NASA's Role Getting Humans To Mars

[philw1776]

I found this a mixed blessing and somewhat disconcerting....

https://www.space.com/38445-nasa-and-commercial-companies-humans-to-mars.html#?utm_source=nbcuniversal&utm_medium=syndication

"Gerstenmaier emphasized that NASA cannot afford to carry out its entire humans-to-Mars plan on its own, but he added that NASA could serve two primary functions. The first would be to set standards for spaceflight technology and safety."

e.g. ISS docking standards.  That seems rational & practical.  Worried about very broad interpretations affecting architecture.

" NASA is there to make sure the basic safety, mission and success requirements are set in the right way."

"(NASA) should design the basic architecture for the mission, so that no single company has a monopoly on any critical piece, Gerstenmaier said.

"It's more important that [certain things] be owned by the government, and then they are available to the wider industry and not held by one company," he said. "Things like going to cislunar space [should really be] driven by NASA's needs," 

This seems worrisome.

" when we get down to … a service or a capability, then those can be done by the companies...NASA can also help by providing substantial early demand and maybe being an anchor customer,"

I like this part.

Concerned that NASA will dictate a NIH architecture.  One with cost a minor part of the equation, if that.  Another multi-decade, multi-baby step, Battlestar Galactica requiring huge funds over multiple administrations.

I don't see why NASA can't instead set a goal or series of goals and fund diverse design approach commercial efforts to achieve those goals instead of getting in the weeds with architecture.

 

[Coastal Ron]

I found this a mixed blessing and somewhat disconcerting....

Agreed.

e.g. ISS docking standards.  That seems rational & practical.  Worried about very broad interpretations affecting architecture.

As long as the standards are created and maintained by a standards body, and not just one organization.

" NASA is there to make sure the basic safety, mission and success requirements are set in the right way."

"(NASA) should design the basic architecture for the mission, so that no single company has a monopoly on any critical piece, Gerstenmaier said.

"It's more important that [certain things] be owned by the government, and then they are available to the wider industry and not held by one company," he said. "Things like going to cislunar space [should really be] driven by NASA's needs," 

This seems worrisome.

Based on what you highlighted, it could be interpreted that "NASA" (which has a lot of thought-leaders) is starting to believe that SpaceX could get to Mars before them (and even before NASA returns to our Moon), and that this is an expression of "NASA" not wanting to seen as no longer the leader in human space exploration.

" when we get down to … a service or a capability, then those can be done by the companies...NASA can also help by providing substantial early demand and maybe being an anchor customer,"

I like this part.

This would be good if it became reality, but there is a difference between what an employee thinks is a good idea and what Congress will want to spend money on. That's usually where the President steps in to provide "leadership", which in this case seems like it would have to come from the NSC committee.

Concerned that NASA will dictate a NIH architecture.  One with cost a minor part of the equation, if that.  Another multi-decade, multi-baby step, Battlestar Galactica requiring huge funds over multiple administrations.

Elon Musk is going to Mars, and though we know that SpaceX would appreciate help, they are not planning on any partners helping them. That kind of puts them in the "thought-leader" position, which allows them to dictate the requirements. Not a position NASA normally likes to be in.

I don't see why NASA can't instead set a goal or series of goals and fund diverse design approach commercial efforts to achieve those goals instead of getting in the weeds with architecture.

NASA is a government agency that is tasked to do things, it does not operate as an independent agency that can set it's own goals. Which means the President of the United States needs to define the overall goals and then spend "political capital" to get Congress to fund them. Depends on what the goals are, and how much the President really wants the goals to be accomplished. Not sure I see that coming anytime soon though...

[ThereIWas3]

A NASA-defined architecture would probably include things like "oh yeah, you gotta use SLS."  And maybe "as many other pet projects from NASA centers as possible."  SpaceX will just ignore them, eventually.

[Oli]

"(NASA) should design the basic architecture for the mission, so that no single company has a monopoly on any critical piece, Gerstenmaier said.

Frankly I kind of agree with that, otherwise NASA is dependent on a single provider like it has been in the past.

Unfortunately BFR is largely incompatible with such an approach. It's an all-in-one solution almost impossible to divide into different services that can be performed by different companies.

On the other hand, if SpaceX develops this architecture without NASA money, NASA might as well just utilize its capability. I just doubt SpaceX can pull it off without help from NASA.

[su27k]

"(NASA) should design the basic architecture for the mission, so that no single company has a monopoly on any critical piece, Gerstenmaier said.

Frankly I kind of agree with that, otherwise NASA is dependent on a single provider like it has been in the past.

Unfortunately BFR is largely incompatible with such an approach. It's an all-in-one solution almost impossible to divide into different services that can be performed by different companies.

The quote is so vague that it's basically useless. What is the difference between an architecture and a service/capability? BFR's service/capability is to get 150t to Moon/Mars surface, this is entirely compatible with COTS/CRS style of a NASA program, what NASA does with the 150t payload is up to them. If they don't want to rely on SpaceX alone, then fund 2 providers like what they're doing now, it's not that complicated. If they don't start a program like COTS/CRS, it's pretty much guaranteed SpaceX would be a monopoly, and once SpaceX has funded BFR themselves, they would be in a much stronger negotiation position, so my advice to NASA would be get in on the ground floor early.

[philw1776]

"(NASA) should design the basic architecture for the mission, so that no single company has a monopoly on any critical piece, Gerstenmaier said.

Frankly I kind of agree with that, otherwise NASA is dependent on a single provider like it has been in the past.

Unfortunately BFR is largely incompatible with such an approach. It's an all-in-one solution almost impossible to divide into different services that can be performed by different companies.

On the other hand, if SpaceX develops this architecture without NASA money, NASA might as well just utilize its capability. I just doubt SpaceX can pull it off without help from NASA.

"impossible to divide into different services that can be performed by different companies" or different NASA centers.
That's the rub.  Why wouldn't possibly 2 different design approaches towards getting humans to Mars and back be acceptable?  That way there are possibly multiple solutions. 

Other than ensuring NASA center employment of mission architects, ivory tower types with no skin in the game, I don't see the benefits of a top down dictated design approach. 

[RonM]

A NASA-defined architecture would probably include things like "oh yeah, you gotta use SLS."  And maybe "as many other pet projects from NASA centers as possible."  SpaceX will just ignore them, eventually.

NASA is funded by Congress (as long as the President signs the budget bill and they usually do). So, yeah, NASA-defined architecture is going to include a heavy use of congressional pet projects.

[Coastal Ron]

"(NASA) should design the basic architecture for the mission, so that no single company has a monopoly on any critical piece, Gerstenmaier said.

Frankly I kind of agree with that, otherwise NASA is dependent on a single provider like it has been in the past.

You mean that they have usually been their own single provider, right? Such as with Apollo, the Shuttle, and soon with the SLS & Orion.

Unfortunately BFR is largely incompatible with such an approach. It's an all-in-one solution almost impossible to divide into different services that can be performed by different companies.

Not sure why. If you want payload or crew delivered to LEO, it can do it. Payload or crew delivered to the surface of our Moon, it can do that. Payload or crew delivered to the surface of Mars, it can do that.

Seems like it divides down very nicely. What can't the BFR/ITS do that the SLS and Orion can?

On the other hand, if SpaceX develops this architecture without NASA money, NASA might as well just utilize its capability. I just doubt SpaceX can pull it off without help from NASA.

Other than money, NASA doesn't have any substantial technical knowledge or capabilities to help SpaceX at this point. Everything involved with the BFR and ITS is beyond what NASA has done - beyond what SpaceX has done too, but at least they are the ones that validated the precursor technologies.

At this point the best that NASA (i.e. the U.S. Government) can contribute is really only money. Which I don't see happening.

[Oli]

What is the difference between an architecture and a service/capability? BFR's service/capability is to get 150t to Moon/Mars surface, this is entirely compatible with COTS/CRS style of a NASA program, what NASA does with the 150t payload is up to them. If they don't want to rely on SpaceX alone, then fund 2 providers like what they're doing now, it's not that complicated. If they don't start a program like COTS/CRS, it's pretty much guaranteed SpaceX would be a monopoly, and once SpaceX has funded BFR themselves, they would be in a much stronger negotiation position, so my advice to NASA would be get in on the ground floor early.

A COTS/CTS style program to Mars (and back) is not realistic given NASA's budget. Just look at the cost of the COTS/CRS to LEO program, it's not as cheap as people here seem to think. COTS/CTS to the Moon might be doable, that's why I'm still a Moon-firster.

[AncientU]

I found this a mixed blessing and somewhat disconcerting....

https://www.space.com/38445-nasa-and-commercial-companies-humans-to-mars.html#?utm_source=nbcuniversal&utm_medium=syndication

"Gerstenmaier emphasized that NASA cannot afford to carry out its entire humans-to-Mars plan on its own, but he added that NASA could serve two primary functions. The first would be to set standards for spaceflight technology and safety."

e.g. ISS docking standards.  That seems rational & practical.  Worried about very broad interpretations affecting architecture.

" NASA is there to make sure the basic safety, mission and success requirements are set in the right way."

Why does NASA know 'the right way'?  Is there anyone in NASA who has developed a permanent presence on the Moon or Mars?

Don't agree that NASA should set either... technology or safety.  NASA should 'recommend' standards (the above docking tech is one example, 'use metric only' is another).  A standards board/committee that includes non-government leadership and membership should decide.

"(NASA) should design the basic architecture for the mission, so that no single company has a monopoly on any critical piece, Gerstenmaier said.

NASA's vision of basic architecture (Apollo mindset) is a non-starter.  They are not leading or even cutting edge on fuel rich architecture, re-usability, high-tech/bandwidth communications, AI/robotics, surface habs, whatever...

"It's more important that [certain things] be owned by the government, and then they are available to the wider industry and not held by one company," he said. "Things like going to cislunar space [should really be] driven by NASA's needs," 

This seems worrisome.

Frightening more like...

Basically what NASA/Gerst is saying is that they cannot succeed without everyone else throwing money and hardware into their hopper and letting them run the show...  as if they have some exclusive right to lead. 

This is a completely FALSE premise. 

It is equally likely that NASA leadership is the worst thing that could happen to this developing groundswell of support for going back to the Moon and then Mars.  Success will not be ensured by imposing 'Mind-numbing bureaucracy' to use Wayne Hale's phraseology.

[philw1776]

This is probably a digression but I worked in computer networking and telecom for decades.  In the late 90s I got hired as VP of engineering by a once great telecom product company with a great reputation for quality.  But unfortunately they had not released a single new product in years.  Once onboard I quickly saw why.  There was a huge "Architecture" group that defined product requirements.  They knew telecom industry requirements better than I did.  But as I reviewed their myriad requirements I realized that nobody in finite time could build anything to meet these.  I began to call guys in and ask, "Why is THIS a requirement?"  "Because NEBS (or so some other standard) says so!"  Rather than accept this as an article of faith, I asked to read the actual citations supporting this.  It was quickly apparent that their interpretation was often, not always, a gold plated exaggeration of what was actually required by the standard.  "But we've always done it this way" was the reply. "It's our company culture!"  "Quality" Fiscal constraints from the CEO led me to pick this department #1 for massive downsizing.  I did keep a couple informed people whom I could have a sensible back & forth with who could keep me out of trouble.  We got our new products out and met standards, cost and reliability goals.

Bottom line is if you let folks who set themselves apart from the actual product developers who have to do the design, calculations and implementation of the software & hardware set the architecture, you are likely to get something very, very difficult to implement and that greatly exceeds what is really needed.  Architects need skin in the game.  Another reason I was usually the primary design architecture guy. If it couldn't be built or failed to meet requirements, I was toast.

I see NASA centers delivering unquestionable stone tablets of Mars Architecture as the same thing.

[Oli]

This is probably a digression...

Yes it is.

Fact is, it's easier to do competitive bidding for individual elements of a Mars architecture, than for the entire (transportation) architecture. How many companies could realistically bid for an entire architecture and pull it off without going bankrupt? Even for SpaceX that is uncertain. As usual SpaceX fans are super optimistic but NASA has to deal with reality (and congress).

[philw1776]

LockMart has touted their "architecture" as has SpaceX.

Let NASA issue bids for surface equipment & technology exactly to their liking and purchase transport.

[Oli]

LockMart has touted their "architecture"...

Oh please...

Let NASA issue bids for surface equipment & technology exactly to their liking and purchase transport.

Yes, let's do that for the Moon first and see if it's affordable before having fantasies.

[Coastal Ron]

This is probably a digression...

No, it was not.

Rather than accept this as an article of faith, I asked to read the actual citations supporting this.  It was quickly apparent that their interpretation was often, not always, a gold plated exaggeration of what was actually required by the standard.  "But we've always done it this way" was the reply. "It's our company culture!"  "Quality"

In order to be nimble you have to listen to your customers. Your customers may not always know what they want, but if you don't understand their needs it's hard to offer a solution that your competitors can't beat. What you describe is something that I hear from business people I know all the time, and unfortunately it's more endemic than it should be.

Fiscal constraints from the CEO led me to pick this department #1 for massive downsizing.  I did keep a couple informed people whom I could have a sensible back & forth with who could keep me out of trouble.  We got our new products out and met standards, cost and reliability goals.

No doubt you were sticking your neck out to do that, and though it's never easy that was the best course of action to take if the company was going to be able to create new products. Culture changes are hard.

I see NASA centers delivering unquestionable stone tablets of Mars Architecture as the same thing.

That's what I heard from that article too.

How flexible can an exploration architecture be when the transportation system is already defined and the funding source (i.e. Congress) is politically sensitive to what is proposed?

[savuporo]

I don't quite understand why things like docking standards wouldn't be the responsibility of ISO/IEC, or NIST if you want to be US centric. For communications, ITU and CCSDS work rather well already.

[ThereIWas3]

NASA probably has more experience with operational zero-G long-term life-support systems.  They could contribute in that area.