"Flexible Path" Scenario E for Cx

[tamarack]

What's better, a Mars surface mission in say 2030 and no beyond-LEO mission from now to then (or the first Moon surface mission in say 2025 and no Mars mission until 2040-45) OR a beyond-LEO mission every year or so from today to 2035 with potentially including some lunar sorties and a Mars surface mission after all that in 2035 to 2040?

Ongoing manned exploration of Mars ASAP(2020) with no manned missions beyond LEO until then.

I can think of no greater waste of time, money and possibly life then manned Lagrangian missions and a fuel depot infrastructure. There's no reason for humans to go to the Moon, Martian trojans and moons, Venus or NEOs. Satellites/robotic exploration of these locations is considerably cheaper, infinitely safer and provides just as much science.

The ISS has nearly perfected the systems required for extended missions and our rovers/satellites have given us vast information about Mars. Engine/powerplant evolution (plasma/fission vs. chemical/solar) is the only thing nessisary for mankind to get there and kicks open the door to explore our solar system.

[simon-th]

Ongoing manned exploration of Mars ASAP(2020) with no manned missions beyond LEO until then.

Only that this is impossible from a costs and schedule and technology point of view.

Crawley showed a slide for the Mars first scenario and it showed the first mission 15 years out from the start of the program - and that's not even assuming that Cx will get less money if the ISS is extended. Even if you opt for Mars first, the first Mars landing won't happen until the end of the 2020s (that's also what was said yesterday). So you end up with 20 years of LEO spaceflight until then. I say that's not desireable.

Flexible path might not be what the public wants to see (no flags and no 1 billion dollar footprints), but it's a way to avoid another 20 years of LEO-only manned spaceflight.

[JohnFornaro]

I'm starting to see some validity to Flexible Path. I see first, a lunar outpost, then a fuel depot at Emily-1, then...  In a way, it's the strategy they shoulda followed in Iraq.

Clear, hold, and build.

[lbiderman]

This "flexible path" does not include a lunar outpost, or lunar landing whatsoever.

[simon-th]

This "flexible path" does not include a lunar outpost, or lunar landing whatsoever.

"Flexible path" can be mixed with other scenarios, e.g. lunar sortie missions added. That was said during the panel session yesterday. I think they even said it two times that "flexible" also means you get some lunar surface exposure in there if the budget allows it.

[lbiderman]

This "flexible path" does not include a lunar outpost, or lunar landing whatsoever.

"Flexible path" can be mixed with other scenarios, e.g. lunar sortie missions added. That was said during the panel session yesterday. I think they even said it two times that "flexible" also means you get some lunar surface exposure in there if the budget allows it.

That could be acceptable, IF it includes landing missions. Otherwise, it will be under a lot of fire.

[grdja]

Lagrange missions? Only to service JWST  and maybe if budget gods are nice, eventually a TPF.
Mars and Venus flybys? No, not worth it, having astronauts spend months in deep space and just hours around destination. Pointless and wasteful.

Orbital and L-point fuel depots. If they can be made to be more economical that just launching a bigger rocket, they will be wonderful.

Asteroid and Phobos landing, with ISRU study as a primary objective. Very very promising. And from Phobos you have much greater time to RC probes on Mars than on a flyby.

And once you have gotten to NEOs and to Phobos and demonstrated ISRU, and done all that on a sustainable budget, congratulations you have finally opened the Solar System.

[mikegi]

... That being said, committing to NOT go to Mars or anywhere else except LEO in the next 20 years is the wrong decision in my opinion. I rather have NASA develop technology which allows for a 100 day NEO mission or a 300 day Venus flyby or a Mars orbital mission etc. etc., than wait 20 years for the first Mars surface mission always risking along the way that the program gets cancelled entirely (because it can't be trimmed down).

Shouldn't we develop the infrastructure to LEO first (less expensive access, commercial depot servicing, etc.) so that NASA can assume it and spend their time designing/developing exploratory spacecraft? How many years has NASA spent developing yet-another-rocket (YAR) and yet-another-propellent-hauler (YAPH) to get to LEO? Standardize that segment of the mission and be done with it. Move on to exploratory work.

[gladiator1332]

I am all for this plan if it allows for some landings to take place. How about revisiting the "Wal Mart" lander concept that would allow 2 crew members to go to the surface?

If we are going to set out on this flexible path where anything is possible, we need all of the tools to complete various missions. Maybe Altair is a little too large. Instead go with a smaller "Wal-Mart lander". Two crew members go to the surface, while the others stay in orbit.

While orbital missions are exciting, there is something to be gained from going to the surface, mainly from a field geology standpoint.

[William Barton]

Phobos makes a good staging point for a long term, multi-landing Mars expeditionary architecture. It may be small, but it does have enough gravity anything left lying on the surface is unlikely to depart w/o a significant impulse. A spacesuited human could not, for example, leap to escape velocity from Phobos. So you can be reasonably certain that a hundred piece of unattached hardware left lying on the surface of Phobos are going to be exactly where you left them when you come back. That's not true for an unpowered constellation of hardware bits and piece left unattended in orbit. Conceivably, a spare lander left on Phobos could perform a teleoperated rescue mission to pick up a crew stranded on the surface, a sort of LON lander only a few hours away.

And, yes, the Pictures: televised images of humans silhoutted against an enormous Mars rolling below are going to generate taxpayer interest in that last big step.

[mmeijeri]

Lagrange missions? Only to service JWST  and maybe if budget gods are nice, eventually a TPF.

Radiation shielding testing. Crucial to deep space missions. Can't go to Mars without them. Equally importantly you need waypoints if you don't have superheavy lift.

Mars and Venus flybys? No, not worth it, having astronauts spend months in deep space and just hours around destination. Pointless and wasteful.

I think the point is to get into Mars or Venus orbit, not just a flyby.

Orbital and L-point fuel depots. If they can be made to be more economical that just launching a bigger rocket, they will be wonderful.

They *will* be more economical than having the high development cost and high fixed cost of a separate NASA launch system. We're going to have to choose what to shut down: ISS, the shuttle stack or exploration.

Asteroid and Phobos landing, with ISRU study as a primary objective. Very very promising. And from Phobos you have much greater time to RC probes on Mars than on a flyby.

And once you have gotten to NEOs and to Phobos and demonstrated ISRU, and done all that on a sustainable budget, congratulations you have finally opened the Solar System.

[mmeijeri]

I am all for this plan if it allows for some landings to take place. How about revisiting the "Wal Mart" lander concept that would allow 2 crew members to go to the surface?

With propellant transfer you don't need a Wal Mart lander, it could even be bigger. But of course, with Flexible Path, landings would come at the end, not the beginning. I'm not so sure a smaller lander would be much cheaper to develop.

While orbital missions are exciting, there is something to be gained from going to the surface, mainly from a field geology standpoint.

The proposal with Flexible Path is to limit this to telerobotics initially.

[ascendent]

As I posted in the Beyond LEO thread, here's why Phobos is a good idea:

1)  It looks damn impressive.

2)  Imagine the pictures. 
3)  Easier than the Moon. 
4)  Harder than the Moon. 

b]5)  A valuable Base Camp for Mars landing.  [/b]



AGREE.  Phobos has always been an exciting option with lots of practical benefits.  First Bush pesidency focused on it as one of a handful of options for re-energizing the HSF program (just how long HAVE we been trying to re-energize HSF, anyhow?)

[rsp1202]

. . . 2)  Imagine the pictures. 

Astronaut 'standing' on the surface of Phobos planting an American &/or UN flag with a huge Mars in the background. . .

I'd rather see an astronaut standing on Mars planting a flag with Phobos in the background.

[simon-th]

. . . 2)  Imagine the pictures. 

Astronaut 'standing' on the surface of Phobos planting an American &/or UN flag with a huge Mars in the background. . .

I'd rather see an astronaut standing on Mars planting a flag with Phobos in the background.

You first need to crawl before you can walk or even run. Let's take small steps, then bigger steps and then a real big (second) leap. Because if we just try to do the next big leap for mankind we might have to wait for the third leap for another 50 years...

[grdja]

General question about radiation for deep space missions. (so please dont answer me by linking half a dozen hundred page studies, I could find them myself).

If you placed all the supplies, food, water, spare parts, fuel tanks... around the crew habitat, would you be "safe" enough to spend a year or two in deep space without taking in too much REMs?

[tamarack]

. . . 2)  Imagine the pictures. 

Astronaut 'standing' on the surface of Phobos planting an American &/or UN flag with a huge Mars in the background. . .

I'd rather see an astronaut standing on Mars planting a flag with Phobos in the background.

You first need to crawl before you can walk or even run. Let's take small steps, then bigger steps and then a real big (second) leap. Because if we just try to do the next big leap for mankind we might have to wait for the third leap for another 50 years...

An excellent way to get absolutely nothing accomplished.
When the time came, man crossed continents and oceans without depots and baby steps and now it's time to traverse the solar system in leaps. It is not technology or finances that keeps Mars from our grasp, but cowardice and apathy.

[gladiator1332]

I am all for this plan if it allows for some landings to take place. How about revisiting the "Wal Mart" lander concept that would allow 2 crew members to go to the surface?

With propellant transfer you don't need a Wal Mart lander, it could even be bigger. But of course, with Flexible Path, landings would come at the end, not the beginning. I'm not so sure a smaller lander would be much cheaper to develop.

I wonder if propellant transfer will allow for the following:

Instead of building an entire new lander, what about using Orion? We could build a reusable descent / ascent stage that Orion would dock with a use to land on the Moon. The remaining fuel after landing would be used for the ascent. The landing stage would be cast off and later refueled to be used again.

[mmeijeri]

Something vaguely similar was considered for the Early Lunar Access program, but it proposed using the capsule as the crew module / ascent stage, so the descent stage was expendable and stayed behind. Jim has recently said such a scheme would not be practical for the current Orion.

[Jorge]

. . . 2)  Imagine the pictures. 

Astronaut 'standing' on the surface of Phobos planting an American &/or UN flag with a huge Mars in the background. . .

I'd rather see an astronaut standing on Mars planting a flag with Phobos in the background.

You first need to crawl before you can walk or even run. Let's take small steps, then bigger steps and then a real big (second) leap. Because if we just try to do the next big leap for mankind we might have to wait for the third leap for another 50 years...

An excellent way to get absolutely nothing accomplished.
When the time came, man crossed continents and oceans without depots and baby steps

Columbus reprovisioned in the Canaries. Many explorers used the Azores or Cape Verde islands for the same purpose.