NASA Exploration Roadmaps

cIclops · 2006-04-28 12:57:25

Ripped from Doc Horowitz presentation to the NASA Exploration workshop April 25 2006

horowitz20060425roadmap1ne.th.jpg

Click here for full size image (279kb)

Note:

o 2010 / 2011 for the initial CEV "capability"

o 2014 / 2015 for first human CEV flight

o 2020 / 2021 for the start of Mars Expedition design

publiusr · 2006-04-28 14:32:38

CaLV nneds to be pushed up. Later administrations may be hostile, unless VSE has the foce of law givin it to make it immune to later changes. Perhaps a bill could be passed to make NASA cuts require 100% votes from both houses, with NASA increases needing only 50% of the vote of either house and needed no Presidential signature.

The NASA Protection Act of 2006 we could call it.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-28 16:15:15

Mars is awfully far off, but more importantly I think this plan is realistic and doesn't make wild claims that NASA likly couldn't handle. Oh, and the !@#$%^& International Space Station is off our backs by 2017!

A couple of interesting phrases that we ought to take to heart:

"Moon, done well, will cement credibility & pave the way to Mars & beyond"

Credibility. Not money, not rocket technology, credibility makes rockets ultimatly fly or not fly. NASA's supply of this reasource is the smallest of the three.

"Change is hard --accept that and move forward"

*Cough* Staff cuts *cough*

cIclops · 2006-04-29 03:20:48

NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale during the Exploration workshop telecon:

As you know 2005 was the year in which we defined our exploration architecture and 2006 is the year we plan to develop a global exploration strategy for what we do on the surface of the moon and also the preliminary planning for Mars and other destinations

It's good to hear and see NASA firmly committed now to human Mars exploration.

Another interesting sound byte from Griffin at the Senate budget hearing last week, he said "Moon, Mars and Near Earth Asteroids" . NEAs should be the next destinaiton after the Moon. The nearest ones are only a few weeks away, they will be excellent stepping stones to Mars.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-29 06:16:35

Of course, the VSE explicitly states that Mars is a goal.

I suppose that working their way up to a Jupiter mission is understandable, given how much more difficult it would be.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-04-29 10:33:59

As for the moon base, for three decades NASA has sent nothing to the moon, not even a robot probe. That's because the Apollo missions found little to suggest that the moon is interesting, except to geology postdocs. Yet the White House has called for construction of a "manned" moon base—there seems no alternative to that phrasing—and the proposed budget includes about $4 billion in initial moon-base funding. The long-term price may be astronomical, as it were. The program cost (construction, launch, servicing, and ground support) for a stripped-down moon base might hit $200 billion, about the cost of a year of the Iraq war.
http://www.slate.com/id/2138943/?nav=navoa
Yet it's unclear what astronauts would do at a moon base, other than survive until their return voyage. A moon base would not be useful for a future Mars expedition—quite the contrary, it would be an obstacle. Any Mars-bound mission would almost certainly depart directly from Earth orbit to the Red Planet; stopping at the moon would be counterproductive in terms of propulsion physics and so dramatically raises the price of Mars flight. NASA is thinking about a moon base solely because Congress appears gullible enough to fund one. Within the halls of the space agency, the manned-space empire is believed to be in jeopardy. NASA wants to sustain the astronaut corps, even at the cost of pretending a moon base makes sense when every NASA official knows it will be a hole to pour money down.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-29 12:19:40

"Yet it's unclear what astronauts would do at a moon base"

Now you are just pontificating, MarsB4Moon, you must be an amnesia sufferer after being such an active member of the board but so flatly and matter-of-factly declare the Moon is a worthless waste of time. It might be unclear to a clueless Slate editorialist, but you have no excuse.

The Moon does have Platinum on it. Our supply of the metal and its sibling elements is limited to a few meteor impact sites in Africa and Canada, and will not last forever. Even now, chemists are trying hard to recycle the metal since it is so precious, but eventually it WILL run out, and no other type of metal does what it does. The Moon, not Mars, not Earth orbit, not asteroids - the Moon - is the only viable and material near term economic bennefit from space exploration.

And the Moon is scientifically interesting, the reason why NASA didn't scream when Apollo was canceld was because they were rightly afraid the whole agency would be shut down for good, and that they ought to be greatful for what they got. Apollo accomplished next to nothing as far as real geology, only one man on the Moon was actually a professional geologist, and with the combination of short rover range, lousy suits/tools, and lack of a heavy drill we literally only scratched the surface around the landing sites.

Also, ask people to name the one NASA project that has really captivated over the last twenty years... the first answer you'll get? The Hubble telescope of course. The kind of observatory we could build on the Moon would put Hubble to shame, but something that large would require human construction and tending.

While a Mars mission won't stop over at the Moon for sure, that doesn't mean that the Moon program is useless to Mars. Many of the technologies and hardware built for the Moon will work on Mars with only modest changes: like the nuclear reactor, liquid oxygen generator, and semi-closed life support. These items will be built and tested in the harsher environment of the Moon, so we can be sure they will work on gentler Mars when there is no quick hop back to Earth.

The Lunar lander, the Earth Departure Stage, and the big CaLV can all be scaled up to make a trip to Mars too, but just as importantly NASA will gain experience after being stuck in LEO for so long, confidance in itself after the Shuttle debacle, and build confidance in others so congressmen will stop rolling their eyes when NASA talks about a Mars mission.

"NASA is thinking about a moon base solely because Congress appears gullible enough to fund one..."

Thats a lie, and you are a fool to thoughtlessly regurgitate that here, of all places. I believe Moon first is the right choice, and NASA should return there as soon as they can.

cIclops · 2006-04-29 14:35:35

As for the moon base, for three decades NASA has sent nothing to the moon, not even a robot probe.

Lunar prospector 1998

Clementine 1994

Amnesia indeed

SpaceNut · 2006-04-29 20:24:19

Ripped from Doc Horowitz presentation to the NASA Exploration workshop April 25 2006
Note:
o 2010 / 2011 for the initial CEV "capability"
o 2014 / 2015 for first human CEV flight
o 2020 / 2021 for the start of Mars Expedition design

What bothers the most is Nasa dropped the early on proposed CEV competition flyoff that would have taken place in 2008 and would have been the means of design down selection but shortly after this the mergers on efforts came about which must have led to it not going forward. It would seem like it was also at the time when the talks of spirals also seemed to go away as well.

NASA awards CEV study contracts

NASA had planned to select a single contractor for the CEV after a 2008 "flyoff" between competing designs, but now plans to accelerate development of the vehicle so it can be ready around the time the shuttle is retired in 2010.

Sounds like more of a deceleration...

NASA Crew Exploration Vehicle

NASA hopes to follow this schedule in development of the CEV:
2008 - The first prototype CEV is to be launched with a candidate launch vehicle. This is the fly-off called Flight Application of Spacecraft Technologies (FAST)
2008 - 3rd Quarter - NASA plans to select the final design for the lunar spacecraft and its mission mode.
2011 - First unmanned flight of CEV in earth orbit.

Where as this one would mean more of a paper flight and not hardware :cry:

I would have hoped for real hardware by 2008 in an unmanned flight at least to the ISS but wishes do not always come true...

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-29 20:35:50

The whole flyoff idea was from the O'Keefe days really, and is a product of USAF fighter jet development style, which involved paying two (or more) companies to actually build two (or more) different vehicles, when NASA knows they are only going to use one. The USAF might be able to afford spending nine digits for each competitor, but NASA sure can't.

2008? Thats hardly two years from now, that isn't very long.

SpaceNut · 2006-04-29 20:42:07

The flyoff I think from the dates on the article searches seem to be around late 2004 to early 2005. Which means ya but only a single year but still makes it closer to 3. I see your point on the military process being of higher cost to Nasa initially but in the long run I thought that it would have cost less than the spiralling efforts....

cIclops · 2006-05-01 04:41:06

The flyoff I think from the dates on the article searches seem to be around late 2004 to early 2005. Which means ya but only a single year but still makes it closer to 3. I see your point on the military process being of higher cost to Nasa initially but in the long run I thought that it would have cost less than the spiralling efforts....

And who ends up paying for the development of two prototype vehicles? Yes the customer of course. If there's plenty of money available this is a good competitive solution and may result in a better system. Pressure from the suppliers for the customer to pay for a prototype is also a factor, building real systems is good for everybody. It would be interesting to see a study done comparing fly offs with paper proposals.

Another factor is that military systems have production rates that exceed human spaceflight by orders of magnitude and the efficiency of manufacturing is important. This can be better evaluated when real hardware is produced.

The two CEV bidders, LM and Boeing/NG are in a competitive process right now. One will get the CEV and the other will probably get the Service module. This traditional way works, it's quicker and cheaper. Better always comes with a price tag.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-01 05:41:48

Yes basically. NASA can't afford fighter jet style development, they need every penny they have to prop up Shuttle and the ISS a little bit longer.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-01 08:34:49

WIKI CEV

On June 13, 2005, NASA announced the selection of two consortia, Lockheed Martin Corp. and the team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and The Boeing Co. for further CEV development work. Each team has received a $28 million contract to come up with a complete design for the CEV and its launch vehicle until early 2006, when NASA will award one of them the task of building the CEV.

The contractor have been recieving cash for developement work on the CEV notably the teams of Lockheed and Boeing plus ATK as well. Granted the amounts do not equate to what GCNRevenger would say would be needed for developement but if the ship is going to sell for around the 200 to 500 million a copy then the devlopement should probably match that same ball park figures if done right.

Funding
President Bush's budget request for Fiscal Year 2005 included: "$428 million for Project Constellation ($6.6 billion over five years) to develop a new crew exploration vehicle." The budget for FY2005 was confirmed by the Congress in November 2004 with full funding for the CEV.
The FY2006 budget request includes $753 million for continuing development of the CEV. As of 2005 the total development costs of the CEV are estimated at $ 15 billion

Future Fiscal year
2006.02.16.chart.jpg

One should note that the air bag landing with parachutes and the escape tower have already had demonstrator work completed that can be used for the CEV by lockheed and Boeing.

cIclops · 2006-05-01 10:30:26

The FY2006 budget request includes $753 million for continuing development of the CEV. As of 2005 the total development costs of the CEV are estimated at $ 15 billion

Is there a source for this estimate?

$15B seems rather high for just the CEV unless it's a projection over the lifespan of the vehicle. Adding across the Exploration row gives about $30B which includes the CLV and the LRO as well as initial work on the HLV/EDS/LSAM and almost $3B for human biology (adding the $881 million spent in FY2005), yes that's right $3 Billion for human biology .. it would have been double that if Griffin hadn't controlled the program.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-01 12:16:04

Three BILLION for biology? Thats insane! NASA is a space agency, not a biology one. Let them petition the NSF for money like everybody else except where pertaining to humans in space or finding bacteria on Mars/Europa/etc. Cut the rest.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-01 12:52:18

Is there a source for this estimate?

The WIKI CEV part way down the page.

IMO 15 billion is huge for recycled hardware...

cIclops · 2006-05-02 06:20:41

Three BILLION for biology? Thats insane! NASA is a space agency, not a biology one. Let them petition the NSF for money like everybody else except where pertaining to humans in space or finding bacteria on Mars/Europa/etc. Cut the rest.

It's Human biology work, micro gravity adaptation etc etc. There's even more funding inside the R&A accounts of the science budget. This should be all about how to keep astronauts well in space, that six month plus trip to Mars and the return to Earth is a real problem. Right now astronauts wouldn't be able to do anything when they land on Mars except type on keyboards. Hey I'm fully trained, can I go please

cIclops · 2006-06-01 08:49:04

According to Spaceref.com Mike Griffin gives a timeline for RTTM and the first human mission to Mars

Looking to the next decade, Griffin foresees a human presence on the moon in 2018. "What we do after that depends in part on what people want to do." Possibilities, he said, include developing the capability to have a research station there that would initially permanently staffed, very much like Antarctica.
Griffin foresees a potential human presence on Mars as early as the early to mid 2020s. "To me, the key is getting back into space in a reliable, robust, dependable way with enough lift capacity," he said. "It doesn't matter what Mars mission strategy you use, we already know we're going to need a space-station equivalent mass and will need a million pounds of hardware to go through low-Earth orbit."

SpaceNut · 2006-06-01 11:01:30

"What we do after that depends in part on what people want to do."

This one line says it all. Agency directed by the president and funded by congress unable to direct itself towards the future.

cIclops · 2006-06-01 12:12:40

Exploration Program Update on NASA TV June 5 - announcement

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, Associate Administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Scott Horowitz and Constellation Program Manager Jeff Hanley will brief the media about the exploration program and the work being assigned to NASA centers at 2:30 p.m. EDT Monday, June 5.

Also on June 22: Moon, Mars and Beyond- Apollo on Steroids a webcast JPL lecture by Michael J. Sander Manager, JPL Exploration Systems and Technology Office. (These webcasts are usually archived several days later)

RedStreak · 2006-06-01 19:03:29

Now you are just pontificating, MarsB4Moon, you must be an amnesia sufferer after being such an active member of the board but so flatly and matter-of-factly declare the Moon is a worthless waste of time. It might be unclear to a clueless Slate editorialist, but you have no excuse.
Thats a lie, and you are a fool to thoughtlessly regurgitate that here, of all places. I believe Moon first is the right choice, and NASA should return there as soon as they can.

I wholly agree. Getting the government to approve a moon mission is like tipping a really really really huge cow - trying to change their mind again will be like the cow squashing you.

The one thing about the moon that you can't make a arguement about is that its close. A week versus 6 months will always be voted for the shorter trip.

I'm all for Mars but one step at a time - trying to shove the Moon, Mars, and the whole solar system down NASA's throat will just kill it and you'll find yourselves boarding Challenger II and all I can say is...hope your space suit is lined with asbestos.

RedStreak · 2006-06-01 19:11:36

CaLV nneds to be pushed up. Later administrations may be hostile, unless VSE has the foce of law givin it to make it immune to later changes. Perhaps a bill could be passed to make NASA cuts require 100% votes from both houses, with NASA increases needing only 50% of the vote of either house and needed no Presidential signature.
The NASA Protection Act of 2006 we could call it.

It would be nice to justify such an act. With the shuttle gone soon any upcoming administration will at the least accept the CEV if nothing else I figure.

I do agree on the CaLV needing more importance. It is the workhorse and could, later on, be used to launch a larger spacecraft than the CEV. If I had to change the program scheduling around I would have started with CaLV development and the lunar lander so components for a lunar outpost could be established and perhaps even ready for human occupation.

Barring this change, I simply hope NASA can keep to its schedule. The only wild card is the shuttle and ISS mucking things up.

cIclops · 2006-06-05 12:09:45

Two points from the NASA update today by Jeffrey Hanley, Constellation Manager:

o CEV contractor selection "by the end of this year" ... looks like several months slippage from this summer

o CEV test flights begin April 2009 - specific date

SpaceNut · 2006-06-05 20:27:02

It looks like more for who gets what from the spoils of war than an effort to get us there sooner at the lowest cost.

New spaceship plan sparks shifts at NASA; Centers in Ohio and Alabama to get added work, agency chief says

“They really have got to learn how to do this cheap,” said American University public policy professor Howard McCurdy, who has written several books about the space agency. “That’s the big challenge.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-04-28 12:57:25

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#2 2006-04-28 14:32:38

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#3 2006-04-28 16:15:15

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#4 2006-04-29 03:20:48

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#5 2006-04-29 06:16:35

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#6 2006-04-29 10:33:59

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#7 2006-04-29 12:19:40

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#8 2006-04-29 14:35:35

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#9 2006-04-29 20:24:19

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#10 2006-04-29 20:35:50

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#11 2006-04-29 20:42:07

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#12 2006-05-01 04:41:06

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#13 2006-05-01 05:41:48

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#14 2006-05-01 08:34:49

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#15 2006-05-01 10:30:26

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#16 2006-05-01 12:16:04

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#17 2006-05-01 12:52:18

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#18 2006-05-02 06:20:41

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#19 2006-06-01 08:49:04

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#20 2006-06-01 11:01:30

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#21 2006-06-01 12:12:40

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#22 2006-06-01 19:03:29

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#23 2006-06-01 19:11:36

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#24 2006-06-05 12:09:45

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

#25 2006-06-05 20:27:02

Re: NASA Exploration Roadmaps

Board footer