What direction should NASA go after SLS?

[Skyler4856]

The year is 2020, NASA has just completed the first successful manned launch of the SLS, and YOU have been appointed head of NASA. Where does NASA go from here? Propose your own ideas or already proposed ideas.

Mars Direct

Mars Direct doesn't require new technology, an increase of NASA's Budget, or an absurd amount of time.

Mars Direct could easily be adapted for the SLS.

http://www.marssociety.org/home/about/mars-direct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDWvsdEYSqg

[G'th]

Moon. We should establish a presence within our own sphere of influence before we seriously consider establishing one on another planet. Mostly because it makes sense not to jump the gun like that, but also because experience on the Moon will help on Mars, as failures and accidents (not to mention the technology to do it) can be studied with a relative amount of safety (a rescue mission won't take most of a year to get there).

It would be more efficient and less risky to work out the kinks of such a mission where a rescue mission could be scrambled and executed within a week rather than several months.

[SargeRho]

NASA should push the boundaries of human spaceflight, let the private sector or other space agencies take care of the Moon. NASA has been there, they should go to Mars next. That's what NASA at least used to be good at: Do something more epic each time. So I'm going to say: Do Mars Direct or something of that caliber.

[Skyler4856]

Moon. We should establish a presence within our own sphere of influence before we seriously consider establishing one on another planet. Mostly because it makes sense not to jump the gun like that' date=' but also because experience on the Moon will help on Mars, as failures and accidents (not to mention the technology to do it) can be studied with a relative amount of safety (a rescue mission won't take most of a year to get there).

It would be more efficient and less risky to work out the kinks of such a mission where a rescue mission could be scrambled and executed within a week rather than several months.[/quote']

The main problem with the moon is that other than water, food(green houses), and he-3 in-situ resource production isn't really practical or possible. This leads a lunar colony to get all uranium, gold (conductors) etc etc from earth or asteroids.

[G'th]

I don't see the benefit to the US to fund an administration whose only apparent purpose is to accomplish "firsts" in spaceflight and nothing else.

[Skyler4856]

I don't see the benefit to the US to fund an administration whose only apparent purpose is to accomplish "firsts" in spaceflight and nothing else.

Who's politician wouldn't run on supporting Apollo in the 1970's, and if there's gold in these here asteroids that could make the US EXTREMELY wealthy. Screw the UN.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Skyler4856

[CaptainGiblets]

Expand commercial flight, I think it is a great idea.

Also, a space station around the moon, with reusable landers for science missions.

After that's done, Mars.

[SargeRho]

Why would they have to achieve anything else? Their purpose is to advance science and technology. The best way to do that is to push the boundaries, preferably with Rockets. Doing that inspires people to go into science and engineering. Doing always the same stuff doesn't.

[Skyler4856]

Why would they have to achieve anything else? Their purpose is to advance science and technology. The best way to do that is to push the boundaries, preferably with Rockets. Doing that inspires people to go into science and engineering. Doing always the same stuff doesn't.

and that stuff.

[G'th]

Why would they have to achieve anything else? Their purpose is to advance science and technology. The best way to do that is to push the boundaries, preferably with Rockets. Doing that inspires people to go into science and engineering. Doing always the same stuff doesn't.

I'm guessing thats why NASA just went straight to the Moon and didn't bother with any of that development nonsense. Nope, put something together that'll probably work and throw it at the Moon without testing any of it. Real Kerbal logic right there.

You simply cannot just do something to the scale of manned mission to Mars (very much less establishing a base there) without testing the technology first. The only way we can do that is to go back to the Moon. NASA didn't go into space once and then just decide to go the Moon. It took years of experience in space to accomplish what Apollo did. The only way we're going to develop the establish a presence on Mars is to do it on the Moon first. And thats just for the whole living on a whole other body in space part of it.

We haven't landed men on the surface of another celestial body in over 40 years, and we've yet to send men beyond our sphere of influence. Suggesting that we can establish any sort of presence on Mars, very much less just landing on it (and returning), without the development process to support it, is, well, stupid.

[SargeRho]

Landing large payloads on the surface of another cellestial body? Check.

Returning samples from the surface of another cellestial body that isn't the moon? Check.

Sending stuff to Mars? Check.

We know how to get things to Mars, we know how to land havy payloads, and we know how to send probes to pick up samples from asteroids and the moon. What we haven't done yet is a Mars Sample Return mission, but I don't think that would be neccesary.

"I'm guessing thats why NASA just went straight to the Moon and didn't bother with any of that development nonsense."

Quite the strawman.

[G'th]

It boggles the mind how you can even remotely think a manned Mars mission would be that simple.

And no, its not a strawman. You suggest we have everything we need to land men on Mars and establish a base. That is completely false and will be for a long time. Just the simple problem of actually feeding the astronauts for the length of the entire mission (The almost year-long trip to Mars + however much time they'll spend there + the trip back) makes the entire mission many times more complicated then you suggest it is. How do you deal with the infrastructure required to sustain these astronauts not only in transit to Mars as well as on the surface? How do you know what you plan to do will even work without any tests on the technologies reliability? What if it fails?

Do we make it one big mission, or several smaller ones? Do you send robots first or humans? Do you have robots that can establish infrastructure for a Mars base? How do you know how well they'll perform the task, if they even can at all? How do you deal with radiation, not only in transit but also on the surface? What kind of support will you have in orbit of Mars? Do you have just satellites or do you have a small station? How are you going to deal with signal delay? Is entry into the planets atmosphere going to be automatic, or will the astronauts have control? What kind of fail-safes will you have for any of this? Will your transit craft have the ability to return to Earth if something goes wrong and Mars is a no-go? How do you deal with waste? How do you deal with Martian weather?

Landing on the Moon in the short time that we did was relatively easy because of virtually unlimited budget, massive national support, and the simplicity of supporting the entire mission the entire way through. Its easy to pack in the resources and equipment required to make a short-stay Moon landing mission that won't last more than a week on one rocket, and when you have the go ahead from everyone else and literally all the money to do it it wont' take you long to get there. NASA no longer has any of this. Its budget is a fraction of what it once was, support is scattered (and edging very close to non-existent in Congress), and the sheer complexity of such a mission is staggering.

Picking up rocks is easy. Picking up rocks at the bottom of the Mariana Trench is not, and neither is picking up rocks on Mars.

Edited January 20, 2014 by G'th

[SargeRho]

I did not suggest that we have everything we need to land humans on Mars, nor have I suggested that no R&D is neccesary, thus it's a strawman.

As for how to do it: Mars Direct. First you send an Earth Return Vehicle carrying some supplies, as well as hydrogen, a small nuclear reactor, and the machinery needed to produce liquid oxygen and methane.

2 years or so later, you send the crew with the Habitat module, as well as another Earth Return Vehicle. The ERV lands in a different area on Mars. 2 years later, another crew embarks to Mars, to the location of the 2nd ERV, and a 3rd ERV is also launched. And it goes on this way until the perfect spot for a permanent or at least long term outpost is found.

"Do you send robots first or humans? Do you have robots that can establish infrastructure for a Mars base?" The ERV is technically a robot, also carries a few robotic rovers. It's also part of the infrastructure. The initial missions are entirely exploratory in nature.

"How do you deal with radiation, not only in transit but also on the surface?"

The radiation the astronauts would recieve on a 500 day mission is 1.01 sieverts, just over NASA's career limit for astronauts. Most of that radiation is on the transit, the radiation on the surface is much less than in interplanetary space.

"What kind of support will you have in orbit of Mars?" Communications sattelites in a position that allows constant contact with Earth, as far as possible considering the signal delay.

EDL is automated, with the possibility for the crew to take control if neccesary.

"What kind of fail-safes will you have for any of this?" Backup parachutes, multiply redundant landing thrusters, by the time the crew leaves Earth, there's a fully fueled ERV ready for them.

" Will your transit craft have the ability to return to Earth if something goes wrong and Mars is a no-go?" No, once they are on their way they are committed. But the SLS opens the possibility for the Design Refference Architechture 5.0, which does have that ability to a certain point.

Mars Direct was designed in such a way that it would be as simple as possible, and without nuking NASA's budget.

[Nuke]

up, obviously

[G'th]

snip

Except, its not simple. None of that is actually tested under the conditions its going to face, and the only people on the planet with any real experience actually being out on another body aren't likely to be alive by the time we actually make it to Mars. There's a reason NASA continues to reject Mars Direct, and that reason is that it presumes the technology is going to just work without the proper development leading up to it. It suggests trying to build a heavy traffic bridge across the Hudson river without cement, when the cements only a couple miles away. Sure, we could do it, but what would you gain from skipping out on just going and getting the cement?

There is zero practical reason for going to Mars without developing the space around Earth first. Resource mining and long-term habitation of the Moon and nearby asteroids must be developed first, because they will provide cheap resources that will make habitation of Mars practical. We've barely stepped into our own sphere of influence. Jumping the gun and going off to land humans on another planet is pointless right now.

Going to Mars right now, regardless of the fact that we technically have the technology to do it, is a waste because all it would amount to is a grand stunt that has little return for the investment. This isn't the Cold War any more, glory and sticking it to the other guy isn't going to fly here.

[Nibb31]

Talk of colonies, mining, etc... belongs in the science fiction area, not here.

We should build a semi-permanent lunar outpost, similar to the research stations in Antarctica. There would need to be supply runs and crew rotations, which means that we would use SLS to build a robust logistics infrastructure. We could use Orion as a ferry between a fuel depot in LEO and a couple of reusable lunar landers. If anything goes wrong, you're only 3 days from home

The purpose of the station would be:

- Develop and demonstrate ISRU capabilities and closed loop life support.

- Observe biological effects of long term exposure to cosmic radiation, develop and demonstrate mitigation solutions.

- Observe biological effects of long term exposure to partial gravity, develop and demonstrate mitigation solutions.

- Develop and demonstrate EVA and surface exploration techniques for long duration stays (rovers, suitports, drones, etc...).

A manned mission would not be feasible before learning about these areas first. It's too early for a manned Mars expedition, because most of this technology is TRL<5. We need proper designs, demonstrators, and long duration tests to raise the TRL before we can risk human lives on the expedition.

One mission that SLS could do is a Mars Sample Return. This would be a demonstrator for landing a heavy payload on Mars, which is something that can't do yet. It would be great if we could also include some biological samples to examine how they cope with the journey and the Martian environment, but that would probably not be allowed because of the risk of contamination.

[Comrade Jenkens]

Moon landings, followed by a moon base to gain experience in living on extra-terrestrial bodies. Also learn how to mine the moon to gain experience in that field as well.

[Scotius]

Moon base. Continuous (and accelerated) development of electrical/atomic/fusion propulsion systems. Asteroid missions. Maybe Phobos mission as a final step to manned Mars mission.

[jwenting]

Who's politician wouldn't run on supporting Apollo in the 1970's, and if there's gold in these here asteroids that could make the US EXTREMELY wealthy. Screw the UN.

actually, IF there are sizable deposits of precious minerals in the asteroids, the last thing you want is to release those in bulk into the world markets.

You'd crash every commodities market out there, causing an economic collapse that makes the one that started in 2008 and is still not over look like a minor bump in the road.

Instead you want to feed it in in small batches, maybe even hide where you got it. But that's not going to recover the initial investment in the mining operation before the next election (or share holders meeting)...

Far better then to use that material in space to produce things that on earth are either hideously expensive or even impossible (because for example it required micro gravity or hard vacuum) to manufacture, then send down the manufactured products.

THAT would of course require an even greater initial investment. But it would relatively quickly make for a space colony that's at least financially self sustaining.

[Comrade Jenkens]

The second something becomes financially viable in space then the entire industry will suddenly take off. Sad that's the only thing that seems to motivate humans though.

[DeltaV_]

Up.

...Get it?

[crazyewok]

The year is 2020, NASA has just completed the first successful manned launch of the SLS, and YOU have been appointed head of NASA. Where does NASA go from here? Propose your own ideas or already proposed ideas.

Mars Direct

Mars Direct doesn't require new technology, an increase of NASA's Budget, or an absurd amount of time.

Mars Direct could easily be adapted for the SLS.

http://www.marssociety.org/home/about/mars-direct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDWvsdEYSqg

Look into Nuclear pluse propulsion. See about useing the SLS to launch the ship into orbit in stages and assemble it there and launch it in space. The idea was submitted I think by Von Braun but using Saturn V's.

[Skyler4856]

actually, IF there are sizable deposits of precious minerals in the asteroids, the last thing you want is to release those in bulk into the world markets.

You'd crash every commodities market out there, causing an economic collapse that makes the one that started in 2008 and is still not over look like a minor bump in the road.

Instead you want to feed it in in small batches, maybe even hide where you got it. But that's not going to recover the initial investment in the mining operation before the next election (or share holders meeting)...

Far better then to use that material in space to produce things that on earth are either hideously expensive or even impossible (because for example it required micro gravity or hard vacuum) to manufacture, then send down the manufactured products.

THAT would of course require an even greater initial investment. But it would relatively quickly make for a space colony that's at least financially self sustaining.

Shh.. That's why it remains a secret

[tavert]

Europa scientific lander. Automated Mars ISRU demonstration payloads. Deep space habitat, for Lagrange point and/or asteroid missions.

[Mitchz95]

We should build a semi-permanent lunar outpost, similar to the research stations in Antarctica. There would need to be supply runs and crew rotations, which means that we would use SLS to build a robust logistics infrastructure. We could use Orion as a ferry between a fuel depot in LEO and a couple of reusable lunar landers. If anything goes wrong, you're only 3 days from home

The purpose of the station would be:

- Develop and demonstrate ISRU capabilities and closed loop life support.

- Observe biological effects of long term exposure to cosmic radiation, develop and demonstrate mitigation solutions.

- Observe biological effects of long term exposure to partial gravity, develop and demonstrate mitigation solutions.

- Develop and demonstrate EVA and surface exploration techniques for long duration stays (rovers, suitports, drones, etc...).

A manned mission would not be feasible before learning about these areas first. It's too early for a manned Mars expedition, because most of this technology is TRL<5. We need proper designs, demonstrators, and long duration tests to raise the TRL before we can risk human lives on the expedition.

One mission that SLS could do is a Mars Sample Return. This would be a demonstrator for landing a heavy payload on Mars, which is something that can't do yet. It would be great if we could also include some biological samples to examine how they cope with the journey and the Martian environment, but that would probably not be allowed because of the risk of contamination.

I think this makes sense. It would allow for more innovation, the public would get to see some more moon landings, and like you said, you're only three days from home if there's a problem.