Difference between revisions of "Cost of transportation"
Line 309: | Line 309: | ||
==Cost to LMO== | ==Cost to LMO== | ||
− | |||
+ | Propellant production on Mars is mostly a factor of the cost of electrolysis of water. | ||
+ | {| class="wikitable" | ||
+ | |'''Propellant''' | ||
+ | |'''Density (kg/m3)''' | ||
+ | |'''Cost''' | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''($/kg)''' | ||
+ | |'''References''' | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |Oxygen | ||
+ | |1140 | ||
+ | |0,16 | ||
+ | |Oxygen is a byproduct of hydrogen separation | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |Hydrogen | ||
+ | |70 | ||
+ | |3 | ||
+ | |Hydrogen from Electrolysis | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |Methane | ||
+ | |420 | ||
+ | |0,2 | ||
+ | |Methane from Sabatier reaction and hydrogen from Electrolysis | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | colspan="4" |Propellant costs for launch vehicles, 2016 | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Cost From LMO to Earth== | ||
==Cost of Earth landing== | ==Cost of Earth landing== | ||
==References== | ==References== |
Revision as of 10:26, 19 April 2019
The cost estimates for transportation to Mars cover a large span. From extremely expensive (200 000$/kg) for one way scientific missions, to a more recent estimate of 500$/kg for the SpaceX Mars plans, and even less for future transportation systems.
The main cost parameter for launch systems cost is the number of flights per vehicle. Up till recently that number was one, but re-sibility seems to be achievable soon, and should be expected for any large scale plan for Mars colonization.
Contents
Propellant production costs
As far as propellant for launch vehicles is concerned, oxygen, hydrogen, kerosene and methane are all commercially available processes and are considered commodity goods for our purpose. The costs that were considered are in the following table:
Propellant | Density (kg/m3) | Cost
($/kg) |
References |
Oxygen | 1140 | 0,16 | NASA paid 67 cents per gallon for the shuttle, so about $0.16 per kg |
Hydrogen | 70 | 3 | Hydrogen Production Cost Using Low-Cost Natural Gas, DOE projection, 2012 |
Kerosene | 800 | 0,4 | Commodity price for jet fuel, july 2016 |
Methane | 420 | 0,2 | 0,1$/kg natural gas + delivery, refining and liquefaction |
Propellant costs for launch vehicles, 2016 |
Cost to LEO
The main cost of transportation is for the phase from Earth surface to LEO.
Launch cost economics | ||
Launch cost economics is a complex subject, source of endless debates. We present a simplified analysis here, for transportation to LEO, using the following equation: | ||
Pc | Payload cost ($/kg) | Pc= (De+Co*Vg+In+Vg*Vf*(Ma+Fu))/Pm*Vg*Vf |
De | Development | Research, management and testing. Safety requirements for crewed vehicles. Flight proofing. |
Ma | Materials and manufacturing | person hours, testing. |
Co | Construction of the vehicle | Materials and manufacturing, person hours, testing. |
In | Infrastructure | Manufacturing plants, tooling and launch sites for a series of vehicles |
Ma | Maintenance cost per flight | Clean up, repair, upgrades, fueling, set up on pad. |
Fu | Fuel cost per flight | |
Vg | Vehicles per generation | Number of vehicles built per design generation. |
Vf | Vehicle flights | Number of flights a vehicle can do. |
Pm | Payload mass (kg) | |
Environmental impact is not included as a cost but needs to be taken into account in the overall analysis. This parameter doomed fission pulsed propulsion and exotic fuels using fluorine, and might become an issue at high flight rates.
The table below gives the results for the above equation. It is based on the requirements of a 20 000 tonne starship such as Icarus Firefly. |
Comparison of various launch systems:
Vehicle | Development | Construc-
tion |
Infra-
structure |
Flights | Fuel cost
per flight |
Mainten-
ance/flight |
Vehicles per generation | Payload | Payload cost |
Billions | millions | billions | millions | millions | kg | $/kg | |||
Delta IV | 0,5 | 300 | 0,2 B$ | 1 | 0,5 | 2 | 20 | 22 000 | 15 000 |
Falcon Heavy | 0,3 | 70 | 0,2 B$ | 5 | 0,5 | 0,5 | 20 | 54 000 | 1 700 |
Falcon Heavy recoverable | 0,7 | 90 | 0,2 B$ | 5 | 0,5 | 0,5 | 20 | 30 000 | 520 |
SpaceX Starship | 10 | 600 | 2 B$ | 100 | 1,25 | .5 | 20 | 300 000 | 40 |
REL Skylon | 12 | 250 | 0,5 B$ | 200 | 0,1 | 0,1 | 200 | 15 000 | 48 |
Space gun | 0,5 | - | 2 B$ | 20 000 | 0,05 | 0,01 | 20 000 | 1000 | 925 |
To achieve these figures ITS and Skylon need to transport, on average, ten times the mass required for the starship, so the minimum ‘size’ of the space economy would need to be ten times larger than what is required for the construction of the starship. The firing rates requires for the space canon are very high and might not be achievable. These are base costs, without financing, subsidies, insurance or profit.
The recoverable Falcon heavy is entirely speculative. |
Cost from LEO to Mars
The same analysis that was used to show the gains of reusability can be used for orbital transfer. Following the radical reduction in cost possible with high volume reusable launchers, the cost of moving to a higher orbit goes down significantly. The solar electric or nuclear electric thrusters are clearly the most economical solution for the volumes needed for the development of a martian settlement.
Vehicle | Development (billion$) | Construction (million$) | Infrastructure (billion$) | Flights per vehicle | Fuel cost per flight (million$) | Flights required | Payload per flight (tonnes) | Vehicles required | Total Flight costs (billion$) | Payload cost
($/kg) |
Chemical one way | 1.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 16,667 | 6 | 16,667 | 2,666 | 26,657 |
ITS with refuelling | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0 | 556 | 180 | 6 | 39 | 389 |
Beamed power Skylon() | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 200.0 | 0.0 | 6,667 | 15 | 33 | 57 | 567 |
Solar electric() | 2.0 | 300.0 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 0 | 556 | 180 | 6 | 15 | 151 |
Nuclear thermal | 4.0 | 300.0 | 0.0 | 20.0 | 0 | 556 | 180 | 28 | 24 | 243 |
Orbital transfer vehicles
Costs for 100 000 tonnes to high orbit. 2016$. The chemical one way is paired with the Delta IV vehicle. For the purpose of this table solar electric is the same as nuclear electric. The payload cost includes the cost of the Launcher flights required to carry up the propellant. |
As for the launch vehicles, the orbital transfer vehicles are unmanned. This reduces cost and complexity tremendously, since there is no need to transport a crew and their living environment. Docking, fuel and cargo transfer operations may be supervised and teleoperated, and the OTVs are provided with robot arms moving on rails, or similar active elements, that can be used for inspection and repair.
Low thrust vehicles follow very different trajectories than high thrust vehicles. They cannot profit from the Oberth effect, and therefore require much higher deltaV for the same mission. Despite this, their reduced fuel use makes them more economical than high thrust vehicles. At least for most situations that concern the long term occupation of Mars.
The Oberth effect, the gain from thrust deep in a gravity well | ||
Δveff= Δv·√(2VE/Δv) where
Δv= ve·ln(mo/mf) | ||
Δveff | Effective Velocity change (m/s) | |
VE | Escape velocity (m/s) | Escape velocity of the body around which the vehicle is doing the Oberth maneuver |
mo | Initial mass (kg) | Propellant, payload and vehicle structure |
mf | Final mass (kg) | Payload and vehicle structure+remaining propellant |
Cost of Mars landing
Cost to LMO
Propellant production on Mars is mostly a factor of the cost of electrolysis of water.
Propellant | Density (kg/m3) | Cost
($/kg) |
References |
Oxygen | 1140 | 0,16 | Oxygen is a byproduct of hydrogen separation |
Hydrogen | 70 | 3 | Hydrogen from Electrolysis |
Methane | 420 | 0,2 | Methane from Sabatier reaction and hydrogen from Electrolysis |
Propellant costs for launch vehicles, 2016 |