Human Space Flight Plans Committee Meets at KSC

I'm heartened by today's presenting sub-committee coming to the same conclusions I have in recent months. At worst we're both wrong, but I hope we're both right :-)

The political lobbying presentations though, they are truly filler. Wow, just listen to these politicians go.

Did the person who kept using the "big dumb rocket" term actually say anything meaningful in his statement?

The difference in perspective you get from watching the actual meeting compared to what is reported on the Twitter site is *enormous*. The distinction between real reporting and pure noise is conspicuous by calling up the latter and comparing to the former.

Is there a blog that is reporting on these meetings? Ideally complete sentences coming out of sober people? I don't mind expression of some opinion in such a blog, but just a summary of what actually transpired.

Florida Politicians

"help me Mr wizard Help me.

Turn on the time machine sherman.

OK rocky it is OK.

Moose and squirel are Commrads now.

The thoughtfulness, intelligence and insight expressed in these meetings by the committee, those giving presentations, and those offering public comment is really noteworthy, whether you agree with it or not. Seems like anyone who wants to have a clear view of contemporary US space policy really needs to take these in. That many of these meetings and presentations are public, and the openness with which their decisions are being made, is commendable. Are these videos not archived online somewhere? You'd like to believe they could be called up from the committee website.

I too am heartened by the presentation (and discussion) from Ed Crawley, Chris Chyba, and Jeff Greason. When you add in many of the comments by Bo Bejmuk, and some by the Chair, this really gives me hope.

FWIW,

- TANSTAAFL

Awesome, it's looking like all the beyond-LEO options will involve propellant transfer at the very least (which NASA was previously avoiding like the plague for no good reason), and ideally propellant depots. Even raised the idea of launching a "dry" Orion separately from a LEO crew taxi.

I think Norm Augustine (on Tuesday) said transcripts will be posted on the web in a week or so. Perhaps these will include public comments.

I taped all three hearings (may have missed end portion of Tuesday). Interesting to hear what people say compared to what is later written by someone else. I did see Dennis Wingo saying he was before Augustine committee in 1990 as a angry student (wondering why 20 years after Apollo we are still in LEO), he hopes something will result from this committee.

People applauded after each public commentary at this Thursday hearing (are they more polite or what in Cocoa Beach?)

Generally it seems those who spoke during public comments were "well-placed" individuals (applicable experience in space industry, authors, gifted students, etc.) Whether agree with comments or not, I didn't see any nutjobs.

Don't know when I will have 20+ hours to view the videos.

> People applauded after each public commentary

You missed some commentary then. People didn't clap for at least two people who were crazy / disagreeable.

I watched it in its entirety. What I came away with was one NASA official saying "A trip to mars or extended periods beyond 180 days in deep space isn't possible because of cosmic radiation".Also if we extended the life of the shuttle and ISS there wont be enough funding for Cx program. That's correct right? Now that being said I liked a few things that were brought up like getting more corporate involvement in the space program. But, the dreaded "GAP" is everyone concern "Not having to depend on Russians to supply the station". I had a friend stop by while I was watching and he fell sleep on my couch. Oddly enough he began to snore during the " what we will present to the law makers " part.

The 'flexible' option Dr. Crawley presented on going deep space is a great option.

This gets you out of LEO and provides a vehicle to get most places around the moon and inner solar system. Spacecraft for moon, libration points, NEO and Mars trips can be common and interchangeable. It gets you the planetary spacecraft first, and the series of test flights gets you further and further out and allows you to test everything from the start; its a planetary version of Apollo 8.

It defers development of landers, surface habitats, rovers, and ISRU to later, allowing funding to remain more constant. Its a much more orderly progression and costs can remain reasonably level as new lunar and planetary systems can be deferred. You work on each new system as funding becomes available instead of trying to do everything at once.

@JamesL: The 'flexible' option Dr. Crawley presented on going deep space is a great option.

You're right, this is a pleasant change fom Apollo part II.

But it might go a couple steps further. Go with advanced nuclear electric propulsion instead of chemical engines. Now that the VASIMIR has been shown to work we have an application for it. Use ISS based hardware for the long duration hab module, and some of the ISS systems too. That way all the expertise we've developed on ISS and its systems are used.

With advanced propulsion the vehicles can cruise from LEO to NEO, Lunar or Mars Fly By and Lagrangian points, and then back to LEO. You could use ISS as an in orbit assembly location and send your vehicles back there for vehicle refurbishment and crew change out. We won't need to throw away the spaceship every mission. Now we are talking sustainability.

Now we are talking about real high-tech R&D, exciting and inspirational missions going to new locations, and making better use of already developed hardware that we've already been learning to operate for long duration missions.

Its on a much more reasonable budget than trying to do all the vehicles and habitats landing on the moon, all in the next ten years.

How many Jupiter launches would it require ?

But it might go a couple steps further. Go with advanced nuclear electric propulsion instead of chemical engines. Now that the VASIMIR has been shown to work we have an application for it. Use ISS based hardware for the long duration hab module, and some of the ISS systems too. That way all the expertise we've developed on ISS and its systems are used.

There are even more benefits with the "Flexible Option." By concentrating on the in-space element of space transportation, you provide a nice continuum for the incorporation of new advanced propulsion technologies. VASIMR is just one of these options. The initial studies we've performed have shown that more advanced forms of nuclear thermal propulsion could open up the Main Asteroid Belt and even Jovian space to human exploration using real-time robotic operations.

Bear in mind that the biggest challenge with this strategy is the deleterious physiological effects stemming from long-term exposure to space radiation/cosmic rays and low-gravity. However, this is something that you can get your arms around and address in a robust research program. Meanwhile, you don't have to wait forever to start these kind of missions. The near-term missions (e.g., lunar orbit, close NEOs, Lagrange Points) could be conducted within a week to month timeframe. Later missions to Mars Orbit, Phobos/Deimos, most other accessible NEOs and Venus Orbit would rely on products from the Human Research program.

The 'flexible' option Crawley presented on going deep space is a great option for the years after 2050.

Would it really matter how many Jupiter 24Xs, Ares Vs, or even EELV missions it would cost if you consider this:

What if you could build a NEO Ship that took five launches to get into space and another two missions to furnish and fully assemble the "Space Ship" with VASMIR engines and said 200KW reactor. When would cost no longer matter if you could re-use that space ship to go to NEOS, then the moon, and finally Mars?

The problem here is not the technology, it is NASA itself. It is cutting off it's nose to save its face. NASA's self inflicted pain makes major missions impossible.

I really like Jupiter. I think we can really do some fantastic missions with the architecture. What if we decided we wanted to build TMT... on the back side of the moon?

JWST on a Jupiter?

A "Constellation" of Hubble type telescopes... "On Steroids"?

How about new nodes and modules for ISS?

Jupiter can do all of these things. People are starting to realize this is not the paper rocket that some people at HQ, MSC, and JSC would like you to believe.

But here is the truly wonderful part of Jupiter... you still need EELV.

While Jupiter can take Orion into space, I really, really (no really) prefer EELV and a Orion v1 for primary lifting duties for these grand missions. EELV is less expensive than a Jupiter Delta IV reliability is pretty spanking good. I do have issues with how ULA is run, but that is another issue. Bottom line is that for ferrying people to and from these missions to NEOs, the moon, and Mars, EELV would be the way to go. You could then use two Jupiters to really "Mass it up".

You also need CotS D. You need SpaceX. SpaceX and Falcon 9 with Dragon is going to be a much better solution to ferry Astronauts and resupply station than either EELV or Jupiter. Unless you are tacking on a new module or node, why not let SpaceX do this?

...and before my EELV folk jump on me for suggesting SpaceX handle the ISS duties, who has a better chance of flying and ferrying crew and cargo to station, SpaceX or Constellation?

There are two types of people in this world, those who admit "it" and liars.

Has NASA figured out how to post the video of the remaining 16-20 hours of public meetings yet? Some of us couldn't catch the live broadcast.

An experimental depot module docket to ISS replenished by ATV, Progress, Dragon (if!?)

That alone would justify ISS.

But there is so much more going for the ISS!

(and yes, I know, props are transfered anyway to FGB for re-boosts)

So why is everyone looking at this Flexible option as it was invented a day ago ?
We had proposals by Schafer and t/Space which basically embody the "flexible" approach
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/vision_concepts.html

The date was.. 10.05.04. Rhetorical question : What happened ?

Re: flexible option

>>This gets you out of LEO and provides a vehicle to get most places around the moon and inner solar system. Spacecraft for moon, libration points, NEO and Mars trips can be common and interchangeable. It gets you the planetary spacecraft first, and the series of test flights gets you further and further out and allows you to test everything from the start; its a planetary version of Apollo 8.

reader,
No one is suggesting its new. As Jeff said in his statements, this wasn't even new for von Braun. He assumed propellant depots and stations would be required beyond LEO as well. It may be new to the current people who work at NASA, though.

"Flybys are nice, but how much exploring can you do by just flying by?"

One could say the same thing about landing. You can send robots to pick up rocks, and do so with very low latency and high dexterity if you have people nearby controlling them. Note that the flexible option isn't about "flybys", but emphasizes, in the near term, exploration of low-gravity objects, for which a landing could be more of a docking. So EVA isn't inconsistent with such a plan.

and

"So why is everyone looking at this Flexible option as it was invented a day ago ? We had proposals by Schafer and t/Space which basically embody the "flexible" approach"

In fact, it was invented longer ago than that, and NASA spent a lot of money and effort developing the concept. It was done by the Decadal Planning Team. Their work was summarized in Space Review a few years ago, and all the documents for which were just released by the NASA History Office. These documents have, I believe, been provided to the Augustine panel.

If we're going to send human beings on a two-to-three-week trip to a NEO or a multi-year trip to Mars, they should be doing something more than looking out the window.

The Flexible Strategy does not preclude landing/docking and direct surface exploration of small planetary bodies, such as NEOs and Phobos/Deimos. What it avoids is the large investment needed for development of systems needed for operation on the surfaces in large gravity wells. People need to realize that this represents a tremendous expenditure of resources.

If we're going to send human beings on a two-to-three-week trip to a NEO or a multi-year trip to Mars, they should be doing something more than looking out the window.

There is a lot more you can do than "look out the window" even if you don't descend into a deep gravity well.

> You can send robots to pick up rocks

The robots and rocks thing is important. Learning to live in space is important, but it is a long-term goal. Learning about the natural world is a present-term goal that people can benefit from very quickly. Textbooks are finished quicker than rockets are.

If we can robotic sample return for a fraction of attempting to land humans, we should do it. If humans can operate robots while in space, far away from earth, they should do it.

There are so many things we haven't done with humans in space before. We're crazy for trying to skip ahead to an unsustainable step like... walking around for a couple hours.

Only saw a few minutes of the KSC meeting so far, but have a few observations:

Bo the greybeard is a very interesting character.

1. Don't know what his credentials are, but he made a slick statement, something about HSF ratings vs. unmanned requirements & that they'd concluded that reqmts should/would/are the same since unmanned sats, robotics etc. are so expensive.

So what's the reliability & performance of unmanned robo & sat ops been, defense & commercial?

2. Bo also seemed to be the most vocal advocate for the "technical probs" in CxP being relatively easy to overcome, something about Shuttle technical probs were more complicated way back when. Then brushed off the CxP TO & drift issues as if they were not a big deal to resolve.

Lot of folks may be assuming the CxP software will be capable of reacting effectively to drift, etc. They might be making too many flawed assumptions there.

3. Thought I read on NSF that Hanely stated that the Pad was 51% complete? Then apparently Bo challenged that, because somebody on NSF posted a question about CDR, PDR, etc. So in response to Bo's challenge, Hanley clarified mumbling something about the 51% was only blah blah something?

If so, a senior NASA executive stands before a committee & publicly misrepresents the real status of a major critical facility? Then worse, a former contractor greybeard Bo has to call him on it? Very sad when NASA officials act worse than a contractor.

The Contractor community seems to have suceeded with NASA demonstrating to themselves how low you can go with EVM reporting. Also might be worth a look to see how much "corner cutting" has been happening with "GFE" "facilities".

4. Then contractor/lobbyists playing both sides of the aisle I'd guess, seem to have suceeded in recruiting various NASA center management in turning on each other, a la "get NASA out of Operations" meaning less NASA $$, more contractor $$.

Mr. Augustine's affirmation of NASA's world excellence is largely due to NASA Operations functions. They work, they're the best anywhere, so don't fix it.

While lobbyists & Republican NASA centers seem to be bent on shutting down KSC Ops (& KSC CxP sure seems to be providing lots of ammunition), these folks may forget that Ops is what made Apollo & Shuttle successful-more so than the designs.

So, a suggestion for additional KSC work: while Mission Control & Astronaut training etc. should probably best remain at JSC - there's no reason why Shuttle & Station Level II control boards & management couldn't be moved to KSC Shuttle Ops. Pro-KSC decision making might improve.

It may be the best we can get/afford right now but is still a disappointment. I don't think fly-by's will capture the imagination of the American public -- they don't capture mine. I think in the public's mind it's all about the destination. That was part of the problem with the Shuttle -- at the very beginning of the program the average citizen would ask "where is it going?" When they found out the answer was "earth", they lost interest. I think they will lose interest in this as well. As trivial as they might seem, I think the public wants "Flags and Footprints."

I have a bad feeling that this plan will (a) surrender the Moon (and possibly Mars), to the Chinese (and maybe the Indians) and/or (b) will be the swan song of US Manned Space Exploration -- with no specific destination, it will be an easy program to kill off.

Have to wonder how the folks who worked on LRO will react to the idea of not going back to the Moon -- no point in spending all that effort in looking for landing sites and water ice.

I really like that the committee is giving serious consideration to getting our manned space flight program out of cis-lunar space via the "flexible option". I've long felt that the focus on return to the Moon is a very serious mistake.

A poster here said there was little value in fly-by missions.

My assumption has been that Phobos/Deimos and NEO missions would not be fly-bys. Once in Mars orbit, transfer to Phobos and Deimos orbits are relatively low delta-v.

Similarly, my assumption has been that station keeping with appropriately selected NEOs would also involve relatively low delta-v maneuvers.

So unless there are issues I've missed, I assume that fly-bys would not be the primary goal. Can someone here with more knowledge of transfer orbits and delta-v budgets confirm this, and perhaps offer some comments on the implications for mission times and propulsion module requirements?

Moonlady,

Your comments about "manrating" and ELV are completely uninformed.

Mike Griffin, in testimony to Congress, stated that there is no difference in the processes in launching a manned capsule, billion dollar spacecraft or one with nuclear material.

As for launching nuclear material, most people on the ground are at risk than a few crew members in a capsules.

Also "meaning less NASA $$, more contractor $$. "

NASA doesn't do hands on. Contractors do the work. Getting NASA out of operations means getting NASA management (no value added) out of the loop.

USA can launch the shuttle without NASA interference. The bench mark is NASA management of expendable launch vehicles. This LSP manages more missions than the shuttle.

Solving the problems of mitigating lethal space radiation affecting our astronauts and cosmonauts on manned Mars missions is a TOP PRIORITY that must be solved before we even do a manned flyby of Mars.

"Solving the problems of mitigating lethal space radiation affecting our astronauts and cosmonauts on manned Mars missions is a TOP PRIORITY that must be solved before we even do a manned flyby of Mars."

Ron, I think you just found something to test with a flyby of Phobos!
That and maybe do a low gravity landing/docking.
Two technologies at once.

Our local science center had a kids astronaut's day. It suddenly occurred to me none of these kids will get to see their dreams realized because the US manned space program is headed to irrelevancy.
Does America still dream?

@me:
"no difference in the processes..." & "NASA doesn't do hands on"

False for Shuttle & Station ops.

I found this piece about the "flexible option" idea.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17540

But I'd like to learn more. Does anyone know any more details about this plan? Would it involve manned exploration of any specific NEO such as Apophis? Is there a link to view Dr. Crawley's presentation?
Personally I find asteroids very interesting from a scientific viewpoint and a practical starting point for manned exploration beyond luna. It wouldn't be too hard to "land" Orion on an asteroid and that sort of task would be better done by a pilot than by a robot. "Walking" on an asteroid would be a lot like "walking" on the outside of the ISS, not much gravity. The ISS would be a good place for asteroid explorers to practice.

Radiation shielding is a major issue. High SI low thrust engines such as VASMIR would be useful. How much mass to LEO would be required for a 6-month mission to a NEO? (Less than the minimal 500 - 1000 tons needed for a flags-n-footprints Mars mission I expect.) Would it be doable with 1 not-shuttle-C sidemount SD-HLV launch?

No one ever said that the 'flexible' option skips landings. It just makes a more orderly progression, doing the cruisers/orbiters first.

You can't do the landers unless you have the cruisers/orbiters operating.

We've made this huge investment in Shuttle and understand it well, and Shuttle C or Jupiter makes use of this knowledge and personnel.

We've expended tremendous resources on ISS and the appropriate cruiser/orbiter can make use of a lot of that expertise.

If the major development efforts take several years for each system, then we'll develop the cruisers/orbiters and when they are ready for assembly and testing, assuming the money keeps coming, then we will start on lander development. Five or ten years after the cruisers/orbiters are making their first test flights, the landers should be ready.

Besides, new generations of spaceship developers need to be trained, and this permits training in a logical series of stages and probably a fairly constant workforce level over the long haul. We still need earth to orbit and return cargo and crew capability; then we need a heavy lift booster; then we need advanced propulsion, energy, life support and other systems for the missions beyond LEO including development of radiation and cosmic ray protection; then we need the spacecraft tested in progressively longer and more challenging missions; then we need landers; then we need surface habitats. Then we need rovers and surface infrastructure. If each takes five to ten years, and there are about seven stages, then it will take 35-70 years, and at the end of that time we will have surface outposts on Mars, the moon, and capabilities to travel virtually anywhere in the solar system.

me,

I think your implying an option that I was thinking about. Instead of retiring the shuttle in 2010 how about we lease the 3 orbiters to USA for $1 per year with similar leases on the infrastructure at KSC and JSC. All spare parts at similar cost. Outrageous! Well to me its better than selling everything for scrap.

Then, furlough all of the pilot astronauts and let them be picked up by USA (This happens all the time in industry. Outsource an operation and many times the workers are picked up by the new company). USA would provide the shuttle launches along with the commander and pilot and NASA would provide the Mission Specialists and ISS astros.

The goal shouldn't be doing a fly-by, or picking up rocks by robots or otherwise, or taking pictures or radar scans of planetary/asteroidal surfaces the goal should be to land humans on Mars for the purpose of colonization or at least a long term permanent, growing outpost. Build the infrastructure on Mars and then study all the rocks and soil you like, right there on Mars.

It's not just about the "science", it should be about expanding the human presence in the solar system, then the science will come easily.

It would not be cheap, but there is no reason that a Skylab-type station couldn't be sent ahead to both Mars and Venus orbits. Only after they had been certified operational, would rotating crews be sent there for orbital ops. From orbit, they would have the ability to operate robotic landers and rovers in real time, and if properly designed, receive sample return probes launched from the surface.

These missions do not need to be simple fly-bys. Dropping into orbit to meet an orbital station and departing a few months later consumes a lot less delta-v than dropping into and departing from the depths of the gravity well, without the expense and effort of developing a lander. Landers can come along later, after we've done our homework.

Me
Your assessment is pretty good.
But the Astronauts are not contractors. Nasa oversight is needed to keep the contractors honest. I work on the program.

"Manrated sticker" really means nothing much. "human presence" for the sake of "human presence" is silly. Humans are not needed off Earth. Teleoperated robotics (as we are also switching to UVAs on the ground) is where it's at.

It should be about planetary science, earth Reconnaissance, other DOD/NRO stuff, GPS, Commsats etc... etc...

None require humans off the ground.

Well.... except ISS....

So unless there are issues I've missed, I assume that fly-bys would not be the primary goal. Can someone here with more knowledge of transfer orbits and delta-v budgets confirm this, and perhaps offer some comments on the implications for mission times and propulsion module requirements?

You are correct. In fact, extended orbital missions about Mars and Venus should be part of the mix too.

As far as delta-v budgets and mission performance goes, you basically have two levels of ambitiousness with the Flexible Path model. The requirements to travel from LEO to GEO, L1, L2 and L4/5 range from 3.6 to 4 km/s. Lunar orbit requires 4 km/s, and there are a few NEOs that fall within the range of 3.8 to 4 km/s.

The second level captures Deimos, Phobos (5.3-5.6 km/s), Mars Orbit (5.7 km/s), and Venus Orbit (6.8 km/s). Approximately 37% of the documented 6,214 lie within delta-v of 3.8 to 6.8 km/s. (This is based on JPL data that is somewhat old, but still provides a good estimate.)

What's interesting is that travel from LEO to the lunar surface requires 5.9 km/s, on the order of the Mars destinations. Sounds straightforward until you factor in the need to develop a separate lander/ascent system and the associated human-rated infrastructure to support operations on the surface.

The plan would involve capturing the first tier of targets using a Centaur derivative upper stage, combined with an Orion and ISS-derived habitat extension (node). But you may need to develop an EDS-class upper stage for missions extending beyond a week or two because of the need for larger habitat space and supplies.

Eventually you would evolve to a planetary transfer vehicle for missions to Mars and Venus. An important element of this would be a habitat based most likely on the TransHab concept developed by JSC. This spacecraft would be fairly large, similar in size to the Mars Transfer Vehicles considered in previous Mars mission studies.

There are more details available about the concept, but I am sure that much of this will change as we progress down this path. One last thing that should be emphasized. Yes, Flexible Path-type strategies do provide an easier path for human missions beyond LEO, but it should not be forgotten that its ultimate purpose is to improve our ability to systematically explore and conduct planetary science. It provides a firm justification for human spaceflight and gets us beyond purely emotional arguments and invocations of manifest destiny.

I wouldn't make the assumption that Orion is the type of spacecraft that would be used for the 'flex-option' missions.

Could you imagine living in a 7x10 foot room for several months (or even several weeks) with five others ? With no other pressurized module to provide for redundancy in the case of a serious problem! I would contend that this is not likely. Orion was designed for a three day lunar transit a la Apollo. Its main feature, its shape, is primarily to support earth reentry from lunar or planetary trajectories, but the whole idea of throwing away the spacecraft after a mission is not sustainable or affordable.

I suspect the 'flex' spacecraft would look more like two or more ISS type modules, connected by a truss to a nuclear generator and propulsion system. Like on ISS, the truss would house and serve as the attachment for systems, batteries, radiators, tanks of consumables... If the spacecraft were each used for only a single mission and then thrown away, then you might need an Orion type of reentry module. But more likely you'd build two or three of these planetary cruisers. They'd fly in formation for redundancy purposes. With the advanced propulsion system they would be able to come back to earth orbit after a mission for refurbishment and reuse. The modular architecture of the ISS modules and racks makes it a good system for missions like this. Even the external skin design of the ISS modules allows addition of more shielding, and even cocooning of the habitats inside of water and consumables tanks.

NASA still needs to replace the Shuttle's capabilities for cargo and crew launch to LEO, but Orion is not optimal for such a purpose.

I don't see these missions being in the $500 billion range as suggested by Bo Bejmuk. If you design the right spacecraft based on existing hardware, like from ISS, then its analogous to designing a Shuttle C or Jupiter based on STS as opposed to an Ares; probably 10% of the investment as compared with starting new; perhaps its equivalent in cost to building an Orbiter. It is always easier to start with something you know well than to try and start from scratch, which was the Orion-Ares concept.

I hope that Mr. Augustine and his committee will identify some of the radical changes to the current ideas about rockets and spacecraft that will be required for the options they identify.

GRATUITOUS INSULT BY CECIL TROTTER DELETED

Correction:

In my last post I wrote, "Approximately 37% of the documented 6,214 lie..." I meant to write was, "Approximately 37% of the documented 6,214 Near Earth Objects (NEOs) lie..."

Note that most of these objects are too small to be of interest for piloted missions. A previous poster asked about Apophis. It does fall within the Tier 2 capability range at 5.7 km/s. Eros, another asteroid of interest, requires 6.1 km/s.

Note that trip time and mission phasing will be important considerations, as well. Many of these NEOs are quite accessible propulsively, but the mission times required may be excessive.

"GRATUITOUS INSULT BY CECIL TROTTER DELETED"

Keith, if you don't want me posting here any longer just say so. There was no "gratuitous insult" in my earlier post.

Editor's note. Yes it was a gratuitous insult and I removed it. I decide these things- not you. If you do not like that then I guess you won't be posting here any more. There will be no further discussion on this. Bye bye.

@ MoonLady

A. Control room ops is not hands on.
B. Majority of the personnel are contractors anyways.

@ Doug Booker

Leasing the orbiters doesn't do anything
a. The infrastructure is where are the costs are
b. Since NASA is the only customer, there is no net gain

@Nick

What is being done now is not oversight. Oversight would be just NASA manning the MMT and not the MOCR/FCR's. That would be the equivalent on how NASA manages ELV launches.

@Tranquility:

I wouldn't make the assumption that Orion is the type of spacecraft that would be used for the 'flex-option' missions.

One option I like very much is the combination of Orion (used as an escape pod/reentry vehicle) with a lander precursor used as a near Earth space reusable shuttle. I'm thinking of an all hypergolic, fully reusable horizontal lander. It would need a delta-v of about 5 km/s for a round-trip. Its engines would probably be OME derivatives. It would be very similar to an ISS module and of similar (perhaps slightly higher) mass.

Based at L1, it could likely reach Mars, especially with an Earth swingby. This doesn't take into account the problems caused by GCR, but it does show this Orion + horizontal Altair would be a very good exploration vehicle in near Earth space.

In order to avoid needing HLV, it would require propellant transfer. Using hypergolics makes this a lot simpler, which means it could be developed more quickly and with less risk than a vehicle with cryogenic propulsion. Hypergolics also gives the vehicle more endurance. Based at L1 performance loss is not really an issue.

It would be very similar to the Geospace Transfer vehicle proposed by Wes Huntress et al in the following study:

The Next Steps In Exporing Deep Space
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/AdvisoryGroupReports/iaa_report.pdf

This study is essentially one form of the Flexible Path option.

The next step would be for a bigger Interplanetary Transfer Vehicle stationed at SEL-2. Orion would take the crew to L1, where they would dock with the Geospace Transfer Vehicle, which would transfer them to SEL-2, where they would dock with the Interplanetary Transfer Vehicle and go on to Mars.

At Mars you could use a similar Lagrange point architecture. The full Interplanetary transfer vehicle would not need to go into low Mars orbit, but could stay at Sun Mars L1/L2, while the smaller shuttle would descend to low Mars orbit.

@Joe90:

The Orion + horizontal lander combo could look a bit like the Eagle lander from Space: 1999.

Folks interested in past work on the architecture that Crawley dubbed "flexible" may wish to look over the Decade Planning Team (DPT) and NASA Exploration Team (NEXT) materials posted at http://history.nasa.gov/DPT/DPT.htm .

More recent work on operations in free space, using astronauts and robots to achieve major science goals while supporting lunar surface operations and preparing for long voyages to Mars should check out the web site of the Future In-Space Operations (FISO) working group: http://www.futureinspaceoperations.com. This group hosts regular Wednesday afternoon telecon colloquia on topics related to future free-space operations.

@me:
if you look at KSC NASA job postings for AST Engineers for HSF, most describe several "hands on" duties.

Granted, most technicians & Ops personnel are contractor, but as Nick stated, NASA is also there to keep them honest (necessary as Hanley demonstrated himself at the Augustine panel).

Sometimes NASA & contractors might butt heads during various Shuttle Ops, like during Test & Checkout ops or Milestone Readiness reviews & such, & that can lead to some "NASA's useless" antics from contractors when whatever it is doesn't go their way & vice versa.

Think USA & Boeing announced they're competing on a KSC CxP Ops contract (pity the winner if the current CxP mgmt is still around then), so I'd expect more "NASA is useless" arrow slinging from both sides (less NASA = more contractor personnel).

Although they may have a point there with the current NASA CxP crowd - don't know how that "GFE" stuff works if NASA CxP isn't "hands on"?

@Gene

Thanks for those links!

I went to the history.nasa link and clicked on a further link to "Earth's Neighborhood" (FY01). There wasn't anything about NEOs on that page but there is a nice presentation about L-points and use of fuel depots. The last slide of the presentation is entitled "Earth's Neighborhood - Transforming Capabilities". The middle picture is subtitled: Earth to Orbit Transport. It depicts a Delta IVH with an extended upper stage. While the picture is too small to make out a lot of details, I can imagine there might be a capsule on top of that EELV. I don't see a LAS tower so it must be an Orion capsule with MLAS. That's pretty good foresight for a NASA long range plan from 2001.

@Moonlady

what the postings describe and the real job is are two different things.

I have been at the Cape and KSC as NASA employee, contractor and USAF. NASA HSF engineers are a unnecessary duplication of effort. NASA needs to do just have insight, not oversight. The arsenal system is outdated. Contractors can do all the work.

@ Tranquility,

I agree that Orion is too small for long- or even medium-duration missions beyond LEO. My solution is to use a modified Altair LSAM as an expanded living area. The Altair could also act as an EVA airlock and, with suitable modifications, could be used as a landing platform for theoretical-gravity NEOs. You could even use the upper stage engines for the ROI burn!

Naturally, Orion would still need to be modified for long-duration beyond-LEO missions. It would need its heavier radiation and thermal shielding back. It may also be necessary to also carry an MPLM-derived storage module in between the Orion and Altair to carry sufficient consumables for the longer flight. The extra module can also carry SIM-bay-style sensors for both flyby and pre-landing scans. Naturally, for these sensors to be usable for their intended purpose, they would need to be able to display their results to the crew without MCC analysis and turn-around.

I have long been a supporter of a modular human space exploration system. Although there are practical limits, costs and risks can be minimised by using common frameworks for mission modules and vehicles.

Some examples:
* Orion + SSPDM & payload - ISS support
* Orion + Altair - Basic lunar excursion
* Orion + Altair & cargo Altair on seperate launch - Enhanced lunar excursion
* Orion as ascent/control area of modified lander, cargo Altair and lunar surface hab module - Long-duration lunar excursion
* Orion + two-end MPLM + Altair - NEO explorer/Inner Planets Flyby

@ me

Oversight is neccessary to ensure that the taxpayer is getting what they pay for. Everyone works harder when the boss's eye is on them, it's human nature, however without proper oversight lazziness and sloppyness will creep in.

I'd recommend that the terminology Dr. Crawley is using be modified a bit.

Call it the "Evolutionary Option".

This option ought to evolve ISS-based elements and systems to a spacecraft capable of going places, whether higher earth orbits, L-X points, or even eventually lunar fly-bys and orbits and even planetary fly-bys and orbits.

As far as a reason: by far the most important reason, this is the kind of spacecraft which would be needed to move or reduce the size of asteroids or other earth-killers. Talk about saving the earth....Once the new planetary explorer is developed we can use it to learn a lot about new deep space systems and operations and we'll be able to do science too.

Make a test flight to Apophis in 2029 an optional schedule goal. Given everything else required to get to that point, its a reasonable goal.

While we are developing that new propulsion system, like VASIMIR or a competitive technology, those systems could be tested and used to bring the ISS orbit back towards 28.5 degree inclination.

Likewise for Shuttle - we ought to be taking an evolutionary approach and not a 'throw it away and start over with Apollo approach'. That was the exact mistake made when we shut down all of the Apollo and Saturn capabilities.

The existing Shuttles could be evolved into safer orbiters for people and a cargo-only Shuttle-C or Jupiter; costs of commonality of launch technology ground infrastructure and and workforce costs between the manned and cargo versions should be considered in the trades along with launch capacities. Put the Orbiters on a schedule, perhaps a couple flights a year, continuing through until a commercial vehicle is available to supplant crew launch and return.

This approach makes for a slower more affordable pace, buys you new capabilities soon, improves on Shuttle safety, eliminates the gap, provides a long term goal, while building the capability to move into the solar system.

Don't throw away the capabilities and the people you already have.

Ok, from what I have heard the shuttle program is going to be with us at least another 4 to 5 years. The only positive is that it will reduce the space gap. NASA still knows its super daddy and it is the shuttle.

ruh roh:

"OMB orders 7% cut in contract spending"
"Accelerate insourcing of inherently governmental work."
"Restore a proper balance between federal and contractor employees at government programs that rely heavily on contractors"
"NASA: $1.0 billion."

http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=4214917

imho, it's the right thing to do.

But, don't know about the other centers, but at KSC, the USA Shuttle logistics folks seem to know much more about HSF mission critical component purchasing/procurement/vendor-supplier requirements than any of the NASA purchasing folks?

Should be interesting.

As far as NASA vs contractor hands on performance, at least at JSC, what had been largely a government managed and largely government implemented human research effort which enabled the life sciences R&D lessons to be integrated into the crew compartment design, mission-to-mission configuration maintenance, stowage, and GFE, was all taken away by ISS management's desire to have direct control and authority. Over the last ten years these functions became a contractor activity with minimal government control beyond contract management. The R&D was quashed for a few individuals' personal short-sighted needs for control. In the process long established functions and expertise were lost. It would be difficult to rebuild now.

Ben- You may have missed the point.

ISS modules, nodes, airlocks, .... all exist and could be adapted/new ones built, from the existing hardware for relatively less cost and in much less time. Time is money.

In fact the ISS airlock is itself a mod from the Shuttle airlock. The reason the hatch is placed at the odd place it is, is simply for commonality with Shuttle instead of trying to design, build and certify anything different.

Altairs, LSAMs and Orions do not exist except as artwork. The design is considered about 10% complete once they pass PDR. No major end items have passed PDR yet. Hardware that does not yet exist are expensive and take time to design.

With advanced engine technology, we should not be trying to return directly to earth from the deep space missions. The interplanetary craft should come back to earth orbit for refurbishment. An Orion should not be required - its one option for earth return but not the only one, probably not the best one for this class of missions. Its great for a mission that looks like Apollo.