Suppose the USSR gets the N-1 rocket working and puts Cosmonauts on the moon around 1969-1970. When is the earliest people can get to Mars? What does the space program look like in our time, does it flop after landing there a few times or do we keep going for the asteroid belt and Jovian moons?
Mars Landings
- Thread starter M79
- Start date
Well that's a very tall order. The N1 IOTL suffered from severe reliability issues, not least on account of the immense funding shortfalls, lack of priority, sub-standard testing, and poor quality control. In addition, the low TLI Payload made it N1-L3 an extremely minimal mission, with zero margin for error.
For the N1 to succeed at all, you need to get to work on it far earlier than they did IOTL, say, 1961/2. Only use the 75,000 Kg to LEO variant - using 2 flights to make up for the payload shortfall. And do something about the KORD system - which kept being a temperamental thing IOTL.
As for what next? Good luck. Most Manned Mars missions until the early 1990's were little more than an engineers Wet Dream. With what happened when you got there being an distant secondary concern. That will do more than enough to shut off Men on Mars until someone comes along to show how it can be done well. And for a much reduced budget.
I'd say late 1990's at the earliest to see a Manned Mission to Mars. With the Asteroid Belt having to wait until the early 2030's.
For the N1 to succeed at all, you need to get to work on it far earlier than they did IOTL, say, 1961/2. Only use the 75,000 Kg to LEO variant - using 2 flights to make up for the payload shortfall. And do something about the KORD system - which kept being a temperamental thing IOTL.
As for what next? Good luck. Most Manned Mars missions until the early 1990's were little more than an engineers Wet Dream. With what happened when you got there being an distant secondary concern. That will do more than enough to shut off Men on Mars until someone comes along to show how it can be done well. And for a much reduced budget.
I'd say late 1990's at the earliest to see a Manned Mission to Mars. With the Asteroid Belt having to wait until the early 2030's.
Von Braun's circa-1969 plan was for a Mars landing in 1986, so that's the hard No-Earlier-Than date. That would be achievable, if (and probably only if) they used nuclear thermal rockets. So, there is a small-but-nonzero chance that the technology could pull it off before 1990.
Politically, a few successful Soviet Moon landings could trigger a joint US-Soviet Mars program, starting sometime in the Nixon era. A plausible breakdown would be US launch vehicles (evolved Saturn) and landers, with Soviet nuclear rockets and transfer vehicles. They might pull off a landing or two before 1990.
Politically, a few successful Soviet Moon landings could trigger a joint US-Soviet Mars program, starting sometime in the Nixon era. A plausible breakdown would be US launch vehicles (evolved Saturn) and landers, with Soviet nuclear rockets and transfer vehicles. They might pull off a landing or two before 1990.
Bumping the thread.
I like simonbp's POD. It's so go-for-broke hopeful that the US and USSR could and would make a fruitful collaboration to land on Mars.
I commented on a different thread re: WI Dubcek's socialism with a human face getting butterflied by a more clueful Novotny regime. Thus, the Soviets feel much more secure about the future of socialism and warmer toward reforming it.
Detente reigns and the US and USSR find lots of fruitful ways to collaborate. Essentially everything Gorby's crew wanted to do in 1985 gets started in 1968 and sees positive results by 1980.
Demilitarization by both US and USSR to 1990 levels and beyond allows considerably more funds for space exploration. GK gets to use Canaveral for launches and vice versa. Mixed US-Soviet crews for space stations and so forth from 1975 on become so common it's unremarkable.
Question: in this super-duper detente version- does MOL become a joint project?
Do the US and USSR build shuttles to build/dock to it or just stay with Proton/Saturn boosters?
Does NERVA research allow for ion rockets that make visits to comets and other nearby planets/moons/ etc possible/likely?
If they can land on Mars without people being walking carcinomas, why not missions to Jovian moons or Titan by 1990's?
I like simonbp's POD. It's so go-for-broke hopeful that the US and USSR could and would make a fruitful collaboration to land on Mars.
I commented on a different thread re: WI Dubcek's socialism with a human face getting butterflied by a more clueful Novotny regime. Thus, the Soviets feel much more secure about the future of socialism and warmer toward reforming it.
Detente reigns and the US and USSR find lots of fruitful ways to collaborate. Essentially everything Gorby's crew wanted to do in 1985 gets started in 1968 and sees positive results by 1980.
Demilitarization by both US and USSR to 1990 levels and beyond allows considerably more funds for space exploration. GK gets to use Canaveral for launches and vice versa. Mixed US-Soviet crews for space stations and so forth from 1975 on become so common it's unremarkable.
Question: in this super-duper detente version- does MOL become a joint project?
Do the US and USSR build shuttles to build/dock to it or just stay with Proton/Saturn boosters?
Does NERVA research allow for ion rockets that make visits to comets and other nearby planets/moons/ etc possible/likely?
If they can land on Mars without people being walking carcinomas, why not missions to Jovian moons or Titan by 1990's?
There wouldn't be shuttles as we know them in a Mars landing TL, nor stations (e.g. Salyuts/Almaz and MOL). They cost too way much in addition to the Mars project.
The US would probably develop a lower-cost version of Saturn V. That would probably mean a parachute-recovered first stage, and a redesigned (simplified) second stage (both of which were studied by MSFC). I'm not sure how the Soviets would evolve their launch systems.
Nuclear thermal rockets are not ion engines and are only distantly related. The former are heat engines, where the propellant is treated as coolant for the reactor, while the latter electrically accelerate the propellant. Nuclear thermal isn't as efficient, but is much nearer term in the 1970s. Both the US and USSR had ongoing nuclear thermal projects, so that's probably the optimal technology for the time.
Such a mission, by Boeing's estimate in 1969, would need 10-12 Saturn Vs to launch everything for one Mars landing. So, this is going to be an all-consuming project for both the US and Soviet space programs.
The US would probably develop a lower-cost version of Saturn V. That would probably mean a parachute-recovered first stage, and a redesigned (simplified) second stage (both of which were studied by MSFC). I'm not sure how the Soviets would evolve their launch systems.
Nuclear thermal rockets are not ion engines and are only distantly related. The former are heat engines, where the propellant is treated as coolant for the reactor, while the latter electrically accelerate the propellant. Nuclear thermal isn't as efficient, but is much nearer term in the 1970s. Both the US and USSR had ongoing nuclear thermal projects, so that's probably the optimal technology for the time.
Such a mission, by Boeing's estimate in 1969, would need 10-12 Saturn Vs to launch everything for one Mars landing. So, this is going to be an all-consuming project for both the US and Soviet space programs.
Riain
Banned
In the 60s the rockets weren't really the problem, the problem was that people had only ever spent 2 weeks in space which isn't good preparation for a mission lasting a year or more. I think moon missions would have to be extended to 2 weeks as well as a very robust space station programme to get the expereince needed for a mission to Mars.
Some of the thinking on Mars is to ask for volunteers for a "one-way" mission.
It is not a suicide mission in any way, so let's not get into ABS.
The thinking is to form a crew, get them to Mars with enough materials and supply to start a colony. They will get re-supplied on a continuous basis, but there is no return.
It is far easier to re-supply than transport humans to and fro.
Will there be people who would like to give it a bash? Obviously, the crew must be enhanced with more and more people, but apparantly even that can be figured out.
I read somewhere that building an earth-orbit "warehouse" and start supply runs from there is a bit more smart than trying to go straight earth-mars.
Just imagine, this is Leif and Greenland, Columbus and Caribean. A totally new beginning. Forget the shopping for tomorrow, the calls to be returned, the mortgage, the boss.
I think a lot could sign up.
Ivan
It is not a suicide mission in any way, so let's not get into ABS.
The thinking is to form a crew, get them to Mars with enough materials and supply to start a colony. They will get re-supplied on a continuous basis, but there is no return.
It is far easier to re-supply than transport humans to and fro.
Will there be people who would like to give it a bash? Obviously, the crew must be enhanced with more and more people, but apparantly even that can be figured out.
I read somewhere that building an earth-orbit "warehouse" and start supply runs from there is a bit more smart than trying to go straight earth-mars.
Just imagine, this is Leif and Greenland, Columbus and Caribean. A totally new beginning. Forget the shopping for tomorrow, the calls to be returned, the mortgage, the boss.
I think a lot could sign up.
Ivan
Forge the comforts of home, forget the safety of home, forget the fact earth has a familiar atmosphere and familiar environment and familiar everything.
This is levels of magnitude more daunting than sailing to the Americas in the days of exploration, and unlike those, going back isn't an option (apparently).
That's not going to see "a lot" of interested volunteers. Some, certainly, but not swarms.
Read voyage by stephen baxter. It is doable by 86 but you'd be looking at apollo levels of distortion as NASA's budget slides. No pioneer, no voyager, viking might happen but little else if all the money goes on mars.
Also Nerva is IMO to dangerous to risk, but no ones thinking chemical options, let alone Mars direct, so any mission will be brute force, expensive, and likely a one off.
If nasa avoids the dead end of shuttle, (at least until HOTOl SKYLON tech comes along),and keeps upgrading saturn, it would have more options, and once Zubin comes along in the 90 I can see Mars direct happening around now, but not much before.
I agree with Zubin's recent thinking, once we get the manned dragon and the Falcon heavy in a year or two I can see a private Mars to stay mission in ten years or so, (not Mars one they seem to be going nowhere fast). I'm sure once the price gets down to a few billion one of the billionare space buffs will invest and start the ball rolling (if nothing else it's the ultimate tax exile).
So yeah it can be done, if you can either get apollo era funding out of congress (not gonna happen), or you cut every other program manned or unmanned to the bone.
Also Nerva is IMO to dangerous to risk, but no ones thinking chemical options, let alone Mars direct, so any mission will be brute force, expensive, and likely a one off.
If nasa avoids the dead end of shuttle, (at least until HOTOl SKYLON tech comes along),and keeps upgrading saturn, it would have more options, and once Zubin comes along in the 90 I can see Mars direct happening around now, but not much before.
I agree with Zubin's recent thinking, once we get the manned dragon and the Falcon heavy in a year or two I can see a private Mars to stay mission in ten years or so, (not Mars one they seem to be going nowhere fast). I'm sure once the price gets down to a few billion one of the billionare space buffs will invest and start the ball rolling (if nothing else it's the ultimate tax exile).
So yeah it can be done, if you can either get apollo era funding out of congress (not gonna happen), or you cut every other program manned or unmanned to the bone.
Well, yes. Maybe not people banging down the doors of NASA in their millions to get a seat. Maybe some few selection criterias could be applied as well.
However, as we take it for granted that sailing off to the America's for Columbus and his merry men was really just a trip across the pond, I wonder if the sailors saw it the same way.
This was a trip into the great unknown. The didn't even know if they would sail off earth (as they knew it) or what would be on the other side. Just a hope that they would end up in Asia but even that might have been strange concept in its own right.
More to the topic.
Somehow, the cost of government involvement tends to be very high. It is OK to use tax payer money to prove the concept but private industry might be able to get results at a far lower cost when the path has been mapped out.
Would a commercial enterprise (in the 1990's?) be able to undertake Mars missions? After all, it is only now we see "viable" commercial enterprises being contracted by NASA for the ISS.
Ivan
However, as we take it for granted that sailing off to the America's for Columbus and his merry men was really just a trip across the pond, I wonder if the sailors saw it the same way.
This was a trip into the great unknown. The didn't even know if they would sail off earth (as they knew it) or what would be on the other side. Just a hope that they would end up in Asia but even that might have been strange concept in its own right.
More to the topic.
Somehow, the cost of government involvement tends to be very high. It is OK to use tax payer money to prove the concept but private industry might be able to get results at a far lower cost when the path has been mapped out.
Would a commercial enterprise (in the 1990's?) be able to undertake Mars missions? After all, it is only now we see "viable" commercial enterprises being contracted by NASA for the ISS.
Ivan
Archibald
Banned
It was even doable in 1982 (August 5 was the precise date) with maximum funding. 1986 was the "relaxed budget" date.
In January 1969 Brezhnev suffered an assasination atempt. Kill him, put Kosygin in his place, and go for détente.
The Soviets had their own Mars project called Aelita.
In January 1969 Brezhnev suffered an assasination atempt. Kill him, put Kosygin in his place, and go for détente.
The Soviets had their own Mars project called Aelita.
Still not equivalent. Even if Columbus's merry men didn't know, those who followed after them did. Here, we know there's no coming back.
Plus, there's the whole "entirely different world" and "away from the comforts of home" thing. Explorers are not normal in any era, and they haven't become more common.
Private industry's priority would be profit, though. Which is not necessarily going to be conducive to the kind of things we want NASA for.
Would a commercial enterprise see anything on Mars worth the expense?
Delta Force
Banned
If NERVA avoids cancellation and a nuclear Saturn rocket is created it could be doable. NERVA was so succesful at meeting its project goals that it is claimed it was only canceled because it made missions deeper into the solar system possible. Extensive experience with long duration spaceflight would also be vital for a successful mission, and NERVA could also help with that as it significantly increases the payload a Saturn rocket can place into orbit when used as an upper stage.
No nerva cost alot never produced a single viable burn in a decade of work and it was a nuke at a moment when the american people were turning aginst nuclear tech.
Also s-iv-b blows up you might lose a crew, nerva blows it could smear radioactive material across half of florida and kill thousands (or even more). It was the wrong rocket at the wrong time, and just not worth the risk. Ditto (more so) project orion.
No chemical is the best option, and the only option as long as the general public won't trust nuclear tech.
Also s-iv-b blows up you might lose a crew, nerva blows it could smear radioactive material across half of florida and kill thousands (or even more). It was the wrong rocket at the wrong time, and just not worth the risk. Ditto (more so) project orion.
No chemical is the best option, and the only option as long as the general public won't trust nuclear tech.
To be fair, the engineers were generally seeking to demonstrate that Mars missions were practical, knowing full well that in the period between the mission being accepted and actually launching there would be plenty of time to develop surface systems and surface plans (it also helps how many of them were opposition-class missions which only spent ~30 days on Mars...much easier to develop for a month than for two years). Look at von Braun's IPP and related plans, for instance. "Go" in '69/70, Mars mission launch in 1982/1986. That gives 12-16 years for the scientists, mission planners, and engineers to come up with surface hardware and surface plans, which seems entirely adequate to me. The risk would be that they forget to do that, either, although I can't really think they would be that stupid (they didn't forget about it on Apollo, for instance).
The real issue is the poor understanding of the hazards they had at that point, particularly radiation. Their plans didn't provide enough shielding or protection from most of the hazards now known to exist in space, and most of them were opposition-class plans with Venus swingbys, further magnifying the problem by increasing crew exposure to solar proton radiation and galactic cosmic rays relative to remaining outside the Earth's orbit and spending a lot of time on Mars.
On the subject of the OP, and speaking from my personal opinion, without invoking alien space bats (more or less literally), it's very difficult to see how you can get Mars landings much before von Braun's 1950s estimate of the 2050s!
EDIT: Also, not to wade too deeply in to the nuclear-versus-chemical argument, but the advantages of nuclear rockets (doubling the ISP, namely) are essentially negated by their much poorer thrust-to-weight ratios in most possible applications. Here's the math relating the specific example of using NTRs as EDS for a Mars missions, from the actual nuclear and aerospace engineer Kirk Sorenson, if you don't trust my math. TLDR version: A chemical stage with an initial T/W ratio of greater than 0.6 (the S-IVB/Apollo stack had an initial T/W ratio of about this, for comparison) beats the nuclear thermal stage for TMI performance from LEO (so there isn't even Oberth Effect trickiness involved).
Last edited:
Yeah you're right, it's an irony that Nerva was started for nuke ICBM's, then turned to nukes to reach the moon, and then nukes for mars, and in all three cases good old fashioned chemical engines proved a better option in the end.
amphibulous
Banned
No. Everyone knew the earth was round; the Columbus vs flat earthers was a story made up by Washington Irving in the C19th.
And more to the point, the sailors were planning on coming back, rather than volunteering to live in a hole underneath a hostile environment for the rest of their lives!
Last edited:
amphibulous
Banned
??? This doesn't make any sense; Nerva's thrust to weight would never have got it off the ground.
There is a brief reference in Voyage that the nuclear rocket programme predates NASA and was originally intended to produce a nuclear ICBM. Ive never come across any other references to it but I assume it was seen as a way of delivering the early and very heavy thermonuclear devices, but once these had become miniaturised to the point where they could be carried on chemical rockets the programme was dropped and then turned over to NASA.
Check it out - a nuclear-powered Atlas:
(Click for big version. Source)
Claimed thrust of 300,000 lbsf. - that's without LOX augmentation, mind you. That's not from NERVA - it's a spinoff of ANP - but it illustrates the sort of thing going on.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I assume they thought it would be a lot easier to improve the T/W of NTRs then it turned out to be.