When will astronauts land on Mars? Planning Mars mission

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> "I'm thinking 2030-2040 would be realistic"</font><br /><br /> I'm more inclined to think PE will do a Mars flyby by 2025. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"Zubrin's tech will have to be utilised for his worst nightmare, unmanned research making human missions superfluous in the short term"<br /><br />Hardly. Robert has proposed a number of unmanned sample return missions using ISRU. he would regard unmmaned missions as essential as pathfinders and techology demonstrators.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"If private industry can do it, I think they will by well before 2069. I'm thinking 2030-2040 would be realistic for a largely or even solely private industry funded effort."<br /><br />Private industry will have no interest in going to Mars unless they make money from it. How will they do this?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"Not to mention the need for much improved radiation shielding to prevent radiation induced neurological damage, trabecular bone loss etc. etc. etc. "<br /><br />Much improved compared to what? Current radiation limits for astronauts require lifetime excess cancer-induced deaths to under 3%. This is achievable with current technology.<br /><br />The recent story about trabecular bone loss was a complete beat up, involving doses well above what would occur in a Mars mission.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> Private industry will have no interest in going to Mars unless they make money from it. How will they do this? </font><br />Possibly paid for by educational interests, or government sponsored universities. The ultimate objective is going to be colonization. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[owenander]

"Private industry will have no interest in going to Mars unless they make money from it. How will they do this?"<br /><br />If they can make a profit from sending humans to LEO, they can make a profit from sending them to Mars. And the big benefit of going to Mars won't be known until we are there.

 

[qso1]

JonClarke:<br />Private industry will have no interest in going to Mars unless they make money from it. How will they do this?<br /><br />Me:<br />In the near term, I would agree that private industry has no interest in going to Mars. But further down the line (2030s maybe), particularly if space tourism is a success. The conditions might change enough to allow private industry to see profit potential in going to Mars.<br /><br />Lowering the cost of getting to LEO, space tourism, then space industrialization might be the path to a profitable Mars colony. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

"Possibly paid for by educational interests, or government sponsored universities. The ultimate objective is going to be colonization."<br /><br />the key word there is "possibly". How will this meet the 20% annual rate of return that most companies require?<br /><br />How many unmanned research missions have been developed and funded this way? <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"If they can make a profit from sending humans to LEO, they can make a profit from sending them to Mars."<br /><br />So far this has not been achieved. How long before they do?<br /><br />"And the big benefit of going to Mars won't be known until we are there."<br /><br />How will you justify this to the merchant bankers that will have to underwrite a commerical venture? They will want a 20% ARR after taxation, depreciation, inflation, cost of captial have been taken into account.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"Lowering the cost of getting to LEO, space tourism, then space industrialization might be the path to a profitable Mars colony."<br /><br />The key word is "might". We don't know of any profitable commodities on Mars. We don't know if colonisation is possible. Without positive answers to both these questions no company or consortia of companies will invest in Mars missions.<br /><br />Even if space tourism is a success (which I hope it will be) that does not guarantee that commercial missions to Mars are going to happen. Nor will a viable space tourism industry of itself create the specailised hardware that will be needed for operations on Mars.<br /><br />Commerce has its place but it can't do everything.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Correct, key word is "might". And quite frankly, I don't think we will even send humans to Mars the traditional way (Gov/NASA) because the political will is not really there IMO.<br /><br />A less cynical outlook would be for private enterprise to at least open the door to less expensive LEO access, NASA take advantage of that access rather than develop their own. Then NASA does Mars the traditional way. A kind of hybrid approach utilizing the traditional NASA approach to do Mars and the commercial approach to get the access to LEO that would be needed to get the Mars craft up less expensively.<br /><br />This till leaves us with the motivation for going which at this point I think nothing short of discovering microbiological life forms or fossil evidence will get us there unless the inexpensive access to LEO is substantial rather than modest.<br /><br />Jon:<br />Commerce has its place but it can't do everything.<br /><br />Me:<br />Absolutely, and thats why I would hope the compromise I'm looking at would be possible. Otherwise, we really do have to wonder if we can come up with a way to do Mars thats politically acceptable to the politicians and public at large. And less expensive which will make it politically acceptable. <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>

 

[nyarlathotep]

"Private industry will have no interest in going to Mars unless they make money from it. How will they do this? "<br /><br />Just get James Cameron and Tom Hanks to make a documentary about it. If Titanic made 2.5 billion in 2006 dollars, I'm sure that PPV programming could make considerably more. What patriotic american wouldn't buy a $100 subscription to see the Mars landing? We could send Leonardo DiCaprio along and sabotage his ascent vehicle for the dramatic finale.<br /><br />There's also the corporate sponsorship route. I could imagine that Nike would chip in a billion if the lander had a six foot tick and <i>'Just Do It!'</i> printed on the side. I'm sure there's also room for <i>'Where Do You Want to Go Today?'</i>, <i>'I'm lovin' it'</i>, <i>'The Power of Dreams'</i> and <i>'I'm Going to Disney World!'</i>.

 

[JonClarke]

"I don't think we will even send humans to Mars the traditional way (Gov/NASA) because the political will is not really there IMO. "<br /><br />I would disagree, the political will does seem to be there in several countries or groups of countries to undertake the foundation work necessary to get to Mars. VSE, the ISS program, Aurora, the Russian 500 day study are all essential steps along the way. <br /><br />"A less cynical outlook would be for private enterprise to at least open the door to less expensive LEO access, NASA take advantage of that access rather than develop their own. Then NASA does Mars the traditional way. A kind of hybrid approach utilizing the traditional NASA approach to do Mars and the commercial approach to get the access to LEO that would be needed to get the Mars craft up less expensively. "<br /><br />Indeed, I think this is quite likely and very desirable. However even without private enterprise the cost of launching 100 tonne payloads into space (i.e. the Shuttle) is about 40% of what it was during the Apollo era, and the Ares V promises to reduce it by 50% again.<br /><br />It's yet to be established whether even a robust spac etourism industry will want 100 tonne payloads, which is what is needed for Moon and Mars missions.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

JonClarke:<br />I would disagree, the political will does seem to be there in several countries or groups of countries to undertake the foundation work necessary to get to Mars. VSE, the ISS program, Aurora, the Russian 500 day study are all essential steps along the way.<br /><br />Me:<br />The political will here in the states is not there IMO. The VSE only vaguely outlines mars as a goal beyond 2020 and IMO, the VSE has to survive the 2008 elections before it can really be said its going to be reality. I do see more interest in other countries, particularly the UK and Russia too. One of the interesting things about the cost of launching being 40% what it was is that people look at it at todays prices rather than factoring for inflation of the past three decades. A shuttle mission in 2005 would be around $500 million dollars which in 1970 would be roughly $100 million dollars. A Saturn-V/Apollo mission in 1970 was around $500 million which now would be around 2.5 billion.<br /><br />A robust tourism industry in which 30-50 tourists go to a bigelow type hotel might get near the hundred tonne mark but too early to tell as yet. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

"We could send Leonardo DiCaprio along and sabotage his ascent vehicle for the dramatic finale."<br /><br />Now THAT's a good idea! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />James Cameron has had a number of Mars film projects. They don't seem to have got anywhere. It's a pity, becauser the conceptual artwork looked most impressive. <br /><br />Sadly, a Hollywood block buster does not make enough money to fund a crewed Mars mission. A block buster might earn 2.5 billion, but only 20% that will be profit. The rest odes back in recouping the original investment and is swallowed by up inflation, cost of cpatial and taxes. And how much of the 500 million final prifit will the investors be prepared to invest in a Mars mission?<br /><br />The same applies with sponsorship. Typically sponsors want 125% return inside 12 months. So Nike invests 1 billion in a sponsorship deal they want to see that money earning them 1.25 billion be the end of the year. That is going to be very difficult with a manned mission which might take 10 years to deliver the goods.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[yoda9999]

Evern if Hollywood could pay for 1 manned Mars mission, there will probably first have to be one or two rehearsal missions that could cost almost as much as the ultimate manned mission.<br /><br />One big milestone to achieve is testing the Mars manned lander. We haven't built such a vehicle yet. We have never landed a big habitat through the Martian weather system that can return to Mars orbit. Somehow this will be tested first before sending live people down.<br /><br />Also, should we land people in an area of Mars free of sandstorms? Are there such places? How will Martian weather affect settlement on Mars?

 

[qso1]

yoda9999:<br />We haven't built such a vehicle yet. We have never landed a big habitat through the Martian weather system that can return to Mars orbit. Somehow this will be tested first before sending live people down.<br /><br />Me:<br />In all likelihood, the lander won't be going through the martian weather on its worst days. From orbit, the lander or mother ship, if there is one. Will assess landing site suitablility prior to any landing attempt.<br /><br />There are ways to test this but cost will probably be an issue. One way would be to send a lander into Earth orbit and land it at a Mars like locale. If the lander can handle coming through Earths atmosphere, it can handle Mars. The benefit of designing to that specification is the overdesign factor that allows for a comfy safety margin. The drawback as always is cost.<br /><br />We could still build a Mars lander that is not tested in the way I just mentioned. The Apollo LM never flew on Earth and we had never built anything like it before. At least with Mars, we have the LM experience to draw from. One of those experiences is to develop training mockups. And...by the time were actually close to going to Mars, computer sim technology will probably be sophisticated enough to model many of the landing scenarios.<br /><br />Weather will have its effects to be sure. Dust storms will probably restrict crews to quarters as it were. No EVAs during dust storms due to excessive wear on EMUs and visibility restrictions resulting from ongoing storms.<br /><br />Even on none stormy days, crews will have to always be careful to keep as much dust outside as possible. <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>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Sadly, a Hollywood block buster does not make enough money to fund a crewed Mars mission. A block buster might earn 2.5 billion, but only 20% that will be profit. The rest odes back in recouping the original investment and is swallowed by up inflation, cost of cpatial and taxes. And how much of the 500 million final prifit will the investors be prepared to invest in a Mars mission?"<br /><br />That's assuming typical paper 'profit' from a Hollywood block buster bears any kind of relationship to reality. In fact the true way to finance a space mission from the proceeds of a movie is not from the movie's profit but from the movie's cost of production. That's the Hollywood method of financing a project.<br />

 

[JonClarke]

Care to expand on this? How much does it cost to make a typical Hollywood Block Buster (henceforth HBB)?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i> > That's assuming typical paper 'profit' from a Hollywood block buster bears any kind of relationship to reality. In fact the true way to finance a space mission from the proceeds of a movie is not from the movie's profit but from the movie's cost of production. That's the Hollywood method of financing a project. </i><br /><br />Nice. You must know kung-fu. <br /><br />I work in media production (animator) sometimes. The amount of money that goes into television and movie production is staggering. Yes, "Hollywood" budgetting could support human spaceflight. The income from it would be many years of quality "reality" media, pay-per-view-on-Steroids for Apollo-on-Steroids. And it doesn't take that much money to start, probably "only" several 10s of Million for the first year. You'd want Jerry Bruckhiemer and Mark Burnett directing the project, with James Cameron actually flying on the Mars Mission as Chief Designer and Documentarian. <br /><br />Josh<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

And it will be all special effects because it will be cheaper than the real think <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Seriously, how much money is invested in a typical HBB? What is the annual rate of return expected? To get the entertainment industry interested in space exploration you will have to demonstrate that it will offer a better RoR than a more conventional investment like Spider Man 10 or whatever.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

> And it will be all special effects because it will be cheaper than the real think <br /><br />Rumors flew years ago that Mark Burnett was looking into a Star City, Moscow reality show where the winner would fly to the space station. <br /><br /> /> Seriously, how much money is invested in a typical HBB? What is the annual rate of return expected? To get the entertainment industry interested in space exploration you will have to demonstrate that it will offer a better RoR than a more conventional investment like Spider Man 10 or whatever. <br /><br />several $10s to over $100 million can go into initial production for an HBB. Not sure what the expected ROI is, I just know that unbelievable amounts of money swirl through media production. Youaren't talking about one big movie with this project: you're talking about a new cable channel and many movies. <br /><br />So, ExploreTV starts with the reality-show format and space/science news. The crew selection is partly run as a vote system, probably within disciplines (can't vote all doctors off). The first flight is to ISS or equivalent, that's movie #1. Second flight, while the consortia puts Mars hardware together, is a Space Adventures Lunar Soyuz. That's Movie #2. By now the organization should have the resources to leverage enough capital to finish construction on the Mars system. I think the flight should be a minimum of 6 and max of 18 people (c'mon, dream big). A famous director (James Cameron) should absolutely be on this flight - it needs a truly skilled cameraman on the journey. The Third movie is "Getting There" and features ship assembly and flight to mars, ending with aerobraking. Moive #4 is Landing Day, which is also broadcast live (of course). Movies 5 and 6 are exploration movies, maybe they set two bases up to compete against each other? "Can Base 1 beat Base 2 in getting there solar panels deployed? Find out tomorrow nite."<br /><br />Jon, we both hang out in this forum and the MarsRoverBlog - tell me you <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

For a director how about Bryan Singer? He directed X-men, Spider Man and Superman, and has a ticket to ride Space Ship Two.<br /><br />[question] "Given all the money in the world, what kind of film would you’d like to do?"<br /><br />[Bryan Singer] "I would like to shoot a film in space. I’d like to shoot Star Wars on location [laughs]. Honestly, it’s doesn’t matter what environment or genre, because I’m very driven by story and character. But like I said earlier, to be able to shoot in space would be really exciting." <br /><br />"Speaking of that, I’m going to space in 2008. Richard Branson is building this Virgin Galactic Space craft, and I’m one of the 100 founders. We are the first to go up; the guinea pigs!"<br /><br />http://www.mmail.com.my/Current_News/mm/Buzz/BFeature/20060629114823/Article/index_html<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Care to expand on this? How much does it cost to make a typical Hollywood Block Buster (henceforth HBB)?"<br /><br />For the accounting tricks of Hollywood, the story surrounding the movie "coming to america" is instructive.<br /><br />http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3D71F3EF935A2575BC0A964958260 <br /><br /><br />http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094898/trivia<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting<br /><br />http://hollywoodnetwork.com/Law/Hart/columns/

 

[JonClarke]

Good to see creative accounting is not dead!<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>