Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Brian Enke Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, CO ANOTHER ORDER OF MAGNITUDE CHEAPER? (AI, Simulations, Integration, Complexity)

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Brian Enke Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, CO ANOTHER ORDER OF MAGNITUDE CHEAPER? (AI, Simulations, Integration, Complexity)"— Presentation transcript:

1 Brian Enke Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, CO ANOTHER ORDER OF MAGNITUDE CHEAPER? (AI, Simulations, Integration, Complexity)

2 THREE GENERATIONS... SEI: $450 billion Mars Direct $40 billion ??? $4 billion or less ???

3 YES..... (but only if we want one...) (at least, in sci-fi...) (and is $1 billion feasible?) Is a $4 billion human mission to Mars possible?

4 Image Credit: NASA Pop Quiz!! How much does a Mars mission cost? A) $1 trillion B) $450 billion C) $40-$55 billion D) $4 billion

5 TRICK QUESTION! COST ALONE IS MEANINGLESS! Pop Quiz!! How much does a Mars mission cost? Credit: Warner Bros.

6 Mars Mission Cost Estimates are Meaningless Without... Investment Timeframe Development vs Ongoing Well-Defined Goals (Capabilities) Risk Tolerance Level COMPLEXITY !!

7 COMPLEXITY (Investment x Risk) Capabilities Technology Resources Innovation Bureaucracy Modifiers

8 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

9 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

10 Second Generation $$ Assumptions (from NASA/ESA study, Hunt & van Pelt, 2003)

11

12 Mars Direct Development Costs (Hunt and van Pelt, 2003) (billion-dollars) ESANASA Ares Heavy-Lift Vehicle Earth-Return Vehicle 47 Surface Elements 3 Agency Program Level TOTAL:18/2726/39

13 Mars Direct Ongoing Costs (Hunt and van Pelt, 2003) (billion-dollars) ESANASA Ares Heavy-Lift Vehicle 2 2 Earth-Return Vehicle.71 Surface Elements.7 Agency Program Level TOTAL: 3.6/ /7.0

14 "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 Assistant to the NASA Administrator, Return to the Moon Conference, 2005

15 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)

16 #1: Public/Private Private 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

17 #2: Longer Mission Double 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.

18 #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

19 #4: Engineering First mission: tech demonstrator Highly focused, less complex All crew members primarily engineers Send scientists later Tele-robotics Less mobility

20 #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 Bourke Image Credit: NASA

21 #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 integration Credit: Paul Bourke

22 #7: Tele-Robotics Several humanoid robots (Robonauts?) Limited autonomy Less spacesuit wear Less dust in habitat Immersive reality control devices Don't automate what isn't necessary

23 #8: No Nukes Nuclear propulsion is complex Use chemical rockets Equatorial landing sites Scaled solar power arrays Surface RTGs are OK Later missions: OK Credit: David Darling

24 #9: Artificial Gravity Reduced life- science complexity Chemical rockets Single gravity vector, magnitude Hab plumbing and layout less complex Need tethers and deployment system

25 #10: Surface Water Assume 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.

26 #11: Surface Rendezvous Simpler than orbital rendezvous More supplies available Gravity = familiarity Creative uses for inflatables Requires more fuel for ERV (energy) Credit: NASA

27 #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

28 #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

29 #14: Heavy Lift Develop hardware for a wide range of applications A Mars exploration mission should NOT absorb the whole investment!! Simplicity over capability ELVs over RLVs

30 #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.

31 Shadows of Medusa Next-generation mission Complexity reduction Do the mission now Signed in vendor area by author (Brian Enke) Retail $35, Members $20 m Share and enjoy!


Download ppt "Brian Enke Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, CO ANOTHER ORDER OF MAGNITUDE CHEAPER? (AI, Simulations, Integration, Complexity)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google