Author Topic: Comprehensive list of Mars DRM/DRAs, especially including 2.0 and 4.0?  (Read 18417 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
A poster summarizing all the major Mars mission architectures proposed would be sweet.

Anyone know of something like that.

NASA DRM 1-5, Project Troy, Mars Direct 1-3, various SEI options on astronautix, etc.

Plus the Apollo era stuff, Soviet/Russian and Chinese mission concepts, maybe any of the hard scifi approaches might be interesting.

Plus various iterations of the SpaceX approach.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2022 04:10 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
A poster summarizing all the major Mars mission architectures proposed would be sweet.

Anyone know of something like that.

NASA DRM 1-5, Project Troy, Mars Direct 1-3, various SEI options on astronautix, etc.

Plus the Apollo era stuff, Soviet/Russian and Chinese mission concepts, maybe any of the hard scifi approaches might be interesting.

Plus various iterations of the SpaceX approach.

And the von Braun / Collier, too.

Funnily enough (Great minds think alike)  this weekend I have recovered from Youtube
a) "Man conquers space, Teaser IV" (Mars, the von Braun way: 1952)
b) Baxter Voyage - Ares: via Orbiter flight simulator (Mars, the von Braun way: 1969)
c) REL Project Troy 2012 video
d) Hazegrayart SpaceX CGI videos
e) also Hazegrayart, Mars via Orion nuclear pulse ship
f) A NASA DRM video, from that thread
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56301.0

Pretty fun indeed, to compare all of them. Main issue of course is the different resolutions and qualities of the videos.

Do you think I should post links to all those videos, to have them side by side in the same post ? anybody interested ?
« Last Edit: 05/09/2022 04:22 pm by libra »

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 1727
A poster summarizing all the major Mars mission architectures proposed would be sweet.

Anyone know of something like that.

NASA DRM 1-5, Project Troy, Mars Direct 1-3, various SEI options on astronautix, etc.

Plus the Apollo era stuff, Soviet/Russian and Chinese mission concepts, maybe any of the hard scifi approaches might be interesting.

Plus various iterations of the SpaceX approach.

And the von Braun / Collier, too.

Probably too high level but these lists are useful as a start?

http://astronautix.com/a/americanmarsexpeditions.html
http://astronautix.com/r/russianmarsexpeditions.html
http://astronautix.com/e/europeanmarsmission.html

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Man conquers space, Teaser IV
 

 Hazegrayart: Mars via Orion NPP
 

 Mars 1986, Baxter / Voyage - Orbiter simulator
 

 NASA DRM 5.0 (or close)
 

 REL Project Troy, 2012 
 

 Hazegrayart SpaceX - Mars 1.0 et 2.0 
 
 


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
A poster summarizing all the major Mars mission architectures proposed would be sweet.

Anyone know of something like that.

NASA DRM 1-5, Project Troy, Mars Direct 1-3, various SEI options on astronautix, etc.

Plus the Apollo era stuff, Soviet/Russian and Chinese mission concepts, maybe any of the hard scifi approaches might be interesting.

Plus various iterations of the SpaceX approach.

And the von Braun / Collier, too.

Probably too high level but these lists are useful as a start?

http://astronautix.com/a/americanmarsexpeditions.html
http://astronautix.com/r/russianmarsexpeditions.html
http://astronautix.com/e/europeanmarsmission.html
That is really great. Thanks!

And yeah, I remember reading through Astronautix’s STCAEM missions (an extension of the SEI “90 day study”), and even dug into the extensive reports on NTRS.

It’s a kind of fantastical sort of mission analysis. Kind of a good guide of how not to design a mission.

I have no idea why everyone thought that assembling massive structures in orbit full of deeply cryogenic propellants is easier than simply launching full sized monolithic tanks and refueling them. That weird idea seemed to get stuck in senior systems engineers’ brains for decades.
« Last Edit: 05/10/2022 02:05 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
For Starship-type approaches:
In order of decreasing stupidity:

10,000 tons IMLEO, leave from high earth orbit with a full depot as a disposable stage. Do only very light aerobraking. Use the “depot” (which has propulsion) as a crasher stage. That way you can basically just use the Artemis Starship HLS almost unmodified. You need more thrust on landing because you’ll be very heavy (this is the toughest part), but you won’t need any real TPS. The Starship lands with enough propellant to take off directly back to Earth. Boiloff on the surface is a potential challenge, but solvable if you do a (really dumb) short stay mission. But you have so much delta-v you can probably abort the whole mission any time you want, like that one NTR concept on FISO.

4000 tons IMLEO, but you don’t need the depot to come with. You have to rely on real TPS to land. But you still can land with all the propellant needed to abort landing and go to orbit and eventually to Earth. Like the 10,000t plan, no rendezvous events needed (unless you want to at cislunar). Landing is a challenge with all that huge load of propellant.

2000t IMLEO, but you refuel every opportunity. Refuel in Mars orbit before landing. You land with just enough fuel to launch back to LMO, then refuel there. Refuel again in high Mars orbit. Maybe even refuel at high Earth orbit after aerocapture. Sounds bad, but remember every NASA architecture assumes rendezvous in Mars orbit, which adds risk vs a direct approach.

600t IMLEO, not counting propellant production equipment pre-landed on Mars. The best option, ultimately. Launch Starship and it lands on Mars dry. Refuel totally on the Mars surface and launch straight back to Earth. If you do it Mars Direct style, you launch only when you know the previous mission’s Starship is refueled, waiting for you on the surface. By far the best near term option.

Eventually:
100-150t IMLEO. You just launch to LEO and fuel up with propellant that your Mars city delivered to LEO for you from Mars. :)


In fact, you could go even further:
~6-12t IMLEO. Your 12 crew could be just 12 among like 300-600 other passengers with personal belongings. They transfer to a Mars-launched vehicle waiting for you in LEO full of Mars-grown food and Mars-manufactured and maintained equipment with propellant from Mars.

IMLEO varies by 3 orders of magnitude depending on how much you wanna depend on Mars. :)

Payload to LEO per Starship launch could vary between 50-200t per launch as they start out crude and get better. Cost per launch may vary between $150 million for full expendable, probably $50 million for early stage launches for fuel and Starlinks where only the first stage is reliably recovered, to probably $15 million near term with full reuse to as low as $1.2-1.5 million per launch with super high launch rate and optimized TPS and propellant production. So payload varies by half an order of magnitude and cost per launch by 2 orders. IMLEO varies by 3-3.5 orders of magnitude. Overall costs thus can vary by 6 orders of magnitude.

Earth-side Launch costs of $30 billion (unlikely, as the cost per kg IMLEO would be about twice that of Falcon 9’s & Falcon Heavy’s marginal cost… they’d either increase payload or reduce cost per launch through reuse, so let’s say $10 billion, same as propellant from Falcon) to just $36,000 (not counting crew salaries or equipment! Or all the work Mars is doing for you… just round trip cattle-class tickets to LEO and Mars pays the rest.).

« Last Edit: 05/10/2022 03:55 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
Fun exercise. So I understand: what is an 'Earth side launch cost'? Is no $ value attached to the 'work that Mars performs'?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Fun exercise. So I understand: what is an 'Earth side launch cost'? Is no $ value attached to the 'work that Mars performs'?
Correct. Obviously not realistic assumption, but to fully calculate what a Mars civilization costs is kind of a difficult exercise. Might end up costing Elon like $1 trillion to boot it up. So how you account for the cost of the latter options might be from $0 to $1 trillion. :)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
« Last Edit: 08/15/2023 01:43 am by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

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