Jobs for the 21st Century
US Patent #5,305,974
A Mars Shuttle for $10 Billion
Fast Manned Expeditions to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,...
Product catalog
Links to other Sites
Tickets to Mars

11.0 Mars, the red planet

       Mars is the fabled planet of science fiction and the movies.
   Many many books have been written about Mars and its inhabitants
   notwithstanding the fact that there aren't any.  Mars is the fourth
   planet from the sun and the next one out from Earth.  Thanks primarily
   to Mariner 9 and the two Viking missions, we have significant
   knowledge of Mars.  For example, the orange to red color is due to
   hydrated iron oxide in the soil.  The following data were extracted
   from various sources.
*  Mars - the red planet
   Datum                         Value      units       Source
   Mass                          6.421e+23  kg          [3, p.289]
   Equatorial radius             3.393e+3   km           "
   Equatorial inclination        25.19      deg          "
   Equ. surface gravity (0.38g)  3.72       m/sec/sec    "
   Equ. escape velocity          5.0        km/sec       "
   Mean density                  3.95       g/     "
   Sidereal rotation period      24.6229    hours        "
   Mean distance from Sun        2.2794e+8  km           "
   Mean orbital velocity         24.13      km/sec       "
   Sidereal period               668.98     Earth days   "
   Inclination to ecliptic       1.850      degrees      "
   Orbital eccentricity          0.0934                  "
   Martian atmosphere
   Sky is pink during the day                           [31, p.160]
   Sky is white at sunrise and sunset                   [31, p.161]
   Sky has a red afterglow after sunset                  "
   Mean wind speed (Viking 1)    29         km/hour     [21, p.91]
   Atmospheric pressure          5-10       millibars   [23, p.91-3]
   Maximum temperature           +17        deg. C      [61, p.A-16]
   Constituents of the Martian atmosphere
   Carbon dioxide                95.32      %           [3, p.93]
   Nitrogen                      2.7        %            "
   Argon                         1.6        %            "
   Oxygen                        1300       ppm          "
   Carbon monoxide               700        ppm          "
   Water vapor                   300        ppm          "
   Neon                          2.5        ppm          "
   Krypton                       0.3        ppm          "
   Ozone                         0.1        ppm          "
   Xenon                         0.08       ppm          "
   Duration of the Martian seasons                      Source
   Northern    Southern         Martian    Earth
   Hemisphere  Hemisphere        days       days
   Spring      Fall              194        199         [23, p.128]
   Summer      Winter            178        183          "
   Fall        Spring            143        147          "
   Winter      Summer            154        158          "
   North pole:
   Water ice cap about 1000 km (diameter) in summer     [15, p.172]
   Water ice is 4 to 6 km thick (covered by)            [23, p.138]
   Frozen carbon dioxide in winter                      [23, p.136]
   Frozen carbon dioxide 300-1000 m thick under ice     [15, p.180]
   Summer temperature is about -70 deg. C               [23, p.136]
   Winter temperature is about -130 deg. C              [23, p.100]
   South pole:
   Water ice cap about  350 km (diameter) in summer     [15, p.172]
   Water ice is 1 to 2 km thick (covered by)            [23, p.138]
   Frozen carbon dioxide 25-50 cm thick in winter       [23, p.136]
   Summer temperature is about -110 deg. C               "
   Winter temperature is about -143 deg. C              [61, p.A-16]
   Martian soils
   Soil is an iron-rich clay-like material              [17, p.502]
   Orange to red color is hydrated iron oxide           [21, p.91]
   Viking 1 site was Chryse Planitia (22.5N,47.5W)       "
   Viking 2 site was Utopia Planitia (47.89N,225.86W)   [21, p.92]
   Soil oxides (weight %)    Viking 1   Viking 2
   Silicon                    43         43             [4, p.336]
   Titanium                   0.63       0.54            "
   Aluminum                   7.2        -               "
   Iron                       18.0       17.5            "
   Magnesium                  6          -               "
   Calcium                    5.7        5.6             "
   Sulfur                     7.6        8.0             "
   Elemental composition (approx)       Percent
   Oxygen          O                     42             [15, p.180]
   Silicon         Si                    21              "
   Iron            Fe                    13              "
   Sodium          Na                     8              "
   Magnesium       Mg                     5              "
   Calcium         Ca                     4              "
   Aluminum        Al                     3              "
   Sulfur          S                      3              "
   Chlorine        Cl                     0.7            "
   Titanium        Ti                     0.5            "
   Potassium       K                     <0.25           "
.  Mars has two satellites, Phobos and Deimos, (see chapter 10 for
   data on them).
   11.1  The cost of Mars missions
       The excessive cost of some of the proposed missions to Mars
   is the primary reason for their lack of progress.  Our proposed
   Mars mission will not be paid for by taxpayer dollars, but it will
   still cost a great deal.  It is instructive to examine the costs of
   some of the various Mars missions both past and future.
   11.1.1 Past Mars projects
       Miles and Booth give a list of eight US missions to Mars up
   to and including Vikings 1 & 2 [23, p.14].  These include two
   failures and three flybys.  There were two orbiters (one failed)
   and two landers.  The Soviets conducted 16 Mars missions through
   the end of 1973 and two more in the late 1980s [23, p.10].  Of these
   there were three successful orbiters, two in 1971 and one in 1973,
   and three landers, only one of which reached the surface successfully.
   Sadly, it stopped transmitting shortly after landing.   Both of the
   recent missions also failed, but Phobos 2 did get some pictures of
   Phobos and took some measurements before its transmitter failed.  Mariner 6 & 7
       [21, p.56-8]  Mariner 6 and 7 were sent to Mars in 1969.
   These two missions were flybys not orbiters.  They returned a small
   number of pictures which showed that Mars looked quite similar
   to the moon.  There were no canals, no cities, and no evidence of any
   form of life.  There were however, plenty of craters.  The cost of
   the two missions was about $292 million in 1965 dollars which would
   scale up to $1.208 billion in 1990 dollars.  Mariner 8 & 9
       [21, p.67]  Mariner 8 was lost but Mariner 9 successfully
   orbited Mars.  The entire surface was photographed at a resolution
   of 1 kilometer, 80% at a resolution of 200 meters, and 20% at a
   resolution of 50 meters [4, p.50].  The cost of $120 million in
   1969 dollars would scale up to $427 million in 1990 dollars.  Viking 1 & 2
       [21, p.88-94]  The two Viking landers were built by Martin
   Marietta under contract for $280 million (5/29/1969).  The parent
   craft were built by JPL and the project was directed by NASA's
   Langley Research Center.  Both landers were exceptionally successful
   and have provided us with most of the data we know about the
   atmosphere and soils of Mars.  Including all the support costs
   during and after the landings, the total run-out cost was about
   $2.5 billion in 1984 dollars [21, p.88].  The cost of the program
   scales up to $3.143 billion in 1990 dollars.  Summary of past Mars projects
   Spacecraft       Cost (yr)         Cost (1990$)
   Mariner 6,7      $292 M (1965)     $ 1.208 B
   Mariner 8,9      $120 M (1969)     $ 0.427 B
   Viking 1,2       $2.5 B (1984)     $ 3.143 B
   11.1.2  Current Mars projects
       The following three projects have been included in "current"
   projects because they are actually under development.  The other
   Mars projects are still somebody's pipe dream and have been
   included in "future" projects.  Japanese Mars orbiter
       The Japanese are developing a two metric ton orbiter to be
   launched in 1999 on the new H2 booster [AW 25, p.39].  The orbiter
   will survey Mars from a 375 km orbit.  The budget is $400 million.  US Mars Observer
       NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) is building the Mars
   Observer on a budget of $470 million [AW 43, p.60].  The Mars
   Observer will weigh 127 kg and will have a power supply of
   148.5 watts [23, p.36].  It is scheduled to be launched on
   September 14,1992 and to arrive on September 2,1993 after a
   flight of 353 days [23, p.34].  It will maneuver into a polar
   orbit so as to be able to survey the entire surface.  The Mars
   observer will be able to take pictures with a resolution of 2
   meters [63, p.69].  CIS
       It has been reported [23, p.28] that the Soviets are planning
   Mars landers for 1992 and 1994 and a Mars sample return mission for
   1996.  With all the turmoil in the former Soviet Union it is not
   clear which if any of these missions will actually be accomplished.
       No cost data are available.  Summary of current Mars projects
   Project                    Cost
   Japanese Mars orbiter      $400 M
   US Mars Observer           $470 M
   Soviet Mars Landers          ?
   Soviet sample-return         ?
   11.1.3 Future projects Unmanned Mars missions  NASA Ames mini-landers
       [29, p.92,94]  NASA's Ames Research Center has proposed
   deploying a group of 16 small landers at various sites all
   over Mars to do a detailed survey.  They would be launched four
   at a time by Delta rockets and would take 11 months to reach
   Mars.  This project is called the Mars Environmental Survey
   or MESUR.  The cost was estimated to be about $800 million.  NASA JPL micro-rovers
       [29, p.92,94]  NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) would like
   to send 24 micro-rovers to Mars to study the planet in detail.
   This plan would send the rovers to Mars in egg-shaped containers
   four at a time so that small inexpensive rockets could be used.
   The project would cost about $1 billion [29, p.92].  Science Applications' Mars sample-return
       [15, p.196-8] Science Applications International Corporation
   presented a paper at the AAS/AIAA conference in Montana in August
   of 1987 which detailed a Mars sample-return mission.  The mission
   would consist of a rover and a sample-return system which would
   be launched to Mars separately.  They would use conventional
   chemical propulsion and would take 289 days to reach Mars.  After
   a stay of 489 days the sample-return portion would begin a 220
   day return flight.  The project would not require development
   of new launchers.  It would return a 41 pound canister containing
   11 pounds of rocks and soil.  The project would cost $3.5 billion
   to $7 billion.  NASA JPL Mars sample-return
       In 1988 NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) estimated that a
   Mars sample-return mission would cost $10 - $15 billion [63, p.94].  Summary of unmanned Mars proposals
   Project              Organization             Cost ($ B)
   Mini-landers         NASA Ames                0.8
   Micro-rovers         NASA JPL                 1.0
   Rover/Sample-return  Science Applications     3.5 - 7.0
   Sample-return        NASA JPL                 10  - 15 Manned Mars missions  Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory plan
       [AW 53, p.84-5]  Lowell Wood leads a group at Lawrence
   Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) who are developing a plan
   which would produce permanent manned bases both on the moon and
   Mars before the turn of the century and for a mere $10 - $12
   billion.  Highlights of this proposal are as follows.  It
   requires no HLV.  Components would be combined into 50 - 70
   ton packages which could be lifted by Delta or Titan 4 rockets.
   A total of 24 launches would be required.  The first is estimated
   to cost $500 million, the second $250 million, and the rest would
   cost $150 million each.  It would use inflatable modules 15 meters
   long and 15 meters in diameter.  Interior components would be
   prefabricated.  A 53.3 ton LEO "gas" station would electrolyze
   water into its components which would be liquified to yield
   liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.  In 1994 70 tons of payload
   would be lifted to the moon with 215 tons of fuel from the LEO
   gas station. This 70 ton package would include a lunar hopper,
   2 tractors, a return module with 10 tons of fuel, a "snowblower"
   to cover inflated modules, and a greenhouse module with food,
   water, and air for 4 people for 10 years.  This facility would
   produce oxygen from Lunar soil.  In 1996 a 70 ton Mars mission
   would leave LEO using 265 tons of fuel from the LEO gas station.
   It would reach Mars in 1997 after a 305 day trip.  The package
   sent to Mars would include a return module which would be left in
   orbit and 4 Mars base modules including a rover, a Mars hopper,
   an instrument package, an oxygen from carbon dioxide machine,
   and a life support system for 399 days.  Some of the crew would
   return in 1999 with Martian samples leaving the remainder of the
   crew.  Subsequent missions would expand the facility.  This
   proposal was not popular at NASA headquarters [AW 56, p.59] -
   perhaps it was too cheap.  Lunar base study group
       [15, p.201]  A group of scientists and engineers who
   participated in the 1984 conference on Lunar Bases and Space
   Activities of the 21st Century studied the prospects for
   manned Mars missions and concluded that we already have all
   the capabilities necessary for the mission.  They estimated
   that the mission could be accomplished for $30 - $40 billion
   (1986 summary report).  Stanford/Soviet study
       [AW 40, p.20]  Stanford University and Soviet scientists
   have recommended using the Soviet Energia heavy-lift vehicle
   for an international Mars mission.  The Energia could launch
   the initial Mars base for $60 billion over 20 years.  The Mars
   vehicle would be assembled in orbit. It would use chemical
   propulsion taking 9 months to travel each way.  It would provide
   artificial gravity for the 3 men and 3 women on board by
   rotating the spacecraft.  The crew would spend one year on Mars
   before returning.  Synthesis Group plan
       The Synthesis Group report [Ref 61] (also known as the Stafford
   Report) was presented to Vice President Quayle in early May of 1991.
   The report described four so called "Architectures" or outlines
   for the exploration and establishment of bases on the moon and
   Mars.  They are: (1) mars exploration, (2) science emphasis for
   the moon and Mars, (3) the moon to stay and Mars exploration,
   and (4) space resource utilization [61, p.5].  All four call for
   manned missions to both the moon and Mars and are described in
   significant detail [61, p.34-57].  All four architectures span
   a period of nearly thirty years, from the present to 2020.
       The baseline plans suggest manned crews of six people for
   both lunar and Mars missions [61, p.36-9].  The Mars missions
   would be launched by Saturn derived heavy-lift launch vehicles.
   The HLVs would use the F-1 engine of the Saturn 5 which burned
   kerosene instead of hydrogen.  The missions would use nuclear
   thermal rockets to go to Mars and conventional rockets for the
   Mars landings rather than areobraking because of the anticipated
   13 km/sec entry velocity at Mars.  No cost figures were given.
       According to an article by J.R. Asker in Aviation Week
   [AW 39, p.55-6] in the 6/24/91 issue, "they found no 'magic bullets'
   and no inexpensive shortcuts."  Evidently they didn't speak to the
   right people or they threw out all the inexpensive suggestions.
   In passing it was mentioned that the cost had been estimated in
   excess of $400 billion [AW 39, p.56].  Baker/Zubrin Mars mission
       David Baker and Robert Zubrin of Martin Marietta Astronautics
   Group in Denver presented a proposal at the "Case for Mars IV"
   [AA 6, p.51].  Their proposal calls for a Shuttle-derived
   heavy-lift launch vehicle (SDHLLV) - called Ares.  This
   booster would be a modified space shuttle external tank with four
   space shuttle main engines and two stap-on advanced solid rocket
   boosters. It would be an all chemical rocket with a cryogenic upper
   stage.  It could put 121 MT in LEO, send 59 MT to the moon, or send
   47 MT to Mars [AA 7, p.33].
       Their scenario calls for launching an unmanned Ares to Mars in
   1997.  It uses aerobrakes and parachutes to land on Mars.  The payload
   consists of: an unfueled two stage ascent vehicle, an earth return
   vehicle, a nuclear reactor, fuel production equipment, some small
   rovers and 6 tons of liquid hydrogen.  The fuel production equipment
   would begin producing methane from the hydrogen, and carbon dioxide
   from the Martian atmosphere.  Once earth based controllers verify
   that this operation is proceeding properly, two more Ares rockets
   will be launched from earth.  One will be identical to the first
   mission but the second would carry a crew of four, and three years
   worth of provisions, plus a rover and aerobrake and parachutes.  The
   vehicles land on Mars in 1999 at the same site as the first mission.
       The crew would remain on Mars for 18 months.  They would explore
   the surface in their methane powered rover, while the fuel production
   facility would keep producing more fuel.  Finally the crew would lift
   off using the ascent and earth return vehicles brought by the first
   Ares mission which would also use methane and oxygen as fuel.  The
   crew would return in 2001.  The cost was estimated to be about $125
   billion [AA 7, p.34].  Ball Aerospace Corp
       [69, p.92-3]  At the "Case for Mars III" conference, a proposal
   for the establishment of a permanent Martian base was presented
   by C.C. Smith of Ball Aerospace Systems Corp. of Boulder, CO.
       This project extends over a period of more than 40
   years - ending in 2030.  It consists of four phases. The first
   phase would consist of 2 orbiters and would cost $200 million.
   The second phase would include 2 Mars penetrators and 2 Mars
   sample-return missions at an estimated cost of $5.1 billion.
   The third phase would include 2 manned technical evaluation
   missions costing $69.2 billion, 5 base development and exploration
   missions costing $58 billion, and 2 base establishment missions
   at a cost of $22.1 billion.  Finally, phase four would consist
   of crew rotation missions every 2 years at a cost of $34.4 billion
   through the year 2030.  The total would be $189.1 billion in 1987
   dollars.  NASA Moon/Mars project
       [63, p.24] General Dynamics' Space Systems Division prepared
   a detailed cost estimate of manned lunar and manned Mars missions
   for NASA which was presented in November of 1989.  This analysis
   indicated an expenditure of $300 - $550 billion over a period of
   35 years in order to develop manned bases both on the moon and
   on Mars.  It also predicted that the costs of manned missions
   would be at least 10 times the cost of unmanned missions and
   perhaps as much as 100 times the cost of unmanned missions.  An Independent Mars Expedition
       David Gump has outlined a purely private mission to Mars in
   a paper entitled "An Independent Mars Expedition Funded by TV Rights
   and Corporate Sponsorships" which appeared in Space Manufacturing 7,
   [SM 41, p.358-361].  His project depends entirely on raising funds
   from the private sector.  The following table shows his sources.
*  Table 11.1-1   Funding sources
   Source                               Funds ($ B)
   Global TV rights                     2.0
   Corporate sponsors                   2.0 - 3.0
   4 to 6 Tickets sold to governments   2.0 - 3.0
      (at $500 million each)
                total                   6.0 - 8.0
       The plan calls for a preliminary mission to Phobos which would
   emplace a fuel production facility which would produce fuel for the
   return trip.  The manned mission would send a crew of 10 to 14
   people on a minimum energy trajectory to Mars.  Total mission time
   would be 957 days of which 562 would be on Mars and 395 in space
   [SM 41, p.360].
       He plans to keep costs low by avoiding the government red tape
   and not building everything to military specifications which are
   generally thought to roughly double the cost of anything purchased
   by the military.  His cost estimate is as follows:
*  Table 11.1-2   Cost estimates
   Item                                     Cost ($ B)
   Lift 1090 tons to LEO (at $1650/kg)        1.6
   Hardware cost = 1.5 times lift cost        2.4
   Payroll and overhead                       1.5
                total                         5.5
       The key to this project is the $1650 per kg lift cost.  Gump
   expects the Advanced Launch System to provide this capability.  It
   appears however, that the ALS cost will be at least $2200 per
   kilogram which would raise his estimate by $1.333 billion to about
   $6.833 billion.
       Another paper entitled "Generating Revenues in Space: Challenging
   some of the Economic Assumptions of Space Exploration" by James
   Dunstan [LB2, p.76] pursues a similar theme.  The Ride Report
       In August of 1987 a report called "Leadership and America's
   Future in Space" by Sally Ride was released [Ref 108].  This report
   outlines four leadership initiatives: (1) mission to planet earth,
   (2) exploration of the solar system, (3) outpost on the moon, and
   (4) humans to Mars.
       The Mars part of this report includes just about everything one
   might think of.  It begins with two Mars Observer missions to be
   followed by two sample-return missions.  It pushes a major space
   station based life sciences research program.  And it culminates in
   three manned missions to Mars which would result in a Mars outpost
   by 2010.  The manned missions would be one year round trip "sprint"
   missions with astronauts spending two weeks on the surface before
   returning.  Each mission would consist of two vehicles, a precursor
   cargo vehicle and a subsequent manned vehicle.
       "The Mars cargo vehicle minimizes its propellant requirements
   by taking a slow, low energy trip to Mars.  The vehicle would be
   assembled in LEO ... and would carry everything to be delivered to
   the surface of Mars plus the fuel required for the crew's trip
   back to earth.  The personnel transport would be assembled in LEO
   and would leave for Mars only after the cargo vehicle had arrived in
   Mars orbit.  It would carry a crew of six, crew support equipment,
   and propellant for the outbound trip" [108, p.33].
       Each of the sprint missions is expected to require over 1100
   metric tons of materials in LEO.
       A thinly disguised budget for this project was given [108, p.46].
   It included about $43 billion for mission specific items, about $23
   billion for work common to both lunar and Mars projects, and about
   $30 billion for program support.  This is a total of $96 billion in
   1987 dollars to cover the period through 2010.  Inflating by 15% to
   1990 dollars we get $110 billion.  Summary of manned Mars proposals
   Project           Crew     Organization            Cost ($ 1990 B)
   Mars mission     10 - 14   Gump private project        7
   Moon/Mars bases  4 each    LLNL                       10 - 12
   Mars mission        ?      Lunar base study group     36 - 48
   Mars base           6      Stanford/Soviet study      60
   Mars mission     6 each    Ride report               110
   Mars mission        4      Baker/Zubrin              125
   Mars bases       20 - 30   Ball Aerospace Systems    217.5
   Moon/Mars bases  6 each    Synthesis Group study     400+
   Moon/Mars bases     ?      NASA                      300 - 550
   11.2  Should we finance a Martian sample-return mission?
       No - unless that mission is to Antarctica!  We already have
   several samples of Martian rocks so why should we pay billions more
   to go to Mars to get a few more?  They will tell us very little if
   anything that we don't already know.
       There exist a small number of meteorites known as SNC (snick)
   meteorites.  SNC stands for "Shergottites, Nakhlites, and
   Chassignites."  The Shergottites are a group of meteorites that
   fell in 1865 in Shergotty, located in the Indian state of Bihar
   [34, p.113].  Chassignite is named for the city Chassigny in France
   where the meteorite was found.  Nakhlites are fragments of a
   meteorite called Nakhla.  The Shergottites are basaltic rocks
   composed primarily of pyroxene and plagioclase [114, p.113], while
   the Nakhlites are mostly augite and the Chassignites are mostly
   olivine [114, p.115].
       The characteristic of all the SNC meteorites which sets them
   apart from all others is their age.  Radio-isotope dating techniques
   have shown that their age is about 1.3 billion years - which is
   much younger than the 4.4 to 4.6 billion years commonly measured for
   meteorites [114, p.113]. These meteorites are igneous in composition
   which means that they were formed on a parent body which was still
   volcanically active 1.3 billion years ago.  Since the surface rocks
   of the moon are 3 billion years old or more, the next most likely
   candidates for the source of these meteorites is either Venus or
   Mars. A number of meteorites similar in age and composition to the
   Shergottites were found in Antarctica in 1979.  One such meteorite
   which was found in the Elephant Moraine region was analyzed at the
   Johnson Space Center.  Gases trapped inside the meteorite were
   found to contain "a mixture of gases strikingly like those found in
   the Martian atmosphere" [3, p.250].  Many experts including John
   Wood [3, p.250] and John Wasson [114, p.114] are convinced that
   the SNC meteorites came from Mars.
       In conclusion it appears that we already have at least a half
   dozen samples of Mars and furthermore, it is likely that a major
   search of some of the Antarctic ice fields would yield more.  The
   cost of such an expedition would be at most a few million dollars
   instead of a few billion.
   11.3  Lifting the crew to LEO via space planes
       The US space shuttle was the first space plane to reach
   orbit.  Since then (1981) quite a number of other projects have been
   initiated.  Not surprisingly the Soviet version known as Buran
   is the most advanced.  It has flown one unmanned mission to date.
       The space planes are designed to carry both people and cargo.
   In order for our master plan to succeed, we must have a relatively
   inexpensive space plane which can lift our crews into space.  The
   following sections give some details of some of the space planes
   under development.
   11.3.1  Buran (CIS)
       In September of 1988, Tass revealed the Soviet space
   shuttle called Buran.  It is quite similar in size to the
   US space shuttle.  It is about 36 meters long, 6.3 meters high
   (not counting landing gear or tail) and its wingspan is about
   29 meters.  Buran was first launched (unmanned) in November
   of 1988 by the Energia heavy lift booster.
       The future of the Buran space shuttle is now in doubt
   due to the turmoil in the former Soviet Union.  The production
   line for the first stage of the Energia has been shut down.
       Since the vehicle size is nearly the same as the US space
   shuttle, one can estimate that the payload will be similar
   as well - say 30 MT.  According to Ad Astra [AA 4, p.34]
   the cost of an Energia launch is $600-$750 million.  Thus the
   cost per kilogram would be $20,000 to $25,000.
   11.3.2  Hermes (ESA)
       The Hermes space plane began as a French proposal, but
   was given the go-ahead by the European Space Agency in 1987.
   Nicholas Booth gives the following information about Hermes in
   "Space the Next 100 Years" [71, p.68-70].  The project will
   be financed by France (43%), Germany (27%), Italy (12.1%),
   Belgium (5.8%) and the other ESA countries but not the UK.
   The Hermes will be 18.29 meters long, 9.01 meters wide and
   2.95 meters high.  It will weigh about 24 tons and will carry
   a crew of three rather than the original design of six.  It will
   land like the US space shuttle but at 300 km/hour.
       Aviation Week [AW 50, p.107] reported that development
   cost estimates had risen to $7.2 billion and that the first
   unmanned flight had been pushed back to 2002 with the first
   manned flight now scheduled for 2003.  Estimating an Ariane 5
   flight at $60 million and the payload at 3 tons, the cost
   per payload pound would be:
*      $60 M / 6,000 = $10,000 per pound ($22,000/kg)
       Of course that does not include amortization of the
   development costs ($7.2 billion).
   11.3.3  HL-20 (US)
       NASA's Langley Research Center is developing the HL-20
   Personnel Launch System (PLS) as a candidate for an "Assured
   Crew Return Vehicle" (ACRV).  In an article by E.H. Phillips
   which appeared in Aviation Week [AW 41, p.52-3] in the July
   15,1991 issue, this vehicle was described.  It would be about
   one quarter of the size of the space shuttle with a length of
   29.5 feet and a width of 23.5 feet.  It would weigh about
   24,000 pounds and could carry 8 passengers, 2 crew members,
   and 1200 pounds of cargo up to the space station and back
   again.  Alternatively, it could carry the crew and 4000 pounds
   of cargo.  This space plane would be launched atop the Titan 4
   expendable launch vehicle.
       Unfortunately this article gives no financial data, but
   one can make some approximations based on the given data. Using
   the Newsweek estimate of $5100 per pound of payload for a payload
   of 33,000 pounds, the cost of one launch would be $168.3 million
   [28, p.50].  Alternatively we could use the GAO estimate of $527
   million per launch [AW 58, p.79].  Then we can calculate the
   following cost figures.
*      $168.3 M / 4,000 = $42,075 per pound ($92,565/kg)   or
       $527 M / 4,000  = $131,750 per pound ($289,850/kg).
       This is far more expensive than the space shuttle!  I, as
   a US taxpayer, will cry if one of these ever flies!  We don't
   need a rescue vehicle.   People going into space must be prepared
   to take the risk of not coming back alive.  This is just another
   extremely expensive make work project.  It should be cancelled
   immediately if not sooner.
       Rockwell engineers have a plan for a 74 passenger module which
   would fit into the cargo bay of the space shuttle [49, p.144]. At
   least this proposal would lift many more people per flight.
   11.3.4  "Hope" unmanned space plane (Japan)
       In August of 1990 Aviation Week ran a three week series
   of articles on the Japanese space program [AW 25, 8/13/90],
   [AW 26, 8/20/90], and [AW 27, 8/27/90].  Details of the Hope
   space plane were given in [AW 25, p.65-70].  The development
   is being done at Tsukuba Science City which is about 40 miles
   northeast of Tokyo.  The Hope vehicle will weigh about 20 metric
   tons and will be designed to carry a 3-5 metric ton payload
   up to the Freedom space station.  It will be launched atop an
   enlarged H-2 booster perhaps as early as 1997.  NASDA has been
   funding Hope at about $66 million per year.  Hope carries two
   orbital maneuvering system (OMS) engines which would have a
   thrust of about 2 tons each.  These engines would be used to
   provide the final delta velocity necessary for orbital insertion.
       No cost information was given in the article, but the
   following guestimates can be made.  If the payload is 5 MT, then
   the payload will constitute 20% of the weight lifted and thus
   the cost would be 5 times the cost of payloads on the H-2.  If
   the payload is 3 MT, then the payload will constitute 13% of the
   weight lifted and thus the cost would be 7.667 times the cost of
   payloads on the H-2.
   11.3.5  Hotol (UK-CIS)
       The Hotol (an acronym for horizontal take-off and landing)
   was the first space plane to be announced to the public.
   It grew out of the work of British engineer Alan Bond who was
   the first engineer to seriously study the problems of burning
   liquid hydrogen with oxygen from the air [71, p.80].  Most
   of the internal volume of the vehicle would consist of a massive
   liquid hydrogen tank.  A small LOX tank would also be required
   for the final boost to orbit.  The payload bay is 7.5 meters
   by 4.6 meters in diameter [31, p.92].
       The initial version called for Hotol to be launched from
   a "trolley" rolling down an ordinary runway.  The trolley would
   stay on the ground as the Hotol flew off into space [71, p.81].
       In September of 1991, a new version of Hotol emerged from
   a British/Soviet study.  In an article by Lenorovitz/Zhukovsky
   in Aviation Week [AW 44, p.68-9] the new version was described.
   It would be about the same length and width of the US and
   Soviet space shuttles but considerably fatter to contain the
   large liquid hydrogen tank.  It would be powered by four RD-120
   reuseable Soviet engines of the type used in the second stage of
   the Energia.  The Hotol would weigh about 250,000 kilograms
   and would be able to carry payloads of more than 5000 kilograms
   [AW 44, p.68].  A Soviet Antonov-225 cargo aircraft would carry
   the Hotol to its launch altitude of 30,180 feet (9,200 km).  The
   An-225 would require two additional engines (it normally has 6)
   to be able to cope with the heavy load.
       Another article in Aviation Week [AW 66, p.58] of 1/6/92 by
   S.W. Kandebo indicated that the project is still moving along
   well despite the financial problems in Russia.  In the article
   the payload was stated to be 7-8 MT [AW 66, p.58].
       No cost estimates were given, but that will not stop us
   from guessing.  The estimated cost and mass breakdown would be:
*  Component      Mass (MT)      Cost
   LOX             192.9        $23,811 @ $0.5/100 cu.ft.
   LH2              32.1       $126,026 @ $1/100 cu.ft.
   Hotol empty      12.5
   4 engines         5         1185 kg each plus mountings
   Payload           7.5
                   250.0       $149,837 per flight
   An-225                      $100,000 per flight
   Refurbishment               $100,000 per flight
                               $349,837 per flight
   The cost per kilogram of payload would then be:
*  $349,837 / 7,500  =   $47 per kilogram ($21/pound)
       Clearly this does not include amortization of the
   development costs of Hotol or the An-225 which is already
   paid for.
   11.3.6  Japanese NASP
       In August of 1990, Aviation Week ran a three week series
   of articles on the Japanese space program [AW 25, 8/13/90],
   [AW 26, 8/20/90], and [AW 27, 8/27/90].  Details of the Japanese
   NASP program were given in [AW 26, p.83-7].
       Funding for this program was about $35 million in 1990,
   and project managers were pushing to double that to $67 million
   in 1991 and to $133 million in 1992 [AW 26, p.83].
       Neither the physical dimensions nor the airfoil design have
   been determined as yet.  We are told that it will be a hydrogen
   powered vehicle which will take off from a runway and use
   air-breathing scramjets to fly to the upper atmosphere, where
   it will presumably switch to LOX like some of the other space
   planes and accelerate to orbit.  Hydrogen slush is being studied
   because of the potential volume savings over liquid hydrogen.
       Current research is being handled on a component by component
   basis.  They have a Fujitsu VP-400 supercomputer to handle the
   computational fluid dynamics (CFD) work.  Since Japan lacks
   sufficient hypersonic wind tunnels, new ones are being constructed.
   A carbon/carbon structural material has been developed which
   is said to be six times as strong as what is being used on the
   US space shuttle [AW 26, p.87].
       Plans call for a prototype to fly early in the 21st century.
   11.3.7  NASP (US)
       The NASP or National Aero-Space Plane (also known as the
   X-30) has been under development for several years.  The project
   has been classified to try to keep technical information from
   leaking out.  No information of any importance to NASP competitors
   will be revealed in this book since we are concerned first and
   foremost with costs and not with the details of how each
   approach may be implemented.
       Some useful information about the NASP project appeared in
   an article by S.W. Kandebo in Aviation Week [AW 59, p.23-4] in
   the 8/6/90 issue.  The NASP program manager is Robert Barthelemy.
   The five major contractors involved in NASP are: airframe
   manufacturers McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell International, General
   Dynamics, and propulsion specialists Pratt & Whitney, and Rocketdyne.
   Conspicuous by their absence are Boeing and General Electric.
       Each of the airframe manufacturers have submitted separate
   designs for the X-30.  "The conceptual design selected for the
   NASP will definitely not be any one of the three originally
   developed by the three airframe designers. The NASP airframe and
   the propulsion plant are likely to incorporate features from all
   the contractors," Barthelemy said [AW 59, p.24].  This is typical
   of design by committee.  It is guaranteed to get the taxpayer a
   second rate product.  One genius will beat a room full of committee
   members every time.  This plane should be renamed "The Flying
   Golden Platypus".
       The X-30 will be 150-200 feet long and will have a wingspan
   of about 50 feet.  Gross take-off weight will be about 250,000-
   300,000 pounds [AW 59, p.24].  It will be primarily an air
   breathing vehicle but may carry a rocket too.
       A subsequent article by S.W. Kandebo that appeared in Aviation
   Week [AW 60, p.36-47] in the 10/29/90 issue provided some additional
   information.  The propulsion system will consist of 3 to 5
   scramjets located on the lower surface of the vehicle.  It will
   also include a small rocket in the 50,000-70,000 pound thrust class.
   Slush hydrogen will be used to reduce the volume of hydrogen
   tanks.  Several hundred gallons were produced with a 50% fraction
   of solids [AW 60, p.41] as a test.
       One critical parameter was omitted from both of these
   articles - namely the size of the payload.  Is the taxpayer to
   be forced to pay for an unknown quantity?
       Funding was $258 million in fiscal year 1991 [AW 61, p.26]
   of which the Air Force provided about $161 million [AW 30, p.85].
   NASA provided $59 million for NASP in fiscal year 1990 and
   $95 million in fiscal year 1991 [AA 7, p.35].
   Funding for fiscal year 1992 is scheduled to be $72 million from
   NASA and $233 million from DOD for a total of $305 million
   [AW 30, p.84].  The NASP contractors have received contracts
   totaling $502.6 million for work through July of 1993.
       In a brief article in Ad Astra [AA 7, p.10] it was
   reported that development of a prototype will begin in 1993,
   followed by test flights in 1997 and the first orbital flight
   in 1999.
       At a House subcommittee (on science and technology) hearing
   in July of 1985, George Keyworth, President Reagan's science
   adviser, said NASP's launch costs will be "not five times
   cheaper, but a hundred times cheaper than they are today,"
   [31, p.93].  One wonders if he was referring to expendable
   launch vehicles or to the space shuttle, and if the latter,
   whether he was referring to the true cost or the phony costs
   which NASA bills its customers.
       At this time we have no estimate for the costs of payloads
   placed in orbit by the NASP - except that they will be high.
   11.3.8  Sanger (GER)
       A multinational consortium lead by Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm
   (MBB) of Germany has been working on a more conservative two stage to
   orbit project called Sanger.  An article by S.W. Kandebo which
   appeared in Aviation Week [AW 62, p.72-5] in November of 1990
   gave the following details, which came primarily from Peter Sacher,
   project manager for hypersonic technology at MBB's Aircraft
       The orbital second stage will be carried by the sub-orbital
   first stage up above the atmosphere to a velocity of about
   Mach 6.  There they will separate with the second stage continuing
   into orbit and the first stage returning to land like an ordinary
   airplane.  A sub-scale first stage is being developed during
   this phase of the project.  It will be a horizontal take-off and
   landing vehicle called Hytex (an acronym for hypersonic technology
   experiment).  Since this vehicle will be flying over densely
   populated Europe, no parts will be jettisoned.
       Hytex will be about 23 meters long, 6.3 meters high, counting
   the tail, and will have a wingspan of about 9.3 meters.  The
   plane will weigh about 20 metric tons.  Its turbo-ramjet
   engines will burn aviation kerosene in fanjet mode and liquid
   hydrogen in ramjet mode.  Flight tests are planned to take place
   over water; the North Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and the eastern
   edge of the Atlantic are being evaluated.  Each flight test would
   take about one hour and would yield about one minute of test time
   at Mach 5-6.  The first flight is planned for 1998.
       The plane will be built mostly out of titanium (90%) with
   carbon-carbon or carbon-silicon materials used on high temperature
   areas.  This should keep costs down because even titanium is cheaper
   than gold which is what they make planes out of in the US.
       The orbital second stage will have at least two configurations.
   The first, known as Horus-M, will be able to lift three astrnauts and
   three tons of payload to the space station [AA 11, p.15].
   The second, known as Horus-C, will be able to lift seven tons of
   payload to LEO.  The Horus-M will cost about $24.5 million for each
   launch or about $8167 per kilogram.  The Horus-C will cost about
   $22.5 million for each launch or about $3536 per kilogram [AA 11,
   11.3.9  SDI SSTO (US)
       The SDI Organization is planning its own single stage to
   orbit space vehicle.  In an article by J.R. Asker in Aviation
   Week [61, p.26-7] of Nov. 5,1990, some of the details of this
   project were revealed.  The goal of this project is to demonstrate
   a vehicle in sub-orbital flight by 1994 using current technology.
   SDIO has awarded $2.4-$3.0 million contracts to each of four
   companies: Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, General Dynamics, and
   Rockwell International.  Later, two will be contracted
   to build prototypes which will be expected to fly in 1994. Part
   of the vehicle performance specification calls for reservicing
   for the next flight to take no more than 7-10 days and to cost
   no more than about 1.4 man years of effort per flight.
       According to the article, Boeing's entry will have a take-off
   weight of 1.0-1.2 million pounds and will have a payload of
   10,000-20,000 pounds.  The vehicle will burn liquid oxygen and
   liquid hydrogen.  Thus we can estimate the cost as follows:
*  Component      Mass (MT)      Cost
   LOX             389.6       $ 48,104 @ $0.5/100 cu.ft.
   LH2              64.9       $254,596 @ $1/100 cu.ft.
   empty vehicle    36.4
   Payload           9.1
                   500.0       $302,700 per flight
   Refurbishment               $140,000 per flight
                               $442,700 per flight
       This works out to $97 per kilogram for a 4545 kg payload
   or $49 per kilogram for a 9091 kg (20,000 pounds) payload - not
   counting amortization of the development costs.  The costs will
   be at least double these numbers when development costs are
   included.  See the referenced article for more details
   [AW 61, p.26-7].
       An update to this story appeared in Aviation Week [AW 70,
   p.55-6] in the 2/3/92 issue.  That article, by E.H. Kolcum,
   gave the following information.  The winner of the phase 1
   competition was McDonnell Douglas.  Their vehicle is basically
   a reusable rocket which stands 38.76 meters high and weighs
   36.3 MT empty and 455 MT ready to fly [AW 70, p.56].  It
   will take off and land vertically and will have a payload
   capacity of 4545 kilograms.  The vehicle will burn liquid oxygen
   and liquid hydrogen.  Thus we can estimate the cost as follows:
*  Component      Mass (MT)      Cost
   LOX             355.0       $ 43,842 @ $0.5/100 cu.ft.
   LH2              59.2       $232,242 @ $1/100 cu.ft.
   empty vehicle    36.3
   Payload           4.5
                   455.0       $276,084 per flight
   Refurbishment               $140,000 per flight
                               $416,084 per flight
   This works out to $92 per kilogram for a 4545 kg payload.
   11.3.10  Space van
       Tom Logsdon, in his book "Space Inc.", describes a space van
   which Len Cormier and his company, Third Millennium, would like
   to build [37, p.139-141].  Cormier's plan is to build a reusable
   hydrogen-fueled shuttle craft which will fly from the back of
   a Boeing 747 into low earth orbit.  The space van, which
   looks similar to the space shuttle, but is only half the length,
   would deliver a payload of 3000 kilograms to low earth orbit.
   The plan is to launch from American Samoa just south of the
   equator.  There it would receive the full benefit of the earth's
   rotation to help it achieve orbital velocity.
       Orbital velocity is about 7.671 kilometers per second at an
   altitude of 400 kilometers.  The earth's rotational speed is
   about 0.464 kilometers per second and a 747 flying at 550 miles
   per hour is flying at 0.246 kilometers per second.  Thus the
   plane and the earth together would provide about 9.25% of orbital
       Cormier estimates that at two flights per week, the cost
   would be $2.5 million per flight which works out to $833/kg or
   $379 per pound [37, p.141] - including amortization of the
   development costs.
       Applying the same type of cost estimates as were given
   above, yields the following cost breakdown for the incremental
*  Component      Mass (MT)      Cost
   LOX             150          $18,520 @ $0.5/100 cu.ft.
   LH2              25          $98,019 @ $1/100 cu.ft.
   Space van        15
   Payload           3
                   193         $116,539 per flight
   747                         $100,000 per flight
   Refurbishment               $100,000 per flight
                               $316,539 per flight
   This works out to $105 per kilogram or $48 per pound
   of payload.
   11.3.11  Space shuttle (US)
       Volumes and volumes have been written about the US space
   shuttle and that material will not be reproduced here.  The
   space shuttles are about 37.2 meters long and 6 meters high
   (not counting the landing gear or tail) and their wingspans
   are about 23.8 meters.  The space shuttle orbiters have an empty
   weight of about 70 tons [14, p.101].  Six shuttle orbiters
   have been built:
*      Orbiter       Designation   Status
       Enterprise    OV-101        Not space qualified
       Challenger    OV-099        Lost January 1986
       Columbia      OV-102        Operational
       Discovery     OV-103        Operational
       Atlantis      OV-104        Operational
       Endeavour     OV-105        Operational
       The cost of the space shuttle has been estimated at anywhere
   from $150 million per launch (for launch operations only) to
   $400 million.  In any case the prices charged NASA customers to
   launch their payloads is far less than the true cost to the US
   taxpayer.  The following tables were prepared using NASA's own
   data and they show how expensive the shuttle really is.
*       The real cost of the space shuttle (in billions)
                 Current  dollars           1990    dollars
         ------------------------   CPI    ----------------
   Year   NASA   Shuttle  Shuttle inflator Shuttle  Shuttle Shuttle
         budget    D&P      Ops              D&P      Ops   flights
   1975   3.231   0.808    0.162    2.425   1.959    0.393    0
   1976   4.484   1.525    0.224    2.296   3.501    0.514    0
   1977   3.819   1.375    0.229    2.155   2.963    0.493    0
   1978   4.064   1.382    0.244    2.003   2.768    0.489    0
   1979   4.561   1.642    0.274    1.796   2.949    0.492    0
   1980   5.243   1.887    0.419    1.583   2.987    0.663    0
   1981   5.523   1.988    0.663    1.431   2.845    0.949    2
   1982   6.020   2.589    0.482    1.355   3.508    0.653    3
   1983   6.838   2.188    1.368    1.311   2.868    1.793    4
   1984   7.228   2.024    1.446    1.257   2.544    1.818    5
   1985   7.547   1.887    1.283    1.213   2.289    1.556    9
   1986   7.764   1.786    1.553    1.191   2.127    1.850    2
   1987  10.796   3.887    1.727    1.150   4.470    1.986    0
   1988   9.117   1.732    1.823    1.104   1.912    2.013    2
   1989  11.007   1.761    2.642    1.054   1.856    2.785    5
   1990  12.398   1.736    2.480    1.000   1.736    2.480    6
   1991  13.868   1.803    2.774    0.969   1.747    2.688    6
                 ------   ------           ------   ------   --
   sub-totals    32.000 + 19.793           45.029 + 23.615   44
   grand totals          $51.793 B                 $68.664 B
   cost per flight       $ 1.177 B                 $ 1.560 B
   cost per kg payload   $39,898                   $52,884
   cost per pound        $18,136                   $24,038
   Column   Sources
      2     [67, p.C-14] NASA Pocket Handbook, 1991.
      3,4   NASA as cited in [60, p.33]  The Augustine
            Report, Dec. 1990.
      5     [86, p.151]  World Almanac, 1992, and
            World Almanac, 1986, p.52.
      6,7   Author
      8     NASA as cited in [60, p.32].
   Column   Notes
      3,4   The data given in [60, p.33] were in percent.  The data
            presented here were calculated by taking the given percent
            of the current year budget.  D&P means shuttle development
            and production.  Ops means shuttle operations.
      5     The CPI inflator for each year was calculated as follows:
            inflator = CPI (1990) / CPI (current year)
      6,7   These columns are the product of the CPI inflator and the
            corresponding entries in columns 3 and 4.
*   Shuttle costs not including development costs (in millions)
   Year   Shuttle    Space    total   Shuttle  Cost per  $/Kg
    FY     P&OC    Trans Ops          flights  flight  payload
   1984   1637.20   1431.70   3068.90    5     613.78   20,806
   1985   1478.10   1308.60   2786.70    9     309.63   10,496
   1986   1354.70   1633.20   2967.90    2    1483.95   50,303
   1987   3501.40   1636.90   5138.30    0       -        -
   1988   1092.40   1825.50   2917.90    2    1458.95   49,456
   1989   1123.00   2377.30   3500.30    5     700.06   23,731
   1990   1189.80   2628.40   3818.20    6     636.37   21,572
                             --------   --
                     totals  24198.20   29     834.42   28,285
   Column      Sources
     2,3,4    [67, p.C-20] NASA Pocket Handbook, 1991.
     5        NASA as cited in [60, p.32].
     6,7      Author (payload = 29,500 kg)
   Column      Notes
     2,3,4,6  Costs in millions of current year dollars.
              P&OC means shuttle production and operating
              capability.  Space Trans Ops means space
              transportation operations.
     4        Column 4 is the sum of columns 2 and 3.
     6        Column 6 is column 4 divided by column 5.
     7        Costs in dollars per kilogram of payload.
              Column 7 is column 6 divided by 29,500.
   11.3.12  Other space planes
       The Russians apparently are working on their own SSTO
   vehicle.  In an article by Craig Covault in Aviation Week
   [AW 70, p.18-19] in the 2/3/92 issue, a series of scramjet
   tests was described.  Instead of using wind tunnels the
   Russians have rigged up their ramjet/scramjet engine on
   a rocket.  This allows them to collect real data on the
   critical switchover from ramjet to scramjet mode.  Those
   clever fellows are said to be 3-4 years ahead of the US NASP
   program [AW 70, p.18].  Continued progress on this vehicle
   is in doubt due to financial pressures just as is the US NASP
       According to Nicholas Booth, the Germans also have another
   project called LAFT (an acronym for Luft Atmender Raketen Trager)
   under develpment [31, p.95].  Few details were given.
       The same source also mentions an Indian program which
   is planning a Hyperplane (for Hypersonic Platform for
   Airbreathing Ascent to Near Earth orbit) [31, p.95].
       Who knows how many secret projects exist around the
   world?  There may be dozens.  Perhaps Saddam is building one.
   11.3.13  Summary of space planes
       Some of these planes will eventually fly, but most
   probably will not - primarily due to lack of funding.  In a
   friendly world perhaps only the most economical would
   survive, but in the real world others will survive because
   of nationalistic determination to insure the survival of
   those nations' aerospace industries.
       Let us summarize these space planes.
*  Space plane  Country  Availability  Lift(MT)  Cost ($/kg)
   Buran        CIS      late 1990s      30 ?     20-25,000 ?
   Hermes       ESA      2005            2.727    22,000
   HL-20        US       ?               4.1 ?    290,000 ?
   Hope         Japan    2000 ?          3-5       ?
   Hotol        UK/CIS   late 1990s      7.5      47
   NASP         Japan    late 2000s      ?         ?
   NASP         US       late 1990s      ?         ?
   Sanger       Germany  2000            6.36     3536?
   SDI SSTO     US       late 1990s      4.5      92
   Space van    US       late 1990s      3        105
   Shuttle      US       1981            29.5     15,249
       The costs column does not include amortization of
   development costs and may therefore be way too low.  Note
   the difference between the cost given here for the space
   shuttle ($19.793 B / 44 / 29,500 = $15,249) and the cost
   cited above ($39,898) which includes development and
   production costs.  (MT means metric tons i.e. 1000 kg.)
       One immediately sees that the space planes beak down into
   two groups: those that are lifted by rockets and those
   that aren't - the former being at least two orders of
   magnitude more expensive.
       It appears that the British/Russian effort will be the
   most economical.  One could guestimate that 28 people in 7
   rows of 4 could ride into space on this vehicle.  That would
   amount to about $12,500 per person.
   11.4  Lifting the crew from LEO to HEO
       The critical parameter which constrains the lifting of the
   crew from LEO to the spaceship in HEO is time.  We obviously must
   provide food and toilet facilities for this trip.  Therefore, the
   faster the trip the better.  On the other hand, we cannot expect
   the crew to put up with an acceleration of more than about 3 gees.
   This restriction prevents us from using some of the cheaper
   alternatives to rockets such as rotating tethers which could
   sling objects from LEO to HEO quickly and without using any
   significant propellant.
       The flight time of the Apollo missions to the moon was about
   115 hours or 4.8 days.  That corresponds to a velocity of 0.928
   km/sec.  By travelling at 1.5 km/sec we could make it in three days,
   but the higher velocity will cost more fuel and therefore more
   money.  On the other hand it will save us nearly two days worth of
   food per passenger and there will be less stress on the passengers.
       The simplest scheme is to refuel the space planes which lifted
   the people to LEO and use them again to carry the people up to HEO.
   Since the velocity change required to go from the surface of the
   earth to LEO (about 9.3 km/sec) is less than half of that required
   to go from LEO to HEO (about 3.2 km/sec), it appears that this is
   workable.  Thus we could use the Hotol or Cormier's space van to
   lift our crew from LEO to HEO.
       We will need a whole fleet of space planes to lift
   the crew due to their limited individual capacity.  At 20 to 25
   people per flight, it would take 40 to 50 flights to lift a crew
   of 1000.  At one flight per day, it would take nearly two
   months to lift the crew.  That is longer than the flight to Mars
   and clearly unacceptable!  If we had a fleet of 50 or more
   space planes, then the crew could be lifted to LEO in one day and
   on to the spaceship in three more.  Thus it would take about 4 to
   5 days to prepare for departure to Mars.
   11.5  Daily schedule for the crew
       Boredom will be the enemy on the 45 day flight to Mars.  We
   must keep the crew entertained.  Some of the normal diversions
   available on earth can be provided such as an extensive library
   of movies and musical selections.   We can arrange for special
   transmission of sporting events or possibly concerts or even
   new movie releases from earth.  Those who were couch potatoes
   can continue as such.
       Since the spaceship will be spinning, it will not be possible
   for the passengers to simply look out a window and see the earth or
   the Mars.  Therefore, we will need a few counter-rotating camera
   platforms upon which to mount our cameras.  The cameras will be
   remotely controlled so that human attendents will not be needed.
   Some of the cameras will provide video links to large viewing screens
   in the crew's quarters.   Video tapes will be produced from several
   of these cameras.  The tapes will be sold on earth to help support
   the mission.  The crew will be allowed to purchase the tapes at cost.
       This adventure should be a learning experience.  Courses could
   be offered which would deal with each of the planets, with the
   evolution of the universe, the solar system, the moon, the sun,
   and other astronomical or space subjects.  Perhaps language courses
   could be offered to promote international understanding.  Many
   people would like to learn a new langauge, but who has the time?
   This would be the perfect opportunity.  Passengers would be encouraged
   to participate in as many courses as they could fit into their
       Preparation for landing on Mars and living there will require
   at least one hour per day.  The crew must become familiar with their
   spacesuits and the partial gravity (38% of earth's gravity) that
   they will encounter on Mars.  A room will be provided at a distance
   of about 38 meters from the center of the spaceship, where the
   artificial gravity should be about 38% of earth's gravity, so that
   the crew members can accustom themselves to conditions on Mars.  No
   doubt crew members will wish to experience "weightlessness" too, so
   we will also provide spaces where they can float around to their
   heart's content.
       Very likely most of the passengers will imagine themselves as
   captain of this ship.  Actually the computers, androids, and other
   automatic equipment will be running the ship.  But, there is no
   reason that we can't have a "captain's bridge."  Each passenger can
   be allotted a specific period to sit in the captain's chair, give
   the orders and "run" the ship.  Through computer simulations we can
   allow the captain to do almost anything -  to land on other
   planets or moons, to travel at warp speed, or "to go where no one
   has gone before."  Over a period of 45 days, each passenger could
   have one hour as captain.  Within each apartment, the passengers
   will be able to play a limited version of "Star Trek" on their
   smaller TV screens.
   11.6  Arrival at Mars (fictional narrative)
       We had been slowing down for several days.  Every few minutes
   the red lights would flash, those irritating alarms would sound,
   and everyone would brace himself for the next projectile.  As the
   projectile was caught the ship would jerk backward away from Mars,
   and we would all lurch forward.  But still Mars grew bigger and
   bigger on our monitors.  Then the projectiles stopped coming from
   the direction of Mars.  We were too close now and we couldn't
   receive any more projectiles from the EMPL on Phobos.  But we had
   been collecting them for days and we had hundreds of them on board.
   From now on we would continue to slow down by throwing projectiles
   toward Mars.
       One day from Mars it already looked more than twice as big as
   earth's moon. It was pretty hard to sleep with the ship lurching
   every few  minutes, so nearly everybody was dead tired.  Our velocity
   relative to Mars was over 2 kilometers per second and every half hour
   we came one Mars radius closer.  Everyone was glued to their
   monitors, fascinated by the face of Mars.   We were the first
   humans to see the planet in person.
       At 7 Mars radii we crossed the orbit of Deimos, the smaller
   outer satellite of Mars.  Two of the slewing cameras picked it up
   and it was displayed on some of the monitors.  It was too far
   away for us to make out much without magnification, but with the
   telescopic lenses on the cameras we could see its potatoe shape
   and some of the larger craters.   Mars now subtended an angle of
   16.5 degrees compared to earth's moon which subtends an angle of
   about 0.5 degrees.  Some of the passengers were getting the
   feeling of falling.
       Finally one of the cameras picked up Phobos coming out from
   behind Mars.  I cheered and began opening one of the bottles of
   champagne we had brought along to celebrate with.  As I started to
   pour the bubbly the alarm sounded again.   They were firing as
   fast as they could now - every couple of minutes - and we could
   feel the ship turning.  They were using the thrusters to rotate
   the ship between each shot.  We were curving into a circular orbit
   above Phobos.  At 5 Mars radii the disc of Mars was 23 degrees
       We would rendezvous with Phobos in an hour, but we weren't
   planning to land immediately.  It was necessary to position the
   ship very carefully before we landed on Phobos.  At Phobos' orbit
   (2.75 Mars Radii) we were only about 6000 kilometers above Mars
   which now subtended a gigantic 42.5 degrees or 23% of the field
   of view.  Nearly everyone had the falling feeling now.  But that
   was nothing compared to weightlessness.  Before we landed on
   Phobos, the ship would be despun and everyone would become weightless.
   There was a track around the outer perimeter of the ship and they
   had a large toothed wheel, like a gear, which ran around the ship
   in the opposite direction to the ship's rotation to cancel the
   angular momentum of the ship.  It took several hours to stop the
   ship's rotation.  At the same time we closed in on Phobos.
   11.7  Mars landing (fictional narrative)
       The passengers were frantic with excitement.  We all put on our
   spacesuits and waited while the air was evacuated around us.  We
   couldn't afford to allow our air to escape into space - we needed it
   for the return trip.  Finally the hatches were opened and we looked
   out onto the surface of Phobos for the first time.  Mars looked huge
   at the horizon - we were on "top" of Phobos (the side toward the
   north pole of Mars).
       It was magical.  We stepped carefully from the ship because of
   the low gravity.  The gravitational field was only 0.06% of earth's
   gravity. If you jumped upward with a velocity of 1 meter per second,
   which wouldn't be hard to do, you would rise more than 80 meters off
   the surface and it would take 5.5 minutes for you to come back down!
   Phobos was gray-brown, much like the moon, but "cleaner."  The reason
   was that most of the small pieces or fragments from the countless
   impacts simply flew right back out into space because the
   gravitational field was too small to hold them.  The surface was
   crisscrossed with fractures and crevasses and countless rocks and
   boulders of all different sizes were everywhere.  It was like walking
   on a glacier - literally because it turned out that Phobos was about
   45% ice.  But since the gravity was so low our only real worry
   was to avoid tearing any holes in our suits as we clambered over
   the surface.
       The passengers were given three hours to move their personal
   effects from the ship to the Martian landers.  The original plan had
   called for 11 landing sites, just in case of a failure and one
   failure had indeed occurred, leaving us with just 10 landers.  That
   meant 100 passengers per lander.  Everyone was wondering if there was
   a one chance in eleven that they wouldn't make it to the surface
   alive.  The ten remaining landers had each made one round trip to
   the surface safely.  The three hours were intended to permit everyone
   to tour the mining and fuel production facilities but still be able
   to get onto the landers in time for the next launch window.  Phobos
   orbits Mars in 7 hours and 39 minutes so that was the time between
   successive launch windows.
       Television crews from nine different countries were swarming
   over the site, setting up their equipment, and as usual most were
   happily engaged in filming themselves.  Broadcasts had been going
   around the clock for the last two days although the earth received
   a delayed version.  The passengers were taking pictures too, with
   special cameras built into the helmets of their spacesuits.  All
   they had to do was look at what they wanted to photograph and press
   the tips of their thumb and first finger together.
       Everyone was on board the landers well before the three hours
   expired.  The sites had been selected months ago and each passenger
   had picked the site at which they wanted to land.  The selection
   process had taken several iterations to satify most of the passengers,
   but now we were all going to land at more or less our preferred site.
   Two sites were on the Olympus Mons, the largest volcano in the solar
   system.  Another two were on opposite sides of the Valles Marineris,
   a gigantic canyon stretching for more than 4000 kilometers across
   Mars.  No polar sites were selected because they didn't get enough
   year around sunlight to grow the crops we needed to live on.  All
   the sites were on the same side of Mars so that no group would be
   forced to wait while Phobos orbitted around to their side of the
   planet and all would have about the same travel time from Phobos.
       The departures from Phobos were scheduled so that the landings
   on Mars would all occur at the same time.  My wife and I were on
   the fourth lander.  We were going to the edge of the Vallis Marineris.
   The blast-off was smooth and easy - we were actually going to land on
   Mars.  Phobos got smaller and smaller on the monitor overhead while
   Mars got bigger and soon it filled the screen.  Craters and plains,
   canyons and gullies, mountains and valleys,  all appeared and then
   disappeared from our screen.  Everyone was spellbound.  Progress
   reports were coming in from all the landers.  Each lander gave their
   report in order in one minute or less.  So far everything was going
   according to schedule.  One of the displays showed our estimated
   altitude and velocity, which was increasing moment by moment.  If
   the rockets didn't work we would crash into the surface at nearly
   5 kilometers per second or more than 11,000 miles per hour. Perhaps
   we would create our own crater/grave.
       The computers arranged it so that all 10 landers touched down
   within a few seconds of each other.  Of course the landers didn't
   carry enough fuel to boost the crews back up to Phobos.  When the
   time came for us to return to Phobos they would
   be refueled at the landing sites with propellant produced at the
   sites.  But we didn't need to worry about that now.  We were about
   to set foot on Mars!
   11.8  Timeline
         Construction of the manned Mars spaceship can begin as soon as
     the  Phobos  spaceship  has  departed,  or  perhaps  before, if we
     complete the Phobos ship but miss the launch window and are forced
     to  wait  for  the  next  one.  As  mentioned  in  section   10.5,
     construction  of  the  Phobos ship will begin about 15 years after
     the  start  of the whole project and will take two or three years.
     We can then begin on the Mars ship, which will probably take three
     or  four years to build because of the additional effort needed to
     assemble the crews' quarters and the hydroponic facilities. So, it
     may  be 22 years after the start of the project that the Mars ship
     is ready for departure.
         Since the launch windows for Mars occur only about every 778.7
     days,  or  2.132  years,  we  should  try not to miss one with our
     manned  spaceship. The flight to Mars will take about 45 days. The
     crew  must  remain on Mars until the next launch window, about two
     years  later  (778.7  -  45  = 733.7 days), at which time they can
     begin  the  return trip. They should arrive back on earth about 45
     days later, or 824 days after they left.

     11.9 Financing
         Financing for the trip to Mars will come from six sources: (1)
     sale of tickets, (2) sale of television broadcast rights, (3) sale
     of  Martian  souvenirs, (4) profits from the android business, (5)
     profits from the hydroponics business, and (6) sale of helium-3 to
     customers  on earth. Let's guestimate how much money each of these
     sources might raise.
     11.9.1 Ticket sales
         There is a small market already for joy-rides on Mir for $10 -
     $12  million a shot (see section 5.1.2). How much would people pay
     to  go  to  Mars?  Very  likely there would be a lot of people who
     could  and  would  pay $1 million a seat to go to Mars. Perhaps we
     could even sell 1000 seats at $2 million each. There are more than
     250,000 millionaires in the US alone.

         Sales of tickets  -  1000 at $2 million = $2 billion
     11.9.2 Television rights
          The  first  point  to make about broadcast rights is that the
     market  value can be increased significantly by selling the rights
     on  a  country  by country basis. Television sports contracts give
     some idea of the value of broadcast rights.

     Sport                  Network   Cost     Period    Source
     1988 Summer Olympics   NBC       $300 M   15 days   [116, p.430]
     1992 Winter Olympics   CBS       $243 M   15 days    "
     1992 Summer Olympics   NBC       $401 M   15 days    "
     1994 Winter Olympics   CBS       $300 M   15 days    "
     Baseball               ESPN      $400 M   4 years   USA Today
     NCAA Basketball        CBS       $1.0 B   7 years   USA Today
     World Series, etc.     CBS       $1.08 B  4 years   Star Ledger
     NFL                    several   $3.6 B   4 years   USA Today

          The  value  of a live telecast from a spaceship on the way to
     Mars  or  from  Mars  itself is difficult to estimate. None of the
     three  major  US  networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) responded to my written
     inquiry  regarding  their  interest  in  such a venture. But it is
     clear  that its value can be increased by an order of magnitude by
     timely preliminary "hype".

         Broadcast rights (worldwide)  -  $1 billion
     11.9.3 Martian souvenirs
          Marketing of souvenirs from the moon or Mars certainly offers
     the  possibility  of generating some significant revenues, but the
     value  of  such  souvenirs  is  difficult  to estimate. The Apollo
     program  cost  the  US  taxpayers  at  least  $120 billion in 1992
     dollars  and  it  returned  382 kilograms of lunar soil and rocks.
     Those rocks cost the US taxpayers about $314 million per kilogram.
     On  a  little  more down to earth scale, pieces of the Berlin wall
     were sold for $10 in the US.
          Perhaps we could get $1000 per pound for moon rocks and $5000
     per pound for Martian rocks.  If the price is too high, there will
     be  people  defrauding the public by selling rocks from their back
     yards.  The  value  per metric ton would be: $2.2 million for moon
     rocks  and  $11 million for Martian rocks. Who knows how many tons
     we could sell before the price would drop?

          Martian souvenirs - $11 million per metric ton

          Large numbers of video tapes of the trip to Mars will be made
     as  it  happens.  Copies of these tapes will be sold to help raise
     funds.  Judging  from the success of video sales in the past, this
     should raise many millions of dollars.
     11.9.4 Profits
          Profits  from  the  android  and  hydroponics businesses will
     depend  on  how  rapidly  they  are  ramped  up to large scale. We
     believe  that  both  of these industries have the potential of the
     world  automobile  industry.  The  hydroponics  business  could be
     ramped  up  faster  because  there  is no need to wait for product
     development.  On  the  other  hand,  hydroponics will have a lower
     profit margin than the android business.
     11.9.5 Helium-3 sales
         Helium-3 sales must wait for two things: (1) the production of
     the  helium-3 and (2) the construction of the small EMPL needed to
     throw  the  helium-3  down  to  earth. As was indicated in section
     7.11,  it will probably be 4 to 5 years after the establishment of
     the  first  base before the small EMPL is completed. By that time,
     we  should have several metric tons of helium-3 ready for shipment
     to earth. The first few metric tons will go to repay our sponsors,
     the  utilities  and/or oil companies. The remainder can be sold at
     $1  billion  per  metric  ton  to other utilities or even the same