-
NASA Exploration Roadmap: The evaluation of crewed missions to Asteroids by Chris Bergin on 24 Mar, 2012 03:50
-
Part 2 from the ESD Con Ops Exploration Roadmap Document (L2). This one specific to NEA:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/nasa-exploration-roadmap-evaluation-crewed-missions-asteroids/
Enjoy!
-
#1 by RocketmanUS on 24 Mar, 2012 04:39
-
NEO 1999AO10
155 day mission in year 2026
That would be on OK side mission. Short enough for crew safety.
As long as we do not loose site of the Mars missions.
We could have moon missions while we have the NEO mission. -
#2 by Robotbeat on 24 Mar, 2012 06:03
-
NEO 1999AO10
The Advanced Capability (and full capability) NEA missions have pretty similar (if not identical!) requirements to a manned Mars mission, depending on just how powerful the SEP stage is.
155 day mission in year 2026
That would be on OK side mission. Short enough for crew safety.
As long as we do not loose site of the Mars missions.
...
Using low-thrust propulsion, a short-stay Opposition-class mission might need ~20 or so km/s delta-v even from EML1/2, whereas a Conjunction-class mission might need only 12-15km/s from EML1/2. Whether you capture back into EML1/2 (if you do, it's possible to avoid bringing an Orion with you, at least according to Boeing...) or whether you just arrive at high speed in an Orion also affects the delta-v situation, as does the decision to visit Phobos or Deimos or leave the exploration stack at high Mars orbit and just explore the moons with an SEV or even just Orion by itself. And, of course, time-of-flight and if you do a Venus swingby (powered?) and if you get an initial impulsive kick from a CPS all factor in there...
The point is that if you have a powerful enough SEP unit (and a healthy push by an iCPS/CPS and maybe direct entry on return), you can get to Mars orbit and back in the same vehicle as would for an advanced NEA mission. But we're talking Megawatt-class SEP, here.
Good article!
-
#3 by Halidon on 24 Mar, 2012 08:53
-
Wow, that SLS launch rate is distressingly low.
-
#4 by DavisSTS on 24 Mar, 2012 09:47
-
Great article! That's a lot of upmass. Speaking of launch rate, not sure how you improve that with other launchers. You'd need about eight Falcon Heavies?
-
#5 by MATTBLAK on 24 Mar, 2012 10:05
-
Wow, that SLS launch rate is distressingly low.
Yes; partly because of budget. To speed up the launch rate, NASA would need a higher Exploration budget and perhaps a third launchpad too. Getting 39A and B ready for the next launches takes time and money. With a Pad 39C the pressure would be off somewhat to refurbish A & B in time for their next launches.
I know that before Apollo and Apollo Applications were cancelled there were plans pencilled in to build 39C. In fact, somewhere here on Nasaspaceflight.com someone posted a picture of the plans. But to build 39C now would probably be at least a $5 billion dollar project. But what an asset it would be for a Heavy Exploration program!!
With those three pads in operation plus 2x pads capable of launching Falcon Heavies I could imagine a big 'BEO' mission being assembled out of a relatively quick 'salvo' campaign of launches. But just a small, dark suspicion of mine: is the SLS launch rate being made to look as unattractive as possible? After all - with 39A & B, NASA used to be able to get up to six or seven Shuttle missions aloft per year. Assuming that launch rate would be stifled or halved by a low budget, would that not still mean that three SLS could be sent aloft in one year? Or is the budgetary situation and my naivety worse than I thought? -
#6 by Paul Howard on 24 Mar, 2012 11:54
-
Lots of info! Thanks for another excellent article Chris.
Having said that I'm no massive fan of going to to a NEA. I'd rather have a moon base. -
#7 by JohnFornaro on 24 Mar, 2012 15:58
-
I just had a read of Chris' latest article, "NASA Exploration Roadmap: The evaluation of crewed missions to Asteroids".
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/nasa-exploration-roadmap-evaluation-crewed-missions-asteroids/
Not unexpectedly, I believe that the Administration is ill advised to suggest a manned NEO (and now they're calling 'em NEA's, just to be different) mission of any sort in advance of the beginning construction of an intentionally designed permanent human lunar base. In the continual debate on this forum, it is often pointed out that a lunar lander would be necessary for any lunar base, which is obvious, of course. It is then added that a lander for a tumbling rock would be much cheaper to design and build, due only to the shallowness of the expected gravity well, thus this reason alone is a sufficient showstopper for working on a lunar base.
The very first picture in Chris' article shows this to be a completely false analysis. Check out that hab, which is assumed to be "free" in the simplistic argument above. Also have a gander at the "500 Day Configuration" picture.Then there's the SEV picture. Such a craft would probably offer a shirtsleeve environment for the astros to pick at the rock, and take detailed pictures of any possible monolith to be found there. This is probably the "lander" that is thought to be "cheaper" than the passe four legged lunar landers which are illustrated in most lunar proposals.
I can see some of the counter arguments already: But John's proposing a lunar base for four astros, what about all that infrastructure? And how do you feed them for 500 days? And what about the radiation exposure they'll get? And everything has to be launched from Earth? And where's the money?
The lander argument only compares, well, the landers, concluding, falsely, that a lunar manned mission would be impossible. But a NEO? Think of the inspiration to the children! And it's cheaper!
A level playing field would suggest trading the two missions with the same budget and the same duration: 500 days, and put a valuation on the handful of dust, rocks, and ice cubes brought back by the one mission. Compare that value with the other mission of the same cost, providing 500 days of on the ground science, characterizing the ice fields, setting up the power system, assaying the mineral content and geology of a broad region, setting the stage for a new private economy.
But corporate insiders don't like level playing fields, nor do they like the idea of expanding economies of regular people. And it has nothing, really, to do with Dems and Reps; both parties propose impossible dreams of little utility.
There is simply no rational basis to be considering a manned mission to a NEO at this time. -
#8 by RocketmanUS on 24 Mar, 2012 16:29
-
From what I understood was they had plans to launch as many as 24 shuttles a year before Challenger in early 1986.Wow, that SLS launch rate is distressingly low.
Yes; partly because of budget. To speed up the launch rate, NASA would need a higher Exploration budget and perhaps a third launchpad too. Getting 39A and B ready for the next launches takes time and money. With a Pad 39C the pressure would be off somewhat to refurbish A & B in time for their next launches.
I know that before Apollo and Apollo Applications were cancelled there were plans pencilled in to build 39C. In fact, somewhere here on Nasaspaceflight.com someone posted a picture of the plans. But to build 39C now would probably be at least a $5 billion dollar project. But what an asset it would be for a Heavy Exploration program!!
With those three pads in operation plus 2x pads capable of launching Falcon Heavies I could imagine a big 'BEO' mission being assembled out of a relatively quick 'salvo' campaign of launches. But just a small, dark suspicion of mine: is the SLS launch rate being made to look as unattractive as possible? After all - with 39A & B, NASA used to be able to get up to six or seven Shuttle missions aloft per year. Assuming that launch rate would be stifled or halved by a low budget, would that not still mean that three SLS could be sent aloft in one year? Or is the budgetary situation and my naivety worse than I thought?
Would it be reasonable to think that they might be planning on other launches for SLS in that same time period like for a lunar mission. Alternating the flights between the two. Or it could be as what has been said, mission planned for low budget.
Pad C would not be needed unless flight got close to 24 per year ( highly unlikely though ). -
#9 by LegendCJS on 24 Mar, 2012 16:36
-
I just had a read of Chris' latest article, "NASA Exploration Roadmap: The evaluation of crewed missions to Asteroids".
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/nasa-exploration-roadmap-evaluation-crewed-missions-asteroids/
Not unexpectedly, I believe that the Administration is ill advised to suggest a manned NEO (and now they're calling 'em NEA's, just to be different) mission of any sort in advance of the beginning construction of an intentionally designed permanent human lunar base. In the continual debate on this forum, it is often pointed out that a lunar lander would be necessary for any lunar base, which is obvious, of course. It is then added that a lander for a tumbling rock would be much cheaper to design and build, due only to the shallowness of the expected gravity well, thus this reason alone is a sufficient showstopper for working on a lunar base.
The very first picture in Chris' article shows this to be a completely false analysis. Check out that hab, which is assumed to be "free" in the simplistic argument above. Also have a gander at the "500 Day Configuration" picture.Then there's the SEV picture. Such a craft would probably offer a shirtsleeve environment for the astros to pick at the rock, and take detailed pictures of any possible monolith to be found there. This is probably the "lander" that is thought to be "cheaper" than the passe four legged lunar landers which are illustrated in most lunar proposals.
I can see some of the counter arguments already: But John's proposing a lunar base for four astros, what about all that infrastructure? And how do you feed them for 500 days? And what about the radiation exposure they'll get? And everything has to be launched from Earth? And where's the money?
The lander argument only compares, well, the landers, concluding, falsely, that a lunar manned mission would be impossible. But a NEO? Think of the inspiration to the children! And it's cheaper!
A level playing field would suggest trading the two missions with the same budget and the same duration: 500 days, and put a valuation on the handful of dust, rocks, and ice cubes brought back by the one mission. Compare that value with the other mission of the same cost, providing 500 days of on the ground science, characterizing the ice fields, setting up the power system, assaying the mineral content and geology of a broad region, setting the stage for a new private economy.
But corporate insiders don't like level playing fields, nor do they like the idea of expanding economies of regular people. And it has nothing, really, to do with Dems and Reps; both parties propose impossible dreams of little utility.
There is simply no rational basis to be considering a manned mission to a NEO at this time.
John, did we read the same article? Why are you fixating on some "'lander?" I saw no talk of a lander. You seem to be transmogrifying the SEV, which is mostly just a large truss with solar panels, radiators and some outsized station keeping thrusters into an asteroid lander. Then you start wildly postulating super-expensive sounding capabilities for your fantasy of the SEV "lander" like allowing "astros" to touch the asteroid without a spacesuit on. Where is this coming from?
It is not a lander, and most all of its components are just versions of hardware currently in use. Your point about it being just as hard/expensive to develop as a lunar lander is hard to understand.
And don't get me started with your level playing field logic: You claim an equal budget comparison, but your NEA mission only manages to go somewhere with a negligible gravity well and brings back some samples, while the moon mission starts building a city on the moon and some how you think these things will cost the same? -
#10 by Chris Bergin on 24 Mar, 2012 16:41
-
The very first picture in Chris' article
Also have a gander at the "500 Day Configuration" picture.
Then there's the SEV picture.
I'd advise to be careful on the images. I was using slides from a number of presentations (simply because there isn't a set concept, so it's good to show the various ideas on the table). The Con Ops is heavy on text, as opposed to graphics. -
#11 by TomH on 24 Mar, 2012 18:30
-
Wow, that SLS launch rate is distressingly low.
Yes; partly because of budget. To speed up the launch rate, NASA would need a higher Exploration budget and perhaps a third launchpad too. Getting 39A and B ready for the next launches takes time and money. With a Pad 39C the pressure would be off somewhat to refurbish A & B in time for their next launches.
I know that before Apollo and Apollo Applications were cancelled there were plans pencilled in to build 39C. In fact, somewhere here on Nasaspaceflight.com someone posted a picture of the plans. But to build 39C now would probably be at least a $5 billion dollar project. But what an asset it would be for a Heavy Exploration program!!
With those three pads in operation plus 2x pads capable of launching Falcon Heavies I could imagine a big 'BEO' mission being assembled out of a relatively quick 'salvo' campaign of launches. But just a small, dark suspicion of mine: is the SLS launch rate being made to look as unattractive as possible? After all - with 39A & B, NASA used to be able to get up to six or seven Shuttle missions aloft per year. Assuming that launch rate would be stifled or halved by a low budget, would that not still mean that three SLS could be sent aloft in one year? Or is the budgetary situation and my naivety worse than I thought?
If such a high launch rate could miraculously be afforded someday, rather than $5B on Pad 39C, since AV will be man rated for CCDev by such time, why not spend only a fraction of that $5B to transition to a 1.5 launch architecture by qualifying AVH or AVP2? SLS could become cargo only and Orion would go to EOR via Atlas just prior to deep space departure. The rest of the deep space hardware needs to be assembled in LEO prior to crew arrival anyway. Sending the crewed Orion on SLS at the end of the rendezvous mainfest is an overuse of launch capacity. Why use a full SLS Block II to send up the crewed Orion at the end of assembly? The Atlas is all that's needed to get them there. Building a new pad for AVH and AVP2 would be cheaper than 39C and the new Atlas pad could be used for launches other than Orion as well. -
#12 by MATTBLAK on 24 Mar, 2012 19:56
-
EDIT: The 'Pad 39C' concept wouldn't have to look exactly like the previous at all - other than being big. Slide-on, slide-off adaptors, platforms and other equipment - a variation of 'clean-pad' - so it could be made to allow 2 or 3 different launchers use the facility.
-
#13 by Robotbeat on 24 Mar, 2012 20:10
-
The 'Pad 39C' concept wouldn't have to look exactly like the previous at all - other than being big. Slide-on, slide-off adaptors, platforms and other equipment could be made to make 2 or 3 different launchers use the facility.
The Pad 39C concept exists in a world very different from the one we inhabit. Biggest difference is a very large increase in NASA's budget (which I'd support, of course).
I mean, yeah, with enough money we could do all these crazy things. But we are budget-constrained. -
#14 by MATTBLAK on 24 Mar, 2012 20:22
-
The 'Pad 39C' concept wouldn't have to look exactly like the previous at all - other than being big. Slide-on, slide-off adaptors, platforms and other equipment could be made to make 2 or 3 different launchers use the facility.
The Pad 39C concept exists in a world very different from the one we inhabit. Biggest difference is a very large increase in NASA's budget (which I'd support, of course).
I mean, yeah, with enough money we could do all these crazy things. But we are budget-constrained.
Which I definitely did point out in my earlier post. -
#15 by Robotbeat on 24 Mar, 2012 20:53
-
BTW, I do think there are other, more effective ways to increase the flight rate than building another pad.The 'Pad 39C' concept wouldn't have to look exactly like the previous at all - other than being big. Slide-on, slide-off adaptors, platforms and other equipment could be made to make 2 or 3 different launchers use the facility.
The Pad 39C concept exists in a world very different from the one we inhabit. Biggest difference is a very large increase in NASA's budget (which I'd support, of course).
I mean, yeah, with enough money we could do all these crazy things. But we are budget-constrained.
Which I definitely did point out in my earlier post. -
#16 by Chris Bergin on 24 Mar, 2012 22:27
-
I doubt the Launch Pad is the restricting factor on the 121 day turnaround, so a Pad C wouldn't aid things....if that's what the recent posts are about.
Also, I'm thinking of setting up a poll as I've seen a few people fail to be excited about NEA mission - say in comparision to the Moon. -
#17 by RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 00:28
-
Web page on NEO 1999AO10
http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2011/knarr/ -
#18 by MATTBLAK on 25 Mar, 2012 03:49
-
I doubt the Launch Pad is the restricting factor on the 121 day turnaround, so a Pad C wouldn't aid things....if that's what the recent posts are about.
Also, I'm thinking of setting up a poll as I've seen a few people fail to be excited about NEA mission - say in comparision to the Moon.
A launch pad 39C would be but one way to speed up the launch rate - but by NO means the best or only way. Speedy pad refurbishment and the budget and personnel to accomplish it may be the best way, I suppose. Just look at the quick turn-around between the launches of Gemini 7 & 6 for an example. Though the degree of difficulty with a booster the size of SLS vs a Titan II is a lot different. I was only thinking of Mars mission windows when the need to launch multiple payloads for linkup is more critical, hence my 'launch in salvoes' comment.
And as for the 'Moon vs NEA' excitement level: Man on the Moon has almost mythic status, whereas visiting one NEA, then another is going to cause more than one smart-alec to say; "Hey; didn't Bruce Willis do that in some old movie?"
The Moon is a world, a very small asteroid is not. But it would be interesting. Also, developing even a simple 2-man lunar Lander is going to be - at least - a $10 Billion dollar project. Far less than that could be done developing the MPLM-based Hab, an airlock module and a SEV-based 'asteroid lander'. -
#19 by RocketmanUS on 25 Mar, 2012 04:04
-
Why do the need so much time between launches for NEO missions? ( excluding money )
