Summary of
the chat held on June 13 with A.M.Passy, a space station controller from
Johnson Space center.Summary of
the chat held on June 13 with A.M.Passy, a space station controller from
Johnson Space center.
Thanks Mr Passy!!
Marc Passy:
My pleasure. Good luck, and I'll be watching your progress.
Mars Academy:
OK Marc. We don't want to use any more of your time. You have helped
us a lot!
Thanks!!!
Marc Passy:
It's sad to think that Bill Gates, or Paul Allen, could finance a Mars
Direct Mission out of their personal fortunes.
Marc Passy:
Personally - No. I think that the cost high and the vision of the decisionmakers
too limited.
Marc Passy:
Everyone of them needs to be able to operate the vehicle. Every skill
needs a backup of some sort. One primary pilot/mechanic, with some one
else with the secondary roles of pilot or mechanic - people failures have
to be accounted for, too.
Mars Academy:
What is your own personal opinion on a manned mission to Mars?
Do you think it will be done soon?
Marc Passy:
I would think that 4 is a little small, if you want to continue science
in the presence of systems failures (which there will be). As for skills
. . .
Mars Academy:
What skills do you think are then required of potential Martian astronauts?
Marc Passy:
The "MCC" is more like the War Room - a bunch of planners
attempting to optimize mission success, while someone else (the crew) executes
the plan to the best of their ability.
Mars Academy:
This would affect the mission planning, and also impact the number
of crewmembers. As they have to be on their own, would you say that at
least 4 crewmembers are required, so that 2 are alert at all times?
Marc Passy:
Not just take care of themselves. The crew _must_ be able to continue
operting the vehicle with multiple levels of systems failures.
Marc Passy:
So I think that you chuck the idea of a room full of Systems controllers
monitoring the vehicle, first.
Mars Academy:
So all systems and procedures should take care of themselves, incorporating
extra redundancy?
Marc Passy:
Obviously, that wouldn't work in an interplanetary mission. You wouldn't
want a comm outage to doom the mission.
Marc Passy:
I think the crew would have to be able to troubleshoot and fix their
vehicle autonomosly (sp?) much more than today. Today, the crew _needs_
the ground to help operate it's systems.
Marc Passy:
The core of the team might be the mission planners and a mission director
to prioritize if there are failures, but . . .
Marc Passy:
I think that Mission Planning is a better name and role . . .
Marc Passy:
MCC as we know it now wouldn't work. Fail safe would have to equal
fail operational, so the crew could continue the mission. A "MCC"
per-se would be useless. Any problem would be twenty minutes old, and either
handled by the crew, or not a real problem.
Mars Academy:
This is of direct interest to our project: if you were to suggest an
organizational layout (flight director, etc) in very general terms for
MCC for the Mars mission, how do you think it would be?
Marc Passy:
I think that MCC would really be in the role of data interpreter, long-term
problem troubleshooter, and long term planning...
Marc Passy:
No, I really think you could design a containment to prevent release
of the fissile material, regardless of what happens to the launch vehicle.
Mars Academy:
Another question : what would you think would be the role of Mission
Control in a manned missin to Mars, due to the unique circumstances that
do not allow a controller to communicate in real time with an astronaut
on the Martian surface?
Marc Passy:
However, I'm not sure you could lift enough material, with sheilding
and protective coverings, and still fit on any available launch platforms.
Mars Academy:
Obviously people still have memories of Challenger, and it is inevitable
to think what would happen if a nuclear propelled spacecraft suffered a
launch explosion...
Marc Passy:
I think the launch hazard is minimizable. I think you can prevent the
release of fissile material ...
Marc Passy:
Nuclear Propulsion is very technically feasible, but I think that it
just isn't politically so. Yet.
Mars Academy:
Is the launch hazard admissible technically?
Marc Passy:
Sorry about all the typo's.
Marc Passy:
Technically, yes. Politically, probably not. Look at the uproar over
Cassini's plutonium RTG -
Any space prop system would require much more fissile material, in a _less_
contained fashion.
Marc Passy:
I think that Mars Direct has some problems, primarily becasue it requires
a new heavy-lift vehicle to be developed, and there is _no_ commercial
requirement to sustain the vehicle.
Mars Academy:
Next question : we learned the other day of your experience with nuclear
submarines. One of the alternatives for propulsive systems to go to Mars
is of course nuclear propuslion.
Do you think that it is possible to think in realistic terms of a nuclear
engine? Politically?
Marc Passy:
If in-situ prop production can be demonstrated first, I think that's
more realistic. Or maybe only 2 or 3 flights to LEO.
Marc Passy:
Mir has been up ther a while, but Mir's Life support technology isn't
state-of-the-art, and wouldn't be sufficient for a manned interplanetary
flight.
Mars Academy:
So you would agree with the advocates of a Mars Direct plan, launching
from earth directly?
Marc Passy:
I think the most important contributions from ISS will be in life support.
Marc Passy:
I think that's a very good argument. It is already there.
Marc Passy:
I guess a trade-off analysis would have to be done to compare the loss
in weight due to high
inclination assembly, and the loss in weight from the additional time and
equipment required
for unmanned assembly and flight between assembly flights.
Mars Academy:
We know that many scientists do not want to use the Space Station as
a foothold, notably Zubrin amongst them, but probably because they don't
want to wait!
Marc Passy:
This reduces it's usefulness. One is almost better off assembling the
thing in an unmanned fashion
as much as possible, I would think.
Marc Passy:
You see, because of it's high inclination, you reduce the payload you
can get to orbit on each flight ...
Marc Passy:
Yes, and no. Of course it _could_ be used, but the real question
is would you _wnat_ to use it?
Mars Academy:
Our first question has to do with the Space Station.
Do you think that eventually it could be used for on orbit assembly of
spacecraft?
Hi Marc. Thanks for being there.
Are you ready for question before anything crashes?
Marc Passy:
Hi - ready at JSC.
Mars Academy:
Hi! We are standing by for the chat. It is now sunny here in Buenos
Aires, after a morning in which we had rain, and rain, and rain, and more
rain!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 
-
Mars Intro | Landing
Site | Crew | Trajectory |
Propulsion | Life Support
Medicine | Mission
| Integration