Thoughts and some history from Bob Zubrin. The plan, at least as stated by Bob, has a (as Newt would say) “fundamental” flaw in it:
There would be at least two prizes: a $5 billion prize to develop and demonstrate a heavy-lift booster capable of lifting at least 100 tons to low Earth orbit, and a $10 billion prize for the first human mission to Mars. In addition, the winners of these prizes would be given contracts for the purchase by NASA of an additional five copies of their flight systems at a recurring cost of 20 percent of the respective prize per copy.
Prizes should specify the goal, not the means to achieve it. It presumes without evidence the need for an arbitrarily-sized heavy lifter. Bob, if you want to get to Mars, then put out a prize for Mars, but don’t tell people how to do it.
If he wants an intermediate prize, let it be putting an unmanned payload big enough to hold an ascent stage onto the surface intact.
Newt’s plan would only carve out $1.7 billion per year. Bob just does not get it.
As Gordon Woodcock once said, it is easy to go to Mars rather than the Moon, it just takes a lot more money. You are never going to get the rapidity of action or the cost effectiveness of prizes with the Mars thing.
There’s a need for a prize for an interim step, since the actual Mars mission is far enough out that the prize sum is substantially degraded by time value of money and probable inflation. It’s much more motivating if there’s a relatively near-term goal that can win a prize. But it’s also true that speccing a prize can lock effort into a single track far too early in the process. That’s usually an area where government tends to be particularly weak. Perhaps the near-term prize should be an either/or, say, a booster of some given capability, or a fuel depot system of specified capability, sufficient to fuel a Mars expedition. Plus there should be an option of proposing an entirely novel solution and having a significant step toward it declared prize-eligible, for example a non-chemical-rocket solution.
My prize #1 would be “just the necessary fuel in LEO, somehow”.
That is:
1) Figure out a reasonable size for a Mars mission.
2) Figure out a reasonable about of -fuel- for that Mars mission.
3) Offer prize for that amount of fuel -delivered- to LEO.
I think a Mars prize might be too big of a lump. Risking a couple million, or tens of millions, worth of development efforts on winning a prize is a lot easier than risking billions. It also might accentuate the one-time stunt problem we had with Apollo, with one mission to Mars and then no returns because the contest is over.
I think a more sensible approach to government reward is to have the government state that having people go to Mars is in the national interest, and that they will re-imburse mission costs up to X dollars per person in a cost-plus environment, or even better, pay a flat X dollars per person delivered. That way, the cheaper a company can get someone on Mars, the more profit they make.
Or have another prize, announced at the same time, that goes to whoever establishes a permanent base of x number of people for y number of years.
specify the goal, not the means
Exactly.
1) $1.7b. Put an unfueled ship LEO. …w/ two years life support for six (40+ cu. m. ea.) and fuel capacity (plastic bags essentially for methane or kerosene; hydrogen is not required) for a delta V of 7+ km/s. (This is too much money, but is the boot in the tail needed to get everyone off the couch.)
2) $1.7b. Put a fueled lander in mars orbit (multiple prizes.)
3) $1.7b. Put two years of supplies for twelve on the martian surface within a ten km. perimeter (includes golf cart.) Anything outside the perimeter does not go toward the prize but martians wont mind having it there.
4) $1.7b. Put fuel and supplies in mars orbit to return ship to earth. For those wimps that aren’t settlers.
5) Rinse. Lather. Repeat.
a $5 billion prize to develop and demonstrate a heavy-lift booster capable of lifting at least 100 tons to low Earth orbit
If SpaceX is successful with their Falcon Heavy, they’ll be able to put over 50 tons into LEO for a bit over $100 million. What’s wrong with the idea of launching it twice as opposed to building a moster rocket to carry the 100 tons in a single launch at many times the cost?
But… but Larry… How dare you suggest something so sensible! Do you think it’s your money or something? What an absurd thought. It’s government money doncha know? It comes from Obama’s stash.