Mmm they're struggling to get the Mars sample return mission done by then. So what are the chances?
...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). ...
...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.
....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.....
A crewed Mars orbital-only mission is a bit silly. Long stay or nothing.
Looks like a mission planning training exercise for young engineers.
.....Interesting but I suspect much too expensive.....
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.
Quote from: su27k on 05/03/2022 12:17 pmAnother 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"
Quote from: freddo411 on 05/03/2022 02:24 pmQuote from: su27k on 05/03/2022 12:17 pmAnother 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?
Interesting but I suspect much too expensive. Reminds me of Boeing IMIS and the attendant Lander represented my model.
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.
Is somebody seriously suggesting spending >1.5 years in Orion's volume of space? Or am I missing something?
Acronym list needs updating.USA - DSB - ECM- Presumably not United States of America's Electronic Counter Measures using Dual Side Band.
Quote from: Surfdaddy on 05/03/2022 09:39 pmIs somebody seriously suggesting spending >1.5 years in Orion's volume of space? Or am I missing something?Transit Habitat
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 05/03/2022 10:01 pmQuote from: Surfdaddy on 05/03/2022 09:39 pmIs somebody seriously suggesting spending >1.5 years in Orion's volume of space? Or am I missing something?Transit HabitatYes, 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?
Quote from: Surfdaddy on 05/04/2022 03:59 amQuote from: whitelancer64 on 05/03/2022 10:01 pmQuote from: Surfdaddy on 05/03/2022 09:39 pmIs somebody seriously suggesting spending >1.5 years in Orion's volume of space? Or am I missing something?Transit HabitatYes, 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.
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)
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".
<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.
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".
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.
Boy, this sure seems like proof that NASA doesn't want to leverage the commercial space transportation industry when it goes to Mars....
Congress/NASA had to contract with SpaceX to induce them to work on HLS.....
You cannot really rely on the SLS/Orion option until it's actually shown to work as intended either.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/13/2024 07:32 pmCongress/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.
<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.
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)
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 risk the embarrassment of their brave SLS astronauts being greeted by a bunch of SpaceX tourists when they first step foot on Mars.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20240000267/downloads/Trent%20MACHETE%20SciTech2024%20Presentation.pdf
https://twitter.com/jenakuns/status/1746143576734793955https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230017880/downloads/Trent%20MACHETE%20SciTech2024%20Manuscript%20v3.pdfhttps://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20240000267/downloads/Trent%20MACHETE%20SciTech2024%20Presentation.pdf
And that is the head scratcher here - why isn't NASA trying to save the U.S. Taxpayer $Billions?
“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.”
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
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.
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.”
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).
Quote from: deltaV on 01/13/2024 10:01 pmThe "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.
Quote from: deltaV on 01/17/2024 02:17 amQuote from: deltaV on 01/13/2024 10:01 pmThe "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.
Quote from: thespacecow on 01/18/2024 03:53 amNASA 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.
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.