25 thoughts on “Reusable Mars Landers”

    2. Landing a largish rocket on Mars would take a bit of fuel for final approach. And a bit more for boil-off during reentry. But SSTO from Mars should be easy enough to leave that reserve.

      Of course then there’s propellant for the interplanetary transfer vehicle. A pair of momentum transfer tethers anchored to Phobos can greatly reduce how much you burn arriving and departing from Mars.

  2. Apollo-to-Mars is a disaster, but I think Gemini-to-the-Moon program would be a good idea. The sort of technology development program that would give us propellant depots, a gravity lab, and other technologies that enable a permanent cislunar presence.

    1. Apollo to mars is NASA’s vision. If not SpaceX’s BFR direct, meeting landers in mars orbit seems best. Better if those landers were a single, fast turnaround, SSTO. You’d just need two for any number of colonists.

      1. Meh, I’m not a particular fan of any giant rocket to Mars plan. If I had to choose a cislunar economy or a Mars colony, I’d pick a cislunar economy. Though there’s no reason why we can’t have both and I won’t stand in Elon’s way. 😉

        Has Elon ever mentioned what his colonists are going to do once they get to Mars? I guess their time would be occupied with trying not to die.

        1. That’s a terrible misconception. Living on mars, done right, is simple. What the colonist will do is spend 26 months making conditions better for the next group.

          New colonists will need housing. Existing will need the stuff the new bring. Trade ensues.

        2. “I guess their time would be occupied with trying not to die.”

          Hmm trying not to die or trying to live?

  3. If any of you remember the episode of “Babylon 5” that showed apparent SSTO vehicles taking off from Mars — they looked a heck of a lot like the old Delta Clipper/DC-X.

    I was able to ask one of the FX guys about that, and he said yes, they’d based the shape on the DC-X.

    Just a bit of trivia…

    1. Why do I pay for your report, Dr. Lurio, when you give the *really* important information away for free? 🙂

  4. I support returning to the moon before going to Mars. Primarily, I’m interested in technology development, procedures development, and regaining operational experience beyond LEO before heading for Mars.

    That said, the economics of harvesting lunar ice (assuming it exists) seems doubtful as a source of propellant if you have fully reusable rockets for use from Earth. It seems to me that you could simply launch water to in-space propellant depots and electrolyze it there for far less cost than developing a lunar base, mining, propellant production capability on the moon, along with the reusable transport vehicles.

    The “throw everything away” approach only begins to make some sense if you don’t plan on landing people at the same location more than once (like Apollo). If you’re trying to establish a base for repeated use, it makes far more sense to have reusable equipment to the greatest extent possible. You might even be able to develop both a manned and unmanned cargo system with a great deal of commonality between systems. For this, you would deliver cargo to Mars orbit (aerocapture would work well for this), launch an empty lander and rendezvous with the cargo, and deliver it to the surface. Such a vehicle would be able to deliver many metric tons of cargo to the surface easily.

    1. I support returning to the moon before going to Mars.

      I’ll give you 96% of NASA’s budget to go to the moon if you’ll give me 4% for mars?

  5. Yes, throwing them away makes no sense.

    I disagree. It makes perfect sense not to make a very difficult and expensive project any more difficult and expensive than it absolutely has to be.

    That’s Apollo-to-Mars thinking.

    We’re all disappointed that things didn’t turn out the way we would have liked but I think that is more the fault of the moon than Apollo. The hoped for benefits just didn’t materialize.

    Creating fully reusable transportation infrastructure will be a key element of my Kickstarter report.

    I think creating a fully reusable transportation infrastructure is best left to the day when there is a demonstrable demand for it.

    1. The hoped for benefits just didn’t materialize.

      What “hoped for benefits”? We got exactly what we wanted, a propaganda defeat of the Soviets in the Cold War.

      Submitted on 2015/10/20 at 8:50 AM

      Yes, throwing them away makes no sense.

      I disagree. It makes perfect sense not to make a very difficult and expensive project any more difficult and expensive than it absolutely has to be.

      That’s Apollo-to-Mars thinking.

      We’re all disappointed that things didn’t turn out the way we would have liked but I think that is more the fault of the moon than Apollo. The hoped for benefits just didn’t materialize.

      Creating fully reusable transportation infrastructure will be a key element of my Kickstarter report.

      I think creating a fully reusable transportation infrastructure is best left to the day when there is a demonstrable demand for it.

      Yes, let’s estimate demand for the Golden Gate Bridge by counting swimmers.

      My point is that if we’re going to spend tens of billions over decades, let’s get something worth the money, not a few boots on Martian soil.

      1. if we’re going to spend tens of billions over decades, let’s get something worth the money

        This should be everyone’s starting position. Do we all agree?

      2. It was more than propaganda.

        Remember the argument that instead of dropping the atom bomb on Japanese cities we should have done something more humane, say, a “demonstration” of the Bomb on a deserted island with Japanese military watching to see how powerful it was?

        Apollo was that demonstration for the benefit of the Russians and the “non-aligned” world. That is, with a guidance system accurate enough to land on the Moon, we could . . .

        Actually, we did that “demonstration” of the atom bomb’s awesome power for the benefit of the Russians. It was called Crossroads Able, and footage of it are commonly shown as stock video of an A-bomb explosion.

        The Russians weren’t all that impressed. Seeing it demonstrated that way somewhat took the terror-of-the-unknown out of it.

        Speaking of demonstrations, that is part of why Syria is a disaster. The Russians, in my estimation, are doing the right thing of propping up Assad, even though that has the side effect of boosting Iran’s standing, but bringing Iran down-a-peg, that train left the station a long time ago.

        No, the problem with Syria is that the Russians are demonstrating their tactical air power with the world closely watching, and to outward appearances they are matching what was thought to be a US monopoly on being able to do that kind of thing. This demonstration has taken us down a peg as not being the only power capable of this.

  6. Yes, let’s estimate demand for the Golden Gate Bridge by counting swimmers.

    I think the demand for ferries and traffic patterns on the east bay were probably more relevant. In any event, major infrastructure projects followed settlement in the bay area, it was not a prerequisite for it.

    My point is that if we’re going to spend tens of billions over decades, let’s get something worth the money, not a few boots on Martian soil.

    Yes, by all means, let’s make the first manned Mars mission as expensive as we possibly can. Because we just know that after that first landing the floodgates will open and dozens more will follow in short order. So let’s plan for dozens of missions, not just a few. Front loading this project will save a bundle when the mission count gets into the 20s.

    1. I’m not proposing to make it as expensive as possible. NASA is proposing that. I’m proposing to get something worth the money. If it’s only going to be a few missions, not one dime of my money for that nutty Apollo-to-Mars fantasy.

      1. I’m proposing to get something worth the money.

        I’m sure I can guess what that something might be but if it won’t spoil your Kickstarter project would you care to spell it out for us?

  7. This golden gate bridge thing is a variation of our gas stations along the road issue which Rand and I still disagree.

    You don’t put stations along the road to enable travel. You put them there because a market for fuel already exists.

  8. “I think creating a fully reusable transportation infrastructure is best left to the day when there is a demonstrable demand for it.”

    This is an interesting problem. In one way you can say the demand currently exists, not for reusable transportation but rather for lower cost access to space. It just so happens that that some companies are working on reuse as a way to lower costs and prices. How the demand is met doesn’t matter, only that the demand is met. Maybe reusing first stages won’t be able to compete with throwing everything away or some other alternative.

    IMO, the demand is always there (for anything) but the conditions may not be right to meet it. Is there demand for fuel depots? Yes, but the conditions are not there that will allow customers to use one. How are those conditions created? Any number of ways. Who are these customers? Every human and group of humans are possible customers, if the conditions are right.

    It is safe to say there are very few customers right now with the means to pay for their demand and then one can argue that there is no one to meet their demand, a self imposed catch 22. But all of this ignores the reality that this isn’t just economics.

    The USA is one customer with the means to pay for their demands. They already spend money on space based activities. There is broad support for these efforts but not necessarily for spending more than is spent already and there is a lot of disagreement over what these activities should be. It’s an ideological competition for funds, not the free market. The demand of the federal government is what’s important not Todd from across the street or the companies on the MSE (Mars Stock Exchange).

    A rational group of people would take the funds won in ideological competition, for the purpose of engaging in the activities that won the competition, and then look at how best to accomplish those activities with the money. It isn’t about creating a fully reusable transportation infrastructure and distributed launch or using SLS but a qualitative assessment of opportunities to determine how best to spend the money, which could be either, neither, or both.

    Now, if it was a question of demonstrated market demand of nonstate actors…

Comments are closed.