Launch of Artemis ll

 

 

Trans Lunar Injection Successful!  

 

Links and References

Space Launch System 

 

Using Liquid Nitrogen to Remove Lunar Dust

 

Links and References

 

NASA’s Moon Dust Problem Might Finally Have a Solution


The Toxic Side of the Moon


Dust: An out of this world problem


IMPACT OF DUST ON LUNAR EXPLORATION

FlexCraft Single Person Space Vehicle

Notional FlexCraft repairing ISS panel (Credit: Genesis Engineering Solutions)

Links and References

Innovative Single-Person Spacecraft Design Passes Leak Test

Single-Person Spacecraft Design Passes Pool Test

FlexCraft

Benefits of a Single-Person Spacecraft for Weightless Operations

Trump Directs NASA to Return Astronauts to the Surface of the Moon

Links and References

New Policy Directs NASA to Return Astronauts to Moon

New Space Policy Directive Calls for Human Expansion Across Solar System

Trump starts process of sending Americans back to moon

President Trump Is Sending NASA Back To The Moon

Trump to send astronauts back to the moon -- and eventually Mars

The Case for an International Space Agency

Acronym for a proposed International Astronomy and Space Organization

What if there were a space agency that made it affordable for even the poorest nations on the globe to participate in a vigorous and inspirational international space program. Such a space organization could also allow up to eight citizens from each member nation to participate as astronauts in an international astronaut corp. Funds from this international space agency  could also be used to  contribute towards the development and deployment of  space telescopes and space probes primarily being funded and developed by other space organizations.

I'll call this proposed global space agency the: 

INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMY AND SPACE ORGANIZATION (IASO).

NASA's current funding level is over $19 billion a year (less than 0.5% of annual US Federal expenditures). Russia spends about $5.6 billion a year on its space efforts. But  I propose a membership fee for each nation participating   in the  IASO of only $50 million per year. Such a low annual membership fee for an international space program would make it affordable for even the poorest nations on Earth to participate. The small annual fee also wouldn't be large enough to significantly hurt funding levels for national space programs being financed by some of the wealthier member countries.  

But the purpose of the IASO would not be to replace existing national space programs. Instead, the IASO would utilize the existing resources and infrastructure of the various government space agencies and private commercial space companies. Doing so would  increase demand for the products and services of private aerospace companies while minimizing IASO cost for operating their space program.  This could also allow IASO astronauts from all participating nations to quickly become part of a vigorous pioneering space program. 

Future Boeing Starliner (CST-100) Commercial Crew spacecraft (Credit: Boeing Aerospace)

The countries most likely to want to participate in the IASO would be those nations that are already operating manned and unmanned space programs. That's because the products and services that the IASO is most likely to utilize will come from commercial vendors used to support the current national space programs.  The United States, of course, not only has a civilian government space program (NASA) put also has several private space companies (ULA, Space X, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Orbital ATK, Sierra Nevada, Bigelow Aerospace, Blue Origin, etc.) with various levels of aerospace capabilities that could be utilized by the IASO for their space efforts.  And, of course, Europe and Russia and nations like China, India, and Japan could also provide extensive space services for IASO efforts.

The ISS (International Space Station) program currently has the participation of five space agencies and 26 nations. These countries could serve as the core nations for the IASO. Since each participating nation will have equal status and votes in the IASO, including other nations with existing space launch capability such as  China, India, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Israel, South Korea and Iran could add some voting balance to an initially heavily European dominated organization.

But there are other nations with emerging space programs that could gradually be added to the IASO over the years such as:  Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa, Nigeria, Taiwan, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Of course, there would probably be more than a dozen other European nations that enjoy the status and excitement of  joining such an international space organization. Its also not difficult to imagine that economically advanced countries like  Australia and New Zealand might also want to join such an affordable space program.

In principal, the IASO could  add two member nations every year in order to maintain institutional stability. This could  engendering excitement each year for the pair of nations lucky enough to be allowed to join the international organization that particular year.

Philosophically, I believe that at least 60% of the IASO budget should be spent on its astronaut corp. And each member nation should be allowed to have up to four adult men and four adult women in the IASO astronaut program. After two years of membership, the IASO should guarantee a member nation  that  at least one of their national astronauts  will  be deployed into space every year.

Its not difficult  to imagine an IASO consisting of at least 40 permanent members quite early in its formation. At $50 million per member, such an international space agency could have  a  $2 billion annual budget with at least  $1.2 billion a year specifically dedicated to human spaceflight related activities. 

Artist rendition of future Bigelow Aerospace space hab (BA-330)(Credit: Wikipedia)

Initially, crewed IASO astronaut missions to LEO could simply require purchasing tickets to ride aboard private Commercial Crew vehicles to private commercial space stations. Bigelow Aerospace plans to charge between $26 million to $37 million for a 10 to 60 day stay aboard one of its BA-330 space habitats. But a 40 member IASO would be able spend a couple a hundred million a year to purchase its own space habitat perhaps from Bigelow, or Boeing (SLS propellant tank derived habitat), or from Russia's  RSC Energia. At least 30% of the IASO budget could also be utilized to purchase and  deploy habitats at LEO, the Earth-Moon Lagrange points, the surface of the Moon, Mars orbit, the surface of Mars, and beyond through private aerospace companies. 

A notional  16 day IASO  missions to an IASO owned LEO habitat would give IASO astronauts launch and landing experience aboard a space craft with at least 14 days of experience inside of a microgravity habitat, plus at least one or more Flexcraft and pressure suit excursions outside of the habitat modules. Such spaceflight experience might even make some IASO astronauts desirable to participate in future beyond LEO missions conducted by other major space agencies such as NASA and ESA.

Orion MPCV for deep space missions (Credit: Wikipedia)

The IASO could take part in  beyond LEO missions conducted by NASA or ESA or other major   space agencies by offering to contribute $150 million for every IASO astronaut allowed to participate in the mission. NASA currently plans to send four astronauts on beyond LEO missions aboard a spacecraft (the Orion) that could accommodate six astronauts. If two IASO astronauts were allowed to join the mission then NASA could cut the cost of the crewed mission by $300 million. A pair of  IASO astronauts, on the other hand, would be able to take part in a beyond LEO mission  for just $300 million.

Once the age of water and propellant depots arrive, commercial companies could provide IASO astronauts with frequent and affordable access to habitats on the surface of the Moon and perhaps even Mars. Eventually, the IASO could simply purchase their own habitats from private companies on the lunar and martian surface.

The IASO could eventually purchase a pair of regolith wall shielded lunar habitats from private aerospace companies which could give IASO astronauts the ability to remain on the lunar surface for months or for years.

Other IASO funding could be  contributed to international organizations involved in locating potentially dangerous asteroids and comets that could someday imperil the Earth and towards the development and deployment of new types of space telescopes and exploratory probes.

So basically, the IASO  could help other existing space agencies to finance their manned and unmanned missions while also utilizing the services and infrastructure of private space companies to minimize the cost of their own space program.  And this could allow a lot more nations, and the astronauts of those nations,  to participate in the exploration and pioneering of the Moon and Mars and the rest of the New Frontier!

Marcel F. Williams


Links and References


International Space Station

Congress Set to Give NASA $19 Billion Budget in 2016

List of Government Space Agencies

Commercial Crew Development

Orion Spacecraft

Utilizing the SLS to Build a Cis-Lunar Highway

Reusable Hoppers and Orbiters for Rapid Lunar Transportation and Exploration

 

Establishing a Permanent Human Presence on Mars with a Lunar Architecture

ETLV-2 coupled with an ADEPT deceleration shield on its way the martian  surface

 

by Marcel F. Williams

"As we reported in August 2013, even after the SLS and Orion are fully developed and ready to transport crew NASA will continue to face significant challenges concerning the long-term sustainability of its human exploration program. For example, unless NASA begins a program to develop landers and surface systems its astronauts will be limited to orbital missions of Mars. Given the time and money necessary to develop these systems, it is unlikely that NASA would be able to conduct any manned surface exploration missions until the late 2030s at the earliest."

NASA Office of Inspector General
February 25, 2015

-------------------------

It is generally agreed by both the Congress and the Executive Branch  that sending humans to the surface of Mars, sometime in the 2030s, should be the long term goal of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).  However, the intermediate destination during the 2020s needed to develop and to mature such space faring capability has been subject to controversy. While some have advocated a return to the lunar surface as a bridge towards Mars, others have argued that the  development of a lunar architecture could actually siphon off  necessary funds for sending humans to the martian surface.

The extraterrestrial deployment of  huge amounts of water will be essential for any interplanetary journey.  Even if some future Mars vessels are  xenon fueled solar electric interplanetary vehicles, crewed missions between cis-lunar space and Mars orbit will still require a substantial tonnage water for drinking, washing, food preparation, the production of air and for mass shielding habitat modules  from the dangers of  cosmic radiation and major solar events. The most expensive source of water for an interplanetary vehicle within cis-lunar space is from the Earth's deep gravity well.  However, water derived from ice in the Moon's polar regions would be a substantially cheaper source since the  Moon has a significantly lower gravity well.  Water, of course,  could also be used for the production of LOX/LH2 propellant necessary for  voyages between cis-lunar space and Mars orbit. 

ADEPT payload deployment scenarios for Mars (Credit: NASA)

Because of its thin atmosphere and higher gravity, Mars is a very different world than the Moon. Still,  habitat modules, propellant producing water depots,  and mobile ground vehicles that could be  utilized on the surface of the Moon could also be used on the surface of Mars.  This could save NASA enormous amounts of money since basically the same surface architecture for the Moon could also be deployed on the surface of Mars. So no new surface infrastructure unique to Mars would not have to be developed.

Vehicles designed to deploy cargoes and crews to the lunar surface could also be used to deploy cargoes and crews to the surface of Mars. But in order to safely deploy cargoes and crews to the martian surface, such  vehicles will need to be  shielded and decelerated through the thin martian atmosphere through the ADEPT or HIAD technologies currently being developed by NASA.

HIAD  decelerator entering martian atmosphere with crew vehicle (credit: Boeing)

HIAD and ADEPT technologies simply use a large expandable heat shield  to protect a spacecraft from the frictional heating of the thin martian atmosphere (100 thinner than the Earth's atmosphere) while also decelerating the vehicle enough to eventually allow the vehicle to utilize retrorockets to hover and land on the martian surface. The weight of these decelerating heat shields approach 50% of the payload being deployed to the surface. But NASA believes that these technologies should   enable them to deploy as much as 40 tonnes of payload to the martian surface. 

C-ETLV-5 cargo lander and ETLV-2 crew lander for deploying cargoes and crew to the surface of the Moon, Mars, and on the surfaces of the moons of Mars

In July of 1962, NASA invited private companies to submit proposals for the development of a Lunar  Module (LM). Seven years later, this lunar landing craft  took Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin  to the surface of the Moon. Assuming a similar length of time for the development of a new  Extraterrestrial Landing Vehicle (ETLV), proposals submitted for an ETLV  in 2016 could result in the return of humans to the lunar surface by 2023. Thus, by the 2030's, the ETLV will be a mature landing vehicle ready to deploy humans and cargo to the surface of Mars.

If we assume that NASA's annual human spaceflight related budget remains at approximately $8 billion a year  over the next 25 years, then NASA will spend approximately $200 billion over the next quarter of a century on human spaceflight related technology, operations, and activities. $8 billion a year should be enough for NASA to establish a permanent human presence on the surface of the Moon in the 2020s and on the surface of Mars in the 2030s-- if such efforts are prioritized-- especially if NASA is no longer burdened with the $3 billion a year ISS program during the next two decades. 

Ares vehicle (ETLV-2 and ADEPT deceleration shield) for landing on Mars: A. ETLV-2 begins to dock with DS (deceleration shield); B. ETLV-2 trajectory burn propels the Ares towards Mars; C. ETLV-2 undocks with the DS, turning around 180 degrees; D. ETLV-2 docks with DS in a Mars entry configuration; E.  Ares vehicle enters the Martian atmosphere; F.  ETLV-2 separates from the DS after subsonic deceleration velocity is achieved; G. ETLV-2 decelerates further towards the martian surface before hovering and landing its crew.

A reusable single staged LOX/LH2  ETLV capable of a round trips between the Earth-Moon Lagrange points and the lunar surface should also be capable of easily transporting crews from the surface of Mars to Low Mars Orbit-- or even all the way to the surface of Mars's inner moon, Phobos. HIAD or ADEPT deceleration shield would, again, be used to deploy the crewed ETLV safely to the martian surface. The cost of developing a crewed  lunar landing vehicle  has been estimated to be as much as $8 to $12 billion. So over the course of seven years, the cost for developing an ETLV could range from $1.1 billion to $1.7 billion per year. And that's a cost that is certainly affordable with an $8 billion a year human spaceflight related budget.

ETLV-2 at a sintered landing area being refueled with LOX and LH2 for its departure to Mars orbit. 

Regolith shielded lunar habitats cheaply derived from SLS propellant tank technology could also be deployed to the martian surface using a lunar cargo lander and a, of course, a HIAD or ADEPT deceleration shield. Regolith shielding a martian habitat to a similar degree as a lunar habitat will be necessary since the level of cosmic ray exposure on the martian surface is not substantially lower than on the lunar surface.

Three habitat modules previously deployed by a C-ETLV-5. The pressurized habitats are shielded with 2 meters of martian regolith contained within the automatically deployed regolith wall. Solar charged batteries are used to provide power for the habitat at night. But nearby nuclear power units buried beneath the regolith will also provide supplementary power for the outpost.

Ionizing Radiation on the Surface of the Moon:

38 Rem - annual amount  of cosmic radiation on the Lunar surface during the solar minimum

11 Rem - annual amount of cosmic radiation on the Lunar surface during the solar maximum

Ionizing Radiation on the Surface of Mars:

33 Rem - annual rate of cosmic radiation on the surface of Mars beneath 16 gm/cm3 of Martian atmosphere during the solar minimum

8 Rem - annual rate of cosmic radiation on the surface of Mars beneath 16 gm/cm3 of Martian atmosphere during the solar maximum

Percentage of water contained in different regions on the martian surface.

Lunar water collecting mobile vehicles using microwaves used to extract water from the regolith at the lunar poles could also  be used on much of the martian surface. The water content of the lunar regolith at the lunar poles has been estimated to be approximately 5%. The water content of the martian regolith at the lower latitudes ranges from approximately 1 to 7% depending on the region. But there are large regions near the martian equator that may have regolith with a water content as high as 7%. At higher latitudes, the water content may be as high as 30%. And at the martian poles, the water content could be as much as 70%. 

Mobile water tanker and  microwave water extraction robot on Mars.

Solar powered WPD-LV-5 water storage and propellant producing unit on the surface of Mars. Additional power can be provided by nearby nuclear power units buried beneath the martian regolith. 

Small nuclear power units will probably be necessary to supplement the solar electric power supply at a martian outpost. While batteries and electric flywheels charged during the daytime could provide power for an outpost a night, dust storms could substantially reduce solar electricity for up to a month with dust particles blanketing the solar panels.  But small nuclear power units could run 24 hours a day for several years before having to be replaced. So during dust storms, it might be wise for the outpost  to contract the solar panels while mostly relying on nuclear power until the storm is over. Such nuclear power units for Mars should also probably be  initially tested on the lunar surface in the 2020s for a few years before they are eventually deployed at a martian outpost in the 2030s.

Nuclear power unit on the Moon with its reactor buried beneath the regolith and its cooling panels above the surface. Such units could also be utilized on the martian surface (Credit: NASA).

Links and References


Adative  Deployable  Entry  and  Placement Technology  (ADEPT):

ADAPTABLE, DEPLOYABLE ENTRY AND PLACEMENT TECHNOLOGY (ADEPT) FOR FUTURE MARS MISSIONS

ADEPT Hypersonic Deployable Decelerators Adaptable, Deployable Entry Technology and Placement (ADEPT) Project

 MECHANICALLY DEPLOYED HYPERSONIC DECELERATOR AND CONFORMAL ABLATOR TECHNOLOGIES FOR MARS MISSION

Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD)

Utilizing Lunar Water Resources for Human Voyages to Mars

Landing Large Cargoes and Crews on the Surface of Mars

 Cosmic Radiation and the New Frontier

 Utilizing the SLS to Build a Cis-Lunar Highway

The Lunar Module

Future Mars Explorers Face Dusty Challenges

Orion Splashdown Videos

What if You Were Born in Space?

Lori Garver Questioned Astronauts about NASA's Next Destination?

In a fascinating oped in the Huffington Post, former astronaut, Clayton Anderson, reports that  Lori Garver had a private meeting with the Astronaut Corp. when she was still the  Associate Administrator for NASA Spaceflight-- and asked the astronauts what NASA's next destination should be:

"While I was still an astronaut, and an astronaut veteran at that, then Associate Administrator for spaceflight Lori Garver came to speak to the Astronaut Corps. A private meeting, just Ms. Garver and an attentive group of type A personalities, I would venture to guess there were about 40-45 of us "space fliers" seated in the room. A bit of a "rah, rah" meeting, touting NASA's work in the world of commercial spaceflight (and I think commercial spaceflight is a good thing, but that's another op-ed!), she asked us all a significant question.

After some perfunctory remarks, she asked us to raise our hands if "we thought that Mars should be our next destination?" Three astronauts raised their hands.

Next, she offered the question again, but this time replacing the Red Planet with the option of an asteroid as our next destination. No one... that's right, no one, raised a hand.

When she finally asked us about our near-neighbor the moon, every astronaut, save the three that voted for Mars, raised their hands.

 I found this interesting. The majority of the astronaut corps, the people that actually do the space flying, agreed with me --that the moon should be our next destination." Clayton Anderson.

You can read the rest of Clayton Anderson's oped at the Huffington Post at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clayton-anderson/where-do-we-go-from-here_3_b_4495029.html

Marcel F. Williams

More  Blogs about Lori Garver: 

Where Do We Go From Here?

Report: NASA Astronauts Oppose Obama Asteroid Mission

How Lori Garver misled about '50 year old' Space Launch System Technology

Huntsville-designed Space Launch System should be killed, former NASA No. 2 Lori Garver says

Astronauts and Administrators Open Letter to President Obama

This open letter was posted in the Orlando Sentinel on Apri 12th, 2010


Dear President Obama;

America is faced with the near-simultaneous ending of the Shuttle program and your recent budget proposal to cancel the Constellation program. This is wrong for our country for many reasons. We are very concerned about America ceding its hard earned global leadership in space technology to other nations. We are stunned that, in a time of economic crisis, this move will force as many as 30,000 irreplaceable engineers and managers out of the space industry. We see our human exploration program, one of the most inspirational tools to promote science, technology, engineering and math to our young people, being reduced to mediocrity. NASA’s human space program has inspired awe and wonder in all ages by pursuing the American tradition of exploring the unknown. We strongly urge you to drop this misguided proposal that forces NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable future.

For those of us who have accepted the risk and dedicated a portion of our lives to the exploration of outer space, this is a terrible decision. Our experiences were made possible by the efforts of thousands who were similarly dedicated to the exploration of the last frontier. Success in this great national adventure was predicated on well defined programs, an unwavering national commitment, and an ambitious challenge. We understand there are risks involved in human space flight, but they are calculated risks for worthy goals, whose benefits greatly exceed those risks.

America’s greatness lies in her people: she will always have men and women willing to ride rockets into the heavens. America’s challenge is to match their bravery and acceptance of risk with specific plans and goals worthy of their commitment. NASA must continue at the frontiers of human space exploration in order to develop the technology and set the standards of excellence that will enable commercial space ventures to eventually succeed. Canceling NASA’s human space operations, after 50 years of unparalleled achievement, makes that objective impossible.

One of the greatest fears of any generation is not leaving things better for the young people of the next. In the area of human space flight, we are about to realize that fear; your NASA budget proposal raises more questions about our future in space than it answers.
Too many men and women have worked too hard and sacrificed too much to achieve America’s preeminence in space, only to see that effort needlessly thrown away. We urge you to demonstrate the vision and determination necessary to keep our nation at the forefront of human space exploration with ambitious goals and the proper resources to see them through. This is not the time to abandon the promise of the space frontier for a lack of will or an unwillingness to pay the price.

Sincerely, in hopes of continued American leadership in human space exploration.

Walter Cunningham
Apollo 7

Chris Kraft
Past Director JSC

Jack Lousma
Skylab 3, STS 3

Vance Brand
Apollo-Soyuz, STS-5,
STS-41B, STS-35

Bob Crippen
STS-1, STS-7,
STS-41C, STS-41G
Past Director KSC

Michael D. Griffin
Past NASA Administrator

Ed Gibson
Skylab 4

Jim Kennedy
Past Director KSC

Alan Bean
Apollo 12, Skylab 3

Alfred M. Worden
Apollo 15

Scott Carpenter
Mercury Astronaut

Glynn Lunney
Gemini-Apollo Flight Director

Jim McDivitt
Gemini 4, Apollo 9
Apollo Spacecraft Program Manager

Gene Kranz
Gemini-Apollo Flight Director
Past Director NASA Mission Ops.

Joe Kerwin
Skylab 2

Fred Haise
Apollo 13,
Shuttle Landing Tests

Gerald Carr
Skylab 4

Jim Lovell
Gemini 7, Gemini 12,
Apollo 8, Apollo 13

Jake Garn
STS-51D,
U.S. Senator

Charlie Duke
Apollo 16

Bruce McCandless
STS-41B, STS-31

Frank Borman
Gemini 7, Apollo 8

Paul Weitz
Skylab 2, STS-6

George Mueller
Past Associate Administrator
For Manned Space Flight

Harrison Schmitt
Apollo 17,
U.S. Senator

Gene Cernan
Gemini 9, Apollo 10,
Apollo 17

Dick Gordon
Gemini 11, Apollo 12

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/04/griffin-nasa-luminaries-urge-obama-to-change-space-policy.html