1

There is little hope that chemical propulsion will have alternative orbital launch in near future. Using the same (even optimized) engines and fuel for inter-orbital operations will increase start-to-payload mass ratio exponentially. Roughly, inter-orbital operations and propulsive landing will need the same delta-V as orbital launch one-way only. By hypothetical reduction of launching cost by two orders of magnitude(the maximum whoever could promise), the Mars delivery will cost nearly the same as ISS resupply.

Some projects for permanent human presence in Mars are based on large reusable rockets. May this type of logistic travel support Martian colony for less than $1M per person?

So, sorry, you're asking about, what have we done in respect to thinking about Mars, sort of, colonial systems? The question is, how did I come up with half a million dollar price tag to move to Mars. Well, umm, I sorta started back from the half a million dollar point.

Transcript - Elon Musk lecture at the Royal Aeronautical Society

Val
  • 1,148
  • 1
  • 6
  • 11
  • 1
    I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. What is your question? – Hobbes Jun 06 '15 at 07:38
  • @Brian Tompsett --Thanks for spelling. – Val Jun 06 '15 at 13:06
  • 'Reasonable cost' is a matter of opinion. At any rate, I don't think it is possible to calculate what the cost would be even to within an order of magnitude. As you say, SpaceX hopes for a 100x reduction in cost, but that is extremely hypothetical. And look at how much more the Space Shuttle cost than was expected. – kim holder Jun 06 '15 at 15:05
  • Related: What is the cost estimate for a manned Mars mission? and Is there an independent cost estimate of the Mars One proposal? – kim holder Jun 06 '15 at 16:40
  • @briligg thank you for your comment in fact it could be a perfect answer of my question.. I have tried to avoid direct reference but now you have it.. yes ‘reasonable cost’ is matter of opinion but not mine. – Val Jun 06 '15 at 16:41
  • Because of the opinion aspect of it, and because an explanation of why this can't really be answered has been given in another question, you question is likely to be closed. That's to keep the information here organized and accessible, and because the purpose of this site is education, not discussion. There are other forums that handle discussion. – kim holder Jun 06 '15 at 17:08
  • The motivation behind this question is to stimulate independent thinking and simple calculations.. a simple cost estimation based on delta-V, mass ratio etc. would be more educational [opinion] than most of scholars-tricky or studied question. What I really can’t understand why “Is there an independent cost estimate of the Mars One proposal?” is ok and “Is there an independent cost estimate of the Mars Colonization” is not. – Val Jun 06 '15 at 18:01
  • 2
    A lot of speculation here so answers are more opinion than factual answers. But my opinion: If earth and Mars are sole sources of propellent, spacecraft could only be partially re-usable. Much of the spacecraft would remain disposable and transportation costs would remain too high for sustainable development of Mars. – HopDavid Jun 06 '15 at 18:50
  • The Mars One question answers only had to state the existence of documents. The 2nd answer could actually be criticized as straying into the speculative. The cost estimate question is as close as it is possible to come to an answer on costs. The answers list a couple of estimates, but Mark Adler's answer that costing isn't possible is a key point. Your best next step is likely to look over the estimates mentioned there. – kim holder Jun 06 '15 at 22:58
  • Mars One is speculative project but Mars Colonial Transporter is a real project. There is a well-documented NASA concept based on Constellation hardware which is based on chemical propulsion. The only problem I see in my question that is it may be “too broad”. Sorry to say that but here is promoted a science-like culture based on references only. The answers as well as questions should be based on knowledge and supported by reference. The other problem of what I have seen here is negligence of physics in favor of references on somebody else opinion. And very few numbers. – Val Jun 07 '15 at 04:49

0 Answers0