The Homestead Project: Making a Mars Settlement a Reality


The Mars Foundation’s hope for humanity’s future on Mars is neatly summed up by their slogan: "To arrive, survive and thrive!"

In July at the International Conference on Environmental Systems (SAE-ICES) in Rome, the group presented plans for a permanent settlement they believe can be built using near-term technologies and resources already available on Mars.

The Mars Foundation is a non-profit organization made up of approximately 30 volunteer members, many of them scientists and engineers, and their effort is called the "Homestead Project."

According to the plans, the settlement will rely on a curious blend of old and new technology: it will be built with the aid of robots and run on nuclear energy, but will utilize materials and building techniques reminiscent of earlier centuries on earth.

http://www.space.com/images/h_mhp_settlement_02.jpg

She’s a brick house

Designs call for large masonry arches and vaulted ceilings and domed skylights built with bricks baked from Martian soil and stones cut from Martian quarries.

Bruce Mackenzie, a co-founder of the group and a former member of the National Space Society’s board of directors, has been preaching the benefits of brick as an ideal building material for a Martian settlement for years.

"There are a number of ways you can make it, including just scooping up the soil, putting it in a mold, and compressing and heating it," he said. "You can also melt it and make glass, and it can be glued together."

Brick is also easy to manufacture, Mackenzie said, and quality control for brick is not critical the way it is for other materials like fiberglass.

Additional materials—such as steel, aluminum, ceramic, glass and plastics—will also be needed for the settlement’s construction but the group believes these materials can be manufactured using local Martian resources.

"The industry and the technology that you need to produce these materials we’ll have on hand," said Joseph Palaia, an MIT nuclear engineering graduate student involved in the settlement design. "It’s based on last century’s industrial engineering technology."

Compared to the cramped quarters within space shuttles and the International Space Station, the Martian settlement will be large—approximately 27,000 square feet—and will initially house a dozen settlers.

"We’re not putting them in a trailer somewhere," said Mark Homnick, another Mars Foundation co-founder and a retired engineer who designed wafer-fabrication plants for Intel. "This thing is roomy and intended for permanent habitation."

As more settlers arrive, the site will be expanded and will ultimately be able to accommodate approximately 100 people, the group said.

The settlement will be contained within an artificial atmosphere and pressurized using gases found on Mars like carbon, nitrogen and argon, the group said. Oxygen will be stripped from water molecules using electrolysis and will also added to the mix.

http://www.space.com/images/050810_mars_ghouse_02.jpg


Ideal conditions?

Conditions on Mars, however, are not exactly colonization-friendly and compared to Earth, in fact, they can seem downright hostile. Morning temperatures on the desert planet can dip can below -76 degrees Farenheit (-60 Celsius) and enormous dust storms sweep across its barren rocky fields at speeds of over 60 miles per hour.

A wispy atmosphere, combined with the lack of a planetary magnetic field, means that the air pressure on Mars is only a tiny fraction of Earth’s and that harmful radiation from solar winds, cosmic rays and solar flares routinely bombard its surface. Factor in a minimum 6-month commute and a communications delay that can reach over 40-minutes and an obvious question arises: Why would anyone want to go to Mars? Let alone live there?

One reason, said Palaia, is because it’s there. "We will go to Mars for the challenge," he said. "Anything short of Martian settlement will be too easy an undertaking."

Mars is also scientifically interesting—geologically and perhaps even biologically—and research conducted from a permanent base would be more efficient and less costly, the group said.

Compared to a round-trip exploratory mission, the group believes a permanent settlement may also be safer. Broken parts, for example, could be manufactured and replaced on-site, eliminating the need to haul heavy spare parts or risks dangerous shipping delays.

"Anything that is high-mass and low tech, we’re going to make there on Mars," said Palaia. "Anything that is really high tech—like sensors, motors and complex mechanism—most of those things are relatively low mass and can be imported from Earth."

The group recommends sending a minimum amount of resources to Mars beforehand, a process known as bootstrapping. When the settlers arrive on Mars, they can use the prepared materials, along with local resources, to construct the settlement.

http://www.space.com/images/050810_mars_room_02.jpg



Forward thinking

One possible scenario, the group proposes is to send small gas tanks ahead that store methane and oxygen extracted from the atmosphere. When the settlers arrive, they can then use that equipment and stored gas to build things like steel production plants.

Finally, Mars will be an integral part of an inter-solar system economy that the group believes will develop within the next century, one based on the convergence of four frontiers: Earth, the Moon, asteroids, and Mars—including its own rocky satellites, Phobos and Deimos.

Mars will catalyze the development of the other frontiers, said Homnick, acting as a supply house for vital resources like nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water for the moon and asteroids, places where such things are scarce or nonexistent.

Many of the technologies developed for use on Mars will also have applications for the other frontiers, the group said. For example, life support systems and mining equipment developed for use on Mars could also be used on the moon.

The group strongly supports President Bush’s Moon, Mars and Beyond vision and said they are not trying to compete with NASA or any other space organization.

"We kind of look at NASA and the European Space Agency as analogous to Lewis and Clark in the old west," Homnick said. "They blaze the trail, go out to explore and do the science. Well, we are analogous to the pioneers—we follow the trail that they blazed, and we make the new frontier home and we add value."

Instead, the group believes that different agencies can benefit from one another and the colonization of space can be sped up.

"We hope they succeed because they’ll help us succeed," said Palaia.


http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA02800_modest.jpg


location location location!!!

While drawing up plans for the settlement, the group restricted themselves to existing—or extrapolations of existing—technologies. Despite this limitation, the group believes the first stages of a Martian settlement could be in place as soon as 2025.

After studying Martian survey data collected by NASA, the group chose Candor Chasma as a tentative site for the settlement. Candor Chasma is a group of mesas located within an enormous canyon system on Mars known as the Valles Marineris.

In addition to being geologically varied and scientifically interesting, Candor Chasma is also relatively flat and situated near the planet’s equator, factors that are important for shuttle take offs and landings.

The settlement will be an oasis built for posterity, one the group believes future generations will come to regard as "a place of veneration and pilgrimage."

With this in mind, the group’s settlement designs call for the planting of a First Tree. The tree—the species of which will be determined later—will be planted in front of the settlement’s main entrance and its seeds will be transplanted to new parts of the settlement as it expands.

"That was very important to us," said Palaia. "We wanted to have this in there as a symbol of bringing life to [Mars]."

Mackenzie and Homnick are both middle-aged and doubt they’ll be able to go to Mars themselves. But Palaila, 25, thinks he may have a chance.

"It’s been my life obsession since I was very young," he said.

Whether he’ll be able to remain on Mars permanently, however, is another matter.

"It’s a point of contention with my wife," he said.


http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/images/odyssey-10000-01_br400.jpg





NASA sets its sights on Mars



HOUSTON — NASA's new road map for the human exploration of space would land four astronauts on the moon by 2018 as the first step toward an eventual six-person voyage to Mars.

Pioneers would build a lunar outpost, most likely at the south pole, with living quarters, power plants and communication systems. Expeditions would scavenge the desolate landscape for precious supplies such as fuel and water.

Astronauts would roam the surface in high-tech dune buggies to search for answers to scientific riddles. The crews would blast off aboard rockets derived from the space-shuttle fleet and parachute back to Earth in capsules similar to those used during the Apollo program.

The assault on the moon would be a precursor to 500-day expeditions on Mars.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/science/images/sciencegoal4_400.jpg

Those and other specifics of NASA's ambitious plans for a new era of human space travel are outlined in a set of internal briefing charts on the agency's recent Exploration Systems Architecture Study.

Some things are subject to change, and important decisions have yet to be made. But the study is the first detailed description of how NASA intends to accomplish the goals announced by President Bush in January 2004 of returning astronauts to the moon by 2020 to prepare for later missions to Mars.

So far, the program has considerable support from the White House and Congress, but to become a reality, it will have to withstand the test of time. The study estimates the program will cost about $217 billion through 2025.

All of the hardware needed for the Apollo moon landings from 1969 to 1972 reached orbit with a single launch of the giant Saturn 5 rocket. But because Saturn 5 production ended more than 30 years ago, NASA has been looking for new boosters.

Engineers debated for months whether to develop a heavy-lift rocket from parts of the shuttle or rely on improved versions of the Atlas and Delta boosters used by the Air Force to launch satellites. According to the study, they chose the shuttle-derived option because of lower cost and superior lifting ability.

Lifting off

The hardware and cargo required for lunar missions would lift off aboard a 40-story colossus built around the shuttle's external fuel tank. This unmanned booster would be developed between 2010 and 2018.

Five of the shuttle's main engines and larger versions of its twin booster rockets would power the launcher. The projected price tag of $540 million per launch is comparable to the cost of a shuttle flight.

The giant booster would have a powerful new upper stage. This so-called Earth Departure Stage would be used to hurl spacecraft toward the moon. Also designed from the shuttle's fuel tank, it would be equipped with an upgraded pair of the same engines used on the Saturn 5's upper stages.

NASA has decided to launch future astronauts on moon and space-station missions aboard a separate rocket derived from another piece of shuttle hardware.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/science/images/sciencegoal3_400.jpg

Starting in June 2011, astronauts would lift off to the station atop a modified version of the shuttle's pencil-shaped solid-rocket booster. The rocket's new second stage would be powered by one of the shuttle's main engines. The gap between the initial manned launches of that vehicle and the shuttle's planned retirement in 2010 was shortened from four years to one.

The $280 million missions would free NASA from having to depend solely on the Russians for station flights after the shuttle's retirement. The same rocket later would be used to launch crews into low Earth orbit to begin trips to the moon.

New spacecraft are being designed to ride atop the new rockets.

Engineers already are developing a cone-shaped Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV. Initial versions of the CEV would launch aboard the modified shuttle booster rocket and carry three-person crews to the space station a couple of times per year.

http://www.msss.com/mars/pictures/usgs_color_mosaics/syrtis.gif

The ships also could be used to transport cargo to the outpost. Larger, future versions of the capsule would take four people to the moon and six-person crews to Mars.

In June, NASA awarded a pair of $28 million contracts to Lockheed Martin and a Northrop Grumman-Boeing team to come up with designs for the new ship. The agency will select one of the two proposals in March.

NASA managers plan to review the CEV's engineering design in July 2006 with the goal of having the spacecraft ready for a manned launch to the station in 2011. Having the CEV available as soon as possible could become critical if the White House rethinks the shuttle's 2010 retirement date because of continuing problems with hazardous launch debris during shuttle Discovery's liftoff July 26.

The CEV will be strikingly similar to the Apollo command module but larger. Astronauts on future lunar flights will have more than twice the room.

In another throwback to Apollo, the 12-ton capsule would be mated to a service module that provides power and propulsion during the journey to and from the moon. Crews returning home in the CEV would jettison the service module before making a fiery plunge through Earth's atmosphere and parachuting to the ground.

The capsule then would thump down on land as Russian missions did instead of splashing down in the Pacific Ocean as Apollo flights did.

In addition to the CEV, engineers have begun looking at designs for the lander that will carry astronauts from lunar orbit to the moon's surface and back. Development is scheduled to accelerate in 2010, with a spacecraft ready for flight by 2018.

The lander's design follows the same general concept as Apollo's. It has two basic parts. The bottom descent stage is a four-legged platform with rocket engines that lower the craft to the moon's surface. A detachable upper ascent stage serves as a crew compartment and launches the astronauts back to lunar orbit when their mission is complete.

The ascent stage's engines are designed to burn liquid-methane propellant. Small amounts of methane are thought to be present in Mars' atmosphere, creating the possibility that astronauts might be able to produce their own rocket fuel instead of carrying it with them.

The lander would remain on the lunar surface for about a week. An airlock would allow a crew of four astronauts to leave the ship for moonwalks.

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/1995/16/images/b/formats/large_web.jpg

Combining strategies

One of the great technical challenges of the early 1960s was how to design the Apollo moon landings. Engineers debated a number of ideas.

One approach, initially favored by rocket visionary Wernher von Braun, was called Earth Orbit Rendezvous. This method proposed launching several smaller rockets carrying the hardware needed for a lunar mission.

The pieces would be assembled in Earth orbit, and then the larger spacecraft would travel to the moon and back.

Apollo engineers ultimately decided on another approach known as Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. A single Saturn 5 booster launched all of the spacecraft needed for the mission. After the systems were checked out in Earth orbit, the rocket's third stage restarted to propel the mission to the moon.

Next, the Apollo command module and service module separated and docked with a lunar lander housed inside the third stage. Once in orbit around the moon, two astronauts piloted the lander to the surface. An ascent stage atop the lander launched back to lunar orbit, where it mated with the command module for the astronauts' return to Earth.

In recent months, NASA engineers have been debating some of the same issues their predecessors faced four decades ago. The result is a new blueprint similar to Apollo's but with features of von Braun's early Earth Orbit Rendezvous approach.

Future lunar missions would launch aboard two separate rockets. The giant new 40-story booster would carry the lunar lander into space atop the fuel-filled Earth Departure Stage. Next, the CEV and service module would lift off aboard the smaller, modified shuttle booster.

Once in low Earth orbit, the CEV would dock with the lunar lander. From there, the mission would be virtually identical to Apollo. The Earth Departure Stage would rocket the spacecraft toward lunar orbit. Four astronauts would descend to the surface aboard the lander. A week or so later, they would lift off from the moon and dock with the CEV, which would carry them back to Earth.

"You have to take the long view and not get yourself into a situation like before where we go to the moon and aren't positioned to build on it," said David Black, an astrophysicist and head of a research association that oversees the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston. "This approach makes a lot of sense if you are going on to Mars."

Current plans call for a minimum of two lunar missions per year beginning in 2018.

Astronauts would conduct long-term research in several scientific disciplines, including astrobiology, geology, astronomy and physics. Some of the studies will gauge how the human body responds over time to weaker gravity, increased solar radiation and other space conditions.

Crews also would try to take advantage of any available resources on the moon and live off the land. The goal is to eventually develop a lunar base.

Dress rehearsal

One of NASA's main reasons for returning astronauts to the moon and living there is to master the technologies and gain the experience needed for future human voyages to Mars. Detailed development of those expeditions is expected to begin about 2020, but the broad outlines already are starting to take shape.

Four or five launches with the giant heavy-lift boosters would carry into orbit the mission's spacecraft and hardware. Before the six-person crew lifts off, however, an outpost with living quarters, power, communications and a return ship would land on the Martian surface by remote control.

The astronauts' trip would take about six months each way. Once on Mars, the crew would spend about 14 months exploring large areas of the surface and doing research, including the search for evidence of past or present life. Astronauts would attempt to tap the Martian environment for oxygen and water, two essential supplies, and liquid oxygen and methane, the two propellants that will power the landing craft.

NASA's ambitious plan faces several major technical and political challenges.

One is keeping astronauts healthy. For years, scientists have been concerned about exposure to harmful solar radiation in space, where Earth's atmosphere no longer provides a shield. Currently, there are no radiation guidelines for missions beyond Earth's orbit, although the National Council on Radiation Protection is developing some.

Gauging the risks

The space agency assesses the lunar missions' overall risks as relatively small, mainly because of the use of proven systems and technology.

NASA estimates the chance of a failure derailing a mission is less than 6.3 percent, with the chance of the crew dying at 1.3 percent. In contrast, a May 1962 risk analysis before the Apollo program concluded the chance of losing astronauts during the first attempted lunar landing was 22 percent.

Political challenges here on Earth over the cost pose a different threat. The estimated $217 billion price tag is only $7 billion more than the projected budget for NASA's exploration office during the next 20 years.

The money crunch will be greatest during the next five years while the shuttle is still flying. But over time, adequate funding for the plan appears likely if the projects can stay within their budgets and schedules.

NASA's overall budget is expected to reach about $17 billion in 2006. If the agency averages only $20 billion annually during the next 20 years, it will receive a total of $400 billion. The estimated $217 billion exploration cost through 2025 represents 54 percent of that total. NASA already spends about half of its budget on human-spaceflight programs.

The plan also must survive three presidential elections and five new Congresses before astronauts again can walk on the moon.

awesome....they need all of that by 2020.

How could we looking forward on that when we cant even fix our own problems here on earth...? Geez, how do we humans learn... :no:

@siopao.

as you know what the problems are, then you know why this is possible.

the only problems are the space shuttles.
the space shuttle is 1976-now that is 29 years. and the devolpment (technology) of the space shuttle is going back by 35 years. so it's pretty old.

the nasa and the united states are now working on the devolopment of a new space shuttle, with all new technologies and with the lessons we've learn.

so, by the year of 2010 we've a new space shuttle

How could we looking forward on that when we cant even fix our own problems here on earth...? Geez, how do we humans learn... :no:

this only means that the industrial powers who contributed much to the environmental problems nowadays don't have plan to fix the damage because the damage is irreversible.

this only means that the industrial powers who contributed much to the environmental problems nowadays don't have plan to fix the damage because the damage is irreversible.

let's hope not, :-(

@siopao.

as you know what the problems are, then you know why this is possible.

the only problems are the space shuttles.
the space shuttle is 1976-now that is 29 years. and the devolpment (technology) of the space shuttle is going back by 35 years. so it's pretty old.

the nasa and the united states are now working on the devolopment of a new space shuttle, with all new technologies and with the lessons we've learn.

so, by the year of 2010 we've a new space shuttle


Im not talking about the space shuttle fleet, Im talking about the poverty on Africa, Asia and Latin America.. They are wasting billions of money on that investment while children and people in poor places are starving to death.... I say we need to develop this planet first before going to another one.. Well This is only my opinion...

yes but just imagine to have a whole new world with resources, water etc and as settlement for mankind, mostly if things are so bad on here.

How could we looking forward on that when we cant even fix our own problems here on earth...? Geez, how do we humans learn... :no:

There are always gonna be problems on Earth or anyhere. We should aim to explore other galaxies.

Im not talking about the space shuttle fleet, Im talking about the poverty on Africa, Asia and Latin America.. They are wasting billions of money on that investment while children and people in poor places are starving to death.... I say we need to develop this planet first before going to another one.. Well This is only my opinion...

It is so nice and gracious of you, how you propose to solve all this mess in continents mentioned, are you going to contribute to sort of special fund and have it distributed among what 4.5 billion ppl... OH I ce you might start telling big corporations and self interest groups to stop exploiting Developing world!

Well until you come with better ideas for solving the issue (other the one proposed by Live 8 and cancellation of Debt owed by 50 poorest countries in the world) I am sticking with my original plan to support human exploration of our solar system...

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Blasts Off for Red Planet

NASA’s latest robotic mission to further unlock the mysteries of the red planet, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), successfully blasted off Friday, a day after a software glitch had scrubbed its initial launch. The MRO was carried into space on an Atlas V rocket and is now on a nearly seven-month journey to Mars. "Surveying for the deepest insights into the mysterious evolution of Mars!" NASA commentator George Diller said after liftoff. The launch came just three days after space shuttle Discovery completed its mission.

Im not talking about the space shuttle fleet, Im talking about the poverty on Africa, Asia and Latin America.. They are wasting billions of money on that investment while children and people in poor places are starving to death.... I say we need to develop this planet first before going to another one.. Well This is only my opinion...

Allwright, that's a very very good one!

How could we looking forward on that when we cant even fix our own problems here on earth...? Geez, how do we humans learn... :no:

the problems on Earth will never been fixed!! Even if the entire planet lives like Norway people will say the planet is filled with problems!!

Just imagine if Europe had decided to solve all its problems before sailing for the New World!!!

Im not talking about the space shuttle fleet, Im talking about the poverty on Africa, Asia and Latin America.. They are wasting billions of money on that investment while children and people in poor places are starving to death.... I say we need to develop this planet first before going to another one.. Well This is only my opinion...

we spend much more billions in war than in space pal! When the first meteor destroys Earth there will be no problems here, cuz there wont be humans anymore. So better to colonize other problems as soon as possible.

Anyway, poor countries DO NOT need external money. Donations only worsen the problem in poor countries. They do not need the fish, they need to learn how to fish.

NASA's New Launch Systems May Include the Return of the Space Tug


http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/shuttle-c.jpg

NASA planners are finalizing the configuration for the next generation cargo heavy lift launch vehicles with announcement of its basic configuration due during the week of 15 August. An integral part of these studies includes upper stages and other hardware needed to move payloads once they are in space.

As is the case in concepts being developed for crew transport - using the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) (see "NASA's New CEV Launcher to Maximize Use of Space Shuttle Components") , the ideas NASA has been considering for more than a year reach back to Apollo era concepts, and use derived versions of existing space shuttle hardware - all mixed with 21st century mission requirements and technology.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/smc.ilc.chart.med.jpg


One of the upper stage options under consideration includes a familiar concept from early in the space station program. According to study documents obtained by the authors, several configurations of shuttle-derived vehicles (SDV) include flight use of an Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV). OMVs are known by a more generic, common name: "space tugs".

The space tug concept goes back decades and was part of the original Space Station Freedom (SSF) program, which issued a contract to TRW to develop the reusable spacecraft. The original plan was to use the OMV to retrieve payloads and satellites such as the Hubble Space Telescope and bring them to SSF for repair work. The OMV was also to service a series of two free flying space platforms that were to accompany the manned station base.

Eventually, as part of the inexorable progression of belt tightening and configuration shrinking which the space station has undergone, the free flyer in equatorial orbit was cancelled. The polar orbiting free flyer was broken into smaller subunits and eventually evolved into the satellites NASA has used to implement its original "Mission to Planet Earth".

The OMV was also cancelled before development could begin. But the utility of such a vehicle - powered by conventional chemical propulsion or other means - was always on the wish list of many a space architect.

Now, with NASA choosing an SDV heavy lift booster to assemble lunar exploration fleets in low earth orbit, and the possible use of a SDV to complete assembly of the International Space Station, the concept of an OMV has been revisited with some enthusiasm.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/ilc-1.cargo.med.jpg

A Legacy of the OSP Decision

The origins of new launch vehicle choices for crews and cargo actually predate the Bush space plan. In the fall of 2002, then NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe won White House support for a new manned spacecraft. Called the Orbital Space Plane (OSP), the spacecraft was to service the International Space Station as a ferry vehicle, supplementing - but not replacing - flights of the larger and more complex shuttles.

At the time, NASA was planning continued shuttle flights until 2020. The OSP was to come online within four years of the final contractor down select, then planned for 2005. While the contractor teams bidding for the OSP included both capsule and lifting body configurations, a capsule was NASA's preferred architecture, according to sources who participated in the OSP planning. Following the Columbia accident in February 2003, planning for the OSP was placed on hold.

Eventually, the OSP would be superseded-or morphed into-the requirements for what eventually became the CEV. Many involved in the process now look back and see that the OSP had ended up serving as a stalking horse for the more expansive - and evolutionary - capabilities of the CEV proposed as part of Bush's Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).

The CEV, and the unmanned cargo launchers that would also be envisioned in early 2004, would reflect a major shift in U.S. space transportation planning. Reversing the space shuttle's 'space truck' role decided upon in the early 1970s, the approach as developed by NASA would separate crew from cargo on the next generation space lifter. In fact, the launch systems being defined would require several different launch vehicles, with varying lifting abilities.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/ilc.chart.med.jpg

New Players

While NASA would still rely on large traditional aerospace firms for hardware and services, NASA also began to reach out to less traditional participants. The so-called "entrepreneurial space" providers, who were often long on ideas but short on cash, would now play an enhanced role in the Bush space vision. They well may have played that role in the OSP program had the project continued forward beyond 2003.

Indications as to how these non-traditional players would participate began to emerge in a series of broadly framed activities and studies sponsored by the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) headed by Adm. Craig Steidle in 2004. Steidle's organization openly embraced and solicited the submission of new ideas and new teaming relationships. He also pushed the use of prizes as a way to spur innovation. Had not Congress withheld approval, the prize mechanisms utilized by NASA might have been more expansive than they have been to date. NASA was eager to use this new tool.

Coincident with Steidle's forced departure from ESMD within week's of Griffin's arrival at NASA came even more details, as enunciated by Mike Griffin, as to how he saw entrepreneurial space" providers fitting into his newly accelerated version of VSE.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/iss.lunar.pre.smc.med.jpg

Shuttle Huggers and Shuttle Morphers

Regardless of how the pieces came together, NASA had to get to where it wanted to go from where it currently operated. Money was limited, and there were only so many things NASA was doing that could be cut in order to free up funds. As Griffin was fond of saying, NASA already had a heavy lift launch vehicle - all he had to do was remove the shuttle orbiter from the equation.

Many would find this decision to be troubling or at least annoying since there were many who were certain that there had to be ways to do the job better than relying on 30 year of shuttle thinking. Undeterred, Griffin would take the pragmatic route going with what he knew he could make work - even if it was not the most advanced rocket he could imagine. Yet he did leave the door open to hedge his bets for new ways of launching payloads - such as cargo to the ISS.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/smc.chart.med.jpg


Role of Heavy Lift in Exploration Architecture

Implicit in the ESMD's planning was an Earth orbital rendezvous strategy for the lunar fleet. From the earliest plans, a direct ascent or launch of all of the spacecraft and cargos for each manned landing aboard a single launcher, such as Apollo accomplished using the Saturn V, was deemed impossible from a budgetary perspective. The CEV was not designated as a lunar landing vehicle. If anything, it was to be analogous to the Apollo Command Service Module which could ferry humans to a space station (Skylab), and also serve as part of a lunar exploration complex.

This meant that the CEV must achieve rendezvous and docking with a separate (therefore new) landing craft. Given the throw-weight capabilities of the largest existing expendable launch vehicles, the Delta IV heavy and the Atlas V 500 series, either multiple launches of cargoes would be needed, or growth variants of these Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) would be required. These vehicles were by no means inexpensive - nor would the cost of modifying them and their launch support infrastructure be cheap.

The architecture that received the most, initial favor from the time the ESMD was established in late January 2004 right after President Bush's VSE speech was the earth orbit rendezvous mode. The architecture designated three spacecraft elements for each manned lunar landing mission.

Along with a CEV that carried the flight crew and their support equipment and propulsion system package, a Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) which was designed to undock from the CEV and take the entire crew to land upon the moon's surface. Upon completion of the mission, part of the LSAM would launch off the surface and rendezvous and dock with the CEV, orbiting unmanned following departure of the flight crew to the surface. The CEV and LSAM would use a similar approach to the Apollo CSM/Lunar Module/S-IVB complex to get to and from the moon.

Launched separately, the CEV and LSAM would dock in Earth orbit. They would then dock with a third vehicle, the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) - also launched separately. The EDS would ignite to send the trio of docked vehicles to a translunar trajectory. The EDS would fire its propulsion system in a braking maneuver to insert the trio into lunar orbit. The EDS would undock and fire to leave lunar orbit, possibly for storage in a high L-1 staging base, or to reenter Earth's atmosphere in a destructive maneuver.

Whatever the ultimate fate of the EDS, all three spacecraft could not be launched into parking orbit above Earth together aboard a single launch vehicle. While the CEV would most likely not exceed 30 to 40 metric tons in gross weight, the LSAM would bring substantial cargoes itself to the surface.

As of the spring of 2005, ESMD planners were considering two versions of the LSAM: one in manned lunar flight to carry a four-person crew to the lunar surface. A second version would be capable of launching and flying to the moon alone (unmanned) and landing large cargoes on the surface. Some follow-on extended stays on the moon envisioned by the Apollo program in the 1960s also considered such an approach.

Studies were looking at an LSAM capable of landing as much as 28,000 pounds on the moon. As a result of these gross mission requirements, designated early in the ESMD's planning, a large launch vehicle would be needed just to launch the lander. A second launch vehicle would need to deposit a fully fueled EDS into Earth orbit.

A third, smaller booster would ferry the astronaut crew within a CEV. Out of these aggregate mission requirements emerged the need for a heavy lift launch vehicle that greatly exceeded the existing capabilities of the U.S. EELV fleet. As time passed and detailed trade studies continued, the concept of constructing a permanent facility on the moon would possibly entail not just the CEV and the piloted LSAM for landing and launching the crew, but additional robotic and cargo-carrying LSAMs to provide construction materials and pre-fabricated housing for the base camps.

Since each CEV and LSAM required an EDS of their own, each cargo LSAM landing in advance of the astronaut crew would need an EDS of its own. Planners were studying a minimum of four and a maximum of six manned landings per year, with each landing requiring a CEV/booster launch and a heavy lift/LSAM launch. Additional cargo emplacements would require a dedicated heavy lift and EDS for each such cargo flight. If NASA desired to have robots working the selected landing site or base camp prior to the arrival of the human crew, then they too would require a launch vehicle and upper stage to bring them to the surface as well. Using EELVs for such a scenario, even if bought in large quantities, would be a costly option.

Thus the exploration architecture that was favored in the early ESMD days would require anywhere from eight to 12 annual launches of a new family of lunar-capable space boosters, with additional launches more than likely. The flight traffic model, while containing fewer launches than the most robust space shuttle manifest of years past (nine manned shuttle flights in the program's two most active years), the launch infrastructure for lunar flights would entail differently configured and several different booster and upper stages. It would require maintenance of the most complex launch system architecture since NASA operated Delta, Atlas, Saturn IB and Saturn V flight vehicles simultaneously in the 1960s and 1970s.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/esmd.evolution.lrg.jpg


Design Candidates Studied

The ESMD began a series of two 'Analysis of Alternatives" beginning in mid-2004 and extending into the spring of 2005. According to study documents obtained by the authors, these reviews covered 35 cargo launch system configurations in a trade analysis termed "integrated launch systems study". Two separate sets of boosters were studied; those derived from the EELV fleet of Delta IV and Atlas V vehicles, and those configured from shuttle derived elements. A separate study conducted at JSC looked at a heavy lifter derived from Ariane 5 and the Russian Energia, although these were believed to have been looked at mainly for comparison.


http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/cev.14.l.jpg

EELV Derivatives

Growth versions of the Delta and Atlas families were reviewed, with positive results. Planners found in their trade analyses that scaled up variants of both families could lift in excess of 40 metric tons, to as much as 80 metric tons. The latter figure was believed to be the smallest payload envelope a heavy lift design would need to carry in order to participate in a lunar mission.

The increased lift was achievable by adding engines to the booster stages or core segments, adding core sections, or adding strap-on solid boosters. The rockets could beef up both launcher families' upper stages, replacing the variations of RL-10 engines now used on both Delta IV and Atlas V vehicles with other advanced Pratt and Whitney designs, or possibly J2S and SSME candidates, as had been studied separately for the crew launchers.

As interesting as the technical options for EELVs were, negatives associated with the cost of implementing these technical options were considerable. Human rating an EELV would result in additional costs. Any EELV that would be enlarged for heavy lift cargoes would require entirely new launching pads and associated facilities in Florida.

The guiding philosophy then shaping early ESMD launcher studies was a preference for a family approach - a derivative series that would be used both for manned flights of the CEV and a larger, but related variant for the cargo heavy lifter. This would be an echo of sorts back to the Saturn 1B/Saturn V mode of thinking used during he Apollo and Skylab programs.

Human rating EELVs was possible but would be expensive, since in their current commercial use such a capability was not present in the design. Trade studies revealed that human rating both Atlas and Delta was in fact possible, however. But the heavy lift versions would need entirely new engine and vehicle pedigrees and launching facilities.

These and other issues pushed NASA planners toward the other configuration option by spring 2005: a shuttle derived solution. EELVs however could still play a role in NASA's implementation of the VSE, as the launch vehicle of choice for robotic probes and possibly for a little-known element then under consideration: the cargo delivery system, a capability then being studied by ESMD to land small cargo packages at pre-planned lunar landing sites. Transition to Delta IV vehicles for such missions as the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2008, and the robotic precision lander demonstration in 2010 was also under study in the spring of 2005

With the appointment of Mike Griffin as NASA administrator, the preference for a shuttle-derived design grew. Griffin, a long-standing critic of the manned space shuttle program, was also a supporter of an unmanned version of the aging design. In fact, Griffin had urged the development of a shuttle-derived heavy lift cargo rocket more than a decade ago. That concept, while never flown, formed the basis of where ESMD planners began their studies of an SDV. As was the case in their preference for a manned space capsule for the CEV, so too in their heavy lift studies planners went, in a sense, 'back to the future'.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/cev.33.l.jpg

The Ghost of Shuttle C Rises Again



Ironically, a shuttle-derived cargo launcher had been seriously studied before by NASA and industry. The first serious review of an unmanned cargo launch vehicle derived from shuttle flight hardware was conducted in 1977 and 1978, before the actual manned orbiter flew. NASA conducted a series of studies of very large expendable launchers that would be employed in assembling big structures in low orbit. One reference configuration postulated a shuttle family including the manned winged orbiter and a series of large cargo vehicles that could assembly and maintain a huge solar array complex in orbit. Elements of the solar power system would be brought up on the heavy lift vehicles and assembled by spacewalking astronauts from the orbiter's cargo bay. Remember, this was 1977.

These designs were imagined at a time when shuttle were still seen as flying like a commercial airline fleet- and manifests showing hundred of flights in the 80's and 90's - replete with ever growing fleets were presented internally and externally at NASA and aerospace contractors. And these fleets of shuttles would be building huge structures which were easy for corporate artists to envision but hard to rationalize once the true nature of shuttle operations became apparent.

A decade later, following the Challenger accident, NASA looked again at a shuttle cargo booster. Late in 1987, NASA's Marshall Spaceflight Center in Huntsville issued trade study contracts for a large partially reusable shuttle cargo vehicle. Three contractors won initial study awards from MSFC; Martin Marietta, the builder of the space shuttle external fuel tank; United Technologies, builder of Titan strap-on solid motors; and Rockwell International, builder of the winged orbiters - as well as the shuttle's main engines. The trio won follow-on Phase B studies as well.

All three contractors looked at in-line stacked vehicle configurations. But each company, independently of the other, concluded that such a configuration would require extensive changes to the existing shuttle's fuel tank, as well as entirely new launch facilities in Florida. These added costs eliminated the in-line vehicle.

What emerged instead was a side-mounted shuttle configuration that replaced the orbiter with what was called a "Cargo Element". Flanked by the existing shuttle external tank and four-segment Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) pair, this launcher made maximum use of the space shuttle launch infrastructure. MSFC agreed, and issued an RFP to a consortium of all three contractors which focused only on the side-mount carrier. Different size cargo units were studied, as were different engines to be mounted on the base of the tank.

Two and three SSME designs were analyzed. The Cargo Element postulated use of the shuttle orbiter Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engine pods, payload bay doors that remained attached after orbital insertion, and a nose cap derived from the orbiter. The set of SSMEs under review would all operate at 104% power levels. Such a vehicle would assemble the large elements of what was then called "Space Station Freedom", with the manned shuttle flying what would be called today outfitting and assembly flights. Shuttle avionics would be adapted for the cargo vehicles. The OMS pods and the entire "boat tail" carrying the SSMEs would separate after payload extraction and reenter the atmosphere inside a heat shield derived from the orbiter's Thermal Protection System (TPS). This unit, like the solid rocket boosters, would be recovered at sea and reused.

Under terms of the consortium RFP, a full scale 'engineering development unit' was built of the Cargo Element. Interior designs were looked at which included replicating the payload longerons from the orbiter bay, as well as mounting fixtures for an Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle. But budget cuts imposed in 1989 eventually stopped taking the concept, then called Shuttle-C, to the next stage. The project was terminated in 1990. The engineering development unit, an impressive must-see exhibit on any unofficial tour of MSFC, was last seen in pieces, rotting away.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/cev.18.l.jpg

Shuttle-Derived Revisited

Fourteen years later, the ESMD revisited the concept of a heavy lift cargo launcher which would be made from the SRBs, External Tank, and SSMEs. As would be expected, planners began where their predecessors left off - with the Shuttle C exercise. Their goal was first to see if a new SDV could be employed to assemble a lunar fleet in low earth orbit, and then provide the upper stage lifting ability to inject the fleet towards the moon. It was a very different requirement than earlier planners had in mind for Shuttle-C: launching Space Station Freedom components. As such, ESMD's planners looked at a variety of shuttle designs, starting with a minimal vehicle whose primary use would in fact be ISS assembly first, then assembling missions to the moon.

Study participants found that a new side-mount design could improve upon the earlier Shuttle-C performance. In its baseline, or demo version, the gross lift-off weight of the vehicle would be 4.5 million pounds. Gone were the shuttle-derived payload bay doors, reusable shuttle OMS pods and Reaction Control System (RCS), recoverable engine reentry vehicle, and shuttle-derived nose cap.

Instead, ESMD planners used a standard payload shroud containing encapsulated payloads and an OMV. The on-orbit OMS system was expendable and simplified. This version could lift a gross weight of 73.5 metric tons to a space station orbit, a significant increase over the 1980s Shuttle-C, or about 7.6 metric tons more lift. In this new version, actual cargo launched to the ISS would be in the range of 63.6 metric tons. Unlike Shuttle-C, this variant threw everything away - except the deployable payload.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/biconic.cev.l.jpg


Lunar Side-Mount

A second variant of the shuttle-derived side mount replaced the OMS pods with an Earth Departure Stage or OMV. This raised the payload capability to 78.2 metric tons. It retained the four-segment SRB from the existing shuttle fleet. An advanced lunar variant using the five-segmented SRB, stretched ET, and an OMV could raise the payload capability even higher, to 85.5 metric tons.

But the largest side-mount shuttle derived vehicle studied was the so-called "lunar enhanced". Using uprated five segment SRBs, an even larger ET, bigger Earth Departure Stage and an OMV, this beast could throw 90.7 metric tons into orbit. It used a super lightweight ET, and three SSMEs running at 109% thrust. The top of the payload fairing would be jettisoned at ET separation. Designers said that any side-mount configuration could sustain one SSME loss during ascent and still make the target orbit, if a minimum 3 SSME cluster was used.


ESMD's planners then assessed an in-line stacked version of the shuttle cargo vehicle, one where upper stages and payload were aligned directly atop the first stage modified from a shuttle ET. In one trade study this variant was called the ILV, or In-Line Vehicle. ILVs 1-3 had lifting capabilities ranging from 90 to 96 metric tons in their basic versions. Those configurations included a pair of five segment SRBs, stretched EDS, and a super light weight ET itself lengthened to carry more fuel.

The smallest ILV, ILV-1 could carry 90.7 metric tons to lunar missions. The biggest variant, ILV-3 used four strap-on SRBs, stretched super light weight ET and four SSMEs burning at 109% thrust or three RS-68 engines. This rocket would have a staggering GLOW(Gross Lift Off Weight) of over 9.1 million pounds and could deliver lunar base supplies as well as standard manned lunar mission support, lifting a usable 96.7 metric tons of payload to low orbit.

Beyond ILV-3 an in-line vehicle proposed by ATK-Thiokol used a much longer ET, SSMEs, two five segment SRBs, and a standard payload shroud and could deliver more throw-weight than ILV-3, or well in excess of 100 metric tons into orbit. Taken all together, in their smallest versions could also fly payloads to ISS using a space tug. The largest in-line vehicles had the greatest lifting and evolutionary capabilities for NASA's implementation - for although it did not get as much play, Griffin was still looking at a way to get people out to Mars.

As far as heavy-duty lunar support - and Mars missions, ESMD planners found the number of growth versions of the side-mount vehicles was limited. The potential growth versions of the ILVs were much greater. ILV-3 and the ATK heavy lifter could also use a much larger payload bay shroud, 7.5 x 30 meters. In nearly every case studied, an OMV would be needed for ISS and fleet proximity operations.

A Heavy-Lift Price tag

In present year dollars, the trade studies projected the development cost of the original Shuttle-C at $2.8 billion. It would take about 50 months to produce the first flight vehicle, the study suggested. If development were initiated now, it could be operational in 2010 to complete ISS construction.

A new side-mount SDV would take an additional $3.1 billion and four to five more years past shuttle orbiter retirement in 2010. The ILV family, while the largest heavy lifters studied, would add an additional $5.6 billion to the baseline Shuttle-C development costs, take an additional 36 to 48 months, and require the most modifications to KSC facilities. Other in-line vehicles studied would cost roughly the same, but some trade analyses indicated development time could be reduced to a total 56 months from contract execution.

One trade study strongly suggested that any in-line SDV would be in essence an entirely new space vehicle, with similarities to the existing shuttle system in appearance only. The extensive modifications to the external tank, to carry the liquid upper stages and cargo shroud would make it very different from the tank used today. And while the SRBs were to be recoverable, the rest of the vehicle would be expendable.

The preference for the bigger, but more expensive heavy lift in-line vehicle also centered on its use in manned interplanetary or Mars missions. Scaled up versions using clusters of four to six SRBS and groups of RS-68 engines on the tank and SSMEs on the upper stage could produce a huge launcher capable of lifting 200 metric tons into orbit. One scenario for Mars missions foresaw a much larger CEV launched by an in-line SDV, a second lifting the Mars landing vehicle, a third lifting the cruise stage, a fourth carrying the larger Earth Departure Stage, and a fifth flying up the nuclear electric Prometheus atomic rocket stage. Such a fleet could constitute the Mars expedition craft which could only be launched by a larger ILV-type shuttle derived vehicle.

As this article is written, in-line SDVs appear to be carrying the day. Whatever the limitations of today's shuttle system, it has provided NASA with the means to gain extensive experience living and working in space, including building the space station. Now, in its final years, those parts of the shuttle that NASA never really wanted-the solid motors and expendable tank forming its first stage-may well out last the winged spacecraft itself. It would be ironic if the shuttle's true legacy was, in a very real sense, that its launch capabilities could be greater than the sum of its parts.


http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/esmd.study.lrg.jpg

PPL, you can post any space news here, not necessarily related with mars, thanx,,,

So Americans in 2020, subdivisions and Wal-mart in 2030? :jk:

Can someone siply put the plan to me. What space craft will they use?

Sorry but I don't think there'll be a Mars mission before 2050.
One problem is $$$ and another is most people today don't have the same mentality as they did back in the day. Today most are a lot more concerned about cost, efficiency, safety, etc. What I mean by this is that most people wouldn't want to waste their tax money on a project that was done for pretige as the main reason. A lot more science would be learnt if the same money was spent on unmanned missions.

Before thinking ov a trip to Mars, there must be a reliable transport system to orbit. And the Shuttle successors were never tested, so one cannot say how well they work!

I love how that girl has a canadian flag on her shoulder !!!!!!

lol, me to, I like international aspect of this mission, lol,

Anyway, poor countries DO NOT need external money. Donations only worsen the problem in poor countries. They do not need the fish, they need to learn how to fish.
True, the best way to help poor countries is not to give cash handouts but they don't need to be taught how to fish, they know how to fish. What's stopping them? An unlevel playing field - example, farm subsidies in Europe and America mean that their farmers can sell their produce to poor countries at a cheaper rate than the farmers in those countries. They end up putting the farmers in poor countries out of business. Of course those countries aren't allowed to limit imports or subsidise their own farmers because they must allow 'free trade'.
I'm not against the space programme or even the idea of going to Mars sometime in the future but I don't see any justification in going there just because we can. I just believe we should wait and learn everything we can through the use of unmanned missions before we send people there.