Update From Inspiration Mars
Inspiration Mars: Some Thoughts About Our Plan, Mike Loucks, John Carrico and Dennis Tito
“Dennis Wingo provided some comments for us in his article Inspiration Mars: Some Thoughts About Their Plan. Dennis Wingo is a friend of ours. We welcome input from any source, especially visionaries like Dennis. Our IEEE Paper is an attempt to show the feasibility of the simplest possible Mars flyby mission. We chose a simple Mars flyby trajectory (the one from the Patel reference), and will choose a simple ECLSS, heat shield, etc., using existing designs and technologies on a single launch. We may eventually deviate from these assumptions, but only when we have proven that we must.”
Inspiration Mars: Some Thoughts About Their Plan, Dennis Wingo, earlier post
KISS has to be a guiding principle here but a need to keep down cost and complexity must not be seen as an excuse for cutting corners and safety margins. Remember: a very public LOC would have the opposite result to the one Mr Tito wants.
Assertion unsupported by data.
Which of his assertions are you referring to?
Speaking as one who considers NASA somewhat risk averse, I think the mission as envisioned is probably too risky and should be rethought. Imagine the public response if, say, one member of the crew died of an unexpected illness or accident months away from Earth. Imagine cabin fever. Imagine a malfunction coupled with an inability to make repairs. Imagine a need for EVA but no space suits. Think about Murphy’s Law.
This needs to be undertaken with a decent probability of success or it could be a disaster for human spaceflight, not to mention the unfortunate crew. I do not mean that we have to send a fleet from the US Space Navy and a flying machine shop, but a plan this lean is just too brittle. Not only the lives of the crew are at risk, but public attitudes toward the advisability of HSF, in general.
Beef it up, Mr. Tito. What you want to do is technically possible, but you have to roll sevens every day for almost two years to succeed, and that’s asking too much of Murphy, Nature, and Newton.
Mark,
The problem is, at what point do you consider it to be safe enough? There are those people who will keep on insisting on more and better safety, and nothing will ever fly. Yes, there is risk, but at some point you have to bite the bullet and go for it. I don’t see how we can say, it needs to be safer, without detailing exactly what that means, what’s required for it to be “good enough.” I’m sure this crew will leave the same sort of just-in-case messages as the early NASA astronauts, saying that should we fail others must carry on. Sometimes we have to believe.
Nice of them to hint that their engineers has everything figured out,but still like to hear from everybody. I now see from the Trajectory Browser why the one I found,they don’t like. Theirs is .48 years shorter. The delta V and reentry speed is higher,but they must have that covered.
S13:
The free trajectory is good because it’s only critical phase is the initial burn that sends them on their way but that aerobrake maneuver is the elephant in the room of their mission profile.
Since your using the Trajectory Browser, is it possible to run a few simulations of what would happen to the trajectory if they don’t complete that critical first burn? Any chances to save the crew using maneuvering thrusters or ion engines? They just have to be able to get back to Earth in 500 or less days even if they don’t go anywhere near Mars. Nice to know if the crew has some options, don’t you think?
As for that elephant in the room, aerobraking to Earth orbit is something we’re just have to learn if we’re going to have a sustainable presence in space. Sooner or later we’ll need to be able to get stuff into Earth orbit from BEO whether it’s crew or cargo. Might as well start sooner than later. Any way to test their aerobraking without going so far away? Not the aerobraking part itself but how about a trajectory that would bring a craft to that point at the speed they predict with a mission measured in weeks at the most instead of 500 days. Kind of like a test mission if they had the time and the money.
tinker
NASA should be doing research like that anyway on the CHEAP go use of government space funds.
That would be a decrease in Delta V. Since it would never get to Mars,they show no orbit. There is alink at the end. Try it. It is easy.I tried Earth,but nothing.It should make an Earth orbit.If Delta V is right they should make it back in 500 days or less. This is a guess. This is the way ion works. Bigger and bigger orbits. There is plenty of knowledge on aero-braking from Mars. They say they would not have the right config. Too fragile. Mars used solar panels.A lot of orbits though. A lot is known about lifting reentry,Shuttle,capsules. They can use that info.
I can’t see us amateurs coming up within the confines they have. Yours and mine using a enlarged trunk would work. They want existing and there it is. They have to be able to access everything. ISS works on equipment all the time. Their treadmill,life support etc. If they use Dragon. a lot is in the Trunk. Got to have access. Blue origin biconic will not be available. They admit to the space problem with inflatable. They have answers but will not tell us. They have FTL drive I guess,but won’t tell. One of those guys. Our answer will work and is cheap. How about Almaz? Buy or copy that.
S13:
Almaz works for me. Hatch in the heat shield with a compartment behind it already. Small though.
What about a Soyuz/Progress pair? Two orbital compartments, two redundant sets of thrusters with already built in fuel transfer, Ample room for consumables tanks in the Progress decent module. Still small, but bigger. A third module between them, maybe an inflatable, wouldn’t add much weight but would add much needed room ‘on the cheap’. Now, how do we get it on it’s way to Mars? Three launches, four? One Soyuz (Crew), one Progress (Cargo), two Protons or Falcon Heavy for booster stage and extra module.
Orbit the hardware, assemble the modules (three docking maneuvers) then boost to Mars.
Way over budget, but doable with existing hardware (if you go the Proton route).
Do I get it that if they flub the main burn to Mars that ‘crew recovery’ (getting them back to Earth) would be possible with course corrections from the spacecrafts reaction thrusters, ion thrusters or such?
tinker
I hope you are not joking. No reason for the thrusters not to work. Course corrections are needed. It is easy to find where something could go wrong in any space mission. It is nice to know they will come back. If the Delta V is less,up to a point, the mission will work. Theirs is shortest. At 1.8 years less performance is needed. I like the 96 days to Mars. Less waiting. By going inside Earth orbit the out and back times are equal. Maybe it makes a smaller diameter orbit.
Have not been to Excalibur Almaz lately. They are offering Lunar, L1 trips and farther. They have 2 Salute space stations. Go through the capsule heat shield(I knew I got that idea from somewhere) and all kinds of room. But this is an USA mission. Have to copy it. Can you think of using a fairing like Soyuz uses? Don’t have to worry about aero.
So far I can only see using a 1 launch FH with a simple, cheap long pressurized Trunk and Dragon . What they come up with,who knows?
Ran it some more. They have one that is just 1.1 years! Delta V is not bad,but the reentry speed goes up. They can fix that. It looks like what I thought would work. Head for Mars and do A gravity bend to change the orbit. Can not use a free since Earth has moved.
Tinker S13
I just saw their answer to Mr. Wingo here. Interesting to see such openness. That gives lots of hope.
http://spaceref.com/mars/in…
Joe Q
They should launch TWO of the exact same system simultaneously with one being an empty backup.
Just before they reach Mars, they move to the “un-used” craft. Then the “used” Dragon enters Mars’ atmosphere and attempts to land.
Money not withstanding, I agree. Make everything do as much as possible, within the limits of reasonable safety. On the other hand, Tito said, as I recall, that they’re not even mounting any science instruments in their one spacecraft, so I’m guessing they’re rightfully worried about money and unnecessary complexity.
If there were time and money for development, I’d suggest giving your landing Dragon a hovering phase with translation (on autopilot) before landing, and (big jump) add an ascent stage of some sort for initial data collection of trying to back back to LMO.
Judging by comemnts, at least few people treat this seriously. This scares me.
Oh, and I have this bridge to sell…
Very seriously. And I think you’ll find that we’re more than just a few.