Questions

~Eternal~ · 2004-04-18 09:38:07

Okay I have several questions about a one-way trip(Colonization not suicide) to Mars.

How much should it cost(minimum & maximum)?

What should the hull and frame be composed of?

How many should go?

Artificial gravity would be a must, how wide should each ring be(I've heard a 48.77 minimum)?

Which current or next 15 year propulsion method should be used?(Most likely chemical, plasma, solar sail, or ion)?

Bill White · 2004-04-18 18:38:04

Follow on MarsDirect missions cost $1 or $2 billion each for 4 - 6 crew members.

The $50 - $60 billion for MarsDirect is mostly for R&D.

If Energia were used to lift a Earth to Mars TransHab the cost could perhaps be even less.

Euler · 2004-04-18 19:08:27

With the Mars direct plan, the ERV actually weighed more than the Hab. Without having to build the ERV, I think that a small scale colony could be started for less than the price of Mars Direct. However, it would be very risky to try this before finding a good site with available water and verifying that plants can survive in Martian conditions.

Bill White · 2004-04-18 19:21:11

Why would you send a colony before a MarsDirect team, or three, scouted suitable sites?

Send 3 or 4 MarsDirect missions then send follow on settlers using the same architecture, just no ERVs,

SBird · 2004-04-18 19:34:01

verifying that pants can survive in Martian conditions.

I dunno, while embarassing, I would hardly characterize a chronic lack of pants as fatal. :;):

Bill White · 2004-04-18 20:14:36

verifying that pants can survive in Martian conditions.
I dunno, while embarassing, I would hardly characterize a chronic lack of pants as fatal. :;):

I dunno

or

too close to call.

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-18 20:34:59

Hmm, what part of that $50 billion R&D is most expensive? I mean, not to sound a bit naive here, but... can't we build the main hab part for relatively little cost? I once did calculations on building a greenhouse able to sustain two people, and it came in under 50k (and that was being very very conservative, assuming several unforseen screwups during the design of it).

Maybe I'm just not seeing the wider picture here.

Bill White · 2004-04-18 21:54:35

Hmm, what part of that $50 billion R&D is most expensive? I mean, not to sound a bit naive here, but... can't we build the main hab part for relatively little cost? I once did calculations on building a greenhouse able to sustain two people, and it came in under 50k (and that was being very very conservative, assuming several unforseen screwups during the design of it).
Maybe I'm just not seeing the wider picture here.

Ares, for one (shuttle B/C with a cryogenic upper stage)

R&D for Mars areocapture (man-rated)

R&D for descent module

R&D for a space rated nuclear reactor (none actually exist, today)

R&D for a Mars Ascent Vehicle

R&D for CELSS

C M Edwards · 2004-04-18 22:58:06

Indeed, it looks like R&D is the most expensive part of any mission profile's costs. So, logically, any mission profile that minimizes research and development also minimizes costs.

Not requiring something saves the money of having to develop it.

CELSS could be skipped. By relying on other R&D that already has to be done for in situ propellant production, on site resource utilization could be used to take up the slack for existing life support systems.

An Ares rocket could be skipped. Breaking the mission down into a series of launches (as in the RedColony.com Mars For Less mission profile) could save money by taking the money slated for developing a brand new HLV and sinking it into boosters already flying.

Development of a space-rated nuclear reactor could be skipped. A radiothermal pile of equivalent power, using banks of existing RTG units, could be assembled with the same power output and several times the operational lifetime of a single nuclear reactor.

Skipping some piece of equipment that you want will not improve the mission, but it may not kill it, either. You can save money if you're willing to trade versatility, robustness, mass, etc., for that money.

:bars2:

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-04-18 23:16:19

I'm not sure if the way to do it would be to have a 'Colinization Mission' persay.

I think the more logical way to do it would be to just start collecting the Habs from previous missions and linking them to start a small base and by the third or forth mission have crews start to stay over for one or two hab deliveries, say like a six year tour of duty at base. Over that time start to build up an industrial base of equipment so that once it is called for more permanent homes could be constructed, be it brick vaults or domes or possibly preasurized caves or lava tubes, maybe even a tented canyon or crater.

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-19 00:42:32

I could probably do something like CELSS out of pocket, if I had the free time (and the paycheck I still get, of course). My idea for a greenhouse could've been implemented last year if I had the resources. But alas, I'm but a mere mortal.

The one thing about splitting the cost up into little rockets, is that we wouldn't be creating the infrastructure to actually start going to Mars on a regular basis with lots of people. Granted, it may spur more development, as we could send the right stuff to get colonies going, so maybe that's a poor excuse.

C M Edwards · 2004-04-19 09:52:20

It's important to note that a one-way colonization mission will not necessarily reduce costs. If anything, a one-way mission will cost more than a return mission because of all the extra equipment (and corresponding R&D) that will go into keeping their colony running successfully once they get to Mars.

A colonization mission is only guaranteed to give more return for the money, not to cost less money.

Josh,

I believe that a dedicated amateur can do exactly the type of project you're describing. Don't give up. Just start small, and work with expansion in mind.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-04-18 09:38:07

Re: Questions

#2 2004-04-18 18:38:04

Re: Questions

#3 2004-04-18 19:08:27

Re: Questions

#4 2004-04-18 19:21:11

Re: Questions

#5 2004-04-18 19:34:01

Re: Questions

#6 2004-04-18 20:14:36

Re: Questions

#7 2004-04-18 20:34:59

Re: Questions

#8 2004-04-18 21:54:35

Re: Questions

#9 2004-04-18 22:58:06

Re: Questions

#10 2004-04-18 23:16:19

Re: Questions

#11 2004-04-19 00:42:32

Re: Questions

#12 2004-04-19 09:52:20

Re: Questions

Board footer