You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Cobra Commander:
No NASA no ESA.There is good individuals but I want only companies with use good R&D management style and ready to play it as a internal start up: see Saab, Dassault, Laben etc in Europe.A network of partners funded by one to three governement with no more involvement in the project when funded.Except on some milestones maybe .
A new fondation could be done for that with the right to use former NASA or ESA work, and public basic research.
The newest thing to develop is the main propulsion system:
nuclear, magnetoplasmic propulsion are more mature technology USING what it have been done on HTR reactor (for fission) and Tokamak that people think.
I could mention that also a lot of work have been made on NERVA program and the Russian have developped almost to the end a nuclear propusion system.
The problem is to have a system which can handle continuous propulsion during dozens of thousand hours.Top performance once its works and demonstated is not necessary.You design system around it .Winning 100 or 500 s on ISP once you are above 900 s shouldn't be a goal.I mean better to have 90% of theororical performance at specified price than 98%.
As I said 20t more in low earth orbit is 180 million $.
An other thing is that you could have also in the same time many small propulsions system like ion propulsion on probes and satellites as you are in vacuum ,you have no partial catastrophic failure issues like on a space shuttle or rocket with chemical engines.
I estimate main propulsion system development to 7/6 billion $.other technologies needed are mature.You can test them on low scale for flight management software with a probe for example.Life support should not be investing further.A lot of money have been spend to see if people can live in space: it is clear now.And artificial gravity is not an technical issue.
For oxygen on Mars existing design on nuclear electric generator exist.
The only new thing is the lander.
In fact a fighter can be much more sophisticated and need much more manhour in development.(software for CME, radar, IRSF, stealth issues, instable flight aerodynamic etc...).
We could also compare that with cost of a SSN/SBSN deveppment like Seawolf for example.
3000 engineers pay and environment during ten years cost 10 B$.
I ve investigated during many years practices in managing R&D.
That I can said is that relying to people from bureaucratic agencies like NASA or ESA will multiply by a factor 3 to 10 development and test price.
Why: because they want (and politicians) to avoid any risk and do not let the control on a single individual.
But in fact they are unable to manage it on overall projects.
people are not commited to maintain price low (by financial personal incentives and PUNISHMENT)
Technical choices are compromise between differents stakeholders and not necessarly the best, teams are maintened during delay for budgetary reasons etc...
The only choice is to give the money and rewards to a team commited in and which have invest its OWN money.And managed by a single man like the Von Braun or Edward Teller caliber selected by a preliminary competitive process.(Maybe Burt Rutan could be thinking on that).
Any top manager to enter in the program should like in a start up, pay on its own money the right to get in.And lost everything or for a part in case of its objectives unreached.
I ve made analysis for reusable transportation system:
(If you want to get down below 1500$/kg)
1: we have to take in account development price of course so scramjet technology are out of range to achieve this goal
2: SSTO even with hydrogen engine (almost mandatory) are out of this objective: cost, maintenability, risk
3: on market issue we have to be in the 7/8 t range in low orbit with modularity.
4: to man it all the time like shuttle it too costly (addedweight, risk)
To conclude: What is achievable is a two/three stage launcher using high density fuel:
Two stage mean for example launch by a plane or having a liitle powder/hybrid low cost last stage for orbit injection for ummanned mission or a compact liftting body instead to have 3/6 people send in orbit.The non reusable part have to be minimised so not on the first (and necessarly heavy) stage(s).
I think that cost about Mars mission are completely overestimated.I have done calculation using similar development technologies and prices benchmarking and I arrived at the conclusion that a manned space mission on Mars should be less than 20 billion $ with a generous estimation.
To give you an idea : the launch of 800 t by ariane 5 cost 7.2 billion $.The cost of a plane sophisticated as Rafale is 7 billion $ in development from engine to radar.
What is needed is skunk works management style, good R&D practices in management and empowerement, financial incentives and new way for contracting.A fixed amount is fixed initially and then there are personnal incentives on saving.Also a personnal financial involvement of managers like in start up.
The only real innovative technology we need are propulsion.
However affordable concept exists and the purpose should be to develop them in a fixed cost.It doens't matter if isp is 1200 or 4000 s for main propulsion system.You demonstrate a concept already much more better than chemical propulsion and then you design around it.
I know some innovative concept about it.
I think also that such a concept should use most on the self technology, and components except for the propulsion.
To take in account presence of man to have a system which can simply repaired in space and fail safe.
I think also that such a system should be not only design for Mars but multiplanet taking in account the worst case for landing i.e Mars and the worst case for travelling i.e Saturn.
Such a system could be build in limited numbers to be able to fullfill few planery mission from Mercury to asteroid belt.It would cost more (maybe 40 B$ for 3 planets) but this would be usefull .Multiplaneting allow incremental improvement from Lunar testing to ambitious mission.It shouldn't also be build with more than TWO foreign partner.
My personal belief is that you can separate travelling of men from supplies and landers.
Thinking out the box should be encouraged more.
Pages: 1