View
227
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
This slide deck was prepared and presented bySydney Do* and Andrew Owens* at the 18th
Annual International Mars Society Convention onAugust 13th 2015 for the debate entitled: “Is MarsOne Feasible?”
*Ph.D. Candidate and Graduate Research Fellow, MIT
© 2015 Sydney Do and Andrew Owens. All rights reserved
This presentation is freely available at: http://bit.ly/isMarsOneFeasible
Who we are
Koki HoAssistant Professor of Aerospace Engineering, UIUC
Olivier de WeckProfessor of Aeronautics & Astronautics and Engineering Systems, MIT
Sam SchreinerSpace Systems Engineer, NASA JPL
Sydney DoPhD Candidate & Research Fellow, MIT
Andrew OwensPhD Candidate & Research Fellow, MIT
© 2015 Do and Owens
This is not a debate about the feasibility of Mars exploration or colonization.
This is a debate about a specific mission plan, focused on a specific question:
Is the Mars One mission plan feasible?
© 2015 Do and Owens
The Mars One Plan
• Build up a colony on Mars using one-way trips
• Send 4 crewmembers every 2 years
• Utilize “existing, validated, and available technology”
• $6 billion for the first crew
• $4 billion for each subsequent crew
• First mission launching in 2020 (5 years from now)
• First crew landing in 2027 (12 years from now)
REF: Mars One 2014REF: Mars One 2015
© 2015 Do and Owens
‘27 ‘28‘22 ‘30‘21‘20 ‘26‘23 ‘33‘25‘24 ‘29 ‘32‘31
Crew 3 + Cargo 4
Mars One Timeline
Crew 2 + Cargo 3
Crew 1 + Cargo 2
Crew 4 + Cargo 5
Demo Lander + Comm Sat
Rover + Comm Sat
Cargo 1
(and so on…)System Development,
Design,Test,Manufacture,Integration, and14 Launches for $6B for first landing
System Manufacture,Integration, and11 Launches for $4B every 2 years after
Image Credits: NASA, Mars One, SpaceX, SSTL, Lockheed Martin, nasaspaceflight.com, 21usdeal, spacefacts.de, the-blueprints.com, cubpack311
© 2015 Do and Owens
The Triple Constraint of Projects: The Iron Triangle
Project
A Feasible Project Plan: The defined Scope is attainable within the defined Schedule and Cost constraints
Sch
ed
ule
© 2015 Do and Owens
The Mars One ProjectFirst crew: $6B USD
Afterwards: $4B/2yrs
Permanent Settlement via One-Way Missions
4 crew every 2 years
First mission arrival: 2020First crew landing: 2027
KEY QUESTION:
Can Mars One execute the Mars One mission plan under the costand schedule constraints that they have specified?
Sch
ed
ule
Image Credit: Mars OneImage Credit: playbuzzImage Credit: Bryan Versteeg
© 2015 Do and Owens
Mars One Arguments for Feasibility
Schedule Feasibility - Comparison to Apollo:“Don’t forget that when Kennedy announced the Moon mission hehad less time”- Bas Lansdorp, 2/23/2015, The Guardian
Scope Feasibility – One-way allows for “existing technology”:“As soon as you accept that it’s going to be a mission of permanentsettlement, that actually the technology is existing – the rockets weneed to send our equipment to Mars is existing technology, thelanding systems, because when you don’t have the return mission,the payloads that you have to send to Mars are so much smallerthan for return missions, that’s very comparable to the NASACuriosity mission, the life support systems are very similar to thoseused on the International Space Station”- Bas Lansdorp, 4/3/2014, Bloomberg TV
© 2015 Do and Owens
“Don’t forget that when Kennedyannounced the Moon mission he hadless time”- Bas Lansdorp, 2/23/2015, The Guardian
Schedule Feasibility © 2015 Do and Owens
Hardware Required for First Landing
Launch Vehicle
Apollo CSM
Apollo LM
$102 billion
“Intelligent” Rover& Trailer
Demo Lander
Comm Satellites
Launch Vehicle
Transit Propulsion
Transit Habitat
Lander & Surface Habitat
1961-1969(8 years)
Claim: $6 billion
2011-2027(16 years)
Image Credits: NASA, Mars One, SpaceX, SSTL, Lockheed Martin, nasaspaceflight.com, 21usdeal, spacefacts.de, the-blueprints.com, cubpack311
REF: Mars One 2015, Lafleur 2015 (cost estimate calculated from Lafleur and adjusted to $FY2015)
© 2015 Do and Owens
Comparison with a Private Endeavor
Scope: Provide regular suborbital (~100km altitude) spaceflights to tourists
As of Nov 2014 (after 10 years): $600 million invested,
still in development
2004-Present(11 years)
12 years remaininguntil first crew landing
2011-2027(16 years)
• Based on “Existing, Validated, and Available” technology
Scope:Develop a Permanent Settlement on Mars via One-Way Missions, sending 4 crew every 2 years • Based on Existing, Validated, and
Available technology
Image Credits: Mars One, Virgin Galactic, space.com, flickr, REF: Gordon 2014
© 2015 Do and Owens
“… technology is existing …”
- Bas Lansdorp, 4/3/2014, Bloomberg TV
Scope Feasibility © 2015 Do and Owens
• Based on existing design (Curiosity)
• Coring drill
• ISRU Demo (O2 from atmosphere)
• No heavy lifting
• Tele-operated
• CrewTransportation
• ModuleTransportation [>100km based on Mars One -specified 10km landing error]
• Soil Collection & Transportation
• Make Gas, Water, & Electrical Connections
• Deploy Inflatable Unit
• Deploy Solar Arrays
“Intelligent” RoverLaunch: 2022
NASA Mars 2020 RoverLaunch: 2020
Au
ton
om
ou
s O
pe
rati
on
s
Total Cost: $1.2 billion($130M science instruments)REF: NASA 2015, Mars One 2015 | Image Credits: NASA, Mars One, machineryzone.com, Forbes
© 2015 Do and Owens
“… landing systems … verycomparable to the NASA Curiositymission”- Bas Lansdorp, 4/3/2014, Bloomberg TV
Scope Feasibility © 2015 Do and Owens
4,200
2,500
7,434
899
410533360
600
Viking(1976)
Curiosity(2012)
Phoenix(2008)
Spirit/Opportunity(2004)
Pathfinder (1997)
Mars One Proposed
Lander(2025)
6,700
Mars One Life Support
Concept
Vehicle(Dragon
DryMass)
Payload
x2.8
x7.5
Mars One requires a significant leap in landing technology
Landed Mass [kg]
“…landing systems… very comparable to the NASACuriosity mission” - Bas Lansdorp, 4/3/2014, Bloomberg TV
Image Credit: NASA
NSSDC 2015JPL 1997
JPL 2015NASA 2008
NASA 2012Blau 2015
Juarez and Landau 2013Paragon SDC 2015
© 2015 Do and Owens
600
899
410
533
533
360
600
2,500
7,434
4,200
Mars One Proposed
Lander(2025)
Cumulative Mass Landed
on Mars
Mars One Life Support
Concept
6,700
3,935 Vehicle(Dragon
DryMass)
Payload
Mars One requires a significant leap in landing technology
The total mass landed on Mars to date is just over half of the mass of a single Mars One lander
Landed Mass [kg]
Viking 1
Viking 2
Pathfinder
Spirit
Opportunity
Phoenix
Curiosity
“…landing systems… very comparable to the NASACuriosity mission” - Bas Lansdorp, 4/3/2014, Bloomberg TV
Image Credit: NASA
NSSDC 2015JPL 1997
JPL 2015NASA 2008
NASA 2012Blau 2015
Juarez and Landau 2013Paragon SDC 2015
© 2015 Do and Owens
“the life support systems are verysimilar to those used on theInternational Space Station”- Bas Lansdorp, 4/3/2014, Bloomberg TV
Scope Feasibility © 2015 Do and Owens
Our Long Duration Spaceflight Experience
Troubleshooting of CDRA during Exp. 26
R&R of UPA DA during Exp. 21
Troubleshooting of WPA during Exp. 23
Spaceflight hardware requires frequent servicing and repair
26
3ISS
Mars One
x8.7
Life Support Requirement(Months Without Resupply)
Image Credits: NASA
Bagdigian et al. 2015
© 2015 Do and Owens
Ma
ss o
f S
pa
res
[kg
]
Probability of Sufficient Spares
Demand for Spare Parts is a Significant Logistics Driver
x1
x2
x3
x4Baseline
(ISS demonstrated reliability)
Mars One allocation for supplies
Reliability DoubledCost increases exponentially with reliability
“…life support systems are verysimilar to those used on theInternational Space Station”- Bas Lansdorp, 4/3/2014
Bloomberg TV
REF: Mettas 2000
Mass of Spares Required for Life Support and ISRU
© 2015 Do and Owens
Ma
ss o
f S
pa
res
[kg
]
Probability of Sufficient Spares
Demand for Spare Parts is a Significant Logistics Driver
x1
x2
x3
x4Baseline
(ISS demonstrated reliability)
Mars One allocation for supplies
Reliability DoubledCost increases exponentially with reliability
“…life support systems are verysimilar to those used on theInternational Space Station”- Bas Lansdorp, 4/3/2014
Bloomberg TV
REF: Mettas 2000
Mass of Spares Required for Life Support and ISRU
© 2015 Do and Owens
Ma
ss o
f S
pa
res
[kg
]The Mars One strategy of one-way missions is inherently unsustainable without a Mars-based manufacturing capability
Life Support and ISRU Spares Demand
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
2
6
12
14
16
18
4
0
8
10
81 102 4 65 7 93
Mars One Crew
Nu
mb
er o
f La
nd
ers fo
r Sp
are
s
Do et al. 2015
© 2015 Do and Owens
7,145
3,118
498
1,341
2,189
6,318
2,200
208
1,540
2,370
TOTALWater ISRUWet Waste
Atmosphere
MIT
Paragon
OverlappingSubsystem Mass Comparison [kg]
Comparison of MIT and Paragon Studies
The Paragon Conceptual Design Study does not examine the feasibility of the Mars One mission plan. It does not address cost, development schedule, and is limited in scope.
Do et al. 2014Paragon SDC 2015
MIT Paragon
PlantGrowth
LifecycleAnalysis
ThermalControl
Fire Detection& Recovery
Air & WaterQualityMonitor
Pressure Ctrl.Air RevitalizationWater Processing
Regolith Water Extr.N2/Ar ExtractionWaste Processing
MIT: Urine Processor AssemblyParagon: Membrane Drying
© 2015 Do and Owens
Paragon Mars One Habitat ECLSS Conceptual Design Assessment (p. 11)
Paragon SDC 2015
© 2015 Do and Owens
The Mars One ProjectFirst crew: $6B USD
Afterwards: $4B/2yrs
Permanent Settlement via One-Way Missions
4 crew every 2 years
First mission arrival: 2020First crew landing: 2027
KEY QUESTION:
Can Mars One execute the Mars One mission plan under the costand schedule constraints that they have specified?
Sch
ed
ule
Image Credit: Mars OneImage Credit: playbuzzImage Credit: Bryan Versteeg
© 2015 Do and Owens
The Mars One To-Do List
$6 billion in the next 12 years
Development Challenges
By 2020(5 years)
By 2022(7 years)
By 2024(9 years)
By 2026(11 years)
Development/Procurement Deadlines
• Develop 7 major systems
• “Intelligent” rover
• Improve landing capability by 7.5x
• Improve life support endurance by 8.7x
• Address increasing programmatic cost over time
• And more…
Image Credits: NASA, Mars One, SpaceX, SSTL, Lockheed Martin, nasaspaceflight.com, 21usdeal, spacefacts.de, the-blueprints.com, cubpack311
Eve
ry2
yrs
for
$4
B
© 2015 Do and Owens
Feasibility Analysis Findings and Recommendations
Finding Recommendation
Many technologies described in the mission plan are not “existing, validated, and available”
Allocate the resources required to develop ISRU and other technologies
The 50m2 of crop area allocated by Mars One is not sufficient to support a crew of four
Increase crop area to support the crew (200m2) or utilize stored food
If crop area is increased to the amount required to feed the crew, it causes an atmospheric imbalance
Separate crew and crop areas, with separate atmosphere control, or implement oxygen removal technology
The cost to resupply Mars One grows unsustainably over time as more systems are deployed on Mars
One-way trips to build up a colony are inherently unsustainable until an entire supply chain can be built on Mars
© 2015 Do and Owens
“The purpose of our study was
to identify areas that require
further analysis and
technologies that require further
development...
Our analysis did not end with these issues, but rather we explored possible solutions …
This is an ongoing research topic, and we are very interested in communicating our results in more detail to everyone and would welcome an open conversation. Our goal is to help further our collective knowledge and capabilities for Mars exploration.”- MIT Research Team
10/10/2014
© 2015 Do and Owens
References (1/2)• “Would You Buy a One-Way Ticket to Mars?” Bloomberg, 3 April 2015. URL:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/5fb2f1f3-b2be-41d8-a0d5-69a8473d7e0d
• Bagdigian, R., Dake, J., Gentry, G., and Gault, G., “International Space Station Environmental Control and Life Support System Mass and Crewtime Utilization in Comparison to a Long Duration Human Space Exploration Mission,” ICES-2015-094, 45th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Bellevue, WA, 2015.
• Blau, Patrick, “Dragon – Spacecraft Information,” Spaceflight 101, 2015. URL: http://www.spaceflight101.com/dragon-spacecraft-information.html
• Devlin, H., “Mars One plan to colonise red planet unrealistic, says leading supporter,” The Guardian, 23 Feb 2015. URL: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/23/mars-one-plan-colonise-red-planet-unrealistic-leading-supporter
• Do, S., Ho, K., Schreiner, S., and de Weck, O., “An Independent Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of the Mars One Mission Plan,” IAC-14.A5.2x24778, 65th International Astronautical Congress, Toronto, 2014. URL: http://bit.ly/mitM1
• Do, S., Owens, A., Ho, K., Schreiner, S., and de Weck, O., “An Independent Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of the Mars One Mission Plan – Updated Analysis,” Acta Astronautica, submitted for publication, 2015.
• Gordon, S., “Virgin group: Brand it like Branson,” The Financial Times Ltd., 5 Nov 2014. URL: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/4d4fb05e-64cd-11e4-bb43-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Pzxuyp2I
• Jet Propulsion Laboratory, “Mars Exploration Rovers.” URL: http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/spacecraft.html. Accessed 2015.
• Jet Propulsion Laboratory, “Mars Pathfinder Fact Sheet,” 1997. URL: https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/fact_sheet.html
• Juarez, J. and Landau, E., “More than 100,000 want to go to Mars and not return, project says,” CNN, 13 Aug 2013. URL: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/09/tech/innovation/mars-one-applications/
• Mars One, “Roadmap,” 2015. URL: http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap
• Lafleur, C., 2010, URL: http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/Programcosts.html
All references visited: August 12th 2015
© 2015 Do and Owens
References (2/2)• Mars One, “Technical feasibility,” Archived 6 Aug 2014, Internet Archive WayBackMachine, URL:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140806004257/http://www.mars-one.com/mission/technical-feasibility
• Mettas, A., “Reliability Allocation and Optimization for Complex Systems,” Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 2000.
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Mars Science Laboratory Landing,” Press Kit, July 2012. URL: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/MSLLanding.pdf
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Phoenix Landing: Mission to the Martian Polar North,” Press Kit, May 2008. URL: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/phoenix-landing.pdf
• National Space Science Data Center, “Viking 1 Lander,” 1975-075C, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2015. URL: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1975-075C
• Paragon Space Development Corporation, “Mars One Habitat ECLSS Conceptual Design Assessment,” 807300009 Rev. B, June 2015. URL: http://www.mars-one.com/images/uploads/Mars_One_Habitat_ECLSS_Conceptual_Design_Assessment.pdf
• Wall, M., “NASA’s Next Mars Rover to Collect Martian Samples, Carry Lasers,” Space.com, 31 July 2014. URL: http://www.space.com/26697-nasa-mars-rover-2020-science-instruments.html
All references visited: August 12th 2015
© 2015 Do and Owens
Recommended