Mars One Way Vs. ISS

Martian Republic · 2004-11-29 12:43:26

I'm not pushing one strategy or the other as far as whether we have rotating crew's going to Mars or if we have a more permanent crew on Mars. But, it may be hard to get people to stay on Mars ten to fifteen years.

Must I remind you that those nuclear powered rocket aren't free either and will need to be overhauled or replaced ever two or three years or so. So you have that 20% loss that you sent to the ISS and loss to going to lose sending it to Mars and what ever transport your going to use to get it to the Martian service and what ever maintaince and fueling station your going to put into space for your nuclear powered rockets. Although you can retrieve resources from Mars which you can't do on the ISS, but the resources that we will have use to get to Mars and maintain that base will be a whole lot than maintaining the ISS and/or upgrading it, because of where Mars is in relationship to the Earth. We can figure that retrieval of resources on Mars will help, but is not going to push Mars base price down below the ISS cost for the foreseeable future of twenty years or so. Just for an example, it cost us three billion dollars a year for the ISS or thirty billion dollars for ten years. To run your Martian colony it going to have to cost less than thirty billion dollars and you can't have any cost over run's. That going be hard to do when you need to two or three Pratt-Witnes nuclear powered rockets for maybe four or five billion dollars a piece so you can get the stuff there plus your astronauts. But, you also need heavy lifting rocket to get all that stuff in orbit. You will need three heavy lifter for your three nuclear power rocket and three more heavy lifter for everything else your sending up like the habitat. Those heavy lifter may cost you 200 million dollars a piece for 1.2 billion dollars.

Specking habitats, Bigelow has a habitats for twelve people, but it cost five billion dollars.

Did you want one or two Bigelow habitats?

What kind of rocket do you want to have to get the astronaut down from the nuclear powered rocket?

What else would you like to put on that list to make that Mars colony viable?

But, keep in mind that you already got half your money spent already and we haven't even got to Mars to even try to retrieve any resources to offset the cost difference of going to Mars instead of staying with the ISS.

And so it goes! It won't take long to chew up that thirty billion dollars even before you get to the cost over run problem and other such problems which will certainly happen.

Larry,

Euler · 2004-11-29 13:52:59

Mars construction needs to be plastic and composites.

Yes, but you can't use the ordinary methods of producing plastics, due to Mars' lack of oil. I think that a Mars colony would end up using genetically engineered plants to produce most of the materials that they need.

John Creighton · 2004-11-29 13:55:10

I'm not pushing one strategy or the other as far as whether we have rotating crew's going to Mars or if we have a more permanent crew on Mars. But, it may be hard to get people to stay on Mars ten to fifteen years.

Well we can discuss crew selection and incentives in another topic. But every person in the crew of six that stays for an extra year or two is that much room you have for extra supplies on your triton. There is a strong economic incentive to give the crew incentives to stay. Clearly will have to be balanced against qualifications. Further discussion of this should occur in another thread.

Must I remind you that those nuclear powered rocket aren't free either and will need to be overhauled or replaced ever two or three years or so. So you have that 20% loss that you sent to the ISS and loss to going to lose sending it to Mars and what ever transport your going to use to get it to the Martian service and what ever maintaince and fueling station your going to put into space for your nuclear powered rockets.

Hopefully they would last longer then two years. That would only be one trip back and forth. A reasonable lifetime would be 10 years. Some maintenance during this time is expectable. Maybe even swapping the reactor for a new one.

Just for an example, it cost us three billion dollars a year for the ISS or thirty billion dollars for ten years. To run your Martian colony it going to have to cost less than thirty billion dollars and you can't have any cost over run's.

Wait didn’t you say the ISS cost 150 billion the mars mission can have cost overruns and still cost less then the ISS.

Specking habitats, Bigelow has a habitats for twelve people, but it cost five billion dollars.
Did you want one or two Bigelow habitats?

One or two sounds reasonable depending on the available budget. Plan for one every two years and if there is money maybe send two. BTW how long will they last for? If they are made for 12 people 6 people should find them fairly comfortable.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-29 13:57:58

Mars construction needs to be plastic and composites.
Yes, but you can't use the ordinary methods of producing plastics, due to Mars' lack of oil. I think that a Mars colony would end up using genetically engineered plants to produce most of the materials that they need.

I've been looking at ISRU for a couple years. You can make plastic from water and carbon dioxide. Vinyl requires chlorine from salt. Check out my http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipe … l]Plastics page at the Winnipeg chapter web site.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-29 14:01:01

Mars construction needs to be plastic and composites.
Yes, but you can't use the ordinary methods of producing plastics, due to Mars' lack of oil. I think that a Mars colony would end up using genetically engineered plants to produce most of the materials that they need.

I think most oil wells here on Earth are surrounded by propane or methane fields of gas and that the hit of methane in the atmosphere may also mean there is oil quite possibly...

I also agree that longer stays would be a huge expense savings not to mention that I am sure someone would want to stay anyways.
Peace, quiet, no robbery ect..

BWhite · 2004-11-29 14:07:15

Specking habitats, Bigelow has a habitats for twelve people, but it cost five billion dollars.
Did you want one or two Bigelow habitats?
One or two sounds reasonable depending on the available budget. Plan for one every two years and if there is money maybe send two. BTW how long will they last for? If they are made for 12 people 6 people should find them fairly comfortable.

$5 billion for a Bigelow habitat? Where did that number come from?

Euler · 2004-11-29 14:30:11

I think most oil wells here on Earth are surounded by propane or methane fields of gas and that the hit of methane in the atmosphere may also mean there is oil quite possibly...

Oil is generally thought to form from prehistoric plants. Since there do not seem to be any plants on Mars, there should not be any oil.

Martian Republic · 2004-11-29 14:33:55

Specking habitats, Bigelow has a habitats for twelve people, but it cost five billion dollars.
Did you want one or two Bigelow habitats?
One or two sounds reasonable depending on the available budget. Plan for one every two years and if there is money maybe send two. BTW how long will they last for? If they are made for 12 people 6 people should find them fairly comfortable.
$5 billion for a Bigelow habitat? Where did that number come from?

Maybe I better go check and see what the current price for a Bigelow habitat is currently selling for.

Larry,

BWhite · 2004-11-29 14:47:57

One or two sounds reasonable depending on the available budget. Plan for one every two years and if there is money maybe send two. BTW how long will they last for? If they are made for 12 people 6 people should find them fairly comfortable.
$5 billion for a Bigelow habitat? Where did that number come from?
Maybe I better go check and see what the current price for a Bigelow habitat is currently selling for.
Larry,

I just tried google and hit http://www.reston.com/nasa/congress/06. … .html]this.

Good thing Bigelow purchased the TransHab rights. $5 billion seems way too high even for total R&D costs.

http://www.spaceutopia.com/Reducing_Mod … ml]Another link

Edited By BWhite on 1101761570

clark · 2004-11-29 14:56:37

http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2004/MER … .html]Cost of Transhab

To understand just how revolutionary Bigelow's projected cost savings might be, consider the International Space Station. By 2010, this troubled project will have cost a total of $50 billion, will be 10 years behind schedule and will contain about half of the habitable work space that had been planned, around 550 cubic meters. Just two of Bigelow's planned modules will exceed the entire work space of the ISS, but since the modules will cost around $100 million apiece, the savings become obvious. Two hundred million dollars vs. $50 billion is quite a difference, enough of a difference to entice other private companies into the new space race.

That's 100 million for the Genesis versions, which are smaller than the final Nautilis class version. Still, it ain't no where near 5 billion, and I doubt it would be more than 200 million a piece (if that).

So throw in launch costs, and some rounding, and a nice round number- space hotel for 250 million, give or take (conservative estimate).

ISS is so lame.

clark · 2004-11-29 14:58:42

From that article (second) you linked to Bill,

The over all cost of a module is mostly due to the cost of launching it in to orbit. Currently it cost $10,000 Dollars per pound to launch some thing in to orbit. At this price, launching a several ton module becomes dizzying. The future of space is currently being held back at the flood gates of the launch pad. The future of space is waiting for new launch vehicles to dramatically low the price of launch to orbit. After this barrier is over taken we will see the advancement of space move forward faster than ever before.

Bigelow has been waiting for a certain price/launch point (about $500-600 per lb). Falcon and Dnper hit it, which is why he is going forward with this.

BWhite · 2004-11-29 15:10:42

clark, as time passes, and data accumulates, a good detective might well be able to sleuth out the identity of your "one eyed hobo" - - I wonder what family secrets were passed at your Thanksgiving table?

BWhite · 2004-11-29 15:13:20

From that article (second) you linked to Bill,
The over all cost of a module is mostly due to the cost of launching it in to orbit. Currently it cost $10,000 Dollars per pound to launch some thing in to orbit. At this price, launching a several ton module becomes dizzying. The future of space is currently being held back at the flood gates of the launch pad. The future of space is waiting for new launch vehicles to dramatically low the price of launch to orbit. After this barrier is over taken we will see the advancement of space move forward faster than ever before.
Bigelow has been waiting for a certain price/launch point (about $500-600 per lb). Falcon and Dnper hit it, which is why he is going forward with this.

Bigelow still needs a bigger rocket for a full up space hotel, bigger than Falcon V or Dnepr and Dnepr, after all, are surplus ICBMs sold below cost to clear out unused inventory.

Sawing a TransHab into pieces hardly seems (seams?) prudent. Good thing a 5 segment Thiokol RSRM plus 3 RL-10s might well support 50,000 pounds to LEO for less than $1000 per pound.

Edited By BWhite on 1101762859

clark · 2004-11-29 15:18:01

clark, as time passes, and data accumulates, a good detective might well be able to sleuth out the identity of your "one eyed hobo" - - I wonder what family secrets were passed at your Thanksgiving table?

:laugh:

Perhaps. And perhaps a good detective will one day find Atlantis too.

If you want a hint though, it has something to do with my newmars screen name...

Bigelow still needs a bigger rocket for a full up space hotel.

Okay.

One, don't we have rockets that can launch 50 tons to LEO? (yup!)

Two, Musk isn't stopping with Falcon V.

Three, Bigelow is building several Genesis modules, launching at least 4. No where does it state that he has to drop the units once in space...

John Creighton · 2004-11-29 15:54:57

http://www.ilcdover.com/spaceinf/habita … tm]Welcome to ILC Dover World Leader
In Engineered Softgoods Products

http://www.ilcdover.com/spaceinf/habita … deployable lunar habitat

lunar.35.jpg

John Creighton · 2004-11-29 16:01:16

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/traodu … aodule.htm

Cost overruns soon forced NASA to consider other options for the International Space Station's habitation module. The space agency originally intended to use the same 8.2-meter long habitation module as the final 1991 Space Station Freedom design. In late 1998, NASA's Johnson Space Center proposed a much larger and lighter inflatable 8-meter diameter 'Transhab' module that also could be converted into crew quarters for future manned missions to the Moon and Mars. It was also possible that the module could be built and paid for by private industry and leased to NASA, although the exact configuration wasn't clear. Transhab and the 8.2-meter module appeared to be equally expensive ($100 million in 1998) and NASA had not made a final decision.

Article by Marcus Lindroos

Transhab is bigger though? Right?

comstar03 · 2004-11-29 19:25:09

John,

Why only 4 or 6 people to mars , or thinking only 4-10 people in orbit on ISS, that doesn't help expand space for the human race. That is the " Apollo style " space program - landing on mars like landing on the moon of the early 70's and ISS crews like Skylab of the 80's.

We need to move on from that style of program to a colonization style programs that require a larger number of personnel in orbit, moon, mars and beyond. We need to develop methods, principles, processes and products that are needed for space expansion - satellite development, food growing and processing, mining minerals, manufacturing facilities, and more.

Once we have a large volume of personnel in a gravity assisted environment in earth orbit we can move off into lunar activities then mars activities with experience. If you don't expand the personnel in orbit you run the risk and costs for moving personnel from earth into orbit that don't have living experience in space and a sound working knowledge of the space vessels and cargo transports.

So, when you are looking at a simple question which is cheaper to run and maintain , it isn't a easy answer because of the challenges that can face the human race in space and the exploration of mars and beyond without have complex settlements to provide away stations for future human missions within our solar system.

John Creighton · 2004-11-29 19:40:41

John,
Why only 4 or 6 people to mars , or thinking only 4-10 people in orbit on ISS, that doesn't help expand space for the human race. That is the " Apollo style " space program - landing on mars like landing on the moon of the early 70's and ISS crews like Skylab of the 80's.

I want to keep the program affordable. The goal of the first people to try to achieve the maximum results with as few people as possible. Why? Because robots are much cheaper to support then people. When we start to move large amounts of people to mars I want to have a lot of processes already up and running and a lot of the kinks worked out. I really believe that the initial goal should be research both in the fields of science and technology. The cost of a large settlement can’t be justified until it achieves a high degree of self-sufficiency . I believe in an incremental approach to space building on what was done and trying to gain the maximum value out of the human missions as possible thorough automation and tellerobotics.

BWhite · 2004-11-29 20:38:33

I envision MarsDirect being like the frogmen who scouted the beaches at Normandy, or Iwo Jima.

Few at first, but then landing craft further than the eye can see.

comstar03 · 2004-11-29 21:41:08

John and BWhite,

I am not talking about a large scale mobilization, but an integrated strategy that over a period of years and into decades the expansion of mars and the raw material exploration of mars will be conducted and then accessed to bring from small outpost - larger outpost - small permanent base - large permanent base to full colonization settlement of Mars.

But , knowing the way governments work on this planet they don't stay the course when coming to space exploration. Using the " Apollo Style programs " give the governments an out clause, It would be harder if the outpost has permanent crew and only through crew rotation would the crew expansion happen and also new supplies and more automated vehicles, development droids and probes for planetary exploring and development.

also will lock the government to fund the outpost like the ISS agreements are signed for the funding of the ISS life. We need to create the same environment for the funding process for the Mars Mission or it will fail to deliver overall objectives.

Bwhite regarding the frogmen approach, in many landing by allied forces then sent in destroyers and exploded a path to te beach and didn't send frogmen for intelligence gathering or disarming explosives. If we want to move and hold a budgetary funding in any government for space exploration of mars we need to design the program around those issues and expand the ground survillenance over several missions and expansion flights with automated cargo transports from earth and crewed missions to the planet. \

Grypd · 2004-11-30 16:44:10

John and BWhite,
I am not talking about a large scale mobilization, but an integrated strategy that over a period of years and into decades the expansion of mars and the raw material exploration of mars will be conducted and then accessed to bring from small outpost - larger outpost - small permanent base - large permanent base to full colonization settlement of Mars.
But , knowing the way governments work on this planet they don't stay the course when coming to space exploration. Using the " Apollo Style programs " give the governments an out clause, It would be harder if the outpost has permanent crew and only through crew rotation would the crew expansion happen and also new supplies and more automated vehicles, development droids and probes for planetary exploring and development.
also will lock the government to fund the outpost like the ISS agreements are signed for the funding of the ISS life. We need to create the same environment for the funding process for the Mars Mission or it will fail to deliver overall objectives.

Bwhite regarding the frogmen approach, in many landing by allied forces then sent in destroyers and exploded a path to te beach and didn't send frogmen for intelligence gathering or disarming explosives. If we want to move and hold a budgetary funding in any government for space exploration of mars we need to design the program around those issues and expand the ground survillenance over several missions and expansion flights with automated cargo transports from earth and crewed missions to the planet. \

We will start small we cannot afford or do anything else. But as each further advancement is done our capacity and capability in space should increase. We need a plan to do this not rely on little Ad-hoc arrangements and fudges that seem to have resulted in things like the way we have the ISS now.

And as a history aside when it was decided that the freeing of europe from the dominance of the Nazis it cam down to two men as to how it would be done. These men swam unto each beach in turn and took samples and found how the beaches makeup was made. It was these two men who found out how much structural strength each beach had and this determined how we invaded and which beach we used. This was done for every Beach landing that ever happened. So you could say a small frogmen approach did lead to D day.

BWhite · 2004-11-30 16:47:05

And as a history aside when it was decided that the freeing of europe from the dominance of the Nazis it cam down to two men as to how it would be done. These men swam unto each beach in turn and took samples and found how the beaches makeup was made. It was these two men who found out how much structural strength each beach had and this determined how we invaded and which beach we used. This was done for every Beach landing that ever happened. So you could say a small frogmen approach did lead to D day.

Yes, this is my point.

We cannot send permanent settlers to Mars until pathfinders find the ground with good water deposits, etc. . .

MarsDirect is ideal for sending four frogmen to take samples and scout future landing zones. And deploy radio homing beacons for future landings, etc. . . etc. . . etc. . .

comstar03 · 2004-11-30 18:43:03

Grypd, and Bwhite

I don't think you got what i am trying to say, design the program to mars on the assumption that we don't get funding unless we do things that will help the political leadership that is funding the program.

But also build in safeguards that would make it impractical to stop the strategy as it rolls out of the number of years alotted. So the first trip for humans to mars are based a team of 6-8 then some can stay and some can go back when the next vessel turn up with the next crew.

Then the exploration program is then rolled out across the planet on a week, month and year basis, thus keeping in the public eye of the advancements.

I don't disagree with the small operations but nothing less then a team of six per launch with a crewed vessel, and two automated cargo transports per mission and also a cargo transport per three month separately supplying more exploration and droids for expansion and other processing equipment. The automated vessels are moving cargo in a continuous loop between earth and mars or moon and mars.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-30 22:26:14

MarsDirect is ideal for sending four frogmen to take samples and scout future landing zones. And deploy radio homing beacons for future landings, etc. . . etc. . . etc. . .

I thought that the next 15 to 20 years worth of probes launched every two years or so had all of that responsibility.

As to the quantity of personnel to send it is a matter of how safe would it be and at what expense to a single mission is the gain worth it for safety. But I think we can send crews within a few weeks to possibly even a month after the first have been sent to make a much larger surface exploration team possible for nearly the same cost as a single large mission.

John Creighton · 2004-12-01 08:31:29

Yes, this is my point.
We cannot send permanent settlers to Mars until pathfinders find the ground with good water deposits, etc. . .
MarsDirect is ideal for sending four frogmen to take samples and scout future landing zones. And deploy radio homing beacons for future landings, etc. . . etc. . . etc. . .

You can make water form the air. With good recycling this should be enough.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-11-29 12:43:26

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#27 2004-11-29 13:52:59

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#28 2004-11-29 13:55:10

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#29 2004-11-29 13:57:58

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#30 2004-11-29 14:01:01

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#31 2004-11-29 14:07:15

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#32 2004-11-29 14:30:11

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#33 2004-11-29 14:33:55

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#34 2004-11-29 14:47:57

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#35 2004-11-29 14:56:37

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#36 2004-11-29 14:58:42

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#37 2004-11-29 15:10:42

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#38 2004-11-29 15:13:20

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#39 2004-11-29 15:18:01

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#40 2004-11-29 15:54:57

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#41 2004-11-29 16:01:16

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#42 2004-11-29 19:25:09

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#43 2004-11-29 19:40:41

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#44 2004-11-29 20:38:33

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#45 2004-11-29 21:41:08

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#46 2004-11-30 16:44:10

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#47 2004-11-30 16:47:05

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#48 2004-11-30 18:43:03

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#49 2004-11-30 22:26:14

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

#50 2004-12-01 08:31:29

Re: Mars One Way Vs. ISS

Board footer