Private Mars Missions

[j05h]

So the USA and China are somehow "racing" to be back to the moon, and nobody is talking about Mars in a serious way for 25 or 40 years. Is there a way around this? Can we get to Mars faster, better and cheaper? <br /><br />The main problem is money. One of the ISDC lecturers talked about "aggregating customers" to build LEO stations, I'm thinking something similar can be applied to a faster, bigger Mars project. What I'm going to describe requires either an international consortia and/or billionaire to work.<br /><br />We have quite a bit of the technology, especially if the main project isn't based on Mars initially, but on Phobos or Deimos. The transportation is provided by something like Energia's proposed Marspost system, be it solar, nuke or VASMR powered. The base craft carries a larger crew, probably 25 or so with inflatable habs, an exercise centrifuge, mining equipment and several FGB-type craft to tend both moons, the base and propulsion platform. The propulsion platform can detach from the rest of hardware, for use bringing payload back to Earth.<br /><br />The crew breakdown for 25 people: 1 Captain, First Officer and Pilot. 3 engineers, w/ spacewalk experience. 6 NASA/RKS/JAXA mission specialists (4 Mars, 2 martian moon) complement 6 miners from a commercial interest. 6 VR operators/spacewalkers provide their own modules with all the gear to operate a fleet of rovers and balloons deployed on Mars. They also build out most of the Phobos base. The crew also contains a film maker, several well-heeled people intent on staying on Mars, two of their helpers, a journalist and a space-lottery winner.<br /><br />Mission flights leave every 26 months, this would require several propulsion systems eventually. The first cycle launches the main outpost hardware and two methane/lox TSTO Mars ascenders. On Mars encounter, the two ascenders (with extra heatshield/balutes, big rovers, habs like James Cameron's design and 12 crew) detach and perform a direct entry to land on <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[brandido]

Sounds like an interesting proposal, but I would recommend two things - check out "The Case For Mars" by Robert Zubrin and look at SpaceX, funded by Elon Musk.<br /><br />In "The Case for Mars", Zubrin discusses a framework for starting a maintainable, expandable human presence on Mars using currently available tehcnologies (no need for nuclear rockets, or massive LEO infrastructure or 100s of billions of dollars. Estimates for his proposal are $25B to $50B if done by NASA, $5B to $10B if done by private enterprise. <br /><br />Speaking of private enterprise, check out Elon Musk. His reason for starting SpaceX was to lower the cost of space access because launches were too expensive for him to fund a Mars mission privately. He is one of the ones to watch if you want to see a practical Mars expedition.

 

[scottb50]

Zubrin is a dinosaur. Musk is at least being realistic. While a nice read Zubrin just doesn't add up. First of all it would take considerable effort to put the pieces of his plan on Mars just to get people there. Then it has to work until they're there, or has to be repairable pretty darn quick. <br /><br />Not that I've done it, but Methane is the same as lighting f**ts, not a lot of energy, but it gets a lot of attention. 200's ISP range. Why bother? Even if we find water on Mars it will take a while to get, we need to take all we will need with us. Put it into LMO where we can get it relatively easily from the surface.<br /><br />The only thing that will get us permanently on the moon, Mars or anywhere else is water. Take it with you, have it sent to you or better yet find it where you are, you need water for so many things, you might as well use it for Energy as long as you have to have it to survive.<br /><br />Find usable water on the moon or Mars? All the better. Me? I would like to assure the supply before I depend on it. I would take a lot of water frozen in condoms instead of the mass of Zubrins methane generating plants and cryogenic Hydrogen tanks. <br /><br />Sorry for that visual by the way.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

brandido:<br />In "The Case for Mars", Zubrin discusses a framework for starting a maintainable, expandable human presence on Mars using currently available tehcnologies (no need for nuclear rockets, or massive LEO infrastructure or 100s of billions of dollars. Estimates for his proposal are $25B to $50B if done by NASA, $5B to $10B if done by private enterprise.<br /><br />Me:<br />Zubrins plan was bare bones at best. NASA modified it and called it 'Semi-direct" and under this scenario, NASA had the edge IMO. They also showed that contrary to popular opinion, they would be interested in other ways to get to Mars if said other way was within some realm of engineering and economic practicality. The estimates themselves have been suspect IMO. Regardless of who does them. If private enterprise could do Mars for upwards of just $10B, Bill Gates could do it with a fraction of his net personal worth. The estimates are always lowballed and always end up getting larger in actual costs due to overruns etc. If private industry could do it for $10 billion, it would already be done unless there is no profitable reason to do so. That is the one part of the plan detailed here that is missing. What would be the motivation profit wise? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

The profit reason I asked about in my previous post is one that would have already had us on Mars if a large profit could be made once the Mars colony was established. An example being if large reserves of fossil fuels were present on Mars. Even with such reserves, the cost of getting them back here would be enormous compared to say, getting them back from deep below the north sea.<br /><br />The only motivation IMO to go to Mars that I can see under the present risk and money spending averse society we live in is if we find microbiological life forms or their fossilized remains via unmanned sample return. This would ideally require an in situ study of such organisms via a Mars base which could eventually support a human colony which once there, would provide the basis for industrial activity and expansion to citie sized colonies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Not that I've done it, but Methane is the same as lighting f**ts, not a lot of energy, but it gets a lot of attention. 200's ISP range. Why bother?"</font><br /><br />Oh please, that's utter BS. (A good source for methane though). CH4 packs the best Isp of all hydrocarbons, which should be no wonder since it has the highest fraction of hydrogen. CEV SM propulsion methane engine was going to have 363s Isp.<br /><br />

 

[edawg]

zubrin just looked at me funny when i told him about the idea of using bigelows inflatible modules..well see who is laughing in 20yrs <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[j05h]

> zubrin just looked at me funny when i told him about the idea of using bigelows inflatible modules..well see who is laughing in 20yrs <br /><br />He is both inspiration and stalking horse. Yet, he is like all of us, fallable. Inflatables are so obviously a leveraging technology for all spaceflight. It's more like 2 years before any laughing over inflatables will cease. The first Bigelow module is supposed to fly soon.<br /><br />So, besides people not understanding methane enignes, what do you all think of the plan? Instead of saying "this is the one True Way", the Phobos base provides access for many interested parties.<br /><br />Let me expand on the concept, mostly on who pays for what. The 6 VR operators would earn their way by assembling the base's main equipment. They would then make money selling their realtime manipulation of rovers, balloons and construction equipment for other parties. NASA, ESA, etc would pay them to operate future MER-type rovers, National Geographic would have them camera-operate a high-definition video balloon, etc. <br /><br />The miners would pay their own way as a corporation, probably backed by the prime consortia and an energy company, an Exxon or BP. <br /><br />lunch breaks over...<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

I should have stated it as "faster, better, cheaper for each involved entity". Once you can build a module that supports 6 people, you can build more of them. <br /><br />I don't deny that any kind of space access is expensive. I think there is money (and prestige) to be had in space. This is a thought exercise on building out Mars. Of course Mars is expensive, but can we go there and do things worthwhile?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

The longest a human has been oustide the earths magnetic field was about a week - during apollo. We don't really know how much of a problem cosmic rays are regarding a mars voyage. Discover recently published an interesting article on this (subscription only) the gist of which is that there is a 600% margin of error in our understanding of the hazards of deep space radiation. For a safe voyage that means using 6 times as much shielding as one expects to need - which is prohibitive. There is still some basic research to be done on getting humans there beyond the nuts and bolts feasability of the feat.

 

[owenander]

The food, water, and oxygen needed for 25 people for a 1 year journy (travel time only not even counting stay time) would be a tremendous cost and burden on the mission... Not to mention we probably don't even have the launch capabilities of something that heavy.

 

[qso1]

crazyeddie:<br />It's extremely unlikely that Mars possesses fossil fuels...<br /><br />Me:<br />My bad, It wasn't my intention to suggest Mars has fossil fuel reserves, I was using that as an example to demonstrate the expense of getting any resource from Mars, even one for which there is a huge demand. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thats for sure. We barely have launch capacity for sending 4 or 5 people to Mars and much of that would be broken down into several launches. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[craig42]

The miners would pay their own way as a corporation.<br /><br />I don't see what they could mine that was so valuable it would pay to launch it back out to Earth, why not use easier to ship (and therefore cheaper) Lunar/Asteroid materials instead?<br /><br />IMHO Mars' greatest value is it's distance. The most likly colonisation scenario is something akin to Salt Lake City.

 

[qso1]

craig42:<br />IMHO Mars' greatest value is it's distance. The most likly colonisation scenario is something akin to Salt Lake City.<br /><br />Me:<br />In addition to that, and IMHO, the only real reason to go to Mars with present and near term projected technical capability, would be the search for or study of indigeounous life. This could lead to colonization and technical advances in our ability to sustain life which would directly result from early Mars missions, would allow for expansion and subsequent mining if something is found on Mars thats not present on the moon or asteroids. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[edawg]

a privately funded mars mission could be done for 500million in 4yrs using bigelows habs and elons falcon 9

 

[spacefire]

providing the F9 flies.<br />F1 hasn't flown yet <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

> providing the F9 flies.<br /> /> F1 hasn't flown yet <br /><br />Oh, it flew, baby. Flew in great honkin' corkscrews until it impacted the reef. Elon showed the full launch video at ISDC, very impressive failure. I'm encouraged that he's in it for the long haul.<br /><br />For the "radiation" post above, a secondary advantage of inflatable Habs is that the outer bladder can be filled with water instead of foam/air. You're storm shelter is your normal berth, because you live behind a meter of water. <br /><br />I agree on the 'settler' in my scheme being a religious group. Per the scenario, they can't fund a Mars flight themselves, but can afford to build their own tooling and pay for consortia flights outbound.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[edawg]

the mars community should get their &%$#@! and gear and start inventing/patent all the lil things they need on mars...

 

[qso1]

Edawg:<br />a privately funded mars mission could be done for 500million in 4yrs using bigelows habs and elons falcon 9<br /><br />Me:<br />This has yet to actually be proven. IMO, If it were that easy, it would have been done by now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

>> Edawg:<br /> />> a privately funded mars mission could be done for 500million in 4yrs using bigelows habs and elons falcon 9<br /> /> qso1:<br /> /> This has yet to actually be proven. IMO, If it were that easy, it would have been done by now.<br /><br />I partly agree with Edawg, a Mars Flyby or orbitting mission might cost under $1billion. Land on Mars for $500mil? Not yet, there is a lot of development before that can happen. <br /><br />It hasn't been done yet (private Mars) because the environment to allow that has only existed for the last few years. The "brother-in-law" problem (investor asks bro-in-law at NASA if they should fund, etc) has eroded only since the late 90s or early 00s, so if you're talking about a non-Billionaire Mars mission, the beginning of it couldn't have occured, IMHO, before 2000. <br /><br />Now, for my costing guesses. If each person to LEO is $50 million then the full 25 crew requires 1.25 billion, but that cost is spread across several groups and could be as low as 25-$100mil if launch costs go way down. <br /><br />Each Russian FGB is around $200million delivered onorbit, since we're buying in bulk we can assume the 2-4 FGBs plus the derived 6-crew 'MarsPost' vehicle as twice that, we need 4 of them as well: $800m + $2400m= $3.2billion. I hesitate to even guess what the propulsion system will cost, but will low-ball (since we'll buy a couple) the cost of truss, nuke/solar electric, tankage and assembly at another $1 billion. I predict that the choice of a compact propulsion will drive that cost down (ie. nuclear), as it can be put together in far fewer orbital operations.<br /><br />Bigelow habs - there havent' been any public prices that I know of, so lets say the consortia buys 2 kinds: 'light' which is a balloon, core, etc that can easily be deployed anywhere (think big tent), and 'heavy' which is larger, water-filled and permanent. On Mars, the settlers and flight crews use Light units that can be moved as needed, the Phobos <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"The Mars Ascent vehicle is a modified Soyuz/Fregat or FalconI/Dragon running methane and LOX made via ISRU. The first two vehicles are TSTO"</font><br /><br />Why TSTO? From Mars surface to low Mars orbit requires only ~4000m/s dv, plus thin atmosphere helping nozzle altitude compensation issues, meaning SSTO is pretty much given.

 

[j05h]

> Why TSTO? From Mars surface to low Mars orbit requires only ~4000m/s dv, plus thin atmosphere helping nozzle altitude compensation issues, meaning SSTO is pretty much given.<br /><br />Excellent. I was mostly typing off-the-cuff and wanted to hedge my bets. I knew it was really low, that's even better. I'm picturing dedicated vehicles/habitats for each leg of the journey. The Mars Ascenders need to be reusable, but that shouldn't be terribly hard between modest DV and the thin reentry atmosphere. <br /><br />Is Earth the deepest gravity well we will ever operate in? Once solve the Ground-LEO equation, it really seems like everything else is EASIER. (except exploring inside gas giants?) <br /><br />Let me reiterate, on the general thread. The idea is to set the 'fertilizer' in place to organically grow a couple of large pieces of Martian infrastructure. Find the various Mars interests and what price-point they are willing to pay, then figure out how to start the process. Getting the first few people there is the hardest part, and costs should go down rapidly if the "propulsion bus" is capable of doing many LEO-Mars-LEO runs. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I agree with you the lander/ascender needs to be a stand alone vehicle and it can very kept fairly simple considering the Martian conditions. The most economical means of going to Mars, or the moon and asteroids, for that matter, is a dedicated Earth launch and return vehicle and cycling transfer vehhicles from LEO to destinations and back.<br /><br />I also see no reason the ascender/descender couldn't be the same vehicle in all of the applications. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

I can see a generic "dropship" configuration that works equally well on moon, mars and as asteroid command post. It wouldn't need anywhere near the engines or heatshield as Earth reentry craft. Whatever works, I just want to go. 8)<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>