Could the US have got a crewed Mars Mission in the 80s?

Mr. Musk have something more than just money. He is a genius - a genius of organization and coordination. His true talent is his ability to organize complex industrial processes in most efficient ways, as well as seeing the "blind spots" that others missed (like the secret of Tesla sucssess in electric car industry was, that Musk persuaded investors to put their money into INFRASTRUCTURE first - charging stations, required to use electric cars - while literally every other electrical car developer tried to make cars first, and figure out where to charge them later).

Charging stations? No one wants to pay for them. Meanwhile, Michigan has shown part of the plan:


Mr. Musk has already brought electric cars built in China through Canada. The Gordie Howe Bridge is being built primarily to expedite this.
 
I was referring to Elon Musk. I wonder what it's like to get up on any given day, and decide to build a rocket or a robot. As I'm sure you're aware, a lot of promising aerospace companies cannot get investors. Mr. Musk has the money but I doubt he has the requisite knowledge. He can certainly spend his way to success since he does not have to answer to others. Again, at the moment, while I appreciate the effort, if NASA couldn't do it, I really doubt SpaceX can go to Mars with current equipment.
A complete lack of understanding? How do you know what I know? Please avoid using superlatives in future. I have zero confidence in SpaceX. I know the history of the Saturn V. SpaceX strikes me as a group led by someone who lacks the technical skill but has the money.
Yes, you have a "complete lack of understanding" and demonstrated it again, in these two posts.
Lack of requisite knowledge? He decided to build his own rocket because he couldn't get a cheap one.

A. SpaceX has designed, build and operated a launch vehicle with a reusable first stage and fairing.
b. SpaceX has designed, build and operated a launch system that can launch with a cadence of on the average of 2 to 3 times a week.
c. SpaceX has developed an autonomous reusable space station logistics spacecraft that has flown to the ISS 30 times.
d. SpaceX has developed an autonomous reusable Crew spacecraft that has flown with crew 10 times.
e. SpaceX has developed a satellite based communication system with autonomous satellites.

Musk made all the major technical decisions for these systems.
He made the decisions on the Falcon 9 not to use any ordnance, solid motors, hypergolic propellants, horizontal processing, road transportable etc. He made the decision to give up on parachutes and go with retro propulsion. Propellants and stage sizing his choices. He is the system architecture.

Starship is his idea.
 
He also made an very early course correction on Starship, abandoning composite primary structure for stainless (more or less) steel.
 
I have questins about curent Mars landing that Elon Musk proposes. Less technical per se (although Starship is still yet to fly, and it likely takes longer than planned to solve all teething issues), but more... biological. We still don't know true extent of stellar radiation influence on human organism in open space (ISS is withing Earth magnetic field, so there are significantly less radition than in open space). Thus, isn't there a possibility that mission might be one-way ticket? And while I don't doubt that there will be more than enough enthusiasts willing to risk it, would gov't actually allow it? And the worst of all, in an event of crew death, won't it hurt all space programmes? Modern society is quite more sensitive to human losses and tragedies, after all.
 
Capture d’écran 2024-02-24 à 11.31.57.png
And the Nova projects envisaged in 63:
 

Attachments

  • Capture d’écran 2024-02-24 à 11.32.19.png
    Capture d’écran 2024-02-24 à 11.32.19.png
    981.4 KB · Views: 11
Had go like in novel "Voyage" the USA could have landed a human on mars
but this would imply the death of Shuttle program, restart Saturn V, Apollo hardware production in early 1970s
with advance Skylab and Mars lander R&D during 1970s
and most needed the Soviet continue the Space Race by sending cosmonauts to Moon and Mars.
Or an alternate timeline where the Shuttle was never developed and we kept using Saturn.


In a TL at Alternate History.Com

I play with that on Timeline, were Soviets manage to Land on Moon first !
and USA goes after that for manned Mars Program in 1980s...
You wouldn't have any involvement with a model&game company by the name of Black Site Studios, would you?

They have a game called Lunar that uses a lot of that same idea...


Most likely no. In 1980s, USA still did not have much experience of long-therm manned spaceflights (at least not as much as USSR). The technical problems are not so crucial as lack of biological & medical data.
Yes, that's probably the single biggest snag to getting astronauts to Mars.

Lack of knowledge as to what happens when a human spends 6-9 months in zero gee, a couple of years in 1/6 gee, and another 6-9 months in zero gee on the way home. (3-5 year long mission due to a lack of rockets powerful enough to fly missions that aren't at the conjunctions.)


I have questins about curent Mars landing that Elon Musk proposes. Less technical per se (although Starship is still yet to fly, and it likely takes longer than planned to solve all teething issues), but more... biological. We still don't know true extent of stellar radiation influence on human organism in open space (ISS is withing Earth magnetic field, so there are significantly less radition than in open space). Thus, isn't there a possibility that mission might be one-way ticket? And while I don't doubt that there will be more than enough enthusiasts willing to risk it, would gov't actually allow it? And the worst of all, in an event of crew death, won't it hurt all space programmes? Modern society is quite more sensitive to human losses and tragedies, after all.
Radiation can be shielded against. My personal preference is a roughly meter-thick layer of water between the outer hull and the "people tank" plus some other bits of lead, boron and other shielding materials.

Unfortunately, water is heavy when you're talking that much of it, and it'd be very difficult to launch that completely assembled and watered spaceship as a single piece from the ground. You'd have to assemble parts of the craft in orbit and then fill the water tanks from multiple tanker rockets. In addition to whatever storable fuels and oxidizers the Mars ship is going to use.

==========

Now we get to the unexpected habanero.

Conditions on Mars.

Martian dust is likely very nasty and full of sharp edges, causing the equivalent of silicosis. Miner's lung. We know lunar dust is that nasty.

Worse, that nice red color? It's not caused by iron oxide. It's caused by chromium VI. Hexavalent chromium is one of the nastiest metallic toxins out there, only dimethyl mercury and arsenic are worse to my knowledge.

You'd need full on decontamination showers inside the airlock on the lander, and you'd need to use them every time you came back inside. (I'm assuming some extra-fancy filtration so that the dust can be removed from the water for the showers so you don't have to keep dumping the shower water every use.)
 
Back to the topic. The United States went to the moon in 1969. A skeptical London Times even wrote a 'well done to our American friends.' Apollo had a computer the equivalent of a pocket calculator from the 1990s. Now, today, Elon Musk and his rocket team are dealing with fuel leaks and a rocket taller than the Saturn V which experienced engine trouble and had to be destroyed shortly after launch. Which does not bode well for the future at all.

The last time Mars was suggested was 2010. Nothing happened. I have since lost all interest in the U.S. space program. If NASA wants to hand off manned space missions to private companies, fine. But I don't see a trip to Mars anytime soon.

My mission profile:

Two identical rockets, one manned, one unmanned. The manned rocket would have a lander and the other, supplies. In an emergency, the supplies can be dumped and the lander from the supply ship used to retrieve astronauts from the surface.
Just a gentle point on the "pocket calculator of the 1990s". I do get your point on raw computing power, but I suggest you might want to read both Mindell's "Digital Apollo" and Eyles' "Sunburst and Luminary: An Apollo Memoir". It will change your mind about the LM computer's level of sophistication being the equivalent of a pocket calculator. The number of different functions and systems in was simultaneously monitoring: Doppler radar altitude and speed, inertial platform, fuel state, constant thruster firings to steer to the target, and driving the crew update displays are quite remarkable for the mid-1960's technology.
 
Did any of the apollo-application/immediate post-apollo era mars mission proposals use Nuclear or Solar electric propulsion?
 
Just a gentle point on the "pocket calculator of the 1990s". I do get your point on raw computing power, but I suggest you might want to read both Mindell's "Digital Apollo" and Eyles' "Sunburst and Luminary: An Apollo Memoir". It will change your mind about the LM computer's level of sophistication being the equivalent of a pocket calculator. The number of different functions and systems in was simultaneously monitoring: Doppler radar altitude and speed, inertial platform, fuel state, constant thruster firings to steer to the target, and driving the crew update displays are quite remarkable for the mid-1960's technology.
Yes, it's more like a 1990s graphing calculator in complexity, not a basic adding machine.


Did any of the apollo-application/immediate post-apollo era mars mission proposals use Nuclear or Solar electric propulsion?
I believe there were some proposals for nuclear-thermal propulsion, but not nuclear-electric. Ion drives are kinda meh to people that grew up reading Heinlein et al.
 
Look at the steep decrease of Advanced mission studies (Mars and other planetary manned missions) between 1965 and 1967 Capture d’écran 2024-02-26 à 09.40.54.png
 
Did any of the apollo-application/immediate post-apollo era mars mission proposals use Nuclear or Solar electric propulsion?
these studies are post-post-Apollo missions proposed by Godard Space Center in 66 and planned a mars manned landing in the 1990-2000 period Capture d’écran 2024-02-26 à 10.14.20.png Capture d’écran 2024-02-26 à 10.14.51.png
 
The situation at the beginning of 1967; Mars manned mission still on the agenda but questions about the relevancy of manned mars missions? Capture d’écran 2024-02-26 à 18.26.39.png
 
I think it is fair to say that the unmanned solar system probes of the 1970s were a decent substitute for a Mars Mission.

I doubt whether the radiation problem was adequately understood nor the impact of lengthy time in space on human beings
 
I think it is fair to say that the unmanned solar system probes of the 1970s were a decent substitute for a Mars Mission.

I doubt whether the radiation problem was adequately understood nor the impact of lengthy time in space on human beings
I believe the radiation problem was, there was quite a bit of writing in the scifi books about spacemen getting leukemia etc.
 

Spiro Agnew called it Space Task Group (STG)

For NASA and Tom Paine it was IPP: Integrated Program Plan.

And yes, it wasn't politically realistic, by any mean. Technically wise it was sound, albeit eye watering expensive. Plus RNS - Reusable Nuclear Shuttle - might have become a space nuclear nightmare. Glad that one was nixed.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom