Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

deimopolitan · 2006-08-22 06:56:10

Mars Direct (if I'm not mistaken) was projected to cost $35 billion, so I'm wondering why the Mars Society doesn't go about raising that privately right now. For instance, as an extreme case, imagine MS managed to convince 3.5 million people to pledge $1,000 per year over ten years to a manned Mars mission--that's less than a car payment. And with some donors giving far more, the number of people who'd need to participate could actually be a lot smaller: Every millionaire who pledged 100k per year would reduce the need to convince 99 other people, and there would be a few super-rich folks who might pledge 1 or even 10 million.

Now, ordinarily even dedicated space advocates are reserved with their money when all that's being offered is more power point presentations, more luncheons, more political activism, but I think that would dramatically change if they knew the money would be going directly to a human Mars mission. Furthermore, the pledges wouldn't even be collected until the cumulative totals reached full funding level, so they would risk nothing in the interim. Heck, if they originally under-pledged out of skepticism, some might substantially increase their pledges once it becomes clear the mission is really going to happen. And since the costs of Mars Direct were computed as a NASA mission, it's entirely plausible that a private version would be substantially cheaper.

I know you guys are smart and know what you're doing, but for the life of me I can't figure out why this approach hasn't taken hold in the Mars Society. I'm not rich, but I'd gladly pledge a quarter of my yearly income for ten years to see mankind get to Mars. And I know there are plenty of others who would too, and a LOT more who would give a thousand instead of buying a plasma TV. And once you pull off something like that and prove it can be done, it can happen again and again, with larger and more ambitious missions made possible by the institutional investors who'd become convinced. Then you'd see a frontier opening up, not just a sterile government outpust that could be abandoned at any time by the politicians. Any reason we can't start doing this RIGHT NOW?

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-22 07:36:03

MarsDirect's $35Bn price tag... is much too low. Inflation, unwarranted optimism on Zubrin's part, and quite possibly Zubrin simply lying about how much it costs. I personally think that Zubrin is being deceptive over the "real" cost of MarsDirect in the hope that by "under bidding" is plan to Congress, they will be wowed by it and tell NASA to do whatever Bob, in his "genius," says... and be comitted to his plan before the engineers can convince Congress that Bob has been selling snake oil.

Anyway, nobody would agree to because of the "giggle factor" and the general lack of faith in the sanity or competance of private space NGOs. Nobody would trust with that kind of money. Trusting MarSoc etc with a little money, sure, but tens of billions?

Even if they did, if you don't intend to actually collect that money as it is pledged, you'll never be able to build a space program off of it, since you can't rely on million of people holding or even having thousands of dollars until the pledge threshold is met.

Another problem is that it costs that kind of money for NASA to do it, so it does require government reasources anyway. Without offical government help, you'd be talking several multiples of the cost perhaps.

RobertDyck · 2006-08-22 08:00:41

The Purpose of the Mars Society

To further the goal of the exploration and settlement of the Red Planet. This will be done by:
1. Broad public outreach to instill the vision of pioneering Mars.
2. Support of ever more aggressive government funded Mars exploration programs around the world.
3. Conducting Mars exploration on a private basis.
Starting small, with hitchhiker payloads on government funded missions, we intend to use the credibility that such activity will engender to mobilize larger resources that will enable stand-alone private robotic missions and ultimately human exploration.

When the Mars Society started they had .com millionaires donate significant funds, half the annual income came from these rich donors. However, the .com bubble burst and these donors weren't rich any more.

The Mars Society built the Mars Arctic Research Station on Devon Island in the Arctic, an island where NASA had established a Mars analogue research station and the NASA lead wanted the Mars Society to participate to raise funds and expand his research facility. Flashline donated a big chunk of money, so the station was named Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS). This was real work done with NASA. But the island was expensive to get to, and since it's inside the arctic circle it's night 24-hours per day in the heart of winter. There are those who don't want to use the facility when there's snow on the ground, a criteria I dismiss, but dark is a real problem. So they built the Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS) in Utah. They also started projects to build research stations in Australia and Europe, but finds dried up.

Some of us tried to get projects going to send a small but real Mars Society probe to Mars. I participated in one, it included average members: aerospace engineers, physicists, computer programmers, as well as students, automechanics and other "real" people. We did make some progress, but unfortunately didn't get funding. The German chapter of the Mars Society duplicated the project, but they restricted it to German members and only qualified aerospace engineers. That got them some funding from the European Space Agency, but they still haven't finished building it much less launch.

What I'm saying is the approach of the Mars Society has been similar to what you're asking for. But the Mars Society chose to prove itself by undertaking a series of steps, stating small and growing, to prove its capability to investors. If you believe you can raise more money, please go for it.

Another problem is credibility. NASA developed a whole series of vehicles to reach the Moon. After JFK made his famous Moon speech, NASA launched 6 manned Mercury missions and a whole bunch of unmanned ones, 12 Gemini missions (2 unmanned, 10 manned), and a series of Apollo missions. NASA launched 6 unmanned Apollo test flights, and before Apollo 11 the manned flights were Apollo 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Apollo 1 failed on the ground, but that total is quite long. Those wanting to send a manned mission to Mars in just one all-up mission are dreaming. In fact, something went wrong with every Apollo mission other than Apollo 17. It's ironic the last Apollo mission was the only one that was perfect; government cancelled the Apollo program as soon as they got it right. So now some people want a Mars mission in one throw? Not going to happen. The incremental approach is necessary to develop equipment. You could argue we should skip the space station and Moon, but politicians decided that.

So the Mars Society decided to take an incremental approach, starting small. Personally, I think our next step must be something spectacular, something real rather than another analogue. We need to develop some small piece of flight hardware. But that's my opinion.

RobS · 2006-08-22 15:56:43

The Mars Society did want to make a flight the next step, Robert: they have been proposing a rotating bio satellite with various critters living in 1 martian gee in low earth orbit for a month or two. Then the satellite would be deorbited and the critters studied to see how they did in Martian gravity. I think the idea was that the various desert and arctic stations would be in the vicinity of a million bucks each, the biosatellite closer to ten million, then some sort of unmanned Mars probe in the high tens of millions to a hundred million dollars . . . this would build toward a human mission in the tens of billions.

But the biosatellite idea has gotten stuck. I gather there have been collaboration issues and that has brought turf issues; the biosatellite project used to be on the Mars Society website (maybe it still is) so one can look for oneself.

It would be ironic if the Mars Society, after complaining about NASA getting "stuck in Earth orbit," itself got "stuck in the Canadian Arctic," unable to fund anything bigger and not wanting to stop the one successful project it has started.

-- RobS

deimopolitan · 2006-08-22 21:00:08

RobS,
This is a good example of what I'm talking about, how the progress of the Mars Society (or lack thereof) has begun to mirror NASA. Zubrin began the whole thing on the premise that we have the technology and know-how to get there NOW, and I believe he is correct, so smaller projects seem more like a result of frustrated ambition rather than actual progress. Obviously the Mars research stations are better than nothing, but they don't make getting there any easier or more likely, and I don't think satellites with bugs or rats in them would really do that either. It's also a question of whether MS is a frontier organization or just a Ra-Ra supporter of manned NASA missions to the Red Planet--if the former, it shouldn't shrink from taking more risks than NASA would, which means its initiatives can be more agile, cheaper, and evolve faster than Orion. Mars Direct should mean exactly that: Direct, not via analog studies and satellites, and not via NASA programs that can be killed at any time by fickle politicians. I believe it can be done.

Robert,
I know it's tempting to generalize difficulties in one context into others, but it's understandable why people wouldn't be excited enough to fund another unmanned probe. NASA sends Mars probes every two or three years, and ESA is quickly catching up, so what's the proposition? The novelty of a private group sending one just isn't much of a pitch. People who want to see humans on Mars, however, are frustrated enough with NASA to be very excited at the prospect if they're convinced it's serious and plausible.

And no, I don't think I personally could raise $35 billion alone, but I do think the Mars Society has the focus, dedication, and competence to lead a coalition of private advocacy groups that could. It wouldn't be traditional fundraising, but more like a tent revival kind of thing, where ordinary members are asked for extraordinary sacrifices (or at least pledge them) while also pursuing the big fish for larger sums. Through clever marketing, the general public could get excited about it and send in pocket change that would add up over time. The variations are endless.

There are thousands of people right now who would sell everything they own just for the chance to risk their own lives on Mars, so I don't think getting them to part with that money to pave the way would be as difficult as you think. People cared about getting to the New World enough to sell themselves into indentured servitude for seven years, and that was just a new continent on the other side of a relatively small ocean. But if even core advocates of human expansion to Mars don't care enough to say "Yes, if you get enough pledges for full funding, I pledge 10% of my yearly income for ten years to this mission," then it doesn't say much for mankind's future on Mars.

All things considered, I don't believe NASA will ever be allowed to get there, much less stay there if they did, and Mike Griffin won't be in control much longer to keep the pressure on. Griffin's successors will likely be the same group of bean counters and museum curators that made up his immediate predecessors, and they will take the path of least resistance straight to nowhere. If humanity is to get to Mars, then the people who most badly want to get there will have to do the heavy lifting.

As to your point about needing to shake out the equipment, just include that in the cost of the mission and sell the whole package as the manned Mars project. Don't break it down into little pieces and then futilely try to get funding for incremental steps that don't excite very many people on their own. The added cost of regional Mars research stations and the satellites you're talking about would add negligible marginal cost to the whole venture.

GCNRevenger,
The $35 billion price tag is after inflation. The original was $20 billion when the study was originally done, and in-depth cost analysis by the NASA bean counters found Zubrin's numbers highly accurate. As to "giggle factor," what do you think the vast majority of people already think of the Mars Society, if they even know it exists? A bunch of space geeks with too much time on their hands fantasizing about Buck Rogers adventures.

You don't have to convince anyone who isn't already on board with the mission, you just have to whip up dedicated advocates into an enthusiastic frenzy and credibility would grow with the pledges. Any snide newspaper columnist who laughed at the project at first would get an attitude readjustment when it passed the $1 billion mark. And obviously the money wouldn't be handled through MS, it would be through some large financial services firm, and people would have the complete mission and budget plan in their hands before they were asked for their money.

You say it can't be relied upon that people would have a few thousand dollars when it came time to collect, and yet they'd have a couple of years to watch the pledges build toward the critical amount and know they'd need to plan for paying it. These people want the mission, they're not just saying they'll pay as some kind of prank, and they will make sure they have the money if possible. Richer donors could also pledge to make up a percentage of any shortfall in collections.

Mars is out there for the taking. How much do you want it?

RobS · 2006-08-22 23:19:08

Well, I doubt people really want Mars badly enough to do it this way. One big problem is trust; it's hard to create trust when you haven't done much. Hence an incremental approach, which also allows one to increase one's infrastructure incrementally and gain experience incrementally.

-- RobS

Martin_Tristar · 2006-08-23 00:49:09

RobS

Your Right !!!!

But the first thing is to understand the questions, problems, issues, and barriers to building a Mars Direct Mission funded or controlled by the Mars Society. I don't see the creativity in the Society to find those answers. They have great ideas but alot of them work in the industry and are bound by the company employment contracts.

I see Mars Society is an Advocate for Mars Exploration , not a Mars explorer funding organization.

idiom · 2006-08-23 01:22:28

As far as I knew the Mars Society was primarily a lobby group. In that sense it has been pretty successful. Nasa is on track to Mars. the problem now is possible derailment, not turning Nasa around as it was before. We have Heavy Lift back, or we will, and its named Ares no less. Nobody is talking about Shuttle 2 or expanding the ISS.

The DRM is pretty close to anything Zubrin could have asked for. There is no more Battlestar being batted around, its all light and direct with ISRU to get back after a two year stay.

Or problem now is avoiding derailment, and as GCNR like to point out, the long term problems with the Mars Direct Architecture. It’s going to be extremely easy for enthusiasm to dwindle after the first crew has their parade.

We need to be figuring out how to change the mindset away from exploration and onto colonisation. Get the idea of long-term burned into the public culture, so people expect a large base in fifty years.

Our projects need at some point, to shift to being colonisation analogues.

deimopolitan · 2006-08-23 02:43:55

RobS,

I think trust would be more of an issue for an entrepreneurial venture seeking investors than a grassroots effort seeking conditional pledges. Think about it. Not a single check would have to be written until people had pledged the entire projected cost, so pledgers (is that a word?) are taking no risks until the actual mission is set in motion. The more money is pledged, the more credibility the effort builds; the more credibility it has, the more professionals in the industry become interested and want to be involved, and that in turn brings in more credibility and more money.

It doesn't even really have to be the Mars Society per se that conducts the mission, but MS would be the seed of the project and its driving force--a separate organization could be created, once the money got close enough to its target, to handle the technology development and actual flight, and it would incorporate MS along with other organizations that would join along the way.

And once you have the money, corporate investors probably would look for ways to cash in as well, because nothing is as attractive as cold hard cash. Whatever deals were struck would probably involve spinoff technologies and advertising, so it wouldn't jeopardize the tax exempt status of the effort. Once it got to that stage, it would be the most exciting thing happening in the world, and you'd have to fight off the sponsors with a stick.

As to how much people want this mission, it doesn't have to be a large bloc of donors initially. If you could find just a few thousand people who are totally committed to opening the Mars frontier, you could start the snowball rolling, which is why MS is the best place to start. And they wouldn't even have to contribute the money up front like they do now, they'd only have to pledge to do their share if enough other people came aboard to bring in the needed billions.

Imagine the pledges have reached the $35 billion mark, scientists and engineers all over the world are freziedly buzzing around the project looking for ways they or their institution can be involved, and corporations are all falling over each other to profit from the excitement. Under those circumstances, would you personally feel comfortable finding a way to donate $10,000 to see that mission happen? Given the number of people who would risk their own lives for it, I can't imagine there being fewer who would donate the cost of a used car. And that's just the first step of the beginning, followed by getting slightly less dedicated people to pledge in the low thousands, the general space community to pledge in the hundreds, and perhaps the general public could make symbolic but cumulatively significant pledges.

Also, as the pledges roll in, the same people would become more confident and make their earlier pledges larger. Instead of buying an HDTV, maybe I'll add a thousand to my pledge; instead of vacationing in Hawaii, maybe I'll vacation on Catalina and pledge the difference, etc etc. You could set up rewards, distinctions, and privileges associated with different pledge levels (with greater guarantees needed for the higher ones, of course); have local, regional, national, and international pledge-raising competitions, etc etc.

It's true the effort would flounder if it began haphazardly as some kind of side project of the MS, or an amateur effort of a few members, but if the leadership came to believe in it, convinced some other organizations to at least rhetorically support the idea, and came out of the gate strong, it could work.

NASA can be useful sometimes, and on occasion achieves great things, but it is a massive Frankenstein's monster of porkbarrel fiefdoms, competing priorities, and constantly shifting political winds. The only real way to get to Mars and stay there is for people who want to get there to find out how to do it and then do it. Bob Zubrin took care of the first part, and I think this is really the only answer to the second. No amount of experience on Devon will ever make corporations more willing to fund a manned Mars mission, or make the design and execution of one significantly easier. That will only come from building an actual mission. So we just have to accept that it's very difficult, very expensive, very dangerous, and GO as soon as possible. Personally, I'm tired of waiting. I grew up listening to false promises from NASA, and now they're just making more promises. The desire exists, the means exist, the talent exists. Let's do it.

SpaceNut · 2006-08-23 20:29:56

idiom Nasa is on track to Mars but there is this little problem of attention, enthusiasm coupled with justification, oh and cost which may prove to be a force that will slow the chances of getting there. You are right that it is possible to derail the Calv long before we get to go to the moon or mars because of the ISS needs.

Cots will never forfill the need for Heavy Lift as the need arises for repair or of expansion when it comes to the ISS.

Mars will be directly effected if there is a dwindling of desire to go if after the first few crews parade to the moon for flags and some more foot prints are done.

We need to be figuring out how to change the mindset away from exploration and onto colonisation. Get the idea of long-term burned into the public culture, so people expect a large base in fifty years.
Our projects need at some point, to shift to being colonisation analogues.

You have hit on the issue but it is easier than one might think to solve if we go back to any location more than once in a roll. For we could leave a crew member or two to be there for the next crews return to this sites location for continued science exploration.

Think about it. Not a single check would have to be written until people had pledged the entire projected cost, so pledgers (is that a word?) are taking no risks until the actual mission is set in motion.

The only problem will be the collection cost associated in getting the pledged amounts.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-23 21:25:28

You are out of your mind if you think the pledge system could possibly work on such a scale, of tens of billions of dollars. The simple logistics of keeping track of all those people over the many years required would require vast sums of hard cash, not more vaporous imaginary currency. And then you have the advertising to make people aware of such an organization in the first place, the lawyers/accountants/IT engineers needed to manage it, and real money for the other assorted requirements for an NGO/NFP of that scale.

And frankly you can't just collect a big pile of pledges and set off on a project with contracts like that, a chicken and egg problem: if you are serious about a Mars mission, then there needs to be a commitment to that project once it is set in motion, but until you actually have the money in the bank you can't commit now can you? This is assuming that the people who pledged, perhaps some years ago, will even have the money to give you... or even want to. A pledge is not legally binding, and is not currency you can exchange for rocket parts.

Such a project also requires intermediate engineering steps, beyond what Bob Zubrin or the DRM guys cooked up in their rough sketches, but short of drawing blueprints or cutting metal. This will have to be done before any Mars plan will be credible reguardless who does it, including NASA, and is a test of how serious and competant the project staff are. This work does not come cheap, companies like Lockheed or Orbital are routinely paid millions of dollars - not debted, not promised, paid - which you will also have to have, as hard currency in the bank. I expect for something as big as a Mars program, this could easily run to tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars, and would have to be paid before anyone could possibly take you seriously. Again, chicken and egg, you need money to get credibility but you need credibility to get money too.

The means do not exsist, outside the scale of disposable reasources of present, former, and future superpower states. This cannot work, it is foolishness.

noosfractal · 2006-08-24 08:03:21

pledges

maybe a hybrid pledge scheme like the lifeboat guys - http://lifeboat.com/

deimopolitan · 2006-08-24 12:02:26

problem now is avoiding derailment, and as GCNR like to point out, the long term problems with the Mars Direct Architecture.

From everything I've seen, and everything going on now, I can't conceive of NASA actually getting to Mars. Even going back to the Moon I'd call 50/50 from a purely funding standpoint, because right now they don't even have the money for that--they can only take preliminary steps and hope future administrations and Congresses will give them what they need to go.

NASA won't even set a target date for Mars, and the most they'll say is it'll be "after 2030." So, in other words, probably thirty years (if not more) of different Congresses and Presidents will have to be on board with the Mars program for it not to be cancelled or scaled back out of reach, and that's highly improbable. If we're ever to get to Mars, the people who really want to get there will just have to come together and make it happen.

The only problem will be the collection cost associated in getting the pledged amounts.

Collection, management, and other overhead costs of the fundraising would be laughable beside the total mission budget, and would be factored into the original pledge target. Services might even be donated pro bono once it became clear that the program was actually going to happen--what large company wouldn't want billions of people associating it with globally exciting events?

The simple logistics of keeping track of all those people over the many years required would require vast sums of hard cash, not more vaporous imaginary currency.

Who says anyone has to "keep track" of people? These donors want the mission to happen, they're not playing a game of ding-dong-ditch. This isn't some charity auction to impress their neighbors. They'd keep track of its progress, and would certainly hear about it in the general media long before it came close to reaching the target amount. And once it did reach target, it would be front page news all over the planet. The whole world would watch the progress of the collections, and unless they've died or become poor in the interim, the overwhelming majority of those who pledged would deliver--and in many cases, probably a lot more than they pledged.

And then you have the advertising to make people aware of such an organization in the first place, the lawyers/accountants/IT engineers needed to manage it, and real money for the other assorted requirements for an NGO/NFP of that scale.

See above about management. As for advertising, that's short-sighted and obtuse--Howard Dean's presidential campaign raised millions of dollars over the course of months through nothing more than buzz on the internet, and he was competing with three other credible primary candidates just for a chance at an election. And those were actual donations, not conditional pledges contingent on being able to field a mission. The fundraising process would be nothing more than a scaled-up and more innovative version of what MS and dozens of other space advocacy groups already do, and for a far bolder and more exciting ambition than just hosting luncheons or brow-beating Congressmen. There is no reason whatsoever this can't happen--you just need a core of dedicated people to get the ball rolling.

The means do not exsist, outside the scale of disposable reasources of present, former, and future superpower states. This cannot work, it is foolishness.

Nearly THIRTY YEARS of political and economic vicissitudes lay between today and any date NASA will even consider a Mars mission. If you don't think we can do this, then you might as well just say it can't be done at all, and nobody who's serious about opening up Mars to humans is interested in hearing that.

maybe a hybrid pledge scheme like the lifeboat guys

I couldn't find a description of their pledge scheme on their site, but even so I'm not sure it's really a valid analogy. Their program is worth supporting, but it's based on confronting very dark scenarios--and that doesn't inspire people. A manned foothold on Mars has the benefit of both increasing survival odds and inspiring people with hope, joy, and excitement for the future. It's like one guy asks for money to build a farm, and another guy asks for money to build a cemetery, whose offer inspires you?

RobS · 2006-08-24 12:19:05

Pledging won't work for lots of reasons:

1. You don't know how many pledges will really come through. Even if people want to fulfil their pledges, it is hard for anyone to pledge now to give a certain sum in ten years. One could be bankrupt or dead in ten years.

2. A lot of people won't pledge with a program so vague as pledges.

3. What if the goal was to raise 35 billion in ten years, you have pledges for 20 billion in 10 years, you extend it five more years, in fifteen years you have 30 billion in pledges but inflation now makes the project cost estimate to be 50 billion, so you extend the project another five years, after twenty years you have 40 billion in pledges, but now the estimate is 55 billion and a quarter of the original pledgers are dead and you aren't even sure who they are and how much of the pledged money still is available. . . in short you have a mess, it isn't credible, and it collapses.

No, you have to have money in hand, you have to do something small and credible, you have to prove you can handle a project of a certain size, then people will give you REAL money and you do something bigger. . . that's the only way it can work in the real world.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-24 14:05:19

Yeah yeah, AltSpace is our only hope, space apathy will kill NASA's hopes for Mars, even the Moon is iffy, yaddah yaddah. Look, if NASA hasn't been to the chopping block even with its last thirty years of failure of its manned spaceflight outfit then why are they going to be doomed over the next thirty? Its only 25 years to Mars probably, since by the time we are established on the Moon, we will have half the major components for Mars already (rockets, reactors, etc).

Collection, management, and other overhead costs of the fundraising would be laughable beside the total mission budget, and would be factored into the original pledge target.

Why yes, but compared to zero this will be quite large. And you will need this money, in hand and in the bank, before you can collect on pledges. Chicken and egg.

Who says anyone has to "keep track" of people? These donors want the mission to happen... They'd keep track of its progress, and would certainly hear about it in the general media ...and unless they've died or become poor in the interim, the overwhelming majority of those who pledged would deliver--and in many cases, probably a lot more than they pledged.

Foolish unwarrented optimism. Expecting a very large number of people to coordinate with your organization over a long period of time is laughable even with a little real money. They simply will not all be feverishly awaiting the magic threshold if you don't keep track of them, at the very least to remind them of their pledge. The idea they will donate "a lot more than they pledged" is completly groundless, why would they do that?

I don't think that you have any clue of the scale of the thing you are talking about. Case in point:

As for advertising, that's short-sighted and obtuse--Howard Dean's presidential campaign raised millions of dollars over the course of months through nothing more than buzz on the internet

Thats only a few millions of dollars over the course of about a year, Mars will probably cost 35,000 million. The popularity of the project will have to be far and away beyond anythin the world has ever known, even beyond natural disasters like the Indian tsunami or the Pakistani earthquake. The support just is not there. A pledge system is not going to magically increase the donations by two orders of magnetude!

There is no reason whatsoever this can't happen

Nonsense: tens of billions > tens of millions.

Nearly THIRTY YEARS of political and economic vicissitudes lay between today and any date NASA will even consider a Mars mission

No, its more like fifteen to twenty years before NASA will start seriously thinking Mars, and NASA's budget has endured the last 30 years without major cut with little to show for its manned flight budget, why not the next thirty?

Wild dreamers have always ignored little problems with zeros and decimal places

deimopolitan · 2006-08-25 03:33:04

1. You don't know how many pledges will really come through. Even if people want to fulfil their pledges, it is hard for anyone to pledge now to give a certain sum in ten years. One could be bankrupt or dead in ten years.

There are many ways to deal with those possibilities.
1. Bankruptcy:
(a)Let them know from the beginning they'll have to renew their pledges every year to keep them "on the board."

(b)Email/smail/phone/fax to request either renewal or formal withdrawal of the pledge if they fail to do either within a certain period past the yearly deadline, then withdraw it if there is no response. Using those multiple contact methods, especially email, makes it unlikely they'll fall out of touch if they move.

(c.1)Find a policy company willing to gamble that the target level will not be reached within a decade, who will guarantee to cover shortfalls if the level is reached up to a certain percentage of the total. Before hiring such a company, of course, we'd have to figure whether the premiums over ten years would amount to more than the statistically likely shortfalls--based on prevalence of bankruptcy, economic cycles, demographics of the space advocate community, etc etc. This is a relatively simple actuarial question.

(c.2)Ask big-time pledgers to also pledge to cover a percentage of the shortfall, up to a maximum dollar figure of their designation.

(d)Build sponsorships. This would come later in the game, but once it became clear how serious the program was, the clamor would be tremendous. Reserve the most prominent sponsorship slots for near the end of the collection period, and auction them off.

(e)As a last-mile strategy, borrow money against the salable assets the program would create, but do so in a way careful to keep tax-exempt status. Industrial interests and other sponsors could also borrow money themselves to upgrade their sponsorship slots or buy other forms of advertisement.

(f)As a last resort, beg. I don't believe it would ever come to that, but if the people who want to see this happen were told the mission wasn't going to happen without extra help, they would step up to the plate.

2. Death

Tactfully encourage bequests among the older demographics, play up the "leaving behind a legacy that will last forever" kind of stuff. Play up to hopes for their grandkids--"You saw men walk on the Moon, your grandchildren will walk on Mars--make it happen."

2. A lot of people won't pledge with a program so vague as pledges.

The pledge system wouldn't be vague at all, it would be clearly spelled out and would inspire people to make pledges more confidently. Ask them directly for money, and they would have to evaluate the likelihood of the program ever getting all the money it needs for their contribution to be meaningful. But just ask them to pledge a certain amount in the event they do get within reach of full funding, and it's a ridiculously simple question. You're saying to them: "We are confident we'll reach our target, but we understand your position. All we ask is if this mission gets within reach, you pledge to do your part." Since funding is an even bigger obstacle than technology, you're halfway to Mars by the time you have the money.

It's the difference between angel investing and IPOs--you already know what you're dealing with before you write the checks. The whole mission plan and budget would be made available to every pledger before a single dime was collected--deviations would be inevitable, but people could be confident that those in charge knew what they were doing. Experts and professionals in the field around the world would be involved in making and commenting on those plans, and would crawl over each other to be involved in some way once they saw the funding existed.

3. What if the goal was to raise 35 billion in ten years, you have pledges for 20 billion in 10 years, you extend it five more years, in fifteen years you have 30 billion in pledges but inflation now makes the project cost estimate to be 50 billion, so you extend the project another five years, after twenty years you have 40 billion in pledges, but now the estimate is 55 billion and a quarter of the original pledgers are dead and you aren't even sure who they are and how much of the pledged money still is available. . . in short you have a mess, it isn't credible, and it collapses.

The whole question is mooted if we prominently offer the option of tying pledges to inflation, which wouldn't be that big a deal for most people, but even without that it shouldn't be a significant problem. The target figure for the mission would include projected inflation up to or beyond the target date by a certain safety margin, so that means inflation would have to outstrip the growth in pledges consistently over the entire period to build enough of a shortfall to require extending the date. And 70% across-the-board inflation over 15 years is a bit of a stretch.

But as a supplement, even while mainly focusing on pledges, you can still offer to accept cash donations and then put the cash into secure interest-bearing accounts, bills, or bonds of some kind--subject to the limitations of the tax code of course. You could also accept pledges or cash donations in the form of a percentage of yearly income or business profit rather than a dollar figure, which might appeal to some of the more fanatical advocates (like me). The different ways and forms of these pledges, donations, and collections are endless, and I'm confident that any problem could be worked around.

No, you have to have money in hand, you have to do something small and credible, you have to prove you can handle a project of a certain size, then people will give you REAL money and you do something bigger.

RobS, you can spend the next thousand years on Devon and getting to Mars won't be any more likely. Yes, we are learning important things there. Yes, the research stations are a good idea in themselves. But unless they're part of an actual mission plan to go to Mars, they don't actually contribute anything toward making that happen. Nobody who wouldn't joyously pledge for a direct Mars plan is going to change their minds because a handful of people worked some bugs out of spacesuits and hydroponics in the Arctic.

What's the incremental plan? A decade of research stations, then another decade of bigger research stations with more ambitous parameters, then maybe an unmanned satellite in LEO to test Martian gravity on rats? Forty years later, if we're lucky, we're testing Martian gravity on one person in a large spinning Bigelow module in orbit. The fact is there is no incremental plan. Neither MS nor any other organization, including NASA, actually has a plan for tying what they're doing now to a human Mars mission.

It's death by a thousand increments, and it's the exact same timidity that made NASA retreat from the Moon and rationalize Shuttle and ISS. We could have been on Mars by 1985, but NASA itself decided it would be better to incrementalize, and look what it's gotten us. With billions of dollars per year spent on increments, flying around in circles building up "credibility," I frankly think they haven't gained an inch of ground toward Mars since 1972. So the prospects of the private community taking the same route and succeeding are pretty damn slim. The only way to get there is to go there, and the real "increments" are discovered and dealt with as the preparations proceed.

Look, if NASA hasn't been to the chopping block even with its last thirty years of failure of its manned spaceflight outfit then why are they going to be doomed over the next thirty?

It's been to the chopping block countless times, and always with the same kind of "can't-do" attitude. Apollo was cancelled without the slightest incling of a new mission direction; Saturn V was cancelled without any plans to replace it with a comparably capable system; the originally envisaged Shuttle was a lot more radical than what was actually built, because NASA was no longer allowed to innovate, and what resulted was a bloated and crippled platform for maintaining the appearance of a space program.

Then we get ISS because Congress refused to fund Freedom, which meant it had to be in an inclination useless for Mars missions, and therefore abandoned the only credible reason for its existence. The first Bush asked for a study of a manned Mars mission, and NASA obligingly gave him the most expensive, most hideously complex plan they could imagine, and Congress laughed at it. And let's not forget Venture Star--which was supposed to produce totally reusable, simpler, cheaper, more efficient and safer VTHL space access, but actually produced a series of power point presentations and scale model tests leading to cancellation. NASA will never set foot on Mars, that much is a practical certainty. The only question is whether humanity in general will.

Its only 25 years to Mars probably, since by the time we are established on the Moon, we will have half the major components for Mars already (rockets, reactors, etc).

It's been "25 years to Mars probably" for the last 34 years, and it will be "25 years to Mars probably" 25 years from now. We had all the needed core technologies to begin designing the mission architecture in 1972, and a government willing to spend a lot more money on it than today. The clock only starts ticking down when people who want to get there get serious, come together and make it happen.

And you will need this money, in hand and in the bank, before you can collect on pledges.

I already explained why that wouldn't be a problem. By the time you actually got to the point of collecting, the program would be so massively famous and have so much support, obtaining the services would be trivial. Firms may work pro bono just to be associated with it, or would trade their services for prominent advertising, or a few wealthy donors would take care of the overhead. The idea that, after generating that degree of publicity, interest, and support the program would be left hanging because nobody would foot the bill for the relatively minor overhead costs is totally preposterous. That would be like getting a car loan to buy a Lexus and not being able to buy it because you can't afford the $50 registration fee.

Look at the kind of momentum something as relatively insignificant and paltry as the X Prize Foundation built up--they managed to get $10 million from Anousheh Ansari just for a prize for suborbital flights nobody believed were going to happen. That was a pledge too, and all it was about was sending spam cans past the atmosphere. I think everybody is a little tired of the "can't-do" attitude that cancels any project with real potential and laughs at things like the X-Prize. That mentality never accomplishes the really big ambitions, and never contributes anything meaningful to the efforts of others. Boiled down to its essence, your only objection to this idea is that it might not work, but you can't identify a single solid showstopper. It's just that you don't believe people want this bad enough, and frankly that's a self-fulfilling prophecy if you never try.

Foolish unwarrented optimism. Expecting a very large number of people to coordinate with your organization over a long period of time is laughable even with a little real money.

And expecting thirty years of continuous, adequate support and funding of NASA for a Mars mission to occur is rational? I'm talking about a decade, maybe less, and everyone involved would be able to keep close track of its progress. There would be no entrenched bureaucratic tail dragging the whole thing down, no political fiefdoms dictating where or which components are made, no Congressional budget hawks waiting for an excuse to pull the plug or paper-cut the mission to death, and no CYA by the people in charge of the mission. This is not only the most likely way for a Mars mission to happen, I think it's probably the only way.

They simply will not all be feverishly awaiting the magic threshold if you don't keep track of them, at the very least to remind them of their pledge.

Oh, well then, I guess we'll just have to break a $20 and keep a list of email addresses and phone numbers. Come on, you're making up problems where none exist.

Thats only a few millions of dollars over the course of about a year, Mars will probably cost 35,000 million.

Actually, it was over the course of months, and he raised it with a handful of internet volunteers. The point is that you're rejecting this idea out of hand without any frame of reference; no program of this nature, importance, excitement, or scale has ever been tried through a pledge or donation system, and you still haven't come up with a single concrete objection other than that it hasn't been done before. It's all defeatism and can't-do attitude.

Wild dreamers have always ignored little problems with zeros and decimal places

You haven't even been able to explain how this is a "wild dream," let alone rigorously explain why it shouldn't be attempted. All you're doing is a expressing a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that (a)it hasn't been done before, and (b)it's on a larger scale than current efforts. None of those are real objections, and if anything they're another reason to go for it.

Also, it would be nice if you could think up constructive criticisms instead of just saying "it's a stupid idea" in so many words. Somehow you believe people are willing to pay through taxes for incremental steps toward a mission that probably won't ever happen, but that not even a small fraction of them would make a conditional pledge to pay a tax-deductible contribution for an actual mission. I just don't see your logic, other than curmudgeonly naysaying.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-25 14:26:32

Email/smail/phone/fax to request either renewal or formal withdrawal of the pledge

...costs money. Lots of money if you are talking about several million donators. Cash money, not paper pledges, cash. Where will you get this money from?

who will guarantee to cover shortfalls if the level is reached up to a certain percentage of the total

So, you want to take out an insurance policy where the insurer doesn't get paid if people don't fork over tens of billions of dollars to a private entity. Sure... even a few "big time pledgers" can't make up a shortfall of a few billion dollars.

borrow money against the salable assets the program would create... As a last resort, beg

Yes, borrow real cash money against stuff you are going to buy with little/no profitable use besides large scale spaceflight which you will purchase with imaginary money. I'm sure banks will leap at the chance. Do you know what 5-10% of interest is of $40-50,000,000,000.00?

The pledge system wouldn't be vague at all, it would be clearly spelled out and would inspire people to make pledges more confidently...
...obtaining the services would be trivial

No dear, no... by "clearly spelled out" means doing the engineering to really lay out whats needed and how you will actually go about getting to Mars. Not a vauge outline and rough mass or cost estimates like Bob and MSFC have cooked up, but something to show that you are serious and competant. This engineering, which is a step beyond what NASA-DRM or MarsDirect have done, costs money. Lots of money. Real money. And this would have to be done before people would make pledges of billions or donations of millions.

but people could be confident that those in charge knew what they were doing

Why? Since some rocket men said that they could be? And don't you have to have a credible plan before these men would sign on? But you need money to make a credible plan first!

Then we get ISS because Congress refused to fund Freedom, which meant it had to be in an inclination useless for Mars missions, and therefore abandoned the only credible reason for its existence. The first Bush asked for a study of a manned Mars mission, and NASA obligingly gave him the most expensive, most hideously complex plan they could imagine, and Congress laughed at it. And let's not forget Venture Star

Sighs

Apollo was canceld since it was horribly inefficient and far too expensive to accomplish anything except beat the Commies. The dirty secret of the Space Shuttle and its progeny space station then later VentureStar is that they were never intended to be useful, they were just intended to keep NASA engineers employed. There was no objective to be met, no destination, the only requirement was that they be expensive and open-ended. Like everything NASA has honestly tried to do, they have suceeded in this greatly. The Bush-I SEI plan was intentionally unaffordable to prevent any threat to the status quo.

But then Columbia happend and its clear that nobody can keep fooling anybody that Shuttle, and its related project the ISS, can persist for much longer. There is great beauracratic inertia behind NASA, and now NASA does have a destination. The Shuttle, and its era, are over. It might take a while and not be as efficient as it could be, but why won't NASA suceed? "Its been 25 years for the last 25 years" is an argument out of context, then NASA was not serious about exploration, but now it is.

That would be like getting a car loan to buy a Lexus and not being able to buy it because you can't afford the $50 registration fee.

You don't know what you are talking about. To do the preliminary engineering will cost several tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars, and it doesn't matter how big the loan is if you can't come up with real cash to pay this. The money required to do the real engineering studies will wipe you out, but without it you have no credibility to get billion-dollar pledges in the first place.

This "single solid show stopper" you refuse to believe exists is simply a matter of zeros and decimal places, it is a matter of scale. The scale of practical, productive Mars missions is simply a scale beyond which this idea could ever, ever work. It is your frame of reference that is broken. Comparisons with the X-Prize or Howard "Screamin'" Dean's breif campaign prove that your grip on reality concerning the practicality of this funding method is less than tenuous.

Scale is all important in my field of work, where bumping that decimal place one or two places make all the difference if something is practical or it is not. You sound like a turn-of-the-millenium "dotconomist" or something, where the scale of an endeavour is a triviality, just a minor detail. This is obviously not the case... You say that I have given no reason why this could work, but that isn't true, scale is why. Decimal places on the ledger, and that is as valid a reason as any.

To put things into a little prespective concerning scale... the largest American non-government donation, estimates of private donations to the 2004 Christmas Tsunami reliefe amounts to only $500M in cash money. That includes donations from Phizer and other mega-companies. A Mars program with Howard Dean's popularity, bringing in $30M a year, would need 1,300 years to pay for a $40Bn mission. You would need people pledging like they donated to Hurrican Katrina every year for over a decade...

Molehills out of mountains, methinks

And expecting thirty years of continuous, adequate support and funding of NASA for a Mars mission to occur is rational?

Yes. NASA can't do any worse than the last thirty years.

Why must all criticism be positive? There are good ideas for helping further humans to Mars, and there are bad ideas. Showing the general public that we are capable of critique of our own ideas shows that we aren't a groupthink echo chamber at the least, that our goal is more important than protecting egos of our constituents, and perhaps that we are more competant than crazy folk who want to raise tens of billions of dollars with pledges.

rtcoman · 2006-08-26 17:25:27

1. Bankruptcy:
(a)Let them know from the beginning they'll have to renew their pledges every year to keep them "on the board."

What other reason can you give people to do so, other than "to see the mission happen"? Could you at least promise property rights on Mars, or maybe one place on your mission for a tourist astronaut, a la Space Adventures, to be awarded maybe by a lottery to those who gave you money? Great, but most will place more weight on stuff like a house, education for their children, health insurance than a vague promise of a mission to Mars which they'd only get to see on TV.

Experts and professionals in the field around the world would be involved in making and commenting on those plans, and would crawl over each other to be involved in some way once they saw the funding existed.

I say you'd better convince some of those experts and co-opt them in your team from the beginning. They should also become public advocates of your idea, especially if they are known by the public. This should increase your credibility and fund/pledge-raising ability. You need considerable real money before you can actually do anything that can show your competence - projects, designs, concept-prove tests. Consider the fact that they stand to lose reputation, time and money if they stand behind a doomed project. Can you convince them that the risk is worth it?

RobS, you can spend the next thousand years on Devon and getting to Mars won't be any more likely. Yes, we are learning important things there. Yes, the research stations are a good idea in themselves. But unless they're part of an actual mission plan to go to Mars, they don't actually contribute anything toward making that happen. Nobody who wouldn't joyously pledge for a direct Mars plan is going to change their minds because a handful of people worked some bugs out of spacesuits and hydroponics in the Arctic.

On this, we are on accord.

blueyes · 2006-09-14 17:08:15

You guys... STOP! STOP right now.

You can go back and forth on the question of whether it can be done or not, to eternity.

This is the point: If we could go to the Moon with 60's technology, then no one can tell me we can't do it now with the technology we currently have. And if we can do that, then we can go to Mars.

Second, what separates the "can-dos" from the "can'ts" is belief... And if we "can-dos" believe that we are capable of accomplishing what the nay-sayers say can NOT be done, then we have to show them instead of getting into arguments with them.

When JFK decided to go to the Moon NO ONE believed it can be done, because it was never been done before. But, history showed us countless times that those who single-mindedly followed their beliefs many times showed that what seemed impossible is indeed possible, if one puts his/her mind to it. Pioneers are the ones who advanced this world to the next step, not doubting Thomases.

What we need for us to go to Mars is already available, including the knowledge and technology. All that needs to be done is the will to go forward and the decision to do so. Anything else is just good old fashioned planning and managing.

And, finally, just because NASA (or another government agency, or even a corporation) does something a certain way, that DOES NOT mean that that's the only way to do it, or that it has to cost as much as it costs them. Remember, Japanese corporations practicing Kaizen (Continuous Improvement) reduced the time and effort and money it takes to make cars to a level that's unparalleled in the auto industry. In the meantime the Big 3 were doing business as usual, and look where it got them. It IS possible to do something differently, and most of the time it doesn't take high-tech solutions.

Get this through your thick heads, stop arguing and instead let's focus on moving forward with going to Mars Direct, making it a reality.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-14 17:40:14

Ah, another "true believer"

Of course we have the technology, we had that a decade or two ago probably, and we have a sufficently strong economy too, but of course neither of these are the problem: the will to sacrifice that much wealth, the will to see a decade-plus project through, the will to force experts and professionals to work on a common project of this magnetude... Its just too much short of a national government effort.

You say that history is full of examples where a high goal, any goal, can be met simply through determination and ingenuity? But I say to you that history doesn't bother listing the far larger multitude of failures, because nobody cares about them. Or else they never even got off the ground, so to speak, to try. Bob Zubrin will be one of them soon at this rate.

There are different ways to get to Mars, but they all use the same basic technologies (rockets) and a space project of this magnetude, reguardless how clever or determined you are, is going to be by nessesity very complex. Sure there are ways to trim corners, but only by a littl. Given our technology base on this planet at this time, there is a practical minimum of reasources needed, and this amount is out of reach of any reasonable expectation of support from any private entity.

There are lots of things that are possible, and infact if you forget Schrodingers' Cat for a moment almost nothing is impossible, but there comes a point when something is so unlikely, it might as well be. This is one of them.

blueyes · 2006-09-14 18:12:07

If you think like that, it sure IS, and then you are right.

I rather look at the glass half full. Look at it more practically... You need a couple of "tin cans" for HAB and science modules, a return vehicle, maybe a a small six person shuttle to land back on Earth, and some rocket to put everything in orbit.

The "tin cans" can be done by Airbus and ESA using (mostly) standard aerospace manufacturing techniques. (Building a jet is NOT expensive at all, so this should not be either.) The insides also can be done the same way planes are built, and the scientific instruments can be, and should be, standard scientific equipment.

Food, and clothing can be the same ones NASA uses for the shuttle astronauts, and making more of them just makes them cheaper. Launch suits can be the same ones NASA uses, and space suits can be the ones the Russians use, because one can get into them in minutes by themselves, vs. with the NASA space suits that require an hour to get into them, and two people to help. And you don't even have to reduce the air pressure inside the cabin, like you do on the Shuttle.

The jury is still out on whether you would need a pressurized rover, or if an ATV-like vehicle would be better, which could be made very easily by one of the Japanese companies.

The flight system could be the same one Airbus uses in their planes, with a side stick control, and all that would need to be modified is the software.

And as for the ROCKETs... you can take your pick. Depending on how much weight you have to launch, you can either use the Europeans, American launch vehicles or Russian. Even if the Energia booster has to be revived, the company still has the engineering drawings and could be manufactured again, and launched either from Russia, or from Kouru, since the Europeans made a deal with Russia.

Kouru can be the heart of mission control, with tracking and communications provided by the Russians and or NASA as well.

So, tell me... why is it impossible, or what's so expensive?

blueyes

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-14 19:09:52

So, tell me... why is it impossible, or what's so expensive?

No no, you ignore history and it ruins the credibility of your argument, and history has shown that such a project will be extremely difficult to do right, therefore the onus is on you to show why it will not. Just mentioning about fabricating aluminum cylinders, airplane avionics, and short-duration zero-G space suits obviously isn't enough to make up for half a century of experience.

Imparticularly you rattle off things like "just a retun vehicle" and "only a shuttle" as if these things were no big deal. No no, they are very much big deals, and such a massive rocket - which would utterly dwarf Saturn-V or Energia - would be a much bigger task.

Building airplanes might not be that expensive, and I think that private space could get in the ballpark of buying an existing copy of a Mars ship if the reactor(s) and support were donated, but development and testing as well as any non-crew payload would be ruinous.

You also must not be very familiar with scientific instruments, or the challenge of making them for space. Most instruments sit in flimsy casings with flimsy parts on a desk (no massive G-forces or vibration or radiation) with unlimited electrical, cooling, and to large extent mass. There is no such luxury on spacecraft, so off-the-shelf instrumentation will have to be so radically alterd you might as well start over for the most part. So no, they can't be standard.

Russian suits aren't designed for long duration use in rugged Martian terrain either, and you will need a pressurized rover to really accomplish anything, the design and construction of which could cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Aairplane FCS systems don't have star trackers or ring laser gyros, nor as they designed for controlling thruster quads or perhaps even nuclear rocket engines. The power, cooling, and stress limits from scientific instruments apply here as well to large extent.

I grow weary of this... the point being that the hopelessly and irrationally optimistic AltSpace mindset has a worldview about travel to Mars that is so infected with the "if I can't concieve of it being hard, it must not be" thing that they simply are not credible. Challenging "why does it have to be hard?" in the face of history and the sheer magnetude of the task is proof enough. And people won't give billions of dollars to uncredible dreamers.

blueyes · 2006-09-14 19:33:56

I REALLY think that it is YOU who is misguided.

Let me tell you something and please pay close attention: The past does not equal the future.

Let me repeat that: THE PAST DOES NOT EQUAL THE FUTURE! Just because something was a certain way, even up to a minute ago, does not mean that it will be, or will have to be, that way in the future.

When I said "off the shelf" I meant off the shelf, as it applies to space technology. Many contractors, and subcontractors are already manufacturing the necessary devices, or have the engineering drawings and know-how, to revive others IF necessary. And since they already are manufacturing them, making more of them would just make the price cheaper. Granted, not by much, since only a few more would have to be built, but you certainly would not have to re-invent the wheel, so to speak.

The mini shuttle has been worked out both in Europe, and in Russia good enough, that reviving them would be no problem. And don't forget... the basics of a lifting body design have been around for a long time. That's what the shuttle is based on and Russia built the Buran, after all.

And no one said that you would need to build a booster that would dwarf Energia or Saturn. You imply that you know exactly what's needed, in what dimensions, and at what weight, which is crazy. Besides, even when you know what's needed, there are many ways to develope it, even if you have to split the design in two or more blocks.

Scientific instruments... (see above response, regarding "off the shelf").

A suit might have to be MODIFIED, but that's not that much money in the scheme of things. And even a rover, with its hundreds of millions of dollars, can be acceptable.

Bottom line... where there is a will, there is a way. And the way does not have to be just wishfull thinking...

blueyes

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-14 19:57:19

THE PAST DOES NOT EQUAL THE FUTURE

My, that sure cinches the AltSpace appraisel. Okay, why isn't the future based on the past? Particularly with engineering for the same kind of project (space travel), using the same kinds of hardware as you yourself say you want to use?

A few items you could use off the shelf... RL-10 and RS-68 rocket engines, X-37 RCC or Stardust ablative heat shields, parachutes, that sort of thing... but lots of things are not available, and more importantly the engineering of putting it all together does not, and will constitute much of the cost involved. Then you have to think about infrastructure, like the factory, integration facility, launch facilities, mission control, and the work base to operate them. These things are largely "off the shelf," but they cost money. Lots of money.

The blueprints for the wheel might still exist, but setting up the wheel factory, designing the car, and laying the road are other matters entirely.

The mini shuttle has been worked out both in Europe, and in Russia good enough

No, they really haven't. Hermes was abandoned, even abanoned for the "paper-plane" HL-20, and Klipper is little more than an engineering drawing with a hypothetical mold line.

You imply that you know exactly what's needed, in what dimensions, and at what weight, which is crazy. Besides, even when you know what's needed, there are many ways to develope it, even if you have to split the design in two or more blocks.

Yes basically, if you intend to go in one shot direct to Mars, you would need a rocket with about quadruple the payload of Saturn-V/Energia. Splitting the mission into pieces increases the complexity, which increases risk, which increases complexity some more... it helps, but its not easy, and not easy = not cheap. Docking adapters, guidence systems, station-keeping power/thrusters, no-hands power & fuel line connections, etc etc.

Scientific instruments... (see above response, regarding "off the shelf")

I am telling you, if you put.. say.. a standard LV-SEM electron microscope onto a rocket, it would be ruined from the stress, it wouldn't have enough power, and it would turn the inside of the ship into a sauna. You can't use "standard" anything.

The Orlan space suits were never made for Mars, don't have the flexibility, and are still too heavy. They aren't very reliable either, and no way would they survive for two years of heavy use. At what point does the modification become so signifigant that its just as bad as starting from scratch? Here is one of them I say.

Bottom line... where there is a will, there is a way

Doesn't that contradict the statement on your other post about willpower alone not being enough?

blueyes · 2006-09-14 20:11:20

Dude, you're totally missing the point and misrepresent what I'm saying. You jsut don't get it.

Just a quick example. I said: The past does not equal the future. I didn't say it's not based on it. Big difference.

Anyway, you will go on believing what you believe, and I will believe what I believe.

blueyes

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-08-22 06:56:10

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#2 2006-08-22 07:36:03

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#3 2006-08-22 08:00:41

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#4 2006-08-22 15:56:43

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#5 2006-08-22 21:00:08

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#6 2006-08-22 23:19:08

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#7 2006-08-23 00:49:09

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#8 2006-08-23 01:22:28

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#9 2006-08-23 02:43:55

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#10 2006-08-23 20:29:56

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#11 2006-08-23 21:25:28

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#12 2006-08-24 08:03:21

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#13 2006-08-24 12:02:26

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#14 2006-08-24 12:19:05

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#15 2006-08-24 14:05:19

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#16 2006-08-25 03:33:04

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#17 2006-08-25 14:26:32

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#18 2006-08-26 17:25:27

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#19 2006-09-14 17:08:15

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#20 2006-09-14 17:40:14

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#21 2006-09-14 18:12:07

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#22 2006-09-14 19:09:52

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#23 2006-09-14 19:33:56

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#24 2006-09-14 19:57:19

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

#25 2006-09-14 20:11:20

Re: Privately Funded Mission--Get On With It!

Board footer