8 ms·

Dennis Tito's mission to Mars

62 points by wiradikusuma 14y ago

bobsy 14y ago
While very interesting I don't see the point of not landing on Mars. It seems like a long way to go for a bit of sightseeing. Humans have only landed on the moon once. I would have thought going to moon more often. Establishing some sort of base on the moon and improving space technology would increase the speed in which we do anything meaningful with Mars. I mean, surely there are minerals on the moon? Rare minerals perhaps? Metals? It seems like a far better place to launch ships from due to the lack of atmosphere and less gravity. Do we actually have a method of propulsion apart from rocket fuel? While this is a noble mission, I don't see why there is so much interest in the red planet when we haven't even found a relatively efficient way to get to and from our own moon.
- jvzr 14y ago
  > Humans have only landed on the moon once. Not to be nitpicky, but humans have landed 6 times on the moon, from '69 to '72. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing) I agree with most of what you've said though. As for the moon and its minerals, I don't think it has any valuable ones but it's an excellent starting place for future long-distance space flights.
- GotAnyMegadeth 14y ago
  > Humans have only landed on the moon once. 12 people have been to the moon, spread over 6 different missions. http://www.universetoday.com/55512/how-many-people-have-walked-on-the-moon/ http://www.universetoday.com/55512/how-many-people-have-walk...
- bfwi 14y ago
  Trying to actually get to Mars will surely push technological advancement needed for space travel. It will also inspire people to get involved in space travel. While this mission might not produce other results than getting better at space travel, I definitely see the point of it.
  - bobsy 14y ago
    Its possible but I don't see how sending essentailly a flying camper van on a 1000 day mission will bring anything new to the table apart from seeing how crazy 2 people get in a confined space for such a long time.
- tehwalrus 14y ago
  We have no idea how to build a spaceship that can withstand the radiation in space; especially unpredictable Coronal solar events (as mentioned in the article.) This mission would be an excellent test of building and using a long-haul space vehicle.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > We have no idea how to build a spaceship that can withstand the radiation in space ... No, that's not true, we know how to build it, but we can't afford it. A fully shielded spacecraft is easy to imagine and draw on a piece of paper, but not so easy to build and launch.
    - tehwalrus 14y ago
      In defence of my comment, we have never tested a human-carrying craft in non-earth-orbit-space, during a solar mass ejection event (or other unexpected radiation event). We may know how to guess at building one, but actually trying it is the only way to know if we're right (i.e. if our model fits the universe.) Maybe I was wrong to say "no idea" - but it's still not a solved, easy problem.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > In defence of my comment, we have never tested a human-carrying craft in non-earth-orbit-space, during a solar mass ejection event ... That's true, but (a) we know exactly what radiation levels take place during such an event, and (b) we know how to build radiation shields. It's just not practical to launch an adequate shield. > but actually trying it is the only way to know if we're right ... No, we have enough experience with radiation to know our model corresponds to reality. > but it's still not a solved, easy problem. It's solved, but it's not easy.
- Someone 14y ago
  As to minerals: according to some, mining the moon for helium-3 will be profitable (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283..., http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/energy-from-space.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science...)
- randallsquared 14y ago
  > Do we actually have a method of propulsion apart from rocket fuel? There are several alternatives (solar sails, tethers, nuclear), but the engineering details are yet to be worked out, and all of them still ultimately depend on the same principles as rockets: something has to go in the opposite direction for the vehicle to accelerate.
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    The idea on solar sails is that they don't need to send something in the opposite direction, they steal momentum (vectored in the travel direction) from the gases and/or photon radiation emitted from the Sun.
- ra 14y ago
  > Do we actually have a method of propulsion apart from rocket fuel? Absolutely. Hayabusa and Dawn (among others) have already demonstrated the efficiency of ion propulsion systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
  - tocomment 14y ago
    Can those work in the upper atmosphere? If not, why not? I'm working on a new way to get into orbit and they'll play a part if I can figure out if it's possible to operate them in the upper atmosphere.
    - ra 14y ago
      They're mass ejection thrusters, so yes. But the amount of thrust produced is minuscule compared to a hydrocarbon burning rocket. So I don't think they'd be useful so deep into earths gravity well.
    - uvdiv 14y ago
      No. Electric propulsion works by bringing ions to very high energies/speeds. This isn't practical in a dense atmosphere, because ions make too many collisions with air molecules. Their energy is dissipated almost immediately, as heat. Moreover, it's not useful for escaping a planet's gravity well, atmosphere or not. Ion thrusters are extremely weak. E.g. the Dawn probe has a thrust/weight ratio of 0.000007. At the earth's surface, the gravity pulling it down would be 135,000 times stronger than the thrusters pushing it up. It can't fly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_Mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_Mission
      - tocomment 14y ago
        Hmm, maybe you can help with my math? (and keep an open mind) Here's what I was thinking. Float an ion thruster powered ship tethered to a weather balloon with solar panels up to 53km altitude (world record) and fire up the thrusters gradually reaching orbital velocity. Here are my calculations: altitude = 53 km Air density = 5.3 kg/m^3 max speed =7 km/s Coefficient of drag = .02 Cross section area = 130 meters I used this equation to calculate the drag: (aird/2) * (speed2) * coeffdrag * area And I got around 340 newtons of drag. If an Ion thruster could produce something greater than that, we might be in business.
- Mahn 14y ago
  Exactly my thoughts, other than the fact we've landed several times and not just once on the moon, but that's besides the point. It's been nearly 44 years (!) since the first manned moon landing and we have done practically nothing on the moon. 44 years is a HUGE amount of time when it comes to technology, and yet all we can do with the moon so far is talk about how we sent people there once (okay, a few times). Frankly, it's hard to get excited about manned missions to Mars if we won't do a thing with the planet in the following 40 years.
- pvarangot 14y ago
  > While very interesting I don't see the point of not landing on Mars You need a lot of propellant to escape from Martian gravity (versus, say, the moon or an asteroid). Besides the possible problems with carrying it during the whole mission and being sure it will work in Mars after the whole trip, lifting all that propellant out of the Earth is in the best of cases extremely difficult and expensive. Its an enormous hit in the mass budget for your spacecraft. You can try and do the math, it is not by any means the hardest part of rocketry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation
  - iwwr 14y ago
    You can manufacture fuel in-situ on Mars, something not possible (or significantly more difficult) on the Moon. This, coupled with the atmosphere of Mars that provides delta-V savings on the way down (with little drag on the way up) makes Mars somewhat more accessible, energy-wise. Mars is interesting because it has the ingredients for humans living there: water, minerals for industry and agriculture, energy. The Moon has only solar energy, even that dampened by the 2 week long night.
    - XorNot 14y ago
      The problem is we don't really know how we'd do that yet - we have no prototypes on Earth, so it would all have to be invented. I'd budget a decade for that, cautiously, since it has to work once we get there. A much better plan would be an expedition with no set return date (other then intention) - if you were going to land people. A reasonably self-sustaining habitat could probably be set up if we could prove a few key things (namely - can you grow things in Martian soil if you provide an atmosphere, and can you find extra water while you're there?) The big benefit of a fly by mission - the one we should take advantage of - would be to put people close enough that we could do more frequent rover moves since they'd have real time control for a period while in orbit.
      - pasbesoin 14y ago
        You can get someone (ok, some couple) in a can and on their way by 2018, the next near approach. The following near approach will be enough time in the future to define a distinct mission, enough that current interests and abilities may no longer be capable (even multi-millionaires only live so long and/or retain mental capacity so long, or even possibly their money and influence), and enough time in the future that it will not provide the current boost and motivation that is intended. TL;DR: This is in part the "just fucking do it" approach to manned space exploration including travel. Some people argue that it / a return to it are long overdue.
- dylangs1030 14y ago
  Mars gravity is much more powerful than the Earth's. If they landed with current technology (especially considering the budget) they'd likely be unable to reach orbit.
  - rquantz 14y ago
    This is false. Mars gravity is only 38% of Earth's, owing to the fact the Mars has only 10% the mass of Earth. http://www.universetoday.com/22603/mars-compared-to-earth/ http://www.universetoday.com/22603/mars-compared-to-earth/
  - lindenr 14y ago
    No. The escape velocity on Mars is 5 km/s, whereas on Earth it is 11 km/s. There is also a lot less of an atmosphere on Mars (though the atmosphere is smaller on Earth) and Martian gravity is significantly smaller than Earth's. It is far easier to leave Mars than it is to leave Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
  - nfg 14y ago
    Actually Mars has a considerably smaller gravitational pull than the Earth owing to its lower mass (5.972E24KG -vs- 6.39E23kg).
  - rdl 14y ago
    Mars gravity is weaker (so taking off again is easier), but the atmosphere is much thinner, so landing is actually harder. It's relatively easy for lightweight/robust things, but not particularly easy for humans. Parachutes, low-angle aerobraking, etc. all don't work so well. Expending rocket fuel in a retro burn is very expensive (since you have to carry it with you all the way from earth -- a lot of the "take off again" plans involve fuel either cached on Mars or made on Mars).
andyjohnson0 14y ago
I find it hard to see how this is anything other than an attention seeking publicity stunt. We're not going to learn anything about Mars that various orbiting satellites and landers haven't already told us. The effects of long-duration spaceflight have been explored using through Mir and the ISS. The radiation exposure issue is important, but as far as I know solar radiation cycles and intensity are well understood and modelled, as is the effects of radiation on the human body. I guess we might learn about the extreme pathological effects of confining two people together for such a long voyage, but unlike Mars-500 [1] this is unlikely to help with planning serious expeditions which would require larger crews. Tito's belief that marriage will help his crew psychologically survive the experience seems rather naive, and I wonder if he has consulted anyone with knowledge of team dynamics or the psychological effects of isolation and confinement. Sorry to be cynical. I'd love to see a serious expedition to Mars within my lifetime, but this isn't it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500 Edit: Hey downvoters - how about you explain why you disagree? If I'm wrong I'd like to know why so that I can learn.
- igravious 14y ago
  Perhaps it is that. Perhaps you are being downvoted for your cynicism, lack of adventure, and because you come off like a bit of a killjoy. > attention seeking publicity stunt Perhaps it's not; how do you know inside this man's mind? > not going to learn anything about Mars that various orbiting satellites and landers haven't already told us How do you know? This mission will be manned, that in itself is different. Maybe we will learn stuff. We learn by doing. Also, what did we learn by going to the South Pole? That it was cold? Sometimes people are allowed to do things because they can and because it has yet to be done.
  - andyjohnson0 14y ago
    "what did we learn by going to the South Pole?" We learned what was there. In 1911 there was no other way to find out except to go there. Thats not true of Mars, where we have high-resolution mapping data on most of the planet available to everyone [1] and a couple of active rovers on the surface. I'd like to see humans go there to land, explore, and do science. Something like robomartin describes [2]. You mention adventure. Apollo 8 was a real adventure: new hardware, the second crewed US flight, the first to leave orbit, and they took it around the moon when comparatively little was know about it. Titos's proposal is not the same thing. The crew will apparently have little to do during the 500+ days of the flight except for during a single brief swing around Mars. They won't even orbit. I suspect there is a good chance that the crew will come back psychologically damaged for no real gain. Am I a killjoy for saying that? [1] http://www.google.co.uk/mars/ http://www.google.co.uk/mars/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5324850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5324850
rowanseymour 14y ago
As others have said, just flying to Mars isn't going to teach us much that we don't already know from probes, but... "Mr Tito hopes to pay for Inspiration Mars with a mix of his own money, donations from the public and the sale of media rights" Maybe this is going to be the first space-based reality TV show. Could be worthwhile just to get the general population excited about space travel. I can't wait to watch this!
- bfwi 14y ago
  You're right, it's not going to teach us much about Mars. But it's going to teach us how to get humans from Earth to Mars. That's pretty valuable in my opinion.
  - XorNot 14y ago
    Also, first man and women to orbit Mars, first married couple to embark on long-term spaceflight... There's a lot of notable firsts to be had from this, and we know from ground missions that people can certainly deal with being isolated for 500+ days (and not even being in space).
cryptoz 14y ago
The world's billionaires are racing to Mars. This should be very interesting! It will excite humanity and inspire millions of young people to become scientists and engineers. Tito is planning for 2018. Elon Musk around the same time, maybe a bit after. And Bezos will pick up the pace too. We really do have a new Mars-focused space race with multiple billionaires competing. Amazing!
dylangs1030 14y ago
I'm happy someone is finally trying to make this expedition. I've always believed space exploration should be a top priority, even if it's decades before we reach any practical uses for discoveries. That said, I'm worried about it. The Moon landing was a highly planned and comparatively efficient expedition. This is being bankrolled by a man who will likely have some control over things despite not having training. I don't think just anyone should be able to plan monumental journeys through space without the official sanction of NASA - at least not until space travel becomes as ubiquitous as driving or riding the train. There are safety protocols to follow. And choosing 40-50 year old astronauts seems a bit naive. Why wouldn't you choose younger, more fit astronauts? And why not two who have a demonstrated history of working together? Marriage doesn't automatically mean a frictionless relationship. In any case, I hope whoever they choose has the good sense not to start reading from the Bible. Maybe another scripture, or something less denominational.
- kiba 14y ago
  This is being bankrolled by a man who will likely have some control over things despite not having training What the hell do you mean? He's a former JPL aerospace engineer!
  - rdl 14y ago
    Who has already spent more time in space than virtually anyone else who could bankroll this kind of thing (unless Richard Garriott decides to throw down), too.
  - andyjohnson0 14y ago
    According to his wikipedia page [1] he got his BSc in 1962 and then got a masters. Since 1972 he's been running an investment management consultancy. So his time as an engineer was at most nine years before 1972. So he was a JPL engineer, but for a short time 40 years ago. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Tito#Life_and_career http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Tito#Life_and_career
  - dylangs1030 14y ago
    I mean extensive training - veterenship. Someone who need not be famous but at least is well known for exemplary achievement within NASA for innovation.
andyjohnson0 14y ago
The proposed mission website is at http://inspirationmars.org/ http://inspirationmars.org/
robomartin 14y ago
At some level manned missions to Mars feel like a complete waste of resources to me. Money would be far better spent on enhanced robotic missions. You don't have to provide life support, radiation will not threaten anyone's life, they don't need to be returned to Earth, etc. Besides that, investing serious money on advancing artificial intelligence and robotics would potentially have significant real revenue potential on Earth --probably far greater long term than media rights to watch a middle-aged husband and wife fight for two years while traveling to Mars. What I think might be worthwhile would be the construction of what I am going to call "Enterprise One". This would be a large spaceship (crew of 20 or more) built in orbit. Enterprise One would never be capable of re-entry. That would be the domain of smaller (two or three occupant) capsules built for that purpose. Ideally, Enterprise One would be an international effort. The goal would be to construct something far more substantial (and safer) than one could launch from Earth at one time. If it takes ten years to build, so be it. Once completed Enterprise One could start regular runs to the Moon and back. It would carry Lunar lander modules that would take people to the surface and back. We can learn a lot by having such a spacecraft conduct near-space manned missions with regularity. We could certainly use it to test all manner of technologies, including more advanced robotics. While perhaps not as sexy as going to Mars, I would do this way before even considering manned missions to Mars. Humanity could benefit from Enterprise One in many ways. I see little benefits from sending a married couple for a Mars fly-by.
- kiba 14y ago
  But the whole point of this mission is "inspiration".
  - melling 14y ago
    You wouldn't be inspired by 10x the number of robots moving about the solar system beaming back video, etc?
    - sp332 14y ago
      True, especially since video is all most people would get out of a manned mission either.
rdl 14y ago
As crazy things go, this actually seems quite plausible. If you're ok with potentially dying with higher odds than the Shuttle or ISS, and the mission is scoped to just be a fly-by, you should be able to build a suitable mission out of technology we have now. The big pain is that you only get one launch window, so there's no chance of sending an unmanned version first, etc. And the timescale is compressed (although that also limits the budget helpfully -- it might be less efficient from an engineering perspective, but a 5y drop dead launch date means there will be less bureaucracy and inefficiency...). I'd still prefer robots which stay and build stuff, and then send humans in force later to colonize, but this can be done now and for low-single digit billions, I don't see why not to do it.
- cpeterso 14y ago
  According to [1], there is an fly-by window in 2016. [1] http://io9.com/5987372/everything-we-know-about-dennis-titos-2018-human-mission-to-mars http://io9.com/5987372/everything-we-know-about-dennis-titos...
tocomment 14y ago
I think they talked about using a dragon capsule for this. How can I get a sense for what the inside of that is like? Is it actually livable for a year or more?

62 points by wiradikusuma 14y ago

bobsy 14y ago

While very interesting I don't see the point of not landing on Mars. It seems like a long way to go for a bit of sightseeing. Humans have only landed on the moon once. I would have thought going to moon more often. Establishing some sort of base on the moon and improving space technology would increase the speed in which we do anything meaningful with Mars. I mean, surely there are minerals on the moon? Rare minerals perhaps? Metals? It seems like a far better place to launch ships from due to the lack of atmosphere and less gravity. Do we actually have a method of propulsion apart from rocket fuel? While this is a noble mission, I don't see why there is so much interest in the red planet when we haven't even found a relatively efficient way to get to and from our own moon.

jvzr 14y ago
> Humans have only landed on the moon once. Not to be nitpicky, but humans have landed 6 times on the moon, from '69 to '72. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing) I agree with most of what you've said though. As for the moon and its minerals, I don't think it has any valuable ones but it's an excellent starting place for future long-distance space flights.
GotAnyMegadeth 14y ago
> Humans have only landed on the moon once. 12 people have been to the moon, spread over 6 different missions. http://www.universetoday.com/55512/how-many-people-have-walked-on-the-moon/ http://www.universetoday.com/55512/how-many-people-have-walk...
bfwi 14y ago
Trying to actually get to Mars will surely push technological advancement needed for space travel. It will also inspire people to get involved in space travel. While this mission might not produce other results than getting better at space travel, I definitely see the point of it.
- bobsy 14y ago
  Its possible but I don't see how sending essentailly a flying camper van on a 1000 day mission will bring anything new to the table apart from seeing how crazy 2 people get in a confined space for such a long time.
tehwalrus 14y ago
We have no idea how to build a spaceship that can withstand the radiation in space; especially unpredictable Coronal solar events (as mentioned in the article.) This mission would be an excellent test of building and using a long-haul space vehicle.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > We have no idea how to build a spaceship that can withstand the radiation in space ... No, that's not true, we know how to build it, but we can't afford it. A fully shielded spacecraft is easy to imagine and draw on a piece of paper, but not so easy to build and launch.
  - tehwalrus 14y ago
    In defence of my comment, we have never tested a human-carrying craft in non-earth-orbit-space, during a solar mass ejection event (or other unexpected radiation event). We may know how to guess at building one, but actually trying it is the only way to know if we're right (i.e. if our model fits the universe.) Maybe I was wrong to say "no idea" - but it's still not a solved, easy problem.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > In defence of my comment, we have never tested a human-carrying craft in non-earth-orbit-space, during a solar mass ejection event ... That's true, but (a) we know exactly what radiation levels take place during such an event, and (b) we know how to build radiation shields. It's just not practical to launch an adequate shield. > but actually trying it is the only way to know if we're right ... No, we have enough experience with radiation to know our model corresponds to reality. > but it's still not a solved, easy problem. It's solved, but it's not easy.
Someone 14y ago
As to minerals: according to some, mining the moon for helium-3 will be profitable (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283..., http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/energy-from-space.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science...)
randallsquared 14y ago
> Do we actually have a method of propulsion apart from rocket fuel? There are several alternatives (solar sails, tethers, nuclear), but the engineering details are yet to be worked out, and all of them still ultimately depend on the same principles as rockets: something has to go in the opposite direction for the vehicle to accelerate.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  The idea on solar sails is that they don't need to send something in the opposite direction, they steal momentum (vectored in the travel direction) from the gases and/or photon radiation emitted from the Sun.
ra 14y ago
> Do we actually have a method of propulsion apart from rocket fuel? Absolutely. Hayabusa and Dawn (among others) have already demonstrated the efficiency of ion propulsion systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
- tocomment 14y ago
  Can those work in the upper atmosphere? If not, why not? I'm working on a new way to get into orbit and they'll play a part if I can figure out if it's possible to operate them in the upper atmosphere.
  - ra 14y ago
    They're mass ejection thrusters, so yes. But the amount of thrust produced is minuscule compared to a hydrocarbon burning rocket. So I don't think they'd be useful so deep into earths gravity well.
  - uvdiv 14y ago
    No. Electric propulsion works by bringing ions to very high energies/speeds. This isn't practical in a dense atmosphere, because ions make too many collisions with air molecules. Their energy is dissipated almost immediately, as heat. Moreover, it's not useful for escaping a planet's gravity well, atmosphere or not. Ion thrusters are extremely weak. E.g. the Dawn probe has a thrust/weight ratio of 0.000007. At the earth's surface, the gravity pulling it down would be 135,000 times stronger than the thrusters pushing it up. It can't fly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_Mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_Mission
    - tocomment 14y ago
      Hmm, maybe you can help with my math? (and keep an open mind) Here's what I was thinking. Float an ion thruster powered ship tethered to a weather balloon with solar panels up to 53km altitude (world record) and fire up the thrusters gradually reaching orbital velocity. Here are my calculations: altitude = 53 km Air density = 5.3 kg/m^3 max speed =7 km/s Coefficient of drag = .02 Cross section area = 130 meters I used this equation to calculate the drag: (aird/2) * (speed2) * coeffdrag * area And I got around 340 newtons of drag. If an Ion thruster could produce something greater than that, we might be in business.
Mahn 14y ago
Exactly my thoughts, other than the fact we've landed several times and not just once on the moon, but that's besides the point. It's been nearly 44 years (!) since the first manned moon landing and we have done practically nothing on the moon. 44 years is a HUGE amount of time when it comes to technology, and yet all we can do with the moon so far is talk about how we sent people there once (okay, a few times). Frankly, it's hard to get excited about manned missions to Mars if we won't do a thing with the planet in the following 40 years.
pvarangot 14y ago
> While very interesting I don't see the point of not landing on Mars You need a lot of propellant to escape from Martian gravity (versus, say, the moon or an asteroid). Besides the possible problems with carrying it during the whole mission and being sure it will work in Mars after the whole trip, lifting all that propellant out of the Earth is in the best of cases extremely difficult and expensive. Its an enormous hit in the mass budget for your spacecraft. You can try and do the math, it is not by any means the hardest part of rocketry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation
- iwwr 14y ago
  You can manufacture fuel in-situ on Mars, something not possible (or significantly more difficult) on the Moon. This, coupled with the atmosphere of Mars that provides delta-V savings on the way down (with little drag on the way up) makes Mars somewhat more accessible, energy-wise. Mars is interesting because it has the ingredients for humans living there: water, minerals for industry and agriculture, energy. The Moon has only solar energy, even that dampened by the 2 week long night.
  - XorNot 14y ago
    The problem is we don't really know how we'd do that yet - we have no prototypes on Earth, so it would all have to be invented. I'd budget a decade for that, cautiously, since it has to work once we get there. A much better plan would be an expedition with no set return date (other then intention) - if you were going to land people. A reasonably self-sustaining habitat could probably be set up if we could prove a few key things (namely - can you grow things in Martian soil if you provide an atmosphere, and can you find extra water while you're there?) The big benefit of a fly by mission - the one we should take advantage of - would be to put people close enough that we could do more frequent rover moves since they'd have real time control for a period while in orbit.
    - pasbesoin 14y ago
      You can get someone (ok, some couple) in a can and on their way by 2018, the next near approach. The following near approach will be enough time in the future to define a distinct mission, enough that current interests and abilities may no longer be capable (even multi-millionaires only live so long and/or retain mental capacity so long, or even possibly their money and influence), and enough time in the future that it will not provide the current boost and motivation that is intended. TL;DR: This is in part the "just fucking do it" approach to manned space exploration including travel. Some people argue that it / a return to it are long overdue.
dylangs1030 14y ago
Mars gravity is much more powerful than the Earth's. If they landed with current technology (especially considering the budget) they'd likely be unable to reach orbit.
- rquantz 14y ago
  This is false. Mars gravity is only 38% of Earth's, owing to the fact the Mars has only 10% the mass of Earth. http://www.universetoday.com/22603/mars-compared-to-earth/ http://www.universetoday.com/22603/mars-compared-to-earth/
- lindenr 14y ago
  No. The escape velocity on Mars is 5 km/s, whereas on Earth it is 11 km/s. There is also a lot less of an atmosphere on Mars (though the atmosphere is smaller on Earth) and Martian gravity is significantly smaller than Earth's. It is far easier to leave Mars than it is to leave Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
- nfg 14y ago
  Actually Mars has a considerably smaller gravitational pull than the Earth owing to its lower mass (5.972E24KG -vs- 6.39E23kg).
- rdl 14y ago
  Mars gravity is weaker (so taking off again is easier), but the atmosphere is much thinner, so landing is actually harder. It's relatively easy for lightweight/robust things, but not particularly easy for humans. Parachutes, low-angle aerobraking, etc. all don't work so well. Expending rocket fuel in a retro burn is very expensive (since you have to carry it with you all the way from earth -- a lot of the "take off again" plans involve fuel either cached on Mars or made on Mars).

andyjohnson0 14y ago

I find it hard to see how this is anything other than an attention seeking publicity stunt. We're not going to learn anything about Mars that various orbiting satellites and landers haven't already told us. The effects of long-duration spaceflight have been explored using through Mir and the ISS. The radiation exposure issue is important, but as far as I know solar radiation cycles and intensity are well understood and modelled, as is the effects of radiation on the human body. I guess we might learn about the extreme pathological effects of confining two people together for such a long voyage, but unlike Mars-500 [1] this is unlikely to help with planning serious expeditions which would require larger crews. Tito's belief that marriage will help his crew psychologically survive the experience seems rather naive, and I wonder if he has consulted anyone with knowledge of team dynamics or the psychological effects of isolation and confinement. Sorry to be cynical. I'd love to see a serious expedition to Mars within my lifetime, but this isn't it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500 Edit: Hey downvoters - how about you explain why you disagree? If I'm wrong I'd like to know why so that I can learn.

igravious 14y ago
Perhaps it is that. Perhaps you are being downvoted for your cynicism, lack of adventure, and because you come off like a bit of a killjoy. > attention seeking publicity stunt Perhaps it's not; how do you know inside this man's mind? > not going to learn anything about Mars that various orbiting satellites and landers haven't already told us How do you know? This mission will be manned, that in itself is different. Maybe we will learn stuff. We learn by doing. Also, what did we learn by going to the South Pole? That it was cold? Sometimes people are allowed to do things because they can and because it has yet to be done.
- andyjohnson0 14y ago
  "what did we learn by going to the South Pole?" We learned what was there. In 1911 there was no other way to find out except to go there. Thats not true of Mars, where we have high-resolution mapping data on most of the planet available to everyone [1] and a couple of active rovers on the surface. I'd like to see humans go there to land, explore, and do science. Something like robomartin describes [2]. You mention adventure. Apollo 8 was a real adventure: new hardware, the second crewed US flight, the first to leave orbit, and they took it around the moon when comparatively little was know about it. Titos's proposal is not the same thing. The crew will apparently have little to do during the 500+ days of the flight except for during a single brief swing around Mars. They won't even orbit. I suspect there is a good chance that the crew will come back psychologically damaged for no real gain. Am I a killjoy for saying that? [1] http://www.google.co.uk/mars/ http://www.google.co.uk/mars/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5324850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5324850

rowanseymour 14y ago

As others have said, just flying to Mars isn't going to teach us much that we don't already know from probes, but... "Mr Tito hopes to pay for Inspiration Mars with a mix of his own money, donations from the public and the sale of media rights" Maybe this is going to be the first space-based reality TV show. Could be worthwhile just to get the general population excited about space travel. I can't wait to watch this!

bfwi 14y ago
You're right, it's not going to teach us much about Mars. But it's going to teach us how to get humans from Earth to Mars. That's pretty valuable in my opinion.
- XorNot 14y ago
  Also, first man and women to orbit Mars, first married couple to embark on long-term spaceflight... There's a lot of notable firsts to be had from this, and we know from ground missions that people can certainly deal with being isolated for 500+ days (and not even being in space).

cryptoz 14y ago

The world's billionaires are racing to Mars. This should be very interesting! It will excite humanity and inspire millions of young people to become scientists and engineers. Tito is planning for 2018. Elon Musk around the same time, maybe a bit after. And Bezos will pick up the pace too. We really do have a new Mars-focused space race with multiple billionaires competing. Amazing!

dylangs1030 14y ago

I'm happy someone is finally trying to make this expedition. I've always believed space exploration should be a top priority, even if it's decades before we reach any practical uses for discoveries. That said, I'm worried about it. The Moon landing was a highly planned and comparatively efficient expedition. This is being bankrolled by a man who will likely have some control over things despite not having training. I don't think just anyone should be able to plan monumental journeys through space without the official sanction of NASA - at least not until space travel becomes as ubiquitous as driving or riding the train. There are safety protocols to follow. And choosing 40-50 year old astronauts seems a bit naive. Why wouldn't you choose younger, more fit astronauts? And why not two who have a demonstrated history of working together? Marriage doesn't automatically mean a frictionless relationship. In any case, I hope whoever they choose has the good sense not to start reading from the Bible. Maybe another scripture, or something less denominational.

kiba 14y ago
This is being bankrolled by a man who will likely have some control over things despite not having training What the hell do you mean? He's a former JPL aerospace engineer!
- rdl 14y ago
  Who has already spent more time in space than virtually anyone else who could bankroll this kind of thing (unless Richard Garriott decides to throw down), too.
- andyjohnson0 14y ago
  According to his wikipedia page [1] he got his BSc in 1962 and then got a masters. Since 1972 he's been running an investment management consultancy. So his time as an engineer was at most nine years before 1972. So he was a JPL engineer, but for a short time 40 years ago. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Tito#Life_and_career http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Tito#Life_and_career
- dylangs1030 14y ago
  I mean extensive training - veterenship. Someone who need not be famous but at least is well known for exemplary achievement within NASA for innovation.

andyjohnson0 14y ago

The proposed mission website is at http://inspirationmars.org/ http://inspirationmars.org/

robomartin 14y ago

At some level manned missions to Mars feel like a complete waste of resources to me. Money would be far better spent on enhanced robotic missions. You don't have to provide life support, radiation will not threaten anyone's life, they don't need to be returned to Earth, etc. Besides that, investing serious money on advancing artificial intelligence and robotics would potentially have significant real revenue potential on Earth --probably far greater long term than media rights to watch a middle-aged husband and wife fight for two years while traveling to Mars. What I think might be worthwhile would be the construction of what I am going to call "Enterprise One". This would be a large spaceship (crew of 20 or more) built in orbit. Enterprise One would never be capable of re-entry. That would be the domain of smaller (two or three occupant) capsules built for that purpose. Ideally, Enterprise One would be an international effort. The goal would be to construct something far more substantial (and safer) than one could launch from Earth at one time. If it takes ten years to build, so be it. Once completed Enterprise One could start regular runs to the Moon and back. It would carry Lunar lander modules that would take people to the surface and back. We can learn a lot by having such a spacecraft conduct near-space manned missions with regularity. We could certainly use it to test all manner of technologies, including more advanced robotics. While perhaps not as sexy as going to Mars, I would do this way before even considering manned missions to Mars. Humanity could benefit from Enterprise One in many ways. I see little benefits from sending a married couple for a Mars fly-by.

kiba 14y ago
But the whole point of this mission is "inspiration".
- melling 14y ago
  You wouldn't be inspired by 10x the number of robots moving about the solar system beaming back video, etc?
  - sp332 14y ago
    True, especially since video is all most people would get out of a manned mission either.

rdl 14y ago

As crazy things go, this actually seems quite plausible. If you're ok with potentially dying with higher odds than the Shuttle or ISS, and the mission is scoped to just be a fly-by, you should be able to build a suitable mission out of technology we have now. The big pain is that you only get one launch window, so there's no chance of sending an unmanned version first, etc. And the timescale is compressed (although that also limits the budget helpfully -- it might be less efficient from an engineering perspective, but a 5y drop dead launch date means there will be less bureaucracy and inefficiency...). I'd still prefer robots which stay and build stuff, and then send humans in force later to colonize, but this can be done now and for low-single digit billions, I don't see why not to do it.

cpeterso 14y ago
According to [1], there is an fly-by window in 2016. [1] http://io9.com/5987372/everything-we-know-about-dennis-titos-2018-human-mission-to-mars http://io9.com/5987372/everything-we-know-about-dennis-titos...

tocomment 14y ago

I think they talked about using a dragon capsule for this. How can I get a sense for what the inside of that is like? Is it actually livable for a year or more?