Free-return Mars flyby questions

[Winter Man]

It is absolutely pointless from any scientific perspective. You couldn't make any useful observations and you wouldn't have to time to teleoperate any useful experiments on the ground.

If all you want is the experience of watching a Mars sunrise and sunset through a 20cm porthole, then you could reproduce that with an IMAX projector for a fraction of the cost.

Jesus, don't go then. You can do an awful lot with just a ground penetrating radar, and that doesn't need daylight.

[maccollo]

If all you want is the experience of watching a Mars sunrise and sunset through a 20cm porthole, then you could reproduce that with an IMAX projector for a fraction of the cost.

If you want to see the majestic fjords of Norway you can buy a plane ticket, a hotel, rent a car and do all that.

Or you can Google it, for a fraction of a fraction of the cost.

It is absolutely pointless from any scientific perspective. You couldn't make any useful observations and you wouldn't have to time to teleoperate any useful experiments on the ground.

So? Who said we should do a manned flyby of Mars for the science?

You could send several orbiters for the cost of such a mission, and being orbiters they would yield far more science return than a just a flyby, so obviously science return would not be the reason to do it.

I would support such a mission because it's would be a stepping stone for manned missions to the surface of Mars. You might argue there are other types of missions with scientific objectives that would serve as a similar stepping stone. I would support that aswell. I will support whichever mission that takes manned spaceflight outside geocentric space.

Edited February 10, 2014 by maccollo

[Nibb31]

Jesus, don't go then. You can do an awful lot with just a ground penetrating radar, and that doesn't need daylight.

What's the point of sending a ground penetrating radar just to do a single flyby?

So? Who said we should do a manned flyby of Mars for the science?

Because you need at least a small rationale for spending billions of dollars to do something.

The only other reason would be for billionnaire's joyride, which won't serve much of a purpose to Mankind. However, it would still be a cruise where you don't get to see anything because it's night time. If you're going to watch the flyby on a night-vision LCD monitor, then it takes a lot of joy out of the joyride.

I would support such a mission because it's would be a stepping stone for manned missions to the surface of Mars.

What do you mean by support? If it means actually contributing billions of taxpayer dollars, then sorry, but I wouldn't support it. If it's a private effort to send a billionnaire on a stunt, then I don't see why he would need my support.

And it wouldn't be a stepping stone at all. Very little of the technology for a flyby would be of any value for an actual manned mission to the surface of Mars.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Nibb31

[MrZayas1]

I think i may have replied to this thread earlier but i will again just in case. With the latest and greatest ion and propulsion technology, we could have theoretically have made it to mars 20 years ago. Sadly, due to financial restraints, this is not true. Foods and supplies are likely easy to carry, but once we are on mars this all becomes mostly irrelavent. Reason being that all parts of your life will be controlled, your oxygen, your food supply, your sleeping patterns, and your daily routine will have to be productive. I will go off topic and explain how we would progress on mars. Using the current rule: you cannot return to earth; then you would basically have to adapt to mars right? Well this isn't true, because we make Earth adapt to us all the time. The best thing we could do on mars is what we do on earth. Global warming. There are gasses out there that give off extreme greenhouse affects that are far superior to carbon dioxide. And if we were to produce enough "pollutants" into the air of mars, we would be able to create enough climatical heat that the ice in martian soil would melt, and form rivers and oceans on mars that look similar to our on earth. This method is called terraforming. Now, even though this will take about 200-300 years, mars could become an earth within such time period.

Back to the actual question. The amount of food you would need would be mostly for the trip to mars, rather than actually for when you are ON mars. The martian soil composition maybe different than that of earth's, but the minerals under the surface are similar so we can build systems and even rocket fuel on mars. This allows us to create strong (and hopefully durable) structures to protect us from the atmosphere and winds. Once that is finished, the soil from earth would be used to farm Earthen crops in the carbon dioxide rich air. So theoretically you would only need food for the trip to mars, not once you get there. I hope this sort of nerdilly answers your question! Glad i could help if it does!

[check]

Here's a cool paper I found a while ago about Mars free returns via a Venus gravity assist. There's an awesome opportunity for a Mars flyby in 2017 with a Venus gravity assist.

http://cmapspaceexp.ihmc.us/rid=1JWVZ8RM5-TQKTP4-18RG/Mars%20Free%20Returns%20Via%20Gravity%20Assist%20from%20Venus.pdf

Mission duration would be 475 days (shorter than Inspiration Mars plan), and while it spends some time closer to the sun than Inspiration Mars' flyby plan, the overall radiation exposure should be less (assuming the same solar radiation output) because the time spent close to the sun is minimized. The launch delta-V is also less than inspiration Mars. The main drawback is the Earth arrival velocity, 13 km/s which is pretty high.

Too bad NASA or some other space agency didn't jump on this opportunity. We could have had a flyby of two planets for the price of one. It's too late to design a mission now.

[Kryten]

Jesus, don't go then. You can do an awful lot with just a ground penetrating radar, and that doesn't need daylight.

Ground-penetrating radar is very short-ranged, you aren't going to be able to get any data at all at the kind of distances you'd get with a Mars flyby.

[Crowchild]

What's the point of sending a ground penetrating radar just to do a single flyby?

Because you need at least a small rationale for spending billions of dollars to do something.

The only other reason would be for billionnaire's joyride, which won't serve much of a purpose to Mankind. However, it would still be a cruise where you don't get to see anything because it's night time. If you're going to watch the flyby on a night-vision LCD monitor, then it takes a lot of joy out of the joyride.

What do you mean by support? If it means actually contributing billions of taxpayer dollars, then sorry, but I wouldn't support it. If it's a private effort to send a billionnaire on a stunt, then I don't see why he would need my support.

And it wouldn't be a stepping stone at all. Very little of the technology for a flyby would be of any value for an actual manned mission to the surface of Mars.

Dude.. don't be a debby downer. :/

[metaphor]

And it wouldn't be a stepping stone at all. Very little of the technology for a flyby would be of any value for an actual manned mission to the surface of Mars.

It would validate some technologies needed for a surface Mars mission, like long-duration reliable life support, long-lag-time mission control support, radiation shielding, and high-speed re-entry, as well as gain some data on radiation doses and human psychological responses to being away from Earth for an extended time. Basically the part of the Mars surface mission that involves going to/from Mars. Most of this could also be done with a mission to a NEA (near-Earth asteroid) or to Mars/Venus orbit, but a Mars flyby mission would be cheaper, less complex, and probably safer. A Venus flyby mission would be even better, but people seem more interested in Mars.

Edited February 10, 2014 by metaphor

[Albert VDS]

Because you need at least a small rationale for spending billions of dollars to do something.

The only other reason would be for billionnaire's joyride, which won't serve much of a purpose to Mankind. However, it would still be a cruise where you don't get to see anything because it's night time. If you're going to watch the flyby on a night-vision LCD monitor, then it takes a lot of joy out of the joyride.

What do you mean by support? If it means actually contributing billions of taxpayer dollars, then sorry, but I wouldn't support it. If it's a private effort to send a billionnaire on a stunt, then I don't see why he would need my support.

And it wouldn't be a stepping stone at all. Very little of the technology for a flyby would be of any value for an actual manned mission to the surface of Mars.

How about using it as a test for interplanetary travel. I bet there a ton of test that can be conducted during the whole mission.

But the main reason Dennis Tito wants to do is in the projects name: "Inspiration Mars"

[DerekL1963]

It is absolutely pointless from any scientific perspective. You couldn't make any useful observations and you wouldn't have to time to teleoperate any useful experiments on the ground.

The point of a free-return Mars mission isn't science, it's engineering and research and development. It's the Apollo 7 and 8 of Martian exploration wrapped up in a single mission. And considering that in terms of preparations for Martian exploration we're barely at Liberty Bell 7 levels... we should be thinking in terms of Apollo 7 and 8. One the things, probably *the* key thing that's holding back space exploration is that we spend so dang little time on engineering - since every mission must succeed and must succeed in terms of science, the result has been a crippling conservatism in engineering.

[maccollo]

A Venus flyby mission would be even better, but people seem more interested in Mars.

It probably has something to do with the fact that if you put a person on Mars in a pressured suit they will survive. At least until the oxygen runs out.

Do the same on Venus and that person will die pretty much instantly. At best that person could survive in for a few minutes in one of those deep sea submarines, but will still roast to death after a few minutes.

That sort of makes Venus irrelevant for manned spaceflight.

Unless we can do interesting things in Venus orbit?

Edited February 10, 2014 by maccollo

[Nibb31]

It would validate some technologies needed for a surface Mars mission, like long-duration reliable life support, long-lag-time mission control support, radiation shielding, and high-speed re-entry, as well as gain some data on radiation doses and human psychological responses to being away from Earth for an extended time.

Those technologies need research and development, not validation. There isn't enough time between now and 2018 to bring all of them to the appropriate TRL for manned spaceflight, especially on private funds.

The point of a free-return Mars mission isn't science, it's engineering and research and development. It's the Apollo 7 and 8 of Martian exploration wrapped up in a single mission. And considering that in terms of preparations for Martian exploration we're barely at Liberty Bell 7 levels... we should be thinking in terms of Apollo 7 and 8. One the things, probably *the* key thing that's holding back space exploration is that we spend so dang little time on engineering - since every mission must succeed and must succeed in terms of science, the result has been a crippling conservatism in engineering.

Apollo 7 and 8 were validation flights for actual flight hardware. At the time they were launched, all the pieces were practically in place for the moon landing.

A flyby in 2018, as proposed by Tito, wouldn't validate any actual hardware that would be used for an actual mission. It's supposed to be a Dragon on a Falcon Heavy, maybe with a small inflatable in the trunk, but that's it. There would need to be a closed-loop ECLSS plus 2 years of supplies on board. The clock has probably already run out on that anyway with only 4 years to launch and no hardware being built.

I agree that the engineering aspect is important. However, I disagree that little effort is spent on engineering... Since Constellation (and even before), NASA has spent much of its resources designing new vehicles but never flying them simply because they lacked a mission, ie. the focus is on engineering shiny new rockets, but the actual motivation for the mission is simply non-existant. Unfortunately, the only reason for funding a public space program is either national prestige (for which there are more affordable means) or science.

The only reason for finding a private space program is either to achieve a return on investment or to send a billionnaire with too much money on a joyride. Neither are really sustainable at this time.

It probably has something to do with the fact that if you put a person on Mars in a pressured suit they will survive. At least until the oxygen runs out.

Do the same on Venus and that person will die pretty much instantly. At best that person could survive in for a few minutes in one of those deep sea submarines, but will still roast to death after a few minutes.

How is that relevant for a flyby ?

Edited February 11, 2014 by Nibb31

[metaphor]

Those technologies need research and development, not validation. There isn't enough time between now and 2018 to bring all of them to the appropriate TRL for manned spaceflight, especially on private funds.

I'm not saying the 2018 timeline is the best, I'm just talking about a Mars flyby in general. There are other good opportunities in 2021 (580-day Mars+Venus flyby for less C3 and lower re-entry speed) and afterwards that NASA and others could take advantage of. (and also opportunities for a Venus flyby almost every year)

Dennis Tito isn't planning on using the Falcon Heavy anymore (it doesn't have enough margin), but the SLS. mission architecture study

Edited February 11, 2014 by metaphor

[Nibb31]

I'm not saying the 2018 timeline is the best, I'm just talking about a Mars flyby in general. There are other good opportunities in 2021 (580-day Mars+Venus flyby for less C3 and lower re-entry speed) and afterwards that NASA and others could take advantage of. (and also opportunities for a Venus flyby almost every year)

Dennis Tito isn't planning on using the Falcon Heavy anymore (it doesn't have enough margin), but the SLS. mission architecture study

Well, he's not getting an SLS. The SLS is only available for government launches and NASA isn't interested in doing a flyby stunt.

[rkman]

Jesus, don't go then.

Will you go? I don't think anyone here will go. To expensive. And the people who do have the money to pay for such a thing probably won't go either. Billionaires, just like anyone, are quite risk averse when it comes to their own life.

However, if anyone goes on a trip like that it would be financed by you and me (tax money).

If it were up to me i'd rather have some of my tax money spent on a Mars mission that is dedicated to science, rather than having a very significant part of the budget spent on accommodating a couple of people that want to have a brief glance at Mars from up close.

Any educated guesses at to how many Curiosities we could send to Mars for the cost of one manned fly-by mission?

[SargeRho]

I'd go in a heartbeat, actually.

And I think about 4.

[NikkyD]

There are tons of issues on earth that need money FIRST.

A mars trip is pure luxury, i doubt that you could learn anything there that solves just one problem on this planet.

[SargeRho]

Actually you are wrong. Investment in space has ALWAYS bettered life for everyone. There were issues when Columbus set out on his voyage, and I kid you not, there were issues when we left Africa.

[NASAFanboy]

There are tons of issues on earth that need money FIRST.

A mars trip is pure luxury, i doubt that you could learn anything there that solves just one problem on this planet.

If everyone had a defeatist mentality like that, we would still be living in caves.

Seriously, I cannot be more blunt with this message, but....

Screw the Earth.

It is better to turn our homeplanet into an wasteland and another planet into an Eden while furthering efforts to conquer the solar system than to stay on this one rock and invite extinction. Our future is NOT down here, it is up there. In space. Not down here. No way.

As long as Earth exists, there will always be issues. Deal with it.

And you are wrong about saying how a Mars landing will not benifit Earthlings.

Ways to farm on Mars could be applied to ways to make deserts more habitable on Earth. Lifesupport technologies used on such a trip would revolutionize medicine and biotechnology on Earth. It would also give us an understanding of our true place in the universe-one small rock, among the many. We are insignificant, but we shall, and we will, make an impact on the Cosmos.

Edited February 11, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[NikkyD]

It is better to turn our homeplanet into an wasteland and another planet into an Eden

And how long, do you think, will this planet stay "eden" ... with humans on it ?!

[NASAFanboy]

And how long, do you think, will this planet stay "eden" ... with humans on it ?!

As long as the human race pleases.

Once we get the capability to transform an planet into an Eden, we are the masters of said planet, the Alpha Race, the owners. While the human is insignificant, I have an very, very, very strong belief that the interests of humanity as a whole are much more important than the interests of anything else, which includes the Earth. We own the universe, and research and science is our way of consolidating this rule and reaffirimg it, and exercising our power. Sure, we probably won't land on Mars next week, but we could do that by 2030. And sure, we won't travel to Alpha Centauri, but we'll do that by 2200.

Getting us out into space is more important than anything else I can think of.

That includes my life, the interests of my employers, and Earth.

With an defeatist attitude, we get nowhere.

[metaphor]

Any educated guesses at to how many Curiosities we could send to Mars for the cost of one manned fly-by mission?

Probably less than one. A crewed Mars flyby is at least an order of magnitude cheaper than a crewed Mars landing. Dennis Tito estimates it at $800 million, but it's probably more like $2 billion (still less than Curiosity).

[DerekL1963]

Any educated guesses at to how many Curiosities we could send to Mars for the cost of one manned fly-by mission?

Shoot, if money is your issue, how many Model-T's could we buy for one Curiosity?

[Kryten]

Probably less than one. A crewed Mars flyby is at least an order of magnitude cheaper than a crewed Mars landing. Dennis Tito estimates it at $800 million, but it's probably more like $2 billion (still less than Curiosity).

A large proportion of that is development cost. The 2020 rover re-using the basic curiosity design is 1.5 billion, including the development of the entirely new instrument suite.

[rkman]

Shoot, if money is your issue, how many Model-T's could we buy for one Curiosity?

I compare the cost of one Mars mission with the cost of another Mars mission, you compare the cost of one Mars mission with the cost of... cars. Apples, oranges.

Money isn't so much my issue, cost is generally an issue in reality.