New Mars Forums

Hello Clarke,

May I answer you comment & questions please?

Motivated - Yes, highly, in all things that seem to matter IMO.

Skills - No. I can successfully design & build things that float and fly around the globe. But spaceships? Er...... Definitely not. But who knows?  We have never tried.
If I had the cash & facilities to spare, be assured, design work would start tomorrow morning. Believe me. I don`t mess about and have a track record to prove it.

Resources - No. Thats for sure !!! I used to have a boat called `From rags to rags` (From rags to riches - get it?)
However, I do have access to some resources that matter in a very small way. So have many, many, others that could collectively become a very significient resource. Perhaps more than enough.

You ask what am I looking for? A long shot but worth looking at:- Testing the water to see what potential there may be in contacting realistic, mature people of similar outlook and who have the prerequesite experience and dynamism to drive a difficult international private project (I prefer the words "Human project") forward, free of politics and of those with hidden adgendas.
If there are one hundred people of similar dynamism, dedication, resources and skills, it cannot be done.
However, if there are a thousand........... who knows what might happen........

The challenges to be overcome in the order of descending difficulty are, IMHO:
1/The mind-set of people, both technical and lay.
2/Quasi-Governmental bodies.
3/Technology vandals. (I have suffered myself from them. People who immediately raise objections just because they have not thought of something themselves first. They are normally charlatans purporting to know what they are talking about and just love to see their own name in print. The advent of the Internet must rate as their number one invention in the last Centurary. The perfect medium for BS).
4/Selling the project to the appropriate sectors of society - i.e. old fashioned money. Even the Vikings had that problem. However, a voluntary concept is the only answer to this snag.
No supplier gets their palm crossed with silver - instead, they get uplifted by a higher (excuse the pun) and much more noble objective than grubby money. Just think of the Public Relations Kudos "Supporting mans greatest aspiration since Magellan.........", or whatever.
I know my company, its sales offices, and its shareholders would get a warm feeling about that one..... Thousands of other companies too.
Two years back, NASA ordered a piece of special, unique, kit from my company and the sales guys ever since have not overlooked their skills at name-dropping.
5/ Keeping Humanity enthused and curious about the project for the long haul. This is a matter for the P.R. & marketing experts. They have the ability solve that one.
6/The SI of the acceptable fuels & rocket design.
7/The uncertainty of the availability of propellant to return.
8/The life support energy audit, and radiation exposure.
9/Physical engineering, test flights & assembly.
10/Propellant management.

Note that even if you do not agree with my order of difficulties, you will agree that half the problems are human -  not insurmountable technology.

11/ Somewhere to do it - Ah! but we have solved that, eh? A couple scrapping supertankers borrowed for a few years stationed in International waters in Western Pacific or Atlantic. Solves much official meddling and there are no security or third party public liability problems....... I can hear the rising tide of voices from the habitual losers - "That`s stupid. Cost a fortune. Boats wobble. Anyway, Nasa cheaper".
Oh. Really? Lets look at it. Say 110,000 ton scrapper @ $26 per raw ton = say $3 million.
Borrow the scrapper.
What is the investment value to the owner per year? It is $3 million @ 4% per annum top whack at the moment. That is, gentle reader, $2 grand a week. (Even if NASA would let you inside their perimeter fence, [no chance] they would charge that much for a bit of office space, never mind a launch complex).
Think positive. We may even get lucky and get a loan of the scrapper for the required time...... As it so happens, I know someone in that line of business........

There is insufficient space here to mention the remaining 999,999,999 other challenges, but it will do for a start.

However, I am serious, even if I dont have the time...... Frankly I am a busy bunney - but this is important. If anyone does not think that it is, what has he been reading this for during the last minute? !!!!!    :-)

Thank you for your attention. I appreciate it.

Hello deagleninja
Thank you for your words of support.

In respect of GCNR`s response I would repeat my assertion that a large well of goodwill exists if a realistic project were correctly presented to the world.

Poor old Pillinger:
In respect of GCNR, I would enquire why he is so worried about the $40 million lost on Beagle - he did not contribute one cent. I did...... and I am not complaining. The guys did their best - so what? Better luck next time. Part of a learning curve.
As a (presumably) US taxpayer he did contribute to NASA`s short sighted Hubble, the two botched Mars missions when someone confused miles and kilometers..... His silence is notable on those matters and others. Why point such a hard finger at Pillinger I cannot understand.

I have already stated that my company would provide funding along with five other corporations for a period of 8 to 10 years that I know of.
Now, THAT is the tip of the real iceberg.
deagleninja is absolutely right is his positive attitude.

Mars itself:
My personal view is that there should be no suggestion whatsoever of terrafarming and colonies. That is for coming generations maybe. The only point worth focusing on is getting a human being there and back. That must be the only objective. It is the only possible reality. Anything more ambitious would totally undermine credability.

The impossability of getting people to do the right thing:
On the topic of multiple manufacturers and interfacing problems: May I be allowed to observe that I own (small) manufacturing facilities in Europe, China and the US. Each facility has its own large quota of precision components to produce and they must all smoothly come together and pass test in a final product. My company has no particular difficulties in co-ordinating logistics and production tolerances in manufacturing a range of complex technical devices - AND the three facilities are 120 degrees apart around the globe.
It has never been easier to manage complex programmes with todays communications.

Launch facilities and insurance:
I fail to see why any of NASA`s facilities need be involved. It would cost fortunes and introduce all the mind-sets which we need to get away from. No disrespect to NASA I think they are wonderful - but if we are to actually do something about getting to Mars in our lifetime, a private space program is essential and we really must come from a different place and think outside the box.

What would the writer do?
O.K. if you wish to know, I have my own designs with maximum structural modules of 8 X 3 M. (I have a contract with a well known parcel carrier who may be interested in helping out... and their cargo aircraft which fly the globe every night will neatly handle this size. Maybe..... who knows? nothing ventured, nothing gained) and mathematical models (I am no space scientist - just a humble engineer) and would launch from a barge in the Western Atlantic or Pacific. That gets rid of a whole bunch of problems relating to Governance, Insurance, local authorities etc.

I hear the reader mutter "he`s an idiot".
True maybe.

However consider this: the writer designed and built a boat in his back yard in which he circumnavigated the world, and then followed that by designing and building a single engine aircraft in his garage and then flew that around the world.

Hummmm........ Not exactly Mars, but it demonstrates a point that we can do anything if we are sufficiently focused........

A private Space or Mars initiative?

The writer is an ex airline pilot and professional engineer. He owns a small manufacturing company which produces revolutionary equipment for specialist and military applications.

I now come to the point:-

We all wait with eager fascination to see if Mr. Bert Rutan can again achieve another remarkable milestone. Full credit to the chap for trying.

It must also be said that the wondrous achievements of NASA et.al. are most praiseworthy and indeed, to be supported.

These latter bodies are Quasi Governmental Organisations and are therefore hugely cost inefficient. We should acknowledge, however, that they broke the (mostly, by that time, psychological) technical logjam by proving what can be done by putting men on the Moon.
It has been my long held view that the torch must be carried into the new frontier by private initiative and not by State sponsored bodies - if we are not to wait for another ten generations to see the footprint of man on Mars, which is the only realistic goal available at this time with current chemical propulsion technology.

I have proposed the following scenario to numerous bodies without any response:

It is universally assumed that commercial assistance to any project is wholly dependent upon an expectation of a commercial return on the investment. This is unduly cynical. There are tens of thousands of commercial organisations (including this one) who would be willing to help a "New Frontier" project without the expectation of a commercial or other tangible reward.

In our Western society, altruism does not abound, however, it is not extinct. Many thinking people would willingly assist such a project (provided it were to be realistic) without seeking profit. Their reward is in assisting the advancement of human knowledge and technology for the coming generations. The early explorers of the middle ages did indeed have to hold out hope of rich rewards to potential investors, however not all, as history has shown.

Different companies have different assets, expertise and financial abilities. Large financial institutions have the ability to readily underwrite some parts of the costs without making any appreciable difference whatsoever to their balance sheet. If presented to the shareholders and stakeholders in the correct light by the corporate management, such contributions would be supported.

Certainly in Europe, the chemical and oil industry is very aware of the public (their customers) attitude to energy conservation and supporting socially and technologically responsible projects. Therein lies the source of the propellent for free........

Small technology companies may not be able to afford Dollars, but have an ocean of expertise, equipment and labour skills available to provide requisite physical components, engineering, hardware & software without charge - and be very happy to do so with pride.
Should we assume that there may be half a million components or subassemblies required, it is not beyond the imagination to see five thousand companies making a contribution of one hundred parts. Human nature will guarantee that such components would be lovingly produced, and precisely to specification, for such a prestige project.

Let us examine one small example. It is rumoured that NASA ordered 48 wheels for the Mars Rovers from a small engineering company in (XXXXXXXX?) California. (12 on Mars, 18 for engineering models, 18 development models including units for spares and destructive testing). The cost was suggested to be $24,000 each. These details may be totally untrue, but will suffice as an example.They are not just 10" diameter aluminium wheels — there is a lot more to it than that. Nonetheless it is a straightforward, if complex, machining and / or casting job. That is a $1 Million contract. Of course we are all pleased to see a small machine shop get a profitable job. Good luck to them - great !!!

However, as NASA clearly offers to pay for services and goods, naturally, a contract is correctly and properly treated by those tendering, as a commercial proposition.
Suppose there were a private, voluntary project. In this example, there would be many manufacturing firms who would happily provide (in the above simple instance) those rover wheels free of charge. This example can be demonstrated repeatedly if one could evaluate the engineering schedules for the current Rover programme which cost $437 Million. The writer suggests that the programme could have been done for some $20 Million or less if it were a private project constructed on the basis proposed in this document.

The key to success of such a project is a financially well rewarded, commercially experienced, tough management and media publicity team - not ten thousand functionaries on a payroll.

The nearest project yet to this concept of private initiative, was the British Beagle Mars lander. Sadly, it failed to respond after (crash???) landing on the planet. However, that is not the point - NASA has had it failures also. The real point to be made is that it was essentially a project driven almost single-handedly by Prof. Colin Pillinger and some others. He was obliged to go to anyone and everyone looking for money to keep the project alive. Although construction was on a commercial basis, and thus costly, the lander was delivered to Mars for a cost of $40 Million, i.e., one tenth the of NASA`s cost of delivering two packages to that planet. It may be reasonably assumed that some 80% of NASA`s cost was in the first rover and 20% for the second.
Therefore, a comparison may be made as follows:
First NASA rover (Spirit) $349 Million.
Beagle $40 Million. (and it was commercially produced/manufactured)

How come this huge cost differential? Many private individuals and organizations gave their expertise and skills to the project relatively free of charge or less than commercial rates. An interesting array of people appear to have been involved, from Prof. Pillinger to a handful of laboratory equipment manufacturers, students etc.
The project may have failed for the following reasons:
1/ The management and engineering team apparently spent most of their time, of necessity, trying to raise money - not working on the project. (Source: UK Government committee statement (May 2004) about an unpublished investigation into the failure of the Beagle lander. The reason for non-publication is likely / suggested, to avoid finger pointing at people who gave services or equipment out of best intentions and not for pure commercial reasons. The implied overall conclusion was lack of management and project control).
2/ This could have been avoided if there were a professional marketing team to sell the project in advance and drum up support in industry, the media, and the general public who were for the most part completely unaware of the project until the day before landing.

It was not Prof Pillingers or his colleagues fault - he is a scientist, not a marketeer or manager. You must let scientists science, and marketeers market !!!

For the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that a private enterprise space initiative is not just possible, but essential if those alive today are to see humankind truly step off the Earth. There is no longer much political or military kudos in space exploration. It must be for private innovation to inject the dynamism and thrust which is needed.

Thank you for reading this.

Capt. R. Doblet