For the reason I gave in a previous post. Right now, China is moving forward. (And so are other countries like India and Iran and private businessmen like Bezos and Musk.) America and Russia have a lead but they’re essentially sitting still.
I came in to say this, but Stranger beat me to it (with more detail).
China has yet to do anything the United States and the Soviet Union did decades ago, and their actual plans (the Shenzhou and Tiangong programs) are at most comparatively modest expansions of demonstrated technology. Putting and outpost and observatory on the Moon–a goal espoused by many space advocates back in the heady Apollo days–seems like the next obvious step until you look at rational estimates of the costs of crewed operation compared to a comparable Earth- or solar-orbiting remote observatory. People are really, really expensive to maintain in space which is why the US Air Force gave up on its manned space program as soon as remote monitoring and surveillance satellites became sufficiently capable.
India is doing some interesting work on a shoestring budget but they have no crewed rated launch vehicle. Iran is busy refining their Photoshop skills. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos both have a genuine passion for space development and exploration, but they are running for-profit businesses whose investors eventually expect a reasonable return; the enormous costs of crewed spaceflight are a cost against profit (unless you buy the dubious case for a sustainable space tourism industry) against an uncertain fiscal future. Oddly, you don’t mention either the European Space Agency (ESA) or the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), both of which have more experience in exploration and habitation than China, India, and especially Iran. You also neglect the current burgeoning small satellite and spacecraft industry which is developing the capabilities for inexpensively built and rapidly deployable space capabilities at a fraction of the cost and schedule of large satellites, a potential transformative change often compared to the rise of the commodity personal computer (PC) and desktop workstation and concurrent demise of the mainframe architecture in computing.
We’ve been though several commercial space boom and bust cycles on roughly fifteen year centers (mid-to-late 'Eighties, late 'Nineties to early 'Aughts, and now) and the showstopper has never been technology per se but that the market won’t bear the costs or risks (and those people who suggest trading lower costs for higher risk never seem to be around at the flight readiness review or in day-of-launch). The current commercial space activities look promising–not only SpaceX and Blue Origin with medium to heavy orbital launch capability but also a stable of dedicated small satellite launchers on the cusp of demonstrating capability–but not one has yet to demonstrate profitability without a manifest of expensive government launches or subsidies, and the field of aerospace is full of companies succeeding at technical challenges while failing to realize a profit. Passion will get you so far, but only profits keep you fed and housed, and it isn’t clear that even the low cost programs and launchers will succeed to be economically viable (though I remain optimistic); there is no credible profit model for commercial crewed spaceflight beyond supporting govenrment programs in the foreseeable future.
For those that are interested in being better informed about the sausage making versus the “Gee whiz!” aspects of space industries and exploration, The Planetary Society has a podcast series on space policy which offers some really good insights and observations about the practicalies of both government-funded and commercial space. The linked episode has an interview with Marcia Smith, former space policy senior analyst at the Congressional Research Service, director of the Space Studies Board at the National Research Council, and founder and editor of Space Policy Online, talking about the current capabilities, budget and predictions, and cycles of both NASA and commercial space efforts.
Stranger
Stranger what do you think of the ITS. Is it actually a feasible way to get humans to Mars, or is that (as some people have stated) just a cover to make a rocket with truly large payload; some Satellite firms have stated that next generation Communication satellites might need to be much bigger than what can be sent to space now.
It only takes one example. If you believe Gwynne Shotwell’s public statements (and admittedly, she does not have quite the same responsibility to the truth as she would if SpaceX were publicly traded), refurbishment costs were “substantially less than half” for their reused booster.
As you note, the current cost reductions are modest (though let’s not confuse price with cost). SpaceX is probably saving around $15M per launch right now, and are keeping most of that savings. They have another iteration on the horizon that will decrease the refurb costs further. But the point is that they have already achieved a savings. It’s not that they’ll theoretically get the costs down but right now they’re spending 5x on refurb costs; the proof of concept is done. It works.
I’m not inclined to argue about what’s challenging or not, but launch costs affect everything downstream. When stuff is cheaper, you can do it more often and sacrifice reliability.
Although I agree that ISRU is key, consumables will still be needed. They don’t need to be on the main vessel. You launch them beforehand on unmanned cargo runs. They can be landed using proven systems.
Stuff like the comms network can be worked on now. We should be building out Mars comms anyway, even if no manned landing ever takes place.
On-orbit refueling makes propulsive landing possible. As you note, you have to carry your propellant up from Earth. Again, cheap launches are a boon. An automated tanker is completely plausible; your Mars vehicle launches empty and is then progressively fueled in LEO.
I agree. I didn’t say the Chinese space program has surpassed what the American or Russian programs have done. But the Chinese space program is moving forward while the American and Russian programs are, at best, holding in place. In a situation like that, China will inevitably take the lead.
I also agree that putting men into space takes a lot of effort and doesn’t provide any immediate practical return. But that’s the reason countries do it; to show they are capable of doing something as difficult as putting men into space. It’s a matter of national prestige.
I’m pretty sure I’ll see 2030, maybe as long as 2050, but nope…so long as our government is willing to engage in trillion-dollar wars over oil, but wring its hands over a $19B NASA budget, it’s not going to happen. NASA has changed from a gung-ho spirit of the 1960’s to a CYA spirit of the 2000’s, where no Mars mission will take off unless there’s a 4-sigma possibility of success. We might return to the Moon by 2050.
FWIW, this tweet came out recently:
@SciGuySpace 2 SpaceX guys I have breakfast with say EM [Elon Musk] Sep. update is more about the money than tech. De-scope, make it pay for it’self.
If true, then in a few months we’ll be hearing about a plan to make the ITS profitable to develop. Obviously, that won’t be Mars-related unless NASA or someone has big plans that we don’t know about (also implied by “descope”). I have a hard time believing anyone needs 100 ton comsats, but who knows. More plausible is that it could be used for various large satellite constellations. The proposed SpaceX constellation weighs millions of kilograms, and they aren’t the only one with a large constellation on the drawing board. If they can partner with a large investor (like Google), then maybe that can fund the ITS development to the extent that it serves as a launcher.
This is a much more complicated undertaking than may be immediately apparent, so I think we are looking at about a 30 year lead time. Since I am 61 now, and come from a short-lived family, I am pretty positive that it will not take place in my lifetime.
I would love, however, to be wrong…
I said the technology, not the packaging.
Geez, are you serious about these numbers? Or just optimistic? Because to me they look off by at least a factor of ten. Mars for under $5T US does not seem realistic to me.
I am not going to block-quote Stranger’s post - too long although outstanding as usual - but yes he is right, it is financially nonsensical when people say that Mars could be an alternative to Earth. Any amount of money spent on terraforming Mars - probably running into many trillions of dollars - would or could be better spent fixing the problems that made Earth uninhabitable to begin with. Even if it’s severe global warming and massive flooding of the land.
I’ve worked on adjunct studies for crewed Mars missions, and US$500B (in ~2010 dollars) is a solid estimate for a single crewed conjunction class Mars mission with a crew complement of six people, an estimated probability of success exceeding 95%, and assuming either conventional chemical or solar electric propulsion. A more elaborate mission with multiple independent landers and a larger crew could be done for somewhere on close order of US$1000B. A fast opposition class mission could be done with a smaller crew complement (3 or 4), a high thrust trajectory profile, and a shorter stay could be done with less infrastructure and setup for possibly as little as $US200B, albeit with essentially no chance of recovery if there is a significant system problem or failure at any point, and the reliability numbers stack up unfavorably; depending on how probability of success is estimated, getting to an 80% probability of success may be challenging.
To put this in perspective, the entire Apollo program from 1961 to 1972, including all of the Saturn V, Apollo CSM, and LM development for 16 successful launches and 6 lunar landings cost US$109B in FY2010 dollars. Apollo missions lasted for 8 to 13 days; an opposition class Mars mission would last 400 to 650 days; a conjunction class mission would last around 900 days. The resources scale linearly but requirements for reliability scale out in a decidedly non-linear fashion.
Stranger
If we didn’t “fix” Earth: even if we completely trashed the whole planet: even if we ran CO2 levels up to 10,000 PPM and exploded every nuclear weapon available, Earth would still be a million times better to live on than Mars.
Sent from my XT1635-02 using Tapatalk
Yeah, I find it so strange when people suggest terraforming Mars as a solution to environmental catastrophe on Earth.
Somehow, we think we can make that barren hellscape habitable, when we can’t prevent ourselves wrecking the perfectly habitable planet we live on now.
I’ve seen little evidence that anything but the propulsion system of the heavy boost vehicle of the Interplanetary Transport System is anything other than paper studies. The previous notes on the topic from Musk and Shotwell was that SpaceX was working on the propulsion side, and they expected other parties to take up the other challenges. Given that there is no practical expectation of return on investment, this seemed dubious then, and given the extraordinary costs of addressing challenges such as developing a highly reliable crewed interplanetary vehicle and a Mars descent/ascent vehicle capable of taking a 40+ ton payload down to the surface and returning crew, or any of the other innovations necessary in the proposed scheme (such as in situ propellant production) I’ll reserve judgment until I see some evidence that SpaceX is actually working on a comprehensive transportation system.
There is what I would call a ‘strategic need’ for a superheavy booster to provide lift capability for certain types of missions, such as larger and more capable interplanetary exploration missions with deployable rovers to the outer planets, but it is unclear that there is a market need for such. Even for deploying large telecommunication birds and mass constellations of satellites, it is unclear that there is a sufficient market to assure a return on investment without some other consistent need. However, I’d certainly like to see a booster in the class of the SLS that doesn’t have such ridiculous cost and schedule constraints, so I hope SpaceX presses the development of the vehicle and seeks to develop a market for it.
First of all, the costs you see on the SpaceX website are not the true launch costs; they publish a bare ‘manifesting cost’ which is what it costs a payloader to get slot on the launch schedule and basic launch support. Any additional services or priority on the schedule comes with additional cost, as does any information or insight on SpaceX processes to perform independent review or mission assurance activities. We have no idea what SpaceX costs or profit margins) if any are, and it is worth nothing that their manifesting costs have crept upward to approximately twice the originally published values back in 2009, so I’d take any current evaluations about the costs or savings from reusability SpaceX may be achieving with a grain of salt.
The technology of the Apollo era was wholly insufficient to provide for a successful crewed Mars mission. Even aside from the EDL problem, just the issues with power and radiation protection, or the understanding of long term free fall environment on physiology and hygiene was insufficient, and even the proposed ‘Apollo Plus’ vehicle and uprated Saturn V rocket would not provide the impulse and duration sufficient for an Earth-to-Mars transit.
Stranger
From the talks I’ve heard, it isn’t so much terraforming Mars as an escape from the mismanagement of Earth, but to insure humanity would survive given an extinction event like a meteor impact. Not that I think terraforming is a worthy goal right now. It may be in 10k years.
I would give the possibility I’ll see a flag planting mission to Mars in my lifetime (45-50years) a 50/50 chance. We are a long ways from having the technology to make the needed regular trips to Mars cost effected to support a colony. But at the same time, I don’t think the obstacles are insurmountable. Advanced fusion propulsion or ion propulsion may advance to the point of being usable. If computational power keeps getting cheaper and faster, it may be science from advanced A.I. could lead to breakthroughs we can’t see now.
Terraforming Mars is infeasible. It has a cold core, resulting in a fading atmosphere, and no magnetic field. If you could do a shitload of accretion (bomb it with asteroids), you might be able to kickstart core heat and a magnetic field, but that would take a lot longer than 10,000 years. The best we could hope for in the near term would be a planet-wide infestation of habidomes and agridomes.
I’m not seeing your point. What specific technology are you talking about? And what’s the packaging?