"Mission to Mars" - Michael Collins

Palomar · 2004-10-04 19:57:40

*I purchased astronaut Michael Collins' book today; published in 1990. I've read up to page 27. Will share a few of his ideas (not that I necessarily agree...just sharing) -- aspects of which likely won't go over well with some of you (I too prefer Zubrin's plan), but thought some folks might be interested:

First off, he's -not- a "flags and footprints" kind of guy. He wants to establish a colony on Mars.

He discusses a "sprint" mission. This would involve "splitting the mission" by sending a slow cargo vehicle ahead (via Hohmann trajectory), followed later by a faster passenger craft. The crew wouldn't leave Earth until sure the precious cargo had safely arrived at Mars. Trouble is, of course, both would have to come together and dock together successfully in Mars orbit. If hook-up fails, adios crew. :-\ This isn't his favorite scenario by the way; he simply discusses it.

His ideal is using Venus as a slingshot to speed the craft on to Mars. His astronauts (both genders present) would spend 22 months on the round-trip, including 2 months in the vicinity of Mars, 40 days on the actual surface.

Collins discusses building craft or components in LEO.

He also discusses staging points. Not just the Moon, but the Lagrangian libration points. He mentions an "L-5 Society" in the 1980s which had 10,000 members.

The date of launch in his scenario is June 3, 2004. However, he states he doubts a launch to Mars will occur in 2004 (sorry you were right, Mr. Collins).

Apparently an 8-member crew is his ideal. Oddly, he doesn't (yet) point out why 8.

He estimates two dozen boosters the size of the Saturn V will be required to obtain departure velocities.

Collins mentions the National Commission on Space, issued in 1986, describing a Mars landing by 2015 with the establishment of a colony by 2028. The 1986 dollar amount estimate was $30 billion per year. He does cost comparison: B-2 bomber program cost $70 billion, and his manned trip to Mars costs "considerably less than the bailout of the savings and loan industry." (I remember that bailout scandal in the 1980s...what a travesty!).

He discusses a group (34) of U of Michigan students in 1986 devoting a semester to planning "Project Kepler" -- a theoretical manned Mars mission. They estimated the cost at $22 billion (1984 dollars). They spread the cost over 15 years and divided it by the US population (then 235 million people). This figured out to each American paying $6.33 per year for 15 years to develop and carry out a Mars mission. By comparison, the per-capita yearly expenditure for cigarettes was $93.01 and for $12.46 for potato chips. We need more university students like that group!

Collins (1990) estimates $200 billion for a mission, spread out over 15 years. Mars Direct is, of course, much less. But even if Collins' figure were more correct it's still only $57.50 per capita per year...and cigarettes are more expensive.

"The only thing I know for certain is that starting a human colony on a second planet will cost much less than the weapons we buy to destroy the first one." :up:

Will share more as I continue reading.

***

Here's a couple more quotes I like:

"I joke that Apollo 11 took me to the wrong place, to the Moon instead of Mars, but it is true that a close-up look at the Moon has served only to whet my Martian appetite."

"To those who will make the trip:
When you do, I'll be like the kid
in a small town, listening to the
big diesels growl through at midnight,
wanting to climb on board."

***

--Cindy

Ad Astra · 2004-10-04 23:01:32

I read the book back in spring 2001 and I really enjoyed it. He's kind of an anti-Zubrin, because he takes a more conventional (but realistic) approach to exploring Mars. Yet he shares the same zeal for colonizing Mars that Zubrin does.

I can't say for sure exactly why he wants eight people for his Mars expedition, but I suspect it has to do with making sure that each of the two ships has a minimal crew of four. Sending two manned missions at once is not a new idea; it was part of von Braun-Boeing's "Mars One" mission of 1968, and I happen to favor that approach too.

Overall it's a wonderful book and I hope that somebody in the publishing world is wise enough to put it back into print (perhaps in an updated second edition.)

Euler · 2004-10-05 00:32:36

He's kind of an anti-Zubrin, because he takes a more conventional (but realistic) approach to exploring Mars.

I think that pre-Zubrin is more accurate than anti-Zubrin.

In terms of orbits, I think that Zubrin's arguments for direct flights rather than flying by Venus are pretty convincing. The total trip is longer, but there is less radiation, less 0-g, less fuel required, and much more time is spent on the Martian surface.

Grypd · 2004-10-05 04:25:53

Mr Collins came from a time when in sitru resources where not considered and the alternative was the heavy battlestar Galactica missions. Mr Collins would also have had no access to a nuclear engine/power source though he would have been wishing for its capacity.

But like most people who planned Mars missions it really comes down to the financial cost versus science gain. And at the moment the cost to send people to Mars is not worth doing it. We must bring the price down.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-05 04:53:08

But like most people who planned Mars missions it really comes down to the financial cost versus science gain. And at the moment the cost to send people to Mars is not worth doing it. We must bring the price down.

I disagree, we could start now today without breaking the bank and accomplish loads of science... the trouble is, we have Shuttle/ISS hanging round' our necks like a millstone, and that NASA needs to redevelop confidance in their beyond-Earth skills and technology (not to mention China thinking a Moon shot).

Ad Astra · 2004-10-05 11:17:30

I don't like his suggestion of a Venus flyby either, but that was the commonly-accepted view of what a Mars mission would entail until Robert Zubrin came out and said that we should maximize our scientific return with longer stays. Don't take my Zubrin criticisms the wrong way; I still think that the essential ideas he poses in "Case For Mars" are sound, and they've already had an enormous impact on Mas mission design.

I would also like to point out that Collins wants to avoid artificial gravity for his mission, but concedes that more research would be needed on the topic. If artificial g was necessary, his mission could adapt by growing a bigger aeroshell and extending the distance between his two habitat modules.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-10-04 19:57:40

Re: "Mission to Mars" - Michael Collins

#2 2004-10-04 23:01:32

Re: "Mission to Mars" - Michael Collins

#3 2004-10-05 00:32:36

Re: "Mission to Mars" - Michael Collins

#4 2004-10-05 04:25:53

Re: "Mission to Mars" - Michael Collins

#5 2004-10-05 04:53:08

Re: "Mission to Mars" - Michael Collins

#6 2004-10-05 11:17:30

Re: "Mission to Mars" - Michael Collins

Board footer