NASA Moon to Mars Program Office

[clongton]

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

Sounds like a pretty Starbucky cushy job to me.

And again, NASA has no idea what goals the U.S. Government has for Mars,

The U.S. Government literally has *NO* plans for Mars beyond some wishy washy foggy dream of maybe someday it would be nice to go there. Why would the USgov do that? They haven't the foggiest idea. There literally is no plan to go to Mars. Why?, you might ask. Because there are no voting districts there.

[DanClemmensen]

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

Sounds like a pretty Starbucky cushy job to me.

And again, NASA has no idea what goals the U.S. Government has for Mars,

The U.S. Government literally has *NO* plans for Mars beyond some wishy washy foggy dream of maybe someday it would be nice to go there. Why would the USgov do that? They haven't the foggiest idea. There literally is no plan to go to Mars. Why?, you might ask. Because there are no voting districts there.

The relevant voting districts get government money for SLS and Orion. The Mars Program is a desperate attempt to provide longer-term justification for SLS and Orion. This makes no technical sense, but it makes political sense.

[Robotbeat]

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.

Because the real point of human spaceflight is to enable humanity to take root among the stars (ie space settlement). It’s orthogonal to science, really, and it’s not a bad goal.

But anyway, a lot of the human spaceflight program has been about preparing for Mars missions. A ton of really good science can be done by humans on Mars if permanent settlements are built there, on a scale which simply isn’t feasible for robotic missions (“Singularity Santa” excepted).

[TheRadicalModerate]

But anyway, a lot of the human spaceflight program has been about preparing for Mars missions. A ton of really good science can be done by humans on Mars if permanent settlements are built there, on a scale which simply isn’t feasible for robotic missions (“Singularity Santa” excepted).

You can't serve something like that up and not expect somebody to take the bait:

[Coastal Ron]

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.

Because the real point of human spaceflight is to enable humanity to take root among the stars (ie space settlement). It’s orthogonal to science, really, and it’s not a bad goal.

But anyway, a lot of the human spaceflight program has been about preparing for Mars missions.

Because of the vast distances between destinations in space, most of what we have focused on is keeping humans alive in zero G for long periods of time. That is pretty generic to all destinations, not just Mars.

A ton of really good science can be done by humans on Mars if permanent settlements are built there, on a scale which simply isn’t feasible for robotic missions (“Singularity Santa” excepted).

Is that what the charter is for this new Mars Program Office? To identify what it would take to create a permanent settlement on Mars?

[Robotbeat]

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.

Because the real point of human spaceflight is to enable humanity to take root among the stars (ie space settlement). It’s orthogonal to science, really, and it’s not a bad goal.

But anyway, a lot of the human spaceflight program has been about preparing for Mars missions.

Because of the vast distances between destinations in space, most of what we have focused on is keeping humans alive in zero G for long periods of time. That is pretty generic to all destinations, not just Mars.

Well sure, but Space Station Freedom was explicitly developed to help prepare for eventual Mars missions. That became ISS. And anyone who has followed the various DRAs and DRMs from NASA understands Mars is the long-term driving factor for NASA's human spaceflight program, and it has been since the start of NASA. (The Soviet program was similar, in fact... the civilian argument in favor of the Salyut space stations and Mir was to prepare for Mars missions.)

A ton of really good science can be done by humans on Mars if permanent settlements are built there, on a scale which simply isn’t feasible for robotic missions (“Singularity Santa” excepted).

Is that what the charter is for this new Mars Program Office? To identify what it would take to create a permanent settlement on Mars?

No. But it would be the logical conclusion if they pushed on it long enough.

(That said, NASA is actually supposed to produce a report on human settlement of space regularly to Congress, although I think it was only done once?)

[Todd Martin]

First, I want to wish success for Amit Kshatriya and his team.  They've got a lot on their plate in developing a plan, issuing RFP for hardware & services, then RFQ, then awarding contracts while managing Artemis and conducting risk mitigation oversight.  What I'd personally like to see is SLS Block 2 deliver 46 ton Nautilus-X components to Gateway for assembly.  A Mars transfer vehicle, IMHO, should have centrifuge partial gravity, be reusable, and optimized for deep space travel only.  An Aldrin cycler would be difficult to maintain over the long orbits and expensive to reach in DV.  Commercial providers can be given crew and cargo contracts for resupply.  This approach would adhere to the Moon to Mars Program Office's mandate.

[Robotbeat]

The problem with that is transits would be slow without aerocapture.

[Zed_Noir]

First, I want to wish success for Amit Kshatriya and his team.  They've got a lot on their plate in developing a plan, issuing RFP for hardware & services, then RFQ, then awarding contracts while managing Artemis and conducting risk mitigation oversight.  What I'd personally like to see is SLS Block 2 deliver 46 ton Nautilus-X components to Gateway for assembly.  A Mars transfer vehicle, IMHO, should have centrifuge partial gravity, be reusable, and optimized for deep space travel only.  An Aldrin cycler would be difficult to maintain over the long orbits and expensive to reach in DV.  Commercial providers can be given crew and cargo contracts for resupply.  This approach would adhere to the Moon to Mars Program Office's mandate.

The problem with that is transits would be slow without aerocapture.

A bigger problem is trying to developed another spacecraft that is more ISS than Lunar Gateway while paying for SLS Block II and Orion hardware along with the ongoing ground infrastructure. There isn't enough funding available to do one, never mind both.

Also, why would anyone want to assembled something like the Nautilus-X in NRHO with over-sized  components delivered by SLS Block II. It will be much easier and cheaper to assembled it in LEO with commercial lift in 20 to 30  tonnes components.

Sadly the Nautilus-X concept is very expensive in both money and time to implemented. It might been what NASA needed for a Mars mission in the early 2010s. However there are cheaper and faster means of getting to Mars on the horizon.

Finally as @Robotbeat posted without aerocapture or direct reentry (my take) at Mars requires more Delta- V for the mission resulting in either a slow transit and/or a bigger vehicle.

[clongton]

The current effort, labeled Moon to Mars, reminds me of someone who spends years dreaming about somewhere they want to go, spends a very large fortune to actually go there and then when they finally arrive, they just stand there, utterly lost, look around, and say "ok, now what?". They have absolutely no idea what to do next and even if they had a foggy thought, no means to even think about doing it, because they spent everything they had just to get there. Why did they go there? What did they go there for? NASA has absolutely no idea what to do on the planet except look around to see what they can see and learn a little bit about the geology of the planet. What are they actually going to do with what they learn? Catalog it and stick it in a database somewhere, just like they did with all the moon data, most of which has been lost or forgotten, never to be put to any actual use. THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is a GOAL. The person with the goal is utterly lost in terms of what to do next, while the person with the PLAN begins to unload massive amounts of cargo which was specifically designed and built to further execute the massive requirements of the plan upon reaching the goal. That's the difference.

NASA has a GOAL to reach Mars. But NASA does not have a PLAN for Mars. NASA is totally dependent for funding its aspirations on a group of people who couldn't give 2 tinkers damn about what NASA wants, only what's in it for them (congress). NASA's Moon to Mars program is NOT a plan - it is just a goal.

There is only ONE realistic PLAN for Mars, and it's Elon Musk's plan. His plan is to actually colonize the planet. His plan begins by building a city on Mars with 1,000,000 (one million) inhabitants. He picked that number because he believes that's enough people to enable self sufficiency and self governance to actually begin colonizing the planet. These first colonizers would be naturalized citizens of Mars. Their descendants would be actual Martians. His plan includes designing, building and utilizing an enormous transportation system of at least 1,000 interplanetary vehicles, plus ground vehicles to use once at the destination, boring equipment to bore tunnels below the Martian surface, power stations to supply all the power needs of a 1,000,000 inhabitant city, all funded by a combination of his own fortune and the profits from several companies he has established expressly to provide funding, material, equipment and expertise for that plan. Enough interplanetary vehicles to not only get everything and everyone there, but to also continually resupply the colony with everything it needs while it diligently works towards complete self sufficiency, no longer needing any resupply from Earth at all. THAT is a plan.

NASA does not have a plan. Elon Musk does.
That's the difference, and that's why NASA's "Moon to Mars" effort is little more than a joke.

I'd love to be proven wrong, I really, really would. Does NASA actually have an Honest-To-God plan for Mars that I have somehow missed? Anyone? The gauntlet is down.

[Todd Martin]

First, I want to wish success for Amit Kshatriya and his team.  They've got a lot on their plate in developing a plan, issuing RFP for hardware & services, then RFQ, then awarding contracts while managing Artemis and conducting risk mitigation oversight.  What I'd personally like to see is SLS Block 2 deliver 46 ton Nautilus-X components to Gateway for assembly.  A Mars transfer vehicle, IMHO, should have centrifuge partial gravity, be reusable, and optimized for deep space travel only.  An Aldrin cycler would be difficult to maintain over the long orbits and expensive to reach in DV.  Commercial providers can be given crew and cargo contracts for resupply.  This approach would adhere to the Moon to Mars Program Office's mandate.

The problem with that is transits would be slow without aerocapture.

A bigger problem is trying to developed another spacecraft that is more ISS than Lunar Gateway while paying for SLS Block II and Orion hardware along with the ongoing ground infrastructure. There isn't enough funding available to do one, never mind both.

Also, why would anyone want to assembled something like the Nautilus-X in NRHO with over-sized  components delivered by SLS Block II. It will be much easier and cheaper to assembled it in LEO with commercial lift in 20 to 30  tonnes components.

Sadly the Nautilus-X concept is very expensive in both money and time to implemented. It might been what NASA needed for a Mars mission in the early 2010s. However there are cheaper and faster means of getting to Mars on the horizon.

Finally as @Robotbeat posted without aerocapture or direct reentry (my take) at Mars requires more Delta- V for the mission resulting in either a slow transit and/or a bigger vehicle.

Thank you for raising those points.  First, to address whether or not it is cost effective or within a possible NASA budget, let me point out that Amit Kshatriya has specific instructions on what his office "SHALL" do as was noted above in this thread: 

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.

The question for him is not whether or not to use Artemis and its elements, his question is HOW to use them to achieve the program goals.  My comments are meant to be helpful for the work allowed to be done by that office.  Assuming you HAVE to use SLS for a Mars mission, what do you do with it?  The obvious answer is that SLS must carry payloads that go to Mars.  Where does the money come from?  As components and development costs decrease for SLS and Orion (remember, things like restarting the RS25 production line is a one time cost), money can be allocated for MTV (Mars transfer vehicle) components.  If you have an SLS Block 2 available that can throw 46 tons to Gateway, it is less risk due to fewer 46 ton on-orbit assemblies than a larger cluster of 20 to 30 ton components.  The MTV can be optimized with lower thrust, higher ISP engines if built by Gateway rather than needing to exit LEO's gravity well.  This results in a better spacecraft for the intended purpose.  Those higher ISP engines can address the 2nd concern noted of higher DV requirements needed for an MTV that does not do aerocapture.  I look at avoiding aerocapture as a feature rather than a bug.  A vehicle that is designed to be efficient without aerocapture can be used for destinations without atmospheres (i.e. Moon) and is not as risky to crew (do you really want to plan a Mars mission that relies on "7 minutes of terror"?).

[clongton]

Because the real point of human spaceflight is to enable humanity to take root among the stars (ie space settlement).

I'd LOVE to see where that is actually articulated in some official document somewhere. Can you point me to it?

[Robotbeat]

Because the real point of human spaceflight is to enable humanity to take root among the stars (ie space settlement).

I'd LOVE to see where that is actually articulated in some official document somewhere. Can you point me to it?

It isn’t articulated anywhere. It’s not an official position. It is, to be clear, my opinion.

But nothing else about it all makes any sense whatsoever. There’s a reason why we don’t just send robots, why we choose to do “the irrational thing.”

[yg1968]

I'd love to be proven wrong, I really, really would. Does NASA actually have an Honest-To-God plan for Mars that I have somehow missed? Anyone? The gauntlet is down.

NASA is working on it now (per Jim Free). It will be released later this year (probably in November).

[clongton]

I'd love to be proven wrong, I really, really would. Does NASA actually have an Honest-To-God plan for Mars that I have somehow missed? Anyone? The gauntlet is down.

NASA is working on it now (per Jim Free). It will be released later this year (probably in November).

Looking forward to it. Here's hoping it is an actual plan, and not just a better articulated goal.

[woods170]

I'd love to be proven wrong, I really, really would. Does NASA actually have an Honest-To-God plan for Mars that I have somehow missed? Anyone? The gauntlet is down.

NASA is working on it now (per Jim Free). It will be released later this year (probably in November).

Looking forward to it. Here's hoping it is an actual plan, and not just a better articulated goal.

It will be the latter: a not much better articulated goal.

A goal tells people what NASA wants to do.
A plan tells people how and with what and when NASA intends to achieve that goal.

Jim Free and NASA won't have answers for the how and what and when IMO.

[Robotbeat]

I think the intent is for the office to develop such a plan, but the problem is it should be led by folks like Kathy Lueders, who actually understand how to develop capability while being restrained in resources. And she just retired.

[Paul451]

Where does the money come from?  As components and development costs decrease for SLS and Orion (remember, things like restarting the RS25 production line is a one time cost), money can be allocated for MTV (Mars transfer vehicle) components.

There's always jam tomorrow.

[Coastal Ron]

I think the intent is for the office to develop such a plan, but the problem is it should be led by folks like Kathy Lueders, who actually understand how to develop capability while being restrained in resources. And she just retired.

The challenge this office has is that absent specific goals from the Executive and Legislative branches of the U.S. Government, all they can do is create one or more proposed options.

But again, what is charter for this effort? Are they free to suggest options that don't include the SLS & Orion? Can they suggest that the U.S. Government collaborate or piggyback on the efforts of SpaceX to colonize Mars?

Understanding what their charter is will give us a view into how realistic their recommendations will be...

[punder]

The “to Mars” part is a fantasy, just the usual tacked-on fig leaf. Why not, for starters, tell us what we’re going to do on the Moon? Any ideas along those lines?

The giveaway is the “shall by law include SLS/Orion” which, in case anyone hasn’t noticed, can’t do anything on the Moon (at all!!) without the SpaceX HLS, that not-invented-here embarrassment we can’t even bring ourselves to mention by name. (At least we managed to unperson the lady who made THAT mistake.)

Sorry. Sometimes frustration must be vented.