Brian Enke Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, CO

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

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

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

4. Image Credit: NASA Pop Quiz!! How much does a Mars mission cost? • $1 trillion • $450 billion • $40-$55 billion • $4 billion

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

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

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

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

12. Mars Direct Development Costs (Hunt and van Pelt, 2003) (billion-dollars) ESA NASA Ares Heavy-Lift Vehicle 11 13 Earth-Return Vehicle 4 7 Surface Elements 3 Agency Program Level 7 ------------------------- ----------------------- TOTAL: 18/27 26/39

13. Mars Direct Ongoing Costs (Hunt and van Pelt, 2003) (billion-dollars) ESA NASA Ares Heavy-Lift Vehicle 2 2 Earth-Return Vehicle .7 1 Surface Elements .7 Agency Program Level .9 ------------------------- ----------------------- TOTAL: 3.6/5.2 4.6/7.0

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

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 • www.ShadowsOfMedusa.com • Share and enjoy!