Inspiration Mars Is Being Pushed by NASA To Consider SLS
Keith’s note: After interaction with/pressure from NASA JSC and MSFC Inspiration Mars is now considering use of single launch of SLS for their mission. Of course, the use of SLS for Inspiration Mars is problematic if a 2018 launch is required. And even if the launch happens would NASA allow it to be used on on of the very first flights for a mission that many inside NASA think is risky – with no real ability to bail out? This is not the same NASA that did Apollo 8 on the third Saturn V flight. As for what this would cost Mr. Tito – that’s anyone’s guess. What is the commercial price for a SLS launch? I am not certain NASA has even considered that. How do you calculate that price – the same way that the Shuttle commercial launches were priced? We’ve seen that movie before. Oh yes: there is the pesky little matter of public law that prohibits NASA from offering serrvices on a commercial basis that compete with services that the private sector can offer. Stay Tuned.
Earlier Inspiration Mars posts
It might be ready for the next cycle around 2031 but that would require Inspiration Mars to raise at least one order of magnitude more money. I don’t think Tito can raise that kind of money or be around in 2031.
Assuming a SLS ready to go in 2018 (I doubt it) wouldn’t that put NASA in direct competition with commercial launchers? Is that legal now? Is NASA going to adopt the Inspiration Mars mission and make it a NASA mission? Or are they thinking of undercutting the costs of commercial launchers by giving the launch away to a private entity at taxpayer expense.
This whole thing sounds bogus to me.
SLS is too big for commercial use.
If Inspiration Mars was set up to take donations I suppose that’s one way to circumvent the law. NASA could “donate” a SLS flight in 2018.
I still can’t see it happening though. Too many other problems.
Use of SLS (a rocket designed by Congress) would not be nearly as inspirational as a commercial vehicle (a rocket designed by market forces). The SLS would be a one off flight (an inspiration to nowhere) whereas a commercial vehicle would be a stepping stone for others to step up from to exploit the infinite resources of the universe (an inspiration for a whole new world of commerce, science, and innovation in all fields). I expect and hope that Mr. Tito sees the difference. My hope is a SpaceX & Bigelow combo, but I would be happy with any of their peers. Here’s to INSPIRATION Mars!
While I would hope to see this somehow come to pass (a launch to Mars), we need to keep realistic. This is not a true ‘commercial’ endeavour. There is no money . profit that will pay for this trip. This trip will only be taken if Tito and company can raise the funds via donations etc. There is no payback in the near term and the long term payback does not justify the dollars from a pure commercial sense. The only way I can see this happening is for NASA to donate an SLS vehicle under the auspices of the value to the US Space Poogram. NASA does not need to show a profit and the value to NASA of the first flight to MARS can easily justify the use of an SLS vehicle. If you were Mr. Tito – would you pass that up?
That would indeed be tough to pass up. But let’s look to our past. We learned many lessons from the Apollo era. The Apollo program was a great inspiration. But the building blocks developed during this era were not leveraged to their full potential. Instead, when the program was over the doors were shut and all that innovation laid to waste (perhaps a slight exaggeration but hopefully you get my point). The key, in my view, is that “building blocks” be developed that can be improved upon and utilized to their fullest. I love the Lego block analogy. We need more entities to build more and different Lego blocks so we can construct a wide variety of access methods to space. Each entity will be learning from others and their own experience to continue to improve their own Lego blocks or decide to move in a new direction without approval from some government bureaucrat. Congress and government bureaucrats in general are the least effective and efficient decision makers that exist. They are essential to give a capital infusion in new and risking ventures like the internet, satellites, space, health where R&D investment is substantial, but after that they need to support and encourage but get out of the way of progress and avoid dictating direction.
I agree with your statement, I just think its only true for LEO operations at this time. NASA needs to set some basic requirements and get out of the way for companies like SpaceX. For BEO, I do not think that we are there yet. Only government entities like NASA have the funding available to make endeavors like this work.
That doesn’t mean they should be free to develop their own launcher. Exploration should be done with competitively and redundantly procured launch services. There’s no excuse for not doing that.
I think he meant the Soyuz Launch System. However. I could be wrong.
Most likely they’re offering an SLS flight for free.
Inspiration Mars needs to depend on another launch vehicle besides SLS. By the time its actually flight ready,Space X’s HLLV will have made its debut and could be more reliable,we’ll just have to wait and see.
You don’t need an HLV to do this, you need a sufficiently affordable launch vehicle. FH could turn out to be both, but only the latter matters. Except for price, Delta-IV Heavy would be *excellent* too. And for NASA, even the price would not be a problem, if only they got rid of the money pit that is SLS.
The obvious question is Why?
Why is NASA suggesting this?
Why would the Inspiration Mars people even consider this for more than about 10 seconds?
What’s in it for anybody? I think somebody spoke without thinking and it somehow made the news.
Perhaps some in NASA see Inspiration Mars as the mission that, frankly, SLS is lacking to justify itself. I disagree with them and also think that SLS would have a hard time beating the price of a couple of Falcon Heavies. Dennis Tito knows this.
More to the point, though, I worry a bit about the PR downside of a failed IM mission. As noted elsewhere, the mission as originally mooted is not exactly overflowing with backups, fail-safes, and bail-out modes, and certain failure modes could be very gruesome indeed.
Why?
If you want to get to Mars, you consider every possible avenue to get there.
Every possible avenue, Space X, SLS… does not really matter for consideration purposes…
The SLS will not be cancelled.
There is a certain shame that the country has realized from not having the capability to put a person into orbit.
It’s a little embarrassing…
___
Why would IM consider this?
Well, if NASA can get an SLS up on the pad and ready for launch.
Why not consider it for at least a Trans Mars spacecraft.
An SLS would be able to launch a really comfortable vehicle.
If we had not “retired’ the Saturn V, making the ISS would have been a bit easier than all those Shuttle launches…
yokohama2010,
Actually Saturn V would not have been a viable thing to continue building. It, too, was very expensive to build and launch, but more importantly, it was not designed to last any length of time and was physically vulnerable.
The F-1 engine thrust was high (1.5 million pounds per engine) so that would have been worth keeping and upgrading, but the actual rocket structure was made lighter by making the metal thin. They lasted, when you think about it, only until a few minutes after launch, then they were thrown away, and they weren’t up to lasting much longer than that.
Like many of the large liquid rockets of that era, the presence of the pressurized fuel and oxidizer in their tanks supplied much of the structural integrity. You could have easily dented, perhaps even ruptured, the Stage I frame with a hammer, and almost with your fist. Also, we know from the test/flight articles that weren’t launched that the casing corroded pretty quickly, so they had to be used soon after building.
Saturn V, for all its accomplishments, was basically a rush job to do one thing only and not designed to last more than a short time. It could certainly never have been made reusable, storable, or cost competitive. Neither was there any way to “beef it up” structurally without adding a lot of mass, reducing the thrust-to-weight ratio significantly. (Some people have argued otherwise on the basis of newer materials and fabrication methods, but that ‘s not been tested. Besides, many of the drawings are rumored to be missing. NASA no longer has them but the university archives, between them, might have all the necessary documents.)
von Braun’s team designed for what they were told to do, not what they would have preferred. von Braun himself usually designed BEO missions that were multi-launch, multi-vehicle, and “assemble” on orbit, very different from the methods NASA chose, which were basically controlled by expediency and cost, and always one-offs.
All that having been said, I’ll bet if we still had a working Saturn V and it was offered to Inspiration Mars, they’d take it in a second. I would.
Steve
“An SLS would be able to launch a really comfortable vehicle.”
So would a Delta-V Heavy. EELV fairings are huge and propellant is the only thing that makes spacecraft (and transfer stages) heavy, and that can be off-loaded.
NASA is desperate for a mission for the accursed SLS. Don’t go near it Mr. Tito – it’ll be a tar baby.
It is in SLS management’s best interest to promise a free flight to Inspiration Mars. It’s the vaporware strategy. I don’t see any way they could suggest 2018 with a straight face. Would Inspiration Mars be able to hit a non-optimal free return with the Block I capacity and delta-V specs?
I suspect that the best way for NASA to handle Inspiration Mars is to be inspired by it. Then point out the problems – the proposed capsule is tiny* and cannot land on Mars.
Say something like:
“The Inspiration Mars capsule has to be small because that is all the current medium sized launch vehicles can lift. There is no mass left over for a planetary lander. NASA is working on the SLS which is a much bigger rocket able to lift a larger capsule.
NASA is not working on a man sized lander at the moment but is developing small ones it hopes to grow. The Project Morpheus lander could land half a tonne of cargo on the Moon, the team hopes to go on to make a larger one. The Mighty Eagle lander is still a chick.
The inspiration in making NASA desire to perform a manned landing on Mars; but this dream is subject to funding and authorisation.”
* Tiny as in, if the small capsule was an apartment in city/county/state XXX the slum-lord would be prosecuted. The couple in it will need to be real heroes to put up with the discomfort for 501 days.
This is a very clear violation of the law. Inspiration Mars announced to the world they were launching on a commercial launcher. For JSC/MSFC to try to get them to consider using SLS instead is very clearly an attempt to take away a mission that was planned for a commercial launcher. It’s not possible for there to be a clearer case of a violation of this law.
I don’t actually believe Inspiration Mars would ever choose SLS. But the Inspiration Mars people probably claim to be considering it for two reasons: as leverage in negotiations with SpaceX (IM clearly needs Falcon Heavy, so SpaceX can basically dictate terms); and to be polite and maintain good relations with NASA.
Regardless, it’s clearly a violation of the law. I hope someone at NASA goes to jail over this.
You didn’t specify which law it’s a violation of. Is there some “law” that thou shalt not use NASA launch vehicles for commercial payloads? Because it certainly appears we can lift/return NASA payloads on commercial launch vehicles. I would think NASA would consider the legality of this proposal before suggesting it to Inspiration Mars. And then again this sounds like it’s an unofficial proposal; nothing has been signed or set in stone. It’s too early to tell what the motivations of JSC/MSFC are in pushing for IM to use SLS, not to mention the design and schedule impacts of changing architecture from a commercial LV to SLS. At the very least, some sort of feasibility study would be needed, to say ‘yes, this is doable’ or ‘no, there’s not enough time/money before 2018’.
Mike
It is called “The Commercial Space Act of 1998”.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices…
Your reference is incorrect. There is nothing in the Space Act of 1998 that impacts the NASAs ability to provide launch services for a Mars launch. In fact, US Code Title 49, Chapter 701 – 70111 specifically allows for NASA to do so at fair market value – which will be set by NASA or by SpaceX.
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/…
My reference is 100% correct and you need to read the law. Also, you did not read the first part of what you referenced…
(a) General Requirements and Considerations.—
(1) The Secretary of Transportation shall facilitate and encourage the acquisition by the private sector and State governments of—
(A) launch or reentry property of the United States Government that is excess or otherwise is not needed for public use; and
(B) launch services and reentry services, including utilities, of the Government otherwise not needed for public use.
SLS is hardly a surplus minuteman missile, which is what your reference is referring to.
I stand by my comment. You have shown nothing that states that the US cannot offer an SLS vehicle made from primarily excess Shuttle hardware as an option for IM. Section 70103 of my earlier post gives them the authority to partner as desired. In the general authority it states “take actions to facilitate private sector involvement in commercial space transportation activity, and to promote public-private partnerships involving the United States Government, State governments, and the private sector to build, expand, modernize, or operate a space launch and reentry infrastructure.” Again after 25 years of reading specs etc., I see nothing in here that precludes them from getting involved and it is not only regardinig minutemen missles which you claimed.
Editor’s note: The private sector can provide launch services. NASA cannot compete with the provate sector to provide launch services for a commercial venture. The law is the law regardless as to whether you feel that NASA Watch readers have spent the time to prove it to your satisfaction. You have made your point.
Again after 25 years of reading specs etc.,, I see nothing in here that precludes them from getting involved
Unfortunately you are probably one of the people trying to sell this bill of goods to Dennis Tito. It is not going to happen, period, no matter how much you might want it to. I have heard from some friends in Huntsville about how Tito was wined and dined and told all manner of things about what SLS can do, but at the end of the day it is all smoke and mirrors. Even if SLS flies on the exact schedule touted today the probability of Tito’s project being able to use the SLS is zero.End of story.
Mr. Kcowing
What is a commercial venture???? Depending on how you define commercial venture, couldn’t that be a way around the law???
You do not understand the existing laws that are in place.
I am not a lawyer, but no one has posted any link to any law that limits NASAs ability to help a MARs launch.
Folks,
I think perhaps it would be to our advantage to consider the converse situation.
Given that we are hoping to see NASA/industry partnerships increase in number and expand in scope, we would be better off looking at how to either get around this limitation or get it changed, before we lose a kingdom for want of a nail.
Steve
I’m not a lawyer but it looks to me like the only way to make this legal is for NASA to officially “adopt” the Inspiration Mars mission and make it a NASA mission. With all the paperwork, safety issues, politics, and other problems that will come with that.
I just can’t see this happening.
I hope someone at NASA goes to jail over this.
Are you kidding me?
A NASA manager gave a Chinese national unrestricted access to a NASA server where sensitive ITAR data was stored, in clear violation of NASA policy and the law. Did he go to jail? No.
Gonzo,
Your assertion is contrary to news reports I read pertaining to the court hearing. He was not given unrestricted access to anything that was “sensitive.”
Steve
That’s good to know Steve.
So what are they accusing him of stealing then?
The FBI has investigated his computers. No evidence of any restricted information was found.
This may go into the history books as “The Wolf Who Cried Boy.”
In addition to finding nothing on his devices, NASA claims that he didn’t have access to things he shouldn’t have.
If I recall correctly, the next minimum-energy free-return orbit to Mars after 2018 opens in 2031, when SLS should be fully operational. SLS + iCPS could certainly throw the entire Inspiration Mars vehicle through escape for that mission. By then sufficient ISS crews would have flown by Dragonrider that it could be passed off as a ‘NASA’ spacecraft and the inflatable Hab would be enough like BEAM to be ‘ISS Heritage’, both with a semi-straight face.
Alternately, NASA could adopt the flight profile and the long-duration ECLSS (so it doesn’t have to fund its own) and apply them to the orthodox Orion+DSH+SEP stack.
In the absence of a viable NEA target, it is possible that Inspiration Mars could find itself becoming the first NASA BEO mission to go beyond the Moon.
If this is true, then it is the death knell for Inspiration Mars.
This mission wasn’t going to ever happen anyway. It just does not pass the smell test. True, I only have 41 years in the space world but I think I know when something is rotten in Denmark.
I don’t agree. While the original single launch had no chance of succeeding in my opinion, there are variations with a two launch option that would work just fine.
Dennis, hypothetically speaking, they get a free use of the first SLS test flight. Say that they can’t launch a crew on top is the only caveat.
Could it orbit a fully-fueled Delta IV upper stage and a small hab and launch the crew vehicle seperately on a Falcon and then dock and go TMI?
This hypothetical does not exist, that is the point of the article. Not worth wasting electrons considering it.
SLS will be canceled before 2018. It and the other HSF programs will collapse under their own weight. As more time passes, the less they will be able to conceal the fact that they simply cannot manage a large development effort of this magnitude. We are pouring tens of billions of dollars down a rat hole that will never launch. 2018 is only 5 years away and SLS is just now going through PDR. If they do survive until 2018, they will be lucky to be at CDR.
IM’s best chance is to bet on Falcon Heavy (Falcon 27 if you keep the naming trend).
Unless, of course, Rep. Wolf starts a war with China and we see the next technological renaissance.
I have to totally disagree with you.
Let’s hope I’m wrong. But from what I see going on at work everyday, I have my doubts.
All you SLS haters are missing the point.
The launch of an SLS to Mars would be a grand inspirational statement for the entire world.
The capacity of such a vehicle would permit a larger craft to get to Mars…
Tito and crew have enough sense to determine whether SLS is doable for this expedition.
There is some time to make that calculation.
We should be supporting whatever launcher can do the mission on time and with the best results.
If SLS is ready… great lets go with it.
If Falcon X is ready… lets go with that.
The SLS haters (rebirthed Constellation haters) spend so much time hung up on commercialization that you have lost the big picture.
There are lots of people that would like to see Americans getting to Mars in their lifetime even if it is a swing-by mission.
Your debate about legalization and doing it with SpaceX etc etc is a textbook / courtroom argument that is a silly delay tactic.
A witness stand or Senate Conference room makes for a fairly poor science laboratory.
There are not too many companies setting up shop in Antartica…
Of course, there are many setting up in Prudoe Bay…
I was just at KSC and saw the crazy amount of work they’re doing for SLS. It’s not vaporware, and is a hell of a lot better than the Shuttle system. Plus, it leverages existing tech, which means it *could* be brought to market more quickly. Tito may force politicians’ hands in getting folks to Mars (flyby Apollo 8 style) much more quickly than anyone expected. It’s do-able – we just need the match under our butts.
“Tito may force politicians’ hands in getting folks to Mars (flyby Apollo 8 style)”
Sounds plausible, Dennis Tito (and many others) want to see humans go BEO including Mars in their lifetime, gotta admit his IM idea put a match under many other’s rear-end. Waiting until 2030s is too long, particularly much can happen in 20 years. Why 20 years ago none of us expected USA with no HSF capability, NASA struggling to build a simple Apollo type capsule, arguing over researchers going to conferences, and cancelling many education outreach programs because elected officials forgot how to do political compromises.
Before we go around criticizing Tito and IM, and throwing NASA officials in jail for breaking the law, remember, this is a “Keith’s Note”. No press releases, no official statements, no named sources (to be clear, Keith is right to protect his sources). Let’s just take this under advisement and see what develops.
Who wants to put NASA officials in jail? As for press releases, I really doubt that Inspiration Mars would admit that NASA is pushing them on this matter or that NASA would admit to doing so. But that is what is happening. And no I am not going to reveal sources on this.
chriswilson68: “Regardless, it’s clearly a violation of the law. I hope someone at NASA goes to jail over this.”
No one is going to jail over this sort of thing…
That’s pretty silly…
Don’t you really think that putting the rapists and murderers in jail is a higher priority.
There isn’t even a “crime” committed…
If NASA and Congress wanted to donate SLS-1 for the use of Tito and his company, it is pretty certain that an exemption (to the law that is being cited) would be created.
This would occur either by executive order or by Act of Congress…
—–
What would you wish to do anyways if NASA wanted to donate an SLS to Tito?
Would you file a lawsuit to prevent the transaction?
Would you get in the way of the IM mission?
Remember those lawsuits regarding Galileo and the nuclear power supply… they went nowhere…
This is a once in a lifetime trip to Mars…
In high school, they told us that my generation would land on Mars.
At Disneyland, there was the Voyage to Mars ride…
It is 2013 and we can’t even launch an Astronaut to orbit.
Keith, did they address at all the problems with this? The legal issues? The timing? Any detail at all?
Going through some old website bookmarks, I found this comment from imipak (edited below to show key point). Maybe there are holes in this comment but it does raise discussion regarding who will send a person to Mars. Link of original posting below.
“The added twist in the tale that was missed is that Werner von Braun
quit NASA because of the direction it was going. “
“The Russian space shuttle… died from funding starvation due to
idiotic arms races.”
“This is not the way to run a space program and really does demonstrate
that neither side has any real interest in such a program except as it
furthers their military objectives. Us British are no better – the
rocket program and the HOTOL program were both scrapped by hostile
governments.”
“I have thought for some time that if there were to be a manned mission
to Mars, it would be by a mix of enthusiasts and academia, not by
governments or corporations. At this point, I’m more certain than ever
that my prognosis is correct.”
from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/s…
If a Federal law (Commercial Space Act of 1998) is in the way of NASA partnering with a private venture on a Mars mission, then Congress can simply revise the law. The public would be happy to have a legislative body do some useful work. An Orion and a Service Module are certainly viable components to use on such a mission. Yes, the status quo is sending up the inaugural flight a test article destined for circling the moon and returning to the Earth. However, plans can change; NASA is notorious for change orders.
Now that’s bs squared. After all, both Inspiration Mars and SLS are vaporware, never to exist in so-called objective reality.
No laws would be violated, and I think a lot of parties would be happy, if NASA and Inspiration Mars put together a public-private partnership to conduct the mission.
They could do it through a Space Act Agreement. NASA would supply the launch services as their portion of the contract. Inspiration Mars would lose about a hundred pounds of giggle and they wouldn’t have to worry about that portion of their expenses any more. They’d also be able to upgrade their weight allowances. NASA could legitimately sling study contracts to several DinoSpace and NewSpace vendors, including Bigelow.
Various parties in the Space Belt and Congress would be ecstatic to have SLS gain some legitimacy as well. NASA would get Congress off their backs, and they could claim that they were working on a manned Mars flyby without taking a whole lot of flack. SpaceX would lose a weak hypothetical Falcon Heavy launch, but they’d gain a stronger chance of selling a Falcon 9/Dragon.
I’m not much of an SLS fan, but I’m pretty well resigned that it’s going to continue through at least 2020. At least this way, SLS would be pushing things forward in a strongly tangible way. There’s no downside for anybody here, folks. Stop grousing.
So I’m to assume it”ll never actually take place then?