Integrating ITS and NASA for Mars missions

[drzerg]

but dragon 2 will be sertified. so just bring one cargo dragon in cargo bay. BFR could dock with dragon wich then could dock to ISS. repeat until done. BFR could wait in some distance near ISS. too long but no sertification needed.

[Nibb31]

but dragon 2 will be sertified. so just bring one cargo dragon in cargo bay. BFR could dock with dragon wich then could dock to ISS. repeat until done. BFR could wait in some distance near ISS. too long but no sertification needed.

Why bother for only half a dozen flights? How does the LES work with Dragon inside the cargo bay?

As long as NASA astronauts and cargo are on board, the BFR will need NASA oversight and certification.

[Negan]

but dragon 2 will be sertified. so just bring one cargo dragon in cargo bay. BFR could dock with dragon wich then could dock to ISS. repeat until done. BFR could wait in some distance near ISS. too long but no sertification needed.

There's going to have to be some certification of BFR by NASA if used. Let's not forgot how precious their cargo is going up and down.

[Zed_Noir]

While the bit with the ISS isn't exactly Mars-centric, it now leads me to wonder how they'll handle airlocks and docking.

They don't need airlocks. But docking the BFR with the ISS is going to put a lot of mechanical stress on the IDS.

The bigger issue is getting NASA to certify BFR for ISS operations, and SpaceX implementing any changes, before ISS is retired. I don't see that ever happening.

If the BFS is serving the ISS, then it make sense to replace the current IDS docking system with a more robust docking demi-module with the IDS as a sub-system for pressurized connection and the new demi-module for the mechanical connection.

  SpaceX will need some sort docking hardware to connected with orbital infrastructures. They might as well as sell and delivered a comparable docking module to anyone who needs a docking port in space.

[Nibb31]

If the BFS is serving the ISS, then it make sense to replace the current IDS docking system with a more robust docking demi-module with the IDS as a sub-system for pressurized connection and the new demi-module for the mechanical connection.

It took the best part of 20 years to develop IDS and its various implementations. It's a bit late to make a new one expecially for BFR with the ISS being decommissioned after 2024.

SpaceX will need some sort docking hardware to connected with orbital infrastructures. They might as well as sell and delivered a comparable docking module to anyone who needs a docking port in space.

Why ? What sort of orbital infrastructures is it planned to dock with? Refueling will be done by the aft engine skirt.

[Robotbeat]

NASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.

Antarctica on Moon and Mars.

[UltraViolet9]

NASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.

Antarctica on Moon and Mars.

I largely agree, except NASA does not have to rely (and should not rely!) on SpaceX alone for the transportation elements of its human exploration missions.  Between Falcon Heavy, Vulcan/ACES, New Glenn/Blue Moon, New Armstrong, and BFR/ITS, there's no reason NASA can't put out solicitations for heavy lift, transit, and landers and have some robust competition and alternatives.

I'd also say that there's still a role for NASA in advanced in-space transportation.  Large SEP for more efficient cargo transport.  And maybe nuke-thermal at some point.

But NASA does not need to be in the space trucking business.

[Nathan2go]

...
What I'd rather see is Bezos to realize that Blue is in a difficult position competitively and to offer to cooperate with or become a 49% partner with Musk. ...

In order to shut-down SLS, I think NASA needs two commercial companies that can provide the heavy lift service.

I can see SpaceX and Blue developing a standard interface to an orbit propellant depot.  But I don't see them sharing rockets.

If bigger rockets really make little ones obsolete, then New Armstrong will replace New Glenn.

[Robotbeat]

NASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.

Antarctica on Moon and Mars.

I largely agree, except NASA does not have to rely (and should not rely!) on SpaceX alone for the transportation elements of its human exploration missions.  Between Falcon Heavy, Vulcan/ACES, New Glenn/Blue Moon, New Armstrong, and BFR/ITS, there's no reason NASA can't put out solicitations for heavy lift, transit, and landers and have some robust competition and alternatives.

I'd also say that there's still a role for NASA in advanced in-space transportation.  Large SEP for more efficient cargo transport.  And maybe nuke-thermal at some point.

But NASA does not need to be in the space trucking business.

NASA has a critical role in tech development, especially stuff like NTR. But I don't think they should do logistics.

[MATTBLAK]

NASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.

Antarctica on Moon and Mars.

THIS is the type of thing I've been saying for years!! But Robotbeat summarized it best.

[ncb1397]

NASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.

Antarctica on Moon and Mars.

But of course, if NASA sponsors a rover, it must be cancelled if a SpaceX powerpoint is released with one that looks better. And how exactly are rovers and power not logistics?

[Robotbeat]

NASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.

Antarctica on Moon and Mars.

But of course, if NASA sponsors a rover, it must be cancelled if a SpaceX powerpoint is released with one that looks better. And how exactly are rovers and power not logistics?

Tech development and science.

Kilopower is a power source that no private group is developing now.

If someone builds a bunch of capable Mars rovers for cheap, probably would make sense for NASA to use those, too.

I don't see what's so hard to understand that government research agencies should be doing stuff that private industry is not willing to do. NASA should be on the bleeding edge, not wastefully repurposing 40 year old tech at enormous cost.

[Coastal Ron]

I largely agree, except NASA does not have to rely (and should not rely!) on SpaceX alone for the transportation elements of its human exploration missions.

Ideally, no. The U.S. Government does do sole source contracting though, so it's not like it's not something they would never consider. Just look at Delta IV Heavy, where the USAF only has one option, and ULA only has one customer.

Between Falcon Heavy, Vulcan/ACES, New Glenn/Blue Moon, New Armstrong, and BFR/ITS, there's no reason NASA can't put out solicitations for heavy lift, transit, and landers and have some robust competition and alternatives.

Ideally that is how it should work, and as the amount of transportation increases then that (hopefully) will inspire more competitors. NASA should also make sure it's component pieces should be as small as practical in order to allow as much competition as possible. Not everything needs to be small, but the U.S. Government does have the ability to divvy up transport contracts in ways that "spread the wealth". Which is good.

I'd also say that there's still a role for NASA in advanced in-space transportation.  Large SEP for more efficient cargo transport.  And maybe nuke-thermal at some point.

I agree with Robotbeat that the U.S. Government should only do what the commercial sector can't or won't do. More than that though, if the U.S. Government commits to expanding humanity out into space, even if it's only our Moon, then I would hope there is a technical committee that has the authority to make sure design choices make sense overall, and not just for one supplier.

But NASA does not need to be in the space trucking business.

It's amazing how a single decision by Michael Griffin to build the Ares I/V has affected NASA for decades. Not to mention the U.S. Taxpayer.

[MATTBLAK]

If Griffin had championed or chosen an Enhanced EELV fleet - or even Sidemount shuttle-derived lifter - he would have saved many billions and would have served manned exploration missions well. In time, a gradual phasing-out for reusable systems would have been the sensible thing to do. Chaining NASA - and by extension the USA - to giant, low launch rate expendables for decades has hamstrung them.

[redliox]

I largely agree, except NASA does not have to rely (and should not rely!) on SpaceX alone for the transportation elements of its human exploration missions.  Between Falcon Heavy, Vulcan/ACES, New Glenn/Blue Moon, New Armstrong, and BFR/ITS, there's no reason NASA can't put out solicitations for heavy lift, transit, and landers and have some robust competition and alternatives.

I'd also say that there's still a role for NASA in advanced in-space transportation.  Large SEP for more efficient cargo transport.  And maybe nuke-thermal at some point.

But NASA does not need to be in the space trucking business.

I also agree.  SpaceX will hopefully become an inspiring, strong influence but it would be naive to expect it to be the sole company or entity.  I added this thread to emphasize how SpaceX will interact with other elements created outside itself beyond mere cargo.  If Blue Glen can create its own landers or likewise NASA use Orion or  SEV, I would expect the ITS and its kin (referring to whatever SpaceX names the system in the near future) to dock, interact, and develop synergy with for a grander goal.

In order to shut-down SLS, I think NASA needs two commercial companies that can provide the heavy lift service.

I can see SpaceX and Blue developing a standard interface to an orbit propellant depot.  But I don't see them sharing rockets.

I agree with that too.  My personal guess is that ULA/Boeing/Lockheed will eventually try to develop a third rocket to compete alongside Blue and SpaceX (excluding their work on SLS, but probably leveraging what they did for it and Vulcan).  Having multiple companies with similar capabilities will allow NASA to have a fallback without needing to develop or micromanage it themselves, much has happened when Lockheed failed with the X-33 forcing NASA to rely on the shuttle a further 10 years.

While I hope the Orion quickly gets phased out, the SLS could be kept running in some capacity...again mainly as a fallback.  It's main limitation, aside from being old school and throw-away, is its assembly rate: 4 is the absolute maximum with 2 being the nominal pace per year (some saying 2 or 3 being generous).  It still will have the capability to exceed anything anyone can throw at Mars for a while and afford NASA some means to develop "in house" items (which is debatable, given how even probes are largely a Lockheed affair for instance).  As I estimated in an SLS thread, I would expect the SLS to run say 15 years in the background while the other HLVs get on their feet and prove reliability.