Author Topic: "Mission to Mars Using Six 'Not So Easy' Pieces" • Mike Raftery , Boeing  (Read 38437 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Another interesting presentation on a Boeing approach to Mars exploration that references the NASA 2013 Mars Design Reference Architecture (which I don't think has yet been released?).
May 14th, 2014.

Ancillary files are here, including the mp3 of the FISO talk:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-14-14/

The pieces are Orion, SLS, SEP tug, Transit Hab, Mars Ascent Vehicle, and Mars Lander, focusing on how the total IMLEO for a single manned Mars mission is actually much smaller than all the flights to ISS.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2014 06:17 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 ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
It seems like a lot of steps.  And no artificial gravity.  And they start too late.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Remember Apollo? A lot more steps. Mercury, Gemini, then several flights around Earth and the moon with the Apollo mission stack before the first landing. Listen to the teleconference while following along.

Artificial gravity is not needed for the relatively short transits of ~250 days... There were Mir flights far longer.

This sort of thing is an excellent approach.
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 floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 131
Nice plan but the funding could be challenging .

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
It's an interesting proposal.

Let's keep in mind that Boeing is building the SLS, so using only the SLS in the study is not surprising.  And Boeing also has experience in building other types of in-space hardware, so all in all it's kind of an advertisement of sort.  But that said, it looks like something that's doable.

I'm not sure I can infer enough information to understand what the sizes and masses are of each of the elements, but the first question I would have is what are the elements that can lifted using less expensive transportation?  Yes that means more launches, but the SLS itself is a risky platform for a number of reasons (lack of flight heritage, questionable future, etc.) so if this type of mission is deemed as a good idea we should be looking at how to do it in the least costly & risky way.  And the SLS has some challenges on that front.

I'm also glad to see that the study was released through FISO, but I wonder if it will join all the other "looks doable" studies that have come before and gone nowhere?
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Nice plan but the funding could be challenging .
You should listen to the teleconference:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-14-14/Raftery.mp3

ISS had many more launches and was a larger scale than a Mars mission would require. The idea of this architecture is that it wouldn't actually need a big increase in funding, just a level of funding growing with inflation and/or the size of the economy.
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 DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
Why use SEP at all when SLS Block II has the capability to push around 40 to 50 tonnes (or more with advanced LRBs) through TMI.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Why use SEP at all when SLS Block II has the capability to push around 40 to 50 tonnes (or more with advanced LRBs) through TMI.
Because they need only up to 2 launches per year to support a continual Mars campaign. The SEP tug is reusable. All chemical would require more IMLEO, probably break the bank.
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 meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Nice plan but the funding could be challenging .
You should listen to the teleconference:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-14-14/Raftery.mp3

ISS had many more launches and was a larger scale than a Mars mission would require. The idea of this architecture is that it wouldn't actually need a big increase in funding, just a level of funding growing with inflation and/or the size of the economy.

Well to be precise, they're saying that their *predicted/promised* funding requirement is lower than ISS's *actual/as-it-turned-out* costs.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Nice plan but the funding could be challenging .
You should listen to the teleconference:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Raftery_5-14-14/Raftery.mp3

ISS had many more launches and was a larger scale than a Mars mission would require. The idea of this architecture is that it wouldn't actually need a big increase in funding, just a level of funding growing with inflation and/or the size of the economy.

The challenge though is that NASA will be funding the development of the even-larger SLS during the rest of the 2020's, so not a lot of funding is going to be available from the SLS budget.  And considering that NASA has to launch the SLS no-less-than once every 12 months in order to have a safe flight cadence (per NASA), that means a lot of NASA's non-development budget will be going just to building and flying the SLS.  And that doesn't even count the budget for the payloads that are supposed to launch no-less-than every 12 months, which likely will include the hugely expensive Orion/MPCV (which ESA is only building one Service Module and the parts for a 2nd).

So to do this mission NASA would still need to fund:

1.  Development, test, and deployment and ongoing support for an EML2 Gateway.  If you think supporting the ISS in LEO is expensive, try supporting a crew 1,000X farther away.

2.  Development, test, and deployment of a Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) Tug, which likely will have to do some jaunts around local space in order to validate it.

3.  Development, test, and deployment of a Transit Hab.  This can probably be checked out at the ISS, since the EML2 Gateway will have validated any "deep space" technologies by that point.

4.  Development, test, and deployment of a Mars Lander.  This could be done with a precursor robotic rover that is the same size as the anticipated human equipment.  Maybe it can pre-deploy some of the needed equipment, but obviously this would be years in advance of need.  So throw in some more money for the robotic mission.

5.  Development, test, and deployment of a Mars Ascent Vehicle.  I'm thinking this is going to take some iteration in order to get the hardware right, but even with just a single test that would be years in advance of the human version.

6.  More Orion/MPCV vehicles.

So besides the overhead that such a program would need over a period of well over a decade (my guess), that's a lot of development, especially if it all has to be "man-rated".  Within the current budget profile I think it would take multiple decades at the very least, since various experts has stated that prior to this plan that NASA would NEVER make it to Mars within it's current budget profile.  And I'm not sure I see anything in this plan that changes that assessment...
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
By that logic, anything that doesn't get rid of SLS isn't going to get to Mars. I don't entirely disagree with that.
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 Borklund

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 140
The challenge though is that NASA will be funding the development of the even-larger SLS during the rest of the 2020's, so not a lot of funding is going to be available from the SLS budget.  And considering that NASA has to launch the SLS no-less-than once every 12 months in order to have a safe flight cadence (per NASA), that means a lot of NASA's non-development budget will be going just to building and flying the SLS.  And that doesn't even count the budget for the payloads that are supposed to launch no-less-than every 12 months, which likely will include the hugely expensive Orion/MPCV (which ESA is only building one Service Module and the parts for a 2nd).

So to do this mission NASA would still need to fund:

1.  Development, test, and deployment and ongoing support for an EML2 Gateway.  If you think supporting the ISS in LEO is expensive, try supporting a crew 1,000X farther away.

2.  Development, test, and deployment of a Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) Tug, which likely will have to do some jaunts around local space in order to validate it.

3.  Development, test, and deployment of a Transit Hab.  This can probably be checked out at the ISS, since the EML2 Gateway will have validated any "deep space" technologies by that point.

4.  Development, test, and deployment of a Mars Lander.  This could be done with a precursor robotic rover that is the same size as the anticipated human equipment.  Maybe it can pre-deploy some of the needed equipment, but obviously this would be years in advance of need.  So throw in some more money for the robotic mission.

5.  Development, test, and deployment of a Mars Ascent Vehicle.  I'm thinking this is going to take some iteration in order to get the hardware right, but even with just a single test that would be years in advance of the human version.

6.  More Orion/MPCV vehicles.

So besides the overhead that such a program would need over a period of well over a decade (my guess), that's a lot of development, especially if it all has to be "man-rated".  Within the current budget profile I think it would take multiple decades at the very least, since various experts has stated that prior to this plan that NASA would NEVER make it to Mars within it's current budget profile.  And I'm not sure I see anything in this plan that changes that assessment...
1. Scrap ISS, build EML2 gateway over time with ISS money. Support it with Commercial Lunar Cargo/Crew, which comes out of the already existing Commercial Cargo/Crew budget.

2. EM-2

3. Build the EML2 Gateway with things you could also use for a Mars Transit Hab and then use those parts for the Transit Hab.

4. Planetary science budget. Instead of another two Curiosity clones next decade. Do science missions in tandem.

5. Same as above. MAV can bring back samples as part of development and test program.

6. Higher production rate will lower cost, not drive cost.

Note: I do not claim to have all the right answers, in fact I may be completely wrong, but tell me this doesn't at least sound plausible. But it doesn't matter, because unless the United States of America adopts a unitary state system and rids its politics of hyperpartisanship, then two decades from now NASA is not going to put humans on Mars - or anywhere else.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
A lot of these things are addressed in the actual telecon audio.
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 D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 152
My aspirations of witnessing humans on Mars do not include changing the political structure of these United States. At the July 4th parade today I wore shirt with a flag, being saluted by an astronaut standing on the surface of the moon, LEM in the background. If I could find a Boeing shirt that includes the rover I would wear it with pride. Experience matters.
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Listening to the mp3 while reading the pdf definitely adds a lot.

Im a fan of the "Exploration augmentation module" tested at ISS, and getting on with the SEP tug. I don't recall them mentioning the asteroid capture but they did mention not going to the full size SEP in one go.

Interesting choice of Methane/LOX should be popular with lots of people though they don't exploit ISRU in this version.

Interesting lander that puts the cargo near the ground with multiple small rockets around the edge, a bit like the Dragon-2 I suppose.

Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
Given that this programme requires the establishment of an EML2 gateway and the development and validation of a reusable (!) SEP stage in addition to all the Mars hardware, I don't see how this is more affordable than to use SLS Block II to launch payloads directly to Mars. An ongoing Mars Semi-Direct programme would require three SLS launches per window.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
It doesn't /require/ the L2 gateway. Listen to the telecon.
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 jtrame

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • W4FJT
  • Knoxville, TN
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 346
Given that this programme requires the establishment of an EML2 gateway and the development and validation of a reusable (!) SEP stage in addition to all the Mars hardware, I don't see how this is more affordable than to use SLS Block II to launch payloads directly to Mars. An ongoing Mars Semi-Direct programme would require three SLS launches per window.

SEP + EML2 promises reusability and sustainability.   That would be one benefit.  The cost is spread out over  many years. 

An "all up" mission in which the only part left at the end is the Orion spacecraft bobbing in the ocean becomes "flags & footprints."  Doable, repeatable, and not necessarily bad if that's the objective.

Without a roadmap, we don't know what the objective is (except in very general terms). 

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Why use SEP at all when SLS Block II has the capability to push around 40 to 50 tonnes (or more with advanced LRBs) through TMI.
That is the hidden agenda.  206 days from LEO to L2..not a robust supplier to L2 but great for Mars trips.

Why SLS?   work on game changing technology instead.

It doesn't /require/ the L2 gateway.
Budget:           It doesn't require SLS and Orion:  >3.2B/year savings
Sole Source:    It doesn't include the existing U.S. and IP fleet  to reduce launch costs:  see Budget.
Depot in LEO:   It doesn't include a LEO gas station to reduce the Budget and maintains sole source.
Amplification:    It doesn't include Boeing's Amplification factor to reduce costs and IMLEO
Architecture:    It doesn't include the trade study...what a surprise  :o
EP-L2-Mars:    The EP LEO to L2 leg is designed to fail - eliminate other options (depots, ..) in the meantime
Mass Budget:  DRM 5 was 900mT, HLV with boiloff raises this to 1200mT, LEO EP back to 900mt (savings?)
Cadence:        Budget limited with no SLS/Orion commonality for decades-sad case for reliability and safety
Days to L2:    206.6 days....designed to limit missions what happened to 2x lunar sorties?
Crew Health:  it doesn't mention the significant number of dedicated SLS/Orion flights likely required to L2 to incrementally demonstrate the crew and hardware can survive the long duration trip to Mars.  LEO SEP to L2 over 206.6 days vs a quarter of that from L2 to Mars.  No mention of GCR mass and power required.

It's another classic example of why outsourcing large integrated programs often results in non-optimal solutions for the government (taxpayer):  Companies (and parts of the government!) will not implement other companies technology if it hurts their bottom line.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Huh.  This is interesting.  Almost provides me as much excitement as Mars Direct did when I first read it.  Looks doable.   And, of some importance to me, a lot of opportunities for building models.  :)

 

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1