Mr. Gerstenmaier doesn’t seem to be among those many:

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/757938498175283200

Wayne Hale: what about artificial gravity? Gerst: fine to discuss in movie world but not in my world. No studies show we need it.

NASA has suggested that they would use an additional habitat to go to Mars, but this is not a plan to do so, at best it is an idea. NASA has much more often expressed the dream of making a large vehicle, close to the size and weight of the ISS, to make the manned journey to Mars. This dream is shown as the vessel “Hermes” in the realistic science fiction movie “The Martian.” Each of that movie’s Ares missions looks similar to NASA’s dreams for Mars exploration.

If it isn’t funded, it is not planned. At best it is a proposal, but more likely it is an idea or a dream.

An idea need not consider cost, but a proposal does. Congress holds the purse strings and is interested in the cost of any programs it is going to fund. In the early 1990s, they balked at the idea that NASA would spend half a trillion dollars on a grand scheme to go to Mars. In the late 1980s, they balked at a proposal for the US space station when they learned that, including Shuttle launches, it would cost $32 billion (ironically, the ISS cost three times that much to complete).

I almost commented on this ROCKY device, earlier, but I cannot figure out what to make of it. If NASA’s idea is to add a habitat or build a large transport vessel, then why do they think that they need a small exercise device for a craft that is not designed for missions lasting much longer than Gemini VII or the Space Shuttle? A larger device, such as the one being used on the ISS, would be a better device and would likely fit in a habitat or large transport vessel.

Orion is not well suited to doing much science or exploration. Think of living and working in your car, for two weeks, without an airlock to let you outside without everyone else putting on space suits so you can depressurize the inside to open the door. Orion does not seem well suited to any mission that it may be assigned.

This is why I (and many others) recommend choosing a mission, then designing a system to accomplish that mission; the system is much more likely to be suitable to perform the mission. Instead, NASA has been instructed to build some parts so that some sort of system can be tinkered together later, thus the mission becomes limited by the pre-designed parts.

A good example is the ECLSS, the current one being developed seems to be intended for a Mars mission. They chose a mission, now they develop the technology. However, since no Mars mission has yet been designed, it is hard to be sure that the ECLSS will not be a limiting factor to a future planned mission.

Rather than saying that Orion is the craft the US will use to get to Mars, they should say that it is part of the system that will get us to Mars. As it is, we all get the idea that we only need Orion to get there, and that is misleading.

Peter,
That habitat is intended for the surfaces of planets or moons rather than for the journey to the destination:
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-challenges-designers-to-construct-habitat-for-deep-space-exploration
“Shelter is among the most basic and crucial human needs, but packing enough materials and equipment to build a habitat on a distant planet would take up valuable cargo space that could be used for other life-sustaining provisions.”

I would put this habitat into the category of “idea,” as there is not yet a plan to fund the actual building of a habitat on a planet or moon, just some ideas to go there. This spending is similar to the spending in the 1960s for many ideas that NASA had for future exploration, including NERVA engines, which were developed and tested on the ground but never used.

Egad,
The presentation shows that this space habitat idea is what they are pondering for many future long duration missions. They have a budget for developing the capabilities of such a space habitat, and this makes it more than just a design-by-Power-Point project.

They included a list of the types of missions that could be used by such habitats and a list of “Human Factors & Operations,” which seem to be vague capabilities. I did not see gravity simulation, which makes me ponder whether the specific capabilities are also being figured out. Many believe that astronauts arriving at Mars after several months in zero G will not be able to adequately work on the surface for a week or so, thus some form of simulated gravity (e.g. a rotating section of a space vessel) may be an important capability of any mission to Mars.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-crusan_habitation_module.pdf

On a different topic, I see that the recent GAO report on Orion says that the redesign of the heat shield is *still* a work in progress, with questions about the bonding of the AVCOAT blocks to the substrate and gap-filler performance unresolved.

Doug Lais: I am very aware of their desire to add a habitat, but NASA does not have one dime appropriated to build it, no less design it. Moreover, they don’t even have the funds to build Orion’s service module. (Europe is building the first 1.5, but after that there are no funds for any more.) Worse, NASA has no funding for any flights at all beyond Orion’s first manned flight in 2021 (likely to be delayed to 2023). Considering how costly Orion and SLS have been so far, do not bet any of your savings that Congress will agree to fund any of this, especially the habitat.

Meanwhile, their own website does not mention this imaginary habitat. Instead, as I carefully document, it goes out of its way to sell Orion as the spacecraft they will use to go to Mars. All in all, I therefore think my criticism of NASA here is completely reasonable and legitimate.

The blindingly obvious course (which means it’ll never happen) is for NASA to quit pissing away billions on SLS/Orion and focus on R and D. Imagine what could be done if that money went towards building and testing the kinds of advanced propulsion & life support systems they’ll need to actually go to Mars. Commercial Crew can take them to & from LEO.

But they’re stuck in a vicious cycle which Congress wouldn’t let them break out of even if they wanted to. What a mess.

That, is one damn fine piece of writing!
(a hearty “well said.”)