Could the “Deep Space” option be a gateway?
The NASA community – civil servants, contractors, and politicians alike – is holding its breath while we await the final report from the Augustine Commission and the decision of President Obama on what exactly he wants NASA to do. Out of the several options the Human Space Flight Plans Committee is considering, one that has garnered particular interest from the press and some industry circles is the so-called “Deep Space” option.
The basic idea is to forgo the energy-intensive, and, thus, expensive, landing operations on the Moon in favor of manned flights to near-Earth asteroids, the Lagrange Points, and, possibly, Mars’ moons. We would still be able to develop the technology for long-duration travel, but put off the expense of actually landing and returning significant numbers of people until the political will is there.
Some commentators have said that this option might be hard to sell to the public. I’ve thought of a way that we might be able to make it work. Flying people out there just for the sake of doing it probably isn’t going to get a lot of support. However, this option presents an opportunity to partner manned exploration with robots in a way that leverages the strengths of both. Some robotic exploration advocates say that telepresence will eliminate the need to humans to far-off places like Mars. However, the problem of communications lag makes such an approach untenable.
Telepresence works here on Earth because it is nearly instantaneous. There is a one-way communications lag of 8 to 20 minutes between Earth and Mars when they are, respectively, closest together and furthest apart (and that doesn’t include bouncing the signal off satellites if the Sun is in between them). So, an operator on Earth would experience a 16-minute to 40-minute delay just to see the results of one command. This is a problem the ground teams controlling Spirit and Opportunity struggle with every day.
Instead, if we coordinated the “Deep Space” manned flights with the arrival and operations of telepresence-enabled robots, human operators in orbit could provide a “surge” capability for man-in-the-loop operations while at their destination. When it’s time for the astronauts to come home, the robots could then revert to a more independent activity profile.
I’ll note that even Dr. Steven Squyres, the Cornell scientist responsible for the Mars Exploration Rovers, says a human team could do in a week what it’s taken his rovers over five years to do. Instead of competing for resources, this would drive the human and robotic space flight communities closer together by sharing the goals and the risks.
On-orbit telepresence, as part of the “Deep Space” exploration option, might just be the key to enabling human exploration of the solar system until we can lower launch costs enough to sustainably land and return people.
12 Responses to “Could the “Deep Space” option be a gateway?”
Leave a Reply
Michael Mealling on August 28th, 2009
Plus, once you have the infrastructure to get anywhere in an affordable and sustainable way you make enough money available that landers can be developed or purchased from commercial providers.
The Commission was clear that the Deep Space option didn’t preclude landing, but that landing wasn’t the entire point of those initial missions. Once you’ve figured out how to get that far away, live through the trip, survive for interesting durations once you’re there, and get back safely; figuring out how to land should be a much easier and more affordable task.
Nelson on August 29th, 2009
Is it any surprise that the candidate who wanted to put Constellation on hold for 5 years next appoints a comission that has a singular lack of vision or enthuiasm when it comes to space exploration?
It sounds like NASA will once again be cast adrift, just like they had been for so many decades…
Phillip Huggan on August 30th, 2009
How stable would a factory or assembly plant at a Lagrange Point be? Is it basically a “fixed” structure or do you have to exhaust lots of propellent to stay at L-whatever. Fuel costs would kill the Lagrange Points, but maybe something as simple as a solar sail or periodically unspooling a tether or electric-tether would work in lieu of ion engines or thrusters?
I see the order of operations as harvesting fuel somewhere in situ, using that fuel to lift rocks or metals and transforming those rocks or metals into tech and industry. The question for all of these steps is where (which determines when, more or less).
Justin on August 30th, 2009
Nelson, I would absolutely disagree about the members of the Commission lacking enthusiasm, especially in regards to Dr. Sally Ride. They are directly advocating to the President that he embrace a fully-funded manned exploration program that is worthy of our effort and with a mission that is relevant to our times.
Phillip, the reason the “stable” L-points are so attractive is because so little propellant would be required to maintain position. In terms of energy for lunar access, the L-points have their advantages, too.
Personally, I tend to agree with James Vedda of the Aerospace Corporation. We need to develop a cis-lunar infrastructure that is geared towards the utilization of space for solving mankind’s strategic problems. If we start doing that, no one is going to question the exploration side and we’ll have learned what we need to really go out to Mars and Beyond.
Phillip Huggan on August 31st, 2009
…and there is a difference whether in situ fuel is easiest derived chemically or mechanically, like in an oven. There is a neverending thread at nasaspaceflight forum discussing the chemistry of fuel from Lunar Soil. Probably extensive chemistry loses time making Lunar regolith oxygen fuel as hard as harvesting a faraway ice comet just by melting.
To me using any icy rock as a rocket (called a water rocket or water bottle rocket) seems cheap, bringing it to an L-point (don’t hit Earth and there are long-term security issues here…) or “landing it” on the Moon.
KC on August 31st, 2009
>However, the problem of communications lag makes >such an approach untenable.
While the combination of hybrid manned-robotic missions might be the way to go, I don’t think you can call robotic mission “untenable”. Obviously deep space missions such as Voyager, Galileo and Cassini as well as the highly successful Mars rover missions have shown that robotic missions can work quite well. I think the better argument for this type of mission is the flexibility and adaptability of human-tended robotic missions. Where an unfurled antenna, bad battery or sand pit might terminate a straight robotic mission, an astronaut could affect repairs and, in the case of the Spirit rover, give a spacecraft a good swift kick in the pants!
(And that’s not to say that astronauts would be reduced to Mr Goodwrench – as Dr Squyers points out an astronaut could accomplish a great deal of science too boot)
Justin on August 31st, 2009
I meant that long-range telepresence was probably untenable, not robotic missions themselves. Sorry if that was unclear.
OldeGreyWoolf on September 1st, 2009
I have to reluctantly agree with Justin.
While my best possible outcome is to do it all and do it now, that’s my idealist and space nut side talking.
Clearly, neither the political will nor the economy will support such a “full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes” approach to NASA’s plans for the immediate future. Nor is the public interest and support there either. It’s hard to support a 20 million dollar space shot when you are about to lose your house for want of making the monthly payment.
I may not like it, but the Deep Space Gateway is a very reasoned and realistic approach to moving forward with space exploration within the scope ofm the world situation. The IMPORTANT point is that it is STILL MOVING FORWARD! Maybe not as fast or in the way many of us space enthnusiast would like, but forward none the less!
The concept of combining manned missions with robotic landers, etc. is an excellent idea, for a number of reasons.
It continues the development of the heavy lift, long duration vehicles and technologies that we will need eventually, no matter what route we take as astra. It gives man a semi-permanent present in space, albeit maybe in Phobos orbit and not living on the surface of Mars. It still gets us there and the tech we need to live and function in orbit or on the surface of Mars’s moons or astroids is a lot like what we will need to LIVE on the surface of the big gravity bodies.
It keeps the infrastucture of induistries of space going and growing, it keeps present NASA support and facilities staff and industries growing, even if it’s in a slightly different direction and it give the science and technologies of robotics and telepresence a REAL big shot in the arm!
OK, not my first choice, but under the circumstances, I think it’s a damn good one. At the same time we can also move forward on climate control, carbon free renewable energy generation, economic stability and the other must-haves and issues we face to day. We can NOT explore space and stay there without a stable and technological and environmentally sound infrastructure.
Justin, you got my vote! Justin for President in 2012! LOL (Wait, isn’t that the year the Myans say the world ends? Coincidence?) (grin)
KC on September 1st, 2009
>I meant that long-range telepresence was probably >untenable
Well yes, but isn’t that a bit of a straw-man argument for manned spaceflight? We don’t need telepresence much at all now with the Mars rovers & other deep-space craft. Why would we need it now?
Justin on September 1st, 2009
I’m simply offering a perspective for how we could better utilize our resources in the scenario that the “Deep Space” option is selected and Washington is unwilling to pay for human landing and return.
If we can actually get those scientists on-site mentally with telepresence, even if not physically, we can take advantage of the immense capability of the human brain for on-the-spot analysis, pattern recognition, and decision-making.
Nelson Bridwell on September 3rd, 2009
Justin: Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I must confess that many of the public statemetns from the Augustine Comission sound to me like a collection of excuses for cancelling Constellation. The main thrust is that because we might not be ready to land on the moon by 2020, the program is unworthwhile and should be canceled. (That is what is being reported in the press.)
The original VSE policy was to schedule target dates based upon available funding. The phrase was “pay-as-you-go”. There is nothing sacred about 2020. A first landing in 2025 should be just fine. What is important to me is that another 4 decades are not wated with NASA chained to LEO. No disrespect for the many recent (ISS/Shuttle/MER/…) NASA accomplishments.
There was another argument that ARIES made no sense because the design of ALTAIR would not even be started by the time that the Areis I+V hardware was ready. This assumes that NASA is incapable of rescheduling and coordinating complex projects as circumstances arise. Perhaps they never heard of the shuttle return-to-flight program.
And although Sally Ride is a well-intentioned, technically competent person, she is no Werner Von Braun. She voluntarily quit NASA several decades ago.
I wish that I could say that I heard a compelling argument for greater NASA funding, but that was not at all this person’s perception.
Nelson Bridwell on September 3rd, 2009
One additional observation. Rather than the Moon-Mars-Beyond strateby, the Augustine Comission’s proposed alternative missions to NOWHERE (L1-5), strike me as intentionally uninspiring. Steven Squyres has reasonably argued for the utility of human hands, eyes, and feet on the surface of Mars. I can not concieve of any real argument for the utility of sending humans to empty space that could not be accomplished in the ISS.
A human missions to comets might be an even worse idea, considering the collision hazards of the massive quantity of ejecta.
A recent editorial in the New York Times suggesting one-way manned missions to Mars for our most senior astronauts strikes me as perhaps a more honest expression of the somewhat-less-than-high regard of our latest federal administration for NASA.