"The ultimate goal is Mars."

Oldfart1939 · 2019-09-22 10:03:57

In a meeting with Australian Prime Minister, President Trump stated that NASA's next major goal is Mars, and not the Moon.
More or less a "been there, done that," in regard to Moon.

https://www.space.com/trump-us-space-pr … ralia.html

louis · 2019-09-22 13:03:11

As often is the case, Trump gets to the heart of the matter (his expert field is real estate after all!). Only problem is this will draw fire on to the Mars Mission from all the Trumpophobes out there.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

In a meeting with Australian Prime Minister, President Trump stated that NASA's next major goal is Mars, and not the Moon.
More or less a "been there, done that," in regard to Moon.
https://www.space.com/trump-us-space-pr … ralia.html

Oldfart1939 · 2019-09-22 15:57:31

In spite of negativism, the President DOES call out the marching orders for NASA and Bridenstine will comply. Trump als has spoken in a negative manner about SLS and the Gateway. He's definitely OK with SpaceX involvement--just the NASA internal bureaucracy is still dead set on inclusion of the "Tollbooth."

GW Johnson · 2019-09-22 16:37:17

All this political back-and-forth is exactly why NASA will not go to Mars with men, only robots. And fairly likely, not even back to the moon with men, just robots.

Private interests will get there with men first (both places), unless they agree to be stopped by misbehaving government types. And today nearly all government types misbehave, one way or another.

I say "agree to be stopped", because history says it is easier just to do and ask forgiveness afterward, than to ask and get permission beforehand. That much is crystal clear. So just go and do it, Spacex and Blue Origin! And Bigelow. And some others.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-09-22 16:38:40)

SpaceNut · 2019-09-22 19:38:38

Space x with its project investments are bleeding moneys from multiple sources to make BFR but if its sources of funds dry up or there are failures that it did not count on it will fold quite easily. That is why Starlink and Falcon plus heavy must continue on to supply the capital for the big game of going to mars or to the moon for Elon Musk.
While Bigelow has deep pockets he is a beast of a different horse with the inflateable.
The up starts of Blue origin and Dream chaser must get up and runnning soon or they may miss the boat.
Of course there is nothing to say that lockheed, boeing and northrupt can not do the same as they are gravy train giants with plenty of capability....

Oldfart1939 · 2019-09-23 09:00:05

Falcon and Falcon Heavy will be used in putting up Starlink--using reflown vehicles. Musk is an extremely astute businessman, who is willing to work on the principle of risk versus rewards. High risk--enormous rewards with Starlink system. If I were a gambling man, I'd bet the farm on Elon. Bezos--not so much. He's being either cagy or overly cautious in building New Glenn; Blue Origin may just miss the boat riding in in the wake of SpaceX and Musk's frenetic pace for completion of these projects.

Oldfart1939 · 2019-09-23 09:12:43

There is also no doubt in my mind--Boeing and Lockheed-Martin COULD go to the moon on their own, given funding that wasn't being screwed with by Senator Shelby. Could probably do it as fast as any competitors, but have zero motivation to do so. NASA has become nearly obsolete in view of this new Space Race between government and private sector. Just as every bureaucracy becomes enmeshed in it's own internal politics, so too, has NASA succumbed to the curse.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2019-09-23 09:13:06)

Oldfart1939 · 2019-09-24 08:47:38

Here's an article from Huntsville, Alabama; former NASA Associate Administrator, Doug Cooke, responded with an answer, during a congressional hearing, stating that the return to Moon would be much safer if the complex LOP-G were exchanged with an Apollo-style approach. he former administrator did a comparison of risks and the current Artemis mission carries with it a 51 chance of success, versus an 80 percent chance with a "Moon Direct" mission architecture.

https://www.alreporter.com/2019/09/23/b … -the-moon/

SpaceNut · 2019-09-24 17:18:00

While we were sold on going back toi the moon as action for getting our space legs back its turned into anything but a cash cow for the giants...I fear that if nasa goes back to the old way of going to the moon we will not be establishing a permanant presence and we will be done will space along with not going to mars at all.
Nasa needs to be a supporting player and just maybe for those things which can not be done by others but not the main builder...

Oldfart1939 · 2019-09-29 10:08:37

Musk recently stated that the entire SS and SH programs will cost around $2 BN and not the earlier projected $10 BN. Mostly based on reduced costs of using SS Type 301 instead of carbon composites. Cost savings relative to carbon composite: 98%, or SS fabrication costs 2 % of Carbon Composite. Not to mention faster and no new technology required.

louis · 2019-09-29 13:40:47

SH = Starhopper???

Is that the development programme to Mk 5 or does that include building a fleet of 20 Starships, that Musk mentioned I wonder? Seems a bit cheap for 20 Starships as well...

I was impressed by the Raptor Engine assembly programme being ramped up - can't remember the exact figure but it meant by early 2020 they would have huge capacity, much more than enough for 20 Starships within a year I think.

Clearly the Starship programme is moving at incredible speed and has had a serious amount of money pumped into it.

Musk is the most remarkable engineer-inventor-entrepreneur of our age, perhaps of all time or at least since Archimedes!

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Musk recently stated that the entire SS and SH programs will cost around $2 BN and not the earlier projected $10 BN. Mostly based on reduced costs of using SS Type 301 instead of carbon composites. Cost savings relative to carbon composite: 98%, or SS fabrication costs 2 % of Carbon Composite. Not to mention faster and no new technology required.

Oldfart1939 · 2019-10-01 11:06:22

Louis; SH = Super Heavy (booster).

louis · 2019-10-01 14:00:38

Sorry - obvious now! I keep thinking of Starship and Super-Heavy under the one "Starship" label.

Calliban · 2019-10-01 15:21:31

The moon is a far more logical destination in the near future. It is 3 days away instead of six months. We can mine the moon in support of space manufacturing. Mars is a much more expensive destination and there are fewer potential financial returns.

Ultimately, space policy should focus on ventures that have some hope of being financially self-sustaining. Without that, all of our hopes and dreams of human space colonisation will never get very far.

Last edited by Calliban (2019-10-01 15:26:43)

Terraformer · 2019-10-01 15:40:34

I can come up with a few ideas about how Luna could be profitable. Tourism, scientific research (ie. providing the support to the foundations and governments that are operating bases), and mining (nickel mining of the regolith is a particularly interesting possibility, but there's also mining impact sites). Basically the economic drivers in hostile Terran environments - for example, the Arctic.

Mars is too far away for tourism, and if we're going all that way for mining we might as well go straight to the asteroids, leaving only research as a possibility for the initial settlement. But if we get the Lunar infrastructure built out first, it will bring the cost of establishing a Martian settlement down significantly, enough that a sizeable presence could be established for comparable cost to the existing Antarctic research programs. Britain spends £48 million a year on that, so I think a yearly total budget of £2 billion should easily be available for Martian ones, and probably quite a bit more. Once they're established, it will be a lot harder to cut back without losing face, unlike flags and footprints.

Oldfart1939 · 2019-10-01 16:03:35

Calliban-
Robert Zubrin has "done the math," and a principal use of Mars will be a forward base for exploration and exploitation of mineral rich asteroids. A thriving colony on Mars can well support asteroid mining, and do it with much less expenditure of energy than doing same from Earth. This is discussed in detail in his book " Entering Space."

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2019-10-02 13:49:31)

louis · 2019-10-01 17:24:18

It depends on your objectives. The Azores were a lot closer to Spain than the Americas (or China as Columbus supposed them to be) but the Azores were not the objective.

Mining the Moon would be unprofitable. Hugely so. Ain't gonna happen.

Yes, it's closer, which makes it suitable for lunar tourism. But the Moon is far less hospitable to human beings. The 14 day lunar night is one example of that lack of hospitability.

Mars is the prize and getting there requires about the same amount of energy as getting to the Moon. But when we get there we will find 38% of Earth gravity. We will find copious amounts of water. We will find a landscape that resembles many parts of Earth.

The idea that a Mars colony would not be financially self-sustaining is absurd. There will be thousands of universities that will want to send personnel and experiments to Mars. That in itself will generate billions of dollars. There will be space agencies around the world eager to gain national prestige by having a presence on Mars. They will contribute billions of dollars. There will be billions of dollars of commercial sponsorship. Video from Mars will be worth billions of dollars to news and documentary makers on Earth. Regolith and meteorite sales will generate billions of dollars on Earth. Luxury goods e.g. watches and jewellery may be manufactured or part manufactured on Mars and sold on Earth, generating billions of dollars. Book sales with copyright photos will generate huge sales, again billions of dollars. A dedicated Mars TV station will generate billions of dollars over a decade.

I would estimate total potential revenue in the first ten years at around $50 billion. That's not based on an exhaustive list: there will be opportunities for other initiatives in the arts, sports, data storage, luxury food products and design fields that will generate further billions.

Just take a simple thing like water. If you bottled it in 0.2kg bottles, could you sell it for $500 a time? No one knows till you try. A limited edition, serial-numbered "First water from Mars" bottle of water? Could be a collectors item. You might realise $2.5 million for your ton of water back on Earth. Entrepreneurs will come up with lots of ideas. I have previously suggested interactive centres where you could maybe direct a Rover to carve your name on a rock on Mars. How much could you charge for that. Or maybe you could link in exploration of Mars with computer games back on Earth...people might race each other to get rovers to a certain place.

I think you can probably launch a Starship to Mars for under $300 million once Starship production is ramped up - that's based on around
$270 per kg.

The development costs and base set up costs are being effectively sunk by Space X. It's future profitability that we should focus on. Assuming say 2 Starship visits to Mars every two years for a decade, that would be around $6 billion in launch costs. There will be other on costs e.g. for colony management, salaries for Mars-based Space X and ground control staff and so on and further specialist equipment being delivered to Mars. Maybe allocate another $2 billion for that. So maybe $8 billion over a decade. I think the colony will turn a huge profit in the tens of billions of dollars.

After a couple of decades you probably need to create a Mars currency. That will enable people to invest in Mars as a separate currency area. I think that will turbo-charge investment.

Calliban wrote:

The moon is a far more logical destination in the near future. It is 3 days away instead of six months. We can mine the moon in support of space manufacturing. Mars is a much more expensive destination and there are fewer potential financial returns.
Ultimately, space policy should focus on ventures that have some hope of being financially self-sustaining. Without that, all of our hopes and dreams of human space colonisation will never get very far.

Last edited by louis (2019-10-01 17:27:44)

louis · 2019-10-01 17:28:21

I think we are a long way off asteroid mining.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Calliban-
Robert Zubrin has "done the math," and a principal use of Mars will be a forward base for exploration and exploitation of mineral rich asteroids. A thriving colony on Mars can well support asteroid mining,and do it with much less expenditure of energy than doing same fro Earth. This is discussed in detail in his book " Entering Space."

louis · 2019-10-02 15:15:13

There is nothing experimental about methane-oxygen combustion to generate electricity.

The rockets are taking methane and oxygen to Mars for the purposes of propulsion. So there is nothing novel or unsafe in taking methane and oxygen for electricity generation.

This IS keeping it simple because Space X are already proposing (a) to take methox to Mars and (b) to produce methox on Mars.

There is no Kilopower unit currently available. So, whatever you may say, it is an untried technology in relation to Mars. We know next to nothing on how it is proposed to operate the units on Mars.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Louis-
I really didn't want this discussion to devolve into another solar power versus nuclear discussion, but I need to state now that your proposal for methane-oxygen as a substitute for nuclear is absurd. We don't need another experimental power supply to contend with, and any methane produced will be required facilitate the trips back to Earth. Re-read what GW has written in the section you quoted. You are violating one of Musk's basic rules by making things overly complicated. A small portable nuclear reactor as suggested by Dr. Zubrin is EXACTLY what is required for Mars Base Alpha. We're talking about human survival--the crew needs energy for all life support functions, and if a massive storm swamps the solar farm--everybody dies. Not if we have that Kilopower unit up and running.
I'm trying very hard to remain civil in our discussion.

Calliban · 2019-10-04 13:22:38

Oldfart1939 wrote:

To all posters here on this thread-
We have gone past the point of a "discussion," and ventured into dealing with an emotional argument. One side has attempted rationality and evidence based on engineering and physical science. The other side in this now argument stubbornly clings to a position which only has some passing banter statements to support. Since I started this thread, we need to stop wasting time and electrons; otherwise I'll ask the moderators to lock down any further posting.
Rodger

Granted. This thread was presumably started to discuss the wisdom of Trump's Mars First strategy. That is a worthy topic that is worth debating in my opinion. Whilst Mars is scientifically more interesting and a better choice for long-term colonisation; the moon is cheaper and technically easier to reach. What is more, lunar mining can support manufacturing activities in Earth orbit. We can't really do that with Mars.

I do think it's time to kill this myth of dangerous nuclear power. But it deserves it's own thread.

Terraformer · 2019-10-04 15:57:16

As I see it, it's probably going to be Orbit First. Tourism, research, and supporting the existing use (satellites). With the experience and infrastructure we build up there, we will move on to Luna, and that will bootstrap us to reach Mars. Once the Three Worlds are established (Terra, Luna, Mars), we will of course be setting up outposts on the other worlds.

It may indeed end up being that sub-orbit and near-space come before a significant (100s) sustained human presence in orbit. I can definitely see the value in stratospheric research stations (for one, they've as much soft vacuum as you could ever use), and they're a lot cheaper to build and access than orbital facilities. Maybe even hotels (including a suborbital rocket trip at the end?). That would give us plenty of experience working in a vacuum, a provide the market to develop flexible mechanical counter-pressure suits for those working on the outside.

SpaceNut · 2019-10-04 16:26:31

The attage that no buck or in this case sqaundered buck is just as bad as to workers not working to meet a schedule or designing with unobtainium....
Nasa and its contractors need a big kick in the butt to get them going once more as if there lives depended on it....

Oldfart1939 · 2019-10-04 17:09:11

Just another $0.02 from me--the next exploration ventures will be to the asteroid belt from Mars as a staging base. Once we get more efficient propulsion in place, we can next consider the Jovian moons of Ganymede and Callisto. Io is a hot volcanic Hell, and Europa, regardless of how interesting, is in the Jovian equivalent of the Van Allen belts for extreme ionizing radiation Ganymede is barely habitable, but only Callisto offers a possibility of location for a base. It suffers from an occasional radiation plume which is easily forecast and avoided by being underground in subterranean habitats. I predict that Callisto will become the furthest outpost for human travel in the next 100 years. But at the rate NASA is NOT progressing, it could be a LOT longer than 100 years.

Even a trip to Callisto or the asteroids will require something more energetically efficient than MethylOX. Nuclear Electric, if shielding issues can be overcome? Nuclear Thermal, vis a vis NERVA? Even more pressing than transit times is protection from the debilitating effects of microgravity and accumulative cosmic ray damage.

At this point, the Saturnian moons are beyond available technology other than by robotic spacecraft.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2019-10-04 17:23:04)

SpaceNut · 2019-10-04 18:13:46

"I've transferred the nuclear v solar discussion to the following thread"

Methane backup not nuclear vs solar

I agree propulsion is the key to further out exploration that we are challenged with. Its starting from a lower gravity site that will make that transition a bit easier.

The importance of mining the rockets of space seem to be lost in the grand scale of size and distances.

Space is like being a fish in the ocean for man as without the scuba tank we will not survive.

We are out of our cradle when it comes to space.

Terraformer · 2019-10-05 03:35:11

Thread on near-space missions.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2019-09-22 10:03:57

"The ultimate goal is Mars."

#2 2019-09-22 13:03:11

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#3 2019-09-22 15:57:31

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#4 2019-09-22 16:37:17

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#5 2019-09-22 19:38:38

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#6 2019-09-23 09:00:05

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#7 2019-09-23 09:12:43

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#8 2019-09-24 08:47:38

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#9 2019-09-24 17:18:00

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#10 2019-09-29 10:08:37

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#11 2019-09-29 13:40:47

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#12 2019-10-01 11:06:22

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#13 2019-10-01 14:00:38

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#14 2019-10-01 15:21:31

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#15 2019-10-01 15:40:34

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#16 2019-10-01 16:03:35

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#17 2019-10-01 17:24:18

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#18 2019-10-01 17:28:21

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#19 2019-10-02 15:15:13

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#20 2019-10-04 13:22:38

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#21 2019-10-04 15:57:16

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#22 2019-10-04 16:26:31

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#23 2019-10-04 17:09:11

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#24 2019-10-04 18:13:46

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

#25 2019-10-05 03:35:11

Re: "The ultimate goal is Mars."

Board footer