Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

louis · 2017-04-24 17:50:58

I am trying to get a handle on Mars Mission costs (just the costs, not the revenue potential which I think is substantial).

I am asking how much if we take the staring point as now. So any historical development costs are not include - only what would come in as cost in the future. I am assuming the Falcon Heavy as a commercial launch to LEO system...The Falcon Heavy will be used for far more than just Mars launches, so it makes far more sense to use the commercial launch cost.

We still get wildly differing figures. NASA seems often to adopt the most expensive options. Amazingly the MSL, Curiosity, cost $2.5 billion of which some $1.8 billion went on the spacecraft development and build.

I was wondering whether people would like to give their estimates for costs. I am using my sort of mission outline...six crew members and two separate landers. I have tried to isolate the different cost headings without overlooking anything:

I am assuming an overall cargo tonnage to Mars: 85 tonnes (includes Ascent vehicles). On the basis of the MSL and Red Dragon figures, I am applying a multiple of 5 to that figure to give the tonnage to be lifted to LEO i.e. 425 tonnes. I am adding 20 tonnes for the interplanetary modules. So 445 tonnes. That would require a minimum of 8 Falcon Heavy launches but let's assume 10 owing to cargo shapes and so on. Various per kg figures have been mentioned but I propose running with $3500 here...not the lowest figure mentioned by Space X. That gives a figure of $1.56 billion for 445 tonnes.

1. Falcon Heavy launch costs - $ 1.56 billion

2. Lunar orbit and landing to test all systems (up to 4 separate missions) - $3 billion.

3. Design and build and 10 year operation of Mars analogue testing facility on Earth - $1 billion.

4. Orbital assembly technology development - $100 million

5. Interplanetary hab development and build (Bigelow style) - $100 million (Based on BEAM cost x7)

6. Interplanetary rocket, fuel module and supplies/life support module development and build- $2 billion

7. Two landers for 2 x three person crews design and build - $1 billion.

8. Design and build of Mars Rover - $500 million

9. Design and build of cargo landers - $500 million.

10. Design and build of accommodation hab for surface (including life support) - $1 billion

11. Design and build of industrial hab for surface - $200 million

12. Design and build of farm hab - $200 million

13. Design and build of Mars satellite/coms - $500 million

14. Space suit design and manufacture - $200 million.

15. Crew training (crew pool being 20) over ten years - $200 million

16. Putting in place Mission Control for the Mission including staff salaries over 5 years - $300 million.

17. Design and build of surface energy system - $200million

18. General admin, other costs and contingencies over 10 years - $2 billion .

I make that a total of $14.56 billion.

Any observations on these costings? Any major expenditure items left out?

Of course, it could be done much more cheaply if you were prepared to settle for a less ambitious Mission One.

RobS · 2017-04-24 17:58:51

These strike me as in the ballpark, Louis. Space X developed the Falcon 9 for $300 million and a NASA estimate was that it would cost them $3.6 billion to do the same. If you multiple your $14 billion by 12, you get about $150 billion, which is about the amount NASA would spend.

The $300 million included the first Dragon capsule, but with the Commercial Crew contract, Space X has been able to spend much, much more on the Dragon 2 capsule. Their landing technology can be applied to a refuelable Mars landing/ascent vehicle; I suspect they could develop a methane-powered vehicle for $1 or $2 billion (maybe less, since they're already developing such engines and many other parts of the technology needed).

elderflower · 2017-04-25 03:15:58

I think you may need relay satellites for over the horizon communications with base and for near continuous comms with Earth. You can't give the mission controllers a few hours off, just because it is Mars night time.

louis · 2017-04-25 04:24:53

THere is also the question of how far a Mars mission could piggy-back off existing Mars satellites (I think are at least two aren't there?). We may well need multiple satellites but not all necessarily hugely complex. Could Cubesats help? I see they are used by amateur radio enthusiasts.

I've accounted for shift working the estimate of Mission Control - normally you have to multiply by four the number of staff you need to work continuously on a particular (intensive) task to get full 24/7 coverage.

elderflower wrote:

I think you may need relay satellites for over the horizon communications with base and for near continuous comms with Earth. You can't give the mission controllers a few hours off, just because it is Mars night time.

elderflower · 2017-04-25 05:27:26

Louis,
Your relay sats need to communicate with earth, with one another and with ground and orbiting bases, so I don't think cubesats will serve the purpose. Adaptation of an earth comms satellite might be possible.

RobertDyck · 2017-04-25 05:52:03

Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and the European Mars Express all include a Mars Relay Antenna. This is intended to communicate with landers and rovers. It stores data, Earth can request that data to be forwarded to Earth. I believe data from Earth can be forwarded to a lander or rover. Mars Pathfinder included a Mars Relay Antenna, as well as Spirit/Opportunity, and Curiosity. Furthermore, the Mars Relay can be used to measure distance from the orbiter to the lander/rover, so global position can be calculated by intersecting spheres. It isn't nearly as precise as GPS on Earth, but it's something. Mars Global Surveyor has stopped communicating, but the other orbiters still function. This isn't real time, it's store-and-forward, but it's what we have now.

elderflower · 2017-04-25 06:28:22

That's OK for now but with a human presence you can bet that things will be monitored much more closely. Position accuracy will be much more important as things like crew changes, resupply missions and returning hoppers will need to be landed in a precise position. I doubt if beacons will be enough.

louis · 2017-04-25 18:17:40

In view of the discussion, maybe $1000 million rather than $500 million?

But we maybe need to be a little bit careful...we are talking about coms satellites that can basically transmit voice from a handful of nearby locations, some data and some commands. They aren't necessarily going to be like the big spy and coms satellites that circle Earth are they?

The essential mapping of Mars will already have been done. That will give us a general location for landing and that can then be fine-tuned by landing exploratory robot rovers and use of transponders.

I wouldn't want to go over a billion for this item myself.

SpaceNut · 2017-04-25 21:28:43

The cost to do a mission to mars we have some numbers for the launcher, a capsule that can return to earth, the inflateable for orbit and transit, plus satelites but thats all we have numbers for all other hardware or basically everything else we do not have numbers for. We just have a best mans swag.....

louis · 2017-04-26 06:52:06

I'm not sure about that SpaceNut. If you know how much an orbital inflatable costs, I think you reasonably extrapolate to say a surface inflatable hab. If you know how much it costs to fit out a hydroponic indoor farm facility on Earth, then that's a good basis for estimating the cost on Mars. For Rovers, we know how much the MSL cost and so on...

SpaceNut wrote:

The cost to do a mission to mars we have some numbers for the launcher, a capsule that can return to earth, the inflateable for orbit and transit, plus satelites but thats all we have numbers for all other hardware or basically everything else we do not have numbers for. We just have a best mans swag.....

Oldfart1939 · 2017-04-26 07:24:46

We should get a better handle on these costs in light of the private circumlunar flight planned by SpaceX scheduled for next year. My numbers come in a bit higher for a somewhat more ambitious program, sending 2 capsules crewed by 5 astronauts each. Also included is more heavy equipment/apparatus for base construction. I came up with $18 Billion spread over 8 years. All to be accomplished within the Trump administrations. This would be a private-government partnership effort. Even though my program would take advantage of the SLS by NASA, such as prepositioning a rudimentary space station in Mars orbit, the costs would not include all the federal money already expended--that's already down the rat hole. I'm figuring $4 Billion the first year followed by a $2 Billion annual budget. (Could rise by 10% to 20%, should NASA get more involved). NASA should budget $1.5 Billion annually and a $500 Million subsidy to SpaceX as well.
NASA should be responsible for providing the SAFE-400 system in a flight-ready configuration, a surface water system, and the Moxie unit for all habitat structures. Also they should be responsible for placing several GPS satellites in orbit around Mars and expansion of the trans Mars communications net. Leave the rocket designs to SpaceX, as well as the lander architecture. This would dovetail with the Mars Semi-direct scheme as the Design Reference Mission, with the ERV in orbit around Mars--only requirement for fuel/oxidizer production for a MAV.

louis · 2017-04-27 03:40:38

I think we aren't that far apart on cost.

In terms of funding the mission, it's a question of how far you (a) internationalise the mission (involving other space agencies) or (b) commercialise it.

I can see some merits with (a) in terms of expanding it to include ESA, Jaxa, ISA and the like but on the other hand I would say there is an exponential rise in bureaucratic complexity the more you do that...everyone has to have a bit of the pie and that creates complexity as you handle different priorities, different languages and different measuring systems, plus the logistics of moving stuff and people around the globe.

In my estimation commercialisation could easily raise $5 billion: $3billion coming from commercial sponsorship over ten years (that's only $300 million annum, and remember Coca Cola spend over $1 billion per annum on sponsorship/advertising). The rest could come through TV and film rights, sponsored experiments, personal sponsorship, naming rights and so on.

Looking at this in the round, I think that actually a Space X-led mission with strong backing from the Trump administration (and therefore NASA) is probably the most effective route. That could include some limited sponsorhip to offset costs, but not so much as to make it look like a completely tawdry exercise in profit generation. For instance, maybe you could get sponsorship for new spacesuit development from Nike. They get their symbol on the suit and boots. Maybe the food supply could be sponsored by Walmart and the fluids supply by Cocal Cola. Break it down more. But nothing like "the Mars Coca Cola Mission" even though that would generate much more sponsorship. I don't see a problem in dividing up TV coverage so making some daily bulletins free but offering a more detailed service to news agencies that they pay for. I think you'd want everyone to see the landing. But maybe CNN, BBC and Fox should pay for detailed film of Mars exploration or what's going on in the habs. I could imagine a 3D film of the Mars Mission would do well on Earth - could easily take a couple of hundred million dollars around the globe.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

We should get a better handle on these costs in light of the private circumlunar flight planned by SpaceX scheduled for next year. My numbers come in a bit higher for a somewhat more ambitious program, sending 2 capsules crewed by 5 astronauts each. Also included is more heavy equipment/apparatus for base construction. I came up with $18 Billion spread over 8 years. All to be accomplished within the Trump administrations. This would be a private-government partnership effort. Even though my program would take advantage of the SLS by NASA, such as prepositioning a rudimentary space station in Mars orbit, the costs would not include all the federal money already expended--that's already down the rat hole. I'm figuring $4 Billion the first year followed by a $2 Billion annual budget. (Could rise by 10% to 20%, should NASA get more involved). NASA should budget $1.5 Billion annually and a $500 Million subsidy to SpaceX as well.
NASA should be responsible for providing the SAFE-400 system in a flight-ready configuration, a surface water system, and the Moxie unit for all habitat structures. Also they should be responsible for placing several GPS satellites in orbit around Mars and expansion of the trans Mars communications net. Leave the rocket designs to SpaceX, as well as the lander architecture. This would dovetail with the Mars Semi-direct scheme as the Design Reference Mission, with the ERV in orbit around Mars--only requirement for fuel/oxidizer production for a MAV.

Last edited by louis (2017-04-27 03:41:29)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-04-27 07:46:16

I can see it now: the cylindrical portion of the lander painted as a Coca Cola can! That alone should be worth... a Billion?

louis · 2017-04-27 08:58:17

Definitely!

I'd underestimated how much Coca Cola spend on advertising. It's actually over $3 billion per annum!

http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/c … nd/294251/

I think they might bid higher than $1 billion for something like that! If they were granted rights over 20 years to use the images, a billion is only £50 million per annum. That would be incredibly cheap PR for them...I suspect they would be prepared to go to $300 million per annum over 20 years. Just imagine how often that image would be replayed around the globe, year in year out forever more...Obviously would be geared to a successful landing...rather a lot would be riding on a successful landing! You'd probably have a series of potential break clauses.

I really can't see how a credible Mars project would fail to garner $5billion if they went all out on commercial sponsorship. But I doubt Space X want to play it that way, and NASA can't so we are probably saved from the Cokemobile Rover, Diet Coke Lander, and Fanta Hab.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I can see it now: the cylindrical portion of the lander painted as a Coca Cola can! That alone should be worth... a Billion?

SpaceNut · 2017-04-27 20:12:51

You know that Pepsi will want the other side of that can for the same reason....

This is the Nascar sponsoring approach....

louis · 2017-04-27 20:17:25

Yep - that's how it works!

If it wasn't for Pepsi, Coca Cola would bid $0 for the rights.

SpaceNut wrote:

You know that Pepsi will want the other side of that can for the same reason....
This is the Nascar sponsoring approach....

Oldfart1939 · 2017-04-27 20:53:38

They should have a "winner takes all" bidding process. All glaringly in public. No pikers need apply! Bids opening at $1 Billion.

SpaceNut · 2017-04-27 21:02:13

Nah either could shot a fake mars landing with a fake mars rocket set for by far less and still captialize on the notion....

elderflower · 2017-04-28 02:14:47

We are going to need that can ourselves. Aren't we selling Mars-ade?
Think of the health benefits of all those extra Deuterons.

Last edited by elderflower (2017-04-28 02:16:15)

louis · 2017-04-28 04:02:29

I think there'll be a market for anything made on Mars. Your Mars-ade might be a bit on the salty side.

elderflower wrote:

We are going to need that can ourselves. Aren't we selling Mars-ade?
Think of the health benefits of all those extra Deuterons.

Terraformer · 2017-04-28 10:38:32

Coke-Sponsored Rover Finds Evidence Of Dasani On Mars

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2017-04-24 17:50:58

Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#2 2017-04-24 17:58:51

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#3 2017-04-25 03:15:58

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#4 2017-04-25 04:24:53

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#5 2017-04-25 05:27:26

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#6 2017-04-25 05:52:03

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#7 2017-04-25 06:28:22

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#8 2017-04-25 18:17:40

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#9 2017-04-25 21:28:43

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#10 2017-04-26 06:52:06

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#11 2017-04-26 07:24:46

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#12 2017-04-27 03:40:38

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#13 2017-04-27 07:46:16

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#14 2017-04-27 08:58:17

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#15 2017-04-27 20:12:51

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#16 2017-04-27 20:17:25

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#17 2017-04-27 20:53:38

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#18 2017-04-27 21:02:13

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#19 2017-04-28 02:14:47

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#20 2017-04-28 04:02:29

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

#21 2017-04-28 10:38:32

Re: Costing Mars...costing the Earth?

Board footer