This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Exploration

NASA's Plan For Mars Is To Have No Plan for Mars

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 20, 2014
Filed under ,

How NASA Plans to Land Humans on Mars, Planetary Society
“On the surface, NASA’s humans to Mars plans seem vague and disjointed. For instance, it’s difficult to see how visiting a captured asteroid in lunar orbit fits into a bigger picture. But if you combine Gerst’s speech with two days of symposium panels and a day of interviews at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, the full breadth of what the agency is trying to do begins to makes sense. There is indeed a plan to put humans on Mars. Vague? Yes. Hard to see? Absolutely. But that’s because Gerst and NASA are playing the long game. And right now, it may be the only game they can play.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

80 responses to “NASA's Plan For Mars Is To Have No Plan for Mars”

  1. Peter says:
    0
    0

    The Asteroid Rendezvous mission seems to be the *only* manned ‘kinda-on-our-way-to-Mars’ mission NASA can actually afford. JWST / SLS are bankrupting NASA courtesy of congressional piglets…

    • Joe Denison says:
      0
      0

      Although I am not a fan of ARM and a lot of people in Congress I have to say that without people like Shelby, Mikulski, Nelson, and others NASA wouldn’t see much of anything budget wise.

      Canceling SLS/Orion would not do anything to help the situation. If they are canceled the money would go somewhere else in the budget and NASA would continue to have declining budgets.

      • numbers_guy101 says:
        0
        0

        A risk for sure, one I struggle with. That the money just goes elsewhere non-NASA. Yet as time goes by, it’s a risk that seems more likely we will have to take.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        the pork premium will be taken from NASA regardless. It always happens in three distinct areas. Transportation, communications and energy. The congressional bureaucratic infrastructures are established and over time become almost impossible to overcome .. until the new paradigm starts and the rest of congress votes away their pork and it goes to the new forms. We are seeing it play out in new forms of communications, satellite et cetera and in energy and alternatives. New forms fight for funding and it slowly builds until the old is replaced by the new. Commercial space transportation will be that same old passion play played out over time.

  2. John_K_Strickland says:
    0
    0

    As long as NASA insists on using expendable boosters and expendable in-space vehicles it will never be able to afford to go to Mars. That is probably the main reason why there is no clear plan – all existing plans would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a non-starter in Congress.
    John Strickland

    • Earl Blake says:
      0
      0

      You never read the article.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      You are incorrect. As long as CONGRESS insists that NASA keep on using expendable booster et cetera….

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        It is not just the lack of reusability, but also Congress’ insistence on using 40-year-old “legacy” technology which we know from many years of Shuttle operations is very expensive to operate and really not practical with the budget we have.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Spot on … anything that does not in anyway lower the number of jobs but can actually create more hands on or “touch” labor the more congress likes it.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            The jobs don’t even have to involve hands-on labor. How does a ratio of one technician to three managers grab you?

        • Jeff Smith says:
          0
          0

          I would be more nuanced than that. Congress tells NASA to certain things. Then NASA takes that direction and does some smart things, but with that same direction they also do some REALLY dumb things.
          Griffin wanted 2 launchers, Ares I and V. First NASA said it was too dangerous to launch crew and cargo together (like, all those deadly moon missions). Then after the Constellation/SLS bruhaha, they are putting crew on top of SLS (Ares V) and doing it anyways. They could have saved the money of Ares I and gone straight to Ares V (SLS).
          NASA has paid ATK to investigate a lower cost HTPB based SRB with a carbon composite case. This is GOOD thing, it would be much less pricey and ATK already supports the tooling and know-how with their other program, a definite cost savings AND performance improvement.
          NASA Is insisting on using the SSME for the SLS. RS-68 is almost just as good and is in serial production right now with reasonable costs, BUT it’s an EVIL Air Force engine and it can’t be trusted by the engineers at Marshall. So, they’ll maintain 2 technology bases and just throw away an expensive engine that was designed to be reusable.
          NASA is changing how the ET welds are going to be done with automated friciton stir welding. This is a good thing, it works REALLY well with aluminum and is becoming an industry standard for aircraft (and SpaceX) welding processes. Low touch labor and very high quality (less/no rework).
          NASA funded the qual of the J-2X (an entirely new rocket engine regardless of what they told Rocketdyne to say). Then after spending a billion or 2 for this IMPORTANT technology, they decided to mothball it and go with RL-10 based upper stages.
          NASA is a mixed bag, they do SMART things and then do DUMB things. It all kind of averages out to programs that work, but are REALLY expensive. If they only did DUMB things, it wouldn’t work at all, if they only did SMART things, it would be AMAZING. They are human, but the intelligence of the group doesn’t seem to exceed the intelligence of an individual.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Jeff Smith wrote: “Then NASA takes that direction and does some smart things, but with that same direction they also do some REALLY dumb things.
            Griffin wanted 2 launchers, Ares I and V. First NASA said it was too dangerous to launch crew and cargo together (like, all those deadly moon missions).”
            Do you actually believe, that if Griffin would have proposed ANYTHING else except a NEW medium lift DISPOSABLE and a NEW heavy lift DISPOSABLE rocket that Griffin would have been approved by congress?
            Congress put in place EXACTLY who they wanted as Administrator of NASA that would push rockets that would use the usual aerospace suspects, Boeing, Lockheed and ATK.

          • Jeff Smith says:
            0
            0

            My point was that even within the disposable paradigm was that there is SMART disposable and DUMB disposable. NASA could have twice the success (or more) if it went with the SAME contractors but tried to do smart strategies wherever it could. Look at rockets vs commercial jets: Boeing can either be a money sinkhole or a cost conscientious profit machine, it all depends how you treat them. The problem isn’t the contractors the problem is with NASA.

          • Zed_WEASEL says:
            0
            0

            The RS-68 engines with the ablative nozzle is not comparable with large solid rocket motors due to base heating issues with clustering RS-68 engines.

            The J2-X engine come about to replace the non-variability of the air start SSME variant. for the Ares 1. The J2-X is great for pushing stuff to low Earth orbit, not so much for higher Earth orbits or beyond Earth orbit due to it’s low ISP.

          • DJE51 says:
            0
            0

            Don’t blame Griffin for the two rockets, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board said to separate crew and cargo to the greatest extent possible. At the time that Constellation was being designed, this was paramount, and Griffin really had no choice.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Correct, he was to do exactly what congress wanted him to do .. not what the executive branch laid out in the Vision for space explloration that specifically stated no new rockets.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Some call this leadership by consensus. Musk and, for that matter, David O. Thompson only need a consensus of one. It’s good that NASA is going to friction stir welding but both SpaceX and ULA have been using it for years. SRBs are expensive to process and require massive facilities, regardless of whether they are metal or composite. Solids make sense for missiles, not for launch vehicles.

      • Matthew Black says:
        0
        0

        They can’t afford anything else. It’s Catch 22 – to get cheaper, more efficient (hopefully) reusable systems, they need many billions in development funding. That’s not forthcoming anytime soon. Musk and others will have to do it on their own coin and then hopefully sell it on to NASA etc.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          The congressional porkonauts from space states do not want cheaper, more efficient, reusable systems. Reusable means smaller ground crews, no more builds from favored contractors.
          Congress wants “monster” rockets that are disposable. Hell they didn’t even go for a reusable capsule. Congress wants jobs in their districts, reusablity signals an end to all that make work.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Look what the Executive branch recommended for NASA in President Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration:
          http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/555

          “NASA does not plan to develop new launch vehicle capabilities except where critical NASA needs—such as heavy lift—are not met by commercial or military systems.”

          There was NEVER supposed to be an Ares I, a make work rocket to keep as many ex space shuttle workers as possible.

          There was ALSO a call for a new way to go forward, including SPACE BASED reusablity:

          “In the days of the Apollo program, human exploration systems employed expendable, single-use vehicles requiring large ground crews and careful monitoring. For future, sustainable exploration programs, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews. NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles.”

          Reading that do you see an “Orion” capsule anyplace? Prepositioned fuel depots, IN SPACE assembly, vehicles in the plural?

          I see something more like this than a freakin 16.5 BILLION dollar, 4 person, water landing, DISPOSABLE capsule.

          • Matthew Black says:
            0
            0

            Yeah, I read that document ten years ago. And now – as then – sage advice is rarely heeded.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      That;s something I wonder about as well. Why not build true spaceships on orbit and ferry fuel up to them? That way they could carry sufficient fuel to slow into earth orbit rather than relying on capsules.

  3. savuporo says:
    0
    0

    One way of getting there would be to simply take their own technology roadmaps and actually spend a dime implementing it.
    http://www.nasa.gov/offices

    That has apparently been a wildly unpopular approach for decades. ASRG, anyone ?

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      Also note this in the article:
      >> All of NASA’s Mars plans revolve around a core technological need: a big
      rocket capable of getting large, heavy payloads off the Earth.

      What large, heavy payloads ? Of anything heading to mars, most of the mass is necessarily rocket propellant, and tonnes of rocket propellant are lobbed to orbit every year by a fairly robust stable of launchers all around the world.

      Also its interesting to note that planetary society has turned off comments for this one article – its easy to guess why.

  4. Spacetech says:
    0
    0

    NASA is not planning to go to Mars because there is no mandate by congress to do so. The same goes with manned spaceflight in general–there is very little priority and no strategic need.

  5. Allen Thomson says:
    0
    0

    Gerstenmaier, who said once-a-year launches will begin after the first crewed Orion flight in 2021. “By the time we’re at EM-2 [Exploration Mission 2], we’re set up with a capsule that can go do things routinely,” he said. “We’re set up with SLS, which can get us there, and we’re set up with the basic underpinnings that can let us go into deep space.”

    Well, things seem to have changed greatly in the past five months, because the NASA FY15 Agency Mission Planning Model, dated June 20 2014, then had EM-2 in 2022, EM-3 in 2023 and subsequent flights once every two years out through 2035 with no determined payloads other than Orion. Of course, I guess that you could say that the EM-2/EM-3 one-year interval could be used to substantiate Gerstenmaier’s statement and the remaining two-year ones deemed irrelevant.

    The FY AMPM is at http://www.nasa.gov/sites/d

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      I know someone (real story, not making this up or as if some parable) who wanted to build a concrete block house to replace his more modest (run down) wood house on a large lot out in timbucktu. He had few economic prospects but did have a little kiosk like business. This began back in the 70s. Naturally, you have to set the stage for whats basic, the foundation, the concrete block, etc. The years went by. Some concrete got poured. A wall went up. It just was never going to add up. And it never did. The weeds got it all and nature’s running its course taking the land back. He could have had other strategies for a nicer place, but perhaps activity was more important than a plan, or progress, or results.

      I suppose arguing over SLS and Orion can sound like saying not to worry about concrete block to build a house. EM-1 and EM whatever. It’s like that house plan, or lack of a plan, you see. It’s about a plan, not concrete blocks for that wall next year.

  6. Earl Blake says:
    0
    0

    None of you really read the article. You just spout your preconceived notions to a receptive audience.
    I think the author helps to explain NASA’s plans and the reasoning behind it. You can agree or disagree but all I see from the comments here are restatements of the old party line.
    Read the article and come back with a true discourse.

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      The author explains lack of plans and the lack of reason behind it as if thats a plan.

    • TheBrett says:
      0
      0

      I read it, and wasn’t impressed. The idea that we should take deadlines in the 2020s and 2030s – beyond even the next President’s two terms and farther – seriously is a joke, especially since no Administration’s “visionary plan for manned space exploration” has survived the change in Administration over the past 30 years.

      I understand it’s the Planetary Society, and they have to keep optimistic about this. But I’m under no such obligation.

  7. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    As John McCain pointed out in 2004, the US was never willing or able to pay the cost of Constellation, or for that matter of human flight to Mars with SLS/Orion. A vision that we cannot afford is an illusion.

    • Joe Denison says:
      0
      0

      NASA’s entire budget is less than 0.5% of the federal budget. To say that we can’t “afford” to go to Mars is absurd. Heck a $3 Billion increase now and then tying the budget to inflation would probably be more than enough to fly with the planned architecture that is so derided around here.

      • numbers_guy101 says:
        0
        0

        Remember that Kramer bet about “levels” in Seinfeld? The question isn’t if some extra billions a year for NASA would fix things. It’s what do you have, reasonably foresee as a scenario going long, and what do you need to do and change to achieve these goals. Will aliens attack? Will the budget rise by billions? That usually just becomes like Kramer saying he won’t do the levels, not that he can’t, and insisting Jerry’s prediction he would not do the levels was wrong.

        • Joe Denison says:
          0
          0

          Never seen Seinfeld.

          In terms of a scenario going forward we have a SHLV and a BEO capsule being built. In the near term they can be partnered with a habitation module (developed by NASA or commercial companies) for BEO missions.

          Beyond 2024 even more funds can be freed up from ISS. These can be devoted to developing a Mars lander and surface support systems (by NASA or commercial companies.)

          How is this unreasonable?

          • numbers_guy101 says:
            0
            0

            It’s unreasonable in many ways.

            1. The costs never add up-even post-ISS: For anything Mars-like, not even on the “stunt” level, even if taking all the ISS funds post 2025 and handing them off to an exploration program that will use SLS and Orion as it’s basis, the budgets don’t add up. Take the case of Mars scenarios that need 6 SLS launches one year (often noted here by D.Wingo et al), followed by a wait (orbital windows) of 26 months, followed by 5 more SLS launches. The entire HSF budget, all of what is now SLS, Orion, Exploration R&D, ISS Ops, ISS R&D, cargo to ISS, crew to ISS (Russian) and crew to ISS (commercial) would get used up just in the launches. You have not built anything else, or left LEO. There is no more money-after those launches. nothing for landers, surface systems, etc.

            2. Invert the equation: Stand-down SLS and Orion while ISS funds get diverted to Mars elements post 2024. Then wait till the 2030’s or 40’s and see. That doesn’t add up either. You realize, it will cost near two billion a year (today dollars) for SLS and Orion fixed costs right? To NOT fly. Do that for 10, 15 years and see – it does not add up. (Don’t make the mistake most Marsies do of saying the SLS shows up and costs $X per mission only when needed to fly. Include all the years it SAT and did NOT fly too!)

            3. Inflation. In our aerospace world, any slight budget increases will be easily off-set by cost inflation, at some very slight rate every year for the foreseeable future. This means even the prior scenarios gets pressured further by loss of purchasing power. Without a red-queen understanding of the future, where every year NASA must improve (drop) existing budget lines a little in the absolute, the slow creep works against anything in the future. NASA needs to run just to stand still, and it’s not realized this yet.

            4. Consistency? About that habitat-so you think the Exploration management will sometime soon start to sing the praises of a commercial approach that will do a habitat for a dime, versus the $23B that will have been spent on Orion through 2021 just for DDTE? A habitat that Orion and a stack will mate up with…? It’s overly convenient to think that after the party has been had by just a launcher and a spacecraft, the crumbs will suffice for a habitat. Everything in the future is cheaper? It would make more sense to say this, or be consistent, seeing efforts to make what’s immediately next more affordable, and more frequent, like launch to LEO. Otherwise everything being cheaper in the future just makes no sense, except to sell a project and later bring in the real costs.

            5. An EDS. The real, larger EDS is not yet budgeted for. You need to do that to really go anywhere first, before any habitat gets useful. (Not talking about ICPS’s).

            4. Color of money. Which brings up a matter of time. 10 years from now we would start some elements, in the wake of an ISS de-orbit. Habitats, landers, etc. Where did the ISS ops and the ISS R&D people go again? Do you really think that’s all procurement money?

            4. Stunts vs. sustainability: If one day we end up back on the Moon, and have done so, as with Shuttle, burning every penny we have in the HSF budget, it’s worth asking if this is really the accomplishment we want, or would it have been just another barrier to really opening up space exploration.

          • Joe Denison says:
            0
            0

            “Take the case of Mars scenarios that need 6 SLS launches one year (often noted here by D.Wingo et al), followed by a wait (orbital windows) of 26 months, followed by 5 more SLS launches.”

            What are we launching, the Starship Enterprise? That many SLS launches would put 3 ISS’s into orbit. We would need 30 Falcon Heavies to launch all that. How will scrapping SLS make a difference if we use that architecture?

            “You realize, it will cost near two billion a year (today dollars) for SLS and Orion fixed costs right? To NOT fly.”

            I do. I included that in my estimate.

            “About that habitat”

            Why does NASA have to develop the habitat? Why can’t we go with a Bigelow or Cygnus derived hab?

            “Inflation”

            That is why I said NASA’s budget should be tied to inflation.

            “An EDS. The real, larger EDS is not yet budgeted for.”

            Well the EUS will do pretty darn good for the time being. I don’t think FH can hold a candle to it for mass to TMI and TLI.

            “Stunts vs. sustainability”

            A point I have made previously is that NASA shouldn’t be expected to colonize the solar system. They are the advance guard, the Lewis and Clarks. True colonization will only occur when it becomes viable for private citizens to live in space. Expecting NASA to colonize is putting the cart before the horse.

            Edited to add: Made a math error in first part of comment. 11 SLS launches would put 3 ISS’s into orbit not 10. My apologies.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Joe wrote: “Why does NASA have to develop the habitat? Why can’t we go with a Bigelow or Cygnus derived hab?”
            Because Boeing will lobby congress and NASA will give them a sole source, cost plus, fixed fee, FAR contract to build a habitat.

          • numbers_guy101 says:
            0
            0

            Look up the Mars DRM 5. Remember, we have the EUS to start funding maybe in 2016. But that only takes an SLS to the 100 t payload. The advanced booster version in the 130t class does not get funding, unless at expense of Mars elements starting development for real post ISS. You need to boost out TMI 135t, then another 135t, then near twice as much. (not counting prop, 60% of any total). Being fully expendable, the variable costs of such multi-launch campaigns, spreading money over time, but surging flights, would alone be a couple billion a year. Add in fixed costs every one of the three years, including the year not flying, etc. Do the same for Orion. Quickly, the addressable real procurement dollars freed up post ISS are gone. And Mars elements have not even been added in yet.

          • numbers_guy101 says:
            0
            0

            PS…as a simpler way to look at how SLS Orion does not add up to exploration much, as I am struggling with the many nuances even now, think of it this way-

            Post ISS the really newly available funds are just those of the transportation contracts (Russian, commercial cargo, commercial crew). That’s just over $2B a year. At an SLS cost per flight “variable” (above fixed) of about $500M a launch, that would be 4 SLS flights a year. But you wouldn’t actually use the money on SLS Orion flights only, of course.

            Say a billion a year goes to the new Exploration “in-space” elements-ongoing (their fixed and variable; not a bad number as 1 Billion a year goes now on just the spacecraft element, Orion). That leaves you a billion post ISS, good for two SLS flights a year.

            But wait, the SLS and Orion programs are missing things – as GAO has pointed out- like the new exploration upper stage, the Orion production line, etc. So the SLS Orion “fixed” yearly cost of the more capable future rocket “system” in the future is likely higher than today’s fixed yearly value. This eats into the 1 Billion a year from above.

            But wait-the funds available post ISS will likely be eaten into somewhat by then by cost inflation exceeding budget increases.

            You see how quickly the whole things devolves into an SLS Orion “system” that battles it’s own payloads for money to fly between 1 and 2 times a year EVEN POST ISS. This is not a formula for exploration of any kind.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            If we cannot sustain human spaceflight in LEO, we cannot possibly sustain it on the moon or Mars, where it will be far more expensive. If we abandon ISS we will not be stuck in LEO. We will be stuck on the ground.

          • Joe Denison says:
            0
            0

            I didn’t say anything about abandoning ISS. I think it should stay up there till 2024.

            Also how will it be “sustainable” when NASA is keeping the lights on (both on ISS support and commercial crew)? To be truly sustainable CC and LEO space stations need to be practically independent of government funds.

            I find it quite interesting that some new spacers have no problem with ISS and CC being “unsustainable” by their own definition and yet at the same time call for SLS/Orion to be canceled because they are “unsustainable.”

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            I understand your point. When I say “sustainable”, I don’t mean it has to be entirely private. Some level of federal funding can be sustained indefinitely, as it is for almost all federal and international research facilities. If the cost of operations of ISS can be reduced and the productivity increased, it can be sustainable. Some growth of ISS can be financed by expansion modules paid for by vacationing travelers.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Here is the bet about levels.
            http://www.youtube.com/watc

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Please be my guest and tell that to your representative in Congress.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        That would be a $3B increase in the NASA appropriation that would be continued indefinitely, plus additional growth every year to cover inflation, which in aerospace is higher than the CPI. Nothing would make me happier. But even Bush did not request it when he initiated Constellation. I would recommend you call your congressman and see if he/she will propose such an increase. It seems unlikely to say the least.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        The rest of congress refused and continues to refuse to vote that much pork for the space state representatives. As space transportation moves into the commerical sector, like all other forms of transporation, that pork premium will slowly get either voted out by congress or no increases and let inflation take care of it over time.
        This happens with all transportation. First a transportation system is king and gets all the gravy .. new shipping ports along all the coasts .. then railroads are built .. no more boat pork it goes to rail. Then automobiles and trucking and roads gas gets all the gravy and trains are done.
        It will be the same with space transportation as new commercial space ports and companies start getting the gravy instead of the usual suspects… .

  8. Earl Blake says:
    0
    0

    I knew you wouldn’t post my comment Keith. You just want to let your haters b!tch and hate.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      As I’ve said many times, I do not hate SLS. I have worked like a dog for that project. But as an industrial engineer I am well aware that it has no chance of success, and it is my duty to raise my hand and say so.

  9. James Lundblad says:
    0
    0

    With deflation setting in Japan and Europe, and the Fed worried about deflation in the US. We can certainly afford a few 10s of Billions a year to build a road to Mars.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Tell that to the Republicans in Congress. The last one to propose a significant increase in NASA expenditures was Newt Gingrich, and he was laughed at.

  10. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    You asked for the current vision, and there is a vision. It isn’t an arbitrary vision, but one grounded in hard engineering and profitable business. It’s a vision in which hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people from around the world live, work, and vacation in space every day, many of them paying their own way. It’s a vision in which human spaceflight is sustainable because we have focused on reducing its inordinate and impractical cost. It’s a vision in which America once again leads the world in commercial spaceflight. To many of us this vision is inspiring in a way that a flag and a few footprints on Mars will never be.

    And yes, with the technology we can develop, we eventually will go to Mars, not because it will be costly, dangerous, and spectacular, but because with the right technology it will be safe, practical, and routine.

    I don’t watch reruns. I come to work every day and put every ounce of my limited abilities and every minute of my remaining life into making that vision a reality. Join me, if you dare.

    • Spacetech says:
      0
      0

      “It’s a vision in which hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people from around the world live, work, and vacation in space every day”
      Not a vision, more of a delusion!

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        I’m a graduate industrial engineer with 25 years in the space business. I’ve supported launches since the 80’s. I’ve studied the costs and inefficiencies of launch processing. How much does rocket fuel actually cost? Not one NASA employee in a hundred has any idea. In fact propellant LH2, delivered to LC-39, costs 98 cents a gallon. LO2 is 60 cents. RP-1 is $4.50/gal. The cost of spaceflight is not intrinsically high; most of the cost is in vehicle fabrication and support services, such as the vast NASA personnel structure. Elon Musk is well aware of this, that is why he can underbid even the Chinese and still make a profit. But SLS is going out of its way to repeat the obvious errors of Shuttle.

        • Spacetech says:
          0
          0

          The only people at NASA who care about the cost of anything are program managers.
          I agree with you completely that the biggest cost of spaceflight is fab and support.
          Sure Musk is well aware of this because he is a business man for a company to make money from supporting government work and private launches.
          NASA is not in any business and has very little concern about saving money and as far as SLS is concerned they are doing what congress told them to do.

  11. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    Mr. Davis mentions budgets here and there then washes it all away as if time will erase all sins. This is delusion at best, believing that the leaders like Gerst are playing the long game or keeping their cards close and have a plan. A bit of faith, misplaced, and due for some aporia one day.

    What we need are the leaders willing to say “wrong jungle”, not the ones talking bumper sticker defending some poor, useless, unaffordable cog as if it’s part of some hidden plan. Many like Mr. Davis should beware the all too human tendency to think doing anything is good, as with dreams of hugely expensive programs like SLS and Orion. Choose the wrong path, and all you will find is that persistance is futile.

    Change, now that’s the long game. But change is fought street by street and that’s what will make us a spacefaring civilization. Not SLS and Orion.

  12. John_K_Strickland says:
    0
    0

    The linked article here is from the Planetary Society Blog. It is in effect SLS propaganda in the guise of a Mars mission article.
    I agree that the Congress is mainly to blame, but many in NASA who are high enough so that Congress cannot get them fired are silent.
    How are they going to possibly launch even one SLS a year when the SLS development program will be sucking up all of the payload development until about 2030. So: What payloads will they launch, lead bricks for radiation shielding?. The asteroid they want to bring into Lunar orbit could be used for that purpose but no one has spoken about actually USING the asteroid for a practical purpose. Just one more non-integrated government program.
    A Mars program based on reusable boosters and reusable spacecraft would cost about 1/10 as much as the current NASA non-program.

  13. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    They’ve given no serious thought to the habitability and systems requirements for a vehicle to go to Mars.

    It is not going to be an Orion, or two Orion’s, or an Orion and one small inflatable module.

    The concept as they’ve defined is naive, based on the illusions of engineers who have not done the basic work of defining the systems requirements.

    It is exactly the same problem that got them into the situation on Constellation with a vehicle that was too large and too massive to fly at a reasonable cost; We call that vehicle Orion today.

  14. nasa817 says:
    0
    0

    How can NASA even think about going to Mars without the budget to do so? Every study we ever did came up with a price tag in the hundreds of billions of dollars and we will never get that kind of money. Of course the military gets the amount of money we would need to go to Mars every six months.

    • John_K_Strickland says:
      0
      0

      NASA is spending about 2.5 – 3 billion dollars a year on the SLS and Orion programs. If instead it took the same amount of money and spent it on developing a reusable space transportation SYSTEM, in about 15-20 years they would have developed all of the vehicles and equipment needed for a unified Lunar and Mars program. So the problem is not the lack of funds, it is that the funds available are being applied to develop the wrong vehicles, which if used for a Mars mission, would be unaffordable.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        disposable means more jobs in districts.
        safe at any cost means more jobs in districts.
        monster rocket means more jobs in districts.
        Congress has different priorities.

    • TheBrett says:
      0
      0

      NASA is always under pressure to justify its level of funding, and having a long-term aspirational goal (even if it’s so far off that it’s basically nonsense planning) helps in that. Talking up going to Mars and elsewhere is propaganda so that they can get funding for rockets like SLS.

      Honestly, it’s remarkable that space exploration gets the funding that it does, compared to other fields of research. Health Care and military spending get more, but it’s obvious why that’s the case. But contrast space funding to the relatively poor funding given to particle research or deep sea oceanic exploration, and you see my point.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      NASA falls under the Executive branch and that says NASA should try for Mars.
      The house controls the checkbook and they are not going to fund Mars.
      The President proposes, the congress disposes.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        To be fair, the president would rather not build the SLS or go to Mars. But having been directed by Congress that he must go to Mars using the SLS, he has directed Mr. Bolden to assure Congress that he will comply with the law, even though it is not physically possible to do so. One of the nice things about being in Congress is that there is no need to pay attention to facts.

  15. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    I’ve said it before, but I’d respect them more if they just outright said that SLS isn’t going anywhere beyond LEO until ISS burns up in the early 2020s. There’s very little political appetite in Congress for increasing NASA’s funding, and all the manned program funding that isn’t being eaten up by rocket development is being eaten by the funds necessary to maintain and deliver people to the ISS.

    Once that happens, then we’ll be in a position to actually use SLS for new stuff, including a Mars mission sometime in the next decade or so after 2025. But not until then, barring a major increase in NASA funding in the near future.

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      Do the numbers. See my post above. Even that ISS scenario of funds freed up will not help an SLS Orion based approach to space exploration.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      SLS is a launch vehicle. Launch vehicles, and first stages in particular, as a general rule, do not ever reach LEO, Their cargo does. The question should be will the SLS ever actually launch a human cargo to LEO.

  16. James Lundblad says:
    0
    0

    I think in order to get more money you’d have to make the case very convincingly that NASA spending produces significantly more economic growth than any other spending.

  17. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Human spaceflight is valuable, but that value is not infinite. To achieve a viable market in commercial human spaceflight to LEO the cost must be reduced to a level that is less than what people will actually pay. SpaceX is approaching this point, and through new technology in reusable launch vehicles it can be achieved. At that point human spaceflight will finally be economically viable.

    A lunar base would cost 5-10 times as much as a comparable LEO base. Simply to maintain it would be much more expensive than ISS. We could no more support it now than we could at the end of Project Apollo.

    The only way to reduce the cost of a lunar base is to reduce the cost of the most expensive part of the entire program, the flight from the ground to LEO.

  18. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    Long read and nothing new. Maybe what they will put on Mars before crew gets there. Always nice to hear and imagine it happening. Hurry up Hug Doug and get your reply in.

  19. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    The Vision for Space Exploration was never executed. Well Congress executed it when the “miraculous” job offer opened up for O’Keefe, Louisana. Where under the VSE the McHoud center would have turned into a ghost town .. man it was sure lucky the ONLY job O’Keefe would leave NASA for opened up.
    In comes the hard charging and thumb on scale Dr. Griffin and the 60 day day study. Man how fortunate Congress was able to vote this guy in to “execute” the VSE and usher in the ESAS. What did we learn? The current fleet of EELV’s were just to dangerous and costly to use to launch a SIMPLE small capsule. And gosh darn we certainly don’t need to do a competitively bid CEV and a fly off. Nope a sole source would be both cheaper and faster …
    Here that sound? That is the sound of 12 billion dollars being flushed down the CONstellation program.

  20. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    I agree that in situ resources can have great value, but only when the infrastructure for onsite manufacturing and the people and tasks to provide a market are there. This again cannot be done at current costs. ISRU will be practical only when it is practical to send a large community of customers and manufacturing personnel and the equipment for mining, refining, and fabricating local materials and manufacturing useful products. Without much lower launch and transportation costs this isn’t feasible for most applications. Right now the only in-situ resource that is practical to use is sunlight.

  21. Paul Newton says:
    0
    0

    Orion cannot currently be launched without an SLS. SLS is by no means a sure thing.

    Orion and SLS, owing in part to expense and in part to manufacturing capabilities, cannot fly more than about once every two years.
    Gerstenmaier and others have said this production rate is neither sustainable nor safe.

    Orion is not a Mars capable spacecraft. It was designed for the moon. To go to Mars would require a substantial redesign.

    This article is a lot of nonsense.

    One of the primary lessons we were told that was learned on Shuttle is to not make the vehicle too large and massive. Yet for some reason, that lesson was totally lost on NASA and they designed the largest most massive capsule they could. Now the size and mass precludes efficient or safe operation.

    When you look at all of these issues, it turns out the “non-plan” as the author conceives is largely unsupportable. Sorry, I think NASA screwed the pooch on this one. I don’t think anybody is going anyplace for a long time.

    Most of our space vehicle and systems expertise currently resides in the ISS. A logical next step would have been to take elements and systems of ISS adapt them to a cislunar transport vehicle to carry astronaut around the moon and eventually even on planetary trajectories. Instead NASA is already planning to trash ISS, just as it previously trashed Apollo, and Saturn, and Skylab, and Shuttle.

    Amazing how NASA keeps on doing the same thing over and over again, and yet for some reason seems to expect different outcomes. I do not think, if we are relying upon NASA, that anyone is going anyplace anytime in the next 3 decades or longer.

    Way to go NASA!

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      Orion wouldn’t need a redesign to go to Mars, but it would need a transit module of some kind to carry all the supplies that would be needed for such a trip, something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      NASA concluded long ago in the ESAS that they needed the Ares I to launch Orion because it could not be launched on the Delta IV. The fact that they are about to launch an Orion on a Delta IV is not meant to suggest in any way that it is actually possible to launch an Orion on a Delta IV.

  22. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    News flash!!

    Breaking news!!

    NASA contract making break through progress on the road to Mars.

    No its not the up coming test flight on Orion.

    Its scheduled for December 16th

    Our very own Tinker questioned the Man from the future and got him to release more details about NASA research money at work.

    On the next ISS food run, 4 bigger waffle style fins will be tested, they trim and roll the booster X wing style. They will attempt to guide the booster to a large drone Ocean going ship 300ft by 170ft. Tinker got Musk to release a picture of this “barge”. This ship has mighty thrusters making it possible to keep it still even in a mighty storm.

  23. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    Nuclear Attack From Aliens Eradicated Life On Mars, Physicist Claims

    “that immense nuclear explosions happened on Mars twice, attacking two sites of the early life — the Cydonians and the Utopians. He said these two sites were erased by nuclear bombs launched by highly advanced aliens. He said the red colour of the surface of Mars proved that nuclear explosions happened on its surface. Back in 2011, he attributed the red colour with natural nuclear reaction or a nuclear device detonation. However, in his final paper presented during the 2014 Annual Fall Meeting of the American Physical Society Prairie Section in Monmouth, Illinois, he upheld that nuclear attacks from aliens caused the appearance that Mars has today.

    Just recently, NASA’s Mars Odyssey spacecraft was able to detect high concentrations of Xenon-129 in the Martian atmosphere. The same amount of concentration was also found following various nuclear incidents on Earth, including the Chernobyl disaster that happened back in 1986″

    http://au.ibtimes.com/artic