Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

David Ellard · 2003-09-07 07:13:32

A little over ten years ago, a revolution in manned Mars mission planning evolved. Mars Direct, originally conceived by Dr Robert Zubrin, revolutionised our previous perceptions of sending humans to Mars. Zubrin showed us, by using the natural resources of Mars, we could reduce by an order of magnitude, the costs and complexities of sending humans to Mars, while actually increasing productivity.

Mars Direct demonstrated that a sustained human presence on Mars could be achieved within 10 years, at approximately 20 billion dollars. However, despite the brilliance of the plan and the obvious benefits over current manned space exploration, a decade later Mars Direct is still little more then an idea.

What we need is to stop expecting the massive NASA budgets of the Apollo program to return. We need to stop designing our dreams around technology and hardware that doesn?t exist.

Proton Mars differs from many conventional Mars missions by relying on existing technology and hardware to dramatically reduce the costs, timeline, and complexities of a manned mission to Mars.

The basic premise is as follows. A current rocket in the 20 tonne payload range launches a HAB (Habitation) stage, complete with a pressurised rover, and ample food and supplies for a crew of three. A second launch opportunity lifts a descent stage which docks with the HAB. Over the next six months, subsequent launches boost six propulsion stages, each of these stages dock one by one with the HAB and descent stage, forming a train of connected modules.

After the eight components are docked, the first Martians are launched on a Soyuz rocket. The Soyuz docks with the stack and after final system checks, the propulsion units are fired. One by one they gain the required Delta V to achieve Earth escape.

Six months later the stack reaches Mars and aero brakes through the atmosphere, using parachutes and descent fuel to soft land on the Martian surface. Three astronauts explore the surface for one and half years. Meanwhile, a propellent plant and six tonnes of hydrogen feedstock are converted into Earth return fuel.

After the surface time has expired, the three astronauts blast off on a direct return to Earth. Six months later the three astronauts use the Soyuz descent module to re-enter the Earths atmosphere, completing our first journey to Mars.

But how can we do this for less than 2 billion dollars?

As the name suggests, the primary launcher for the mission is the Russian Proton. This decision is based on two main factors. Firstly, the Proton can lift just over 20 tonnes into LEO, essential to reduce the amount of on-orbit construction. Secondly, the Proton is cheap. At roughly 70 million dollars per launch, it is far cheaper then comparative boosters. Eight launches of the Proton should amount to about 560 million dollars.

The HAB is designed around existing Russian space station module technology, from Salyut, to Mir, and the International Space Station, the Russian?s have had decades of experience in developing 20 tonne space station modules. By utilising this experience, the HAB should be a relatively easy piece of hardware to develop. And by simply announcing a fixed price contract at 500 million dollars, we can assure that we don?t overrun the budget.

The descent stage, while a system that will have to be developed from scratch, shouldn?t prove too difficult. After all it is essentially only a rocket stage, and by using a simple ablative heat shield, and proven RL10 engines, the descent stage should cost less then 200 million dollars to develop.

A propulsion system of the size and performance we need already exists in the Centaur. Having been in use since the sixties, the Centaur has a high level of reliability, and its use of the RL10 engine gives the mission a common hardware simplicity, which should further reduce costs and complexities. A straightforward docking system could be developed easily from existing hardware, which should be affordable and more importantly simple. Remember, this isn?t orbital construction in the traditional sense. Modules will simply dock with one another. There will be no need for complex spacewalks or any new orbital techniques. I have allowed 30 million for each of the six Centaurs.

The Soyuz is the longest lived, most reliable, and adaptable manned spacecraft in history. Its very design allows it to serve multiple rolls. By simply enlarging the heat shield, and swapping the orbital module for a heavy duty docking port, the Soyuz should prove to be a reliable crew transport to and from the Earth. 100 million dollars will be more then enough to modify the craft to serve as the return capsule.

Add another 100 million for administrative costs and we have a manned mission to Mars for less than 2 billion dollars.

Some people will disagree with a manned mission to Mars with such a small crew. And like most people, I would prefer as large a crew as possible. However the logistics of a larger crew delete most of the advantages. A larger crew would need a different crew return spacecraft other then the Soyuz, which leaves the only option being to develop a new spacecraft, a task which would easily double our budget. But is a crew of 3 really such a problem? Both the United States and Russia have had a successful history of using such small crews, all space stations to date have been manned with no more then 3 people, and most ground control procedures would work well with such a size. Finally there is the moral issue of sending humans into the unknown frontiers of exploration. Initial missions to Mars will be dangerous. Perhaps three is the perfect number.

On the subject of safety, another major difference between Proton Mars and Mars Direct is the use of two separate spacecraft for outbound and inbound journeys. At first the benefits of having two spacecraft appear far safer, but are they? A total life support failure in space for either mission profile would be catastrophic. At Mars, surface assets such as pressurised rovers can ensure the survival of the astronauts until repairs or re-supply from Earth. The benefits of a two spacecraft system are limited. No matter what precautions are taken, a mission to the red planet will be dangerous. Rather than risk a crew with an untested vehicle and concept we should simply launch an unmanned mission before the manned mission. This will ensure and extra layer of life critical backup. Adding an unmanned mission will increase the costs to 3 billion dollars.

This brings us to the issue of further missions. If we assume reoccurring costs to be 75% of development costs, each subsequent mission will amount to just under 1.5 billion or 750 million dollars per year. This is a ridiculously small amount to maintain a human presence on Mars. Comparable to one or two space shuttle flights, 750 million per year is pocket change for organizations like NASA, and could be a sustainable amount for a private venture such as Sell-Mars.

Proton Mars is not a study for the far future. It is something that can be done now, with our current technology, and most importantly current budgets. This sort of venture is not just limited to governments or large commercial groups. It can be achieved by us, by the small dedicated group of believers who know it?s time for a change, too long have we meandered in low orbit, endlessly going nowhere. Anyone who reads science fiction knows there are two types of future; there is the utopian future where mankind has spread throughout the universe, and there is the dystopian world, where humanity has reverted back in technology and progress, a society in decay. The Earth is our cradle, it is up to us to ensure it never becomes our coffin.

dicktice · 2003-09-07 08:27:29

David Ellard: Great stuff, realistic and opportunistic in the best sense . . . but I wonder if the ISS shouldn't be exploited in some way, as well. After all, it's already "up there" and the Soyuz/Progress vehicles are routinely docking to it. Why not take advantage of it, if only because it's there? (If political objection turns out to be the reason, then shame on you!)

Algol · 2003-09-07 14:47:02

Would it not still be a good idea to break it up into stages a la Mars Direct. You could send the hab, and return vehicle on slower trajectories before hnd, and once they are set up and ensuring a place to stay and way to get home, send the crew.

Would this make it more expensive?

Could you make it clearer what components you are taking along, and what each of their functions are?

Cheers

Nick

Mark Friedenbach · 2003-09-07 15:49:45

Where are the numbers comming from?

Spider-Man · 2003-09-07 20:37:08

A very well thought-out essay, sir. I commend your drive and enthusiasm. I share it.

But I don't believe that such primitive systems are appropriate for trans-Mars injection and exploration. I stand firm to Dr. Zubrin's Mars Direct program; there is nothing safer, cheeper, and more available, in that order.

And I intend to see a Mars colony in my lifetime as well.

David Ellard · 2003-09-07 20:57:40

Dicktice,
I think there is little point using the ISS in a private version of the mission, (Which I think is more likely possible) as the increased costs would most likely outweigh the benefits. A NASA or International version could benefit from the station, but it would most likely be symbolic more then anything. The station seems to be a gravitational money pit, so unless the ISS partners were big Proton Mars contributors, I?d keep it simple and avoid it.

Algol,
I think the benefits of a two spacecraft mission are over rated. I think from memory, Zubrin based Mars Direct on two spacecraft for two main reasons, to keep the HAB and ERV mass at a reasonable level, and because of the use of indigenous resources to create the return fuel. It was a side benefit that the mission came out looking far safer then the rest. But I think if you look at it objectively, there is little to gain from having two spacecraft. Today, there is a much larger support base for making return fuel at Mars. It doesn?t seem as risky as it previously did, and a pressurised rover, can provide life support just as easy as another HAB. Using a two spacecraft system would increase the costs substantially, for what I believe to be an illusorily benefit.

Mark,
Here are some numbers for those interested. All weights in Tonnes, costs estimates based on US dollars.

Mission Mass Estimates

HAB

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2022-02-02 11:13:18)

Mark Friedenbach · 2003-09-07 22:51:52

I'm sorry for phrasing the question badly, but what I meant was how are you calculating those numbers, the costs in particular? What data are you working off of?

Using 20 ton launchers instead of the shuttle or ares/magnum is a good idea (and it's already been talked about on this board here), but otherwise your plan isn't too different from the nasa referance mission, which is estimated at $50 billion. Am I missing something?

David Ellard · 2003-09-08 02:25:00

Spider,
I have to disagree with you about the ?primitive? hardware in Proton Mars, I think it?s exactly what we need. The Proton, Centaur, Soyuz, and Russian station modules have had decades of use and their reliability in hundreds of missions has been proven time and time again. I fail to see how current hardware isn?t safer/cheaper/and available in any order. I stand firm to Dr Zubrin also, and I seem to remember ?gaslight era? technology as the most revolutionary part of Mars Direct, how?s that for primitive!

Mark,
Sorry for the mess that I call my post, it?s a little mixed up, but a detailed version is coming if you?re interested.

The costs for hardware items already in existence, like the Proton, Centaur, etc, are based off cost data from various internet sources.

For things like the HAB and descent stage, I?ve used a ?cost per tonne? method of 20 million dollars per tonne. (Based on dry hardware mass) This is consistent with most space hardware costing models, and if you do the math, you?ll see I?ve more then doubled the estimated cost for the HAB, given it?s not as straightforward to develop as the descent stage.

Apart from the use of natural resources for the return propellant, I don?t see too many similarities with the NASA reference mission. Proton Mars relies on existing hardware and boosters, where as the reference mission, as far as I?m aware uses entirely new hardware. And let?s not forget the price difference; the reference mission is twenty times the cost.

clark · 2003-09-08 11:24:35

6 month inbound trajectory to mars followed by one and half years on Martian surface.

How does this plan deal with the negative and very serious effects of zero-g and low-g on prospective astronauts?

How does this plan deal with cosmic radiation given that we have limited understanding of the long term effects on the human body (nothing on the time frame you are considering)?

Any attempt at Mars will have to deal with the health issues associated with keeping people alive in such a harsh environment, and we don't have the experience yet to speak with authority on what we can, or how we can, mitigate these issues.

If your suggestion is to rotate the hab for artifical g, fine, please point to where our current experience is in creating artifical g in planatary space bodies.

Going to Mars is new guys. It requires quite a bit more technology and research than I think you may be accounting for.

I don't question the plan (mostly), just the cost assumptions.

RobS · 2003-09-08 21:42:36

I think you assumed a nuclear reactor, but didn't spend a billion to design one and a hundred million to build one (or more). I doubt an Earth Return Vehicle can be designed for less money than the orbital spaceplane, which is costing something like $6 billion. One can't even assume that spacesuit technology is adequate; the current suits have been designed to be worn for six or eight hours at a time and maybe six or eight times, max, not for 26 months of use. We need to spend money on all sorts of other things, too; will Martian dust cause allergies or lung cancer; will in situ resource utilization equipment produce too much ethylene rather than methane; do we have to bring along enough stuff to run the surface mission "open loop," or can we get enough water on the surface to not worry about this, or do wew have to haul enough hydrogen along to make the water we'd need for 26 months. I don't think Zubrin's $20 billion estimate should be treated too lightly. Zubrin himself says that NASA thought his mass estimates were low, and if you compare them to the Design Reference Mission, you'll see that NASA does indeed assume more mass for most things. That's one reason their cost estimates are higher. Lower mass and lower costs probably means a much higher failure rate.

-- RobS

space_psibrain · 2003-09-08 23:18:20

Did anyone note that the fuel for the Proton is toxic, and would endanger those in the area?

Spider-Man · 2003-09-08 23:55:33

Spider,
I have to disagree with you about the ?primitive? hardware in Proton Mars, I think it?s exactly what we need. The Proton, Centaur, Soyuz, and Russian station modules have had decades of use and their reliability in hundreds of missions has been proven time and time again. I fail to see how current hardware isn?t safer/cheaper/and available in any order. I stand firm to Dr Zubrin also, and I seem to remember ?gaslight era? technology as the most revolutionary part of Mars Direct, how?s that for primitive!

Yes, the gaslight era technology was the chemistry involved in turning the Martian atmosphere of CO2 into rocket propellant. But that's just an idea that's old (so its colonization). The actual hardware suggested is no older than Shuttle-era boosters, and still it's nothing that would actually go all the way to Mars. The Ares spacecraft would be quite new, which makes me personally feel more secure.

I was more referring to computing technology, navigational systems (for instance, the gimbals used on the Apollo spacecraft are no longer necessary due to our current state of advanced development, and we don't have to worry about gimballock anymore, former terror to any trans-Earth spacecraft), and more efficient designs that could accomodate the needs better (I'm speaking abstractly, but I'm too tired to be more specific). I agree with the basic idea, but I guess I'm just too inherently optimistic to believe that we've descended so far into stagnation to require such a necessarily backward (no offense intended) plan that involves Communist Russian space probes. Maybe it's an ideological thing..

Spider-Man · 2003-09-09 00:19:48

6 month inbound trajectory to mars followed by one and half years on Martian surface.
How does this plan deal with the negative and very serious effects of zero-g and low-g on prospective astronauts?

Heh, haven't you read The Case for Mars, Clark? It's one of the best books I've ever read. Read it, right now.

How does this plan deal with cosmic radiation given that we have limited understanding of the long term effects on the human body (nothing on the time frame you are considering)?

His six months transit and 1.5 years stay time are based on Dr. Zubrin's ideas (I'm assuming, because many parts of this plan are identical). Six months in interplanetary space is nothing. Such an exposure to cosmic radiation means that each astronaut suffers no more than a 1% chance of getting cancer later in life.
Comparatively, people who smoke have a 20% chance that they will get some form of cancer later in life. That means that, if we forced smokers to go to Mars, and didn't give them any cigarettes, we would effectively be lowering their risk for getting cancer.

As for zero-g, that's not an issue. Being on Mars with its 5/8 terrestrial gravity for a year and a half is more than enough to prevent bone loss, or cardiovascular atrophy, especially since the astronauts will be under constant physical demands that will keep them at all times fit and well worked. Considering the heavy lifting they might do alone, they'll probably come back stronger than most humans.

Zero-g in transit is nullified by Zubrin's genious (in the same way that all the other problems are effectively solved, heaven bless the brilliant little guy) ? the final booster stage of the Ares spacecraft will separate from the hab, and the two will be connected with a long tether. Little thrusters will eventually put tension on the wire, and bring the two chained masses into a centripetal circular motion around one another, rotating at approximately four or six times per minute, well within tolerance levels. The artificial gravity will be equal to that of Mars, so that the astronauts have six long beautiful months to adapt to Martian gravity while they get to know each other better.

Any attempt at Mars will have to deal with the health issues associated with keeping people alive in such a harsh environment,

The scientists who live for years at the South Pole doing their studies are under far worse conditions, that are many times harsher ? the astronauts on Mars will constantly be protected from the elements.

and we don't have the experience yet to speak with authority on what we can, or how we can, mitigate these issues.

"We don't know how, therefore we shouldn't try"...? That doesn't make much sense to me. This is all about exploration and learning and figuring out of things.
Reminds me of "if you have to ask, you'll never know."

If your suggestion is to rotate the hab for artifical g, fine, please point to where our current experience is in creating artifical g in planatary space bodies.

We have plenty of experience rotating objects, in space and on Earth, to achieve artificial gravity. What do you mean by "planetary space bodies"..?

Going to Mars is new guys. It requires quite a bit more technology and research than I think you may be accounting for.

The research is all done. The technology already exists. It existed back in the '80s, when the original manned missions to Mars were first planned, and consequently scrapped by the Nixon administration.
We can go to Mars today. We could have two years ago. We are wasting time, for no reason.

I don't question the plan (mostly), just the cost assumptions.

Read The Case for Mars. All your questions will then be answered.

http://www.amazon.com/exec....s=books

Mark Friedenbach · 2003-09-09 02:25:07

Spider,

Yes, we've all read The Case for Mars. Our questions are in reference to David Ellard's plan, which differs very much from Mars Direct. For example, the six-stage stack won't lend itself very well to Mars Direct-style artificial gravity, as the counterweight would be too small, and a long teather too heavy.

And as far as the Proton goes: A) Russia is not a communist government anymore. The Proton is owned and operated by a private corporation. B) The Proton has been in use since 1965, with a 96% recent success rate. C) If it's really an issue, the Ariane 5, Delta IV-Heavy, or Atlas 5-551/552 are also capable of lifting the same mass for significantly higher risk and cost.

David Ellard · 2003-09-09 04:46:12

Clark,
I?ve left out any tether based artificial gravity options because, the lack of any practical experience, (and as Mark mentioned, using the relatively low mass of the centaur.)

I don?t consider this to be a mission critical element of the plan, I believe that with adequate preparation, six months in zero g shouldn?t be a hindrance on the astronauts abilities or health. I think there are some real world examples of recent Russian long duration cosmonauts getting up and walking straight away after Earth return.

RobS,
I have to admit Rob that I did leave out the reactor development and production costs, (Along with Mars mobility suits and some other components) because I simply don?t have the data.

The numbers I?ve provided are not easy to calculate, and a good deal of variation is expected, this is a work in progress, any inputs on my numbers would be appreciated.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-09 06:08:58

And as far as the Proton goes: A) Russia is not a communist government anymore. The Proton is owned and operated by a private corporation. B) The Proton has been in use since 1965, with a 96% recent success rate. C) If it's really an issue, the Ariane 5, Delta IV-Heavy, or Atlas 5-551/552 are also capable of lifting the same mass for significantly higher risk and cost.

I stand corrected.

RobertDyck · 2003-09-09 09:58:12

Hello David, great idea but I do have a couple comments. You suggested replacing the Soyuz orbital module with a heavy duty docking collar. Does it really need anything more heavy than it has now? The Soyuz Orbital module does have the collar to dock with Mir or ISS as well as the radar system to navigate the rendezvous; I suggest that is all you need. However, the Soyuz does not have room for any significant amount of Mars samples. If the Soyuz is not used to deliver crew to the surface of Mars, then you don?t need to change the heat shield. If you are then the Mars heat shield must support the capsule, the service module, the ascent stage, and the lander including legs, parachute, and landing rockets. The Soyuz heat shield is not only sized just for Earth, it is ablative so it can only be used once. That means two heat shields, one for Mars and one for Earth, so you don?t need to modify the Soyuz heat shield. Life support in the Soyuz capsule is designed to last just long enough to return to Earth from LEO, the Orbital module provided the other 14 days of life support. You will have to ensure your HAB has life support for the trip to Mars, landing, surface stay, lift-off, and trip back to Earth. The Russian space station modules are designed for operation in zero-G, they would have to be redesigned for operation on Mars.

You also included a pressurized rover. When I talked to Robert Zubrin at the conference he stated the analog rovers are far too big for an interplanetary mission. He now suggests an unpressurized rover with a trailer that unfolds into a pressurized living space; basically a pressure tent trailer.

clark · 2003-09-09 10:08:41

So let's see, 6 months of zero-g, followed by 1.5 years of low-g, followed up by another 6-9 months of zero-g on the return trip.

One, you want to send three astronauts to Mars on the hope that they will be physically fit enough to do the hard and strenous work required of setting up a base on Mars after 6 months of zero-g. two, even the astronauts who have walked away after 6 months did very very little for quite a while, and they receive a lot of physical therapy.

This alone has just killed any chances of realisitic success for this proposed mission, I suggest you rethink it.

Sorry to be harsh, but it's the only way this si going to get better.

If you seek to add a tether based artifical-g space ship of some derivation, then you need to realize that humanity has ZERO experience in building, or flying a spaceship with artifical g. We have theories and ideas. I'm sure we could do it. But we have no practical knowledge or experience. This means time and money and research has to be invested.

(A novel approach IMO is to subject astronauts to high-g during their sleep cycles- think of it like sleeping in a clothes dryer, without the 'fluff' cycle)

Next, which we kind of just neglect, is the radiation situation. Yeah, we can count percentages and such and say that we are helping the smoker astronauts, really, we are- but we have solar flares to contend with (big big issue) and even right now current experiements for ISS are looking into the effects of cosmic radiation on our sight (astronauts have reported seeing flashes when they close their eyes in space- cosmic radiation hits the retina and we see sparks).

We could very well send these astronauts to Mars only to go blind!

Wouldn't that be something, we send men to Mars to go and take a look, but then they end up blind...

See, questions and more questions...

Water? Can we really process it? If we get there, and we can't, then what? Waste ubber billions and umpteen lives?

And contrary to Spider-man's claim, we do not know what the long term effects of low-g are on human physiology. No data, no facts. Sorry.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-09 18:12:24

(A novel approach IMO is to subject astronauts to high-g during their sleep cycles- think of it like sleeping in a clothes dryer, without the 'fluff' cycle)

That's interesting...might give some crazy dreams... Do you think it would be enough to refortify the bone mass and cardiovascular system? My feeling is that it would just be disorienting to the body.

Next, which we kind of just neglect, is the radiation situation. Yeah, we can count percentages and such and say that we are helping the smoker astronauts, really, we are- but we have solar flares to contend with (big big issue)

Indeed, indeed, a very big issue. Conveniently, we have SOHO, the Solar and Helospheric Observatory, which, among another sun-watching probes, gives us ample warning when a solar flare is coming, just as our observatories on the Earth. In Mars Direct, if a flare is detected to be coming anywhere near the hab, the crew (of four, a much better number) can jump into the heavily shielded "storm shelter" in the middle of the craft, and stay there for hours, days if necessary while they wait out the radiation. They can use the same shelter on Mars.

and even right now current experiements for ISS are looking into the effects of cosmic radiation on our sight (astronauts have reported seeing flashes when they close their eyes in space- cosmic radiation hits the retina and we see sparks).

That's fascinating. I'd like to see that myself some time.

We could very well send these astronauts to Mars only to go blind!

I think that's pretty absurd (humorous as it would be). Cosmic rays are simply not that powerful. The danger with cosmic radiation is that it is incessant, and over years of exposure can be risky.

Water? Can we really process it? If we get there, and we can't, then what? Waste ubber billions and umpteen lives?

Well, the water in Mars Direct, of course, is manufactured by terrestrial hydrogen and martian atmopshere by the Earth Return Vehicle. And also, because of Mars Direct's preemption, the crew of astronauts, and the ground crew, all know for a fact they have a return vehicle ready to take them back home before they even get off the launch pad. I think it's part of its beauty.

And contrary to Spider-man's claim, we do not know what the long term effects of low-g are on human physiology. No data, no facts. Sorry.

Low-G or zero-G? because we have many hundreds of thousands of hours of astronauts logged in LEO.

David Ellard · 2003-09-09 19:15:41

RobertDyck,
Sorry again for the lack of information, my reference to using the Soyuz is a little confusing. My intent was to dock only the descent module of the Soyuz to the HAB (No orbital module and the service module would jettison before reaching Mars.) It would not be used for Mars aero capture or entry, and would only play a part in Earth Return. The design is similar to some Russian direct ascent Luna plans. The enlarged heat shield is for the high reentry speeds from Mars, not multiple reentries.

Clark,
Your right about our experience in tether based artificial gravity spacecraft. This is something we should be testing right now, it?s within our capabilities, and it would be interesting to know the effects (along with the side effects) of our current designs for artificial gravity.

You mentioned we have no experience in micro g, but that begs the question, what have we been doing in space for the last 30 years?

I realize there are missing aspects which are beyond my scope, and I?m not so naive to believe we could mount a mission to Mars for less then 2 billion; the point was to discuss our options with current technology. There are simply no payloads for a heavy lift booster, and designing our plans for Mars around imaginary technology is never going to get us there.

clark · 2003-09-10 11:42:57

A major hurdle to exploration beyond Luna is the long term health effects caused by zero-g and a high radiation environment.

Yes, we have experience in zero-g, but the thing is we have no experience with zero-g in the time frame we are considering for long duration human missions.

We know we can hold our breath for a while, but we don't know how long we can hold are breath completely.

The last 30 years of experience has been limited to short stints of no more than 6-9 months in zero-g. The results of zero-g on the human body, after 6 months, even with exercise and drugs, is not very promising.

The effects of anything greater than zero-g is a big unknown. We have theories, and we have begin doing preliminary research into the effects of low-g on biological material, but we still don't know what the long term consquences, or the lower limit of acceptable g-environment is. It's a question without an answer, and it's one that needs answering prior to spending umpteen billions since it could very well be a show stopper.

Simple solution of course is to create artifical-g, but then we run into the problem of never having created a space ship capable of artifical-g. In order to do that, we would have to run a bunch of tests, and then man rate the thing, all of which takes a great deal of time and money (you really can't test the creation of artifical-g except for in space)

Cosmic rays are pretty powerful, and the further out we go, the worse it's going to get.

One of the problems I see in the Mars Direct plan is we are depending on machinery in a very hostile environment- one that changes temps dramatically, and has a lot of foerign particles that can easily get into working machinery parts.

Those machines break down, and you're not going anywhere. Yet we will depend on them working non-stop, more or less, consitently. This is all advanced machinery, requiring kilowatts, if not megawatts, of power guys. Now we have to start throwing the cost of developing the power sources that can and will work- which is more new machinery that can fail.

Not to mention that almost all of this stuff has to work automatically without human oversight or intervention. Say an arm fails to deploy- there ain't going to be a human to go unwinch it manually until someone gets there- but by the time that soemone does, the machine has failed becuase the Mars Direct plan depends on the machines working from the get go.

Here is another idea: break up mass and people into two catagories.

Send the mass- which is enough food and fuel to return from Mars to Earth first on a slow Ion driven propulsion. When it is x months away, and all systems check out, send the manned portion on a fast burn trajectory for Mars, with just enough fuel to get there. Have the bail out option for the Manned portion to coincide with the success/failure of the mass launch arriving on Mars. If it succeeds, the manned mission continues, if it fails, mission aborted, and they turn back (since the fuel to get them back isn't there).

Have this first mission set up the base and machinery for future missions. Learn, and make sure we can create fuel on Mars first. If it works, then we can stop sending the fuel mass launches and just send the manned missions after the second manned mission (so if all goes well, it is the third series of missions that just send manned missions)

The next mission should replicate the first in a mass first launch, then manned mission being sent.

After that, Martian produced fuel can be used, with the mass launched fuel being used as a fallback.

just a general outline of what could be done, but I for one don't like the idea of depending so much on something we think will work. We need to know as in the biblical sense that everything works as we predict.

Gennaro · 2003-09-12 12:30:53

Simple solution of course is to create artifical-g, but then we run into the problem of never having created a space ship capable of artifical-g. In order to do that, we would have to run a bunch of tests, and then man rate the thing, all of which takes a great deal of time and money (you really can't test the creation of artifical-g except for in space)

- Excuse me the layman's point of view, but say we be build a NTR to use within the Mars Direct concept, either solid core or gas core, wouldn't we then get sufficient thrust for the payload requirements of a decent (meaning rugged & reliable) artificial gravity system and sufficient radiation shielding against coronal mass ejections?
We need to test launch such a viechle before going to Mars anyway. Those flight tests can be used to explore the effects of artificial-g in space.

If successful it should also provide a good basis for a fully reusable SSTO workhorse.

Well, nuclear rockets have of course been discussed extensively on this site already, so I guess I might be taking the risk of repeating the obvious. Bottomline: all problems will be solved!

Bill White · 2003-09-17 08:02:19

If you seek to add a tether based artifical-g space ship of some derivation, then you need to realize that humanity has ZERO experience in building, or flying a spaceship with artifical g. We have theories and ideas. I'm sure we could do it. But we have no practical knowledge or experience. This means time and money and research has to be invested.

I repeat myself here. Take one Soyuz tasked for routine ISS crew rotation. Take one Progress tasked for garbage detail (incineration in Earth's atmosphere). Take 50 yards of steel cable (OK "some" research is needed here).

Tether the Progress to the Soyuz then spin the tandem up to .5g and then practice flying. Whats the big deal?

Zero-g is a SHOW STOPPER because of health effects. Adapt. Overcome. Practice tethered flight with vehicles having zero residual value. How expensive could that be?

clark, sounds like a my next story will be titled "Spinning Out of Control" :-)

Radiation? Wrap the habitat with your drinking water. Carry extra to do double duty. Water to Mars and provide transit radiation shielding.

clark · 2003-09-17 08:15:10

There is no big deal. It's not a matter of being able to do it, it's a matter of never having done it before. That's the point.

Uncharted waters. While tying together rockets full of garbage and unused earth re-entry space capsules might give us an idea of how to make artifical-g, I for one have no idea if such an experiment will produce useful results that can be applied towards an actual future interplanatary spaceship. Will it?

Bill White · 2003-09-17 08:47:25

Soyuz has manuevering thrusters, right? Progress has manuevering thrusters, right? Whether the vessel is filled with garbage or caviar or human beings the mass figures and the ballistics and the physics stay the same, right?

Never been done before? Sure. Thats why we start our practice, right?

My point is that Soyuz/Progress practice is CHEAP! Use spacecraft the beancounters have already written off the books. This experiment is essentially free.

Also, using remote operation, two unmanned Progress could be tethered and spun for months and months (or years) in LEO and they could easily explore a large number of flight manuevers and tether performance and so on.

If it doesn't work, okay, then we have a problem. But the benefit of practice with equipment already written off the books seems blindingly obvious to me.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-09-07 07:13:32

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#2 2003-09-07 08:27:29

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#3 2003-09-07 14:47:02

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#4 2003-09-07 15:49:45

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#5 2003-09-07 20:37:08

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#6 2003-09-07 20:57:40

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#7 2003-09-07 22:51:52

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#8 2003-09-08 02:25:00

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#9 2003-09-08 11:24:35

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#10 2003-09-08 21:42:36

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#11 2003-09-08 23:18:20

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#12 2003-09-08 23:55:33

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#13 2003-09-09 00:19:48

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#14 2003-09-09 02:25:07

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#15 2003-09-09 04:46:12

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#16 2003-09-09 06:08:58

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#17 2003-09-09 09:58:12

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#18 2003-09-09 10:08:41

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#19 2003-09-09 18:12:24

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#20 2003-09-09 19:15:41

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#21 2003-09-10 11:42:57

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#22 2003-09-12 12:30:53

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#23 2003-09-17 08:02:19

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#24 2003-09-17 08:15:10

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

#25 2003-09-17 08:47:25

Re: Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

Board footer