Mars One Way Vs. ISS

John Creighton · 2004-11-27 13:16:21

Which is cheaper to maintain a one way mars mission or a crew on the ISS. With ion tugs and parshoots airbag landings does it really cost much more to send supplies to mars then it does to the ISS. If we can sustain a crew on the ISS there is no reason we cannot sustain a crew on mars especially since mars has raw resources which will reduce the need for resupplies.

Clearly it is much cheaper to keep supplying the same crew then constantly fairing the crew back and forth. Maybe one way is too long but what about 10 years on mars. Imagine how much of mars you can cover in 10 years just by driving. Imagine how much more research that will get done with humans to assist the robots then just with robots. I like Mars direct and I will be happy to see it but I want to see some serious long term mars missions.

Martian Republic · 2004-11-27 16:31:57

Which is cheaper to maintain a one way mars mission or a crew on the ISS. With ion tugs and parshoots airbag landings does it really cost much more to send supplies to mars then it does to the ISS. If we can sustain a crew on the ISS there is no reason we cannot sustain a crew on mars especially since mars has raw resources which will reduce the need for resupplies.
Clearly it is much cheaper to keep supplying the same crew then constantly fairing the crew back and forth. Maybe one way is too long but what about 10 years on mars. Imagine how much of mars you can cover in 10 years just by driving. Imagine how much more research that will get done with humans to assist the robots then just with robots. I like Mars direct and I will be happy to see it but I want to see some serious long term mars missions.

Answer to your question:

No, it will not be cheaper to maintain a base on Mars than maintain the ISS. In near Earth orbit all you have involved is modules sent up from the Earth and either expendable rocket and shuttle to supply it, which is well within our technical capability to do. To build a base on Mars we will have to commit more capital goods and services to establish that base and we will have to both develop and build that infrastructure to support it. Currently we have neither one and so it will have to be developed and built. Also if we go out to Mars we will have to send more people than we have on the ISS, because they will have do more to keep the Mars base functional like hydroponics gardens and things like that. Like they need 2.5 people just to do maintain on the ISS. Now the originally we wanted 6 people on the ISS and that would mean that 3.5 people could do science on the space station while the other 2.5 people would be doing the maintaince of that station. Your going to have the same problem on Mars, but you might need 6 or 8 people doing the maintaince or more people.

There no way to sneak out of building the infrastructure or other prep work to make a Mars base cheaper than the ISS. It would be like trying to buy a new 747 Boeing air craft for the price of a brand new car. You can try if you want to, but it not likely to happen even if it were a Roy Royce price for a car that you were using.

Larry,

RobS · 2004-11-27 22:24:35

If anything, ISS shows we still don't know how to do low earth orbit extremely well. Of course, Mir showed that even with all sorts of equipment disasters--even fires on board--people can survive and do good science. But it is clear we still need to spend a lot of money to develop equipment to survive and function well on Mars.

As for straight costs, Mars Direct used a 140 tonnes to low earth orbit booster to put 27 tonnes on Mars (roughly 20% of the LEO mass). If it costs $6000 per kilogram to get the 140 tonnes into LEO, then it will cost at least $30,000 per kilogram to get the 27 tonnes on Mars. When you add the cost of all the equipment, the cost probably rises to something like $50,000 per kilogram. Of course, if the price of getting stuff to LEO falls drastically, the cost of putting stuff on Mars will fall drastically as well.

-- RobS

comstar03 · 2004-11-28 00:06:34

I think we are looking at the short term approaches to space travel. We need to create automated transport vessels to launch from earth or lunar orbit then travel to mars and return while dropping off communication and survey vehicles and droids to the outer planets, asteroids , comets and other bodies within our solar system.

It would also be a larger platform for scientific experiments while its cargo tranpsortation duties are being handled as well. We need our interplanetary vessels to do more than just one activity even remote vessels as well. This also brings the risk to humans down and reduces the use of complex living environments onboard these vessels when not required.

This would keep the scientific community happy becuase the human-centric missions as still be conducted in earth-lunar orbits while the scientific activities are conducted via remote / automated vessels, that also provide testing for larger experiment modules / new propulsion / navigation / communication and control systems for future human missions to mars and beyond.

Both parts of the space program get what they want and at the same time the reliable space cargo platform is tested and used when humans move to mars to establish and maintain a mars outpost then settlement.

RobS · 2004-11-28 08:41:29

I'm not sure what you mean. An automated cargo vehicle to move 25 tonnes of cargo or 1 tonne? With nuclear power and a powerful radio transmitter for the outer solar system or solar and a small radio for the inner? With aerobraking capacity? Ion powered or chemical engines, or nuclear? These are all so different, no one vehicle can accommodate them all.

-- RobS

BWhite · 2004-11-28 09:00:18

Which is cheaper to maintain a one way mars mission or a crew on the ISS. With ion tugs and parshoots airbag landings does it really cost much more to send supplies to mars then it does to the ISS. If we can sustain a crew on the ISS there is no reason we cannot sustain a crew on mars especially since mars has raw resources which will reduce the need for resupplies.
Clearly it is much cheaper to keep supplying the same crew then constantly fairing the crew back and forth. Maybe one way is too long but what about 10 years on mars. Imagine how much of mars you can cover in 10 years just by driving. Imagine how much more research that will get done with humans to assist the robots then just with robots. I like Mars direct and I will be happy to see it but I want to see some serious long term mars missions.
Answer to your question:
No, it will not be cheaper to maintain a base on Mars than maintain the ISS. In near Earth orbit all you have involved is modules sent up from the Earth and either expendable rocket and shuttle to supply it, which is well within our technical capability to do. To build a base on Mars we will have to commit more capital goods and services to establish that base and we will have to both develop and build that infrastructure to support it. Currently we have neither one and so it will have to be developed and built. Also if we go out to Mars we will have to send more people than we have on the ISS, because they will have do more to keep the Mars base functional like hydroponics gardens and things like that. Like they need 2.5 people just to do maintain on the ISS. Now the originally we wanted 6 people on the ISS and that would mean that 3.5 people could do science on the space station while the other 2.5 people would be doing the maintaince of that station. Your going to have the same problem on Mars, but you might need 6 or 8 people doing the maintaince or more people.
There no way to sneak out of building the infrastructure or other prep work to make a Mars base cheaper than the ISS. It would be like trying to buy a new 747 Boeing air craft for the price of a brand new car. You can try if you want to, but it not likely to happen even if it were a Roy Royce price for a car that you were using.
Larry,

With locally harvested water, locally grown food, a nuclear reactor for power, and the ability to harvest and process the Mars atmosphere, once a team is sent to Mars, there is little need to spend ANYTHING additional on support.

And if ISS had been built wisely, it would now be costing very much less to support that it costs currently.

Gennaro · 2004-11-28 09:22:45

With locally harvested water, locally grown food, a nuclear reactor for power, and the ability to harvest and process the Mars atmosphere, once a team is sent to Mars, there is little need to spend ANYTHING additional on support.

Although, I must say that my impression has been that much of this has to be tried out and tested on Mars. Hydroponics for example, the small greenhouse carried by an early mission could do little more than testing the suitability and methods of growing plants using Mars soil, yes? To get into full fledged self sustaining production you'd need a larger acreage and consequently the involvement of building materials created on Mars, methods to accomplish which the early missions should also put into practice.

The very techniques of creating a settlement are things that I have imagined should go into the Mars Direct missions in themselves, but until self-sustainability can be achieved in various areas, the missions would be entirely dependant on Earth.

Martian Republic · 2004-11-28 09:40:51

Which is cheaper to maintain a one way mars mission or a crew on the ISS. With ion tugs and parshoots airbag landings does it really cost much more to send supplies to mars then it does to the ISS. If we can sustain a crew on the ISS there is no reason we cannot sustain a crew on mars especially since mars has raw resources which will reduce the need for resupplies.
Clearly it is much cheaper to keep supplying the same crew then constantly fairing the crew back and forth. Maybe one way is too long but what about 10 years on mars. Imagine how much of mars you can cover in 10 years just by driving. Imagine how much more research that will get done with humans to assist the robots then just with robots. I like Mars direct and I will be happy to see it but I want to see some serious long term mars missions.
Answer to your question:
No, it will not be cheaper to maintain a base on Mars than maintain the ISS. In near Earth orbit all you have involved is modules sent up from the Earth and either expendable rocket and shuttle to supply it, which is well within our technical capability to do. To build a base on Mars we will have to commit more capital goods and services to establish that base and we will have to both develop and build that infrastructure to support it. Currently we have neither one and so it will have to be developed and built. Also if we go out to Mars we will have to send more people than we have on the ISS, because they will have do more to keep the Mars base functional like hydroponics gardens and things like that. Like they need 2.5 people just to do maintain on the ISS. Now the originally we wanted 6 people on the ISS and that would mean that 3.5 people could do science on the space station while the other 2.5 people would be doing the maintaince of that station. Your going to have the same problem on Mars, but you might need 6 or 8 people doing the maintaince or more people.
There no way to sneak out of building the infrastructure or other prep work to make a Mars base cheaper than the ISS. It would be like trying to buy a new 747 Boeing air craft for the price of a brand new car. You can try if you want to, but it not likely to happen even if it were a Roy Royce price for a car that you were using.
Larry,
With locally harvested water, locally grown food, a nuclear reactor for power, and the ability to harvest and process the Mars atmosphere, once a team is sent to Mars, there is little need to spend ANYTHING additional on support.
And if ISS had been built wisely, it would now be costing very much less to support that it costs currently.

I stand by my original statement.

You have three problem to deal with to even be able to get in the ball park of trying to have a Mars colony cost the same as a ISS cost us.

1. We have to setup the transportation infrastructure to get both the people, habitats, rolling stock like Mars Buggies to Mars in the first place and to be able to resupply the Mars Base once we establish it.

2. We going to have to build those habitats, Mars Buggies, power plants, water purification plants, gardens, medical equipment, etc. It will probably take us ten to fifteen years just to set that stuff up. Even a Mars Direct from today's date will probably take anywhere between 5 to 7 years to accomplish and it has nowhere near the resources that we would need for a project like this.

3. Instead of having everything pre-packaged for the space station and assembled on Earth by other humans and sent to the ISS for there use, they will have to do everything themselves. That not as easy as it might sound, because you will have to increase the number of people that you will have to send to be able to do Mars what done on Earth for the ISS. But, if you send more people, then you will have to increase the size of the habitat to accommodate more people, which will require more resources from the Earth and more spare parts that can't be manufactured on Mars.

Now if we decide to build a base Mars, I have no doubt that we could do it, but it not going to be cheaper than having the ISS in orbit and maintaining it in orbit. That just not going to happen. Now I support going to Mars and building a habitat there and I even support building a city on Mars in a forty to fifty year time frame, but it not going to be cheap if we ever choose to do it. Matter of fact, it going to make the building of the ISS and the maintaince of the ISS look like low budget space program.

Larry,

Gennaro · 2004-11-28 09:46:36

I think the Mars Direct plan is sound, basically because its long series of missions and cycling of (specialized) participants would allow you to try out all the techniques needed for an actual settlement, for a minimum of capital and resources spent.

You'd learn as you go along without risking to waste very much on mistaken preconceptions in the process.

comstar03 · 2004-11-28 17:56:54

RobS,

Yes you can, if the space vessel structure is build on the principle of modular construction. you can use trusses to handle the cargo hauling areas reducing the mass of the sapcecraft. Modular Design allows different modules eg. Navigation systems, Communication Systems, Propulsion Systems and Cargo Systems to be tested without having to create different vessels.

The missions are also determined on the modules used. The Commercial Corporations could use the space vessel to test the various modules and the interactions with other different modules, also the vessel could also provide valuable space experimentations for the human centric missions outside the earth-lunar corridor.

So, the answers simply is YES, RobS you can design and build a vessel for all seasons but depends on the mission involved.
The next place is to have assembly point in orbit for the transformation of the cargo vessel.

We need the research and testing platform for the long term development of space and humanity in space. This would cut the overall costs of a mission or program for future human missions within our solar system and beyond.

John Creighton · 2004-11-28 21:00:56

No, it will not be cheaper to maintain a base on Mars than maintain the ISS. In near Earth orbit all you have involved is modules sent up from the Earth and either expendable rocket and shuttle to supply it, which is well within our technical capability to do.

To resupply the mars base ferry good between the shuttle and mars with electric propulsion. This may take some development but it will mean that a large percentage of the mass that gets to LEO makes it to mars thus drastically reducing the cost difference between supplying low earth orbit and mars.

To build a base on Mars we will have to commit more capital goods and services to establish that base and we will have to both develop and build that infrastructure to support it.

Well that is kind of a vague statement. Anyway I am talking about the hab as the base KISS. But the labor we are supporting can be used to expand the habitation area of various places on mars for the sanity of the current or future crews. Whether they do or not will depend on the priorities of the administration at the time. I think 10% of there time should be devoted to construction and 20% devoted to matencence/house/gardening , 20% personal and recreation time and 50% for research. All their activities should be accompanied by as much automation and tellerobotics as possible.

Also if we go out to Mars we will have to send more people than we have on the ISS, because they will have do more to keep the Mars base functional like hydroponics gardens and things like that. Like they need 2.5 people just to do maintain on the ISS. Now the originally we wanted 6 people on the ISS and that would mean that 3.5 people could do science on the space station while the other 2.5 people would be doing the maintaince of that station. Your going to have the same problem on Mars, but you might need 6 or 8 people doing the maintaince or more people.

Hopefully when we get to mars we will have these systems working better.

There no way to sneak out of building the infrastructure or other prep work to make a Mars base cheaper than the ISS. It would be like trying to buy a new 747 Boeing air craft for the price of a brand new car. You can try if you want to, but it not likely to happen even if it were a Roy Royce price for a car that you were using.

Why not. If you can live in a hab for three years why not try and live in one longer. Hopefully with 20% of their time devoted to construction they will be able to create more livable space but it is not absolutely necessary. Again less is needed to supply a mars base. The oxegen and even some water can be taken straight out of the atmosphere. As for nuclear reactors the CANDU reactors have automatic refilling. Surely we can develop something like that for the Martians.

comstar03 · 2004-11-28 22:13:17

John,

the main difference between the mars base and ISS is that the mars base can over time build resources from raw materials on mars where ISS or any other platform must rely on resources coming to the station / platform.

The initial costs for setup and expansion to substainable level will be large capital funding and asset growth in that aspect. After capital outlays the base would return raw materials can then be used to fund expansion of space activities for humanity. food processing, assembly of space vessels and repair and laot of other avenues of commerce to expand the substainability for mars and the moon.

it comes back to the backing and the overall infrastructure budget and organizational structure managing the expansion into space.

Euler · 2004-11-29 00:28:58

You can reduce the costs of maintaining a Mars base by increasing the initial investment. However, if you try to build a self-sufficient Mars base, the interest payments alone would far exceed the cost of maintaining ISS.

All their activities should be accompanied by as much automation and tellerobotics as possible.

The more high-tech robotics you include, the more the Mars base will be dependent on Earth. If you want to make a Mars base self-sufficient, it should be as low-tech as possible.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-29 07:05:54

Especially since you can not wait 9 plus months for the spare parts to arrive from Earth. Giving them the capability to make any part required, would also cost more up front as part of any mechanical design but would be well worth it in the end run.

John Creighton · 2004-11-29 10:29:46

You can reduce the costs of maintaining a Mars base by increasing the initial investment. However, if you try to build a self-sufficient Mars base, the interest payments alone would far exceed the cost of maintaining ISS.

For a fair comparison we have to look at the interest payments on the money above what it costs to build the ISS. If it cost less to get the hardware to mars then build the ISS then we should include the interest payments the ISS above the cost it takes to get the hardware to mars as a maintenance cost of the ISS. Or we could simply include the interest cost of both programs as a maintenance cost of each. Didn’t the ISS cost around a trillion to build? Aren’t the estimates for Mars missions in the billions? Anyway the goal is not to build a completely self sufficient colony. The goal is simply to try and make the base as self sufficient as possible within a reasonable budget. Over time the level of self sufficiency can be slowly improved. Once the level of self sufficiency reaches a suitable level then the politicians can debate increasing the size of the team.

The more high-tech robotics you include, the more the Mars base will be dependent on Earth. If you want to make a Mars base self-sufficient, it should be as low-tech as possible.

Again I am not trying to make the base completely self sufficient. I want to sustain a team of four or six to enhance the exploration efforts of earth. In order to get the maximum possible scientific return out of the crew as much automation and tellerobitics as possible should be used to free up the team so then can perform the tasks for which they are most essential be they research or construction. Automation and tellerobotics should be used for as many functions as possible within the allotted mass budget. This may even include such tasks as agriculture and food packaging. Food preservation is very important because it is too risky to rely solely on fresh food and meet. If a large surplus of preserved food is maintained less of the resupply mass will need to devoted to food and more supply mass can be devoted to new automation/tellerobotic technology for the purposes of science or construction. The initial bases should be small outposts scattered across mars. One crew can travel between the bases positioned around the most impressive geological features of mars assisting the automation/tellerobotics as much as possible in the exploration and industrialization of the Martian frontier.

Martian Republic · 2004-11-29 10:42:41

John Creighton,

You have absolutely no idea what it takes to manufacture something, let alone what it would take to make the stuff or grow the stuff to support what your talking about doing on Mars. You can talk about 10% of this and 20% of that and 50% of some other thing and your plan will never see the light of day even if they make you the ramrod and you were funded by the US Government to do it. I'm a machinist and I can make just about that you possibly need like axial, nuts and bolts, drive shafts, etc. if I have the equipment, tools and material to do it that is. But you give 10% equipment and 20% tools that I need and 0% of material and I will do absolutely nothing when it comes to doing something on Mars even if I were there. If you Lathe, but not a mill and/or a grinder, that would compromise my make something or build a replacement part for. To get me every thing that I need to be able to build that part for material on Mars it would still take me several months to produce the simplest thing, let alone something that complicated. That means that I'm going to have to go out in my Mars Dump Truck with crane to scoop up the Martian iron deposits or go out there with two wheeler and just make more trips to sight to get the iron that I need. Now I need a foundry to refine the iron in. Are we going to automate it or I'm I going to pound it out with a hammer and anvil configuration? If I need carbon to turn my iron into steel, I will have to go and look for it and drag it back to my manufacturing station. Now assuming that I have the machines, tool like end wrenches, hammer screwdrivers, et and perishable tool like carbide insert, alan wrenches which by the way have to come from the earth, because I can't manufacture them. Then I have to heat treat and machine it some more to get finished product. Then after I spent several month building that part, I can wait another for nine month for the brass bushing to come so that I will have a useable part, which is coming from earth because I can't manufacture it. To put me in even this sorry state of being able to even try to build a replacement part could cost almost as much as even a Mars Direct Program would in it entirety. You guy's are yelling about having to send either two or three rockets to Mars. You would have to send two or three rockets to Mars just to get me set up so that I can even try to build the stuff on Mars and I will still probably fail in that attempt.

Any effort to attempt something like this will be at least fifteen to twenty years and it would be questionable whether we could do that then even. Things break down and need to be replaced and even on the ISS if we don't get the Space Shuttle Orbital going again, they will have to abandon the ISS because of the lack of spare parts and your going to have the same problem on Mars too. Some people on this board are talking like it take an acre and a half per person and if that so, you have another restriction on your efforts.

But, the point is, most of the stuff to support the Mars base is going to have to come from the Earth even after we set up that Mars base and can not be done internally on that Mars base and even a major supply of food may also have to come from the earth too for the fifteen to twenty years.

So dispense with this foolish idea that it can magically take care of itself anytime within the next twenty years or so, because it not going to happen even with a Kennedy type Moon program. To get anywhere close to what your talking about doing will take at least two or three generation and a commitment to build a city and infrastructure to support it. It will not go in the reverse, because you don't have the infrastructure to support that growth and anything past twenty to thirty people would be such a drag on who ever has that base that they would not continue to finance that financial drag on there economy.

Larry,

BWhite · 2004-11-29 10:53:04

Dispense with this foolishness and people won't care about the space program at all. People stop caring and funding evaporates.

50 years for a permanent base? Yup, that may be true IF we started working full speed, today.

Wait 50 years before we start agitating for a permanent base and that base will then be 100 years away.

= = =

Mars construction needs to be plastic and composites.

Replacements are made with rapid prototype machines we feed with bags of glop either made on Mars or shipped from Earth, as bags of glop. Metal working is too expensive and time consuming, I agree.

Edited By BWhite on 1101747369

Martian Republic · 2004-11-29 11:02:33

You can reduce the costs of maintaining a Mars base by increasing the initial investment. However, if you try to build a self-sufficient Mars base, the interest payments alone would far exceed the cost of maintaining ISS.
All their activities should be accompanied by as much automation and tellerobotics as possible.
The more high-tech robotics you include, the more the Mars base will be dependent on Earth. If you want to make a Mars base self-sufficient, it should be as low-tech as possible.

I both agree with you and disagree with you.

You right that they will have to depend on earth for there spare parts with the higher tech stuff, but if they don't go with the high tech stuff the Martian base will be less efficient and that less efficiency may also doom that Mars base. So we have a Catch 22, your damned if you do and your damned if you don't. When the NC machines are running, they can run cycle around the conventional machines when it comes to production or producing parts. But, when the NC machines are down or broken, it the conventional machines that save the bacon of many of these manufacturing places.

I guess it depends on which problem you want to have or you could choose to have both of them to get the benefits of both of them. I kind of favor a combination of the two my self.

Larry,

John Creighton · 2004-11-29 11:08:25

Martian Republic,
Clearly it is cheaper to keep the same people on mars then send a new crew every year or two. Less stuff needs to be shipped because the hab and the ERV? MAV is already there. It may take you several moths to produce the simplest thing but I have seen people produce pars on a milling machine in a half hour or less but if a million machine is not practical yet don’t bring it right away. Zubrin has already designed a sabitar reactor. Its automatic it can produce oxygen and methane from the Martian air. With a little bit of modification it could also produce water and some of the carbon you need for steel. But if it is not practically to produce steel initial then don’t. Wait until we developed the necessary technology or built the required infrastructure. As for food if a new crew comes they would have to bring food anyway, if a new crew is not coming we only have to bring the food and not the crew and not the food it would of took to feed the crew for the trip. Agricultural experiments will be an important part of the research. As these operations grow they can slowly reduce the food burden. But if they aren’t robust enough initially then don’t rely on them. Again we are doing research with foresight we are not trying to make the base self sufficient right away. But if we make great leaps towards self sufficiency the politicians can debate increasing the size of the crew. Automation in food production is also very important. A self sufficient algae unit could be brought from earth to supplement the food supply. The unit will be small at first because initially it will be more for research then food production. All these small research projects will add up. The cumulative effort of the people on mars and the people on earth will gradually improve the productivity of the base over time until the technology and infrastructure reaches a level where a much greater crew can be sent.

John Creighton · 2004-11-29 11:11:11

I guess it depends on which problem you want to have or you could choose to have both of them to get the benefits of both of them. I kind of favor a combination of the two my self.
Larry,

Makes sense but we need a strategy of what to send when. Lets start out with mars direct or semi direct and then ask how can we bust improve the efficiency of the crew with resupply missions.

Martian Republic · 2004-11-29 11:16:37

Didn’t the ISS cost around a trillion to build? Aren’t the estimates for Mars missions in the billions? Anyway the goal is not to build a completely self sufficient colony. The goal is simply to try and make the base as self sufficient as possible within a reasonable budget. Over time the level of self sufficiency can be slowly improved. Once the level of self sufficiency reaches a suitable level then the politicians can debate increasing the size of the team.

The last figure that I heard on what the ISS cost was about 145 billion dollars. Which was up from the orginal projection of about 45 to 50 billion dollars. The only way that you could say that it cost more than 145 billion dollars to build the ISS would be if your counting maintaince and the expendable food for the astronautes that are on the ISS.

Larry,

John Creighton · 2004-11-29 11:22:35

The last figure that I heard on what the ISS cost was about 145 billion dollars. Which was up from the orginal projection of about 45 to 50 billion dollars. The only way that you could say that it cost more than 145 billion dollars to build the ISS would be if your counting maintaince and the expendable food for the astronautes that are on the ISS.

Okay well the initial estimates sound on par with the estimates for mars direct so I don't think the costs will be that different. I have even heard some mars proposals around 6 billion although they are probably overly optimistic.

Martian Republic · 2004-11-29 11:31:14

Dispense with this foolishness and people won't care about the space program at all. People stop caring and funding evaporates.
50 years for a permanent base? Yup, that may be true IF we started working full speed, today.
Wait 50 years before we start agitating for a permanent base and that base will then be 100 years away.
= = =
Mars construction needs to be plastic and composites.
Replacements are made with rapid prototype machines we feed with bags of glop either made on Mars or shipped from Earth, as bags of glop. Metal working is too expensive and time consuming, I agree.

I have no problem sending people to Mars. You remember my, I'm the guy that wants to build a City on Mars. But, if you intend to only build a settlement on Mars, it still going to cost more than building the ISS and maintaining it. Your going to have cost over runs for going to Mars like we had cost over runs for building the ISS and you can play with the numbers and with all projection that you want to and it will still cost more to put people on Mars and maintain them than it will to maintain the ISS and/or upgrade it.

Larry,

John Creighton · 2004-11-29 11:40:07

I have no problem sending people to Mars. You remember my, I'm the guy that wants to build a City on Mars. But, if you intend to only build a settlement on Mars, it still going to cost more than building the ISS and maintaining it. Your going to have cost over runs for going to Mars like we had cost over runs for building the ISS and you can play with the numbers and with all projection that you want to and it will still cost more to put people on Mars and maintain them than it will to maintain the ISS and/or upgrade it.
Larry,

If the mars outpost is 20 % the mass of the ISS and only needs 20% of the amount of mass to LEO to supply it as the ISS and requires less orbital assembly then the ISS then what is your basis for saying it will cost more to build or maintain. Remember 20% is the amount of mass that reaches mars from LEO with chemical propulsion. With more advance propulsion systems like nuclear electric or thermal we can do even better.

BWhite · 2004-11-29 12:08:38

Dispense with this foolishness and people won't care about the space program at all. People stop caring and funding evaporates.
50 years for a permanent base? Yup, that may be true IF we started working full speed, today.
Wait 50 years before we start agitating for a permanent base and that base will then be 100 years away.
= = =
Mars construction needs to be plastic and composites.
Replacements are made with rapid prototype machines we feed with bags of glop either made on Mars or shipped from Earth, as bags of glop. Metal working is too expensive and time consuming, I agree.
I have no problem sending people to Mars. You remember my, I'm the guy that wants to build a City on Mars. But, if you intend to only build a settlement on Mars, it still going to cost more than building the ISS and maintaining it. Your going to have cost over runs for going to Mars like we had cost over runs for building the ISS and you can play with the numbers and with all projection that you want to and it will still cost more to put people on Mars and maintain them than it will to maintain the ISS and/or upgrade it.
Larry,

True, in part.

Shipping water, for example, will NOT be necessary after the first mission sets up the first wells. Shipping seeds and finding a way to fix nitrogen means the settlers can drink Marsian H20, breathe Marsian O2 and eat plants that grow from Marsian CHONs. Other than an emergency storehouse of MREs - - no need to ship food, water or oxygen.

But will it cost more than we expect or plan for? Naturally. :;):

Will it cost more than ISS? I can agree with that except that the value received in return will be so much greater.

Edited By BWhite on 1101751795

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-11-27 13:16:21

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#2 2004-11-27 16:31:57

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#3 2004-11-27 22:24:35

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#4 2004-11-28 00:06:34

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#5 2004-11-28 08:41:29

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#6 2004-11-28 09:00:18

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#7 2004-11-28 09:22:45

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#8 2004-11-28 09:40:51

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#9 2004-11-28 09:46:36

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#10 2004-11-28 17:56:54

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#11 2004-11-28 21:00:56

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#12 2004-11-28 22:13:17

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#13 2004-11-29 00:28:58

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#14 2004-11-29 07:05:54

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#15 2004-11-29 10:29:46

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#16 2004-11-29 10:42:41

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#17 2004-11-29 10:53:04

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#18 2004-11-29 11:02:33

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#19 2004-11-29 11:08:25

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#20 2004-11-29 11:11:11

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#21 2004-11-29 11:16:37

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#22 2004-11-29 11:22:35

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#23 2004-11-29 11:31:14

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#24 2004-11-29 11:40:07

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#25 2004-11-29 12:08:38

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

Board footer