Concept for crewed 2033 Mars orbital mission (Internal JPL study)

[Zed_Noir]

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. 

[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.

[Surfdaddy]

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.

[JulesVerneATV]

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".

[deltaV]

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.

[Zed_Noir]

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.

[Coastal Ron]

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?

[Phil Stooke]

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. 

[deltaV]

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.

[joek]

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.)

[joek]

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?

[DanClemmensen]

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.

[joek]

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.

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.

[DanClemmensen]

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.

[Zed_Noir]

<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.

[VSECOTSPE]

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.

[deltaV]

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.

[Coastal Ron]

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.

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?

[MickQ]

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.

[Kiwi53]

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