Planning for a Manned Mission to Mars

[Astronuc]

About 20 years ago, I participated in a basic design study for Manned Mission to Mars.  The project was part of NASA-sponsored program under the auspices of the University Space Research Administration.  My team selected a nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) system as a project.  Another team selected a direct nuclear thrust system.  A third team look at nuclear power systems for a Mars base.  And a fourth team looked at a nuclear power system for a lunar transfer base.  One objective for a lunar base would be to supply fuel and material for a manned mission to Mars.  The lunar base would take advantage of a reduced gravity well as compared to earth.

As for the transfer craft to Mars, there were various scenarios being considered.  One scenario adopted the approach used by the Apollo program, i.e. the astrounauts orbited the earth, gradually spiralling out and the leaving earth orbit on a trajectory to Martian orbit.  Then astronauts would spend a limited time on Mars and then return to Earth.  The time varied depending on the type of Earth to Mars transfer orbit - but 2 to 4 years was a typical mission duration, and most of that was getting between Earth and Mars orbits.

The major problem was then length of time the astronauts spent in deep space suffering effects of zero-g and radiation.

In order to reduce the adverse effects of long term exposure, another scenario was developed in which a large transfer craft (the Mars Space Station) leaves earth on a low energy transfer orbit.  Months or years later, a small crew transfer craft (much lighter) would leave Earth and rendezvous with the larger transfer craft somewhere in between Earth and Mars, and then the crew would travel to Mars Orbit.  The crew would then return to Earth in the faster crew transfer vehicle.

There were other scenarios under consideration, but the bottom line was how fast could crew get between Earth and Mars, what size of Station was required in Mars orbit, and what were the requirements for a Mars surface base.

It turns out that the propulsion system and energy requirements are mission specific.  The problem is highly non-linear, and in fact represents a set of non-linear equations.

Not much has happened in the last 20 years, so I thought I would stir up the pot and start a Manned Mission to Mars thread that could ultimately take the form of a mission design and analysis.  The objective of this thread is to look at different scenarios, review the state of the art in different technologies, and ultimately design one or more realistic manned missions to Mars.  Once some missions are indentified and crew size is determined, one can begin drafting functional specifications for spacecraft and the power and propulsion systems.

I hope E-Sers will not only contribute articles or information, but also some original ideas on any aspect of the mission.  This is exactly what one would do at NASA or at a university.  Depending on the response - other threads may develop on topics such as orbital transfer, propulsion, energy, space physiology, Martian exploration, etc.

I will start by providing some background on Skylab and ISS.  When I did a study 20 years ago, we had only Skylab experience and ISS was then still only a concept.  Also, the shuttle was only a few years old.  Skylab became the defacto basis for a Mars Space Station.  Now we have some experience with ISS.

[Astronuc]

NASA's First Space Station - Skylab
(from http://april.friends-partners.ru/partners/mwade/craft/skylab.htm )

Craft Crew Size: 3 - on station
Design Life: 600 days.
Orbital Storage: 730.00 days.
Total Length: 36.1 m.
Maximum Diameter: 6.6 m.
Total Habitable Volume: 361.00 m³.
Total Mass: 76,295 kg (76.3 MT).
Electric system: 11.00 total average kW.
Electrical System: Solar Panels, 2 Wings + 4 Windmill, each 14.94 m l.

Project began life as Apollo Orbital Workshop - outfitting of an S-IVB stage with docking adapter with equipment launched by several subsequent S-1B launches. Curtailment of the Apollo moon landings meant that surplus Saturn V's were available, so the pre-equipped, five times heavier, and much more capable Skylab resulted.

External solar/meteoroid shield ripped off during ascent, tearing away one solar panel wing and debris jamming the remaining panel. Without shield temperatures soared to 52°C (126°F). Launch of the crew was delayed for 10 days to develop procedures and crew training to make the workshop habitable. Repairs by subsequent crews led to virtually all mission objectives being met. Skylab re-entered on July 11, 1979.

Payload: Imaging cameras. White-light coronagraph. Ultraviolet scanning polychromator- spectroheliometer. Extreme ultraviolet and X-ray telescope. Space manufacturing experiments. Externally mounted Earth resources instruments included a multispectral imaging camera, an Earth terrain camera, an infrared spectrometer, a multispectral scanner, a microwave radiometer/scatterometer and altimeter, and an L-band microwave radiometer.


Module: Airlock Module. Purpose: Airlock for EVA's, mounting of STS and TNL. Length: 5.4 m. Basic Diameter: 1.7 m. Max Diameter: 3.0 m. Overall Mass: 22,225 kg.

Module: Apollo Telescope Mount. Purpose: Solar Telescope module. Length: 3.4 m. Basic Diameter: 2.1 m. Max Diameter: 2.1 m. Overall Mass: 11,180 kg. Electric system: 11.00 average kW. Electric system type: Solar Panels, Windmill, four, each 14.94 m long.

Module: Instrument Unit. Purpose: Used for guidance during orbital insertion only. Length: 0.9 m. Basic Diameter: 6.6 m. Max Diameter: 6.6 m. Overall Mass: 2,065 kg.

Module: Multiple Docking Adapter. Purpose: Docking module for two CSM, one ATM. Length: 5.3 m. Basic Diameter: 3.0 m. Max Diameter: 3.0 m. Overall Mass: 6,260 kg.

Module: Orbiting Work Shop. Purpose: Main laboratory. Length: 14.7 m. Basic Diameter: 6.6 m. Max Diameter: 6.6 m. Overall Mass: 35,380 kg. RCS Coarse No x Thrust: Reaction wheels. Electric system type: Solar Panels, (in operation only one deployed).

Module: Station core. Purpose: Space station civilian. Modules.Crew Size: 3. Length: 36.1 m. Basic Diameter: 6.6 m. Max Diameter: 6.6 m. Habitable Volume: 361.00 m3. Overall Mass: 76,295 kg. RCS Coarse No x Thrust: Reaction wheels. Electric system.

======================================================
Information is from the Mark Wade's website, Encyclopedia Astronautica,
 http://www.astronautix.com/spaceflt.htm
Formatted by Steve Scherer, mailto:stevescherer@yahoo.com

Skylab 1

14 May 1973
Spacecraft: Skylab.
Mass: 74,783 kg.
Launch Site: Cape Canaveral.
Launch Vehicle: Saturn V.

First US space station. Project began life as Apollo Orbital Workshop - outfitting of an S-IVB stage with docking adapter with equipment launched by several subsequent S-1B launches. Curtailment of the Apollo moon landings meant that surplus Saturn V's were available, so the pre-equipped, five times heavier, and much more capable Skylab resulted.
External solar/meteoroid shield ripped off 63 seconds into ascent, tearing away one solar panel wing and debris jamming the remaining panel. Without shield temperatures soared in station. Repairs by crews led to virtually all mission objectives being met.

Following the final manned phase of the Skylab mission, ground controllers performed some engineering tests of certain Skylab systems--tests that ground personnel were reluctant to do while men were aboard. Results from these tests helped to determine causes of failures during the mission and to obtain data on long term degradation of space systems.
Upon completion of the engineering tests, Skylab was positioned into a stable attitude and systems were shut down. It was expected that Skylab would remain in orbit eight to ten years. It was to have been visited by an early shuttle mission, reboosted into a higher orbit, and used by space shuttle crews. But delays in the first flight of the shuttle made this impossible.


Skylab 2

Crew: Conrad, Kerwin, Weitz
25 May 1973 13:00 GMT.
Duration: 28.03 days.
Call Sign: Skylab.
Backup Crew: McCandless, Musgrave, Schweickart.
Launch Site: Cape Canaveral. Launch Complex: LC39B.
Launch Vehicle: Saturn IB.
LV Configuration: Saturn IB s/n SA-206.
Payload: Apollo CSM 116. Mass: 19,979 kg.
Location of Spacecraft: Naval Aviation Museum, Pensacola, FL.
Perigee: 425 km. Apogee: 440 km. Inclination: 50.0 deg. Period: 93.2 min.


Epic repair mission which brought Skylab into working order. Included such great moments as Conrad being flung through space by the whiplash after heaving on the solar wing just as the debris constraining it gave way; deployment of a lightweight solar shield, developed in Houston in one week, which brought the temperatures down to tolerable levels. With this flight US again took manned spaceflight duration record.

The Skylab space station was launched May 14, 1973, from the NASA Kennedy Space Center by a huge Saturn V launch vehicle, the moon rocket of the Apollo Space Program. Sixty-three seconds after liftoff, the meteoroid shield--designed also to shade Skylab's workshop--deployed inadvertently. It was torn from the space station by atmospheric drag. This event and its effects started a ten-day period in which Skylab was beset with problems that had to be conquered before the space station would be safe and habitable for the three manned periods of its planned eight-month mission.

When the meteoroid shield ripped loose, it disturbed the mounting of workshop solar array "wing" two and caused it to partially deploy. The exhaust plume of the second stage retro-rockets impacted the partially deployed solar array and literally blew it into space. Also, a strap of debris from the meteoroid shield overlapped solar array "wing" number one such that when the programmed deployment signal occurred, wing number one was held in a slightly opened position where it was able to generate virtually no power.

In the meantime, the space station had achieved a near-circular orbit at the desired altitude of 435 kilometers (270 miles). All other major functions including payload shroud jettison, deployment of the Apollo Telescope Mount (Skylab's solar observatory) and its solar arrays, and pressurization of the space station occurred as planned.

Scientists, engineers, astronauts, and management personnel at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and elsewhere worked throughout the first ten-day period of Skylab's flight to devise the means for its rescue. Simultaneously, Skylab--seriously overheating--was maneuvered through varying nose-up attitudes that would best maintain an acceptable "holding" condition. Because of the loss of the meteoroid shield, however, this positioning caused workshop temperatures to rise to 52° Celsius (126° F). During that ten-day period and for some time thereafter, the space station operated on less than half of its designed electrical system, in the partially nose-up attitudes, was generating power at reduced efficiency. The optimum condition that maintained the most favorable balance between Skylab temperatures and its power generation capability occurred at approximately 50 degrees nose-up.

The crew rendezvoused with Skylab on the fifth orbit. After making substantial repairs, including deployment of a parasol sunshade which cooled the inside temperatures to 23.8° C (75° F), by June 4 the workshop was in full operation. In orbit the crew conducted solar astronomy and Earth resources experiments, medical studies, and five student experiments; 404 orbits and 392 experiment hours were completed; three EVAs totalled six hours, 20 minutes.

Skylab-2 Manhour Utilization
Medical Activities - 145.3 hours, 7.5%
Solar Observations - 117.2 hours, 6%
Earth Resources - 71.4 hours, 3.7%
Other Experiments - 65.4 hours, 3.4%
Sleep, Rest & Off Duty - 675.6 hours, 34.7%
Pre/Post Sleep & Eating - 477.1 Hours, 24.5%
Housekeeping - 103.6 hours, 5.3%
Physical Training & Personal Hygiene - 56.2 hours, 2.9%
Other(EVA)Etc. - 232.5 hours, 12%
Total: 1944.3 hours


Skylab 3

Crew: Bean, Garriot, Lousma
28 July 1973 11:10 GMT.
Duration: 59.46 days.
Call Sign: Skylab.
Backup Crew: Brand, Lenoir, Lind.
Launch Site: Cape Canaveral. Launch Complex: LC39B.
Launch Vehicle: Saturn IB.
LV Configuration: Saturn IB s/n SA-207.
Payload: Apollo CSM 117. Mass: 20,121 kg.
Location of Spacecraft: NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH.
Perigee: 422 km. Apogee: 442 km. Inclination: 50.0 deg. Period: 93.2 min.

Continued maintenance of the Skylab space station and extensive scientific and medical experiments. Installed twinpole solar shield on EVA; performed major inflight maintenance; doubled record for length of time in space. Completed 858 Earth orbits and 1,081 hours of solar and Earth experiments; three EVAs totalled 13 hours, 43 minutes.

Skylab-3 Manhour Utilization
Medical Activities - 312 hours, 8%
Solar Observations - 305.1 hours, 7.8%
Earth Resources - 223.5 hours, 5.7%
Other Experiments - 243.6 hours, 6.2%
Sleep, Rest & Off Duty - 1224.5 hours, 31.2%
Pre/Post Sleep & Eating - 975.7 hours, 24.8%
Housekeeping - 158.4 hours, 4%
Physical Training & Personal Hygiene - 202.2 hours, 5.2%
Other (EVA) Etc. - 279.7 hours, 7.1%
 Total 3925.2 hours

Skylab 4

Crew: Carr, Gibson Edward, Pogue
16 November 1973 14:01 GMT.
Duration: 84.05 days.
Call Sign: Skylab.
Backup Crew: Brand, Lenoir, Lind.
Launch Site: Cape Canaveral. Launch Complex: LC39B.
Launch Vehicle: Saturn IB.
LV Configuration: Saturn IB s/n SA-208.
Payload: Apollo CSM 118. Mass: 20,847 kg.
Location of Spacecraft: National Air and Space Museum (Smithsonian Institution), Washington, DC.
Perigee: 422 km. Apogee: 437 km. Inclination: 50.0 deg. Period: 93.1 min.

Included observation and photography of Comet Kohoutek among numerous experiments. Completed 1,214 Earth orbits and four EVAs totalling 22 hours, 13 minutes. Increased manned space flight time record by 50%. Rebellion by crew against NASA Ground Control overtasking led to none of the crew ever flying again.

Skylab-4    Manhour Utilization
 Medical Activities - 366.7 hours, 6.1%
Solar Observations - 519 hours, 8.5%
Earth Resources - 274.5 hours, 4.5%
Other Experiments - 403 hours, 6.7%
Sleep, Rest & Off Duty - 1846.5 hours, 30.5%
Pre/Post Sleep & Eating - 1384 hours, 23%
Housekeeping - 298.9 hours, 4.9%
Physical Training & Personal Hygiene - 384.5 hours, 6.4%
Other (EVA) Etc. - 571.4 hours, 9.4%
 Total:   6048.5 hours

Skylab Statistical Summary

Orbital Parameters,  268.1 x 269.5 miles

Orbital Inclination, 50 degrees

Orbital Period, approx. 93 minutes

Distance Traveled in miles (manned):
Skylab 2 - 11.5 million
Skylab 3 - 24.5 million
Skylab 4 - 34.5 million
total - 70.5 million miles

Mission Duration:
Skylab 2 - 28 days, 49 minutes
Skylab 3 - 59 days, 11 hrs., 9 min.
Skylab 4 - 84 days, 1 hr., 16 min.
total - 171 days, 13 hrs., 14 min.


On July 11, 1979, Skylab disintegrated when it re-entered the earth's atmosphere after a worldwide scare over its pending crash. The debris stretched from the south-east Indian Ocean into Western Australia.

--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoloatm.htm
Chronology of Skylab

[Astronuc]

http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/iss.htm

The International Space Station's evolution, final configuration and Russia's involvement were largely settled in 1994. The Station's pressurized modules will provide a shirt-sleeve environment for up to seven astronauts and scientists. NASA will provide the truss structure, two laboratory and habitation modules, and two interconnecting nodes. Japan will fly a lab/experiment platform. The European Space Agency's (ESA) Columbus laboratory has been gradually reduced because of financial constraints, but the contract was finally signed in April 1996. Canada's Mobile Servicing System will play a key role in assembly and servicing. Logistics modules will be delivered as required.

Boeing Defense & Space Group was named 17-Aug-1993 as prime contractor for the revised station. Boeing is responsible for delivering the full-up vehicle and for co-ordinating and integrating the US portion with international elements. It is responsible for the design, development, physical and analytical integration, test, delivery, and launch of the vehicle, in addition to one year of sustaining engineering following launch of each package, including spares. It also manages the subcontractors.

Assembly will require about 22 Shuttle and 11 Russian launches. The current Shuttle-Mir missions are acting as Phase 1 of the program to reduce risks. Continuous occupation (Phase 3) by a 3-man crew will be possible in 1999 (although there will be little power for science activities), increased to a 6-man crew at assembly completion in 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION SPECIFICATIONS

(Figures at Assembly Complete)

Principal uses: civilian space station
Cost: preliminary design (1985-87) $0.6 billion; station-related design/development $0.7 billion; development $8.9 billion; NASA estimate for assembly complete $17.4 billion; operations (2003-2012) $13.0 billion
Orbit: 407 km, 51.6°
Crew size: up to 7
Wingspan: 108.6 m
Length: 79.9 m
Habitable volume: ~1,200 m³
Total mass: 456,620 kg (456.6 MT)
Environment: 1 atm pressure

HARDWARE
Canadian Mobile Servicing System: includes a 16.8 m robot arm with 113 t payload capability, as well as a mobile transporter, which can be positioned along the truss for robotic assembly and maintenance operations

Functional Cargo Block (FGB): includes the energy block, contingency fuel storage, propulsion, and multiple docking ports. The 19,300 kg element, built in Russia but purchased by the US, will be launched on a Proton vehicle

Russian Service Module: provides life support and utilities, thrusters, and habitation functions (toilet and hygiene facilities). The 21,000 kg element will also be launched on a Proton vehicle

Science Power Platform (SPP): will provide power (approximately 25 kW) and heat rejection for the Space Station's science and operations

Crew Transfer Vehicles (CTVs): include a modified Russian Soyuz TM capsule and another vehicle yet to be determined. The Soyuz CTV can normally accommodate a crew of three, or a crew of teo when considering the return of an ill or injured crewmember with room for medical equipment

Progress Cargo Vehicles: carry reboost propellant (up to 3,000 kg) to the Space Station about four times per year

Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV): is a transfer vehicle to carry reboost propellant and supplies to the Space Station. The European-developed ATV will be launched by Europe's Ariane 5

Six Laboratories: two US - a laboratory and a Centrifuge Accommondation Module (CAM); one ESA Columbus Orbital Facility (COF); one Japanese Experiment Module (JEM); and two Russian Research Modules

U.S., European and Japanese laboratories: together provide 33 International Standard Payload Racks; additional science space is available in the two Russian Reasearch Modules

Japan's JEM: has an exposed platform, or 'back porch', attached to it, with 10 mounting spaces for experiments, which provide direct contact with the space environment. The JEM also has a small robotic arm for payload operations on the exposed platform

U.S. Habitation Module: Contains the galley, toilet, shower, sleep stations, and medical facilites

Three Italian Mini Pressurized Laboratory Modules (MPLMs): carries all the pressurized cargo and payloads launched on the Space Shuttle. Each module is capable of delivering 16 International Standard Payload Racks

Two U.S. Nodes: Node 1 is for storage space only; Node 2 contains racks of equipment used to convert electrical power for use by the international partners. The nodes are also the structural building blocks that link the pressurized modules together

External Sites: four locations on the truss for mounting experiments intended for looking down at Earth and up into space or direct exposure to space

Power: 110 kW average (46 kW average for research, with Russian segment producing an additional 14 kW for research). There are four large US solar arrays; each array has four modules, each approximately 34 m long x 11.9 m wide. Each array generates approximately 23 kW. The arrays rotate to face the Sun, providing maximum power to the station

------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/csa_sectors/human_pre/iss/pmsc_pciog.asp

Number of missions required -

Over 50 missions will be required to transport and assemble all parts of the ISS.

Number of spacewalks required -

About 160 spacewalks, that is, 960 hours, will be required for station assembly and maintenance.

In April 2001, Canadian Space Agency Astronaut Chris Hadfield became the first Canadian to perform a spacewalk (extravehicular activity, or EVA) when he installed Canadarm2 on the ISS.

Size - Fully assembled, the ISS will be 108 by 74 metres.

ISS will have 1,250 cubic metres of living and working space, which is the equivalent of the interior of a Boeing 747.

Mass - About 460 metric tons

Pressurized volume - 1,200 m³

[remcook]

a similar initiative was started at the space.com forums a while ago. Eventually that thread died a slow death. It would have been interesting to see what they brought up, if only the site hadn't crashed and all backups were lost.... 

I do think someone made a website with some conclusions.

[Retrospector]

I wonder if there is any agreement about the size and weight of a spacecraft designed for a Mars landing. The Apollo modules altogether weighed something over 100,000 lbs (over 45,000 kg) at launch, a Mars vehicle would, I think, be an order of magnitude more massive. I suspect that there would have to be many more than three crew personnel. Also, would it be best to send a single ship, a pair of ships, or even more together on a first misssion? Would more than one ship be more safe?

[Astronuc]

Food for thought - Russia's plans for manned Mars missionshttp://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_manned_mars.html

From the Economist - Mar 9th 2000 (a bit dated)
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=290922

The fans of Mars

A growing movement hopes to capitalise on public interest in the red planet to pay for research - and to build support for a manned mission

THROWING hundreds of millions of dollars at the planet Mars without any certainty of a return on the investment is something that America's space agency, NASA, has been doing for decades. Now Hollywood is getting in on the act as well. On March 10th, "Mission to Mars", the first of a clutch of forthcoming Martian movies, opens in cinemas across America. Later in the year it will be followed by "Red Planet". And in 2001 two more Mars projects - a mini-series and an Imax 3-D movie - are due from James Cameron, the director of "Titanic". In short, Mars is coming soon to a screen near you.

For the "Mars advocacy" movement, which wants to send people to the place, these movies are more than just entertainment. They are also a valuable opportunity to capitalise on public interest in all things Martian to raise support - and cash - for exploration of the planet itself. Mars is currently the focus of an unprecedented intersection of scientific, promotional and popular interest. In a speech last year Mr Cameron told the Mars Society (a large advocacy group that includes many leading scientists) that he hoped to infect the public with "Mars fever".



Take me to your leader
All of the Mars movies are based to a large extent on NASA's actual (though tentative) plan for a manned expedition to the planet. This involves sending an unmanned lander into orbit around Mars, along with a robot craft that travels to the surface and starts making fuel for the return journey, using constituents of the Martian atmosphere. Once these craft are in place, a crew can then fly to Mars in a third vehicle, transfer to the orbiting lander, and touch down. After 500 days on the surface, the crew would return to orbit around Mars using the manufactured fuel, transfer back to the original spacecraft, and return to earth.

There is, in other words, plenty of scope for drama, and it does not give too much away to say that both "Mission to Mars" and "Red Planet" start with Mars missions that go wrong. But as well as borrowing real-life mission plans, the film makers have also been borrowing some real, live scientists.

Several researchers, including Matt Golombek, chief scientist on the 1997 robotic Pathfinder mission, were involved in the production of "Mission to Mars". Brian De Palma, the film's director, set out to depict the spacecraft as realistically as possible. Joe Allen, a former astronaut who advised on some space-walking scenes, has said that the film scores nine out of ten for accuracy. (That said, the dramatic sandstorm shown in the movie would not be possible in Mars's thin, feeble atmosphere; and it may be less believable still, given that the film is set only 20 years into the future, that it includes a completed version of the much-delayed International Space Station.)

"Red Planet", set in 2050, also bases its approach on NASA's mission plan, though director Anthony Hoffman says he lost the agency's approval because of a scene in which one astronaut kills another. But what the film lacks in official sanction, it is expected to make up for in visual appeal: the costume designer and the production designer both previously worked on the stylish thriller "The Matrix".

Mr Cameron's twin projects, set in 2016, will be the most realistic, particularly when it comes to the depiction of Martian life-forms. These will be bacteria visible only under a microscope, rather than the humanoid super-beings and man-eating worms that appear in the other two films. Sets and props will be shared between his two productions, and Mr Cameron, who is renowned for his attention to technical detail, says he is aiming for documentary realism. His intention, he says, is "to make humans to Mars real in the minds of the viewing public" and to emphasise that a voyage to Mars, unlike the technology depicted in most science-fiction movies, is technically feasible. This is music to the ears of Mars Society members - including Mr Cameron himself.

For the big hope is that all of this on-screen action will translate into greater public interest in the actual exploration of Mars. It could also lead to more tangible benefits for researchers. The Mars Society is setting up a privately financed research station in the dry, Mars-like terrain of the Canadian Arctic. This laboratory just happens to be based on the reference design for a manned Mars lander that is now on the drawing-board at NASA. The lab will be made available to researchers, including those at NASA's nearby Haughton Mars research station. Those researchers will thus end up with extra equipment, and, when using it, they will also be able to evaluate the design of the lander.

Mr Cameron has mooted the possibility that, once his two films are complete, he will donate his props and equipment for use at the Canadian base. Since they will be modelled as closely as possible on NASA's designs, this will allow further feasibility testing. Pascal Lee of NASA's Ames Research Centre, who is setting up the station, says this would constitute "an interesting synergy between the entertainment industry, the advocacy groups and the scientists."

The Mars movies could also help scientists to attract commercial sponsorship for their research. In January the Mars Society announced a sponsorship deal for its research station with Flashline.com, an online software vendor. An outbreak of Mars fever could encourage other firms to do similar deals in return for Martian kudos.

In Britain, M&C Saatchi Sponsorship has just been appointed to raise money for the European Space Agency's robotic Beagle 2 mission to Mars. According to Matthew Patten, the company's chief executive, the aim is to raise £10m ($16m, or 40% of the total mission cost) over the next four years in sponsorship and merchandising. Sponsors will be able to place their logos on the spacecraft. And, since nobody will actually be able to see Beagle 2 as it whizzes through space, the logos will also be applied to an earth-based replica and to computer animations of the spacecraft that will appear on television. Promotional space will also be sold on the craft's parachutes and airbags: Beagle 2's touchdown in 2003 will, literally, be cushioned by private money.

Many Mars advocates believe that the first manned mission will also be privately financed. Tellingly, the astronauts in "Red Planet" have space-suits festooned with logos. A private mission might have a number of advantages over a public one. Analysis of 91 historical expeditions to a previous frontier, the Arctic, by Jonathon Karpoff of the University of Washington, found that private expeditions were better organised, more adaptable, suffered fewer fatalities, and made better use of the latest technologies. Perhaps in 2020 or so, it will be a young software or biotech mogul, inspired by the rash of Mars movies from his youth, who will write the $30 billion cheque required.

[remcook]

OK...what if....

Lockheed and Boeing are going to say: Look, we have confidence in this thing. We are going to Mars with NASA and we're going to toss in some of our own money.

..Instead of waiting untill all the money comes to them. They'll get a lot of orders from this anyway if NASA does go to Mars. It would be like an investment. It would give politics a push to actually make this happen.

But I don't really see this happen....companies don't give away money and there are probably a lot of disadvantages that I didn't think of. I know nothing about politics or business.

[alokmohan]

Robert Zubrin is the man who is taking lot of initiative.His mars direct is ok?

[remcook]

here is the link of the sdc initiative.

http://users.wpi.edu/~rcaron/mars/index.shtml

sorry to say, but I don't think there are enough active posters here to pull this off. not yet! muhahaha.

[Rxke]

I'm a NewMars regular (or rather: 'hopeless addict')
And one of the people there, Robert Stockman, has, over the years, designed an (IMHO) very flexible scenario, using current launchers, calls it Mars24 (the 24 standing for the launch-capability)

http://rsmd.net/MarsFrontier/

He is quite modest about it, saying he's just an amateur (he's a MD planetary geologist, worked under Mutch as graduate during Viking (ooooooh I'm jealous!) )

But you can see it's a labour of love: he uses the scenario to write a novel about it, currently 3 sections online, wich is great stuff (not nobel-prize stuff, but *lots* of good idea's)

Ok, ok: i admit I'm a fan...

But his plan is scalable, and can be used for the moon, mars, venus, asteroids... Sounds a lot like the New Space Initiative, heh.

[Astronuc]

All good links!  Here is another, although its a bit dated (last updated in 2002)

http://spot.colorado.edu/~marscase/Home.html


Clearly many individuals like Zubrin and many people in the general population are thinking about landing people on Mars.

However, I hope that people will develop some original ideas here.

Regarding Boeing, Lockheed-Martin or Northrup-Grumman - each is a for profit company with investors and shareholders to whom they must answer.  They are certainly interested in building any spacecraft, as long as someone, government or private industry pays for it.  All three are currently in a competition for the JIMO Systems Integration contract.  The Systems Integrator will build the spacecraft, JPL will provide the payload, BWXT will manfacture the fuel and core, which will be designed by Bettis with support from KAPL - this assumes the budget is increased to what NASA originally requested.

[alokmohan]

Zubrin has given MD a respectable thing by persuing   it in   senate committes.His books have drawn attention throughout world.Hehas made MD  a systematic way oft hinking.

[Thinker]

Ok....glaringly obvious point here...at least to me...

Half the battle (literally) with getting enough stuff to Mars to make a manned expedition feasible is first getting that stuff into Earth orbit.  This is where that `space elevator' deal would *really* come into its own.  Get one of those up and running in the next...thirty years or so, and the costs of interplanetary space travel would drop so much that a manned mission to Mars would probably happen within a decade of that.  Call it 2040, for the sake of argument.  I be 41, so barring an early death, I could actually live to see that happen.

As to getting to Mars itself, in my view - especially if there is a working `space elevator' would be to go with a `cycler' deal - (several?) sets of ships on orbits that let them make close approaches to earth and mars both.  Real good for the transfer of bulk goods, at any rate, though maybe not so good for moving people (radiation and all). Hmmm.... maybe go with a rotating `ring' design for the spacecraft (some gravity beng better than no gravity), and somehow `insulate' the craft against at least some of the radiation?
 Now, if some long term continuous acceleration drive were to become feasible....

That novel deal looks interesting, by the way.

[Astronuc]

The space elevators would in theory reduce the cost of putting material in orbit.

Larger craft/stations orbiting between Mars and Earth have been given serious consideration.

A continuous acceleration system requires lots of energy, depending of course, on the required level of acceleration.  A thrusting system would require very high Isp to be effective, while something that uses the solar wind would probably use less energy but would achieve low acceleration.

[Astronuc]

Some considerations on propulsion from http://alfven.princeton.edu/projects/LiLFA.htm.

"NASA has identified Mars as the next step in human exploration of the solar system.  Such an ambitious mission provides a major propulsion challenge; carrying people, life support, and equipment almost half the distance between the earth and the sun, and using as little propellant as possible to do it. The rocket equation tells us that in order for a significant fraction of our initial spacecraft mass to make it to the final destination requires high exhaust velocities.  For a Mars trip one desires exhaust velocities in the 40-50 km/s range whereas the best of today's chemical thrusters give exhaust velocities an order of magnitude lower (4-5 km/s).

To put this in perspective (thanks to Lenny Cassady for the following analysis):

The first human crew to travel to Mars will need to carry with them on the order of 60 mT of payload ( based on the numbers NASA uses for its mission studies assuming that a cargo vessel with many of the supplies the crew will need on the planet was launched earlier and is waiting for them on Mars).  To get the 60 mT ship from Earth orbit to Mars orbit using traditional chemical rockets would require an additional 175,500 kg of fuel payload.  That is enough fuel to fill 6.5 shuttle cargo bays!  And that's only one way!

Now, if we were to trade the chemical rockets for our electric plasma thruster, the same mission would require only about 2/3rds of a shuttle cargo bay of fuel (18,300 kg)!

A huge difference between traditional chemical and electric plasma thruster!"

Unfortunately, I cannot confirm the numbers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On March 13, 2001  the Moscow Aviation Institute 30 kWe LiLFA was successfully fired in the Steady State Low Power Facility at Princeton's Electric Propulsion and Plasma Dynamics Laboratory (EPPDyL).  A 500 A arc discharge (10 kWe) was sustained for nearly three minutes at a lithium vapor flow rate of 20 mg/s.  A minor short of one of the feed system heaters ended the test and is currently being repaired.  This marks the first lithium thruster firing in our lab since the successful demonstration of the OHP-LiLFA in August of 1998 and makes us the only facility outside of Russia currently conducting lithium thruster research.

First Firing of the MAI-LiLFA at EPPDyL