The Vision for Space Exploration: A Renewed Spirit of Discovery - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 42
About This Presentation
Title:

The Vision for Space Exploration: A Renewed Spirit of Discovery

Description:

Should plans for the Moon and Mars affect development of the CEV for the ISS? ... Mars? Will use of the CEV or a derivative be the best approach for Mars ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:146
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 43
Provided by: craigco
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Vision for Space Exploration: A Renewed Spirit of Discovery


1
The Vision for Space ExplorationA Renewed
Spirit of Discovery
  • An Independent Assessment

2
Overview of the Presentation
  • Policy Overview
  • How Does the Vision Relate to CAIB and ISS?
  • Implementing the Vision
  • How Realistic is the Vision?
  • Conclusions

3
Section 1
  • Policy Overview
  • How Does the Vision Relate to CAIB and ISS?
  • Implementing the Vision
  • How Realistic is the Vision?
  • Conclusions

4
The Vision for Space Exploration
  • Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same
    reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and
    across the open sea. We chose to explore space
    because doing so improves our lives, and lifts
    our national spirit.
  • President George W. Bush, January 14, 2004

5
Why Explore Space?
  • Rationales offered by the Bush Administration
  • To advance U.S. economic interests through the
    development of new technologies
  • To further scientific understanding of planetary
    evolution and solar system history
  • To fulfill basic human desire/need to explore
  • To inspire future generations
  • To encourage young people to study math and
    engineering
  • To promote international cooperation
  • To encourage commercial interest/ventures in
    space
  • To search for life or evidence of life
  • To enhance U.S. national pride
  • Are there other reasons to support the Vision?
  • To maintain U.S. leadership in space
  • To enhance U.S. national prestige

6
Will America Support the Vision?
  • Political Factors
  • Highly Partisan Environment
  • Election Year
  • Presidential election
  • House in cycle
  • 1/3 Senate in cycle
  • Federal deficit
  • America faces competing wartime demands
  • War on terrorism
  • Iraq
  • Homeland security

American public is evenly split on scope and
objectives of the Vision
NYTimes/CBS News Poll, Released Jan. 18, 2004
Key Question Is the Vision Politically Viable?
7
Cost Perceptions and Public Opinion
  • Key Facts
  • Public opposition to the space program is
    directly linked to perceived high costs
  • A large majority of Americans (73) overestimate
    NASAs budget as a percentage of annual federal
    expenditures
  • Perceived opportunity costs are high as a result
    of this misunderstanding
  • Publics assessment of NASAs cost-worthiness has
    improved over last ten years

8
Public Support for Space Objectives
  • Studies Suggest
  • Highly educated individuals and those interested
    in space exhibit a bias towards supporting space
    exploration
  • Among space supporters, there is wide
    disagreement on space priorities and objectives
  • Strong consensus on destination

Planetary Society for NRC, Jan. 31, 2002
9
Is the Vision Clearly Stated and Understood?
  • The Vision is specific on content, but vague on
    execution
  • Policy ramifications include
  • Variations in interpretation of the Vision
  • Is it a Moon-Mars plan?
  • Is it a broad space exploration program to
    explore the solar system?
  • Wariness of increasing costs associated with the
    Vision
  • Near-term plan is funded through internal
    reallocations (FY09)
  • Long-term costs are uncertain
  • Fear of the cancellation of parochial programs or
    interests
  • Fear of astrophysics and earth science being
    pushed aside
  • Specific programs at risk (i.e., Hubble)
  • Fear of a NASA version of BRAC to support the
    Vision

Aerospace America, April 2004
10
Section 2
  • Policy Overview
  • How Does the Vision Relate to CAIB ISS?
  • Implementing the Vision
  • How Realistic is the Vision?
  • Conclusion

11
Potential Safety Concerns Created by the Vision
  • CAIB Recommendations
  • Recertification of Shuttle by 2010 (R9.2-1)
  • Evaluate schedule of Shuttle flights (R6.2-1)
  • Presidents Vision
  • Retire Shuttle after completion of ISS assembly
    planned for end of decade
  • Shuttle retirement deadline could put
    additional pressure on construction schedule
  • Potential for creating a line in the sand

12
ISS Construction Schedule
  • 26 planned ISS construction flights
  • NASA historically adds more flights to meet
    changing logistics and maintenance demands
  • RTF scheduled for March 2005
  • Approximately 5 flights per year by 2010
  • Operate three Shuttles instead of four
  • Shuttle backup requirement
  • Shuttle Service Lifetime Extension Program (SLEP)
  • Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission

13
Safety Concerns
  • Are there concerns over slipping ISS assembly
    flights beyond 2010?
  • What are the budget implications?
  • Will Shuttle recertification be necessary if ISS
    construction slips well beyond 2010?
  • What is the latest acceptable date that Shuttle
    can fly without recertification?
  • Does Congress want to set a date?

14
US Obligations to ISS
  • NASA is obliged to provide (MOU 3.2)
  • Crew rescue vehicle with capabilities to support
    the rescue and return of a minimum crew of four
  • Logistics carriers which provide the delivery of
    water, atmospheric gases and crew supplies and
    delivery/return of dry cargo, including crew
    supplies, logistics and scientific equipment
  • NASA is obliged to provide (MOU 6.1.b)
  • 6. Provide logistics flights for the
    NASA-provided elements, for the Space Station as
    a whole, and for the elements provided by other
    partners
  • 16. Deliver or arrange for delivery of on-orbit
    propellant for reboost and propulsive attitude
    control as agreed
  • 17. Provide or arrange for provision of reboost,
    propulsive and non-propulsive attitude control as
    agreed
  • MOU 8.3.d.1
  • Each partner will have the right to obtain
    launch and return transportation services,
    commensurate with its allocation of utilization
    resources
  • How will the U.S. meet these obligations?

15
Considerations for ISS operations
  • Crew transfer requirements (6 person crew)
  • 365 days on orbit 6 crew members launched
  • 2 Shuttle or 2 Soyuz launches/per year
  • 180 days on orbit 12 crew members launched
  • 4 Shuttle or 4 Soyuz launches/per year
  • 90 days on orbit 24 crew members launched
  • 8 Shuttle or 8 Soyuz launches/per year
  • Backup crew transportation capabilities
  • Crew Return Vehicle (CRV)
  • Soyuz
  • Safehaven Soyuz
  • CEV?
  • Shenzhou

16
ISS operations without Shuttle
  • Cargo upmass and downmass
  • Progress - total payload 2,230 kg
  • ATV - total payload 7667 kg
  • HTV - total payload 6000-7000 kg?
  • CEV - total payload TBD
  • Develop new commercial or international vehicle
  • Reboost
  • ATV
  • Progress

17
Potential Compelling Reasons to Operate Shuttle
Beyond ISS Assembly Complete
  • ISS Operation
  • Crew transfer, rescue, resupply requirements for
    ISS
  • ISS cargo downmass transfer capability
  • ISS reboost requirements
  • ISS Access
  • Can CEV replace some Shuttle capabilities before
    it is fully operational in 2014?
  • Are there concerns with utilizing only foreign
    capabilities for access to ISS after Shuttle is
    retired?

18
Section 3
  • Policy Overview
  • How Does the Vision Relate to CAIB and ISS?
  • Implementing the Vision
  • How Realistic is the Vision?
  • Summary

19
Required Launch Technology
  • What path should NASA follow for future missions?
  • Launch mission in several parts using current
    medium lift technology and construct crew
    transport vehicle for the Moon (and eventually
    Mars) in LEO
  • Develop new heavy-lift rocket with current
    technology
  • Focus on developing Nuclear Thermal Propulsion
    for use in crewed missions to Mars
  • Focus on low-thrust propulsion technologies such
    as solar-electric for cargo missions
  • Is a Shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle a
    preferred option? If not, are there significant
    costs in giving up the unique capabilities of
    each Shuttle component?
  • How much research should be done on other RLVs?
  • If vigorous interplanetary activity is to emerge
    in the long term, will alternatives to chemical
    rockets be necessary to reduce launch costs? If
    so, what level of research funding is appropriate?

20
CEV Requirements
  • Unclear requirements
  • Is crew transportation to the ISS necessary?
    What role will international partners play?
  • Are there any other LEO requirements for the CEV?
  • Should the Shuttles manipulator and rendezvous
    capabilities be replaced? If so, how?
  • Only clear requirement is separation of crew and
    cargo
  • Spiral development
  • Should plans for the Moon and Mars affect
    development of the CEV for the ISS?
  • ISS and the Moon have similar requirements
  • What are the requirements for Mars? Will use of
    the CEV or a derivative be the best approach for
    Mars missions?
  • Research needed for long duration flights
  • Easy crew maintenance and repair
  • Radiation protection, artificial gravity,
    psychological effects

21
Medical Hazards of Interplanetary Missions
  • Solar particle and galactic cosmic radiation
  • Could it be a showstopper for interplanetary
    exploration?
  • Is shielding just a matter of heavy lift
    capability?
  • 400-1500 uncertainty in risk ? possibly 10-30
    billion in excess shielding
  • Is the current level of research sufficient?
  • Microgravity
  • More research needed, but not likely to be a
    showstopper Exercise, pharmaceuticals, and
    artificial gravity may help to counteract the
  • effects of microgravity.
  • Isolation
  • Psychological impact
  • Implications for crew composition
  • Millions of miles away from fully-equipped
    medical care
  • Given proper planning, not likely to be a
    showstopper

22
Is the ISS Required For
  • Galactic cosmic and solar particle radiation
    research?
  • No. ISS is in LEO, not in a deep space radiation
    environment
  • More time and resources are needed to utilize
    High Atomic Number / High Energy (HZE) particle
    accelerators on Earth.
  • Microgravity research?
  • Yes. Physiological and in vivo cellular
    experiments on whole animals will be needed, and
    this can only be done in space.
  • Partial gravity research can be conducted on
    small animals with centrifuge.
  • Psychological research?
  • Not likely. Even if flight durations are
    extended, the surroundings are different.
    Proximity to Earth means this research would not
    be applicable to expeditions to Mars or even the
    Moon.

23
Lunar Activities in Preparation for Mars
  • Technology testbed
  • Living and working on another planetary surface
  • Resource utilization
  • Physiological and psychological effects of
    isolation, reduced gravity,
    deep space radiation
  • Sociological phenomena
  • Sustainability the Moon as a measurable
    milestone
  • Questions to consider
  • At what point and to what degree might a lunar
    infrastructure reduce launch costs to Mars and
    beyond?
  • Is the Moon going to be used only to prepare for
    the first Mars expedition, or will it be the
    beginning of a broader solar system
    infrastructure?
  • Will other justifications for returning to the
    Moon be required to
    make the proposition viable?

24
Other Lunar Opportunities
  • Astronomy from the Moon
  • How does the relative value of observatories at
    Lagrange points affect the prospects for lunar
    astronomy?
  • Earth Analog Science / Lunar Geology
  • From Earths offspring, we can gain a better
    understanding of impacts, Earths evolution,
    history of the Sun, cosmic radiation.
  • Commercial Applications
  • How can lunar resources be used for commercial
    purposes?
  • Given the existence of He-3 on the Moon, should
    initial research on He-3 fusion capabilities be
    given priority? What agency should be
    responsible for this research?
  • Does it make economic sense to use lunar-obtained
    solar power as an energy source on Earth?
  • Lunar Bases
  • Only 3 days away, 1.3 second communication delay,
    launch window always open, resupply and
    evacuation relatively easy
  • Can autonomous bases be constructed from lunar
    resources?

25
Alternative Stepping Stones to Mars
  • Antarctica, submarines, other terrestrial
    locations
  • ISS (or elsewhere in LEO)
  • Sun-Earth and/or Earth-Moon Lagrange Points
  • Near-Earth Objects (NEOs)
  • Martian moons (Phobos and Deimos)
  • Hybrid stepping stones
  • How much room is there to take advantage of
    synergies between two or more of these locations,
    including the Moon?
  • Or should we just go to Mars directly?

26
Science Policy and Space Exploration
  • Should science be the priority or a
    secondary benefit on the
    Moon?
  • Astronomy/physics and planetary
    science communities have
    historically
    competed for emphasis and funding
  • Current Vision emphasizes planetary science
  • Does the Vision meet existing science priorities?
    What implications does this have for the
    Visions rationale?
  • Does science justify human missions beyond LEO?
  • Astrobiology and the search for life
  • All destinations play a role

vs.
27
Considerations for Future Space Exploration
  • Foresight will be required. It is not possible
    to know where exploration will lead, so it is
    essential to be prepared for any possibility.
  • There will need to be a balance between making
    specific plans and retaining
    flexibility in options.
  • How would future activities be affected by
  • Liquid water on Mars?
  • Life in the oceans of Europa?
  • Earth-like planets around other stars?
  • A commercial niche on the Moon?
  • A decision to demonstrate altering the orbit of a
    NEO?
  • Successful He-3 fusion?
  • Eventual settlement of the Moon and/or Mars?
  • Other less expected developments and discoveries?

28
Section 4
  • Policy Overview
  • How Does the Vision Relate to CAIB and ISS?
  • Implementing the Vision
  • How Realistic is the Vision?
  • Conclusion

29
Making the Vision Affordable and Sustainable
  • In A Renewed Spirit of Discovery one of the 4
    primary goals is to, Promote international and
    commercial participation in exploration to
    further U.S. scientific, security, and economic
    interests
  • International Contributions
  • Private Sector Cost Reductions
  • Affordability Through In-Situ Resource
    Utilization
  • New Funding Approaches
  • Other Sustainability Issues

In A Renewed Spirit of Discovery The
Administrator of NASA will conduct the
following activities.including use of lunar and
other space resources to support sustained human
space exploration to Mars and other destinations
30
Can the International Community Help?
  • Does the U.S. need international participation
    to accomplish the vision?
  • Does international participation reduce or
    increase the cost of undertaking a unilateral
    mission?
  • Does the U.S. alone have the scientific and
    technical resources (including workforce) to
    achieve the vision?
  • Are there foreign policy goals that provide
    compelling arguments for why the U.S. should
    involve international partners in civil space?
  • Would international participation help sustain
    U.S. public and government support for the
    Vision?

31
Is International Participation Realistic
  • ... given other countries uncertainty about
    U.S. intentions for ISS?
  • Uncertainty about U.S. willingness to sustain
    international commitments
  • Political embarrassment for Japan and Europe if
    their lab modules never get flown (after
    expenditure of several billion dollars each)

32

The Private Sector
  • Is NASA really committed to fostering the private
    sectors presence in space?
  • Has NASA fully implemented congressional mandates
    in the Commerical Space Act of 1998?
  • What progress or changes have occured (either
    internally at NASA or externally in the private
    sector) that will demonstrate NASAs commitment
    to private sector opportunities?
  • Should the new vision go further than using
    launch vehicles for cargo transport in
    establishing infrastructures for commercial space
    exploration?

33
Possible Modes of Private Sector Involvement
  • Could EELVs launch ISS components for Shuttle
    retrieval and integration (to reduce Shuttle
    manifest)?
  • Should U.S. buy commodities on orbit? (Let the
    market determine the best approach and take the
    risk)
  • How will NASA decide to use the Centennial
    Challenges? (High innovation and wide
    participation for a low fixed cost)
  • Should NASA consider paying companies to either
    conduct specific research, carry a NASA-designed
    instrument, or return a sample?
  • Will NASA procure private sector communications
    support for lunar activities?
  • Will NASA, like ESA in 2002, open ISS for
    commercial opportunities in research (CRADA,
    lease, etc.) or other commercial ventures?
  • How can (or should) the U.S. extract economic
    benefits from assets it phases out and
    transitions to the private sector?

34
Lunar Resources to Enable Mars Exploration
Low Grade Ores 3He and H2 in regolith Un-exportabl
e Vacuum - Radio silence Proximity -Remoteness
Heat Sink -Gravity -Large Stable Ground High
Grade but Requiring Large Investment to
Extract Metals -Glass -Lunar Oxygen High Grade
Readily Useful Lunar Polar Ice (LPI) derived
-Bulk Shielding
Assumption Mars Exploration in the near term
35
The Lunar Polar Ice (LPI) Decision
  • Redefine Roadmap to include branch points (e.g.
    results of 2008 Orbiter and 2009 Lander)
  • Request trade studies that take into account
  • Cost of LPI extraction
  • Other uses of LPI support facilities (e.g.
    excavation, power, launch, habitat)
  • Other uses for LPI Products, H2O, H2, O2, other
    volatiles, at lunar surface, Earth orbit, beyond
    (e.g. ISS boost water, lunar facilities
    exploration, LEO to GSO, robotic solar system
    probes)
  • Cost/benefit analysis of system involving LPI,
    heavy lift boosters, and NTP vs. chemical
    propulsion for Mars missions
  • Should LPI utilization best be left to private
    sector? (M. Duke et al. Dec, 2002)
  • Are NEOs a better resource? (Higher
    concentrations, lower Delta V, lower gravity, but
    much greater distance, no shared infrastructures)
  • Does it make sense to move a small NEA to a
    Sun-Earth Lagrangian point? (This would also
    demonstrate threat mitigation techniques)

36
Alternate Approaches to Appropriations
Is it possible to match an ?-year vision with a
2-4 year political cycle, a and limited carryover authority? (see Can
Democracies Fly in Space? -W.D. Kay)
  • Formalize procedures for the concept of go as
    you pay
  • Establish specific a-priori conditions for
    program cancellation
  • Enact a multiyear budget authorization requiring
    a supermajority to change
  • Define a branched roadmap that proceeds in phases
  • Advance those phases based on Program Readiness
    Level and outcome of previous phases
  • Low PRL -Trade studies define policy
    requirements,
  • Mid PRL - Precursor probes or research with
    milestones,
  • High PRL - Current programs, multiyear funding,
    milestones

37
Additional Issues of Sustainability
  • Worthy goals enhance sustainability in the face
    of loss of life
  • Workforce issues must continue to be addressed
  • Spiral development and go as you pay will
    decrease the need for major cost spikes
  • A bipartisan roadmap with decision points will
  • Help maintain momentum in face of less than
    expected return
  • Aid contingency planning
  • Divide appropriations into smaller programs
  • Provide stability across changes in
    administrations

38
Section V
  • Policy Overview
  • How Does the Vision Relate to CAIB and ISS?
  • Implementing the Vision
  • How Realistic is the Vision?
  • Conclusion

39
Conclusions
  • Weaknesses of the Vision
  • Vision is vulnerable to single failure or setback
  • The Vision as a roadmap does not address
    transition plans for each phase with possible
    contingencies
  • Does not specifically address NEOs
  • Shuttle RTF ISS completion delays will absorb
    some of the projected resources for exploration
  • Closed planning process not coordinated with
    Congress, international partners, and industry
  • Does not characterize infrastructure development
    beyond-LEO utilizing lunar resources

40
Conclusions
  • Strengths of the Vision
  • Efficiency and safety through separation of
  • Crew from cargo
  • Operations following spiral technology
    development
  • Explicitly evoking the human-robotic partnership
    by combining strengths of the human space flight
    and robotic communities
  • The use of nuclear technology has been proposed
    and has not been met with protest
  • Exploration outside LEO is back on the table
  • Focuses the effort on providing answers to grand
    questions
  • Reserves human risk for endeavors worthy of it

41
Conclusions
  • Questions to consider before proceeding
  • Is solar system exploration the appropriate broad
    goal for NASA? If not, what is?
  • When is the best time to phase in a new vision,
    and what steps should be taken this year?
  • Can the principles embodied in the Vision be
    debated separately from the programmatic details?
  • Is the Vision sustainable?
  • If the Vision is not accepted, what will be the
    fate of human spaceflight?
  • And, most importantly, is the Vision in the
    national interest?

42
Why Explore?
H. Shipman, Humans in Space Plenum Press 1989
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com