E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mikhail Metzel / AP file
Millionaire spaceflier Dennis Tito flashes a thumbs-up sign during final preparations for his 2001 flight to the International Space Station. Now Tito is reportedly contemplating a mission to Mars.
By Alan Boyle,
Science Editor, NBC News
Dennis Tito, the millionaire investment whiz who became the first paying passenger to visit the International Space Station in 2001, has worked out a plan to send two astronauts to Mars and back without stopping. However, the privately backed 501-day flight would have to be launched in 2018 — or wait until the 2030s.
Details about the Red Planet flyby are trickling out in advance of a Washington news conference next week.
First word of the venture came out in a media advisory passed along by the SpaceRef website on Wednesday. The advisory from the Texas-based Griffin Communications Group describes a "Mission for America" that would capitalize on a favorable orbital opportunity to launch a round-trip mission to Mars in January 2018.
The advisory includes an invitation to attend a news conference at 1 p.m. ET Feb. 27 at the National Press Club in Washington, issued by the Inspiration Mars Foundation, which is described as a "newly founded nonprofit organization led by American space traveler and entrepreneur Dennis Tito."
Tito, a former rocket engineer, made his fortune as the founder of Wilshire Associates, a multibillion-dollar investment firm based in California. He made history in 2001 when he paid a reported $20 million for a ride aboard a Russian Soyuz spacecraft to the space station. At the time, the eight-day round trip was highly controversial and required changes in the policies governing space station operations. Since then, six other high-net-worth individuals have taken similar flights with little or no controversy. The current published price for such flights is upwards of $40 million.
In the nearly 12 years since his flight, Tito has taken a relatively low public profile in the private-sector spaceflight industry. Meanwhile, other millionaires and billionaires, ranging from SpaceX's Elon Musk to Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos to Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, have been in the vanguard.
Little is known about the Inspiration Mars Foundation, and the name doesn't turn up in databases for tax-exempt nonprofit organizations. The Internet domain names "InspirationMars.com" and "InspirationMars.org" were registered anonymously last October. But other than that, the only information that could be gleaned about Inspiration Mars comes from the media advisory, which says it's "committed to accelerating America's human exploration of space as a critical catalyst for future growth, national prosperity, new knowledge and global leadership."
"This 'Mission for America' will generate new knowledge, experience and momentum for the next great era of space exploration," the advisory said. "It is intended to encourage all Americans to believe again, in doing the hard things that make our nation great, while inspiring youth through Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education and motivation."
In addition to Tito, the speakers listed for next week's news briefing include Taber McCallum and Jane Poynter, who are veterans of the Biosphere 2 life-containment experiment and the top executives at Paragon Space Development Corp., which develops life-support systems for spacecraft. Jonathan Clark, a former NASA flight surgeon who now serves as an adviser for several space ventures, is also due to appear. Veteran TV journalist Miles O'Brien, who was once in line to take a trip to the space station, is to serve as moderator.
Update for 10:58 a.m. ET Feb. 21: The media advisory doesn't describe the specifics of the proposed mission, but spaceflight consultant Jeff Foust, publisher of the online NewSpace Journal, has come across information that sheds lots of additional light on Tito's plans. It turns out that Tito is due to give a presentation at the IEEE Aerospace Conference in Montana next month. He and his co-authors discuss the project in a paper prepared for the presentation. Here's a quick rundown of what Foust found:
The mission would involve a flyby of Mars with a free return back to Earth, without stopping. That type of low-energy trajectory requires a special set of orbital circumstances: The presentation says those circumstances exist for the 2018 opportunity but won't repeat until 2031. Two astronauts living in spartan conditions could make the 501-day trip in a modified SpaceX Dragon capsule, launched by SpaceX's yet-to-be-flown Falcon Heavy rocket.
Be sure to read Foust's full item on NewSpace Journal.
The plan seems to be just on the edge of doability. Among the questions that come up: Would the Dragon have adequate radiation shielding for the long-duration, deep-space trip? Can the crew cope with long-term isolation in close quarters, as well as the health effects of an extended zero-G trip? Can the Falcon Heavy truly be ready for a Mars trip in time for the 2018 opportunity? And who's going to pay for all this? Although there's no price tag attached to the plan, doing the mission seems likely to require billions of dollars. Tito may be rich, but is he that rich?
Update for 1:05 p.m. ET Feb. 21: Griffin Communications has confirmed the substance of the media advisory but released no additional information. The logistics for next week's briefing at the National Press Club are still being worked out. It's not yet known whether the proceedings will be webcast.
Update for 6:18 p.m. ET Feb. 21: A few more tidbits have trickled out: Even though the IEEE paper focuses on the SpaceX Dragon and Falcon Heavy, that doesn't mean SpaceX's participation in the project is a sure thing. The astronauts could ride on any of a range of space vehicles. One thing is for sure, however: Tito, who is now 72 years old, will not be making the spaceflight himself.
Although the IEEE paper casts the "Mission for America" as a private-sector effort, NASA would play a supporting role in technology development. A source who has been told about Tito's plans said the 2018 effort was not meant to provide competition for NASA's exploration effort, but instead provide support. NASA is working on a long-range program to send astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid in the mid-2020s, and to Mars and its moons in the mid-2030s.
The source was not authorized to speak publicly about Tito's plans, and thus spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity.
More about Mars ambitions:
- SpaceX founder wants to send hordes to Mars
- How a TV show could create a Mars colony
- Counting down to a mission to Mars
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
This story was originally published on Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:32 AM EST
Leave a Comment:
Good luck with that bozo, we can't even get back to the moon at this point.
Actually, it's not a completely bad idea. Now, the logistics of it are certainly more than a bit daunting to do by 2018. However, I would invest in Mars if I had money. Think about it. Mars could become like a first come first serve space age new world kind of opportunity. What I mean by that, is Mars could be extremely profitable to anyone who can get corporation there. At some point in the future, opportunities on Mars (and I don't mean contracted businesses just doing things like helping like NASA missions) will become available to corporations. And in theory, the sooner you can invest in a realistic plan the better. You could literally be the first in the market of another entire planet. Who knows how much money and possibly power you could get by doing that successfully. Now I don't know when that time will come. But if I have the opportunity to invest in a corporation that does something on the planet Mars itself, I'll jump aboard. Whether that be mining, tourism, real estate, whatever.
Unfortunately, I don't have money to invest and I don't believe that time period is as soon as 2018. I also don't believe he can safely and reliably plan such a daunting mission in only 5 years, especially with only millions. Oh yeah, and it's never been done before with living humans. I can't see this working out. However, if he somehow is successful before anyone else then the opportunities would be endless for him. Maybe not by 2018, but still.
I doubt very much that they could put together a manned mission in such a short period of time. An unmanned mission would only make sense if the plan included bringing back samples from Mars. To simply go out and orbit Mars and return, without touching down on the surface, would not seem to make much sense for a private company to do. At least if they could bring back samples from the surface they would accomplish two major achievements that have not yet been done. One would be to demonstrate the ability to make such a trip and the other would be to bring back actual samples from Mars. They might even recover some of the cost of the mission as I am sure that governments and universities would pay dearly to get actual samples from Mars. It would also serve to test the feasibility of mining Mars for minerals. After all, commercial companies do not do things just to prove they can do them, there has to be some long range profit motive involved.
You forget. We are dealing with the private industry. The private industry brought people into the air, etc. etc. I think 5 years is plenty of time to get a trip planned to mars. The technology and safe guards are already out there. It will be long trip though. I wonder if his ship has turbo boosters?
That's because we never landed on it in the first place.
The wonderful potential of "private industy" has been severly corrupted in this country by the notion of stock holder value trumps customer satisfaction and the valued employee.
This action, however, shows a glimmer of hope that it has not been irrevocably damaged. Good for him.. his drive emodies one of the most important elements of humanity; a need to understand.
Godspeed
Yeah, we can't get back to the moon and I wonder if we ever really went there. I mean, if it was so easy for us to get there with 1960's technology, then why have we stopped going and have not returned in over 40 years?! There is, of course, no logical or reasonable answer to that question except for one. As for Mars, LOL, how in the hell are we going to send a man to Mars when we can't or won't go back to the Moon? I have a pretty good idea what will happen when the attempt is made. And it will shock the world when they try it.
Humans can't stay in space that long without significant health effects. Keep the robotic programs going. Manned space flight is just a waste of resources with current medical technology.
Domewars why do you have to be so negetive. This man is hardlya bozo. Are you a multimillionaire or a rocket engineer? I didn't think so. You are a petty little man who seems to be very jealous of Tito.
I wish him luck and hope he makes it. Since Obama has basically shut down the space program, we need more people like him to keep exploration going.
Actually it wasn't that easy. I can't tell you how many times I was sweating bullets on those rides. And I was just watching from the living room. Ah, those were the days!
I would simply be amazed if he could get this underway within 5 years.
You know he's not planning some run of the mill rover mission, that's been completed (quite successfully, btw) by NASA a number of times.
The design and launch of a ship is one thing, the support structure is an entirely different ballgame. As NASA has stated before, you would need a network of satellites closely orbiting the sun to provide sufficient "heads up" for solar storms emanating from the sun. You would also need at least 1-2 orbiting satellites around Mars for comm relays. What about the command? You will need dozens of support staff for the duration of the mission. It would be interesting to see how NASA and private sector staff would integrate.
I can definitely tell you he would not go alone. From the psychological standpoint alone, this would be a terrible idea. Looking forward to see what happens with this.
Wonderful! This is the stuff dreams are made of (in the best possible sense of the phrase).
America can go back to the Moon at any time we choose to make it a priority and foot the bill. We most certainly CAN get back to the Moon. We just aren't going back. At least, not at this time.
Of course we can. It's just that nobody wants to badly enough to foot the bill. With current boosters it would require on-orbit assembly of the spacecraft after multiple launches to ferry the components, but that's not a big deal anymore.
NASA's attempt to reinvent Apollo is not the right way to go about it.
Now, I'd be very surprised if this guy can get the pieces together for a manned Mars mission in 5 years, but a substantial unmanned mission is certainly doable.
You people forget we went from zip to the moon is ten years! We're not starting from scratch this time around, our computers are vastly more powerful and the design technology is there.
Only the will and the money is not. Congress chopped off the later moon landings because the money had already been spent building the rockets and they feared losing someone on the moon.
We've become extremely risk adverse compared to what we were and that drives up the costs. The only thing that seemed to be science fiction when 2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968 was the Monolith.
And as to you idiots who think we never went to the moon... oh never mind, you can't fix stupid.
Remember, this isn't NASA doing this, it's private industry. They can make things happen faster, although faster sometimes means lower quality. Can't skimp on quality when you're talking two people in a spaceship for 500 days. Although 5 years sounds like a lot of time, it isn't when it comes to rocket science (thus the term "It ain't rocket science" for a simple task).
Speculating, if it's a human mission then maybe a Booster + Bigelow module on a F9 Heavy, Dragon + crew on an F9. Dock in LEO then a single boost to a free return, Mars flyby, trajectory (no orbit/landing).
Very nice theory. That actually makes a lot more sense, but I still don't see it safely and reliably happening as soon as 2018.
What happened to NASA? Shame on US.
what happened to NASA? ask your president.
What happened with NASA is American's became more interested in themselves personally than themselves as a nation or global leader.
What happened to NASA? What, did I miss something here? NASA's still around, and doing some fantastic stuff. Isn't anybody else able to come close to what NASA is doing now, and they make it seem so routine, lol.
The problem isn't NASA. The problem is Congress and and Administration that don't have clear goals set for them. NASA is expected to do everything on a budget that is only a fraction of what it was during the moon landings (in real terms, at least). Back in those days, we expected one thing from them, and gave them enough money to do it. Now they have to do so much more, with less money. And they still are so far ahead of anyone else.
If you want even more to be done, then talk to your Congress. They're the ones that have to allocate the money. President maybe sets the goals, but even he can only do what Congress writes the checks for. And so many people want Congress to cut funds indiscriminately.
NASA is doing tons of stuff on or near Mercury, Mars, Saturn and it is on its way to Pluto. Asteroids, comets, the space environment are all under investigation. The truth is that at the moment there simply isn't that much for humans to do in space and that'll remain true for some decades. The ISS's main purpose is to give astronauts something to do, i.e. maintain the ISS. The science is a comparatively minuscule part of the mission. But NASA has numerous exciting and useful missions out there right NOW. Look it up. Type "Cassini Saturn JPL" for example into Google.
NASA is not the problem here. Look to Brisaber's comment for more about that.
The thing to keep in mind is that NASA has so much going on right now. They get between 15 and 20 billion dollars annually. I'll give you a dollar if you can tell me what percentage of that money goes to the manned-spaceflight portion of operations. I would bet money that most people would be surprised how little we actually spend as a nation on human spaceflight.
Compared to healthcare, welfare, and national defense our human spaceflight budget does not even register.
When NASA got the call to send human beings to the Moon, did they also have satellite or monitoring missions going concurrently around every other planet in the solar system as we do today?
Seriously, saying that NASA does more today with less money is a huge understatement. In today's day and age we are currently in a real renaissance of scientific understanding about the cosmos, thanks in no small part to the work NASA does, and there are still people out there that say "what happened to NASA, shame on us?"??!
Yes, shame on us, for being a bunch of uneducated simpletons unaware of the realities of this world.
While I agree with much that you say, I disagree with this part. Lots of good science going on up there in the ISS, but not the high-profile stuff people like to read about. The main purpose for ISS I believe is to learn how to live and work in space, and how to cooperate with other countries while doing it. Any long-term trips (Mars for instance, even though it is the shortest interplanetary mission) will require a lot of mundane information on how to do it safely. This is not the seat-the-pants type of stuff that the moon-landings could get by with. A trip somewhere out of our planetary neighborhood will be orders of magnitude more difficult. Learning how to survive for long periods in space, and knowing how to do the inevitable maintenance and repairs will be essential.
Congress (specifically the GOP-led House) doesn't like NASA. Too much science, not enough g-d. This started in the previous administration, regardless of Bush, Jr's moon/Mars proposals. Notice he proposed them but Congress never funded them (and then it was Democrats).
I think the real question is, what would we gain by sending two people on a 501 day round-trip vacation from gravity? We need to be talking about building the infrastructure for long term investment. A flyby simply seems like a waste.
As to what has happened to NASA comment,,, behold the hand of God in Congress,,
Dennis: Thank you. I was wondering if I was the only space exploration supporter wondering about the point of such an exercise. Without landing and exploring for that planet's history and bringing back some nice chunks of it, I see no value. And forgive me, but if we can someday get robots to bring some Mars rocks back for us, I really see no point in risking humans' health by sending them there at all, especially since it would seem to make a Mars mission much more expensive.
Dennis and Justme-123... It may seem like a waste. But that is just a matter of your perspective. It sounds to me like you would like to see a more aggressive investment into human space exploration. If that's the case then you and I are in the same boat on that one. But you should look at this "501 day round-trip vacation for two" as a first step toward the goal of long term investment and infrastructure.
This kind of "vacation from gravity" really is comparable to Magellan circumnavigating the globe or something else of similar grand scale. No one has ever made the trip to Mars, in any capacity. So, obviously, there needs to be a first. And a second. And so on..
Many top scientist agree (and many disagree) about what our "first steps" should be. Personally, I think a quick 501 day vacation there and back is the best course of action. Think about the media circus that will become. Imagine the Apollo 11 voyage lasting for 501 days! That's going to really get people talking about human spaceflight.
So, I would argue that a flyby, from my perspective, is not a waste. It is a huge investment in the future of human space exploration. And that, to me, is a very valuable investment and very worth the risk.
I have to concur that a fly-by for the sake of a fly-by is a waste. We have the ISS - and if we need to 'test' 501 days in space - we can do it there. But, to put two guys in a VW for 16-17 months proves very little.
Seems to me the focus (and the money) should shift to designing vehicles that shorten that fly-by time to a few weeks or a couple months.....not only for missions...but also for rescues.
There's only one way to eat an elephant - and that is one bite at a time. And the ISS could well serve as an assembly/testing station of parts/pieces/modules of a much larger and more capable vehicle. Besides, Columbus didn't set out to go around the earth in a row boat.
mob_barley -
with the short little span of attention most people harbor - the media circus would be a three day event at launch and return....with nothing but an occasional kudo for the remaining 495 days.
Also, if it 501 days total....what happens if the two run into trouble half way thru?
mob, I am all for space exploration if there is a point to it beyond simply being able to say we went there. Apollo was useful for our scientific understanding of our planet's history, etc., and machines of that day could not have done the tasks those brave astronauts did. The Apollo 8 flyby was part testing the machines to be used for moon landings and part PR. Modern robotics have advanced to the point that it will soon be feasible to send machines to Mars to accomplish the tasks of scientific exploration and returning with samples to Earth for further study. That would eliminate the risk to human lives. I see no point to going there just to say we went. That is not why Magellan or any of the other ocean voyagers of that era went sailing. It was to see what was out there, claim it as part of a nation's empire, and prepare to exploit new areas for financial gain. All that said, if they go, I of course will be among the vast TV audience wishing them well and enjoying the show... assuming it's not during the World Series. One must have priorities!
Mark,
It would prove a lot actually. Orbital dynamics is the key on that trip and sending human beings would tell us a lot about dealing with cosmic radiation that we simply can't learn in LEO. The Earth's magnetic field is still present up at the ISS. But the science isn't the main reason to go. The main reason to go is, or at least it should be, simply to go. There is quite a bit of science that will be done on that mission, but exploration is the main goal. And this is private industry doing it, so I don't see what anyone can say as to why they should not do this. It will inspire millions of people. It will encourage private sector growth in a few different industries. It will be friggin awesome if they succeed. And, yes, it will be a tragedy if something goes wrong. But the worst thing that could happen is if closed minds prevail and humanity never reaches for a goal simply because they need some ulterior motive when simple exploration should suffice. I dream of distant horizons. Is that so bad?
Justme,
Exactly. You can't tell me that every single explorer in human history had a motive beyond the mere act of going for going sake. Many had very real reasons. But not all. Exploration of space by human beings simply for explorations sake is just fine by me. And if safety is all you are worried about then stay home and let those who want to go go. If you just want to send robots off into the universe and sit around at some computer screen, then that's fine. You do that. I'm in favor of human exploration. Why send robots. To do science? okay. Fine. They will do science. But they can't experience the journey. They can't expand the horizons of the human race.
mob, I respect and admire your enthusiasm for this sort of mission, even if I don't fully share it. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by exploration. In the cases of European ocean voyagers in the 1400s, 1500s and so on, they were trying to find out what land masses were out beyond where they could see, sponsored by monarchs and business people aiming to expand empires and make money. In this Martian case, we already know exactly what is there, so I'm puzzled as to what exploring is to be done.
So we should have gone straight from the Mercury program to lunar landings? Just bypass all the hardware and navigational and flight tests of the early Apollo missions, because they weren't "exploring", by your definition? Remember the first trips to the moon were simply an orbit and return, just to see if we could do it. Although such a trip would not technically be exploring new space (we've had probes go there many times, of course), it still should be necessary to prove the equipment and systems capable of making the trip and retruning to the Earth.
ISS can not truly simulate a journey to Mars since it is protected by Earth's magnetic field.
Personally, I'd like to see the trip go forward (I even volunteer to go, though I doubt I would pass the physical requirements). Comparing a Mars flyby to Magellan is very close. If Magellan had GPS, he would not have needed to go. But he did not, so Magellan and scores of other explorers braved the unknowns to give us that first, basic knowledge of the most distant parts of our world.
How will the human body, and the human mind, last on such a trip? How will supplies be handled? How will the mission adapt when things go wrong? These are just a few of the questions that can only be answered by actually putting a mission in space with real humans on board.
What nobody want's to talk about is the simple fact that we (human) would never survive the radiation of open space travel that far and long and until a solution to the problem of radiation is found we as a species are going nowhere.
The radiation issue has been mentioned several times here by us amateurs, and I have no doubt that those who are planning such trips for real are considering how to deal with radiation. But, with so many issues to handle for such a long journey, you have to prioritize how to tackle the problems and I guess radiation is down on the list at the moment.
Speculating, if it's a human mission then maybe a Booster + Bigelow module on a F9 Heavy, Dragon + crew on an F9. Dock in LEO then a single boost to a free return, Mars flyby, trajectory (no orbit/landing).
Plausible, but they need a better propulsion to get to Mars and back. Liquid fuel has a @!$%#ty specific impulse, so you are going to need something 'exotic' like ion propulsion, nuclear propulsion or possible solar sail for propulsion. Landing on that rock is a challenge in itself and getting off the rock is even more of a challenge, so I would agree with just under six years to make this happen, you have a LOT of challenges to overcome.
Be real, NASA with the SLS is working a tight schedule to make this dream a reality, with limited funds, so unless this dude has access to deep pockets, I just don't see how he can do it in his relatively tight timeline.
In the update to this news item, it is mentioned that this will be a there-and-back mission. There will be no landing and probably no orbiting. So, they are using orbital mechanics to it's full potential, and that means that they NEED to launch in 2018. If they don't then this specific type of mission CAN'T happen again until 2031.
So, realistically, the big ticket items to make this mission happen are getting Dragon to its man-rated status and getting Falcon Heavy up and running. It sounds to me like radiation is being put on the back burner. There will probably some form of radiation mitigation on this trip but I wouldn't be surprised if they just don't deal with it. Trust me, you'll have no shortage of people signed up to be the two astronauts that make this journey even if there is absolutely no radiation mitigation.
.
Mars is one of those places that has been, for whatever reasons, more difficult than others. The success rate for Mars missions has not been great. Can a private group put together a potentially successful unmanned mission in five years? Maybe. A manned mission in that time is out of the question unless he has something up his sleeve that is really new. 501 days doesn't imply anything special propulsion wise particularly if it is an unmanned mission.
I'll be interested to see further press releases.
Given the things Elon Musk has said, I would be surprised if this mission hasn't been in the planning stages for a long time.
SpaceX, for it's own part, has been proceeding with development of several platforms. Dragon is now working as a supply ship and is currently moving toward getting it's human-carrier badge. Falcon heavy is also not a new idea, so it's further along than most people probably realize. So, calling this mission "5 years" from start to Mars, really doesn't do it justice. Wheels have been moving in this direction for quite some time. and I am hopeful for a positive outcome.
Just keep in mind that you don't want to forever be known as the first man to die on Mars (if you even make it). - RC
(It will take a nuclear and/or thermonuclear propulsion system to successfully make the round trip.)
But also keep in mind that all of our trips to Mars so far have been 'one way', and they have ALL used aerodynamic braking as the means of deceleration. We can actually do this in a manned way, and thereby potentially eliminate half of our propulsion energy requirements at the same time, especially if we also use aerodynamic braking when we get back to Earth. But it will (probably) still require some kind nuclear and/or thermonuclear propulsion system, if only part way. (It really sounds like Russian technology & Russian scientists might be a significant part of his future plan?) - RC
PS - Yes, you can also use aerodynamic braking to enter Mars orbit as well. - RC
PSx2 - Using aerodynamic braking to enter Mars orbit is where you might also want to give yourself shuttle wings at the same time. - RC
PSx3 - And how about going aerodynamically trans-atmospheric in the process of leaving the surface of Mars? Just a suggestion.
(Just freeze Martian atmospheric CO2 as throw mass, and use atomic energy to heat it for propulsion.)
You all would never guess how many times I have visited the surface of Mars, if only in my imagination! (Well over 90% of the time I didn't make it back.) I really don't want to see anyone die out there, at least if I can help it in any possible way!) - RC
(Atomic fueled radiant energy would be used to re-gasify this frozen CO2 for additional atomic heating as a propulsion throw mass when it comes to leaving the surface of Mars in a transatmospheric way, which would also enable you to intake additional atmospheric CO2 along the way. (You would still probably lift off vertically, before converting over to aerodynamic flight.)) - RC
PSx4 - Atomic fueled lasers can provide for final stage heating of CO2 wonderfully. - RC
Rick, you're talking to yourself.
Umm, I know I can only talk for myself here, but I would imagine that there are plenty of relatively sane people on this planet that would love an opportunity to be on that first trip to Mars. And one has to believe that a certain segment of that population would be just fine with a large potential for risk. And I would go further to say that some people might actually be willing to die for that honor.
So, I would argue that being the first man to die on or around Mars probably isn't quite as bad as you make it sound. Chances are you'd be permanently seated in the history books and you can bet there'd be schools on Mars named after you in the future.
Agreed mob. Ferdinand Magellan died on "his" circumnavigation of Earth, yet we still honor him as the first to sail around our lovely planet. The man lived, and died, over 400 years ago yet we still remember him and many of the other early explorers of our planet. The first people to visit Mars, be it flyby or landing, will no doubt receive the same treatment.
Cool, don't come back.
Good for him we spent hundreds of billions of dollars for NASA astronauts to have joy rides on the ISS it is about time someone is thinking about real exploration, too many of us have been waiting too long for NASA to sign on to something that is more than a joy ride.....
NASA is planning a manned mission to Mars. But it's going to be awhile. The logistics and expenses are daunting enough without live humans. Realistically, I can't see how someone with only millions could do it both reliably and safely in just 5 years.
I am sure there are a few wealthy investors who would be willing to take a chance and invest in such a project, Afterall they are already investing in space travel.
Actually "we" and several other nations spent that money to build a nice piece of infrastructure that can be used to, among other things, assemble a spacecraft on-orbit to go to Mars. To have "real exploration" a lot of pieces have to be in place that aren't. A reliable cheap way to get to orbit is the most essential and nobody is even working on that because it's not glamorous.
NASA tried to do that in the '70s and the Congress kept cutting the budget and cutting the budget and cutting the budget until we got a piece of crap called the "space shuttle" instead.
Agreed the"Space Semi," We also wasted valuable time on the X-33 and over 1 billion dollars for something that was only designed to take a suborbital flight. There is an old saying at Boeing where I worked, "It's not how good you are its how good you look." Al Gore like the look of the X-33 paperweight that Lockheed brought him so much that they favored that over the working scale model of the Delta Clipper Experimental, DC-X that had several test flight's "It's not how good you are its how good you look." While the Russians never gave up on something that worked. With that being said outside of manned spaceflight over the last 40 years NASA has set the standards for historic exploration of our universe.
Neutrino, pull your head out of ..wherever it is inserted.
First of all, the ISS is an international effort with many countries footing the bill. Here is what wikipedia has to say on the subject..
Furthermore, this farcical idea that NASA has been "joyriding" is dead on arrival. If you want to be an astronaut then you have your opportunity just like anyone else. But it's pretty difficult to become one because the requirements are a little higher than whatever it is that you or I do in our daily lives. I would love to be an astronaut and at one time that was my goal. But due to my health and @!$%#ty skeletal structure I will never be going into outerspace, regardless of whether it's for NASA or anyone else. Even so, I'm in favor of high standards for astronauts. If you want to be an astronaut, you can be, but it's hard work.
And to even use the phrase "joyride" is a huge disrespect to all the hard work that has been done over the years by everyone involved in the space program. It sounds to me that what YOU want is the joyride. But YOU are not willing to put in the hard work. and YOU do not realize the work that is done in space by our astronauts.
mob_barley I am sure you're going to get people supporting your view after all they didn't mind paying all that money just to get stuck in low earth orbit. When the ISS was first proposed they, like yourself, claimed it will be a springboard to go back to the moon and on to Mars before 2010. Has a human stepped foot on Mars yet, for that matter has a human been farther than 200 miles above the earth surface since Apollo? By the time they use it to go too Mars in 2030 it will most likely be abandoned....
Neutrino, just so that we are clear, when did I ever say that the ISS would be used as a direct springboard to anything?? I have never said that.
Also, you must not have spent any time reading comments around these science and tech pages... People HATED spending a billion and a half dollars per shuttle flight. I've read countless comments specifically to that effect. So don't tell me that "people didn't mind paying all that money just to get stuck in LEO".
People like me argue that we should invest more strongly in space exploration. People like me argue that we need a more vigorous science and technology initiative in the U.S.A. As long as you want to suggest that people will support my views I would go further and argue that my views are only worth supporting because the end result is always to do two things: Make money and make the world a better place. You see, I want to see America succeed. And I also am a greedy capitalist. But I'm not dumb enough to think that I can get rich while trodding people beneath me. I want everyone to be better off. And I truly believe that space is the way to achieve that goal.
So, don't tell me what I have claimed. I made no claims like the one you suggest. No, no human has put boots in the Martian soil. and No, no human has been beyond LEO since 1972. In 2030, if the current plan holds, the ISS, at least the American portion, will probably be deorbited and sunk to the bottom of the south Pacific. I hear the Russians have said they would like to detach their segments and continue using them. And by that time the Chinese may have a space station in orbit. And for all anyone knows Congress will continue diverting funding to the ISS.
The International Space Station was NEVER intended to last until 2030. It was built to be upgraded and it's ultimate destiny was never really set in stone, but it was planned to be deorbited something like 5 years after it's completion. The interested parties continue to fund it because they see some use in it. Science continues to be done on the ISS.
But I have never said it will be or was ever intended to be a springboard for anything. Frankly, continued funding of the ISS is part of the problem. The Augustine Commission sited it specifically as part of the reason to cancel the Constellation program. They felt like doing both was unsustainable, along with other factors. But that's a whole other story...
So, with all that in mind, Neutrino, if the ISS is done with in 2028 (which is when current estimates put it's deorbiting), then that is simply money that NASA doesn't have to spend supporting ISS. And that is essentially money that could be diverted to a potential Mars manned mission.
Mob-Barley I can only image where your head is stuck....
Neutrino, it's not about how good you are, it's about how good you look.
"...we spent hundreds of billions of dollars for NASA astronauts to have joy rides on the ISS"
Months in a research lab (that's what ISS is, you know...space exploration is just a subset of space research) is your idea of a 'joy ride?'
"Neutrino, it's not about how good you are, it's about how good you look."
Ha, Ha, Ha, Just what I would expect from you, you would rather look good than to be good....
Frank said - Months in a research lab (that's what ISS is, you know...space exploration is just a subset of space research) is your idea of a 'joy ride?'
Yea a joy ride that the tax payer paid close to 100 billion dollars for, that would have been better served to spend on human exploration of other planets. What did it get us two space Shuttle destroyed 14 dead astronauts and dependency on the Russians to give us a lift, Ha, yea we look good...
You are off by one decimal point in that figure. Unless you know something more factual, I would like to see where you found that price tag...As far as I heard, each 'joy ride' to the space station on board a Russian ship was approx. $50 million per seat...
Why are you so bitter? Can you do better? Can your contributions make NASA and ultimately this country a better place? If so, submit your application to NASA for immediate consideration for employment. If not, then why not throttle down before you burnout? You are seriously out of control...
If you hear someone bashing someone here be carefull most of them don't have a clue to what is going on.
According to the original Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and RSA, the International Space Station was intended to be a laboratory, observatory and factory in space. It was also planned to provide transportation, maintenance, and act as a staging base for possible future missions to the Moon, Mars and asteroids
5 Horrifying Facts
You Didn't Know About the Space Shuttle
"During the operational years from 1982 to 2010, the average cost per launch was about $1.2 billion. Over the life of the programme, this increases to about $1.5 billion per launch"
"As of 2010 NASA budgeted $58.7 billion for the station from 1985 to 2015, or $72.4 billion in 2010 dollars."
That's not including the average of 1.2 billion dollars per launch, 36 launches of the Space Shuttle to service it for sake of argument lets just use average 1 billion per launch...
72.4 +36 = 108.4 billion dollars
I am upset because if we used the ideas of Robert Zubrin and others a flight by humans to Mars and back would have cost less, and it would have been completed by 2012. I probably won't live long enough to see a human step foot another planet, after Apollo mission ended everyone thought we would be on Mars before 1982. Now NASA and our government say it will be by 2032, another lie. So when the private ommercial space race gets heated up we will be on Mars before 2025, that is something to be excited about not another broken promise from politicians who have their own political agenda...
Fair enough, Neutrino-
I thought you were referring to Russian space launches, not the overall NASA Space Shuttle program in support of the ISS.
There are a lot of issues WRT how NASA managed the overall Space Shuttle and ISS programs. Hindsight is always 20/20. One would hope that after all these years we could learn from the lessons we had to learn the hard way.
Several Congressmen have indeed gone on "joyrides" in the shuttle and I include John Glenn's "cosmic carnival ride" in that, but not, of course his solo Mercury flight. Those words are his BTW, though applied to joyrides of others, not his own.
Americans still believe in doing great things... it's just that our leadership doesn't. Our president hates his own country and our congress can't even agree on budget issues.
This has nothing to do with politics. Please keep your political hate agenda out of it.
political hate agenda? who but the brakes on NASA? the guy who's wife doesn't want you to eat a big mac.
Brakes were hit long before this president. And even when a president has a good idea for space, Congress doesn't give it to him. Congress writes the checks, so put blame where it is due.
GodOfFate, the success or failure of the US space program has everything to do with politics. Congress decides how much can be spent on the space program, and if Congress won't fund projects that are needed to keep that program healthy then it will wither and die, as it is doing.
It may be that private industry can do a better job of it than NASA and at lower cost, but if they can it's because they get to reap the benefit of all those billions that the politicians spent learning how to do the job.
NASA is planning manned missions to Mars. It's just going to take awhile because the task is so daunting when you add live humans and them returning to the equation. That has never been done before. It is one thing to launch a probe on a one way trip to Mars. This is another. And neither Congress or the President have got in the way of those plans at least yet. So really, politics are irrelevant to this.
Politics is a part of space, whether we want it to be or not. But we don't have to lower ourselves to the point where we become slobbering media sheep.
ArxFerrum, Do you know the president personally? Do you find imagine yourself AT ALL qualified to tell the rest of us what the President of the United States hates or does not hate??
I don't think so.
I don't care if you want to talk politics. It is what it is. But don't sit there and pretend to know what the president personally feels about any topic. I don't care if it's G.W.Bush or Obama or Thomas Jefferson for that matter, you and I will never be acquainted with their personal feelings. Even if you read their personal journals or memoirs, only if they specifically say "I felt this way about blah blah blah" that's the ONLY time you can say that you know how a president felt about something. And even then you are still only hearing what they want you to hear.
As for the bigger point, the reason for which you posted in the first place... I do agree with you that Americans still dream big and can accomplish monumental tasks. And, frankly, I include many members of our government in that. But I also agree with you that our government figures, those in Congress specifically, are stuck in a mode where they just will not work together toward any positive goal. And that is heartbreaking to the majority of Americans. Whether your republican or democrat, independent or abstaining, I think we all can agree that we all want a functional Congress that is not stuck in these stupid quagmires we too often see them stuck in.
Interesting concept. He's pushing his luck if he thinks he can do it safely and reliably by 2018, and by only being a millionaire as it would be extremely expensive. But if he could somehow pull it off, this investment might lead to a fortune. That, however, is a massive if. I just don't think it's realistic with the conditions proposed.
That is what they told Christopher Columbus,
The only real failure is the failure to try!
Why does boldly going where no man has gone before have to be "safe and reliable"? If it had to be "safe and reliable" the first of our ancestors would never have climbed down out of his tree and braved the leopards to grab that piece of fruit lying on the ground.
@ LostInThePineBarrens,
Normally, I'd agree with you. But if you are talking about sending live people as far into space as Mars, the stakes are much higher. That far away, if anything goes wrong there is no abort. The logistics and expense alone are probably daunting enough to deal with in 5 years. But when you add live people to the equation, serious consequences come of a failed mission. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it happen, and I think it will someday. But by 2018? That soon is probably unrealistic.
@ J. Clarke,
Perhaps, but there is a huge difference between an organization like NASA with decades of experience, and an commercial business that is relatively new at this space thing. Personally, I do think we should try. But 2018 is an unrealistically close deadline for them. This has never been done before by anyone. And when human lives are at steak that far away... As I said in my response to Lost, if anything goes wrong they all probably die. The logistics of Mars are far more daunting than just a simple space launch. I realize that risk is always a part of this. But there has to be realistic parameters of success and safe return or it's just a suicide mission. Even test pilots don't get into planes that aren't built to fly.
So yes, we should try. But we should be smart about it, too. Personally, I think it's going to take more time.
He's talking two volunteers in a Dragon capsule. We've lost far more than that in space doing things far less ambitious. If they're willing to take the risk then that should be their choice.
I think the first thing we should be focusing on is actually building a habitable space station in orbit. One that is not only for science but also has people living on it. Possibly a ringed rotational orbital station of some type. We see them in movies and tv series yet what do we come up with.. a pill bottle lego play set station.
And if we can set up a habitat in orbit that can not only show that it can sustain a gravity but also has a botanical system that could make it self sustainable it may even be the setting for the ability to mine those asteroids for raw materials.
Only after these things are done would i even consider a trip to any planet in our solar system or anywhere else. For a few reasons.
1. It would be more intelligent to construct and launch a ship from orbit than from the planet. no gravity well to waste fuel fighting
2. If you can set up a sustained living environment in orbit on a large scale then a long range trip or even a bio dome on another planets or the moons surface would be more realistic.
3. Also consider the protections you would need on a ship over a long period of time. we do not have the ability to create a gravity so any ship we build for long distance travel would have to have a rotational section that creates its own gravity. 501 days in space would have detrimental effects on the human body both physically and mentally.
I find all this talk of taking a trip to mars a waste of time since we cant even get people to live in space under proper conditions.
Akumawraith
#1- where does the fuel for your orbital launch come from? If it comes from Earth you just negated building it in orbit.
#2- you would build underground as the radiation would be worse above ground.
#2- you do not need gravity for a 500 day trip. See ISS and previous eyestronaut data on humans in space.
I see this conversation a waste of time seeing as you have pigeon holed everything already.
We need to get launch costs under control before that becomes an option. Most of the cost of any launch today is throwing away a multimillion dollar rocket. We need to quit doing that, but nobody wants to fund a proper development program. The Space Shuttle didn't have a proper development program, they went straight from concept to final design without doing the development they needed on the thermal protection system, as a result of which it ended up a piece of crap that cost more to operate than the throwaways.
But making a pickup truck or jeep is not a national prestige glamour program so it's a hard sell. And until it happens wheels in space are going to be pipe dreams.
This is the type of rich wacko that would leave his entire fortune to his cats when he dies. Good luck bozo. I can't believe that people think we landed on the moon. Wake up it never happened because this was one of the worlds biggest hoaxes. The ultimate $$$$$$$ generator.
We fooled millions of people all over the world not once but 6 times when we landed, and kept everyone in mission control quiet all these years? That is impossible.
BTW, go find Buzz Aldrin and tell him that he never landed on the moon.
I can't believe that people think we landed on the moon
I can't believe there are people still ignorant enough to think we didn't land on the moon.
Thanks for setting me straight.
Yep, we did not land on the moon like you are not living with your head in Uranus.
There are devices on the moon still to this day that can be used to verify that mankind went to the moon. Apollo astronauts left mirrors on the moon, the specific purpose of which was to use them as laser range finders. If you knew what you were doing and had the funds to do it you could verify that these mirrors are in fact present on the moon's surface and thusly you could independently verify that mankind has, in fact, been to the moon.
Interesting, since NASA moves at a Snails pace, some with good reason, other projects why not, this , just interesting. Dont forget to get your Visa
Meow
Tracking test.
I await the results of your test with great interest...
tracking the elusive river cat?
I think it's a nice idea. He probably just wants to go back home to visit the relatives.
Dennis Tito doesn't have enough money to make it a manned mission.
No he doesn't... But he does have enough money to invest in this. And if his initial invest is substantial enough then other rich investors will follow suit. People often fail to realize the amount of real money that is made here on Earth by investing in space exploration. This is a smart investment by a guy that will probably end up being a billionaire when all is said and done.
The planet earth needs help! educating the poor! There are to many people on earth, pure ignorance.
One of the best post today. Well said.
His favorite movie must be Total Recall, wonder if he's going to take Arnold with him. ?
LOL...I suppose he should just give his money away to freeloaders like yourself who are too stupid or too lazy to earn a living, We spend more money in the US on education than any other country and we still wind up with idiots and poor people, LBJ's greats society has done nothing but create more poor people and more poverty.
FYI...when this guy is spending his own money he is employing people ,creating good paying jobs that the government will take a big chunk of, He is contributing to society...people like you ...not so much
Also, it should be noted that the world's economy spends many more billions of dollars annually on educating the poor than we do on space industry. Combine the amount of money spent, world wide, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, etc...
People who rant and rave that nothing is being done to help those here on Earth that need it are insane. Helping those in need is a cash cow that spends vast quantities more per year than space industry. Yes the space industry spends a lot of money. But helping those in need is one of the world biggest industries.
I bet when they first landed on the moon, they had colonization in mind. Are we to believe that the time spent from then to now, they have been doing math problems? IMO, I'm sure they are much more far along with colonizing mars then us low lifers know about.
July 27, 2018 = 36 Million miles away. Angular diameter 24
They are taking the "fast track". Most likely a flyby or supply drop. Conventional ships all the way. Solid boosters with liquid attitude adjusters. Most likely unmanned.
He had his trip to the ISS in 2001. I am SURE he has been planning since or near that time and probably has other investors. Yes, some Americans still have forethought.
We do not need to explore space some of you say? Sure, lets keep the universe flat with mythical creatures guarding its borders.
I was with you right up to the part about mythical creatures, If you were referring to the sea dragons then I agree, If it is a comment referring to god then I do not.
As in Mythical Creatures.
Most readers would have pictured an old map in their head.
and the beat goes on.....
I did picture an old map but your coment included the word universe and I was unsure exactly what you meant by mythical creatures in the context of universe.
The irony is that some of those mythical creatures such as the giant squid have recently been discovered
or rediscovered.....
Supposedly most myths have SOME base in fact.
wonder where the seed of an idea of a god came from then, what fact started it is what i wonder.
That 501 day trip to Mars is hard to accept.
Godspeed Dennis ... laissez bon temp roulez! You and Elon Musk and the MarsOne crew can show (feckless) NASA the error of its ways!
These assorted nattering nabobs of negativism chattering above notwithstanding, this is an eminently doable quest.
Perhaps he just wants off this rock, even if it is a damned mission with no hope of return. The pictures will be nice!
Good for him! If he has the money to do it why not? I'll root for him!
in other news: the gap between the rich and poor increase on planet earth.
If there were no rich people there would still be poor people and those poor people would still be just as poor if not poorer.
pS: A lot of us will work harder,taking extra work and putting in extra effort to increase our lot in life.
Even in the old days, those with ships that had money did the hard things to discover new lands. What: you think Columbus sailed to find a different route to the Far East on his own dime? He too had financiers with deep pockets.
I don't remember the poor bitching as much back then as they do today about what some rich dude does with his hard earned money...
Hey, Thomas-
How about all those slaves you owned let alone bedded for your own personal gain? Think they might have something to say about your lucrative financial endeavors? That Monticello home of yours is pretty nice. How did that benefit them?
I wish i had enough money to be able to do something as stupid as this, but i would choose something totally different. Why go to Mars? nothing but sand and rocks and you are probably not coming back.
I highly doubt that coming back was a major deterrence for many of the explorers or discoverers, While I am sure they all hoped that they would come back the simple fact remains that they knew the odds were not in their favor and yet they went anyway.
Magellan didn't come back. Still, he accomplished something and you know who he was.
He made that GPS gadget, didn't he? My home street still shows up two miles off target...
;-)