Red Dragon: SpaceX Planning Spacecraft to Mars by 2018

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 21 - 40 of total 97 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Gunkie

Trad climber
Valles Marineris
Apr 29, 2016 - 07:55am PT
So to bring this thread back to a climbing discussion in the climbing forum...

Will sticky rubber be allowed in the 'lighter' gravity on Mars? Will EBs become valuable assets? Will grid bolting become 'de rigueur' for this new generation of Martian climbers? Does the YDS get replaced with the MDS (5.11 == M.3)?

And as far as a one-way trip, there are plenty of volunteers.

http://www.mars-one.com/
Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 29, 2016 - 09:08am PT
Elon Musk has postulated a price for moving to Mars at $500,000. Free return to Earth if you don't like it there.His design for a "Mars Colonial Transporter" is due to be revealed by year's end. I'll stick with my La Sportiva "Tradmasters."
Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 29, 2016 - 09:14am PT
Just for those who scoff at Dr. Robert Zubrin, I've provided his Bio and an abbreviated CV:

B.A., Mathematics; University of Rochester, 1974.

M.S. Nuclear Engineering; University of Washington, 1984.

M.S. Astronautical and Aeronautical Engineering; University of Washington, 1986.

Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering, University of Washington, 1992.

These are nor flaky or shabby credentials.
NutAgain!

Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
Apr 29, 2016 - 09:40am PT
Let's get down to brass tacks.

Can SpaceX then move their corporate headquarters to Mars to avoid taxation in any country? Do they first have to disassociate with being incorporated with any country in USA, operating from datacenters floating in international waters before they land on Mars?

If the countries of Earth sign a treaty re: mineral rights or exploitation of extra-terrestrial resources, would corporations that exist outside the bounds of Earth countries be beholden to such laws? I suppose they would be beholden to the physical force of the countries that disagreed with their approach.

Will they own assets they lay eyes upon outside the range of the U.S. flag? Are they beholden to "taxation" to any country here for that? U.S. taxes individuals for income around the world, not sure about treatment for corporations and various tax treaties.

What happens when the U.S. says "all your base are mine?" Will they run to Russia or China for support (out of the frying pan and into the fire)? At what point will they make enough money to defend their assets on Earth against aggressor nations? What if a very rich company on earth sees this as an opportunity and buys them... then that bigger parent company has enough resources to fight off military incursions by other countries and protect the assets and income stream from Mars mining or tourism or space-based warfare?

Will this be the turning point where corporations shift from influencers/controllers of governments to direct peers/replacers of governments?


I haven't read too much sci-fi, but this particular period seems especially ripe for good fiction, exploring the power struggles as humans transition beyond Earthly limitations. Like the New World all over again.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Apr 29, 2016 - 10:06am PT
I'm sure that many of the technological issues for a flight to Mars, and even back from Mars, can be outlined and backed up with many good studies, and estimates.

If you want to design your own rocket engines you can even download design programs from the web e.g.
http://www.propulsion-analysis.com

A quick look at methane rocket fuels for launchers reveals that there are none with any actual operational record... see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_engines
though SpaceX and Blue Origin are both pursing these fuels, no one else is...

Launching such a mission has a lot to do with assessing the likelihood of successful completion, for most people (like me) that definition is sending and returning a flight crew.

Reviewing the unmanned missions,
http://mars.nasa.gov/programmissions/missions/log/

of 43 attempts, there have been 18 successful missions (with 2 more semi-successful), a 47% success rate... but we've been launching missions to Mars since 1960, have we gotten any better?

Perhaps slightly,
1960 - 0% - 2
1965 - 17% - 6
1970 - 50% - 4
1975 - 45% - 11
1980 - - 0
1985 - - 0
1990 - 0% - 2
1995 - 0% - 1
2000 - 29% - 7
2005 - 80% - 5
2010 - 100% - 1
2015 - 75% - 4

the 5-year period with the most missions launched, 1970-1975, had a 45% success rate. The next 5 year period was 1995-2000 with 7 launches and 29% success rate.

These are one-way missions, so for the purpose of argument we can assume the same success rate for the return, the 0.47 one-way probability becomes a 0.22 for the return.

One in five chance of making it back.

Now the complexity of a human mission is a lot greater than a robotic mission, the life-support is an important component. So the failure probability increases. Not only that, but there are considerable "objective" hazards (e.g. radiation) which we are just beginning to assess. The mitigation for these risks may be extremely difficult to engineer. For every increment of mass added, 4 times that mass in fuel must also be added.

While we can sit in our arm chairs and criticize an organization like NASA for not being bold enough, I don't think you could find a crew willing to take the current odds (as incomplete and as optimistic as they currently are).

And I am unaware of any private, commercial organization offering a "product/service" for which an 80% outcome is the death of the customer... do you?


Given this history, I fit a logistics curve to the data (by eye) with a 10 year characteristic time, the year that 0.99 probability (one-way) is achieved is 2043, this is of order the actual success rate of the Space Shuttle. With the return included, we hit 0.99 in 2050.

Once again, this is for robotic missions...

Given the complexity and the scale of these missions, 30 years to achieve a 99% success rate does not seem an unreasonable estimate.


Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 29, 2016 - 10:58am PT
To address the concerns stated above:

The Mars Direct, or in it's NASA modified form, Mars Semi Direct, has a lot of built-in redundancy. The entire scheme depends on more than a "few days on the planet," or a "Footprints and a Flag" approach.

The original plan proposed in 1990 was a 4 astronaut team landing and staying on Mars until the next Holman Transfer window, which means a 6 month stay for purposes of doing geological and biological research.

The launch of 2 vehicles was proposed; first an Earth Return Vehicle to be sent some 6 months prior to launching a live crew. The ERV would proceed to manufacture the propellants for the return flight, and once refueling of the ERV completed, phase 2 of the mission undertaken--sending out the astronauts. When the astronaut-explorers arrive on Mars, there's already a fully-fueled ERV there waiting. Another ERV would be launched simultaneously with the manned Habitat spacecraft for a backup. During the 6 month planetary stay envisioned by mission planners, ERV #2 would refuel itself as a backup return system.

NASA subsequently modified the mission architecture to have a larger crew make the journey; last I heard the numbers were either 7 or 9. Additionally, a non return Habitat module was to be launched ahead of the manned module. This would assure adequate food, and a safe living environment for the crew being "in place" prior to astronaut launch. NASA also envisioned first placing an additional ERV return vehicle in Mars orbit as backup.

As the original Martin-Marietta engineering team had proposed the program, it would have reduced the cost of the original "90 Day Report" plan from $450 Billion by at least an order of magnitude. Musk and SpaceX are now estimating their version of Mars Semi Direct to cost around $20 Billion TOTAL. On an annualized budget, that amount is well within the NASA budget to accomplish over a 5-7 year term.

No one ever said this would be a "safe trip." There are those who enjoy living "on the edge," and most climbers are adrenelin junkies. This is a new Frontier, since there are none remaining here on Earth; there are no new continents to explore, no rivers to follow to their source, and damned few mountains w/o having had ascents. We sit here and wring our hands about risk--we stagnate and our cultures die. Instead of squabbling over the vanishing resources of a mature planet with endless wars and turmoil, let's do something I consider noble and uplifting for all mankind.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Apr 29, 2016 - 11:21am PT
We sit here and wring our hands about risk--we stagnate and our cultures die.

sending 4, 6, 9 people to Mars isn't going to matter very much...

as for accepting risk, you would never accept a climbing proposal where you had an "optimistic" 80% chance of dying.

Finally, the issues of radiation exposure are not trivial, and so far no mitigation scheme exists... sitting in a bunker for 6 months on Mars hiding from radiation exposure isn't as nobel as it sounds.

Musk has far less experience costing these projects than NASA has... and far less accountability.

Gunkie

Trad climber
Valles Marineris
Apr 29, 2016 - 11:35am PT
as for accepting risk, you would never accept a climbing proposal where you had an "optimistic" 80% chance of dying.

That would depend, distinctly, on my station in life. But, then again, I'd probably not pass the psych exam.
Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 29, 2016 - 11:39am PT
It seems that Musk has already been successful at reducing launch costs in the satellite business. He's no longer expending a $65 Million booster every launch; reusability is a major issue. Prices can come down dramatically when first stage reuse is possible. Two of the past satellite launches have recovered the rocket intact and propulsively landed--once on a launch pad at Canaveral, and the second--aboard OCISLY.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Apr 30, 2016 - 08:29am PT
I'd imagine that Musk, SpaceX, with the Knowledge Base of NASA, can figure this out. Ed brings up many issues, but we're pretty good as overcoming issues (after a couple of mistakes).

Finding suitable people to spend 6-mos to a year on Mars doesn't seem like it would be too hard. They'd have to be the right types, or course.

It could take several years to get somebody back from Mars after we get them there, but it's be worth it. Imagine a base on Mars. An accomplishment in and of itself, and a launching point for so much more.

Question: Why not a lunar base first? Does Musk just want the glory of Mars?

Seems a lunar base would be a more logical fist step. Getting us 'stationed' and stabilized outside of Earths atmosphere on a firm, stable environment with raw materials readily available..
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Apr 30, 2016 - 09:38am PT
Imagine a base on Mars

I can, I just can't imagine a use-case for the mission that delivers enough value to justify it compared to other uses of those funds and resources. From where I sit the principal driver of such a mission is our cowboy mythology.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Apr 30, 2016 - 10:02am PT
From where I sit the principal driver of such a mission is our cowboy mythology.

So what? There are always rewards in the end of such ventures. And those rewards tend to benefit the whole of our civilization, not just starving kids in Africa or fat cats on Wall St.

The whole freakin' civilization. Forever.

the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Apr 30, 2016 - 10:16am PT
We choose to go to mars...

The closest experience we have to this is the Apollo program. Granted things were different. At it's peak in 64-66 NASA's budget was 4% of the federal budget. That's a LOT of money. But it was a matter of national pride and security. What they did was remarkable.

on May 5, 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space, launched in a ballistic trajectory.

Kennedy proposed Apollo in a May 25, 1961 address to Congress.

John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth, on February 20, 1962.

On September 12, 1962, President Kennedy delivered his speech before a crowd of 35,000 people in the Rice football stadium. The most memorable and quoted portion of the speech comes in the middle:

Apollo 11 was July 16–24, 1969.



We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?[5]

We choose to go to the Moon! ...[6] We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things,[7] not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win ...[8]

In less than 10 years they went from just getting a man in space to landing a man on the moon and returning him to Earth.

Mars is exponentially harder but Apollo showed what humans could accomplish. We had no idea if/how we could pull it off. So many technologies we use today were developed for the program.

A Mars program would be similar. Once the goal is set you figure out how to accomplish it.

Plenty of people would make the ONE WAY trip to Mars right now. There are people who would sacrifice their lives to be the first person on Mars. So getting people to take a risky trip with a chance to return would be no problem. It's more the administrators allowing it than finding the people to do it.

But there will be lots of robotic missions first.

Musk has shown over an over he's capable of things that people thought not possible. When you have a visionary like that making executive decisions things happen a lot faster than the bureaucratic, publicly accountable ways of NASA.

It's going to be really interesting to see what happens.

My guess is we do send people to Mars but it will take 20-30 years or more.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Apr 30, 2016 - 10:23am PT
There are always rewards in the end of such ventures. And those rewards tend to benefit the whole of our civilization, not just starving kids in Africa or fat cats on Wall St.

aside from a demonstration of heavy lift rocket capability to shore up the concept of deterrence and the inevitability of mutually assured destruction...

name the "rewards" of the US and Soviet space programs on human civilization.



I'm all for Musk deciding to do whatever he decides to do on his own.. I'm even happy for him to have access to the NASA expertise... but I don't see how the USG (or any other "G") can justify the costs of such a mission based on the likely return-on-investment (ROI).

ALL of the science you could do on such a mission can be done less expensively and better in robotic missions (which also have a great ROI: the development of autonomous robots). The only "science" not addressed is that of human response to long term space flight.

But the sort of "toughness" required for humans is not similar to John Wayne's on screen persona... the "toughness" required would be to standup to the radiation exposure encountered during the entire mission, the trip out and back, and the time spent on the Martian surface.

We don't have an answer for this... pilgrims, except to send our radiation hardened mechanical agents (and even they are troubled by it).

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Apr 30, 2016 - 11:14am PT
the total cost of the project is $18B? over how many years? probably 10 to 20...
Americans' annual spending on their pets is $60B...

I like pets... and I don't mind spending to support NASA either...

The USG is investing in risky future technologies that the private sector cannot invest in. This includes the R&D (where the "D" here is considered crazy-ass "R" by most of the private sector) on a very broad spectrum of topics.

Something they should be doing.



no list of "rewards" for civilization yet?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Apr 30, 2016 - 12:32pm PT
name the "rewards" of the US and Soviet space programs on human civilization.

Trick question?

NASA has invented all sorts of technology to solve the peculiar problems of space exploration. In the 1950s and early 1960s, it created the revolutionary three-axis stabilization control design that enables satellites to point their antennas, instruments and solar panels with precision. Since then, it's been such a prolific problem solver that about one in every 1,000 U.S. patents is granted to someone working on a NASA project [source: Rayl].

In fact, the NASA workforce is so ingenious that quite a few of its inventions are useful for those of us who stay on the ground. The agency even has a special administrative branch, the Technology Utilization Program, which focuses on helping companies turn the ideas behind space gadgetry into industrial and consumer innovations.

The list of inventions is certainly long, but if we have to single out a few favorites, these 10 would top the list.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/inventions/top-5-nasa-inventions.htm

Insulation, memory-foam, scratch-resistant lenses, CAT scans, LEDs, infrared thermometers, efficient water filtration, etc...

It's a long list, you know this, Ed. What gives?

EDIT: saw this too: http://kearth101.cbslocal.com/2011/07/21/list-stuff-we-use-everyday-that-was-invented-from-the-space-program/

39.A possible end to water shortages

Research into using bacteria as a means to remove impurities and purify water is being still being undertaken by Nasa. The system makes use of scant resources by turning waste water from respiration, sweat and urine into drinkable liquid and it’s hoped that this could help poorer communities in developing countries.

C'mon!
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Apr 30, 2016 - 01:49pm PT
name the "rewards" of the US and Soviet space programs on human civilization.
what about that PEN which NASA spent so much on!

what about Vacuum technology? wasn't that a NASA thing I could be wrong but whatever.. anyways!
Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 30, 2016 - 02:40pm PT
One thing Musk does almost constantly with his innovative designs: he proves the axiom about decisions made by committees.

"A camel is a horse designed by a committee."

I choose supporting this undertaking for the same reasons expounded by Kennedy in his famous Rice University speech previously quoted here." We do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard."
clinker

Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
Apr 30, 2016 - 02:51pm PT
." We do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard."

I thought that was a Bill Clinton quote.
Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 30, 2016 - 03:02pm PT
Bluey-

The reasons for Mars are numerous: an atmosphere which moderates Cosmic ray radiation, a near 24 hour day making Earth-based plants capable of greenhouse growth; major resources in the necessary elements to support life; the CO2 atmosphere is capable of being converted into energy for a return flight, as well as energy to power rovers; and a far less harsh environment on a daily basis.

According to Dr. Zubrin, the energetics involved going to Mars are actually quite moderate. I haven't read the detailed math presented, but have on my own ordered an Orbital Mechanics textbook; I WILL understand the math.

Unlike Ed, who is a true academic, my approaches have always been industry-based; sometime rough-and-ready, but performance oriented. I'm really leaning toward placing a bet on Musk's SpaceX getting to Mars before NASA. I like the drive and determination, and not the bureaucratic procrastination.
Messages 21 - 40 of total 97 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta