The design and mass cost of a starship and its life support system are investigated. The mission plan for a multi generational interstellar voyage to colonize a new planet is used to describe the starship design, including the crew habitat, accommodations, and life support. Only current technology is assumed. Highly reliable life support systems can be provided with reasonably small additional mass, suggesting that they can support long duration missions. Bioregenerative life support, growing crop plants that provide food, water, and oxygen, has been thought to need less mass than providing stored food for long duration missions. The large initial mass of hydroponics systems is paid for over time by saving the mass of stored food. However, the yearly logistics mass required to support a bioregenerative system exceeds the mass of food solids it produces, so that supplying stored dehydrated food always requires less mass than bioregenerative food production. A mixed system that grows about half the food and supplies the other half dehydrated has advantages that allow it to breakeven with stored dehydrated food in about 66 years. However, moderate increases in the hydroponics system mass to achieve high reliability, such as adding spares that double the system mass and replacing the initial system every 100 years, increase the mass cost of bioregenerative life support. In this case, the high reliability half food growing, half food supplying system does not breakeven for 389 years. An even higher reliability half and half system, with three times original system mass and replacing the system every 50 years, never breaks even. Growing food for starship life support requires more mass than providing dehydrated food, even for multigeneration voyages of hundreds of years. The benefits of growing some food may justify the added mass cost. Much more efficient recycling food production is wanted but may not be possible. A single multigenerational interstellar voyage to colonize a new planet would have cost similar to that of the Apollo program. Cost is reduced if a small crew travels slowly and lands with minimal equipment. We can go to the stars!
[1]
R. Zubrin.
Nuclear salt water rockets - High thrust at 10,000 sec I(sp)
,
1990
.
[2]
Peter Eckart,et al.
Spaceflight life support and biospherics
,
1996
.
[3]
Harry Jones,et al.
Equivalent Mass versus Life Cycle Cost for Life Support Technology Selection
,
2003
.
[4]
James L. Reuter,et al.
Summary of Resources for the International Space Station Environmental Control and Life Support System
,
1997
.
[5]
Harry Jones.
Matching Crew Diet and Crop Food Production in BIO-Plex
,
2000
.
[6]
Harry Jones,et al.
Comparison of Bioregenerative and Physical/Chemical Life Support Systems
,
2006
.
[7]
Harry Jones,et al.
Design Rules for Space Life Support Systems
,
2003
.
[8]
Claudio Bruno,et al.
Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems: Enabling Technologies for Space Exploration
,
2006
.
[9]
Harry Jones.
Ultra Reliable Space Life Support Systems
,
2008
.
[10]
Alan Drysdale,et al.
Asssessment of Waste Processing Technologies for 3 Missions
,
2001
.