Author Topic: What is the cheapest and fastest way to go to the moon or mars  (Read 71287 times)

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
It may be more expensive to built it but it may be cheaper to put payload in space

If that were true, then we could depend on commercial competition to find the cheapest solution. The fact that proponents of SLS don't want that suggests they know it would be more expensive.

Quote
and the other launch vehicles may be no good  to go to mars.

They would be good enough.

If you want to go faster, then you'll need to get rid of SLS or get a bigger NASA budget. Both seem unlikely for the next couple of years.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
So if we have launch vehicles why is NASA not using them .
Because of politics. Read some other threads here.

With out politics getting in way of these threads than may be the people here at this web site and other web sites should sign a petition that 10 years is unacceptable.

Oh im sure a lot would. In fact, there are a lot of space advocacy organizations around to help you with your quest. Try SFF, NSS , CSF if you want to organize something.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
The commercial competition are not planning to go to mars any time soon.

That me say this again if the SLS is the same or more costly than the apollo program ,space shuttle or project constellation proposed by president Bush that all got slash do to cost. Than it is a knownen fact that SLS is going to get scrapped before the first flight or after 2 or 3 launches.

Only if this brings space cost down or is much cheaper of putting payload into space.It would have to be cheaper than the apollo program ,shuttle program or project constellation if NOT it will be doomed like those programs too.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2011 12:50 am by nec207 »

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
The commercial competition are not planning to go to mars any time soon.

Neither is NASA, but even if it were, it still wouldn't be a problem. NASA can buy their launch services to launch the spacecraft and the vast quantities of propellant needed to get to Mars and back. No special capabilities are needed, launching to LEO and/or L1/L2 would be enough, what matters is cost per kg of payload. And that same metric is what counts for commercial development of space, something I'm passionate about. Dramatically lower launch prices ($100-$1,000/kg instead of the $10,000/kg we have today) are the holy grail of space launch and have been for decades. With it, we'll have the entire solar system. Without it we'll have Apollo on Steroids or a lunar ISS at best and yet another cancellation at worst.

Quote
That me say this again if the SLS is the same or more costly than the apollo program ,space shuttle and project constellation proposed by president Bush that all got slash to to cost. Than it is a know fact that SLS is going to get scrapped before the first flight or after 2 or 3 launches.

That seems likely. And from the perspective of someone who passionately wants to see commercial development of space, it is the least bad thing we can hope for. Because after that, maybe we could give competitive procurement another try. Depressing, isn't it?

Quote
Only if this brings space cost down or much cheaper of putting payload intospace.It would have to be cheaper than the apollo program ,shuttle program and project constellation if NOT it will be doomed like those programs too.

Not even its proponents claim it can make space launch radically cheaper.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2011 01:18 am by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
In response to the question in the original post, the cheapest and fastest way to go to the Moon or Mars is to first go to a "Cis-Lunar Base Camp."  Mountaineers use this approach with great success.  The Moon and Mars are the equivalents of the mountain tops.  Low-Earth orbit equates to the nearest city or town.  Somewhere outside of town, right near the base of the mountain peaks, mountaineers establish base camp.  Space exploration efforts will benefit from establishing the equivalent.  I believe these will be placed in quasi-orbits associated with the L1 or L2 Lagrange points in the Earth-Moon system.

It really won't matter too much whether explorers get themselves and their equipment to the base camps on a large launcher like SLS, or medium launchers like the EELVs, Ariane, Proton, and HLV.  In any case it will take a sequence of launches to assemble the expedition elements at the base camp.  Only after that can the equivalent of the mountain ascent really begin!
« Last Edit: 09/20/2011 12:58 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
It really won't matter too much whether explorers get themselves and their equipment to the base camps on a large launcher like SLS, or medium launchers like the EELVs, Ariane, Proton, and HLV.

Not from the point of view of technical feasibility, but it will matter greatly from the point of view of doing it in the cheapest and fastest way.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2011 01:20 am by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
nec207, you should be aware that you've wandered into a crowd of anti-SLS posters who are apparently trying to push their opinions on you as facts...

The answers to the questions of "which launcher is cheaper/faster/better for lunar/Mars missions" depend on assumptions about architecture and mission rate.  SLS is expensive if you don't use it much, but as you ramp up it gets cheaper faster than the smaller rockets do.  Remember also that the in-space elements are a substantial part of the cost; it isn't all about the rocket.  One of SLS's advantages, especially for Mars, is that it can launch very large pieces (both mass-wise and size-wise) in one shot, which helps with architecture design.

So, much as we would like there to be a simple answer, there isn't.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2011 01:54 am by 93143 »

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
One of SLS's advantages, especially for Mars, is that it can launch very large pieces (both mass-wise and size-wise) in one shot, which helps with architecture design.

No, it doesn't, not if you allow for propellant transfer, as you should. As for crowds of anti-SLS posters: this whole site is pro-SLS by 2:1...
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
The answers to the questions of "which launcher is cheaper/faster/better for lunar/Mars missions" depend on assumptions about architecture and mission rate. 
Thats exactly what this evil crowd has been trying to hammer home here : if the goal is just to get a human, not necessarily a live one and not necessarily in one piece to lunar surface, then shooting a coffin through TLI on an absolute cheapest rocket possible is the way to go.

The problem with this thread is, still, that the goal of actually "landing people on moon or mars" is not specified, SLS or no SLS.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
One of SLS's advantages, especially for Mars, is that it can launch very large pieces (both mass-wise and size-wise) in one shot, which helps with architecture design.

No, it doesn't, not if you allow for propellant transfer, as you should.

Yes, it does, even if you allow for propellant transfer.  The objective is not a flags-and-footprints mission; we want to get serious infrastructure out there.  (Or not, but IMO the answer to the thread's question does depend on this.)

Landing a reasonably large payload on Mars with a biconic aeroshell, for instance, takes a bigger rocket than anything we've currently got, simply because of the size of the aeroshell (not to mention its mass).  Also, for a large piece of equipment (say a backhoe, or a surface nuclear plant), the lander (not counting the aeroshell) could very easily exceed the capacity of a current launch vehicle even without propellant...

In fact, landing any human mission on Mars without larger payload fairings than we've currently got is an unsolved problem, and there is no guarantee that we can solve it in a way that works better than just using an HLV (no, fully propulsive EDL doesn't count, not without a detailed trade study backing it).

Say you want to do a fast transit using VASIMR, on the order of the infamous 39-day example - the power plant and engine module will both be quite heavy, and very much the sort of thing you want to launch in as few pieces as possible.

Even a lunar mission benefits in terms of operational simplicity, schedule, and even safety, if you just launch the whole stack in one shot, tank up the EDS at a depot, and go.

You can get around most difficulties (not necessarily all) with some ingenuity and perhaps some handwaving, but to pretend they aren't there, to pretend that an HLV provides no enabling or easing capability for anything we might ever want to do, is not the way to treat a new poster...  as far as I can tell from your posts, you seem to be a commercial cheap lift monomaniac of sorts; you literally don't care how complicated and marginal the BEO architecture gets, so long as it takes a lot of launches to put together.

Quote
As for crowds of anti-SLS posters: this whole site is pro-SLS by 2:1...

You wouldn't know that from the last two pages of this thread; hence my comment...
« Last Edit: 09/20/2011 03:12 am by 93143 »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
The objective is not a flags-and-footprints mission; we want to get serious infrastructure out there.  (Or not, but IMO the answer to the thread's question does depend on this.)
See right there, perfect example of assumptions that people enter the discussions with and fail to check at the door. See, the thread topic is "how to get human(s) to the moon OR mars in the fastest and cheapest way possible" and you start speaking about serious infrastructure.

Yours is a valid and fine goal, i'd be fully behind that, but its got nothing to do with the optimum solution for the question at hand.

I keep ranting about this, as i feel if people would start more seriously articulating the end goals the discussions would be far more fruitful.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
That depends on what he means by "go to the moon or mars" (I did acknowledge this).

When Constellation fans said "go back to the moon", they didn't mean "fire someone's ashes into a crater with a Pegasus".  They meant a permanently-manned base, operating in parallel with sortie missions using large pressurized rovers all over the lunar surface.  When they said "and on to Mars", I assume the sentiment was similar.

As you say, there can be assumptions wrapped up in these questions.  Our friend the OP earlier expressed the sentiment that Orion, which he and everyone else agreed was too small for a Mars mission by itself, was "small" even for the moon.  Since it is twice the size of Apollo, which did the job, this sentiment cannot be founded on hard requirements; it is a preference only.

...

Besides, I was talking to mmeijeri, who had stated categorically that HLVs do not help at all, even for Mars, if you have propellant transfer (he didn't even say depots).  I don't think even he truly believes that, not as a general statement covering the full subspace of reasonable program objectives and constraints.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2011 03:09 am by 93143 »

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Quote
That seems likely. And from the perspective of someone who passionately wants to see commercial development of space, it is the least bad thing we can hope for. Because after that, maybe we could give competitive procurement another try. Depressing, isn't it?


I`m not sure if that is a bad thing or not. Really if that happance NASA would do one of 2 things one get out of the rocket business and pay the private sector to get in space from now on or come up with other plan that may or may not work and yet back to where we are again.


On the down side NASA would waste 30 years of staggering progress.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
I still do not know if SLS is going to be cheaper than any of the other launch vehicles .

It is certain to be more expensive if you count development costs, as you should. In fact that is precisely why certain influential politicians want it.


It may be more expensive to built it but it may be cheaper to put payload in space and the other launch vehicles may be no good  to go to mars.

Mars is SO far out to the right on the schedule as to be off the map, IMHO. 

This is a LARGE part of why everything's so expensive and nothing is getting done. Planning for Mars NOW is rather rediculous, because we can't even REALISTICALLY see when a Mars mission is likely to happen, what the mission mode/hardware would be, and most importantly, HOW TO FUND IT. 

Basing the launcher requirements we're developing NOW on some nebulous idea about "what's going to be required" for a Mars mission in two or three decades is about as foolish as Ford or Chevy worrying about what design changes to their pickup trucks will require in 2030 and incorporating that into the design for next years model...

It's all an expensive guessing game and the problem is, it's impeding progress and costing REAL money, RIGHT NOW, for something that is totally over the horizon and that can only be GUESSED at as to how it will eventually be done or what it will require. 

We should focus on the shorter term goals, keep some flexibility in the design to make upgrades a little easier down the road, and GET ON WITH IT! 

Later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
One of SLS's advantages, especially for Mars, is that it can launch very large pieces (both mass-wise and size-wise) in one shot, which helps with architecture design.

No, it doesn't, not if you allow for propellant transfer, as you should. As for crowds of anti-SLS posters: this whole site is pro-SLS by 2:1...
Propellant transfer doesn't solve the problem of Mars EDL. To land humans on the surface of mars the lander needs an entry mass of 100-150mt. The percentage of a Mars lander that is fuel is not above 50 percent meaning that a Falcon Heavy could not lift one dry. In other words the unfueled mass of the lander is still too much for LVs smaller then SLS to launch into LEO. That does not mean that we need the whole 130mt of SLS with propellant transfer, the version without the upper stage may be enough.

Another issue current launcher will have with getting a Mars lander into LEO will be the diameter of the heat shield. The extra fairing diameter of up to 10 or 12 meters will really simplify things compared with the 5m of currently available launchers.

Mars EDL is a huge challenge. With our current technology most of Mars' surface is inaccessible and we can not put more then 1mt on the ground. I'm attaching a presentation on crewed Mars EDL if people are interested.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
SLS is expensive if you don't use it much, but as you ramp up it gets cheaper faster than the smaller rockets do.

 

Don't forget to tell him that this is EXACTLY how it's being planned to be used...

SLS isn't going to be used enough to justify the costs of it.  IF it were used MORE, as the basis of a vibrant and ongoing exploration effort, it would make sense...  Even DIRECT'S flightrates/figures proved that... 

At these "one flight every couple years or so" flight/mission rates, it's a total waste.  Something I pointed out in the DIRECT threads when the discussion turned to "how cheap it'd be" flying 8 or more times a year, compared to Cx flying twice a year... BUT of course that ASSUMES that NASA WANTS to fly the thing 8 times a year (which they don't, and didn't, and won't... there's no money for the missions or payloads at the higher flight rate). 

We could do missions every other year using existing EELV's with a few more launches and in-space assembly.  Sure it's more complex and extra launches cost money, but compared to developing and maintaining an HLV capability and its infrastructure and workforce with NO other use or cost sharing, just to fly it every couple or three years?? 

I KNOW EELV-based missions would be cheaper under THOSE circumstances... Not all some of us might hope for, but doable...

Later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
When Constellation fans said "go back to the moon", they didn't mean "fire someone's ashes into a crater with a Pegasus".  They meant a permanently-manned base, operating in parallel with sortie missions using large pressurized rovers all over the lunar surface.  ..

... while completely failing to articulate any end goals for such antics.

You see, because if all you want is to have a few government employees sitting in a lunar base with no particular purpose and "flying sorties", your optimal mission architectures will still be very significantly different from other types of lunar bases, where you might want to focus on things like industrializing moon, developing key technologies for eventual settlement, or just building a huge theme park for hundreds of wealthy tourist to visit.

The "why" and goals discussion goes a little deeper than how many NASA astronauts and how often. This seems to bother a lot of people ..
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
The objective is not a flags-and-footprints mission; we want to get serious infrastructure out there.  (Or not, but IMO the answer to the thread's question does depend on this.)
See right there, perfect example of assumptions that people enter the discussions with and fail to check at the door. See, the thread topic is "how to get human(s) to the moon OR mars in the fastest and cheapest way possible" and you start speaking about serious infrastructure.

Yours is a valid and fine goal, i'd be fully behind that, but its got nothing to do with the optimum solution for the question at hand.

I keep ranting about this, as i feel if people would start more seriously articulating the end goals the discussions would be far more fruitful.


I do not have a problem with SLS it looks cool we can get big things in space and think big !! I do fear it may not be the fastest way to get to the moon or mars or will bring same cost down.

I say again if it is the same or more than the apollo program ,shuttle program or project constellation if is doomed like the apollo program ,shuttle program or project constellation.


NASA is not part of the air force or DOD that get all the money and nice toys .NASA gets very little money and and goals change faster than they can test or built it that is the way it is.

If space cost can go down by 50% or more the cost than it is today this would not be a problem and more countries could be going in space than the US,China and Russia.

The holy grail is to bring space cost down.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2011 03:33 am by nec207 »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
I say again if it is the same or more than the apollo program ,shuttle program or project constellation if is doomed like the apollo program ,shuttle program or project constellation.

Shuttle wasn't cancelled due to costs.  It lasted 30 years, and would have kept right on going if it weren't for the Columbia accident.

SLS looks like it will cost significantly less per year to keep going than the Shuttle did.

SLS isn't going to be used enough to justify the costs of it.

Don't you think that's a little premature?  The very low flight rates you complain of are not "the plan", still less any sort of best-case scenario (as you occasionally catch h8ers on here claiming).  It's certainly possible it will go sour, but it's a bit early to claim it already has...

Positive, as will many of the negative votes when they see the improved schedule and flight rate.

I'm just waiting to see what Phil was talking about...  I haven't missed anything, have I?

When Constellation fans said "go back to the moon", they didn't mean "fire someone's ashes into a crater with a Pegasus".  They meant a permanently-manned base, operating in parallel with sortie missions using large pressurized rovers all over the lunar surface.  ..

... while completely failing to articulate any end goals for such antics.

You see, because if all you want is to have a few government employees sitting in a lunar base with no particular purpose and "flying sorties", your optimal mission architectures will still be very significantly different from other types of lunar bases, where you might want to focus on things like industrializing moon, developing key technologies for eventual settlement, or just building a huge theme park for hundreds of wealthy tourist to visit.

The "why" and goals discussion goes a little deeper than how many NASA astronauts and how often. This seems to bother a lot of people ..

You're missing my point.  All I meant was that "go to the moon or mars" can carry the sort of unstated assumptions you're complaining about, and thus it is unjustified to assume it means a minimalistic stunt mission.  Especially when the question seems to have been about launch vehicles specifically.

Also, if we do go back to the moon, I suspect it will have something to do with those polar craters...
« Last Edit: 09/20/2011 03:54 am by 93143 »

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
When Constellation fans said "go back to the moon", they didn't mean "fire someone's ashes into a crater with a Pegasus".  They meant a permanently-manned base, operating in parallel with sortie missions using large pressurized rovers all over the lunar surface.  ..

... while completely failing to articulate any end goals for such antics.

You see, because if all you want is to have a few government employees sitting in a lunar base with no particular purpose and "flying sorties", your optimal mission architectures will still be very significantly different from other types of lunar bases, where you might want to focus on things like industrializing moon, developing key technologies for eventual settlement, or just building a huge theme park for hundreds of wealthy tourist to visit.

The "why" and goals discussion goes a little deeper than how many NASA astronauts and how often. This seems to bother a lot of people ..


For the past 50 years progress is staggering do to cost , programs get cut or do not run for long.Ask most people in the 60`s thay would say by 2015 we would have been to every place in the solar system and have moon base and mars base. And by 2050 or less people living on mars and the moon.

The American people have lost interest in space that space would be scfi do to cost .

Some one was saying people have a short attention span they do and for NASA to be this cool thing they cannot and for more than the 3 countries to put people into space they cannot .Why do to cost.

For NASA to run programs that do not turn into like the apollo program , shuttle program , x-programs like x-33 or x-38 or project constellation they cannot do to cost.

No one hear is saying space cost has to come down where your typical American middle class can pay to go in space that would be scfi.But bring space cost down where more than the 3 countries can go in space or NASA can do stuff that does not turn into like the apollo program , shuttle program , x-programs like x-33 or x-38 or project constellation .

I do fear SLS may not be the fastest way to get to the moon or mars or will bring same cost down and turn into like the apollo program , shuttle program , x-programs like x-33 or x-38 or project constellation .
« Last Edit: 09/20/2011 03:59 am by nec207 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1