You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Recently it was announced that NASA would be designing a new mission to Mars to be released in July/August of this year, 2007. Here is the report-
NASA will have a basic architecture for a manned Mars mission in late July, says NASA deputy associate administrator for exploration systems Doug Cooke.
The Mars work began in January and will build on previous design reference missions produced by NASA. What differs with this study is that the performance specifications of the Ares I crew launch vehicle and Ares V heavy lift vehicle will play a large part in the analysis.
“It won’t be as detailed as the [2005] Exploration Systems Architecture Study [that dealt with the Moon],” says Cooke.
However it will draw conclusions about whether NASA wants to carry out long or short stay missions to Mars, what surface power supply would be used, and what propulsion is required. At the moment NASA envisages a Marsship that is as large as the International Space Station and uses either nuclear or solar electric propulsion systems. Cooke added that NASA’s aeronautics centers were interested in working on the dynamics of Mars atmospheric entry.
Seemingly good news. A new Mars mission plan from NASA. What implications does this have for groups like The Mars Society and other Mars enthusiasts? Well, in another recent speech Mike Griffin spoke about what he thought would be the next 50 years for NASA. But even before that he appeared at the Mars Society Conference in Washington D.C last year and said a few sobering words.
He stated very early in his speech to the Mars Society (of which he is a member)- “I hope to provoke some thinking among you, as members of the Mars Society, to try to look at NASA’s overall mission, rather than the single goal of a voyage to Mars”. He then goes on to talk about how the VSE came to be and how important it is to the future of the U.S space program. In the 2005 NASA Authorization Act there were specific instructions for NASA to follow and he listed those as being a- 1. Return to the Moon no later than 2020. 2. Launch the CEV as close to 2010 as possible, and not later than 2014; 3. Increase knowledge of the impact of long duration stays in space on the human body using the most appropriate facilities available, including the ISS, 4. Enable humans to land on and return from Mars and other destinations on a timetable that is technically and fiscally possible”.
Note point 4 especially. “On a timetable that is technically and fiscally possible”. He also states- “NASA’s strategic goals are neither solely nor initially focused upon Mars.”. Seems pretty clear on that point doesn’t it? He then goes on to explain what this means and how that completion of the ISS, retirement of the shuttle and construction of the CEV are the main focus for NASA over the next several years among many “competing priorities”.
These plans are being followed in view of the “resources projected to be available to NASA over the next 5 years” or in other words- within current NASA budgets. There is simply no room for development of near term Mars missions in the NASA budget as it is and as it is projected to be any time soon. The only way a Mars mission could be brought forward is for there to an increase in NASA funding to the tune of an extra $5 Billion or so per year for the next 15 or so years. But with the way NASA has to struggle for every penny do you really believe it is logical or realistic to assume that such a thing could happen?
Let me be clear. For a near term Mars mission to happen, NASA would need billions of dollars added to its budget every year starting right now. And even if NASA’s budget does receive such a boost do you think that Mars missions will be the only priority they would spend such funds on?
Griffin states that the path NASA is now on is a “national imperative”. This means they listen their bosses in government first, not small space advocate groups. So realistically how does anyone expect the Mars Society or anyone else to get NASA’s funding radically increased in light of all these facts? NASA is not just about getting to Mars. As Griffin said they “are charged with carrying out a broad portfolio of missions in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research”.
Griffin states that completion of the ISS, safe and effective transition to the new ESAS (CEV, Ares etc) by completing the shuttle missions is “at the forefront of our attention at NASA”. So even with greater funding NASA will move to fulfil those priorities above all else, including a Mars mission. He goes on to talk of international partnerships and how that perhaps other nations might help “augment” a Mars mission like they have done with the ISS (not very successfully either). This is one option the Mars Society needs to seriously consider now. If they want near term Mars missions they need to take what Griffin said to heart and begin to reach out to other national agencies to help with development costs for a Mars mission now that we know NASA won’t have such funds at least for another 15 years.
In light of the current realities at NASA it is time groups like the Mars Society seriously reconsidered their approach on getting humans to Mars soon. Zubrin was quoted as saying- “The destination needs to be Mars and needs to be soon”. According to Griffin NASA plans to go there in around 30 years or so, and that is not “soon”. So what are the choices? What strategies could MS employ to try and bring forward human Mars missions?
They could try and lobby the U.S government to increase NASA funding and to allocate the extra funds to Mars missions but for this to succeed it would have to be in the next year or two at most. Development for a human Mars mission will take at least 15 years according to most serious estimates so every year NASA doesn’t get that extra funding puts a mission date out by 15 years. That 15 year period could be reduced to 10 years (if everything goes perfectly in r&d) but not without a doubling of the current NASA budget and sadly that is just not going to happen.
The problem is to lobby the U.S government for extra NASA funds will require NASA to be on their side as well. NASA have a plan and it will help them fulfil all of their goals over the next few decades and they already struggle just to secure current levels of funding so why would they rock the boat by demanding more funds from the government on the scale needed for a Mars mission? It would be counter productive to everything they have fought for and achieved over the last few years. It would also seem quite irrational to go off on a Mars tangent just as they are beginning their implementation of VSE and many members of Congress would see that. Under Griffin NASA has done their best to bring forward human Mars missions and I don’t think Mars advocates could ask for a better NASA Chief.
But the best they can achieve is 30 years- maybe. The decision for a real Mars mission has not been made yet and according to Griffin will not be made for another 10 or 15 years from now. We hope that when the time comes a Mars mission will become the next logical step and will receive a “national imperative”. But NASA will not be advocating a near term human Mars mission any time soon, and certainly not before they return to the Moon.
So this leaves just the Mars Society and a loose assortment of Mars enthusiasts to push for a near term Mars mission on their own. They won’t get NASA’s backing, and they definitely won’t get Congress funding because of that fact so what is left? The only scenario I can see that might happen is a private/international partnership that spends the next 10 to 15 years developing Mars mission components. So by 2022 NASA will be on the Moon and hopefully have a base there, they will have tested and proved the new HLLV systems and IF their international and commercial partners have spent their own money (over the next 15 years) on Mars mission development then at that time a Mars mission could be launched within a year or two.
Could the ESA, Russia, China, Japan and other nations develop Mars mission systems and build them ready for NASA in 2022? They could, but not on their own. They would still need to work with NASA and would need to tie their R & D into NASA’s own development path. Each of these agencies would need to be convinced of the severe importance of a near term Mars mission first and that does not look very likely either. Even if MS could muster the numbers needed to pressure these other nations into paying for Mars mission development costs it would take years from now (if they started today). If they can’t convince the U.S government to give NASA more funds what makes you think they could achieve that with several other nations?
This is a path they could follow, but it will definitely not lead to near term Mars missions. The quagmire of politics requires a lot of money and a lot of time to fight through, and MS has neither. So that leaves the private option. Private U.S based space companies (and approved international space companies) could pick up the tab for Mars mission development (at costs lower than NASA) and when NASA has tested and proved the new HLLV architecture they could marry the two development paths into a Mars mission, possibly even before a Moon mission. This would mean that those private companies would need to find ways of making some profits from the mission, perhaps with sample returns, media rights, patents, etc.
Yet there are problems with this option also and no doubt you can point them out to me. Private companies want quick returns and don’t like risks. They also won’t do anything that is not “in demand” and from what they can see no one wants a Mars mission beyond a few thousand Mars enthusiasts in the world. So before private support could be gained there would need to be a decent amount of the public in support of such a plan. This is the part MS and other groups could work on but so far do very little of. MS has stated in their charter that they do want to seek the private mission option but so far the obsession with NASA has left that option on the sidelines.
I believe that according to what Griffin has said that a private/NASA partnership could be forged for near term Mars missions but it will take a lot of hard work and public outreach by MS and others to bring this about. We could be on Mars in the 2022 to 2025 window if we can organize enough public support and private investment into this, and if we can get NASA to agree with such a plan (which they have hinted at anyway). I don’t mind if they go to the Moon first, but Mars can still happen within the next 15 or 20 years IF we work on strategies that do stand a chance versus the current “ it’s all up to NASA” attitude.
Near term Mars missions are a major principle behind the existence of the Mars Society and now it is time to take responsibility for that idea or abandon it. If it is abandoned then expect a dwindling of numbers and eventual death. It would be great that if by the time NASA does bring out their Mars mission plan this July that MS has a professional proposal of its own to bring forward a Mars mission at no cost to the budget. This would be the perfect time to gain support from NASA for such a plan but to do such a thing would require work to begin today.
welcome to [url=http://www.marsdrive.net]www.marsdrive.net[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
Pages: 1