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.
Congress

Empowering NASA's #JourneyToNowhere

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 29, 2016
Filed under , , ,
Empowering NASA's #JourneyToNowhere

Staying course on the Journey to Mars, Lou Friedman via SpaceReview
“NASA does not yet have a plan for its now generally agreed-upon space exploration goal, human missions to Mars. It would be a mistake if they did. A plan now, without a specified and approved program and with many options for mission design and technology development, would be premature and wasteful. It would force both a timetable and cost estimates that, by their very definition, would be unrealistic and unsustainable. A premature plan might foreclose some of the options cited above for reaching into the solar system, years before the requisite experience is gained to make the best choices.”
Keith’s note: It would be a “mistake” for NASA to have a plan for human missions to Mars? Really? How do you develop a budget unless you have a plan against which to derive costs and schedule? Indeed, how do you develop a plan if you do not have an overarching strategy with goals and objectives to guide the development of that plan? How do you know what you need to learn and develop if you have no idea where you are going? Lou Friedman is living in some alternate universe where he thinks that we should run that process in reverse.
If Friedman’s cluelessness was not already established by this statement, it should be clear from his support for the Asteroid Redirect Mission, a one-off stunt promoted by the Planetary Society that has no strategic relevance to a human mission to Mars (or the Moon). Watch as it evaporates after the election – regardless of who wins. But wait, there’s more. Undeterred from supporting one pointless mission, there’s yet another that Friedman supports: the Humans Orbiting Mars mission. In this plan the Planetary Society expects NASA to spend billions and take longer than is currently envisioned in NASA plans to *almost* send humans to the surface of Mars.
Its these half-baked ideas that distract people from making the big decisions that need to be made with regard to America’s future in space – decisions that need to be clearly stated, clearly described such that everyone understands where NASA wants to go (and why), and then clearly funded such that anyone can glance at a one page chart and see if everything is/is not going according to plan. Without clear goals, coherent strategy, and a solid plan, NASA will continue to stumble down a ever-changing and increasingly hard to support path on the #JourneyToNowhere

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

20 responses to “Empowering NASA's #JourneyToNowhere”

  1. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    The “plan” is to ask for more funding in the late 2020s, or work out some international project so we can use what open space remains of NASA’s crewed spaceflight budget following the end of ISS in tandem with other countries’ spending. There’s no point getting too specific about specifics when they won’t really be decided upon for another ten years, and will be heavily shaped by constraints we don’t yet know for certain.

    The funny thing about the ARM is that the whole “retrieve the asteroid boulder” part of it seems to be slipping now, IIRC. They might not have their solar-electric craft to push it in time for the crewed spaceflight test around the Moon, which means the mission would be nothing more than a hardware test for a non-existent trip.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Faith-based budgets ….

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      And if we don’t think the iss should be abandoned?

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        Cancelling the shuttle freed up money for Ares/CEV development which morphed into SLS/Orion development. Just look at how well that worked out…

      • TheBrett says:
        0
        0

        Is there much of a choice? Some of the key modules will be pretty old by then – you’ll be paying a lot of money just to replace them and keep it going “Ship of Theseus” style. Better just to build a new station with new modules.

    • Brian_M2525 says:
      0
      0

      Apollo was initiated in 1959 as a follow on to Mercury. It was planned to be able to perform a circum-lunar flight. Even earlier, the Eisenhower administration decided that a large booster rocket would be needed so they started on the development of the E engines.

      When they decided that the Apollo CSM would land on the moon, they put in a large SPS engine, with large fuel tanks into the Apollo SM. This was required in order to be able to launch off the moon. Later they determined that by using LOR they would need a LM; the CSM would no longer land on the moon and therefore the SM SPS system was larger than needed.

      When they decided they would need a Nova or Saturn V class rocket, they determined that E engines were not big enough and they upscaled the E engines to F-engines.

      So what implications does this history have to do with our present situation? It means that until an architecture is decided, no one knows what hardware is needed. History does have some other implications. We know that Apollo, with its one-off throwaway spaceships and rockets was unaffordable and unsustainable. So, why are we trying to do that again?

      Another implication: the original Soviet/Russian manned spacecraft, Soyuz, has been in use for 50 years. (Vostok was designed as an unmanned military reconnaissance satellite and subsequently modified to carry 1, 2 and 3 person crews.) Soyuz was the first Soviet spacecraft planned from the outset to carry crew. Over the years its been modified and upgraded many times. Its become a fairly reliable and safe system. Contrast this with the US approach of throwing everything away-Mercury, and Gemini, and Apollo, and Saturn, and Shuttle, and Skylab, and Spacelab, and then starting all over again every few years. Even SLS, which was supposed to be an adaptation of Shuttle-first NASA shut down Shuttle, laid everyone off, shut down all the suppliers, and then at Congressional insistence, started everything up several years later at tremendous cost.

      And it is not only hardware and people that NASA likes to throwaway. At the end of Apollo, after gaining a decade of unequaled experience, knowledge and ability, the Apollo managers decided on an architecture which said we have to develop cost effective transportation from earth to orbit and an orbital/planetary infrastructure that permits expansion from LEO into cis-lunar space and then to the moon and later the planets. Those guys knew what they were talking about and how to plan. By comparison, today we have no approach, no strategy, no architecture, and we are building hardware which very possibly, if not likely, will never be needed. But, we are not designing or building any of the elements we were told we would need.

      • TheBrett says:
        0
        0

        That seems to be a problem with American aerospace R&D in general – it’s very “big bang” in the way they do it, which also makes it very expensive. And if it becomes too expensive, they get into a spiral of cancelling it and cutbacks until the program dies outright (or is replaced).

        We know that Apollo, with its one-off throwaway spaceships and rockets
        was unaffordable and unsustainable. So, why are we trying to do that
        again?

        Beats me. Some of NASA’s reports – the one that Keith likes to cite – say it would be cheaper and better to do tons of smaller launches with orbital propellant depots, but it makes even doing lunar missions a lot more complicated. You got to assemble your lunar transfer vehicle in orbit, send up landers to go with it (and return vehicles), possibly pre-land prefabricated structures on the Moon, and so forth.

      • Mal Peterson says:
        0
        0

        You might want to go on the NASA website to view the strategic approach NASA has published. There is quite a bit of interesting work on technologies, issues needing resolution by conducting research, etc. As for the post-Apollo planning, the Space Shuttle and Space Station were integral parts of the strategy. NASA is not in the habit of throwing things away until there is no alternate use for them. There have been a lot of proposals coming forth from NASA that didn’t materialize due to a lack of enthusiasm outside NASA for funding them. In the !970’s, it was hard enough just to get the amount of funds needed for the Space Shuttle’s development.

        • Brian_M2525 says:
          0
          0

          Any particular website? Any particular plan or just the simple minded idea that we are going to Mars? Yes, there are a lot of areas in which research is required. Used to be that was what the NASA technical organizations were for-theyh were working the existing systems and doing R&D on the advanced systems. Thanks to a wayward Station program and dishonest contractors, NASA now puts all of its money in the hands of “the program” and then the contractors make a game of trying to get their hands on all of it-nothing left for R&D. And since the NASA managers have no experience in DDT&E, they are all out of ops, they would have no clue how to set the organization up so it works. “NASA is not in the habit of throwing things away”-you have got to be kidding me? Things like Saturn or Shuttle. In the case of Shuttle let me remind you you had an Administrator and AA who were delighted to shut it all down, lay everyone off, and then wait for Congress to come back years later to demand NASA reopen the factories. Not only Shuttle and Station but an entire integrated earth to planetary distance transportation system, but once they got into the swing of Shuttle operations at absolutely maximum possible expense, they forgot about the rest. NASA was established to do R&D and advanced system development-to push the engineering envelope. Now they just stick with operating old hardware.

  2. DJE51 says:
    0
    0

    SpaceX has a planned roll-out of their Mars plans this September. This is, in my opinion, very good timing, since it will set up an alternative view to NASA’s current one, for the next administration to consider. The current “flexible path” that Louise Friedman is advocating (with, it seems, no goals whatsoever, goals are evidently bad!) will likely be forgotten. Regardless, the SpaceX mars plans will no doubt shape the incoming administration’s space policy.

  3. Graham West says:
    0
    0

    If they did the ARM as a sample mission to Phobos and/or Deimos (could you do both in one mission in feasible delta-V?) that would make more sense to me. It’d have a lot more inherent value and you could still validate a lot of the tech for sending people to Mars in a non-mission-critical way.

    Maybe you could make it work on a Falcon Heavy depending on what you’re sending. If not, it’d still be a better mission for SLS than what’s planned now.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      A phobos-diemos (PhD) mission was proposed as early as the first Case for Mars conference in 1986. Still a good idea.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      If you can get a spacecraft to Mars, match orbits with Phobos and then leave orbit and get a sample back to Earth, then your spacecraft is already doing quite a bit of maneuvering. Compared to that, also going to Deimos and collecting another sample isn’t too hard.

  4. Neal Aldin says:
    0
    0

    The problem is pretty straightforward and Friedman’s idea that no plan is needed is nonsense.

    The problem is that there is no sensible NASA strategy to go anywhere. heavy lift will one day be needed. Is it the SLS with its once ever 4 year launch schedule?

    Orion makes no sense. It is redundant with 2 other capsules. It certainly won’t be needed for Mars missions for two decades, if ever. It makes no sense to throw away the spaceship, and throwing away the Orion implies you are also throwing away the rest of the vehicle, which is foolish.

    It would have made a lot of sense to base the future vehicle on ISS systems and elements. Technically, technologically, and from an understanding of the human life science, we are not going to Mars for decadeS. By that time, the technology should have changed. The plan for the next decade should be to make use of and expand upon the current knowledge and systems, not to build hardware that likely will never be needed.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Dr. Friedman is far from saying that no plan is needed. He is claiming that it is too soon and poorly thought out, as you point out with your comments on Orion (which as I understand it is not able to survive Earth approach at interplanetary speeds).

  5. Donald Barker says:
    0
    0

    Keith, I hate to say it but we have gone so far beyond having an ability to “shame” these people into any correct or appropriate behavior; they have no sense of shame, no sense of humility, no sense of efficiency, economy or sustainability and absolutely no sense of what to do for the future.

  6. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    I don’t know why anyone thinks that the next big goal in space ought to be exploring at planetary distances. If NASA does not help develop a far more cost effective method of reaching space, routinely, and much more cost effective means of living and operating in space, then there is good probability that the program is over after ISS. ISS may not make it that long if they can’t figure out how to get payloads in orbit and operating in a reasonable time frame and at reasonable cost. The idea that NASA has not openly discussed and prioritized what they need to be doing, means that they haven’t a clue of what they ought to be doing. Why think they could get us to Mars or anywhere else?

  7. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    It is possible that Dr. Friedman has been peeking at history.

    Apollo was an established program with a goal before any hardware was developed. Once mandated, the space community made many key decisions in an experiential vacuum: the notion of lunar docking stands out as an example, among many others. In some ways it’s a miracle that these time-driven decisions never killed an astronaut, bereft as they were of basic research. When Apollo became an official program there were serious questions about the ability of the human body to eat or defecate in zero-G. Basic research indeed. In fact we were a mere decade away from the rocket-sled experiments!

    We are very much in the same situation with Mars and many of the same arguments are extant: Dr. Friedman’s Mars Direct, for instance, is a completely different architecture compared to anything NASA might propose; Mr. Musk’s plan isn’t known but likely to be out of the box. The same experiential vacuum dogs decision making.

    And just like Apollo, there are many out there arguing that HSF to Mars isn’t needed to advance scientific goals, isn’t sustainable once achieved, and in the meanwhile wastes billions that could have been spent on robotic missions. The costs of maintaining a Mars presence will be gargantuan and are never mentioned.

    Unlike Apollo, there are those arguing creation of true space ships (I count myself in this group); variants include the so-called Aldrin cycler, even with huge safety concerns.

    So, yea, Dr. Friedman is saying that this isn’t very well thought out and I’d agree. Some may claim he’s taking this position because NASA seems unlikely to choose anything like his MD program but that would be disingenuous.

  8. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    Sometimes I wonder if old people (and much of NASA, contractors, advocacy groups are older generations) have a lot of baggage from the Apollo program (we always keep referring to it of what worked and what didn’t work). Meanwhile young people of New Space don’t have it. They don’t have to repeat mistakes or pursue silly options like SSTO (so far I have never seen anyone able to find exception to the Rocket Eqn). However, they may also re-invent the wheel on certain knowledge that was lost. A talk by Michael Trela of Skybox Imaging last week at Silicon Valley Engineers Week Banquet, he mentioned costs can be lower by using GPS made for UAVs and plumbing made for other industries rather than these systems made for space industries. Latter being much more expensive because customer base is small so quantities cost more. Of course not as good quality but maybe good enough for the job (i.e. the enemy of good is perfection). Michael Trela also pointed out that launch vehicles are still very expensive as they deliver a lot of energy in a short period of time.

    And then there’s Mars. Summarizing Matula, we need to give that planet a rest. We keep falling back on outdated ideas like “manifest destiny” and painting Mars like a second Earth. Spend our limited budget on building capabilities in space, space tugs, orbital refueling, lunar LOX, that would serve for going to all the interesting destinations beyond Earth, not keep wasting money on plans to go to a single one that is already well mapped and explored.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      SO correct. Some have been shouting this message but nobody listens.

      as far as “baggage from the Apollo program”, I won’t bore everyone with another diatribe as above. The main thing to remember about Apollo isn’t that it got it to the moon. Nope.

      The lesson of Apollo is simple: it was one f***ed up program with money flowing from every corner; goals and techniques were solidified even as equipment was being built and nobody thought whatsoever to the costs of maintaining a lunar colony.

      Sound familiar?