Author Topic: Augustine Commission requests feedback on beyond LEO operations  (Read 64277 times)

Offline Lab Lemming

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
From hsf website:
This document ( http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/368722main_Beyond_LEO_07_12_09.pdf ) describes the process and progress of the Exploration Beyond LEO Subgroup. The document presents some preliminary scenarios for U.S. human space flight that the subgroup is analyzing. The Committee wants your comments on this document and on the scenarios presented.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/members/subgroups.html

"Specifically, the “Exploration Beyond LEO” subcommittee will examine the following questions: (1) What are the appropriate destinations and sequences of exploration for human exploration beyond LEO; (2) What should be the mode of surface exploration (if any); (3) What is the strategy within the human space flight program for coordinating human and robotic exploration; (4) What are the assumed launch vehicle(s) to LEO (in terms of mass to orbit and shroud diameter); (5) What are the options for in-space fuel/oxidizer storage and transfer; (6) What is the role that space technology research and development will play; (7) What is our strategy for engaging international partners in the development of the program; and (8) What is our strategy for engaging commercial entities?"

Offline Lab Lemming

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Their five initial options for progress:

The subcommittee’s five initial scenarios are labeled as Lunar Base, Lunar Global, Moon to Mars, Mars First and Flexible Path. In addition, we have asked the Constellation program to document the program of record as a scenario, and invited them to propose an alternative as well.

The first subcommittee-defined scenario, Lunar Base, is a close derivative of the current program, with some simplifications.

Lunar Global is a scenario in which a base or outpost is not assembled on the Moon, but instead the Moon is explored by a coordinated series of extended duration human sorties and robotic exploration. In both these cases, implications for subsequent Mars exploration will be considered.

Moon to Mars, or more completely Moon on the way to Mars, is a scenario in which the primary objective is Mars exploration, and all systems are designed for Mars. Only when it is beneficial to use the Moon as a true test bed for these Mars exploration systems will flights to the Moon be conducted.

Mars First is a plan to exclusively pursue human exploration of the Mars as fast as possible, without using the Moon as a first destination.

Finally, Flexible Path is a scenario that allows humans to visit a wide number of inner solar system bodies, objects and locations, but not go to the surface of those with deep gravity wells.

Destinations besides Moon and Mars would include the Earth-Moon and Earth-Sun Lagrange points, near-Earth objects (NEOs) and the moons of Mars. There is nothing implied in this scenario that surface exploration might not follow, simply that exploration would first exploit all that could be done without landing on a planetary surface.

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
Well obviously the Moon-to-Mars options is the one closest in spirit to the original VSE.

Flexible Path sounds nice but actually doesn't make any sense from an engineering/architecture perspective. Am I right?

Offline engstudent

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Earth
    • my blog experiment
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Doesn't the flexable path make the most sense if you want more immediate demonstrable results from NASA.  And incremental policy maybe healthier than a Mars or bust vision which may take more than 2 or 3 political cycles to do.

I say we have Mars in our sites as the endpoint focus of NASA. But that an immediate flexable path be charted to develope NEOs and a  manned Phobos mission.  The longpole in getting to Mars is the heavy EDL system.  Begin funding that now - but in paralell with a flexable path so that we can capture and keep the publcs attention. 

IMHO
” …All of this. All of this was for nothing – unless we go to the stars.” - Sinclair

Offline Lab Lemming

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Without landings, what does the flexible path have that will interest the public?

L2?  We flew to an empty point in space that is interesting to physicists.

NEO?  We took a once-in-30 year launch opportunity to fly to an asteroid, orbit it, but not actually get out.

Even worse, because a flexible path can be done with small rockets (and depots), you risk losing the infrastructure necessary to launch landers.  So you end up stranded in nowhereland forever.

Doesn't the flexable path make the most sense if you want more immediate demonstrable results from NASA.  And incremental policy maybe healthier than a Mars or bust vision which may take more than 2 or 3 political cycles to do.

I say we have Mars in our sites as the endpoint focus of NASA. But that an immediate flexable path be charted to develope NEOs and a  manned Phobos mission.  The longpole in getting to Mars is the heavy EDL system.  Begin funding that now - but in paralell with a flexable path so that we can capture and keep the publcs attention. 

IMHO

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Well, here are the positives I see...

(5) What are the options for in-space fuel/oxidizer storage and transfer

(6) What is the role that space technology research and development will play

(7) What is our strategy for engaging international partners in the development of the program

I don't see long-duration missions (Mars, ect) happening without 5&6 based on public support (against nuclear that is).

Number 7 can play a vital role for multi-capability systems, but as previously hashed out in other threads, could end up being a pain in the butt if not done properly.

Offline engstudent

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Earth
    • my blog experiment
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
you're misunderstanding me NASA should not IMHO do anything that takes us further from this generations ultimate goal of getting to Mars. But by going to these places first, shaking down critical technologies along the way longterm life support, OTVs and ITVs block III Orion type crew exploration vehicles, ect. May do more to get us to Mars sooner than a Mars first, Mars or nothing vision.

You've probably read this before but it's worth reposting.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/AdvisoryGroupReports/iaa_report.pdf

Some really great ideas. NEOs offer compelling opurtunities for science and the information derived from those mission can benifit humanity just as much as initial lunar missions and it is within our technological grasp.

As Miles Obrien said this week before congress you can't leave the public behind with whatever mission set NASA decides on.  And one that's incremental will more readily capture and hold the publics attention and enthusiasm rather than one we have to wait 10 to 20 years for the initial results.   

Without landings, what does the flexible path have that will interest the public?

L2?  We flew to an empty point in space that is interesting to physicists.

NEO?  We took a once-in-30 year launch opportunity to fly to an asteroid, orbit it, but not actually get out.

Even worse, because a flexible path can be done with small rockets (and depots), you risk losing the infrastructure necessary to launch landers.  So you end up stranded in nowhereland forever.

Doesn't the flexable path make the most sense if you want more immediate demonstrable results from NASA.  And incremental policy maybe healthier than a Mars or bust vision which may take more than 2 or 3 political cycles to do.

I say we have Mars in our sites as the endpoint focus of NASA. But that an immediate flexable path be charted to develope NEOs and a  manned Phobos mission.  The longpole in getting to Mars is the heavy EDL system.  Begin funding that now - but in paralell with a flexable path so that we can capture and keep the publcs attention. 

IMHO
” …All of this. All of this was for nothing – unless we go to the stars.” - Sinclair

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
It should come as no surprise that I favor the Flexible Path. Apollo demonstrated the fallacy of massive, inflexible, monolithic, and expensive programs that go some place, throwing away millions of dollars worth of equipment on the way, to visit isolated spots on a globe the size of Africa. The ESAS implementation of the VSE is little better and something similar to Mars would cost more with the same result. This approach is not sustainable.

Without landings, what does the flexible path have that will interest the public?

That’s easy. The primary goal of the Flexible Path should be the development of mankind’s first true interplanetary spaceship. Development of such a ship, capable of reaching the Moon, Mars, Venus, and possibly the asteroid belt from LEO and returning to LEO for refitting, re-supply, and multiple missions would likely be more inspirational than any reprise of Apollo. This would require the construction several developmental craft, each with more advanced than the last. Evolutionary development of life support, radiation shielding, low g mitigation, and propulsion would allow for early missions to LEO and GEO targets, progressing to NEO, Lagrange targets, and Lunar orbit. Each generation of ships should, at a minimum, have a crew of at least 10-20 members, be at least as large as the ISS, and have an operational lifetime of at least two decades.

Flexible Path sounds nice but actually doesn't make any sense from an engineering/architecture perspective. Am I right?

I don’t know, it seems obvious to me that a progressive development of increasingly capable long lifetime spaceships is far more sensible than slinging capsules from Earth’s surface to the surface of another planet and back, losing all the equipment on the way.
« Last Edit: 07/18/2009 03:13 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
You'll all likely be shocked to hear I favour the Flexible Path as well. I agree with the reusable spacecraft, although I'd start with the combination of an Orion + horizontal Altair used in shuttle mode. A six person crew and a lifetime of five years initially would be fine with me. I would like to see it become the space shuttle of the new exploration program: a jack of all trades and a master of only one or two. A good crew transporter, a decent lander, a makeshift gateway station, a makeshift EDS for rare large payloads and a makeshift propellant depot. Coupled with an SSPDM like structure and a robot arm it could conduct servicing missions anywhere from LEO to MEO to GEO, Earth moon Lagrange points, Earth Sun Lagrange points and even slightly beyond.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
That’s easy. The primary goal of the Flexible Path should be the development of mankind’s first true interplanetary spaceship. Development of such a ship, capable of reaching the Moon, Mars, Venus, and possibly the asteroid belt from LEO and returning to LEO for refitting, re-supply, and multiple missions would likely be more inspirational than any reprise of Apollo. This would require the construction several developmental craft, each with more advanced than the last. Evolutionary development of life support, radiation shielding, low g mitigation, and propulsion would allow for early missions to LEO and GEO targets, progressing to NEO, Lagrange targets, and Lunar orbit. Each generation of ships should, at a minimum, have a crew of at least 10-20 members, be at least as large as the ISS, and have an operational lifetime of at least two decades.

This is what I support as well.

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
That’s easy. The primary goal of the Flexible Path should be the development of mankind’s first true interplanetary spaceship. Development of such a ship, capable of reaching the Moon, Mars, Venus, and possibly the asteroid belt from LEO and returning to LEO for refitting, re-supply, and multiple missions would likely be more inspirational than any reprise of Apollo. This would require the construction several developmental craft, each with more advanced than the last. Evolutionary development of life support, radiation shielding, low g mitigation, and propulsion would allow for early missions to LEO and GEO targets, progressing to NEO, Lagrange targets, and Lunar orbit. Each generation of ships should, at a minimum, have a crew of at least 10-20 members, be at least as large as the ISS, and have an operational lifetime of at least two decades.

This is what I support as well.

That seems hopelessly unrealistic to me.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
That seems hopelessly unrealistic to me.

If we are truly going to go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond we are going to develop these vehicles. We can waste a lot of time and money doing things the hard way first but we will eventually have to build these things if we are going to stay. mmeijeri concept of a more limited initial vehicle is probably more realistic than my concept but the longer the operational lifetime the less likely the program will be canceled/abandoned.

I do not expect America/NASA to develop these vehicles by themselves. Each vehicle should be an international effort with each nation contributing as much as they can. Those with space capability contributing launch support and construction materials, those with the desire to be involved but without space capability contributing money. Crews should be international from the beginning.

Finally, your reach should exceed your grasp. Let's go for something truly visionary.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
Look guys, if we're to have any hope of a politically supportable program the goal has to be real, and the returns must be quantifiable. You can't expect a program which just plays around in space for the sake of demonstration of capability alone will be enough to keep it funded. Far from it; not returning quantifiable results will absolutely kill the program.

In my mind, the science benefit of exploring mars with humans is the only quantifiable justification (at least in the short term) for the huge expense of beyond-leo manned spaceflight.

Now that may disappoint some but keep in mind that any system which is capable of sending crews to mars' surface, allowing them to live and explore the surface for long periods (500 days), and then safely returning them to the earth will be a HUGELY capable system capable of a great deal more of diverse exploration targets. That means manned missions to comets, asteroids, lunar, and perhaps others(?) can all be attempted as a subset of the mars-focused architecture.

So I would say Mars-first is the way to go, but definitely attempt all that other stuff aswell as a subset of the mars-centric architecture.

That is the most realistic and fundable scenario, IMHO.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Without landings, what does the flexible path have that will interest the public?

You could still have unmanned landings with rovers that would prepare the way for later manned landings. The rovers could sinter a large area to mitigate dust problems, they could prepare launch/landing pads, and berms. This would be great for outreach, school children could help control the rovers and in that way help build a moon base.

The rovers could start doing ISRU experiments. It might be useful to do L1/L2 based telerobotics to control the rovers. With the small time delays it might even be possible to do remote repairs. Maybe you could even put up a large, inflatable, unpressurised shelter to serve as a hangar for a reusable landers and the rovers. This would help protect it from dust, thermal cycles and micrometeoroids.

All this could happen sooner and more cheaply than full landings, whilst making it easier for follow-on landings and whetting the public's appetite for full landings.

You could also do an unmanned Apollo 8 to Mars using moon hardware.

Quote
L2?  We flew to an empty point in space that is interesting to physicists.

Which is also an excellent staging point to the moon, and one that is easier to reach than the moon itself if you don't have heavy lift. Not to mention a strategic staging point on the way to Mars and back. You could try Mars Sample Return to L1/L2 for example. Lagrange points are also good places to station rescue craft. Since they rotate with the moon, a fleet of crew shuttles parked at all Lagrange points would allow quick rescue of a stricken Orion at any point in its transfer orbit. Sun Earth and later Sun Mars Lagrange points could perhaps serve a similar function for Mars missions.

Quote
NEO?  We took a once-in-30 year launch opportunity to fly to an asteroid, orbit it, but not actually get out.

Exciting new kind of mission, excellent precursor to a Mars flyby or Phobos/Deimos mission.

Quote
Even worse, because a flexible path can be done with small rockets (and depots), you risk losing the infrastructure necessary to launch landers. 

Some would see that as a feature, not a bug.

Quote
So you end up stranded in nowhereland forever.

No, the Lagrange points would allow you to go anywhere without needing heavy lift.
« Last Edit: 07/18/2009 03:30 pm by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Moon to Mars + Flexible Path makes some sense. One important thing about small NEOs is, you don't need a landing. You rendezvous and then the astronauts get out of Orion and EVA with AMUs to the surface.

Offline loomy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The goal of NASA isn't and shouldn't be "walk on a planet". 

The constant mission (and in fact goal) should be ambitious innovation and commercial stimulation.  The end-goal is sustainable extra-terran human civilization.

That means doing stuff that has never been done before, and helping others do it for themselves, just FYI.

Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
Moon to Mars, or more completely Moon on the way to Mars, is a scenario in which the primary objective is Mars exploration, and all systems are designed for Mars. Only when it is beneficial to use the Moon as a true test bed for these Mars exploration systems will flights to the Moon be conducted.

This seems to be the most sensible approach if you see Mars as your endpoint as it was originally stated in the Vision for Space Exploration.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
This seems to be the most sensible approach if you see Mars as your endpoint as it was originally stated in the Vision for Space Exploration.

Endpoint? "the Moon, Mars, and beyond"
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline R.Simko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 24
We need to keep Mars in mind as our ultimate destination, but we need to take it in steps.  Land on one or two NEO, then concentrate on Phobos, before we attemp a landing on Mars.  I would also like to put one or two Bigelow habitats in orbit around Mars.  They could act as safety stations, that the astronauts could use in case of emergencies.

I don't see the benifit of going to L2 and think that at first, the crew size should be no larger than 6.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
I don't see the benifit of going to L2

Cheaper, sooner and easier without even needing heavy lift. Plus a strategic asset for later missions.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Tags:
 

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