Is inspiration mars more possible than expected? Also how do you think it should be done?

[DerpenWolf]

So Inspiration mars, a Privately funded organization looking to do a Mars and possibly Venus flyby, is expecting their project to cost around 1-2 billion dollars. The organization believes that they can at least provide $300 million dollars (a third of which provided by Dennis Tito) and have so far been unable to convince the US government to invest the extra ~$700 million or so dollars. Despite this I still think that they may be able to pull the mission off with the $300 million (or at least reasonably close to it). I think I have a few reasonable ideas on how they might be able to pull this off but I want you guys to yell at me when something won't work and be sure to suggest ideas of your own!!!

Expected requirements:

-Life support lasting for 501-589 days depending on the launch date

-About 1360 kg of dehydrated food stuffs (Noting this as it is a known required payload mass)

-Reentry capsule with a heat-shield that can survive

-Additional module of some kind probually for living, life support, and other key things

-Heavy lift vehicle that can get everything on a trans-martian orbit

-Some way to do small adjustment maneuvers

What I'm thinking about:

After pondering some of this stuff for awhile I realized that SpaceX may actually be able to provide Inspiration mars with two essential components of the mission, the capsule and the launch vehicle.

-The Falcon Heavy is expected to start flying in 2015 and is expected to be capable of delivering around 14,000 kg on a trans-Martian orbit which might be enough to pull the mission off in a single launch if weight can be kept down. I think that the expected launch cost is about $100 million but I'm not certain on this

-The Dragon Capsules (either variant assuming that they are going to be very similar in construction) should be able to survive up to two years in space (meaning that the seals wont go bad or something like that, life support wont last nearly as long) in addition to that we know the dry mass of the dragon 1 should be about 4200 kg and has room for about 6000 kg to orbit. I have no idea what the exact specs of the dragon 2 (any data on it is massively appreciated) but I'm assuming the mass of the thing will be about 5500kg or so. Dragon 2 is the preferred capsule as it has the Draco thruster package that works as a launch escape system as well as pre installed propulsion system that I assume could be used for course adjustments. My main concern is that a custom heat shield might be required, not sure on this though do to conflicting data.

This pretty much leaves us with the extra module that will be holding pretty much all of our life support, supplies, and other various things with an allowed mass of about 8500 kg. (we probually have spent about $170 million on the launch and dragon capsule, leaving $120 million left to be spent) Now I'm Assuming we can probually make a pressurized tube to fit all of this stuff inside for about 3500kg (this estimate is based off of what a striped down dragon capsule might weigh if you removed a lot of unneeded mass, ie, heat-shield, other junk). So now we have about 5000 kg of mass left and we know we need at least 1360 kg of food so that gets brought down to about 3640 kg left to work with. The question is that enough for everything else? (recycling systems, water, etc. Preferably packed in such a way to provide a good amount of radiation shielding)

What do you think of this rough idea? Possible? Am I a space Yokel? Be sure to tell me in the comments and tell me how you think such a mission should be pulled off!

Edited January 29, 2015 by DerpenWolf

[AngelLestat]

I dont see the point on manned fly-by, in fact, I feel bad for the astronauts which they need to be 2 years in orbit, without radiative protection (maybe not artificial gravity) just to see mars or venus one day.

[Newt]

The main issue I see with this is the huge amount of stock being placed on the SpaceX systems, which at this point are necessarily taken as large areas of uncertainty. This is not to say that Falcon Heavy/Dragon is pure fantasy, but simply that these are still a ways off, and who knows what can happen to their promises before launches become routine.

As for the flyby comment, I see where you are coming from, but really the question is not about the astronauts (who probably would be really excited anyway, being the furthest humans away from Earth, ever, the first humans to see any planet past the Earth in any detail, et cetera), as much as it is about the science. This is more a question of why send humans to space in the first place, and there is an argument to be made that, on such a mission, the astronauts would be a bunch of dead weight. Such a mission will not fly. We should not send people on missions that robots could do better and more cheaply, and I think that this mission may qualify as one where humans are exceptional burdens rather than explorers.

[magnemoe]

I dont see the point on manned fly-by, in fact, I feel bad for the astronauts which they need to be 2 years in orbit, without radiative protection (maybe not artificial gravity) just to see mars or venus one day.

Neither do I rather do an manned mission to an asteroid if you want an long term manned mission except an Mars landing.

Much of the same dV requirements and let you do useful stuff at target. Multiple samples including deep drilling to see if its ice or other stuff deep inside.

[Streetwind]

-The Falcon Heavy is expected to start flying in 2015 and is expected to be capable of delivering around 14,000 kg on a trans-Martian orbit which might be enough to pull the mission off in a single launch if weight can be kept down. I think that the expected launch cost is about $100 million but I'm not certain on this

SpaceX advertises $85 million for a slot up to one-third of the Falcon Heavy's GTO payload. That means the total launch cost of the Falcon Heavy is closer to $250 million than $100 million, sorry...

That's still cheap for a lifter of this magnitude, mind you - but it kind of invalidates your idea here.

[KerBlam]

Why should robots have all the fun? Sure humans are heavy, but there's heaps of them, and probably quite a few that would sacrifice 2-5 years (or all) of their lives to get to be the first person to see Venus and Mars up close.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd probably do it if I could.

Also, purely as a spectator, would you prefer to see the reaction of a person as they draw close to Venus, or a robot? I'd love to see that. Imagine the moon landing if it was a robot instead of Neil Armstrong... Not nearly as interesting.

As far as your plan goes $300 mill seems amazingly cheap for a project of that magnitude.

[xenomorph555]

People who say Falcon Heavy really need to get back to reality, 14 tonnes is no where near enough for this mission, even 25 ain't enough. This is a 40+ tonne mission.

[Robotengineer]

What is the science value of a manned flyby? I don't see the point of spending 2+ years in space, if you're not going to land.

[FishInferno]

The value of a manned flyby is that people will be inspired by it rather than just "oh yeah we have robots on Mars"

[Nibb31]

In any case, I hope nobody is going to pay $1 million for the view. A Mars flyby will always approach and leave the planet on the dark side, so you won't see anything.

Other than that, it's ludicrous to think that this could be done in a Dragon, or that you could develop and test a 2-year life-support module for that amount of money.

[Kibble]

What is the science value of a manned flyby? I don't see the point of spending 2+ years in space, if you're not going to land.

Piloted missions are not (and rightly shouldn't be) about planetary science. The greatest benefit of people living in space, is learning how to live in space. It may sound circular, but despite all the "pragmatists" rhetorically asking human spaceflight's Forbidden Question, we will go into space and live there - for the same reason a small group of humans left lush familiar Africa to brave a treacherous journey to the rest of the world.

[SuperFastJellyfish]

we will go into space and live there - for the same reason a small group of humans left lush familiar Africa to brave a treacherous journey to the rest of the world.

Naturally expanding outwards because of a population boom during an extended wet Sahara period?

[Kibble]

Naturally expanding outwards because of a population boom during an extended wet Sahara period?

Thats a very unromantic way to put it! Anyway there are lots of theories as to why, but the important thing is that it happened for some reason or another, probably lots of reasons. Reasons that won't go away as long as we are still Homo Sapiens.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Kibble

[SuperFastJellyfish]

Thats a very unromantic way to put it!

Scientific forums are the quickest way to suck romance out of anything!

[Nibb31]

...for the same reason a small group of humans left lush familiar Africa to brave a treacherous journey to the rest of the world.

The difference being that the rest of the world was habitable without constant supply lines and fragile high-tech life-support.

[Kibble]

The difference being that the rest of the world was habitable without constant supply lines and fragile high-tech life-support.

Today's fragile high-tech life support is tomorrow's bark canoes and animal skins. That technology was extremely advanced for the time.

As for supply lines, that is a straw man issue - we will never go anywhere ISRU isn't possible. And I'm sure you are aware there are plenty of promising ISRU methods for many destinations.

[Robotengineer]

Piloted missions are not (and rightly shouldn't be) about planetary science. The greatest benefit of people living in space, is learning how to live in space. It may sound circular, but despite all the "pragmatists" rhetorically asking human spaceflight's Forbidden Question, we will go into space and live there - for the same reason a small group of humans left lush familiar Africa to brave a treacherous journey to the rest of the world.

That's why we have the ISS, so for human science in space, you can do that in LEO or on the ground. Also, anybody who thinks that humans will NOT leave this planet, needs to get their head checked.

[AndrewBCrisp]

It's true that, when it comes to living in space, both Inspiration Mars and the ISS can deliver similar lessons. However:

The ISS is a multinational, multi-billion dollar laboratory with 3-6 people at all times and dependable resupply. To get the data on living in space for a true Mars trip, you would need to do the following to the ISS:

1. Get all the member nations to agree to risk the ISS on a 2 year long experiment.

2. Refit the ISS to support its crew internally, without resupply.

3. Conclude, suspend or cancel any experiments currently going on the ISS that require resupply with Earth or that have components that must be returned to Earth inside the 2 year window.

4. Get 3-6 volunteers willing to spend 2 years in orbit without any chance of leaving (outside of a worst-case scenario requiring evacuation).

5. Leave the ISS and its 3-6 volunteers in orbit for 2 years with no physical assistance whatsoever.

6. If the worst happens, be prepared to write off that multi-billion dollar laboratory as so much scrap metal.

Inspiration Mars, by comparison, would be a specially built spacecraft for this experiment, would support 2 people for a 2+ year mission without resupply, and would take humans further from the Earth than ever before. It could fail, but if it does, it doesn't take out any other research programs involving human spaceflight, as tying up the ISS would do. At the 1-2 billion dollar price tag, it's cheaper than the ISS, risks fewer people, and it sets a record for human endurance in space. Up until now, the longest time a human has spent in space has been 437 days, or over 1 year and 2 months.

So I would say Inspiration Mars is worth the effort. Is it feasible by the 2018 launch date? That becomes more problematic. The Crew Dragon should be in use by that point (I think SpaceX is aiming for 2017 as the year the Crew Dragon has its first crewed launch?), but I'm not sure about the rest of the hardware. I'd personally feel a little more comfortable with, say, a 6 month dry run in Earth orbit to demonstrate the ship's ability to support humans for the time required.

[KerikBalm]

Ughhh.... smae old tripe.

Crossing an ocean is not comparable to going to another planet,

Crossing a continent via a land bridge certainly is not.

"Inspiration" is awefully expensive and subjective. I'd be more inspired by roboticly aquired imagery of Europa's oceans and titan's lakes

[Hannu]

Inspiration Mars, by comparison, would be a specially built spacecraft for this experiment, would support 2 people for a 2+ year mission without resupply, and would take humans further from the Earth than ever before. It could fail, but if it does, it doesn't take out any other research programs involving human spaceflight, as tying up the ISS would do. At the 1-2 billion dollar price tag, it's cheaper than the ISS, risks fewer people, and it sets a record for human endurance in space. Up until now, the longest time a human has spent in space has been 437 days, or over 1 year and 2 months.

Yes, that kind of experiment gives science and technical experience of extended human operations. But there are no any good reason to make a Mars flyby. Every scientific and technical aspect can be achieved without leaving LEO. Mars flyby just add risks (if something goes wrong, abort or rescue is totally impossible) and costs (very heavy launcher). Manned Mars flyby is not such a political or PR achievement than manned landing and return would be. I suspect that any government does not give funds to that kind of mission.

- - - Updated - - -

Crossing an ocean is not comparable to going to another planet,

Crossing a continent via a land bridge certainly is not.

They are very comparable in many ways. First expeditions over oceans or unknown continents were actually much more dangerous and expensive than manned space exploration is now. There were many ships and many crews who never returned. Much more missed or killed in action guys than during modern space exploration age. And there was intensive developing in areas of shipbuilding, navigation, crew safety etc. Kings probably used larger part of their budgets than modern governments do.

[Tommygun]

I could see a flyby mission as a test run to field test the psychological well being, life support and other miscellaneous equipment needed to make the trip.

They did it with Apollo and yes they can do simulations on Earth or the ISS, but they can never be as good as a real trial run.

Especially the psychological stress of knowing you can't abort and return to Earth in a few hours.

[Bill Phil]

Apollo 8 actually orbited the Moon... And it was to beat the Russians.

[KerikBalm]

They are very comparable in many ways. First expeditions over oceans or unknown continents were actually much more dangerous ... than manned space exploration is now.

Cool, so then space exploration is also equivalent to landing on the beach on D-Day.

Its also equivalent to the workers at the Chernobyl nuclear plant.

Because... more dangerous

and expensive than manned space exploration is now

I'm sorry, but this is BS.

There were many ships and many crews who never returned. Much more missed or killed in action guys than during modern space exploration age.

Cool, so space exploration = WWI

And there was intensive developing in areas of shipbuilding, navigation, crew safety etc. Kings probably used larger part of their budgets than modern governments do.

And there was intensive developing in areas of strip mining, or auto manufacturing, so lets say those are equivalent as well.

If the budget size was more (I have my doubts), one must also consider the massively smaller population, the much smaller size (geographically speaking) of those nation, and that the budgets back then were much smaller relative to GDP.

And again, wars use larger parts of the budget too. What do you think D-day cost? More than a Saturn V I bet. D-day = space colonization.

The distance you walk when living on a farm, comapred to the distance you'd walk to cross from asia to Norht America is TINY compared to the distances of space exploration.

The difference in the environment between the origin and destination is TINY compared to the differences in space exploration.

Sure, there was the going into unexplored territory... but that ignores the MASSIVE differences in scale (distance and resources) and environment.

How many man-hours went into making the Carracks of Columbus?

How many people did those Carracks carry?

How easy was ISRU at the destination?

Now ask the same things of the appolo program...

The comparison is laughable.

When columbus reached land, he immediately had access to fresh water, breathable air, sources of food, and wood which could be worked on site with minimal tools to make repairs and constructs smaller vessels.

Of course, columbus even had natives to learn from and enslave.

It would be better to look at the polynesians... who had even smaller boats, and the environments they traversed were even more similar.

This comparison is old and attempts to equate massively dissimilar ideas, which I always think indicates ignorance of the magnitudes involved in such things

[Kibble]

This comparison is old and attempts to equate massively dissimilar ideas, which I always think indicates ignorance of the magnitudes involved in such things

The establishment of permanent extraterrestrial human settlements is in no way inherently dissimilar from the human expansion that has been going on for a hundred thousand years. To make a voyage from Europe to the Americas required as advanced technology and intrepid human spirit as space exploration does today. Don't forget sailing ships had existed for six thousand years before Columbus made his voyage. Orbital rockets have only existed for seventy years. Over the thousands of years in the future space vehicles will get more ubiquitous, easier to construct, and more optimized for the tasks at hand. As will ISRU processes and closed-loop life support systems.

[Hannu]

This comparison is old and attempts to equate massively dissimilar ideas, which I always think indicates ignorance of the magnitudes involved in such things

Of course absolute values of every parameters are different. But in my opinion it is ridiculous comparison, because modern society have many orders of magnitude larger production capability and higher technical level.

But it is not or have never been a real restriction of earth or space explorations. Attitude of highest leaders (political or economic) of states is. It is and has always been relatively small group of people. If they want to explore, typically to get more money, more power or just to swagger to other countries leaders (Apollo), then it happens. And otherwise not. There are not any technical or economical obstacles to manned Mars mission today. It is just political will. Any of 10 richest contries could do it during one decade, if they really wanted.