NASA Human Exploration Community Workshop on the Global Exploration Roadmap Summary to the FISO Telecon November 30, 2011 NASA/K. Laurini (kathy.laurini-1@nasa.gov) NASA/R. Martinez (roland.m.martinez@nasa.gov)

Human Space Exploration Workshop on the GER November 14 – 16, 2011, in San Diego, California Workshop Chair: Kathy Laurini Objectives of the workshop Introduce the ISECG GER to the community, highlighting importance of international cooperation and associated considerations Begin the process of obtaining feedback from the community on the GER mission scenarios: Asteroid Next, Moon Next Discuss ideas which build on SLS and MPCV to enable exploration preparatory activities and enable exploration missions represented in GER Workshop timed to follow GER release in September Community engagement before the ISECG meeting in January Set the stage for the IAF/AIAA Global Space Exploration Conference next May in Washington, DC. Over 100 participants in San Diego, 630 unique webcast lines established Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Summary of Panel Discussion Topics Panel 1: Asteroid Next Availability of suitable asteroid targets Potential value of early, small, man-tended infrastructure at EML1/2 Potentially interesting for both GER scenarios Role of the astronaut at the asteroid, and is the Space Exploration Vehicle really needed? Robotic precursors were considered important Phobos/Diemos as asteroids – they are very hard missions to pull off Panel 2: Moon Next Re-usable Lander ISRU Importance of dissimilar redundancy/architecture robustness Tele-presence opportunities provided by an infrastructure at EML1/2 Science prioritization Commercial opportunities Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Summary of Panel Discussion Topics Panel 3: Near-Term Implementation Ideas Importance of planning a transition from ISS L1/L2 infrastructure ETM concepts and approach to defining requirements Importance of using ISS – investing in realizing its potential Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Summary NASA appreciated the participation of JAXA, CSA and ESA at the workshop Workshop presentations are available on the NASA website related to ISECG matters Workshop minutes will be posted in the next week or so NASA will discuss the results of the workshop and identify topics to discuss within ISECG in support of GER Iteration 2 Key objective for January ISECG Workshop in Montreal Workshop set the stage for additional dialog at the IAF/AIAA Global Exploration Conference in May Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Findings Across Panels Lots of good data being generated by HAT and ISECG; desire to see more of the data shared outside those communities Our plans for the future shouldn’t abandon a capability along the way; we need to consider/plan transition to others, such as commercial, to continue advancing or using a capability when the focus of human exploration moves on to the next destination. Affordability needs to be a driver for any and all future planning activities Early alignment with scientific community objectives is important to any path forward Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Panel 1 Observations General Observations: Human missions to Near-Earth Asteroids can serve as an analog for the crew transits to and from Mars orbit and its moons Proper testing and validation of systems is needed prior to human missions which are truly beyond Earth’s grasp, such as NEA missions. Humans exploration in-situ at the Near-Earth Asteroid improves the mission return, such as specifically science, operations, repair, etc. There is substantial value in having a robust target set. Additional discovery of Near-Earth Asteroids prior to the human mission will improve the number of potential targets. Define the role of human spaceflight in planetary defense Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Panel 1 (Asteroid Next) Findings Near-Earth Asteroid Discovery and Characterization: Issue 1: Currently there are few known Near-Earth Asteroids with low delta-v which also provide short mission duration Issue 2: In order to reduce operational risk and maximize science, proper characterization of potential asteroids is needed prior to the crew mission Impact to the GER: Earth-based observational opportunities should be considered a part of the GER to increase discovery rate. A prize based approach may also provide incentives to include more public participation A space-based survey mission would increase the discovery rate of NEAs and should be considered part of the GER The GER inclusion of robotic precursor missions increases the possibility of maximizing the value of sending humans to a NEA If direct contact of the NEA by the crew is required, additional in-situ robotic precursor missions should be included in the GER to characterize multiple NEAs prior to the human mission. Multiple are required to provide adequate backup opportunities. The number of acceptable backups is future work. Characterization pre-mission also enables better science (you know what type of science instruments to take with the crew) Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Panel 1 (Asteroid Next) Findings Near-Earth Asteroid Exploration by the Crew: Issue 1: There were two uniquely different strategies provided for exploration of the NEA with crew Direct interaction by the crew – some suggested this maximizes science return by being able to bring the crew directly to the field with the ability to respond directly and quickly to the environment Other approaches utilize tele-robotic/tele-presence exploration with the crew remaining at a distance from the NEA Combination of all of the above Impact to the GER: Begin further assessments of the destination activities and capabilities required to effectively explore NEAs Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Panel 1 (Asteroid Next) Findings Near-Earth Asteroid Mission Scope: Mars is being used as the long-term goal for development of the GER Issue 1: Constrained budget approaches tend to drive towards low technology, short missions which are less Mars-centric. Issue 2: There is a strong desire to deploy elements to L1/L2 to show near-term progress. Impact to the GER: Suggest showing better linkages and growth path between near-term missions in cis-lunar space and eventual Mars missions. Affordability is important. How can we structure the GER with fewer elements or more commonality? (e.g. Orion and MMSEV commonality) Need to better refine the interactions relationship NEA mission duration, amount of advanced propulsion technology required and how that relates to eventual Mars missions including mission duration. Address differences between multiple low-technology NEA missions with fewer crew versus larger crew with more technology Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Panel 1 (Asteroid Next) Findings Strategic Pathway and Strategic Communication: Issue 1: Better messaging is required to explain why humans should fly to a Near-Earth Asteroid Issue 2: Carrying two different strategic paths has value in the early formulation phase (especially those areas where there is commonality), but that strategy carried too long can be counter-productive. Mission focus will eventually be required. Impact to the GER: Improve overall Near-Earth Asteroid message (Why NEAs? Why humans? Why robots? How does it lead to Mars?) Establish additional strategies associated with Mars exploration which may include exploration of or from the moons of Mars. Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Panel 2 (Moon Next) Observations General Observations: There was convergence on L1/L2 based missions as achievable, affordable, and applicable to a lunar scenario. The Moon offers unique commercial promise compared to other destinations Good exploration value, including science on the Moon Good test bed for sustainability and long durations Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Panel 2 (Moon Next) Findings Message Improve overall Moon Next message (Why the Moon? Why humans?Why robots? How does it lead to Mars?) What type of commercial markets are enabled? Short-term(10 yr) versus long-term (25 yr) strategy for the Moon? And how do robotic and/or commercial endeavors fit those horizons? Cost Issue: Moon seems to be a location that we can get to early, affordably and is extensible to deep space operations for many capabilities, but the surface scenario as depicted is perceived as unaffordable Impact to the GER: Reevaluate the surface elements and their cost/necessity Early opportunities Issue: We need to accelerate ISS testing and first lunar missions Use assets on hand to do some early near-term missions Assess L1/L2 missions as ways to accomplish early missions including operating assets on the Moon (tele-presence?) Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Panel 2 (Moon Next) Findings Habitat at L1/L2 Should deployment of a habitat and L1/L2 be included in the GER? ISRU Consensus that ISRU was important and relevant. Is worthy of demonstration to provide the data for further evaluation. Consider being more explicit with respect to ISRU in the GER and how it will be tested/proven Alternate assets Assess alternative/additional capabilities for programmatic resiliency, e.g., transportation, ground-based assessments of existing core samples Smaller CPS Reusable landers SEP for cargo Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Panel 3 (Near-Term Implementation, Strategies, and Plans) Observations General Observations: Too few missions in the GER prior to 2025 - Need to develop new missions (i.e, E-M L1/L2) and show how they led to future exploration activities Both GER scenarios should look to incorporate gateway at EM L1/L2 Economic challenges will persist Focus on stakeholder values Show benefit with what we have now Strategy of prudence – focus on near-term achievability Strong suite of key enabling capabilities exist today First steps achievable with current and planned capabilities Global leverage will take effort but will be key Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Panel 3 (Near-Term Implementation, Strategies, and Plans) Findings Recognize Stakeholder Value Continued congressional support is not a given and it is important to have early successes Better define benefit of ideas to allow countries to obtain support Large new starts are not reasonable, strategy needs to focuson affordability and near term achievements Identified a first step for exploration that accommodates multiple future paths Converging on L1/L2 using existing assets is a good step Develop objectives and requirements to help focus investments Use our existing capabilities to help guide development Accept non-optimum solutions with the realization that once we get systems in space, we will find additional activities to perform Limit sustainment and operational costs – there is a potential to get stopped at location paying for operations Make decision about basic capabilities at L1/L2 What high priority science and other exploration activities should be accomplished at L1/L2 – what are the implications to precursor missions Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Panel 3 (Near-Term Implementation, Strategies, and Plans) Findings Define a potential near-term strategy for using L1/L2 Gateway Start as short term crew tended facility and evolve based on requirements Need to utilize existing assets as much as possible including repurposing ISS for testing Existing ISS assets including transportation elements (both on orbit and on ground) SLS and Orion Habitat, EVA capabilities. Commercial elements Need to take systematic approach in identifying and developing technologies. Develop capabilities for moving assets from LEO to EM L1/L2. Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER

Panel 3 (Near-Term Implementation, Strategies, and Plans) Next Steps NASA to develop initial assessment of the strategy using an L1/L2 gateway Need to differentiate between what we could be doing versus what we can do from a cost, partnership and policy perspective Share information with partners and stakeholders to collect their interests and concerns Human Exploration Community Workshop on the GER