Control cost or go home

RobertDyck · 2012-03-31 18:41:49

We have an individual on the Facebook page who is arguing for the full 90 Day Report. He claims we have to build a permanent Moon base before we can go to Mars. He want everything. For those who are new to the Mars Society, let me give a little history of where we came from...

Back in 1989, then president George Bush Sr. stood on the steps of the Air and Space Museum and proclaimed "We will go to Mars!" NASA trundled off and 90 days later came back with a report called the "90 Day Report". It called for a space station, Moon base, fuel depot in Earth orbit, a second space station to check out the Mars spacecraft, and a giant space craft for Mars with onboard greenhouse and nuclear engines. Well, I like nuclear engines, but this craft was WAY too big, it looked like something from Hollywood. It would take 26 months round trip (dictated by planetary orbits) but they would only land half the crew on Mars, and they would only spend 2 weeks on Mars before heading home. The price for all this was $450 Billion! Congress took one look at the price tag and immediately killed it.

At that time Dr. Robert Zubrin worked for Martin Marietta, that was before they merged with Lockheed to form Lockheed-Martin. Dr. Zubrin and another engineer designed Mars Direct. The premise was to do it like Apollo: go to Mars, go directly to Mars, do not collect $200. The reference to the board game "Monopoly" is on purpose. Military contractors have been gouging NASA every since the Space Shuttle.

After years of lobbying, Dr. Zubrin convinced NASA that the plan by himself and his partner was a good one. NASA accepted it, but changed it. They expanded the crew from 4 to 6, and insisted on bring fuel for the return to Earth all the way from Earth. One of the key features of Mars Direct was In-Situ Propellant Production (ISPP). That means making fuel from stuff you find on Mars. That wasn't a new concept, NASA had looked at converting CO2 from Mars atmosphere into CO and oxygen. The problem was carbon monoxide is a REALLY bad fuel. Dr. Zubrin came up with the idea of bringing a little hydrogen from Earth, and using technology from the 1800s to produce methane and water. Run water through electrolysis, recycle the hydrogen and store the oxygen. Methane/oxygen is a really good fuel. But NASA's modified plan, which Dr. Zubrin called Mars Semi-Direct, was more than twice as expensive. NASA budget guys came up with a cost estimate for Dr. Zubrin's Mars Direct: $20 billion for the first mission, plus $2 billion for each mission there after. Or $30 billion for 7 missions if NASA commits up-front to that many. (Buy 6 missions, get one free!) Since planetary orbits dictate each mission can only happen every 26 months, that means once start-up costs are paid, a Mars program would cost about $1 billion per year. But NASA's Semi-Direct would cost $55 billion for the same number of missions. Congress looked at this and said "You haven't even built anything and the cost has already more than doubled! I know you guys, if we approve anything you will insist on everything in the 90 Day Report, with its price tag of $450 billion." So they refused to approve anything for Mars.

Now we have someone on Facebook saying we need everything from the 90 Day Report. This is exactly what congress has been afraid of these last two decades. With the Shuttle now cancelled, NASA has enough money for ISS operations, unmanned space exploration, and a human mission to Mars. They don't need anything more. Specifically, if they cancel the Liberty Rocket (formerly known as Ares 1) and the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV, formerly known as Orion) they will have enough money for Mars. America will still have the Dragon spacecraft by SpaceX, and DreamChaser by Sierra Nevada Corporation, so 2 vehicles to carry astronauts to ISS. They don't need MPCV as well. What we do need is a dedicated Mars spacecraft, and MPCV doesn't cut it. And the Space Launch System (SLS, the original design for Ares V) is currently funded; we need that big rocket to go to Mars.

Congress has already said the reason they won't approve any funding for a human mission to Mars is because they won't fund what's in the 90 Day Report. Continuing to demand everything in that report will only ensure Congress never approves human spaceflight beyond ISS. So this guy on Facebook gets me angry. He claims to be pro-space, but what he's doing will ensure Congress will never approve anything.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2012-03-31 20:43:38)

louis · 2012-03-31 19:25:15

RobertDyck wrote:

We have an individual on the Facebook page who is arguing for the full 90 Day Report. He claims we have to build a permanent Moon base before we can go to Mars. He want everything. For those who are new to the Mars Society, let me give a little history of where we came from...
Back in 1989, then president George Bush Sr. stood on the steps of the Air and Space Museum and proclaimed "We will go to Mars!" NASA trundled off and 90 days later came back with a report called the "90 Day Report". It called for a space station, Moon base, fuel depot in Earth orbit, a second space station to check out the Mars spacecraft, and a giant space craft for Mars with onboard greenhouse and nuclear engines. Well, I like nuclear engines, but this craft was WAY too big, it looked like something from Hollywood. It would take 26 months round trip (dictated by planetary orbits) but they would only land half the crew on Mars, and they would only spend 2 weeks on Mars before heading home. The price for all this was $450 Billion! Congress took one look at the price tag and immediately killed it.
At that time Dr. Robert Zubrin worked for Martin Marietta, that was before they merged with Lockheed to form Lockheed-Martin. Dr. Zubrin and another engineer designed Mars Direct. The premise was to do it like Apollo: go to Mars, go directly to Mars, do not collect $200. The reference to the board game "Monopoly" is on purpose. Military contractors have been gouging NASA every since the Space Shuttle.
After years of lobbying, Dr. Zubrin convinced NASA that the plan by himself and his partner was a good one. NASA accepted it, but changed it. They expanded the crew from 4 to 6, and insisted on bring fuel for the return to Earth all the way from Earth. One of the key features of Mars Direct was In-Situ Propellant Production (ISPP). That means making fuel from stuff you find on Mars. That wasn't a new concept, NASA had looked at converting CO2 from Mars atmosphere into CO and oxygen. The problem was carbon monoxide is a REALLY bad fuel. Dr. Zubrin came up with the idea of bringing a little hydrogen from Earth, and using technology from the 1800s to produce methane and water. Run water through electrolysis, recycle the hydrogen and store the oxygen. Methane/oxygen is a really good fuel. But NASA's modified plan, which Dr. Zubrin called Mars Semi-Direct, was more than twice as expensive. NASA budget guys came up with a cost estimate for Dr. Zubrin's Mars Direct: $20 billion for the first mission, plus $2 billion for each mission there after. Or $30 billion for 7 missions if NASA commits up-front to that many. (Buy 6 missions, get one free!) Since planetary orbits dictate each mission can only happen every 26 months, that means once start-up costs are paid, a Mars program would cost about $1 billion per year. But NASA's Semi-Direct would cost $55 billion for the same number of missions. NASA looked at this and said "You haven't even built anything and the cost has already more than doubled! I know you guys, if we approve anything you will insist on everything in he 90 Day Report, with its price tag of $450 billion." So they refused to approve anything for Mars.
Now we have someone on Facebook saying we need everything from the 90 Day Report. This is exactly what congress has been afraid of these last two decades. With the Shuttle now cancelled, NASA has enough money for ISS operations, unmanned space exploration, and a human mission to Mars. They don't need anything more. Specifically, if they cancel the Liberty Rocket (formerly known as Ares 1) and the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV, formerly known as Orion) they will have enough money for Mars. American will still have the Dragon spacecraft by SpaceX, and DreamChaser by Sierra Nevada Corporation, so 2 vehicles to carry astronauts to ISS. They don't need MPCV as well. What we do need is a dedicated Mars spacecraft, and MPCV doesn't cut it. And the Space Launch System (SLS, the original design for Ares V) is currently funded; we need that big rocket to go to Mars.
Congress has already said the reason they won't approve any funding for a human mission to Mars is because they won't fund what's in the 90 Day Report. Continuing to demand everything in that report will only ensure Congress never approves human spaceflight beyond ISS. So this guy on Facebook gets me angry. He claims to be pro-space, but what he's doing will ensure Congress will never approve anything.

Yesterday's battle I think. I don't know of anyone who thinks we need all that encumbrance to get to Mars and the $450billion price tag was long ago laughed off stage.

If NASA gave Musk and Space X $20billion he would definitely get us there and back and begin a permanent settlement, no doubt in my view.

It's really not worth arguing with an individual so rooted in the past, Robert. I wouldn't even bother with him/her.

RobertDyck · 2012-03-31 20:35:14

There has been inflation during the 22 years since that price estimate, but the $20 billion included the cost of developing a big rocket. SLS is already funded, once you deduct that the cost of a human mission to Mars would be less than $20 billion. The budget for MPCV is $1 billion per year, so I still come to the same conclusion: cancel both the Liberty rocket an MPCV, direct those funds to humans to Mars. That's all it would take.

If you ask Elon Musk (SpaceX) to build a Mars Direct size habitat and Earth return vehicle, instead of Red Dragon, I'm sure he could do it. Do you think $1 billion per year for 8 years would be enough? That's 2 presidential terms.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2012-03-31 20:37:51)

louis · 2012-04-01 07:05:38

RobertDyck wrote:

There has been inflation during the 22 years since that price estimate, but the $20 billion included the cost of developing a big rocket. SLS is already funded, once you deduct that the cost of a human mission to Mars would be less than $20 billion. The budget for MPCV is $1 billion per year, so I still come to the same conclusion: cancel both the Liberty rocket an MPCV, direct those funds to humans to Mars. That's all it would take.
If you ask Elon Musk (SpaceX) to build a Mars Direct size habitat and Earth return vehicle, instead of Red Dragon, I'm sure he could do it. Do you think $1 billion per year for 8 years would be enough? That's 2 presidential terms.

I agree that $20 billion is probably an upper end estimate. The quick way to calculate I think is to take the cost of LEO multiply by 4 (to give a nice wide margin on all the additional costs of comms and so on invovled in getting to Mars) and then add on the development costs. BUt as you say, a lot of the development costs, on big rockets, Bigelow habs and man rated craft are already being
covered.

Maybe you need 200-300 tonnes to LEO to get to to Mars. But let's say 400 to be on the safe side. Let's suppose Musk can get the cost to LEO down further to say $2500 per kg. That gives you 400 x 2500 x 1000 x 4 = $4 billion. Add to that development costs: Mars rover say $1.5b, habs $500 m, orbital assembly $1 b. EDL $1b, life support, ISRU and other $3b. That's $7b. Add on 25% for contingenies - gives you $11 billion, or $13.75 billion with contingencies.

It's difficult to envisage needing to spend more than that. But I am happy to think in terms of somewhere around $20 billion - as you say spread out over a number of years...maybe more like ten than 8.

The total cost of the Mars Science Lab mission is reported as $2.5 billion. Bear in mind the MSL is a very complex piece of equipment that has required huge numbers of people to be involved in development. A human-driven Mars Rover can be a lot less complex: basically a pressurised vessel on wheels with on board life support. And bear in mind that it's been in the hands of NASA that also gave us the super-expensive Space Shuttle system.

Last edited by louis (2012-04-01 07:06:57)

RobertDyck · 2012-04-03 03:00:02

Presidential term limit ensures no president can remain in office more than 8 years. If you want NASA to do it, and you want a president to authorize it, then you need to keep it within 8 years. Just a political practical necessity.

RobS · 2012-04-07 20:51:05

I don't know how to calculate costs, but I understand that Musk developed Falcon 9 and Dragon for about a billion dollars. The Dragon apparently costs less than NASA spent on the launch escape system of Orion!

Musk seems to have several things going for him: (1) a team of dedicated young engineers who want to succeed; (2) the luxury of looking at the big picture and figuring out the cheapest, easiest way to do it, without lobbyists asking to fund their special big rocket or Congressmen insisting on expenditures in their district. Musk also seems to have good instincts about what near-term technological innovations to pursue and which need to wait.

Apparently he plans to announce a Mars plan in the next year. The hint I have seen from a reference to a BBC interview is that it has to make fuel at both ends. Maybe Red Dragon is the logical first step: land something in a place almost guaranteed to have water ice and drill to make sure the ice is there. The next step is send a return craft WITHOUT hydrogen feedstock because you don't need it if you are sure you have water available. A few surface robotic rovers collecting high quality subsurface data via radar and seismology and a drill to confirm will do that. If you then sent a human crew and lots of solar panels and enough consumables for two oppositions (45 months on the surface) you could be pretty sure they'd be able to leave when the time came. Once a real outpost is set up with plenty of solar power (100 + kilowatts; perhaps 20 tonnes of thin film solar arrays, to be on the safe side) then you can be sure of refueling on the Martian surface. At that point you have a reusable, refuelable system. You need about 100 tonnes of methane and oxygen (mostly oxygen) to send a crew from the Martian surface back to Earth. A lot of the oxygen can be recovered from the regolith, too; wet regolith full of peroxides and perchlorates and oxygen is released. If there's lots of ground ice, you can use it to wet regolith and extract oxygen.

GW Johnson · 2012-04-08 15:22:53

quote:

"Musk seems to have several things going for him: (1) a team of dedicated young engineers who want to succeed; (2) the luxury of looking at the big picture and figuring out the cheapest, easiest way to do it, without lobbyists asking to fund their special big rocket or Congressmen insisting on expenditures in their district. Musk also seems to have good instincts about what near-term technological innovations to pursue and which need to wait."

There you went and put your finger squarely on what is wrong with NASA, and what will eventually afflict ESA, JAXA, and all the rest: a government program in which tactical details (not just overall strategy) are political footballs. This went wrong for NASA in the 1970's, and they have accomplished no significant large exploration objectives since. The ones they have accomplished have all been robotic, and all have been the subject of drastic political fighting in Congress.

Let that be a lesson to all my non-US correspondent friends.

If anyone can break this deadlock, it will be Musk. But I have my doubts he can single-handedly pull off a manned Mars mission that really leads anywhere. That's because he only has the resources to fly there maybe once or twice. And, (here's the real problem) the "exploration" isn't yet done. There is a capstone exploration mission with men that you simply cannot do with minimalist mission designs. You do not need "Battlestar Galactica", but you cannot do it with one Dragon full of 1-6 men, either.

The key is limiting your government legislatures to ONLY strategic objectives. Forbid them EXPLICITLY from dictating tactical details. It is likely way too late for the US & NASA, but ESA and JAXA might still stand some chance if this is done.

This is important because most corporations DO NOT function like Musk's Spacex: they will not invest in anything unless there is demonstrable short-term profit. Mars will not show profit for a long time yet. (Sorry, but it it just won't. To expect otherwise is simply not realistic.) Neither did the Roanoke colony. Even Jamestown was a financial loss for a long time.

You have to focus on what government can do best and on what corporations can do do best. There's less overlap than most folks believe. The "smarts" lie within the corporations, not the government labs. But corporations only do speculative things if a government will pay them to do it. Chicken-and-egg......

Once you get by that conceptual hurdle, you can design practical missions to the moon, Mars, NEO's, even to the stars.

But NOT until you take that hurdle into account. Sorry.

That's about 500 years of our history talking, not me.

GW

RobS · 2012-04-08 23:31:12

I agree, GW Johnson. I'm not even sure it helps that Musk embarrasses NASA by doing the same job for one tenth the resources. That might just make enemies. Bigelow has said the same thing; that he can accomplish with one tenth the resources what NASA had to spend billions on. It's rather sad.

louis · 2012-04-09 06:43:48

GW Johnson wrote:

quote:
"Musk seems to have several things going for him: (1) a team of dedicated young engineers who want to succeed; (2) the luxury of looking at the big picture and figuring out the cheapest, easiest way to do it, without lobbyists asking to fund their special big rocket or Congressmen insisting on expenditures in their district. Musk also seems to have good instincts about what near-term technological innovations to pursue and which need to wait."
There you went and put your finger squarely on what is wrong with NASA, and what will eventually afflict ESA, JAXA, and all the rest: a government program in which tactical details (not just overall strategy) are political footballs. This went wrong for NASA in the 1970's, and they have accomplished no significant large exploration objectives since. The ones they have accomplished have all been robotic, and all have been the subject of drastic political fighting in Congress.
Let that be a lesson to all my non-US correspondent friends.
If anyone can break this deadlock, it will be Musk. But I have my doubts he can single-handedly pull off a manned Mars mission that really leads anywhere. That's because he only has the resources to fly there maybe once or twice. And, (here's the real problem) the "exploration" isn't yet done. There is a capstone exploration mission with men that you simply cannot do with minimalist mission designs. You do not need "Battlestar Galactica", but you cannot do it with one Dragon full of 1-6 men, either.
The key is limiting your government legislatures to ONLY strategic objectives. Forbid them EXPLICITLY from dictating tactical details. It is likely way too late for the US & NASA, but ESA and JAXA might still stand some chance if this is done.
This is important because most corporations DO NOT function like Musk's Spacex: they will not invest in anything unless there is demonstrable short-term profit. Mars will not show profit for a long time yet. (Sorry, but it it just won't. To expect otherwise is simply not realistic.) Neither did the Roanoke colony. Even Jamestown was a financial loss for a long time.
You have to focus on what government can do best and on what corporations can do do best. There's less overlap than most folks believe. The "smarts" lie within the corporations, not the government labs. But corporations only do speculative things if a government will pay them to do it. Chicken-and-egg......
Once you get by that conceptual hurdle, you can design practical missions to the moon, Mars, NEO's, even to the stars.
But NOT until you take that hurdle into account. Sorry.
That's about 500 years of our history talking, not me.
GW

GW, I think you are being unduly pessimistic on the following grounds:

1. He is driving down the cost of launches all the time. So that is contributing to a virtuous circle.

2. Space X is already well lined up to be making hundreds of millions of dollars profit each year from NASA work and satellite launches. Beyond a certain point, Musk is able to fund Mars development himself, or rather his company is.

3. We are on the brink of a new era of space tourism. Space X may well link up with a company like Virgin Galactic and, again, earnings could be in the region of hundreds of million of dollars per annum.

4. The scope of generating revenue from Mars has been much underplayed. THat is another weakness of NASA. For reasons of state policy, the NASA missions were used as a kind of diplomatic tool, so that lunar regolith and places on the space station were given away for free. Furthermore, the dignity of the state required that NASA did not seek out commercial sponsors. Space X will have no such restrictions. They can have sponsorship for a Mars mission from Coca Cola, Ford and Apple if they wish. Again, we are probably talking about Olympics style sponsorship levels running into hundreds of millions and possibly billions of dollars. Add to that the sale of regolith, on board space for science experiments, ferrying astronauts from other space agencies etc etc and I think you are talking about billions of dollars of revenue over a decade.

5. At quite an early date the Mars colony can become effectively self-sustaining if it can produce its own rocket fuel (yes) and build a basic surface to LMO rocket (like the Armadillo).

Thinking about 5, I consider it should be a priority to build a rocket plant on Mars. Not a huge plant, of course, but one capable of building the basic rocket, with a few additions imported from Earth.
Maybe with a hundred people working at the plant you could produce say a few rockets a year. It could produce a rocket-lander, that could also bring people to the surface from LMO.

The task would then be to support all those 100 people to live well - feeding them, supply all their basic needs.

Last edited by louis (2012-04-09 06:44:46)

RobS · 2012-04-09 13:44:52

Louis, why are you talking about building rockets on Mars? I could see it several decades after human arrival, but sooner? The Falcon system is designed to be reusable. The Falcon second stage masses about 53 tonnes, fueled, and is being designed to return to the Earth's surface from low Earth orbit. A Falcon Heavy could put an entire second stage into Earth orbit and after it burns its fuel to send cargo on its way to Mars, the second stage could actually land itself on Mars, where it could be refueled and used as a rocket. It looks to me that Musk has the problem of supplying Mars with rockets solved already.

Besides, 100 people would build a pretty primitive rocket; the Falcon system requires a thousand or two. Why should 100 people build a primitive rocket when they can get a sophisticated one that has been tested many times?

louis · 2012-04-09 19:59:18

RobS wrote:

Louis, why are you talking about building rockets on Mars? I could see it several decades after human arrival, but sooner? The Falcon system is designed to be reusable. The Falcon second stage masses about 53 tonnes, fueled, and is being designed to return to the Earth's surface from low Earth orbit. A Falcon Heavy could put an entire second stage into Earth orbit and after it burns its fuel to send cargo on its way to Mars, the second stage could actually land itself on Mars, where it could be refueled and used as a rocket. It looks to me that Musk has the problem of supplying Mars with rockets solved already.
Besides, 100 people would build a pretty primitive rocket; the Falcon system requires a thousand or two. Why should 100 people build a primitive rocket when they can get a sophisticated one that has been tested many times?

You may be right. It's difficult to keep up with Musk. He is a game changer and one day he will be recognised as such.

It could be that he makes transit costs so low that my concerns our now irrelevant.

My concern is with the economics more than anything else. Far flung colonies often effectively subsidise imports. I was thinking this is a good way for the Mars colony to subsidise imports which will help it grow and prosper. If the Mars colony doesn't make Mars-Earth transit cheap then it will be obliged to pay hugely inflated prices for imports.

I think this approach may still be relevant. A Mars colony can set the transit costs at $0 if it wishes i.e. it can supply all the rockets and fuel for nothing. That will make communication between Earth and Mars cheaper than between the USA and China. Obviously it cannot do that in an unlimited sense, but by doing that it creates all sorts of economic opportunities that will generate revenue and expand the colony. Space X, even with all its resources, might find it difficult to offer such huge subsidies.

However, I am certainly not dogmatic on this point. If Musk and Space X can offer cheap reusable rockets then I am more than happy with that. I don't think the Mars colony should build rockets unless it is important to do so. There are other high priorities e.g. energy generation and agriculture.

RobS · 2012-04-09 20:57:15

A "Mars colony" can set the transportation costs at $0 if it is BIG. But you can't build rockets and subsidize their use with 100 people or even with 1,000 people on Mars. Maybe by 2100 you could with 100 people and 10,000 robots; but then you'll have to import the robots (unless they can self replicate by then). I'm not sure it does us any good discussing Mars in 2100 anyway; it'd be like someone in 1912 discussing the American economy in 2012.

MatthewRRobinson · 2012-04-15 19:20:25

RobS wrote:

Louis, why are you talking about building rockets on Mars? I could see it several decades after human arrival, but sooner? The Falcon system is designed to be reusable. The Falcon second stage masses about 53 tonnes, fueled, and is being designed to return to the Earth's surface from low Earth orbit. A Falcon Heavy could put an entire second stage into Earth orbit and after it burns its fuel to send cargo on its way to Mars, the second stage could actually land itself on Mars, where it could be refueled and used as a rocket. It looks to me that Musk has the problem of supplying Mars with rockets solved already.
Besides, 100 people would build a pretty primitive rocket; the Falcon system requires a thousand or two. Why should 100 people build a primitive rocket when they can get a sophisticated one that has been tested many times?

Only issue is, you'd want to use a reusable Falcon Heavy. The Falcon 9 RLV would reduce launch payload by 40%. Apply the same to the Falcon Heavy, and that's 31.8 tons into LEO, not 53.

So you'd need a new vehicle, but the technologies of the F9 RLV upper stage will both produce and prove those needed technologies. Essentially you could launch a smaller F9 RLV upper stage, that weighs 31.8 tons instead of 53.

Amazing subtlety, though. 53 ton payload, 53 ton upper stage! So maybe they'll launch a "booster" (RLV upper stage) with a non-reusable heavy, but a payload with a reusable one? Anyone know the mass ratio of a F9 second stage?

louis wrote:

RobS wrote:
Louis, why are you talking about building rockets on Mars? I could see it several decades after human arrival, but sooner? The Falcon system is designed to be reusable. The Falcon second stage masses about 53 tonnes, fueled, and is being designed to return to the Earth's surface from low Earth orbit. A Falcon Heavy could put an entire second stage into Earth orbit and after it burns its fuel to send cargo on its way to Mars, the second stage could actually land itself on Mars, where it could be refueled and used as a rocket. It looks to me that Musk has the problem of supplying Mars with rockets solved already.
Besides, 100 people would build a pretty primitive rocket; the Falcon system requires a thousand or two. Why should 100 people build a primitive rocket when they can get a sophisticated one that has been tested many times?
You may be right. It's difficult to keep up with Musk. He is a game changer and one day he will be recognised as such.
It could be that he makes transit costs so low that my concerns our now irrelevant.
My concern is with the economics more than anything else. Far flung colonies often effectively subsidise imports. I was thinking this is a good way for the Mars colony to subsidise imports which will help it grow and prosper. If the Mars colony doesn't make Mars-Earth transit cheap then it will be obliged to pay hugely inflated prices for imports.
I think this approach may still be relevant. A Mars colony can set the transit costs at $0 if it wishes i.e. it can supply all the rockets and fuel for nothing. That will make communication between Earth and Mars cheaper than between the USA and China. Obviously it cannot do that in an unlimited sense, but by doing that it creates all sorts of economic opportunities that will generate revenue and expand the colony. Space X, even with all its resources, might find it difficult to offer such huge subsidies.
However, I am certainly not dogmatic on this point. If Musk and Space X can offer cheap reusable rockets then I am more than happy with that. I don't think the Mars colony should build rockets unless it is important to do so. There are other high priorities e.g. energy generation and agriculture.

Really quiet amazing, if you consider this;
The reason you could make it on Mars for $0, is that Mars would operate under a "command" economy, there would be no such thing as money, so long as it's a mission and not a state or colony. In other words, you're just assuming you can plop down the systems to build a rocket, and demand people build it for no pay. Of course, if these are people who have a strong work ethic, love their work, or share Musk and Zubrin's vision, then they would. But you can't gaurantee that once the population becomes a real population, rather than astronauts in a station.

The astronauts in the ISS do what ground control says, because that's kind of their job. They're being paid for it back on Earth, and they love it.

But it's different when they're actually permanently, living there. Paying them in Earth money, to spend on goods on Earth, won't work.

Of course, saying "do it or you won't get vital shipments" might work, but that's outright hostility.

Personally, to keep this issue from coming up, I'd keep it to the basics. Everyone there, or at least 99% of them, will agree that the colony needs to be self-sufficient. Once it becomes self-sufficient, they will be true Martians, independent of Earth. What they do from there will be their own choice.

As you said, however, it would be in their best interest to attract more Martians, to expand their economy, add redundancy, etc. But how do you incite people to work? In the Soviet Union, "people will starve if you don't farm harder" simply didn't work. Enforcing work by law would be a tyranny. You have to pay them. But what good is money when there's nothing to spend it on? You'd need a Martian market so money has value (Selling/buying food, parts to keep systems running, machine shop and 3d printer services, etc.).

A business might also offer tickets to Mars for free, if they enter a service for a few years. Their service for a few years, and a small salary to keep them going, pays for their ticket to Mars.
(You have to remember money is nothing more than a measure of "Work * Time", the work that they put into making rockets would need to be greater than the work it takes for the rockets to fly back and forth, thus earning the business profit.)

More interesting than any the issues addressed, though, is that we're having to address issues of this kind at all. You have to remember, once you get to colony, you're dealing with establishing a new World, quiet literally, not just a mission to the moon where they're professional astronauts that stick to a plan, a colony is making a society.

RobS · 2012-04-15 22:25:39

Mars will transition from outpost to village to nation or nations, presumably, so as it grows there will be more and more diversity and more and more things to spend money on.

As soon as the crew reaches 50 or 100, there will be things to spend money on. Some people will want nice haircuts or a candy bar every week. Once an aesthetician is imported, women will have pedicures and manicures. Presumably booze will be available on Saturday nights (if people aren't working Sundays). People will want to buy birthday presents and wedding rings. Once there are kids, how will you not import Barbie dolls? Of course you will! There will be a vacation dacha 10 kilometers from the outpost in a pretty spot for honeymooners and people who want to get away. And once people start families, they will probably want to buy a house. Mortgage payments would help cover the cost of providing the housing and will give people pride in their property. People will want pet fish, potted plants, and other things like that. What about the equivalent of ipads and designer pressure suits?

SpaceNut · 2012-04-16 17:11:25

RobS wrote:

Mars will transition from outpost to village to nation or nations, presumably, so as it grows there will be more and more diversity and more and more things to spend money on.

This is what would be expected of free willed people that have paid there own way but will that be the case if we only can send scientist?

Then there is the delay caused by distance unless there is a structured plan to go from one step to the next along this path....

RobS · 2012-04-16 19:20:39

Spacenut, I don't know what distinction you are making. Everyone going to Mars will be going there because they want to. Most will be going because they feel a certain utopian excitement about the place. And once people marry and have children there, it won't matter whether they are a brain surgeon, a geophysicist, or an electrician; they will be concerned about developing the place for the sake of their kids.

As for a structured plan, no matter what plan is drawn up, it always has to change because of new discoveries and circumstances. The US went from colony to nation without a plan. A plan is a better way of doing things, but they never happen as you intend.

SpaceNut · 2012-05-14 20:34:29

scientist are not paying customers that want a fresh start....

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle block buy approach.

Industry, Space Agencies Seek Ways To Lower Launch Costs

In an age of austere federal budgets, the Air Force and National Reconnaissance Office are looking to reduce the spiraling cost of placing their heaviest satellites into space. And rocket manufacturers — faced by overcapacity — are making adjustments to the way they do business.
While the approximately $140 million to $180 million per launch the two national security space agencies pay to loft spacecraft is costly, the price of losing a $500 million to $1 billion satellite can add up to more than the money spent.

We are talking about the Atlas 5 and the Delta 4 rockets an the joint veture the United Launch Alliance, a Boeing-Lockheed Martin consortium formed in 2005 was supposed to do just that in lowering the cost without down selection to just one maker....

There are currently two companies developing rockets that could someday rival ULA.

GW Johnson · 2012-05-15 15:49:05

I see Spacex with Falcon-1, Falcon-9/Dragon, and very soon Falcon-Heavy/Dragon, with Dragon able to fly manned not long after -Heavy flies. Their prices look great. -9 is about $2500/lb payload to LEO at 10.1 metric tons. -Heavy is projected around $800-1000/lb payload to LEO at 53 metric tons. They have no 25-ton vehicle, but a good guess suggests it would price out around maybe $1600/lb at 25 tons.

ULA Atlas-5 -551/552 configurations price out pretty close to $2400/lb to LEO at the max 25 ton size. They appear to be a bit higher than Spacex, but not all that much. I don't have the data for Delta-4, but it's comparable to Atlas-5 in size, and was around twice as much per lb.

I rather suspect that if ATK/EADS gets the Liberty flying, it will be comparable to the Atlas-5 and Delta-4 in payload size and cost. Similar types of companies. They'll be competitive at the 25 ton size. Spacex will have it hands-down in the 10 and 53 ton classes. The others will have to learn how to launch with a smaller support team to compete. That's Spacex's real secret.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2012-05-15 15:50:19)

Impaler · 2012-05-16 08:29:49

Yes we DO need to develop our capabilities is cis-lunar space for sever more decades and most likely do one or both of a NEO visit or a Moon base first. It's just the incremental engineering and safety validation that's necessary even if we weren't putting in place any infrastructure like Lagrange point bases/depots. Insisting that we go from ware we are now with LEO stations and brief moon landings to a Mars landing is like saying that the follow up to Alan Shepard's sub-orbital flight should have been to land John Glenn on the Moon!

Just look at the DeltaV totals, Moon and back is a raw (ignoring atmosphere) ~16 kms and Mars and back is ~30 kms for just the slow trajectory, a factor of 2. Likewise the Duration of a Moon and back trip ~9 days compared to a Mars trip of ~800 days, a factor of 100. Back calculate the same factor of 2 and 100 on Apollo and you get a sub orbital 8 kms and a duration of 2 hours, basically Alan Shepard's MERCURY flight. You need to do at least some kind of Gemini equivalent mission/s in between and that's still being being very aggressive.

Zubrin's Mars Direct proposals particularly with regard to ISRU may ultimately be for Mars what Lunar orbital Rendezvous was for Apollo, a great mission architecture that makes the goal achievable under a reasonable budget and within launch vehicle constraints but it won't let us skip the necessary intermediate steps and technology validations. Orbital docking technology was validated under Gemini, without that you could never have relied on it for Apollo.

NASA's commitment to gradualism should be seen as a return to the strategy that actually worked in the Moon race, if you don't like the slow pace that the current funding provides that's fine but thinking we can just jump directly to the final Mars vehicle/s is in violation of every sound Engineering principle and is of course politically naive as well.

GW Johnson · 2012-05-16 13:32:10

What Impaler said in the prior post is very true. Although, if one has a smart strategy, the "slow steady pace" that ensures success doesn't have to be so very slow. I'm not so sure that most of the current government proposals so far are really that smart of a strategy. We had the same problem before the Apollo design "gelled". The key then was lunar orbit rendezvous (using a lander), which let us do one launch/one mission, without having to prove orbital assembly in LEO. That outcome was an artifact of the easier numbers to reach the moon, relative to the technology of that time.

Since then, we have proven orbital assembly in LEO by docking: it's called the ISS, and we have proven we can build things like that out of 25 ton payloads (what the shuttle could carry). Can we still do that? Sure. We have Atlas-5 -551/552 at 25 tons, we have Delta -4 in the same class, and very soon now we will have Spacex Falcon-Heavy at 53 tons. We're already close with Falcon-9 at 10 tons. All those are factor 10+/- cheaper than shuttle was.

The numbers for Mars preclude one-launch/one mission. No one can build a rocket a mile or more high. That's ridiculous. The way around that is simple: orbital assembly in LEO by docking, as big as you want, from already-practical payloads in the 20+ ton range. It's just docked modules plus plumbing and wiring. How big do you need to build? We can now build it, if we choose to, in any size we want (something not possible in the 1960’s).

The difference between a max 2-week moon mission and a 2+ year Mars mission with men is life support. That topic divides into consumables and protection from lethal hazards. We knew very little about any of that in 1959.

Consumables: either you build a closed-cycle recycling ecology (which we cannot yet do), or you provide enough packed supplies to support a botched-up, stretched-out mission, oh, say, 50-100% longer than intended. The current freeze-dried and/or wrapped-sterilized foods, that we have been using on Apollo and shuttle and ISS, only last a year, maybe 15 months. That's not long enough. But, there's a proven way out: frozen foods. They last for decades. It's just bigger and heavier. So, we build a bigger ship in orbit. No way around that.

Hazards: zero-gee. Microgravity illness sets in a bit beyond a year's exposure in forms that are not fully reversible, and we don't even know the full extent of the scope of these illnesses yet. The mission is 2+ years. So, we must provide artificial gravity, no way around that. That has spawned some ridiculously large, complicated, and expensive ideas. We don't need all that. We've already seen a glimpse of the real answer in the centrifuges we train in. Just build the assembly in orbit as a long stack with the habitat at one end. Spin it end-over-end in coast. Humans can take up to roughly 4 rpm, and that spin rate only needs a measly 56 m "radius" to provide 1 full gee. We've already built far larger stuff in space. We can design it to take all the spin and de-spin forces in the structures. They’re not that large.

Hazards: radiation. Two kinds, a slow drizzle of super-high energy "cosmic rays" at 24 to 60 REM per year, depending on the solar cycle. No shielding is as yet practical, but we currently allow astronauts to absorb 50 REM a year. There are career limits that will preclude second trips to Mars, unless we learn how to shield this stuff effectively. But, there’s not much difference between the 60 REM max threat and the 50 REM max limit. Minimal shielding effects for solar storm particles will make that up difference.

The second type of radiation is sudden bursts of solar storm particles. These are events lasting a few hours, but at radiation exposures like standing in the initial fallout pattern of an atomic bomb: quite quickly lethal. Shielding is required, fortunately, we can already do it, as these are much lower energy particles. About 20 cm of water is enough. So, provide one place on the ship where all persons can go to shelter, and surround that space with the water and wastewater tanks you already know you have to have! If you're really smart, that shelter is also the flight deck, so that maneuvers may be flown regardless of the solar weather.

A multi-module habitat and command deck, some crew return capsules, a bunch of propellant modules, and some engines, all assembled by docking, could take men from LEO to LMO and back. Or to Venus. Or to Mercury. Or to any of the NEO's. Same ship. Build one, do all those missions with it. Why launch all that hardware more than once? Just launch propellant. Re-use the ship.

OK, Mars and Mercury need landers, the other destinations do not. We're going to need one, and the Apollo LEM approach is way too inadequate for Mars. Actually, IMHO the lander is the true pacing item right now for men to Mars. Send the landers and all their propellant as a separate ship or ships, waiting in LMO for the manned ship. If you're really smart, you'll use nuclear engines in the lander to build one-stage reusable "landing boats". That way one mission makes dozens of landings, not just one. (Those very nuclear rocket engines all but flew back about 1973, then got cancelled.)

BTW, those same nuclear engines can cut the mass of the ship or ships you assemble in Earth orbit, by a factor near 4. Hmmmm. Seems to me like a nuclear rocket engine is a lot more important NASA project than a new giant Saturn-5 class rocket. We’ve got launch rockets from ULA, Spacex, and maybe ATK/EADS big enough already for LEO assembly.

Yeah we could do this, and long before the 2030's.

GW

clark · 2012-05-16 17:53:22

Ya know, I never understood the hyper-focus on rotating the entire ship, or the portion everyone lives in. Why is that so super important any way? It's a little of the forest for the trees if you ask me.

Minimum effort for maximum return. Ancient Martian mantra.

Why not just create a centripedal room that is used during the sleep cycle? 6-8 hours of gravity ought to reduce some of the impact of zero-g issues and minimize the complexity involved in rotating your entire ship.

As for nukes in space- i think most here on board. Main problem being those that live under the flight path of any errant rocket carrying said nuke. Really bad for your home value. And then there is the security concerns of having multi-mega watt nuclear reactors floating in LEO. Tends to make nation states nervous, crybabies.

SpaceNut · 2012-05-16 19:56:26

ISS has shown that rigorous exercise to the point of shaking the station is enough to combat the gravity issue, the radiation can be mitigated by the water and a magnetic field as part of the shelter which I would purpose to be more like a connecting node between the capsule, long duration habitat and the lander for mars.
The connecting node could be designed to spin and you would sleep much like being in the Round up or Gravitron that is part of most fairs....The ISS style food contains a large amount of waste packaging from what I recall...

clark · 2012-05-16 20:25:09

Food should not be an issue. Seperate cargo loads sent ahead and behind actual human crew ensure enough food. You only need enough food stocked for the longest worst case scenerio abort return.

Regarding physical activity- we need a better solution than running half way to Mars on a hamster wheel. Exercise requirements limit astronaut selection, reduce available science time, complicate situations where exercise regime is not available (sickness, injury, shelter from a solar storm, etc). I'm not saying that physical exercise is not a component of maintaining the health- it just should be looked at as a secondary solution to maintain health for long duration flights.

Water keeps getting mentioned... looks like astro mining is becoming a better and better next step to Mars.

Impaler · 2012-05-16 22:18:52

As humans confined to bed-rest on Earth suffer similar bone/muscle loss as Astronauts in 0g I do not think gravitation of any level during the Astronauts sleep cycle would be of any value. You need to take gravity in the vertical axis to experience it's effects both positive and negative, this is why we put people on their backs when they are exposed to high g takeoff and reentry.

My preferred solution to gravity would be an internal centrifuge living compartment much as seen in 2001, but ware that system would have caused a torque on the ship that would send it tumbling in space I'd just use two counter rotating centrifuges connected at the axial and spun-up and braked against each other. It wouldn't need any complex mechanical isolation from the rest of the vessel, plain ball-bearings would work as the two sections would apply equal but opposite torque that cancel out any tendency to spin the whole vessel. All the spin based vessels you saw in 2001 and 2010 would work perfectly with this kind of double architecture.

A Bigelow/Transhab style inflatable would be an ideal structure for this, its round, has a central axial and it's larger versions should have sufficient radius. The intended setting up of 'decks' inside the inflated space is just modified to a radial one with load bearing spokes and a floor parallel to the outer skin, it might even be possible to create a collapsible/telescoping structure the fits inside the core a bit like an umbrella so setup is immediate. You would need to keep a small amount of space between the floor and the skin of course and side walls between the two centrifuges to avoid nauseating disorientation, transit is a simple process of going up stairs to the weightless hub and descending into the other centrifuge or into another park of the ship. The largest 70 mt inflatable concepts from Bigelow are 12 meters in internal diameter and would allow 2 levels inside, if spun at 12 rpm you would have 1 g in the bottom deck and about 60-70% of that on the second deck closer to the hub assuming radius values of 6 and 4 meters respectively. For Martian gravity on the lower deck just reduce the rpm to about 7.

You can also add a water bladder to the inside of the inflatable for shielding and general water storage, as the water and the station exterior won't be spinning their is non of the difficulty you would have with it pooling at the side walls leaving the 'ends' unshielded or having to spin to dock. Bigelow has anticipated water shielding on their 2100 but the figure they give is 50 mt of water, to reach the 20 cm figure sighted earlier you would need 200 mt by my calculations, the difference is likely because they anticipate use in LEO rather then beyond the magnetosphere so they aren't trying to shield from a CME just background Cosmic Rays. Still the surface area efficiency of shielding means you want to use the largest inflatable possible. If your using a 50 mt lift vehicle (Falcon Heavy) that would come to something like 7 launches, 1 for the Inflatable, 4 for shielding water, 1 for internal equipment and one for a solar/radiators and that would give you a station of 350 mt comparable to the entire ISS. Then boost it to L1 slowly (several years?) with Ion propulsion and you would have station that can validate long term human habitability in space on the order of years or even decades and use as a jumping off point for the Moon or deep space.

Last edited by Impaler (2012-05-17 04:46:10)

clark · 2012-05-17 08:18:17

Well Impaler, if you don't think it will work, I guess I will just defer to your experience in the subject. Or I could just refer to the last 20 years of AG research and point out you dont know what you are talking about.

Basing your theory off of high g acceleration results is intellectually lazy. You can do better than that.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2012-03-31 18:41:49

Control cost or go home

#2 2012-03-31 19:25:15

Re: Control cost or go home

#3 2012-03-31 20:35:14

Re: Control cost or go home

#4 2012-04-01 07:05:38

Re: Control cost or go home

#5 2012-04-03 03:00:02

Re: Control cost or go home

#6 2012-04-07 20:51:05

Re: Control cost or go home

#7 2012-04-08 15:22:53

Re: Control cost or go home

#8 2012-04-08 23:31:12

Re: Control cost or go home

#9 2012-04-09 06:43:48

Re: Control cost or go home

#10 2012-04-09 13:44:52

Re: Control cost or go home

#11 2012-04-09 19:59:18

Re: Control cost or go home

#12 2012-04-09 20:57:15

Re: Control cost or go home

#13 2012-04-15 19:20:25

Re: Control cost or go home

#14 2012-04-15 22:25:39

Re: Control cost or go home

#15 2012-04-16 17:11:25

Re: Control cost or go home

#16 2012-04-16 19:20:39

Re: Control cost or go home

#17 2012-05-14 20:34:29

Re: Control cost or go home

#18 2012-05-15 15:49:05

Re: Control cost or go home

#19 2012-05-16 08:29:49

Re: Control cost or go home

#20 2012-05-16 13:32:10

Re: Control cost or go home

#21 2012-05-16 17:53:22

Re: Control cost or go home

#22 2012-05-16 19:56:26

Re: Control cost or go home

#23 2012-05-16 20:25:09

Re: Control cost or go home

#24 2012-05-16 22:18:52

Re: Control cost or go home

#25 2012-05-17 08:18:17

Re: Control cost or go home

Board footer