Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

RobS · 2004-02-27 14:08:54

You may need to recalculate your launch costs. Maybe you can get stuff to LEO for $1,000/kg with Russian rockets; with US and European rockets it's more like $5,000 or more. A cheap, reliable solid rocket can then push stuff to Mars, but it will use up most of your orbit mass; maybe 1/4 will actually get to Mars. Then you have to land the stuff; chutes, airbags, etc. needed. The bottom line: less than 1/10 of the launched payload will be payload on Mars. So eve if you cen get stuff to LEO for $1,000/kg, you're bots will cost closer to $10,000 per kilogram.

-- RobS

Rxke · 2004-02-27 14:16:06

How do you plan to operate all of these dozens of bots on Mars without some type of communication system robust enough to allow complete coverage?

Believe it or not, but it's faily simple. First, the Beam robotic approach: hard to explain very quick, but it comes down to this: the operation is more like a neural network, no digital programming, just fluctuations in voltages influence behaviour..
(I'm very bad at explaining, bear with me for a moment) Don't know if you ever saw a Beambot in action? It's 'brain' is not a complex minicomputer(IC) but a simple set of a handful transistors, resistors etc, but it is able to negociate terrain where more complex truly digital robots have problems, i suggest you visit the beam heretics site, and look at some movies to get an idea. You can give these bots simple tasks to do, like 'follow the light' (or beacon) and hey just 'do it, meanwhile negociating difficult terrain by a kind of trial and error, that turns out to be very effective) Compare that to the MERs, they need loads of instructions, supervision to do their job. Adressing them all i was thinking of a wireless network, but downgraded, not very complex. Again, you can have complex server/client software running on IC's, radiation-hardened embedded systems, equal to off the shelf systems exist, so experiment with the very cheap stuff, and buy a big bunch of the more expensive variety in one go...
So... Every bot has his own IP, like on the internet, but since theyre fairly autonoumous, not much communication is needed... Some basic instructions, like: "spread out a bit"(initial deployment, and then, "start collecting, and come back to unfill when yer finished" Robots will surely bump into eachother, but that's no problem, they're lightweight, fairly slow, make a ramp up to unload, exit other side to make sure they dont get totally cluttered.
Assuming the first probe builds solar cells to power next gen. landers, after a while the 'entral tower' can command: 'eobot x, y, z, i want you to stop collecting dust on the surface, go to the cells instead and collect dust there. So, same robot, 2 possible tasks with same hardware...
Oh yeah... Central tower emits a 'common' signal, so rovers know when they get too far away, and also know direction...

You also only get cheap launches of the bots every 2 years... which kind of runs counter to quarterly profit statements.

That's Daniels task to answer, me know nuttin about bonds... But i guess maybe the franchise... No sorry, i'm not going into this, i realise i eally don't know what bonds really are about, do't understand your question...

What about the cost of ensuring that everything you send (your idea is predicated on sending volume) is sterilized?

Yes, i pondered that, too, and thought about the fact most electronics resist alcohol very well, so bathing them, but is that enough? How do they do it with probes in commercial facilities?
BTW: another problem: the vibrationtest... No readily answer to that, xcept: build them stackable, and 'slide' 'em into a lattice...
BTW: You can't switch Beambots off, so youd have to load them in total darkness, or they'd start to wriggle around! With night goggles that's not too big an issue, though, at least you dont have to worry they switch on: unload, they charge, and off they go...

Endimenty against catastrophic failure is costly too, of either the rocket or the robot.
Orbital instertion is possible, but look at what NASA is doing- they send multiple robots becuase they assume they're going to fail. How do you set up the system so a failure at any point in a launch dosen't end the prospect for future launches?

Sure... Just don't give out false hopes, no assurances to buyers: "buy on own risk..." And work really hard to make the whole thing work out...(so bonding is out i guess?)

(EDIT) Also, by using 'professional' launchers, if they mess up, public knows it's not your fault... Same with airbag system: copy plans from NASA, use same materials, add some minor parts that don't interfere with the landing operation itself(!) Development costs have been payed for already by NASA, 'series' production would make a whole lotta cheaper lander (it won't be that cheap, though...) (They have to give the plans, i guess, it's in their mission statement they develop hardware to make humanity able to go places etc...)
So again, if landing fails: people would think, "awww bad luck, better next time i hope!" not 'you bunch of amateurs!"

Rxke · 2004-02-27 14:41:48

Daniel, i don't want Boeing lockheed etc getting into this kind of sheme...: they're not cheap enough... I was thinking about real private enterprize, not pseudo private (i know, keep dreaming)

RobS, thanks for the numbers, i said my numbers were waaay too optimistic, that's why i said forget it... initially.
Still... 10000$/kg... would you pay 2500 for a robot? On Mars? with your name on it? Please? (that would make for *very* small robots, heehee... Hence the 'insect-hive' approach... 1250 for a robot (1:8 kg, or 125 g) My cellphone weighs more than that... Or, i sell you five for 2500 (they cost me 'nothing', but only one will go up, the rest you can give as a present or something, so still fairly big bots

Ok... forget it

DanielCook · 2004-02-27 15:50:08

1. If their own costs start hitting the bottom line they'll shape up - the wonder of the free market.Remember, they own part of the company, so their own costs will come back to haunt them;

2. I only used Boeing et al as an example, it could just as easily be SpaceEx or Energia. The point is, to benefit from the cash going out, you have to put cash in. And there is a definite risk to them of obsolesence if they don't ...

3. Quarterly statements are for those that want to invest short term investments. This will not be a short term investment. This also the reason why initially the financing instrument is a bond with nominal interest - a long term investment instrument. To decrease the total risk of the company an expert investment manager must also be employed (to maximise return on the funds received from the issue - thus initially part of your company will almost work as a investment firm)

Rxke · 2004-02-27 16:09:20

Strange how i more like the idea of a co-op (is that the right word, doubt it) with Energya or SpaceX... Guess i'm not objective in my views.
For me Boeing et all sounds too much like NASA... (BIIIIG money)

DanielCook · 2004-02-27 19:45:58

Unfortunately, two almost-bankrupt companies will not be able to assist with financing. To go to Mars you need money, and lots of it - even if you do it on the "cheap".

Sometimes you have to deal with the devil. <shrug>

Rxke · 2004-02-28 03:48:41

Hee hee...

SpaceX is not at all bankrupt. (yet?)
*but* they have not launched a single craft, yet...

I'm an absolute fan of SpaceX. Why? Elon Musk started SpaceX because he wanted to go to Mars(!) He wanted to launch a private sat, but turned out launchers were waaay to expensive, so he thought:"I'd better built my own, let other people launch sats.."
From their website:"Falcon V ,capable of placing approximately 4,200 kg, (leo) is targeted for mid 2005. SpaceX has launch facilities at Cape Canaveral, Vandenberg and the Marshall Islands, allowing launch to any inclination.
Falcon V is priced at $12 million, which is an 80% reduction relative to the current NASA list prices of their direct competitors at Orbital Sciences and Boeing. Falcon V will be the lowest cost per unit mass to orbit, despite providing what we consider to be breakthrough improvements in reliability."

(note Falcon I is only capable of 650 kg leo, a bit minimal...)

Still... 12 million ain't peanuts... Thats stil 2608$/kg...

Upgrade of my 'Krazy Plan?'

-You still can buy single robots, but they won't go to Mars, they're 'toys' and will be sold as such. If you want one for Mars, you buy 10, for (say)2500$... One of these 10 gets to Mars. Each one engraved with an id etc... That way schools and companies can pool their money, you build these non-Mars robots 'cheap' :non-rad hardened, decontaminated etc...
Hmmm... I still think it's kinda possible... Hey, people pay 250$ for an iPod... so...

RobS · 2004-02-28 09:24:45

Don't forget the costs of your 'bots has to include development costs, and it isn't easy to develop anything capable of working after the first night when the temperature falls to 100 below zero. Batteries can't handle that; that's the potentially big problem for Spirit and Opportunity, and what killed Sojourner.

-- RobS

DanielCook · 2004-02-28 10:10:05

My chief concerns in making 'Krazy Plan?' work is that your ability to generate financing is directly linked to the mass your able to place on Mars. There are also a minimum amount of the "bots" that you will have to sell before you can do anything. Lets say you use an Falcon V to launch your 4,200kg of payload. Of this, say 2,000Kg is your "useful" payload (your bots). For this single launch the per unit launch cost would be $60,000 (assuming 10kg's per bot, any smaller it wouldn't be usefull IMHO, thus 200 bots per launch and launch cost of $12 million.) Now add your development cost, a guestimate of $50 million (this is for bots, TMI Carrier / Lander, etc.) - "cheap". If you work on a recovery of $10,000 per bot, you'll need to launch 25 payloads. This brings your unit cost to $70,000 per unit, on the ground. The development cost is fixed, useful size is (fairly) fixed (heck - even 10kgs is optimistic). Now the question is, can you sell (or finance) 5,000 of these at $70,000 a pop? If you up your launches by a factor of 10, the unit cost is $61,000 - still steep.

If you finance SpaceX to increase their lifting ability (let's say $500 million for the project) to 20,000kg (quintupled), with launch costs doubling (effectively halving your per kg cost), your per unit cost drops to $24,000 for launch, $2,000 for development of the bots and $20,000 for the development of the launch vehicle (at 25 launches) - a grand total of $46,000 per bot and $26,200 for 250 launches (and 250,000 bots). Ceteris paribus.

For a per unit break-even cost of around $2,000 it seems you need a vehicle that can lift 200,000kgs at $48,000,000 per launch ($240 per kg assuming 250 launches) ... Eish.

Rxke · 2004-02-28 11:04:19

RobS,...

Temp is an issue, granted. But i'm looking for capacitors, not batteries (accu's) That's the way Beambots work: they are most of the time just sitting there, charging their condensators... (sorry, capacitors in english) and do things in 'bursts of energy'
Anyhow, i should've waited before posting this, still filling out details (and admittedly, bigger pieces of the puzzle)

DanielCook,...

I am not saying my plan works (anymore, or for the moment..)
But your numbers are too negative for several reasons:

1) You say 10kg minimum, I say 1kg or less. With a straight face. Using Beam technology, i've seen bots that weighted 1/4 of a kilogram (half a pound, for the metrically challenged) that were able to:
a) easily negociate terrain made out of loose sand, with small and big rock mixed in it. To me it looked like Mars, and it gave me the idea (heh) of Rxke's KrazyPlan? Those critters were even weighted down with dead mass to give em more 'traction) (read:payload capability unused) Dunno the numbers, though.
b) errr... as i said in a) carry a slight payload...
c)be 'preprogrammed' with a toggle to do either action 'x' or 'y' (going away/ approach beacon, in the case...)

Now, i don't envision bulldozers on Mars, but... errr... 'vacuumcleaners' They should only 'harvest' tiny particles, and in a very small quantity, say 25grams (1/20 pound)
Laughably little, yes, but if you multiply that with say 100 bots, you get 2,5 kg harvested material per 'cycle'... etc etc...

Many hands make light work, tiny termites build huge structures etc...

Then the cost of design: the bots. it wil be trivial. 1000$ max. As i said, most plans are on the net, you can make a proof-of-concept prototype for 100$, sure, and that will be used up mostly for the solar cells... These things can be built by anybody that is a good tinkerer, it is not rocketscience. Design could, should be done by volunteers.
TMI carrier and lander should *not* be developed, but bought 'off the shelf'
Most money would be the ACTUAL payload; the solar oven or whatever follow-up hardware... Sending bots up, to have a good time is idiocy, they have to do some honest *work* dammit!
And lastly, i don't thought this up to make money, just to have at least *some* recoup of costs. Anything extra would be great of course...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-02-27 14:08:54

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#27 2004-02-27 14:16:06

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#28 2004-02-27 14:41:48

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#29 2004-02-27 15:50:08

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#30 2004-02-27 16:09:20

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#31 2004-02-27 19:45:58

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#32 2004-02-28 03:48:41

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#33 2004-02-28 09:24:45

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#34 2004-02-28 10:10:05

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

#35 2004-02-28 11:04:19

Re: Q: Ownership of hardware on Mars - Setting up shop...

Board footer