Author Topic: Concept for crewed 2033 Mars orbital mission (Internal JPL study)  (Read 31603 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: 4481
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.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9270
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10740
  • Likes Given: 12347
I'm OK with training trips that progressively expand our competence in space travel.

And I think this JPL plan is trying to create something that requires the LEAST amount of development.

However the only way to get competence in space travel is to have a FREQUENCY of space travel, and any plan that uses the SLS is doomed to be too infrequent and too expensive to allow for any decent flight cadence. In other words, the SLS is so expensive that it forces each mission to take on the HIGHEST amount of risk palatable.

We know how much a Falcon Heavy launch costs (~$100M reusable, $150M expendable), and considering the extra cost for the SLS EUS, the total cost for all the launches is likely to be at least $13B, and they are forecasting it takes them about 5 years from first launch to last launch to assemble the mission.

This also seems to assume that the first operational mission is the first test mission too. Not sure that is a good idea.

Remember when NASA was pushing for funding to build the Nautilus-X? A reusable, space-only, multi-mission exploration spacecraft? That is what America should be working on if the U.S. Government wants to explore space beyond Earth local space.

So while I give the JPL proposal kudos for trying to make do with what we currently have, unfortunately what we currently have is not appropriate for leaving Earth local space.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online lykos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 402
  • Greece
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 71
All mission plans to moon, mars or elsewhere which includes SLS are only feeding the pig and not worth the paper written on.

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1322
  • Liked: 1976
  • Likes Given: 1530
Looks like a mission planning training exercise for young engineers.  ???

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
Looks like a mission planning training exercise for young engineers.  ???
Looks like it. However Hoppy Price's name is on the proposal.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2307
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 262
Interesting but I suspect much too expensive.  Reminds me of Boeing IMIS and the attendant Lander represented my model.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
.....Interesting but I suspect much too expensive.....
Heh, it is only expensive if you included the 4 SLS Block 2 and the Orion capsule for the proposed short stay orbital mission. Take away the ~$13B+ in cost of those 5 items, then the mission seems somewhat affordable.
 

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1615
  • Liked: 1939
  • Likes Given: 9778
Wonderful. Four astronauts get to spend over a year and a half in zero-g, without even a period of Martian gravity, just to NOT land on Mars. What can they accomplish that unmanned missions cannot and that can justify the extremely high cost of such a proposal? Apollo 10 not landing on the Moon made sense at the time. This does not.
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • Liked: 2697
  • Likes Given: 5202
Goes out of its way to avoid ‘DEPOT’ even with hypergolics, wow.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Another recent fiso presentation from Boeing about their 2033 Mars flyby concept. Not related to the JPL study, but I don't think we need multiple threads for deadbeat concepts like these.

Offline freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Liked: 1294
  • Likes Given: 3675
Another recent fiso presentation from Boeing about their 2033 Mars flyby concept. Not related to the JPL study, but I don't think we need multiple threads for deadbeat concepts like these.

My favorite part is the label on the graphic that says "Trash disposal/ Cubesat dispenser"

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • Liked: 2697
  • Likes Given: 5202
Another recent fiso presentation from Boeing about their 2033 Mars flyby concept. Not related to the JPL study, but I don't think we need multiple threads for deadbeat concepts like these.

My favorite part is the label on the graphic that says "Trash disposal/ Cubesat dispenser"

That’s a winner for sure. My fave is the subtly shifting scale on the charts. Is a Cargo SLS 40mt tall, or 50mt?

Offline freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Liked: 1294
  • Likes Given: 3675
Another recent fiso presentation from Boeing about their 2033 Mars flyby concept. Not related to the JPL study, but I don't think we need multiple threads for deadbeat concepts like these.

My favorite part is the label on the graphic that says "Trash disposal/ Cubesat dispenser"

That’s a winner for sure. My fave is the subtly shifting scale on the charts. Is a Cargo SLS 40mt tall, or 50mt?

Oops.    Stupid hard to understand ... that axis is "payload mass".   The rockets are just visual clutter.

Why is the rocket sometimes labeled "Block 2" and sometimes "SLS block 2" ?      And never labeled "Mega Moon Rocket" ?

Offline Barley

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1123
  • Liked: 786
  • Likes Given: 441
Acronym list needs updating.

USA - ???
DSB - ???
ECM- ???

Presumably not United States of America's Electronic Counter Measures using Dual Side Band.

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 994
  • Likes Given: 1932
Interesting but I suspect much too expensive.  Reminds me of Boeing IMIS and the attendant Lander represented my model.

Thanks for the IMIS photo. I recognized the shape from IMIS on Astronautix . As for this thread and study-du-jour, I see about 60 or so American Mars mission concepts listed on American Mars Expeditions @ Astronautix. Since Von Braun and the 1960s, that is about one American Mars Mission study per year. Some discussed here in the Historical NSF section and some almost unknown. This JPL study seems the latest in that context.

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.

Quoting from post #1 of this thread, in a very very superficial way, that does not sound very different from, e.g, the EMPIRE studies from the 60s and some of its chemical launch options. It would be fun to dive into deeper comparisons of studies across the decades but that is for another thread.

Offline Surfdaddy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 4619
Is somebody seriously suggesting spending >1.5 years in Orion's volume of space? Or am I missing something?

Offline webdan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 235
  • Clearwater, FL
  • Liked: 252
  • Likes Given: 272
Is somebody seriously suggesting spending >1.5 years in Orion's volume of space? Or am I missing something?

It’s bigger on the inside, like inside the Tardis 😝

But yeah, I hear ya.

Offline whitelancer64

Another recent fiso presentation from Boeing about their 2033 Mars flyby concept. Not related to the JPL study, but I don't think we need multiple threads for deadbeat concepts like these.

I do like that the final slide says "Number Launch Vehicles, if SLS"

Nice subtle way of saying there might be other ways :p
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline whitelancer64

Is somebody seriously suggesting spending >1.5 years in Orion's volume of space? Or am I missing something?

Transit Habitat
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline whitelancer64

Acronym list needs updating.

USA - ???
DSB - ???
ECM- ???

Presumably not United States of America's Electronic Counter Measures using Dual Side Band.

I think...

Universal or Upper Stage Adapter - attaches Orion capsule to SLS.
Deep Space Booster or Bus - the propulsion module.
Enhanced Crew Module? - I think this refers to the habitat.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Surfdaddy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 4619
Is somebody seriously suggesting spending >1.5 years in Orion's volume of space? Or am I missing something?

Transit Habitat

Yes, but the table above for some options says "Crew Vehicle - Mission" as Orion. Are they saying that there still would be a transit habitat in those cases, or that Orion is all there is?

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
Another recent fiso presentation from Boeing about their 2033 Mars flyby concept. Not related to the JPL study, but I don't think we need multiple threads for deadbeat concepts like these.
It is basically the same mission with Boeing's option B and the JPL study just exchanging the hypergolic stages to HydroLox stage for Earth departure.

However Boeing's option A is interesting. It implies that you could do the Mars 2033 flyby with the mission components goes up on other launchers to EML-2. The small crew return capsule with crew could be ferry to EML-2 by a space tug instead of a separate crew transit vehicle that will be abandon at EML-2. Of course Boeing studies will advocate using as many SLS as possible.  ::)


Offline whitelancer64

Is somebody seriously suggesting spending >1.5 years in Orion's volume of space? Or am I missing something?

Transit Habitat

Yes, but the table above for some options says "Crew Vehicle - Mission" as Orion. Are they saying that there still would be a transit habitat in those cases, or that Orion is all there is?

There is a transit habitat in every option.

Crew Vehicle - Mission is saying what happens to the crew vehicle (Orion in 3 cases) during the mission to Mars.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Surfdaddy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 4619
Is somebody seriously suggesting spending >1.5 years in Orion's volume of space? Or am I missing something?

Transit Habitat

Yes, but the table above for some options says "Crew Vehicle - Mission" as Orion. Are they saying that there still would be a transit habitat in those cases, or that Orion is all there is?

There is a transit habitat in every option.

Crew Vehicle - Mission is saying what happens to the crew vehicle (Orion in 3 cases) during the mission to Mars.

Thank you for the clarification.

Offline JulesVerneATV

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 242
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 4
NASA's Crewed Mars Mission Architecture (Current Plan)
This infographic describes NASA's mission plan in detail from first launch to final touchdown back on Earth. (You may need to zoom in to read everything)
https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1745931455199338512
NASA plans to update this mission profile in "a few weeks".

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4481
NASA's Crewed Mars Mission Architecture (Current Plan)
This infographic describes NASA's mission plan in detail from first launch to final touchdown back on Earth. (You may need to zoom in to read everything)

It amazes me how bad many of the crewed Mars architectures that NASA makes are. Using 16 SLS launches adds tens of billions of dollars to the cost. The short-stay architecture makes the ratio of costs to benefits much worse than it could be, both for costs of dollars and for costs of risks to astronaut lives. The infographic shows nuclear power on the surface of Mars and the twitter thread mentions nuclear electric propulsion; I'm skeptical of the cost effectiveness of either use of nuclear for Mars but am less confident in nuclear being wrong than I am in short-stay and SLS being wrong.
« Last Edit: 01/13/2024 05:02 pm by deltaV »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
NASA's Crewed Mars Mission Architecture (Current Plan)
This infographic describes NASA's mission plan in detail from first launch to final touchdown back on Earth.
<snip>
NASA plans to update this mission profile in "a few weeks".

Counted 16 SLS Block 2 and 3 Orion stacks. Which is about $47B with the SLS Block 2 at the bargain price of $2.2B each and the Orion with the freebie European service module at $1B along with $568M for the ground systems per launch. Never mind the cost of the other elements. Just the $47B price tag for the 16 SLS Block 2 launches plus the 3 Orions make this a fantasy Mars architecture for me.

The prices are from the 2022 NASA inspector general report and are marginal cost excluding development cost.

<snip>
It amazes me how bad many of the crewed Mars architectures that NASA makes are. Using 16 SLS launches adds tens of billions of dollars to the cost. The short-stay architecture makes the ratio of costs to benefits much worse than it could be, both for costs of dollars and for costs of risks to astronaut lives. The infographic shows nuclear power on the surface of Mars and the twitter thread mentions nuclear electric propulsion; I'm skeptical of the cost effectiveness of either use of nuclear for Mars but am less confident in nuclear being wrong than I am in short-stay and SLS being wrong.

It always amazed me that who ever makes the NASA crew Mars architectures think they have relatively unlimited budget allocation for a long period of time.

Have the sinking feeling that everything else in this Mars architecture minus the SLS launches and the Orions will likely to cost also about $47B or so to developed and build. That is a lot bucks to get 2 government employees to do a Martian photo shoot.
« Last Edit: 01/13/2024 09:02 pm by Zed_Noir »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9270
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10740
  • Likes Given: 12347
NASA's Crewed Mars Mission Architecture (Current Plan)
This infographic describes NASA's mission plan in detail from first launch to final touchdown back on Earth. (You may need to zoom in to read everything)
{snip}
NASA plans to update this mission profile in "a few weeks".

Boy, this sure seems like proof that NASA doesn't want to leverage the commercial space transportation industry when it goes to Mars.

Which is weird, because NASA relies on the commercial space transportation industry today for launching everything EXCEPT FOR the Orion spacecraft.

So why the change at NASA? Are they being directed to only consider the SLS, which is the MOST EXPENSIVE space transportation system ever built by humanity?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1433
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1512
  • Likes Given: 1
You can't really rely on the commercial option until it's actually shown it will work as intended.  Check out HLS as an example.  Get it flying (plus permission from Congress) and maybe it's time for a new infographic. 

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4481
You can't really rely on the commercial option until it's actually shown it will work as intended.  Check out HLS as an example.  Get it flying (plus permission from Congress) and maybe it's time for a new infographic.

It's far more likely that Starship or New Glenn ends up working than it is that Congress boosts NASA's budget enough to afford an SLS-based Mars mission. So to focus on the most realistic architectures we should focus on ones using commercial lift.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4970
  • Liked: 2874
  • Likes Given: 1118
Boy, this sure seems like proof that NASA doesn't want to leverage the commercial space transportation industry when it goes to Mars.
...

Not that it makes much difference, but they did give some lip service to commercial. Note the "Refilled in Cislunar Space by Commercial Launch Vehicles" (graphic suggests Starship, Blue NG, and Vulcan).

That said, I pretty much ignore anything coming of NASA these days that has SLS or Orion in a plan beyond near-term Artemis missions. Just another attempt to keep SLS and Orion relevant and alive by some at NASA. (Can't fault them, they have their orders, as Sisyphean an effort is it may be.)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4970
  • Liked: 2874
  • Likes Given: 1118
You can't really rely on the commercial option until it's actually shown it will work as intended.  Check out HLS as an example.  Get it flying (plus permission from Congress) and maybe it's time for a new infographic.

And we should put more credence in SLS (Block 2)? Why?

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7496
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6093
  • Likes Given: 2551
You can't really rely on the commercial option until it's actually shown it will work as intended.  Check out HLS as an example.  Get it flying (plus permission from Congress) and maybe it's time for a new infographic.
Congress/NASA had to contract with SpaceX to induce them to work on HLS. NASA/Congress do not need to do anything to get SpaceX to go to Mars: it is SpaceX' stated goal. No permission needed. Of course, Congress/NASA risk the embarrassment of Their brave SLS astronauts being greeted by a bunch of SpaceX tourists when they first step foot on Mars.

You cannot really rely on the SLS/Orion option until it's actually shown to work as intended either.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4970
  • Liked: 2874
  • Likes Given: 1118
Congress/NASA had to contract with SpaceX to induce them to work on HLS.
....
Think "had" and "induced" are not the words you are looking for. SpaceX's and NASA's goals aligned in this case, no more and no less.
Quote
You cannot really rely on the SLS/Orion option until it's actually shown to work as intended either.
Agree. I'd bet SLS/Orion will be dead within 5-6 years, and Starship will be going strong.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7496
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6093
  • Likes Given: 2551
Congress/NASA had to contract with SpaceX to induce them to work on HLS.
....
Think "had" and "induced" are not the words you are looking for. SpaceX's and NASA's goals aligned in this case, no more and no less.
Let me try again. If there had been no Congress/NASA money, SpaceX would not have gone to the Moon. They said as much. This contrasts with Mars, where SpaceX declared that they are going to Mars. I suspect that SpaceX will bid on Congress/NASA Mars contracts, but they would go even if they do not get a contract.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
<snip>
Let me try again. If there had been no Congress/NASA money, SpaceX would not have gone to the Moon. They said as much. This contrasts with Mars, where SpaceX declared that they are going to Mars. I suspect that SpaceX will bid on Congress/NASA Mars contracts, but they would go even if they do not get a contract.
No, don't think SpaceX will bid on any Congress/NASA Mars contracts. SpaceX don't want NASA (really Congressional) oversight on their Mars program. Congress/NASA will likely not be able to bribe/buy their way on to the Martian surface with SpaceX even as paying passengers, IMO.

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Liked: 5685
  • Likes Given: 2
There’s lots of expertise, tech, and/or systems needed to pull off even simple manned Mars missions that SpaceX doesn’t have or isn’t investing in (as far as we know).  I think SpaceX will need some kind of assistance from NASA.  Whether that’s access to subject matter experts on a no-exchange of funds basis, co-investing in key technologies, or as an anchor customer (or something else), I don’t know.  But I think the safe  assumption is that SpaceX can’t pull of its Mars plans without some kind of help from NASA.  Conversely, I would also argue that NASA can’t do manned Mars without an affordable, competent developer and operator like SpaceX.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2024 11:30 am by VSECOTSPE »

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4481
This infographic describes NASA's mission plan in detail from first launch to final touchdown back on Earth. (You may need to zoom in to read everything)

The "source" QR code in the upper right corner points to https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022080/downloads/HEOMD-007%20HEO%20SCOPE%20-%2009-28-2021%20NTRS.pdf (52 pages). I haven't read it yet.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9270
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10740
  • Likes Given: 12347
You can't really rely on the commercial option until it's actually shown it will work as intended.

Let me restate what I said above. Today NASA relies on the commercial launch industry for EVERYTHING EXCEPT flying the Orion.

And the commercial launch industry is not only cost effective, but also very safe. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Quote
Check out HLS as an example.  Get it flying (plus permission from Congress) and maybe it's time for a new infographic.

That infographics shows NASA using the SLS for the Orion, which is no big surprise. But everything else shown on that graphic can be flown by the commercial launch industry for a fraction of the cost of using the SLS.

NASA is already committing to in-space refueling using commercial launchers, which is critical for mission success. But what NASA is NOT doing is relying on commercial launchers for moving cargo to space, even though they could save $Billions per launch.

And that is the head scratcher here - why isn't NASA trying to save the U.S. Taxpayer $Billions?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 967
  • Atherton, Australia.
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 735
I think that this infographic just highlights the fact that NASA cannot go to Mars by themselves.
Maybe that is the intent.  To show that SLS based architecture is just not affordable.

It will be interesting to see what the upcoming update shows.

Offline Kiwi53

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 182
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 286
Congress/NASA risk the embarrassment of their brave SLS astronauts being greeted by a bunch of SpaceX tourists when they first step foot on Mars.

Actually it's much worse than that
On that architecture, Congress/NASA actually risk the embarrassment of their single pair of brave SLS astronauts being greeted when they first step foot on Mars by a small crowd of dozens of SpaceX settlers who are offering to sell them "fresh water just boiled out of the Martian glaciers and not filtered several times through anybody's kidneys, and some Martian greens picked from our glasshouse this morning"


Edit: Spelling
« Last Edit: 01/13/2024 11:25 pm by Kiwi53 »


Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4481
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20240000267/downloads/Trent%20MACHETE%20SciTech2024%20Presentation.pdf

The architecture in those slides has some similarities with likely SpaceX Mars architectures: using methane, ISRU, Starship-shaped combined Mars ascent/descent vehicle, and propellant transfer. It has some huge differences though. Firstly it leaves 2 people in Mars orbit whereas SpaceX will probably land everything. Secondly it uses short stay (opposition class), whereas I'd guess SpaceX will probably use long stay (conjunction class).


Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1322
  • Liked: 1976
  • Likes Given: 1530
And that is the head scratcher here - why isn't NASA trying to save the U.S. Taxpayer $Billions?
Your question is rhetorical of course  ;) and the simple answer is that Boeing, Lockheed, etc., and their geographically vast armies of subcontractors represent huge value for both our elected representatives (bacon = reelection = continued power/perqs/wealth) and government officials (revolving door = continued power/perqs/wealth). SpaceX offers nearly zero of the former, and very little of the latter (acknowledging Gerst and Lueders). Saving the taxpayers’ money is a very low-value proposition, completely unnecessary for either group to remain in place and rewarded in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

Edit, just to emphasize that last sentence—if that isn’t gobsmackingly obvious to everyone at this point… I’m not sure we’re all sharing the same reality!  :o :-\ ;D
« Last Edit: 01/14/2024 07:35 pm by punder »

Offline Greg Hullender

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Seattle
    • Rocket Stack Rank
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 410
A slightly less cynical answer is in this quote by Machiavelli:
Quote
“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”

Before NASA (or Congress) abandons SLS, Starship needs to prove itself thoroughly. That means actually reaching orbit, getting reused, and--most important--getting refueled. All of that needs to work. Otherwise, Starship can't do the same things SLS can do. You can argue that, at this point, it seems pretty clear that it really is going to work, but then I'd direct you to this Upton Sinclair quote:
Quote
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”


Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4481
Before NASA (or Congress) abandons SLS, Starship needs to prove itself thoroughly. That means actually reaching orbit, getting reused, and--most important--getting refueled. All of that needs to work. Otherwise, Starship can't do the same things SLS can do.

If Starship booster reuse works but upper stage reuse and refueling don't work it should still be possible for Starship to be cheaper and better than SLS at SLS's purpose, namely sending mass to LEO or TLI, if a new third stage using 1 Raptor is added to Starship. However you're probably right that convincing NASA and Congress will be hard before SpaceX either executes its current Starship plans successfully or changes its plans and executes the new plans successfully.

BTW convincing NASA and Congress will be easier once both Starship and New Glenn orbit successfully. That will keep people from using the argument that a government monopoly is better than a private monopoly.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7496
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6093
  • Likes Given: 2551
A slightly less cynical answer is in this quote by Machiavelli:
Quote
“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”

Before NASA (or Congress) abandons SLS, Starship needs to prove itself thoroughly. That means actually reaching orbit, getting reused, and--most important--getting refueled. All of that needs to work. Otherwise, Starship can't do the same things SLS can do. You can argue that, at this point, it seems pretty clear that it really is going to work, but then I'd direct you to this Upton Sinclair quote:
Quote
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
SLS has flown once. Orion has not flown with its environmental system or its docking system. You seem to be holding Starship to a much higher standard. Neither system has demonstrated that it can do the job required of it.

Offline thespacecow

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • e/acc
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 184
At this stage of the game, one should seriously consider decoupling cancellation of SLS from removing SLS' influence on the Mars architecture, the two goals are not the same thing anymore.

In other words, it should be possible and may be even desirable to keep SLS around while at the same time forcing NASA and Congress to adapt an effective Mars architecture, which at this point is SpaceX's Starship architecture.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4481
The "source" QR code in the upper right corner points to https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022080/downloads/HEOMD-007%20HEO%20SCOPE%20-%2009-28-2021%20NTRS.pdf (52 pages).

That document proposes NASA eventually having simultaneous programs for LEO, lunar surface (including a moon base), and Mars surface. NASA has often struggled to afford LEO and lunar simultaneously so it seems implausible for them to be able to add Mars too. To do so they'd either need a big budget boost or very effective cost cutting. A big budget boost seems practically impossible unless another country such as China starts embarrassing the US in space. Effective cost cutting is possible in theory but NASA doesn't seem to be planning the needed changes such as canceling SLS.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2024 02:50 am by deltaV »

Online Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4370
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 2338
  • Likes Given: 1374
Honestly, cancelling SLS isn't strictly necessary

I expect just business-as-usual. NASA and Congress will continue their dance to periodically rename-wash (ie "cancel" and re-form from the ashes) the Constellation/Ares V "Flexible Path"/SLS Artemis/SLS/Gateway post-Shuttle jobs program. Meanwhile they'll pay peanuts to SpaceX to actually go places. The impedance mismatch will be papered over with flowery language.

It's been working for decades. Why stop now?

Offline thespacecow

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • e/acc
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 184
The "source" QR code in the upper right corner points to https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022080/downloads/HEOMD-007%20HEO%20SCOPE%20-%2009-28-2021%20NTRS.pdf (52 pages).

That document proposes NASA eventually having simultaneous programs for LEO, lunar surface (including a moon base), and Mars surface. NASA has often struggled to afford LEO and lunar simultaneously so it seems implausible for them to be able to add Mars too. To do so they'd either need a big budget boost or very effective cost cutting. A big budget boost seems practically impossible unless another country such as China starts embarrassing the US in space. Effective cost cutting is possible in theory but NASA doesn't seem to be planning the needed changes such as canceling SLS.

NASA has ~$11.7B under Exploration and Space Operations account in 2023 budget, subtracting ~$4.8B of SLS/Orion/EGS, they still have ~$7B. Say they put $500M in LEO, $2.5B for the Moon and $4B for Mars, that should be enough for maintaining a LEO presence and building a base on the Moon and Mars, if they bet everything on Starship.

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2823
  • UK
  • Liked: 1902
  • Likes Given: 834
The "source" QR code in the upper right corner points to https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022080/downloads/HEOMD-007%20HEO%20SCOPE%20-%2009-28-2021%20NTRS.pdf (52 pages).

That document proposes NASA eventually having simultaneous programs for LEO, lunar surface (including a moon base), and Mars surface. NASA has often struggled to afford LEO and lunar simultaneously so it seems implausible for them to be able to add Mars too. To do so they'd either need a big budget boost or very effective cost cutting. A big budget boost seems practically impossible unless another country such as China starts embarrassing the US in space. Effective cost cutting is possible in theory but NASA doesn't seem to be planning the needed changes such as canceling SLS.

NASA has ~$11.7B under Exploration and Space Operations account in 2023 budget, subtracting ~$4.8B of SLS/Orion/EGS, they still have ~$7B. Say they put $500M in LEO, $2.5B for the Moon and $4B for Mars, that should be enough for maintaining a LEO presence and building a base on the Moon and Mars, if they bet everything on Starship.
I think that any significant spending by NASA on things like Mars bases would have to be specifically authorised by Congress.
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Offline thespacecow

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • e/acc
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 184
NASA has ~$11.7B under Exploration and Space Operations account in 2023 budget, subtracting ~$4.8B of SLS/Orion/EGS, they still have ~$7B. Say they put $500M in LEO, $2.5B for the Moon and $4B for Mars, that should be enough for maintaining a LEO presence and building a base on the Moon and Mars, if they bet everything on Starship.
I think that any significant spending by NASA on things like Mars bases would have to be specifically authorised by Congress.

It does, that's why I think SLS can be used as a bargaining chip: Keep Congress' favorite boondoggle around in exchange for permanent bases on the Moon and Mars.

Tags:
 

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