New Mars Forums

I see several interesting parallels with my http://www.users.on.net/davidellard/Pro … pdf]Proton Mars article. It’s validating to see that I’m not the only one who thinks that we can’t do Mars without heavy lift.

Sounds similar to my [http://www.users.on.net/davidellard/ProtonMars.pdf]Proton Mars article.

I think the Russians are way ahead of the US in this type of ability, they have a cheap heavy booster (Proton), three generations of highly successful space station modules, and the equivalent capabilities of the CEV in the Soyuz.

I?ve used the Proton as the launch vehicle of choice because of its costs per kilogram of payload. If environmental concerns are important to the mission another booster could be used, but lets face it, the Proton is being launched anyway, there?s not much difference if it fails launching Mars payloads or communication satellites. Besides, the Proton is one of the most reliable heavy lift rockets in use today. I don?t really see this as a major obstacle.

The mass estimates have been included for the Centaurs, over 300kg has been added to the base weight of the Centaur to account for docking hardware. I envision the payload section of the Centaur would be modified to dock with the rear of the previous injection stage. I don?t see this as a show stopper; we?ve been doing this kind of thing for decades now. I think a section of the ISS actually docked at the engine end during initial construction. Admittedly I didn?t give a breakdown for Centaur development costs, but even if I add $50 million for this it doesn?t change the numbers too greatly.

I included 5% delta v loss, due to gravity.

The Centaur boil off rates were calculated from the link below.

http://www.dunnspace.com/cryogen_space_storage.htm

Robcwillis,

The Proton production capacity is 15 per year, (Although the maximum ever attempted is 13) I don?t see how several Centaur launches in a six month period will be a problem. Remember the payload will essentially be the same each time.

Feel free to double check my boil off rates, or any other aspects of the plan. Several of you had some problems with my first post (Namely power production/space suits etc) I?ve taken these points into account with the second post, and I?m sure a third post will follow? and maybe a forth?.

I?m happy for constructive criticism.

RobertDyck,
Sorry again for the lack of information, my reference to using the Soyuz is a little confusing. My intent was to dock only the descent module of the Soyuz to the HAB (No orbital module and the service module would jettison before reaching Mars.) It would not be used for Mars aero capture or entry, and would only play a part in Earth Return. The design is similar to some Russian direct ascent Luna plans. The enlarged heat shield is for the high reentry speeds from Mars, not multiple reentries.

Clark,
Your right about our experience in tether based artificial gravity spacecraft. This is something we should be testing right now, it?s within our capabilities, and it would be interesting to know the effects (along with the side effects) of our current designs for artificial gravity.

You mentioned we have no experience in micro g, but that begs the question, what have we been doing in space for the last 30 years?

I realize there are missing aspects which are beyond my scope, and I?m not so naive to believe we could mount a mission to Mars for less then 2 billion; the point was to discuss our options with current technology. There are simply no payloads for a heavy lift booster, and designing our plans for Mars around imaginary technology is never going to get us there.

Spider,
I have to disagree with you about the ?primitive? hardware in Proton Mars, I think it?s exactly what we need. The Proton, Centaur, Soyuz, and Russian station modules have had decades of use and their reliability in hundreds of missions has been proven time and time again. I fail to see how current hardware isn?t safer/cheaper/and available in any order. I stand firm to Dr Zubrin also, and I seem to remember ?gaslight era? technology as the most revolutionary part of Mars Direct, how?s that for primitive!

Mark,
Sorry for the mess that I call my post, it?s a little mixed up, but a detailed version is coming if you?re interested.

The costs for hardware items already in existence, like the Proton, Centaur, etc, are based off cost data from various internet sources.

For things like the HAB and descent stage, I?ve used a ?cost per tonne? method of 20 million dollars per tonne. (Based on dry hardware mass) This is consistent with most space hardware costing models, and if you do the math, you?ll see I?ve more then doubled the estimated cost for the HAB, given it?s not as straightforward to develop as the descent stage.

Apart from the use of natural resources for the return propellant, I don?t see too many similarities with the NASA reference mission. Proton Mars relies on existing hardware and boosters, where as the reference mission, as far as I?m aware uses entirely new hardware. And let?s not forget the price difference; the reference mission is twenty times the cost.

A little over ten years ago, a revolution in manned Mars mission planning evolved. Mars Direct, originally conceived by Dr Robert Zubrin, revolutionised our previous perceptions of sending humans to Mars. Zubrin showed us, by using the natural resources of Mars, we could reduce by an order of magnitude, the costs and complexities of sending humans to Mars, while actually increasing productivity.

Mars Direct demonstrated that a sustained human presence on Mars could be achieved within 10 years, at approximately 20 billion dollars. However, despite the brilliance of the plan and the obvious benefits over current manned space exploration, a decade later Mars Direct is still little more then an idea.

What we need is to stop expecting the massive NASA budgets of the Apollo program to return. We need to stop designing our dreams around technology and hardware that doesn?t exist.

Proton Mars differs from many conventional Mars missions by relying on existing technology and hardware to dramatically reduce the costs, timeline, and complexities of a manned mission to Mars.

The basic premise is as follows. A current rocket in the 20 tonne payload range launches a HAB (Habitation) stage, complete with a pressurised rover, and ample food and supplies for a crew of three. A second launch opportunity lifts a descent stage which docks with the HAB. Over the next six months, subsequent launches boost six propulsion stages, each of these stages dock one by one with the HAB and descent stage, forming a train of connected modules.

After the eight components are docked, the first Martians are launched on a Soyuz rocket. The Soyuz docks with the stack and after final system checks, the propulsion units are fired. One by one they gain the required Delta V to achieve Earth escape.

Six months later the stack reaches Mars and aero brakes through the atmosphere, using parachutes and descent fuel to soft land on the Martian surface. Three astronauts explore the surface for one and half years. Meanwhile, a propellent plant and six tonnes of hydrogen feedstock are converted into Earth return fuel.

After the surface time has expired, the three astronauts blast off on a direct return to Earth. Six months later the three astronauts use the Soyuz descent module to re-enter the Earths atmosphere, completing our first journey to Mars.

But how can we do this for less than 2 billion dollars?

As the name suggests, the primary launcher for the mission is the Russian Proton. This decision is based on two main factors. Firstly, the Proton can lift just over 20 tonnes into LEO, essential to reduce the amount of on-orbit construction. Secondly, the Proton is cheap. At roughly 70 million dollars per launch, it is far cheaper then comparative boosters. Eight launches of the Proton should amount to about 560 million dollars.

The HAB is designed around existing Russian space station module technology, from Salyut, to Mir, and the International Space Station, the Russian?s have had decades of experience in developing 20 tonne space station modules. By utilising this experience, the HAB should be a relatively easy piece of hardware to develop. And by simply announcing a fixed price contract at 500 million dollars, we can assure that we don?t overrun the budget.

The descent stage, while a system that will have to be developed from scratch, shouldn?t prove too difficult. After all it is essentially only a rocket stage, and by using a simple ablative heat shield, and proven RL10 engines, the descent stage should cost less then 200 million dollars to develop.

A propulsion system of the size and performance we need already exists in the Centaur. Having been in use since the sixties, the Centaur has a high level of reliability, and its use of the RL10 engine gives the mission a common hardware simplicity, which should further reduce costs and complexities. A straightforward docking system could be developed easily from existing hardware, which should be affordable and more importantly simple. Remember, this isn?t orbital construction in the traditional sense. Modules will simply dock with one another. There will be no need for complex spacewalks or any new orbital techniques. I have allowed 30 million for each of the six Centaurs.

The Soyuz is the longest lived, most reliable, and adaptable manned spacecraft in history. Its very design allows it to serve multiple rolls. By simply enlarging the heat shield, and swapping the orbital module for a heavy duty docking port, the Soyuz should prove to be a reliable crew transport to and from the Earth. 100 million dollars will be more then enough to modify the craft to serve as the return capsule.

Add another 100 million for administrative costs and we have a manned mission to Mars for less than 2 billion dollars.

Some people will disagree with a manned mission to Mars with such a small crew. And like most people, I would prefer as large a crew as possible. However the logistics of a larger crew delete most of the advantages. A larger crew would need a different crew return spacecraft other then the Soyuz, which leaves the only option being to develop a new spacecraft, a task which would easily double our budget. But is a crew of 3 really such a problem? Both the United States and Russia have had a successful history of using such small crews, all space stations to date have been manned with no more then 3 people, and most ground control procedures would work well with such a size. Finally there is the moral issue of sending humans into the unknown frontiers of exploration. Initial missions to Mars will be dangerous. Perhaps three is the perfect number.

On the subject of safety, another major difference between Proton Mars and Mars Direct is the use of two separate spacecraft for outbound and inbound journeys. At first the benefits of having two spacecraft appear far safer, but are they? A total life support failure in space for either mission profile would be catastrophic. At Mars, surface assets such as pressurised rovers can ensure the survival of the astronauts until repairs or re-supply from Earth. The benefits of a two spacecraft system are limited.  No matter what precautions are taken, a mission to the red planet will be dangerous. Rather than risk a crew with an untested vehicle and concept we should simply launch an unmanned mission before the manned mission. This will ensure and extra layer of life critical backup. Adding an unmanned mission will increase the costs to 3 billion dollars.

This brings us to the issue of further missions. If we assume reoccurring costs to be 75% of development costs, each subsequent mission will amount to just under 1.5 billion or 750 million dollars per year. This is a ridiculously small amount to maintain a human presence on Mars. Comparable to one or two space shuttle flights, 750 million per year is pocket change for organizations like NASA, and could be a sustainable amount for a private venture such as Sell-Mars.

Proton Mars is not a study for the far future. It is something that can be done now, with our current technology, and most importantly current budgets. This sort of venture is not just limited to governments or large commercial groups. It can be achieved by us, by the small dedicated group of believers who know it?s time for a change, too long have we meandered in low orbit, endlessly going nowhere. Anyone who reads science fiction knows there are two types of future; there is the utopian future where mankind has spread throughout the universe, and there is the dystopian world, where humanity has reverted back in technology and progress, a society in decay. The Earth is our cradle, it is up to us to ensure it never becomes our coffin.

I?ve been reading heaps about rocket technology in the past few months, and while I was reading about engine performance and ablative cooling I came upon an idea.

I know that some engines have been designed to Ablate (Burn off) material from an engine nozzle to cool the engine as it fires. This saves money by not having to include expensive and complex cryogenic cooling.

I was also reading how a rocket engine?s efficiency changes with the air pressure outside the nozzle, (A large nozzle works best at a high altitude, and a smaller one is more efficient at sea level.) I wondered if you could take a high altitude nozzle and pack it with ablative material of a certain consistency, so that as it fired the nozzle?s ablative material would slowly burn away expanding the nozzle as the rocket climbed to higher altitudes, and giving the engine a high efficiency throughout the flight.

Are there any engineers (or just intelligent space buffs) out there who could tell me if this would work?

I don't think that limiting the ammount of land bought should be a problem, even getting all the money required should only sell off about 1% of the Martian land, and thats hardly explioting.
Selling T-Shirts and merchindise should help, but only when combined with the other money making schemes.
BTW if anyone is confused, this post was supposed to be under the Paying for Mars topic, sorry bout placing it here, but I'm new to this, I take it the polls don't work for anyone?

Thanks for all the responses guys, I?m new to this, and really didn?t expect so much interest so soon.

Sell-Mars is something that I am seriously considering setting up, but one of the major steps before going on-line is showing it to my peers, (You Guys) and getting your responses for better or for worse?.

I?ll try to respond as best I can to some of the problems brought up.

Several of you brought up the problems of land rights, and I agree with you that this is one of the more pressing concerns. The first is that fact that a man named Dennis Hope, several years ago decided he was going to claim the entire solar system, including Mars. He did this by registering with his local government, and has now made millions of dollars. Does anyone really believe that just because he came up with the idea first that he has a valid claim? The way I envisioning Sell-Mars working is like this, will sell you an acre of land, but we will specify that the claim isn?t valid at the moment. Only when the first Mars mission lands there will the claim be valid. Who would win out in court, someone who just claimed the planets to make money, or a non-profit organization that just landed there? The actual outer space treaty signed in the sixties allows for a private company or individual to claim the planets, but where going to do it the old fashion way, by planting a flag.

Soph mentioned that people should only be able to own land if their traveling there to colonize, but I want to try and keep this open for all the world, for a few reasons, the first is that selling land is part of the money generating we need to build and launch our hardware, if we just limit it to people who are actually going there we won?t make the money we need to send them in the first place. Secondly, Echus Chasma mentioned that only the rich would buy up land, but at $10 an acre this is something that?s affordable to everyone. The rich are more likely to spend there money on buying Mars rocks, or having mountains and valleys named after them. What I want to do is have our prices go up sequentially, $10, $100, $1000, and so on right up to going there yourself on the first missions at $50 Million. This way everyone in the world can be a part of it. Speak to anyone who worked on Apollo, from the astronauts themselves, to the lowliest factory worker and what you will find is a glowing pride that they were a part of something grand, something bigger then anything else in history. With Sell-Mars, YOU can feel the same way, can you imagine watching the first steps on Mars and knowing YOU are a part of this?

But selling the land is only a small part Sell-Mars, as I mentioned before, even if we sell billions worth of land, (Which I seriously doubt), it?ll only amount to less then one percent of the surface. Our thinking is clouded by our constant 1 G, this is a whole planet, there is room enough for all, we aren?t going to run into border disputes until a fully autonomous Martian government is established, and even then, control of land allocation (And everything else) will be passed from Sell-Mars, to the Martians as soon as the colony reached a certain size, (Say a thousand people?) and there?s hardly going to over sell the planet.

Selling land isn?t going to make Sell-Mars that much money compared to our other ventures. Here are my estimations on where the money will come from:

Selling Land - 250 Million

Selling Mars Rocks, price dependent on size ? 1 Billion (Remember the fist sized 350 Million moon rocks, we should be able to bring back 500kg on the first mission alone!)

Selling naming rights for mountains, crater, etc ? 100 million (In all honesty I have no idea what this is worth, anyone??)

Selling the TV coverage of the mission, movie rights, reality TV Mars series ? 1 Billion, (As an example take the NCAA ten year coverage for 10 Billion, or the 60 odd billion Olympic contracts.)

Planting your countries flag ? 500 Million (I estimate at least half of the worlds 200 countries will want to be a part of this, not to mention the hundreds of corporations that could afford 5 million from their advertising budgets.)

Sponsoring astronauts ? 1 Billion (Apart from the 50 Million in return tickets, there?s training to account for also)

Auctioning the rights to examine the first return rock samples ? 10 million

Merchandising ? 100 Million (Lucasfilm made a billion from The Phantom Menace)

Add all this up and we come to 3.9 billion, just short of our target of 5 billion, but then again, that was assuming the Mars Direct Ares or Energia?s were used. Our rocket will be a little cheaper.

But as you can see, the land deeds aren?t the best money generator, the astronaut sponsorship and the TV rights will be.

I better finish up, I?m wafting on, and this post is huge, please let me know what you think of the money examples, if you think the prices are too low or too high. I value your input.

Let me know how much you people would support a venture like Sell-Mars, if I get enough positive response I?ll post the Sell-Mars website and the ball could rolling.