$5 billion Mars Mission
Ralph Buttigieg
I have been following the recent postings by Mook and Herbert on Goldin's 1
bilion dollars moon mission with great interest. They seem to show that such
projects are possible. The cost is about a tenth of previous costs I have seen.
Can similar cost reductions be done with a manned Mars mission? Is a 5 billion
dollar mission possible?
What got me thinking about this is a recent SF story in the Jan 96 issue of
Analog called "Martian Valkarie" . The story described a Minimum Manned *Mars*
Vehicle. A one person vehicle/habitat was sent to aerobrake to Mars. They had a
buddy system with two such vehicles sent. The conected via tether and rotated
to produce artificial gravity. A little car ran up and down the cable allowing
the male astronaut to visit his female buddy and vice versa. On landing on Mars
they refueled at a insitu fuel plant sent there at the previous launch window.
Could such a project be undertaken with current rocketry and technology?
I think its worth thinking about.
ta
Ralph
--
| Caamora: Ralph Buttigieg 13:1000/635
| Internet: rbutt...@vulcans.caamora.com.au
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly their own
| Caamora (InterNet Services) UUCP<>FTN Mail and News +61 2 6659249
Frank Crary
Ralph Buttigieg <rbutt...@vulcans.caamora.com.au> wrote:
>I have been following the recent postings by Mook and Herbert on Goldin's 1
>bilion dollars moon mission with great interest. They seem to show that such
>projects are possible. The cost is about a tenth of previous costs I have seen.
>Can similar cost reductions be done with a manned Mars mission? Is a 5 billion
>dollar mission possible?
Possibly. Zubrin's Mars Direct idea would probably cost under $20
billion, possibly well under that. The focus of the Case for Mars
VI conference, which will be held this July, is going to be
showing how cheap a Mars mission can be. I hope we'll be
able to come up with a proof of concept architecture that
would be less expensive than Mars Direct. At first glance,
under $5 billion strikes me as impossible, but that was also
my first impression of a $1 billion lunar mission. Something
in the $10 billion range should be possible.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Henry Spencer
>...The focus of the Case for Mars
>VI conference, which will be held this July, is going to be
>under $5 billion strikes me as impossible, but that was also
>my first impression of a $1 billion lunar mission. Something
>in the $10 billion range should be possible.
Doing it for $10 billion should be easy, if you spend the first (say)
$5 billion on several well-managed competitive programs aimed at reducing
launch costs dramatically. It's silly not to. The launch costs don't
actually dominate the mission costs, but the need to minimize launch mass
drives the engineering costs up enormously, and they *do* dominate the
mission costs. Many of the problems get easier if you can afford to just
throw mass at them to save on engineering.
The same approach *might* work at $5 billion.
--
The Earth is our mother. | Henry Spencer
Our nine months are up... | he...@zoo.toronto.edu
William H. Mook
>
> G'day All
>
> I have been following the recent postings by Mook and Herbert on Goldin's 1
> bilion dollars moon mission with great interest. They seem to show that such
> projects are possible. The cost is about a tenth of previous costs I have seen.
>
> Can similar cost reductions be done with a manned Mars mission? Is a 5 billion
> dollar mission possible?
>
Yes. It is interesting to recall that in 1969 we had the capacity to
visit Mars using Apollo era technology. We had the ROVER program and
the Phoebus2A powered atomic rocket was flight ready. This 200,000 lbf.
rocket was designed to operate with the Saturn V third stage. It had
a specific impulse of 890 seconds. The third stage was to be stretched
to accommodate a significant amount of all hydrogen propellant. An
alternative was ammonia which is storable over long periods.
Several missions were possible. The SKYLAB module was basically a
variant of a MARS MISSION MODULE. Two SKYLABs cabled together and
spun to produce gravity (like the experiments done during the
Gemini rendezvous where the capsule were cabled together and
spun up to produce gravity) would provide all that was needed
during a trip.
A single ROVER propelled stage and two SKYLABs could have been
boosted to a Mars flyby and return to Earth two years later -
where Apollo Capsules would be used to recover the six person
crew. We could've flown by mars, and had three female astronauts,
in 1972-73 for less than half a billion dollars marginal costs.
A similar setup but with THREE ROVER stages and an UPGRADED LANDER,
could've landed folks on the red planet by 1978. This would involve
modifying LUNAR LANDER hardware to accomodate a MARS LANDING. Take
the TRW rockets and GRUMMAN controls, etc., and house them in a big
cone sitting atop a truncated cone and you get the idea. The propellant
tanks are bigger for the lift off. The same engines are used for take
off and landing. The truncated cone has a hole through its center and
the cone on top has a cylinder on its base. Three LEM descent engines
are attached to the base of the cylinder, which is parallel to the base
of the truncated cone with a hole. Aerocapture of the landing stage
was how the astronauts were to land on Mars. So, the truncated base
in addition to a small amount of landing propellant for final braking,
also had significant payload dedicated to Mars exploration. The cost
of the lander basically depended on how long you planned to stay on
Mars. Since the gear for Mars stay and Moon base were similar, the
cost of the gear could be borne by both programs. (We figured by 1978
there'd be a thriving lunar settlement made of SKYLAB type cannisters
landed on the moon and powered by the Phoebus2A reactor (which was
bimodal)). For the Mars journey stay times would be limited to
about 60 days. Transport across the Martian surface was to be
by rocket belt. Since mars gravity is 1/3 of earth rocket belt
transport is 3 times more efficient. On the moon rocket belt
transport is 6 times more efficient and comparable in specific
fuel consumption with jet aircraft on earth. Two types of rocket
belts were studied, a one person variety, and a two person variety
with cargo hold. Both were to go to mars.
What could we do today? Well, the ROVER program is gone, but the
nuclear propulsion industry isn't dead yet. We could build a much
smaller rocket though and attach it to one or more MIR space station
modules. With sufficient propellant the module could be transported
to lunar orbit and to Mars orbit and returned to Earth orbit. No
aerobraking or aerocapture. Rockets all the way. But with 900 sec
Isp, and 9 km/sec (you might want to check that figure) delta vee
its doable. You might want to use ammonia instead of hydrogen for
the nuclear rocket. The rocket would be bimodal, that is, you'd
produce electrical power during transit. Anyway, it'd be a great
international system. The US would provide the lifesupport, spacesuits,
navigation, control, systems (you'd have a 'control shack' attached to
the MIR modules - modified from Space Station modules) and propulsion
system. Russia would donate one or more MIR modules and astronauts and
launch all the components on their Energia/Buran. The US could launch
the astronauts on the Shuttle. Japan could develop VR driven robots.
Europeans would develop sensor probes and Mars entry vehicles. US
might contribute a Mars airplane if they could get funding for it.
You'd take off from Earth orbit and slower spiral outward using your
nuclear rocket. Gravity losses would be minimal in orbit. In a few
weeks you'd be cruising toward mars free of earth. There'd be a crew
of eight on board the MIR/US assembly. Two US, Two Russian and four
from other nations. As you approached Mars you'd begin to brake by
the time you reached the red planet you'd be in orbit around it.
Establish a communications and navigation network around the planet
with a trio of satellites. Drop down your aircraft, probes and VR
robots. From the comfort of your MIR habitat explore the surface of
Mars using VR. Folks on Earth could link in to witness in color and
3D every movement of each robot. There'd be four robots dropped
in widely separated regions. They'd be equipped with both rocket
packs and treads. So they could move quickly from point to point
as well as get over obstacles, while at the same time move extensively
throughout a given region. The airplanes would be a permanent asset
whose control would be turned over to Earthbound operators, this
applies to the robots as well - although some automation would be
required to handle the delays from Mars. Direct exploration of
Diemos and Phobos will be possible from the Mir modules. Since
their gravity is zilch the Mir/Marship could approach each of these
moons with impunity. Astronauts would take a spacewalk, but have
moons larger than New York's Central Park to explore for the first
time. Ground penetrating radar could peer inside, samples could be
taken, etc. Samples from Mars could also be returned by small
sounding type rockets from the robot landers. Robots would pick
up interesting keepsakes. Transport them back to the Lander where
the return rocket awaits. Once full, up to 100 kg could be returned
from each of the four landers. After 100 days or so in this exploration
mode the rocket returns to Earth. Spiraling outward from Mars VR links
become longer but still doable. Eventually the VR links are turned over
to Earthbound explorers. Approaching Earth the vehicle slows and docks
again with the Mir segment that remained in orbit around Earth about
three years after its departure. Samples and data records are transferred
to the Shuttle and returned to Earth along with the astronauts.
Without a big piloted lander, and using Russian launch and long term space
habitat capacities, and cannibalizing parts of the US space station, and
through other means, costs could be reduced to less than $5 billion for
the mission described. The nuclear propulsion system would cost less
than half a billion to make flight ready for example.
Ralph Buttigieg
fCE> Ralph Buttigieg <rbutt...@vulcans.caamora.com.au> wrote:
>> have seen. Can similar cost reductions be done with a manned Mars mission?
>> Is a 5 billion dollar mission possible?
fCE> Possibly. Zubrin's Mars Direct idea would probably cost under $20
fCE> billion, possibly well under that. The focus of the Case for Mars
fCE> VI conference, which will be held this July, is going to be
fCE> showing how cheap a Mars mission can be. I hope we'll be
This is excellent news. Seems to me that Mars Direct answers most of the
technical questions on how Mars can be explored cheaply but I have never seen
any real cost estimates. Perhaps if Mars Direct is used as a starting point
even cheaper ways can be found.
I hope you can post some of the results from the conference here for us all to
see.
Ralph Buttigieg
31 Jan 96 16:35, he...@zoo.toronto.edu wrote to All:
hte> Doing it for $10 billion should be easy, if you spend the first (say)
hte> $5 billion on several well-managed competitive programs aimed at reducing
hte> launch costs dramatically. It's silly not to. The launch costs don't
hte> actually dominate the mission costs, but the need to minimize launch mass
hte> drives the engineering costs up enormously, and they *do* dominate the
hte> mission costs. Many of the problems get easier if you can afford to just
hte> throw mass at them to save on engineering.
Maybe, but perhaps we can still do significant projects with the new technology
being developed. I think Advanced Life Support Systems will be used on ISSA.
Ion drives will be flown soon. And solar thermal rockets are being developed.
Seems to me the trick is to combine these and any other useful technology into
economical but useful crewed missions. How about the $1 billion Goldin moon
challange being followed by a $2Billion NEO challange, followed by the
$5Billion Mars challange?
Ralph Buttigieg
>> have seen. Can similar cost reductions be done with a manned Mars
>> mission? Is a 5 billion dollar mission possible?
wGN> What could we do today? Well, the ROVER program is gone, but the
wGN> nuclear propulsion industry isn't dead yet. We could build a much
wGN> smaller rocket though and attach it to one or more MIR space station
There are other alternatives to NERVA type engines. One is Solar Thermal
porpulsion a "poor man's NERVA". Take up a big collapsable foil mirror.
Concentrate the Sun's rays onto a ceramic engine. Pump the reaction mass
through. You can get that engine just as hot a a nuke rocket, so the ISP is the
same. The good news about this is that NASA is spending money on it. It would
be a dandy motor to put big GEO comsats up. A problem is that thrust is not
very great so it may take a few weeks to spiral out of LEO. And it will be less
effective at Mars orbit. But it would make a great space tug. It could take an
unmanned Marsship to a heigh Earth orbit, perhaps L4 or L5 and use that as the
staging area . Then the crew could make a quick rendezvous in a small capsule
launched on a conventional booster. Thus avoiding weeks in the Van Allen Belts.
Then run the solar engine for a boost to Mars.
wGN> robots. From the comfort of your MIR habitat explore the surface of
wGN> Mars using VR. Folks on Earth could link in to witness in color and
wGN> 3D every movement of each robot. There'd be four robots dropped
wGN> in widely separated regions. They'd be equipped with both rocket
wGN> packs and treads. So they could move quickly from point to point
wGN> as well as get over obstacles, while at the same time move extensively
wGN> throughout a given region. The airplanes would be a permanent asset
wGN> whose control would be turned over to Earthbound operators, this
wGN> applies to the robots as well - although some automation would be
wGN> required to handle the delays from Mars. Direct exploration of
wGN> Diemos and Phobos will be possible from the Mir modules. Since
Perhaps instead on taking lots of robots take a electrolosis plant and some
mining equipment. There is supposed to be ice on those moons. Establish a fuel
plant there. A reusable Mars lander can be sent unfueled to save weight. Using
Deimos as a base it could do several trips down.
Edward V. Wright
rbutt...@vulcans.caamora.com.au says...
>Then the crew could make a quick rendezvous in a small capsule
>launched on a conventional booster. Thus avoiding weeks in the Van
>Allen Belts.
On the other hand, your electronics still spend weeks in the Van Allen
Belts. This is the same problem that has dimmed enthusiasm for ion
engines, which have a much higher Isp than a Nerva-type engine.
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
Ralph Buttigieg
10 Feb 96 03:51, edwr...@microsoft.com wrote to All:
>> Then the crew could make a quick rendezvous in a small capsule
>> launched on a conventional booster. Thus avoiding weeks in the Van
>> Allen Belts.
ec> On the other hand, your electronics still spend weeks in the Van Allen
ec> Belts. This is the same problem that has dimmed enthusiasm for ion
ec> engines, which have a much higher Isp than a Nerva-type engine.
Can't be that bad. Remember the solar thermal rocket is being developed fo
comsat companies to put up their satellites.
William H. Mook
Ralph:
Who is developing a solar thermal tug? I'd be interested in speaking
with them!
Greason
<w...@mail.GANet.NET> writes:
>
>Ralph Buttigieg wrote:
>>
>> Can't be that bad. Remember the solar thermal rocket is being
>> developed for comsat companies to put up their satellites.
>>
>Ralph:
>
>Who is developing a solar thermal tug? I'd be interested in speaking
>with them!
I'll second that. Solar-thermal looks to me like the best near
term technology for shortening trip times and lowering cost on
a lot of interesting trips (including the Mars run), given the
present political realities mitigating against nuclear fission
based systems.
But in looking around, while I've found signs of technology development
that's applicable, I don't know of any active development program
for solar-thermal rockets. (I'd welcome a correction).
--
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, and do not reflect
the position of Intel, NETCOM, or Zippy the Pinhead.
====================================================================
Jeffrey K. Greason "We choose to go to the moon ... and do
<gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com> the other things, not because they are
<gre...@ix.netcom.com> easy, but because they are hard" -- JFK
Ralph Buttigieg
17 Feb 96 15:18, w...@s1.GANet.NET wrote to Ralph Buttigieg:
wGN> Ralph Buttigieg wrote:
>>
>> G'day edwr...@microsoft.com
>>
>> 10 Feb 96 03:51, edwr...@microsoft.com wrote to All:
>>
>> >> Then the crew could make a quick rendezvous in a small capsule
>> >> launched on a conventional booster. Thus avoiding weeks in the Van
>> >> Allen Belts.
>>
>> ec> On the other hand, your electronics still spend weeks in the Van
>> ec> Allen Belts. This is the same problem that has dimmed enthusiasm for
>> ec> ion engines, which have a much higher Isp than a Nerva-type engine.
>>
>> Can't be that bad. Remember the solar thermal rocket is being developed
>> fo comsat companies to put up their satellites. ta Ralph -- | Caamora:
>> Ralph Buttigieg 13:1000/635 | Internet: rbutt...@vulcans.caamora.com.au
>> | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly their own
>> | Caamora (InterNet Services) UUCP<>FTN Mail and News +61 2 6659249
wGN> Ralph:
wGN> Who is developing a solar thermal tug? I'd be interested in speaking
wGN> with them!
I got the information from a recent NASA publication. Do you get
" SPACE TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION" ? Its produced by the NASA office of Space
Access and Technology. I afraid I lost the relevent issue but it came out last
year. I do remeber NASA and some private company was spending real money on it.
There was a nice picture of the Solar Thermal rocket with two big mirrors in
the issue. Perhaps someone can has the issue handy and can look it up for us.
Anyway, the contact for the newsletter is Sandra Dressel. internet address:
innov...@hq.nasa.gov . You might ask her to look it up for you.
Rand Simberg
writes:
>But in looking around, while I've found signs of technology
>development that's applicable, I don't know of any active development
>program for solar-thermal rockets. (I'd welcome a correction).
I have a vague recollection of a program at Phillips Lab (at Edwards,
not Kirkland) to test out some concepts. It's an AF program, not NASA.
--
************************************************************************
sim...@interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1391 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
Next year in orbit * "My opinions *are* those of my employer"
Allen Thomson
It's a good thing the SAIC zip on Goodridge Dr. is 22102, or I might
take offense at the choice of "infestation" to describe the
concentration of speek around T.C. ;) Note that some of these have
set up shop in Reston/Herndon and Oakton to take advantage of lower
rental rates.
Another phenomenon you might want to include in your work is the
appearance of "boutique" companies which do specialty work -- sometimes
analysis, sometimes gadgetry -- for the IC and related customers.
These generaly are quite small, in the <100 person range, often ten
or less.
BTW, did you notice Rainer Kracht's discovery of two "unknown"
geosynchronous satellites recently?
Jim Kingdon
> " SPACE TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION" ? Its produced by the NASA office of Space
> Access and Technology.
Turns out it is on the web at
<URL:http://nctn.hq.nasa.gov/STI/STI.html>. Nicely done too. Full
text and pictures (well, at least some text and pictures; I would have
no way of knowing whether the paper version is larger). If you are
allergic to NASA spinoff hype, you won't like it, but it is somewhat
better than most NASA spinoff hype in terms of including a certain
amount of real information, including sometimes even (gasp) financial
information.
> I afraid I lost the relevent issue but it came out last year. I do
> remeber NASA and some private company was spending real money on it.
> There was a nice picture of the Solar Thermal rocket with two big
> mirrors in the issue.
I both browsed and tried the search engine, and didn't find the solar
thermal rocket article. So perhaps if someone who remembers a little
bit more about where to find it tried, they would have better luck.
Henry Spencer
> ec> On the other hand, your electronics still spend weeks in the Van Allen
> ec> Belts. This is the same problem that has dimmed enthusiasm for ion
> ec> engines, which have a much higher Isp than a Nerva-type engine.
>
>Can't be that bad. Remember the solar thermal rocket is being developed fo
>comsat companies to put up their satellites.
First I'd heard of this -- which ones?
The comsat companies are very active in development of things like ion
rockets and arcjets, but these are for in-orbit stationkeeping, *not* for
the boost up to orbit.
--
Space will not be opened by always | Henry Spencer
leaving it to another generation. --Bill Gaubatz | he...@zoo.toronto.edu