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!