Brian Enke Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, CO ANOTHER ORDER OF MAGNITUDE CHEAPER? (AI,...
-
Upload
billy-wayman -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Brian Enke Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, CO ANOTHER ORDER OF MAGNITUDE CHEAPER? (AI,...
Brian EnkeSouthwest Research
Institute (SwRI),
Boulder, CO
ANOTHER ORDER OFMAGNITUDE CHEAPER?
(AI, Simulations, Integration, Complexity)
THREE
GENERATIONS...
SEI: $450 billion
Mars Direct $40 billion
??? $4 billion or less ???
YES .....
(but only if we want one...)
(at least, in sci-fi...)
(and is $1 billion feasible?)
Is a $4 billion humanmission to Mars possible?
Image Credit: NASA
Pop Quiz!!
How much does a Mars mission cost?
A) $1 trillionB) $450 billionC) $40-$55 billionD) $4 billion
TRICK QUESTION!
COST ALONE ISMEANINGLESS!
Pop Quiz!!
How much does a Mars mission cost?
Credit: Warner Bros.
Credit: Warner Bros.
Mars Mission Cost Estimates are Meaningless Without...
Investment Timeframe
Development vs Ongoing
Well-Defined Goals (Capabilities)
Risk Tolerance Level
COMPLEXITY !!
COMPLEXITY
(Investment x Risk)
Capabilities
Technology
Resources
Innovation
Bureaucracy
Modifiers
First Generation Mission Plan: 90-Day Report
(Battlestar Galactica)
Highly complex
Expensive ($450b over 30 years)
Very high risk
Low capabilities (30-day surface visit)
scifi.com
Credit: Sci-Fi Channel
Second Generation Mission Plan:Mars Direct Less complexity
Cheaper ($40b over 10 years)
Less risk
Greater capabilities (2-year surface visit)
Modifiers: Resources, Innovation
Credit: NASA
Second Generation $$ Assumptions(from NASA/ESA study, Hunt & van Pelt, 2003)
Second Generation $$ Assumptions(from NASA/ESA study, Hunt & van Pelt, 2003)
Mars Direct Development Costs(Hunt and van Pelt, 2003) (billion-dollars)
ESA NASA
Ares Heavy-Lift Vehicle 11 13
Earth-Return Vehicle 4 7
Surface Elements 3
Agency Program Level 7------------------------- -----------------------
TOTAL: 18/27 26/39
Mars Direct Ongoing Costs(Hunt and van Pelt, 2003) (billion-dollars)
ESA NASA
Ares Heavy-Lift Vehicle 2 2
Earth-Return Vehicle .7 1
Surface Elements .7
Agency Program Level .9------------------------- -----------------------
TOTAL: 3.6/5.2 4.6/7.0
"We've run the numbers, the budget numbers, and we
can't afford this plan-we simply can't-if we follow the
business-as-usual approach."
- Christopher Shank, Special Assistantto the NASA Administrator,
Return to the Moon Conference, 2005
Third Generation Mission Plan:Shadows of Medusae?
Focus on reducing complexity!!!
Low risk, low cost
Capabilities??
Highly controversial
Remember, it's Sci-Fi ! (for now)
#1: Public/PrivatePrivate sponsorship
Less bureaucracy, better risk climate
NASA involvement limited to research, tech development
90% cheaper?
Parallel NASA program can be an insurance policy
Credit: Paul Bourke
#2: Longer MissionDouble the surface mission from two to four years (or more)
Hardware rates are halved (or more)
Habitat complexity increased, maybe
Flag-and-footprint danger?
Credit: Warner Bros.
#3: One-way Mission
No ERV = less risk
50% less investment
Goals focused upon settlement
Hab, surface-ops more complex
All else simpler (no nukes until later)
Poor science
#4: EngineeringFirst mission: tech demonstrator
Highly focused, less complex
All crew members primarily engineers
Send scientists later
Tele-robotics
Less mobility
#5: Split Crew Two groups of
three or four
Smaller habitats – or larger rovers?
Redundancy of the most critical asset: the crew
Skills mix?
Psych issues?
RISK definition?Credit: Paul BourkeImage Credit: NASA
#6: Precursor Missions
Dumb, cheap, simple supply drops
Food, solar panels, water, and seeds
Wide landing ellipse
Scout for resources (water), conditions (air, radiation)
No base integrationCredit: Paul Bourke
#7: Tele-RoboticsSeveral humanoid robots (Robonauts?)
Limited autonomy
Less spacesuit wear
Less dust in habitat
Immersive reality control devices
Don't automate what isn't necessary
#8: No NukesNuclear propulsion is complex
Use chemical rockets
Equatorial landing sites
Scaled solar power arrays
Surface RTGs are OK
Later missions: OK
Credit: David Darling
#9: Artificial Gravity
Reduced life-science complexity
Chemical rockets
Single gravity vector, magnitude
Hab plumbing and layout less complex
Need tethers and deployment system
#10: Surface WaterAssume you can reach it
Dangerous, but simple
Need a two-year supply for the free-return trajectory (include in cargo!)
Better for later or longer missions Credit: Warner Bros.
#11: Surface RendezvousSimpler than orbital rendezvous
More supplies available
Gravity = familiarity
Creative uses for inflatables
Requires more fuel for ERV (energy)Credit: NASA
#12: Sample Return
Keep it simple!!!
Sending humans is more cost-effective
Back-contamination
Dust-return simpler
Human mobility and sample selection
In-situ measurement is simpler Credit: Mars Society
#13: Analogue Testing
Earth analogues are simpler
Pressure dome?
Use public-outreach groups for labor, publicity
Moon-testing must be simple and convenient
Credit: Mars Society
#14: Heavy LiftDevelop hardware for a wide range of applications
A Mars exploration mission should NOT absorb the whole investment!!
Simplicity over capability
ELVs over RLVs
#15: Risk vs Wait
No guarantee that future technology will reduce COMPLEXITY!
... No guarantee of less RISK or COST
Complexity theory
Red Queen theory
Credit: Warner Bros.
Shadows of Medusa
Next-generation mission
Complexity reduction
Do the mission now
Signed in vendor area by author (Brian Enke)
Retail $35, Members $20
www.ShadowsOfMedusa.com
Share and enjoy!