People in Mars orbit
The Planetary Society presented a report on NASA mission plans for Mars. Below is the translation of the question and answer section from hom.planetary.org
Questions about the program.
I do not want to read the report, what is its essence?
Mars is a target for manned space flight. But because of the limited budget, NASA should minimize the cost of developing new equipment and formulate a clear long-term research strategy for Mars, in order to receive comprehensive support. In order to fly to Mars, the program will be divided into two missions: the first will be limited to the orbit of Mars and will study its moon Phobos, and the second will land on the planet.
')
Where can I read in detail about the concept of studying Mars, which they want to use in JPL?
There is a lot of information in this section hom.planetary.org/further-reading . The report also provides a good source of information.
Why fly to Mars and not land? Why go to orbit first?
The reason is pragmatic - NASA has a limited budget. By dividing the Mars mission into two parts, NASA can spread the risks and costs associated with landing and at the same time promote Mars exploration.
Landing on Mars is difficult. The most difficult thing that NASA has ever planted on Mars is the Curiosity rover - about a ton. The manned mission to Mars will require the landing of several tons of equipment to the surface, not to mention the development of life support technologies and the subsequent return of people into orbit. The development, testing and construction of such equipment takes time and money.
Going into orbit allows you to first demonstrate and work out the procedures necessary for all subsequent manned missions to Mars. Mankind has never traveled as far as people who fly to Mars, so risk reduction is absolutely necessary.
A similar approach has already been used when planning other missions. Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 also went into orbit to check landing procedures and other operations before NASA made a landing.
Is this Mars too expensive? How can we afford it?
There are many erroneous ideas about the cost of a manned mission to Mars. We refute many of them in section 3 of our report.
NASA already spends about eight billion dollars a year on its manned program. We believe that NASA should stick to this amount, taking into account inflation, developing its strategy for flight to Mars.
If the NASA budget doubled, we would get to Mars much earlier ...
Yes, that is right.
Is radiation an obstacle?
The radiation threat to astronauts is a solvable problem. NASA said: "At the moment there are no risks to the health of the crew, which could cancel the mission." [ April 2015 presentation to the NASA Advisory Council, PDF, slide 3 ]
Radiation at the moment more ethical question: what percentage of the increase in the likelihood of cancer NASA will offer to its astronauts?
Why wait for the 2030s? Is it too long?
The choice of 2033 as the time to enter the orbit of Mars is a pragmatic response to NASA limited budgets. Any potential partners should not rely on solving all technical problems within a shorter period of time, without a significant (and unlikely) increase in the budget for manned cosmonautics.
Manned flights have historically been prepared for decades. The Space Shuttle program began in 1972 and ended in 2011. The MKS program began in the 90s and will last until 2024. The tight deadlines for the implementation of the Apollo program were the result of the allocation of enormous resources by the US government.
2033 will come in 18 years. Is there enough time?
May be. The conceptual plan presented in our organization is based on the use of a large amount of equipment that is currently under development (SLS, Orion and Solar Electric Propulsion). This should theoretically help to meet the schedule, since some problems have already been encountered.
As we emphasize in the report, work must begin now to successfully develop and test other, not yet developed, vehicles, such as the Deep Space Habitat and the upper stage of the SLS, as well as methods and operations to support human life during the long period of travel. But the cosmos, as they say, is difficult, and there are many complex problems lurking in the details. The sooner we start, the better.
An important factor for the implementation of the program on time is the availability of funding when necessary. This will require not only convincing Congress and the White House that NASA’s manned program should receive adequate annual funding (not an easy task), but also to form such a flexible budget structure for the program itself so that it is resistant to potential failures. Program managers, as a rule, cope with this by laying additional funds to cover unforeseen problems. The availability of these funds is an important part of the development and successful completion of the mission on time.
What is so interesting exactly in 2033?
The orbits of Earth and Mars periodically provide starting windows that are favorable in terms of the fuel necessary to move from one planet to another. They happen about every 26 months. A piloted launch to Mars will necessarily be tied to a similar window. The year 2033 is particularly favorable for launching a massive facility.
Why use the Space Launch System and Orion?
NASA developed the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion capsule to provide the ability to send people into space. Congress ordered the creation of SLS at NASA Authorization Act for 2010, although it did not specify how exactly SLS and Orion should be used, and where and when NASA should send astronauts. It makes sense to take advantage of these developments, which have been developing for several years. What kind of manned program can be created using the infrastructure developed by NASA? The orbital mission to Mars is a potential response.
The abolition of both programs now and the creation of a new one will require a massive restructuring of several large centers in the field and is likely to face significant opposition in Congress (see the 2010 battle between the Obama administration and Congress when the White House canceled the Constellation program). It seems to us that the direction of the development of SLS and Orion, towards supporting manned Mars explorations, is a more efficient use of time and effort than the struggle to cancel them.
It is also impossible to forget about the main problems associated with the costs of developing, maintaining and flying as the SLS and Orion. It is necessary to find a way to increase the number of flights and reduce costs in order to make both programs relevant for decades. Using SLS to launch automatic probes into deep space (which drastically reduces their transit time) is one way to increase the number of SLS launches during the 2020s, but this does not solve all the problems.
Many commercial enterprises are currently trying to travel in space through various technical and financial strategies. Since these companies are able to prove their new capabilities, NASA is gaining new opportunities to improve its manned flight strategies. It is very important to understand the differences in the capabilities of ships and launch vehicles, for an accurate assessment of the moment when new technologies will be sufficiently safe for manned space flight. Nevertheless, as we discussed in the report, NASA should actively explore the best available developments for successful inclusion in the mission to Mars, but for this to happen, the agency should better work out its goals and strategy.
Will SpaceX get to Mars before?
It will be cool, right? If SpaceX gets to Mars with or through NASA, then it will be even better. We are all for those who are trying to get there.
Section 6 of our report discusses the role of SapceX and other companies that can offer NASA their services in a mission to Mars. In general, we came to the conclusion that if NASA becomes the organization that leads the flight to Mars, then it must formulate its strategy in such a way that the industry and foreign partners can determine their place in this mission. For companies like SpaceX, it would be logical to provide services at a fixed price as part of the flight program to Mars.
Will the public be disappointed with the orbital mission or the mission exclusively to Phobos?
Public participation is covered in section 5 of our report. The workshop participants generally agreed that for a landing on Mars, any plan should adhere to the concept of intermediate stages, such as a test mission to the moon in the 2020s and a potential mission to Phobos in 2033. Such a plan is quite easy to explain, as people gradually increase their presence in space. We believe that the mission to Phobos will only stir up the public appetite for the next step - landing.
Just do not forget that the intermediate step in the form of a flight to Phobos will be the farthest journey of humanity in history. This will undoubtedly be the most daring, risky and ambitious mission in the history of manned space exploration. And such a statement, in our opinion, will be well received by the public.
Why not just fly to the moon?
Planetary Society believes that Mars should be the target of NASA's manned space program. The rich and mysterious history of this planet makes it the main goal for the search for extraterrestrial life. His conditions are more comfortable for man than the conditions of other worlds available to us.
Although it is very likely that any long-term program for the exploration of Mars will use the moon and lunar space as a test site.
The research concept of the JPL team, which we discuss in our report, offers several missions in the immediate vicinity of the moon during the 2020s and a demonstration of landing on the lunar surface in the mid-2030s.
It is important to note that a flight to the moon without a clear, mars-directed strategy will become a trap of long-term infrastructure costs. This will draw off funds that could be sent to Mars. Nevertheless, the previous NASA moon exploration program may provide an opportunity for international or commercial partners to use NASA groundwork and allow for the conduct of its independent lunar programs. Again, this is an area from which NASA can benefit if it details its strategies and plans.
Is NASA already on its way to Mars?
Yes, and this is very important. The agency sets Mars as a target for manned space flight. This has never happened before and this is commendable.
However, NASA has yet to define a clear strategy for sending humans to Mars in the 2030s. The next major manned mission of NASA is the Asteroid Redirection Mission (AWP), which consists in the flight of astronauts to an asteroid captured by a robot and aimed at the lunar orbit. The mission contributes to the development of ion engine technologies (which can be used to pre-send cargo to the orbit of Mars). But besides the statement about ARM, NASA did not give any obligations, possibly to avoid criticism, costs associated with this mission, or some time frame.
Is Planetary Society in favor of the JPL plan for a flight to Mars?
Not in the sense that it should be the same “plan” for the exploration of Mars. The concept proposed by JPL is intended to serve as a demonstration that the program can be implemented within the budget. This is a response to the findings of the 2014 National Research Council's space research report, which found that NASA would not be able to implement Martian plans until the mid-2040s. The research team of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, using the same cost and schedule, found that a person can be sent to Mars orbit in 2033, and landed on the surface in 2039. The orbital mission has many advantages in terms of saving money and we believe NASA should stick to these are concepts.
We recognize that the details of any Martian plan will necessarily change, as engineers will have to sit down and deal with all the difficulties that appear in any space exploration program.
We believe, however, that NASA should at least formulate its strategy for how to get to Mars. There are many good reasons to do this: providing metrics to judge progress; assistance in prioritizing investments in technology development; and building a coalition to sustain efforts for decades. The concept of the JPL analytical group is a good starting point for determining this strategy.
Why does NASA need to abandon the International Space Station? Are you against the ISS?
Again, this is a consequence of cramped budgets. At present, NASA cannot afford a manned flight research program and a near-earth manned flight program (at least for the time being).
Supplies and operation to the ISS costs about $ 3 billion a year. This is almost half of NASA’s total manned space flight. If NASA calculates a budget that, at best, grows with inflation, then the ISS must be transferred or abandoned, and then significant resources can be spent on a manned mission to Mars.
The current NASA policy is to operate the ISS until 2024. Many supporters of the ISS want to increase this period until 2028. Aerospace Corporation reviewed both scenarios, their cost and analyzed the schedule for the exploration of Mars from the research group JPL. The scenario in which NASA completes its leadership role on the ISS in 2024, as you might expect, makes a mission to Mars more accessible. Leaving the ISS in 2028, it also does not interfere with the mission to Mars, but will require more careful budget planning with too small reserves. This is a riskier scenario in terms of cost and planning.
Phobos. What is Phobos?
Phobos is the larger of the two moons of Mars (the smaller moon is called Deimos). It is several times smaller than the moon of the Earth, with a diameter of 27 × 22 × 18 km.
Why is Phobos worth a visit?
There are a number of urgent scientific reasons to investigate Phobos. We set out some of them in detail in our report (section 4.4: Scientific potential in the orbits of Mars and Phobos).
No one really knows the origin of Phobos (as well as Deimos). Was it formed from the debris of a major blow to Mars (like our moon)? Or is it a captured asteroid? There are arguments in favor of both points of view, and any of them is of value to science.
In addition, Phobos is close enough to Mars, so it can collect garbage thrown up by strong impacts of meteorites on the surface of Mars. Phobos flies through these trash fields and accumulates particles of Mars. These samples are most likely located at a depth of one meter from the surface of Phobos. For robots it is difficult to get to such a depth, but it is easy for humans. In fact, so the astronauts could collect samples of Phobos and Mars in one place. In this regard, Phobos is doubly beneficial.
NASA and Brown University present a free course of studying both:
Science and research of Phobos and Deimos
Free, online course studying the scientific potential of the moons of Mars. Provided by NASA's Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute:
sservi.nasa.gov/event/planetary-evolution-phobos-and-deimos
Is Phobos not deep in the gravitational well of Mars? This is not an ideal place to use it as a base for research.
In the concept of the JPL team, the astronauts will not return to Phobos in subsequent missions. Phobos will not be the basis of subsequent missions, but is well suited to the role of the first.
Isn't it easier to go into orbit around Mars than to fly to Phobos?
Yes. Going into orbit will require less equipment. Astronauts are likely to avoid traveling deep into the gravitational well of Mars, perhaps except to explore Phobos. Although this gives less information for science.
Note from the translator: The translation may not be very good in lexical terms, as well as spelling, punctuation and philological points of view. Please report the defects found in a personal. Thank!
Questions about the program.
I do not want to read the report, what is its essence?
Mars is a target for manned space flight. But because of the limited budget, NASA should minimize the cost of developing new equipment and formulate a clear long-term research strategy for Mars, in order to receive comprehensive support. In order to fly to Mars, the program will be divided into two missions: the first will be limited to the orbit of Mars and will study its moon Phobos, and the second will land on the planet.
')
Where can I read in detail about the concept of studying Mars, which they want to use in JPL?
There is a lot of information in this section hom.planetary.org/further-reading . The report also provides a good source of information.
Why fly to Mars and not land? Why go to orbit first?
The reason is pragmatic - NASA has a limited budget. By dividing the Mars mission into two parts, NASA can spread the risks and costs associated with landing and at the same time promote Mars exploration.
Landing on Mars is difficult. The most difficult thing that NASA has ever planted on Mars is the Curiosity rover - about a ton. The manned mission to Mars will require the landing of several tons of equipment to the surface, not to mention the development of life support technologies and the subsequent return of people into orbit. The development, testing and construction of such equipment takes time and money.
Going into orbit allows you to first demonstrate and work out the procedures necessary for all subsequent manned missions to Mars. Mankind has never traveled as far as people who fly to Mars, so risk reduction is absolutely necessary.
A similar approach has already been used when planning other missions. Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 also went into orbit to check landing procedures and other operations before NASA made a landing.
Is this Mars too expensive? How can we afford it?
There are many erroneous ideas about the cost of a manned mission to Mars. We refute many of them in section 3 of our report.
NASA already spends about eight billion dollars a year on its manned program. We believe that NASA should stick to this amount, taking into account inflation, developing its strategy for flight to Mars.
If the NASA budget doubled, we would get to Mars much earlier ...
Yes, that is right.
Is radiation an obstacle?
The radiation threat to astronauts is a solvable problem. NASA said: "At the moment there are no risks to the health of the crew, which could cancel the mission." [ April 2015 presentation to the NASA Advisory Council, PDF, slide 3 ]
Radiation at the moment more ethical question: what percentage of the increase in the likelihood of cancer NASA will offer to its astronauts?
Why wait for the 2030s? Is it too long?
The choice of 2033 as the time to enter the orbit of Mars is a pragmatic response to NASA limited budgets. Any potential partners should not rely on solving all technical problems within a shorter period of time, without a significant (and unlikely) increase in the budget for manned cosmonautics.
Manned flights have historically been prepared for decades. The Space Shuttle program began in 1972 and ended in 2011. The MKS program began in the 90s and will last until 2024. The tight deadlines for the implementation of the Apollo program were the result of the allocation of enormous resources by the US government.
2033 will come in 18 years. Is there enough time?
May be. The conceptual plan presented in our organization is based on the use of a large amount of equipment that is currently under development (SLS, Orion and Solar Electric Propulsion). This should theoretically help to meet the schedule, since some problems have already been encountered.
As we emphasize in the report, work must begin now to successfully develop and test other, not yet developed, vehicles, such as the Deep Space Habitat and the upper stage of the SLS, as well as methods and operations to support human life during the long period of travel. But the cosmos, as they say, is difficult, and there are many complex problems lurking in the details. The sooner we start, the better.
An important factor for the implementation of the program on time is the availability of funding when necessary. This will require not only convincing Congress and the White House that NASA’s manned program should receive adequate annual funding (not an easy task), but also to form such a flexible budget structure for the program itself so that it is resistant to potential failures. Program managers, as a rule, cope with this by laying additional funds to cover unforeseen problems. The availability of these funds is an important part of the development and successful completion of the mission on time.
What is so interesting exactly in 2033?
The orbits of Earth and Mars periodically provide starting windows that are favorable in terms of the fuel necessary to move from one planet to another. They happen about every 26 months. A piloted launch to Mars will necessarily be tied to a similar window. The year 2033 is particularly favorable for launching a massive facility.
Why use the Space Launch System and Orion?
NASA developed the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion capsule to provide the ability to send people into space. Congress ordered the creation of SLS at NASA Authorization Act for 2010, although it did not specify how exactly SLS and Orion should be used, and where and when NASA should send astronauts. It makes sense to take advantage of these developments, which have been developing for several years. What kind of manned program can be created using the infrastructure developed by NASA? The orbital mission to Mars is a potential response.
The abolition of both programs now and the creation of a new one will require a massive restructuring of several large centers in the field and is likely to face significant opposition in Congress (see the 2010 battle between the Obama administration and Congress when the White House canceled the Constellation program). It seems to us that the direction of the development of SLS and Orion, towards supporting manned Mars explorations, is a more efficient use of time and effort than the struggle to cancel them.
It is also impossible to forget about the main problems associated with the costs of developing, maintaining and flying as the SLS and Orion. It is necessary to find a way to increase the number of flights and reduce costs in order to make both programs relevant for decades. Using SLS to launch automatic probes into deep space (which drastically reduces their transit time) is one way to increase the number of SLS launches during the 2020s, but this does not solve all the problems.
Many commercial enterprises are currently trying to travel in space through various technical and financial strategies. Since these companies are able to prove their new capabilities, NASA is gaining new opportunities to improve its manned flight strategies. It is very important to understand the differences in the capabilities of ships and launch vehicles, for an accurate assessment of the moment when new technologies will be sufficiently safe for manned space flight. Nevertheless, as we discussed in the report, NASA should actively explore the best available developments for successful inclusion in the mission to Mars, but for this to happen, the agency should better work out its goals and strategy.
Will SpaceX get to Mars before?
It will be cool, right? If SpaceX gets to Mars with or through NASA, then it will be even better. We are all for those who are trying to get there.
Section 6 of our report discusses the role of SapceX and other companies that can offer NASA their services in a mission to Mars. In general, we came to the conclusion that if NASA becomes the organization that leads the flight to Mars, then it must formulate its strategy in such a way that the industry and foreign partners can determine their place in this mission. For companies like SpaceX, it would be logical to provide services at a fixed price as part of the flight program to Mars.
Will the public be disappointed with the orbital mission or the mission exclusively to Phobos?
Public participation is covered in section 5 of our report. The workshop participants generally agreed that for a landing on Mars, any plan should adhere to the concept of intermediate stages, such as a test mission to the moon in the 2020s and a potential mission to Phobos in 2033. Such a plan is quite easy to explain, as people gradually increase their presence in space. We believe that the mission to Phobos will only stir up the public appetite for the next step - landing.
Just do not forget that the intermediate step in the form of a flight to Phobos will be the farthest journey of humanity in history. This will undoubtedly be the most daring, risky and ambitious mission in the history of manned space exploration. And such a statement, in our opinion, will be well received by the public.
Why not just fly to the moon?
Planetary Society believes that Mars should be the target of NASA's manned space program. The rich and mysterious history of this planet makes it the main goal for the search for extraterrestrial life. His conditions are more comfortable for man than the conditions of other worlds available to us.
Although it is very likely that any long-term program for the exploration of Mars will use the moon and lunar space as a test site.
The research concept of the JPL team, which we discuss in our report, offers several missions in the immediate vicinity of the moon during the 2020s and a demonstration of landing on the lunar surface in the mid-2030s.
It is important to note that a flight to the moon without a clear, mars-directed strategy will become a trap of long-term infrastructure costs. This will draw off funds that could be sent to Mars. Nevertheless, the previous NASA moon exploration program may provide an opportunity for international or commercial partners to use NASA groundwork and allow for the conduct of its independent lunar programs. Again, this is an area from which NASA can benefit if it details its strategies and plans.
Is NASA already on its way to Mars?
Yes, and this is very important. The agency sets Mars as a target for manned space flight. This has never happened before and this is commendable.
However, NASA has yet to define a clear strategy for sending humans to Mars in the 2030s. The next major manned mission of NASA is the Asteroid Redirection Mission (AWP), which consists in the flight of astronauts to an asteroid captured by a robot and aimed at the lunar orbit. The mission contributes to the development of ion engine technologies (which can be used to pre-send cargo to the orbit of Mars). But besides the statement about ARM, NASA did not give any obligations, possibly to avoid criticism, costs associated with this mission, or some time frame.
Is Planetary Society in favor of the JPL plan for a flight to Mars?
Not in the sense that it should be the same “plan” for the exploration of Mars. The concept proposed by JPL is intended to serve as a demonstration that the program can be implemented within the budget. This is a response to the findings of the 2014 National Research Council's space research report, which found that NASA would not be able to implement Martian plans until the mid-2040s. The research team of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, using the same cost and schedule, found that a person can be sent to Mars orbit in 2033, and landed on the surface in 2039. The orbital mission has many advantages in terms of saving money and we believe NASA should stick to these are concepts.
We recognize that the details of any Martian plan will necessarily change, as engineers will have to sit down and deal with all the difficulties that appear in any space exploration program.
We believe, however, that NASA should at least formulate its strategy for how to get to Mars. There are many good reasons to do this: providing metrics to judge progress; assistance in prioritizing investments in technology development; and building a coalition to sustain efforts for decades. The concept of the JPL analytical group is a good starting point for determining this strategy.
Why does NASA need to abandon the International Space Station? Are you against the ISS?
Again, this is a consequence of cramped budgets. At present, NASA cannot afford a manned flight research program and a near-earth manned flight program (at least for the time being).
Supplies and operation to the ISS costs about $ 3 billion a year. This is almost half of NASA’s total manned space flight. If NASA calculates a budget that, at best, grows with inflation, then the ISS must be transferred or abandoned, and then significant resources can be spent on a manned mission to Mars.
The current NASA policy is to operate the ISS until 2024. Many supporters of the ISS want to increase this period until 2028. Aerospace Corporation reviewed both scenarios, their cost and analyzed the schedule for the exploration of Mars from the research group JPL. The scenario in which NASA completes its leadership role on the ISS in 2024, as you might expect, makes a mission to Mars more accessible. Leaving the ISS in 2028, it also does not interfere with the mission to Mars, but will require more careful budget planning with too small reserves. This is a riskier scenario in terms of cost and planning.
Phobos. What is Phobos?
Phobos is the larger of the two moons of Mars (the smaller moon is called Deimos). It is several times smaller than the moon of the Earth, with a diameter of 27 × 22 × 18 km.
Why is Phobos worth a visit?
There are a number of urgent scientific reasons to investigate Phobos. We set out some of them in detail in our report (section 4.4: Scientific potential in the orbits of Mars and Phobos).
No one really knows the origin of Phobos (as well as Deimos). Was it formed from the debris of a major blow to Mars (like our moon)? Or is it a captured asteroid? There are arguments in favor of both points of view, and any of them is of value to science.
In addition, Phobos is close enough to Mars, so it can collect garbage thrown up by strong impacts of meteorites on the surface of Mars. Phobos flies through these trash fields and accumulates particles of Mars. These samples are most likely located at a depth of one meter from the surface of Phobos. For robots it is difficult to get to such a depth, but it is easy for humans. In fact, so the astronauts could collect samples of Phobos and Mars in one place. In this regard, Phobos is doubly beneficial.
NASA and Brown University present a free course of studying both:
Science and research of Phobos and Deimos
Free, online course studying the scientific potential of the moons of Mars. Provided by NASA's Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute:
sservi.nasa.gov/event/planetary-evolution-phobos-and-deimos
Is Phobos not deep in the gravitational well of Mars? This is not an ideal place to use it as a base for research.
In the concept of the JPL team, the astronauts will not return to Phobos in subsequent missions. Phobos will not be the basis of subsequent missions, but is well suited to the role of the first.
Isn't it easier to go into orbit around Mars than to fly to Phobos?
Yes. Going into orbit will require less equipment. Astronauts are likely to avoid traveling deep into the gravitational well of Mars, perhaps except to explore Phobos. Although this gives less information for science.
Note from the translator: The translation may not be very good in lexical terms, as well as spelling, punctuation and philological points of view. Please report the defects found in a personal. Thank!
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/366571/
All Articles