Is It Time for a Moon or Mars Mission?

[drag]

Greetings !

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-04c.html

O.K. I remember there was talk of a speech for manned
Mars exploration last year, but this time it seems
more likely according to the story, at least. And, because
it's the Moon - a more modest target. Besides, the US
presedential ellections are closer. Hopefully,
SOMEONE with finally GO SOMEWHERE ! Even if it's
seemingly just in our "back yard".

Live long and prosper.

 

[Lord Flasheart]

Yes. Apparently Ralph Hall has convinced Bush the benefits of colonizing the moon. By actually taking ahold of the first lunar material from the moon, space stations could get supplies in a much cheaper and effecient way, develop larger spacecraft , and allow him to be an election-ready simulacrum of the great-late-JFK.

There will be an expedition to Mars. See you there.

 

[pallidin]

Having been born and raised 69 miles south of Cape Kennedy(at that time)in Florida, I suppose I might be somewhat biased, given the awe of looking in the sky and seeing the Apollo rockets racing towards the moon and, later, the shuttle missions.(I was born in 1960 and lived in Ft.Pierce, Florida for 21 years and have revisited numerous times since)
Now I live in Montana, far away from the spectacular sights afforded every few months or so in Florida.
I fully support an aggressive space program as I know that we must, at some point, leave this home and venture outwards in order to survive, and to thrive.

 

[paults2]

One has to question how sincere Bush is about the Moon and Mars missions. He didn't even mention them in his State of the Union address, although he took the time to talk about a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages.

The admin is concerned about the fact that the Chinese recently put people in space and said that they wish to go to the Moon by 2010, a story that the mainstream media in the U.S. practically ignored ( too busy talking about Scott Peterson).

They are also concerned about the fact that Russia and the European union are working together to build new boosters and are also interested in going to the Moon. Those plans are seen by some in the admin as putting the U.S. in a tactical military disadvantage.

The Bush plan calls for ending the U.S. involvement in the ISS at 2010 and using the money for a Moon/Mars mission along with technology borrowed from the Pentagon.

Overall, the spirit of international cooperation that has been dominant in the past ten years doesn't appear in the Bush plan and seems to be taking a back burner to a Pentagon type approach. One has to wonder where the money and other needed resources are going to come from.

 

[Integral]

This is of course totally ignoring the fact that there is no sound scientific reason for sending men into space. There is no science that could not be done better by robotic probes and remote sensing. The fact that science can be done much cheaper and better seems to go over the head of politicians and even the general public. The goal seems to be just have man set foot on the surface of Mars, regardless of the fact that he would be there as a tourist unable to learn or do anything of significance.

If that is the goal then let private industry fund the missions, with the goal of building a lunar resort for low gravity golf and love making.

 

[Nice coder]

I agree, but what can one do?
Nobody said anything about mining asteroids yet, so- is it economical to build a gold-seeking probe, to land on an asteroid, collect gold/silver/? and fly it back to earth/Earth's' moon/mars colony?

de Nice codre

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Integral
This is of course totally ignoring the fact that there is no sound scientific reason for sending men into space. There is no science that could not be done better by robotic probes and remote sensing. The fact that science can be done much cheaper and better seems to go over the head of politicians and even the general public. The goal seems to be just have man set foot on the surface of Mars, regardless of the fact that he would be there as a tourist unable to learn or do anything of significance.

Hmm... why live at all ? Let's put our brains in jars
connect them to a computer and let robots do all the work.

Peace and long life.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Nice coder
I agree, but what can one do?
Nobody said anything about mining asteroids yet, so- is it economical to build a gold-seeking probe, to land on an asteroid, collect gold/silver/? and fly it back to earth/Earth's' moon/mars colony?

Not one bit, for now.

 

[garagegraphyx]

;)

We are definitely running out of space on earth. Wherever humans wish to colonize, go for it...after all, its part of the plan in reaching civilization type I.. we try harness the energy and sources needed from another location alien to earth. Personally, i think its a very good idea...think of all the sapce and experience we can gain from this expeditions...

From what i have heard...our moon is an empty hollow mass...
Please prove me wrong cos if its true, it might be unstable for an actual colony living on it...

 

[Nice coder]

The moon is neither empty nor hollow,
it is desolate, unless you want to mine bauxite!
It has a mantle layer and a solid crust, with no atmosphere.
Hopefully that is cleared up.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by Nice coder
I agree, but what can one do?
Nobody said anything about mining asteroids yet, so- is it economical to build a gold-seeking probe, to land on an asteroid, collect gold/silver/? and fly it back to earth/Earth's' moon/mars colony?

de Nice codre

It won't be economical until you have a need for those minerals in space. It costs ~$6,000 - $10,000 /kg to send stuff into space. It will cost a good deal in addition to that go bring stuff from an asteroid back home. It isn't economical to mine an asteroid just to bring it back to Earth... even gold is only a few hundred per ounce. If you need it in space (manufacturing, for example), then it may be worth the expense.

 

[Integral]

Originally posted by drag
Hmm... why live at all ? Let's put our brains in jars
connect them to a computer and let robots do all the work.

Peace and long life.

Not sure what you mean by this or what it has to do with what I wrote. Evidently you have no clue of what a modern robot is. Guess I have a different view of a robot, since I make my living working with them.

I believe that there are some fundamental facts of life that we must learn to live with. The quicker we catch on to these facts the better off we will be in the long run.

1. We will never leave the solar system, in the sense of colonizing, sure we can send robotic probes but MANKIND will never leave the solar system.

2. Mankind Will never leave the surface of the Earth in large enough numbers to have any impact on the population in general.

The message here is that we had better learn to live with what we have got. We had better learn to live with what we have SOON. We cannot error in this or we doom our descendent's to a stone age life style. There is no magic rescue by jumping off the surface of the Earth into space. We have much basic science to be done before there is any hope of finding a real reason for a man to travel to another planet. If we do not do the basic science, and instead spend money and effort to send more tourists (like the ones we sent in the late '60s) to the moon or Mars we may well blow the only chance we have of ever exploiting the resources of the solar system. By devoting huge amounts of resources to sending tourists into space we well have to neglect the pure science of the solar system and the sciences of how to survive with what we now have. Thus endangering our very existence as a species. To me the whole idea of sending men into space is a waste of time and resources. We have much better ways of spending both.

I am not saying that we should not explore the solar system, I just say that there is no need, and indeed, it is counter productive, to send men.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Integral
Not sure what you mean by this or what it has to do with what I wrote. Evidently you have no clue of what a modern robot is. Guess I have a different view of a robot, since I make my living working with them.

I believe that there are some fundamental facts of life that we must learn to live with. The quicker we catch on to these facts the better off we will be in the long run.

1. We will never leave the solar system, in the sense of colonizing, sure we can send robotic probes but MANKIND will never leave the solar system.

2. Mankind Will never leave the surface of the Earth in large enough numbers to have any impact on the population in general.

The message here is that we had better learn to live with what we have got. We had better learn to live with what we have SOON. We cannot error in this or we doom our descendent's to a stone age life style. There is no magic rescue by jumping off the surface of the Earth into space. We have much basic science to be done before there is any hope of finding a real reason for a man to travel to another planet. If we do not do the basic science, and instead spend money and effort to send more tourists (like the ones we sent in the late '60s) to the moon or Mars we may well blow the only chance we have of ever exploiting the resources of the solar system. By devoting huge amounts of resources to sending tourists into space we well have to neglect the pure science of the solar system and the sciences of how to survive with what we now have. Thus endangering our very existence as a species. To me the whole idea of sending men into space is a waste of time and resources. We have much better ways of spending both.

I am not saying that we should not explore the solar system, I just say that there is no need, and indeed, it is counter productive, to send men.

hmm... At first, as I read this I was certain I'm gon'na
write a long message against ALL of the above. But, you
know, who am I to fortell history ? I just sincerely
hope you're wrong, both about where technology and where
human spirit will lead us. Guess blind optimists make
the best explorers...

Peace and long life.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
But, you
know, who am I to fortell history ? I just sincerely
hope you're wrong, both about where technology and where
human spirit will lead us.

Unfortunately, drag, it has nothing to do with technology(except insofar as the laws of physics put solid boundaries on technology). These are scientific realities. Gravity. F=ma. E=mc^2. The laws of physics make it pretty much impossible for Integral's #1 and #2 to be wrong.

Guess blind optimists make the best explorers...

Maybe, but maybe its just that you never remember the names of the ones who failed and died because of it.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Unfortunately, drag, it has nothing to do with technology(except insofar as the laws of physics put solid boundaries on technology). These are scientific realities. Gravity. F=ma. E=mc^2. The laws of physics make it pretty much impossible for Integral's #1 and #2 to be wrong.

Just a century ago the "laws" of physics made MOST modern
technology impossible. And just ten years ago I played
single color PC games from 350K diskettes using a box
ten of which ain't worth a 3rd generation mobile phone.
Besides, except ingenuity we have more powerful stuff
to keep us running - like greed.

Live long and prosper.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
Just a century ago the "laws" of physics made MOST modern
technology impossible.

Not true at all. Very common misconception. The laws of physics are unchanging (by definition). How much we know about them is all that changes. But nothing in technology today is against the known laws of physics from 100 years ago. The known laws of physics just didn't cover as much as they cover today. Despite the common belief, very little of accepted science gets thrown out because to become accepted, a theory has to match observation.

And just ten years ago I played
single color PC games from 350K diskettes using a box
ten of which ain't worth a 3rd generation mobile phone.

And none of those technologies are contrary to what was known about physics 100 years ago.

 

[paults2]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/04/glenn.space.reut/index.html

 

[drag]

I didn't continue the little argument we
had above, because it looks like a general
theoretical and partly even philosophical
discussion that won't lead anywhere. We'll
just have to wait and see.
(Besides, I know I'm right... )

Originally posted by paults2
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/04/glenn.space.reut/index.html]

Why read the article after you see the picture ?
It tells you ahead what you're about to read.
This has nothing what so ever to do with space exploration
programs and I see no reason to address any meaning to this
irrelevant "critisizm".

Peace and long life.

 

[pallidin]

Jeeze, and I thought I was in a thread with forward thinking.
Look, if the U.S. does not continue manned mission to space, does that mean that no other country will?
Think again.
Are "robotic" missions, however technologically advanced, even anywhere near the socio-political(and YES, technological) impact of human exploration?
Not EVEN CLOSE. A human with instruments can do more in one day than Spirit and Opportunity having the same instruments could hope for in 5-months.
And, if we, as the U.S., fail to achieve a dominant posture in space, other contries have ALREADY declared their intention to do so.
Should we just send our robots around while other countries colonize the moon and Mars?
Bad call. And very, very dangerous to the national security of the United States. Hello!

 

[Nereid]

Imagine you were born in China (Russia, India, ...) and live in Beijing (Moscow, Delhi, ...) ... why do economic and national security concerns look different to you than they do to someone born in the US and living in Redmond?

enigma wrote: It costs ~$6,000 - $10,000 /kg to send stuff into space.

How low could we make it go (in constant$)? What are the key factors which drive up the cost?

 

[Nereid]

$6k to $10k/kg?

Looking into the costs involved in getting into orbit ...

Leave aside capital costs for the moment, how much of the cost of getting into orbit, per launch, is just the rocket (propellant, motors, containers, electronics)? and how much is the per-launch infrastructure?

I am going to guess the rocket is ~>80% of the cost, and the propellants are ~>80% of the rocket's cost.

The shuttle used liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, and aluminium powder and ammonium perchlorate. In terms of getting 100kg to 100 tonnes into LEO, and assuming a 'perfect' rocket design, are there propellants which are most cost-effective than these? To what extent does the answer to this question depend on as-yet-unknown manufacturing, storage, etc cost (in volume) economies?

 

[enigma]

Actually, propellants are such a small percentage of the cost, that they can be more or less neglected.

The costs for a single launch vehicle stage can be approximated like so:

Nonrecurring (development) costs:

7.125*mass^.55 [$M]

first unit production costs:

.1693*mass^.662 [$M]

The cost per kilo of LH2 or LOX runs on the order of $1/kg when purchased in bulk quantities.

So, for the first stage of a Delta IV Medium which has a mass of 26,760kg you can make the approximation that it cost around $1.9 Billion to develop and $144 Million to make the first one. Compare that with around $200,000 for the propellants. Each additional one you construct will cost less than the previous (learning curve effects). It's usually that the 2nd costs between 85% and 95% of the first, the 4th costs 85% to 95% of the 2nd, etc.

One way which you can bring down costs (which I am currently doing research in for a space tourism design project) is to use a modular design. Instead of having a different design for each stage, optimizing each for the region of the atmosphere it's flying in, have a single type of module with mediocre performance in any region, but strap a bunch of them together and blow them off in 4 or 5 stages. You need to build more of them, yes, but the cost to develop them goes down because they're smaller, and the cost per stage drops off quicker than a traditional launch because you're firing 10 or 12 (or more) of them for the first stage instead of 1 to 3.

 

[Nereid]

Thanks enigma.

What makes a rocket (stage) so expensive to produce? I guess it's not the materials (metal for tanks, insulation, etc) nor electronics nor assembly, so is it manufacture of motors and other components?

Your mention of first unit, second unit etc suggests 'master craftsman' (oops, not PC 'mastercraftsperson') production techniques rather than mass production.

Lastly, are the per-launch infrastructure costs - such as people costs of the launch crew - small (very small?) cf the per-launch rocket cost?

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by Nereid

What makes a rocket (stage) so expensive to produce? I guess it's not the materials (metal for tanks, insulation, etc) nor electronics nor assembly, so is it manufacture of motors and other components?

It's a combination. Manufacturing and testing of components isn't negligible. Remember that the construction of these things is, for the most part, done by engineers, each of whom make at least $50,000 per year. Also, there is the rediculous beaurocracy in any large company working off of government contracts.

Your mention of first unit, second unit etc suggests 'master craftsman' (oops, not PC 'mastercraftsperson') production techniques rather than mass production.

Yep. There isn't enough demand for them to get mass produced, and there won't be enough demand for them until they get mass produced. Catch-22.

Lastly, are the per-launch infrastructure costs - such as people costs of the launch crew - small (very small?) cf the per-launch rocket cost?

To be honest, I'm not sure.

I wouldn't be surprised if the costs ran into the 10s of millions to construct the facilities and in the millions per launch. That's noise level compared to the development costs unless it's to the high end of my guess or if my guess is low to begin with.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by pallidin
Not EVEN CLOSE. A human with instruments can do more in one day than Spirit and Opportunity having the same instruments could hope for in 5-months.

I think you seriously overestimate the capabilities of humans (not to mention other demands on their time such as survival) and seriously underestimate the capabilities of robots.

Also, at less than a billion dollars a pair, you could send up several hundred rovers for the cost of one manned mission.

Should we just send our robots around while other countries colonize the moon and Mars?

Not to worry: no one (not us, not anyone else) is going to colonize the moon or Mars.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by enigma
Actually, propellants are such a small percentage of the cost, that they can be more or less neglected.

*SNIP

The cost per kilo of LH2 or LOX runs on the order of $1/kg when purchased in bulk quantities.

So, for the first stage of a [...] which has a mass of 26,760kg you can make the approximation that it cost around $1.9 Billion to develop and $144 Million to make the first one. Compare that with around $200,000 for the propellants.

That's around 10kg of propellant per 1kg of first stage.

Materials? Let's assume $10/kg and, being generous, another $10/kg for assembly.

Electronics? Likely but a fraction of the cost of the propellants; $100k tops.

That leaves the complex machinery (rocket engine, pumps), assembly, and overheads; overheads should be able to be brought down to ~<20%.

This toy calculation suggests that enigma is right to focus on getting to 'mass production'; a not unrealistic target per-launch cost of getting to LEO is $100 to $1,000/kg.

 

[enigma]

You may be interrested in this, Nereid.

It is the lecture notes from a spacecraft design course on vehicle costing.

 

[pallidin]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Not to worry: no one (not us, not anyone else) is going to colonize the moon or Mars.

Curious. That's a very bold statement! Perhaps you would be willing to share your thoughts on this, as I cannot see how a single individual could ever make such a prediction of future events!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by pallidin
Curious. That's a very bold statement! Perhaps you would be willing to share your thoughts on this, as I cannot see how a single individual could ever make such a prediction of future events!

Well, save for limiting that statement to my lifetime, I'm sticking to it. Space travel is so fabulously expensive that without a compelling reason to do it, we won't. With the technology likely to be available in the next 50 years, not a whole lot will change as far as the engineering limits on space travel. Even with the volume discount Nereid and Enigma are discussing, even just putting a colony (a colony means a semi-permanent base with at least a couple dozen people) on the moon would requie a substantial fraction of our GDP, indefinitely.

Want another prediction? China won't be putting a man on the moon.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by enigma
You may be interrested in this, Nereid.

It is the lecture notes from a spacecraft design course on vehicle costing.

Thanks.

Seems to me we need some left-field thinking.

Do similar sorts of heuristic formulae apply for other large, complex machines (e.g. large commercial aeroplanes)? How have other industries managed to get the costs of unit production down? Is there anything that gives us a clue as to what the long-term unit cost of production could be (based on some general principles)?