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

[maccollo]

Has anyone speculated on what kind of craft would be used for this?

The inspiration Mars plan used a cygnus derived craft for the habitat. That was for the 2018 launch, but this one would essentially be the same.

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/026/597/i02/tito-mars-mission-2018-131120d-02.jpg

[NASAFanboy]

Sometimes you can't really get any further with an argument, especially if all parties involved have clear-set views. This pretty much happens on most of the threads here. Why not just stop repeating yourselves and let everyone have their own views? Discussion is great, but too often it degenerates into something almost like squabbling.

Thank you.

So, how would we carry on this plan, and how would we do things like the L2 station and what will be the actual spacecraft?

[jfull]

The inspiration Mars plan used a cygnus derived craft for the habitat. That was for the 2018 launch, but this one would essentially be the same.

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/026/597/i02/tito-mars-mission-2018-131120d-02.jpg

Looks alright, if a bit small. I wonder if an inflatable module of similar weight could be used instead

[jfull]

Alternately, it might be possible to use the SLS upper stage as a wet workshop, like in the Apollo Venus flyby proposal.

[Holo]

Where's the "No, costs too much" option? That money would be much better spent on other things related to spaceflight.

[StrandedonEarth]

Why manned? Good question. The most obvious is the political points. Testing equipment and human endurance is certainly possible closer to home, but there may be subtle differences in psychological and radiation pressures that far away.

The best reason to send people is the ability to improvise on the spot, in the ways robots can't. Telepresence gets far more difficult as light-time increases. Having humans on hand, while making missions more complex, enables more complex missions. The possibilities are as limitless as the human imagination. 3-D printers will expand the possibilites even further. The biggest things would be on-the-fly repairs and setting up bigger, more complex experiments without relying on mechanicals to pull something off millions of miles away after years in space.

Yes, planetary science would likely sufferin the short term, especially during STS development. But this could be a good thing. In the long run, planetary missions could be far bigger than the current 1000lb New Horizons probe or the 5000lb Cassini probe, and get where they're going faster, with less long, multiple-flyby journeys.

[jwenting]

Which is why putting it at 2021 will make the SLS Blocks avaliable earlier with more funding.

uh, just saying "oh, we're going to need something" isn't going to make it magically appear...

And given the way NASA works especially, the lead time on something larger than a paperclip is measured in decades, not months.

[NASAFanboy]

uh, just saying "oh, we're going to need something" isn't going to make it magically appear...

And given the way NASA works especially, the lead time on something larger than a paperclip is measured in decades, not months.

NASA already has teams working on the other blocks (albiet smaller than the Block I team), and the Inspiration Mars plan can be accomplished with a Block I SLS and Boeing's EML2 Gateway Outpost plan is also launched by a Block I. Given increased funding, NASA could get the Block I ready by 2016 an for its flight by 2017, with a Block II sometime by 2020, however, I wouldn't count on it.

The Block I is good enough. It can send Orion capsules to the Moon, send our EML2 Gateway to the L2 point, and send the Cygnus Inspiration Mars ship to flyby Mars. The Block II, in the future, could launch Mars Direct habitats and ERV's, but for now, a Block I will do.

@Holo. Just a "No" will do. Seriously, think of the poor planetary scientists!

@jfull. A wet workshop is an interesting plan, but still untested in space. But still interesting.

[jfull]

uh, just saying "oh, we're going to need something" isn't going to make it magically appear...

Except thats... kinda what they managed to do with Apollo.

I'll admit that modern NASA doesn't work the same way it did in the Apollo era, and probably won't any time soon, but just remember that necessity is the mother of invention.

[astropapi1]

uh, just saying "oh, we're going to need something" isn't going to make it magically appear...

You just throw money at the problem until it goes away.

[Nibb31]

A Mars flyby for the EM-2 mission in 2021 is unfortunately completely unrealistic.

NASA is already struggling to get the Orion MPCV under its parachute weight limits, yet this plan requires development of an even heavier heatshield, that pretty much invalidates all the drop testing that is done and the reentry testing of EFT-1 and EM-1.

This would be the first flight of the Orion ECLSS. People are already complaining that it's risky business to send astronauts on the 2 week ARM mission with an unproven ECLSS, yet this plan requires sending them on a 2 year mission with an unproven ECLSS.

[Seret]

You're missing the point.

Maybe I am. I'm not quite sure what argument you're trying to make here. You seemed to take issue with the idea that a Mars flyby would validate some of the hardware required for a Mars landing. You then go on to say that you could test life support systems in Earth orbit. Which is not wrong, but I'm not sure why you're making the point. Of course you could test a life support system for two years in Earth orbit, but to what end? If your goal is a manned Mars mission then doing a flyby before the big show makes sense (which is why they did it for Apollo).

So what's your actual point? That we shouldn't be looking do the flyby at all? If so then click here to see why you're arguing with the wrong dude.

[NASAFanboy]

A Mars flyby for the EM-2 mission in 2021 is unfortunately completely unrealistic.

Please not this again...

The usual army of pessmists have made their point on why every NASA plan will fail and how bad the situation is, and the usual army of optimists have made their point on why we should believe in the future and give NASA one more chance. Seriously, almost every thread about a future plan quickly turns into trench warfare with the pessmists and optimists arguing, but with with both sides views set in stone, noone gains any ground or gets anywhere.

I want this thread to be about how it will be done, not if it will be done.

[Kryten]

If your goal is a manned Mars mission then doing a flyby before the big show makes sense.

Why? You still haven't given a single factor that'd differ between a mars flyby and just keeping the same craft in a medium or high earth orbit, excepting of course the cost.

I want this thread to be about how it will be done, not if it will be done.

I'm sorry, but if you want to ignore all of the real difficulties and issues with this, then you chose the wrong option when creating this thread. You wanted [sci Fi Theory].

Edited March 2, 2014 by Kryten

[NASAFanboy]

Why? You still haven't given a single factor that'd differ between a mars flyby and just keeping the same craft in a medium or high earth orbit, excepting of course the cost.

I'm sorry, but if you want to ignore all of the real difficulties and issues with this, then you chose the wrong option when creating this thread. You wanted [sci Fi Theory].

Look, I don't want you pessmists to overrun my topic about spaceflight.

The human race would get nowhere if everyone was a defeatist and pessmist. This belongs in [space], because its a article about a Mars flyby mission, and a Mars flyby mission is technologically feasible today, and will be feasible by 2021. Read the whole post.

ECLSS engineers have said they can rush the system and have it ready earlier.

Congress has expressed their support for the SLS, placing it into an protected class of programs that cannot be cancelled by future presidents, and apporpiates the SLS termination funds for its development (Around 300-500 million dollars). Contrary to your beliefs, the SLS is on time, and if anything, ahead of schedule.

I don't know what happened to you to get you so pessmistic and defeatist thinking of the human race. What happened to "think big"? huh? To your ambition? To your grand vision, the legacy you want to leave? Seriously, don't be a pessmist, do something to change it. I don't care what. Just do something, don't just be a defeatist too.

Frankly, if you're going to derail this thread into another battlefield of pessmists/defeatists vs optimists, I don't want to hear it.

[astropapi1]

Yeah. Congress is finally doing something great for spaceflight, They gave NASA more than what it expected in terms of budget, and they're protecting the SLS and Orion from cancellation.

After all, people in the 50s considered spaceflight something only crazy people dreamed of.

[Woopert]

I need to follow up more on this story, I heard about it earlier

I really hope this will start something big, even though this is big on its own.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Woopert

[Kryten]

ECLSS engineers have said they can rush the system and have it ready earlier.

Yes, the ECLSS for Orion. The hab you're proposing for this would need an ECLSS of it's own developing, along with, you know, every single other thing. You're also assuming Block II/Ib availability to actually launch this thing; I'm not seeing any quotes from propulsion engineers saying that can be rushed. Much more importantly, I'm not seeing any hint of how much any of these would cost.

Congress has expressed their support for the SLS, placing it into an protected class of programs that cannot be cancelled by future presidents, and apporpiates the SLS termination funds for its development (Around 300-500 million dollars).

Congress has extended their support for pork. SLS keeps the shuttle workforce employed, the shuttle workforce elects congresspersons, therefore the SLS survives. That's why smaller science projects aren't seeing anything similar to this.

Contrary to your beliefs, the SLS is on time, and if anything, ahead of schedule.

I never said it wasn't. The problem is you need it to be massively ahead of schedule, thanks to requiring block II; compared to the current roadmap, you're trying to bring it forward by eleven years. Where's the money supposed to come from for that?

[NASAFanboy]

Yes, the ECLSS for Orion. The hab you're proposing for this would need an ECLSS of it's own developing, along with, you know, every single other thing. You're also assuming Block II/Ib availability to actually launch this thing; I'm not seeing any quotes from propulsion engineers saying that can be rushed. Much more importantly, I'm not seeing any hint of how much any of these would cost.

Congress has extended their support for pork. SLS keeps the shuttle workforce employed, the shuttle workforce elects congresspersons, therefore the SLS survives. That's why smaller science projects aren't seeing anything similar to this.

I never said it wasn't. The problem is you need it to be massively ahead of schedule, thanks to requiring block II; compared to the current roadmap, you're trying to bring it forward by eleven years. Where's the money supposed to come from for that?

- Block I is good enough to launch the Mars flyby, didn't you read my earlier posts? Even Dennis Tito and his team concluded with that.

- The JWST has also been placed in the "protected class", and the 2020 Mars rover might be in it, though I'm not yet sure.

- The flyby plan calls for ISS-derived life support. Some people have lasted quite a while in space-Valeri Polyakov is a good example. However, this would need new research. As for the quote, its from an article and rather vague, but can be interpeted as that.

Following Mr. Gerstenmaier confirmation that the pacing item for the first crewed mission was the development of the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) and related budget constraints for Orion, Mr. Bowersox claimed it “will not excite people†to launch an uncrewed EM-1 mission in order to save funds in the short term human rating drive.

(The article is saying that the first manned SLS launch relies on the ECLSS system being ready and the budget, but an NASA offical claims that it cannot excite the public to launch it unmanned, and by doing so, vaguely says that the ECLSS can be rushed for a manned launch by 2017)

[Woopert]

snip

Thanks for all this really good info! It's really summing this up well. I'm really interested with NASA stuff and am a huge advocate for space exploration, so again thanks.

[Kryten]

- Block I is good enough to launch the Mars flyby, didn't you read my earlier posts? Even Dennis Tito and his team concluded with that.

Even? Even? If you think Tito is an unbiased source in this, you're even worse than I thought. Block I can put about 20 metric tons on this trajectory, which just so happens to be the same weight range as Orion. Even without the service module, the ECLSS studies put it on the knife of edge of theoretically possible. Add in that the heat shield isn't intended for those kind of return velocities and would have to be reinforced, and you're looking at a no-go.

- The flyby plan calls for ISS-derived life support. Some people have lasted quite a while in space-Valeri Polyakov is a good example. However, this would need new research. As for the quote, its from an article and rather vague, but can be interpeted as that.

Polyakov is irrelevant. The issue isn't the space environment, it's simply keeping them alive. Oxygen is probably the most pressing issue, given nobody's been able to produce an O₂ system better than the enormously inefficent electrolytic production/emergency oxygen candle system on Mir/ISS.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Kryten

[Nibb31]

The ECLSS on the ISS requires constant replacement parts, maintenance, and consumables. If the ISS had been on an unreachable interplanetary trajectory, the crew couldn't survive 6 months, let alone two years.

A Mars mission, flyby or landing, requires 2 years of reliable and autonomous life support. That's either a closed-loop system or a massive amount of consumables and spare parts. Neither of which are possible in the scenario of a rushed flyby stunt.

[NASAFanboy]

I don't know how they'll do it, frankly. And neither do you, or the next person in line.

But if they get the job, I'm certain they will.

I'm still awaiting more details to be released. Then we'll know for sure.

[Rakaydos]

Even? Even? If you think Tito is an unbiased source in this, you're even worse than I thought. Block I can put about 20 metric tons on this trajectory, which just so happens to be the same weight range as Orion. Even without the service module, the ECLSS studies put it on the knife of edge of theoretically possible. Add in that the heat shield isn't intended for those kind of return velocities and would have to be reinforced, and you're looking at a no-go.

So you ship up multiple moduels and assemble in orbit, right?

And if the heatshield cant handle reentry at interplanetary speeds, can it at least handle a high-upper atmosphere aerobreak into an eliptical orbit? Will the moon be in a position on return to put the module into a capture slingshot around Earth? (Or vice versa, slingshotting around earth to circle the moon and meet up with the L2 platform) Or possibly a combination of approaches?

After all, if the life support can handle a 500+ day trip, a few weeks with careful orbital manipulation shouldnt be a problem.

[Dunbaratu]

Have they looked into the difficulty of keeping human beings sane under those conditions? I'd think that would be a bigger problem than the life support and shielding and consumables problems. Human psychology doesn't hold up well to being stuck in a small box for 2 years with nowhere to go.