1960s Voyager to Mars program

[Triton]

Links, concept artwork, and models of the Apollo Applications Program (AAP) probe to Mars program named Voyager from the 1960s. Not to be confused with the later Voyager program that went to the outer planets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_program_(Mars)
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/voyr1973.htm
http://robotexplorers.blogspot.com/2009/02/mars-program-for-1970s-1966.html
http://robotexplorers.blogspot.com/2009/01/voyager-1967.html

 

[Skybolt]

Yep, massive documentation on NTRS: see for example the studies for using the LM descent stage: http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19680000771

 

[Michel Van]

Here a AMES study about Voyager Capsule Systems
from September 1, 1966
small only 2,3 MB
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930074338

Voyager design study. Volume I
15 OCT. 1963
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/1965025712
Voyager design study. volume vi- program plans
15 OCT. 1963
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19650026950

Phase B studys 31 AUG. 1967
Voyager capsule phase B. Volume III - Surface laboratory system. Part B2 - Alternatives
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19670031254
Voyager capsule phase B. Volume III - Surface laboratory system. Part B3 - Alternatives
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19670031255
Voyager capsule phase B. Volume III - Surface laboratory system. Part E
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19670031259
Voyager capsule phase B. Volume III - Surface laboratory system. Part D
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19670031258

Summary of the Voyager program Jan 1, 1967
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19740075874



Voyager capsule phase B. Volume IV - Entry science package. Part A - D
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19670031228
Voyager capsule phase B. Volume IV - Entry science package. Part G
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19670031230
Voyager capsule phase B. Volume IV - Entry science package. Part H - K
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19670031231



Orbital experiment capsule feasibility study. Volume I -
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19670027463
Orbital experiment capsule feasibility study. Volume II
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19670027844

 

[Skybolt]

What's interesting in Voyager is that it started small, intended to be launched by a Titan III C, (that's in Phase I). Then it keep growing and was switched to Saturn V, then chopped dow and back to Titan.
See here some info on the first Titan III C version: http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19650015397

 

[Michel Van]

What's interesting in Voyager is that it started small, intended to be launched by a Titan III C, (that's in Phase I). Then it keep growing and was switched to Saturn V, then chopped down and back to Titan.
See here some info on the first Titan III C version

it was a Ambitious Program
first Voyager was small probe design. like Mariner B

but they put more and more in it
in end Voyager had more Sensors as Viking lander
advance laboratory for Life search, include a little rover
but with technology of 1960's that was Big heavy system

beyond payload capacity of Titan IIIC or Saturn IB (with Centaur)
so 2 Voyager were put on a Saturn V
but that was dead of Voyager Program, because high cost of a Saturn V constuction and launch

later Viking 1&2 used technology from 1970's
and were so "Small" for launch with Titan IIIE (with Centaur)
but with out advance laboratory for Life search...

 

[blackstar]

Viking still ended up as the most expensive robotic planetary mission ever flown, even though it was dramatically scaled down from Voyager-Mars.

 

[Michel Van]

some comparison to Yovager and Viking Mars probe

launch weight (Orbiter and Lander ) was
Voyager 11500 kg
Viking 3525 kg (1/3 of Voyager)

Orbiter weight
Voyager 1100 kg empty and 6800 kg Fuel, scientific payload 200 kg
Viking 2328 kg = 883 kg empty and 1445 kg Fuel, scientific payload 73 kg

Lander weight
Voyager 5900 kg-6800 kg, scientific payload 450 kg-860 kg !!!
Viking 663 kg = 590 kg and 73 kg Fuel, scientific payload 91 kg

Data transfer to earth
Voyager 600 bits per second directly, or 50,000 to 200,000 bps by relaying through the orbiter.
Viking 250, 500 and 1000 Bits per second.

Cost
Voyager $2.29 billion 1967 US Dollars - today is 13,74 billion dollar !
Viking total cost $914.5 Million 1976 US Dollars - today is 3.5 billion dollar !


http://www.astronautix.com/craft/voyr1973.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/viking.htm

 

[Proponent]

What's interesting in Voyager is that it started small, intended to be launched by a Titan III C, (that's in Phase I). Then it keep growing and was switched to Saturn V, then chopped dow and back to Titan.

I believe that pre-Mariner IV, Voyager was intended to fly on the Saturn IB/Centaur. The Titan III/Centaur came into the picture after the Saturn V was dropped.

 

[Proponent]

Somewhere I once came across a proposal to put a small landing capsule on Mariner 6 or 7. Would anyone know anything about this?

 

[Michel Van]

Somewhere I once came across a proposal to put a small landing capsule on Mariner 6 or 7. Would anyone know anything about this?

that start as Mariner B concept back in 1960
a fly-by bus (based on Mariner probe) pass Mars in 15000 km
and take picture with resolution of 1 km/pixel
it drops a landing capsule, in shape of a Corona/Discovery Spysat capsule
scientific payload are :
his barometers, thermometers, a mass spectrometer and a gas cromatographer)
and a camera to take pictures of the landing site.
planed were 4 Mariner B launch 2 to Mars 2 to Venus in 1964 with Atlas-Centaur
but that rocket had serious problems in 1962
so they change date to 1966 but that was already reserved to the Voyager Mars lander !
and canceling Mariner B.

as Voyager became to ambitious it was also canceled in 1967 by U.S. House-Senate
during October and December 1967
NASA proposed small hard-lander probe on Mariner 71 fly-by missions
and use of USAF Titan IIIC launch vehicle
Mariner 69 fly-by with Atlas Centaur
Mariner 71 fly-by with small hard-lander with Atlas Centaur
Mariner 73 with soft lander Probe on Titan IIIC (aka Titan Mars 73)

but that run in 1969 in project management and project budgets problems.
then Langley proposed:
to change Mariner 69 to fly-by with small hard-lander
JPL how ever had fix the design of Mariner 69 already in 26 May 1966 !
so the Small lander were canceled

more here
http://utenti.lycos.it/paoloulivi/marinerb.html
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4212/contents.html

the picture show a small lander around 1965
developed by Philco Aeronutronic Company to study the possibility of a hard-landing entry probe

 

[magnus_z]

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp

 

[magnus_z]

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp

 

[Michel Van]

Thx for new picture, magnus_z

 

[blackstar]

That's some neat stuff.

What was the final configuration for Voyager Mars? I've seen lots of different artwork, but don't know what the final version would have looked like.

 

[magnus_z]

What was the final configuration for Voyager Mars? I've seen lots of different artwork, but don't know what the final version would have looked like.

Summary of Voyager Program (January 1967):

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740075874_1974075874.pdf

 

[magnus_z]

Concept Mars Voyager (Spacecraft, Orbiter, Lander) 1963-1967

 

[magnus_z]

Concept Mars Voyager (Spacecraft, Orbiter, Lander) 1963-1967

 

[magnus_z]

Concept Mars Voyager (Spacecraft, Orbiter, Lander) 1963-1967

 

[Graham1973]

Martin-Marietta Voyager (Mars) Lander (1967)

 

[blackstar]

It is kinda a shame that it took the United States so long to try out rovers. They were looking at them in the late 1960s obviously, but didn't really try it until the mid-1990s. I wonder if there is a single reason for that? One explanation might simply be that once you land the rover, you don't have much mass for instruments--at least at the time. Later that changed. Of course, the more obvious explanation is that it took NASA a long time to go back to the Moon or back to Mars, and if you're not flying anything at all, then of course you're not flying a rover.

 

[Hobbes]

The limit to 1970's rover technology was the state of automation at the time. A rover on the Moon can be controlled in real time, provided you don't drive fast. Mars is too far away for that, so you need a computer that can store detailed drive instructions plus some intelligence to avoid obstacles.

 

[Graham1973]

It is kinda a shame that it took the United States so long to try out rovers. They were looking at them in the late 1960s obviously, but didn't really try it until the mid-1990s. I wonder if there is a single reason for that? One explanation might simply be that once you land the rover, you don't have much mass for instruments--at least at the time. Later that changed. Of course, the more obvious explanation is that it took NASA a long time to go back to the Moon or back to Mars, and if you're not flying anything at all, then of course you're not flying a rover.

From a 1968 study by students at the NASA Space Technology Summer Institute is what could be considered the very distant ancestor of Curiosity. The study was carried out with the help of McDonnell-Douglas and incorporates material from their proposed Voyager(Mars) lander.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680024546_1968024546.pdf

 

[Yellow Palace]

Well, there was Prospector for the Moon, but that was an early casualty of Apollo-Moon. I'd expect that it would've turned up in the late '60s without a Kennedy lunar program.

 

[Graham1973]

AVCO designs for the early version of the 1971 Voyager Mission, the primary objective of which was to test out the main spacecraft, and allow the possibility of a Martian Entry probe. The initial study was for a Saturn 1b (Fitted with an S-V stage (Centaur)) and the entry probe would make a direct descent from the interplanetary trajectory and hard land on the Martian Surface. Following the results of Mariner IV, the design was changed to an entry probe that would descend from orbit and like the later Huygens probe carry out atmospheric and televison experiments until it impacted the Martian surface. The launch vehicle for this mission would be a Saturn V.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660022526_1966022526.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660022527_1966022527.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660022528_1966022528.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660022529_1966022529.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660022530_1966022530.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660022531_1966022531.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660022532_1966022532.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660022534_1966022534.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660022535_1966022535.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660022556_1966022556.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660022557_1966022557.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660022558_1966022558.pdf

 

[Graham1973]

Pictures of the AVCO Decent from Orbit Mars Entry Probe.

 

[OM]

but that was dead of Voyager Program, because high cost of a Saturn V constuction and launch

...Oh, we had the booster thanks to the Apollo Lunar cutbacks, so the cost wouldn't have been *that* much more. It's the beancounter politics of the late 60s-late 70s that need to be scrutinized and FOIA'd as intensely as Dwayne does his spysat and spookshow research, just to see *exactly* where each dollar cut from NASA actually went. I'll lay you dollars/euros/rubles to donuts/belgian waffles/prime-quality bathtub vodka that not one cent went to "social welfare", and at least 2/3 of it went to reupholstering agency executive offices, with the other third paying for their new furniture *and* at least two three-martini lunches each to celebrate.


[/rant]

 

[magnus_z]

Mars Voyager on stamps (In Russian):
http://magnus-z.livejournal.com/112642.html

 

[hesham]

Hi,


https://archive.org/stream/missilesrockets1519unse#page/n601/mode/2up

 

[Grey Havoc]

Regarding the Automatic Biological Laboratory:

The Automated Biological Laboratory

Along with the pair of rovers still active on the Martian surface (including Opportunity which has been on the move for over a decade now), NASA’s Mars 2020 Rover mission currently under deve…

www.drewexmachina.com

During the 1960s, NASA performed studies of a number of potential Mars lander concepts for their second-generation planetary missions as part of the Voyager program. Not to be confused with NASA’s outer-planet explorers of the same name launched in 1977, the earlier Voyager program was meant to perform the second phase of planetary exploration after the initial reconnaissance performed by the Mariner program’s spacecraft in the 1960s and early-1970s. This Voyager series was to consist of orbiters carrying advanced landers to explore Venus and Mars during the 1970s. This incarnation of the Voyager program was cancelled in 1967 because of its increasing expense and eventually replaced by the relatively more modest Viking program to land on Mars. During the heyday of the Voyager program a half a century ago, probably one of the more advanced Mars lander development efforts, at least in terms of hardware built and tested, was the ABL developed by Philco Aeronutronic.

Just to familiarize the reader with this now unfamiliar company (and apologies in advance to those who get bored by corporate histories), Aeronutronic was originally founded in 1956 by the Ford Motor Company and was involved in a number of early space as well as defense projects. In 1961, Ford bought the bankrupt electronics manufacturer, Philco Corporation, which had been earlier contracted to build the tracking network for NASA’s Mercury program. In 1963, Ford merged their Aeronutronic and Philco’s aerospace-related divisions to create Philco Aeronutronic which continued to be NASA’s primary contractor for communications equipment during the 1960s including supplying the consoles used in the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, Texas. After Ford sold off many of Philco’s other divisions including its consumer electronics and appliance businesses until only the Aeronutronic divisions were left, Philco Aeronutronic was renamed Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation in 1976 which was changed to simply Ford Aerospace Corporation in 1988. This company was sold off to Loral in 1990 to become the well known satellite manufacturer, Space Systems/Loral, which was subsequently purchased by the Canadian communications company, MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd., in November 2012. Still with me?

Philco Aeronutronic received the contract to develop a Mars lander concept for Voyager in June 1964. Building on Ford Aeronutronic’s earlier experience developing the hard lander for NASA’s Block II Ranger lunar program (see “NASA’s First Moon Lander” for a full description of these missions), Philco in cooperation with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory designed a spherical lander with a diameter of 1.7 meters and a landed mass of about 540 kilograms – comparable in general size and mass to the Viking lander. Philco’s ABL had a densely-packed, integrated design with a 324-kilogram science payload. The science payload consisted of 61 kilograms of scientific instruments, 113 kilograms of samplers and sampling gear and 150 kilograms of experiment chemicals stored in torroidal tanks. A pair of 11-kilogram plutonium-fueled RTGs would supply a total of 140 watts to power ABL and help keep it warm in the cold Martian environment.

ORIGINAL CAPTION (edited): A cutaway model of the ABL from c1965 showing some interior detail. (NASA)

 

[Mustafa19]

I am always wondering if we will see manned Mars voyage in our life time.

 

[royabulgaf]

I am always wondering if we will see manned Mars voyage in our life time.

Probably not, unless we find solid irrefutable evidence of life.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I am always wondering if we will see manned Mars voyage in our life time.

Probably not, unless we find solid irrefutable evidence of life.

With the way mankind's luck is going at the moment, it will probably turn out that there are Martian felines....

 

[that_person]

Unless you’re like 75, I’d expect you will