IAC Today!

[tater]

46 minutes ago, Workable Goblin said:

Absolutely untrue. Humans might not be particularly efficient at, say, astronomical observations, but they're much better than machines in some other fields, particularly planetary science. If you compare the Soviet Lunas to the Apollos, the only actual example of competition, the latter were clearly far more cost effective--they cost something like ten to a hundred times as much (on the order of $100 billion versus on the order of $1-10 billion) but returned a thousand times more samples (380 kilograms versus 326 grams), those samples were recovered from multiple locations (the Soviet sample return spacecraft could only return samples from one position), they emplaced five ALSEP surface science stations that lasted until 1977 (the Soviets landed no such long-term experiments), they traveled farther altogether than both Lunokhods put together, they traveled faster than either Lunokhod (sure, Lunokhod 2 traveled 39 kilometers to about 36 on Apollo 17, but the latter did it in 3 days, while the former took five months), and so on and so forth. The Apollo missions cost a lot more upfront, sure, but they were so much more scientifically productive that they were cheaper for the science than the Luna missions were.

This is a ridiculous comparison. Apollo was not better at all than unmanned probes would have been. You cannot compare a cheap probe to the vastly expensive Apollo program. You need to compare Apollo with a counterfactual where unmanned lunar exploration gets exactly the same resources as Apollo. In that case, we get the exact same mass in lunar transfer orbit. Which means that we get vastly more surface collection. The return capsule is about the same, but we collect all the samples the astronauts did, plus the mass of the astronauts, and every piece of equipment needed to keep them alive, plus all their food. The only subtraction would be that the rovers might have been slightly heavier to be remote controlled such that they could shovel their collections onto the return vehicle.

Time is meaningless, a probe can take as long as needed, astronauts had limited time because they carried limited supplies. The argument that geology is better done by people is not even close to being true, even in the 1970s, and it's less true now by a long shot.

 

Quote

Now, I know you're going to come back, "Ah, that's crappy 1960s Soviet-era technology, modern tech would be so much better!" Well...no. Relevantly, take a look at Mars sample return. During the last decadal survey, JPL proposed (warning, PDF) an ascent vehicle design that would be able to lift 5 kilograms of payload into orbit, including a sample containment device. The decadal survey itself estimated that the caching rover (for finding the samples) would cost $2.5 billion (if you just dropped the ESA involvement, which was more or less what happened...), although the actual implementation of that (Mars 2020) is currently running at about $2.1 billion. Considering that the MAV and sample return orbiter are just as important and less technically mature, I doubt either would cost much less, so optimistically you're looking at a cost of at least $6 billion or so for the full mission.

And a nominal manned mission is well over 100 billion $.

 

Quote

Now, by contrast, consider a human mission. Most realistic estimates put the cost of building up a humans to Mars capability in the range $100 billion to $1 trillion, and most mission plans that I've seen envision returning about a metric ton of samples. Assuming that the cost of the first mission is at the very high end of that range, you end up paying almost the same for each kilogram of samples--about a billion dollars--as you did with the robotic mission...and if the cost of the robotic mission is higher or the cost of the human mission is lower or both, the humans come out ahead. And that's not mentioning the fact that humans don't need to be babied by Mission Control as much as rovers, so they're likely going to be able to travel farther, collect a more diverse set of samples, and so on than the robots, so you would get more out of your billion dollars per kilogram than with the robots.

The main reason why robots are in fact better than people is that it's practically impossible to get anyone to spend a trillion dollars on putting people on Mars, whereas it's only very difficult to get them to spend six billion on putting robots on Mars. If it only cost six billion to do the human mission, somehow, then you would very definitely rather have the humans, and they would very definitely be more efficient than robots.

Your math is flawed. The problem is that the sample return mission is designed to be as inexpensive as possible. The human mission collects more simply because it gets mass economies of scale. With the same resources in money, by definition a robot mission would return MORE than a human mission, because it can return every kg a human mission could return, plus the mass of the humans, and everything required to keep them alive. Given that Mars DRAs, a robotic rover is effectively included, and the mass of gear to collect and transfer samples would be less than the life support mass, easily.

Edited September 28, 2016 by tater

[todofwar]

Colonizing Mars has no benefit for humans back on Earth, just a hard fact of life. That doesn't mean it's without merit, because it gives us one more home in case this one goes belly up. I think a Mars colony, Venus colony, and generation ship to proxima centari b are all great ideas and we absolutely should pursue them, but I also want my government to take care of about a thousand other things first, so until some billionaire worth five Elons decides he wants to give literally every penny he has to building a colony for a colony's sake, it won't happen. 

Well, there is one benefit. And that's the needed downsizing of our supply chains, which could have some benefits for Earth. For exampke, figuring out a quicker cheaper way to get high quality silicon. Farming in more efficient ways. Creating close to closed loop farms that don't waste their fertilizer. More efficient recycling and reuse methods. 

[Kryten]

34 minutes ago, Illyrian said:

That is same reason people had during gold rush in US.

But that reason only applies if there are people there to sell to. If there aren't people there to sell to, and right now there isn't, there's no incentive to go in the first place. Chicken and egg problem. This doesn't directly apply to US gold rushes due to relative ease and affordability of transport to developed areas of the US. Even with the full ITS system running, the capacity for shipment from Mars to Earth is minimal in mineral shipment terms, and the chance of the minerals being cost-competitive with the transport factored in is just about nil.

[RedKraken]

31 minutes ago, GregA said:

vast quantities of PVC

this...this make things a lot easier...building with local plastics in 1/3rd gravity.

and marscrete : https://www.technologyreview.com/s/545216/materials-scientists-make-martian-concrete/

[Nibb31]

52 minutes ago, Illyrian said:

That is same reason people had during gold rush in US.

Forget about the old american far west analogies. None of them apply here.

52 minutes ago, Illyrian said:

One more reason to leave Earth would be to leave countries with oppressive law systems. Of course leaders of Mars would have to declare independence, once they would become nearly self sufficient.

It would be far easier, cheaper and safer to emigrate to a country without an oppressive law system.

52 minutes ago, Illyrian said:

You would have a choice to be common employee on Earth or land lord on Mars.

Or a slave to the corporations that keep you breathing on Mars.

[DerekL1963]

2 minutes ago, Kryten said:

Even with the full ITS system running, the capacity for shipment from Mars to Earth is minimal in mineral shipment terms, and the chance of the minerals being cost-competitive with the transport factored in is just about nil.

That's something I don't think people really grasp.  They're used to dealing with traditional shipping & handling - which is "one-to-many" and fairly expensive in a large part due to the many sorting operations involved and "last mile" challenges.  Shipping in bulk, which is "one-to-one" and doesn't have the sorting operations and a much simpler "last mile" challenge is much, much cheaper per ton than you might think from simply extrapolating from what Amazon charges to ship you the latest bestseller.  That two pound box with the latest fantasy best seller might cost you 3 dollars in shipping from Amazon's nearest fulfillment center to your doorstep....  but if that same two pounds were part of thousands-of-tons shipment of coal from Montana to the East Coast it only costs 1.8 cents.  Bulk shipping, even on a global scale, is literally dirt cheap.

That's also why containerization has become a thing - it cuts out 99% of the interim labor if a container can be filled at a factory and the contents remain untouched by human hands until it reaches it's destination.

Thus the cost of the minerals FOB Spaceport Canaveral is much more than the cost of the fuel for the ITS.  It's also the extraction, handling, and processing - and given the enormous costs of establishing those things, and the need to amortize them across every pound of minerals...  space materials start the battle with one foot in a bucket.

1 hour ago, Workable Goblin said:

Not really. A Mars base could do almost anything that the ISS could do (aside from that dealing with microgravity--but then, it would be able to do research in partial gravity, which has not been studied at all...), plus it could do a lot of planetary science, obviously. So it would clearly be more scientifically productive.

Yes, oranges will produce orange juice...  so clearly when apple juice is desired, oranges are a superior choice.

[tater]

Regarding the study of the effects of 0.38g on people long term (or 0.16g), it would be vastly easier to spin up a Bigelow or two above ISS (to mitigate drag), but below the Van Allen belt and test 0.38 g there, where the logistical train is a few hundred km, and the radiation exposure is about like living in Aspen.

[Montieth]

Did anyone else get a mental image of Ikea style Flat Pack Habitats when Musk was talking about the unpressurized cargo section of the ITS? 


I also have to wonder, what quantity of material will need to be sent ahead in order for the first 100 or so to be able to survive and deal with any problems that might arise? 
 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Montieth

[GregA]

6 hours ago, todofwar said:

Colonizing Mars has no benefit for humans back on Earth, just a hard fact of life. That doesn't mean it's without merit, because it gives us one more home in case this one goes belly up. I think a Mars colony, Venus colony, and generation ship to proxima centari b are all great ideas and we absolutely should pursue them, but I also want my government to take care of about a thousand other things first, so until some billionaire worth five Elons decides he wants to give literally every penny he has to building a colony for a colony's sake, it won't happen. 

Well, there is one benefit. And that's the needed downsizing of our supply chains, which could have some benefits for Earth. For exampke, figuring out a quicker cheaper way to get high quality silicon. Farming in more efficient ways. Creating close to closed loop farms that don't waste their fertilizer. More efficient recycling and reuse methods. 

I dunno, we got lots of practical technology from the Large Hadron Collider even though it produced no useful science...

[tater]

47 minutes ago, GregA said:

I dunno, we got lots of practical technology from the Large Hadron Collider even though it produced no useful science...

That's at the "basic science" level if anything is---fundamental laws of physics. Mars offers planetary geology, and how humans do in a nasty radiation environment at 0.38g. That's pretty much it.

[Mitchz95]

10 hours ago, RedKraken said:

Very interested in Robert Zubrin's reaction :

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=66acde49870b0e6bc3a161cc0&id=46e8d8b04d&e=66242eccde

His architecture tweak for 10x delivery capability :

Stage just short of escape, return to earth in a week, reuse vehicle ~5 times each window.

Not sure if payload is one-way or not. Could be either i guess. 

He suggests u could do this with FalcH much sooner than ITS.

Would the colony ship be able to return to Earth? With the current design it can go single-stage from the surface of Mars to the surface of Earth.

[RedKraken]

14 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

Would the colony ship be able to return to Earth? With the current design it can go single-stage from the surface of Mars to the surface of Earth.

If it could refuel 7000 m/s on the martian surface, it could get back to earth.
But I suspect Zubrin is talking one-way. Problem one. Problem two is the FH is not reusable. Center stage would be lost each launch. But still an interesting architecture.

Edited September 29, 2016 by RedKraken

[RedKraken]

8 hours ago, Montieth said:

I also have to wonder, what quantity of material will need to be sent ahead in order for the first 100 or so to be able to survive and deal with any problems that might arise? 
 

The first 100 may turn out to be 10. So they've got extra room for supplies. And a bigger safety margin for material

Preposition 2 or 4 years worth of food, water, hab, power, comms, navigation, medical, solar plant, isru plant, rover, bulldozer/trench-digger for your underground bunker and the landing pad you have to build. Most of this stuff should be remotely operated/confirmed working before anybody gets in a spaceship. It would be nice to have a fueled-up ITS waiting for you as a backup.

This is essentially a super-sized Mars Direct proposal by Zubrin/Baker, circa 1990.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

You need something like 1500kg food/water per person per year. Send water so that u dont have to scavenge for ice on your first trip.

Send H2 for the isru for the same reason.

For emergencies : duct tape and plastic sheeting of course.

[Nibb31]

I would expect at least 10 tons of cargo for each human. Probably more for the basic infrastructure. Sending more than 10 people on the first couple of synods isn't realistic.

An ECLSS capable or supporting 100 people for 120 days is sci-fi territory anyway?

Edited September 29, 2016 by Nibb31

[RedKraken]

27 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

I would expect at least 10 tons of cargo for each human. Probably more for the basic infrastructure. Sending more than 10 people on the first couple of synods isn't realistic.

Yep.

What are your thoughts on hab above ground verses bury a hab or build underground for the first missions?

[Nefrums]

Digging a hole and building in that makes no sense.  It will be simpler to build on the surface with some form of locally made mars concrete and just cover that with more mars dirt if needed.

[RedKraken]

The pressure differential is a problem for surface hab construction. 10 millibars outside.

If your structure is not strong enough in tension, it will explode when you try to pressurize it. Cover it with dirt. Yes. Maybe kevlar netting with anchors? Or kevlar as rebar in the blocks?

Digging a trench and bury the structure under a couple of metres of dirt solves the pressure diff problem.

But a lot of work. Also maintenance is much harder.

Some interesting ideas : http://www.marsicehouse.com/

Another interesting reaction : http://selenianboondocks.com/2016/09/spacex-mars-plans-jons-first-take/

Edited September 29, 2016 by RedKraken

[Nibb31]

I think inflatables will be the way to go, at least in the early days. A couple of half-cylinder Bigelow modules would be enough to get started. There will be so much stuff to do and not enough people and equipment to do everything, so you want to concentrate on the things that matter: life support, mobility (the base will have to be at least 1km away from the landing zone), power, water extraction, and making hydroponic tofu. Habitat volume will be low down on the list of priorities.

Once you've got the basics working, then you can focus on digging trenches and making concrete out of toxic regolith. 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Nibb31

[RedKraken]

Makes sense. Thx!

Edited September 29, 2016 by RedKraken

[Aerospacer]

Bravo, Elon. It was really Impressively.

Especially this:

 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Aerospacer

[regex]

I'm genuinely curious what the contract will look like to get onto an MCT to Mars, and how Space-X intends to spin what is basically a one-way trip there in terms of accountability for their company and responsibility to their passengers on arrival (if any). Do they just kick them out the door? If the MCT is automated does it simply blast off once it has enough fuel or at the next window to Earth, regardless of anything potentially in the vicinity? Musk is worried entirely about the wagon, not the cargo and people, which may make the wagon possible but leaves a lot up in the air in terms of what happens when the passengers get to their destination.

Edited September 29, 2016 by regex

[DerekL1963]

12 minutes ago, regex said:

 Musk is worried entirely about the wagon, not the cargo and people, which may make the wagon possible but leaves a lot up in the air in terms of what happens when the passengers get to their destination.

Pretty much all of the space community is concerned only about the wagon - the rest has always been the "?????" step.

 

[regex]

Just now, DerekL1963 said:

Pretty much all of the space community is concerned only about the wagon - the rest has always been the "?????" step.

I'll bet you that, in the back of his mind, Musk's backup plan involves selling the MCT as a service to NASA, because there is very little incentive for anyone who actually has the capital to fund, research, and plan a settlement on Mars to actually do it.

[_Augustus_]

49 minutes ago, regex said:

I'll bet you that, in the back of his mind, Musk's backup plan involves selling the MCT as a service to NASA, because there is very little incentive for anyone who actually has the capital to fund, research, and plan a settlement on Mars to actually do it.

The next president may very well take up that offer anyways and mothball SLS....

1 hour ago, Aerospacer said:

Bravo, Elon. It was really Impressively.

Especially this:

 

GO ELON!

[tater]

42 minutes ago, regex said:

I'll bet you that, in the back of his mind, Musk's backup plan involves selling the MCT as a service to NASA, because there is very little incentive for anyone who actually has the capital to fund, research, and plan a settlement on Mars to actually do it.

Yeah... let's say he builds the thing, total cost was a few hundred million. You'd have to send at least one unmanned as a test. If you sent a second as a test to make sure you could land neat the first, then NASA might start having some interest, it would be hard to ignore.

A large issue is the height of the thing, IMO. It's gonna look like old-school notions of space travel.

Unload that puppy with a crane, lol.