Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

dicktice · 2006-12-21 10:47:54

You propose sending a manned mission all the way to Mars orbit and DO NOT land and you will be LAUGHED out of the Congressional committees.
Not VOTED ON & RECOMMENDED for approval.
The Manned Mars program must take political realities into serious consideration.

Politics is what got us into the present mess. Before politice got involved, Apollo 8 didn't land. If it had been Mars, having proved everything up to that point either functioned or had been made to function hands-on by being on the spot (as was just accomplished on the ISS) they would remain in LMO performing investigations on the surface from orbit by means of remote presence hardware they brought along, while awaiting the equivalent of Apollo 11, which would possess the first humans on Mars mission hardware. And including currently under development inflatable quarters to live and exercise in, both on the way out and back for both missions, would help make these long duration missions feasible. Isn't the name of the game "space travel?" And--just a thought--if aerobraking is absolutely required to reduce fuel carried on these initial not-live-off-the-land missions, why not enable deflation of the living quarters during the braking phase prior to achieving LMO?. Ditto Earth.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-21 12:21:13

The Manned Mars program must take political realities into serious consideration.

Politics is what got us into the present mess.

dicktice · 2006-12-21 18:45:08

Because elections can affect politically influenced space program budgeting, liable to be changed within time periods shorter than space program times-to-complete: that's why. Politics got us into the present mess, which is analogous to the Vietnam mess. Besides, politicians aren't educated enough, as a rule, to make sensible decisions when it comes to making interplanetary decisions on their own. Kennedy plus von Braun were an oddity, which I fail to see occurring until the next presidential election. If Kennedy had lived, perhaps we'd be on Mars by now. Quite the contrary with G W Bush: his continued existence is of no consequence re. Mars.

Commodore · 2006-12-21 20:15:01

The trouble is the space program is viewed, and for those in the political system, is, of secondary importance to issues such as taxes, health care, education. national security, and foriegn policy. An elected official is not going to spend a lot of time on space unless it falls into one or more of those catagories, or unless they are elected to fight for that policy. In the 60's it clearly fell into the realm of national security and foreign policy. The Soviets challenged us to a contest to see who's was bigger. We couldn't not take them on.

The exact same conditions will not reappear. We need something new.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-12-22 07:35:00

Because elections can affect politically influenced space program budgeting, liable to be changed within time periods shorter than space program times-to-complete: that's why. Politics got us into the present mess, which is analogous to the Vietnam mess. Besides, politicians aren't educated enough, as a rule, to make sensible decisions when it comes to making interplanetary decisions on their own. Kennedy plus von Braun were an oddity, which I fail to see occurring until the next presidential election. If Kennedy had lived, perhaps we'd be on Mars by now. Quite the contrary with G W Bush: his continued existence is of no consequence re. Mars.

I won't necessarily debate the "present mess" since things are pretty good for the United States overall by most standards.

But in regards to "if Kennedy had lived" that is flat wrong.

Kennedy was never a major supporter of the space program. His administrations support of the space program was largely the result of Lyndon Johnsons enthusiastic support of the space program.

Kennedy in fact during his presidency told the NASA Admin. that "we really shouldn't be spending all this money in space".

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-22 14:06:15

Why shouldn't we assume mental health is a serious concern? It appears to at least be a risk from historical extended confinement tests and from actual stays on Mir/ISS.
Why assume what there is no evidence of?
The occasional argument among crewmembers or annoyance with ground controllers hardly translates into "serious mental health issues" for the crew.
I would assume that as part of crew selection, the primary and backup crews will undoubtedly train together for at least a few years. Including training in isolation where they have to work together for months on end with no other contact aside from radio messages from the "ground".
Any significant personality conflicts, psychological problems, or other abnormalities should be detected then.
If a serious abnormality escapes detection prior to the mission, then it probably won't matter how much square footage the Hab has

Getting back to topic, there is enough evidence to make this is a significant question mark.

Assuming that training together for extended periods will ensure that troubles will come to light is a big leap, since the crews won't actually be in danger of death nor actually separated from the Earth, and no amount of "playing pretend" will remove doubt. Especially since astronauts will really really want to go, and in light of the knowledge they aren't actually on mission, then that will doubly skew the results.

The solution is to give leeway and margin as much as is affordable and practical. DRM not only provides the two decks, twice the volume of MarsDirect's HAB/ERV (during cruise anyway), but also has a third "basement" deck for storage and the airlock which both frees up more actual volume and gives the crew more places to move around in.

dicktice · 2006-12-22 20:06:29

I should have said, if Kennedy AND von Braun had lived....

RedStreak · 2006-12-22 22:15:49

And--just a thought--if aerobraking is absolutely required to reduce fuel carried on these initial not-live-off-the-land missions, why not enable deflation of the living quarters during the braking phase prior to achieving LMO?. Ditto Earth.

Possibly b/c of the same flaws in the Galileo's main antenna - what happens if something deployable gets stuck?

I will add on a positive note if Biglow's inflatable modules work well and can also stow as easily, then that has applications right up this alley.

Commodore · 2006-12-22 22:40:59

Theres another reason why sardine can habs are unexceptable for interplanetary travel... the interplanetary environment makes up the vast majority of exploration targets.

Mars is an exception to the rule, it has a viable atmosphere. The Moon, minor planets, outer moons, ect. all have no atmosphere, and must be built largely to the same specs. And given the atmosphere Mars, or Titan, has theres few good reasons to design them to be fundamentally different. If we intend to inhabit these places for any extended periods of time, we might has well pack it full of as much equipment to produce all things they need.

publiusr · 2006-12-29 17:18:36

I should have said, if Kennedy AND von Braun had lived....

I wonder what we would have had--if the US got Groettrup and von Braun working with Korolov. He might have been the bridge between Korolov and Glushko.

dicktice · 2006-12-29 20:18:00

Indeed. The way to the future lies in avoiding the mistakes of the past, in spades, as far as spacetravel is concerned!

TwinBeam · 2007-01-01 03:28:44

Virtual reality ought to be awfully good by 2025 or when ever we manage to do a manned mission to Mars, especially if you can easily afford to spend $1M per person.

Given a choice between providing really adequate space to move around and not get cabin fever, or providing an expensive full-body VR suit, I think they'll end up going for the latter, with just enough room for one crew person at a time to get out of their suit to clean up once a day.

You'd still want to spin the capsule on a tether to simulate gravity.

And unless AI has come along a lot faster than I'm expecting, VR won't do much to alleviate loneliness - the crew will have to be mostly loners - needing minimal social contact to be satisfied.

dicktice · 2007-01-03 17:45:37

What's virtual reality got to do with it, except for entertainment and training en route?

I don't know what VR stands for. I'm against whatever it is you seem to be hinting at: no activities such as inflating habitat, enjoying gardening, physical fitness maintaining, cooperative research between crew and those back on Earth, gardening and cooking, etc. en route? The name of the game is: Spacetravel. Like cruise in a small yacht, being able to enjoy yourselves on the way to an unknown destination and back is as important as the discoveries you may or may not make.

Inflatable habitats can be large enough to contain centrifuge devices, both for recreation and for sleeptime conditioning.

What's AI got to do with it, except for remote presence probe danger anticipation when the operator goofs? Loneliness, with all the communications means at hand, seems hardly worth concerning yourself about.

SpaceNut · 2007-01-05 08:34:31

Located this reference while searching for other stuff.

Assessment of NASA's Mars Architecture 2007-2016

Of course the document link is dead...

samardza · 2007-01-06 19:37:13

I've said it before, I think a study of Nansen's Fram expedition would prove useful to planning out a Mars expedition. 9 men, limited outside activities, very limited communications, 3 years.

RedStreak · 2007-01-06 20:12:16

9 men, limited outside activities, very limited communications, 3 years.

9 men stuck inside a tin can, even if they are experts at telerobotics, sounds like a huge waste of money and effort, especially if it costs $9 billion a person (taking into account equiptment, launching, and development over a few years) to get them there. If you want telerobotics I think 6 is the maximum we need at Mars...

Once we get to operating a base long-term, yeah, 9 or better still 20+ is good because we'll have a facility, setup on an alien and demanding surface, that NEEDS that kind of attention.

SpaceNut · 2007-01-06 21:18:31

But then again that sort of what has been happening for sometime with the Mars Devon Island Research Station

Kathryn Bywaters Oceanside woman to join four-month simulation in the Arctic

The field exploration will be conducted May 1 to Aug. 31 at the Mars Society's Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station in the polar desert of Canada's Devon Island, 900 miles from the North Pole.

noosfractal · 2007-02-11 04:58:25

Located this reference while searching for other stuff.
Assessment of NASA's Mars Architecture 2007-2016
Of course the document link is dead...

Executive Summary ...

From http://www.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11717.pdf

This assessment by the ad hoc Committee to Review the Next Decade Mars Architecture was conducted at the
request of Dr. Mary Cleave, NASA’s Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, who asked
the National Research Council (NRC) to address the following three questions:

1. Is the Mars architecture reflective of the strategies, priorities, and guidelines put forward by the National
Research Council’s solar system exploration decadal survey and related science strategies and NASA
plans?

2. Does the revised Mars architecture address the goals of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program and optimize
the science return, given the current fiscal posture of the program?

3. Does the Mars architecture represent a reasonably balanced mission portfolio?

It is important to note that the original order of the questions posed by Dr. Cleave was 2, 3, and 1. That is, the
one that now appears first was originally listed as last. The committee has taken the liberty of reordering
the questions because it is strongly of the opinion that logic dictates that it start its assessment of the Mars
architecture by first addressing the architecture’s scientific foundations.

Following presentations, discussions, and deliberations, the committee developed the following findings and
offers specific recommendations relating to each:

1. Is the Mars architecture reflective of the strategies, priorities, and guidelines put forward by the NRC’s
solar system exploration decadal survey and related science strategies and NASA plans?

The committee finds that the proposed Mars architecture addresses some of the strategies, priorities, and guidelines promoted
by the solar system exploration (SSE) decadal survey and the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group
(MEPAG) and is basically consistent with NASA’s plans as exemplified by the agency’s 2006 strategic plan1
and the Vision for Space Exploration.2 However, the absence of a sample return mission and a geophysical/
meteorological network mission runs counter to the recommendations of the SSE decadal survey and
significantly reduces the architecture’s scientific impact. Other topics of concern include the lack of welldefined
mission parameters and scientific objectives for the Mars Science and Telecommunications Orbiter,
Astrobiology Field Laboratory, and Mid Rover missions; issues relating to the phasing and responsiveness
of these missions to the results obtained from past missions; and the incompletely articulated links between
these missions and the priorities enunciated by the SSE decadal survey and MEPAG.

The committee offers the following recommendations to NASA:
• Recommendation: Include the Mars Long-Lived Lander Network in the mix of options for the 2016
launch opportunity.
• Recommendation: Consider delaying the launch of the Astrobiology Field Laboratory until 2018 to
permit an informed decision of its merits and the selection of an appropriate instrument complement
in the context of a mature consideration of the results from the Mars Science Laboratory and other
prior missions.
• Recommendation: Establish science and technology definition teams for the Astrobiology Field
Laboratory, the Mars Science and Telecommunications Orbiter, the Mid Rovers, and the Mars
Long-Lived Lander Network as soon as possible to optimize science and mission design in concert
with each other. (This model has been employed successfully by the heliospheric community.)
• Recommendation: Devise a strategy to implement the Mars Sample Return mission, and ensure that
a program is started at the earliest possible opportunity to develop the technology necessary to
enable this mission.

2. Does the revised Mars architecture address the goals of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program and optimize
the science return, given the current fiscal posture of the program?

The committee finds that it cannot definitively say whether or not the revised Mars architecture addresses the goals of NASA’s Mars Exploration
Program because the architecture lacks sufficient detail with respect to the science and the cost to allow a
complete evaluation. The various mission options are, as stated above, incompletely defined, and the strategic
approach to, and the selection criteria to distinguish among, various mission options are lacking. The
presence of Mars Scout missions in the architecture is welcomed because they help to optimize the science
return and provide balance. Nevertheless, the Mars architecture as a whole is not optimized, because the
importance of foundational strategic elements—for example, research and analysis programs and technology
development—is not articulated.

In response to this finding, the committee offers the following recommendations to NASA:
• Recommendation: Develop and articulate criteria for distinguishing between the three options for
missions to launch in 2016. Similarly, define a strategy that addresses the short lead time between
science results obtained from the Mars Science Laboratory and selection of the mission to fly in 2016.
• Recommendation: Clarify how trade-offs involving mission costs versus science were made for the
various launch opportunities to justify the rationale behind the proposed sequence of specific missions
and the exclusion of others.
• Recommendation: Maintain the Mars Scouts as entities distinct from the core missions of the Mars
Exploration Program. Scout missions should not be restricted by the planning for core missions, and
the core missions should not depend on selecting particular types of Scout missions.
• Recommendation: Immediately initiate appropriate technology development activities to support all
of the missions considered for the period 2013-2016 and to support the Mars Sample Return mission
as soon as possible thereafter.
• Recommendation: Ensure a vigorous research and analysis (R&A) program to maintain the scientific
and technical infrastructure and expertise necessary to implement the Mars architecture, and
encourage collaboration on international missions.

3. Does the Mars architecture represent a reasonably balanced mission portfolio?

The committee finds that in the context of the basic types of missions, the Mars architecture is a reasonably well balanced one: both
landed and orbital missions are included in an appropriate mix, given the current state of Mars exploration.
To the extent that the specific science objectives of the proposed missions are defined, one of the three
crosscutting themes for the exploration of Mars identified in the SSE decadal survey is largely neglected, as
are very high priority topics related to understanding near-surface and boundary-layer atmospheric
sciences, and so, in this respect, balance is sorely lacking.

To optimize efforts to implement a balanced portfolio of missions, the committee offers the following recommendations
to NASA:
• Recommendation: Include the Mars Long-Lived Lander Network in the mix of options for the 2016
launch opportunity.
• Recommendation: If the Mars Long-Lived Lander Network cannot be implemented in the period
under consideration, provide for an effort to make some of the highest-priority measurements on the
landed missions that are included in the proposed Mars architecture.
• Recommendation: Ensure that the primary role of the Mars Science and Telecommunications Orbiter
is to address science questions, and not simply to serve as a telecommunications relay. This distinction
is particularly important with respect to the required orbital parameters that are adopted.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-02-22 11:38:42

So what exactly are these reasons? The Lunar Outpost will cost MUCH more than ISS to operate, the cost per kg on the Moon is 5 times that for LEO. ISRU may work eventually and be able to provide oxygen, everything else will have to be brought from Earth at about $50,000 kg. Sure one day, far in the future, the base will be as accessible and extensive as the South Pole base is now .... one day.

I've seen figures as high as $300 billion, Bush-Snr was once asking for 500 B to do Mars

cIclops · 2007-02-22 12:46:26

For the Mars architecture and several flights? NASA are working on an Ares/Orion based architecture right now, it's hard to say what it will cost. Griffin talks about $104 billion for RTTM, and that would include developing Ares and Orion. Then add to that the cost of developing the MTV, HAB and lander. One mission will probably need 3xAres V + Ares I/Orion ... that alone will cost $3 billion or more. Plus say another billion for copies of the MTV, HAB and lander, that makes about $4billion per Mars mission.

NASA have $17 billion a year, half of that will be going on ISS and Science, which leaves the rest for exploration. So say $4 billion every two years for a Mars mission plus another $2 billion a year for lunar exploration. That should be affordable in a $13 trillion economy. We'll see.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-05-25 14:43:44

Orion evolution - new version shows large-scale changes

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5097

cIclops · 2007-07-20 06:56:22

Getting Large Payloads to the Surface of the Red Planet - 17 Jul 2007

The real problem is the combination of Mars’ atmosphere and the size of spacecraft needed for human missions. So far, our robotic spacecraft have been small enough to enable at least some success in reaching the surface safely. But while the Apollo lunar lander weighed approximately 10 metric tons, a human mission to Mars will require three to six times that mass, given the restraints of staying on the planet for a year. Landing a payload that heavy on Mars is currently impossible, using our existing capabilities. “There’s too much atmosphere on Mars to land heavy vehicles like we do on the moon, using propulsive technology completely,” said Manning, “and there’s too little atmosphere to land like we do on Earth. So, it’s in this ugly, grey zone.”
But what about airbags, parachutes, or thrusters that have been used on the previous successful robotic Mars missions, or a lifting body vehicle similar to the space shuttle?
None of those will work, either on their own or in combination, to land payloads of one metric ton and beyond on Mars. This problem affects not only human missions to the Red Planet, but also larger robotic missions such as a sample return. “Unfortunately, that’s where we are,” said Manning. “Until we come up with a whole new trick, a whole new system, landing humans on Mars will be an ugly and scary proposition.”

Rob Manning is the Chief Engineer for the Mars Exploration Directorate and led the EDL teams for Pathfinder and MER and is working on Phoenix.

RobS · 2007-07-20 22:36:19

Wow, this is quite an interesting article and it highlights a very, very important and so far unsolved problem in landing people or anything large on Mars. GCN, where are you when we need you?

-- RobS

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-10-05 17:55:47

Its only six months there. Six months back.
And once again, the Salyut cosmonauts did okay with that amount of space IIRC and seemed to get by okay.
And if Ares-V is too small, then I say just build a larger booster.
As Zubrin pointed out in The Case For Mars, there have been literally hundreds of designs for viable superboosters (larger than the Saturn V capability) over the years.

The main problem is that we will waste too much money and hours on the Moon and blow our chances of getting to Mars

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-06 08:39:26

Moon missions would make Mars missions cheaper by already developing the hardware needed to get to Mars.

For instance, a moon rover can also be a Mars rover.

We could build moon landers that can also throttle up and land on Mars with the addition of parachutes.

Ares V rockets can be used to assemble the Mars ship in orbit, possible with 2 Aries Vs and one Aries I

Mars suits can also be Moon suits, so lets design the space suit for use on Mars but also use them on the Moon.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2006-12-21 10:47:54

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#177 2006-12-21 12:21:13

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#178 2006-12-21 18:45:08

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#179 2006-12-21 20:15:01

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#180 2006-12-22 07:35:00

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#181 2006-12-22 14:06:15

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#182 2006-12-22 20:06:29

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#183 2006-12-22 22:15:49

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#184 2006-12-22 22:40:59

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#185 2006-12-29 17:18:36

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#186 2006-12-29 20:18:00

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#187 2007-01-01 03:28:44

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#188 2007-01-03 17:45:37

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#189 2007-01-05 08:34:31

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#190 2007-01-06 19:37:13

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#191 2007-01-06 20:12:16

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#192 2007-01-06 21:18:31

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#193 2007-02-11 04:58:25

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#194 2007-02-22 11:38:42

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#195 2007-02-22 12:46:26

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#196 2007-05-25 14:43:44

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#197 2007-07-20 06:56:22

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#198 2007-07-20 22:36:19

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#199 2007-10-05 17:55:47

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

#200 2007-10-06 08:39:26

Re: Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now?

Board footer