Is Inspiration Mars a "NASA Mission"? It Depends Who You Ask
Statement of NASA Spokesman David Weaver Regarding Commercial Space and Inspiration Mars
“NASA has had conversations with Inspiration Mars to learn about their efforts and will continue discussions with them to see how the agency might collaborate on mutually-beneficial activities that could complement NASA’s human spaceflight, space technology and Mars exploration plans. Inspiration Mars’ proposed schedule is a significant challenge due to life support systems, space radiation response, habitats, and the human psychology of being in a small spacecraft for over 500 days. The agency is willing to share technical and programmatic expertise with Inspiration Mars, but is unable to commit to sharing expenses with them. However, we remain open to further collaboration as their proposal and plans for a later mission develop.”
Millionaire revises plan for Mars flyby in 2018: Now it’s up to NASA, NBC
“Tito initially envisioned the flyby as an effort primarily backed by private contributions, but the 90-day study determined that the mission had to be done with NASA hardware. “This is really a NASA mission,” Taber MacCallum, Inspiration Mars’ chief technology officer, told NBC News. “This is a mission we believe NASA should do.”
Inspiration Mars pivots, seeks government support and backing, Space Politics
“Are you suggesting that the mission couldn’t be undertaken without additional NASA funding?” asked Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), ranking member of the space subcommittee. “Right now, I don’t see a lot of evidence that money is available,” Tito responded.”
Keith’s note: In a media interview today Dennis Tito and Taber MacCallum said that they viewed the Inspiration Mars mission as a “NASA mission” and that Congress and the White House would need to direct NASA to do this mission as part of their SLS program. Tito also said that there would be legislation submitted on their behalf soon but declined to say who the sponsor was. Tito and MacCallum also said that they had briefed the White House on the Inspiration Mars concept and that the White House was supportive. Administration sources contacted tonight note that it has been many months since Inspiration Mars briefed them and that the mission that they were briefed on was a wholly private venture that did not require NASA funds – certainly not a “NASA Mission”. Administration sources add that it would be incorrect to state that Administration supports the Inspiration Mars mission as a “NASA mission” requiring NASA funds or hardware.
– Inspiration Mars Foundation Chairman Dennis Tito testifies before House Subcommittee on Space
– Tito prepared statement
– Inspiration Mars Architecture Study Report Summary
– Inspiration Mars: Some Thoughts About Their Plan, earlier post
– Inspiration Mars: Some Thoughts About Our Plan, earlier post
I wonder if he could actually pull it off if they gave him the $1 billion. Still probably not, but it would be good to see him try.
Who got to Dennis Tito influences him into thinking require NASA hardware which Aerospace companies in particle? Also why they need to use SLS+Orion over Falcon Heavy+Dragon capsule? Third I don’t see SLS+Orion be ready in time for January 2018 deadline and not way Congress give addition 700 million funding to NASA.
Who got to Dennis Tito influence him to require NASA hardware for this Mars flyby any Aerospace Companies particle? Second why they have to use SLS+Orion over Falcon Heavy+Dragon Capsule? Third no way SLS+Orion ever make January 2018 deadline and Congress will never give 700 million addition funding to NASA.
Even if Congress did give NASA another $700 million, NASA wouldn’t spend it on that – they’d spend it (hopefully) on planetary science.
At least according to Tito, it’s because the commercial stuff wasn’t giving him the “margins” he needed for the mission. Since he’s never been one to avoid butting heads with NASA (they originally tried to stop him from going into space years ago), I doubt he’d say that if it wasn’t true.
There’s no way it will be ready by 2018, I agree on that. That would require a serious push by Congress, and this Congress has other priorities.
Certainly, I doubt Falcon Heavy’s upper stage would be sufficient, even using a double-TMI with two upper stages.
Overall, I think that Inspiration Mars’s biggest failure was it was proposed too late. There simply isn’t enough time to get the hardware together. The most we can hope to come from this is a decent low-frills long-duration ECLSS system (which I’m sure Bigelow will find invaluable for their space hotel ideas).
The Inspiration Mars 501 day journey is a great idea. My last comment focused just on SLS vs. Falcon Heavy. Yes indeed, this mission needs life support which means either NASA tech or Russian. But the other spacecraft subsystems are not exactly off-the-shelf items for a mission lasting 501 days with NASA tech or otherwise. Had this mission concept been proposed 2 or 3 years earlier, it would have had a better shot at making the launch window (Tito does refer to a 580 day free trajectory in 2021).
Asking for tech is one matter. Asking for funding, well, NASA had a quick response for that. Speaking to congress for additional funds was what Tito needed to do. He is effectively asking congress to increase funding for SLS.
With so little time to develop, life support system must be low tech – Apollo & Skylab technology, keeping it simple and with plenty redundancy. The system needs avionics to manage life support, power, thermal, propulsion, data & telecom which could be a modified avionics of the capsule that takes the two passengers to LEO. The avionics of that capsule modified for the 501 day mission would have to be distilled into backup units (2) stowed on board. Propulsion for trajectory correction maneuvers would need to be triple redundant and the third unit capable of manual control such as what Apollo 13 did with the LM. For radiation protection, forget about lining walls with poop. Create bladders with sufficient water that function as bivouacs (sleeping bags) for the couple to slide into during high radiation periods. Over design a simple ablative re-entry shell. Use aero-braking as only an emergency backup. Retain a small propulsion system on the tip of the re-entry vehicle that could work with aero-braking for a second chance at re-entry (just a wild idea). Have the crew wear G-suits like fighter pilots to avoid or reduce injury on re-entry.
This mission has all but dismissed doing any science at Mars. It is a mistake. Surely, first and foremost is the life and safety of the crew but one simple exciting science payload would be to deploy 3 autonomous UAVs using simple entry shells. Simple spring & pyro release from the manned vehicle during late cruise, simple release and deployment of the autonomous flying vehicles upon thresholds of dynamic pressure. MRO/MOD/Maven could relay data if not also commands. Very light weight UAVs, maybe 2 or 3 kg each.
And if all this seems impractical, buy a DVD on Amazon of Gilligan’s Island. They had some pretty good ideas that used coconuts.
Way too high risk for a government agency to undertake in good conscience. If Tito cannot do it himself it looks like that’s that. Pity.
This will never work. Use SLS. One could not be built in time. They had better try again. This plan will fail. I guess they came up with this to say NASA would not help them, so the end.
I think it would be a great mission, and I’d love to see it, although I’m more than a little dubious about their cost projections.
I wish NASA would do a fast-paced, ambitious, high-profile mission like this, or any of several other risky, ambitious, spectacular concepts for what we could do with a serious commitment and a fast deadline. But I just can’t see any possibility that congress is going to fund a large new start like this. They’re looking hard for things to cut, not things to add.
Interesting.. I wonder if just maybe the political climate is right for this.
1) finally justification for SLS
2) Nothing like a big national effort that people can wrap around to distract from Obamacare etc.
3) private industry and nasa cooperating on a big mission what a spin.
Reasons not to.
1) high risk of failure
2) only 300 million from private, maybe if it was more like 500
3) the estimate of 1 billion might be low
4) lots and lots of technical unknowns
5) extremely tight budgets
The central reason why it could not happen is among your reasons why it could – distract from Obamacare.
For half of Congress, keeping that subject front and center in the media is the top priority.
No Mars mission could possible distract folks from Obamacare. Virtually every family will have at least one person who loses insurance, a doctor, or access to medical services from it – or its impact on medicare. (not to mention the jaw dropping debacle of the web site dev.) That huge and personal impact dwarfs all the impact NASA ever had on the public. Especially given it would take a decade to develop and launch such a mission.
On the other hand. Right now no politicial of eiather side is in the mood to look like they are wasting money, or risking lives with a fly by night project.
Good analysis, but I cannot help think why NASA did not conceive IM. The American people expect their national space agency to inspire, not lament. Mr Tito must have held out hope (naively or poker faced) the NASA hierarchy would embrace his high-risk flyby mission profile. Can’t blame him for trying.
maybe this is how the US works today ?
someone dreams up something to do, says “i can get it done”, grabs some headlines. then reality bites and getting things done is not as easy as thinking them up. so then “NASA should do this”. and now NASA fails, by either …
1) not having the budget to do it, or
2) recognising the real world (this mission is very close to certain suicide).
sorry, but didn’t we learn from Apollo … we can’t afford to shuttle people to Mars, we need to do something substantial once we’ve gotten them there (a fly-by ? seriously ? costing $xB ??).
we have to learn how to live off-world …
a long duration lunar base, and long duration missions outside the van Allen belts
I would not discount the potential of legislation calling for additional funds to support the Inspiration Mars 501 day mission. Lets assume the congressmen do realize that by denying the Asteroid Initiative funding, they leave SLS and Orion no purpose, no mission beyond LEO. It boils down to representatives – senators & congressmen (key districts) in TX, AL, MS, UT and FL convincing House legislators that they need a mission. Could Inspiration Mars be seriously taken as an alternative to the Asteroid Initiative (to support Obama’s asteroid objective for NASA)?
Although I like the 501 day mission concept, I hope it does not gain such funding through legislation. The near-Earth asteroid in Earth orbit visited by astronauts is a superior concept. Granted the survey by astronauts (humans) could be accomplished more cost effectively and with more ROI by using robotics, we need an interim mission beyond LEO before a manned Mars project begins. The visit to a captured NEA would be adequate and could be accomplished with a commercial crew launch and Falcon Heavy with additional hardware for the trip to a Earth-Moon Lagrange point.
Reading their plan, NASA statements, comments here, Dennis with IM should abandon the 501 day mission (2017) in favor of the 2021 580 day mission. Seven years to develop.
With the additional time, if they lifted components piecemeal to LEO, they could begin with the mission’s living habitat and offer stays in the habitat in LEO to wealthy investors. The habitat could be potentially placed into an elliptical orbit, maybe a GTO, that would make a visit by contributors quite an amazing experience. They could lift the habitat customers/contributors into an elliptical orbit using an upper stage. Having proven aerobraking of the unmanned habitat from such an elliptical orbit back to LEO, they could likewise return the habitat and visitors back to LEO and re-entry. This would qualify their design using aero-braking of the return capsule from Mars.
Folks:
Considering the hardware choices Dennis Tito has made, I don’t see why NASA should be involved beyond advice and Space Acts.
Cygnus is private. SpaceX is private. Replace the Orion with a couple of Dragons, SLS with a couple of Falcon Heavys.
I would send two complete Cygnus/Dragon combos on the Falcon Heavys, dock them together then send the crew up in a separate Dragon with more supplies. Double redundancy for everything, including return vehicles. One Dragon could be used as an airlock (no way we send them out there without a space suit!).
Way cheaper too compared to just one SLS launch… especially if SpaceX is flying reusable first stages!
tinker
From the latest artwork, it’s obvious that SpaceX is no longer in the picture. While Elon has stated he wants to go to Mars, he may not want to do it the Inspiration Mars way. He may not think his hardware will ready in time, or he doesn’t agree with the mission concept at which point you may not be able to buy Dragons or Falcon Heavies at ANY price.
Either way, the fact is that the “baseline” mission included SpaceX, the current concept has removed all trace of SpaceX… so behind the scenes IM is now showing the hardware they think they CAN procure.
or there is the detail that SpaceX has pretty much been totally funded by NASA contracts. Biting the hand thats feeding you is a bit risky.
Or alternatively the mission folks might be a little worried with the Falcons frequency of explosions of various degrees, and other problems. Quality problems can be unnerving to consider on long dangerous flights.
What would be biting the hand that feeds them? Going to Mars without NASA?
Could you list the explosions? (I remember one engine out a while back, if you call that an explosion. They are basically doing something new every flight so I don’t know if I’d call them on quality problems right now with what they’ve accomplished.)
> ..biting the hand that feeds them..
NASA pretty much paid them for every dime they ever spent. Hell just the RD fees that got for COTS/CRS paid for all the R&D since the companies founding – over 2/3rds all expenses since founding. Also NASA is their biggest customer. So then joining a group with a “we can show up NASA and do what they can’t” group — its bad business karma to try to help someone show up the folks who bankrolled your home organization.
> Could you list the explosions..
SpaceX has done 10 (11?) launches. First 2 blew up in mid air,
– first due to the first stage engine tearing apart due to corrosion (they forgot that operating near the ocean the bolts holding the engine together need to be corrosion resistant),
– second they separated the firs and second stages before the first stage eng had shut down so it rammed the second stage causing it (or its engine) to explode.
First Falcon 9 flight, to the ISS, one of the engines “depressurized” (which for rocket engines, usually mean explode or something near to it) and they had to dump one of the cargos into the ocean.
Last flight after a maneuver attempt restarting a engine, 24 objects were tracked flying off in all directions. Something blew them in all directions – though I haven’t seen a official he report on it.
Other flights have had control systems going off and putting them into “death roll”, com failures, nav errors. Now a days new boosters don’t have those kind of errors. Their prime competitor in the US has had over 130 flights of their boosters (Delta-IV and Atlas 5), with no test flights, paying customers on all the flights, all successfully delivered.
They just aren’t up anywhere near the standards of current vendors and expectations, but with a great PR spin machine.
When you state that Spacex is joining a group to show up NASA? Isn’t that wrong?
Seems to me they are simply trying to find ways to make space flight affordable so we can one day settle space? We will never get off this rock if the only access to space is high dollar sports cars.
Well SpaceX isn’t really low cost, even by NASA standards. And “Inspiration Mars” isn’t exactly finding a afordble way to open space to us all?
Hmm well I wouldn’t see them trying to show up NASA. I’d be thinking “go for it”, but maybe not everyone would see it that way. NASA has an extremely important role, even if some other entity goes to Mars with a human first.
I’d disagree with that, particularly on how SpaceX started in the first place. One thing to note is that SpaceX gets paid by NASA when they complete objectives, not before.
About your explosions list, you have quite a bit of disagreement with the account in wikipedia for the second Falcon 1 flight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
Maybe I’ll agree that the first Falcon 1 and the one Falcon 9 had explosions. The Falcon 9 one was mostly successful still, and they dropped the secondary payload since the success probability for it was only 95% after the one engine out.
I also haven’t heard much about the multiple objects tracked after last Falcon 9 flight.
Delta IV and Atlas V haven’t had a commercial flight since 2009 (Atlas V). I see there is one scheduled for 2015 though. This is US government only competition basically. Judging from SpaceX’s possible future launches, that isn’t the only business they are going after.
Delta IV and Atlas V have had hiccups (first Delta IV Heavy launch 2004, one Atlas V in 2007, both incorrect orbits). They are darn good launchers though of course.
> Hmm well I wouldn’t see them trying to
> show up NASA. I’d be thinking “go for it”,
> but maybe not everyone would see it that way.
Certainly NASA wouldn’t. 😉
>> “NASA pretty much paid them for every
>> dime they ever spent.”
> I’d disagree with that, particularly on how
> SpaceX started in the first place…
Eiather
way – NASA payments for R&D, covered more then all R&D
expenditures SpaceX ever made, adn NASA other fees more then covered
everything else they ever spent.
>..One thing to note is that SpaceX gets paid
> by NASA when they complete objectives, not before.
Common for gov contracts – though you might disagree on what are “objectives”.
>>About your explosions list, you have quite
>>a bit of disagreement with the account in
>>wikipedia for the second Falcon 1 flight.
Yup. That was not what I saw reported.
>..The Falcon 9 one was mostly successful
> still, and they dropped the secondary
> payload since the success probability
> for it was only 95% after the one engine out.
Actually
I think the rules of the flight with NASA was they couldn’t attempt a
restart of the upper stage to deliver any secoundary payload if there
had been a problem, for ISS safty sake.
> I also haven’t heard much about the multiple
> objects tracked after last Falcon 9 flight.
Agreed
– several reports at the time, adn the AF said they couldn’t report on
it then due to Sequester – but I still haven’t heard a report?
>> “Their prime competitor in the US has
>> had over 130 flights of their boosters
>> (Delta-IV and Atlas 5), with no test flights,
>> paying customers on all the flights, all
>> successfully delivered.”
> Delta IV and Atlas V haven’t had a
> commercial flight since 2009 (Atlas V).
> I see there is one scheduled for 2015 though. ..
And SpaceX has had 2 since their founding? both groups are pretty much gov only for customers so far.
??
Not
sure if the Dream chaser launch should be considered commercial or
gov? .. or CST-100 if they go through with it to Biggellow stations.
> Delta IV and Atlas V have had hiccups–
> both incorrect orbits). ..
True,
but both were acceptable orbits to the customers, who considered them
fully successful launches. When you buy a slot on a test flight, you
have to except a bit more deveation. 😉
>They are darn good launchers though of course.
Yeah,
be a pity if we lose both of them due to the market declines – adn DOD
pushing them to do things inefficiently like keep both boosters in
operation.
This is exceptionally risky. Furthermore, I doubt they will have time to make the launch window. If I were Elon, I would not want to be associated with something that is almost sure to fail or die aborning.
I agree Mark
Mr. Musk is to smart to get involved with this.
Mr. Musk is trying to build the foundation to make Us a multi planet species. Nasa or public Space has yet to do what they should be doing if we are to SETTLE space which is develop an active radiation shielding system for spaceships and develop spaceships with gravity. This Insperation mission to much like a public space boots and flags mission at this point.
Where’s the critical radiation shielding tech NASA/NACA??????? I guess after Spacex reduces cost to Leo they will have to get into the spaceship building business too Isn’t that what the Orion guys should be doing???
We need a PLAN for public and commercial to settle space, not a half baked mission that’s likely to fail.
The multi planet space settler
Could you spin your two space ships on a cable???
When is the Venus fly by date Denise talked about??
Could these two little ships use their dragon shields to aero brake with earth after the crew leaves in their dragon return vehicle???
Can the two ships spin perpendiculer to the sun to have shielding water or, other shielding material on the correct side while having gravity???
Will Spacex’s raper have the kick to push something like this to mars and back
Couldn’t something like this be the first real reusable spaceship???
Add
Is Cygnus long enough to be a two story Hab if it were spinning??? Couldn’t we learn to fly such a spinning vehicle in Leo before that Venus fly by window???
DTARS:
A stretch Cygnus is not out of the question. Also, since the departure stage is going for the ride, it could be used as a counter balance for the hab stack. The crew could wind up the tether for the Mars flyby then deployed again for the ride home.
We should try this in LEO as soon as possible. (I still have my space station idea on the back burner!)
tinker
The dragon could not, (due to it’s shape), re-enter the earths atmoshpere at that high speed without bleeding off some energy with aerobraking. A skip re-entry might work. Nasa and the DOD folks looked at that option for Gemini and the Russians looked at it for Zond. The Orion is well shaped for the job and so is the CST-100.
I’m genuinely surprised that DTARS hasn’t shown up to shill for SpaceX yet… I wonder what’s happened to him/her ?
Thanks for the reminder Deeps!
New ID there I see. Do you make lots of IDs??
No, funnily enough, as any amount of checking IPs will verify. Just a long-time NASA Watch reader who finds your sycophantic cheerleading for SpaceX comical.
Deeps:
At least we’re cheering for the winning team!
Rah, Rah! Go SpaceX!
(DTARS, got your back!)
tinker
There is plenty to be cheering about SpaceX. Are you cheering for SLS/Orion?
Nasa Watch reader
If that is so deeps, it appears that I have gotten you to join the conversion. I look foreword hearing your wisdom.
The comical space sycophantic
Deeps
I just looked up shill?
I am just a construction person that has no relationship with Spacex whatsoever. I simply had a dream as a little boy that we would settle space by the turn of the century. And today I only see Elon Musk seriously trying to fulfill that dream.
Too bad. Seems that this trip will not happen after all.
Didn’t original IM proposal use existing launchers? Maybe I forgot (too lazy to read original proposal) but it seemed Tito proposed this as mostly a private venture and not wait for govt mission in the 2030s.
Folks – While I am all for Space Exploration, I do not think we (The U.S.) have the money right now for a manned Mars mission. It does not matter if it is SLS or Falcon/Dragon – there just is not enough money and this is something that cannot be done on the cheap. I concur with others that we need to walk first and NEA/Lunar missions make more sense.
Maybe it’s time to see if there is any reality behind the Mars One plan 🙂
Keith, could you get out the troll spray for Deeps? We really don’t need ad-hominem insults like “sycophantic” and “shill” here. Such posts demean NASA Watch and contribute nothing.
There are lots of people threatened by the success of SpaceX.
1) All the SLS contractors and their subs….
2) ULA, with their mighty Atlas V and Delta IV.
SpaceX is undercutting their business by a significant amount.
Openly, they may say they are not wishing any misfortune at SpaceX, but I believe they secretly wish for a F9 to blow up, and as soon as possible! They are getting too good, too fast.
Its such an intriguing proposal but I doubt it can work. Maybe if it was pushed back to the 2021 date to allow time for proper analysis of the radiation hazards and maturity of the technology. Pay for it by canceling the next mars rover and exoMars. take the equipment for that and have ESA work on a ladler/sampler return module. But the mission profile is even wrong for that ,being a flyby at a fairly good distance. I would guess the return module would have to handle the maneuvers not the inspiration mars vehicle. But still that saves several course corrections and all the fuel would be used in catching up with the crew module. The tech has somewhat been proved in the asteroid missions. So maybe you could turn this largely publicity stunt mission into one leg of a sample return mission. whatever, I do believe the best near term role for SLS/Orion is to augment service operations by rover, sending a crewed module into cis-lunar or martian orbit makes it a lot simpler to coordinate rovers on the surface. simpler non-automonous rovers that can cover a lot more ground.
Latest article on IM.
http://acuriousguy.blogspot…
“Good of humanity” is a bankrupt expression these days, may have worked decades ago. Following quote from article seems to sum up driver for private firms, “incremental buildup of infrastructure by private firms seeking to satisfy interested markets.” Maybe identify technologies or methods NASA should pursue, some not financially rewarding and private firms not willing to risk due to questionable payoff.