Author Topic: Concept for crewed 2033 Mars orbital mission (Internal JPL study)  (Read 31614 times)

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
We got an internal JPL study for 570 day crewed 2033 Mars orbital mission using current technology systems from FISO presentation by Hoppy Price on March 30th. Price is the chief engineer of the NASA's robotic Mars Exploration program. Links to the audio & slide presentations below.

audio link (http://fiso.spiritastro.net/telecon/Price_3-30-22/Price.mp3)

powerpoint slides link (http://fiso.spiritastro.net/telecon/Price_3-30-22/Price_3-30-22.pptx)

In summary. The proposal is to do a short duration opposition class manned mission to orbited  Mars for 31 days launching in early 2033. Hardware required is 4 SLS Block 2 and 13 expendable Falcon Heavy launchers. Along with 17 hypergolic propulsion stages of 4 different tankage size, a 40 tonne transit habitat and a partial fueled Orion vehicle. THe return to Earth leg of the mission uses a Venusian gravity assist.

Plus there are follow on mission proposals for manned short stay and manned long stay on the Martian surface.

Will posted some presentation slides later.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2022 10:09 pm by Zed_Noir »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
The mission flow chart for short duration orbital 2033 Mars mission.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
Chart of the notional launchers and payloads for the short duration orbital 2033 Mars mission.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
mission design presentation slide for the short duration orbital 2033 Mars mission.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
Have some questions on several issues with the presentation.

It seems that the hypergolic propulsion modules have to be attached to the vehicle stacks by docking in orbit. So it is strange that the SLS Block 2 is needed for the 100+ tonne unitary TEI (Trans-Earth Injection) stages and the integrated Mars Transit stack (IMTS). When the TEI stages and the IMTS could be assembled in orbit from smaller components lifted by commercial launchers. It will be a lot cheaper not using the SLS Block 2 at $3B+ per launch.

The Orion is over qualified as crew taxi. Probably could use something like a Crew Dragon instead.

Don't understand why this mission proposal need that many types of hypergolic stages of different sizes.

Finally what is the point of an orbital Mars mission. Which will only delay a Mars surface mission for many years.

« Last Edit: 04/10/2022 10:46 pm by Zed_Noir »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
The mission flow chart for follow-on long stay crewed Mars surface mission. Of note is the 10 meter diameter Mars landers using scaled up EDL hardware with heritage from the Viking landers.

Offline jdon759

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 108
The orbital mission would be very nice.  A manned orbit of Mars and flyby of Venus!  The opportunity to be in space close above three different planets in the same mission would be quite something.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2022 11:09 pm by jdon759 »
Where would we be today if our forefathers hadn't dreamt of where they'd be tomorrow?  (For better and worse)

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7704
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2457
  • Likes Given: 2287
Comparing orbital to surface missions is okay, but the better comparison might be between a Mars orbit mission and a Phobos lander mission. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/mars-moons/phobos/in-depth/

An established (even if rarely occupied) base on Phobos might provide a safe haven for crewed Mars missions of any sort where something went wrong leaving the trans-Earth propulsion unusable.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Previous incarnation of this study: A Minimal Architecture for Human Journeys to Mars (JPL)

They have been doing this for a few years now, I don't see much point to it.

Offline daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 977
  • uk
  • Liked: 508
  • Likes Given: 0
Mmm they're struggling to get the Mars sample return mission done by then. So what are the chances?

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
The presentation slides for the Mars Entry Descend and Landing concept and the scaled up Viking heritage Mars manned lander/cargo lander.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
On the EDL concept slide it is stated the lander have  a wet mass of 75 tonnes and a useful landed mass of 28 tonnes. Does the useful landed mass included the ascend module with propellant?

Roughly measure the lander crew module as ~3.5 meter diameter with height of ~3.5 meter. So likely 2 decks and maybe an airlock. Not a lot of volume for a crew of 4 and their EVA suits plus enough consumables for 2 weeks.

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Liked: 1731
  • Likes Given: 615
Is this JPL study funded by Aerojet-Rocketdyne by any chance? Because whenever I see proposals to resurrect RS-72 or XLR-132, let alone use 17 such hypergolic stages, I assume that AJR must have something to do with it. They were pushing for HLS to use an integrated hypergolic lander based on out-of-production engines and launched on SLS Block 1B.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Mmm they're struggling to get the Mars sample return mission done by then. So what are the chances?

The way I read it, they're not proposing JPL implementing any part of the plan, they're just throwing the idea out there for others to see. Although I don't understand their motivation to do this study given their focus is unmanned exploration, maybe it's just a training exercise.

Offline Nathan2go

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • United States
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 60
I think it's a great idea!  Not because Mars orbit is a great destination, but because it strikes me as modest and viable way for NASA to participate in a Mars mission; it's a small enough commitment that maybe they'll do it in parallel with Artemis, without feeling the need to do the Moon exclusively for twenty or thirty year before moving on to Mars.

They have to kick-off the program with a mission plan that is not dependent on any one vendor (i.e. they need a path to "success" that works even without Superheavy Starship).

But once they have a mission to spend a month in Mars orbit, if they had a vendor who could put a fully-stocked backup hab in Mars orbit, for say, a couple of billion dollars, that would be a reasonable mission-upgrade.  So they pay SpaceX to put a heat shield and Elonerons on the Artemis Lunar HLS Starship, so that it can aero-brake into Mars orbit.  Now there's a customer for Mars Starship.

If you add a 100m long truss to attach Starship to Orion & the MTH, you can spin it for artificial gravity, so a 1.5 year long-stay orbit mission becomes viable.  But of course NASA can say the mission is just 30 days, with a plan to enter the Starship "just for testing"; if the testing goes well, they can extend the mission; otherwise they declare victory and go to Venus and home.

If SpaceX self-funds a Mars landing, then maybe Europe or Japan would pay to make some heavy rovers for the team in Mars orbit to remotely drive around and do stuff.

For the follow-on mission to Mars surface.  Again, it starts out with a nominal plan to stay only a couple of weeks.  But as they say, if there are supplies and a hab pre-positioned on the surface (e.g. by Starship), then it would be extended.  That also provides another revenue opportunity for SpaceX.

So the very existence of a NASA Mars orbital mission makes it easier for SpaceX to get both NASA support and investor support for their own Mars plans.
 
If SpaceX sends colonists to Mars before NASA astronauts, that actually works too, as long as the NASA team would be the first to return to Earth, so NASA could claim that achievement.  I think the first Starship crew to go to Mars will likely stay 5 years or more, since returning on Starship gets progressively easier and safer after more infrastructure is in place and more experience is gained.

...
It seems that the hypergolic propulsion modules have to be attached to the vehicle stacks by docking in orbit.   So it is strange that the SLS Block 2 is needed for the 100+ tonne unitary TEI (Trans-Earth Injection) stages and the integrated Mars Transit stack (IMTS). ...
Yeah, I would think propellant transfer would be preferable to staging, since the transfer would be done in LEO where it is easier to re-do a failed step.  But I guess the crew doesn't board until the trans-Mar stack reaches the high Earth orbit, where there is presumably is only one departure stage left.

But I suspect that the 100+ ton stack (the hab, MOI, and getting-back-home stages) is considered more reliable if launched in once piece, rather than stacked on orbit.

Maybe in the next round of Artemis bids, the other teams will also decide to bid on-orbit propellant transfer, rather that simple docking.  With a quick flight demo, that could legitimize it for Mars as well.

Quote from: Zed_Noir
...
The Orion is over qualified as crew taxi. Probably could use something like a Crew Dragon instead.
I think the main value of Orion is the lobbying power of the vendor.  NASA needs help persuading Congress to keep the funding turned-on.

Quote from: Zed_Noir
Don't understand why this mission proposal need that many types of hypergolic stages of different sizes.
That's probably just notional.  In practice, it's is probably just one or two sizes, with different propellant loads as needed.
« Last Edit: 04/12/2022 03:12 am by Nathan2go »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
....
But I suspect that the 100+ ton stack (the hab, MOI, and getting-back-home stages) is considered more reliable if launched in once piece, rather than stacked on orbit.
....
The integrated Mars Transit stack (hab, MOI stage & EDS stage) along with 3 boost stages launched separately have to be assembled in LEO before Earth departure. So basically traded a couple extra docking operation for a SLS launch for $3B+ more.

The Trans Earth Injection (get home) stack consists of 2 TEI stages of about 115 tonnes each preposition with separate flights to HMO for stacking in the Martian orbit. If they just simply use 4 boost stages instead of the 2 TEI stages. Then 2 SLS is not required along with $6B+ in cost.

The SLS in this plan are Block 2 variants. So more than likely to cost more than the SLS Block 1 for Artemis I thru Artemis III. Just the 4 SLS launches for this plan is at least $12B over a period of 2 years.

« Last Edit: 04/12/2022 05:22 pm by Zed_Noir »

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1454
  • Liked: 740
  • Likes Given: 678
Is it possible that this study is a spoiler, intended to show how little a manned mission to Mars can do and how complex, dangerous and expensive it is? Perhaps it is out there to head off attempts to cancel unmanned MSR.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25598
  • Likes Given: 12246
A crewed Mars orbital-only mission is a bit silly. Long stay or nothing.
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 Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
A crewed Mars orbital-only mission is a bit silly. Long stay or nothing.
Agree. But a Mars orbital mission with Venus flyby on the return leg that is cheap might be worthwhile to consider as one shot precursor mission for follow-on Mars surface missions. If the folks from Hawthorne or someone else don't landed something crewed on the Martian surface by 2031. Of course any Mars missions that required a SLS launch is too costly IMO.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4483
A crewed Mars orbital-only mission is a bit silly. Long stay or nothing.

IMO a mission to Mars's moons, which is very similar to an orbital-only mission, would be a reasonable first mission. The idea is making the first mission easier and cheaper while still using a lot of the same hardware and giving the astronauts somewhere they can stick shovels in.

I agree with you that "short stay" (a.k.a. opposition class) mission profiles are silly.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0