Posted on 07/07/2006 10:53:34 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
NASA needs to rethink its Mars exploration plans after 2010 given new understandings about the red planet and likely funding levels in the coming years, according to a report just out from a panel of outside experts.
By adding to a reworked mix of future missions-for example, a geophysical/meteorological network as well as a sample return mission-the space agency would garner a greater scientific impact at Mars, the panel concludes. Moreover, the space agency must fortify its ability to analyze the data streaming in from Mars. That research can help flesh out a safe and scientifically productive role for humans on Mars.
NASA's funding of technologies to enable a robust and scientifically rewarding Mars agenda, however, remains a chronic problem, the experts say.
The 15-person ad hoc Mars Architecture Assessment Committee was set up by the Space Studies Board, a research arm of the National Academies. The group's nearly 50-page appraisal of NASA's Mars Architecture 2007-2016, requested by the space agency, was released today.
Set of recommendations
In a June 30 cover letter attachment to Mary Cleave, Associate Administrator of the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters, the chair of the assessment, Reta Beebe of New Mexico State University, offered a set of recommendations to NASA, including:
Add a Mars Long-Lived Lander Network in the mix of options for launch in 2016; Consider delaying the launch of the Astrobiology Field Laboratory until 2018; Devise a strategy to implement the Mars Sample Return mission; Ensure that the primary role of the Mars Science and Telecommunications Orbiter (MSTO) is to address science questions, and not simply to serve as a telecommunications relay; and Move forward on 'Mid Rovers,' wheeled robots more capable than Spirit and Opportunity but less complicated, not as expensive, and not as heavy as the Mars Science Laboratory to be launched in 2009.
The assessment committee, Beebe wrote to NASA's Cleave, found the space agency's future exploration plans as a whole 'not optimized,' with more work needed to shore up the architecture's scientific impact.
Cost and technical readiness
In the review, future robotic missions are spotlighted.
In particular, NASA was advised to immediately initiate appropriate technology development activities to support Mars missions in the 2013-2016 time slot as well as support the Mars Sample Return mission as soon as possible thereafter.
A robotic sample return mission has the potential to yield samples uniquely capable of tackling a host of scientific objectives, the committee explained. Still, there are issues of cost and technical readiness. That being the case, robotic return to Earth of Mars samples will fall beyond the horizon of the coming decade, the study group said.
'Nevertheless, the committee reaffirms the importance of a mission to return samples of Mars to Earth for study and strongly argues that there is an immediate need for developing relevant technologies and infrastructure to enable the implementation of this mission as soon as possible after 2016.'
Grid of science stations
Advocated by the assessment team was a Mars Long-Lived Lander Network (ML3N) - a grid of science stations that will make coordinated measurements around Mars's globe for at least one martian year. This network would use passive seismometers to explore the structure and activity of Mars.
The review group also flagged 'the extraordinary resilience' of the Spirit and Opportunity rovers still at work on the red planet. Success of that Mars machinery 'strongly suggests that a prudent, risk-reduction strategy is to use their design as a basis for the proposed Mid Rovers,' the committee stated.
Mid Rovers would be geological explorers, dispatched to evaluate the geological context of specific sites and search for organic compounds at targets identified by prior missions. As currently envisaged NASA's goal is to fly two rovers for a cost approximately equal to that of the Mars Science Laboratory mission-now priced at $1.5 billion.
Also in the rover realm, the assessment group suggested delaying the launch of the Astrobiology Field Laboratory until 2018. Doing so would permit time to digest results from the Mars Science Laboratory and other prior missions.
Seamless relationship
An important component of NASA's Mars architecture is the Mars Scout program. The first of this class NASA mission is the Phoenix Mars lander now being readied for a 2007 sendoff. Balloons, airplanes, and other Mars craft are being advocated under the Scout rubric.
The low-cost, science-focused Scouts are characterized as 'wild cards' by the study group. These competitively selected missions have the potential to fill in needs. 'However, it must be kept in mind that Scouts must be proposed as 'complete missions' and not as architectural elements.'
In looking at NASA's sweeping Vision of Exploration (VSE)-replanting astronauts back on the Moon and dispatching humans to Mars and beyond-the assessment committee noted that a strong, independent architecture will stand alone on its scientific merit and will also contribute significantly to that vision.
'Both the utility of the Mars mission architecture and its value within the VSE and NASA's strategic plan would be strengthened by the addition of a network of meteorological/seismic stations and a sample return mission.'
There is desire to create a 'seamless relationship' between the robotic science missions and human exploration, but to do so without adversely affecting either program element, the review group observed.
fyi
ARRRRRRRRRRRGH!
I really wish the space program had something intelligent between the extremes of probe exploration and "glorious vanity of great-leap manned tourism propaganda epics"
something like, oh... build a fleet of earth-to-moon ferrys/taxis... get a moon-base up and running... make that moon-base dedicated to cranking out more ships for longer-range manned EXPLOITATION...
THEN talk about going to Mars, in STYLE and in FORCE.
I vote for terraforming. It's as safe as anything else I can think of, and easily the most productive.
If you live in western Montana you can see a mother ship right now just to the lower right of the northern cross. Happened to be outside at 3AM and noticed this BIG satellite moving slowly. Oh, that must be the ISS. Then it STOPPED, been sitting there for about an hour, a magnitude brighter than deneb. If you were here right now you'd be a BELIEVER.
"I vote for terraforming. It's as safe as anything else I can think of, and easily the most productive."
All we have to do is find the secret alien base and deploy the air makers. In the meantime free air for everyone!!!
I have met her. She was one of the astronauts that launched the Magellan.
I would add....... prepare a joint venture with Japan.
We don't understand many of the mechanisms of our own environment. Terraforming, although an interesting proposition, is still safely in the realm of SiFi right alongside the Dyson Sphere.
I would suggest that we continue the robotic probes. So far, since the Apollo days, the best bang we have had for the buck. Alongside of those, we need to concentrate on developing (AND COMPLETE IT THIS TIME!) a reliable SSTO vehicle, drop this man-in-the-can idea we are reviving, and turn the ISS over to the Russians. It is in a lousy orbit anyway.
After that, we should then set our goals on sending humans where we find deficiencies in the robotic explorations due to a non-human presence.
Just my two cents.
That will come out of NASA about the same time you find yourelf picking apples off a tomato vine.
There are just too many ways to screw up SSTO (and the whole reason for doing it in the first place) for NASA to ever have the institutional discipline to successfully build one.
Any NASA space program that extends beyond four years is seriously doomed. NASA needs to do only what can be done in four years or less. Future cancellations such as Apollo are definitely on the agendum. Building an infrastructure in space would make too much longterm sense and be an easy target for every politician who needs an issue to run on.
There are a few ideas, but as a serious project it lacks in every environment there is including climatology and law.
The shuttle has been around as a program for more than thirty years. The station is what, twenty years in the making? Of course, the shuttle was sabotaged before it ever got off the ground by a republican administration, and the space station by a democrat administration.
They survived, but by the time the politicians finished changing the recipe it was no longer edible.
NASA needs to do only what can be done in four years or less.
NASA can't even decide what to do in four years, much less accomplish anything.
Future cancellations such as Apollo are definitely on the agendum. Building an infrastructure in space would make too much longterm sense and be an easy target for every politician who needs an issue to run on.
I imagine most of the real infrastructure that allows us to move out of low earth orbit and back to the moon and on to Mars will have to come from the private sector. NASA has too many bureaucratic requirements that make what is really needed (SSTO selling points type of vehicle) impossible a priori.
That's correct. Congress decides what NASA is to do, and year by year. Two years of continuity is achievable, four is barely possible, and six is about the limit. Small, long duration programs such as robot ships to outer planets may survive unnoticed from inception to launch, and then to at least primary goals.
The 15-person ad hoc Mars Architecture Assessment Committee was set up by the Space Studies Board, a research arm of the National Academies.Thanks for comin', drive home safely.
Terraforming, although an interesting proposition, is still safely in the realm of SiFi right alongside the Dyson Sphere.I agree.
I would suggest that we continue the robotic probes. So far, since the Apollo days, the best bang we have had for the buck.I wholeheartedly agree.
we need to concentrate on developing (AND COMPLETE IT THIS TIME!) a reliable SSTO vehicleIMHO we need a reliable, cheaper way to orbit, and that means man-in-the-can. Reusability is more expensive and partly mythical. The one thing that makes me think that SSTO is possible is that a Russian rocket guy said (circa 1990) that SSTO isn't possible. Reminds me of the way Korolev dismissed Von Braun's proposed 100 per cent cryofueled upper stages for Apollo, saying that the technical problems couldn't be solved.
turn the ISS over to the RussiansMostly agree. Looks like we almost have already. It was a kumbaya special olympics can't we all just get along idea in the first place, a negation of the Space Station Freedom proposal from President Reagan.
After that, we should then set our goals on sending humans where we find deficiencies in the robotic explorations due to a non-human presence.Missions to the Moon should have some kind of scientific purpose (by definition they have a political one, regardless of other things), and setting up a far-side radio observatory (or more than one) seems like a good idea (supposed to be really quiet over there, shielded from artificial radio sources from Earth), provided the far side is then off limits to a permanent human presence.
What's an SSTO vehicle?
there are problems with "sending humans where we find deficiencies in the robotic explorations" which only incremental fleet-building can resolve.
flexibility, speed, reliability, safety, and redundancy.
all of the above require the creation of a fleet of several/many space-only "engines-with-cargo-hooks" ferries, even for lunar exploitation.
bear in mind: such ferries would never land, ever. their sole design function would be to move stuff from Earth orbit to lunar orbit and back, and/or to move stuff between Earth orbits, and to provide standing SAR vehicles for the inevitable mishaps.
SSTO = single-stage-to-orbit
Unmanned spacecraft and AI will outpace manned efforts over the next 50 years. Manned spaceflight will remain cost-prohibitive until factories in space are established that utilize manufacturing techniques based on bootstrapped nanotechnology factory methods.
First came the Jules Verne paradigm (top-hatted astronauts in cannon shells with with glass-plate cameras, but no radio or electronics), then came the von Braun paradigm (V-2 based space armadas from the Earth's surface). We need to enter the nanotechnology-based space factory paradigm before manned expansion into deep space can economically proceed.
I was in Belgium a few months back to discuss a possible collaboration on an instrument for an upcoming NASA mission. The Belgians were aghast that we did not receive full funding for the program at the start, but had to wait for each year's allotment.
I've also been on sounding rocket programs where NASA decided to cut $50K from the budget every year. Doesn't sound like much, but when the total three-year budget is $500K, that's quite a bit of cost you have to eat...
I'm not even considering "deep space"
I'm interested in exploiting NEAR space, in a pragmatic and systemmatic manner.
THEN talk about going to Mars, in STYLE and in FORCE.
ummmmm.... with the exception of not waiting till after they're finished on the Moon to start talking about going to Mars, you've pretty much described the current plan. Oh, and building vehicles at the bottom of a gravity well, even a relatively small one like the Moons, is right out. Now, a materials factory for refining raw materials to be hurled up to a manufacturing and assembly facility, probably at one of the Lagrange points, is more like it.
My preference is to use the Moon as a relatively safe place to practice and refine the tools and techniques needed for sustained habitation. On the Moon you have a hope of rescue in days or weeks, not months, if something goes wrong. If you wait till you get to Mars to find out a design doesn't work you're toast. I'd work on setting up a Lunar Cycler system as opposed to a "space taxi." You build them as hotels and make money on them while they orbit and on every other trip they drop off and pick up stuff at the Moon. Buzz Aldrin's been pushing this idea for some time and he's got some serious money (folks like Bezos and Branson) interested. He's also got some major engineering talent working with him.
I'd like us to postpone Mars in favor of exploring and exploiting the asteroids. Start with one of the Apollo or Aten asteroids to prove what can be done and, particularly to check to see if you can find one that will be commercially valuable, say one largely made of nickel iron. Then refine it in orbit for your materials for building larger exploration vehicles.
And if anyone gives you grief you just drop one on them from orbit.
A little one.
Going very fast.
You mean like this one?
Mr Bezos has announced he's building one based on this test model. Yes, it crashed on landing (when one of it's retractable landing gear did just that... when it wasn't supposed to). But the sucker works.
Delta Clipper, anyone?
And Rutan's Transformational Space Corp. is a finalist in the running to get the contract to build and operate a replacement for the Shuttle to send "crew and cargo to the International Space Station." It would be a fairly conventional rocket carried up to a launch altitude much like Space Ship One was under a ferry vehicle, then dropped and allowed to launch vertically. They've got a great PDF of the early proposal with some great material.
This is a drop test of a scale model of the rocket being dropped from and existing ferry vehicle.
The full size ferry will be much larger, as will the rocket, and it is supposed to carry 6 to 12 people and/or cargo of equal mass. One alternative for the ferry is to take a 747 and give it really tall landing gear. Branson is also involved in this venture and he's apparently talking about setting up the 747 with an observation are and big windows. After they drop the rocket the 747 would turn and orbit to give a view of the launch.
Woohoo!!
I know we aren't even close to ready for terraforming Mars. Heck, we can't even terraform Earth all that well! All I'm saying really is that terraforming should be the ultimate goal, and BTW I think Venus will ultimately be far easier to terraform than would be Mars.
"Man-in-the-can" is fine, its the expendable rocket that isn't. It is more "begging the question" than solution.
Reusability is more expensive and partly mythical.
There is nothing mythical about reusability unless you are talking about the way NASA defines and implements reusability. And if your reusability plan is more expensive than your expendable plan, you've missed the point.
We (NASA) have never progressed beyond the artillery mindset of space travel. And the shuttle is little more than reusable artillery -- the ultimate oxymoron.
"BTW I think Venus will ultimately be far easier to terraform than would be Mars."
Could be and its fun to think about. But can you imagine the environmental impact study that will be required for some of this?
I don't advocate building the entire ship as a unit on the ground and then launching it - rather, build it in sections, lob them into orbit, bolt them together, fuel and provision it, and then put into service.
something far smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the ISS. with engines. and with external hardpoints for mounting mission packages.
the firs such craft could be done in a handful of heavy lif launches from Earth, I would think.
Is current manned space exploration even remotely "pragmatic", in the economic sense?
I believe we will have a greatly expanded manned presence in space, but not under the current paradigm.
Good point - you imply we are still trapped in not only the von Braun paradigm, but the Jules Verne paradism of space exploration also.
For the cost of two shuttles ($1 billion) we might break free and enter the nanotech space paradigm.
The means to terraform Venus and Mars using nanotechnology and bootstrapping factory systems is the essence of the nanotech space paradigm.
Space systems to carry man to the stars will be built in space by automated and self-replicating systems. Any other method is a waste of money and technology.
I mean two shuttle launches.
does the current space program at all resemble what I advocate?
no.
Viable tools for space exploitation have not even been invented yet.
"Man-in-the-can" is fine, its the expendable rocket that isn't. It is more "begging the question" than solution.The expendible rocket is going to cost a fraction of the cost of a Shuttle launch, and will not be stuck in LEO, so yes it is.
There is nothing mythical about reusability unless you are talking about the way NASA defines and implements reusability. And if your reusability plan is more expensive than your expendable plan, you've missed the point.I have not "missed the point". Reusability is supposed to reduce cost, but it doesn't, because the need for multiple stages (the SRBs being the equivalent of a first stage) increases complexity, and the one-size-fits-all STS isn't an appropriate vehicle for every job. Shuttle derived vehicles were never developed; had they been, there would have been a heavy lift capability (based on the SRBs) for large payloads that didn't need a crew. The orbiter wound up too large; a small reentry vehicle (even a miniature version of the shuttle) for missions where a crew or crew retrieval from orbit was needed would have been appropriate.
Additional confirmation we are stuck in the Jules Verne/von Braun space exploration paradigms. There's no real break in the cost per pound of human space travel until space-directed nanotechnology becomes viable.
Setting up the shuttle as the standard of reusability is like touting John Kerry as the standard for Vietnam veterans. The shuttle was a failure from the moment the goal changed from its original form to "whatever we can get."
Reusability is supposed to reduce cost, but it doesn't, because the need for multiple stages (the SRBs being the equivalent of a first stage) increases complexity, and the one-size-fits-all STS isn't an appropriate vehicle for every job.
Again, no one (with any connection to reality) is proposing to follow in the shuttle's footsteps. All the things you are listing are problems with the shuttle, not reusability.
Reusability is analogous to the SSTO idea. An SSTO could be built with a sufficient supply of unobtainium.
Even NASA has concluded an SSTO can be built, and yes they stipulate the unobtanium, but that has more to do with a built in excuse for failure than a real need. The one piece of technology actually needed is altitude-compensating nozzles, whether in the form of an aerospike are simply a telescoping bell.
If it could be built, it would still increase the cost per pound to orbit -- and cost reduction (through reusability) is one reason SSTO is touted.
The real point of reusability, SSTO or not, isn't a one off reduction in launch costs. It is the economics of scale. The whole point of reusability is not to reduce the cost with the same number of launches currently consumed. Yet that is precisely the metric that was applied to shuttle development (and subsequently used as an excuse for hamstringing development funds) and it is the metric applied to new launcher development.
The point of reusability is to reduce the marginal cost of launches. First of all, to actually achieve that goal you really do need to craft your requirements around it and not sacrifice that one all important capability for something more sexy. Second, you have to be able to sell the capability that buys you. And when you live in a static world as all politicians and bureaucrats do, well, that is like describing color to a blind man.
Reusability is mythical. New parts are made to replace stuff that is only good for a handful of launches (or one launch).
Name any part where this is true and there is a way to reconfigure the design where you can use a part that is good for hundreds of launches. Engines? There are rocket engines that are good for dozens if not hundreds of restarts and have been run for hours. Thermal protection? The shuttle is the worst case scenario for thermal protection because it uses a lifting reentry with a high sectional density vehicle.
Reprocessing costs for a launch runs to $500 million (a half billion $) and the 30 year old technology is obsolescent. The engines being developed for the new booster will cost less than the liquid fueled SSMEs, will be more powerful, and will not be retrieved from the drink.
Again, you are bringing up the shuttle to discount reusability. The SSME is a ludicrous design for a reusable vehicle. The chamber pressure is incredible, requiring extremely high performance pumps. Extreme performance requires extreme maintenance. The shuttle throws away an expensive external tank. The shuttle started with a reusability requirement then discarded it in all but name in order to get funding.
Don't get me wrong, I am not of the opinion that NASA should take up the task of building a reusable launcher any more than I think Helen Thomas should apply for a job at Hooters.
But I will say that nothing lasting or of any real significance will happen in space until we ditch the whole expendable rocket paradigm and start building real reusable launchers.
But I will say that nothing lasting or of any real significance will happen in space until we ditch the whole expendable rocket paradigm and start building real reusable launchers.For example?
The SSME is a ludicrous design for a reusable vehicle. The chamber pressure is incredible, requiring extremely high performance pumps. Extreme performance requires extreme maintenance.Reusability requires extreme reliability. The engines have been reliable. Extreme performance is what the Shuttle delivered. The SSME isn't a ludicrous design.
All the things you are listing are problems with the shuttle, not reusability.Strange that the USSR didn't learn from the alleged US mistakes and build a vehicle which took off as well as landed like a plane. The most complex machine ever built (in its time at least) wound up being knocked off by the USSR with its Buran system.
Even NASA has concluded an SSTO can be built, and yes they stipulate the unobtanium, but that has more to do with a built in excuse for failure than a real need. The one piece of technology actually needed is altitude-compensating nozzles, whether in the form of an aerospike are simply a telescoping bell.The fact is, that's just wishful thinking. The has been one SSTO, and that is the LEM, which took off from the Moon, not the Earth. That isn't a problem with nozzles, it's a problem of mass budget. The unobtainium referred to above would be the material out of which the single stage would be constructed -- strong enough to hold sufficient fuel to reach orbit, but light enough that most of the mass of the vehicle doesn't have to be dumped, as is the case with every vehicle which has ever reached Earth orbit.
The real point of reusability, SSTO or not, isn't a one off reduction in launch costs. It is the economics of scale. The whole point of reusability is not to reduce the cost with the same number of launches currently consumed... The point of reusability is to reduce the marginal cost of launches.And reusability doesn't do that. Expendibles are cheaper, and will remain so, unless and until an SSTO can be done. But the cost per pound to orbit will also have to improve, or what is the point?
you really do need to craft your requirements around it and not sacrifice that one all important capability for something more sexy.What you're saying is, reusability of the vehicle, and not costs or lift capacity or anything else -- is all important. And that doesn't make sense. Space vehicles need to be built to get specific payloads to orbit (and beyond).
Roadmap To MarsMy blueprint for manned travel to Mars, based on reusable spacecraft that continuously cycle between Earth and Mars in permanent orbits, requires much less energy over the long term. Once in place, a system of cycling spacecraft, with its dependable schedule and low sustaining cost, would open the door for routine travel to Mars and a permanent human presence on the red planet. Its long-term economic advantages make it less susceptible to cancellation by congressional or presidential whim. In effect, this system would go a long way toward politician-proofing the Mars program.
Buzz Aldrin, with David Noland,
illus by Jeremy Cook,
Buzz portrait by Michael Kelley
Popular Mechanics
December 2005
Additional confirmation we are stuck in the Jules Verne/von Braun space exploration paradigms. There's no real break in the cost per pound of human space travel until space-directed nanotechnology becomes viable.Additional confirmation that the society has spent too much time watching the Millennium Falcon take off. :') What is space-directed nanotechnology?
The example is negative: We made great strides going to the moon and haven't been back in thirty years because it was so expensive. Every time there has been an incident in a launch system, we stand down for two years going over it in grueling detail, even when we plan on ditching the thing anyway.
How much clearer can you get that politicians and even NASA regard space as an expensive but ultimately unnecessary stunt?
Reusability requires extreme reliability. The engines have been reliable.
Meaningful reuseability requires more than reliability. It requires low cost maintainability. The reliability of the SSME comes with a huge maintenance cost.
Extreme performance is what the Shuttle delivered. The SSME isn't a ludicrous design.
Bleeding edge performance will always be expensive to operate and maintain. And note that I said the SSME is a ludicrous design for a reusable vehicle.
Strange that the USSR didn't learn from the alleged US mistakes and build a vehicle which took off as well as landed like a plane. The most complex machine ever built (in its time at least) wound up being knocked off by the USSR with its Buran system.
Yes, and they got so much use out of that too, didn't they? I guess you can add that to the Shuttle legacy: It helped win the cold war by becoming the same resource sink for the Soviets it is for us.
That isn't a problem with nozzles, it's a problem of mass budget.
Altitude compensating nozzles are very helpful for SSTO designs. That is the only piece of new technology needed. The mass fraction isn't a matter of unobtanium, even NASA has concluded that SSTO mass fraction is obtainable. And quite a few rocket engineers have been saying it is possible since the 80s and a few were promoting it all the way back to the sixties. Mass fraction isn't a matter of magic technology, it is a matter of exercising engineering discipline. Several vehicles including the Saturn IVB stage have exhibited SSTO-like mass fractions. I may be mistaken, but I believe the Titan II only dropped an engine ring with two engines on the way up.
I will grant you the point that these are a long way from being reusable SSTOs, but materials technology has improved considerably since the sixties. What you're saying is, reusability of the vehicle, and not costs or lift capacity or anything else -- is all important. And that doesn't make sense. Space vehicles need to be built to get specific payloads to orbit (and beyond).
Don't be facetious. Of course payload is important. But your question betrays a misunderstanding of what reusability and/or SSTO is all about. The status quo is so hung up on performance at any cost that ends up being exactly what they pay. It would be far more useful to put 10,000lbs into orbit 100 times than it is to put 40,000lbs into orbit once. It is all about access.
Did you hear Hoagland's description of Von Braun's reaction when the design for the Shuttle came back from Congress?
Why Congress was involved in designing the Shuttle is another question. Hoagland was at a beach party with several high NASA mucky-mucks including Von Braun. Yes, Hoagland used to rub elbows with these.
When Von Braun saw the design, tears came to his eyes and he said, "That will get somebody killed."
Who designed the shuttle?
I don't know how many times I have seen this sort of scenario play out between management and engineering, and it usually winds up spilling blood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.