Mars in three years

[tater]

Crew safety requires the consent of the crew. They'd simply say no, find yourself some other crash test dummies.

[HebaruSan]

Just now, tater said:

Crew safety requires the consent of the crew. They'd simply say no, find yourself some other crash test dummies.

I can't claim I'm qualified to debate test pilot psychology, but they found somebody to fly the X-15 and Vostok. "First person in space" was a pretty big lure, but so is "First person on Mars."

[sevenperforce]

43 minutes ago, tater said:

Stripping down D2 is certainly possible, but then it is not D2, its something else.

The LEM was tested 3 times. Unmanned, in LEO, and in LMO. For 3 years they better get cracking, and they have a launch backlog as it is.

No, it needs to land ahead of crew, assuming it is doing any ISRU. Well ahead. I don't remember the rule of thumb, but how much mass in LEO is required for every kg of props brought to the Martian surface?

I wasn't thinking of an ISRU MAV. Could even be solids. Getting off Mars is not that hard as long as you can land the vehicle in the first place.

It's sort of a semantic argument over whether something is "still D2" if it is stripped down. I don't care; I'm just saying that they already have a capsule with propulsion modules that's capable of doing the trick. And they can test it by itself, ahead of time, with a single FH launch, which serves as a backup ascent vehicle for the main mission.

But yes, it's much easier than Mars.

45 minutes ago, tater said:

Now leaving in 7 years is a different story, and perhaps worth more serious consideration as a fun exercise for the reader (Mars orbit being far more plausible than landing, and the moon being easy in that time frame).

Okay, then let's reboot the discussion.

Timeframe for manned Mars mission to launch before 2024.

Go.

[passinglurker]

Unless you want to fund a dozen independent programs simultaneously let them go over budget and then piece together a 13th program from the bits of the first 12 that didn't fall behind schedule this probably isn't gonna happen by 2024

Edit: basically a hail Mary pass towards ideas like, ITS, magneto internal fusion, and hibernation tech.

Edited April 24, 2017 by passinglurker

[wumpus]

4 hours ago, passinglurker said:

Unless you want to fund a dozen independent programs simultaneously let them go over budget and then piece together a 13th program from the bits of the first 12 that didn't fall behind schedule this probably isn't gonna happen by 2024

Edit: basically a hail Mary pass towards ideas like, ITS, magneto internal fusion, and hibernation tech.

The two real "Hail Mary" techs you need are VASIMR and a nuclear power plant for it.  VASIMR at least works in the lab, so it has a leg up on any other "better than methylox" Isp solutions.  The real killer is that you need more power than solar can realistically provide (if you are limited to solar, ion engines make more sense.  Just don't expect to keep [the solar panels] working long enough to get out of the Van Allan belts).  So plan on building a space nuclear reactor (it has been done, but I'm assuming there was a good reason nobody at NASA tried again (I think the Soviets made a few).  I'm betting on cooling issues).

Most of the problems with the reactor (other than being a cooling nightmare) are political, so I get a free pass to ignore those issues in this thread [snicker].  Don't expect NASA to have such an easy ride.

If you were willing to take more than eight years, it might be possible to build a solar panel that can deal with the van allen belts.  Build one of those and you can use ion thrusters to cache "fuel" (read entire dockable stages) in various orbits of Earth and defeat the rocket equation's tyranny once and for all.  This was my old answer, but I have no idea how to deal with the shielding/radiation issue.

How close to "a dozen independent programs simultaneously" was Apollo?  Didn't they start to design the Saturn about the time Kennedy "chose to go to the Moon"?  And had to rush to build Gemini to prove all the tech they needed for Apollo (docking, long flight survival, navigation?) but didn't have the "right" rocket to do it yet.  I think the L[E]M was in Apollo 10, but a dummy weight was in Apollo 8.  They had to work around a ton of schedules, and didn't have the limited launch windows Mars has.

[tater]

VASIMR makes little sense, IMO. The power plant output/kg is no where near good enough, it would take a Manhattan Project level of support to do it in any reasonable timeframe. NTRs are vastly more mature than space nuclear power plants at small sizes (I used to be involved with the ISNPS Conference, and it's my understanding that ideas have improved, but it's not very well funded, and since it's "scary" (to the people who vote for the people who write the checks) people tend to stay away from it as a career choice).

[passinglurker]

15 minutes ago, wumpus said:

The two real "Hail Mary" techs you need are VASIMR and a nuclear power plant for it.

You misunderstand I'm not saying we need a hail mary to fusion propulsion in particular I'm saying that each component of the program needs multiple understudies (basically if you crash program something like the VASIMR, MIF, and Nerva  propulsion busses all at the same time maybe one of those would be ready to push the hab to mars in time for 2024)

20 minutes ago, wumpus said:

(if you are limited to solar, ion engines make more sense.  Just don't expect to keep [the solar panels] working long enough to get out of the Van Allan belts)

This is why DTS casts off from a high lunar orbit where escape velocity is low, debris is negligible, and there are no radiation belts.

22 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Most of the problems with the reactor (other than being a cooling nightmare) are political

So after dizzying cost of fuel, genuinely deadly radiation, the logistical challenges of repair and refuel, and needing fields of radiators rivaling the size of SEP solutions, NFP's biggest challenge is political?

Nuclear power may have its advantages but it's no panacea 

30 minutes ago, wumpus said:

How close to "a dozen independent programs simultaneously" was Apollo?  Didn't they start to design the Saturn about the time Kennedy "chose to go to the Moon"?  And had to rush to build Gemini to prove all the tech they needed for Apollo (docking, long flight survival, navigation?) but didn't have the "right" rocket to do it yet.  I think the L[E]M was in Apollo 10, but a dummy weight was in Apollo 8.  They had to work around a ton of schedules, and didn't have the limited launch windows Mars has.

The moon is a whole different beast and a cake walk compared to reaching mars they could afford to settle on one plan and brute force it, but the apollo approach won't work for mars because the challenge falls well outside conventional solutions. Getting to mars on a deadline will amount to throwing well aimed shots at a wall and seeing what sticks.

[kerbiloid]

In early KSP, when Duna and others just appeared, forums and youtube were full with proud reports and movies where Jebediah had landed on Duna in Mk1 pod, planted a flag and... become the first Martian...

Looks familiar.

[tater]

LEM flew in Apollo 5, 9, 10, and on as a functioning vehicle. 5 was unmanned.

[shynung]

We need further research into human long-term space habitation systems, medical effects of being in reduced gravity for extended periods of time, closed-system LSS, maybe a medical hibernation system. Basically, anything that can keep us alive out there, far away from home.

The "getting there" part, I think we can do by EOR-assembling a multistage expendable methalox transfer vehicle by 6-10 heavy-lifter launches, then stacking a two-stage Mars lander, inflatable hab section, and Earth reentry vehicle on the nose. Crew comes up separately after everything is assembled, then goes off to Mars after everything checks out fine.

Edited April 25, 2017 by shynung

[The Flying Kerbal]

Much as I would love to see flags and boots on Mars as quickly as possible - and providing they have a reasonable chance of getting back - I think that three years is just not doable.

I suspect it would be no easy task to do it by 2030.  What I think needs to happen to give the 2030 deadline even a chance is for the WH to genuinely commit to it in much the same manner as JFK did for the Lunar landing back in 1961.  But back then this was driven by the desire to beat Moscow to the Moon, who would be the motivation for a similar commitment for a Martian landing "before the end of this decade"?

And one last point, and this has already been pointed out by an earlier comment, what are the astronauts going to fly to Mars in?  Are we really going to squeeze them into a rather small capsule and send them on a voyage that will take months and months?

Nope... no way can it be done by 2020, and even with an enormous commitment, both political and financial, I suspect 2030 wouldn't really be feasible either.

Just my thoughts, but hey... what do I know??

[wumpus]

11 hours ago, passinglurker said:

This is why DTS casts off from a high lunar orbit where escape velocity is low, debris is negligible, and there are no radiation belts.

And this is likely not worth it for Mars since the moon is 3/4 of the delta-v needed to get to Mars.  You might bother with cargo to Mars (orbit/surface) if you have several years to get it there.

11 hours ago, passinglurker said:

So after dizzying cost of fuel, genuinely deadly radiation, the logistical challenges of repair and refuel, and needing fields of radiators rivaling the size of SEP solutions, NFP's biggest challenge is political?

Nuclear power may have its advantages but it's no panacea 

Nuclear's political problems will be worse than any technical problem.  The technical problems are solvable and may well be best for certain problems being faced right now.  But nobody is seriously considering them due to the political issues.

Also, I'm not suggesting a nuclear thermal rocket (although that certainly is a possibility for Mars, and has certain red-tape advantages for NASA as it is grandfathered in as "flight ready tech"), but an actual nuclear reactor to power the VASIMR.  Presumably something related to modern pebble based designs, and yes the cooling would be extreme (it would presumably resemble the solar panels it would replace, but resistant to van allan belts).  I think the real killer for both is the hydrogen supply, although it might work for a "land on Mars for a week and use the early return window" that would the slightly less impossible choice for Mars within 8 years.

And I really don't think their were "conventional solutions" in going to the Moon from 1960-1969.

Edited April 25, 2017 by wumpus
scrubbed non-partisan political explanation for those outside the US

[p1t1o]

I would have a hard time believing that the paperwork could be done in 3 years, let alone anything else.

I work in international regulatory affairs for the chemical industry and I am completely serious.

 

Yes, its possible in a "going faster than light is impossible" kind of way, but so is a lot of things. Like converting the Moon into a ring system for Earth.

Edited April 25, 2017 by p1t1o

[tater]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

I would have a hard time believing that the paperwork could be done in 3 years, let alone anything else.

/thread

 

[passinglurker]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

And this is likely not worth it for Mars since the moon is 3/4 of the delta-v needed to get to Mars.  You might bother with cargo to Mars (orbit/surface) if you have several years to get it there.

A purely chemical solution needs either mega rockets, or propellant depots and lots and lots of fuel flights both of which are unreasonably expensive without business case to be fostered outside of the government mars shot business, and developing those markets and industries to make that business case takes time.

nuclear is straight out we can agree on that even if we can't agree on why.

That leaves us with SEP, and Chem/SEP which can shrink the propulsion bus down to a size that can ride on existing and upcoming rockets at existing and upcoming flight rates even with the losses of haveing to use lunar orbit as a staging ground the efficiency from that point more than makes up for it.

[sevenperforce]

Okay, so let's see here.

• 2017. First flight of Falcon Heavy.
• 2017. Design chosen for cryo propulsion bus.
• 2018. Falcon Heavy sends Dragon 2 on manned circumlunar flight.
• 2018. First flight test of crewed Orion on SLS.
• 2018. Cryo propulsion bus manufactured.
• 2018. MAV design chosen.
• 2019. First flight of Raptor-derived upper stage for Falcon family.
• 2019. First flight test of cryo propulsion bus using SLS.
• 2019. Design completed and construction started on Mars Transfer Docking Tunnel Assembly (MTDTA)
• 2019. MAV construction and preliminary LOX ISRU testing (simulated CO2 atmosphere and Mars-level solar).
• 2020. Falcon Heavy sends Dragon 2 to test propulsive landing on Mars.
• 2020. Ground testing of MTDTA
• 2020. Launch and Earth re-entry testing of MAV on SLS.
• 2021. Falcon Heavy with Raptor-derived upper stage lifts MTDTA, docks temporarily with ISS.
• 2021. Two Falcon 9 Dragon 1 launches send two BEAM modules to ISS for docking.
• 2021. SLS tests on-orbit propellant transfer for cryo propulsion bus.
• 2022. Falcon Heavy + Methalox US tests aerocapture and orbital insertion of Dragon 2; will retest re-entry and precision propulsive landing.
• 2022. SLS sends MAV to Mars.
• 2022. Falcon Heavy + Methalox US sends cryo propellant tank into orbit to validate long-term boiloff avoidance; will loiter for estimated length of Mars transfer.
• 2023. Falcon 9 begins sending transfer supplies to ISS.
• 2023. SLS lifts cryo propulsion bus to ISS to be mated to MTDTA.
• 2023. Falcon Heavy + Methalox US sends second cryo propellant tank to LEO.
• 2024. Falcon Heavy + Methalox US sends unmanned Dragon 2 to Mars as descent vehicle.
• 2024. Both cryo prop tanks rendezvous with ISS, fuel cryo propulsion bus.
• 2024. Falcon 9 Dragon 2 sends Mars crew to ISS.
• 2024. Departure of Mars Expedition

Very very ambitious, but potentially doable.

[Nibb31]

57 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Okay, so let's see here.

• 2017. First flight of Falcon Heavy.

If you're lucky.

Quote

• 2017. Design chosen for cryo propulsion bus.

What? A choice based on what trade studies? When did the multiple years of competing designs begin? How long did it take to select vendors? When did you first write the draft RFPs for preliminary design studies for the high-level mission architecture?

Quote

• 2018. Falcon Heavy sends Dragon 2 on manned circumlunar flight.
• 2018. First flight test of crewed Orion on SLS.

If you're lucky.

Quote

• 2018. Cryo propulsion bus manufactured.

Wow! That was fast! You manage to get from a paper design to a manufactured product in one year? It takes more than that to produce a ball point pen. What about the actual engineering? designing the tooling? the test fixtures? selecting components? doing procurement? writing and testing the software? certifying suppliers? building the damn factory? 

Quote

• 2018. MAV design chosen.

Again, based on what trade studies? This sort of process takes years to accomplish.

At this stage, you would still be hiring the design team and selecting vendors.

Quote

Very very ambitious, but potentially doable.

Sorry, but no way.

In reality, if the project was kicked off today, you might have detailed mission architecture studies by 2020, but nothing more.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Nibb31

[shynung]

It usually takes a few years for a design to be chosen, because there are usually multiple teams working on competing designs. Even after the final design choice is set, multiple manufacturers design competing production lines (this takes about as much time as the initial part design cycle), and make pricing bids on per-product price they are willing to offer. In between, there are a LOT of tests to ensure that the design will do what it was supposed to do, and even more test to see whether the winning manufacturer's product is up to the standards.

And that's for measly little parts such as valves. Every single newly-designed components have to undergo that process, which can be difficult for complicated parts like turbopumps. Then there's an entire software design cycle (more of the same) for every program that's written for every computer-controlled part. Then, there's integration tests (does part A actually work well with part B, which part will bottleneck the others, which will wear out before others, etc) to verify that the assembled design won't run into square-peg-gets-into-round-hole problems. With multiple teams working on competing designs, it can be hard to follow what individual teams are exactly doing, potentially making design compliance with other parts a complicated matter.

I'd consider us lucky if we can get something as complicated as a cryogenic propulsion stage from the paper to a manufactured product in half a decade. There's so much things in between.

Edited April 25, 2017 by shynung

[Kerbart]

The president is a business man. In most business that I'm aware of, initial deadlines are not set with the expectation that it can get done. They're a negotiating point. The signal he's sending NASA is that boots on the ground in 2050 as per the current plan (we know NASA slips every single deadline, so yes, 2050, not 2030) is not acceptable and they need to come up with something more aggressive.

There will be an ambitious plan, it might or might not get approval, and in 2020 with a new president everything will get reviewed, budgets get gutted and we're back at square one.

 I'm putting my money on the other business guy to get there first. Not that I think that timetable is realistic, but it will have a single plan and goal that won't be gutted every four years because there's a new dude in charge.

The apollo program showed what can het done if we set our mind to it and want to get there. NASA ever since shows us what happens when those in charge of policy and budgets have goals that are unrelated to that. As long as congress sees the primary goal of NASA to be a provider of juicy contracts to be landed in home states and nothing else, we're not going anywhere.

Anti-politics rebuttal: this has nothing to do with who's president; in it's current setup, NASA is simply doomed to get anything big done that takes over 15 years to complete.

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Kerbart

[tater]

I'm sorta with @Nibb31, I suppose unsurprisingly.

One, EM-1 is almost certainly moving to 2019 at this point. They have a sum total of 1 month of schedule buffer at this point until flight to be on time for that 2018 date, and I'm not sure that includes the storm damage they received. That's as designed, there is no possible way it's crewed in 2018, and since uncrewed is almost certainly 2019 anyway, adding crew might push it out at the very least to late 2019.

FH will hopefully fly this year (the core is upright in the test stand right now in TX), and SX keeps saying it will, but from what I've heard 39A will take 60-90 days to get ready after SLC-40 is back online and the crews can move back to working on it. SLC-40 is set for some point in August to be ready. That leaves part of November and December to fly FH. Any pad problems will throw them off by many months.

There are many other players, of course, and any NASA project will almost certainly not use just one provider. On top of that, they will not grossly abbreviate safety requirements, that's just not a thing at this point.

That's the underlying problem with Mars vs the Moon. The dv requirements are not substantially greater (Mars orbit vs lunar surface), but the mass required is vastly greater (life support for a long, long trip), and perhaps more importantly, testing is fundamentally limited by orbital mechanics. I'd think that any such mission would be better done in a more incremental way than Mars Direct proposed. Send an orbital mission to leverage remote vehicles with short control delays, nd the same mission could deliver those vehicles in otherwise crewed ascent/descent vehicles. In fact, a test MAV could be used for a sample return to crew on orbit. Only after some testing would crew be sent on a follow-on flight. 

[_Augustus_]

3 hours ago, tater said:

In fact, a test MAV could be used for a sample return to crew on orbit. Only after some testing would crew be sent on a follow-on flight. 

I have advocated this idea for a long time. 

[ARS]

Valentina tereshkova is willing for a one way trip to mars (Valentina Kerman anyone?) though she said it at 2013

[Bill Phil]

I say yes if we throw out any sensible methods. Grab a hundred or more billion dollars and through it at Project Orion. Considering the timescale, though, we may need the equivalent of a trillion or more dollars. Maybe we could get boots on the ground by 2020.

But that's totally unrealistic. I'll say no if we don't have access to that.

[kerbiloid]

In 3 years they can deliver 100 g of Martian ground and make a footprint on it.

Bonus perk "Lady Mars": a footprint of high heel.

Edited April 26, 2017 by kerbiloid

[p1t1o]

Its probably almost as impossible, but how would things change if the mission remit was manned, but without landing the astronauts on the martian surface?