Status Report

Charts and Memos from Human Mission Forum, NASA JSC 16-18 December 1997

By SpaceRef Editor
December 18, 1997
Filed under , ,

Note: The following charts were presented at the opening of the Human Mission Forum at JSC 16-18 December 1997.


  • Action From Mr. Goldin from meeting on Dec. 1, 97
    • Develop a test plan in next two years to prepare for going to Mars

  • Due Date: February 1998

  • Actionee: JSC/EX13/Manager, Exploration Office



  • Plan should have testings with following objectives:

    – Risk mitigation for Mars exploration

  • Basic and/or science hardware development

  • Human health performance

  • Operation techniques (ground and/or flight)

  • Validation of critical study assumptions

  • – Enabling technology development

  • Decrease mass/volume of subsystems and/or launch vehicle

  • Increase reliability and/or technology readiness level

  • Decrease costs of subsystems and/or launch vehicle

  • – Reasonable costs and schedule for testing

    – Must do testings in next two years



  • Information that JSC/EX13 needs to have:

    – Each discipline manager should identify top 5 testing requirements that are very important (must do the testings in next two years)

  • Maximize utilization of current testings of other programs/projects that have benefits to us

  • Provide description of the tests and testing objectives

  • – Place to do testings:
  • Earth (on ground or in atmosphere), or

  • Free fly, Shuttle, ISS or

  • Other planets (Moon, Mars, etc…)

  • – Justification: whether the test meets our objectives?
  • What is an impact to mars exploration if the test s not done in next two years?

  • -Reasonable cost estimate and realistic schedule



  • Schedule:

    – Preliminary input/ideas/topics

    – Detailed test plan of each discipline or NASA Center

    – Team telecon or face-to face meeting @ JSC

    – 1st draft briefing to Goldin (Review with team)

    – Final briefing to Goldin

    – JSC management review (Cooke, Nicholson, Abbey)

    – HQS management review (AA of Code M, A)

    Dec. 19, 1997

    Jan. 11th, 1998

    Jan. 20th, 1998

    Jan. 27th, 1998

    Jan. 31th, 1998

    Feb. 1-7, 1998

    After Feb 8, 1998


  • Meeting note between Mr. Goldin and Mr. Cooke on Dec 1, 1997

  • Suggested team members to work this action (development of test plan)


    Doug Cooke


    Meeting With Mr. Goldin on December 1,1997

    Subject: Lunar Strategies

    The Lunar & Planetary Institute Staff Scientist and the Manager, Exploration Office presented the Lunar Strategies in a Mars program to the NASA Administrator on December 1. Headquarters representatives also in attendance included the Associate Administrator of Space Flight, Associate [Deputy Administrator (Technical), and the Associate Administrator of Space Science. The Staff Scientist talked about lunar features and their relationship to the Earth and Moon history. He went into details on the impact history of the Moon and its correlation to the Earth’s extinction history. He discussed other areas of scientific interest at the Moon, including the possibility of ice at the lunar south pole. The Exploration Office Manger discussed the areas of potential risk in trips to Mars because of the trip times involved, new technologies being applied, and the long-term medical effects on crews that would be sent. He then talked about the importance of testing to reduce risk, including ground tests, testing at Space Station, the Shuttle, and at the Moon. The testing at the Moon would focus on using Mars hardware.

    The NASA Administrator agreed with this approach. He emphasized the need to include risk mitigation of science equipment as well as the basic hardware. Although the NASA Administrator agreed with the concept of testing Mars hardware at the Moon, he expressed the concern about the risk of getting too entrenched at the Moon and not getting the opportunity to go to Mars. He gave an action to the Exploration Office Manager to lay out a testing approach that would define what hardware, operations, and other processes should be tested there. He was particularly interested in what ground testing could begin soon at low costs. He also gave the Exploration Office Manger the action to provide the system engineering and requirements to planned and ongoing ground tests to assure that they were maximizing knowledge that could be applied to eventual Mars missions. He used the Building 7 chamber test as an example; where the timelines, problem salving, and communication lags should duplicate what a crew going to Mars would have to deal with. He also emphasized the need to pursue these tests beyond the current planning. He was interested in having people on the outside of the chamber generate problems that the crew inside would have to solve, similar to what is done in shuttle simulations. He expressed the need for the crew in the chamber to solve their own problems and not rely on the “ground crew.”

    The NASA Administrator gave the Exploration Office Manager the action to generate a plan that lays out what is required in technology development and testing in the next few years to prepare for going to Mars. He wanted to lay out this plan for moderate but not insignificant costs. The product he asked for is very close to the “Strategic Investment Plan” that was generated this summer. The testing plan that he described will have to be generated, however, he wanted to see this in February.

    Integration Process and Products

  • Between December 18 and January 15, plan to integrate at least 4 end-to-end mission scenarios

    – chosen for comparison purposes

    – changing one aspect of the missions at a time

    1. SEP and hard-shell hab (easy replacement)

    2. SEP and TransHab (architecture assessment and indentification of elements which need further definition)

    3. NTR and hard-shell ab (old mission; clean-up)

    4. NTR and Trans Hab (architecture assessment and identification of elements which need further definition)

  • Products by January 15:

    – End-to-end mission scenarios for each of the 4 above

    – Top-level comparisons of architectures

    – Identification of issues and future work

    – Documentation (DRM v 3.0) to guide technology investment planning and follow-on studies

    End-to-End Architecture Measures of Merit

  • Cost (aka Mass)
    – DDT&E and Advanced Development (# of developments)

    – Operations Cost (complexity)

    _ Recurring Cost (reusability)

    – Total Mission Life Cycle Cost

  • Mission Return
    – Person-days on Mars

    – Days on Mars/total Mission Duration

    – Science Mass Delivered

    – International Participation

  • Human Health and Safety
    – Radiation and Zero-g exposure

    – Interplanetary Trip-time and Mission Duration

    – Human Factors

  • Schedule
    – Earliest start

    – Duration

  • Risk
    – Cost

    – Technical

    – Mission/Crew

    – Schedule

    – Political/Public Appearance

  • SpaceRef staff editor.