Presentations From The Closed Space Organization Meeting (Update)

If you could only share a handful of slides with people, this would be one of them: http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9503/marswaterice.jpg

I actually knew about that already, but had forgotten. So given how exciting that is, every interested space scientist should be shouting it from the rooftops whenever they present. I'm not the only one who forgot or didn't know that mars is covered in frozen oceans... lakes... ...

I'm sure the targets are still tentative, but I typed out the various dates listed by Laurie Leshin (ESMD Deputy AA) for ESMD-specific demonstrations and missions, and found them quite intriguing. It's particularly interesting to compare this to what was expected under the Ares/Constellation PoR (e.g. waiting until 2017-2019 for the first Ares I launch):

2011: human robotics interfaces (ISS) (ETDD)
2011-2016: 3 SpaceX demos and initial 12 operational cargo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
2012: ALHAT (autonomous landing and hazard avoidance) (ETDD)
2012: biomed tech demo (ISS) (HRP)
2012-2016: 1 Orbital demo and initial 8 operational cargo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
2013: radiation risk model (HRP)
2014: advanced in-space propulsion mission (FTD)
2014: closed-loop ECLSS (ETDD)
2014: high-energy systems (ETDD)
2014: NEO robotic precursor (RP)
2014: performance health tech demo (ISS) (HRP)
2014: commercial crew demo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
2015: Lunar lander robotic precursor (RP)
2015: advanced in-space propulsion (ISS) (ETDD)
2015: advanced in-space propellant transfer and storage (FTD)
2015: LOX/methane or LOX/H2 in-space engine demo (HLPT)
2015: another biomed tech demo (ISS) (HRP)
2015-2020: commercial crew missions (ISS) (C3PO)
2015-2020: Orion Emergency Rescue Module missions (ISS) (Orion)
2016: lightweight/inflatable modules and closed loop life support (ISS) (FTD)
2016: ISRU (ETDD)
2016: Mars robotic precursor (RP)
2016: LOX/RP prototype engine (HLPT)
2016: further radiation risk model (HRP)
2017: aero-assist/entry, descent, and landing (FTD)
2017: performance health suite demo (ISS) (HRP)
2018: EVA demo (ISS, maybe for suitport/suitlock tech) (ETDD)
2018: another Mars robotic precursor (RP)
2018: Mars Medical Suite demo (ISS) (HRP)
2019: another NEO robotic precursor (RP)
2020: LOX/RP operational engine, thrust >= 1M lbs (HLPT)
2020: nuclear thermal propulsion (ETDD)

Acronyms:
FTD: Flagship Technology Demonstration
ETDD: Enabling Technology Development and Demonstration
RP: Exploration Robotic Precursor Mission
HLPT: Heavy Lift & Propulsion Technology Program
HRP: Human Research Program
C3PO: Commercial Crew and Cargo Program
Orion: Orion Emergency Rescue Module

...at the bottom of a Well. I would share this:

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=050907_ceres_layer_02.jpg

And there are other watering holes available with much lower dV costs. Phobos?

we can send a man to the moon (or used to), but we can't .......

figure out why bold, new, game-changing technologies - umm such as hybrid cars, are not cheaper than the old tech cars?

in fact, hybrid cars are a lot more expensive

why is that, hmmmmmm?

an RFI for better, faster, cheaper bold, new, game-changing blah blah blah, hmmmmmm?

Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree
Orwell, 1984

All that's to come and everything under the sun is in tune
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.

Pfff... Exciting slides yes, but how many times have we seen these cool plans supported by nothing but the dream of engineers? The Mars plans in the US in the 90s, the European Aurora, the Chinese animations of massive space stations etc...

I have to confess healthy skepticism. Unless they fix themselves strong schedule targets, how are they going to re-create a significantly new set of technologies with the current glacial pace of introduction of new technologies in NASA? Throw away all the MIL standards?

That reminds me of the early ESA Aurora plans with lots of very cool schedules and graphics, and ending up with a not even fully-funded Mars Rover mission which keeps being delayed. And no particularly striking innovation (except in the payload).

A.

I am not an economist, but regarding your hybrid car query, I would have to guess that it's a combination of economy of scale (not every factory is configured to make hybrid/electric cars- though we'll probably get there sooner or later) and market forces (there are still popular alternatives to the hybrid car, although these will probably get less popular as gas prices inevitably rise).

Plus, hybrid cars were never designed to be cheap. They were designed to be maximally fuel-efficient. The current goal of the R&D NASA seems to be making things cheaper to fly. Whether or not this will work in another matter entirely (we shouldn't forget the lessons of fasterbettercheaper), but the comparison between that and hybrid cars is a stretch.

Moonstruck, if we limited ourselves to your cynicism, we would conclude that technological progress never happens.

Perhaps, it never happens inside NASA-style mission-oriented programs where people start out trying to do too much with too little money and end up doing too little or nothing at all. You have identified a potential failure mode for the new plan - that old-style NASA managers will try to implement it in the same old way. In any case, here is a counter poem:

Experts have their expert fun,
ex cathedra, telling one
just how nothing can be done.
Piet Hein

Why does the SMD presentation show the NOAA GOES missions? GOES Program does not report to SMD. And it's Earth Monitoring vs. Earth Science.
Anyone?

thank you Kieth for the luare shesin document it worked for me about 10 minutes ago!

I can happily be deleted now :):)
thanks Steven

read my posts here please

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=77&post=571&uid=109555615732469#!/board.php?uid=109555615732469

one idea is that the long term storage of upper stage propellants(in the ACES?) would make possible a Juno type mission to Jupiter with the photovoltiac cells stowed behind the aerocature device being offered for free to any PI who uses it in this years AO for a discovery mission

Ed still needs to fix that slide that shows GRAIL as an Earth Science mission.

neuronexmachina

Would you mind terribly if I used that list elsewhere on the web? It would be really great if I could

This schedule is pure fantasy. Human Robotic Interfaces at ISS in a year? I can't even get a software update to existing ISS Systems in less then two years lot alone a whole new system. NEO Robotic Precursor in 4 years? I am not familiar with deep space development schedules but that seems unrealistic. Commercial crew will be at least a year later and probably more. ISRU in 6 years? More like 10. Once again NASA is setting itself up to fail by adopting unrealistic development schedules. Remember that the advocates for these programs will always under estimate the time and effort to execute their programs in order to sell them. NASA senior management has to apply reason and judgement and adjust what the advocates tell them to adjust for their bias. At the very least Bolden needs to bring in a DOD tiger team to review the programs and develop more realistic schedules and budgets that have a chance of succeeding and not being cut by Congress later when they are over budget and late.

and Hein would know?

We shall have to evolve
problem-solvers galore —
since each problem they solve
creates ten problems more.
The Only Solution - Piet Hein

CONSOLATION GROOK

Losing one glove
is certainly painful,
but nothing
compared to the pain,
of losing one,
throwing away the other,
and finding
the first one again.

The Danes, however, understood its importance and soon it was found as graffiti all around the country. There was something worse than the loss of freedom: It was collaboration followed by liberation. And Denmark got the message.

Piet Hein's superegg in brassAfter Liberation, Scandinavian architects, tired of square buildings but cognizant that circular buildings were impractical, asked Piet Hein for a solution. Applying his mathematical prowess to the problem, Piet Hein created the superellipse which became the hallmark of modern Scandinavian architecture.

In addition to the thousands of grooks he wrote, Piet Hein devised the games of Hex, Tangloids, Morra, Tower, Polytaire, TacTix, Nimbi, Qrazy Qube, Pyramystery, and the Soma cube. He advocated the use of the superellipse curve in city planning, furniture making and other realms. He also invented a perpetual calendar called the Astro Calendar and marketed housewares based on the superellipse and Superegg.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1AFR-flmWS0J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Hein_(Denmark)+%22Piet+hein%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

dancin in the moonlight, everybody's feelin warm and bright

Of course, anybody's welcome to copy or add to the list. I'd like to emphasize again though that it's not an "official" NASA list, but rather a transcription I made of the information in the ESMD presentation slide.

There is a lot of optimism in Dr. Leshin's slides regarding schedule, launch rate, etc. for much of what is presented.

I remember they said 'we'll fly the shuttle 60 times per year', back in the late 1970's.

I'm sure Keith recalls some optimistic projections about the ISS that never came to pass.

Dr. Griffin said he'd shrink the gap to two/three years during his confirmation hearings.

Oh, and that lovely sand chart , filled with optimism about where all the Cx money would come from.

How'd all that turn out?

I realize you just transcribed the info Neuron..., so no criticism intended towards you, but whoever matched the dates with the milestones in the original chart has been in the beer tent a little too long. Aside a few items in the 8-10 year away timeframe, none of these can be achieved on time, even if opposition to Obama's plan ends tomorrow.

This list is crazy optimistic ... with many of these development projects, the people skills/competencies don't even exist right now at sufficient levels to do the amount of work that would be required. Putting together an efficient project team would take a year to begin with. And some are just plain CRAZY; spacecraft "autonomous landing" in *2* years...lol.

> This schedule is pure fantasy. Human Robotic Interfaces at ISS in a year? I can't even get a software update to existing ISS Systems in less then two years lot alone a whole new system.

From the ETDD RFI:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34056

"In 2011, this project will initially demonstrate teleoperation of a robot on the ground by crew on the International Space Station (ISS). In 2012, this project will demonstrate human teams operating and working with multiple robots both on the ground ("orbit to ground") and on the ISS ("ground to orbit"). The demonstration will simulate humans at Near Earth Objects or in Mars orbit controlling robot teams on the surface to explore and prepare for the crew landing."

> NEO Robotic Precursor in 4 years? I am not familiar with deep space development schedules but that seems unrealistic. Commercial crew will be at least a year later and probably more. ISRU in 6 years? More like 10.

"In-Situ Resource Utilization: Lunar Volatiles Characterization This project will address the key question "How can we locate, access, and extract volatile resources on the Moon?" The objective of the demonstration is to verify the presence of water and other volatiles on the Moon by direct in-situ measurements of the lunar regolith. The project will build upon recent field tests of in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technology by demonstrating operation of a prototype ISRU system in a thermal vacuum chamber. Then a flight experiment to demonstrate lunar resource prospecting, characterization, and extraction will be developed for testing on a robotic precursor mission around 2015."