Quote from: Dalhousie on 02/25/2013 12:08 amTrying to put free volumes into terms people can visualise. 2.5 m3 ~ domestic shower cubical (or airline toilet)3.7 m3 ~ domestic toilet cubical6.3 m ~ walk in wardrobe7.5 m3 ~ on-suite15 m3 ~ domestic bathroom23 m3 ~ very small hotel room, no bathroom30 m3 ~ small hotel room & on-suiteWhich of these do people think we can expect someone to live, exercise, prepare food, perform bodily functions and work in for 500 days? Then double it for two people.Not everyone in the world lives in first world accomodations. See for example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084971/Hong-Kongs-cage-homes-Tens-thousands-living-6ft-2ft-rabbit-hutches.html.
Trying to put free volumes into terms people can visualise. 2.5 m3 ~ domestic shower cubical (or airline toilet)3.7 m3 ~ domestic toilet cubical6.3 m ~ walk in wardrobe7.5 m3 ~ on-suite15 m3 ~ domestic bathroom23 m3 ~ very small hotel room, no bathroom30 m3 ~ small hotel room & on-suiteWhich of these do people think we can expect someone to live, exercise, prepare food, perform bodily functions and work in for 500 days? Then double it for two people.
I agree that two people in a dragon stuffed full of consumables is probably taking it a bit too far, but attaching another 10m^3 of volume via a lightweight pressurized habitat like the bigelow BEAM, or reducing the crew to one, it becomes borderline plausible.
Quote from: joek on 02/25/2013 12:25 amQuote from: Dalhousie on 02/25/2013 12:08 amWhich of these do people think we can expect someone to live, exercise, prepare food, perform bodily functions and work in for 500 days? Then double it for two people.If you believe NASA's numbers, ~5.1m3/person "tolerable" for a 180-620 day mission duration. Then again, a couple committed participants might do with less. It is the tolerable lower limit. Anything less is intolerable. Five hundred days in the free space of a large walk-in wardrobe. It is also the free space. Triple it for pressurised volume.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 02/25/2013 12:08 amWhich of these do people think we can expect someone to live, exercise, prepare food, perform bodily functions and work in for 500 days? Then double it for two people.If you believe NASA's numbers, ~5.1m3/person "tolerable" for a 180-620 day mission duration. Then again, a couple committed participants might do with less.
Which of these do people think we can expect someone to live, exercise, prepare food, perform bodily functions and work in for 500 days? Then double it for two people.
Quote from: sanman on 02/25/2013 05:21 am(Why don't Tito & Co just go to Antarctica and build a city there? ...) all the land is claimed by one nation or another
(Why don't Tito & Co just go to Antarctica and build a city there? ...)
I think the Bigelow BEAM is a non-starter for this mission. From the various media tidbits, only one Falcon Heavy is involved. Basically all the supplies for the mission will have to be in place at launch. So the BEAM got to be filled with supplies and be inflated.I posted up thread about using the initial small Cygnus Pressurized module as the hab. It would fit inside an extended Dragon trunk. The PCM got internal volume of 18 cubic meters.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 02/25/2013 10:19 amI think the Bigelow BEAM is a non-starter for this mission. From the various media tidbits, only one Falcon Heavy is involved. Basically all the supplies for the mission will have to be in place at launch. So the BEAM got to be filled with supplies and be inflated.I posted up thread about using the initial small Cygnus Pressurized module as the hab. It would fit inside an extended Dragon trunk. The PCM got internal volume of 18 cubic meters. And what would be the weight of that module compared to a BEAM? Certainly a lot more, too much for the mission. It would be possible to store most of the consumables in Dragon for launch and transfer it to the BEAM after Mars insertion once it is inflated. Part of the consumables could already be in the deflated module.
According to the Thales web site. The PCM have dry mass of 1500 kg with usable volume of about 18 m3.That compares with the BEAM dry mass of 1360 kg with usable volume of about 16 m3 from the Bigelow web site.So the PCM is 140 kg more than the BEAM, but you get 2 more m3.Using the PCM give you a total of 23 m3 that you can place the supplies in at launch. According to someone up thread the Dragon will have 7 m3 of livable volume. So 18 m3 in the PCM + 7m3 in the Dragon min a couple of m3 for the crew give you 23 m3 of storage. So the 2 crew members will each have about 11 m3 of supplies.You suggestion of transferring supplies from the Dragon will reduce the supplies available from what can be place in an un-inflated BEAM plus what can place in the Dragon. Not even certain you can place anything inside un-inflated BEAM. Hopefully @Orbital Debris can enlighten us on that.
Neither Bigelow nor BEAM are mentioned in the IEEE paper.
I thought Musk famously exclaimed that if you tried to go to Mars in Dragon, you'd come back "bag" (not quite sure what it's British slang for, but I assume he meant all worn out)So I don't see why he'd agree to participate in Tito's adventure unless there was scope to create some kind of improved hab for the journey.
Some comments on paying for it.I think the first step assuming a detailed plan would be recruiting a major billionaire anchor. A serious 10B plus heavyweight like Allen,Page, Brin,Bezos. Tito himself has enough money and credibility to get his calls answered but no where near enough to anchor the project.This anchor would agree to take on the role of project backer/guarantor but wouldn't expect it to end up costing him anything. He would provider his amex unobtanium card to assure the project will happen...and create a team to take advantage of the confidence that this is a real thing to raise the 1B or so budget.Given a "real" project guaranteed by a guy with the credit line to make it so...I think making a billion from media and marketing sales would pretty trivial. The reality shows based on Mars Inspiration would start within months, 4years before the launch. Thousands of people would sign up to compete for the chance to risk their lives on this mission. This show would sell in tv markets all over the world in variations. As the publicity built on itself lot's of brands would compete for sponsorships and endorsements. 100's of millions were made by shows with trivial artificial risks and politics. This stuff is human and real. It would pull in billions before the launch over more than 4 years...before even selling the rights to coverage of the life and death drama of the final crew members adventure.Billionaires are used to getting most stuff free. Rolexes come in gift baskets as party favors because rolex hopes they will be seen wearing it. The anchor sponsor of this would reasonably expect to pay nothing in the end and maybe make something.Spacex would benefit enormously from being the hardware provider making it possible. Priceless free publicity and they get paid regular rates.
! Preferably a batchelor billionaire, and the contest is for a woman to join him . . .
So yes, an inflatable would help! How much volume would an uninflated BEAM take up in the trunk? Would there be sufficient volume left over for the breathing gases, water, propellant and systems?
Three more days till we get answers! I hope....
Quote from: Hauerg on 02/24/2013 04:03 pmQuote from: Bob Shaw on 02/24/2013 03:29 pm...Because an unmanned mission would need to be a landing mission, and we "know" that life support is involved. So... oh, maybe we are back to Elons first vision of a mission to mars, the little plant thing....Why would an unmanned mission "need" to be a landing mission? And "life support" doesn't mean human life (ask Laika, or Ham!). Most of the life within Biosphere 2 was non-human...
Quote from: Bob Shaw on 02/24/2013 03:29 pm...Because an unmanned mission would need to be a landing mission, and we "know" that life support is involved. So... oh, maybe we are back to Elons first vision of a mission to mars, the little plant thing....
...
Agree on "life support", basically that's what I wrote above.Why I think an "unmanned" mission would need to include landing? Imagine an unmanned mission which bis just a swingby flight. Freezing samples etc. makes a lot of sense. Scientifically speaking. But no "inspiration" at all. Not even something for the record books. So either manned or landing. And - of course - not both.
I suspect that when you all see the paper you're going to be disappointed. It is a basic technical feasibility assessment, essentially saying that it is "possible." It leaves an awful lot of questions unanswered.
And as I mentioned before, they clearly need NASA's help (and NASA's money). Why should the agency give it to them?
NASA doesn't make heat shields, Lockheed built the largest one ever for MSL.SpaceX uses their own version of PICA, PICA-XThis is technology that already exists in the commercial world. Don't see why NASA is needed.NASA only works with commercial crew as an oversight to make sure the companies stick to the strict NASA requirements.