Author Topic: Dennis Tito's Inspiration Mars Foundation Pre Announcement Thread  (Read 85701 times)

Offline Afrocle

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Inspiration Mars Foundation Press Conference
« Reply #360 on: 02/27/2013 12:46 PM »
What else should Tito and other investors spend this money on? A football stadium?

Yes. A football stadium has potential to generate profit.

An investor by definition wouldn't give a dime for sending two people on a long uncomfortable trip.

The entities that finance that $1 Billion football stadium also need a media worthy product (i.e. a sports team) to put into that football stadium to be able to generate a profit from media rights and ticket sales over a period of multiple years. A $1 Billion human Mars mission also has the "potential" to generate a profit over a period of years if it is considered to be a media worthy product or if they can sell subscriptions or tickets to exclusive access to media content.

An investor, by definition, should be capable of analyzing the investment potential of an investment and then act accordingly. Entities that invest in non profits also have sophisticated processes to figure out how they will get their returns.

This is likely not an investment opportunity, because it is being established as a non profit, but there are multiple obvious ways for Dennis Tito to make this worthwhile to others providing the money if he wants to structure this appropriately. If Tito spends $100 million of his own money, then he dramatically increases his chances that he will reach milestones that will encourage others to participate with their capital.

Remember that NASA comitted $278 million to Musk and SpaceX for COTS in 2006 after Musk had spent up to $100 million of his own money without outside investor support for a period of 4 years. A lot of people criticized NASA at this time for their "investment" in SpaceX, because there was no guarantee that NASA would see the product that they wanted from SpaceX, and NASA had no mechanism to get its money back if SpaceX were successful.


Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7334
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1501
  • Likes Given: 320
A paper discussing aspects of such a mission is now out.

Thanks. Unfortunate that the closest approach would happen over the night side - although in retrospect that should have been obvious given the free return restriction. Makes this proposed mission (even) less compelling.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2013 01:06 PM by ugordan »

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 944
  • Likes Given: 663
Well, so much for that. FH capability estimates were wishful kremlinology more fitting to a NSF thread  ::)

edit: and in the end they basically say NASA should give the money because it's NASA's role. (and NACA would have given..?!)
« Last Edit: 02/27/2013 01:26 PM by R7 »
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7334
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1501
  • Likes Given: 320
Well, so much for that. FH capability estimates were wishful kremlinology more fitting to a NSF thread  ::)

Yep. Even Golden Spike's approach at working out the numbers looked more serious than this.

I doubt any *single* vehicle in existence right now can provide almost 40 (km/s)^2 of C3 to 10 tonnes required for this TMI.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6960
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 535
  • Likes Given: 610
Well, so much for that. FH capability estimates were wishful kremlinology more fitting to a NSF thread  ::)

It still may not be hopeless.  NASA were proposing a dual-EDS double-escape burn for a while when it looked like they could never afford Ares-I AND Ares-V.  The same trick could be used here: Retain both the hab and crew vehicle upper stages and burn them both one after the other to make up the dV shortfall.

That said, I can't see this being possible without the methane-fuelled higher-impulse version of the upper stage.  We should learn more at the presser tonight (Britain time).
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Mr. Tito, ... doesn't have a rocket, spacecraft or financing for the venture, according to industry officials familiar with the project.

Other than that, everything's golden.

Surprised to see how many people in this thread seem to derive pleasure from wanting the plan to fail.

Completely depends on how you interpret Feynman's remarks.

Quote from: Feynman
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

You, they, and the media, can "reframe" their proposal according to the tenets of George Lakoff, but the underlying physical requirements of the reality which exists outside of our personal consciousness (just to put it in fundamental terms) will not change.

Now to throw an eyeball on that paper.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2013 01:31 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Huh.  The Mars Mission paper seems to have just disappeared.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 66
Falcon Heavy fantasy mission lol

Zurbin has done this before but this might reach people that he failed to reach.

I wish them good luck in inspiring people about Mars.




Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
For me, an outstanding question is the total mission delta-v, in the same terms as on the Larson & Pranke pages I posted above.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Calphor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 140
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 2
For me, an outstanding question is the total mission delta-v, in the same terms as on the Larson & Pranke pages I posted above.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31160.msg1017827#msg1017827

with only minor course correction budget (It is free-return after all).

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 944
  • Likes Given: 663
Could a trajectory expert open up the numbers on this page. Earth Departure V peri = 12.6km/s, is that the required dv from LV, escape + ~1.4km/s?
« Last Edit: 02/27/2013 01:44 PM by R7 »
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
From the paper:
"For a C3 of 38.8 km2/sec2, the ∆V excess is 4.86 km/sec."

Online Chris Bergin

Huh.  The Mars Mission paper seems to have just disappeared.

Apparently it's owned by http://spectrum.ieee.org. Someone confirm this, because if that's not the case, it'll go back on.

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 944
  • Likes Given: 663
"Inspiration Mars will generate knowledge, experience and momentum for the next great era of space exploration"

..by publishing a paper behind paywall?
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Well, so much for that. FH capability estimates were wishful kremlinology more fitting to a NSF thread  ::)

About WJS and FH, the truth will be, that after publishing the paper in the last months someone at SpaceX told Tito, that the estimates in their paper are far away from real specs. But, with a dual launch mission, it should be feasible.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2013 02:02 PM by apace »

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
..by publishing a paper behind paywall?

Please! Public announcement is today and the paper will be published at the IEEE conference. No need to write such words from your side.

Offline rklaehn

  • telemetry plumber
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1205
  • germany
    • www.heavens-above.com
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 154
Could a trajectory expert open up the numbers on this page. Earth Departure V peri = 12.6km/s, is that the required dv from LV, escape + 1.2km/s?

Yes, that value is the velocity you need in at perigee. The more interesting value is the C3 value (38.835 km˛/s˛). That is what you can usually use to look up the performance if you have the payload users guide of a launch vehicle. But the user guide for the FH is not yet publicly available.

The paper is very vague. Somebody with 100 million USD to spend should be able to get some better payload numbers from spacex than just guessing based on numbers posted on the website.

But maybe they just wanted to draw everybodys attention to the fact that there is a nice opportunity for a mission.
Try the ISS 3D visualization at http://www.heavens-above.com/ISS_3D.aspx

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6960
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 535
  • Likes Given: 610
As I've said before, we'll know more after the presser.

That said, I, for one, would find it very funny watching the desperate back-tracking if a blank-faced Tito says (as unlikely as it seems): "Of course we've got the funding! Do you think I'd do this after the Golden Spike fiasco if I didn't already have rock-solid pledges?"  Let's face it, the guy made a fortune in finance.  People like that don't publish a prospectus that isn't likely to attract investment and isn't likely to deliver a return of some kind.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Afrocle

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
From the paper:
"For a C3 of 38.8 km2/sec2, the ∆V excess is 4.86 km/sec."

Interesting. The NASA-JPL paper that I posted earlier suggested an 8 km/s delta V for this Mars flyby trajectory in late 2017. The 4 km/s trajectories from this NASA-JPL paper took 1,000 days versus the 500 days of the Tito Mars mission.

If delta V from LEO is only 4.86 km/s then they might be able to do this with a single Falcon Heavy or with 2 Proton rockets.


Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 944
  • Likes Given: 663
..by publishing a paper behind paywall?
Please! Public announcement is today and the paper will be published at the IEEE conference. No need to write such words from your side.

Yeah, sorry. Frustration got vented. The LV analysis part was so disappointing. Kissing Dragons, maybe, but that just pretty much doubled the cost.
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Tags: