Dennis Tito wants to go to Mars. In five years.

http://news.discovery.com/space/pri...ion-to-mars-in-2018-130221.htm#mkcpgn=rssnws1

I don't think this will happen, but we are reaching the stage where things like this are at least possible. I've long said that the next couple of decades are going to be as dramatic as the 1960's were in terms of space travel.

There's no reason why it couldn't happen. NASA strongly considered a similar plan for a Venus flyby, as part of the Apollo program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby

Yeah, theoretically possible but you would definitely need more than a Dragon. A Bigelow module attached would probably be the bare minimum needed space.

It'd be great if they succeed. Couldn't they at least dock on Deimos or Phobos? Or would that be problematic? In hindsight it's too bad that manned Venus flyby WASN'T done

That what NASA did with Apollo. Do a few fly-by's, then BAM! - every astronaut on the planet was yelling "Abort! Abort!" during Apollo 11.

Very problematic.

The whole idea of a free return trajectory is that once you're on your way, your trajectory will carry you past Mars and right back to Earth without any additional energy required. It's essentially an orbit around the Sun that intersects Mars at one point in time and Earth at another. You just need a relatively small amount of thrust at the beginning to get into that orbit.

To stop somewhere along the way (even just to orbit Mars), you'd have to carry enough fuel to slow down to make the stop and then enough to get back up to speed again to return to Earth. It's a problem that compounds because the more fuel you carry, the more fuel you need to move it. So, a spacecraft that makes any kind of "stop" at Mars would be much bigger, carry much more fuel, and be much more complex.

When I first saw the title of the thread, I was a bit skeptical. But I actually think this is very doable. There are still some serious problems to deal with--radiation shielding, keeping from going stir crazy locked in a small spacecraft for a year and a half--but current technology should let this happen.

It would certainly be an exciting event if it came to pass.

Balls.

It is kind of gimmicky compared to a full on four or six man "Mars Direct" style mission that last 2 and a half years with a year and a half on the surface.

But is still the kind of thing I would gladly do if I had the chance.

I'd say Tito was nuts.

More at the link, but based on what's been described in the article, I can't see anyway of pulling it off by 2018 (note that if he gave up on the goofy flight path, it could be done faster, and would have more launch opportunities than 2016, 2018, and 2031).

The goofy flight path is the only way to do it with tech we can assemble in a few years time, or for an amount of money that a civilian can afford. The principle is sound and fairly elegant, and is also how just about all of our inter-planetary missions have worked. They almost always involve an orbital trajectory that crosses paths with the destination at the right time. The unusual feature in this case is that the orbit crosses paths with two objects at the right time.

if it accomplishes nothing more than getting people excited again about manned space flight, that's an important accomplishment.

Mars Direct can do it with current technology and doesn't involve a trip to Venus, it also provides a launch window of every two years.

Unless, of course, it fails to work and popular opinion sours on spaceflight, as has happened in the past.

Hard to pull off by 2018 for sure, but all the parts to make it happen already exist or are planned to exist by then.

It relies basically on a Dragon, a Bigelow module, a Falcon Heavy and being able to carry 18 months of supplies.

Mars Direct doesn't require much more than that.

Mars Direct involves a landing. Which makes it an order of magnitude more expensive. Tito's idea is basically just a free return trajectory. Unpowered for the most part after you leave Earth orbit. Sir Isaac Newton in the drivers seat.

This plan essentially needs nothing more than the resources to stay in LEO for 18 months. Mars Direct requires a Mars lander, an ascent stage, a fuel depot on the surface, environmental suits for the Martian surface...

Three surface rovers. A minatured nuclear reactor. Still doable for definitely several billion more.

There's no reason both can't happen. But Tito's plan is sound, I wish him the best, and am fairly confident it can be done.

The orbital path taken by the manned ship in a Mars Direct mission does not go towards Venus. It is a straight shot to Mars, by comparison. All done with current technology, and could be done by Tito's group. It means less time in microgravity for the astronauts, less risk of them being in the middle of fucking nowhere when something goes wrong, and less gear needed for the mission. With the added bonus that if you don't hit your launch window in 2018 for whatever reason, you can give it another go in 2020, instead of waiting until 2031.

Not without a propulsion system, it isn't. Got to be able to make course corrections along the way, and if you spot a small asteroid in your path that nobody's noticed before, you need to be able to get the fuck out of the way.

The article didn't say there was no propulsion, just that it wouldn't be needed to get there and back. As for stray asteroids, I think we have an accurate map of the inner solar system.

You keep on talking about Venus and I'm not sure why, since this plan doesn't involve Venus either.

Tito says, "No critical propulsive maneuvers," course corrections are kinda critical, I'm afraid, and there's no way we can so accurately put the ship into an initial trajectory that they won't have to make course corrections later on. You're also going to want to be able to make critical propulsive maneuvers if something goes wrong.

Not of asteroids below 20m in diameter, we don't. That's why the Russian one was such a surprise.

Yeah, it does (at least according to some of the other pieces I've seen on it). They're going to slingshot around Venus to get a boost. That's one of the reasons why the flight will take so damned long. The mission profile is essentially a rehash of the one Bush I proposed back in the 90s, only with the orbital manufacturing facilities and nuclear propulsion removed. Again, a Mars Direct trajectory gets the astronauts to Mars and back in less time, with less risk, and more chances to launch.

Nope, Venus isn't involved.

http://www.space.com/19985-private-mars-mission-flyby-dennis-tito-infographic.html

You might be getting it a bit confused with the orbital path the vehicle takes, since it will be moving close to the orbital path of Venus, while avoiding the planet completely.

Doesn't matter, the Mars Direct trajectory is still the better choice.

Show me it can be done for the same price.

Let's see, the Mars Direct proposal calls for landers, a larger craft to accommodate a bigger crew, etc. and has a total cost of $50 billion, ditch the landers, the bigger crew, etc., and stick to simply the trajectory that Zubrin proposes with Mars Direct, but instead of orbiting and landing, you do a burn which puts you on a return course to Earth. You cut the flight time from 18 months to a year (6 months out, 6 months back), you ditch the extra consumables like food and water that an 18 month journey would require compared to a 12 month journey, replace them with fuel to do the burn to send the ship back home, and you'll wind up within a few million or so of Tito's price.

Mind you, I think both Zubrin and Tito have underestimated the costs involved, and that it'll be significantly higher, no matter which plan you go with. Musk has said that he expects to be doing 1,000 launches a year by 2020 (and he needs that kind of launch rate to get his costs down). That's almost 3 launches a day, where's his customer base going to come from? You can only stick so many birds in orbit (and we're getting overcrowded up there as it is) and even fewer folks are going to want to send things farther than LEO.

That's pure guesswork it seems. Not saying you are wrong there but the plan already requires recycling water so you won't save weight there, and I imagine you would need much more than a couple of hundred kilos of fuel which is about all I imagine you would save in consumables.

We have no idea of what is out there.

All you need is a rock the size of super-sized beach ball and it's good bye space craft.

Hell a rock smaller than that could probably wreck the craft as well.

They should fly the Mars Direct route. It is faster. And faster is better because it means less potential exposure to radiation.