Human Space Exploration Framework Summary Presentation to the NASA Advisory Council
Strategies and Design Reference Missions (DRMs)
Four different strategies were developed in the HEFT Phase 2 Architecture Analysis Cycle.
*Strategies 1, 1′ and 2: Built an integrated manifest with the respective element schedule and cost data
*Strategy 3: Capability Driven Framework not manifested in HEFT 2 [Early Forward Work in Jan 2011]
Strategy: 1-Fixed Initial Conditions: Mission to a NEA when Affordable
Description: A fixed cost and initial milestone-constrained assessment, consistent with the NASA 2010 Authorization for the DRM 4B (NEA mission) only. Manifest changed to incorporate HLLV test flight. Utilized updated design & cost estimates, that include some lean development options
Simple Result Description: Over-constrained. Does not meet all schedule, budget, and performance requirements. Results heavily dependent upon budget availability and phasing.
Strategy: 1 Prime -Affordability Centric
Description: Same as Strategy1. Combines Expendable Launch Vehicles flights into an HLLV flight. Utilized updated design and cost estimates that include some lean development options
Simple Result Description: Small improvement,but still didn’t close on budget in out-years. Key insights into necessary affordability measures.
Strategy: 2 -NEA by 2025
Description: Deadline and cost-constrained assessment to reach a NEA by 2025 utilizing a “minimal” set of systems/elements and an “easy” target
Simple Result Description: Not prudent: Sprint with minimum capability mission to asteroid too costly for sustained benefit/ROI.
Strategy: 3 -Capability-Driven Framework
Description: Journey, not destination.Builds capabilities that enable many potential paths w/DRMsto GEO, L1/2, Lunar, NEA< Mars Orbits/Moons Simple Result Description: Departure from long-standing destination-focused approach -Best path given constraints.
