Orion and SLS

[DutyCat]

Surprised none of the NASAphiles(including myself) haven't brought this discussion up yet.

First of all congrats to NASA, United Launch Alliance, Lockheed-Martin, and the entire Orion EFT-1 team on a fabulous, inspiring mission. I went down to KSC with family an friend to watch the launch live, and while I was there toured the visitor complex and got all caught up on the latest SLS/Orion news and plans.

I think that NASA and related industry folks have a pretty solid roadmap on how to get humans to Mars in the next 20 or so years. The SLS and Orion capsule technology seems like it will be robust and reliable, and the follow on related hardware, including the Mars Transfer Vehicle (working name Copernicus) and lander (Altair) seem achievable as long as their requirements are well thought out and adequate testing is done.

Interesting to note is that NASA's favored propulsion technology for the transfer vehicle is nuclear, which promises to cut transit time to Mars in half. The major safety drawback of nuclear propulsion is the case of a launch casualty, which under the worst circumstances, could rain radioactive debris into a large swath of the atmosphere. Politics will decide whether NASA relies on traditional chemical rocketry, or goes the nuclear propulsion route. For those who don't know, a thermal nuclear engine design (NERVA) was built and successfully tested back in the Apollo days, when the Pilgrim Observer spacecraft concept was getting kicked around by some NASA scientists who then worked with MPC to make the model kit.

What some of you may not know is that to actually conduct a the first Mars surface mission, NASA would likely have to launch at least three SLS heavies to provide everything needed to support the first extended surface operation, which would have to go on for over a year before a return trip would be practical. Once a base habitat is established, regular resupply and colony expansion missions would need to take place in order to secure our presence and make it more than a "plant the flag" exercise (which in my view would be pointless).

Which brings us to the next obstacle...money and politics. Although it looks like NASA is going to get a slight uptick in funding this year ($300 mil), to really pull this off in grand fashion is going to require the support of the American people. I am not very optimistic about this, as the public lost interest in the moon quickly, and half of the US population as I write this probably doesn't even know the ISS exists. However, I am hopeful, that even with modest American support, if we will lead the way, folks from around the world will jump on board to be a part of it all. As it sits right now, the ESA is producing the service module for Orion and saving NASA a ton of money in development costs. We need to continue this model with the other components of the system. We pay roughly half, and Europe, Japan, and other interested countries pay the other half.

One other thing to ask ourselves......should we go back to the moon first? Should we use the moon as a nearby testing field for some of this newly developed surface operations technology? Mars is a long ways away. Do we know enough not to bother with the expense of a return to the moon? Should we do both....establish a permanent presence on the moon ala 2001 and strike out for Mars too?

Thoughts please.

Edited December 11, 2014 by DutyCat

[cvrle]

While it might seem safer (and cheaper) to go back to the moon first, I fully hope they shoot for Mars. For the very simple reason is that's it's bound to fire up some imaginations.

Unfortunately, You're right, and much will depend on US politics (internal ones). And looking from the outside (my vantage point), it does not bode well...

[niart17]

Unfortunately at this point in the game, it does seem more likely we'll skip going to the moon and not use it as a test bed so to speak. Due to the political nature of things, the focus was shifted from going back to the moon and instead landing on an asteroid and ultimately Mars. I agree the main goal should be Mars, but there are great number of steps that must be "re-learned" in sending and returning humans to another celestial body. But you can't exactly send manned flights that distance simply to test procedures. You pretty much have to go for broke on the first, maybe second manned mission to Mars. That's why the argument of sending people back to the back yard playground of the moon made the most sense in my opinion. I just learned that the next Orion Launch isn't even scheduled until 2018 with the first manned flight slated for 2021. That's an aweful long time between actual tests flights. I'm sure those dates may change quite a bit dependent on the elections and political atmosphere in the future, but unless there is a bigger push, I see us falling behind the curve.

Still, having said that it was REALLY cool seeing a new spacecraft fly a near perfect test flight.

Bill