Was a Manned Mars mission in 1982 feasible?

[publiusr]

The old Mars One Crew Manual...could that be adapted if Starship comes on line?

 

[PFJN]

Look up NERVA.

The rocket was ready for test flights. By the mid 1960s.

Launch the rocket into orbit before it first goes critical and it's relatively safe.

Hi,
Although there are concerns with issues that may occur during launch and transit to orbit, I believe the bigger concern here is that once in space, the operational plans outlined in the link that was provided would have these unmanned/remotely controled "tugs" entering and exiting from low Earth orbit, and docking/undocking with other space objects to transfer them to other orbits, while their reactors are fully operational. The docking of space craft to this day is still a somewhat risky operation and there have been issues, even in recent years, where everything has not gone to plan. Adding to this is the fact that everything would be being done remotely with 1970s era technology and communications equipment would tend to serve to also increase potential risks.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Supply and demand. A lot of new gold means the price goes down. Perhaps it would be best to declare it "space use only." It would be earmarked for space-based, lunar and possibly Mars manufacturing use. It wouldn't be sent to Earth to lower mineral prices.

Gold is the low hanging fruit. Now you can use gold conductors anywhere you want. Crud, you could even use gold as a replacement for lead in ammunition. Or use gold as ballast.

Iron would be so cheap that you'd have to pay people to take it... because you're finding 100 million ton asteroids that are pure nickel-iron every year or less.

Lithium. Iridium. All the other rare earths.

Available in quantities that could blow your economy.

Also, banning the use of extraterrestrial minerals on Earth is just asking for greedy bastards to drop rocks out of orbit. Chicxulub or if we're lucky Tunguska all over again.

Hi,
Although there are concerns with issues that may occur during launch and transit to orbit, I believe the bigger concern here is that once in space, the operational plans outlined in the link that was provided would have these unmanned/remotely controled "tugs" entering and exiting from low Earth orbit, and docking/undocking with other space objects to transfer them to other orbits, while their reactors are fully operational. The docking of space craft to this day is still a somewhat risky operation and there have been issues, even in recent years, where everything has not gone to plan. Adding to this is the fact that everything would be being done remotely with 1970s era technology and communications equipment would tend to serve to also increase potential risks.

Yes, that is a risk.

Probably a mitigatable one. Also, IIRC the NERVA rockets were supposed to be manned tugs. The AEC et al had identified a good, lightweight radiation shield: Boron Aluminum Titanium Hydride, aka BATH.

 

[chimeric oncogene]

Back in the early 1990s I was extraordinarily fortunate to attend a small lecture by Bob Zubrin, where he presented his "Mars Direct" plan to a room of mostly aero engineers from McDonnell Douglas. It required no new technology whatsoever, took into account the shielding requirements, and was a meticulous plan if ever I saw one. It was brilliantly elegant.

What happened? Well, NASA happened. Apparently the plan was too simple;

Traditional Mars Direct has limited abort capability and relatively little redundancy, and is very much a shoestring operation.

It does illustrate what you can do if you have a high tolerance for risk and an intense focus on results, but there are many legitimate criticisms of Mars Direct.

The real world Zubrinite Elon Musk, who is building basically a Mars Direct style lander capable of similar mission profiles (aerocapture, landing, takeoff with modifications), has decided to leverage tankermania to build redundancy.

If you have propellant depots everywhere, you can abort with relative ease and can build in margins by flying more identical tankers, and you're building out infrastructure that follow on missions can use. That has large advantages over a one-and-done like classical Mars Direct.

Realistically that template only represents one possible approach, and from what others have posted it appears that there may have been other approaches

Yes, there are a zillion ways to get to Mars; it can thus be confidently said that one or more of them is likely to work.

However, the thread is asking about a Mars mission in 1982, which means planning would have begun in the late 60s. This is the sort of mission that was being planned at the time, according to the people who would have been planning a 1980s Mars mission - nuclear thermal rockets, two vehicles, MEM. Sortie type mission launched from a base of built up cislunar infrastructure.

David SF Portee has written a book called Humans to Mars: Fifty Years of Mission Planning, 1950–2000, you can read it and see if any of the ideas are interesting.

Right now, in 2024, the architecture is shaping up to be a bit different from previously envisaged - historical missions have lots of different vehicles, each optimized for a particular leg of the journey. Judging from Artemis and SpaceX statements, the modern plan (very much a work in progress) seems to be heavy reliance on a single vehicle family to reduce development costs, and extensive use of tankers to allow missions to be achieved. This stems from an iterative mission design approach driven by a iterative and private funding approach, with stringent cost controls and requirement for viability at every stage of development.

===

There were very limited concerns with using nuclear reactors in space back then, the Soviets launched dozens. One even crashed. Furthermore, this is a risk tolerance issue, not a technical feasibility issue; do not allow these to cloud your understanding of the subject, but keep them in mind for real world plans you may see over the next few years - the US military is working on nuclear thermal rockets again, after a fifty year hiatus, I expect political problems too.

What is technologically possible and what is politically/economically/socially/morally possible/popular are quite tangential, not necessarily strongly related. You can land people on Mars with the aid of an interplanetary spaceship flying on a plume of nuclear explosions (see Project Orion), but you can't cure cancer with small amounts of distilled water (see homeopathy). The former is technologically possible, the latter is not. And yet somehow we try the latter a lot more than the former...

...the answer is obvious of course; homeopathy, if available cheap, is relatively harmless as a placebo. In a deeply terminal cancer case you'd recommend doing nothing over such things like multiple rounds of e.g. expensive radical surgery, each of which might kill you for potentially dubious benefit (the cancer'll come back in most cases). Likewise, while flying to Mars on a plume of nuclear bombs might work in a technical sense, the costs are very high, and the astronauts might occasionally die, for dubious benefit. So it depends exactly what the goals are here, and the perspective being taken in the first place; in this case, this being a technically-oriented forum, the perspective is necessarily narrower.

 

[Archibald]

It pisses me to no end SLS can't even been used for Mars Direct. Despite the fact that it uses the broad Shuttle infrastructure and industrial base, which launched eight Shuttles in the year 1996 (and ten in 1985-86, but STS-51L alas). Which would be plenty enough to kickstart a Mars Direct campaign.

Instead, SLS launch rate is perhaps 1.5 per year. The reason ? Michoud core production has been dimensionned around that number. Even if - once again - it was supposed to ride on the Shuttle External Tank production rate.

What happened: the Boeing manufactured core no longer has true commonality with the Shuttle E.T. For example they changed the welding to a different process. And unlike the DIRECT launchers, the SLS core has drifted away from Shuttle legacy.

Amazon.fr

 

[BlackBat242]

All I have to say on this is summed up with the following statement from a bumper sticker I had in the 1980s...

THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH - THE REST OF US WILL GO TO THE STARS

 

[Arjen]

With humanity currently numbering some eight billion and rising, with the number of humans landing on Mars this century reaching dozens at best - never mind settling - the overseeable future for the billions is very, very firmly on Earth. Humanity will have to make the best of Earth's environment, but right now, we are on a downward turn. I am childless, over sixty, I will probably carry on living an agreeable life, on Earth, for the rest of my days. Future humanity will probably curse me and my generation for this Age Of Waste, because I fear future Earth will be a poorer world to live in. Until it gets better in, oh, several centuries from now. Because Nature will have its way.

Do carry on, nothing to see here!

 

[Archibald]

@Arjen: good point. I don't believe Mars can be mankind Plan B : too far, too dry. The Moon on the contrary... NOT the surface of course. Worst than Mars.

The underground however ... https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071588#grl55400-tbl-0001

-There are caves of colossal size on the Moon: up to 170 km long by 4 km wide - courtesy of the gravity being 16% of Earth, lava tubes in the past grew to epic size.

- average temperature is 17°C, while murderous radiations are blocked by a few hundred meters of solid rock;

-the walls of the caves - lunar regolith: is 45% oxygen by weight : it has been calculated there is enough lunar oxygen to breath for 100 000 years or more.

-water, that's the problem. Albeit Earth is close enough. Plus there might be some asteroid and comet water trapped, not only at the poles, but at the bottom of the cave openings - the pits, also called skylights.

- light and gravity: could be artificially raised to Earth levels. Remember than the lava tubes are 4 km wide, so plenty of room for light and gravity machinery.

Seriously - if we ever need a Plan B, the lunar underground is the answer.

 

[Arjen]

If we give up on seeing the sun rise every day, digging in on Earth is probably cheaper. It would however make it more visible that surviving a meteor strike is income-dependent. Guards at the shelters' entrances are superfluous on the Moon because the great unwashed won't be there.

 

[PFJN]

Hi,

My comment about there being many possible different approaches forgetting to Mars was meant to illustrate the point that even if a decision was made to try and send a manned mission to Mars in 1969, there would need to be a period to assess an "Analysis of Alternatives" (AoA) to determine which approach to proceed with, balanching costs, risks, and other factors.

As such, just because NASA had "a proposal" that suggested how it could be done, does not mean that it would be the final approach used. And as such, the actual start of whichever approach is finally selected would be delayed until such an AoA is undertaken and a final selection is agreed upon by all relevant parties. Thus, even if NASA's IPP says that they belive that we could get to Mars by the early 1980s by starting with their plan immediately, realistically there would be likely a few years delay before any program would start, and there would be no gaurantee that the NASA IPPwould be the final proposal selected.

As for concerns about nuclear power plants in space, there has long been an active overall anti-nuclear lobby, including during the period in question. And since the use of these "space-tugs" would invlolve not just using nuclear power on an orbiting satllite or long range probe, but rather on a vehicle that is meant to enter and exit LEO and frequently dock with other space objects in that orbit, it would likely recieve a fair bit of interest by the anti-nuclear lobby as those plans became more publicly available.

Additionally the loss of one satellite in 1973 and the Cosmos 954 over Canada in 1979, served to raise public awareness of some of the issues with nuclear powered spacecraft. In particular the 1972 Space Liability Convention made it clear that any "state which launches an object into space is liable for damages caused by that object". And Operation Morning Light which addressed the clean up of debris from Cosmos 954 ended upcosting about $6million (in 1979 dollars).

As for whether the space tugs would be manned or unmanned, the link provided previously about NASA's proposal indicates that the early missions were apparently meant to be unmanned.

Regards

 

[Siberia]

It wouldn't be sent to Earth to lower mineral prices.

Lower costs, and hopefully being less polluting, is the main benefit of space-based resource extraction – if you artificially rule that out it brings into question the whole endeavour. Off-world manufacturing at scale won't happen for a fair while.

 

[publiusr]

It pisses me to no end SLS can't even been used for Mars Direct. Despite the fact that it uses the broad Shuttle infrastructure and industrial base.

What happened: the Boeing manufactured core no longer has true commonality with the Shuttle E.T.

Boeing didn't want SD-HLLVs, they wanted D-IV based approaches and resented Griffin going for Ares...which makes me wonder if SLS was sandbagged from within...Boeing is building a rocket they themselves did not want to exist.

Zubrin's Mars Direct would likely have had the same enemies SLS had:

1.) The OldSpace EELV lobby
2.) Planetary Scientists who resented LV development costs
3.) Political zealots who don't think NASA should build rockets
4.) NewSpace RLV proponents

Being a SD-HLLV advocate was thus a form of masochism--other disagreements were a bit more balanced:

Solids vs Liquids
Humans vs Robotics
Moon vs Mars

But become an SD-HLLV advocate and they all line up to attack you.

When the military wanted Magnum, NASA didn't--and vice versa.

Elon didn't have to do the political dance Zubrin did, funding things out of his own pocket.

The only way Mars was reachable early on would have been a Nixon assassination with Agnew keeping the Saturns and killing shuttle instead.

If SLS does indeed get the axe, then it will be proponents of winged spaceflight who will get the blowtorch to the face next, instead of SD-HLLV advocates...who actually were more successful than space plane fans who were disappointed by Branson and now no longer have SABRE.

 

[chimeric oncogene]

realistically there would be likely a few years delay before any program would start, and there would be no gaurantee that the NASA IPPwould be the final proposal selected.

Yes, but this decision time would be greatly compressed if there was immense pressure to get men on Mars by 1982. You conduct a crash program by trying multiple approaches at once and having redundant contingency options; hence the Manhattan Project developing Uranium and Plutonium production processes, Fat Men and Little Boys. Given the high state of development of NERVA, and the desire for some redundancy, a two ship NTR mission is not unlikely to be present in some form, although chemical propulsion is of course possible.

And yes, I alluded to the crash of the Cosmos satellites above. Antinuclear sentiment is probably not relevant to this discussion, which is asking a question of heroics, not business as usual (which was never likely to get to Mars at all, as we see from real life).

Again, please make a distinction between what is technically feasible and what is likely, or politically feasible, or reasonable. I have had to repeatedly emphasize this is multiple responses.

It is probably technically feasible to use nuclear devices to dig a canal through Nicaragua (or the Sinai), or to divert the Yukon River into California (see NAWAPA). Neither is likely to happen at all, for reasons that should be obvious.

 

[Justo Miranda]

With humanity currently numbering some eight billion and rising, with the number of humans landing on Mars this century reaching dozens at best - never mind settling - the overseeable future for the billions is very, very firmly on Earth. Humanity will have to make the best of Earth's environment, but right now, we are on a downward turn. I am childless, over sixty, I will probably carry on living an agreeable life, on Earth, for the rest of my days. Future humanity will probably curse me and my generation for this Age Of Waste, because I fear future Earth will be a poorer world to live in. Until it gets better in, oh, several centuries from now. Because Nature will have its way.

Do carry on, nothing to see here!

We have always beaten nature to the extent that wild animals prefer to rummage through our garbage dumps than go hungry in ecological sanctuaries.

If the Western world degenerates to the point of rejecting science and returning to the dark times, other more vital societies will replace us by carrying out large hydraulic works, developing new types of nuclear reactors and conquering new living spaces.

If we prefer to live with a minimum of resources eating grass... future humanity will despise us.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Yes, but this decision time would be greatly compressed if there was immense pressure to get men on Mars by 1982. You conduct a crash program by trying multiple approaches at once and having redundant contingency options; hence the Manhattan Project developing Uranium and Plutonium production processes, Fat Men and Little Boys. Given the high state of development of NERVA, and the desire for some redundancy, a two ship NTR mission is not unlikely to be present in some form, although chemical propulsion is of course possible.

And yes, I alluded to the crash of the Cosmos satellites above. Antinuclear sentiment is probably not relevant to this discussion, which is asking a question of heroics, not business as usual (which was never likely to get to Mars at all, as we see from real life).

Again, please make a distinction between what is technically feasible and what is likely, or politically feasible, or reasonable. I have had to repeatedly emphasize this is multiple responses.

It is probably technically feasible to use nuclear devices to dig a canal through Nicaragua (or the Sinai), or to divert the Yukon River into California (see NAWAPA). Neither is likely to happen at all, for reasons that should be obvious.

If we don't, the Israelis and the Chinese will, who are already showing that they don't share our ethical concerns.

 

[1635yankee]

My opinion?

A successful manned mission to Mars in the 1980s was not possible. Propulsion was not the most severe problem; a sufficiently robust, sufficiently closed life support system was. Human beings could have been sent to Mars, but they'd not be alive when they got there.

 

[Justo Miranda]

If we don't, the Israelis and the Chinese will, who are already showing that they don't share our ethical concerns.

China Approves 11 New Nuclear Reactors, Including Fourth-Generation Design

State-run China Energy News reported that officials on August 19 approved construction of 11 nuclear reactors across the country, part of a wave of new

www.powermag.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

Summary of nuclear power plants

For details about each reactor, see List of commercial nuclear reactors § China.

Summary table of nuclear power plants in China[76][6]​
Nuclear power plant​	operational reactors​	reactors under construction​	reactors planned​	total ​
units​	net capacity (MW)​	units​	net capacity (MW)​	units​	net capacity (MW)​	units​	net capacity (MW) ​
Bailong	—​	—​	6​	6,600​	6​	6,600​
Changjiang	2​	1,202​	3​	2,400​	—​	5​	3,602​
CEFR	1​	20​	—​	—​	1​	20​
Daya Bay (Dayawan)	2​	1,888​	—​	—​	2​	1,888​
Fangchenggang	4​	3,090​	—​	2​	2,200​	6​	6,380​
Fangjiashan	2​	2,024​	—​	—​	2​	2,024​
Fuqing	6​	6,000​	—​	—​	6​	6,000​
Haiyang	2​	2,300​	2​	2,300​	2​	2,300​	6​	6,900​
Hongyanhe	6​	6,366​			—​	6​	6,366​
Huizhou/Taipingling	—​	2​	2,232​	2​	2,200​	4​	4,432​
Ling Ao	4​	3,914​	—​	—​	4​	3,914​
Lufeng (Shanwei)	—​	2​	2,200​	4​	5,500​	6​	6,600​
Ningde	5​	4,072​	1​	1,100​	1​	1,100​	6​	6,272​
Pengze	—​	—​	2​	2,200​	2​	2,200​
Qinshan	7​	4,110​	—​	—​	7​	4,110​
San'ao[77]	—​	2​	2,200​	4​	4,400​	6​	6,600​
Sanmen	2​	2,314​	2​	2,314​			4​	4,628​
Shidao Bay (Shidaowan)	2​	1,600​	2​	2,534​	—​	3​	3,000​
Taishan	2​	3,320​	—​	—​	1​	5,268​
Taohuajiang	—​	—​	4​	4,400​	4​	4,400​
Tianwan	6​	6,080​	2​	2,200​	—​	8​	8,280​
Xianning	—​	—​	2​	2,200​	2​	2,200​
Xiapu	—​	2​	1,000​	—​	2​	1,000​
Xudabao	—​	2​	2,200​	2​	2,300​	4​	4,500​
Yangjiang	6​	6,120​	—​	—​	6​	6,120​
Zhangzhou	—​	4​	2,200​	2​	4,400​	6​	6,600​
Total ​	55​	53,020​	24​	25,136​	41​	47,100​	120​	121,000​

Where multiple reactors are operational/under construction/planned at a given site, the capacity given is to be understood for all reactors at this site applicable to the given column, not a per reactor figure.

 

[Scott Kenny]

My opinion?

A successful manned mission to Mars in the 1980s was not possible. Propulsion was not the most severe problem; a sufficiently robust, sufficiently closed life support system was. Human beings could have been sent to Mars, but they'd not be alive when they got there.

Agreed. Life support is key.

And building stuff in LEO and cislunar space helps push us towards getting that life support sorted out.

 

[martinbayer]

We have always beaten nature to the extent that wild animals prefer to rummage through our garbage dumps than go hungry in ecological sanctuaries.

I would contend that the fact that wild animals have successfully adapted to rummage through and exploit our garbage dumps and trash cans (as regularly seen on local TV news here in SoCal, especially with bears, who have also learned how to break into locked cars) is actually just another victory of nature via Darwinism in action, rather than us beating it.

 

[Justo Miranda]

I would contend that the fact that wild animals have successfully adapted to rummage through and exploit our garbage dumps and trash cans (as regularly seen on local TV news here in SoCal, especially with bears, who have also learned how to break into locked cars) is actually just another victory of nature via Darwinism in action, rather than us beating it.

Nature tries to exterminate us from the first day of our lives and succeeds on the last.

For most of our history, life expectancy has not exceeded forty years and infant mortality has always been 50 percent in the most benign times.

Our ancestors had to walk more than forty kilometers a day eating insects, worms, berries, mushrooms and carrion... trying to prevent wolves and hyenas from eating their children. They were always hungry, a small infection, a parasite, a fracture or the loss of teeth meant death.

We are winning and we owe none of our current well-being to shamans, or sorcerers, or tribal chiefs, or religious leaders.

We are winning thanks to the scientists who tried to exterminate the Inquisition.

Bears get into our cars because they know we're not going to eat them, from their point of view we're immensely rich.

 

[Arjen]

If humanity messes up enough to go extinct, my money is on rats to develop into the dominant lifeform. For a while. They are adaptable, hardy, breed like mad.
For further reading: Dougal Dixon's 1981 Life After Man

 

[martinbayer]

If humanity messes up enough to go extinct, my money is on rats to develop into the dominant lifeform. For a while. They are adaptable, hardy, breed like mad.
For further reading: Dougal Dixon's 1981 Life After Man

Where there's rats, there's cats...

 

[Arjen]

Our cat gives full grown rats a wide berth. Young rats are fair game.
I'm not sure there is much difference in intelligence between rats and cats, but rats will actually cooperate.

 

[Airbus A340]

I read a lot of "Nonfiction Sci Fi" like Ben Bova's book "Welcome to Moonbase". The economic case made back then was that the Moon could be mined for minerals that would be used to build space solar satellites. They posited finding water on the Moon IIRC so that they would have rocket fuel to launch material into lunar orbit. On second thought, I think they had some kind of electromagnetic launch system to shoot Moon rock into orbit where it was processed into satellites that beamed energy to Earth.

I have some questions about space:

1. How does space material get to Earth? How does it survive reentry? How much does it cost to provide an RV that can hold gold, iridium, nickel, etc? 1000 tons of gold is worth 85 billion dollars. 1000 tons of nickel is 15 million dollars. Where and how do the RVs land? How do the space materials impact the Earth economy and raise the standard of living for people on Earth?

2. What is the probability of a devastating meteorite impact? What is the best way to help humanity survive it? What about bunkers (mineshafts) instead of Mars of or the Moon?

3. I think there is a ridiculous gap between a Mars mission (probably doable for hundreds of billions or trillions) and a Mars colony.

4. What is the time frame for a Mars mission? I talked to a guy who told me he asked a NASA engineer in the '80's how long it would take to get back to the Moon if they wanted to go ASAP. The engineer said 10 years. The guy pointed out that it took less time from when JFK ordered the Moon mission to the original landing. The NASA engineer's reply. "10 years." I cant imagine it being less than 10 years to get to Mars for a visit. A colony would take 20-30 years.

5. By the time this Mars business get going, what will be happening here on Earth? We're looking at fossil fuels depletion, renewable energy wearing out, and fusion still being 20 years off in the area of energy. In minerals we will be looking at using lower and lower grade ores that require greater and greater quantities of energy to mine and process. We will have more and more issues with microplastics, PFAS, and other forms of pollution. Socially, the generations raised by screens will be taking over. Why go to Mars? It's difficult. It's easier to watch a Mars video on TikTok or to play a Mars colony RPG. Earth's population will be larger and food supply will become an issue. It is unlikely that nations will cooperate. Rather, they will fight over the dwindling supplies of fossil fuel, water, and quality farmland. These problems may become too large to allow Mars expenditures before a Mars mission can even be completed.

 

[Justo Miranda]

If humanity messes up enough to go extinct, my money is on rats to develop into the dominant lifeform. For a while. They are adaptable, hardy, breed like mad.
For further reading: Dougal Dixon's 1981 Life After Man

The first time I read about the sinister theory of rats was in the book "The Mote in Godd's Eye" but there are other more gifted animals such as primates, lemurs and even squirrels: hands, binocular vision and omnivorous feeding.

Rats have already done their job surviving the asteroid, but evolution has shown that they prefer something better.

 

[Arjen]

In evolution, there is no better. There is adaptability, and there is luck. Deep time does funny things to species.

 

[Justo Miranda]

In evolution, there is no better. There is adaptability, and there is luck. Deep time does funny things to species.

Maybe the selfish gene and its associated memes have a plan, it would be fun to find out that evolution has a purpose, that would take us back to the fourteenth century.

 

[Byeman]

What happened? Well, NASA happened. Apparently the plan was too simple; it didn't meet their internal political needs. It totally bypassed their manned space station and lunar exploration organizations, and needed only minimal inputs from their advanced systems technologies experts.

no. NASA had plans two decades before Zubrin did.

 

[Byeman]

jeesh, more conspiracy nonsense. And no proof of your assertions.

Boeing didn't want SD-HLLVs, they wanted D-IV based approaches and resented Griffin going for Ares...which makes me wonder if SLS was sandbagged from within...Boeing is building a rocket they themselves did not want to exist.

Wrong. Proof please. Boeing was the Ares I upperstage and J-2X contractor,

Zubrin's Mars Direct would likely have had the same enemies SLS had:

1.) The OldSpace EELV lobby
2.) Planetary Scientists who resented LV development costs
3.) Political zealots who don't think NASA should build rockets
4.) NewSpace RLV proponents

Proof please.
1. There was no EELV "lobby". It was EELV advocates within NASA and USAF
2. Provide a name(s) of such planetary scientists.
3. Provide a name(s) of such Political zealots
4. What "NewSpace RLV proponents"?

When the military wanted Magnum, NASA didn't--and vice versa.

Military never wanted it. Military isn't even stepping for SLS. Military is only looking at Starship because it is cheap and not because it is HLLV.

The only way Mars was reachable early on would have been a Nixon assassination with Agnew keeping the Saturns and killing shuttle instead.

No, that would have never happened. The Saturns were done before Nixon got to office. Congress would have never funded a Mars mission.

If SLS does indeed get the axe, then it will be proponents of winged spaceflight who will get the blowtorch to the face next, instead of SD-HLLV advocates...who actually were more successful than space plane fans who were disappointed by Branson and now no longer have SABRE.

There is no real group of "proponents of winged spaceflight

 

[stever_sl]

no. NASA had plans two decades before Zubrin did.

Of course they did. Big, expensive plans involving constructing things in orbit or on the Moon, then taking the slow Hohmann transfer ellipse path to Mars and staying there a minimal amount of time in order not to miss the fuel-efficient return ellipse window. A classic "take everything you need with you, because you'll need it to get home" meaning the rocket fuel mainly. That fuel is dead weight going out, which drastically reduces how much useful payload you can carry, i.e. people, air, water, food, scientific instruments. Zubrin's breakthrough was applying the "pioneering explorer" model, where you live off the land as much as possible. His original Mars Direct consisted of 2 launches of Saturn V mod vehicles. The first carried a landing package whose only purpose was to manufacture rocket fuel and oxygen from chemical sources known (through unmanned landers) to be on Mars, using mature chemical processes powered by a small nuclear reactor. Once a sufficient amount of both had been made and stored, a signal would be sent back to launch the crewed vehicle. Not being nearly as payload-limited as the "traditional" Mars mission would have been, it could carry enough stuff to stay on Mars for quite a while. And letting Hohmann ellipse trajectories define flight times was also out. With the extra punch available through splitting the mission into 2 parts, enough fuel was available to punch straight across, or as straight as a normal flight path between 2 moving objects would be. Once they arrived, they'd refill their lander's tanks and be ready to go back the same way they'd come, having plenty of time and equipment to do real science on the surface. Were there risks? Of course there were. There are with any kind of exploration. Zubrin made the excellent point, though, that only a small number of specialists were needed for Mars Direct, and looking at the number of people who volunteered for the highly risky Mercury/Gemini/Apollo missions, it's not likely that they'd have lacked for volunteers for a Mars flight. I really wish a recording existed of that talk that Zubrin gave here, I'm not doing it justice by a long shot. It was one of the most inspiring and exciting things that I ever saw in my entire 42-year aerospace engineering career.

 

[Byeman]

Of course they did. Big, expensive plans involving constructing things in orbit or on the Moon, then taking the slow Hohmann transfer ellipse path to Mars

So does Mars Direct

. His original Mars Direct consisted of 2 launches of Saturn V mod vehicles.

Shuttle derived vehicles.

 

[sdmuleman]

I believe so.

Submarines have one that works, but I don't know how well it would work in zero gee. (IIRC the CO burners need gravity to work properly, and then there's the Monoethyl Amine to absorb CO2)

No fundamental reason why you need gravity for the CO/H2 burners to work. CO2 scrubbers (Amine) as used on USN boats need gravity for proper flow but there's no reason you couldn't make something that would work in zero G.

A more significant problem is that both these system involve considerable heat. In a nuclear submarine both power to run the heaters and seawater for cooling are easily available. Both are significantly more difficult in a space application. Also not exactly light pieces of kit.



To the original question, I don't think there's anything technically impossible in a 80's mars mission. There's quite a lot of things that would have been high risk, and there would probably have needed to be Apollo era levels of support and funding through the 70's, but no fundamental technical barriers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

No fundamental reason why you need gravity for the CO/H2 burners to work. CO2 scrubbers (Amine) as used on USN boats need gravity for proper flow but there's no reason you couldn't make something that would work in zero G.

A more significant problem is that both these system involve considerable heat. In a nuclear submarine both power to run the heaters and seawater for cooling are easily available. Both are significantly more difficult in a space application. Also not exactly light pieces of kit.

Yes, the cooling for those systems would be "interesting" for a couple dozen engineers to play with.

Heating them would be trivial, just run a reactor for power or use some nice big solar panels on the orbiter part.

To the original question, I don't think there's anything technically impossible in a 80's mars mission. There's quite a lot of things that would have been high risk, and there would probably have needed to be Apollo era levels of support and funding through the 70's, but no fundamental technical barriers.

Agreed.

 

[Byeman]

No fundamental reason why you need gravity for the CO/H2 burners to work. CO2 scrubbers (Amine) as used on USN boats need gravity for proper flow but there's no reason you couldn't make something that would work in zero G.

A more significant problem is that both these system involve considerable heat. In a nuclear submarine both power to run the heaters and seawater for cooling are easily available. Both are significantly more difficult in a space application. Also not exactly light pieces of kit.

Molecular sieves were used on Skylab and Columbia and currently on the ISS.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Molecular sieves were used on Skylab and Columbia and currently on the ISS.

And were proposed in 1968 for interplanetary flights.

I understand why people keep trying to reinvent the wheel and/or push their pet mission architecture. But a crewed Mars mission in the 1980s requires a decision to be made in the 1970s, which means it would be based on the architectures being studied in the late 1960s.

That means an all-up flight, nuclear rockets, probably (but not necessarily) a short-stay opposition-class mission, and all the consequences thereof.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And were proposed in 1968 for interplanetary flights.

I understand why people keep trying to reinvent the wheel and/or push their pet mission architecture. But a crewed Mars mission in the 1980s requires a decision to be made in the 1970s, which means it would be based on the architectures being studied in the late 1960s.

That means an all-up flight, nuclear rockets, probably (but not necessarily) a short-stay opposition-class mission, and all the consequences thereof.

Nuclear rockets were ground-tested in the 1960s, so available. Not sure we could dial them down to make ... call it 10cm/s/s acceleration, though, which turns the travel time from ~8.5 months to ~39 days.

 

[martinbayer]

I read a lot of "Nonfiction Sci Fi" like Ben Bova's book "Welcome to Moonbase". The economic case made back then was that the Moon could be mined for minerals that would be used to build space solar satellites. They posited finding water on the Moon IIRC so that they would have rocket fuel to launch material into lunar orbit. On second thought, I think they had some kind of electromagnetic launch system to shoot Moon rock into orbit where it was processed into satellites that beamed energy to Earth.

I have some questions about space:

1. How does space material get to Earth? How does it survive reentry? How much does it cost to provide an RV that can hold gold, iridium, nickel, etc? 1000 tons of gold is worth 85 billion dollars. 1000 tons of nickel is 15 million dollars. Where and how do the RVs land? How do the space materials impact the Earth economy and raise the standard of living for people on Earth?

2. What is the probability of a devastating meteorite impact? What is the best way to help humanity survive it? What about bunkers (mineshafts) instead of Mars of or the Moon?

3. I think there is a ridiculous gap between a Mars mission (probably doable for hundreds of billions or trillions) and a Mars colony.

4. What is the time frame for a Mars mission? I talked to a guy who told me he asked a NASA engineer in the '80's how long it would take to get back to the Moon if they wanted to go ASAP. The engineer said 10 years. The guy pointed out that it took less time from when JFK ordered the Moon mission to the original landing. The NASA engineer's reply. "10 years." I cant imagine it being less than 10 years to get to Mars for a visit. A colony would take 20-30 years.

5. By the time this Mars business get going, what will be happening here on Earth? We're looking at fossil fuels depletion, renewable energy wearing out, and fusion still being 20 years off in the area of energy. In minerals we will be looking at using lower and lower grade ores that require greater and greater quantities of energy to mine and process. We will have more and more issues with microplastics, PFAS, and other forms of pollution. Socially, the generations raised by screens will be taking over. Why go to Mars? It's difficult. It's easier to watch a Mars video on TikTok or to play a Mars colony RPG. Earth's population will be larger and food supply will become an issue. It is unlikely that nations will cooperate. Rather, they will fight over the dwindling supplies of fossil fuel, water, and quality farmland. These problems may become too large to allow Mars expenditures before a Mars mission can even be completed.

Sir, as much as I hate to admit it as a space struck tail end baby boomer, I have come to the conclusion that your query/analysis is right on the money/economy (and ecology).

 

[Rhinocrates]

I have some questions about space:

An antidote to so much of the magical thinking and 'manifest destiny' that dominates discourse.

A CITY ON MARS

Earth is not well. The promise of starting life anew somewhere far, far away—no climate change, no war, no Twitter—beckons, and settling the stars finally seems within our grasp. Or is it? Critically acclaimed, bestselling authors Kelly and Zach Weinersmith set out to write the...

www.acityonmars.com

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/28/books/review/kelly-zach-weinersmith-city-on-mars.html

105: A City on Mars with Zach Weinersmith

What it would really entail to conquer the relentless Martian elements, engineer a thriving, self-reliant biosphere, and craft life-preserving abodes within the alien realms of lava tubes? Zach Wei…

theshowaboutscience.com

Living on Mars would probably suck — here's why

Kelly and Zach Weinersmith talk to Nature about the hurdles facing humans living in outer space.

www.nature.com

You don’t want to live on Mars - Think

Kelly Weinersmith, adjunct faculty member in the BioSciences department at Rice University, joins host Krys Boyd to discuss the impracticalities of space colonization and the conflicts it could create back on Earth.

think.kera.org

Interesting book - accessible and covers technical, philosophical, and extensively, legal matters. Most reviewers see it as presenting a list of impassible roadblocks, a few see it as a to-do list. Their conclusion is 'Wait till we can do it properly,' which has never held people back before.

Regarding some of Airbus' points. (1) Bulk resources found in space will stay in space for obvious logistical and economic reasons. Rare earth elements vital in electronics might be another matter though, especially if trade wars hot up - which is certain. (2) No place in the Solar System would be more habitable than any point on dry land on Earth after even a Chicxulub-scale impact (apart from the crater). Moreover, you don't need to transport your corps of survivors to earth since they're already there. Infrastructure in space to detect and deal with such threats is clearly a good idea.

As for the rest, also yeah, most likely.

My view is, it's not destined, it's not easy, and it will take much longer than you think. When/if it happens, it will be for reasons that aren't obviously 'rational.' I suspect that there will be some nasty eugenic motivation for some backers. Musk is pretty unsubtle about his views.

I can't help but think that some people think that this isn't satire but a blueprint. In spaaaaace.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZct-itCwPE&t=159s

 

[Rhinocrates]

Sobering.

 

[Airbus A340]

Sir, as much as I hate to admit it as a space struck tail end baby boomer, I have come to the conclusion that your query/analysis is right on the money/economy (and ecology).

An antidote to so much of the magical thinking and 'manifest destiny' that dominates discourse.

A CITY ON MARS

Earth is not well. The promise of starting life anew somewhere far, far away—no climate change, no war, no Twitter—beckons, and settling the stars finally seems within our grasp. Or is it? Critically acclaimed, bestselling authors Kelly and Zach Weinersmith set out to write the...

www.acityonmars.com

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/28/books/review/kelly-zach-weinersmith-city-on-mars.html

105: A City on Mars with Zach Weinersmith

What it would really entail to conquer the relentless Martian elements, engineer a thriving, self-reliant biosphere, and craft life-preserving abodes within the alien realms of lava tubes? Zach Wei…

theshowaboutscience.com

Living on Mars would probably suck — here's why

Kelly and Zach Weinersmith talk to Nature about the hurdles facing humans living in outer space.

www.nature.com

You don’t want to live on Mars - Think

Kelly Weinersmith, adjunct faculty member in the BioSciences department at Rice University, joins host Krys Boyd to discuss the impracticalities of space colonization and the conflicts it could create back on Earth.

think.kera.org

Interesting book - accessible and covers technical, philosophical, and extensively, legal matters. Most reviewers see it as presenting a list of impassible roadblocks, a few see it as a to-do list. Their conclusion is 'Wait till we can do it properly,' which has never held people back before.

Regarding some of Airbus' points. (1) Bulk resources found in space will stay in space for obvious logistical and economic reasons. Rare earth elements vital in electronics might be another matter though, especially if trade wars hot up - which is certain. (2) No place in the Solar System would be more habitable than any point on dry land on Earth after even a Chicxulub-scale impact (apart from the crater). Moreover, you don't need to transport your corps of survivors to earth since they're already there. Infrastructure in space to detect and deal with such threats is clearly a good idea.

As for the rest, also yeah, most likely.

My view is, it's not destined, it's not easy, and it will take much longer than you think. When/if it happens, it will be for reasons that aren't obviously 'rational.' I suspect that there will be some nasty eugenic motivation for some backers. Musk is pretty unsubtle about his views.

I can't help but think that some people think that this isn't satire but a blueprint. In spaaaaace.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZct-itCwPE&t=159s

An antidote to so much of the magical thinking and 'manifest destiny' that dominates discourse.

A CITY ON MARS

Earth is not well. The promise of starting life anew somewhere far, far away—no climate change, no war, no Twitter—beckons, and settling the stars finally seems within our grasp. Or is it? Critically acclaimed, bestselling authors Kelly and Zach Weinersmith set out to write the...

www.acityonmars.com

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/28/books/review/kelly-zach-weinersmith-city-on-mars.html

105: A City on Mars with Zach Weinersmith

What it would really entail to conquer the relentless Martian elements, engineer a thriving, self-reliant biosphere, and craft life-preserving abodes within the alien realms of lava tubes? Zach Wei…

theshowaboutscience.com

Living on Mars would probably suck — here's why

Kelly and Zach Weinersmith talk to Nature about the hurdles facing humans living in outer space.

www.nature.com

You don’t want to live on Mars - Think

Kelly Weinersmith, adjunct faculty member in the BioSciences department at Rice University, joins host Krys Boyd to discuss the impracticalities of space colonization and the conflicts it could create back on Earth.

think.kera.org

Interesting book - accessible and covers technical, philosophical, and extensively, legal matters. Most reviewers see it as presenting a list of impassible roadblocks, a few see it as a to-do list. Their conclusion is 'Wait till we can do it properly,' which has never held people back before.

Regarding some of Airbus' points. (1) Bulk resources found in space will stay in space for obvious logistical and economic reasons. Rare earth elements vital in electronics might be another matter though, especially if trade wars hot up - which is certain. (2) No place in the Solar System would be more habitable than any point on dry land on Earth after even a Chicxulub-scale impact (apart from the crater). Moreover, you don't need to transport your corps of survivors to earth since they're already there. Infrastructure in space to detect and deal with such threats is clearly a good idea.

As for the rest, also yeah, most likely.

My view is, it's not destined, it's not easy, and it will take much longer than you think. When/if it happens, it will be for reasons that aren't obviously 'rational.' I suspect that there will be some nasty eugenic motivation for some backers. Musk is pretty unsubtle about his views.

I can't help but think that some people think that this isn't satire but a blueprint. In spaaaaace.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZct-itCwPE&t=159s

Great point that asteroid battered Earth is still better than Mars. Another point is the TESCREAL people who have their peculiar motivations for wanting to leave Earth.