News (Inspiration Mars) Dennis Tito Wants to Send Human Mission to Mars in 2018

[Donamy]

I've been thinking about this, and I don't think it is that far fetched. It wouldn't be that much different psychologically, then 2 people in a NYC apartment, under house arrest for a year and half. :lol:

Seriously though, some things to consider to make it feasable.

1. Redesign the capsule of the dragon, with a hatch opening through the heatshield, to access a pressurized trunk, that would make a great freezer.

2. Lining the Capsule with a Polypropelyne bladder to store the water for the trip, to be replaced with human waste, for radiation protection.

3. Assuming they will be using a Bigelow inflatable-hab, bring along some plants to cultivate, for oxygen and some food suppliment. They could grow tomatoes, string beans and strawberries. Also, an earthworm farm for the garden nutrients, and some protien food source (yummy).

4. Would it be possible to add a carbonfibre wound section, on the aft part of the 2nd-stage to be used as an electro-magnet, and have the craft always point tail to the sun, for more radiation protection.

Anymore ideas ?

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Carbon fiber as an electromagnet? :huh:
I know it's mildly conductive, but not at the power levels you're talking about.

 

[Donamy]

I was thinking of weight. Aluminum then.

 

[Kyle]

NASAWatch: Inspiration Mars Is Being Pushed by NASA To Consider SLS

Only way this would be possible is if they fly manned the first flight of SLS, making this mission even more risky.

 

[MattBaker]

Only way this would be possible is if they fly manned the first flight of SLS, making this mission even more risky.

And it's economically impossible: The costs of one SLS will approach, or even pass, the $1 billion mark because of the high R&D costs. One Falcon Heavy (which will be tested by 2017) costs no more than $150 million.
Additionally I'm quite sure the SLS will not fly in 2017, but the Shuttle was also said to fly in the 1970's...
On the other hand the SLS could launch much more payload than the Falcon Heavy, but since Tito's team has planned with the Falcon Heavy and even its payload is enough that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Kyle]

I'm thinking that NASA, seeing as they're pushing for Tito to use it, might be pushing some of the bill with it. Certainly helps his credibility to know that NASA wants them to use their booster.

 

[Alfastar]

Well, we don't even known what for design there really gonna use. Most saying it is a modified dragon, but the official artist impressions from Inspiration Mars shows a old Orion design with a BEAM module on it.

We can't say what for rocket there gonna use for this mission if there got even no clear information what for spacecraft design there will use.

 

[Cras]

And it's economically impossible: The costs of one SLS will approach, or even pass, the $1 billion mark because of the high R&D costs. One Falcon Heavy (which will be tested by 2017) costs no more than $150 million.
Additionally I'm quite sure the SLS will not fly in 2017, but the Shuttle was also said to fly in the 1970's...
On the other hand the SLS could launch much more payload than the Falcon Heavy, but since Tito's team has planned with the Falcon Heavy and even its payload is enough that shouldn't be a problem.

Last I heard was an SLS launch will cost about $ 500 million.

Of course...this far out, who the hell knows?

 

[Urwumpe]

One Falcon Heavy (which will be tested by 2017) costs no more than $150 million.

That number includes a fair number of Elon Musk optimism. By the time it will fly, it will likely cost 350 million, be sold to the first customers for 300 million and likely still be a success when it is finally sold for $400 million after the first 10-15 flights (After all SpaceX also badly needs a profit).

The Falcon 9 is not cheaper than the similar weight class Zenit 2. It only looks better against the market leader Ariane 5, that is optimized for GTO missions (which the Falcon 9 is absolutely not). With that in mind, always remember that promises in marketing must not be kept. They can't make it worse than NASA with the STS, but they are still spaceflight snake oil traders.

SpaceX is likely 80% marketing (And they do it great) and 20% innovation. A good mixture in history. Microsoft did the same.

So, will the Falcon 9 Heavy be really an important factor or enabler for a Mars mission? Likely not. But it could be a meaningful option, a good reason to put your eggs into multiple baskets.

 

[Donamy]

NASA can't stand by, while an upstart beats them to Mars.

 

[RisingFury]

NASA can't stand by, while an upstart beats them to Mars.

I had a similar thought. Politicians would have a field day with NASA if amateurs beat them to Mars - even a fly-by.

 

[C3PO]

NASA can't stand by, while an upstart beats them to Mars.

They have to. They don't have the $ to race anyone.

 

[Alfastar]

They have to. They don't have the $ to race anyone.

Well, I think there comes much more dollars for NASA if there is the 'threat' that someone else gonna do as first a manned Mars mission, no matter of it is China or SpaceX, political people still like much more to see that NASA does it then any other space agency / spaceflight company.

 

[C3PO]

Well, I think there comes much more dollars for NASA if there is the 'threat' that someone else gonna do as first a manned Mars mission, no matter of it is China or SpaceX, political people still like much more to see that NASA does it then any other space agency / spaceflight company.

I'm not so sure that politicians are that interested in a space race if the general public isn't.

 

[Alfastar]

I'm not so sure that politicians are that interested in a space race if the general public isn't.

Well, I think the mass public become interested in a second space race if there is a 'threat' that nations as China gonna be do a manned mars mission. Most people known only NASA as space agency, and there look to it. Politicians are begin to listening to the mass, and go support NASA to do a manned Mars landing.

 

[C3PO]

Well, I think the mass public become interested in a second space race if there is a 'threat' that nations as China gonna be do a manned mars mission. Most people known only NASA as space agency, and there look to it. Politicians are begin to listening to the mass, and go support NASA to do a manned Mars landing.

The general public was never that interested in going to the Moon. They wanted to beat Soviet. It was more an ideological race then a technological race. And there's no cold war against Dennis Tito AFAIK.

Beating China to Mars isn't going to be an issue anytime soon. It might be unfortunate, but most people see space flight as a huge waste of $. US citizens spend more money on valentines day than NASA's annual budget. (That's ALL of NASA, not just the "S" portion)

PS: Sorry for going off topic. As you were.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, if you think really liberterian, it would be great of a private company would achieve this without NASA being involved. The government should only do what private companies can't do better... and if private companies CAN do it better, you should better stay out and just play neutral referee, instead of becoming part of the competition.

 

[Cras]

NASA has the biggest budget of any space agency by far. They have the money to race anyone to anywhere.

The question I always have for NASA is its leadership. Maybe one day it will have an administrator that isn't just a stooge for the White House but an actual advocate that can fight for NASA in Congress and in the public.

But I wouldn't complain if more money was thrown NASA's way. By like a couple hundred billion.

 

[Kyle]

NASA has the biggest budget of any space agency by far. They have the money to race anyone to anywhere.

The question I always have for NASA is its leadership. Maybe one day it will have an administrator that isn't just a stooge for the White House but an actual advocate that can fight for NASA in Congress and in the public.

But I wouldn't complain if more money was thrown NASA's way. By like a couple hundred billion.

If you're referring to Bolden - he's no stooge. I've met him before he ever became NASA administrator back in 2004. He's an amazingly down to Earth guy, left a huge impact on me. This guy flew the space shuttle, why would he try to mess up the agency? To be honest, I think he's one of the best administrators NASA's ever had, he's kept the agency from going completely under after STS-135. We could have gotten someone who's sole purpose was to turn NASA into an "educational outreach about Global Warming" program. The fact he kept NASA together in what may be its most turbulent period is remarkable to me, given how quickly everyone is to want to gut them.

It's not the leader of NASA at fault - it's Congresses amazing ineptitude at figuring out how to solve a budget problem without trying to look good for re-election.

 

[Eccentrus]

NASA has the biggest budget of any space agency by far. They have the money to race anyone to anywhere.

Adjusted for inflation, I think that the moonshot period saw the largest money ever being poured into NASA on annual budgetary perspective. Yes I know that the Shuttle ended up costing more than the moonshot, but it is dispersed between two decades.

And even though it is still by far the largest funded space organization on earth, you have to remind yourself that it is also the most thinspread of them all, with the most missions supported including plethora of legacy missions that are still significant and important for science, and with these they still have to balance out with making a whole new set of instruments. If it was up to the incompetent bureaucrats of my country, NASA would have went bankrupt and unable to support many important missions anymore like the Voyager.