NASA Moon to Mars Program Office

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/new-program-office-leads-nasa-s-path-forward-for-moon-mars

Mar 31, 2023
RELEASE 23-039

New Program Office Leads NASA’s Path Forward for Moon, Mars

NASA has established the new Moon to Mars Program Office at NASA Headquarters in Washington to carry out the agency’s human exploration activities at the Moon and Mars for the benefit of humanity. Amit Kshatriya will serve as the agency’s first head of the office, effective immediately.

This new office resides within the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate, reporting to its Associate Administrator Jim Free.

“The Moon to Mars Program Office will help prepare NASA to carry out our bold missions to the Moon and land the first humans on Mars,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “The golden age of exploration is happening right now, and this new office will help ensure that NASA successfully establishes a long-term lunar presence needed to prepare for humanity’s next giant leap to the Red Planet.”

As directed by the 2022 NASA Authorization Act, the Moon to Mars Program Office focuses on hardware development, mission integration, and risk management functions for programs critical to the agency’s exploration approach that uses Artemis missions at the Moon to open a new era of scientific discovery and prepare for human missions to Mars. This includes the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, supporting ground systems, human landing systems, spacesuits, Gateway, and more related to deep space exploration. The new office will also lead planning and analysis for long-lead developments to support human Mars missions.

Kshatriya previously served as acting deputy associate administrator for Common Exploration Systems Development, providing leadership and integration across several of the programs that now fall within the new office.

Lakiesha Hawkins will serve as the deputy for the Moon to Mars Program Office. As deputy, Hawkins will support Kshatriya in all aspects of the office’s day-to-day management and operations. Stephen Creech will serve as the technical deputy for the office. In this capacity, Creech will be responsible for ensuring technical issues are identified and brought to resolution across all of the offices and programs under the Moon to Mars Program Office.

Updates to the mission directorate also include the Strategy and Architecture Office that develops the integrated master plan based on the agency Moon to Mars Objectives, alongside NASA’s Science, Space Technology, and Space Operations Mission Directorates. With these changes, NASA will continue to lead the nation in exploration while also building a coalition of international partners in deep space with the Artemis Accords.

Since establishing its Exploration Systems Mission Directorate in September 2021, NASA has worked diligently to assess and align its two human spaceflight organizations while remaining focused on Artemis and other agency mission priorities including International Space Station operations, commercial crew and cargo, and more.

The Space Operations Mission Directorate remains responsible for all low-Earth orbit space operations and is focused on the space station, space communications and navigation supporting all NASA human and science exploration missions, as well as a continued development of a vibrant and expanding commercial space economy closer to home. Space Operations also manages the Launch Services Program, Commercial Crew Program, Commercial Low Earth Orbit Development Program, Human Spaceflight Capabilities, and other associated resources.

Other organizational updates include a business function for each mission directorate to manage administrative processes and financial formulation, and the exploration operations function will report to the Moon to Mars Program to maximize efficiency for integrated risk management with the relevant hardware programs supporting Artemis missions.

Through Artemis, NASA will land the first woman and the first person of color on the Moon, paving the way for a long-term, sustainable lunar presence to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before and prepare for future astronaut missions to Mars. This is NASA’s Moon to Mars exploration approach.

To learn more about Kshatriya, visit his bio online:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/amit-kshatriya

-end-

Image captions:

Through Artemis, NASA will land the first woman and the first person of color on the Moon, paving the way for a long-term, sustainable lunar presence to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before and prepare for future astronaut missions to Mars.
Credits: NASA

Amit Kshatriya is deputy associate administrator for the Moon to Mars Program Office in NASA's Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate.
Credits: NASA

[Coastal Ron]

I expect a lot of studies to be produced... 

[VSECOTSPE]

Amit Kshatriya... a JSC operator with little/no development experience...

Steve Creech...  a MSFC developer with a stellar X-33 and SLS resume...

At least Lakiesha Hawkins has been working HLS for a year and a half.

But no one on this team has proven experience successfully leading a human space flight vehicle (or any integrated space system) through development.

[Coastal Ron]

Amit Kshatriya... a JSC operator with little/no development experience...

Steve Creech...  a MSFC developer with a stellar X-33 and SLS resume...

At least Lakiesha Hawkins has been working HLS for a year and a half.

But no one on this team has proven experience successfully leading a human space flight vehicle (or any integrated space system) through development.

That, which is telling, and the fact that NASA being ready to go to Mars is so far into the future that I really only see them producing studies at this point.

Plus there is the whole political side of the question as to whether NASA will be allowed to send humans to Mars, and without knowing what level of effort Congress would be willing to support, I just don't see much actionable "stuff" coming out of this group.

Especially since if SpaceX does get Starship to land on Mars and return, then all NASA plans will change anyways. So this is almost like a make-work project...

[Robotbeat]

I disagree.

The strongest arguments for human missions to the Moon are to prepare for Mars (buy down risk, develop experience, maybe do ISRU), so you need to have Mars mission requirement in mind when developing the goals for Artemis missions.

[yg1968]

This thread should be moved to the Moon section. The Moon to Mars program office is mostly about the Moon.

[yg1968]

See below.

Here is one of the main provision which creates a Moon to Mars program:

17 (2) MOON TO MARS PROGRAM.—
18 (A) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 120
19 days after the date of the enactment of this
20 Act, the Administrator shall establish a Moon
21 to Mars Program (referred to in this section as
22 the ‘‘Program’’) in accordance with sections
23 20302(b) and 70504 of title 51, United States
24 Code, which shall include Artemis missions and
1 activities, to achieve the goal of human explo
2 ration of Mars.
3 (B) ELEMENTS.—The Program shall in
4 clude the following elements:
5 (i) The Space Launch System under
6 section 20302 of title 51, United States
7 Code.
8 (ii) The Orion crew vehicle under such
9 section.
10 (iii) Exploration Ground Systems.
11 (iv) An outpost in orbit around the
12 Moon under section 70504 of such title.
13 (v) Human-rated landing systems.
14 (vi) Spacesuits.
15 (vii) Any other element needed to
16 meet the requirements for the Program.

[yg1968]

Amit Kshatriya... a JSC operator with little/no development experience...

Steve Creech...  a MSFC developer with a stellar X-33 and SLS resume...

At least Lakiesha Hawkins has been working HLS for a year and a half.

But no one on this team has proven experience successfully leading a human space flight vehicle (or any integrated space system) through development.

That, which is telling, and the fact that NASA being ready to go to Mars is so far into the future that I really only see them producing studies at this point.

Plus there is the whole political side of the question as to whether NASA will be allowed to send humans to Mars, and without knowing what level of effort Congress would be willing to support, I just don't see much actionable "stuff" coming out of this group.

Especially since if SpaceX does get Starship to land on Mars and return, then all NASA plans will change anyways. So this is almost like a make-work project...

The Moon to Mars program is essentially another name for the Artemis program, they will manage Artemis and will report to Jim Free.

[Coastal Ron]

Amit Kshatriya... a JSC operator with little/no development experience...

Steve Creech...  a MSFC developer with a stellar X-33 and SLS resume...

At least Lakiesha Hawkins has been working HLS for a year and a half.

But no one on this team has proven experience successfully leading a human space flight vehicle (or any integrated space system) through development.

That, which is telling, and the fact that NASA being ready to go to Mars is so far into the future that I really only see them producing studies at this point.

Plus there is the whole political side of the question as to whether NASA will be allowed to send humans to Mars, and without knowing what level of effort Congress would be willing to support, I just don't see much actionable "stuff" coming out of this group.

Especially since if SpaceX does get Starship to land on Mars and return, then all NASA plans will change anyways. So this is almost like a make-work project...

The Moon to Mars program is essentially another name for the Artemis program, they will manage Artemis and will report to Jim Free.

Sounds like scope creep to me. Going to the Moon is completely different than going to Mars, so managing it under one program makes no sense.

And again, NASA has no idea what goals the U.S. Government has for Mars, which means they have no idea how sparse or robust Mars missions should be. For instance, there is a HUGE difference between a flags & footprints missions to Mars vs setting up a constant presence (not to be confused with "permanent presence").

[Robotbeat]

It’s not scope creep, it has literally been NASA’s plan for half a century (in fact, nuclear thermal and nuclear electric propulsion research for interplanetary flight to Mars under NACA, and it became an official NASA study after the Ohio researchers pitched it to Congress in April 1959–and got approval). Constellation under Bush also envisioned going to Mars as the next step after the Moon. Obama skipped the moon to settle for a deep space orbit-only mission to an asteroid, eventually a captured boulder in lunar orbit (which itself evolved into Gateway), but that was also seen as just a stepping stone to Mars, with the propulsion system for the boulder capturing thing (now Gateway’s PPE) being a subscale prototype for a MTV (or, generally, a Deep Space Transfer vehicle) propulsion system. Trump canceled ARRM and instead wanted to land on the Moon but even he said we should really be going to Mars and Artemis has always shown Mars as the logical next step. Biden’s administration has taken the exact same approach, and if it has been any different at all it has only been just slightly more explicit about Mars being the eventual goal.

NASA has had humans to Mars as basically the plan since Apollo. space Station Freedom was to be used to construct the Mars spacecraft and be used to study the long durations in space needed for a Mars mission. ISS (essentially Freedom but with Russia) has most certainly been used for the latter (and Gateway, as successor to ISS and therefore Freedom, today IS envisioned to be where a Mars transfer vehicle would be built).

How do you get concrete goals for Mars? Well I suppose setting up an office that has that as an explicit part of its purpose would help with that. There had only been long term conceptual studies before, very little official planning and therefore little official cover for making decisions about lunar missions to address the needs of eventual Mars missions. The short stay vs long stay choice is a matter of near term strategy, as in either case NASA intends to do long stay eventually.

[Zed_Noir]

Hmm. NASA is seriously considering doing a pretended Mars program with the early Artemis (SLS/Orion/DST) hardware.

Pretended as in it will never be implemented due to high cost and low science return. Since not much science can be be done if a crew is only on Mars for about 2 weeks for a short stay.

The Artemis Moon to Mars Office seems to be a way to continued funding certain Congressional districts with make-work pork, IMO. 

[clongton]

The Artemis Moon to Mars Office seems to be a way to continue funding certain Congressional districts with make-work pork, IMO.   

That's exactly what it is

[yg1968]

Hmm. NASA is seriously considering doing a pretended Mars program with the early Artemis (SLS/Orion/DST) hardware.

Pretended as in it will never be implemented due to high cost and low science return. Since not much science can be be done if a crew is only on Mars for about 2 weeks for a short stay.

The Artemis Moon to Mars Office seems to be a way to continued funding certain Congressional districts with make-work pork, IMO. 

The reason that it was created is that Congress felt that the Artemis program should have a manager (or a Deputy Associate Administrator). Until now, each Artemis mission had a manager but there was no Artemis manager for all missions. I don't think that it is a huge change.

[clongton]

... The Artemis Moon to Mars Office seems to be a way to continued funding certain Congressional districts with make-work pork, IMO. 

The reason that it was created is that Congress felt that the Artemis program should have a manager (or a Deputy Associate Administrator). Until now, each Artemis mission had a manager but there was no Artemis manager for all missions. I don't think that it is a huge change.

Yes there is an Artemis manager. It's the NASA Administrator. That's what he gets paid the big bucks for. This move is just another (unnecessary) layer of middle management, with all the associated costs to the taxpayer.

[Cherokee43v6]

... The Artemis Moon to Mars Office seems to be a way to continued funding certain Congressional districts with make-work pork, IMO. 

The reason that it was created is that Congress felt that the Artemis program should have a manager (or a Deputy Associate Administrator). Until now, each Artemis mission had a manager but there was no Artemis manager for all missions. I don't think that it is a huge change.

Yes there is an Artemis manager. It's the NASA Administrator. That's what he gets paid the big bucks for. This move is just another (unnecessary) layer of middle management, with all the associated costs to the taxpayer.

So basically you are saying that the guy who is responsible for every single thing that NASA does should micromanage and meddle in one specific project to the detriment of his oversight duties to the entire organization?

[yg1968]

... The Artemis Moon to Mars Office seems to be a way to continued funding certain Congressional districts with make-work pork, IMO. 

The reason that it was created is that Congress felt that the Artemis program should have a manager (or a Deputy Associate Administrator). Until now, each Artemis mission had a manager but there was no Artemis manager for all missions. I don't think that it is a huge change.

Yes there is an Artemis manager. It's the NASA Administrator. That's what he gets paid the big bucks for. This move is just another (unnecessary) layer of middle management, with all the associated costs to the taxpayer.

A better argument would have been to say that Jim Free is essentially the manager of the Artemis program.

[Coastal Ron]

Hmm. NASA is seriously considering doing a pretended Mars program with the early Artemis (SLS/Orion/DST) hardware.

Pretended as in it will never be implemented due to high cost and low science return. Since not much science can be be done if a crew is only on Mars for about 2 weeks for a short stay.

The Artemis Moon to Mars Office seems to be a way to continued funding certain Congressional districts with make-work pork, IMO. 

As long as Congress mandates that NASA must use the current Artemis transportation hardware (SLS & Orion), then this Moon to Mars effort will be make-work pork.

Why? Because the current Artemis Moon program REQUIRES an operational SpaceX Starship in order to land humans on the Moon. So once Starship is operational to some degree, then there is no logical reason to use the SLS for any part of the Mars program. Hence the only reason to consider the SLS for a Mars program is for political reasons.

And any Mars mission planning that requires the use of the SLS & Orion is a wasted effort, because the cost overhead of using the SLS would force the U.S. into a minimalist Mars program, whereas using reusable rockets and reusable in-space only vehicles would allow for a more robust exploration program. But that can't happen while the SLS & Orion live, because NASA can't afford to operate the SLS & Orion while developing their replacements.

Plus, there will be a gap between NASA going to the Moon and NASA going to Mars. NASA is struggling to return to the Moon right now, with pretty much every hardware program going way over budget and falling behind schedule, so how is NASA supposed to stop the Moon missions, keep the SLS alive for many years of no need, and then start going to Mars? THAT is the study I want to see come out of this new group, because it will open some eyes...

[deadman1204]

Pretended as in it will never be implemented due to high cost and low science return. Since not much science can be be done if a crew is only on Mars for about 2 weeks for a short stay.

Sadly, ALL of human spaceflight has been minimal science. Supposedly its too late for scientists to plan much of art iii, and they might miss much input on art iv as well. Science is always an afterthought with human space flight.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Does anybody know if the Moon-to-Mars Office is going to be responsible for generating Mars design reference missions going forward?  Seems to me that this is just an Artemis management re-org--unless they suddenly start spitting out updated DRMs.

My hope is that there are no new Mars DRMs until after Starship has proven itself one way or another.  After that, a DRM that relied on ISRU refueling would be a very positive sign.  One that continued to insist that everything is limited to x number of SLS Block 2 launches would be a bad sign.

[Coastal Ron]

It’s not scope creep, it has literally been NASA’s plan for half a century (in fact, nuclear thermal and nuclear electric propulsion research for interplanetary flight to Mars under NACA, and it became an official NASA study after the Ohio researchers pitched it to Congress in April 1959–and got approval).

The government employees at NASA can wish for whatever they want, but that does not constitute a "plan". The U.S. Government can even have a "desire" to eventually go to Mars, but that doesn't constitute a "plan" either.

When President Kennedy announced on May 25, 1961 that the U.S. "should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.", that wasn't a "plan", but a goal. It took years after that to come up with a plan that would achieve that goal.

Has the U.S. Government established a SPECIFIC goal for going to Mars? Not some general "we ought to go there some day, in some way", but real goals that NASA and others can use to develop a real plan?

Constellation under Bush also envisioned going to Mars as the next step after the Moon...

NASA has had humans to Mars as basically the plan since Apollo.

Sorry, but as a scheduling professional I feel that words matter, and all the things you just described were more like desires and goals, but didn't get to the point of having a real "plan".

How do you get concrete goals for Mars? Well I suppose setting up an office that has that as an explicit part of its purpose would help with that. There had only been long term conceptual studies before, very little official planning and therefore little official cover for making decisions about lunar missions to address the needs of eventual Mars missions. The short stay vs long stay choice is a matter of near term strategy, as in either case NASA intends to do long stay eventually.

Without an actual goal from the U.S. Government all NASA can do is studies, which is what I pointed out on the 2nd post of this thread.

And studies will be important, but right now the MOST important thing to know is what are the boundaries and constraints that this new office is to adhere to? Can they produce studies that suggest what can be done without the SLS and Orion? Can they suggest piggybacking on a SpaceX effort?

Inquiring minds want to know...