House Committee Chairman Encourages NASA To Send Crew Flyby Mars in 2021

[NASAFanboy]

The House of Representatives is at it again.

In their campaign to gain support, they've started to swing more to "pro-space" and away from "anti-space" (Probably caused by the Chang'e 3 touching down and the discovery of liquid water on Europa). This Congressional hearing, in which several highly influential lawmakers expressed their support for a NASA crew to flyby Mars in 2021, was held on Thursday with an full committee (Instead of a usual subcommittee, full committee hearing aren't that common and usually reserved for projects/bills of immediate interest, ex. Obamacare) listening to people testify, among whom was a former top NASA offical, who highlighted the benifits of a Mars flyby mission in 2021 and the feasibility.

A quote from USA today...

Smith, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which oversees NASA programs, said flying two astronauts around Mars without putting them on the surface would have several advantages.

It would provide an important test of the ambitious Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle that NASA is building for its Mars mission scheduled for the 2030s. It would include a flyby of Venus. And it would set the stage for further lunar exploration while providing an inspirational, near-term goal for a space program hungry for a blockbuster mission.

And another quote from the House Committee Chairman.

We are not the only nation interested in extending humanity's reach into the solar system, [...] One of the three major space-faring nations will reach Mars first. The question is whether it will be the U.S. or China or Russia. [...] It's also a situation of national pride and security.

So the United States Government is already starting to feel the heat on its back and the issue with China overtaking it to Mars. Also, in the hearing, a majority of repsentatives proclaimed their support for it, wanting the USA to overtake the Chinese in space leadership. Although many of the government officals a the meeting were in support of the manned Mars flyby plan, several Congressmen voiced their doubts, calling it "too ambitous", "too risky", and "we should spend money elsewhere". However, with an majority of House Representatives supporting such an proposal, it stands a nice chance of it becoming reality. Political party rivalry was not brought up at this debate (Hey, atleast NASA is something that both the Republicans and Democrats support).

Once Congress has voted in support of a mission to flyby Mars, it will likely not be cancelled. The average US Senator serves around 13-15 years in office, while the average Representative serves around 10-11 years in office, and incoming "Freshman" politicans (Those serving their first term) often have very similar views or are highly influenced by the outgoing politicans of the same party.. NASA will fly past Mars in 2021, or in 7 years. For once, American political boondoggery, corruption, and broken elections may actually be a good thing!

However, if this bill is improved, I can see alot of ambitous NASA projects being tossed out the window. For one, the NASA EML-2 spacestation around the Moon will likely be launched earlier, as the agency (And Boeing and Lockheed, it's two greatest partners, or, atleast, the most known ones) has already stated previously that it wants this spacestation to test life support technologies for deep space voyages to Mars and to act as a precursor mission-I mean, spacestation to Mars, a role originally intended to be filled by the ISS. This manned deep space outpost could provide us with a plethora of data on human spaceflight.

But in another light, like the novel Voyage (By Stephen Baxter), I can see Planetary Science being strapped of funds along with Earth science. We may have to phase out Cassini, perhaps limit our role in the JWST telescope, cancel most of the Discovery Program, cut funding for research into the ATLAST telescope around a Earth-Sun lagrange point, cut funding for a Uranus orbiter (Already under concept reviews), and god forbid, cut the Europa Mission .

Be careful what you wish for.

UNRELATED

Hypothetical Timeline

2014 - EFT-1

2017 - SLS test launch

2018 - Manned Launch? (Hypothetical, ECLSS engineers have stated they could probably rush the system given more funding)

2019 - Manned Launch, Gateway Outpost Station sent to Earth-Moon-Lagrange Point 2

2020 - Manned Launch, preparations for Mars mission, testing of engine and habitat systems in deep space

2021 - Crew launched on flyby mission late in year.

2022 - Crew flyby of Venus, Mars

2023 - Crew returns to Earth

WHAT WILL BE AFFECTED, AND HOW

- Planetary Science will likely recieve a drop in funding, forcing it to abandon science missions as more and more money is invested into a Mars mission and human spaceflight technologies and propulsion systems.

- Propulsion Research will likely get a boost in funding, allowing them to research and develop new ways to propel manned spacecraft to other planets and the Moon.

- ECLSS will likely recieve a boost in funding, allowing them to "rush" the ECLSS, allowing for faster development and research.

- The ISS may see a drop in funding as money is directed to the construction of the American EML-2 Spacestation, however, I do entrust that the ESA will help pick up the slack a little. I will not expect the ISS to last much longer after 2024.

- Orion will see itself being raced to development, with more engineers, more funding, and greater public consience about it.

- The SLS may see more variants of it being developed, much more funding, and higher governmental pressure to get it working, and fast. The amount of employees working on this and Orion will quickly rise to the thousands.

- The Asteriod Retrival Mission will die a quick and quiet death as Congressional funding is directed toward sustainable Mars infrastructure and a spacestation orbiting EML-2 on the lunar far side.

- There will likely be a huge burst of technological developments in the field of human spaceflight, which will help transform mankind into a multi-planetary species.

But remember, be careful what you wish for...it might just end up happening....

EXPLORATION ROADMAP TIMELINE PROPOSED BY SCIENTIST

International Space Station - continue to 2024 and possibly beyond.

Mars Flyby with crew -* 2021

Cis-lunar operations – 2017-2020, building up as ISS operations ramp down, EML-2 outpost

Human lunar landing – late 2020s, lander development after SLS completed, permanent lunar base

Human missions to an asteroid, Mars orbit – 2030s

Mars Expedition to the surface – mid to late 2030s

Martian base - 2050s

Human mission to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn – 2040s-2060s

Edited March 1, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[Skyler4856]

Any manned launch to a celestial body will excite the public and thus increase funding.

[Ralathon]

I think its a bad idea unless they also send a lander, or at least plan on building a lander later on with this being the "apollo 8" of the program

There are some benefits to a manned flyby, such as:

Testing long term space habitation.

Testing how humans react when utterly isolated.

Developing better life support systems

All essential if we ever want to become a multiplanet species. But science wise we aren't going to learn a lot from this. We'll get a few snazzy shots from Mars and its moons. But it is essentially a prestige mission, not a science mission.

[NASAFanboy]

I think its a bad idea unless they also send a lander, or at least plan on building a lander later on with this being the "apollo 8" of the program

There are some benefits to a manned flyby, such as:

Testing long term space habitation.

Testing how humans react when utterly isolated.

Developing better life support systems

All essential if we ever want to become a multiplanet species. But science wise we aren't going to learn a lot from this. We'll get a few snazzy shots from Mars and its moons. But it is essentially a prestige mission, not a science mission.

The EML-2 Outpost that NASA will launch prior to a manned Mars flyby mission will provide us with many scientific data and new technologies on human spaceflight. Propulsion will obivously be well funded, and the NERVA will likely be revived in the future (In fact, the current NASA plan with the MTV calls for a variant of the NERVA, as of 2012, atleast. I'm unsure). I'm quite certain that a NASA flyby mission will push a NASA landing on Mars from around 2037 to around 2031 or even in the late 2020's. That would be quite a nice change, and if Barack Obama decides to "acclerate" the SLS and ECLSS systems, it would provide him with nice PR. In the future, he'll know that we'll remember him as the President who got us started to Mars and did a bunch of miscellous healthcare stuff. Heck, some people might even say "JFK had the Moon, Obama had Mars".

Anyways, politics aside.

Read "Voyage" by Baxter.

In the book, we do land on Mars and do have a spacestation around the moon, but at a high cost-Planetary Science is so strapped for funding that our knowledge of the solar system is greatly diminished and the Space Shuttle and other concepts never become reality.

This manned Mars flyby will have the same effects. If it does go along (I'm going to give it a good 50-60% of it doing so, due to support by many influential Congressmen), Planetary Science will have some tough years to come.

[Roastduck]

I feel like there is no benefit to a manned flyby versus an unmanned flyby, other than the PR boost. If you're going to commit a crew to such a long flight, you might as well land them there so they can do SCIENCE on the surface.

[Scotius]

Well, at least they could "land" on Phobos or Deimos. Dv requirements would be trivial (think Gilly), and crew would bring back samples - so there would be scientific profit too.

[NASAFanboy]

Well, at least they could "land" on Phobos or Deimos. Dv requirements would be trivial (think Gilly), and crew would bring back samples - so there would be scientific profit too.

Speaking of that, NASA is considering of bundling a sample return mission from Mars with its 2020 rover.

The crew could flyby Mars and rendezvous with the sample and pick it up. This has already been suggested before, and I think its time to put that concept to the test.

Also, the Martian Moons are listed as a precursor for NASA to "land" on before going to Mars. There even is a serious proposal set forth by Lockheed Martian for establishing a base on Phobos by 2033 under the Exploration Roadmap. However, it would not be possible to land on the Moons of Mars with a free-return trajectory...it'll be less of a "landing" and more of a "quick painless fatal disassembly" followed by a new crater.

However, braking at Mars will complicate the mission and might make it lose it Congressional support it has now.

Edited March 1, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[maccollo]

Delaying this is not a viable option. It is enabled by a particular alignment between Mars, Earth and Venus. It's either go don't do this at all.

[NASAFanboy]

I added a timeline that was put forth and suggested by a scientist who testified at the meeting.

Scott Pace, the man who suggested the timeline, is actually being considered by some candidates as a NASA Administrator for their 2016 election.

[maccollo]

Well, at least they could "land" on Phobos or Deimos. Dv requirements would be trivial (think Gilly), and crew would bring back samples - so there would be scientific profit too.

No they could not. Part of what enables this missions is the fact that it doesn't require a huge amount of Delta V.

It's a free return trajectory.

In order to do this and stop at Mars, they would need to bring the fuel to get captured into orbit at Mars after a transfer from Venus. This would require something like 3 km/s. They would then need the fuel to intercept one of the moons. They would then need the lander, and all that comes with that, and then the fuel to transfer back to Earth, which would require somewhere between 2 and 3 km/s.

This would make the mission much more expensive, and would change it from being potentially possible in the current political climate to completely impossible.

*Edit

For those interested, here is the hearing.

http://youtu.be/ruuWZ4LMrmA

Edited March 1, 2014 by maccollo

[jwenting]

elections coming up maybe in a district where there's a lot of space related industry?

Didn't he vote quite recently to slash NASA's budget?

[jfull]

I think it's a good goal to do a Mars/Venus flyby along with a Near Earth Object mission before we go all the way to Mars.

Sure, we're theoretically capable of going right to a full Mars landing, but I don't think people appreciate how much could go wrong with a mission that complex. We need to get a feel for interplanetary travel first before an interplanetary landing.

[Brotoro]

I can't see the point of a manned planetary flyby. You put the crew at risk on a long-duration mission, and all the good data are going to come from instruments that could have been sent by themselves. It's not like having a geologist on the ground of a planet who could dig around and do a rover's work a thousand times faster.

[Whirligig Girl]

THIS WOULD BE BAD. WHy not, if going to Mars, ACTUALLY GO TO MARS. Why beat around the bush and not land? There's no reason not to land on Mars if you're already there.

[Rakaydos]

THIS WOULD BE BAD. WHy not, if going to Mars, ACTUALLY GO TO MARS. Why beat around the bush and not land? There's no reason not to land on Mars if you're already there.

From a cynical perspective, it keeps congress from pulling the plug. Cancelng a space probe is just money. forgetting about actual people in space is political suicide.

It also lets nasa push ahead their other, infrastructure based programs, like the L2 station, as "nessisary to the mission"

[jfull]

THIS WOULD BE BAD. WHy not, if going to Mars, ACTUALLY GO TO MARS. Why beat around the bush and not land? There's no reason not to land on Mars if you're already there.

Uhm, all the proposals I've seen for landing on Mars require a lander and a habitat to be sent to Mars separately before the crew-carrying craft.

Also, said crew carrying craft must carry enough propellant to eject from earth, brake into orbit at Mars, and then eject from Mars.

A flyby only requires a single craft with fuel for ejection from Earth, and a small amount more for getting the right trajectory back to earth after the flyby.

This would be much smaller in scale and could be done much sooner than a full Mars landing. Plus it will provide a much needed opportunity to test the technologies necessary for a full-scale mission. Just like Apollo program included manned flybys of the Moon to test the Command Module.

I know it doesn't seem like it would be a very significant mission, but it IS progress, and it IS necessary to ensure the safety of future missions.

[TerLoki]

THIS WOULD BE BAD. WHy not, if going to Mars, ACTUALLY GO TO MARS. Why beat around the bush and not land? There's no reason not to land on Mars if you're already there.

Yeah, it's not like testing out all the equipment and infrastructure to get there prior to actually trying to land is a good thing.[/sarcasm] Apollo 8 and 10 would like a word.

[Mr. Entropy]

I say go for it. The free-return trajectory means you minimize the delta-V required, and the long voyage will give us a lot of data on manned interplanetary missions.

Besides, regardless of whether it lands on Mars or not, it's still a manned interplanetary mission. Is it risky? Yes, but when has spaceflight not been risky? I'd say it's well worth the risk and money involved.

[jwenting]

Yeah, it's not like testing out all the equipment and infrastructure to get there prior to actually trying to land is a good thing.[/sarcasm] Apollo 8 and 10 would like a word.

you could test it on a mission closer to earth...

Like, you know, the moon...

The main risk of a mission to Mars is the duration. By testing mission hardware in orbit around the earth and in transit to the moon (and even on the surface of the moon where needed) you can test a lot of it without ever flying to Mars.

And the bits that do need long term exposure in interplanetary space, an unmanned mission can test as well.

Apollo 8 and 10 served a purpose, providing scientific data and photos from the back of the moon. An unmanned mission could have done the same, but the combined scientific and political value was large enough that it outweighed the risks and cost.

Mars is a lot further away, a lot riskier and far more expensive.

And as Mars does not keep 1 side hidden at all times like the moon, AND has been photographed on all sides for decades in detail, that scientific value just isn't there.

So a manned flyby would be purely political grandstanding, bragging rights for the politician ordering it.

This one probably wants to run for president in '24, and use the astronauts as campaign chips.

[NASAFanboy]

As stated several times during the conference, this is also a issue of national pride. Congress is feeling the pressure from the President and the wide public to maintain its space leadership and get to Mars first than let China do it. It's quite interesting as to how after the Chang'e 3 landed, NASA was given a bigger budget and Congress starts to pressure NASA to "rush" the SLS and have it in service earlier. This may end in another space race, I'm not sure. The US Public has feelin of suspicion and negavity towards the Chinese government and many of my friends think of it as a oppressive communist regime.

However, on a funner fact, several representatives and people at the hearing have admitted that they have greater political ambitions. One of the scientists (Same one who wants to explore moons of Jupiter) is on the books for potential nomination as NASA director.

Anyways, I personally believe that this is not about science, but about the technology. With a EML-2 gateway station on eh lunar far side, it will provide us with many interesting facts about living in deep space, and political pressure is likely to make the heavier SLS rockets available more soon. The ECLSS system may be upgraded due to higher funding allocation, and I'm certain NASA will perform test flights and finally, manned missions to the EML-2 station prior to 2021 (Obama has stated that he wishes for NASA to have established a spacestation at L2 before heading to Mars in 2011. I expect this this to be followed by Congress).

Even if it does fail, we still have a nice deep space outpost orbiting a Lagrange point.

[Ravenchant]

I'd love to see this come true, but 2021 is only seven years away and the Orion doesn't even have its life support systems finished. If they started working on it at this very moment, it would still be 'cutting it close'...

[NASAFanboy]

I'd love to see this come true, but 2021 is only seven years away and the Orion doesn't even have its life support systems finished. If they started working on it at this very moment, it would still be 'cutting it close'...

ECLSS engineers say they can "rush" the system and get it functional by 2017, given more funding and personnel, which is why some Congressmen want the 2017 SLS launch to be manned (ALong with rushing the ECLSS systems).

Another tide of good luck came when Congress passed a bill that puts the SLS and Orion into a "protected" class of programs that future Presidents/Administrators cannot cancel, and thus making sure the Space Launch System avoids the fate taht befell the Ares I and V. Quite good news with NASA, along with a report by the SLS contractors stating that they are ahead of schedule and will accomplish alot of milestones in 2014 and even talk of having the SLS ready by 2016.

[Seret]

I don't understand all you folks questioning the usefulness of a Mars flyby. Some of the biggest problems facing a manned trip to Mars are life support, radiation levels and crew psychology. This mission could help tackle those and make a future landing much safer. Interplanetary flight is something we've never done before, it doesn't make sense to try and solve all the big risks at once.

Personally I question the usefulness of any manned Mars missions if they're going to divert resources away from everything else. We've got most of the solar system left to explore, manned flag planting missions are an expensive distraction IMO.

[jfull]

Personally I question the usefulness of any manned Mars missions if they're going to divert resources away from everything else. We've got most of the solar system left to explore, manned flag planting missions are an expensive distraction IMO.

This is true. From a scientific standpoint, we'd probably learn a lot more from a robotic mission to Europa or another probe to Titan than we will by this flyby. One has to really consider whether manned exploration makes a whole lot of sense when you weigh the costs and the risks.

However, I feel like this mission would be worth it, if only because it pushes the development of Orion and the SLS.

Honestly, it seems to me like things have been looking up in the world of aerospace lately. The economy is (maybe) stabilizing, the US might be reducing military spending, we have probes that will be arriving at dwarf planets and comets soon, and most importantly I think both the government and the general population have realized that we're falling behind all our expectations for space exploration.

[Sauron]

Hrmm. It's a tricky one. A flyby seems unsatisfying in a way (not least to the astronauts involved), but interplanetary flight is a hell of a thing, and forcing the development of the essential stuff required for further missions is probably a good thing. If they aren't doing a free-return perhaps a visit to phobos would be in order as well?

On the other hand, we should really be sending Curiousity-type hardware to Titan and something to Europa.