Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

robcwillis · 2002-06-17 18:15:58

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.

Bill White · 2002-06-17 18:40:37

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.

How do ISS cost overruns compare with cost overruns on other military projects such as complex weapons systems?

It seems to me that if we compare apples to apples - i.e. . . compare the ISS to the development of major new weapons system - the management and cost overruns have not really been too bad.

Recall the furor over JPL smashing its Mars probe into the Red Planet - about that same time didn't DoD launch a MilStar into a worthless orbit - at 10x the cost of JPL's mistake - and the governmental response was "Ooops, - okay, how many more do you need now?"

Budget bashing and complaining about our "international" partners is - IMHO - merely a smokescreen to defund civilian space projects.

Mark S · 2002-06-18 09:35:34

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.

Sea Launch has succeeded because it is a PRIVATE international venture, as opposed to a government-funded collaboration. The teams involved in Sea Launch all speak the same language: Capitalism! When you try to get the government space programs together for a non-profit venture, things fall apart, because everybody wants something different and each agency is looking out for its own interests. Case in point: the ISS. Russia was unable to pay for its portion of the ISS, so the U.S. gave them some more money to finish it. Now the U.S. doesn't have the money to finish its habitiation module, and the Europeans are b####ing about it.

As for your fixation with fixed price contracts, Rob, I suggest you read the book "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding" by James P. Stevenson. It details the demise of the Navy's A-12 medium bomber, and much of it has to do with the government's insistence on a fixed-price contract. The Navy's timetable was too rigid and there were too many unknowns in the design of the A-12 to justify that kind of contract. Any humans-to-Mars project will be even more complicated than the A-12, and there will be many more unknowns that need to be solved from the beginning of the design process to the time hardware is built.

Palomar · 2002-06-18 10:26:01

Phobos writes: "Anyways, I've been looking at NASA websites to see if I could find a clip of that video where it shows the stages detaching from each other in space. You wouldn't happen to know by any chance where I could download that?"

No, I'm sorry I don't.

Have you watched the movie "Apollo 13"? The blast-off scene in the movie looks oh-so-authentic, including the stages of detachment. Ron Howard should've won an Oscar for Best Director that year!

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

robcwillis · 2002-06-18 17:15:57

First off, thanks much to Bill White. I agree completely with your comments. I wish more people were aware of the issues you just mentioned.

Dear MarkS,

Unfortunately, those capitalists the money to explore Mars have no interest in doing so. Private capital has no interest in space exploration whatsoever, unless the corporation in question is being paid by a public agency to do so. The fact that there are successful private (capitalist) multinational commercial aerospace ventures does not mean that all public non-profit international efforts are doomed to "fall apart". The ISS has not fallen apart.

PANAVIA Tornado is an example of a major "government" international aerospace project that has met with considrable success. It has done so despite having to deal with the sometimes conficting interests of five different national defense ministries. For the purposes of our Mars International Heavy Launch Vehicle, simply substitue the term "Defense Ministries" with "Space Agencies", reduce the complexity of the required product (Big Dumb semi-reuseable Booster vs sophisticated multirole combat aircraft) by an order of magnitude, and reduce the total programme cost by a few billion, and we have a pretty good analogy. The Mars Society is an international non-profit organization. I hope that you are not suggesting that we are doomed to fail.

I agree with you that fixed price commercial contracts are not a panacea.

robcwillis · 2002-06-18 18:21:46

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.

Dayton3 · 2002-06-18 19:56:07

Ok Rob, I'll concede your points about the merits of the Energyia, but I won't concede them about the inadvisability of international cooperation.

I will also state this as a fact I believe in very strongly "The American peoples support for a Manned Mars Program will decline as the amount of international cooperation rises". Americans have little love of international efforts.

Bringing in the Russians was supposed to reduce ISS costs but they actually increased as NASA had to hold up the staggering Russians.

And without strong American public support, there will be no manned Mars program. Case closed.

Besides, why bother with international missions? There isn't one piece of hardware or technology that is needed for a manned Mars program that can't be built by the United States and no other nation has the range of experience the U.S. has in manned space operations.

Sure the Russians stayed up in Mir for over a year, but boring holes through the sky has little relevance to a manned Mars mission.

Bill White · 2002-06-18 20:53:22

Bringing in the Russians was supposed to reduce ISS costs but they actually increased as NASA had to hold up the staggering Russians.

I thought bringing the Russians in was to employ some good rocket scientists who might otherwise be tempted to become "free agents" - cost savings were not the only goal or the most important goal.

Russia has been greatly humiliated by its fall from superpower status.

A joint US - Russian Mars mission - with both countries taking equal public relations credit - could be "traded" for free flowing Russian petroleum, more and better support for US foreign policy and similiar considerations.

If Putin will give 100% support to US Central Asia policy; help with US China policy and open wide the taps on the vast Russian oil reserves, I say lets use Energia - call the Mars lander the "Commander Gargarin" and the trans-Mars vessel "Challenger" or "Grissom/White Chafee" and let Putin or his successor bask in the upwelling of Russian patriotic pride and popular support while we count our blessings as we consolidate our international position.

So what if we pay most of the bills? A joint Russian - US Mars mission would be a great symbolic way to assure a new era of friendship.

-OR-

How about an EU/ESA - Russian mission which excludes NASA as a highly visible and symbolic protest against US "unilateralism"?

Shaun Barrett · 2002-06-18 22:19:40

Bill writes about a possible ESA/Russian combined Mars mission, without the US, as a kind of protest.
Regardless of the reason or the provocation for such an alliance, I can visualise such a thing coming to pass. I have high hopes that Europe might emerge as a significant player in Mars exploration over the next decade. And I am heartened by Russian optimism that very near-term missions are quite possible. Certainly, the Russians have the hardware to get decent payloads into orbit, and the Europeans have the combined GDP to bankroll the whole thing as well as the smarts to contribute know-how. The "Beagle 2" probe next year should give the Europeans some valuable experience in the field and, if successful, whet their appetites for more!
In addition, the Japanese seem keen to test their mettle in the human space flight arena, and China is making all sorts of assertions about its future on the Moon and even Mars.
It's almost as if the rest of the world senses that America is withdrawing from its position as leader in space exploration in favour of maintaining military supremacy and protecting its homeland.
This kind of abdication of leadership is common in history and I think stems from human nature. Audacity is a characteristic of youth. But, as an individual accumulates possessions, s/he tends to think more of protecting what s/he's got than going out and seeking new challenges. No nation in history has ever had as much material wealth to lose as the United States, so maybe she is just doing what comes naturally and easing into a conservative middle-age! ... Preferring to take out more insurance rather than take more risks.
Do I sense the passing of the baton here? Maybe TMS and other space advocacy groups are flogging a dead horse in attempting to get America interested in Mars expeditions. Maybe the bigger picture is right in front of us and we're not seeing it. The tide may already have turned.
Just as Bill mooted, the stars and stripes may flutter in the thin Martian wind, but will they be the stars of the European Union and the stripes of the Russian Federation?!

SpaceNut · 2016-04-21 19:52:57

Fixed another shiftng and artifact filled topic...

Also another big dumb rocket topic....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-06-17 18:15:58

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#27 2002-06-17 18:40:37

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#28 2002-06-18 09:35:34

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#29 2002-06-18 10:26:01

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#30 2002-06-18 17:15:57

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#31 2002-06-18 18:21:46

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#32 2002-06-18 19:56:07

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#33 2002-06-18 20:53:22

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#34 2002-06-18 22:19:40

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#35 2016-04-21 19:52:57

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

Board footer