NASA Moon to Mars Program Office

[deltaV]

There is only ONE realistic PLAN for Mars, and it's Elon Musk's plan. His plan is to actually colonize the planet.

I wouldn't call Elon's plan realistic.  Once the novelty wears off people are likely to notice that Mars does not provide a good quality of life and move back to Earth. However Elon's plan is still better than Congress and NASA's efforts since Elon's plan will probably give us cheaper launch even if it fails whereas NASA and Congress's plan won't give us anything.

[Robotbeat]

The whole idea is you pick from the people who wouldn't care about that. Be clear about what life will be like there, and those who go will somewhat self-select.

[yg1968]

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...

The office was created because Congress requested it in the 2022 NASA Authorization bill (see below and my previous post). I am not sure what you are expecting. It's just an office to manage Artemis. They are not starting off from a clean slate. The best that you can hope in this situation is that NASA pushes as much as possible public-private partnerships for new programs. Getting a CLPS-Mars program that uses Starship for cargo would be a huge win.

SEC. 10811. MOON TO MARS.

(b) MOON TO MARS OFFICE AND PROGRAM.—
9 (1) MOON TO MARS OFFICE.—Not later than
10 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
11 the Administrator shall establish within the Explo
12 ration Systems Development Mission Directorate a
13 Moon to Mars Program Office (referred to in this
14 section as the ‘‘Office’’) to lead and manage the
15 Moon to Mars program established under paragraph
16 (2), including Artemis missions and activities.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53827.msg2388078#msg2388078

[Eric Hedman]

I know people want a more concrete plan for going to Mars, but that's not realistic with the way politics works.  I also think it's too early for that.  Once Starship is flying and can refuel, once Starship conducts a moon landing and returns, the elephant in the room becomes too big for even Congress to ignore.  It will also help if New Glenn is flying.  That is when I think it becomes more realistic for a plan to emerge that is more sensible and affordable than one that requires SLS and Orion.  As long as Starship keeps moving forward and starts accomplishing these goals I think this Artemis Office it is the best we're going to get out of NASA right now.  I also think once Starship flies, especially if it does with a crew around the Moon on the Dear Moon mission, that's when SLS is going to have a chance of being phased out.  In my opinion the chances become real in about four or five years.

Any firm plan that comes out now from NASA is going to waste a lot more money on SLS in the long run.  I know it's frustrating that we could be doing  a lot more with less money.  We need a little patience for things to develop and sort out a better solution.

[clongton]

There is only ONE realistic PLAN for Mars, and it's Elon Musk's plan. His plan is to actually colonize the planet.

I wouldn't call Elon's plan realistic.  Once the novelty wears off people are likely to notice that Mars does not provide a good quality of life and move back to Earth. However Elon's plan is still better than Congress and NASA's efforts since Elon's plan will probably give us cheaper launch even if it fails whereas NASA and Congress's plan won't give us anything.

You are confusing the term "realistic" with the term "practical". From the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language:

realistic: having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected.
practical: of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.

Per the official definition of the terms, Elon Musk's plan certainly is realistic. While laying out both the end result (colonization) and the high level steps needed to bring that colonization to reality, it is  lacking the detail needed to actually do the things required to execute the plan. It lays out high level steps to achieving the end result of colonization (realistic). Details of how those steps would be accomplished falls under the term "practical". Given the current state of knowledge of what will actually be required to execute the plan, it is not possible for the plan to be termed either practical or not at this point. It can only be labeled realistic, not practical or not. That determination will be based on the detailed plan of action ultimately laid out to actually accomplish each individual step of the plan. Mr. Musk has not attempted to do that yet because such detail of action is not yet possible to provide. Think of Mr. Musk's plan as a standard "outline". The title of the outline is "Colonize Mars". The steps he enumerates to do that are the subtitles. The outline is realistic. The detail on exactly how to do that will be provided at a future time as the actual body of the plan, located under the subtitles. Only then will it be possible to determine if the plan is practical or not.
 
Bottom line: Mr. Musk's plan fits exactly the definition of "realistic". As for whether or not it will ultimately also be "practical" depends on the detail of steps (to be provided at a future date) that are required to actually execute the plan. At this juncture it is not possible to label it either practical or not. But it IS realistic.

[Coastal Ron]

The office was created because Congress requested it in the 2022 NASA Authorization bill (see below and my previous post).

Who authorized it doesn't matter at this point.

I am not sure what you are expecting. It's just an office to manage Artemis.

No, it is the Moon to Mars program office, not the Moon-only effort that has been working at returning humans to the Moon since 2017.

They are not starting off from a clean slate.

Actually they are, because going to Mars is SIGNIFICANTLY different than going to the Moon. I know the hope has been that some degree of hardware and knowledge from the Artemis Moon effort will translate towards landing humans on Mars, but in reality very little of it will be common.

For instance, while it would be physically possible to do a Mars mission while relying on the SLS & Orion, from a practical standpoint that would be the worst possible decision to make - and the most expensive.

Which is why we need to understand the charter this new group has, so we can understand how free they are to consider ALL possibilities, not just what the current Artemis Moon program is saddled with.

[Robotbeat]

I know people want a more concrete plan for going to Mars, but that's not realistic with the way politics works.  I also think it's too early for that.  Once Starship is flying and can refuel, once Starship conducts a moon landing and returns, the elephant in the room becomes too big for even Congress to ignore.  It will also help if New Glenn is flying.  That is when I think it becomes more realistic for a plan to emerge that is more sensible and affordable than one that requires SLS and Orion.  As long as Starship keeps moving forward and starts accomplishing these goals I think this Artemis Office it is the best we're going to get out of NASA right now.  I also think once Starship flies, especially if it does with a crew around the Moon on the Dear Moon mission, that's when SLS is going to have a chance of being phased out.  In my opinion the chances become real in about four or five years.

Any firm plan that comes out now from NASA is going to waste a lot more money on SLS in the long run.  I know it's frustrating that we could be doing  a lot more with less money.  We need a little patience for things to develop and sort out a better solution.

Fully agreed.

I do think a new office could do a better job of connecting what Artemis is doing with the long term agenda of NASA with respect to Mars, but a hyper-detailed plan would actually be very counter-productive as it’d lock us into the pre-Starship status quo of short stay Mars missions costing hundreds of billions of dollars more than what Congress is willing to spend.

NASA has previously been using SLS/Orion as the main path, with maybe someday commercial capability. They’re transitioning to tradition defense contractors as maybe a backup of commercial capability (it’s not set up that way, but that’s kind of the rhetoric), but as starship succeeds, they’ll need to transition to using those funds for non-SpaceX commercial entities as well (as SpaceX has become the de facto critical path for most of NASA’s human spaceflight program, at least when it comes to launch).

[clongton]

<snip> the long term agenda of NASA with respect to Mars, </snip>

Can anyone actually articulate what that long term agenda is - and - actually provide a source for it? Also, how Moon to Mars actually fits into that?

[Robotbeat]

<snip> the long term agenda of NASA with respect to Mars, </snip>

Can anyone actually articulate what that long term agenda is - and - actually provide a source for it? …

No, it’s written in our hearts and minds.

[yg1968]

The office was created because Congress requested it in the 2022 NASA Authorization bill (see below and my previous post).

Who authorized it doesn't matter at this point.

I am not sure what you are expecting. It's just an office to manage Artemis.

No, it is the Moon to Mars program office, not the Moon-only effort that has been working at returning humans to the Moon since 2017.

They are not starting off from a clean slate.

Actually they are, because going to Mars is SIGNIFICANTLY different than going to the Moon. I know the hope has been that some degree of hardware and knowledge from the Artemis Moon effort will translate towards landing humans on Mars, but in reality very little of it will be common.

For instance, while it would be physically possible to do a Mars mission while relying on the SLS & Orion, from a practical standpoint that would be the worst possible decision to make - and the most expensive.

Which is why we need to understand the charter this new group has, so we can understand how free they are to consider ALL possibilities, not just what the current Artemis Moon program is saddled with.

It is just an office within ESDMD. They will be leading and managing the Artemis/Moon to Mars program. Artemis was already part of the Moon to Mars program (see the quote by Jim Bridenstine below). In order to have an informed discussion, you should read the NASA Authorization bill which explains in detail what this group will be doing. See pages 982-993 of the NASA Authorization bill.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53827.160

“How do we build a program that can endure the test of time?” he [Jim Bridenstine] said, noting the starts and stops of efforts dating back to the Space Exploration Initiative three decades ago. “We need our Artemis program, we need our moon-to-Mars program, to span generations.”

https://spacenews.com/bridenstine-departing-nasa-hopes-artemis-continues/

SEC. 10811. MOON TO MARS.
(b) MOON TO MARS OFFICE AND PROGRAM.—

9 (1) MOON TO MARS OFFICE.—Not later than
10 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
11 the Administrator shall establish within the Explo
12 ration Systems Development Mission Directorate a
13 Moon to Mars Program Office (referred to in this
14 section as the ‘‘Office’’) to lead and manage the
15 Moon to Mars program established under paragraph
16 (2), including Artemis missions and activities.

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.

I didn't quote the entire thing but, like I said before, the NASA Authorization Bill discusses exactly what this office will be doing. See pages 982-993 of the 2022 NASA Authorization bill.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53827.160

[tea monster]

Talk, wishes and power point presentations are cheap, and there isn't even a power point presentation to go with the press release. Even office space is relatively cheap when compared to flight hardware.

[AnalogMan]

For those who wish to read it, I have snipped out the NASA "Moon to Mars" section from Public Law 117-167-Aug. 9, 2022.  Its the last 5 pages of the attached pdf.

The full PL 117-167 (394 pages covering several agencies) can be found here:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ167/pdf/PLAW-117publ167.pdf

[Coastal Ron]

“How do we build a program that can endure the test of time?” he [Jim Bridenstine] said, noting the starts and stops of efforts dating back to the Space Exploration Initiative three decades ago. “We need our Artemis program, we need our moon-to-Mars program, to span generations.”

I don't think Bridenstine meant that the hardware and other systems couldn't be updated over those generations. Obviously we don't still drive Model T cars and fly in biplanes. 

SEC. 10811. MOON TO MARS.
(b) MOON TO MARS OFFICE AND PROGRAM.—
...
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.

Well that does help to answer the question of whether the Moon to Mars program office will be able to recommend the BEST methods to land on Mars vs the most politically connected method. 

And the current Artemis Moon program has been able to limit the use of the SLS to only carrying the Orion spacecraft, yet the Orion spacecraft won't be useful for going to Mars - it wasn't built for long voyages (in case someone advocates it should go to Mars), and it wasn't built for staying in space for that long (for those that advocate the Orion should stay in space awaiting the return of the Mars mission to Earth-local space).

It will be interesting to see how the cobble together a Mars program from hardware and system built for a completely different set of requirements...

[TheRadicalModerate]

Seems to me that the place to start is with a Design Reference Architecture 6.0.  The last one (5.0) is 14 years old and uses Ares V as a launcher, with crew being launched on an Orion/Ares I.

DRA 5.0 had mission designs for both nuclear thermal and chemical transit propulsion.  The NTP version required 9 Ares V launches.  The chemical version required 12. 

Both used aerocapture for two cargo transits, one carrying a methalox ascent vehicle and cargo, which was landed immediately after arrival to start methalox production, and the other carrying the crew descender/hab, which stayed in LMO awaiting the arrival of the crew.  Both also assumed propulsive insertion into Mars orbit for the crew transit system, which was reused to return to Earth.  The crew did Earth EDL in the Orion.

I'd hesitate to call this a "realistic" architecture, but it made use of what they thought they'd have in the timeframe for launch (i.e., the mid-2030's).

I expect that the Moon-to-Mars Office will have to update this and produce a DRA 6.0 in the near future.  I'd be surprised if they took the risk of building up a TransHab out of anything but SLS-launched pieces-parts, but I'd also be surprised if they didn't send the uncrewed portions via an unspecified CLV that happened to match Starship's performance specs pretty closely.

I'd love to see a SpaceX response to a DRA 6.0.  There's a lot of stuff that SpaceX hasn't specified about how an early Starship mission would proceed.  Such a response would give them an opportunity to be more specific and get a public conversation going.

[Robotbeat]

The Moon to Mars part of the law has tons of language by Congress mandating the use of SLS/Orion. …which practically means NASA won’t have enough money to have any commercial providers other than SpaceX for deep space missions.

It’s ironic to me that Congress is basically limiting NASA’s ability to fund broader redundant competition beyond SpaceX because at least $4 billion per year has to be spent on one of the easier parts of the Moon/Mars architectures.

[yg1968]

NASA establishes Moon to Mars Program Office:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-establishes-moon-to-mars-program-office/

[TheRadicalModerate]

SEC. 10811. MOON TO MARS.
(b) MOON TO MARS OFFICE AND PROGRAM.—

9 (1) MOON TO MARS OFFICE.—Not later than
10 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
11 the Administrator shall establish within the Explo
12 ration Systems Development Mission Directorate a
13 Moon to Mars Program Office (referred to in this
14 section as the ‘‘Office’’) to lead and manage the
15 Moon to Mars program established under paragraph
16 (2), including Artemis missions and activities.

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.

Technically, this would allow an SLS/Orion to be sent to the Gateway, where the crew could transfer to a Mars-EDL-capable Starship.  That could be a human-rated landing system.

[TheRadicalModerate]

NASA establishes Moon to Mars Program Office:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-establishes-moon-to-mars-program-office/

That's a weird org chart.  Kshatriya is in charge of everything useful.  Three possibilities:

1) Kshatriya is a figurehead in the Moon-to-Mars Office because Congress said they had to have one, but they didn't really want to re-organize ESDMD, and Free is still in charge of everything.

2) Kshatriya just got Jim Free's job, and Nelson used the congressional mandate to lead Free to the edge and invited him to jump.

3) Kshatriya and Free are now essentially co-Associate Administrators, until one of them takes the other out.

[yg1968]

Well that does help to answer the question of whether the Moon to Mars program office will be able to recommend the BEST methods to land on Mars vs the most politically connected method. 

And the current Artemis Moon program has been able to limit the use of the SLS to only carrying the Orion spacecraft, yet the Orion spacecraft won't be useful for going to Mars - it wasn't built for long voyages (in case someone advocates it should go to Mars), and it wasn't built for staying in space for that long (for those that advocate the Orion should stay in space awaiting the return of the Mars mission to Earth-local space).

It will be interesting to see how the cobble together a Mars program from hardware and system built for a completely different set of requirements...

The development of the architecture for the Moon and Mars is actually a different office, it is called, the Strategy and Architecture Office (they are replacing the Moon to Mars Architecture Development office), they don't report to the Moon to Mars office, they actually report to Jim Free directly (see the new org chart in Marcia Smith's article linked in my post above).

In terms of timeline, Jim Free said that they would come out with Architecture Concept Review on April 18th (it will be announced by Pam Melroy at the Space Symposium). Jim Free mentioned that this April 18th architectural review will discuss the Artemis missions for the rest of the decade.

There is another Architecture Concept Review for Mars that recently started their work, they are supposed to finish their work this year. I am guessing that this will be done by November because NASA wants to complete their Architecture review each year by November, in order to guide the budget process.

In terms of clean slate, Pam Melroy has mentioned in the past that they are not starting from a clean slate. So you should expect that any Mars architecture will be using SLS and Orion. Given that the Architecture Concept Review will be revised on an annual basis, perhaps that will change in the future but not in the short term.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57221.msg2467328#msg2467328

A strategy and architecture office will complement the program office and be responsible for architecture definition based on NASA's Moon to Mars Objectives. The mission directorate will develop an integrated master plan to expand humanity's presence in the solar system. (2/3)

https://twitter.com/JimFree/status/1641495512690876432

[yg1968]

NASA establishes Moon to Mars Program Office:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-establishes-moon-to-mars-program-office/

That's a weird org chart.  Kshatriya is in charge of everything useful.  Three possibilities:

1) Kshatriya is a figurehead in the Moon-to-Mars Office because Congress said they had to have one, but they didn't really want to re-organize ESDMD, and Free is still in charge of everything.

2) Kshatriya just got Jim Free's job, and Nelson used the congressional mandate to lead Free to the edge and invited him to jump.

3) Kshatriya and Free are now essentially co-Associate Administrators, until one of them takes the other out.

Free is above Kshatriya. He is the Associate Administrator for ESDMD, so he is part of the Office of the Associate Administrator.