How Early Could Mars be Reached if the Space Race Never Ended?

[HeX]

Space.

The final frontier.

If humans are anything, they're curious. Curiosity kills a lot of cats, but the ones who get out unscathed go on to do great things. In the 1950s and 1960s, due to the Red Scare and the Cold War, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics embarked on a race to the Moon that began with Sputnik and ended with one small step. After Apollo 11 and the brief flurry of excitement around the unmitigated disasters and triumphant return of Apollo 13, America tired of space, and the Moon program was scrapped after Apollo 17. The Soviets sent a few rovers to the Moon, but they, too, soon lost interest, and now in 2020 a human being hasn't stepped foot on the Moon or any heavenly body except Earth in 48 years.

What if the Space Race never truly ended, though? This isn't a discussion of whether that was plausible or not. I'm fully aware how far behind the Soviets were in the late-1960s. This is a discussion of what if, on July 20, 1969, instead of "Mission Accomplished", the finish line was merely pushed back to the Red Planet? How soon could the United States (or the USSR) reach Mars if the same scramble that occupied 1957-1969 continued into the 1970s and beyond? Could we see astronauts on Mars by the 1980s? The 1990s? The new millennium?

 

[Ian_W]

I think you need to abandon the Apollo architecture of 'We launch a big rocket and do the job' and go to von Braun's architecture of 'Build a space station first and go from there'.

If you have an orbital station, then you can use a series of smaller, cheaper mass-produced rockets to stage your supplies, and then go from there to the target.

You can apply similar logic at the other end, by the way - if you send a robot probe first with the supplies for the way home, and then an empty Mars lander, and then you can send the astronauts with only the supplies for the "there" leg, rather than having to lug everything.

 

[Bakenellan]

On an anecdotal evidence, in mid 1960-s Korolev as a kind of recreational game gave a task to his team to evaluate a manned mission to Mars. The verdict, far from exhaustive ovbiously, was that it was possible with existing tech, but extremely risky and prohibitevely costly (something exceeding the whole USSR yearly budget). Nevertheless, I think, it is probable that humans could visit Mars as early as 1970-s, early 1980-s.

 

[kholieken]

I think the timescale is far too optimistic.

tech to go Mars, landed, return to Space, and Return to Earth is very unreliable. They wouldn't want to sent humans for any stage without proving (several times) that they can do it successfully with robots. And Mars probe had very high failure rate. So it will be decades long project, and waste large amount of money. I think unlikely it can be completed, eventually political will to continue space race would evaporate at late80s or early 90s. And Mars would still unreached.

 

[HeX]

I think unlikely it can be completed, eventually political will to continue space race would evaporate at late80s or earl

Well, since I'm more interested in the actual exploration part of the Space Race than the politics with this question, let's just assume the Soviets don't collapse and the Race continues for the sake of the scenario.

 

[oldfussnfeathers]

Let's say everything stays the course up until 1969. To change history, we will say that Soyuz 1, Apollo 13, or Soyuz 11 all work out smoothly. This prompts the two countries to keep moving forward. The Soviets won't go to the moon first as IOTL but will instead launch the first space station, Salyut 1, in 1971, possibly earlier. Soyuz 11 works out smoothly and the space station concept is flight-proven within the year. This prompts the USA to begin the next race with the Soviets, launching Skylab perhaps a little earlier. A second US station is launched, Skylab B, and the Soviets begin Mir in the late 70s/early 80s.

The Space Shuttle might be developed earlier, around the same time as TTL Mir, and it is used to begin a Freedom Space Station in collaboration with Japan, Europe and Canada by mid/late 80s. There is no Challenger disaster, which helps keep American public support. Buran is never considered, it being just a Space Shuttle copycat and general waste of time and effort. The Soviets do not collapse or at least keep their space program running at tip-top shape. It is possible that the Soviets have gotten a man on the moon too, depending on the direction they take. One potential method would be to use an Earth-Orbit Rendezvous method facilitated by Mir. At this point the whole rivalry may have whimpered out. There is no realistic way this continues with Detente easing the tensions unless we start delving into mass geopolitical changes. What would happen to get us to Mars is an agreement to work together on the program, this being the OTL equivalent of the ISS.

Perhaps the Soviets could help by learning bringing their unique experience from the moon landing and their superior construction skills (OTL Freedom Space Station was an absolute mess to design, much like the Space Shuttle. The project was ultimately pushed back until international cooperation with Russia revived it). USA and allies can bring money, additional launch pads and vehicles, experience with Martian probes and rovers and likely provide the super-heavy launch vehicle required for the many launches of the Mars mission. The plan would be to get as much set up in advance as possible. As stated above this would include the whole return stage with fueling plant, rocket and habitat all being placed on Mars beforehand. The best bet for the transit vessel would be a Mir-like station, possibly reusing components of one of the earlier stations for economic reasons. Some advances in rocket technology like NERVA could work towards reducing the total transit time, if developed in time. This whole phase would develop over the 90s leading to a 2001 Mars landing- hopefully.

Now if we are dealing with Space Race pace of development, then perhaps you could see one side, probably the US, get to do a Martian flyby with a super Saturn V . This could occur within a decade, give or take, that would result in a year long mission with only a few hours floating by Mars. I doubt you'd see a landed mission occur that quickly, probably would have to throw on another decade at least. This would require phenomenal levels of funding and industrial cooperation that was seen in the 60s but were unfeasible IOTL.

 

[Ian_W]

likely provide the super-heavy launch vehicle required for the many launches of the Mars mission.

Just as a side point, this is exactly what you need to avoid.

A super-heavy launch vehicle is something that you build a couple of times. You don't get any of the advantages of mass production or learning by doing, and you have an awful decision on sizing the production line.

On the other hand, if you're doing it the right way, and using the same launch system your armed forces are using for ICBMs, then you can just add X units to the Strategic Rocket Forces order and away you go.

Note this is what the US did with Gemini - they used the Titan II ICBM.

Note that the US is currently doing the absolute opposite with the Senate Launch System, and we don't know how many will be built, or how long they will take to built, or how often you'll launch them.

If Mars is going to happen, it'll need many small launches.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Just as a side point, this is exactly what you need to avoid.

A super-heavy launch vehicle is something that you build a couple of times. You don't get any of the advantages of mass production or learning by doing, and you have an awful decision on sizing the production line.

On the other hand, if you're doing it the right way, and using the same launch system your armed forces are using for ICBMs, then you can just add X units to the Strategic Rocket Forces order and away you go.

Note this is what the US did with Gemini - they used the Titan II ICBM.

Note that the US is currently doing the absolute opposite with the Senate Launch System, and we don't know how many will be built, or how long they will take to built, or how often you'll launch them.

If Mars is going to happen, it'll need many small launches.

I think you are right - but also wrong for an early Mars mission. You are right in that that is what they should do to get to Mars and stay there. But as we saw in the moon race, that isn't the point.

The actual proposals back in 1968 just before the moon landings mostly revolved around assembling a nuclear powered launch vehicle in orbit from multiple Saturn V launches - its a dead end but it gets men to Mars (and possibly Venus orbit / flyby) by the mid 1980's

IMIS 1968

IMIS 1968

www.astronautix.com

 

[Scott Washburn]

If the flat-out, race-to-the-Moon sort of pace could have been maintained after 1969 then I think we'd have people on Mars by the early 80s. We'd also have a big space station and a permanent base on the Moon by then, too. Whenever I watch "2001: a Space Odyssey" I'm always saddened by the fact that if we had maintained the pace then everything in that movie COULD have been accomplished by 2001 (except for HAL, of course).

 

[marathag]

All depends if the US tries the Orion pulse drive or not.
If it works, the getting to Mars isn't hard with 1970s tech in the mid '70s

 

[Ian_W]

All depends if the US tries the Orion pulse drive or not.
If it works, the getting to Mars isn't hard with 1970s tech in the mid '70s

Because what could *possibly* go wrong with letting off a series of nukes through your atmosphere, upper atmosphere, thermosphere and magnetosphere ?

 

[M79]

Great resource for reading about space exploration:

Encyclopedia Astronautica

Encyclopedia Astronautica the most complete resource for space history - rockets spacecraft launch vehicles astronauts cosmonauts spaceflights engines space exploration

www.astronautix.com

Are we allowed to avoid the OTL report of 1954/1955 delaying a US satellite launch for legal reasons?

 

[marathag]

Because what could *possibly* go wrong with letting off a series of nukes through your atmosphere, upper atmosphere, thermosphere and magnetosphere ?

But they are tiny ones.
/s

But if mankind had a really, really good reason to get to Mars ASAP, that the only possible way, with its crazy high DeltaV from both high thrust and 1800-3200 ISP

 

[M79]

Russian Mars Expeditions

Russian Mars Expeditions

astronautix.com

Stuhlinger Mars 1962

Stuhlinger Mars 1962

www.astronautix.com

IMIS 1968

IMIS 1968

www.astronautix.com

Von Braun Mars Expedition - 1969

Von Braun Mars Expedition - 1969

www.astronautix.com

 

[oldfussnfeathers]

All depends if the US tries the Orion pulse drive or not.
If it works, the getting to Mars isn't hard with 1970s tech in the mid '70s

Great resource for reading about space exploration:

Encyclopedia Astronautica

Encyclopedia Astronautica the most complete resource for space history - rockets spacecraft launch vehicles astronauts cosmonauts spaceflights engines space exploration

www.astronautix.com

Are we allowed to avoid the OTL report of 1954/1955 delaying a US satellite launch for legal reasons?

For either of these to work out, you would need a drastically increased urgency to explore space. The major inhibitions to using these both of these technologies (military rockets/nuclear warheads) were because of their militant nature. In order to get them into space travel, we would then have to see a militarization of space. Leaders in one or both of the Cold War superpowers would have to identify space as the next battleground and consequently assign more resources to it to 'beat the other guy.' This almost happened IOTL, but the uses of space in regards to warfare were too limited to pursue this level of commitment. Reconnaissance satellites were found to be better than manned observation posts, ICBMs could launch warheads better and faster than an orbital satellite could, moon-base more expensive than submarines, etc.

You would need a major change to the timeline, such as an earlier Strategic Defense Initiative or more lax treatment of nukes (perhaps no Hiroshima/Nagasaki- later Manhattan Project?). Perhaps the first satellite is not Sputnik, but a nuclear warhead. It should be noted that hotter Cold War may yield some benefits to the Space Race but it would be just as likely to detract from it, as IOTL Vietnam War cut short the Apollo Program. You could also make the urgency come from outside our planet. For instance, say scientists in 1957 detect an asteroid will impact the Earth by 1969. That would create a whole new interesting dynamic to the space race.

 

[Orcot]

A mars mission would need a far better life support system then even MIR could provide, as such A mars mission would happen somewhere afther MIR, then their is the added difficulty of landing and making fuel, to be honest it might be easier to atempt a manned landing on either phobos or deimos especialy afther a dedicated mission to study their compisition, the mission could focus on securing water ice (below the surface) martian space rocks on it's surface blasted of mars over the eons. Studying the surface of mars a low weather platform that could study most of the martian surface, study he viability of asteroid mining, study tether propulsion, study artificial magnetic fields (imagen that tether that has a superconducting halo XXkm above it's surface, this mission could probably be done in 1990.
Mars depends on wether a better developed nuclair reactor is allowed if so 2000 otherwise 2010

 

[M79]

For either of these to work out, you would need a drastically increased urgency to explore space. The major inhibitions to using these both of these technologies (military rockets/nuclear warheads) were because of their militant nature. In order to get them into space travel, we would then have to see a militarization of space. Leaders in one or both of the Cold War superpowers would have to identify space as the next battleground and consequently assign more resources to it to 'beat the other guy.' This almost happened IOTL, but the uses of space in regards to warfare were too limited to pursue this level of commitment. Reconnaissance satellites were found to be better than manned observation posts, ICBMs could launch warheads better and faster than an orbital satellite could, moon-base more expensive than submarines, etc.

Have the N1 actually work or go with the alternative (U700?) and have the USSR land on the moon before the USA even if only by a few days. USA will pursue Mars mission with tentative landing in 1979 or so. Or have USSR have large successful moon base/100+ person space station well ahead of USA. There are likely lots of military opportunities and assets in space or easily space-capable kept quiet for very good reason.

You would need a major change to the timeline, such as an earlier Strategic Defense Initiative or more lax treatment of nukes (perhaps no Hiroshima/Nagasaki- later Manhattan Project?). Perhaps the first satellite is not Sputnik, but a nuclear warhead. It should be noted that hotter Cold War may yield some benefits to the Space Race but it would be just as likely to detract from it, as IOTL Vietnam War cut short the Apollo Program. You could also make the urgency come from outside our planet. For instance, say scientists in 1957 detect an asteroid will impact the Earth by 1969. That would create a whole new interesting dynamic to the space race.

Was it the Vietnam War more than the financial shock of the early 1970s coming off the gold standard that hurt the space program more? And yes an extrasolar cataclysmic threat would do the trick and likely cool down international tensions at the same time.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Well, since I'm more interested in the actual exploration part of the Space Race than the politics with this question,

Well, guaranteed, one thing you WON'T get is exploration.
You'll get a flag waving exercise like Apollo 11, with a single mission or maybe two, and then stops. The shear expense and lack of any significant results will pretty much destroy human spaceflight (beyond LEO, anyway), for a generation or more.

Want to kill spaceflight? This might be a good way to do it.

 

[M79]

Well, guaranteed, one thing you WON'T get is exploration.
You'll get a flag waving exercise like Apollo 11, with a single mission or maybe two, and then stops. The shear expense and lack of any significant results will pretty much destroy human spaceflight (beyond LEO, anyway), for a generation or more.

Want to kill spaceflight? This might be a good way to do it.

Respectfully I disagree. Exploration might happen more for commercial reasons once we note the quantity of resources in the Asteroid Belt and perhaps Jovian moons. It would probably be around now that exploitation becomes more commonplace for pbvious reasons but exploration could shift from politics to commerce, especially if launch costs could be brought down by an improved OTRAG modular-launch system or somesuch. Self-sustaining Lunar or Mars colonies could easily become sites for top-end R&D, ultrasecure storage, private colonies funded by religious groups or corporate interests, zero-g or low-g manufacturing/refining, etc. If nothing else at least the passengers of transplanetary injections would benefit from video games and MP3s for entertainment during the 200+ days of travel.

Of course for commerce a one-year contract would need to be clarified on Martian, Jovian, or Terrestrial year and could lead to all sorts of hijinks.

 

[oldfussnfeathers]

Have the N1 actually work or go with the alternative (U700?) and have the USSR land on the moon before the USA even if only by a few days. USA will pursue Mars mission with tentative landing in 1979 or so. Or have USSR have large successful moon base/100+ person space station well ahead of USA. There are likely lots of military opportunities and assets in space or easily space-capable kept quiet for very good reason.



Was it the Vietnam War more than the financial shock of the early 1970s coming off the gold standard that hurt the space program more? And yes an extrasolar cataclysmic threat would do the trick and likely cool down international tensions at the same time.

I should have clarified that I meant early military rockets, but that is neither here nor now. The bigger point of contention is whether nuclear weapons will be allowed in space to allow Orion to proceed. My hunch would be no, there were international treaties in place by January 1967 prohibiting their usage in that environment. Potentially the middle of the road route, NERVA, could be adopted. It would not be as effective as Orion, but a nuclear reactor has a little more legal leg room than a collection of warheads.

As for the Soviets win the Space Race that is certainly one way to keep the momentum gained from the last decade. I still don't think it would prompt further militarization of space. Sure, there are some military applications that haven't been tried out, but there was a reason why this arena has skewed toward civilian exploration. Money is the biggest concern. Politics another. Once unmanned satellites were developed that could satisfy all the needs of the Pentagon, that was the route that was taken. Even SDI mostly consisted of unmanned proposals.

I always heard that it was the Vietnam War that ended the Space Race, the gold shock more or less just meant a further curtailing of the program into Skylab, an empty Saturn V fuel tank they used as an answer to Salyut because it was cheap and convenient. After Apollo 11/13 public attention turned away from Space to the economy, the Vietnam War, and the later Civil Rights Movement. Not only was the money not there, the popular support was fading as well.

Respectfully I disagree. Exploration might happen more for commercial reasons once we note the quantity of resources in the Asteroid Belt and perhaps Jovian moons. It would probably be around now that exploitation becomes more commonplace for pbvious reasons but exploration could shift from politics to commerce, especially if launch costs could be brought down by an improved OTRAG modular-launch system or somesuch. Self-sustaining Lunar or Mars colonies could easily become sites for top-end R&D, ultrasecure storage, private colonies funded by religious groups or corporate interests, zero-g or low-g manufacturing/refining, etc. If nothing else at least the passengers of transplanetary injections would benefit from video games and MP3s for entertainment during the 200+ days of travel.

Of course for commerce a one-year contract would need to be clarified on Martian, Jovian, or Terrestrial year and could lead to all sorts of hijinks.

This definitely. Political support will only stretch so far; just look at the current state of the US space program. The 70s and 80s would have to start a transition period were commercial interests start cropping up. By the 90s there should be corporations actively engaged in spaceflight which would lead into full fledged commercial hegemony by the New Millennium with government focus turned to only research and recon.