The Next Big Thing: Getting Canada into Human Exploration - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – The Next Big Thing: Getting Canada into Human Exploration PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: e18dc-ZDc1Z


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

The Next Big Thing: Getting Canada into Human Exploration


But we have a combined human and space science-based exploration thrust? Maybe time to move Space Exploration outside Space Science? Key point of plans: No Money ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:25
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 28
Provided by: stephen159
Learn more at:


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Next Big Thing: Getting Canada into Human Exploration

The Next Big Thing Getting Canada into Human
  • Steve Braham
  • NASA HMP Chief Field Engineer and Canadian PI
  • Director, PolyLAB, SFU Telematics Research Lab
  • Senior Researcher, CSA MarsCanada
  • Researcher, CSA Mars Interplanetary Comms Study

Moon/Mars Exploration
Trying to ensure that CSA doesnt get left behind
in the car
The Issue
  • ESA has Aurora - Humans to Moon and Mars
  • EU Supporting ESA, building relationship with
    Russia - potential EU/Russia joint human missions
    in 2008 onwards, using Soyuz TMA. Discussions of
    a joint ESA/Russian human space capsule.
  • US Adopted Vision for Space Exploration
  • China human missions
  • India will have robotic missions to the Moon
  • Sample return missions to Mars starting in 2011
    to 2014 timeframe
  • Even Japan is now looking at human missions

Evolving Fast
  • ESA has initiated a Humans to Moon Lunar Roadmap
  • NASA is accelerating CEV schedule
  • Bending metal on CEV next year, single source
  • Probable reductions in Earth Science
  • Probable reductions in Planetary Science
  • Certain reductions in ISS
  • Possible reduction of international cooperation
    and use of industry
  • Both EU and US scientists are starting to have
    doubts about robotic missions, on cost/science
    and cost/impact grounds. Good missions may be
    1-2B, similar to per-person cost for human

Problem were behind
  • Now too late to concentrate on small robotic
    missions if we want to be visible, or have any
    chance of retaining HQP NASA no longer even
    lists robotic missions as milestones in roadmaps
  • NASA wanted input last June from all agencies, if
    they wanted to collaborate on Moon/Mars. No new
    major CSA areas identified at a strong level.
  • (Just) Canadian Robotic Mars missions in 2011 or
    later will not cut it - well all be working for
    ESA and NASA by then!
  • Were the only country, apart from Russia, which
    hasnt refocused our space agency to human space
    exploration. Indeed, were going the other way.
  • But we have a combined human and space
    science-based exploration thrust? Maybe time to
    move Space Exploration outside Space Science?

Key point of plans No Money
  • Getting humans into space isnt about more money
  • Asking for more money just increases chances
    agencies get rejected, as weve seen with CSA
  • US Space Policy already demonstrated to be hard
    to kill, last year, in Senate vote on budget -
    works by shifting focus and funding, with minimal
    funding injections
  • CSA doesnt need more money - needs to prove it
    can retain its budget as the SSRMS, Canadarm,
    and Radarsat 2 come to completion. Can we fit in
    with new CSA structure and retain human
    spaceflight and exploration?
  • Focus CAN including working on human missions to
    Moon and beyond, with no extra budget!

Interesting Points
  • ESA seems to be ahead on the CEV! Experience with
    ATV and ARD, and relationship with Russia.
  • NASA and Boeing imply ESA ATV concept crucial to
    CEV, Lock-Mart actually seems to be using ATV-H
    in their CEV design.
  • CEV requirements closer to Gemini (designed by
    Canadians) and Soyuz, not Apollo.
  • Goddard has Lunar lead, not JPL
    Exploration-driven RD better for science,
    long-term, than direct science-driven RD.
  • Given 10 year Dev cycles, Canada has to move very
    fast (ESA tested ARD in 1998, and NASA needs
  • However, if we devote enough budget, no reason we
    cant deliver 1B contribution over 20 years.
    50M/year. Enough for a Canadian to go to the

Human Missions
  • Extensive communication required for scientific
    field exploration
  • Mission operations requires complex modalities in
    Human missions
  • Missions high power, high mass, high margin
    communications operate in a far less constrained
  • Large number of interacting systems cannot
    afford to add extra communication protocols or
    other technologies to multiple small hardware
    (Bs/pa spent by COTS RD community on protocol
    and comms). Less buy-in cost, more use of all
    industry possible
  • Human Space Exploration is not Robotic Space
  • Human Space Exploration is not Human LEO
  • Reliability is the single most important

Human spaceflight EASIER
  • Not such a hard road to follow
  • Having humans in the loop requires many systems
    that operate in human-survivable environment. Low
    TVAC requirements, large masses allowed, only rad
    to worry about.
  • Systems can be cheap - some NASA suppliers spend
    less than 1M to fly hardware on ISS, with a few
    months development time (sensor networks)
  • Lunar missions are actually WAY easier,
    environmentally, than the conditions we face for
    S/C like Anik F series!

Choosing our Partners
  • We cant sit on the fence
  • NASA maybe isnt the best choice as our only
  • ESA ahead on many technologies, including CEV
    systems, and far more interested in having
    critical infrastructure development than NASA
  • Possible short-term ESA and CNSA human
    spaceflight options. NASA ones far off in the

Canadian Tech Possibilities
  • Life Support
  • Mars Environment
  • Spacesuit Technology
  • Plant Growth
  • Drilling and Sample Handling
  • Communications (hardware and protocols)
  • Computing (hardware and software)
  • Navigation
  • Imaging
  • Analogues
  • Robotics

  • Communications rapidly growing to become Canadas
    biggest industry
  • Only country to supply NASA with a Criticality
    One system (comms) to ISS, apart from Russian
    (eg, life-critical, not just mission critical)
  • Involved with key ESA discussions on
    communications - EU expected to spend millions of
    Euros per year on technologies derived from
    Canadian concepts, but with no Canadian
  • Canada has the best surface wireless comms system
    for Moon and Mars
  • Canada provided the comms antenna for Apollo
    (start of SPAR!)
  • Canadians designed most of DSN, for NASA (after
    leaving Arrow project)
  • Mars and Moon comms relay satellites would be
    cheap, inside our expertise, and would multiply
    returned science data by a minimum of 100 times
    (probably in excess of 1000 times).
  • V-band, W-band, Optical comms are strengths
  • EMS, Xiphos, ComDev, SFU, UTIAS, MDA, Bristol
  • Cheap, but high impact.

Networks for Exploration
ESA-Industry Wireless WG Scenarios Appropriate
for Lunar/Mars Missions cont.
  • Several appropriate opportunities for SS RF

SEA Ltd. Concept
ESA Concordia
SFU Concept
Spacesuit Tests Cheap, Visible!
  • Collaboration between NASA HMP, SFU, and
  • On-board Canadian
  • Comms and Computing
  • Next-generation voice control
  • Remote Control
  • Location tech
  • Range of head-mounted displays

(Trish Garner, SFU, Canada)
Building our own small human spacecraft
  • High visibility (most other options arent)
  • Space Comms/Computing - Canadian Strengths
  • Canada already demonstrating startling
    improvements in situational awareness in suit
    design, with Hamilton-Sundstrand/SFU
    collaboration, at MarsCanada.
  • Strong diving suit and life support knowledge in
    Canada, with Western Canada support
  • Canadian Naval submarine expertise closely
  • SFU and DCIEM/DRDC physiology knowledge and
  • Major bit is mechanisms EMS, MDA
  • Requires integration MDA
  • Can partner with US, ESA, Russians, China
  • Human roving vehicles a bigger spacesuit, though
    maybe too expensive.

Large Rovers on Mars and the Moon (Mars Institute
/ SFU) Many on-board Techs needed
Greenhouse for Mars TM, TC, and Autonomy (Guelph
/ SFU / Mars Institute / SpaceRef Inc.) ESA and
NASA want Guelph already
  • U. Guelph Mars Greenhouses - critical life
    support for extended Moon/Mars missions
  • Strongly recognized by Canada
  • World leaders in Aerospace Physiology (Roberta
    Bondar, Andrew Blaber)
  • Extreme Physiology Program at SFU (Braham,
  • Canada are leaders in Telemedicine (including
    major CRC projects)

  • Canada (EMS Technologies) a world leader in
    processors that are rad-hardened to Mars/Moon rad
  • EMS / Telesat build and operate systems that
    survive in GEO for 20 years!
  • Goes hand in hand with Comms
  • Human mission requirements far easier than
    robotic missions.
  • Big impact, and maybe visible?

  • Precise landing critical, as demonstrated by NASA
    robotic missions to Mars - need to go EXACTLY to
    where the science is located.
  • Surface traverses require detailed mapping and
  • Canadian LIDAR systems may be critical to this
  • Only Issue NASA and ESA developing their own.

  • Human missions allow resources for high bandwidth
  • Canadian imaging systems such as SAR and
    Hyperspectral imaging are effectively impossible
    at robotic payload accommodation levels
  • POSSIBLE at human mission levels!
  • Highly useful for missions, as remote spotting of
    important outcrops, water, essential

Other Canadian resource tech
  • Drilling
  • Drilling important for sample recovery, but
    everybody is doing it, including robotics, but
    potential niche? Well need to work on it heavily
    if we want it.
  • Drilling totally different issue in human
    missions, and traversing often better than
    drilling (as can be seen in MER). But humans
    allow new ways to drill.
  • Resource Processing (ISRU)
  • NASAs own studies have show that safe missions
    do not require ISRU, as orbit and return
    capability requires way more mass than ISRU saves
    for anything short-term.
  • However, benefits to large industry (SFU involved
    in potential mining applications of MarsCanada
    and emergency comms spin-offs, via NRC)

Analogue Studies
  • Require analogue studies for any robotic or human
    mission development
  • Too expensive for just science research
  • Only makes sense if its supporting exploration
    systems development (doing analogues properly
    will cost 10M/site over a few year RD cycle)
  • Maybe we should do it, but have to think
  • Maybe environmental analogues for small systems
    tests (Guelph, SFU, DCIEM/DRDC, small field
    trips) may make more sense. SFU-type vehicles.
  • BUT
  • Has been high visibility, and its getting our
    tech in peoples face, and producing impact.

  • Spacesuits and human rovers, including spacesuit
    comms computing, look promising
  • Involves life support
  • Cheap
  • High visibility
  • May be enough for a Canadian to get to fly to the
  • Even components high visibility and interesting
  • Human Support Robotics critical
  • Imaging leaps right out as well, but maybe a
    component of suits, or even human rover vehicles?
  • Comms, but aimed at Mars, or maybe Lunar surface?
  • Drilling and ISRU possible, if we can get a lead
  • Others may be promising, but a tougher sell.

  • Beagle Class Lander to Mars 200M
  • Comms Relay to Mars, supporting human mission
    comms / Mars Sample Return, and Canadian imaging
    tech 200M
  • Spacesuit 200M (probably 1-5M a piece)
  • Spacesuit and spacecraft components 1M-10M
  • Imaging systems 1M-50M
  • Generic Physiology / Plant Growth / Telemedicine
    1M-50M each
  • Analogue support vehicles (non-Arctic) 1M-5M
  • Soyuz launches for tests 100M (ISS time?)
  • So, say, 1B over 20 years could buy a lot, and
    make Canada a world leader in human space
    exploration. 15 of CSA budget.
  • If we dont, everybody else can afford it anyway