Brian EnkeSouthwest Research

Institute (SwRI),

Boulder, CO

ANOTHER ORDER OFMAGNITUDE CHEAPER?

(AI, Simulations, Integration, Complexity)

THREE

GENERATIONS...

SEI: $450 billion

Mars Direct $40 billion

??? $4 billion or less ???

YES .....

(but only if we want one...)

(at least, in sci-fi...)

(and is $1 billion feasible?)

Is a $4 billion humanmission to Mars possible?

Image Credit: NASA

Pop Quiz!!

How much does a Mars mission cost?

A) $1 trillionB) $450 billionC) $40-$55 billionD) $4 billion

TRICK QUESTION!

COST ALONE ISMEANINGLESS!

Pop Quiz!!

How much does a Mars mission cost?

Credit: Warner Bros.

Credit: Warner Bros.

Mars Mission Cost Estimates are Meaningless Without...

Investment Timeframe

Development vs Ongoing

Well-Defined Goals (Capabilities)

Risk Tolerance Level

COMPLEXITY !!

COMPLEXITY

(Investment x Risk)

Capabilities

Technology

Resources

Innovation

Bureaucracy

Modifiers

First Generation Mission Plan: 90-Day Report

(Battlestar Galactica)

Highly complex

Expensive ($450b over 30 years)

Very high risk

Low capabilities (30-day surface visit)

scifi.com

Credit: Sci-Fi Channel

Second Generation Mission Plan:Mars Direct Less complexity

Cheaper ($40b over 10 years)

Less risk

Greater capabilities (2-year surface visit)

Modifiers: Resources, Innovation

Credit: NASA

Second Generation $$ Assumptions(from NASA/ESA study, Hunt & van Pelt, 2003)

Second Generation $$ Assumptions(from NASA/ESA study, Hunt & van Pelt, 2003)

Mars Direct Development Costs(Hunt and van Pelt, 2003) (billion-dollars)

ESA NASA

Ares Heavy-Lift Vehicle 11 13

Earth-Return Vehicle 4 7

Surface Elements 3

Agency Program Level 7------------------------- -----------------------

TOTAL: 18/27 26/39

Mars Direct Ongoing Costs(Hunt and van Pelt, 2003) (billion-dollars)

ESA NASA

Ares Heavy-Lift Vehicle 2 2

Earth-Return Vehicle .7 1

Surface Elements .7

Agency Program Level .9------------------------- -----------------------

TOTAL: 3.6/5.2 4.6/7.0

"We've run the numbers, the budget numbers, and we

can't afford this plan-we simply can't-if we follow the

business-as-usual approach."

- Christopher Shank, Special Assistantto the NASA Administrator,

Return to the Moon Conference, 2005

Third Generation Mission Plan:Shadows of Medusae?

Focus on reducing complexity!!!

Low risk, low cost

Capabilities??

Highly controversial

Remember, it's Sci-Fi ! (for now)

#1: Public/PrivatePrivate sponsorship

Less bureaucracy, better risk climate

NASA involvement limited to research, tech development

90% cheaper?

Parallel NASA program can be an insurance policy

Credit: Paul Bourke

#2: Longer MissionDouble the surface mission from two to four years (or more)

Hardware rates are halved (or more)

Habitat complexity increased, maybe

Flag-and-footprint danger?

Credit: Warner Bros.

#3: One-way Mission

No ERV = less risk

50% less investment

Goals focused upon settlement

Hab, surface-ops more complex

All else simpler (no nukes until later)

Poor science

#4: EngineeringFirst mission: tech demonstrator

Highly focused, less complex

All crew members primarily engineers

Send scientists later

Tele-robotics

Less mobility

#5: Split Crew Two groups of

three or four

Smaller habitats – or larger rovers?

Redundancy of the most critical asset: the crew

Skills mix?

Psych issues?

RISK definition?Credit: Paul BourkeImage Credit: NASA

#6: Precursor Missions

Dumb, cheap, simple supply drops

Food, solar panels, water, and seeds

Wide landing ellipse

Scout for resources (water), conditions (air, radiation)

No base integrationCredit: Paul Bourke

#7: Tele-RoboticsSeveral humanoid robots (Robonauts?)

Limited autonomy

Less spacesuit wear

Less dust in habitat

Immersive reality control devices

Don't automate what isn't necessary

#8: No NukesNuclear propulsion is complex

Use chemical rockets

Equatorial landing sites

Scaled solar power arrays

Surface RTGs are OK

Later missions: OK

Credit: David Darling

#9: Artificial Gravity

Reduced life-science complexity

Chemical rockets

Single gravity vector, magnitude

Hab plumbing and layout less complex

Need tethers and deployment system

#10: Surface WaterAssume you can reach it

Dangerous, but simple

Need a two-year supply for the free-return trajectory (include in cargo!)

Better for later or longer missions Credit: Warner Bros.

#11: Surface RendezvousSimpler than orbital rendezvous

More supplies available

Gravity = familiarity

Creative uses for inflatables

Requires more fuel for ERV (energy)Credit: NASA

#12: Sample Return

Keep it simple!!!

Sending humans is more cost-effective

Back-contamination

Dust-return simpler

Human mobility and sample selection

In-situ measurement is simpler Credit: Mars Society

#13: Analogue Testing

Earth analogues are simpler

Pressure dome?

Use public-outreach groups for labor, publicity

Moon-testing must be simple and convenient

Credit: Mars Society

#14: Heavy LiftDevelop hardware for a wide range of applications

A Mars exploration mission should NOT absorb the whole investment!!

Simplicity over capability

ELVs over RLVs

#15: Risk vs Wait

No guarantee that future technology will reduce COMPLEXITY!

... No guarantee of less RISK or COST

Complexity theory

Red Queen theory

Credit: Warner Bros.

Shadows of Medusa

Next-generation mission

Complexity reduction

Do the mission now

Signed in vendor area by author (Brian Enke)

Retail $35, Members $20

www.ShadowsOfMedusa.com

Share and enjoy!