New Mars Forums

Not mentioning any names, but I am sick and tired of the xenophobic, jingoistic, ultra-nationalist, fools who can't seem to get it through their thick heads that American participation in an International Humans to Mars effort DOES NOT MEAN THE U.S. AUTOMATICALLY PAYS FOR SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROGRAMME!!! Please stop telling lies. Unilateralist thinking that rejects the value of anything outside the U.S. is a huge obstacle on the road to Mars, and could cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars that they don't need to spend. What country is most able to contribute the largest share of money to an International Programme? Obviously the U.S. is most able. Where will this American money be spent? Again, obviously in the U.S., where else? Who will get this American money? Obviously Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and United Technologies. What will they do with this money? They will pay their American managers, engineers, workers to develop and build TransHabs, Earth Return Vehicles and the like. Does this mean it can't be an international programme? NO!!! What are the Europeans, Russians, and Japanese in a good position to contribute? They can build most of the major elements of the launch vehicle and provide a launch site (Korou or Baikonur). Who will pay for this? They will!! Why? Because they can afford to, and they want to see some of their astronauts go to Mars together with American astronauts.

The mission architecture outlined in the recent Russian announcement is clearly  inferior to something like Mars Direct or the NASA DRM, but it is certainly not nearly as horrendous as the Bush Senior administration's "Space Exploration Initiative" and the resulting 90 Day Report with it's "Battlestar Galactica" scheme. There is no reason why a Mars Direct/DRM type plan cannot be accomplished internationally.

Here we go again. Use of an Energia derived launch vehicle to facilitate sending humans to Mars does not mean NASA would have to "buy Energia launches from the Russians", nor would the RSA have to spend a lot of money they don't have to buy complete Energias and provide free launches to NASA. Russia can afford to contribute billions of dollars worth of existing technology and hardware now sitting in storage, such as almost 90 RD-0120 core motors. They can also afford to buy a few new RD-170s from Energomash. The best Energia configuration for Humans to Mars would mount four RD-0120 on the core, with eight Zenit strap-on boosters; four with RD-170 and four with RD-180. Single surplus SSMEs would be ideal to power the upper (TMI) stage. Such a configuration could deliver twice the payload of Magnum, and eliminate the need for on orbit rendezvous and assembly. RD-170(171) powered Zenits are currently in commercial production, mostly for Boeing Sea Launch. Pratt and Whitney supply RD-180s(RD-170 cut in half) to Lockheed Martin for use on all current versions of Atlas.

The ESA can afford to buy new Energia cores from EADS. The JSA can afford to buy TMI stages from Mitsubishi. The international partners could combine with the Ukrainian government to buy Zenits from Yuznoyhe. Energia facilities at Baikonur can be rebuilt/repaired or Kourou can be expanded. There are many, many possible options for the international production of an Energia derived ultra-heavy launcher.

I am also sick and tired of the people who whine endlessly about the U.S. having had to support the Russians on ISS. Yes indeed, the U.S. ended up paying for most of one of the Russian modules. OOOH, big deal, poor babies, you could have bought an extra half a Stealth bomber! How dare the U.S. actually spend a pittance to help out an economy in ruins! You people make me sick.

Let's look at the real world, real money, and the real truth. Have you ever heard of International Launch Services? Who provides all the hardware and facilities for their heavy launch business? Krunichev and RSC Energia. Who makes most of the profit? Lockheed Martin.

Oops.

Sorry, what I meant to say was that although I agree with MarkS that fixed cost contracts are not a panacea, they can frequently be a useful cost control measure. "Fixated"? That is a bit harsh.

Hello Dayton3,

Again, I am afraid you are mistaken. Energia was in fact officially recognized by NASA as meeting/exceeding their standards as a "man rated" launch vehicle. Please see NASA DRM Version 3, pre-addendum. Obviously, any "new" ultra-heavy version would have to be certified, just as would Magnum or Ares. A revived Saturn-V would have to be re-certified. The difference is that whereas everything involved in recreating Saturn would have to be done from scratch, more or less out of thin air and old blueprints, most major Energia, Ares, or Magnum components are either currently in commercial production, or in storage, and are, as subsystems, already man-rated. Perhaps the most important element of launch vehicle safety is human experience. Nearly everyone who worked on Energia is still available. Almost everone who worked on Saturn retired long ago. Many critical personel are dead, and with them went much obscure technical engineering data that they kept in their heads or in notebooks.

You are absolutely correct that Energia has not as yet carried humuns. This also applied at one time to R-7(Vostok), Soyuz R-7(Soyuz), Atlas(Mercury), Titan(Gemini), STS Launch Stack(Shuttle), and Saturn V(Apollo). In other words, it is circular logic to suggest that a vehicle is not, or cannot be considered man rated because it has not yet flown carrying humans!

As a side issue, it would be realatively cheap to have a pair of Soyuz waiting in orbit to transfer crew to a Mars Transhab. This would eliminate the requirement for a launch escape system, meaning slightly lower development/production costs and reduced mass.

Despite all the whinning about NASA having to subsidise one of the Russian modules, the fact that the ISS ran into massive cost overruns was as much the responsibility of American conractors as any of the other participants. No matter what  problems were suffered due to the international nature of the effort, it is still true that it would have cost the United States considerably more money to build a comparable space station if it had to have done so on it's own.

STS is an almost purely American effort except for Spacelab and the robot arms contributed and serviced free of charge by the ESA and CSA respectively. The United States has managed to run up massive cost overruns on STS and other aerospace projects all by itself. American contractors don't need any international assistance in ripping off the American taxpayers, so the argument that an international project will inevitably go way over budget while a U.S. only project will not makes no sense whatsoever.

Sea Launch, for example, is a totally international effort.  Boeing(USA), Yuznoyhe(Ukraine), Energia(Russia), and Kravener(Norway) are all major partners. Sea Launch has met with considerable commercial success in an already bloated launch market where supply exceeds demand. The key to cost control is fixed price commercial contracts. There is nothing inherantly less efficient about multinational efforts. The way to gaurantee that humans never make it to Mars in our lifetimes is for the U.S. to reject participation in an international effort. The American public is not willing to spend the money required to go it alone.

Saturn V was a masterpiece of 1960's technology, but the idea of bringing it back into production is absurd. An Energia derived HLV is by far the best coice. Even Ares, Magnum, or Sea Dragon are superior options. Please see the "Launch Vehicles" stream, where this topic should have been posted in the first place.

Here we go again. Use of Energia to facilitate sending humans to Mars does not mean NASA would have to "buy Energia launches from the Russians", nor would the RSA have to spend a lot of money they don't have to buy complete Energias and provide free launches to NASA. Russia can afford to contribute billions of dollars worth of existing technology and hardware now sitting in storage, such as almost 90 RD-0120 core motors. They can also afford to buy a few new RD-170s from Energomash. The best Energia configuration for Humans to Mars would mount four RD-0120 on the core, with eight Zenit strap-on boosters; four with RD-170 and four with RD-180. Single surplus SSMEs would be ideal to power the upper (TMI) stage. Such a configuration could deliver twice the payload of Magnum, and eliminate the need for on orbit rendevous and assembly. RD-170(171) powered Zenits are currently in commercial procuction, mostly for Boeing Sea Launch. Pratt and Whitney supply RD-180s(RD-170 cut in half) to Lockheed Martin for use on all current versions of Atlas.

The ESA can afford to buy new Energia cores from EADS. The JSA can afford to buy TMI stages from Mitsubishi. The international partners could combine with the Ukrainian government to buy Zenits from Yuznoyhe. Energia facilities at Baikonur can be rebuilt/repaired or Kourou can be expanded. There are many, many possible options for the international production of an Energia derived ultra-heavy launcher.

Spending an absolute minimum of between 5 and 10 billion American tax dollars to recreate all the Saturn V tooling out of thin air and restart production of a totally non reuseable rocket whose components have no commercial application aint "Keeping It Simple". It's just STUPID.

Dear Phobos,

You have misrepresented Dr. Zubrin. He endorses maximum encouragement of governments and their agencies to support human exporation of Mars. He also favours fostering private or "independant" endevours that contribute towards this goal. Only a fool could believe that we will ever see humans reach another planet through any means other than a public effort; that is to say a government supported programme.

People opposed to a large scale publically funded effort that fully utilizes NASA and other existing resources are the only real obstacle on the road to Mars.

A prejudicial "right here in the good old USA" attitude that automatically favors any particular development simply because it is of American origin or likely to be exclusively U.S. built, does nothing to further the goals of the Mars Society.  Unfortunately, only limited support for these goals exists both inside and outside the U.S. The only realistic chance of success demands that  both existing and potential support be maximized worldwide. Although the U.S., if willing to divert perhaps 2 or 3 percent of it's current "defense" expenditures could easily afford to go it alone without any increase in taxation, the powers that be are unlikely to make such a move. Friendship and co-operation between countries is a noble pursuit, but there is nothing sentimental about favoring an international Humans to Mars programme. If people are to get to Mars any time in the foreseeable future, an international effort is prerequisite. Nothing and nobody is willing to pay the price of going it alone. I fail to see why Europe, Russia, Japan, Canada, or any other country on the face of the Earth would contribute funding to a Mars programme that was nothing more than a giant subsidy dropped in the laps of the U.S. Aerospace industry.

Clearly most of the corporations best suited to serve as prime contractors for the actual manned Mars craft (TransHab, ERV etc.) happen to be American, and will undoubtedly get the lions share of funding.  Good for them. Conversely, a concept like Vulcan ILV; (Energia derived 155+ tonnes to LEO) is inherently far more suited to international production than Magnum, Ares, Sea Dragon, or any other proposal that has any hope of becoming a reality.

Magnum does not exist and has never been flown. Although much of the technology would be derived from STS, the differences between Magnum and STS are greater than those between Energia (four booster version as flown with Polyus and Buran) and Vulcan ILV. The Energias that have been sitting in storage at Baikonur for the last 12 years are more capable than the proposed Magnum. The CFC spewing solids required to give Magnum it's specified performance are NOT the same as those currently in production for STS, but enlarged "Advanced SRBs". Thankfully, NASA has rejected Boeing's "reusable liquid booster" (winged liquid fly back booster study) due to enormous projected development costs, excessive dry weight and other drawbacks. Why waste a couple billion dollars of American taxpayers money while Zenit is currently in well below capacity production at Yuznoyhe  of Ukraine? Zenit is in commercial use both for Boeing Sea Launch and at Baikonur. The reusable parachute/airbag version as flown with Energia can easily be returned to production.

Existing facilities at the Cape cannot support a Magnum based manned Mars effort and the ISS/STS programme simultaneously. Scrap STS/ISS? Spend a couple billion for new Magnum facilities? A better alternative would be to contribute a much smaller amount as part of an international effort to repair Baikonur's Energia pads, an effort that could also employ American contractors.

RD-170(171) is in production by Energomash (Russia) for Zenit/Sea Launch, RD-180 is soon to enter U.S. production by Pratt and Whitney for Atlas. EADS in Europe, or Mitsubishi in Japan, or anywhere else with suitable factories could build Vulcan ILV core stages/upper stages.

Development costs, as well as cost per kilogram to orbit for Vulcan ILV are likely to be lower than Magnum. Magnum's primary drawback is that nobody has come up with a workable mission architecture that can use Magnum without resorting to Earth orbit rendezvous/assembly. For example, three Vulcan ILV launches could replace six Magnum launches per mission cycle, using identical TMI stages and delivering identical spacecraft as per NASA DRM (addendum).

So much for Magnum.

Sea Dragon is a valid concept. I would favor something like this in the long run once there are markets for very large payloads on Mars. It could certainly throw some massive spacecraft at Mars, but such spacecraft would be very expensive. However, Vulcan ILV is a more practical near term solution, again due mostly to lower development costs. There is no current commercial application for a vehicle in the Sea Dragon class. As already mentioned, major components of Vulcan ILV would come largely from current commercial production lines or stocks of existing surplus.

From an environmental standpoint, Sea Dragon's kerosene burning first stage could be somewhat polluting due to the relatively low combustion efficiency of pressure fed engines.

Supplemental - I can't seem to keep my big mouth shut.

Contrary to an earlier Moon First (forces of evil) argument, A Mars colony does NOT need to achieve full scale terraforming as a prerequisite to becoming largely self sufficient. Oceans and a breathable atmosphere are very appealing, but inflatable greenhouses should do nicely for now.

If any of the Moon First claims for near future economic potential were even slightly sane, some consortium of giant multinational corporations would already be working along those lines. Big private capital may be stupid, but not that stupid. The Mars First argument is still valid without claiming to offer near term corporate profits through the exploitation of local resources for the specific purpose of selling them to Earth.

I do, however, strongly agree with the critically important point made about military spending in a previous post. Diverting just a tiny proportion of the current $300 BILLION A YEAR currently being squandered on U.S. "defense" related expenditures would allow for large scale simultaneous near term Mars and Moon related endeavors.

Unfortunately, the greatest intellectual visionaries of our time (George Dubya and Co.) say they must have, for example, several hundred F-22 Raptors. I suppose these are needed to replace the massive losses inflicted by the mighty Iraqi Air Force.

We could have had Mars AND the Moon. Instead, looks like we're gonna get Joint Strike Fighter and more Sea Wolf submarines. Oh joy.

Hello RobS,

Your first question is much easier to answer than the second. By far the best technical website reference I have ever found on the subject of almost EVERY launch vehicle, rocket motor and spacecraft ever developed and put into production, as well as design concepts, launch sites, political and engineering histories is Mark Wade's PHENOMENAL Encyclopedia Astronautica:

www.astronautix.com

I demand that everyone reading this spend the rest of your lives drinking in this incredible site!

The specific Energia entry that should answer most of your weights and dimentions questions is:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm

There are also excellent entries on Vulkan and Energia M; the core stage of which I favour for development as the upper stage/TMI stage for a new Energia derived super-heavy lifter I have dubbed "Vulkan ILV" (International Launch Vehicle). Technical details of RD-0120, RD-170 and RD-180 are also available. Please note that the Buran layout Energia was designed to carry a 100 tonne side mounted dead weight. Top mounting the payload permits a much higher loading. Also, conventional aluminum was used. Switching to a lighter, stronger aluminum-lithium alloy should allow for core stage dry mass reduction. The site also provides an opportunity to compare Ares and Energia stages.

Links to detailed entries on the Energia system can also be found at:

www.buran.ru

Must go now. Will be back to have a go at your second question.

Much work would have to be done to make Kourou capable of operating a new super-heavy launcher, but equipment and personell already in place there could be employed in support of such operations. I would guess that it could cost perhaps two or three billion for everything including final assembly facilities and new launchpads. Repairing/upgrading existing facilites at Baikonur would be cheaper.

I'm not sure if Starsem has as yet been given full clearance to operate Soyuz launch vehicles from Kourou, but this appears likely to happen. Asia Pacific Space Centre is definitely going ahead with plans to start launching the Soyuz derived Aurora from Christmas Island.

Baikonur apparently has an advantage over equatorial launch sites when it comes to throwing mass at Mars, but I don't have exact figures re. relative payloads to the appropriate orbital inclinations.

Europe could still make important contributions to an Energia derived HLLV even if Kourou is not selected as the launch site. For example, EADS is as capable as any U.S. based firm of building the large core stage.

Use of the Energia HLV to support a humans to Mars porgamme will help prevent ISS type delays and cost overruns by keeping launch vehicle development costs at the minimum. The Soviet built ISS module originally intended for Mir 2 prior to the collapse, was delivered on time and within budget. The problem was that the near bankrupt post-Soviet Russian Space Agency (RKA) could not hope to pay Energia's Krunichev factory the agreed price for the brand new modules in time. Because of these delayed payments, Krunichev; like American companies, charged extra and delivered late. By contrast; month after month, year after year, Energia continues to deliver it's incredibly reliable Soyuz rocket to the Russian-French Starsem commercial launch company on time and at the agreed low price.

Energia HLV reactivation for an international humans to Mars programme is NOT dependent on any large  expenditures by the RKA. Russia could, of course, help cut the launch costs of any such programme by contributing existing hardware, technology, and facilities already built by the Soviets.  At Baikonur, more than 80 RD-0120 core motors remain mothballed in perfect condition. Here also, a dozen Zenit reusable strap-on boosters(most stripped of RD-170) and 3 complete Energia core stages remain in storage. The condition of the rocket stages, the two giant transporter-erectors, and the MIK assembly building itself ranges from perfect to repairable. The various
Energia launch pads and associated facilities are in poor condition. Repairing and reactivating the existing infrastructure at Baikonur is probably the cheapest way to go, but I would not object to building new Energia launch facilities at Kennedy, Kourou, or elsewhere.

It is reasonable to expect that most public funding provided by each country participating an international Mars programme would be spent "at home". No problem. If Energia is used to support a Mars Direct, DRM, CalTech or any other rational architecture for a near term piloted Mars missions, launch would represent at most 20% of total programme cost, and perhaps as little as 15%. Development of a new HLV could drive that up to 30%. The really big money is required for development and production of the actual spacecraft, TMI stages and other new equipment. Boeing, Lock-Mart, EADS and the like are probably most qualified to act as prime contractors, with subcontracts going to firms based in each country roughly proportional to its financial contribution. The ISS partners have more or less succeeded in accomplishing this balance. Of course, unlike ISS, the Mars programme should be done on a fixed cost commercial contract basis. The corporations should be held strictly accountable for failure to meet specifications or any delays in delivery, and governments should be held accountable for any delays in previously agreed funding. That being said, it is not unreasonable for the so called "have" countries to save their taxpayers substantial sums of money by allowing some small proportion of funds to be spent overseas to buy some very reliable, low cost equipment. After all, the U.S. expects many other countries to expend huge sums of public money on expensive American weapons, which they do. There is no harm in helping Russia and Ukraine pay their debts with a little hard currency.

The Energia HLV could be, and should be for our purposes, an international launch vehicle. As already stated, Russia can contribute existing hardware. Zenit boosters are currently in production by Yuznoyhe NPO of Ukraine for the Boeing Sea Launch partnership.  I believe Boeing holds exclusive distribution rights on Zenit. The four chamber RD-170(171) is in production by Energomash for Sea Launch. Pratt and Whitney do final assembly and quality assurance on the two chamber RD-180 (RD-170 cut in half) for use on all current versions of Atlas. RD-170 was required by the Soviet specification to survive 10 re-uses. They have been proven to withstand more than 20 full duration burns! These engines are used because they are simply the best, most powerful, cost effective, reliable, clean burning, highest ISP, fully thottleable kerosene-oxygen rocket motors ever built. For the Mars progamme, Boeing could handle Zenit operations and new Ukrainian or U.S. based production if required. Ukraine could throw in what funding it can. Pratt and Whitney  could provide between flight refurbishment of the reusable booster engines.

Only Vulcain and SSME can match the ISP of the highly throttleable RD-0120 hydrogen-oxygen Energia core stage motor. Although not designed for re-use, it is safer than SSME for a given single burn. If after many flights to Mars existing RD-0120 stocks run out, production could be restarted, or some combination of Vulcain and/or Rocketdyne's RS-68 could be used as replacements.

Sadly, most of the tooling for Energia core stage production has been sold as scrap and destroyed. Fortunately, unlike Saturn V, all detailed technical engineering data for the entire system has been preserved. More importantly, the vast majority of people who worked on the Energia-Buran progamme are still available. Lockheed Martin hold the patent on a lightweight high strength aluminum/lithium alloy now used for the Shuttle external tanks.  Energia's American office has always been more than willing to license production of it's HLV. Lockheed could construct upgraded Energia core stages from the new alloy at their Michoud factory. In order to allow for use of up to eight strap-on boosters, these upgraded core stages would be built to carry a top mounted, rather than side mounted payload. Completed stages, and other large items such as fully assembled Mars transhabs could be flown to Baikonur, or elsewhere, atop the An-225 or NASA's 747. Several so called experts have dismissed Energia and the An-225 as "dead". Antonov's  Mriya has returned to the skies. So can Energia.

Nate, in answer to your question, the Energia HLVs actually built and currently in storage at Baikonur were indeed intended to carry Buran type shuttles. However, unlike STS, this Energia version can, without modification, carry any side mounted payload up to 100 tonnes; be it Buran, a Mars Transhab, or whatever.  Aside from this specific version, Energia designed it's HLV as a modular system, capable of carrying to LEO between 10 tonnes for a single Zenit, all the way up to 200 tonnes for the eight strap-on booster with core and upper stage. Development and testing to allow for this flexibility was a key consideration from the outset of the Energia programme.

The most efficient Energia configuration for Humans to Mars applications would be eight boosters mated to a standard size core, with payload top mounted. Four of the Zenits would be powered by RD-170s, and four with RD-180s, with core stage power from the usual arrangement of four RD-0120s. Even without an upper stage, this "upgraded" Energia would be adequate to deliver 150 tonnes to LEO from Baikonur at an orbital inclination suitable for TMI. The RD-170 powered Zenits can be recovered for ten re-uses with the existing cheap and simple parachute-airbag system. Recovery of RD-180 powered Zenits is possible, but might require ablative paint for light thermal protection. RD-180 engines mated with Zenit are probably not suitable for more than five burns.

Compared to Energia's Zenits, the SRBs have an inferior thrust
to weight ratio, inferior specific impulse, no throttle control, and are difficult and dangerous to transport once assembled. The fact that they cannot be shut down once ignited is a serious safety issue. SRBs are also environmentally unsound; producing CFC's as combustion products.

Although SRBs are relatively cheap to build, they are not reusable. They are recyclable. It costs almost as much to recover, dismantle, strip down and rebuild an SRB as it does to by a new one. Obviously, it also costs money to refurbish a Zenit, but the liquid booster still appears to be more cost effective, as well as demonstrating clearly superior performance and safety characteristics. NASA would do well to abandon the current STS launch stack in favor of a four Zenit Energia-Buran configuration. Obviously the core tank would not need engines as the Shuttle would retain it's SSMEs.  This configuration would, at the very least, greatly improve the Shuttles payload capacity. This is a far cheaper and easier solution than the huge, winged "liquid fly-back" boosters that were once under serious consideration. Ending production of the existing shuttle ET would allow Lockheed to build a single, standard size stage tank structure to support both STS and Mars operations.

Trying to use SSMEs without the Shuttle on an STS stack based HLV is an unnecessary technical risk. For example, there could be problems with the asymmetrical thrust of the Ares layout. Mounting more than two SRBs, or more than one side mounted recoverable SSME pack and associated plumbing to increase payload or improve thrust symmetry, would require considerable core tank and launchpad modifications. Mounting such an engine pod under the tank core requires similar modifications, and might cause the SRBs to blow up due to the proximity of the exhaust plume.