
![]() |

The Dennis Tito Mars Mission 2018
What makes this interesting is he puts the Mars Mission at around a billion Dollars.
So If we sell a hundred Million Tickets at $100 each - to select each of the six civilian colonists, we can get to there with a descent sized single stage space craft that functions as a habitat on arrival. Our version is open to random colonists.
Potentially a budget of sixty billion.

Threeshades |

Threeshades wrote:Why no gay and lesbian couples?Tito probably plans to secretly film you on the trip and gay sex wont do in his private porn collection.
I was thinking he doesn't want to send breeders because he doesn't want would-be colonists or offspring declaring 'I was born on Mars!'.
Afraid of the Red Faction scenario, i see.
That still doesn't explain the no-homo policy. It's not like they will have children on the way.

Werthead |

Why no gay and lesbian couples?
Tito's argument is that if we are sending 2 people to Mars, there should be 1 man and 1 woman to properly represent the human race. And they should be in a relationship with one another, as you don't want to put two strangers or even two good friends in a sardine can for 16 months straight (I'd argue a lot of even incredibly well-suited couples would be strained by that).
I assume that if the two people are bi, but in a hetero relationship with one another, or if one of the two people has undergone a sex-change, that will be fine (otherwise the bigoted undercurrent will get a lot more blatant).
So If we sell a hundred Million Tickets at $100 each - to select each of the six civilian colonists, we can get to there with a descent sized single stage space craft that functions as a habitat on arrival. Our version is open to random colonists.
Potentially a budget of sixty billion.
The costs of a manned mission to Mars including a return are highly variable, with estimates ranging from $5 billion (which seems ludicrously optimistic) to $1 trillion (which, given cost overruns, research, keeping the mission supplied, redundant systems etc is not actually as massive as it first appears). On that basis your plan would either have plenty to spare or would be less than 10% of what is needed.
Tito's plan is so ridiculously cheap because it involves only the initial fuel needed for launch and the injection orbit. Once that's done there is no requirement for additional fuel to slow down, computers to undertake complex mid-course adjustments, no system for landing, no systems or supplies for an extended stay on the surface and no launch/return voyage mechanisms. These are all insanely expensive.

![]() |
Tito's plan is also nothing more than a stunt. It accomplishes practically nothing of scientific value, and it's not really an advancement on space colonization. If NASA were to be spending money on this, I'd call foul despite the cost savings. Because yes it does take money to do anything worthwhile, and this isn't it.
Another major failing of the design as presented as it does not make a provision for solar flare events. Without a suitable "storm cellar" to protect one from these high radiation episodes, that ship will become a very expensive flying coffin.

Irontruth |

Tito's plan is also nothing more than a stunt. It accomplishes practically nothing of scientific value, and it's not really an advancement on space colonization. If NASA were to be spending money on this, I'd call foul despite the cost savings. Because yes it does take money to do anything worthwhile, and this isn't it.
Another major failing of the design as presented as it does not make a provision for solar flare events. Without a suitable "storm cellar" to protect one from these high radiation episodes, that ship will become a very expensive flying coffin.
I think there's plenty of scientific value to be gained. I think the most important aspects to study and solve are trying to keep humans alive and mostly unharmed for 500 days outside of Earth's orbit. Even if they don't survive, we will learn a lot.
The trip will still require multiple new inventions and advancements in technology to be successful. I'd qualify that as having scientific value.

![]() |

Umbral Reaver wrote:Can we send yellowdingo, Grand Magus and Electric Wizard instead?I think yellowdingo already lives on the moon.
A little secret? the Moon is just part of the earth separated from us by a string. If you can find the string that separates you from the moon and achieve superposition, you could walk to the Moon.

![]() |

Callous Jack wrote:A little secret? the Moon is just part of the earth separated from us by a string. If you can find the string that separates you from the moon and achieve superposition, you could walk to the Moon.Umbral Reaver wrote:Can we send yellowdingo, Grand Magus and Electric Wizard instead?I think yellowdingo already lives on the moon.
I like this "String Theory."

![]() |
LazarX wrote:Tito's plan is also nothing more than a stunt. It accomplishes practically nothing of scientific value, and it's not really an advancement on space colonization. If NASA were to be spending money on this, I'd call foul despite the cost savings. Because yes it does take money to do anything worthwhile, and this isn't it.
Another major failing of the design as presented as it does not make a provision for solar flare events. Without a suitable "storm cellar" to protect one from these high radiation episodes, that ship will become a very expensive flying coffin.
I think there's plenty of scientific value to be gained. I think the most important aspects to study and solve are trying to keep humans alive and mostly unharmed for 500 days outside of Earth's orbit. Even if they don't survive, we will learn a lot.
The trip will still require multiple new inventions and advancements in technology to be successful. I'd qualify that as having scientific value.
If this trip is being done on the extreme cheap, the quality of the data gathered is going to be suspect at most. The tech for the trip itself already exists since you're really not doing anything but modifying a Hohlman orbit, you're not slowing down to match Mars orbital speed, so you don't have an issue with having to blast out of orbit. Multiple planet flybys have been done very successfully by NASA. the Cassini probe for instance included multiple singshots off of Earth and Venus as well as Jupiter before it arrived at Saturn.
Another popular myth is that you need the space program to provide technological advancements. This is a fallacy. Any major program will provide technological innovation as a spinoff. And much of the major spinoffs provided by Apollo were in industries that themselves were in a nascent stage compared to today. This is also why the flood of spinoffs from the space program has narrowed down to a trickle. There's only so much innovation from the same process done over and over again.
A billionaire is welcome to spend his excess wealth any way he sees fit. A merit of this program is that it will at least provide a fair number of jobs. But I don't want NASA putting one penny into this farce.

Gaekub |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tito's argument is that if we are sending 2 people to Mars, there should be 1 man and 1 woman to properly represent the human race. And they should be in a relationship with one another, as you don't want to put two strangers or even two good friends in a sardine can for 16 months straight (I'd argue a lot of even incredibly well-suited couples would be strained by that).

![]() |

Werthead wrote:Tito's argument is that if we are sending 2 people to Mars, there should be 1 man and 1 woman to properly represent the human race. And they should be in a relationship with one another, as you don't want to put two strangers or even two good friends in a sardine can for 16 months straight (I'd argue a lot of even incredibly well-suited couples would be strained by that).This is a relevant thing.
I wish I could "favorite" this post twice.

Werthead |

Tito's plan is also nothing more than a stunt
He actually agreed to this, saying one of his primary motivating factors is to get Americans to Mars (if not actually landing) before the Chinese. I also think psychologically getting people to the vicinity of Mars and back again safely (with them not being fried by radiation or freaking out and killing one another) will make a manned mission later on much more likely, as it overcomes some of the technical objections.
I'm still of the opinion that a proper, manned and open-ended mission is the way to go, but that's a hell of a lot more expensive and would require some sort of pathfinder, proof-of-concept mission first. If this is it, all power to it.