Yet Another Stealth NASA Briefing On Mars Mission Concepts
NASA FISO Telecon: A Scenario for a Human Mission to Mars Orbit in the 2030s
“Our Wednesday, May 20, Future In-Space Operations (FISO) telecon colloquium will host Mr. Hoppy Price (JPL) who will speak on “A Scenario for a Human Mission to Mars Orbit in the 2030s. As always, the colloquium will be at 3pm ET. And please note that there is a new dial-in number for the colloquium as NASA has migrated to a new service: TEL: 844 467 4685 PC: 442398”
Keith’s note: If you go to NASA’s Journey to Mars page there is no mention of this NASA-sponsored, openly-accessible telecon regarding a NASA study of how the agency might go to Mars. There is no mention of this telecon on NASA’s calendar either – nor is there mention on NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations home page, or NASA Goddard’s home page (where telecon organizer Harley Thronson works), or on JPL’s home page where presenter Hoppy Price works. Indeed, this NASA-funded JPL study apparently had a lot to do with the Planetary Society’s recent stealth Mars workshop (note the agenda). Yet the Planetary Society is mum on this too.
NASA is all about the #JourneyToMars 24/7/365 according to Charlie Bolden and virtually every press release the agency issues these days. NASA is telling everyone that it is headed to Mars yet it can’t even figure out how to tell the public about openly accessible events like this? You know, how NASA might actually do this whole exciting Mars thing? Actually – NASA avoids all mention of these agency sponsored/organized FISO telecons – so why should this stealth event be any different, I suppose? Still the point remains: how seriously can you take this agency’s proclamation about the whole sending-humans-to-Mars thing when no one coordinates with one another and the public is left in the dark when it would be so easy to include them? What is it with all of these closed door space policy meetings anyway? Where are the results? Are there any results?
Keith’s update: If you are unable to get to this page http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon.htm with dial-in for this NASA telecon that is probably because Dan Lester at University of Texas and Harley Thronson from NASA GSFC have specifically blocked you. They do that to people they do not like. Really – that is how access to NASA activities like this are managed these days.
– Stealthy Humans Orbiting Mars Workshop Update, earlier post
– Making Space Policy In Secret (Again), earlier post
– Good News Everyone: Another Closed Door Humans to Mars Thing, earlier post
The last time I checked one of these at 3PM, I could not access it. They record it and it can be downloaded later. I will try again. I down load the MP3. The PP is separate, which I don’t look at.
They play games with people to make it hard to listen in.
Why? As individuals? As general policy?
Dan Lester and Harley Thronson don’t like certain taxpayers – so they block the IP of those individuals making access to the website difficult.
Bitter much? This can’t be the first time you’ve run across the FISO telecon. It is not sponsored by NASA, AFAIK, it is only hosted on a NASA phone line. Your “stealth” accusations are silly; this was a technical investigation into what a realistic Mars scenario might look like.
I notice many of your readers have denounced it as fantasy, but the truth is, the critics aren’t competent to put numbers to a plan, so all they can do is whine about someone else’s numbers. It is not an official scenario, just the hard work of people who really want to humans headed to Mars. Parts of it might get adopted, or none of it may get adopted, or it may only inform people about the costs of this particular approach and the need for a different approach. FISO telecon has hosted probably dozens of different Mars scenarios, and Moon scenarios, and asteroid scenarios, by NASA people, by industry people, and by academics.
As a technical feasability study presented at a colloquium, it doesn’t rise to the publicity level apparently you demand. There are probably many studies done, many papers presented to technical audiences, many brainstorming workshops, which do not make the front pages of their respective centers’ websites. In particular, this telecon runs every week, and may never have made the front page of any of the websites you listed, for any of its presentations.
Perhaps the FISO presenters blocked you because of some previous bitter snark? Can’t say I’d blame them. Angry, chip-on-shoulder, agenda-driven semi-journalists probably aren’t the target audience for the telecon.
FISO telecons use a NASA teleconference system paid for with tax dollars. Harley Thronson is paid with tax dollars to organize, host, and participate in the telecon. Official NASA email is used to announce the telecon. NASA HQ has told me that this is indeed a NASA activity. As such it is in violation of standing NASA and Federal government procedures to single out any taxpayer so as to block or hinder their access to a publicly offered telecon or service such as this.
–
It is one thing to proudly tell the press and public that NASA’s focus is going to Mars and that it is going to Mars. It is entirely another thing to allow the press and public to listen into events that detail just how difficult and costly an endeavour this is and just how steep the barriers are that NASA is only now just beginning to identify and address.
It’s sort of like a politician’s thinking – focus on the aspirations and positives; don’t let anyone know about the actual work or challenges involved because that will only demoralise them.
Yeah it’s called telling a lie
Deceit for the greater good
Yeah that’s it, the greater good, that’s the ticket! 🙂
The old saw about NASA is that support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Even if the information was out there on youtube.. it would probably get about 50 views anyway.
I do not understand why this has been set up as a ‘teleconference’. What is the reason for using 1970s technology for sharing information? It would be painfully simple to set up a camera, connect the house audio (microphone from speaker, audience Q&A mics) and stream it out using YouTube or other cloud services like Blue Jeans.
Why can’t we just see & hear these through our computers like everything else these days?
NASA is the bleeding edge alright …
The organizers are clueless.
Why not a Google Hangout?
Interesting fantasy with 4 PowerPoint SLS Block 2 with the PowerPoint EUS upper stage along with 4 unfunded inspace elements (SEP tug, Deep Space Hab, Inspace Hypergolic propulsion module & Phobos Hab) for a proposed Phobos mission with 4 crew.
My estimate is that this mission is going to need more funding than what is currently spend on the ISS & SLS/Orion combine annually.
Really love the proposed 12 meter diameter reentry heatshield for a Mars manned lander mission. Where are they going to test it? Never mind needing 6 SLS Block 2 with EUS upper stage.
The paper is just more make-work for the SLS & Orion which is the only mission elements that is currently funded.
The folks from Hawthorne should be finishing setting up colonies before any of these Mars mission timelines.
Science fiction!
Having looked over the Mars plan and it’s analysis in this
FISO briefing-
First — The budget = inflation assumption is a poor one. A Mars exploration plan is needed that has a realistic budget increase and cost inflation outlook for the next decade and more. Should the actual be more generous, you increase the tempo, reduce the schedule, etc. But starting with the budget = inflation assumption is naive. You back a plan’s “how” into more likely budget increase / cost inflation scenarios. Readers do realize that briefings begging for the “budget = inflation” assumption are also giving up, laying blame on circumstance, and on congress among others, so as not to have to deal with their own internal problems, right? Not a word in the JPL briefing on doing better on “how”.
Second — The timeline stretching first milestones almost as far out as the actual Mars exploration is a formula for showing how irrelevant all the interim activity is, year after year. It will not hold public or stakeholder or political interest. There have to be tangible achievements in the near term and throughout. Meaning actual accomplishments, NOT of the “welded this” or “completed study of that” or “went to CDR” type. Those are not tangible to stakeholders. The monolithic gathering up of all the small pieces till it all comes together decades from now is a formula for ever increasing irrelevance. That will lead to canceled programs and wasted time-again. The JPL briefing actually touches on this with the “elephants” slide 5, and then proceeds to ignore their own advice with the first tangible milestones 25 years away!
Third — The NASA presence in LEO will likely not end with ISS, if anyone thinks of freeing up 100% of those funds. Many of these funds will not be available for new work anyway, as they are really Mission Control, JSC Mission Ops, etc. Other portions may go toward time on private space stations-as has been stated by Gerstenmaier. The cost of getting our crew and their needed cargo to those stations as we buy time by the day may not be part of the advance in the affordability equation of private stations. So again, not as much funding frees up from ending ISS in 2024 or 2028-and that’s according to official NASA statements about a continued low Earth orbit presence post-ISS. The Aerospace graphs appear not to acknowledge the issue, seeming to free up 100% of ISS funding for Mars post 2024 or 2028-a large error.
Fourth-when pushing dates out as far as these plans, the question must be answered, what is SLS doing in the years before Mars missions? Yes, again, take some of the post-ISS funding for some SLS flights here or there that may just keep that burner warm. Orion too. Unless the assumption is that somehow SLS and Orion have ready Mars related hardware in 2025 right after the end of ISS,
using funding freed up there. Again, unlikely. The JPL and Aerospace work does not really acknowledge or factor this in, except for a sand-line of cis-lunar (green, like in slide 6) that does not address an understanding of SLS and Orion productivity issues – as in how a steady flight rate of 2 SLS/Orion a year may use up that whole green line (no real cis-lunar activity possible at that fund level per se).
So all in all any Mars plan has lots less latitude to work with than the apparent rosy assumptions of many a Mars study. Budgets matching inflation (unlike anyone else in the federal government’s outlook). Infinite stakeholder patience. Some extra money immediately so SLS and Orion have something to do between 2021 and possibly 2028. An immediate declaration that NASA will not use any private space stations or help these or keep any LEO presence or buy any time in LEO after 2024.
What else do you want- and a pony too!
It’s doable, don’t get me wrong. just not as a fantasy novel. Work the numbers. Get real. Keep it in the non-fiction shelf. And we’ll all get to see Mars exploration sooner rather than never from having been lost in denial about how and what to plan around.
During the Bush 1 administration, NASA was asked to put numbers to a plan to go to Mars. The cost for a limited campaign leading to six human landings on Mars was estimated to be $280-$600B with a most likely value of $400B. The GHW Bush administration decided the mission was not worth the cost and elected not to pursue it at that time.
In my opinion, as much as we might wish to believe otherwise, that estimate appears to be realistic. Future technology, particularly in the area of reducing launch costs, might reduce it, but such cost reductions have not yet been achieved nor are they incorporated in the currently proposed roadmap.
If we feel it is important to send humans to Mars in a sustainable program, the first step is to vastly reduce the cost of human access to LEO.
I understand the passion of everyone that wants NASA to succeed and the desire as a taxpayer for transparency as our tax dollars are used, but why is there this constant rant here for coordination across NASA websites and accusations of “stealth”, etc etc etc? In this particular instance, why are you complaining about a seminar series that is free and open to the public, held regularly, and full of great technical discussions?
You clearly did not read what was posted.