Proton Mars - The 2 Billion Dollar Manned Mars Mission

Bill White · 2003-09-17 09:00:25

A follow up analogy - why should doctors prescribe a $10 generic drug when the $1000 designer drug is 95% as effective?

Lets build a $25 or $50 or $100 billion orbital space plane. Why? Because we can't possibly buy cheap 30 year old Russian stuff even if it works just fine.

The Soyuz/Progess tether practice idea won't fly because no areospace company will make any money doing it. Or maybe I am just too cynical?

clark · 2003-09-17 09:07:22

The Soyuz/Progess tether practice idea won't fly because no areospace company will make any money doing it. Or maybe I am just too cynical?

Maybe you are.

Algol · 2003-09-17 12:01:34

The Soyuz/Progess tether practice idea won't fly because no areospace company will make any money doing it. Or maybe I am just too cynical?

It would be a scientific experiment, notthing to do with any of the big aerospace companies.

Also i believe one of the recent soyuz or progress crafts conducted some experiments in orbit before returning or burning up, so the idea is not without precedent.

David Ellard · 2003-11-21 23:36:55

Here as promised is the plan in a little more detail for those who were interested. Its a little big for here, but you can access it at the link below. Let me know what you think.

http://www.users.on.net/davidellard/ProtonMars.pdf

Mad Grad Student · 2003-11-23 16:06:10

Nice idea. It reminds me of the Zond system developed by the Soviets during the space race. In it, six (Or something like that) fuel tanks would be flown into space on what I believe were R-11's. After that, a modified Soyuz would be launched and dock with the assembly, using the fuel to fire it onto a circumlunar path. The problem was, the Soviets hadn't yet developed a lander, so the setup would be strictly flyby.

It made several unmanned test flights starting two months before Apollo 8, carrying tortises and fruit flies (All of which came back in perfect health, mind you), but the government didn't trust the system and held back a manned flight untill the Americans and Wherner beat them to it. At that point it was determined that the only milestone left to beat us to would be an actual landing, which would require the touchy N-1, and we all know what happened after that.

I belive someone back there mentioned that the Proton's propellant is toxic. The fact is, yes hydrazine is toxic, but the Baiknour Cosmodrome is as close to the middle of nowhere as you can possibly get, it's nothing but open steppe all the way to the Aral sea.

As for countering 0-g, my idea is that if the capsule is at least about ten feet in diameter, just spin the whole thing up to about 20 rpm (Or whatever is needed) during the rest phases. This would provide seven hours a day of bone building gravity, and if one g isn't enough for healthy astronauts, then bring it up to 1.5 or even 2, although I think 1.2 would be plenty. You really only need this much exposure to gravity a day, and spining something like that while people are walking around would give you vertigo, so just keep the freedom of 0-g while everyone's awake.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-11-24 05:58:19

I agree that there is absolutely no reason why mastering artificial gravity in space should not be achievable.
In November 1965, no astronaut had ever performed a rendezvous manoeuvre with another orbiting spacecraft. A year later it was routine.
This is just one example of a whole string of brilliant 'first time' achievements which became so common during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo era that their individual importance has been underestimated.
Today, the attitude among Americans is so different as to make them look like people from a different country, or even a different culture! In the sixties, it seemed like there were no such things as insurmountable problems; only solutions. "We can't do what?! Who the hell says we can't?! Has anybody tried it? Well .. let's get off our asses and show 'em how it is done!!"
If it had been a necessary part of the lunar landing program, I guarantee you there would have been astronauts in tethered rotating capsules, experiencing artificial gravity in space, over thirty years ago.

Nowadays, it's more a case of looking for reasons why something can't be done!
I grieve for the loss of that 'can-do' spirit that inspired me as a child and made me think anything really was possible.
If a length of rope and a few manoeuvring rockets are simply too hard to organise, what has become of the country once renowned as capable of doing anything it set its mind to?

Byron · 2003-11-24 06:09:44

Nowadays, it's more a case of looking for reasons why something can't be done!
I grieve for the loss of that 'can-do' spirit that inspired me as a child and made me think anything really was possible.
If a length of rope and a few manoeuvring rockets are simply too hard to organise, what has become of the country once renowned as capable of doing anything it set its mind to?

Yes, I think you're right that this nation has become the "can't do" nation. I see this in all aspects of everyday life...this can't be done because of this, that or the other. We have become so risk-adverse that it's a wonder that anything gets done at all!

It is precisely because of this pervasive attitude that I think the days of the United States being Numero Uno are numbered. Perhaps a youthful nation such as Australia will be able to pick up where the U.S. left off someday...

B

Rxke · 2003-11-24 08:43:02

.... America can't do that experiment, today... They don't have the capability anymore to launch 2 small (manned!) capsules in orbit to 'play around' with

Russians might try this, they have the technical capabilities, but can't afford that kind of thing right now...if someone would give them the money... They'd be up and spinning in no-time, that's for sure. Hopefully their next paying customer is an ex-trapeze worker, with enough small change left to persuade them to try something like this...
:laugh:

robcwillis · 2003-11-25 19:54:18

"Proton Mars" is perhaps the worst, least practical, and totally unrealistic Mars mission proposal I have ever read. Practically everything is flawed, so I hardly know where to begin. The worst flaws are related to the multi Centaur TMI stage, so I'll start there:

Let's assume that ILS can more than quadruple the current Proton launch rate (this would involve a massive expenditure that Ellard has not taken into account) and deliver all six Centaurs to LEO within a six month timeframe. Unless I'm really missing something here, after spending months in orbit, hydrogen boiloff would be massive. Game over.

RobS · 2003-11-25 23:34:57

The hydrogen boiloff was included in the calculations; is the amount of boiloff assumed too low?

David, thank you for doing this work. I wish more people would make stabs like this. I don't feel qualified to question the assumptions, though I will look at your proposal more over Thanksgiving and if I can think of questions, I will do so. I'd rather ask questions so we can all learn, than hear someone dismiss the whole thing as flawed. If it is flawed, let's look at the flaws one at a time and see what assumptions are more reasonable. Is that not the purpose of these forums?

-- RobS

David Ellard · 2003-11-26 01:14:45

Robcwillis,

The Proton production capacity is 15 per year, (Although the maximum ever attempted is 13) I don?t see how several Centaur launches in a six month period will be a problem. Remember the payload will essentially be the same each time.

Feel free to double check my boil off rates, or any other aspects of the plan. Several of you had some problems with my first post (Namely power production/space suits etc) I?ve taken these points into account with the second post, and I?m sure a third post will follow? and maybe a forth?.

I?m happy for constructive criticism.

Algol · 2003-11-26 05:05:27

As for countering 0-g, my idea is that if the capsule is at least about ten feet in diameter, just spin the whole thing up to about 20 rpm (Or whatever is needed) during the rest phases. This would provide seven hours a day of bone building gravity, and if one g isn't enough for healthy astronauts, then bring it up to 1.5 or even 2, although I think 1.2 would be plenty. You really only need this much exposure to gravity a day, and spining something like that while people are walking around would give you vertigo, so just keep the freedom of 0-g while everyone's awake.

The artificial g has to be 'on' when people are up and moving around in order to load the bones and muscles.

When people rest they lie down, their bones are not loaded and their muscles are not being used, as such the artificial g during their sleep would be ineffective, and as you stated it wouldnt be feasible when they were awake.

Also, i havent read the plan, but did you take into account the fuel necessary to 'spin up' and then 'spin down' the capsule over 180 times en-route to mars?

Rxke · 2003-11-26 07:30:04

The artificial g has to be 'on' when people are up and moving around in order to load the bones and muscles.

That's probably right. Recall the ESA experiment, they basically had people laying on a bed 24/7 for weeks (in Earth gravity...), in order to re-create zero-g effects on the human body.

robcwillis · 2003-11-26 10:44:36

As far as I know, the greatest number of Proton launches at the height of Soviet power never exceeded a maximum of four or five in a single year. I believe the launch rate has averaged about three per year over the last five years. The collapse of the Soviet Union devestated the Russian aerospace industry, which is still now a shadow of it's former self. I'm not sure where the "15 per year" figure comes from. Krunichev and it's subcontractors would have to hire huge numbers of new skilled personell, perhaps quadrupleing the current workforce, while expanding and upgrading infrastructure. Again, this would require a huge investment which has not been taken into account by the "Proton Mars" cost estimates.

More to come.

robcwillis · 2003-11-26 11:59:07

Furthermore, a greatly accelerated launch rate will put a great strain on even a greatly expanded safety/QC personell team. This increases the chance of launch failure. Launch failure at low altitude would be deadly because of the ultra toxic nature of Proton.

robcwillis · 2003-11-26 15:32:15

Perhaps even more important than the previous two points, Krunichev has no plans to increase Proton production. The opposite is true. Krunichev and the RKA, both for their own reasons and at the urging of the Khazakh government, have been commited for some time to eliminating Proton production in favour of Angara. They should succeed in this aim within the next two or three years.

David Ellard · 2003-11-26 15:46:58

Robcwillis,

The record of 13 launches was in 1994, this was achieved with only 1 launch pad for ? of the year. Most of the time 2 will be available.

Agol,

The fuel needed to spin up and down the hab, (Using a tethered system) is very low. Only a few m/s delta v is required, though I?ll have to check the exact number.

http://www.ilslaunch.com/newsarchives/n … es/rec135/

robcwillis · 2003-11-26 17:50:56

Wow. Thanks for the link David. That pretty well blows one of my criticisms out of the water. I stand corrected.

As for my other concerns, a single launch failure could severely contaminate the surrounding area. I read that one such previous failure promted Khazakstan to order Proton ops shut down for almost a full year. And again, Proton will probably have been replaced by Angara long before "Proton Mars" could be initiated.

Did your proposal include new additional insulation for the Centaurs to reduce boiloff ? How much would this cost to develop, and how much would it add to the unit cost? Centaur currently has no capacity to dock with anything. It might not be extremely difficult to attach a Soyuz/Progress type docking collar to the nose of a Centaur, but your plan calls for multiple nose to tail/nose to tail docking? Do you envision some sort of external framework over/around the rocket nozzles to mount the aft docking collar? What are the development cost and added mass estimates? Do you propose fitting each Centaur with Progress type guidance and manouvering systems to facilitate orbital rendevous and docking? The end product would look something like European ATV, which was very expensive to develop and produce.

The thrust to mass ratio of the completed "Proton Mars" stack is extremely poor. This means severe gravity losses. Compare the thrust of a single RD-0120 or SSME to a pair of RL-10s, and we have another "no contest" issue.

David Ellard · 2003-11-26 19:45:16

I?ve used the Proton as the launch vehicle of choice because of its costs per kilogram of payload. If environmental concerns are important to the mission another booster could be used, but lets face it, the Proton is being launched anyway, there?s not much difference if it fails launching Mars payloads or communication satellites. Besides, the Proton is one of the most reliable heavy lift rockets in use today. I don?t really see this as a major obstacle.

The mass estimates have been included for the Centaurs, over 300kg has been added to the base weight of the Centaur to account for docking hardware. I envision the payload section of the Centaur would be modified to dock with the rear of the previous injection stage. I don?t see this as a show stopper; we?ve been doing this kind of thing for decades now. I think a section of the ISS actually docked at the engine end during initial construction. Admittedly I didn?t give a breakdown for Centaur development costs, but even if I add $50 million for this it doesn?t change the numbers too greatly.

I included 5% delta v loss, due to gravity.

The Centaur boil off rates were calculated from the link below.

http://www.dunnspace.com/cryogen_space_storage.htm

robcwillis · 2003-11-26 22:05:30

The difference is that presumably, Proton Mars launches would be made in addition to commercial Proton launches rather than in place of them. Proton is very reliable, but every launch is still a potential environmental mess. Also, commercial payloads are normally stand-alone and not dependant on very limited trajectectory launch windows as are interplanetary payloads. The failure of any one of the nine launches to LEO(8 Proton, 1 Soyuz R-7) could result in having to abort the entire mission.

Again, thanks for the links.

RobS · 2003-11-26 23:15:24

David, you might want to look at Zubrin's Project Athena Proposal. He proposes a flyby of Mars using a 25 tonne hab (similar to yours in many ways, I think) launched using four Protons. He uses Protons to launch stages with storable UDMH/N2O4 propellant. It has a much poorer specific impulse than hydrogen/oxygen, but it is hypergolic (ignites on contact) which simplifies the engine design and thus the reliability. I suspect the engines don't even need pumps (the lunar module engine used UDMH/N2O4 that was pressure fed to the engine). One risk with a stack of Centaurs is engine failure. But today maybe the engines are reliable enough.

Zubrin's Athena involved a 25 tonne hab, like yours. Its total cost was also about 2 billion. This suggests to me that the costs of your project are probably closer to 4 or 5 billion because you have to develop the DAV. But that's a minor quibble, really. What you have come up with is rather similar to Zubrin's plan, but with a landing.

Have you thought about the dimensions of the DAV/Hab combination? I ask because the aerobrake has to be large enough both to brake the mass and to produce a hole in the entry plasma long enough to accommodate a long vehicle. Otherwise, the top of the vehicle experiences heating.

Another question, based on a concern of GCNRevenger a few weeks back: what is the width of the vehicle? The launch vehicles you are using right now can only accommodate about 5 meter diameter payloads. Is that enough? I have wondered about that with my Mars-24 proposal. I have assumed one needs 6 meter widths and one has to assemble or deploy aerobrakes that are even bigger (8 meters in diameter or more).

-- RobS

David Ellard · 2003-11-27 01:17:31

RobS,
I?m a big supporter of the Athena plan, I think it?s a good start in the right direction.

I considered several propellants for the plan, including N2O4/UDMH and Methane/O2.

There are several options that could work, hypergolic?s as you mentioned are room temperature propellants, making them suitable for on-orbit assembly. However hypergolics of course have a lower ISP, reducing the amount of delta V they can attain.

So what works best, going for a high ISP, or low boil-off rate? In the end they both give a roughly similar payload, I chose the Centaur because of its reliability (An engine failure in the stack is a very low possibility), the fact that it was perfectly sized for what I needed, (Mass, Thrust, Etc) and most importantly, because it doesn?t have to be built from scratch.

The HAB diameter is based on previous Russian long duration space stations, so around 4.5 meters. I imagine an aeroshield folding out, similar to Zubrin?s designs in Mars Direct.

The 2 billion figure was from the rough draft (As opposed to the PDF file I posted) The cost for an initial mission (With hardware & technology testing missions) is 4 billion, and 1.5 billion for each subsequent mission. Sorry to confuse everyone, but the first draft was really a first draft.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-09-17 09:00:25

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

#27 2003-09-17 09:07:22

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

#28 2003-09-17 12:01:34

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

#29 2003-11-21 23:36:55

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

#30 2003-11-23 16:06:10

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

#31 2003-11-24 05:58:19

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

#32 2003-11-24 06:09:44

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

#33 2003-11-24 08:43:02

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

#34 2003-11-25 19:54:18

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

#35 2003-11-25 23:34:57

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

#36 2003-11-26 01:14:45

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

#37 2003-11-26 05:05:27

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

#38 2003-11-26 07:30:04

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

#39 2003-11-26 10:44:36

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

#40 2003-11-26 11:59:07

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

#41 2003-11-26 15:32:15

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

#42 2003-11-26 15:46:58

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

#43 2003-11-26 17:50:56

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

#44 2003-11-26 19:45:16

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

#45 2003-11-26 22:05:30

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

#46 2003-11-26 23:15:24

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

#47 2003-11-27 01:17:31

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

Board footer