I think most people don't see the revolution that SpaceX's Starship will usher in. Most of the extreme cost of previous Mars missions was in the non-recurring expense of building low mass bleeding-edge one-off hardware.
When you can put 100 tons into LEO for a few million dollars, most of that goes out the window. Rovers will be bulky, have four times the mass, and look like something out of Junkyard Wars. They can be built in groups of 5-10 for pennies on the dollar.
Computer array? Build a 5x redundant system using standard rack mount hardware and put it in a pressure can with tungsten shielding to get the single event upset rate down to something that can be handled routinely.
Cameras? Get a few top-of-the-line mirrorless DSLRs, put them in another pressure can with a good window, done. Sure it has five times the mass of the exquisitely optimized jewelry on Perseverance, but who cares?
RTGs? Just put huge solar arrays on the rover. Massive things, overbuilt, rugged, with built-in compressed gas nozzles to blow the dust off as needed. A vacuum pump feeds an oilless air compressor- or rather, two of each. Maybe a robotic arm with a whisk broom. Or both systems.
Drive train? Baja Rally buggy with major parts machined down to add a little lightness but not too much. Install boots over the articulated sections to keep the dust out. Send the vehicles in pairs with winches and tow straps.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Much smaller university consortia, working with existing smallsat builders, can go wild. With delta-V to (literally) burn, missions to the outer planets won't take a freaking decade to get there, either.
It isn’t just that people don’t see it, it’s that many don’t want to. When you’re invested in the current system, it’s wrenching to imagine one where bespoke hardware is no longer the norm, and what felt like a private playground for science is now a field for expanded human flourishing and commerce.
Casey goes into detail on the political and programmatic angles, but yes, I agree. The combination of low $/ton and high ton/year will make current mission plans and vehicle designs utterly preposterous.
Added to the rovers I describe above should be a few Tesla or Boston Dynamics robots to aid in brushing off panels, collecting samples, hooking up tow cables, and doing other basic maintenance. Every deep space craft, whether a rover, orbiter, blimp, octocopter, fill-in-the-blank should have one or two robot crewman to fix really basic things. Missions shouldn't be crippled because an antenna didn't fully deploy, a wheel seized up, or a PV array got dusted over.
This paradigm shift will be fought tooth and nail, of course.
5-10 years from now, Starship works reliably, you're the NASA Mars mission chief, you have the budget to use 100'ish Starship launch for the next window:
I think most people don't see the revolution that SpaceX's Starship will usher in. Most of the extreme cost of previous Mars missions was in the non-recurring expense of building low mass bleeding-edge one-off hardware.
When you can put 100 tons into LEO for a few million dollars, most of that goes out the window. Rovers will be bulky, have four times the mass, and look like something out of Junkyard Wars. They can be built in groups of 5-10 for pennies on the dollar.
Computer array? Build a 5x redundant system using standard rack mount hardware and put it in a pressure can with tungsten shielding to get the single event upset rate down to something that can be handled routinely.
Cameras? Get a few top-of-the-line mirrorless DSLRs, put them in another pressure can with a good window, done. Sure it has five times the mass of the exquisitely optimized jewelry on Perseverance, but who cares?
RTGs? Just put huge solar arrays on the rover. Massive things, overbuilt, rugged, with built-in compressed gas nozzles to blow the dust off as needed. A vacuum pump feeds an oilless air compressor- or rather, two of each. Maybe a robotic arm with a whisk broom. Or both systems.
Drive train? Baja Rally buggy with major parts machined down to add a little lightness but not too much. Install boots over the articulated sections to keep the dust out. Send the vehicles in pairs with winches and tow straps.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Much smaller university consortia, working with existing smallsat builders, can go wild. With delta-V to (literally) burn, missions to the outer planets won't take a freaking decade to get there, either.
Brute force all the way. It'll be glorious.
It isn’t just that people don’t see it, it’s that many don’t want to. When you’re invested in the current system, it’s wrenching to imagine one where bespoke hardware is no longer the norm, and what felt like a private playground for science is now a field for expanded human flourishing and commerce.
Casey Handmer has a similar post to this on his blog, it’s well worth the read: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/10/28/starship-is-still-not-understood/
Casey goes into detail on the political and programmatic angles, but yes, I agree. The combination of low $/ton and high ton/year will make current mission plans and vehicle designs utterly preposterous.
Added to the rovers I describe above should be a few Tesla or Boston Dynamics robots to aid in brushing off panels, collecting samples, hooking up tow cables, and doing other basic maintenance. Every deep space craft, whether a rover, orbiter, blimp, octocopter, fill-in-the-blank should have one or two robot crewman to fix really basic things. Missions shouldn't be crippled because an antenna didn't fully deploy, a wheel seized up, or a PV array got dusted over.
This paradigm shift will be fought tooth and nail, of course.
Love the content.
On topic, hypothetical:
5-10 years from now, Starship works reliably, you're the NASA Mars mission chief, you have the budget to use 100'ish Starship launch for the next window:
How do you use it?