AH Challenge: Man on Mars by 1985

[MarkWhittington]

Mary Jo Kopechne gets home alive.

Ted Kennedy becomes president.

Space program gets put on front burner.

Teddy Kennedy opposed the space program and wanted to end the moon landings after Apollo 11.

The POD for this particular thing has been covered in Steven Baxter's Voyage and to a certain extent my own Children of Apollo.

A real interesting POD, though, would not be the usual political ones. Let's say one of the early Mariners imaged something very interesting on the Martian surface. A crashed alien space ship, for example.

 

[Archibald]

Teddy Kennedy opposed the space program and wanted to end the moon landings after Apollo 11.

Baxter has its own NASA administrator playing the Ted Kennedy connexion around 1975-1985.
However Tom Heppenheimer space shuttle decision, chapter 4

While Paine did what he could to plead his case, he faced entrenched opposition. He met with Senator Edward Kennedy, brother of the late President, and suggested that Apollo astronauts might carry some memento of JFK to the moon. He quickly learned that the senator had no interest "in identifying Jack Kennedy at all with this landing. He more or less gave me the impression that he felt that this was one of President Kennedy's aberrations."

So the Ted Kennedy connexion doesn't work.

 

[Michel Van]

You mean Saturn 1B, right?

As for the nuclear engines, nuclear thermal is a possibility, but nuclear electric isn't. Even with a system like VASIMR, we need 600 tonnes in LEO to send a mission to Mars. NERVA, on the other hand, is possible.

As for on-orbit assembly...no. No. If there's anything ISS has taught us, it's that on-orbit assembly is a really bad idea.

@Truth is life: I consider your options, and decide that Glushko going cryogenic is better. I think his thoughts will go: cryogenic=higher specific impulse=more complicated=needs less engines=bigger motors. Because having 31 engines in the lower stage, compared to the Saturn's five F-1s, can increase chance of failure 6 fold.

yep its 1B, was typing error

GE proposal use combination of nuclear thermal and nuclear electric
Nerva engine push the Ship out earth Orbit, then electric engine push on cruse speed.
i like the GE proposal because it give a option for manned Jupiter and Saturn Mission in 2000s
more on General Electric Mars Mission Study here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5107.0.html

if you wand pure Nerva then is it : Boeing Integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft study 1968
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/imis1968.htm

GE And Boenig show in there studys, that on-orbit assembly is simple, not like ISS zilion parts puzzle
GE Marsship are launch in five module, dock on each other (crews fly with first and last module launch)
while Boeing need six launch for hardware and 2 logistics flights with six-man Apollo CSM.
first crew is for assembling and Check, second is Mission Crew

on Soviet moon landing
the best POD here is UR-700 (build from Proton rocket parts)
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700.htm
we have to keep Vladimir Chelomei head of Soviet spaceprogram, after Khrushchev's removal in 1963
OTL it was the downfall of Vladimir Chelomei because is close Relationship to Khrushchev's family.
and his arrogant way of dealing with incompetent Soviet officials

 

[Polish Eagle]

yep its 1B, was typing error

GE proposal use combination of nuclear thermal and nuclear electric
Nerva engine push the Ship out earth Orbit, then electric engine push on cruse speed.
i like the GE proposal because it give a option for manned Jupiter and Saturn Mission in 2000s
more on General Electric Mars Mission Study here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5107.0.html

if you wand pure Nerva then is it : Boeing Integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft study 1968
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/imis1968.htm

GE And Boenig show in there studys, that on-orbit assembly is simple, not like ISS zilion parts puzzle
GE Marsship are launch in five module, dock on each other (crews fly with first and last module launch)
while Boeing need six launch for hardware and 2 logistics flights with six-man Apollo CSM.
first crew is for assembling and Check, second is Mission Crew

on Soviet moon landing
the best POD here is UR-700 (build from Proton rocket parts)
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700.htm
we have to keep Vladimir Chelomei head of Soviet spaceprogram, after Khrushchev's removal in 1963
OTL it was the downfall of Vladimir Chelomei because is close Relationship to Khrushchev's family.
and his arrogant way of dealing with incompetent Soviet officials

It's all interesting, and the UR-700 is a definite possibility, but I think it's impossible to get either NERVA or Nuclear-Electric through Congress in the 1970s. This is when the Anti-Nuclear movement was gaining power, and it'll be difficult to sell this to the public.

As for the Russian Moon program, the plan is now either UR-700, or the use of proton rockets in the following manner: First launch places a Soyuz in lunar orbit, unmanned. Second launch sends one man in an LK lander to the moon, where he lands, and then returns to orbit, where he spacewalks to the Soyuz and returns.

So, here's my manned Mars plan, all chemical. Three Saturn V-23 rockets (Boeing study, 1967, payload 262 tonnes) are launched. The first two go to Mars. One lands, with habitation module and ascent vehicle (fueling through sabatier reaction). The other puts a hydrogen/oxygen rocket engine into orbit around Mars, a return stage. The final launch is an Apollo CSM (or a successor), a Mars Descent Vehicle (essentially an Apollo with smaller SM), and an upper stage to push them to Mars. Here's the beauty: Your mission module for the transit is just a wet workshop made from the upper stage!

Criticize this plan. I want realism.

As for a POD, I was thinking of having Korolyov live, and having the USAF continue its X-20 program (for LEO operations). In fact, how about having a modified X-20 replace the Apollo CSM? What would the effects of that be on the program?

 

[feanor512]

The final launch is an Apollo CSM (or a successor), a Mars Descent Vehicle (essentially an Apollo with smaller SM), and an upper stage to push them to Mars. Here's the beauty: Your mission module for the transit is just a wet workshop made from the upper stage!

Criticize this plan. I want realism.

I don't see how anything smaller than the ISS could provide air, water, food, etc for 3+ astronauts for 2+ years.

 

[burmafrd]

Unless you find a way to increase speed significantly you have huge problems keeping anything in space operating that long without resupply/repair parts.

So you would have a huge amount of that in weight. Increasing speed makes the ship more vulnerable to micro meteroites and the like.

Protecting the crew from radiation over that time period would require shielding of some type- once again more weight.

Then there is the medical problems of people living that long in zero G. Would not look good to make it back and then they die quickly.

Solar panels are not a reliable primary power system due to the likliehood of damage over time. Nuclear batteries in bunches would need to be used.

These are problems we have not yet really solved now- and being able to solve it 20 years ago?

A mission to mars to me would require a large ship that has some way to provide by rotation of some kind (2001 or 2010 maybe) gravity that would symplify the other medical and technical problems. But the shielding that would be needed for protection from radiation would quite likely be the biggest problem.

 

[DaleCoz]

Water at the lunar poles

This is by way of brainstorming. What if someone in either the US or the Soviet Union figured out that there was a high probability of there being water at the lunar poles in the mid-1960s? There are several ways that could play out. Here is one possibility: The Soviets figure out or suspect that the lunar ice exists by the mid-1960s. As Apollo gains momentum, they realized that they are unlikely to win the race to be the first on the moon. To avoid the hit to their prestige, they decide to try to reset the goalposts. They develop a propaganda line that says that landings anywhere except the poles is just a stunt, and that they'll be first to the poles. They work on the mission and roll out the propaganda line a few months before our first landing.

Things I should probably have looked up before I posted this: (1) How difficult would it be to adapt Apollo/Saturn hardware for a mission at the lunar poles? (2) How long would it take to do that adaptation? (3) Were the Soviets capable of getting to the lunar poles (a) at all in the early seventies? and (b) before the, US given a four or five year head start at that specific mission? (4) Let's assume that the Soviets are able to precipitate a race to the lunar poles that they win, but with the US close behind. Both sides establish bases, either permanently or sporadically manned. Given that, does the availability of lunar ice make a Mars mission significantly more feasible? My initial guess is that it would, but that probably depends on details like the extent and purity of the lunar ice, and the orbital mechanics of getting there, along with how much effort it would take to get it into earth or lunar effort from the moon.

As to the mechanism of a Mars mission incorporating lunar ice, I'm not sure. I'm not even sure it adds much to the mission's feasibility beyond keeping Saturn class boosters in production.

In any case, what do you think? Does a detour to the lunar poles make the mission more feasible?

 

[Workable Goblin]

Things I should probably have looked up before I posted this: (1) How difficult would it be to adapt Apollo/Saturn hardware for a mission at the lunar poles? (2) How long would it take to do that adaptation? (3) Were the Soviets capable of getting to the lunar poles (a) at all in the early seventies? and (b) before the, US given a four or five year head start at that specific mission? (4) Let's assume that the Soviets are able to precipitate a race to the lunar poles that they win, but with the US close behind. Both sides establish bases, either permanently or sporadically manned. Given that, does the availability of lunar ice make a Mars mission significantly more feasible? My initial guess is that it would, but that probably depends on details like the extent and purity of the lunar ice, and the orbital mechanics of getting there, along with how much effort it would take to get it into earth or lunar effort from the moon.

1) Difficult. The equipment was designed for an equatorial mission, and it would have been expensive (in terms of mass) to budget for a polar mission. You would have needed to increase the fuel capacity and wet mass of everything.

2) Time-consuming. Switching to F-1As and J-2Ss would have helped a lot with the issue of the Saturn V having insufficient takeoff mass to carry them (which may or may not have been the case), and there were other possible modifications that could have upped that takeoff mass. That said, it will be expensive and time-consuming for the US to make those modifications, especially if they need to build new engines. That's leaving aside modifying the LM and CSM to carry more fuel and possibly other supplies, which might require more fundamental changes and perhaps a partially re-tooled production line.

3) Probably not (in either position). Their planned N1 mission was extremely marginal as it was. If they had switched to the poles, they would have had to start almost from scratch, besides needing to switch to some kind of combined EOR-LOR profile.

4) Not a lot, I suspect. Having water on the Moon saves on lifting it, hylox fuel, and breathing oxygen into space, which helps quite a bit on costs, but then you have to figure in the cost of actually building the base. And of course it costs almost as much (in terms of delta-V) to go from Earth's surface to Mars' surface as it does to go from Earth's surface to the Moon's surface, at least if you use aerobraking (which they admittedly wouldn't know about). However, having a more permanent space presence may help public awareness and make a future Mars mission more likely.

 

[Michel Van]

So, here's my manned Mars plan, all chemical. Three Saturn V-23 rockets (Boeing study, 1967, payload 262 tonnes) are launched. The first two go to Mars. One lands, with habitation module and ascent vehicle (fueling through sabatier reaction). The other puts a hydrogen/oxygen rocket engine into orbit around Mars, a return stage. The final launch is an Apollo CSM (or a successor), a Mars Descent Vehicle (essentially an Apollo with smaller SM), and an upper stage to push them to Mars. Here's the beauty: Your mission module for the transit is just a wet workshop made from the upper stage!

Criticize this plan. I want realism.

As for a POD, I was thinking of having Korolyov live, and having the USAF continue its X-20 program (for LEO operations). In fact, how about having a modified X-20 replace the Apollo CSM? What would the effects of that be on the program?

now i get it, this is Semi Mars Direct !
Orginal plan see link, NASA made Semi proposal with Marsorbit rendevous
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marirect.htm

hydrogen will boil away over time in Marsorbit
take methane/oxygen, with cooling its stay years in tanks
wet workshop - mission module
that was orignal Skylab and proposal for Lunalab and interplantary mission for Venus fly-by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby

i see no problem with that

Saturn V-23
you mean the with 4 Liquid booster (each 2xF-1)
or the 4 Solid booster version ?
in case of Liquid booster use them as firstage for "Saturn-1C" to replace Saturn-1B

on Korolyov health
beginn of 1960s he had several heavy Hearthattacks
durnig the operation were he died, the doctors found a a large, cancerous tumor in his abdomen.
even if his weak hearth had surivided the operation, he had died in 1966.

X-20 Dyna Soar that was from beginn a death project
build on hardware of begin 1960 and is not able for interplantary mission
like reentry in Earth atmosphre with 11 to 15 km/s
and there Robert "canceld this program" McNamara

but there is a Alternative: Lifting Body (LB)
NASA look for LB for Earth Entry Module
USAF look for LB as Dyna Soar and Gemini B replacement
why not make join venture USAF NASA for Lifting Body in 1970s ?
Robert "canceld this program" McNamara is no more in office.

 

[Sachyriel]

1985 - Bowling For Soup [The Butterflied Effect Version in ATL]

Woohoohoo
Woohoohoo

Debbie was in the fall
She totally did it all
Training hard each day
Earth was gone away
She took off from the floor
When she turned twenty four
Better than any man
She fit into that can.

She could be an actress
She could be a star
She don't take no sass
Because her visions are so far
She had a hot re-entry in the blue blue sea
No way an average life
And everying has been alright

Neil Armstrong, a Hero yeah!
Way past Luna
There was ISS and Mars
And people dreamed of flying cars
Her two kids in high school
They tell her that she’s so cool
Cause she's was an astronaut
In 19, 19, 1985

Woohoohoo
(1985)
Woohoohoo

She’s seen all the classics
She knows every line
Apollo 13, Nuclear Brink
Even saw the USSR tire
She strapped in and BAM
Not staying on Earth man
Never remembered off hand
Any member of Duran Duran

Space suits feel like a second skin
She passed all her colleagues scores, they failin'
When did the Earth get tiny
Whatever happened to New York, there it goes
(on the radio was)

Neil Armstrong, a Hero yeah!
Way past Luna
There was ISS and Mars
And people dreamed of flying cars
Her two kids in high school
They tell her that she’s so cool
Cause she's was an astronaut
In 19, 19, 1985

Woohoohoo

She hates time make it stop
When did she did get back to this rock?
And why is the president an actor?
Please make this stop
Stop!
And go back

Neil Armstrong, Hero yeah!
Way past Luna
There was ISS and Mars
And people dreamed of flying cars
Her two kids in high school
They tell her that she’s so cool
Cause she's was an astronaut
In 19, 19, 1985

Woohoohoo

Neil Armstrong, a Hero yeah!
Way past Luna
There was ISS and Mars
And people dreamed of flying cars
Her two kids in high school
They tell her that she’s so cool
Cause she's was an astronaut
In 19, 19, 1985

----

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xorgqoL_t0k

*cough cough* what, you don't think a woman could be the first to step on Mars?

 

[Michel Van]

nice lyric, mmmeee0

a woman as first on Mars, why not ?
we had a men on the Moon

 

[Polish Eagle]

now i get it, this is Semi Mars Direct !
Orginal plan see link, NASA made Semi proposal with Marsorbit rendevous
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marirect.htm

hydrogen will boil away over time in Marsorbit
take methane/oxygen, with cooling its stay years in tanks
wet workshop - mission module
that was orignal Skylab and proposal for Lunalab and interplantary mission for Venus fly-by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby

i see no problem with that

Saturn V-23
you mean the with 4 Liquid booster (each 2xF-1)
or the 4 Solid booster version ?
in case of Liquid booster use them as firstage for "Saturn-1C" to replace Saturn-1B

on Korolyov health
beginn of 1960s he had several heavy Hearthattacks
durnig the operation were he died, the doctors found a a large, cancerous tumor in his abdomen.
even if his weak hearth had surivided the operation, he had died in 1966.

X-20 Dyna Soar that was from beginn a death project
build on hardware of begin 1960 and is not able for interplantary mission
like reentry in Earth atmosphre with 11 to 15 km/s
and there Robert "canceld this program" McNamara

but there is a Alternative: Lifting Body (LB)
NASA look for LB for Earth Entry Module
USAF look for LB as Dyna Soar and Gemini B replacement
why not make join venture USAF NASA for Lifting Body in 1970s ?
Robert "canceld this program" McNamara is no more in office.

You mind providing a link about the LB?

As for Korolyov, you're right. We'd need a POD in 1962 to save the N-1.

The Saturn V-23, I mean the one with the 8 extra F-1 engines.

Methane fuel is better for long-term storage than hydrogen. That's the new plan.

And the X-20, well, I've always had a soft-spot for quick, small, and cheap spacecraft. I've been thinking of a spaceplane I call X-25, which is a merger between X-15 and X-20. It is the size of an X-20, but it uses a solid booster to launch off a B-52. Would that work?

@DaleCoz: While Apollo could be scaled up to reach the lunar poles (and the Soviets, if they ever get a functioning N-1, could also possibly fly there), it makes no sense to use the moon for Mars. You need more delta-v to reach moon surface than to go to Mars. That's because on mars, you can aerobrake into orbit, then descend with atmospheric braking (parachutes, heat shield). On the Moon, you need to bring your fuel to slow down. So, moon bases, while a good idea, are not useful for Mars.

 

[Sachyriel]

nice lyric, mmmeee0

a woman as first on Mars, why not ?
we had a men on the Moon

Thanks, I was hoping people would like it instead of being angry at me for interrupting their teach-heavy stuff.

 

[Michel Van]

on Lifting bodys

Martin HL-10 the operational version
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=4912

Martin X-24 the operational version
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1115
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1148

and North American Aviation in 1966 proposal for Mars mission with Apollo hardware
include aerodynamic capture in Marsatmosphere
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=4094

Special thanks to Scott Lowther Blog

 

[DaleCoz]

@DaleCoz: While Apollo could be scaled up to reach the lunar poles (and the Soviets, if they ever get a functioning N-1, could also possibly fly there), it makes no sense to use the moon for Mars. You need more delta-v to reach moon surface than to go to Mars. That's because on mars, you can aerobrake into orbit, then descend with atmospheric braking (parachutes, heat shield). On the Moon, you need to bring your fuel to slow down. So, moon bases, while a good idea, are not useful for Mars.

Yeah, I kind of suspected that. The only way I could see it being useful would be if there was a LOT of ice there and someone could figure out a way to get it into a trajectory that allowed it to be used for the Mars mission. I doubt that doing that would be worth the hassles involved.

Since there are a lot of space buffs on this thread, I'm going to ask something semi-off-topic: Several years ago, I read an article somewhere on line that claimed that in the aftermath of Apollo, one aerospace firm advocated scaling up the engines on the lunar lander as a way of making a less expensive way into space. They supposedly proved the feasibility and were a bit surprised that the US went with the shuttle. Now I can't find the article again and have no idea if it was for real or just someone blowing smoke of some kind. Anyone know anything about this?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Since there are a lot of space buffs on this thread, I'm going to ask something semi-off-topic: Several years ago, I read an article somewhere on line that claimed that in the aftermath of Apollo, one aerospace firm advocated scaling up the engines on the lunar lander as a way of making a less expensive way into space. They supposedly proved the feasibility and were a bit surprised that the US went with the shuttle. Now I can't find the article again and have no idea if it was for real or just someone blowing smoke of some kind. Anyone know anything about this?

That makes no sense on the face of it.

The 'engines' and the 'shuttle' are very different creatures. Given that the LM used poisonous hypergolics, I'm glad they didn't. ESA had to shut down half of French Guiana when launching the early Arianes, as the poisonous fumes wafted across the main highway.!

IF what they meant was a big dumb pressure fed (were the LM engines pressure fed) expendable booster would be cheaper than a 'reusable' (not very much so) shuttle, they were probably right.

But to use the LM engines as a starting point!?!


Part of the problem was that NASA was not only in love with overly complicated tech, part of their mandate was to develop 'new' tech. So, using 'old tech' was almost illegal for them (as well as being anathema).

Still, I think you'd do a lot better using LOX/Kerosene than hypergolics. IMO.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Still, I think you'd do a lot better using LOX/Kerosene than hypergolics. IMO.

Yes. LOX/Kerosene is, IMHO, just about the perfect rocket fuel for takeoff from Earth. LH2/LOX has cryogenics issues and is hard to get into a usable sea-level engine, hypergolics are too dangerous and have too low an ISP. The two biggest rocket engines ever built were both LOX/Kerosene, and I think that says a lot about how good that combo is.

 

[NomadicSky]

First pics from the Mariner flyby in '64...

If that had happened. I think humans would have tried to send at least something to the planet.

I'm not sure about a person though, the bacterial-virus fear. We don't want to kill off our neighbors and start an interplanetary war with the survivors.

Although I guess they could have about an 1800's level of tech and still build that canal network. In that case we'd just kill them.,

 

[MarkWhittington]

Baxter has its own NASA administrator playing the Ted Kennedy connexion around 1975-1985.
However Tom Heppenheimer space shuttle decision, chapter 4



So the Ted Kennedy connexion doesn't work.

Like many non Americans, Baxter's understanding of American politics is a bit imperfect, However Voyage did suppose JFK surviving Dallas, albeit as a cripple. One could postulate that JFK keeps little brother on the straight and narrow.

Mind JFK surviving as a Gray Eminence of the Democratic Party through the 1980s is something, alas, Baxter did not explore.

 

[DaleCoz]

What about Sea Dragon?

What would it have taken for Sea Dragon to have actually been built, and if it had been built, would it have made a Mars expedition more feasible?