Pathway 1’s concept is a regimented mission set upon a regulated time frame designed to span every destination from Earth to Mars. This Pathway opens up various amounts of benefits. Not only does this Pathway span all possible destinations but it also aids in startup of bases that would become the starting grounds for new launches and explorations. According to Goodliff, Troutman, Craig, Caram and Herrmann (2016), “This concept is success-oriented, in that it assumes a successful sequence of missions within specific time frame” (p. 11). Meaning that this Pathway’s ambitious campaign displays the potentials of what ways will be achievable in reaching Mars. Not only that but it “helps drive out the critical capabilities” (Goodliff et al., 2016)
…show more content…
Like the other three, one option for it is the Hybrid IST, the next approach is the SEP- Chemical IST and the last one is an All Chemical IST. They each have their pros and cons and have similarities amongst each other. For example, the Hybrid IST has more reusable elements while the All Chemical IST requires more SLS whereas the SEP-Chemical IST and Hybrid IST has about the same amount of SLSs. Overall it all depends on how much risk is willing to be taken to determine if Pathway 1 will be apt for the …show more content…
With the more reusable parts the more chances of unseen complications with the equipment. While this Pathway is would not cost as much as Pathway 1 it still would be costly. Although since the number of elements needed to sustain the mission has decreased, as seen on figure 8 – Case 2 (Goodliff et al., 2016), will help decrease the immense amount.
Pathway 3 is a combination of Pathway 1 and 2 with an added destination. From LEO to Cislunar to a flyby to Phobos short duration to a Mars surface long duration. The upside to this Pathway is that similar to Pathway 2 it is taking fewer SLS to achieve the objectives of the mission. Also, this Pathway contains reusable elements that help reduce the cost of the mission.
Yet the lack of the Phobos habitat in this Pathway along with Pathway 2 and 4 this “means the investments for long duration habitation fall on the Transit habitat development, resulting in a higher element cost relative to Pathway 1” (Goodliff et al., 2016). Along with the fact that every pathway that follows the Hybrid IST approach requires refueling and “the feasibility of this approach along with the true cost differences of utilizing commercial and international launch vehicles in place of SLS must be understood” (Goodliff et al.,
Like the other three, one option for it is the Hybrid IST, the next approach is the SEP- Chemical IST and the last one is an All Chemical IST. They each have their pros and cons and have similarities amongst each other. For example, the Hybrid IST has more reusable elements while the All Chemical IST requires more SLS whereas the SEP-Chemical IST and Hybrid IST has about the same amount of SLSs. Overall it all depends on how much risk is willing to be taken to determine if Pathway 1 will be apt for the …show more content…
With the more reusable parts the more chances of unseen complications with the equipment. While this Pathway is would not cost as much as Pathway 1 it still would be costly. Although since the number of elements needed to sustain the mission has decreased, as seen on figure 8 – Case 2 (Goodliff et al., 2016), will help decrease the immense amount.
Pathway 3 is a combination of Pathway 1 and 2 with an added destination. From LEO to Cislunar to a flyby to Phobos short duration to a Mars surface long duration. The upside to this Pathway is that similar to Pathway 2 it is taking fewer SLS to achieve the objectives of the mission. Also, this Pathway contains reusable elements that help reduce the cost of the mission.
Yet the lack of the Phobos habitat in this Pathway along with Pathway 2 and 4 this “means the investments for long duration habitation fall on the Transit habitat development, resulting in a higher element cost relative to Pathway 1” (Goodliff et al., 2016). Along with the fact that every pathway that follows the Hybrid IST approach requires refueling and “the feasibility of this approach along with the true cost differences of utilizing commercial and international launch vehicles in place of SLS must be understood” (Goodliff et al.,