MEDUSA MOTIVATOR LIST
"Well, there is one little thing I've overheard," said David, after a moment
of thought. "You have to promise not to spread it around, though."
"Of course," said Ben, eagerly.
"Most funding secrets are closely guarded, but on two separate occasions,
I've overheard some SEA steering committee members talking about the cost
of the mission. Both times, they referred to a billion dollar budget."
"That's all? No way!" Ben glanced around. Lowering his voice, he added,
"Just building the rocket would cost more than that. Are you sure they
weren't off by a digit or three?"
"You mean, a trillion dollars? Get real."
Ben lifted his eyes upward, toward the dreary sky, and smiled. "Yeah,
only lazy AP reporters would be stupid enough to believe a number like that."
He was obviously referring to a scandal years ago when an Associated
Press reporter invented a fictitious trillion dollar cost estimate for a soon-to-
be-proposed NASA plan to explore the Moon and Mars. The ridiculous
figure acquired a life of its own, as it circulated widely throughout the media.
Even to this day, media mega-networks like USNN still quoted the figure
often.
"They said a billion. Again, I heard the same figure twice, from different
people."
A strange look crossed Ben's face. It was quickly replaced by a soft laugh.
"Look, trust me on this. Whoever's spreading that figure is as crazy as the AP
reporter. Don't listen to them."
--- Shadows of Medusa, Chapter 2
On a mission to Mars (or any other large technology project), investment level and risk are almost always direct consequences of project complexity. If a project is complex, it will often be expensive and/or risky. Complexity equations work at any level of a project hierarchy, from the overall plan through the design, construction, and integration of each individual component. The Complexity Disease is outlined in an excellent article by Thomas Frye at the reknowned Impact Lab think-tank. A detailed discussion can be found at Ontonix, a leading complexity-management company.
Quite often, risk is reduced by greater testing, adding redundancy in critical components, or increasing the quality/reliability of the components. When this approach is taken, the level of investment tends to increase - greatly. Assuming the overall complexity of the system remains about the same implies the relationship between risk and investment is cumulative. The author believes it is actually multiplicative (complexity is proportional to investment times risk), but this can be argued and ultimately doesn't matter much. The important points: adding investment dollars tends to reduce risk, and cheaper missions tend to be riskier.
Another truism: capability is related to complexity. As the capabilities needed on a Mars mission increase, i.e. the mission objectives are expanded, the complexity of the mission necessarily increases as well. This relationship has four modifiers: technology advancements, the availability of new (in-situ) resources, the smarter use of either (innovation), and the stifling burden of bureaucracy.
In equation form: CAPABILITY <--T,R,I,B--> COMPLEXITY <--> (INVESTMENT * RISK)
First and Second Generation Mars Missions
Through 1990, the first generation of Mars missions consisted of modest capabilities (like 30-day surface stays), accomplished via an incredibly complex mission design. Nnoe of the modifiers were leveraged very well, but the early missions did establish a benchmark. Such missions would have been extremely risky and very expensive. Risk is often difficult to quantify, but the level of investment was estimated in great detail: $450 billion over 30 years, or $15 billion-per-year.
In the early 1990's, the Mars Direct plan revolutionized Mars mission designs. Mars Direct, a second generation mission plan, achieved an order-of-magnitude reduction in investment level ($50 billion over 10 years) and risk (probably) by vastly reducing the complexity the mission. The complexity reduction was achieved by a huge change in the modifiers: Resources and Innovation. In fact, the change in modifiers was so great that the overall capability of the mission increased as well... a rare example of an increase in capability closely coupled to a decrease in complexity.
Third Generation Mars Missions
Is another order-of-magnitude reduction in level of investment and/or risk possible? A third generation mission might be possible if the modifiers are adjusted again. However, another way to make the equations balance for a third-generation mission is to minimize the complexity by minimizing the mission capabilities.
The novel, Shadows of Medusa, presents a hypothetical, third-generation Mars mission. The mission plan is somewhat high-risk; however, steps (below) are taken to mitigate that risk by simplifying the mission where possible.
Medusa Motivators List
When writing the novel, I started out with a basic list of capability/complexity reducing strategies and formulated a plot around them. NOTE: SOME OF THE LIST ITEMS ARE NOT IN THE NOVEL, AND SOME OF THE NOVEL PREMISES ARE NOT IN THE LIST!! In other words, the list was a starting point, but the novel diverged due to the author's desire to maximize the reader's fun factor.
ALSO NOTE: BEWARE - THERE ARE MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW! Do not read this list if you haven't read the novel and you want to preserve the mystery to its fullest, juciest extent.
Public/Private: Run the mission privately. NASA should be a research partner - an enabler and passenger, not a driver. However, NASA should also pursue their own Moon/Mars programs in parallel, to keep them focused and making efficient progress, and also as an insurance policy in case private industry stumbles. This approach opens up many new, exciting options with regards to risk-taking and minimizing bureaucracy.
Surface-Stay: Double each crew rotation to four years, or more. Flight
hardware rates to Mars, i.e. capability and complexity (C&C), are at least halved, made possible by a very minor increase in habitat C&C.
Earth-Return: Solve those issues later. Divorce the issues related to reaching/living on Mars from the tougher, costlier, riskier issues of returning to Earth. C&C of the mission is at least halved again. Habitat C&C increases, as does the scope of surface operations, so this is obviously not a free lunch. However, C&C for In-Situ Resource Production, nuclear power generation, and orbital rendezvous are all greatly reduced or eliminated. Also, the societal benefits and consequences are huge intangibles that must be considered. Note: just to be completely clear, we're talking settlement first. On Mars, settlement-first enables cheaper exploration and science!
Crew Objectives: The first crews should be composed of engineer/pilots or engineer/doctors. The goal of a first-mission should be to reach Mars safely and set up a modest base. Establish a beachhead, and that's all. Leave the scientists behind until later missions. Use cheap, tele-operated rovers and flexible Robonauts whenever practical. Pressurized, long-range rovers are not required until later missions. In general, the C&C of manned surface operations on Mars are greatly reduced. This motivator dovetails nicely with the longer-stay motivators above while avoiding the risk of flag-and-footprint missions.
Down-Size: Send each crew of six to Mars in two groups of three. The habitat C&C is reduced. A simpler habitat that keeps three people alive could also be built in greater numbers, leveraging superior economies of scale - a side benefit of the C&C equations that hasn't been mentioned yet. Most important, habitat redundancy halves the risk of total
mission failure due to any single, stupid habitat glitch... and the crew is the most important mission asset!
Precursor Missions: Once a good landing site is characterized, send many small, cheap cargo missions to stockpile food and equipment (especially solar panels). This technique minimizes the C&C of the main mission by "spreading it out." Probably (hopefully), the overall C&C comes out about even, though this can be debated either way. Note: simpler base-integration can be accomplished by human crews on the surface, so the complexity of the precursor missions should be reduced by leaving out any base-building aspects. Make those missions dumb and cheap.
Tele-Robotics: The more, the better! This is a bottom-up motivator - it greatly lessens the risk to the crew. The huge need to reduce spacesuit C&C drives it, since our current spacesuit technology is primitive and complex. Each crew of three could use at least three Robonaut-like assistants. Simpler spacesuits will last longer, and less dust infiltration means habitat equipment will last longer. Don't fall into the complexity trap of automating what doesn't have to be automated, however. The benefits of this motivator are debatable if the complexity of the tele-robotics equipment offsets the decrease in spacesuit C&C, but this is not likely to be the case, anytime soon.
Nuclear Propulsion: NO. Until we sci-fi dreamers can devise an integrated exploration strategy where the overall mission complexity can be reduced (perhaps via technology improvements or better resource availability), a chemical-rocket mission is far simpler. The same is true for nuclear power generation on the surface. Keep it simple, and stick to equatorial landing sites where solar power works well. Later missions can include surface reactors as the settlers begin to manufacture building materials for a permanent base.
Artificial Gravity: YES. This innovation greatly reduces life-science complexities, as is commonly known. However, the real benefit is with habitat simplicity. The crew habitat no longer needs to be designed to operate both in zero-G and Mars-G. This implies a "direct-entry" EDL strategy, which has been used often for robotic probes but is riskier than aerocapture into orbit.
Surface Water: Assume you can reach it... dangerous, but a huge mission simplifier. Note that for free-return trajectories to work, each Mars crew must bring a two-year supply of water with them anyway. To minimize human-mission complexity, the top goal of most future robotic Mars missions should be to classify potential human-landing sites. Wind and radiation measurements are very critical, but most important of all is determining the availability of equatorial water.
Surface Rendezvous: This is far simpler than orbital rendezvous (Earth or Mars), due to the availability of local resources (including gravity). Some of the implications, like creative uses for inflatable components, can be fun to contemplate.
Sample Return (MSR): Leave this until later, and then only do it if absolutely necessary. So far, the MSR mission proposals have all been way too complex, and the benefits (potential decreases in mission complexity/risk/investment) are too speculative. Set up a base first, and initially feed the crew military-style, with field rations and local water. Crop growth experiments can be done in-situ. If sample-return is needed later, a rover won't be required... the people on the ground can select and pack the best samples far better than anyone can do it remotely from Earth.
Analogue Testing: Minimize testing on the Moon to only what's politically/economically feasible. Most Mars prep work can be done via simpler/cheaper simulations and field testing on the Earth. Utilize public-outreach groups for some of the field work, killing two birds with one stone (public awareness/involvement and cheap testing). The greatest need is for extensive testing of surface operations and EDL.
Heavy Lift Vehicles: Use off-the-shelf hardware, compatible with other applications. Mars exploration should not be a driver (i.e. cost-absorber) for general technologies that have other, industry-lucrative uses. While maintaining capability, this approach reduces mission complexity/investment/risk by leveraging all three multipliers (tech, resources, and innovation).
Risk vs Wait: "Wait" is a worse 4-letter-word than "Risk". The law of inertia states that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, while a body at rest tends to stay at rest. The same is true for most technology projects. Waiting accomplishes nothing, and in fact, often leads to negative progress. The "Red Queen" theory suggests that sometimes, you must run as fast as you can just to stay in one place. Given the current state of the Earth, the Red Queen is alive and well on Mars.
For additional information about various human space exploration topics,
try these links:
Back to INDEX OF SCIENCE TOPICS
Last updated: July 19, 2007.
E-mail the author: Brian -dot- Enke -at- gmail -dot- com
Note: all feedback is welcome, especially offers to improve the content of the site or fix errors...
