4 ms·
Wouldn't it be more viable to build a Mars Space Station on Earth's orbit?
Wouldn't it be more viable to build a Mars Space Station—ark—on Earth's orbit and send it to Mars orbit at the next launch window?
This would save a lot of money and years of time as it won't require building many dedicated BFRs for every payload and pack of passengers allowing to use existing SpaceX Falcon rockets to bring all required payload to the orbit continuously. It would also allow starting habitat construction near Earth that could save time between the launch windows. Later the whole thing with payload and people could be sent to Mars orbit where it would unload half-baked constructions on Mars and serve as a post between Earth and Mars.
While on Earth's orbit this could attract a lot of attention, money serving for sponsors' PR, and as a tourist attraction for riches.
Do you think financially and from time frame consideration building the MSS could be more viable than building many BFRs to launch everything during the launch window and only then start construction on Mars?
- IntronExon 9y agoThe major cost is lifting mass out of Earth’s gravity well, so if you really want to cut costs we require sources of materials which don’t come from Earth. Once you have this, and build your station, why send it to Mars? Keep it here, or send it to a planet with resources we can use (a moon of Jupiter might work). You’d need a compelling reason to do this, since the cost from R&D to launches would be in the trillions and take decades.
- Mikho 9y agoIIS has not so many years left to live, BTW. Space Stations as posts on orbits are good for many practical and scientific reason.
- IntronExon 9y agoAbsolutely, but to me that’s an argument for space stations in orbit around Earth, not Mars.
- Mikho 9y agoAgree. Though one does not exclude another. Starting with a new ISS to test ideas and tech and extending it later to SS for Mars would be logical.
- api 9y agoThe problem with this is the delta-V requirement to actually send it to Mars. Even with in-orbit refueling as proposed by SpaceX you'd probably require a big rocket and/or a lot of fuel to send something really massive. Ion rockets might be used but that would make the trip take forever and would be very costly. There do exist very slow low-energy transfer orbit trajectories, but AFIAK those require you to start at various Lagrange points. So maybe it could be done but you'd have to build it at a Lagrange point, destroying the cost savings, and it would take forever to deliver to Mars.
- Mikho 9y agoSending simultaneously many BFRs basically with the same payload right from Earth I'd say would require even more fuel, lot's of investments to build that many BFRs and then construction need to be started from scratch after the launch on Earth and on Mars after unloading. So all the time and money will be spent to build a huge amount of rockets.
- rbanffy 9y agoThere are a couple downsides to send a single thing. The final propulsion needs is mostly the same, so you won't pay more to push stuff to Mars than you would to boost that stuff from LEO to a Mars transfer trajectory. The mass and delta-v being the same, the propulsion budget is the same. Say, if you assemble it and then something happens and you can't slow down and enter Mars orbit, you lost the whole thing. If the station is assembled, it's shape won't probably work well for atmospheric braking and would require a bit more fuel to slow down. A single module could, conceivably, dive deeper into the atmosphere and shed more speed with that. Acceleration loads on the assembled thing are also to be considered. If we decide against chemical rockets, the question is mostly moot - acceleration will be low, but constant. If we send multiple modules separately, we end up with a lot of propulsion capacity that, with some clever design, can be reused for landings and orbital ascents. You can never have too many of a single thing when you are that far from Earth. The upside is that it's easier to assemble everything in Earth orbit and it'd be easy to teleoperate robots. Having said that, I suppose an extra week living in the Earth-Mars transit vehicle while the arriving crew assembles their home is not a big deal for someone who already spent 3 months in transit. edit: if we are to do that, putting a station in a cycler orbit would probably be more interesting. That way you depart Earth with supplies and rendezvous with your living quarters for the trip. The cycler can have the shielding to protect astronauts on their way.
- Mikho 9y agoThere is no reason for the whole station to land on Mars. Approaching Mars the whole thing would split to start breaking. Big parts of it (bigger than a BFR) with payloads--half-baked assembled constructions--would separate and enter Mars atmosphere for landing. Then the station itself will be less heavy for breaking using the gravity of Mars and its orbit for that.
- rbanffy 9y agoI think we were talking about a space station. If it ever lands, I assume it'd be unintentional.
- 9y ago
- aurizon 9y agoWe do build them all on earth, orbit them and send them to the Moon or Mars etc and land/orbit them for their tasks. A large structure - too large to launch as a complete station should be orbited here as many separate loads and then assembled to form the station, and then sent to Mars - as you suggest. It is not practical to send the loads to Mars and assemble there. Every item from earth has a huge cost. Items made from loose asteroids, the Moon, Mars etc may well be a lot cheaper. You must bear in mind that elements(metals, Oxygen etc) would need to be extracted and made into raw materials suitable for whatever you want to make. That means each one would need to be screened about the relative energy economics. Few items from asteroids could be used as they are found.