Author Topic: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?  (Read 125247 times)

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #40 on: 10/05/2008 02:31 pm »
insufficient lifting capability

this topic is basically equivalent to
"Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Delta 4 Heavy?"
Yes, that's what I'm asking about, something like a Delta 4 Heavy.  What part of the Mars-For-Less proposal do you find unworkable?

My feeling is that there are 2 probable outcomes for a manned Mars mission:
1) We will develop a relatively expensive architecture, and the mission will be deferred indefinitely.
2) We will develop a very cheap architecture based on commercial launchers, and it will happen.

Commercial launchers are starting to become real.  Whether or not SpaceX fails, someone else will step up to the plate.  I suspect we will have true competition in the commercial launcher business within the next 10-15 years.  This will bring launch costs down dramatically, but probably only for commercial class payloads of 25 tonnes or less.  In 10-15 years, I'd guess that larger LVs (if they exist) will have 2-3 orders of magnitude less launch frequency, so the price per kg will likely be much higher.

Using current SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy pricing, the 13 launches in the Mars-For-Less plan would cost only $1.2 billion.  Remember that when you use a commercial launcher, you don't have to pay to develop it.  Is there any way you could develop a BFR and launch it 2-4 times for less than $1.2 billion?
« Last Edit: 10/05/2008 02:44 pm by Dave G »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #41 on: 10/05/2008 03:25 pm »
Commercial launchers are starting to become real.  Whether or not SpaceX fails, someone else will step up to the plate.  I suspect we will have true competition in the commercial launcher business within the next 10-15 years.  This will bring launch costs down dramatically, but probably only for commercial class payloads of 25 tonnes or less. 


Incorrect.  Commercial launchers have existed for years.   There is already true competition and a glut of capability.  China and Russia already have low prices.  Prices are not going to come down with the continued use of ELV's.

Spacex has yet to start "real" operations and once it happens, their prices will change to meet the market
« Last Edit: 10/05/2008 03:28 pm by Jim »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #42 on: 10/06/2008 04:04 pm »
You know how Zubrin said that we should have plastics production and metal processing on Mars? Does anyone know how much a small plastics production unit would weigh? What about a reaction chamber for metal processing? Mars has plenty of iron, carbon, oxygen, and maybe enough hydrogen in water.

Where are you going to get the hydro carbons for plastic production from? You will need to create the hydro carbons out of water and carbon with something akin to how the germans made gas out of coal during WW-II, but you would have to break down atmospheric CO2 down first. Mars Al production might be less energy intensive ;)
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline cpcjr

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #43 on: 10/06/2008 04:32 pm »
Personally I'd go for a one way trip.

I can bet you a million dollars that you won`t go for a one way trip.
That depends on type of mission.

If it's a planed suicide mission then no.

If it's colonization then sign me up. I'd go for that. Give me the resource that would allow me to  survive for say the next 60 years and I'd go. By the way include a rover that could get me any place on the planet. :)
« Last Edit: 10/06/2008 04:32 pm by cpcjr »

Offline beb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #44 on: 10/06/2008 04:40 pm »
You know how Zubrin said that we should have plastics production and metal processing on Mars? Does anyone know how much a small plastics production unit would weigh? What about a reaction chamber for metal processing? Mars has plenty of iron, carbon, oxygen, and maybe enough hydrogen in water.

Where are you going to get the hydro carbons for plastic production from? You will need to create the hydro carbons out of water and carbon with something akin to how the germans made gas out of coal during WW-II, but you would have to break down atmospheric CO2 down first. Mars Al production might be less energy intensive ;)

Zubrin had it all worked out in his book. Hydrogen, brought from Earth, plus heat, pressure, catalysts and Martian carbon dioxide would reform into water and carbon monoxide. Electrolyze the water to recover the hydrogen gives you syngas, which then can be reformed into methane or any number of large hydrocarbon chains.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #45 on: 10/06/2008 06:25 pm »

Zubrin had it all worked out in his book. Hydrogen, brought from Earth, plus heat, pressure, catalysts and Martian carbon dioxide would reform into water and carbon monoxide. Electrolyze the water to recover the hydrogen gives you syngas, which then can be reformed into methane or any number of large hydrocarbon chains.

It would be more mass efficent to transfer the Hydrogen as methane to mars than it would be to transfer as water. The methane molecule holds 4 hydrogens for every carbon ( which is also lighter than oxygen ) vs. the 2 hydrogens that each Oxygen holds. Plus you would save all the expense/energy needed to electrolyze the water molecules. Though why you would do either is beyond me, mars has plenty of carbon and oxygen in various forms.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline randomly

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #46 on: 10/06/2008 07:39 pm »

I can bet you a million dollars that you won`t go for a one way trip.

I wish you were right.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #47 on: 10/06/2008 07:59 pm »

I can bet you a million dollars that you won`t go for a one way trip.

I wish you were right.

It boils down to, which is easier, one way with supplies each window and grow a self substaining colony or developing a mission that requires a return trip each time. One could lead to a foothold outside of terra firma, the other will just be seen by many as the mistake of apollo, pork.

If history was any guide much early colonial exploration was one way.

So we should refresh the question, would you be willing to become a colonist?
« Last Edit: 10/06/2008 08:01 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #48 on: 10/07/2008 12:05 am »
So we should refresh the question, would you be willing to become a colonist?
My opinion: I don't think any government program would allow it.  Having to resupply every 2 years in order not to kill someone is akin to an entitlement program.  So if it's one-way, it would probably be a private enterprise.  Even then, I'm not sure if the government would allow it.

You know, this just reminded me of the pilgrims and Plymouth rock.  IIRC, they were the first privately funded mission to the new world, and they were the first that aimed to stay.  Maybe there's some sort of correlation there.

But this all leads to another question: How feasible would it be to get a closed-loop plant-based life support system going on Mars?  Could this be done creatively with very little weight?  What if you assume constant artificial light?  How long do nuclear power devices last?  Could it be expanded using Mars resources?  If this works out, then the settlement could become self sustaining, and resupply might be much less of an issue.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2008 12:10 am by Dave G »

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #49 on: 10/07/2008 12:25 am »
I just took a look at the pilgrims page in Wikipedia, and it seems a little eerie how much their story may relate to political issues of colonizing Mars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims
« Last Edit: 10/07/2008 12:27 am by Dave G »

Offline beb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #50 on: 10/07/2008 01:27 am »

Zubrin had it all worked out in his book. Hydrogen, brought from Earth, plus heat, pressure, catalysts and Martian carbon dioxide would reform into water and carbon monoxide. Electrolyze the water to recover the hydrogen gives you syngas, which then can be reformed into methane or any number of large hydrocarbon chains.

It would be more mass efficent to transfer the Hydrogen as methane to mars than it would be to transfer as water. The methane molecule holds 4 hydrogens for every carbon ( which is also lighter than oxygen ) vs. the 2 hydrogens that each Oxygen holds. Plus you would save all the expense/energy needed to electrolyze the water molecules. Though why you would do either is beyond me, mars has plenty of carbon and oxygen in various forms.

Zubrin's plan called for the shipment of liquid hydrogen to Mars, not water ot methane. In fact Zubrin's purpose was to generate methane rocket fuel from the Martian atmosphere and a few tons of liquid hydrogen from Earth to fuel the Martian ascent rocket. Once you're manufacturing methane on Mars it's easy to manufacture pretty much any hydrocarbon you want.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #51 on: 10/07/2008 03:29 am »
All I can say is it would take a lot of F9-Hs to pull it off likely five to ten of them for each mission.

A cryo upper stage would cut the number of rockets needed but would increase the unit cost of the vehicles.

Though I heard if the RL10 was mass produced it would not cost any more then a helicopter turbine.

Use of nuclear propulsion and reusable cycling transports would cut the masses down.
Bulk cargo could use solar sail or solar electric propulsion since it's cheaper.

As for making a colony I don't think it should be attempted until you have proven reliable cargo transport between Earth and Mars.

Other important issues to work out before a large colony is possible is raising crops and live stock on Mars.

Unlike the new world Mars has nothing to offer in food resources the first colonists will have to depend on supplies from Earth.

    Has anyone made a working biosphere yet?  I know it was attempted a few years back but the experiment had mixed results.

Mars can supply oxygen,water and soil so the system doesn't have to be 100% closed as biosphere 2 was attempting to be.

If the base is power rich in that it has several hundred thousand of KW available then CO2 scrubbers etc can be used.

It also would be good to bring some rapid prototyping machines,an electric smelter,and some CNC machines.

Old descent stages and cargo containers can be recycled for aluminum and the Martian soil is rich in iron I read some of it is ore grade material.

The excess power also can be used to make methane which can then be used to make plastics.

Once you can make plastics you can start making domes in which to raise crops and livestock.

The first animals to be brought likely should be rabbits,goats,chickens, and tilapia they can eat parts of the plants humans can't and turn them into useful products.

Difficult to manufacture items like microchips and displays would have to sent from Earth for the foreseeable future.

Though cannibalized landers can supply a lot of electrical parts just design them to be easily disassembled and use standardized boards and or socketed components.

It might eventually be possible to manufacture CRT and VFD displays from Martian materials or maybe even printed OLED displays from chemicals shipped from Earth.

One odd irony about life on a possible Mars colony is a lot of the technology could be more steampunk then Startrek due to the limits of what one can manufacture using equipment that can be easily landed on Mars.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2008 04:10 am by Patchouli »

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #52 on: 10/07/2008 06:28 am »
There's really not much reason to plan a one way trip. The nice thing about a  two way trip is that you have more options available when things go wrong. Plus you're going to want to return material from Mars anyway.
Karl Hallowell

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #53 on: 10/07/2008 11:53 am »
All I can say is it would take a lot of F9-Hs to pull it off likely five to ten of them for each mission.
As mrmandias pointed out, the Mars-For-Less plan calls for 13 F9H launches per mission. Using current SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy pricing, these 13 launches would cost $1.2 billion.  Cheap!

As for making a colony I don't think it should be attempted until you have proven reliable cargo transport between Earth and Mars.
Good point!  I think it's fair to say the first manned mission to Mars will include a return trip.  A 1-way trip probably won't be politically viable until people have been there.

But since a Mars mission will involve many months on the surface, I think a colony mission could follow fairly quickly.

Other important issues to work out before a large colony is possible is raising crops and live stock on Mars.

Unlike the new world Mars has nothing to offer in food resources the first colonists will have to depend on supplies from Earth.

Has anyone made a working biosphere yet?  I know it was attempted a few years back but the experiment had mixed results.

Mars can supply oxygen,water and soil so the system doesn't have to be 100% closed as biosphere 2 was attempting to be.
I could be mistaken, but I think this issue might be the key to a Mars mission.  Biosphere 2 type experiments are not applicable, way too much mass.  I have been hearing about some NASA closed-loop plant-based systems that use constant artificial lighting and hydroponics.  These are much smaller and may be realistic for a Mars mission.  Obviously, this requires a Mars base that is power-rich, but it would handle CO2 recycling, water recycling, and solid waste recycling into food.  In other words, a completely closed-loop system, with the exception of power.  In this case, extra food, water, and oxygen would only be necessary to cover emergencies, or failures when the plant system needs to be re-booted.  I've heard some tidbits recently about 1-2 month tests of this system, but I'd like to know more.  Also, since this system assumes a lot of input power, how long does a nuclear power device last?
« Last Edit: 10/07/2008 12:05 pm by Dave G »

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #54 on: 10/07/2008 12:00 pm »
There's really not much reason to plan a one way trip. The nice thing about a  two way trip is that you have more options available when things go wrong.
Yes, I tend to agree, at least in the near term.

Plus you're going to want to return material from Mars anyway.
This could be done with an unmanned mission, although to a much lesser degree.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2008 12:01 pm by Dave G »

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #55 on: 10/07/2008 12:39 pm »
I have a plan. Mount a private minimalist manned expedition to Mars that includes a bogus return capability. Land with great fanfare and, after the cheering stops, pretend to try to lift off. "Oh, golly! My rocket failed! Help! Save me!" We are just the sort of country wouldn't spend a few hundred billion to save itself from perdition, but would do so to rescue some fool got himself stranded on Mars.

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #56 on: 10/07/2008 01:11 pm »
Patchouli, would you mind using proper paragraphing? Text is much harder to read when every single sentance has its own paragraph/linebreak. If you are listing points, then perhaps you could use asterisks? I don't mean to be too critical, but it does make it a lot harder for me at least :)

Biosphere 2 was a pretty well known biosphere project -- I think most of the research was subsumed by controversy and suggestions that the people running the experiment were lying to the public. If I remember correctly, management fired the scientific advisory board and hid all sorts of issues to do with atmospheric oxygen and CO2 levels. There was also a lot of controversy because the experiment was so large and complex that it was very hard to isolate contributions from any one particular element of the biosphere... The Biospherians might have liked the holistic approach, but the scientific community generally didn't.

I don't think there's been much reputable research into biospheres... I think most regenerative life support systems have been based upon comparatively simple chemical and biological processes (e.g. using algae rather than an entire ecosystem).

I have a plan. Mount a private minimalist manned expedition to Mars that includes a bogus return capability. Land with great fanfare and, after the cheering stops, pretend to try to lift off. "Oh, golly! My rocket failed! Help! Save me!" We are just the sort of country wouldn't spend a few hundred billion to save itself from perdition, but would do so to rescue some fool got himself stranded on Mars.

Nice  ;)
« Last Edit: 10/07/2008 01:29 pm by madscientist197 »
John

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #57 on: 10/07/2008 02:01 pm »

I think most regenerative life support systems have been based upon comparatively simple chemical and biological processes (e.g. using algae rather than an entire ecosystem).


Just ask anyone who maintains a salt water tank about those... Quite a bit goes into keeping those "open loop" systems going. I keep joking with one friends who has two that the DEA is going to knock on his door because of how much electricity he uses running the tanks.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #58 on: 10/07/2008 07:34 pm »
I have a plan. Mount a private minimalist manned expedition to Mars that includes a bogus return capability.
You may actually be onto something there, if you take it in a different direction.  If a group of people did want to settle on Mars, I believe they would probably end up having an earth return vehicle (ERV) in case of emergency.  The idea would be that the people intend to stay there, but the ERV is a backup.  In this case, the ERV itself could be a bit less fault tolerant, since the ERV itself is just a backup.

Just a thought.

But to be clear, I don't think the first mission to Mars will be a colony.  If history is a measure, the explorers come first, then the colonists.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: Manned Mars mission using SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy?
« Reply #59 on: 10/07/2008 08:15 pm »

I think most regenerative life support systems have been based upon comparatively simple chemical and biological processes (e.g. using algae rather than an entire ecosystem).


Just ask anyone who maintains a salt water tank about those... Quite a bit goes into keeping those "open loop" systems going. I keep joking with one friends who has two that the DEA is going to knock on his door because of how much electricity he uses running the tanks.

What is the electricity used for? If it is heat then there might be other sources of heat on Mars base. For example they use the waste heat from some power stations to warm the water for aquaculture.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0