -253˚C at 1 bar) , and could be used to refuel SpaceX's Starship.

A nitrogen source like ammonia would allow production of hydrazine, and could provide nitrogen gas for life support.

#KEY ARTEMIS QUESTION 3: How can water be extracted from whatever resources are present on the Moon?

You might try to dig the ice out of the surface, if it is shallow. The experience on the Mars Phoenix mission was that icy samples were very difficult to handle because they tended to stick to the scoop. You might also drill a hole and insert a heat source into it to sublime the ice into vapor which could be collected at the top of the drill hole. Inventing the technologies to produce water on the moon is likely to require in-situ tests of equipment by astronauts. This is an important goal for early Artemis missions.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2022 07:54 pm by Don2 »

Offline dsky

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #43 on: 12/10/2022 12:39 pm »
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.

Thanks for stating this clearly. While on Mars there are plenty of evidence of mid-latitude sources of accessible water ice in huge quantities (the major objective of the forthcoming I-MIM mission, if all goes well), there has never been a clear evidence of water ice deposits on the Moon. Traces, maybe, but that's all, and always indirect (on Mars the evidence is direct). And water molecules bound to other minerals are very difficult to extract, requiring also high energies: very impractical.

The joke that Mars can be used to mine the ice and send it to the Moon is less a joke than one could be led to think.
Why be a rocket scientist, when you can be a spacecraft engineer?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #44 on: 12/10/2022 02:59 pm »
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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #45 on: 12/16/2022 05:08 pm »
See below:

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#msg2401166

Having 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

In April 2019, Jim Bridenstine said (at 2h35 of the video): "that 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".



Quote from: the transcript
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.

Transcript:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg35788/html/CHRG-116hhrg35788.htm
« Last Edit: 01/11/2023 04:38 am by yg1968 »

Offline MGoDuPage

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #46 on: 12/20/2022 05:43 pm »
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 think (hope) this is the direction in which NASA will be headed over the next 50+ years. Aside from cutting edge research & exploration for the science's own sake (which is important too), on the commercial side NASA's mission should be to "make itself no longer needed" in a serial fashion. 

*Enter a previously unoccupied space that has potential economic/commercial viability.

*"Buy down risk"/"lower commercial barriers to entry" by identifying logistical challenges, doing preliminary research that goes towards addressing those challengess, & setting up basic infrastructure.

*Step away from that space as private nonprofit & commercial entities fill that space.

*Find the next unoccupied space with potential economic/commercial viability & repeat the process.

The tricky points of course are 1) correctly identifying areas that *DO* have economic/commercial viability (rather than going down a path that leads to an unviable money-pit), and 2) once they're in a good space & things are ready enough technically & economically for NASA to step back, not letting institutional momentum and/or private companies too hooked on government subsidies bog them down & prevent them from moving on when the time is right.
« Last Edit: 12/20/2022 05:49 pm by MGoDuPage »

Online deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1783
  • USA
  • Liked: 1468
  • Likes Given: 2523
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #47 on: 12/20/2022 06:17 pm »
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.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4323
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #48 on: 12/20/2022 06:50 pm »
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.
I always seemed to be to be the other way around. Folks who don't see any value in Lunar surface operations may still think it's justified as part of the Mars plan. For those folks, "go to Mars!" is an easier sell than "explore the Moon!" For me, both goals are worthwhile and we should not need to use either of them to justify the other, we just need to be more cost-effective.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #49 on: 01/11/2023 01:59 am »
Why return to the moon? NASA hopes to never leave.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2023/nasa-moon-artemis-launch/

Quote from: Christian Davenport
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.”

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #50 on: 01/11/2023 02:12 am »
NASA official: Artemis will make great strides, name first crew in 2023:
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2023/01/06/nasa-artemis-program-2023/6161671857764/

Quote from: the article
"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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #51 on: 01/11/2023 01:52 pm »
Quote from: Washington Post Live
@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."

In the same video linked below, Wyche also mentioned at 2m24s that "there are other people that are looking at it from a commercial standpoint: how can I go and maybe have a lunar hotel where other people may want to go. So there's many reasons for wanting to go [to the Moon]."

https://twitter.com/PostLive/status/1612921622645833728
« Last Edit: 01/11/2023 01:55 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #52 on: 01/17/2023 06:10 pm »
Quote from: Marcia Smith
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.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1615377177972711426

Quote from: Jeff Foust
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.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1615376942974308353
« Last Edit: 01/17/2023 06:13 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #53 on: 01/24/2023 03:35 am »
Quote from: Catherine Koerner
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.

https://twitter.com/Cathy_Koerner/status/1617645372024684546

« Last Edit: 01/24/2023 04:52 pm by yg1968 »

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Liked: 4670
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #54 on: 01/24/2023 03:57 am »

Great... another former flight director and operations manager with zero program formulation experience and whose only development program model is Orion.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #55 on: 01/24/2023 12:04 pm »
From the twit announcement:

"This review is the first of its type..."

How many times have we heard this sort of thing?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #56 on: 01/25/2023 12:22 am »
Quote from: Catherine Koerner
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.

https://twitter.com/Cathy_Koerner/status/1617982903522152468

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #57 on: 01/26/2023 02:50 am »
Quote from: Cathy_Koerner
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!

https://twitter.com/Cathy_Koerner/status/1618380084427083777

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #58 on: 01/30/2023 01:30 pm »
NASA meeting works to define exploration architecture:
https://spacenews.com/nasa-meeting-works-to-define-exploration-architecture/

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #59 on: 03/17/2023 11:58 am »
Cross-posting this as it is also relevant to this thread (note that Melroy is scheduled to talk at the Space Symposium on April 18th at 9:15 am):


And 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 Smith
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.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2023 01:40 pm by yg1968 »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48174
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81684
  • Likes Given: 36941
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #60 on: 04/05/2023 11:30 pm »
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-details-strategy-behind-blueprint-for-moon-to-mars-exploration

Quote
Apr 6, 2023

NASA Details Strategy Behind Blueprint for Moon to Mars Exploration

As 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/3zzSNhp

Last Updated: Apr 6, 2023
Editor: Erin Mahoney
Tags:  Artemis, Moon to Mars

Caption for attached image:

Quote
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.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #61 on: 04/05/2023 11:52 pm »
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-details-strategy-behind-blueprint-for-moon-to-mars-exploration

Quote
Apr 6, 2023

NASA 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...

Keeping the international partners theme going.

Quote
...to define overarching exploration goals...

I've been an advocate of defining the goals before committing to a plan, so this is encouraging.

Quote
...to enable the agency and others to build capabilities to meet those goals, a shift from a capabilities-driven approach to exploration.

OK, we need to understand how they define "capabilities-driven approach to exploration", because Congress has already defined that the SLS and Orion must be used (and other Artemis Moon elements), and that sure seems like Congress wants a "capabilities-driven approach to exploration".

I see this as a major requirements conflict to monitor...
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 yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #62 on: 04/07/2023 04:26 pm »
Here are some of the highlights of NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development report:

Quote from: Bill Nelson on page 2 of the PDF
[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.

Quote from: page 3 of the PDF
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.

Quote from: page 6 of the PDF
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.

Quote from: page 7 of the PDF
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.

Quote from: pages 12 and 13 of the PDF
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.

Quote from: page 14 of the PDF
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.

Quote from: page 16 of the PDF
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.

Quote from: pages 34 and 35 of the PDF
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.

Quote from: page 39 of the PDF
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.

Quote from: page 42 of the PDF
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.

Quote from: page 45 of the PDF
[...] 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?

Quote from: page 46 of the PDF
Summer Scrub

The 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.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/m2m_strategy_and_objectives_development.pdf

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
« Last Edit: 08/05/2023 05:51 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #63 on: 04/07/2023 06:26 pm »
Here are some of the highlights of NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development report:

...

Too many words, too few measurable goals.

Quote
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

That document does list goals and objectives, it only lists objectives. Including this objective:
Quote
RT-3: Crew Return: return crews safely to Earth while mitigating adverse impacts to crew health.

So good know one of their objectives is not to kill the crews...  ;)
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 JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #64 on: 04/08/2023 09:42 am »
Their first listed objective [LI-1L] is to establish a power infrastructure, and this is fine in principle, but they clutter the message with the idea of "scaling to global power utilization", which is code for "We won't do anything until we can do everything."
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #65 on: 04/08/2023 09:49 am »
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.

Seen in this light, one can legitimately wonder at the authorship of the M2M PDF up there.

Again:

They won't do anything until they can do everything.

Who doesn't love Venn diagrams?

Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #66 on: 04/08/2023 03:03 pm »
Here are some of the highlights of NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development report:

...

Too many words, too few measurable goals.

Quote
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

That document does [not] list goals and objectives, it only lists objectives.

There are goals. The ten goals are the following:

Quote from: pages 20 to 30 of the PDF of the Report
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.

NASA defines what the difference is between a goal and an objective as follows:

Quote from: page 6 of the PDF of the Report
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.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/m2m_strategy_and_objectives_development.pdf
« Last Edit: 04/08/2023 03:19 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Don2

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Liked: 296
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #67 on: 04/09/2023 05:44 am »
One objective should be making water. Human settlements have always needed a water source. Have the astronauts dig up some icy soil. Then heat it in a solar oven to sublime the ice and collect the water vapor in a cold trap. Then have the astronauts drink the moon water, after testing it to make sure it is safe.

Another objective should be bringing back a display rock. Look for something that will look nice when cut into thin sections and put on display. If you can make 50 thin sections then there is one for each state. Being able to see and touch something that Artemis brought back from the moon would help people connect with the program.

Returning a core sample of icy lunar soil for scientific study should also be high on the list. It will need to be refrigerated on the journey home.

Apollo 17 brought back 115kg of samples. Artemis should aim to match or exceed that on each flight.

Summary: Drink the waters of the moon. Return a souvenir rock. Return an icy soil sample for science.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #68 on: 04/09/2023 12:33 pm »
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”?

In college, I went about purchasing my first stereo system.  I walked into the shop and said, I'd like to buy a pair of Bose 901 speakers.  The sales guy said, why do you want those speakers?  I had no answer, other than a friend had them, and I liked the sound and aesthetics.  He talked me into the demonstration room where I listened to several speakers with my back turned. Eventually I chose the JBL 36's.

In this case, asking "why" turned out to have "value", at least as far as my ears were concerned at that time.  Tying back to HSF, speaker brand was a "trade" in my stereo system mission analysis.  I've seen variations of that Venn diagram there.  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?  Aren't there scientific "norms"? And what "Inspirational value" do "Norms" have? Accepting an intuitional understanding of "Norms", how are "Norms" not a fundamental aspect of "Science"?

None of these items have scientific definitions, and it's even worse than that. Each of the subsidiary circles can be arbitrarily rotated so that they end up in the central intersection, and even worse than that, some of the items can arbitrarily occupy almost any of the circles.  Does science provide "Cultural Enrichment"?  Isn't "STEM" a viable part of "National Posture"?  Isn't "Climate" supposed to be "Inspirational"?  How about "Human Research"? "Inspirational" or not?

That none of the items are defined scientifically proves that science comes after speech, and comports with my writing elsewhere that speech comes before math.  To insist that there is a scientific justification before attempting to colonize the inner solar system serves to keep our bloated bureacracy well fed, and has the disappointing side effect of disallowing mankind to determine if terrestrial life can thrive on other than one gee planetary bodies in the Goldilocks zone of stars similar to Sol.  We choose HSF because as pointed out elsewhere, "it is hard"

Each of the items in the chart can be thought of as analogues of deck chairs.  The "M2M Strategy/Objectives Appendix A" chart re-arranges the deck chairs of HSF, and doesn't bring humanity any closer to a lunar or martian base, by NASA's own telling.  The M2M paper is bloated with overly detailed matter supporting my contention that NASA proposes to do nothing until it can do everything.  The overly detailed mattter is too massive to achieve liftoff.

Even so, I find the M2M paper to be an excellent first draft.  It is easier to criticize an existing list than it is to create the list in the first place.

From:

https://www.jfklibrary.org/about-us/social-media-podcasts-and-apps/jfk35-podcast/season-2/jfk-and-the-space-race/transcript

Quote
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.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2181
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #69 on: 04/10/2023 03:01 am »
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?

Reading is hard.

Quote
Intersection of Inspiration and National Posture
Norms
“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.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #70 on: 04/10/2023 11:04 am »
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?

Reading is hard.

Quote
Intersection of Inspiration and National Posture
Norms
“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.

Reading is hard.  Science, apparently, doesn't have "Norms"?  The Venn diagram that they describe is faulty, and I touched on some of its faults, not all of them.  You have sacrificed completeness in your effort to be brief.  As a result of tunnel vision and unquestioned faith in the document's *definitions*, you have lost sight of the M2M document's dependence on mushy buzzwords, and thus its lack of pragmatic utility.

Again, as I said, the M2M thingie seems to have an exhaustive list of parameters which pertain to the M2M objective, but which support my contention that NASA proposes to do nothing until it can do everything.  They outline the bureacracy it will create, not the steps needed to launch the hardware needed to create an off-world economy.

And I hate that it's necessary for me to add in general that "safe and sustainable" are not defined at all.  "Safe" goes without saying and "sustainable" is a political term only.  To the first, HSF is not safe by any definition; of course safety is paramount, to the extent practicable.  Nobody is proposing means and methods that are not safe.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2023 11:05 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #71 on: 04/10/2023 12:52 pm »
Science most definitely has norms. Honesty, open sharing of data and procedures, peer review, etc.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #72 on: 04/10/2023 01:09 pm »
Of course.  The M2M graph there misses this entirely.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2023 04:20 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #73 on: 04/10/2023 02:18 pm »
Of course.  Teh M2M graph there misses this entirely.
Because it’s talking about geopolitical norms on Mars and the Moon and elsewhere in space, with the subtle hint that aggressive powers like China may be the ones to establish their norms if they beat us there or if we under-invest.

It’s a very Cold War style of appeal and it’s exactly the kind of argument their major stakeholders will find compelling.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #74 on: 04/10/2023 04:22 pm »
They  [you know, "They"] are dragging out this Cold War mentality a bit heavily.  At the same time, China doesn't have the term "fair play" in its vocabulary.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #75 on: 04/10/2023 05:23 pm »
…At the same time, China doesn't have the term "fair play" in its vocabulary.
That’s the whole point!
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #76 on: 04/11/2023 11:28 am »
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.”

I'm sure you noticed that the "new" PDF is merely a repackaging of the "old" PDF.

It is no longer the case that mere incompetence fully explains NASA's lack of significant progress in HSF.  I think NASA's "leadership" has been strong, at least by their own imprecisely defined standards, but the turnover at the top demonstrates that there is no clear vision for the future of HSF from NASA.  The class curmudgeons here will point out that the voters at large do not prioritize an effort to determine if humanity and terrestrial life can thrive off of the home planet.  I'd rather not have to agree with this, but our political leadership is not inspiring at all, regarding HSF.  The worst example of un-inspiration would be, I'd say, Newt Gingrich's mockery of NASA's efforts by promoting Luna as the 51st state of the Union.  He singlehandedly and intentionally, there's no other rational explanation, took HSF off the table for future political consideration.  With nothing to do, NASA has devolved into the current identitarian mass formation.

Absorbent and yellow and porous is he.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2023 11:29 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #77 on: 04/12/2023 10:51 am »
Makes NASA’s objectives seem rather duplicative and uncollaborative.

A bit confused here.  Did you mean to say duplicitous?  If China should say that they're going to the Moon, and we say that we're going to the Moon, well, that would be a duplicate goal.  What of it?

As to "uncollaborative": NASA has demonstrated collaboration, and our collaboration with Russia is top of the line, seeing as it continues in the face of the events on the ground in Ukraine.  Yes, that collaboration is iffy and could end tomorrow, but it is China that is uncollaborative, with no offer of collaboration from them on the table.
« Last Edit: 04/14/2023 04:14 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #78 on: 04/18/2023 04:24 pm »
NASA to Participate in Space Symposium, Discuss Moon to Mars:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-participate-in-space-symposium-discuss-moon-to-mars

Quote from: NASA
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 Directorate
Nicola Fox, associate administrator, Science Mission Directorate
James Free, associate administrator, Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate
Robert Gibbs, associate administrator, Mission Support Directorate
Jim Reuter, associate administrator, Space Technology Mission Directorate
NASA will broadcast both key events with Melroy on NASA TV, the NASA app, and the agency’s website.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2023 04:28 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #79 on: 04/18/2023 04:25 pm »
Space Symposium 2023 Plenary: 'Our Next Steps to the Moon and Beyond' - NASA Deputy Admin Pam Melroy


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #80 on: 04/18/2023 04:27 pm »
Space Symposium 2023 Panel: NASA Leaders on 'Moon to Mars' Strategy Implementation


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #81 on: 04/18/2023 04:39 pm »
Here is the Moon to Mars Architecture including the White papers:
https://www.nasa.gov/MoonToMarsArchitecture

Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate Moon-to-Mars Architecture Definition Document (ESDMD-001; the relevant discussions start at page 45):
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230002706/downloads/M2MADD_ESDMD-001(TP-20230002706).pdf
« Last Edit: 04/18/2023 05:41 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
« Last Edit: 04/18/2023 05:57 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #83 on: 04/18/2023 06:44 pm »
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/

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3315
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #84 on: 04/19/2023 08:10 pm »
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/

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.


Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48174
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81684
  • Likes Given: 36941
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #85 on: 04/19/2023 09:01 pm »

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3315
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #86 on: 04/19/2023 09:10 pm »
Deleted, per yg1968's suggestion that we discuss the Mars parts of the doc suite in a thread in the Mars missions section, and the Artemis stuff here.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2023 10:16 pm by TheRadicalModerate »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #87 on: 04/19/2023 09:19 pm »
Space Symposium 2023 Panel: NASA Leaders on 'Moon to Mars' Strategy Implementation



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 on the south pole or 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).
« Last Edit: 04/19/2023 10:09 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #88 on: 04/19/2023 10:07 pm »
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/

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 Segment

Only 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
« Last Edit: 04/19/2023 10:10 pm by yg1968 »

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3315
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #89 on: 04/19/2023 10:10 pm »
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).

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?

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3315
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #90 on: 04/19/2023 10:11 pm »
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/

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 Segment

Only 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

Works for me.  I'll clone my recent wall of text and remove it from here.  Update:  I see you already cloned it.
« Last Edit: 04/19/2023 10:17 pm by TheRadicalModerate »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #91 on: 04/19/2023 10:37 pm »
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).

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.

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3315
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #92 on: 04/19/2023 10:49 pm »
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).

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.

I should have mentioned that we do have a thread dedicated to discussing this exact issue.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #93 on: 04/19/2023 10:50 pm »
Although not very detailed, the sustained lunar evolution (SLE) segment is interesting:

Quote from: pages 72-75 of the Architecture definition document (or pages 80 to 83 of the PDF)
3.3 SUSTAINED LUNAR EVOLUTION SEGMENT

3.3.1 Summary of Objectives

In 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 Opportunity

Economic 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 Population

Increased 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 Work

Increased 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.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230002706/downloads/M2MADD_ESDMD-001(TP-20230002706).pdf
« Last Edit: 04/21/2023 12:50 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #94 on: 04/20/2023 05:45 am »
Indeed. What a time to be alive and in the space industry!
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2181
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #95 on: 04/20/2023 08:44 am »
-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?)

Offline TheRadicalModerate

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Tampa, FL
  • Liked: 3315
  • Likes Given: 639
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #96 on: 04/21/2023 08:22 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?)

Probably beyond the scope of Artemis, but if you want to put a radiotelescope on farside, you get the most sky coverage from putting it on the equator.

Beyond that, there's interesting geology everywhere.

Note that if you've designed your transport system to land at the poles, you get the equator for free.  But the reverse isn't true.

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #97 on: 04/22/2023 07:03 pm »
It would be silly to have an architecture that would confine you to a particular region of the Moon. We want universal access to everywhere.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #98 on: 04/26/2023 01:11 am »
Pam Melroy discussed the Moon to Mars architecture at 33m of this video:

« Last Edit: 08/05/2023 05:59 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
« Last Edit: 07/14/2023 10:45 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #103 on: 07/21/2023 12:32 am »
Moon to Mars Architecture (podcast):
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/audio/ep297_moon_to_mars_architecture.mp3

https://www.nasa.gov/johnson/HWHAP/moon-to-mars-architecture

https://twitter.com/NASA_Johnson/status/1679887984408109057


Quote from: the transcript
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.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2023 02:54 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #104 on: 08/01/2023 02:43 am »
Jim Free mentions at 19m of this video that the architecture concept review fine tuned their plans for Artemis missions through Artemis V:


Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #105 on: 08/01/2023 04:07 am »
Jim 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?
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 yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #106 on: 08/01/2023 04:13 am »
Jim 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?

Right, they are currently working on the Mars Architecture Concept Review, the outcome of which will be released in the Architecture Definitions document in November. They are jumping to Mars this year (and thus skipping Artemis VI and later missions) because they think that it is important to have the end goal in mind. My understanding is that they will get to Artemis VI and later missions once that they are done with Mars in November.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2023 04:48 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #107 on: 08/01/2023 12:57 pm »
Here is a slide from a presentation by Mark Kirasich, Deputy Associate Administrator for Artemis Campaign Development:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55813.msg2510435#msg2510435
« Last Edit: 08/01/2023 02:09 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #108 on: 08/01/2023 01:18 pm »
Artemis Science Objectives (from the same video at 15m):


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #109 on: 08/05/2023 01:48 pm »
There is an interesting discussion about whether NASA's Moon to Mars objectives align with SpaceX's objectives in the Artemis update and discussion thread, it starts on this post:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58212.msg2510607#msg2510607

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #111 on: 12/12/2023 01:25 am »
Presentation (video) on the Moon to Mars architecture by Nujoud Merancy, deputy associate administrator for strategy and architecture, ESDMD, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Christian Lange, executive director of the Lunar Exploration Program, Canadian Space Agency (CSA):

https://www.cpac.ca/episode?id=a4d4542d-96f2-407a-ab4e-cebd88382a14
« Last Edit: 12/12/2023 01:57 am by yg1968 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #112 on: 12/12/2023 02:19 am »
So let me get this straight...

The current Moon program has a suite of transportation and hardware systems that are being built to land humans on the Moon, and some of these same systems are supposed to be preparing NASA for going to, and landing, on Mars?

Which systems would that be?

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.

So what am I missing that is significant enough to merit NASA justifying this "Moon to Mars" effort? Because I'm not seeing anything...  :o
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 sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #113 on: 12/12/2023 03:33 am »
I think you and I largely agree: the programs, projects, elements and services being built or under procurement for Artemis are not likely to be very useful in getting humans to Mars.

I would ask: what if Nujoud Merancy, Deputy Associate Administrator for Strategy and Architecture in the NASA Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate, agreed with us? Sit with that for a minute. Then ask how she should approach that?

Wouldn't she be structuring the Moon to Mars effort so that it is, "Architecting from the Right?" (See slides 6 and 7.) Look at the Architecture Iteration Process described on slide 9. See how she talks about definition of "new program/projects" and "of next segment and included elements?"

She's laying the ground work that must be laid to bring about a huge institutional shift.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2181
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #114 on: 12/12/2023 10:55 pm »
SLS + Orion? Nope. They can barely reach the Moon, and are too expensive.

SLS/Orion aren't suitable for anything, but are required by Congress. However, Artemis is enabling NASA to gradually, painfully move Congress away from seeing SLS as the centre of the universe. It's also breaking one of the two principle SLS/Orion lobbyists away, LM is now able to openly push depot-driven architectures.

Convincing Congress to put an end-date on SLS/Orion is critical to even beginning a manned Mars program.

The 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.

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.

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. Everything SpaceX does for Artemis to prove the lunar mission components is also proving the same components for a Mars mission. Specifically, every refuelling tanking, every EDL back on Earth, is proving critical Mars mission hardware.

Obviously Starship breaks NASA's design reference architecture entirely. But that's just Starship being Starship.

Spacesuits? 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.

Moon 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.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4323
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #115 on: 12/12/2023 11:14 pm »
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.
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".

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1953
  • Likes Given: 1144
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #116 on: 12/13/2023 02:46 am »
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.
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.

Offline native chicken

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #117 on: 12/13/2023 03:42 am »
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.
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.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #118 on: 12/13/2023 04:14 am »
...
Convincing Congress to put an end-date on SLS/Orion is critical to even beginning a manned Mars program.

Congress can argue that the SLS is the only vehicle certified to carry humans to the Moon on the Orion spacecraft, and that would be correct. But the Orion is not necessary for going to Mars, no matter how much advertising NASA, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin PR puts out.

That means the SLS would have to justify costing $4B to deliver one load of propellant to space vs SpaceX charging, what, $10M? Meaning the SLS will end with the Moon landings, and won't go to Mars.

Quote
The 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.

Yeah, we already have a 450mT modular space station that NASA has been operating for over 23 years, so building and operating modular spacecraft is not a "Moon to Mars" specific thing. Our future in space REQUIRES modular construction competency regardless where we are going.

Quote
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.

They fit nicely into the future of expanding humanity out into space, with going to Mars just being one initiative. And again, we've been operating a 450mT modular AND refillable space station for over 23 years.

What we don't have experience with, and what President Obama wanted to do, is to learn how to operate reusable spacecraft beyond Earth orbit (BEO) - beyond Earth local space. Which does include Mars, but lots of other destinations within our solar system too.

Quote
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.

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.

NASA is funding $0 for a Mars Starship. What NASA is paying for is the elements needed to land humans on our Moon from an elliptical Moon orbit, and return them to that elliptical orbit.

The vehicle that SpaceX is building for the Artemis HLS program is NOT related to the Mars version. SpaceX will need to transfer propellant to the Starship HLS vehicle, so that is included in the HLS contract, but SpaceX would have done that work on their own dime if they didn't get the HLS contract.

SpaceX is NOT an official partner with NASA on the "Moon to Mars" program. SpaceX is going to Mars separately from NASA as of today.

Quote
Spacesuits? 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.

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.

Quote
Moon 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.

Um, again, a stretch, and Mars will likely be far easier to design for since we've been sending robotic (wheeled) electric vehicles to Mars for 27 years. The last vehicle we sent weighed 3.6mT, was nuclear powered, and carried a helicopter!  :D

Do you think we don't have rover skills applicable for Mars already?  ;)
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 Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #119 on: 12/13/2023 04:48 am »
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.
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.
That will change once the Heart of Gold gets its name. Then further resistance to change with certain parts of NASA and certain Congressional critters will be Moot. The NASA edifice will then have to decide if they want to be aboard the Heart of Gold when it launched for Mars, if they are allowed to. Since SX (it's CTO) will not wait for NASA and the Congressional critters.

The SX CTO have declared many times the first crewed Starship to land on Mars will be the Heart of Gold. For anyone not remembering the Douglas Adams reference name drop by the SX CTO.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4323
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #120 on: 12/13/2023 05:26 am »
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.
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.
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.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #121 on: 12/13/2023 08:24 pm »
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.
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.
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 DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4323
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #122 on: 12/13/2023 09:54 pm »
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.
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.

You still get a huge advantage from cheap flights of reusable SS, because you use them to lift the stuff you need to build out these big cylinders.

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2181
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #123 on: 12/14/2023 12:56 am »
NASA'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".

Hence, as I said in that comment: "Obviously Starship breaks NASA's design reference architecture entirely. But that's just Starship being Starship."




Aside: NASA's Mars DRA hasn't been updated (I believe) since 2009. It refers to Ares V.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/373667main_nasa-sp-2009-566-add.pdf
« Last Edit: 12/14/2023 12:57 am by Paul451 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #124 on: 12/14/2023 01:14 am »
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.

The current contracts for commercial spacesuits have an optional CLIN3 which could include spacesuits for Mars.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53612.msg2296447#msg2296447
« Last Edit: 12/14/2023 01:17 am by yg1968 »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #125 on: 12/14/2023 01:21 am »
Does the phrase "Moon to Mars Objectives" here mean what anyone associated with the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate says or does? Or does the phrase refer to work done and presented by personnel associated with the Strategy and Architecture Office, which is within the Moon to Mars Program Office of that directorate?

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration-systems-development-mission-directorate/

Clearly the Strategy and Architecture Office is broken out from the remainder of ESDMD for a reason....

I attach here the .pdf referenced in the original post on this thread. Searching it for "SLS" and "Orion" finds no hits. Quoting from the pdf:
Quote
[...] 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).
« Last Edit: 12/14/2023 01:24 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #126 on: 12/14/2023 01:57 am »
The org chart of ESDMD is described in this article, they are all under the same ESDMD Associate Administrator:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-establishes-moon-to-mars-program-office/

I wouldn't read too much into the structure. The objectives are broad and purposely do not discuss the details of which launcher would be used to fulfill an objective. But NASA admitted that some of the objectives were written with what was already being planned for Artemis. So it's not a coincidence that SLS likely meets objective TH-1 (see the objective below). 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: NASA
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.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/m2m-objectives-exec-summary.pdf
« Last Edit: 12/14/2023 02:05 am by yg1968 »

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Liked: 4670
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #127 on: 12/14/2023 03:15 am »
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.

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…

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #128 on: 12/14/2023 03:34 am »
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.

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 when you read the objectives).
« Last Edit: 12/14/2023 03:42 am by yg1968 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #129 on: 12/14/2023 03:42 am »
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.

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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #130 on: 12/14/2023 03:46 am »
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.

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?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #131 on: 12/14/2023 04:22 am »
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.

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?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline native chicken

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #132 on: 12/14/2023 06:26 am »
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.
In space, a spacecraft that cuts, re welds, and alters the volume and structure of a starship. It's much more complicated than using LEGO to assemble building blocks in space.

How do you perform metal cutting, grinding, sealing, and drilling in a confined space in space? How to handle waste, toxic liquids and gases, and various metal debris? Do you want to wear protective clothing? Is it indoor protective clothing or outdoor protective clothing?

To be honest, with current technological capabilities, by the time SpaceX solves these, it is possible that other truss type space assembly spacecraft may have landed on Mars, asteroids, and returned to Earth long ago.

Many of SpaceX's ideas actually cannot withstand scrutiny. I have systematically studied it many years ago. In fact, the more widely recognized and unified solution in the industry (such as modularization) is the most effective solution in the short term. The greatest value of Starship is entering and exiting the Earth's atmosphere. Its SH is the true wealth of the US aerospace industry, but SS is not currently. Before it can efficiently release oversized and overweight loads into space, its value is not significant.

Offline native chicken

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #133 on: 12/14/2023 07:38 am »
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.
SpaceX should first solve the SH problem and not rush to implement the reuse of SS. If the Raptor engine only costs $230000 to $250000 per unit. It doesn't cost much to make traditional consumables. This will soon replace many application directions of SLS1/1B/2.
It does not require multiple orbital refueling to carry out the 3/4 mission of Artemis.
The current modular spacecraft has a design cycle of at least 10 years, and in the future, the space assembly method based on space robots (which is more suitable for SS) needs to be developed for at least 20-30 years.
To be honest, nowadays SS is unable to operate on super large spacecraft except for special flatbed satellites and transporting fuel. If we cannot launch a super large spacecraft, we cannot replace the true role of SLS in the aerospace field. Special flatbed satellites and transportation of fuel are the business needs of the Musk Aerospace Empire, not those of the US Aerospace/NASA.
The optimal development path for many technologies requires following a gradual and orderly pattern. SpaceX has a great vision for its ideas, but it attempts to bypass some inevitable intermediate technological solutions, which greatly increases technical risks and reduces its short-term efficiency.
What I want to say is that SpaceX prioritizes solving the SH problem and SS will conduct research 10 years later. This is definitely better for the promotion of US space than the current state.
The aerospace industry is an industry with many technological categories, and SpaceX's current resources are only sufficient for the development of launch vehicles. Executing a large number of deep space activities requires tens of thousands of people from different industries to gather together and act around a goal. SpaceX is in a leading position in providing orbital capabilities, but its industry partners are unable to act with him, so a large number of payloads launched by SpaceX are his own star chain systems. So SpaceX has a huge space transportation capacity in advance. However, truly professional space payload enterprises and modular manufacturing enterprises cannot quickly keep up with SpaceX's pace. Provide affordable, reliable, and high-performance peripheral loads. So these leading advantages cannot help the United States consolidate its existing advantages in the aerospace field.
Take the Artemis project as an example. This project, from the Orion spacecraft to the Gateway and Lunar Lander, was originally designed with specialized payloads of extremely large volume and weight for deep space flight and assembly. SpaceX has proposed a revolutionary change plan, but the problem is that most of the other plans have already been implemented and are even nearing results (half of the money has been spent). No one can coordinate with SpaceX's innovative technological solutions for adjustments.
The current dilemma is that the cost of SLS is too high (integrated architecture), but SpaceX's Starship Rocket cannot completely replace SLS. The proposed alternative solution actually causes greater project delays and even faces the risk of failure. I have no confidence in Starship HLS's multiple refueling and landing, as the technology takes time to mature. The United States had the opportunity to land on the moon between 2026 and 2028, but if the Blue Origin option was chosen in 2021, the risk would be much lower.
In fact, the solution is exceptionally clear, which is that SpaceX did not initially choose the technology route of full reuse. SS that is not reused. It can immediately have a huge impact on American aerospace. If SS does it after 2030, he will still be world leading.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #134 on: 12/14/2023 01:36 pm »
SpaceX is committed to not just marginal improvement with Starship. If it can’t beat F9 marginal cost (and without SS reuse, that’ll be a challenge, nearly impossible to do a lot better), it can’t afford to launch the full (number and mass per satellite) Starlink constellation. And it’s not just a launcher:

It’s also needed for the 3rd Polaris mission and Dear Moon and, of course, Mars. All these need dozens, maybe a hundred successful reentries and landings of SS. And they’re serious about it. Polaris mission 3 is now fully Starship, no ancillary Dragon. Starship HAS to be fully reusable or the mission now cannot happen.

Everyone think spaceX is going to half-commit to reuse, or treat Starship as just a LEO launcher. Nope. They’re serious about its full capabilities and some of the only customers already signed up for Starship REQUIRE it to be reusable. There is no other path. It’s full reuse or nothing. (Even if it might take years to get there.) That’s why you see them putting tiles on even these early ships. They need to not just make Starship reusable, but to reuse it like 100 times in the next few years.


Yes, there will be a lot of expended SS upper stages especially in the early days. But d*mmit, most of them will reenter with tiles on them.
« Last Edit: 12/14/2023 01:44 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #135 on: 12/14/2023 01:46 pm »
It’s also silly to think SpaceX can’t build a large payload bay door. They’ve already built and scrapped at least one large payload bay door. This will be built as soon as it’s needed, and it’s not yet needed.

SLS doesn’t have a large fairing, either. I will bet you a beer that Starship will fly with a large payload bay door before SLS flies with a large fairing (meaning larger than just the payload adapter used for Gateway modules). In fact, I’m not entirely sure SLS will ever fly a cargo only mission ever. Maybe 50/50 odds of ever flying a cargo only mission (with a large fairing). Starship, however, definitely will. And it’ll fly crew to cislunar. To the Moon’s surface. And eventually (maybe a decade or two from now?) Mars.
« Last Edit: 12/14/2023 02:33 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4323
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #136 on: 12/14/2023 03:09 pm »
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.


Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #137 on: 12/14/2023 04:09 pm »
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.
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.

I enjoy a lot of your posts Dan but this one is plain silly, because no one today "needs" a 9m dia. X 50m long empty stainless steel tube in space, so you are trying to argue that an edge case represents the norm, but it doesn't. Plus the Starship vehicle is not just a tube, and it requires a LOT of work in order to make it into something that would be safe to occupy by humans.

And you are ignoring the price SpaceX would charge a customer for buying a fully operational Starship and turning it into a non-operational Starship. All that R&D spent to date has to be recouped somehow, and normally it would be incrementally added onto each reusable flight, but if you're going to remove an operational Starship from service then you have to pay the full cost of construction + R&D + profit. Suddenly that stainless steel tube is not so cheap.

Whereas if you standardized on payloads that fit into existing REUSABLE Starships, then your costs stay low.

Quote
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.

The major point here is that humanity has found that once you standardize on a method of reusable transportation, then you can pretty much build ANYTHING. Largest building in the world was built using regular road trucks. Largest dam in the world was built using regular road trucks. And so on.

You are proposing to cannibalize the transportation system that is lowering the cost of transportation. That is like eating your seed corn.

The most important lesson here that relates to this supposed "Moon to Mars" effort by NASA, is that in order to believe that there are direct relationships between the current Artemis Moon effort and future NASA Mars efforts, then you have to believe that the current Artemis Moon effort is something that SHOULD be held up as a efficient and cost-effective way to do space exploration.

But we know that is NOT the case.

The SLS+Orion are the MOST expensive way of moving humans to & thru space. NASA has to use a 7-day highly elliptical Moon orbit as the staging point for surface operations. NASA is crippled by a Congress that sort of wants a Moon landing, but doesn't provide timely and full funding. And finally NASA itself has too many competing interests that are muddling the current Moon efforts.

Why would anyone want to emulate that for a much larger effort to go to Mars?

SpaceX (i.e. Elon Musk) has come up with a concept they are pursuing that is far more simple. It still has many risks, and many assumptions to be validated, so I'm not saying the Starship approach is a fait accompli, but if the choice is between NASA's supposed "Moon to Mars" approach and the approach that SpaceX is using with the Starship (i.e. a big reusable general cargo vehicle), well then why would anyone think the NASA approach is better?

And not just better, but the current NASA "Moon to Mars" effort is just too darn expensive to succeed in this budget environment. In other words, it is not realistic. Which is why I think it is mainly just a PR thing...  :(

« Last Edit: 12/14/2023 05:05 pm by Coastal Ron »
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 yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
« Last Edit: 01/23/2024 09:58 pm by yg1968 »

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #139 on: 01/23/2024 10:37 pm »
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.

Starship also has a commercial launch contract with SKY Perfect JSAT for their Superbird-9 geostationary satellite, planned to launch in 2027.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #140 on: 02/03/2024 04:22 am »
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
« Last Edit: 02/03/2024 04:23 am by yg1968 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Moon to Mars Objectives
« Reply #141 on: 02/03/2024 04:57 am »
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

Opinions of people that have no say in the matter (i.e. that NSF thread), don't matter.

Only the opinion of the current President and current Congress matter, and they can make up whatever justification they want.

As of today the Artemis program is supposed to satisfy social (first woman, first person of color), political (whichever party is in power for the landing gets the credit), and geopolitical goals (the Artemis Accord partners).

The science goals for returning to the Moon were nebulous to begin with, and are kind of being backed into as they figure out what capabilities they will have for each of the landings. However unless they find signs of extraterrestrial life, the public is unlikely to have much enthusiasm after the first landing - we have historical precedence for that (i.e. Apollo).

As for "Moon to Mars", if an independent commission is ever authorized to review the Artemis achievements, and to look at what, if anything, could be used for continuing on to Mars, I think they will only view the SpaceX hardware as being a pathway to Mars. Everything else will be too indirect for a Mars mission, which would likely take more than a decade to launch after the last Artemis mission, so few will be around at NASA to remember the lessons learned.

And based on that current mission cadence for Artemis, SpaceX is likely to have landed many times on Mars by the time the last Artemis mission is launched. Meaning all this "Moon to Mars" NASA planning will be obsolete. Just sayin'...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0