affordable Mars mission

FrenchConsultant · 2004-06-24 12:57:57

I think that cost about Mars mission are completely overestimated.I have done calculation using similar development technologies and prices benchmarking and I arrived at the conclusion that a manned space mission on Mars should be less than 20 billion $ with a generous estimation.
To give you an idea : the launch of 800 t by ariane 5 cost 7.2 billion $.The cost of a plane sophisticated as Rafale is 7 billion $ in development from engine to radar.

What is needed is skunk works management style, good R&D practices in management and empowerement, financial incentives and new way for contracting.A fixed amount is fixed initially and then there are personnal incentives on saving.Also a personnal financial involvement of managers like in start up.
The only real innovative technology we need are propulsion.
However affordable concept exists and the purpose should be to develop them in a fixed cost.It doens't matter if isp is 1200 or 4000 s for main propulsion system.You demonstrate a concept already much more better than chemical propulsion and then you design around it.
I know some innovative concept about it.
I think also that such a concept should use most on the self technology, and components except for the propulsion.
To take in account presence of man to have a system which can simply repaired in space and fail safe.
I think also that such a system should be not only design for Mars but multiplanet taking in account the worst case for landing i.e Mars and the worst case for travelling i.e Saturn.
Such a system could be build in limited numbers to be able to fullfill few planery mission from Mercury to asteroid belt.It would cost more (maybe 40 B$ for 3 planets) but this would be usefull .Multiplaneting allow incremental improvement from Lunar testing to ambitious mission.It shouldn't also be build with more than TWO foreign partner.
My personal belief is that you can separate travelling of men from supplies and landers.
Thinking out the box should be encouraged more.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-24 13:44:00

Overall I agree. Certainly a Mars mission could be done for less money if standard government procurement procedures were bypassed. Your figures may be slightly optimistic, but the range seems reasonable.

Especially that 'no more than three partners' stuff.

Does ESA count as one?

MarsDog · 2004-06-24 14:48:14

What US had was a lack of Will, not a lack of $$$.
The new space race will be good public relations,
distracting US voters from the wars.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-24 14:54:41

The new space race will be good public relations,
distracting US voters from the wars.

If it gets us out there...

Results over motive.

MarsDog · 2004-06-24 15:10:59

The oil wars are producing higher oil prices.
Time for a commercial break from misery.
Even the terrorists might be baffled,
And loose focus while sky watching.

Grypd · 2004-06-24 15:54:46

It is not just necessary to make one mission to mars affordable to keep a program running it is necessary to make the whole program affordable.

There are some golden rules it seems
Well here are mine
1) Use off the shelf components, try to reduce devolopment time as it seems to be a financial black hole
2) You need a middle and lower management empowered to improve the program as it goes along and with a workforce with a lot more indians than chiefs. With a clear objective.
3) Have clear mission goals that are flexible if necessary but which inspire the crews in there actions.
4) Use your resources wisely dont send a man to do what a machine can do easily but vice versa dont try designing a machine to do a difficult job that a man could do in seconds.

frankly there will be more but as a rule it suits me, the best way to sum up is simplicity is golden.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-25 08:40:08

Unfortunatly space travel is a bit harder than building fighter jets... Consider the extreme cost of assembling a Mars vehicle out of pieces the Ariane-V can carry, ignoring the cost of the componets (which would be much higher) entirely.

I think that even $20Bn is pretty optimistic for an extremely minimal mission, the engineering required is staggering... habitation modules, landers, heat shields, power systems, life support, space suits, radiation shield, and on and on. $7Bn will probobly only buy you one of the major componets. (launch vehicle, transfer vehicles, etc). Oh and don't forget that a nuclear power plant on Mars is a must, not an option, which adds quite a bit to the cost.

As for propulsion, unfortunatly there aren't going to be any major advances in specific impulse at reasonable thrusts, because we have run into a fundimental wall with their atomic weight of the atoms and their roughly similar bond energies are now a limiting factor, not the engineering. The current only option to increase the impulse and still have reasonable thrust is to employ a nuclear rocket engine, which will also cost big money.

FrenchConsultant · 2004-06-25 09:30:37

The newest thing to develop is the main propulsion system:
nuclear, magnetoplasmic propulsion are more mature technology USING what it have been done on HTR reactor (for fission) and Tokamak that people think.
I could mention that also a lot of work have been made on NERVA program and the Russian have developped almost to the end a nuclear propusion system.
The problem is to have a system which can handle continuous propulsion during dozens of thousand hours.Top performance once its works and demonstated is not necessary.You design system around it .Winning 100 or 500 s on ISP once you are above 900 s shouldn't be a goal.I mean better to have 90% of theororical performance at specified price than 98%.
As I said 20t more in low earth orbit is 180 million $.
An other thing is that you could have also in the same time many small propulsions system like ion propulsion on probes and satellites as you are in vacuum ,you have no partial catastrophic failure issues like on a space shuttle or rocket with chemical engines.
I estimate main propulsion system development to 7/6 billion $.other technologies needed are mature.You can test them on low scale for flight management software with a probe for example.Life support should not be investing further.A lot of money have been spend to see if people can live in space: it is clear now.And artificial gravity is not an technical issue.

For oxygen on Mars existing design on nuclear electric generator exist.
The only new thing is the lander.

In fact a fighter can be much more sophisticated and need much more manhour in development.(software for CME, radar, IRSF, stealth issues, instable flight aerodynamic etc...).
We could also compare that with cost of a SSN/SBSN deveppment like Seawolf for example.
3000 engineers pay and environment during ten years cost 10 B$.

I ve investigated during many years practices in managing R&D.
That I can said is that relying to people from bureaucratic agencies like NASA or ESA will multiply by a factor 3 to 10 development and test price.
Why: because they want (and politicians) to avoid any risk and do not let the control on a single individual.
But in fact they are unable to manage it on overall projects.
people are not commited to maintain price low (by financial personal incentives and PUNISHMENT)
Technical choices are compromise between differents stakeholders and not necessarly the best, teams are maintened during delay for budgetary reasons etc...
The only choice is to give the money and rewards to a team commited in and which have invest its OWN money.And managed by a single man like the Von Braun or Edward Teller caliber selected by a preliminary competitive process.(Maybe Burt Rutan could be thinking on that).
Any top manager to enter in the program should like in a start up, pay on its own money the right to get in.And lost everything or for a part in case of its objectives unreached.

FrenchConsultant · 2004-06-25 09:48:10

Cobra Commander:

No NASA no ESA.There is good individuals but I want only companies with use good R&D management style and ready to play it as a internal start up: see Saab, Dassault, Laben etc in Europe.A network of partners funded by one to three governement with no more involvement in the project when funded.Except on some milestones maybe .
A new fondation could be done for that with the right to use former NASA or ESA work, and public basic research.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 15:35:37

The ESA and Airbus are two huge conglomerates of several European companies funded by European taxes.

In American words they are big bureaucratic socialist agencies that make things happens by throwing more money at it.

They make NASA look like a free, highly oiled and productive agency, which has no problems.

Ooh they did have successes but that’s because they threw more money at it.

Grypd · 2004-06-25 16:23:01

Esa and airbus are a large conglomeration of countries and bureaucratic institutions, but they work because well there competition is worse or they simply have a product that will sell. And they are making a profit and have streamlined themselves. And they are competitive!
They started off as a nightmare, but the pressure of buisness has forced them to adapt.
Why am i interested well what goverment lead disaster can do so can NASA.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 17:56:58

They started off as a nightmare, but the pressure of buisness has forced them to adapt.

Thats what I meant they threw more money at it.

They threy money at it until something came out of it that would sell. If you would have given Boeing the same budget as them, Boeing would have come out with freaking faster then light death star.

Just cause they are selling something now doesn't mean you can ignore the initial investments, R&D and prototypes costs. As they being a socialist based conglomeration being paid by tax payers money, people seem to forget about these little thingies.

And if their products were so good, why the government funding?

Grypd · 2004-06-25 18:11:40

Politics of course.
They needed a low cost operational aeroplane and they did not go for the individual Companies that forms Europes aero industries as no goverment wanted something that they could not claim as partly OURS

So Airbus was formed but it seems to be operating effectively at the moment, Which is a hopeful sign. Oh and throwing money at a project seriously do you not think Boeing did not get enough cash for its Military aircraft, B52 etc.
And it was that experience that allowed Boeing to get involved in COMMERCIAL planes.
So the Airbus corporation is going the way that Boeing did but with their start being commercial rather than military.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 18:53:51

Politics of course.
They needed a low cost operational aeroplane and they did not go for the individual Companies that forms Europes aero industries as no goverment wanted something that they could not claim as partly OURS
So Airbus was formed but it seems to be operating effectively at the moment, Which is a hopeful sign. Oh and throwing money at a project seriously do you not think Boeing did not get enough cash for its Military aircraft, B52 etc.
And it was that experience that allowed Boeing to get involved in COMMERCIAL planes.
So the Airbus corporation is going the way that Boeing did but with their start being commercial rather than military.

Don't tell me that those individual companies didn't also have military contracts with their respective governments. In the past and in present.

MarsDog · 2004-06-25 20:23:06

A new foundation could be done for that with the right to use former NASA or ESA work, and public basic research.

Inequality of access to information is fundamental to maintaining power.
USA still wants to keep control and be first.

Grypd · 2004-06-26 04:59:08

Of course Airbus has military contracts but it did not start with such.
These came later.
And the individual companies at the time that Airbus was being formed probably all had military contracts. But so few if any reasonable sized aircraft manufacturer did not use military contracts to gain an income. It makes sense for them to spread there buisness around.
One thing that has happened though is that in the last decade these companies have begun to merge to form real giants.
Something like Airbus being formed by small single country based companies to create a desired product will likely never happen again. These Major aircraft companies have far too many fingers in far too many pies.

Rxke · 2004-06-26 05:52:18

The ESA and Airbus are two huge conglomerates of several European companies funded by European taxes.
In American words they are big bureaucratic socialist agencies that make things happens by throwing more money at it.
They make NASA look like a free, highly oiled and productive agency, which has no problems.
Ooh they did have successes but that’s because they threw more money at it.

Huh?

Nasa and Boeing get more money from American taxpayers than ESA/Airbus, I'd think...

Just compare their budgets...

Grypd · 2004-06-26 13:44:24

The reason that Airbus is doing so well and seems to be taking business of Boeing is it is not really subject to the cost plus system so its ability to sell its products are a prime motivator for the company. They dont design what wont sell.

Boeing it seems has begun to learn that lesson with the recent dropping of the sonic cruiser and plans to improve its fleet of planes for sale.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-24 12:57:57

Re: affordable Mars mission

#2 2004-06-24 13:44:00

Re: affordable Mars mission

#3 2004-06-24 14:48:14

Re: affordable Mars mission

#4 2004-06-24 14:54:41

Re: affordable Mars mission

#5 2004-06-24 15:10:59

Re: affordable Mars mission

#6 2004-06-24 15:54:46

Re: affordable Mars mission

#7 2004-06-25 08:40:08

Re: affordable Mars mission

#8 2004-06-25 09:30:37

Re: affordable Mars mission

#9 2004-06-25 09:48:10

Re: affordable Mars mission

#10 2004-06-25 15:35:37

Re: affordable Mars mission

#11 2004-06-25 16:23:01

Re: affordable Mars mission

#12 2004-06-25 17:56:58

Re: affordable Mars mission

#13 2004-06-25 18:11:40

Re: affordable Mars mission

#14 2004-06-25 18:53:51

Re: affordable Mars mission

#15 2004-06-25 20:23:06

Re: affordable Mars mission

#16 2004-06-26 04:59:08

Re: affordable Mars mission

#17 2004-06-26 05:52:18

Re: affordable Mars mission

#18 2004-06-26 13:44:24

Re: affordable Mars mission

Board footer