"Flexible Path" Scenario E for Cx

[simon-th]

I haven't seen a dedicated "Flexible Path" scenario thread, so here it is.

Watching the beyond-LEO Augustine commission subgroup's presentations, the "Flexible Path" option seems to be clearly one of the frontrunners if not THE frontrunner of the options that the commission will provide to the President.

The slides shown involve missions to NEOs, Venus, Mars, the Moon and L1/L2 etc. Incrementalism is key to this option.

The fuel-transfer/depot capabilities (which the subgroups wants to have as a part of any exploration option) and the leaning of the committee to a maximum 75mt vehicle also seem to favor this option rather than Global Moon, Mars first etc.

Because "Flexible Path" fits comfortable into the budget (due to its flexibility) and because it can still be presented to the public as a great new endeavor ("look people, we are going to explore the solar system! And we don't start in 2025 but right now in the next couple of years!"), I feel this option has a serious chance to replace the current Cx baseline.

Any thoughts?

[Namechange User]

Hear hear for flexible path!!!

It's not about the destination but the journey.  Creating the ability to go to where the interesting places are without prematurely locking yourself into one destination makes perfect sense and one I have been concerned about for quite a while. 

[engstudent]

Sounds about right.  I think this option is very attractive for its potential for commercial growth and revitalization of NASA, the incremental || milestone approach is also more like to grab the publics attention and keep it, virtually guaranteeing future funding and political support

The negatives to play the devils advocate;
1 - Its flexibility although not a net negative at this time, even in this financial and economic environment, is,  as they said, a 2 edged sword - it could be shut down half way to its longterm destination or mission (Mars), by a future administration and/or congress with more myopic world views and conciderations.

2 - I don't know - I cant find many negatives as long as the dual launch ellection[DIRECT Alternative] resolves the NASA workforce issues and the implementation of the Path involves and generates and larger commercial space flight market, via COTS D, LEO delivery and propellant depot contracts.  Devils always in the details - just look at what happened to the Vision.

[Archibald]

The slides shown involve missions to NEOs, Venus, Mars, the Moon and L1/L2 etc. Incrementalism is key to this option.

I like this plan. It reminds the Decadal Planning Team / NEXT philosophy.

We have to bail out of the Moon-base/Mars-landing paradigm. Current budgets will never allow these options. And Apollo was an accident of history.
There's a lot of interesting destinations outside the "paradigm".

Geostationnary orbit, Earth-Moon  libration points, Sun-Earth libration points, Cruithne, NEOs, Venus, Mars lagragian points / moons / orbit are alternatives.

[Jeff Lerner]

ok, I'm not getting this, so folks, please help me out here...

I'm all for going someplace, anyplace but LEO, but what exactly is an astronaut crew going to be doing at a Lagrange point..??

What would be the point of doing a Moon flyby ?? or going all the way to Mars only to flyby or land on one of it's Moons ??

What more could a crew do orbiting around Venus that Venus Express or Magellian didn't already accomplish ??

I'm not seeing the benefits here without a landing someplace...

Yes, I know this would prove the robustness of the various systems but seems to me that if you're risking a crew, the goal should be worth it so please help me understand what some of the missions I mentioned above will accomplish...thanks

[rsp1202]

Any thoughts?

Just sad ones.

[simon-th]

What more could a crew do orbiting around Venus that Venus Express or Magellian didn't already accomplish ??

I'm not seeing the benefits here without a landing someplace...

Leving aside learning how to conduct deep space missions, from a science point of view human missions to Venus or Mars orbit or flybys can do everything that the ISS crew does from orbit when doing Earth science which robotic space probes being controlled hundreds of millions of kilometers away (with a time lag in control) can't do... admittedly there is not much beyond-robotic probes science humans can do... but what they do has a higher certainty of success and is less likely to fail due to humans' flexibility on a mission.

In any event, I think Flexible Path needs to be looked at from a different angle. NASA would actually be doing something, learning, developing new required technologies etc. in the next 15 years instead of just developing big HLVs and waiting for funding to develop and build Moon or Mars landers which are extremely expensive. And while learning and using the path of incrementalism (NEO missions, Moon orbital missions, a Venus and Mars flyby, a Venus orbital mission, a Mercury flyby etc.) you develop all the technology you require for a Mars surface mission and just have to add the Mars lander and equipment for the Mars surface when you are ready and have significant deep space experience.

Just think about how the Russians worked on their space station(s) program. They had several Salyut stations in orbit in succession, each improving on the last one, until they got Mir up and learned to work and live in space in the process. They developed technology like on orbit refueling, automatic docking, repair in space, routine EVAs etc. etc. Beyond LEO flights, even those not going to a deep gravity well, have similar challenges that require technologies we haven't developed and techniques we haven't mastered yet.

[loomy]

in the best case, flexible path is the difference between building an entire exploration architecture now that gets thrown out later (like constellation and apollo), and building just enough of it now to start flying around, and then other parts once that is done. 

The idea being, and they haven't said this explicitly, but the idea being that you maintain consistent, affordable, advanced R&D at a pace that commercial developments can also keep up with, so you keep building new things (good), passing them off to private endeavors (good), and then building on their shoulders to reach new and greater heights (good).

ok, I'm not getting this, so folks, please help me out here...

I'm all for going someplace, anyplace but LEO, but what exactly is an astronaut crew going to be doing at a Lagrange point..??

What would be the point of doing a Moon flyby ?? or going all the way to Mars only to flyby or land on one of it's Moons ??

What more could a crew do orbiting around Venus that Venus Express or Magellian didn't already accomplish ??

I'm not seeing the benefits here without a landing someplace...

Yes, I know this would prove the robustness of the various systems but seems to me that if you're risking a crew, the goal should be worth it so please help me understand what some of the missions I mentioned above will accomplish...thanks

[lbiderman]

Donīt like this. DEFINETELY donīt like this. Flyby missions, with todayīs technology, have no sense, and donīt tell me the main advantage is controlling rovers from up close: work on better AIs, itīs going to cost less money. The main advantage of human exploration is ON SITE, not during the journey. The only good thing I see in this is that we would still need to develop radiation shielding for the spacecraft. This looks like a bad dream...

[simon-th]

The only good thing I see in this is that we would still need to develop radiation shielding for the spacecraft. This looks like a bad dream...

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?

Well, I don't like the a plan which means you are going to have no beyond-LEO missions for 15 to 20 years from this year onwards

[madscientist197]

Fine then. Don't do anything... Those are the only two options. Face it -- Congress isn't going to pay up!

At least with this you get out of the Earth-Moon system and to some asteroids/martian moons.

[lbiderman]

The only good thing I see in this is that we would still need to develop radiation shielding for the spacecraft. This looks like a bad dream...

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?

Well, I don't like the a plan which means you are going to have no beyond-LEO missions for 15 to 20 years from this year onwards

I seriously donīt know. First of all, we cannot have a beyond LEO mission today. Perhaps, PERHAPS, in six years. And then, all we are going to have, is a lot of info like pictures or radar data, from a 2 week mission, costing a lot of money, just like the data we could get from an unmanned probe. Itīs like putting the head of HSF on the robot guys guillotine, giving them the lever to cut the head. Think about it, they would have the perfect argument: all the data you collect, a probe can collect it for more time and for less money: you are doing flybys, probes can orbit or even go to the surface. Bottom line: you get cancelled. The only way to show the advantages of having a human on a spaceship is on doing research and adapt to the enviroment. Inside a cramped spaceship you are not going to do that.

[firehauck]

If you are not getting this then why didn't we continue with robots to the Moon and scrap Apollo ? BECAUSE THIS IS AN ADVENTURE !   Whether we land or not..thats not the question...The answer is " Find out whats out there and then send a landing party " This is a FANTASTIC idea !!

[Jeff Lerner]

Well, I don't like the a plan which means you are going to have no beyond-LEO missions for 15 to 20 years from this year onwards

I'm not sure it makes any sense to be talking about potential space missions, landings or otherwise, that would be targetted for upwards of 3 decades from now...who knows what will happen by then.

[lbiderman]

If you are not getting this then why didn't we continue with robots to the Moon and scrap Apollo ? BECAUSE THIS IS AN ADVENTURE !   Whether we land or not..thats not the question...The answer is " Find out whats out there and then send a landing party " This is a FANTASTIC idea !!

You are getting the wrong picture here. Iīm a HSF guy; I want it to go further where no man has gone before. All Iīm saying is that with this scenario, flybys with no landings, there is no difference between the science a human can do vs. what a robot can do. And since the Congress is going to pay the bill, when they realize this, saying "ITīS AN ADVENTURE!" will not be enough.

[simon-th]

The only good thing I see in this is that we would still need to develop radiation shielding for the spacecraft. This looks like a bad dream...

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?

Well, I don't like the a plan which means you are going to have no beyond-LEO missions for 15 to 20 years from this year onwards

I seriously donīt know. First of all, we cannot have a beyond LEO mission today. Perhaps, PERHAPS, in six years. And then, all we are going to have, is a lot of info like pictures or radar data, from a 2 week mission, costing a lot of money, just like the data we could get from an unmanned probe. Itīs like putting the head of HSF on the robot guys guillotine, giving them the lever to cut the head. Think about it, they would have the perfect argument: all the data you collect, a probe can collect it for more time and for less money: you are doing flybys, probes can orbit or even go to the surface. Bottom line: you get cancelled. The only way to show the advantages of having a human on a spaceship is on doing research and adapt to the enviroment. Inside a cramped spaceship you are not going to do that.

Actually the penal discussed that point (looking whether HSF is warranted at all). Lyles asked the question and the subgroup answered that it's not inside the charter for the commission to look whether HSF should be done at all or whether purely going for robotic spaceflight makes more sense.

They basically concluded yesterday that your cost to results ratio for HSF can't justify HSF if you look at it objectively. You can only justify HSF by either foreign policy (Apollo) or by a long-term strategic goal of wanting to explore the solar system not just by robots but by humans as well (the spacefairing nation goal) NOT by a standard of how much science for what money a mission can do. Even in scientific areas which are normally presented as areas in which humans work a lot better than robots like field geology, advancements in AI and robotics start to weight in favor of robots. If you were to allocate the same money to robotic missions that is required for a human lunar or Mars surface mission, you probably get hundres of spaceprobes and robots which yield a lot better results than a HSF Mars program - and not just more and better results but you also get them sooner and without risking lives.

At the end we are left with the justification of HSF that says "hey, we just want to do it, whether it makes sense or not".

[DonEsteban]

It is not only about flyby. You can also go to NEOs. And there is lots what can be done there: sample return, then testing mining and ISRU technology, then using the results to make all the later exploration much cheaper...

[kkattula]

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

1)  It looks damn impressive.

We've been to the Moon. Now we're going to one of Mars' moons. Next stop Mars.
Sure it's just a captured asteroid, but the general public won't know or care.

2)  Imagine the pictures. 

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

3)  Easier than the Moon. 

Delta v needed to get to Phobos and return is actually lower than that needed to get to the surface of the Moon and return.  Plus you don't need relatively high thrust landers.  It's more like docking than landing.

4)  Harder than the Moon. 

Long duration spaceflight has to be developed, tested and improved. Radiation, micro-g mitigation, air & water recycling, long range communication with time-lag.

5)  A valuable Base Camp for Mars landing. 

A well supplied and staffed base on Phobos could support initial robot then manned exploration of Mars.

Dig in for radiation protection.
No appreciable time-lag for comms to Mars surface.
High band-width comms to Mars surface. 
A constellation of small, GPS/Comm satellites could be deployed from Phobos. 
There may even be ISRU possibilities.

[kkattula]

After yesterday's comments by Jeff Greason, I'd add to the above:

ISRU is a real probability. Phobos should have regolith containing Oxygen.
So you can make LOX.  It may even have water, but that's unlikely.

Mars robot sample return missions would benefit from having humans in orbit to receive and analyze the samples.

[simon-th]

Well, I don't like the a plan which means you are going to have no beyond-LEO missions for 15 to 20 years from this year onwards

I'm not sure it makes any sense to be talking about potential space missions, landings or otherwise, that would be targetted for upwards of 3 decades from now...who knows what will happen by then.

But that's exactly what the committee is doing. They are looking at timeframes from the go ahead with a certain budgets and are throwing around year dates like 2024, 15 years after HLV introduction for the frist mission etc. etc.

We don't know exactly what will happen in the next 2 decades, but what we do know is that a Mars surface mission won't happen in that time frame with the current budget. 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).