1. Advanced technology. The latest technology is always appealing, especially in this situation. Advanced space drives and very advanced life support systems would let you ride to Mars quickly and comfortably. Furthermore, crew safety is increased, and the risk of an embarrassing failure is reduced. However, this choice has two major drawbacks. First, state-of-the-art, or undeveloped technology (much worse because you also have to pay for the development program) is always very expensive. Second, the lure of high tech becomes an unreachable carrot hanging in front of our noses. If we just wait a few more years, new technology will make a Mars mission much easier and faster, etc. To quote James French of the World Space Foundation, ‘It's as if Columbus had languished on the beach in Portugal, waiting for the QE2 to be built, so he could explore the New World in comfort and style. But of course, given such a situation, the QE2 never would have been built, because the need never would have developed.' 2. Existing technology. The technology required to send people to Mars has existed for 20 years. It's cheap and off the shelf, and very well tested for the most part. Risks. Willingness to accept risks has a drastic effect on the cost and difficulty of a manned Mars mission. Demanding a 99.9% chance of success has a lot to do with the high cost of NASA missions (whether or not 99.9% reliability is actually achieved). Choices here also involve willingness to risk new and untried techniques. In spite of their affinity for state-of-the-art technology, NASA mission planners are still using the same propulsive methods they have been using for a quarter of a century. Trying to squeeze the last few percentage points of performance out of an old technique or technology, rather than trying something new will always be expensive. Our Ground Rules We will analyse the following strategy: 1. The goal is a Martian colony. The crew will consist of colonists, who do not plan on coming back. This allows the ship to be designed for travel one-way, which drastically lightens the load, since the single most massive payload carried on any manned mission is the return fuel. 2. Because we want the mission to be as inexpensive as possible, off the shelf technology will be employed wherever it can. Anti-matter propulsion would be nice, but it's not in the budget. 3. The crew will be taking several risks that a NASA mission planner would find unacceptable. For example, although we have, from the Soviets, a lot of data about long-term effects of exposure to microgravity, there are essentially no data about the effects of long-term exposure to low gravity (Mars) or very low gravity (Phobos/De- imos). The colonists will learn by trial and error. In many ways, these are fewer and less severe risks than the early settlers of North America took. (See, for example, any history of the pilgrims or Jamestown, not to mention the unsuccessful colonies like Roanoke). Economics Although, as will be shown below, Mars can be reached for approximately $1000000000, follow-on missions carrying more equipment, supplies, and more colonists, will be required. Thus, if there were any way for the colony to become self-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==