neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 349 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2185 times:
Space tourist Dennis Tito plans first human Mars mission for 2018
Is the target of five years realistic for a totally new outfit currently without equipment, experience and most importantly the BIG money needed?
The snippet below looks interesting. Are we seeing the first space lovebirds?
quote: Tito, 72, won’t fly the mission. Instead, he will send a man and woman — preferably married....
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10456 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (2 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2081 times:
Quoting neutrino (Thread starter): Instead, he will send a man and woman — preferably married....
After 501 days together in a small spacecraft, I doubt they will remain so!
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10243 posts, RR: 40 Reply 4, posted (2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2014 times:
Dennis Tito flew to the ISS and back on the Russian Soyuz TMA-32. That is the ship they should use if they want to do a 501 days manned mission to Mars.
Space X are not quite up there yet. Still showing problems with thrusters as of today's launch. They are still very far from having their own manned missions to the ISS with their launchers and capsules.
If I was a candidate to fly a space mission I would want to fly on a Soyuz or nothing. The cute little vessel has proved right most every time if not every time.
Not too different from Yuri Gagarin's Vostok and it still goes without fail.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 349 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2012 times:
The Washington Post also mentioned that "Tito has assembled a team that includes experts in life support systems and space medicine."
It crossed my mind that they will also have to look into "life suppression" as well. I mean, thay have to come up with "space-proof" contraceptives like eg. condoms which have to be 100% effective.
Imagine the complications resulting from a unwanted pregnancy - especially during most of the journey.
The tail end should be ok for a first made-in-space but delivered-on-Earth baby.
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10243 posts, RR: 40 Reply 6, posted (2 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1999 times:
Quoting neutrino (Reply 5): Imagine the complications resulting from a unwanted pregnancy - especially during most of the journey.
The tail end should be ok for a first made-in-space but delivered-on-Earth baby.
Outlandish.
They should send 60+ aged astronauts in excellent physical condition with a fair experience of space flight. Also they should definitely use Russian equipment so they will minimize chances of failure - unless they really want to put human lives at risk by using newer and less proved equipment.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
Is that a pun?
Seriously, they have to have that base covered.
Your suggestion of a menopausal better half for the space-faring couple can be a solution to accidental conception.
boeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 490 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1992 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 4): If I was a candidate to fly a space mission I would want to fly on a Soyuz or nothing. The cute little vessel has proved right most every time if not every time.
If you don't count 4 cosmonauts loosing their lives in the Soyuz, then it's proven itself right. That's if you're talking spacecraft. If you're talking launch vehicles, the R-7/Soyuz family, although the most used launcher in history, has had 114 launch failures over the years.
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 4): Not too different from Yuri Gagarin's Vostok and it still goes without fail.
Last documented launch failure was on 24 August 2011. Also a 6% failure rate over its lifetime. Compared to the Space Shuttles 1.5% failure rate it's not exactly as safe as you think it is.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 1): There is no point at all in going there without landing.
If we had that attitude during Apollo there would have been a high probability of mission failure. Apollo 8 and 10 were instrumental in the success of Apollo 11.
To be honest I see future space exploration coming from the private sector and if this flight to Mars pans out it will spur further private space ventures. All the best to Tito if he can find the investors for this venture.
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10243 posts, RR: 40 Reply 9, posted (2 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1989 times:
Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 8):
Last documented launch failure was on 24 August 2011. Also a 6% failure rate over its lifetime. Compared to the Space Shuttles 1.5% failure rate it's not exactly as safe as you think it is.
Space Shuttles were fabulous I was a big fan I loved going to KSC to see the launches only they are now all grounded and in museums and they will most probably never fly again.
Soyuz still flies and they are doing very well.
The Space X manned missions are still ways away in the unknown they have barely started ferrying cargo to the ISS and still having mishaps - again today. It will be a long while until they fly humans.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
BEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 827 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1973 times:
Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 8): Last documented launch failure was on 24 August 2011. Also a 6% failure rate over its lifetime. Compared to the Space Shuttles 1.5% failure rate it's not exactly as safe as you think it is.
Are you counting Progress in this statistic? The 6% doesn't sound right.
Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10456 posts, RR: 20 Reply 13, posted (2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1964 times:
Quoting neutrino (Reply 5): I mean, thay have to come up with "space-proof" contraceptives like eg. condoms which have to be 100% effective.
Imagine the complications resulting from a unwanted pregnancy - especially during most of the journey.
Pulling out would have its complications too, especially in a zero-g environment!
Quoting neutrino (Reply 5): The tail end should be ok for a first made-in-space but delivered-on-Earth baby.
Hmm, allowing for nooky on the ISS/STS, seems they might be the first members in the 1k, 10k, 100k, 1m and 10m high club, and many points in between!
boeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 490 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1953 times:
Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 12): Are you counting Progress in this statistic? The 6% doesn't sound right.
That's why I said lifetime. 1748 launches with 114 failures = 6.52%. It's a bit time consuming to do progress analysis but I am sure the failure rate is lower due to progress. The current Soyuz-U, for instance, has had 745 launches with 21 failures which is 2.8%.
nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1938 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 4): Dennis Tito flew to the ISS and back on the Russian Soyuz TMA-32. That is the ship they should use if they want to do a 501 days manned mission to Mars.
Have you ever seen the inside of a Soyuz? You have to cram the passengers in there with a shoehorn. Two days in one would drive anyone crazy. A year and a half isn't remotely possible.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4787 posts, RR: 9 Reply 16, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1871 times:
Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 8): If we had that attitude during Apollo there would have been a high probability of mission failure. Apollo 8 and 10 were instrumental in the success of Apollo 11.
Apollo's goal was landing on the Moon. The journey being short, there was no problem in doing trial runs without landing. The proposal here doesn't help much in the goal of landing on Mars. In fact they don't even use an interesting propulsion, they plan a fairly long voyage.
By the way, nobody remembers Apollo 8's crew, there's a reason for that.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1989 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1840 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 4): If I was a candidate to fly a space mission I would want to fly on a Soyuz or nothing. The cute little vessel has proved right most every time if not every time.
Not too different from Yuri Gagarin's Vostok and it still goes without fail.
The Soyuz spacecraft is pretty much a ground up new design compared to the Vostoks and Voskhods.
The were all launched on R-7 derivatives, of course.
Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 8): Last documented launch failure was on 24 August 2011. Also a 6% failure rate over its lifetime. Compared to the Space Shuttles 1.5% failure rate it's not exactly as safe as you think it is.
You really cannot count the vast majority of non-man-rated R-7 launches in that sort of comparison. And from what's left, it's hard to give any clear statistical advantage to either Soyuz or the Shuttle, both had a number of close calls which have to at least be considered, and the timing of accidents has to be considered as well (the Soyuz fatalities happened quite early in the program, and counting Soyuz-1 at all is problematic, as it's clear as an unready spacecraft was launched due to political pressure).
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 349 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1763 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 19): A capsule is not what you need anyway, you need something bigger.
A photo in the article below shows an artist's impression of the rocket with an inflatable module section in front. http://symbolic-mirage.blogspot.sg/
MrCazzy From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (2 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1624 times:
One of the problems I see about sending a man to Mars is giving him the necessary supplies to survive the trip. Food, drink, exercise machines etc. would be needed. And I agree with some of the top comments how they might as well land even though it will be more expensive. A long journey just for orbit is not worth it in my opinion.
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1989 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (2 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1583 times:
Quoting MrCazzy (Reply 22): One of the problems I see about sending a man to Mars is giving him the necessary supplies to survive the trip. Food, drink, exercise machines etc. would be needed
Assuming you don't recycle, you need about 5kg of supplies per person, per day. That includes food, water and oxygen, and the trace stuff you need. If you can recycle the water, that's down to 1.5kg/day, and if you recycle the oxygen, you can knock off another .8kg/day. If you want your astronauts to wash and bathe, you need to double the amount of water you allocate, for an extra 3.5kg/day.
So a couple of people on a 501 day mission would need about five tons of supplies, assuming no recycling or bathing. Recycling can clearly drastically reduce that number, even if not 100% efficient.
Those are not insurmountable numbers, especially if you recycle.
Other things, like the exercise equipment, doesn't get consumed, so other than perhaps a supply of spare parts, the length of the mission is limited by how much you can carry in consumables (as modified by any recycling), how much radiation exposure you're willing to give the crew, and how much you value their sanity.
RIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 773 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1573 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 21): Wow that's an "interesting" website !
I guess that if there is a serious delay on the return trip, we know what mortuary to contact.
25 AF1624: You need a lot more than a capsule to go to Mars. First of all, no-one is going to survive 501 days in a capsule without going completely insane. Seco
26 rwessel: Capsules are not all as small as a Soyuz reentry module. The Apollo CM was much larger, for example. But yes, you'd probably want a descent sized hab
27 Aesma: About radiations, what is the latest thinking on that. In a book I read or a movie/TV series I saw they used the water tanks as temporary shields when
28 rwessel: The problem is mass. Radiation shielding (at least against gammas, which is what counts here) is pretty simply a mass effect. The more of it you have
Sponsor Message: 
From Singapore, joined May 2012, 349 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4787 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3248 posts, 
From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10243 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 490 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
