Elon Musk : "Retire on Mars" : feasible?

[BrickedKeyboard]

Well, in order for Mr. Musk to retire on Mars, there would need to be a substantial amount of infrastructure in place in order for him to enjoy his twilight years in luxury.

I've been trying to "rough out" a basic mission to Mars in order to get an idea if his plans are even technically feasible.

Before a large base could be constructed, he would need to get a test group to Mars. 6-10 people or so. Suppose that the mission were to depart in 10 years, with 10 people, for a total budget of no more than 10 billion. Mr. Musk is worth a bit over a billion at the present time, but, presumably, he could get his buddies to chip in a few billion. Also, since NASA is willing to spend a billion per Mars probe, maybe they could sell a seat or 2 to NASA or do paid scientific research when there.

Ok, so his company's Falcon Heavy is supposed to cost $120 million per launch. Assuming SpaceX is being honest about the production costs for the Falcon 9 being low enough that a launch can be done for $60 million, that seems plausible. The Falcon Heavy is basically 3 falcon 9 lower stages strapped together.

Listed payload to GTO is 21,200 Kg. Using a delta-V table, I find out that http://i.imgur.com/WGOy3qT.png you need about 1.16 km/sec delta V from GTO to reach Mars, assuming aerobraking for the Mars capture and other maneuvers.

That means 14,500 Kg of the payload make it to Mars aerobraking, and, assuming similar efficiency to the curiosity rover's descent system, 6,889 Kg make it to the surface.

Yikes. Every Kg of supplies is $17,400. Anyways, an empty dragon spacecraft is 4200 Kg, so it looks like the Falcon Heavy is approximately a big enough rocket to get a crewed dragon spacecraft to Mars.

Of course, just 1 launch is nowhere near enough. You'd need enough launches to orbit modules for the journey to Mars (supplies, living space, etc), and a bunch of unmanned launches to test the landing system and place the initial supply dump on Mars before any crew get there.

But, at first glance, it looks maybe possible. I said a 10 billion budget, so if 25% of the budget were spent paying for launches, that's 2.4 billion for 20 launches. R&D for the various new systems this kind of expedition would need would cost a few billion, and there would also be construction costs to build the spacecraft.

Long term, apparently, humans need something like 0.8 Kg of oxygen, 0.63 Kg of food, and 26 Kg of water per day.

Theoretically, you could recycle almost all the water and oxygen, and produce at least some of the food with algae or hydroponic plants. Assuming that cuts the total supply requirements to 0.5 Kg/person/day, 10 people would need 5 Kg per day, and 1825 Kg per solar year. From above, that comes to approximately 1 dragon spacecraft stuffed full of supplies per year, which means it would only cost $120 million/year to keep 10 people alive on the surface.

Now, there's a couple of show-stoppers.

Well, water recycling is in use on the ISS, cutting that number down considerably if it works. However, it sure would be handy if the carbon dioxide could be converted to oxygen, and at least some of that carbon dioxide were made into additional food.

To do this, you'd need algae tanks or some other method, and I could not find any information about testing of these kinds of life support systems on the ISS... I'm not certain what they are doing up there, but, apparently, recycling food and oxygen is not one of them.

You could not depart on a Mars expedition without checking to make sure recycling systems actually work long term (several years) and in space environments (low gravity, radiation, etc).

Similarly, it is known that zero-G exposure is bad news. Bone density loss, retinal detachment, and a long long list of other unpleasant effects. The catch is, humans have never been exposed to 1/3 G for long periods of time, either. No one knows if humans will go blind or become too fragile to move or other nasty long term effects. The only way to even find out for certain would be to put humans in a centrifuge in space at 1/3 G for several years. (well, first doing it with other vertebrate animals, but, eventually, humans)

Surely they have some rats on the ISS at 1/3 G, spinning for years, right? Apparently not...

This is a big problem. It looks like Mr. Musk could theoretically get together the rockets and the other systems that would put people on Mars. However, without these crucial tests, he would have no way of knowing if people could live there for long.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_htm...ifesupport.php

Edited December 13, 2013 by NotMyRealName

[Nibb31]

Dear Mr Musk,

If you go to Mars to die there, can I have your stuff?

Yours sincerely,

Nibb31

[Nibb31]

Seriously, the problematic is the same as for MarsOne. Permanent life on Mars is unfeasible without very heavy transport to Mars, heavy landing techniques, closed-loop life support, and solutions to the radiation and low-gravity issues. We are decades away from developing any of these technologies to a readiness level that would allow human lives to rely on them.

In the next decade or two, we might be able to pull off a manned landing and return, but a permanent colony is orders of magnitude more complicated.

[Tommygun]

This is a big problem. It looks like Mr. Musk could theoretically get together the rockets and the other systems that would put people on Mars. However, without these crucial tests, he would have no way of knowing if people could live there for long.

This is true, but that's what pioneers sign up for.

[Nibb31]

This is true, but that's what pioneers sign up for.

The 18th Century is over.

[lajoswinkler]

Well, he said "retire", not "retire and survive for longer than few days, dying of old age".

[Tommygun]

The 18th Century is over.

Yes it is, but if trained professionals give informed consent, then they have the right to try.

[Superfluous J]

This is true, but that's what pioneers sign up for.

Pioneers are traditionally escaping from something, usually crippling poverty or persecution. There's a reason Kings and Queens weren't landing on Plymouth Rock.

The 18th Century is over.

And this. Though the bigger issue is that you can get from Europe to the Americas for very little money, even in the 1700s. The poor and persecuted could make it across the ocean and nobody really cared if they died along the way. Now you need billions of dollars to make the equivalent journey to Mars and if someone dies, their similarly rich family will sue the pants off of SOMEBODY.

[NASAFanboy]

Seriously, the problematic is the same as for MarsOne. Permanent life on Mars is unfeasible without very heavy transport to Mars, heavy landing techniques, closed-loop life support, and solutions to the radiation and low-gravity issues. We are decades away from developing any of these technologies to a readiness level that would allow human lives to rely on them.

In the next decade or two, we might be able to pull off a manned landing and return, but a permanent colony is orders of magnitude more complicated.

Sounds fine to me. Not that I want to live on Earth anyways-I don't. I've got nothing to lose on this mudball.

NASA seriously needs to stop highlighting radiation as a issue. These astronauts know what they're doing, they knew they can die, and yet they go. Elon Musk knows the same thing, he will die, but he still chooses to go. So do the applicants on Mars One. They KNOW they're on a suicide mission, but they still want to go, despite the fact closed loop life support is untested and our technology is still rudimentary.

I say we let them. They're the very mentality of humanity that we should treasure and be proud of-those willing to die for their race.

[BrickedKeyboard]

So, TLDR, let's test our closed loop life support system for the first time in microgravity on the one-way journey to Mars. Also, bone loss from 1/3 G? Radiation? Let's just risk it.

Sounds like a plan. Jebediah Kerman would approve

[BrickedKeyboard]

Seriously, the problematic is the same as for MarsOne. Permanent life on Mars is unfeasible without very heavy transport to Mars, heavy landing techniques, closed-loop life support, and solutions to the radiation and low-gravity issues. We are decades away from developing any of these technologies to a readiness level that would allow human lives to rely on them.

In the next decade or two, we might be able to pull off a manned landing and return, but a permanent colony is orders of magnitude more complicated.

What has to be done differently to do a heavy landing? What stops us from just using the Dragon heatshield to aerobrake, then some parachutes, then the Draco thrusters to come in for a soft touchdown?

The Dragon spacecraft has a tougher hull than the Curiosity rover's exposed instruments, so we do not need to use a skycrane.

[Albert VDS]

Pioneers are traditionally escaping from something, usually crippling poverty or persecution. There's a reason Kings and Queens weren't landing on Plymouth Rock.

Pioneer: a person who is among the first to explore or settle a new country or area.

It's not a requirement for them to be more than that.

For example; the Apollo astronauts were pioneers.

[Nibb31]

What has to be done differently to do a heavy landing? What stops us from just using the Dragon heatshield to aerobrake, then some parachutes, then the Draco thrusters to come in for a soft touchdown?

The Dragon spacecraft has a tougher hull than the Curiosity rover's exposed instruments, so we do not need to use a skycrane.

A Red Dragon could (in theory) deliver something like 1 ton of payload to the Martian surface. Red Dragon is useless for anything substantial like a small habitation module or the heavy equipment you would need to build a permanent base. So forget it.

The other techniques used for landing on Mars don't really scale up either. They are good for small probes, but landing large modules in the 20 or 30 ton range isn't really feasible with airbags (like PathFinder or the MERs) or skycranes (like Curiosity).

Large heatshields for heavy landers aren't something that we have experience with, even on Earth. The largest thing we have ever brought back from space was the Space Shuttle, but a heavy glider is not an option on Mars. We could try inflatable heatshields, but there is a lot more work that needs to be done on those before they are operational for heavy loads or reliable enough for manned spacecraft.

There is also a practical limit to the size of parachutes, and that limit was pretty much maxxed out on Mars with Curiosity. This means that anything heavier is going to have to use some combination of parachutes and propulsive deceleration, which is going to cost a lot in terms of mass. In addition, combining propulsion with a heatshield is a complicated affair, and added complexity means added risk, making some of these solutions unsuitable for a manned landing.

I'm not saying it's not possible, but building a heavy lander for Mars isn't a straightforward problem and the technology readiness level (TRL) for those technologies isn't high enough to allow us to confidently risk lives on them at this point.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Nibb31

[rkman]

These astronauts know what they're doing, they knew they can die, and yet they go.

Might go at some undetermined time in the future.

NASA seriously needs to stop highlighting radiation as a issue.

In response to both this and the above quote:

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

- Richard Feynman

What has to be done differently to do a heavy landing?

Bring more fuel. One (ought to) know how it goes with the rocket equation: fuel requirements explode with increasing payload mass.

Edited December 13, 2013 by rkman

[Superfluous J]

Pioneer: a person who is among the first to explore or settle a new country or area.

It's not a requirement for them to be more than that.

For example; the Apollo astronauts were pioneers.

I never said it was a requirement. I said that if you're fat and happy you're not going to risk your life on a journey to an unknown, dangerous place where you could die every single day. If someone is going to kill you, or if you're going to starve to death, then going to some strange place is far less dangerous relatively.

There was absolutely nothing stopping anybody from jumping into the garbage chute on the Death Star. Grand Moff Tarkin could have done it. But it was only when Han, Luke, Chewie and Leia were going to be killed anyway that someone actually DID it.

[jwenting]

The 18th Century is over.

yes, most people have become terminally risk averse. But there's still pioneering spirits out there. Sadly they're hampered by attitudes like yours, the terminal risk aversion of regulators, fund raisers, and pretty much everyone else.

[DerekL1963]

But there's still pioneering spirits out there

There's a lot of people who *think* they're "pioneers", but probably are just armchair adventurers. Historically, pioneers have been a vanishing small segment of society and usually driven by pressure (repression, etc...) or greed rather than adventure.

(And that the 18th century is over isn't an attitude, it's a stone cold fact.)

[Nibb31]

yes, most people have become terminally risk averse. But there's still pioneering spirits out there. Sadly they're hampered by attitudes like yours, the terminal risk aversion of regulators, fund raisers, and pretty much everyone else.

Yeah, because this is a different world than the 18th Century one.

There are 10 times more people on Earth than there was back then. The economy is much more interconnected. Technology is much more complex. The reason there are regulations is because anything you do is bound to impact someone else. It's about living in society and giving a damn about others.

[karolus10]

Why do you guys consider mars to stay as "suicidal" ? everyone of us who stay on earth will get old and die at some point as well, big deal... It's not like they get throw out thought the airlock after few years.

From other hand it's very true that mars to stay missions require more resources and commitment as build infrastructure and hardware will have to last many years and You can't scrub the ongoing colonization as when first colonists will land You are committed to continue the program and sending stream of habitats, hardware and consumables into red planet for next decades to come (we don't want to play in this mars stuff anymore, goodbye guys).

I think that fist generation of mars explorers will go back ASAP in first(and last) return window, but first mars base constructed will be meant to hold people for years and not be disposed after one mission.

From other hand disposable 2-way trip mother-ship will cost more and will not contribute in building mars infrastructure on orbit or on the ground, building heavier and more expensive space habitat modules would be more profitable if they could stay on mars orbit or Phobos (better radiation and micrometeorite protection, also mission to Phobos might happen before turnaround mission with manned mars landing) as building blocks of orbital infrastructure.

Edited December 14, 2013 by karolus10

[Nibb31]

Why do you guys consider mars to stay as "suicidal" ?

It's suicidal if you die of starvation or some other life support failure after a few months.

[Karriz]

It's suicidal if you die of starvation or some other life support failure after a few months.

That's certainly not the intention, and can be avoided with proper testing and having a decent amount of spare parts available.

But, I do think that a Lunar base would be a logical stepping stone towards human settlement of Mars.

[Albert VDS]

I never said it was a requirement. I said that if you're fat and happy you're not going to risk your life on a journey to an unknown, dangerous place where you could die every single day. If someone is going to kill you, or if you're going to starve to death, then going to some strange place is far less dangerous relatively.

Tell that to the people who climbed the Mount Everest, journeyed to the south pole or any other past time which takes them to hostile places.

Before you say "But they can come back easily", it's not much different if you run out of oxygen when your 8km up.

The first explorers of any unknown area are doing it to explore, not to run away from poverty.

[nhnifong]

Why has there been such limited study of closed loop ecosystems in space? Would it be helpful if we got together and designed a cube sat to investigate this?

[Seret]

Because we need to get then working on the ground first before we can shrink and harden one enough to send it into space.

[Albert VDS]

Why has there been such limited study of closed loop ecosystems in space? Would it be helpful if we got together and designed a cube sat to investigate this?

For an oxygen and water life support system you only need something like on the ISS.

On Mars it doesn't matter if you loose oxygen or water in the process, because you can get it from the atmosphere and the soil.

The only problem is the food production.