Difference between revisions of "Cost of transportation"

From Marspedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
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 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.
+
The main cost parameter for launch systems cost is the number of flights per vehicle.  Up till recently that number was one, but reusability seems to be achievable soon, and should be expected for any large scale plan for Mars colonization.
  
 
==Propellant production costs==
 
==Propellant production costs==
Line 192: Line 192:
 
The recoverable Falcon heavy is entirely speculative.
 
The recoverable Falcon heavy is entirely speculative.
 
|}
 
|}
 +
[[File:Solar OTV 12 containers angled solar panels.jpg|thumb|450x450px|Solar powered Orbital Transfer Vehicle]]
  
 
==Cost from LEO to Mars==
 
==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.  
+
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 cargo to Mars 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, as long as the volumes are
 +
 
 +
The main parameter for costs from LEO to Mars are deltaV and the use of atmospheric braking. Vehicles such as solar powered OTV's are unable to use either the Oberth effect or atmospheric braking.  However, the mass of fuel required is so low that theses loses are offset by the reduced overall mass.  Interesting gains might exist with propellant produced on Mars, or in Mars orbit.
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
|'''Vehicle'''
 
|'''Vehicle'''
|'''Development'''  
+
|'''Development'''
|'''Construction'''  
+
|'''Construction'''
|'''Infrastructure'''  
+
|'''Infrastructure'''
 
|'''Flights per vehicle'''
 
|'''Flights per vehicle'''
 
|'''Fuel cost per flight'''
 
|'''Fuel cost per flight'''

Revision as of 10:52, 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 reusability seems to be achievable soon, and should be expected for any large scale plan for Mars colonization.

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. These are all for automated unmanned vehicles.

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 over its lifetime
Pm Payload mass (kg) Payload mass per flight
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 transportation of 100 000 tonnes to LEO.

Comparison of various launch systems:

Vehicle Development (De) Construc-

tion (Co)

Infra-

structure (In)

Flights (Vf) Fuel cost

per flight (Fu)

Mainten-

ance/flight (Ma)

Vehicles per generation (Vg) Payload (Pm) Payload cost (Pc)
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 about 100 000 tonnes. 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.

Solar powered Orbital Transfer Vehicle

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 cargo to Mars 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, as long as the volumes are

The main parameter for costs from LEO to Mars are deltaV and the use of atmospheric braking. Vehicles such as solar powered OTV's are unable to use either the Oberth effect or atmospheric braking. However, the mass of fuel required is so low that theses loses are offset by the reduced overall mass. Interesting gains might exist with propellant produced on Mars, or in Mars orbit.

Vehicle Development Construction Infrastructure Flights per vehicle Fuel cost per flight Flights required Payload per flight Vehicles required Total Flight costs Payload cost

($/kg)

Billions$ millions$ billions$ millions$ billions$
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 Oxygen is a byproduct of hydrogen separation
Hydrogen 70 Hydrogen from Electrolysis
Methane 420 Methane from Sabatier reaction and hydrogen from Electrolysis
Propellant costs for launch vehicles, on Mars

Cost From LMO to Earth

Cost of Earth landing

References