Mars - Future CLPS?

[Jim]

The satellites in the integrated constellation would provide all ground-facing functions: (GPS, imaging, comms) starting with a small constellation at a medium height, but with an architecture that accommodates expansion by adding satellites to the initial shell and also adding shells later.

There, fixed it.

A.  Don't need many imagers
b. Don't need to have many spacecraft talking to earth at once.
c.  Don't want to have high slew rates for Mars to Earth antennas/lasers.

[DanClemmensen]

The satellites in the integrated constellation would provide all ground-facing functions: (GPS, imaging, comms) starting with a small constellation at a medium height, but with an architecture that accommodates expansion by adding satellites to the initial shell and also adding shells later.

only in the the sense that they are part of the ISL network.
There, fixed it.

A.  Don't need many imagers
b. Don't need to have many spacecraft talking to earth at once.
c.  Don't want to have high slew rates for Mars to Earth antennas/lasers.

I think the Earth relays (maybe two of them) are physically separate designs and are possibly in a higher orbit. They are "integrated" with the constellation only in the sense that they are part of the ISL network. The relays are the only ones directly talking to Earth.

[Eric Hedman]

I personally think that a CMPS (Commercial Mars Payload Service) should stop thinking of a separate class for robotic and human exploration needs.  The RFP should be open to what industry thinks they could offer cost effectively at sizes from < 1 ton payloads up to what Starship could deliver.  Funding a half dozen design studies at five to ten million each might unleash some much needed creativity.  A lander that could deliver a Life Explorer lab of four to five tons with a 5 kW solar arrays coupled with sample collection rovers could give JPL scientists some incredible capabilities on Mars.  If the same lander could deliver supplies to a future human outpost, you have killed two birds with one development stone.

It is time to think outside of the NASA box.  NASA thinking got us the SLS kludge and the MSR kludge.  Private industry not fettered by NASA thinking has brought us Falcon 9 and Heavy, plus Dragon.  It is bringing us Starship, New Glenn, Blue Moon and other reusable rockets.  NASA thinking is limiting the size and capabilities of missions to Mars that is also keeping costs high due to the technical problems of cramming capabilities into tiny spacecraft.  Even if a new lander could only bring two or three tons to the surface of Mars, it could carry a far more capable MAV for the MSR mission that would relieve some of the design issues the MSR mission is facing.  If you had the capability for larger payloads at a lower cost to deliver and at a higher flight frequency, you can't tell me the planetary science community wouldn't find good ways to take advantage of it.

[Eer]

I personally think that a CMPS (Commercial Mars Payload Service) should stop thinking of a separate class for robotic and human exploration needs. 
....

I'm not ready to go that far, yet - let the transition to commercial contracts take place once the initial capability is demonstrated (TRL7+, if not TRL9), so the contracts can concentrate on service delivery, rather than technical demonstrations and development. Such a distinction is likely to help keep separate the "pots of money" from which NASA (and others) are able to allocate - Pure (foundational) R&D is separate from demonstration (application) R&D, is separate from (commercial) operations (services).  If you want to keep out of the tried-and-true cost-plus contracts, you need to get past open-ended "try stuff until you find something that works" contracts.

In my opinion.

* Delivery of robotic payloads/satellites to Mars Orbit has been demonstrated - make that a class of service.
* Delivery of robotic payloads to Mars Surface has been demonstrated - make that a class of service.
* Return of payload from Mars Surface to Earth has NOT yet been demonstrated - too early to make that a service, unless you have a lot of confidence based on return missions from other celestial bodies (at least asteroids, but more relevant is lunar surface sample returns)
* Crewed delivery to Martian orbit and return has NOT yet been demonstrated - so following the example above, it's too early to make it a commercial service, unless you have a lot of confidence based on crewed orbit missions to other celestial bodies (e.g., Moon)
* Crewed delivery to Martian Surface and return has NOT yet been demonstrated, and can't, I don't think, depend on lunar mission analogues to retire enough risk to warrant commercial service contracts, yet.

In my opinion

[deltaV]

let the transition to commercial contracts take place once the initial capability is demonstrated (TRL7+, if not TRL9), so the contracts can concentrate on service delivery, rather than technical demonstrations and development.

It is possible for services contracts to do technical demonstrations and development. One example is Intuitive Machines's CLPS lander used cryogenic propulsion beyond GEO for the first time. Another is SpaceX HLS and BO HLS will both use cryogenic propellant transfer which hadn't been done before when the contracts were awarded (the third Starship orbital test flight may have done it). Starship HLS is also aiming to have the first cost-effective upper-stage reuse and the largest lunar lander ever. All that is needed is good confidence that the necessary innovations can be done for a reasonable price.

My guess is the main challenge with doing Mars Sample Return or Mars Crew using services contracts is not technical readiness but uncertainty about what Planetary Protection and Human Rating standards NASA will impose. It's hard to plan a multi-billion-dollar project when the rules of the game are subject to change at NASA's whims. This isn't necessarily a fatal problem - NASA can invest in clearer standards before asking for bids - but only if NASA tries hard.

[Eric Hedman]

I personally think that a CMPS (Commercial Mars Payload Service) should stop thinking of a separate class for robotic and human exploration needs. 
....

In my opinion.

* Delivery of robotic payloads/satellites to Mars Orbit has been demonstrated - make that a class of service.
* Delivery of robotic payloads to Mars Surface has been demonstrated - make that a class of service.

That's as far as I was thinking for the next step.  I just think it should include significantly larger payloads than have been sent before and landed on the surface.  That would allow rovers and stationary labs, insitu resource demonstrations, solar power stations, etc with far greater capabilities than before.  I would also include commercializing a communications system system to provide a StarLink like internet that is connected back to Earth possibly via laser communications.

[deadman1204]

I personally think that a CMPS (Commercial Mars Payload Service) should stop thinking of a separate class for robotic and human exploration needs. 
....

In my opinion.

* Delivery of robotic payloads/satellites to Mars Orbit has been demonstrated - make that a class of service.
* Delivery of robotic payloads to Mars Surface has been demonstrated - make that a class of service.

That's as far as I was thinking for the next step.  I just think it should include significantly larger payloads than have been sent before and landed on the surface.  That would allow rovers and stationary labs, insitu resource demonstrations, solar power stations, etc with far greater capabilities than before.  I would also include commercializing a communications system system to provide a StarLink like internet that is connected back to Earth possibly via laser communications.

None of this has anything to do with a clips model (Which would be commerical in name only). Who is going to spend the billions to design and make all these giant things that the non-existant mars lander will deliver? Who is gonna pay billions to make/run mars starlink? spacex does nothing for free, nor will they do it for super cheap either.

Humans on mars is INCREDIBLY expensive and a long ways off. While its a nice dream, humans on mars isn't a solution to everything. Its like waiting for your fusion powered flying car

[deltaV]

From a Mars Sample Return thread:

1) I bet SX already has a proposal into JPL for study of “delivery of small payloads of up to 20 kilograms to Mars orbit, delivery of large payloads of up to 1,250 kilograms to Mars orbit” per this earlier solicitation:

https://spacenews.com/nasa-studies-to-examine-commercial-partnerships-for-mars-exploration/

The SX proposal is probably something along the lines of: “As part of its Starship Mars flight test plan, SX plans to send at least one Starship to Mars orbit every synod starting in 20XX.  Early flights may be subject to test failures, but SX projects repeat reliable deliveries by 20YY.  Here is the orbit(s) SX plans to enter around Mars.  For a small payload of 20kg, SX will charge $X million.  For a large payload of 1250kg, SX will charge $YY million.  Deliveries before 20YY will be discounted by Z to account for the higher risk of those early test flights.  Here’s the additional price list for delivery to unusual orbits, unusual packing requirements, docs, etc.  Starship Mars leverages a much larger Starship development program funded in large part through StarLink revenue, as well as Artemis HLS funding.  Here’s the details on that development program and funding.”

1. Awards are supposed to be made in April so hopefully we'll hear about the bids and who won soon.

2. It's amazing how different the scales are that SpaceX and JPL are trying to operate at. If you made the payloads in that solicitation 100x larger, i.e. 2 tonnes or 125 tonnes to Mars orbit, SpaceX would probably find the labels "small" and "large" to be appropriate.

[StraumliBlight]

NASA Selects Commercial Service Studies to Enable Mars Robotic Science

Nine companies have been selected to conduct early-stage studies of concepts for commercial services to support lower-cost, higher-frequency missions to the Red Planet.

NASA has identified nine U.S. companies to perform a total of 12 concept studies of how commercial services can be applied to enable science missions to Mars. Each awardee will receive between $200,000 and $300,000 to produce a detailed report on potential services — including payload delivery, communications relay, surface imaging, and payload hosting — that could support future missions to the Red Planet.

The companies were selected from among those that responded to a Jan. 29 request for proposals from U.S. industry.

NASA’s Mars Exploration Program initiated the request for proposals to help establish a new paradigm for missions to Mars with the potential to advance high-priority science objectives. Many of the selected proposals center on adapting existing projects currently focused on the Moon and Earth to Mars-based applications.

They include “space tugs” to carry other spacecraft to Mars, spacecraft to host science instruments and cameras, and telecommunications relays. The concepts being sought are intended to support a broad strategy of partnerships between government, industry, and international partners to enable frequent, lower-cost missions to Mars over the next 20 years.

“We’re in an exciting new era of space exploration, with rapid growth of commercial interest and capabilities,” said Eric Ianson, director of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program. “Now is the right time for NASA to begin looking at how public-private partnerships could support science at Mars in the coming decades.”

The selected Mars Exploration Commercial Services studies are divided into four categories:

Small payload delivery and hosting services

 • Lockheed Martin Corporation, Littleton, Colorado — adapt a lunar-exploration spacecraft
 • Impulse Space, Inc., Redondo Beach, California — adapt an Earth-vicinity orbital transfer vehicle (space tug)
 • Firefly Aerospace, Cedar Park, Texas — adapt a lunar-exploration spacecraft

Large payload delivery and hosting services

 • United Launch Services (ULA), LLC, Centennial, Colorado — modify an Earth-vicinity cryogenic upper stage
 • Blue Origin, LLC, Kent, Washington — adapt an Earth- and lunar-vicinity spacecraft
 • Astrobotic Technology, Inc., Pittsburgh — modify a lunar-exploration spacecraft

Mars surface-imaging services

 • Albedo Space Corporation, Broomfield, Colorado — adapt a low Earth orbit imaging satellite
 • Redwire Space, Inc., Littleton, Colorado — modify a low Earth orbit commercial imaging spacecraft
 • Astrobotic Technology, Inc. — modify a lunar exploration spacecraft to include imaging

Next-generation relay services

 • Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), Hawthorne, California — adapt Earth-orbit communication satellites for Mars
 • Lockheed Martin Corporation — provide communication relay services via a modified Mars orbiter
 • Blue Origin, LLC — provide communication relay services via an adapted Earth- and lunar-vicinity spacecraft

The 12-week studies are planned to conclude in August, and a study summary will be released later in the year. These studies could potentially lead to future requests for proposals but do not constitute a NASA commitment.

NASA is concurrently requesting separate industry proposals for its Mars Sample Return campaign, which seeks to bring samples being collected by the agency’s Perseverance rover to Earth, where they can be studied by laboratory equipment too large and complex to bring to Mars. The MSR industry studies are completely independent of the MEP commercial studies.

[Skye]

Would it not be CMPS?

[Tywin]

Would it not be CMPS?

Looks like yes:

[Skye]

Huh. Interesting.