neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 353 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2205 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, 10481 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2101 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 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2034 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, 353 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2032 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 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2019 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 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2012 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 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2009 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 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1993 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, 10481 posts, RR: 20 Reply 13, posted (2 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1984 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 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1973 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, 1562 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1958 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, 4796 posts, RR: 9 Reply 16, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1891 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, 1991 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1860 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, 353 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1783 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 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1644 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, 1991 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1603 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.
AF1624 From France, joined Jul 2006, 572 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1593 times:
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.
Second of all, it would NEVER be able to carry enough drinkable water and edible food to get there and back.
Third of all, it would NEVER have enough battery power, even with massive solar panels, to get there and back.
Fourth of all, it would NEVER have the proper propulsion to make trajectory corrections during the flight.
It's just a big no-go with a capsule such as Soyouz.
They need a hell of an enormous thing to go. I'm talking ISS-sized ship. At least. Anything smaller than that, and anyone in it will go completely mad.
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1991 posts, RR: 2 Reply 26, posted (2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1499 times:
Quoting AF1624 (Reply 25): 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.
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 habitation module in additional to the launch/reentry capsule - perhaps a scheme similar to Soyuz with the separate orbital module.
Quoting AF1624 (Reply 25): Second of all, it would NEVER be able to carry enough drinkable water and edible food to get there and back.
See a few posts up for the amount of supplies you'd need. Not all of that needs to be stored inside whatever habitable space you have, but it's not all that much.
Quoting AF1624 (Reply 25): Third of all, it would NEVER have enough battery power, even with massive solar panels, to get there and back.
Why not? How much power do you think you'd need? Why would a solar array several times the size of the one on Soyuz be impractical?
Quoting AF1624 (Reply 25): Fourth of all, it would NEVER have the proper propulsion to make trajectory corrections during the flight.
Service modules, like capsules, come in all shapes and sizes. Compare, for example, the quite small Soyuz service module to the drastically larger Apollo SM. And actually, and Apollo SM would only be a bit undersized for the mission being proposed. First of all you're dumping the 15t of LM (while adding 5t of supplies), toss a bit of additional habitable space on there (so let's call it even), and the SM only about a factor of three short of the necessary delta-V for the mission.
Quoting AF1624 (Reply 25): It's just a big no-go with a capsule such as Soyouz.
Yes, the Soyuz reentry module is really cramped.
Quoting AF1624 (Reply 25): They need a hell of an enormous thing to go. I'm talking ISS-sized ship. At least. Anything smaller than that, and anyone in it will go completely mad.
Let's not be silly. ISS is very, very large. MIR was a third the size when it hosted Valeri Polyakov's 437 day stay, and that's with three people on board. You could probably do a reasonably comfortable mission for about 100m**3 space, and about 35t of spacecraft weight for the living spaces, plus whatever you'd need for a service module (perhaps a total mass of ~90t after being punted out of Earth orbit).
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4796 posts, RR: 9 Reply 27, posted (2 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1388 times:
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 a solar flare came, but I would rather have a 24/7 shield.
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, 1991 posts, RR: 2 Reply 28, posted (2 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1378 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 27): 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 a solar flare came, but I would rather have a 24/7 shield.
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 between you and the source, the better. The exact material doesn't matter much, so you'd get the same shielding out of an inch of lead, four inches of glass or aluminum, or a foot of water. Which, not coincidently, will all weigh the about the same.
Shielding a small area simply will take much less mass than shielding a large area. So if there is to be a large living area, a small storm shelter nestled inside most of the supplies, water, etc., would probably be an excellent way to provide higher levels of protections at critical times, while keeping the mass requirements reasonable.
The very sparse information about the planned flight is that water, supplies and waste will be stored in the hull. So they’re using that as shielding, but it’s not clear whether they’re intending to concentrate that, or shield the area evenly, and whether the later is reasonable at all depends on the size of the habitable area.
Sponsor Message: 
From Singapore, joined May 2012, 353 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4796 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3249 posts, 
From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10243 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 490 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
