NASA's SLS Mars Exploration Plans Finally Released!

[fredinno]

NASA's SLS Mars Exploration Plans have finally been released. It plans NASA's Mars Exploration Plans, and its precursor robotic missions, leading to 40 SLS flights from 2021- 2046, or an average of 1.6 missions per year, making an Apollo-Style Mars Mission. Note this does not include non-manned Mars mission related SLS launches, like Europa Clipper, and potential Lunar Farside and Mars Sample Return Missions (and Sample Return retrieval). It also assumes SLS's goals do not change- which is probably going to change due to presidential change.

The Basic manifest goes like this:

2014- EFT-1 (Done)

2016- Insight and OSRIS-REX launch on Atlas V Rockets.

2018- EM-1 unmanned test flight

2020- Mars 2020 Rover launch on Delta-IV Heavy (Apparently, it's quite a bit bigger than Curiosity)

2020- ARM Robotic Segment Launch on Delta-IV Heavy.

2021- First SLS/Orion Manned Mission- basically Apollo 8 2.0.

2022- Lunar Space Station launched, with year-long crew rotations until 2027, using SLS IB.

2022- Mars Moon Explorers Flagship Robotic Precursor Mission Launch on Delta-IV Heavy.

2025- ARM/ Lunar Space Station Crewing Hybrid Mission.

2028- Block II SLS debuts, SLS begins launching mission elements at a rate of 2-3 per year to support Phobos and Mars mission elements, for a total of 32 missions launched in total for three cis-Mars missions.

2033- First Phobos Landing

2039- First Mars Launding

2043- Followup Mars Mission.

But don't go yet, there's more! (Please read the whole post, there's a LOT of information.)

First off, the long-proposed Lunar Space Station is going to be launched (something I was a large supporter of, as it was a useful low-R&D mission with enough flights to sustain a reasonable SLS flight rate.)

The SLS Block II would continue development, with its new "Dark Knight" SRBs debuting with it.

2028 is when the Mars manned components are launched, and is also where things get a little...ambitious (I'm being nice here- It really requires too many launches- NASA needs to revive Mars Semi-Direct;.;. I have no idea how they managed to have a Voyager Novel level number of launches )

All the cis-Mars missions have 2 options for launch- a SEP-Chemical Option (Option A), where Ion drives brings the cargo missions to Mars Orbit, while the Crewed segment would be launched by 12 H2O2 chemical propulsion stages, decreasing travel time.

A Hybrid Option (Option would use 6 hypergolic stages for crew segment launch, instead of cryogenic fuels.

Both would include missions constructed in Cis-lunar Space, reusable ion drive space tugs, and a final SLS/Orion launch at the end of the mission to pick up the crew from Cis-lunar.

Overall, Option A would need 10 SLS Block IIs for the Phobos Mission, 12 for the first Mars Mission, and 10 for the second Mars Mission.

Option B would need 8 SLS Block IIS for the Phobos Mission, 14 for the first Mars Mission, and 10 for the second Mars Mission.

The Full report of the Mars mission proposals are here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/nasa-considers-sls-launch-sequence-mars-missions-2030s/

Can anyone who has access to L2 obtain the original report from NASASpaceFlight? (if you can).

BTW, hi AngelLestat.

[Scotius]

Sounds very impressive. But is funding secured for every stage? I doubt it

[G'th]

Sounds very impressive. But is funding secured for every stage? I doubt it

Yeah, hate to burst the bubble but these aren't set in stone plans (and by the looks of it only seem slightly more likely than any other previous Mars plan). BUT, it is nice to see that there is actual consideration being put towards payloads for SLS.

[Kerbart]

Whoever wins the elections will find this an easy way to find a couple of billions of dollars on their budget.

Note that these plans always get launched at the end of a presidency. It looks good, and yet you don't have the burden of paying for it during your term.

[fredinno]

Sounds very impressive. But is funding secured for every stage? I doubt it

No. Not yet at least. It does provide a guideline, though.

[CalculusWarrior]

So glad the Lunar Space Station is being talked about, hopefully it will survive the Budget Axe of the US Congress

It's nice to know that NASA has a plan for how often SLS will be used and in which capacity, however depending on budget allocated to NASA, I'm unsure how much of this plan will actually see the light of day.

[sojourner]

Another powerpoint presentation, nothing more.

[Mitchz95]

What would be the objective of the Lunar Space Station? I would think that satellites would be more useful for lunar science.

[SargeRho]

What would be the objective of the Lunar Space Station? I would think that satellites would be more useful for lunar science.

Easy access to cislunar space, and I'd guess studying the psychological effects of being away from Earth for extended periods of time. Also radiation protection.

[kerbiloid]

A brief summary: "Exactly no Mars landing before 2040."

[Darnok]

The Basic manifest goes like this:

2014- EFT-1 (Done)

2016- Insight and OSRIS-REX launch on Atlas V Rockets.

2018- EM-1 unmanned test flight

2020- Mars 2020 Rover launch on Delta-IV Heavy (Apparently, it's quite a bit bigger than Curiosity)

2020- ARM Robotic Segment Launch on Delta-IV Heavy.

2021- First SLS/Orion Manned Mission- basically Apollo 8 2.0.

2022- Lunar Space Station launched, with year-long crew rotations until 2027, using SLS IB.

2022- Mars Moon Explorers Flagship Robotic Precursor Mission Launch on Delta-IV Heavy.

2025- ARM/ Lunar Space Station Crewing Hybrid Mission.

2028- Block II SLS debuts, SLS begins launching mission elements at a rate of 2-3 per year to support Phobos and Mars mission elements, for a total of 32 missions launched in total for three cis-Mars missions.

2033- First Phobos Landing

2039- First Mars Launding

2043- Followup Mars Mission.

First off, the long-proposed Lunar Space Station is going to be launched (something I was a large supporter of, as it was a useful low-R&D mission with enough flights to sustain a reasonable SLS flight rate.)

Buahahaha and that is only thing that will fit their budget

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/134472-Orion-program-delayed-2-years?p=2200244&viewfull=1#post2200244

If I would have to guess what are NASA plans for next 15 years I would put my money on space station on Moon orbit. After 2020 ISS will be gone, most of people in NASA will be unemployed, their big project is gone they are no longer needed. So next logical step would be to make next space station that would let keep their jobs for years, but they can't build one more station on Earth orbit, they have to build it further. Mars is too far, Moon seems great strategic choice, if you consider what is going on in space market.

NASA has Orion that would let crew and resupply missions to fly to Moon orbit, SpaceX Dragon v2, Soyuz and Boeing CST-100 (confirmation needed about CST and Soyuz?!?) are unable to go into deep space missions like that. So NASA would keep their money and would get rid of competition with one simple move

[Nibb31]

I really don't see how they can secure funding for a 30 year project when there are presidential and mid-term elections every two years.

The whole idea of a landing in 2040 seems so pessimistic, yet when you look at the size of the project, it is madly optimistic compared to current funding levels. So I'm not going to get excited. This is never going to go through.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Nibb31

[prophet_01]

It's probably way too optimistic. But some of it might actually be funded since thr sunk cost argument might actually work in favour of SLS. And with the end of ISS NASA might also have the funding to do something more ambitious (and expensive...)

[ChrisSpace]

NASA's SLS Mars Exploration Plans have finally been released. It plans NASA's Mars Exploration Plans, and its precursor robotic missions, leading to 40 SLS flights from 2021- 2046, or an average of 1.6 missions per year, making an Apollo-Style Mars Mission. Note this does not include non-manned Mars mission related SLS launches, like Europa Clipper, and potential Lunar Farside and Mars Sample Return Missions (and Sample Return retrieval). It also assumes SLS's goals do not change- which is probably going to change due to presidential change.

The Basic manifest goes like this:

2014- EFT-1 (Done)

2016- Insight and OSRIS-REX launch on Atlas V Rockets.

2018- EM-1 unmanned test flight

2020- Mars 2020 Rover launch on Delta-IV Heavy (Apparently, it's quite a bit bigger than Curiosity)

2020- ARM Robotic Segment Launch on Delta-IV Heavy.

2021- First SLS/Orion Manned Mission- basically Apollo 8 2.0.

2022- Lunar Space Station launched, with year-long crew rotations until 2027, using SLS IB.

2022- Mars Moon Explorers Flagship Robotic Precursor Mission Launch on Delta-IV Heavy.

2025- ARM/ Lunar Space Station Crewing Hybrid Mission.

2028- Block II SLS debuts, SLS begins launching mission elements at a rate of 2-3 per year to support Phobos and Mars mission elements, for a total of 32 missions launched in total for three cis-Mars missions.

2033- First Phobos Landing

2039- First Mars Launding

2043- Followup Mars Mission.

LOL. Seriously, who at NASA thought this would actually work? This is less likely to work than the constellation program was! How does anyone expect NASA to stick to a goal for over 20 years? They can't! And where do they expect to get funding from? Yeah, exactly. The only way they would have the motive and funding to pull this off is if some other nation starts a second space race, and to do that they will have to land humans on the moon! I would discuss the 'second space race' topic in more detail, but the forum rules prevent me from doing so.

Overall, Option A would need 10 SLS Block IIs for the Phobos Mission, 12 for the first Mars Mission, and 10 for the second Mars Mission.

Option B would need 8 SLS Block IIS for the Phobos Mission, 14 for the first Mars Mission, and 10 for the second Mars Mission.

Have they done the calculations on how much this would cost?

Sounds very impressive. But is funding secured for every stage? I doubt it

This much I can say for certain: NASA won't send another human beyond LEO for a long time. Unless they collaboratively work with someone else.

I really don't see how they can secure funding for a 30 year project when there are presidential and mid-term elections every two years.

The whole idea of a landing in 2040 seems so pessimistic, yet when you look at the size of the project, it is madly optimistic compared to current funding levels. So I'm not going to get excited. This is never going to go through.

Perfect explanation is perfect.

[Darnok]

I would discuss the 'second space race' topic in more detail, but the forum rules prevent me from doing so.

But you can PM people interested with this topic, add me on the list

[Thomassino]

32 SLS Block II launches? That's about 4200 metric tonnes to LEO, which can probably be around 1500 metric tonnes in trans-Mars injection, 3 times the mass of ISS. I wonder why do they need so much stuff there, it can be accomplished with a lot smaller and lighter vehicle and hardware.

[Darnok]

32 SLS Block II launches? That's about 4200 metric tonnes to LEO, which can probably be around 1500 metric tonnes in trans-Mars injection, 3 times the mass of ISS. I wonder why do they need so much stuff there, it can be accomplished with a lot smaller and lighter vehicle and hardware.

Because they don't want to go to Mars

They just can't say "we are too lazy or too scared for this", they will add tons of expensive things, so nobody will accept their budget and they will stay with closer to Earth, much safer and less bold missions... like lunar space station. It will let to keep their jobs for years.

[Rune]

32 SLS Block II launches? That's about 4200 metric tonnes to LEO, which can probably be around 1500 metric tonnes in trans-Mars injection, 3 times the mass of ISS. I wonder why do they need so much stuff there, it can be accomplished with a lot smaller and lighter vehicle and hardware.

Yup, this is the equivalent of the 90-days plan. So ridiculous it's mind-boggling!

I mean, 10 Ares V SLS launches for a mission! And using SEP! This is just ludicrous. Even the EMPIRE missions needed less IMLEO. All this proves is that NASA needs something done to it, because right now its manned program is dysfunctional to the point of irrelevance. This will not happen, and I think everybody knows it.

Assembling in lunar orbit when lifting everything from Earth... nuts! If you took out the stupid requirement to use SEP, I'd bet you could put more mass on the martian surface with less launches following an EOR model. One SLS lifts a 100mT payload (50mT surface element with descent systems, or a 50mT transhab with a chemical return stage), then another one or two, the chemical stage(s) to inject the payload to Mars. There, a Mars mission in six-nine launches, using the three classical payloads: the ship to move your guys there and back, the lander to make the descent and ascent, and the surface hab. Not so damn difficult, right? And with much less items to develop! But that would be a sane Mars mission, and a myriad of those have been proposed over the years, so you know, insert your favourite Mars mission proposal here... it can't look worse than this one (90-day plan excluded).

The timeline is just the same nonsense that we always hear about. Somehow the money will materialize from nowhere, and they will be able to fly the SLS several times a year, while developing the myriad systems in the plan. And this is when they actually said they were trying to do a sustainable plan.

Clearly this is a jigsaw puzzle made to fit all the unrelated pieces of shiny technology NASA has been pursuing for the last 40 years, lunar station included. The only problem? They don't fit together: you can't stage your mission from an orbit that only makes sense if you have fuel depots, without having fuel depots. You can't use SEP with the premise it will save mas due to efficiency, when it'll cost extra mass on account of the chemical kick stages, the requirement to leave from a high-energy lunar orbit, and using it for a truly minute portion of the mission. ISRU is there, but again, it's used in such a marginal fashion that it won't actually save anything, just increase the complexity of the mission. Orion, nobody knows clearly what it's there for, I guess only a clone of Apollo can move people to lunar orbit. What is clear is the completely artificial requirement to use a staging orbit only the SLS can reach with meaningful payload. Because hey, the best way to kick-start this whole exploration thing is to exclude any other launch entity in the world from possibly contributing to the project in any way. Way to go, NASA.

Rune. If you axed the Ares V SLS, with the budget for this, and access to the EELV+Falcon fleet... boy, you could put a small village on Mars by the 2040's.

[Karriz]

I'm not sure if it makes any sense to plan 20+ years ahead at this point. By that time SpaceX, ULA and Blue Origin should be flying fairly cheap, semi-reusable launch vehicles.

It'll become really difficult to justify a plan where you need an expendable monster rocket for every single launch.

[Darnok]

I'm not sure if it makes any sense to plan 20+ years ahead at this point. By that time SpaceX, ULA and Blue Origin should be flying fairly cheap, semi-reusable launch vehicles.

It'll become really difficult to justify a plan where you need an expendable monster rocket for every single launch.

SpaceX is flying only because NASA pays them for resupplying ISS, when that one is over how will they make enough money for developing better technologies?

[SargeRho]

SpaceX is flying only because NASA pays them for resupplying ISS, when that one is over how will they make enough money for developing better technologies?

Only half of SpaceX' flights so far were NASA flights, the other half were commercial launches. You will find that, in fact, most of their future launches are commercial, not NASA: http://www.spacex.com/missions

[Motokid600]

I'm not sure if it makes any sense to plan 20+ years ahead at this point. By that time SpaceX, ULA and Blue Origin should be flying fairly cheap, semi-reusable launch vehicles.

It'll become really difficult to justify a plan where you need an expendable monster rocket for every single launch.

Isn't that the idea though? For the private sector to take care of LEO so NASA can focus on BEO? If NASA doesn't have to worry about the ISS then surely that's good for funding elsewhere.

[AngelLestat]

I really don't see how they can secure funding for a 30 year project when there are presidential and mid-term elections every two years.

That is the reason why there are state policies, is something by law that next presidents needs to support, unless a big part of the congress and other forces interfere.

And where do they expect to get funding from?

That is a little detail that never is included in any NASA design. They always dream that no matter how cost/inefficient they are, they will always get money..

32 SLS Block II launches? That's about 4200 metric tonnes to LEO, which can probably be around 1500 metric tonnes in trans-Mars injection, 3 times the mass of ISS. I wonder why do they need so much stuff there, it can be accomplished with a lot smaller and lighter vehicle and hardware.

They plan to make a city before the first explorer arrive

Also they are against ISRU by some silly and imaginary reason...

This is not like our ancestors explorers, where it was defined by adventure and risk .. Now they need a 5 stars hotel to accommodate the first visitors (those we call heros back then).

I'm not sure if it makes any sense to plan 20+ years ahead at this point. By that time SpaceX, ULA and Blue Origin should be flying fairly cheap, semi-reusable launch vehicles.

It'll become really difficult to justify a plan where you need an expendable monster rocket for every single launch.

You are damm right, you forget China and other players too.

Nasa lives in a bubble where the rest of the world also moves at their turtle speed on technology.

But that is not reality, meanwhile in the future they keep planning their mars mission, spacex will be selling moon tickets for turist.

And "almost" everybody forget of the new player that might arrive before all that, ruining everybody´s plans.

As you said, plan 20 years ahead is super silly. But they are trying to justify the SLS development cost.

At least they choose a cool name for the SLS heavy (Dark knight), I give them a point for that.

SpaceX is flying only because NASA pays them for resupplying ISS, when that one is over how will they make enough money for developing better technologies?

No, as any success company, if they get funds is because they are good at it, with the Boing or Lockheed Martin exceptions.

Boing receives more than double to develope a worst capsule than spacex.

Also Spacex has many private clients, they just need to find the way to increase the launch rate to capitalize that.

Isn't that the idea though? For the private sector to take care of LEO so NASA can focus on BEO? If NASA doesn't have to worry about the ISS then surely that's good for funding elsewhere.

You never read nothing about Elon Musk?

He wants to go mars so badly, that he is willing to pass over nasa and achieve that first. With the 2040 date of NASA, I am 100% confident he will do it first.

Edited September 25, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Darnok]

This is not like our ancestors explorers, where it was defined by adventure and risk .. Now they need a 5 stars hotel to accommodate the first visitors (those we call heros back then).

But since when heroes worked for government? Even Robin Hood knew it is not true... full time job for government have only officials and they want to keep their jobs badly, because they can't do anything else than moving paper from one desk to another. Of course that paper and desks are not bought from their money those are your money they just feel they know better how to manage them

[AngelLestat]

Sorry, but almost all important explorers in history was funded or driven by goverments.

Just to name one: CRISTOFORO COLOMBO.