https://spacenews.com/nasa-releases-draft-strategy-for-long-term-robotic-mars-exploration/Could this program be the beginning of the "CLPS" for Mars landers and orbiters...?
I'm kinda skeptical about this one. CLIPS could be a flaming failure. The recent history of landing attempts on the moon isn't that great. Now we have companies who are trying to make a profit trying to do so. I hope they work, but can't help but feel that the commerical part is mostly in the name. These are still mostly nasa funded missions. But they are contracts all given to companies with zero space experience.
Those low-cost missions would come in between $100 million and $300 million each, he projected, with the option to fly a single mission costing $300 million or multiple smaller missions with the same total cost. “It provides a good opportunity for the proposing community to get really creative,” he said. Those competitively selected missions, he suggested, could draw on experience from commercial partnerships such as the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program or commercial cargo and crew development.
Quote from: Space News articleThose low-cost missions would come in between $100 million and $300 million each, he projected, with the option to fly a single mission costing $300 million or multiple smaller missions with the same total cost. “It provides a good opportunity for the proposing community to get really creative,” he said. Those competitively selected missions, he suggested, could draw on experience from commercial partnerships such as the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program or commercial cargo and crew development.https://spacenews.com/nasa-releases-draft-strategy-for-long-term-robotic-mars-exploration/Would Starship cost less than $300M?
Would Starship cost less than $300M?
If I were to guess (and to be clear, this is just a guess), I think Starship is likely to be priced early on somewhere around $150M-$250M per launch. At that price, Starship will still be a great deal for customers at only about 1.5x the price of a Falcon Heavy while carrying much more than 2x mass and volume to LEO than a Falcon Heavy. The cost per kg in that price range would be somewhere around $1,500/kg to $2,500/kg to LEO. That would be on a full Starship, but keep in mind that a rideshare Starship for smallsats would likely be carrying much less than its full 100-ton payload capacity and so the price per kg would be higher.So in the middle of that range, $2,000/kg, we're talking about a 42% reduction in price below Falcon 9 cost per kg of $3,400. That's an incredible benefit to the industry. But it's not the order of magnitude or greater price reduction that I see many hoping for.
...These are still mostly nasa funded missions. But they are contracts all given to companies with zero space experience.
...usually they’re contractors to national space agencies and the profit is *guaranteed* as the “plus” part of cost plus contracts (a fixed multiple of the costs), so in fact there’s actually negative incentive to control costs....a contracting mechanism where a fixed price is paid for a fixed service, ...that profit is not guaranteed and they can end up actually losing money.So even without other users (and we hope there will be, as there is for commercial crew), this can be a significant win for NASA.
If Grumman had been being paid a fixed price, Apollo would have never made the end of the decade. Fixed price contracts are great for routine stuff, but for innovative, unique and experimental stuff they're extremely risky.
Actually both are less ambitious than I’d like.
No, I think it makes sense to be separate. I just think the relay satellite should include the Earth segment as well, in order to free up the DSN.
but I also think a single integrated multifunction constellation of orbiters would make more sense.
The satellites in the integrated constellation would provide all ground-facing functions: (GPS, imaging, comms) starting with a small constellation at a medium height, but with an architecture that accommodates expansion by adding satellites to the initial shell and also adding shells later.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 02/04/2024 04:26 pmThe satellites in the integrated constellation would provide all ground-facing functions: (GPS, imaging, comms) starting with a small constellation at a medium height, but with an architecture that accommodates expansion by adding satellites to the initial shell and also adding shells later. only in the the sense that they are part of the ISL network.There, fixed it.A. Don't need many imagersb. Don't need to have many spacecraft talking to earth at once. c. Don't want to have high slew rates for Mars to Earth antennas/lasers.
I personally think that a CMPS (Commercial Mars Payload Service) should stop thinking of a separate class for robotic and human exploration needs. ....
let the transition to commercial contracts take place once the initial capability is demonstrated (TRL7+, if not TRL9), so the contracts can concentrate on service delivery, rather than technical demonstrations and development.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 03/17/2024 06:51 amI personally think that a CMPS (Commercial Mars Payload Service) should stop thinking of a separate class for robotic and human exploration needs. ....In my opinion.* Delivery of robotic payloads/satellites to Mars Orbit has been demonstrated - make that a class of service.* Delivery of robotic payloads to Mars Surface has been demonstrated - make that a class of service.
Quote from: Eer on 03/17/2024 12:44 pmQuote from: Eric Hedman on 03/17/2024 06:51 amI personally think that a CMPS (Commercial Mars Payload Service) should stop thinking of a separate class for robotic and human exploration needs. ....In my opinion.* Delivery of robotic payloads/satellites to Mars Orbit has been demonstrated - make that a class of service.* Delivery of robotic payloads to Mars Surface has been demonstrated - make that a class of service.That's as far as I was thinking for the next step. I just think it should include significantly larger payloads than have been sent before and landed on the surface. That would allow rovers and stationary labs, insitu resource demonstrations, solar power stations, etc with far greater capabilities than before. I would also include commercializing a communications system system to provide a StarLink like internet that is connected back to Earth possibly via laser communications.
1) I bet SX already has a proposal into JPL for study of “delivery of small payloads of up to 20 kilograms to Mars orbit, delivery of large payloads of up to 1,250 kilograms to Mars orbit” per this earlier solicitation:https://spacenews.com/nasa-studies-to-examine-commercial-partnerships-for-mars-exploration/The SX proposal is probably something along the lines of: “As part of its Starship Mars flight test plan, SX plans to send at least one Starship to Mars orbit every synod starting in 20XX. Early flights may be subject to test failures, but SX projects repeat reliable deliveries by 20YY. Here is the orbit(s) SX plans to enter around Mars. For a small payload of 20kg, SX will charge $X million. For a large payload of 1250kg, SX will charge $YY million. Deliveries before 20YY will be discounted by Z to account for the higher risk of those early test flights. Here’s the additional price list for delivery to unusual orbits, unusual packing requirements, docs, etc. Starship Mars leverages a much larger Starship development program funded in large part through StarLink revenue, as well as Artemis HLS funding. Here’s the details on that development program and funding.”
Nine companies have been selected to conduct early-stage studies of concepts for commercial services to support lower-cost, higher-frequency missions to the Red Planet.NASA has identified nine U.S. companies to perform a total of 12 concept studies of how commercial services can be applied to enable science missions to Mars. Each awardee will receive between $200,000 and $300,000 to produce a detailed report on potential services — including payload delivery, communications relay, surface imaging, and payload hosting — that could support future missions to the Red Planet.The companies were selected from among those that responded to a Jan. 29 request for proposals from U.S. industry.NASA’s Mars Exploration Program initiated the request for proposals to help establish a new paradigm for missions to Mars with the potential to advance high-priority science objectives. Many of the selected proposals center on adapting existing projects currently focused on the Moon and Earth to Mars-based applications.They include “space tugs” to carry other spacecraft to Mars, spacecraft to host science instruments and cameras, and telecommunications relays. The concepts being sought are intended to support a broad strategy of partnerships between government, industry, and international partners to enable frequent, lower-cost missions to Mars over the next 20 years.“We’re in an exciting new era of space exploration, with rapid growth of commercial interest and capabilities,” said Eric Ianson, director of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program. “Now is the right time for NASA to begin looking at how public-private partnerships could support science at Mars in the coming decades.”The selected Mars Exploration Commercial Services studies are divided into four categories:Small payload delivery and hosting services • Lockheed Martin Corporation, Littleton, Colorado — adapt a lunar-exploration spacecraft • Impulse Space, Inc., Redondo Beach, California — adapt an Earth-vicinity orbital transfer vehicle (space tug) • Firefly Aerospace, Cedar Park, Texas — adapt a lunar-exploration spacecraftLarge payload delivery and hosting services • United Launch Services (ULA), LLC, Centennial, Colorado — modify an Earth-vicinity cryogenic upper stage • Blue Origin, LLC, Kent, Washington — adapt an Earth- and lunar-vicinity spacecraft • Astrobotic Technology, Inc., Pittsburgh — modify a lunar-exploration spacecraftMars surface-imaging services • Albedo Space Corporation, Broomfield, Colorado — adapt a low Earth orbit imaging satellite • Redwire Space, Inc., Littleton, Colorado — modify a low Earth orbit commercial imaging spacecraft • Astrobotic Technology, Inc. — modify a lunar exploration spacecraft to include imagingNext-generation relay services • Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), Hawthorne, California — adapt Earth-orbit communication satellites for Mars • Lockheed Martin Corporation — provide communication relay services via a modified Mars orbiter • Blue Origin, LLC — provide communication relay services via an adapted Earth- and lunar-vicinity spacecraftThe 12-week studies are planned to conclude in August, and a study summary will be released later in the year. These studies could potentially lead to future requests for proposals but do not constitute a NASA commitment.NASA is concurrently requesting separate industry proposals for its Mars Sample Return campaign, which seeks to bring samples being collected by the agency’s Perseverance rover to Earth, where they can be studied by laboratory equipment too large and complex to bring to Mars. The MSR industry studies are completely independent of the MEP commercial studies.
Would it not be CMPS?
