Author Topic: Concept for crewed 2033 Mars orbital mission (Internal JPL study)  (Read 30831 times)


Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2837
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1157
  • Likes Given: 4431
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: 793
  • Seattle
    • Rocket Stack Rank
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 409
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: 2837
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1157
  • Likes Given: 4431
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: 7457
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6062
  • Likes Given: 2535
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: 529
  • e/acc
  • Liked: 596
  • 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: 2837
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1157
  • Likes Given: 4431
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 »

Offline Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4345
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 2328
  • Likes Given: 1369
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: 529
  • e/acc
  • Liked: 596
  • 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: 2821
  • 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: 529
  • e/acc
  • Liked: 596
  • 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