Private Mars Missions

[owenander]

The reason everything is moving at a snails pace is because private investors know that due to the Moon treaty, nothing can legally be owned in space. Until that issue is sorted out I doubt there will be any large investments done by anybody who isn't doing it just because they love space exploration like Elon Musk and Branson (out of market investors).

 

[tap_sa]

Moon Treaty is dead letter, ratified by only a few non spacefaring nations. Outer Space Treaty prohibits only nations from claiming sovereignty but does not prohibit private ownership.

 

[j05h]

I agree with Tap_Sa on Moon Treaty and OST. The proper model for space development is between ships (registered nationally in int. waters) and the old Trading Companies (Hudson Bay, Dutch East Indies, etc). There is nothing in the OST to prevent Flagged Vessels from doing what they will in the darkest of "international waters". Ownership is a solved problem: whoever is on it owns it. <br /><br />I have to disagree with Owen on space development moving at a snails pace. Things are happening very fast, it's just that we've had to advance technologically before aeronautics became more accessible. Lot's of dot.com millionaires being interested in space has greatly increased progress in the past 10 years: I would put the start of it as funding of Roton and Rotary Rocket and XPrize founding. Remember that the first privately funded orbital mission occured in that timeframe, with MirCorp paying the entire way for two cosmonauts to visit Mir to keep things in order. Now we have regular tourism to ISS, great satelite apps like XM/Sirius and GPS, and all sorts of capabilities right around the corner. I don't think things are slow at all! <br /><br />For the first time in history, we can commercially source human space components. The rough costs for rockets and the Russian FGB are known, and can (theoretically) be purchased as you would a very expensive aircraft. This brings about, for the first time, the possibility of purchasing expeditions. As beautiful as it was, the corporate-military vision of "2001: A Space Odyssey" was evolved from the WWII generation's experience and has very little bearing on how space will be developed. Space devlopment, if it really takes off in the next few decades, is going to highly international, largely private, sloppy and fast. <br /><br />This is why we're discussing a Phobos Station and Mars settlements. Can it make a buck where needed? Will National Geographic pay $500million to send Steven Spielburg to Mars to make rover documentaries? How <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

Hardware is a part of the cost mix but the bulk of cost is personnel to design, build, test, and eventually deploy/operate the hardware. At the present time, the cost of this personnel is based on two major factors. 1, much of the hardware foe a specific program is custom built. The other factor is the way in which contracts are estimated and awarded.<br /><br />Fundamental changes in the latter will be needed to bring the cost down substantially on any specifically targeted space project. Mass production should be worked in to the extent possible as a way of reducing cost.<br /><br />I recall an Aviation week story in the early 1990s that heralded the advent of a mars mission, or maybe lunar, that was to be done on the cheap using Titan-IVs as the core launcher...I'm still waiting for this cheap plan to materialize and...ooops, Titan IV is retired and was expensive to operate, expensive not so much because of the hardware but the people neede to build and operate. And Titan is a more or less mass produced LV.<br /><br />But as I originally mentioned, and to expand...its not that I don't think it can be done. I don't really know. All I do know is that there have been too many claims something can be done cheaply from all quarters and not one shred of proof. Proof as in someone actually doing it. <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]

Given that it has taken so long for humanity to reach Mars, especially considering that we thought in 1969 that we'd get there by 1982. I don't think there would be near as much value in an orbital manned mission that does not land. Those types of missions were proposed at a time when several proposals would be considered and cost was not as major a factor to the public and elected officials as it is 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>

 

[edawg]

we are going to need NERVA tugs to really jet around the solar system,im betting someone1 will snag a deal with the russians on that one..it would do wonders for the UN..

 

[qso1]

My pref is plasma propulsion for near term but whether plasma, NERVA based, or some other type...we need something better to get people out there. <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]

> based on two major factors. 1, much of the hardware foe a specific program is custom built. The other factor is the way in which contracts are estimated and awarded.<br /><br />Some of the hardware will be custom built, but a lot of it is preexisting or adaptable. Energia is basically ready to build the major flight elements for enough cash. I'm talking about having Catepilar build bulldozers and Alenia build nodes, etc, not Military-industrial cost-plus engineering. That's so 20th century. "private" means buying gear on the open market, not inflating costs to pork everyone out.<br /><br />Wages and equipment are definitely big issues. Religious settlers by their nature wouldn't be paid and company stakeholders would probably wait to collect shares on Earth. This is part of the drive for building a large facility, to make money off multiple users doing whatever they want. <br /><br />The proposed mission is essentially an asteroid-mining endeavor with a Mars landing thrown in. A lot of the equipment developed becomes useful throughout the inner solar system. Every ounce of hardware delivered gets used for several different purposes, and a major early goal of the consortia is developing tooling for building new hardware (probably housing & storage?) from local materials. <br /><br />Simply, yes, there is a lot to be developed, but a lot has already been done. Again, we are lucky to be living in a time when this kind of effort can be purchased, instead of having to be a national government to pull it off.<br /><br /> /> Proof as in someone actually doing it.<br /><br />I agree. If you handed me a check for $10B right now, I'd have people in Mars orbit within a decade. But, as the saying goes Money talks and...<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[edawg]

i wonder if you could sell transponders on mars for example,and each transponder represents an 20acres of property.possesion is 9/10s the law ya know..

 

[j05h]

That might actually work. People have said they will try to claim asteroids when their probes land. I like the idea of including only a set area around each transponder - it's much more realistic than trying to claim all of Mars. One issue would/will be claim jumping, human presence will largely trump radio presence. For the cost of holding only your claim, you get a radio source and site data to aim for. I'd make it 100 square miles per tranponder (10x10m), or offer two size "claims".<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[owenander]

Actually if we didn't waste all the fuel on takeoff, fuel would be fine for travel in our solar system. Tons of thrust and very cheap. The problem is we waste it all on take off. If space elevators get developed within the next 10 years then the current method would be great.

 

[j05h]

> Given that it has taken so long for humanity to reach Mars, especially considering that we thought in 1969 that we'd get there by 1982. I don't think there would be near as much value in an orbital manned mission that does not land. Those types of missions were proposed at a time when several proposals would be considered and cost was not as major a factor to the public and elected officials as it is now.<br /><br />A Phobos base has huge technical advantages over landing on Mars, first flight out. We already know how to live in freefall, the hard part of that journey is getting to and from the surface of Mars. Phobos allows realtime control of dozens of robots instead of the 45 minute light-speed gap. Maybe not as exciting as landing, but if it means the first flight only cost s$5 billion, that might be the key to making money.<br /><br />A consortia going to Phobos might never land on Mars - maybe the biology gets in the way, maybe Phobos is to interesting. Maybe they skip Phobos and start on the ground only. whatever works. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

From a technical standpoint, your correct that Phobos would be easier. Cost is often cited as the reason for doing it but one would have to change the basic cost problem which is not the machines required, but the humans on the ground required to design, build, etc those machines.<br /><br />A private company can probably do an initial mission at $5 billion if they get a handle on something as basic as how they pay people who are accustomed to premium pay for premium services.<br /><br />Phobos does have many advantages as an initial destination in the plan to reach Mars as you pointed out. In my post where I mention a manned orbital mission has little value. I was referring to just sending a manned mission Apollo 8 style, not one where Phobos is the platform from which man orbits mars. <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]

Hang on<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Article II<br /><br />Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to <b>national appropriation </b>by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />What about national <b>recognition</b> of <b> private </b> appropriation i.e. civil law<br /><br />The OST bars Nations from owning property on any celesital body excepting the Earth and metors that fall to the Earth by natrual means. <br /> The Moon Treaty applies the same rules to indivduals.(Neither are limted to the solar system.)<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"What about national recognition of private appropriation i.e. civil law "</font><br /><br />Good question. Pretty much all news bits that I've seen about space law and OST repeat the same; national ownership is prohibited but private ownership is not. Then again private ownership isn't explicitly allowed either. The idea of private space flight may have been too unthinkable when the treaty was drafted that the lawmaker neglected to address it clearly.<br /><br />Probably there will be some common sense limitations to possible private ownership of celestial bodies. First private astronaut setting his/her foot on lunar regolith may have little chances of declaring the entire moon as his/her property. Some sort of de facto homesteading may emerge. It's been discussed that official, perhaps international agreement on space homesteading rules might invigorate private space flight. It could be something like increasing radius from your lander/base depending on the level of operation.<br /><br />Btw OST doesn't appear to prohibit <i>people</i> from declaring sovereignty of a new nation on other celestial bodies. Get enough people and selfsufficient bases up there and create new countries <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[owenander]

I did a paper on the implications of space exploration and trust me that's a big can of worms.

 

[tap_sa]

Is it online? Would like to read it!

 

[j05h]

> The idea of private space flight may have been too unthinkable when the treaty was drafted that the lawmaker neglected to address it clearly. <br /><br />It was brought up and rejected out-of-hand at the time. They didn't think it was possible, perhaps. Those treaties were both drafted in the era of State Space, if you will. The OST was written in another age, it is only relevant as perhaps a guide. The Moon Treaty, signed by NO space powers, is a dead letter. In any matter, the UN has little teeth against the spacefaring nation's endeavors. If a Russian/US/Chinese/etc consortia decides it's going to Mars, there is little that Kofi Annan and Co. can do about it. If we were orbitting fusion warheads or something, maybe. But industrial activity far out from Geo-synchronous orbit? What are they going to do, send Blue Helmets? Write nasty letters? 8)<br /><br />I think that spacecraft will eventually be treated much like ships and aircraft, and bases or settled spaces will be like the old Trade Companies.<br /><br />When the time arrives for a Mars flight, I think the entire world (except for a few sourpusses) will welcome the event. <br /><br /> /> Btw OST doesn't appear to prohibit people from declaring sovereignty of a new nation on other celestial bodies. Get enough people and selfsufficient bases up there and create new countries <br /><br />That is really the whole of why I started the thread: we really do need a first generation of pioneers. Soveriegnty is an interesting issue once people get somewhere. It doesn't take that many humans to have a huge leverage in space. At what point does that equal a nation or state? 100 humans? 5? 30,000? Do they need to deploy forces or diplomats Earth-side? When does a registered space station out-grow the homeland? Or, in a largely corporation-dominated Solar System, does any of this even matter? If you are a member of a family-corporation of several dozen people with thousands of robots at your disposal to develop Valles Marine <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[fatal291]

They are going to use the moon as a launch pad.. i thought they were planning to launch off the moon aftr sending the stuff there something like the ISS.. i saw it on Science Channel

 

[qso1]

Using the moon as the pad itself is more economical especially initially. To construct a pad on the moon requires more effort and vehicles that oddly enough, do not need a pad to get more supplies to the area to build a pad.<br /><br />Something like building pads may have been proposed but as with 99% of the proposals, end product usually isn't the same. A lunar base initially only needs a relatively flat smooth landing area for vehicles like the Apollo LM or current LSAM design.<br /><br />As the base expands, especially if it goes industrial scale, a hard pad may be required. <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]

I think Fatal was referring to the President's original VSE speech where he talked obliquely about savings for flying Mars missions from the Moon. It doesn't actually make sense, the only near/mid-term Lunar resources will probably be LoX and aluminum. It doesn't make any kind of sense to lift objects out of one gravity well, drop them into another, just to fly to a third place. Getting tankers of LOX from the Moon does make sense. <br /><br /> /> As the base expands, especially if it goes industrial scale, a hard pad may be required.<br /><br />Pretty much. I like the idea of having construction robots that plow and microwave the regolith into pads, roads and other features. You could "pave" an area before humans even set down, greatly increasing the lifetime of the base's equipment.<br /><br />j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

Trans-Mars impulse: I posted earlier that we'd use a nuke/solar-electric propulsion. I've been thinking about that more, and now I'm wondering if, since we are talking about minimum-energy trajectories, why not use a bunch of third stages (block DM, Falcon upper stage, whatever) and fly the components as a fleet. This is inline w/ t/space's exploration concepts, that of expeditions instead of missions. <br /><br />It means more launches, but has no technical development and might cost significantly less. The right choices would also mean having a bunch of restartable rocket motors at Mars. <br /><br />Thoughts? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

JO5H:<br />Pretty much. I like the idea of having construction robots that plow and microwave the regolith into pads, roads and other features. You could "pave" an area before humans even set down, greatly increasing the lifetime of the base's equipment.<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats kind of what I would lean towards, as it would be more cost effective to use the lunar surface material rather than concrete, so to speak over it. I don't know if concrete or other conventional materials used for pavement on earth would last very long under the harsh daytime temps and temp swings present of the lunar surface. <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]

JO5H:<br />I think Fatal was referring to the President's original VSE speech...<br /><br />Me:<br />Probably, the problem with this is that the plans won't actually materialize for years and if and when they do, they will be altered somewhat. For this reason, Presidential speeches serve more as outlines than detailed plans. In addition to that, Bush is probably not that well informed on how spaceflight actually works which is why he has advisers. Hope they are not the same ones that crafted Dan Quayles space speeches LOL. <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">"Trans-Mars impulse: I posted earlier that we'd use a nuke/solar-electric propulsion."</font><br /><br />I doubt that combo could provide big enough thrust to do the Mars trip in a feasible <i>manned</i> timeframe. Electric thrusters suffer from abysmal T/W ie. they give very poor acceleration. They need moths/years to operate to be useful.<br /><br />Have you given thought to solar-thermal? Basicly a tank, pump, convex mirror, heat exchanger and nozzle. Potential for NERVA class performance without the political nucular nightmare. On negative side the technical readiness level is low.