Is Mars One Feasible?

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

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?


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


‘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


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


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


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


“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)


REF: Mars One 2015, Lafleur 2015 (cost estimate calculated from Lafleur and adjusted to $FY2015)


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


“… 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


“… landing systems … verycomparable to the NASA Curiositymission”- Bas Lansdorp, 4/3/2014, Bloomberg TV


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


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


“the life support systems are verysimilar to those used on theInternational Space Station”- Bas Lansdorp, 4/3/2014, Bloomberg TV


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


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


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


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


Paragon Mars One Habitat ECLSS Conceptual Design Assessment (p. 11)

Paragon SDC 2015


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


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…


Eve

ry2

yrs

for

$4

B


Thank You


Backup Slides


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


“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


References


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


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/5fb2f1f3-b2be-41d8-a0d5-69a8473d7e0d

http://www.spaceflight101.com/dragon-spacecraft-information.html

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/23/mars-one-plan-colonise-red-planet-unrealistic-leading-supporter

http://bit.ly/mitM1

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/4d4fb05e-64cd-11e4-bb43-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Pzxuyp2I

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/spacecraft.html

https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/fact_sheet.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/09/tech/innovation/mars-one-applications/

http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap

http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/Programcosts.html

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


http://web.archive.org/web/20140806004257/http:/www.mars-one.com/mission/technical-feasibility

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/MSLLanding.pdf

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/phoenix-landing.pdf

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1975-075C

http://www.mars-one.com/images/uploads/Mars_One_Habitat_ECLSS_Conceptual_Design_Assessment.pdf

http://www.space.com/26697-nasa-mars-rover-2020-science-instruments.html

Is Mars One Feasible?

Documents

Transcript of Is Mars One Feasible?