You are not logged in.
It is a fallacy to extrapolate from historical data--particularly in the birth of new industries and the opening up of frontiers. These are the sorts of things where what is possible today may have been impossible yesterday, and there is a tipping point where proposed ventures have a reasonable expectation making it big and the investment floodgates open. Personally I think we have reached that point with private space enterprise. Historically there are more instances of private industry leading the way than the government, and I can't think of a single example (although I'm sure there are some) where government-organized, science-driven exploration worked as a path towards free-market enterprise.
It is a fallacy to naively extrapolate from history. Mars is not the American west, for example. But it is a far greater fallacy to ignore history and basic economic facts.
Companies will not invest in areas where they do not think there is a good chance of return. This is especially the case in megaprojects.
Many companies have already gone to Mars - because they have been paid to build spacecraft and systems.
There is not the smallest chance they will do so on their own because there is nothing remotely possible for them to make money on at present or in the future.
Hopefully that will change, but only because the pioneering work has already been done.
You can't think of a single case where "government-organized, science-driven exploration worked as a path towards free-market enterprise"? Let me help you.
Precompetitive geological surveys on almost every continent and continental margin.
Ocean exploration.
Nuclear power.
Aviation.
Communications, remote sensing, and navigation satellites.
Electronic computers and the internet.
Antibiotics.
Radar.
Ultimately the proof is in the doing, and I can't offer you any more than "see you on Mars." Elon has his plan for bootstrapping--expedited by COTS and CCDev dollars, but viable even without. I have my own plan for bootstrapping that I am currently working on and can’t talk about. There are private, free-market solutions to the bootstrapping problem, just as there was for consumer internet, electricity, the railroad, and great maritime voyages.
Musk would not be anywhere without millions of dollars from the US Military and NASA. He has launched very few commerical payloads and has very few waiting.
"consumer internet, electricity, the railroad, and great maritime voyages"? All built on foundations government funded research, or underwritten with government money, or both.
There’s a lot more for private space at this stage than mere government contracts. There’s the potential to be the first in line in the creation of a new frontier—one with hitherto unimaginable wealth-creating opportunities.
.
In the long term, yes. Some of these we can already guess at, at least for Earth orbit. Others, especially for Mars, will be things we haven't even dreamt of yet.
Offline
All of those are examples of the success of commercial or military exploration, not basic science. But it's a moot point because:
There is not the smallest chance they will do so on their own because there is nothing remotely possible for them to make money on at present or in the future.
this is where we fundamentally disagree. There are fully viable business plans today that will open the space frontier, and many of them are getting funded. There has been a critical change in the last 2-3 years, due IMO primarily to SpaceX and the X-Prize foundation that has cleared away the last obstacles to private enterprise in space. Since the 70's there have been viable business plans for opening up the space frontier. Since the 90's we have had the technology and experience to actually do so. Only recently has the perception, funding climate, and base costs also changed enough that all the stars are now in alignment. The time for space enterprise is now.
Offline
this is where we fundamentally disagree. There are fully viable business plans today that will open the space frontier, and many of them are getting funded. There has been a critical change in the last 2-3 years, due IMO primarily to SpaceX and the X-Prize foundation that has cleared away the last obstacles to private enterprise in space. Since the 70's there have been viable business plans for opening up the space frontier. Since the 90's we have had the technology and experience to actually do so. Only recently has the perception, funding climate, and base costs also changed enough that all the stars are now in alignment. The time for space enterprise is now.
All being well we will indeed see in the next few years increased commerical activity with respect to crewed missions to Earth orbit and suborbitally. This is an indeed opening of a commerical frontier. But only because the hard technical work has been done by government agencies, generating technolgies they can use and develop, because the agencies have facilities in orbit they want cargo and personenel shipped to and are prepared for the service. There is also the continued development of space tourism. None of which inevitable of course. Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, Orbital are all years behinf schedule. Bigelow has laid off most of its staff. Kistler went belly up.
Even if all goes well, none of which will lead to commerical operations pioneering the way to the Moon or Mars. The commerical operations will of course generate a greater pool of expertise and technology and even hardware which can be applied to getting to Mars.
But they will not go themselves unless they can make money out of it, nor should they. Since there is nothing on Mars or even the Moon to immediately make money from, the only way commerical entities will go to Mars is if someone pays them. As they have done. EADS-Astrium have gone to Mars - they built Mars Express. So have Lockheed-Martin - they built Phoenix. So are Honeybee Robotics (built tools for the MERs), and a dozen other companies.
Offline
All of those are examples of the success of commercial or military exploration, not basic science. But it's a moot point because:
JonClarke wrote:There is not the smallest chance they will do so on their own because there is nothing remotely possible for them to make money on at present or in the future.
this is where we fundamentally disagree. There are fully viable business plans today that will open the space frontier, and many of them are getting funded. There has been a critical change in the last 2-3 years, due IMO primarily to SpaceX and the X-Prize foundation that has cleared away the last obstacles to private enterprise in space. Since the 70's there have been viable business plans for opening up the space frontier. Since the 90's we have had the technology and experience to actually do so. Only recently has the perception, funding climate, and base costs also changed enough that all the stars are now in alignment. The time for space enterprise is now.
Virgin Galactic is certainly poised to make sub-orbital space profitable. I don't think we are far off orbital space tourism becoming profitable and then lunar tourism follows naturally. Tourism on Mars is more problematic but there are lots of ways to make money on Mars e.g. from sale of highly valuable meteorites, sale of TV and film rights, sponsorship, manufacture of light goods - all the sorts of things that were given away free on the Apollo missions.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
In regards to the costs of Mars missions see the thread "Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars".
Bob Clark
Old Space rule of acquisition (with a nod to Star Trek - the Next Generation):
“Anything worth doing is worth doing for a billion dollars.”
Offline
Since there is nothing on Mars or even the Moon to immediately make money from...
There are ways you can immediately make money; you just have to be creative about it. Virgin Galactic is oversold on seats. I've sat in on some Space Angels network pitch sessions, and seen quite a few entrepreneurs raising money for pretty unique ideas. MoonEx has been semi-public about their intention to strip-mine polar craters--I'm not privy to their economic and geologic modeling, but it has apparently been good enough to convince some high-caliber investors. I'm working on my own varient of that space that solves the chicken-egg problem and eliminates the need to bring refined material back to earth.
There are no shortage of workable ideas. The problem is when you assume that things must be done as they've always been done, with incremental improvements and the same funding sources. That is how big business and industry work, but industries can and often are transformed overnight by disruptive entrepreneurs.
Maybe my viewpoint is a litte different having grown up in Silicon Valley during the start, boom, crash, and rebirth of the internet business. But I've also worked at NASA and seen the other side. Human exploration was driven by military and geopolitical needs until the rundown of Apollo. Government spending was needed to keep research alive and knowledge intact until such time as private industry could set its own course. That time is now. There is still a hugely important role for NASA in funding the development of new technologies and acting as an investor of last resort in worthwhile ventures. If you haven't seen it already, I recommend watching Hoyt Davidson's talk at Newspace 2011, which is a summary of his company's report to NASA to the same effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yScSEV-Mqh8
PS I pushing this point a little hard because there are some smart, young kids here with promising careers that with some ingenuity could be co-founders of the companies that take us there for good. Entrepreneurship isn't for everyone, but I want you to know that it is an option. For far too long the Mars Society stance has been too focused on the government option. We lobby every new president and candidate that comes in, then when either he or the congress doesn't deliver we wait until the next cycle begins. Well, that hasn't been working, and there is another way out.
Last edited by Mark Friedenbach (2012-01-02 13:39:52)
Offline
There are ways you can immediately make money; you just have to be creative about it. Virgin Galactic is oversold on seats. I've sat in on some Space Angels network pitch sessions, and seen quite a few entrepreneurs raising money for pretty unique ideas. MoonEx has been semi-public about their intention to strip-mine polar craters--I'm not privy to their economic and geologic modeling, but it has apparently been good enough to convince some high-caliber investors. I'm working on my own varient of that space that solves the chicken-egg problem and eliminates the need to bring refined material back to earth.
Ballistic flights and even LEO are not the same as the Moon and Mars.
Mining the Moon? Possible, but a long way off. First we need to determine whether the resources are there. Remote sensing and one analysis is not enough. You will need ground geophysics, hundreds of drill holes, thousands of analyses. You need to develop the processing system, from bench top to pilot plant to full scale production. You then have to develop the transport infrastructure. All this on the Moon, in a part of the Moon quite different from the places we have worked in. both with astronauts and robots, in the past. All this assumes that there is a market for the commodity you produce and you can sell it competitively.
In the exploration terminology, a huge amount of precompetive surveying needs to be done, and a lot of R&D. Not to mention development of technology, infrastructure and experience in living and working in the environment.
Is this worth investigating? Sure. But don't expect it to happen in the next few decades. If there is any lunar mining it will almost certainly grow out of and be upscaled from base support ISRU.
The difference between entrepreneurialism and fraud is sometimes very subtle.
There are no shortage of workable ideas. The problem is when you assume that things must be done as they've always been done, with incremental improvements and the same funding sources. That is how big business and industry work, but industries can and often are transformed overnight by disruptive entrepreneurs.
And 9 out 10 startups fail. Lunar mining isn't a geek in closet developing few software, or a country girl and her boyfriend and his cousin mining a gold find in the backblocks. It isn't like some 50s SF novel, with a bunch of ex-scouts and the neighbourhood tinkerer coming up with a backyard spaceship that takes them to the Moon. It is hard and difficult. Not because the government makes it hard, but because basic physics and chemistry and geology do.
Maybe my viewpoint is a litte different having grown up in Silicon Valley during the start, boom, crash, and rebirth of the internet business. But I've also worked at NASA and seen the other side. Human exploration was driven by military and geopolitical needs until the rundown of Apollo. Government spending was needed to keep research alive and knowledge intact until such time as private industry could set its own course. That time is now. There is still a hugely important role for NASA in funding the development of new technologies and acting as an investor of last resort in worthwhile ventures.
That explains a lot. But Silicon Valley is only a very small sector of the business world. I spent more that a decade in mineral exploration. I have looked for half a dozen commodities on three continents and in the coean as well. I know how tough it is to bring deposits on stram on Earth, let alone on the Moon. And I also know how much easier and cheaper it is to do here. Pus I have also worked for the government, taught at university, and done time as NASA contactor. So I have an some understanding of the symbiotic role of government and industry, between academia and the commerical world.
If you haven't seen it already, I recommend watching Hoyt Davidson's talk at Newspace 2011, which is a summary of his company's report to NASA to the same effect.
Yawn. Preaching to the choir. Sorry.
PS I pushing this point a little hard because there are some smart, young kids here with promising careers that with some ingenuity could be co-founders of the companies that take us there for good. Entrepreneurship isn't for everyone, but I want you to know that it is an option. For far too long the Mars Society stance has been too focused on the government option. We lobby every new president and candidate that comes in, then when either he or the congress doesn't deliver we wait until the next cycle begins. Well, that hasn't been working, and there is another way out.
Perceptions differ. The US society was started by people with strong "Newspace" connections. Most people in the society I know still seem to think that going to Mars is easy, it is only the evil goverment that stops us, if only the pure genius of the corporate sector, untrammeled by supposed waste and inefficiency and corruption of government, were allowed to flourish, we could be on Mars by the end of the decade. The US society has been looking for "another way out" as you put it, for more than a decade. Number of purely private probes launched beyond Earth orbit in that time? Zero. Number of space agency probes that have left Earth orbit? Close to forty.
Why? Because the private sector is rightly focussing on Earth orbit, where the money is. Eventually, when we know enough about the Moon and Mars, there will be money to be made there. But the private sector isn't even interested in collecting the data to make that possible. They payoff is too far down the track. When Rio Tinto or BHP, Xtrata or Anglo-American, Exon, Shell or BP start start funding lunar volatile exploration, then we will be on the verge of commerical space exploration
Offline
Jon - Which of the following do you claim will NOT make money from Mars on the first mission? -
1. Sale of regolith and meteorites returned to Earth.
2. Commercial sponsorship of the Mission and various elements within the mission.
3. Sale of artefacts used by first humans on Mars on return to Earth.
4. Sale of TV and film rights.
5. Sale of science data and specialist film etc to Universities and other space agencies on return to Earth.
I'd put the total at well over 1 billion dollars for the first mission. There is no reason to put off the start of making money from Mars.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Jon - Which of the following do you claim will NOT make money from Mars on the first mission? -
1. Sale of regolith and meteorites returned to Earth.
2. Commercial sponsorship of the Mission and various elements within the mission.
3. Sale of artefacts used by first humans on Mars on return to Earth.
4. Sale of TV and film rights.
5. Sale of science data and specialist film etc to Universities and other space agencies on return to Earth.
I'd put the total at well over 1 billion dollars for the first mission. There is no reason to put off the start of making money from Mars.
Unless the mission costs less than a billion these won't make money.
Offline
louis wrote:Jon - Which of the following do you claim will NOT make money from Mars on the first mission? -
1. Sale of regolith and meteorites returned to Earth.
2. Commercial sponsorship of the Mission and various elements within the mission.
3. Sale of artefacts used by first humans on Mars on return to Earth.
4. Sale of TV and film rights.
5. Sale of science data and specialist film etc to Universities and other space agencies on return to Earth.
I'd put the total at well over 1 billion dollars for the first mission. There is no reason to put off the start of making money from Mars.
Unless the mission costs less than a billion these won't make money.
Well you didn't answer the question, but I'll take that as a "none" i.e. they will all make money.
In terms of economics, it quite often happens that governments fund major capital projects e.g. building a bridge or tunnel without expecting any immediate return. Sometimes the cost is repaid through tolls. In the case of travel to Mars, once the major capital outlay has been made (i.e. we have developed MTVs, EDL, ISRU technologies etc) future missions may not be so expensive. If the cost of launch is $5000 per kg, I think the cost for three people could be as low as $200million. If the cost goes down to $200 per kg as predicted by Musk, then the cost of transit could be as low as
$8 million.
Let's say the cost is something like $100million, then I think we can cover the costs of transit through surplus revenue.
One idea I am particularly interested is that of producing a Mars Rolex watch. Some Rolexes are v. light but of v. high value. I think the idea of a Mars Rolex produced on Mars (maybe with imported watch parts,but nonetheless with Mars materials otherwise) would be highly attractive to rich men. The idea that they could have around their wrist this symbol of all that is intrepid and daring, would be a winner I think. They could easily sell for $100,000 per watch. Give them index numbers, starting with 1, and think how you could add to the value...
If through a combination of sale of luxury goods, meteorites, regolith, scientific data, exploration sponsorship, facilities for scientific experiments etc etc these transits could pay for themselves, then I think we could think in terms of the initial investment actually being paid off gradually through a transit toll of say 3% - it might take a 100 years, but you would get there eventually.
But, really,this is such an important project for humanity I think the cost of the initial capital outlay just has to be written off.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Jon, tremendously difficult is an infinity away from impossible. Even the largest project can come into being if either a) we attack it piecemeal with liquidity steps along the way, or b) risk is sufficiently reduced so as to make enough funding available.
Elon's grand vision is not to make inexpensive, reliable rockets for the commercial satellite, civil space, and military industries--It's to put homesteads on Mars. But if it's 2004 and your goal is to put homesteads on Mars, cheap, reliable access to space is both on the critical path and a profitable business to be in. Now it's 2011 and we can (almost) put a check mark next to cheap access to space. So what's next on the critical path?
Jon, if you would like to debate this further, I'd like to have your opinion on what the necessary steps to building a free-market interplanetary economy including self-sufficient (or at least trade-positive) human habitation on the Moon and Mars. If we then look at those steps which are doable in 4-5 years with an eye towards the critical path, I'm certain we'll find a dozen or so profitable businesses.
@louis, those revenue ideas can and will work, but most decline in value over time as the novelty wears off, and some carry the risk of losing all value if the competition gets there first. I would see those as added bonuses (like prize money) on top of an already sustainable business plan.
Offline
Jon, tremendously difficult is an infinity away from impossible. Even the largest project can come into being if either a) we attack it piecemeal with liquidity steps along the way, or b) risk is sufficiently reduced so as to make enough funding available..
Agreed.
Elon's grand vision is not to make inexpensive, reliable rockets for the commercial satellite, civil space, and military industries--It's to put homesteads on Mars. But if it's 2004 and your goal is to put homesteads on Mars, cheap, reliable access to space is both on the critical path and a profitable business to be in. Now it's 2011 and we can (almost) put a check mark next to cheap access to space. So what's next on the critical path?
That is the vision of most people interested in space. But SpaceX has to make money. It isn't going to do so with that vision.
As for cheap access to space, I don't think Musk has achieved that. He certainly hasn't demonstrated much reliability. At launch costs are a red herring. The real cost of spaceflight is the hardware. Unless spacecraft become cheaper launch costs are a ery minor part of the equation.
Good on him for what he has done, but I don't think he walks on water like so many people seem to think.
Jon, if you would like to debate this further, I'd like to have your opinion on what the necessary steps to building a free-market interplanetary economy including self-sufficient (or at least trade-positive) human habitation on the Moon and Mars. If we then look at those steps which are doable in 4-5 years with an eye towards the critical path, I'm certain we'll find a dozen or so profitable businesses.
I don't know, and neither does anybody else. Trying to imagine the interplanetary economy that would allow economically viable settlement is like Janszoon trying to work out how Australia could be ecoomically viable in 1606. He had not the slightest idea. It's baby steps.
The next step is to clearly build commerical human-related space flight in Earth orbit. Energia and Space Adventures are already doing it, Virgin, Orbital, and Space X are within a year or to of doing it (hopefully). While that is happening, for government research to map continue to map the Moon, especially with respect to volatiles. ISRU is going to be important for any lunar stations, and we can conceive of future markets, even if neither they nor the infrastructure exist. All those wizzkids of newspace can also try to bring down the cost and complexity of space hardware.
Beyond that its armwaving!
Offline
@louis, those revenue ideas can and will work, but most decline in value over time as the novelty wears off, and some carry the risk of losing all value if the competition gets there first. I would see those as added bonuses (like prize money) on top of an already sustainable business plan.
I agree that there will be declining revenues with some of these (but there will also potentially be increasing revenues if,for instance, we found fossils on the planet). However, if you look at the total market in meteorites on Earth, you would have to go quite a way to put a dent in the value I think.
We need to think in terms of phases. Here is a rough sketch -
Phase 1 - will include a number of "pioneer" products - the first "this and that" returned... First TV and film rights etc.
Phase 2 - I think some of the major revenue will come from universities and other space agencies, wishing to become part of the overall Mars venture. Exploration missions to places like Olympic Mons will attract sponsorship.
Phase 3 - there is scope to establish a number of indigenous trading industries e.g. Mars Rolex manufacture, manufacture of a range of luxury goods (e.g. silk scarves), precious metal and mineral mining...
Phase 4 - Self sufficiency phase. This where the colony is able to begin manufacturing its own rockets to get into Mars orbit and its own rocket fuel. This will allow the colony to subsidise the Mars transit. The colony will now be developing its own interpendent economy, with lots of jobs in services to other Mars residents.
Phase 5 - Mars will be integrated into the Earth economy e.g. design companies, and data centres may relocate there for low tax and prestige reasons.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Don't get me wrong, I think it will work. I just a) don't think it's enough, and b) know that convincing investors will be a tough sell. They won't like the added risk that ABC or some other third party can pull out, or public interest is diverted at the last minute leaving them to foot the bill. To convince an investor you'll need something beyond (in addition to) the pioneer products in your phase 1.
Last edited by Mark Friedenbach (2012-01-03 12:57:19)
Offline
Don't get me wrong, I think it will work. I just a) don't think it's enough, and b) know that convincing investors will be a tough sell. They won't like the added risk that ABC or some other third party can pull out, or public interest is diverted at the last minute leaving them to foot the bill. To convince an investor you'll need something beyond (in addition to) the pioneer products in your phase 1.
I don't really see this so much as a matter of attracting investors, more a quesiton of the consortium covering its costs, much in the same way that railway companies in the UK got involved in housing development in order to create a market for their services.
I think investors such as say Rolex and other luxury goods manufacturers will follow later.
The costs of getting to Mars - building the initial infrastructure - can be covered by Space X profits, space agency contributions and philanthropic donations, together with sponsorship, sale of TV and film rights etc. My analysis suggests that over a ten year period the cost would be around $3 billion per annum over ten years. Let's take a look at a theoretical budget:
NASA $1.2 billion per annum
ESA $0.7 billion per annum
Jaxa $200 million pa
ISA $200 million pa
Space X $300 million pa
Philanthropic donations $ 200 million pa
Sponsorship (averaged over 10 years) $50 million pa
TV/film rights** (averaged over 10 years) $50 million pa
[University* data consortium $100 million pa.
(averaged over 10 years)
** Shared across several networks. ]
*Universities agreeing to purchase Mars scientific data - maybe 100 universities across the globe paying each an average of $10million pa.
I should add that a lot of the expenditure is not really new. NASA and ESA are already investing a lot in Mars research - that will just be adapted to a human mission.
Last edited by louis (2012-01-03 13:35:18)
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Investors, universities, consortium, whatever. Someone's going to foot the bill, and if it is from private sources it will have to turn a profit. The way this system works is that you identify risk, use small seed-stage money to credibly eliminate that risk, then the big dollars follow and you are go. The problem with "pioneer products" is that you can't eliminate that risk. That's why you need something else that will at the very minimum break even to recoup your costs, and for which you can have some assurance of success irregardless of future conditions outside your control (after a few years of seed-stage planning/R&D).
This is good; you're halfway there. But don't neglect the other half.
Last edited by Mark Friedenbach (2012-01-03 14:32:06)
Offline
Investors, universities, consortium, whatever. Someone's going to foot the bill, and if it is from private sources it will have to turn a profit. The way this system works is that you identify risk, use small seed-stage money to credibly eliminate that risk, then the big dollars follow and you are go. The problem with "pioneer products" is that you can't eliminate that risk. That's why you need something else that will at the very minimum break even to recoup your costs, and for which you can have some assurance of success irregardless of future conditions outside your control (after a few years of seed-stage planning/R&D).
This is good; you're halfway there. But don't neglect the other half.
Last time I looked NASA's budget was something like $27billion per annum. There's no need for anyone to "turn a profit". I very much doubt that conventional investors will finance the Mars project. The lead will come from space agencies and a few interested companies like Space X.
If you don't accept the idea of phased development I don't think you're taking a realistic view. Not everything can be done at once. There will be economic activity appropriate to each phase.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
$17 billion, but that's a pie split many, many ways.
I think you're misunderstanding me. What I'm advocating is a phased approach, I just don't think your Phase 1 is enough.
Offline
$17 billion, but that's a pie split many, many ways.
I think you're misunderstanding me. What I'm advocating is a phased approach, I just don't think your Phase 1 is enough.
Whoops - what's $10billion among friends...actually $19 billion now I see.
Well I don't think you are being altogether clear about your phased approach.
Are you saying you want investors to cover say the full $30billion cost of a Mars mission? That would been they would be looking for $1.5billion profit per annum minimum. It's not entirely out of the question, as I price my own proposals as generating over $1billion on mission one. However, I think it v. unlikely that normal investors on Earth would be prepared to stump up, given the risk profile.
However, later on I see potential for selling Mars bonds to raise capital.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Mark Friedenbach wrote:$17 billion, but that's a pie split many, many ways.
I think you're misunderstanding me. What I'm advocating is a phased approach, I just don't think your Phase 1 is enough.
Whoops - what's $10billion among friends...actually $19 billion now I see.
Mark is correct. It's about 17.8 billion split many ways. See the page labeled 252 of of the Conference Report accompanying House Resolution 2112
"Exploration" includes Orion, SLS, Commercial crew and exploration R&D. This is about $3.8 billion. $1.8 for SLS, $1.2 billion for Orion. $.4 billion for Commercial Crew.
"Space Operations" includes Space Shuttle, I.S.S., and Space and Launch Support. this is about $4.2 billion.
The manned space station, as well as well as developing transportation for humans is being given about 8 billion.
Hop's [url=http://www.amazon.com/Conic-Sections-Celestial-Mechanics-Coloring/dp/1936037106]Orbital Mechanics Coloring Book[/url] - For kids from kindergarten to college.
Offline
You know what they say in the government: a few billion here, a few billion there... sooner or later it adds up to real money.
Well, I have yet to find a “Phase 1” which includes humans-to-Mars. But I have my own ideas for a path to Mars which includes side ventures along the way. Steps 1,2,3-ish are things I'm actively working on. But we can imagine steps 4,5,6 include orbital tourism throughout cislunar space, surface mining operations and ISRU on the lunar poles, as well as exploratory missions to the moon, a near earth object, or flyby's of the Venus & Mars (NASA's flexible path). Once there is a growing cislunar industry, there will be a need for Mars--for the reasons you are all familiar with, as well as to provide fertilizer and other organic products for a burgeoning cislunar industry. That would make step 7-ish human-to-Mars, which would be done either at the government option if we have competitent national agencies and politicians at that time, or through a private consortium now that there is a demonstrable market for Martian goods.
It's a longer-term roadmap (say 20+ years for humans-to-Mars), but one which isn't left up to the winds of politics and national agenda.
Offline
You know what they say in the government: a few billion here, a few billion there... sooner or later it adds up to real money.
Well, I have yet to find a “Phase 1” which includes humans-to-Mars. But I have my own ideas for a path to Mars which includes side ventures along the way. Steps 1,2,3-ish are things I'm actively working on. But we can imagine steps 4,5,6 include orbital tourism throughout cislunar space, surface mining operations and ISRU on the lunar poles, as well as exploratory missions to the moon, a near earth object, or flyby's of the Venus & Mars (NASA's flexible path). Once there is a growing cislunar industry, there will be a need for Mars--for the reasons you are all familiar with, as well as to provide fertilizer and other organic products for a burgeoning cislunar industry. That would make step 7-ish human-to-Mars, which would be done either at the government option if we have competitent national agencies and politicians at that time, or through a private consortium now that there is a demonstrable market for Martian goods.
It's a longer-term roadmap (say 20+ years for humans-to-Mars), but one which isn't left up to the winds of politics and national agenda.
Well I have always been a dualist - thinking we can (and should) do both Moon and Mars at the same time. Musk is determined to get to Mars, so if NASA doesn't deliver on his vision, I think he will try it by some other means. I'm with Musk in believing that we can do it in 10-20 years with a proper can-do attitude.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
louis wrote:Mark Friedenbach wrote:$17 billion, but that's a pie split many, many ways.
I think you're misunderstanding me. What I'm advocating is a phased approach, I just don't think your Phase 1 is enough.
Whoops - what's $10billion among friends...actually $19 billion now I see.
Mark is correct. It's about 17.8 billion split many ways. See the page labeled 252 of of the Conference Report accompanying House Resolution 2112
"Exploration" includes Orion, SLS, Commercial crew and exploration R&D. This is about $3.8 billion. $1.8 for SLS, $1.2 billion for Orion. $.4 billion for Commercial Crew.
"Space Operations" includes Space Shuttle, I.S.S., and Space and Launch Support. this is about $4.2 billion.
The manned space station, as well as well as developing transportation for humans is being given about 8 billion.
It's difficult to identify Mars-related expenditure within the budget,but clearly SLS, Orion, launch support , ISS expenditure and human transportation could all contribute to a Mars specific budget of $1.2 billion - I doubt much "new money" would be required, but it could be trimmed off other budgets over a ten year period if necessary. My feeling for a long time has been that NASA doesn't lack money, it lacks focus.
I think if NASA stopped trying to replicate what Space X is doing v. cheaply and more quickly you could probably cut its budget and still get to Mars!
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
I am not sure which thread to post this in, as elements of it are being discussed in several of these conversations. But, the screen names are the same in all those threads, so I guess it doesn’t really matter.
Most of what I have to say is more strategic thinking than tactical. Bear with me. The questions being debated in these threads bear more on what to do on Mars than on how to get there, and on what order we try to do these things on Mars. But some of the necessary strategy is being left out.
ISRU is one of those things. Knowing what is there to use for ISRU is another. Life support, etc, gets into this, too.
Betting the farm on remote sensing results:
There always has been, and still is, a difference between remote sensing and ground truth. We’re better at it than we used to be, but still often wrong, at one level or another.
For one thing, the level of resolution is still generally pretty coarse, usually closer to km than m. For another, there is still great uncertainty exactly what hydrogen compound you are detecting, water or something else. I’m sure that’s still true for some of the other species, too. But I’m no expert in it.
So, you may land on a site with your equipment to convert ice and CO2 to methane and O2, and find out the real ice vein is 3 km away, after you set up your camp, which is outside the logistical capability you brought with you. And, it’s more icy dirt than dirty ice, unlike what the sensing from orbit said. This puts your fuel-making schedule out of reach of the launch window home, and you have already bet your life on making fuel for the return trip, equipped the way you are. So, you die there.
That is one possible example of why I say betting your life on doing effective ISRU on the first trip is a stupid thing to do. Try some ISRU, yes, on the first trip! But, don’t bet on it really working until you’ve done some ground truth exploration. And that means digging and drilling, deep. Maybe a km or two.
That brings up what the point of “exploration” really is:
Politically, and to the general public, which includes space travel opponents, you cannot sell colonies up front. That comes later: you sneak it by them with explorations and experimental bases, gradually.
But, we all know the only point of going there is ultimately colonies that become self-supporting independent nations, that become future trading partners. So, how do they support themselves? What might they have to offer in trade? You cannot answer questions like that until you know what is there, and I do mean really what is there, and where it is. Actual ground truth.
“Exploration” is not flag-and-footprints, it is not sightseeing for photos, it’s not samples within 10 cm of the surface. “Exploration” is really obtaining the answer to the two very deceptively-simple questions:
(1) What all is there?
(2) Where exactly is it?
Those wordings I mean exactly as written, word for word. They are not just Texas slang. Think about it a bit, and see the power of writing it exactly that way.
You cannot do that kind of exploration from orbit with remote sensing because of resolution and ground truth troubles, although that’s a good start. You certainly cannot do it with the one launch-one landing, or one trip-one landing approach, precisely because no two sites are alike. Not here. Not there. Not anywhere.
And you cannot do it with surface probes that just barely scratch that surface. We now know that 5-10 cm soil cover is enough to stabilize ice against sublimation on Mars. There could be ice everywhere. But is there? Where there really is ice, how much? How pure? How deep does it go?
I submit to you that, under this definition, we did not explore the moon during Apollo. (Although, politically, lunar exploration is now an impossibility to sell as a reason for going back to the moon, because “we’ve already been there”.) What we did with Apollo was magnificent, but it wasn’t exploration. Half the landings were 99+% engineering flight tests (no rover car). Only the last one brought a real geologist along.
President Nixon killed Apollo after Apollo 17, when we had built all the hardware to fly through Apollo 22. Exploration wasn’t on his mind. Only “flag-and-footprints” was, and we’d already done that. Essentially, we built a transportation system that could take men to the moon, and then abandoned it, before actually exploring on the moon. (More about governmental stupidity below.)
Another point: the men vs robots argument is a false zero-sum game for accountants to mis-use.
It takes both. At this time in history, robots only see what they are programmed to see. Men can see what is actually there, if it hasn’t been over-trained out of them. The men complement and complete the work of the robots, toward answering those two questions that are the essence of exploration. Apparently, few people actually see that relationship. Lack of strategic thinking, I suppose.
We’ve been sending robots to Mars since 1965. It’s time to finish the job and send the men, for that oh-so-essential ground truth. We already have the tinkertoys to do this. We could have done this at any time since the old Mir space station gave us the answer to zero-gee exposure: roughly 1 year max. So spin the crewed vehicle for artificial gravity. Why is this still an issue?
I suggest that the first trip make 1 to 3 dozen landings, scattered all over the planet, at the most interesting places the robots have found. If you resurrect NERVA for reusable single-stage “landing boats”, you can really reduce the LEO assembly job required to mount that kind of a mission. They can even push all the landing propellant to Mars unmanned for you.
You’d better plan on spinning the manned vehicle portion of what flies to Mars, for artificial gravity, at pretty close to the only thing we know for sure works for a 2 year mission: 1 gee. That solves an enormous list of life support issues, if there is artificial gravity. Including cooking, eating, bathroom plumbing, etc; a whole host of difficult design problems radically simplifies. Just spin the damned ship. End over end. Build it long, not wide or complicated. Easy.
As for radiation, around 2 years is likely OK unshielded for cosmic rays. But, you’d better provide a shelter for solar flare events, and if you’re smart, you design it to be the flight deck, too. That way you can conduct critical flight maneuvers, no matter the solar “weather”. On the surface, your exposure to cosmic rays is halved, because the planet beneath your feet is a half-sky shield. But on Mars, you still have to worry about sheltering from solar flare events. A meter of water or dirt is more than enough.
Given an operating Falcon-Heavy at 50+ metric tons per launch (supposed to fly the first time this year from Vandenburg), we really could build that trip’s assets in orbit almost right now, twice as cheaply as with Atlas-5 at 25 tons per launch. Actually, the lander is the pacing item. It does take a bit a time and effort to salvage the art of NERVA rocketry. There’s only a tiny handful left of the men who actually did it. They’re 80+ age now.
Remember, “rocket science” ain’t just science. It was (and still is) about 40% science (written down for all to read), 50% art (residing only in the minds of those who did it), and 10% blind dumb luck (subject to Murphy’s Law in the extreme). Company CEO’s and government lab heads really hate it when you tell them that little inconvenient truth. But they need to be often reminded of it.
You could even use NERVA as the crewed vehicle propulsion to further reduce the sizes of the vehicles sent to Mars. Makes LEO assembly even easier and cheaper yet. Think: 5 years, $30 B. But only if done by the right folks.
That brings up the proper roles of government vs industry (and the stupidity problem):
To see through to my point here, one has to ditch the political ideologies and belief systems of both the “right” and the “left”. Both are false. History teaches a different lesson.
History teaches that most businesses simply do not willingly invest in new technologies. Instead they apply something already known to work, for their new products. That way is cheaper, pure and simple. Sorry, but that’s been true for millennia. Even the modern “market” in the aggregate works this way, being nothing more than the sum of all the businesses.
Governments, on the other hand, are notorious wasters of resources, being more consumed by internal politics than outside threats or opportunities. But, they are historically the ones who worked the technology and exploration problems. Longer-range armed ships were developed for government navies, built by businesses, but paid for by government. It was Queen Isabella who financed Columbus’s voyages, all four of them.
That same model worked pretty well for the Dutch and English East India Companies. The political objective was a revenue-producing colony. Business got to make near-monopoly profits from it. To carry it out required government funded technology (better ships) and government-funded exploration (where to put the colonies). This has worked well in one form or another for centuries now.
In the second half of the 20th century this model got developed into the independent research and development (or IR&D) process, here in the US and in Europe, mostly for military work. The divisions between government and industry are a bit blurrier in Europe, but it’s still the same basic process. Government decides technology and exploration objectives, and then funds businesses to develop and build the stuff. The real “smarts” is in the contracting-business staffs, not in the government labs. (Not many folks see it that way, though. I suppose, mostly, because few really looked closely.)
That model took us from propeller aircraft in 1939 to landings on the moon and probes to a few of the planets by 1969. Pretty effective way of doing this job, with one vulnerability. If government gets too eaten up in its own politics, then it does a bad job setting objectives, and a bad job funding the ones it does set. That is fundamentally why the US space program went nowhere but LEO the last 4 decades, and why our airliners are but incremental improvements on what we had flying by about 1970.
Remedy that vulnerability (fundamentally a political effort curing massive governmental stupidity), and the IR&D model gets revitalized. In its heyday (1939-1969) there was the fastest, most intense period of technology development and exploration humanity has ever seen. There was nothing like it before, or since.
Otherwise, it will take those very rare visionaries in business, like Musk and Branson and a small handful of others, to do anything at all worthwhile, and the pace will be very much slower. They, not government-as-it-is-all-balled-up currently, have done things toward a space tourist industry, and toward successfully reducing launch costs to LEO.
Imagine what we could do with a revitalized IR&D model, and folks like Musk and the rest to carry it out! Santa, here’s my list ……….
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Preaching to the choir, GW. (And amen to all that!)
On ISRU, there is still some that can be done early on. For Mars, anything using the atmosphere can be trusted as we have ground truth for that, and especially if it can be done in advance before humans put their lives on the line, such as with Mars Direct's approach. As for the Moon, we definitely need ground truth, but the first-generation surface mining of cold traps will probably not require boots on the ground.
Business absolutely does innovate, but market pressures demand only incremental improvements. Government and university research are required for revolutionary improvements. But most of the revolution has already happened. What we need now is lots, lots of incremental improvements. It's interesting that you bring up Columbus and the East India Companies. These were government-financed, but not in the modern sense of those words. Today we would call them private businesses with sovereign investors, and large energy companies are probably a better modern analogue than government R&D programs.
For government space agencies to be effective today we need to reform the way in which it interacts with business. Use the Space Act agreements over FAR; support technology development up through all nine readiness levels, not just TRL-1 and TRL-2; standardize missions (robotic and human) on a regular, fixed cadence--a new mission launches every X months; compete all missions (including flagship and human missions), like is currently being done with Discovery and New Frontiers; and finally, we need a sovereign capital fund as an investor of last resort in worthwhile ventures that advance the state of the art, like the In-Q-Tel portfolio run by the CIA.
Then we'd have a space program to be proud of.
Last edited by Mark Friedenbach (2012-01-04 11:50:06)
Offline