NASA's Waterloo: A Realistic Mission to Mars Post Apollo

[RanulfC]

That does get me thinking about Zubrin TTL. The timetable for him to present “Mars Direct” is still viable and by 1990 he and the rest of the “Mars Underground” will be feeling the post-Ares doldrums even worse than OTL since the US HAS been to Mars at least once or twice. So there’s a possible ‘legacy’ with using the uprated Saturn’s to launch a “Mars Direct” type mission for the proposal. And I’ll point out that the original NIMF paper was actually a broad proposal for mission to several destinations around the solar system (Mars, Titan, and Jupiter to name a few) using nuclear propulsion and the local atmosphere/resources. (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910012833.pdf, http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php)

Which got me thinking, (I know, I know… dangerous and probably silly but ) so bear with me here a moment.

The main issue with both Mars Direct and NIMF is the need for power to produce and store the propellant. Nuclear in fact was the obvious first choice but are problematical due to the shielding requirements. MD moves the reactor to a built ‘crater’ about a kilometer away to use distance for shielding but NIMF can’t do that. Or can it?

Unfortunately thought the original concept known as Heteropowered, (don’t judge, it was the 50s) Earth-Launched Inter-Orbital Spacecraft or HELIOS became a “catch-all” term for some wildly different and mostly obscure spaceship and post-Saturn launch vehicle concepts the ORIGINAL concept was generated by that wonderful good Krafft Ehricke at Convair aviation around 1959. (see “HELIOS Waterski” entry here: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns3.php,https://twitter.com/nyrath/status/1043260461725216768)

The thing with nuclear propulsion or power is how to protect things from radiation while in operation. There are three methods that can be used alone or in combination:
1) Time: Give it time and once the nuclear reactions die down so does the radiation… Eventually. Usually years, decades or millennium depending on the original power density. A fully shut down NERVA for example could be approached ‘safely’ in a few years with proper precautions and protection. The normally took them immediately back to a ‘hot’ lab and used waldos and robotic arms to fully disassemble and inspect the reactor elements and then put it back together again. That’s for steady runs at several megawatts thermal. The NERVA TNT put out about a gigawatt of thermal energy in the few microseconds it was in one piece and thereafter people in minimal protection gear were picking up pieces and cleaning up within the hour. In fact one lead engineer picked up a piece of the core and tossed in in a barrel using a pair of gloves with no issues.

2) The second method is distance. Radiation levels fall off over distance so the more space between you and an radioactive source, even open space, means less exposure. Spacecraft designers who have to worry about “every-ounce-counts” often substituted distance for the more mass intensive but far more effective shielding. Hence why you tend to see nuclear reactors WAY out on booms or at the far end of the ship from the crew/passengers.

3) Third and last is the afore mentioned shielding or mass. And by that I mean MASS because to fully shield a reactor take several tons of shielding and concrete which is not something you want to have to carry aboard a spaceship. Yet you obviously need SOME because you normally can’t put the crew/passengers far enough away from an operating reactor to fully eliminate the radiation. So they came up with the concept if the “shadow” shield. Simply this is the minimum amount of shielding you can get away with that protects the crew/passengers from the radiation by blocking the most direct route it could take to get to them. Radiation can be reflected off things, (a thick atmosphere like that of Earth or Venus say might cause what’s called ‘backscatter’ as the radiation is bounced off the atoms of the atmosphere which is why nuclear powered airplanes had to have shielded passenger/crew spaces and why naval submarines go ahead and fully shield the reactor) but in general it can’t turn corners so if you draw an angled line from the corners of a shadow shield outward this will give you an area within which is safe from the reactor radiation.

So normally by combining what distance they can with a shadow shield the spacecraft designer can often use far less mass for protection than they normally would. But quite obviously for something like NIMF you can’t have much distance and besides which even if you did to do any exploring or such you’d have to come out from behind that shadow shield and walk around. Worse if you’re using the reactor to produce the power to process and store you propellant it’s NEVER shut down so it can’t even begin to ‘cool’ off. (Zubrin surrounds it with high density liquid CO2 but that's not near enough to be that close)

Well Convair and Ehricke wondered if you couldn’t simply put even MORE distance between your reactor and the crew than one might think. Now granted the proposal was full of errors for the time but the idea was that since the ‘exhaust’ of a Nuclear Thermal Rocket isn’t radioactive, (unless it’s spraying reactor core bits which means you have more serious issues at hand) there’s no reason a “light” shadow shield on top the passenger/crew section couldn’t handle the radiation as long as the distance was far enough.
(Hint: The proposed 300m separation was a ‘tad’ on the low side since the proposed reactor was putting out 2,600 MW of thermal power and associated radiation. The term I’ve seen quoted is something like 1km per 1MW thermal so ya, a bit ‘toasty’ only 300m away. Keep in mind that’s for an ‘unshielded’ reactor and minimum to no shielding on the module itself though so figures can vary. Likely we can figure a way to keep the tether down to a kilometer or two at worst)

Now beyond that little ‘issue’ the concept itself is rather elegant as proven by the fact it keep popping up. (See the twitter post above and concepts like the Valkyrie Anti-Matter rocket or the starship from the movie Avatar which is based on the same concept)

In essence your passenger module is dragged behind the engine pod like a water-skier around a lake with hopefully a somewhat less bumpy ride and no ‘cracking-the-whip’ maneuvers. But how’s this applicable?

So as per OTL plan the first Earth Return Vehicle is launched towards Mars aboard a Very Heavy Launch Vehicle which will provide the majority if not all the impulse to get into the Trans-Mars Injection trajectory. In this case you might need a stage to finish the kick, (maybe a nuclear shuttle but those probably don’t exist so an added stage or stretched stage on the Earth Launch Vehicle) so the reactor is not operated all the way to Mars. (I’d add an RTG for power on the ‘top’ of the propulsion module but you can have solar arrays on the ERV instead) Once on the way the tether is reeled out during transit and the vehicle spun, mostly just to ensure the system is exercised and working at Mars arrival. As the ship approaches Mars the modules are reeled together again and Mars EDL takes place behind an aeroshield as per the MD concept itself.

What differs is the final (L and in landing) stage where once the aeroshell is jettisoned the propulsion module deploys an aerodynamic decelerator and the tethers are unreeled to full length where the reactor is started and powered descent begins. (Note that while the ERV or later Hab module doesn’t have as thick a ‘shadow shield’ as you’d normally see it still has one which in this case eliminates one of the issues with the MD Habs not having enough upper shielding to protect from galactic and flare radiation and needed to have regolith filled sandbags piled on top) Since we’re assuming Mars as a destination anyway there’s no real need for most efficient reaction mass for the drive so we can use anything from Methane to CO2 or even water just whatever makes the best shielding and most density. (According to the above NIMF report at around 2800K which is low for an NTR methane has an ISP of 606, water 370 and CO2 around 283. LH2 does better but we want mass and density to help shield the reactor and provide extra shielding during flight so probably methane. Water would be nice and would be useful when you get there too, but finding easy to access water is a big issue. True you’re carrying LH2 anyway but using a propellant other than hydrogen for the return trip, CO2 and water for example, means that the oxides will attack the cladding of the reactor element unless they are specially coated to resist such oxidation. Unfortunately THOSE coatings don’t react well to things like hot hydrogen and/or methane so… Choose wisely )

Once the ERV/Hab is landed the Propulsion module sets down at a distance determined by the tether length and reduces power to around 1MW thermal and begins producing power for the Hab. Note that in the standard MD context this power is going to turn local CO2 and delivered LH2 into methane and LOX for the Earth Return Vehicle it carries. That assumes you don’t use the Nuclear Propulsion Module for the Earth Return portion and there may be good reasons not to even though that leaves (under the MD plan) several NPM’s scattered around Mars.

All the propellants proposed have some ‘issues’ as noted. CO2 while readily available generates a low ISP needing higher reactor power (1100MWth for ‘orbit’, around 2400MWth for low energy TEI), a water propelled NIMF vehicle would need about the same despite the higher ISP and getting the water is non-trivial though you can process it from the local ‘air’ as well with imported LH2, methane at the temps discussed has a tendency to disassociate and the free carbon released “might” ‘coke’ the reactor passages which could have adverse effects on reactor cooling and propellant flow

Now one thing about generating LOX and Liquid methane for propellants is the ability to use the LOX to augment the NTR when using either methane or hydrogen. LANTR or “LOX Augmented NTR” injects LOX into the exhaust nozzle of the NTR to act like an ‘afterburner’ greatly increasing thrust for a dip in ISP. And you can switch back and forth s needed so you use high-thrust/lower-ISP for the initial boost followed by going back to lower-thrust/higher-ISP for the full booster back to orbit and then to TEI.

Cut the NTR back to just power till you approach Earth and then use it to back down into HEO, or (in the spirit of Apollo and Ares) just enough and then toss it away as you use on-board propellant to slow to aerobrake and land on Earth.

And I should probably point out that this still allows the vehicle to perform some NIMF missions such as sub-orbital hops around Mars. You wouldn’t want to use the ERV but the ‘standard’ Hab/NPM should work especially if it’s designed to handle CO2 as a propellant. More so as the second paper points out if the NIMF is a sample return or such probe but in general they could visit dozens of landing sites per mission instead of just one.

While it might seem rather ‘out-there’ as a method of travel I’d point out that the same could be said of a rocket-powered hover-crane landing a probe on Mars so…

Randy

 

[prolemasses]

Part III Chapter 9:

“It's like an erector set, only a whole lot bigger!”

- Ken Mattingly, Ares T-6


Ares T-4 was to be the first C class mission. The payload of the Saturn VB was the first full up PPM to fly. Designated PPM 1A, the module was transported very carefully to Florida by barge. Transporting the nuclear engines through open ocean was a daunting prospect, as every contingency had to be planned for. For safety's sake, the entire route was cleared by the US coast guard. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, with their remote controlled submersibles were on hand, in case the barge sank, and the reactor cores needed to be recovered. Finally, PPM 1A (named “Marie” after Marie Curie by ground crews) arrived at the Cape, where it was stacked onto its carrier rocket. Saturn VB SA-614 was rolled out to the pad, and was prepared for launch. Environmental and anti-nuclear protesters gathered to oppose the launch, while NASA officials assured them that every possible precaution had been taken. Eventually, the rocket lifted off on November 12, 1978, and was lifted into a 400 km orbit. After reaching orbit, Marie did not fire her nuclear engine though, as her first task was, once again, to test long duration cryogenic storage. Marie would have to wait a few months before the next phase of her mission began.


On February 21, 1980, Ares T-5 lifted off aboard a Saturn VB. This was the first manned flight aboard the huge rocket. Commanding the crew was Jack Lousma, accompanied by veteran astronauts Tony England, and Richard Truly, and Group 8 new recruits John Creighton and Rhea Seddon (only the the third woman in space after Valentina Tereshkova on Vostok 6, and Judith Resnik on Starlab 13). Their new Block IV CSM was perched atop the Starlab sized Mission Module, which was mounted atop MEM-5. The Block IV was a marginal improvement over the Block III, with some modifications to allow it to hibernate longer while attached to the MM. The crew was carried to orbit smoothly by the Saturn VB, and once there, became the second object in orbit more massive than Starlab (along with Marie). Like on Apollo flights, the CSM sat atop a conical shroud, which was discarded once the CSM separated from the MM. A second shroud, covering the docking adapter between the MM and the MEM, was also discarded. Creighton, the CSM pilot, performed the now routine transposition and docking maneuver, rotating the craft so it's “nose” pointed at the front end of the Mission Module, where the huge docking ring that would attach it to the PPM was. Sitting in the middle of the docking ring, and dwarfed by it, was a small module, about the size of the Orbital Modules used on flights to Starlab. This was the “Science and Logistics Module” or SLM. Creighton successfully extracted the SLM, and began to maneuver around the Mission Module.

Compared to Starlab, the MM had launched “upside down” with the docking adapter between the MEM and the MM. This meant that there were only two docking ports, one Zenith (on top), and one Nadir (underneath), on the docking adapter. Creighton approached the Nadir node, and carefully docked the SLM to to it, using the same docking cameras and radar as the Block III flights to Starlab. Once the module was attached, the docking probe connecting the CSM to the SLM was retracted, and the CSM backed off from the stack. Once the crew was a sufficient distance away, they maneuvered around the ship, in a graceful act of orbital ballet, until the Zenith docking port came into view. They aligned with this port, and docked to it, this time for good.


The Science and Logistics Module would carry much of the scientific equipment that the orbital crew on an Ares mission would use during their time at Mars. It would also be loaded with supplies and consumables to balance out the mass of the CSM docked across from it. One of the first things that the crew of Ares T-5 did after docking to the MM was to perform this supply transfer. The role of the Ares T-5 flight would be to both test the long duration life support capabilities of the MM, to make sure the MEM can function after the long trip to Mars, and to perform the first manned flight tests of the MEM. The crew set to work deploying all the systems aboard the MM that would support it on its journey to Mars. The solar panels and the parabolic communication dish were deployed, and all systems were activated. After a few days, the first tests of the MM maneuvering capabilities occurred, with the crew practicing the approach that they would need to perform to dock the stack to the PPMs that would launch it to Mars.


Once they had brought the whole ship online, the crew of Ares T-5 settled in for their long duration mission. For a few months, the United States would have two massive space stations, supporting 9 people, on orbit. In fact, 2 Starlab crew rotation flights would occur while Ares T-5 was on orbit, so briefly, there were 14 astronauts in space at one time. Before launch, the crew of Ares T-5 had already selected the call sign “Constitution”. In a TV broadcast made a few days into the flight, the crew announced that they had named MEM-5 “Orion”. However, despite Lousma and Truly jumping at the chance to actually fly the MEM, they would not get the chance until after the 8 month, long duration test flight had been completed.


While the crew of Ares T-5 was still on orbit, another PPM was rolled out to the pad. PPM 1B “Enrico” (named for Enrico Fermi) was launched on June 12, into a rendezvous orbit with Marie. Once the two huge stages had been maneuvered into close orbits with one another, the crew of Ares T-6 lifted off on top of a Saturn II. Ares T-6 would test the critical on-orbit assembly techniques needed to attach these massive stages together. John Young, Ken Mattingly, and Group 8 recruit Loren Shriver would be tasked with ensuring that assembly went smoothly. After a day catching up, Ares T-6 came into visual range of Marie and Curie. The crew were amazed by the size of the massive stages. Each PPM massed in at over 500,000 lbs, was over 140 feet long, and had the same 33 foot diameter as the Saturn V. Nothing on this scale had ever been docked before. To accomplish this, each PPM would use two “linear docking ports” attached along the sides. These were long and vaguely rectangular, as opposed to the round docking ports used by Apollo. Since no one, and nothing would be passing through them, the docking ports were optimised for structural integrity. In fact, the docking system was not even designed to undock. Once the two outer PPM’s had expended all their fuel pushing the central one towards Mars, the entire docking assembly would be blown off to save on mass.


In order to attach the two stages in a controlled manner, Ares T-6 first docked to Enrico. An Apollo docking port had been mounted on the non-nuclear end of the module, specifically for this purpose. Once attached, Shriver took control of Marie. Unlike the responsive Apollo, or LM, each stage was cumbersome, moving in slow motion. Shriver slowly guided the skyscraper sized stage until it was parallel with Enrico, with the docking ports aligned. He was assisted in this effort by cameras and laser rangefinders mounted on the stage. Once the stage was within a few meters, robotic arms extended from Enrico, and attached to Marie. The Remote Manipulator System had been the Canadian Space Agency’s contribution to project Ares, developed in exchange for flights of Canadian astronauts to Starlab. These arms guided the stages in, and ensure that they were aligned. Finally, after hours of slowly inching the huge stages together, positive contact was established. Mechanical latches engaged, locking the two overwhelmingly large stages together.


Once hard docking had been established, Ken Mattingly suited up to go on EVA. Mattingly disembarked from the Apollo. The Orbital Module on the Block III could be used as an airlock, so the entire command module would not have to be depressurised, like on older versions. Mattingly climbed along the side of Enrico. Though NASA had endured them that there was no threat from the nuclear reactors, because they were not “hot” yet, there was still a great deal of intimidation in Mattingly when the nuclear engines came into view. The sheer scale of the PPMs was also intimidating. Mattingly verified the connection between the two giant stages. He also manually deployed one of the massive radiators mounted on Enrico, a key procedure that would be needed if it had gotten stuck. After more than four hours of climbing along the surface of the PPM, Mattingly rejoined the crew. During his report to ground control, Mattingly said that “You've built a fine machine”, and commented that “It's even bigger up close”. After a week on orbit, Ares T-6 disconnected from Enrico, and returned to Earth. Once they had left, Enrico and Marie were commanded to fire in unison, launching both stages into an orbit around the sun. Then the docking ports were blown off Enrico, just like the real thing.


All the while, the crew of Ares T-5 were putting the MM Constitution through its paces. A big part of this test was to prove that the MM could support a crew for a long duration, without resupply. By September of 1980, the crew had demonstrated this capability. To give Lousma and his crew something to do, the Science and Logistics Module was fitted with astronomical observation equipment, and Constitution was packed with microgravity experiments. Still the crew was a little unhappy that their job was to “sit around breathing and shitting”. On September 13, the most anticipated milestone was reached, and Truly and Lousma boarded Orion through the docking tunnel. This time they would actually be flying the thing, instead of just sitting in it during leisure time. Normally, the crew would transfer to the MEM, but only two were needed to actually pilot the thing, and to prevent unnecessary risk, only the Commander and MEM Pilot would be performing these tests. Lousma and Truly brought the MEM out of hibernation, and began checking all systems for faults. On the 14th, they jettisoned the shrouds around Orion, and backed away from Constitution.


Lousma and Truly piloted Orion performing many of the same tests as Ares T-3. The MEM had a total Delta V of over 6 km/s, so to test out Orion without flying into a solar orbit, the crew oriented their craft during burns to change the inclination of their orbit, not it's height. Orion “bounced” around Constitution’s orbit, as they ran through each stage of the MEM. During the test of the ascent stage, none of the drop tanks stuck, an improvement. Lousma reported that the MEM handled well, especially once the descent stage was ditched. They also crawled down the tunnel that led from the cockpit to the surface habitat in the base of the MEM. The crew reported that the surface habitat was “a bit cozier” than the MM, but it served its function. After 4 days of independent operation, the ascent stage of Orion approached Constitution once more. Once Lousma and Truly were safely aboard Constitution, Orion was commanded to disconnect and deorbit to its fiery doom.


In addition to all this in space testing, NASA was readying their crews to fly the MEM on the ground. Extensive new simulators had been built to train crews. In addition, the Martian Landing Training Vehicle had been built, a vehicle that used a jet engine to simulate the effects of Martian gravity, allowing the crews to practice landing on the red planet. It resembled the similar vehicle that had been built for training astronauts on the LM, but larger, and with two crew. The results of the Ares T-5 flight were incorporated into the ground based representations of the MEM, to better reflect the handling quirks of the strange spacecraft. With all this under their belt, NASA felt that it was finally ready to actually fly a mission to Mars.

 

[RanulfC]

Part III Chapter 9:

Issue:

Their new Block IV CSM was perched atop the Starlab sized Mission Module, which was mounted atop MEM-4. The Block IV was a marginal improvement over the Block III, with some modifications to allow it to hibernate longer while attached to the The crew was carried to orbit smoothly by the Saturn VB, and

Something is missing

Wonderful update, to bad they couldn't come up with a payload for the 'used' (which one was that BTW is sounded like it was "Marie" but the "ports" were blown off "Enrico" which kind of makes it sound like it was the core and "Marie" the booster? ) stage which I'm sure still had propellant aboard. "Linear docking ports" eh? Sounds like something that would work in a computer game simulating spaceflight if you ask me

Randy

 

[fasquardon]

Unfortunately yes the mass budget of the mission would be totally blown with a NTR. Take a look at Zubrin’s “Nuclear Thermal Rocket using Indigenous Martian Fuel” (NIMF as it’s called) vehicle and it’s mass budget compared to the MEM. The other fact is your living with your nuclear reactor RIGHT THERE in the vehicle since it will take a while to ‘cool’ enough to be safe to move around outside the shadow-shield. (Like ‘never’ for our purposes)

On the other hand you also had a T/W issue for the NERVA type NTRs. Having said that it only took till the 90s OTL to come up with a way to boost that because the research on NTR pretty much shut down in the 70s whereas here it didn't so LANTR (http://www.astronautix.com/l/lantrmoonbase.html) is probably likely though of sooner. On that note they might have gotten to Bi-Modal (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140017461.pdf) and Tri-Modal (https://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space_Engines/AIAA-2004-3863_TRITON.pdf) NTR in TTL.

Hm, I had thought that the very last nuclear thermal rockets the USA experimented with had a T/W ratio just over 1. But maybe I was confusing that with the Dumbo design of core.

Of course, it does seem that I'd been underestimating the danger the core of a nuclear rocket would pose to the crew.

FLOX-30, that's what I was thinking of. Edited.

Ahhh. OK.

I guess that's better? Maybe?

I gotta say, I find the Mars program you describe kinda depressing...

fasquardon

 

[RanulfC]

Hm, I had thought that the very last nuclear thermal rockets the USA experimented with had a T/W ratio just over 1. But maybe I was confusing that with the Dumbo design of core.

As always we reference:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#ntrsolidcore

NERVA-LH2 had a T/W of around 0.5 but I too have found reference to the "flight-weight" hitting almost 1.0. NERVA with most propellants is around 0.5-ish it seems. And some of the "advanced" NERVA designs show over 3.0 off the bat. Now LANTR of course pushes that as high as 3.0, but take note of some of the more 'advanced' designs such as the Russian 'twisted' element NTR (over 6.0!) but as noted the elements tended to disintegrate VERY fast using straight hydrogen. The MITEE and PEWEE are interesting hitting 7.1 and 3.5 respectively. And then the Low Pressure NTR (LPNTR) is getting around 1.2 in "high" gear and over 6.0 in "low" is nothing to sneeze at! (Single-H really helps which is what they found in the advanced MITEE's also) DUMBO looks fantastic but as it notes that's without some 'options' you really want to have like shielding, pumps and a nozzle but you START over something like 70.00! But I take those with a grain of salt since the Pebble Bed was supposed to hit over 20 but didn't even hit NERVA thrust in testing AND had bad burn-through and melting issues.

As Donald Kingsbury explained it when addressing DUMBO the main issue, (and something the Russian's got 'right' that the US missed by being too conservative) was that turbulent flow robs an NTR of a LOT of thrust. Less turbulence and the reaction mass is heated better and more evenly which gives a higher exhaust velocity and better thrust at the same time.

Of course, it does seem that I'd been underestimating the danger the core of a nuclear rocket would pose to the crew.

Eh, it goes both ways but I'd compare it to the 'danger' of H2O2 as what really makes the difference is treating the system/propellant with respect and keeping the relative dangers in mind. Most nations dropped H2O2, (and nuclear propulsion) because they didn't maintain enough of either while nations that did maintain such ended up doing quite well with them. (England and Russian to be specific)

You can probably make the same 'argument' about FLOX. As I noted experience in the US was vastly different than others who experimented with it BECAUSE the person they put in charge treated it as the dangerous chemical it was and not a wonder propellant. On the flip side I'd point out the US actually had more working knowledge of such propulsion than the people who were working with them (Brit's and Russia again) but had already made decisions that did not take that knowledge into account that would sideline both very quickly. (We knew our way around NTRs we just kept being far to conservative in design and manufacture. And we were aware that highly concentrated H2O2 was actually more stable than lower concentrations AND it doesn't disassociate at ALL when mildly {5c/40degrees) refrigerated. On the latter you would think someone would have maybe NOTICED but when you look at it it seems for the most part everyone was looking to 'stabilize' the peroxide with additives whereas those who worked with the higher purity tended not to do so when it was cold! Which considering where England was doing the testing that might not have come up often )

I'd agree with the program being depressing, (I said the same thing about "Voyage" and for the same reason) but I suspect they may actually get more than one trip out of this one and it will greatly depend on where they 'fall-back' to once the program terminates. Arguably due to the higher 'sticker-shock' at the end there may end up being even less going on in LEO than OTL but to balance that TTL has gotten a lot more testing and working systems wrung out in action than OTL so it may balance out.

Again there may be some 'silver-lining' to come out of all this since a couple 'extra' Saturn's AND some proven and working NTRs somebody like Zubrin without the "Mars-ueber-alles" fixation is going to put those together in... Interesting shall we say, ways Again pointing to that longer NIMF, (more accurately I'd point out since we can take "Mars" out of the acronym it would probably be called "NIPER" or Nuclear Indigenous Propellant Explorer Robot) paper suggested fully nuclear propelled mission to Jupiter or Saturn that would, using local propellant, explore the WHOLE system of Moons and the planet and then RETURN samples to Earth all in ONE (1) mission!

The main question is how much further or less is advanced NTR development TTL versus OTL under the circumstances? Arguably, (and this happened OTL with the focus on Apollo and the Lunar goal so it's likely a factor here as well) it may lag significantly as the NTR program is de-funded as NERVA begins operation. (We have working model so further research is 'deferred' till later. and later never comes) OTL while the program was closed there was always going to be 'side' work done even if hardware and actual testing wasn't. Here they have a bit more 'openness' to work with and less need to hide or obscure the funding expenditures AND the research, development and testing center and system is still open and functional. (OTL any work to re-start actual testing of an NTR requires facilities and infrastructure be rebuilt pretty much from scratch. That's not the same TTL)

As per OTL "Star Wars" drove some NTR research, (The "Timberwind" pebble-bed NTR was supposed to power NTR-SSTO's to deploy the battle-satellites but it failed due to physics but TTL they have a working NTR and of course 'ideas' on making it better that took longer OTL to gestate) it should also do so TTL and frankly with an open and working Jackass Flats your ability to actually test ideas and systems if fantastically better than OTL.

As I've pointed out before LOX-Augmentation should come quickly. (As a corollary I'll note that what we call the "Thrust Augmented Nozzle" or TAN {an 'afterburner' for a chemical rocket, see: https://selenianboondocks.com/2007/11/thrust-augmented-nozzles/} was actually originally patented by Aerojet in the 50s!) Ceramic/Metal reactors, DUMBO and Peewee/MITEE aren't really that hard to see either and if the USSR falls TTL a lot of the Soviet/Russian research will end up making its way West as well.

Really it CAN be depressing, arguably will be as stepping back from Mars rather than the Moon is a bigger digression but it NEEDS to happen as neither Apollo nor Ares are practical or sustainable programs and what follows needs to back-fill the gap they leave behind. Being fully honest given the circumstances the odds are good that this TTL's 'crash' will be worse than OTL. Especially once (if) the main 'bugaboo' (the USSR) goes away. But just like the canard of "What if they stopped after Columbus" the paradigm of the government driven and supported "Big Program" needs to pass for the opportunity to come and it won't as long as that paradigm is seen as the only valid one. You can make the case TTL that there's still a need and a value to "using up" a lot of the legacy Apollo/Ares hardware but the more real "market" of satellite and LEO/GEO launch services is still there which that hardware is useless for. And we've seen steps in that direction already. The key aspect is how deep and long the public/political "funk" after Ares is over will last and how soon "space" can be cool again comes along.

It's only been lightly touched on and I'm not going to joggle prolemasses elbow on it (I'm not, really ) but we need to consider that the OTL 'resurgence' of interest in space that marked the late 70s and early 80s, (then dipped and re surged again in the 90s/2000s) has a focus/outlet with things like STARlab and Ares which only had the disappointing Shuttle OTL.
This makes a difference both in a good and bad way.
TTL "Space Colonization" could look to 'economic' versions of the Saturn-V and the still imaginary "shuttle" and Solar Power Satellites can actually be built and tested using the available "Heavy" lift launch once Areas is done. (Or so it can be assumed) This is good in that a lot of the "wait till we have the Shuttle" hype actually has a more realistic and near-term possible basis. It's bad because it is highly unlikely to turn out to happen with the even more 'crushing' depression once that is obvious. Quite obviously the US missed out on getting the "Grand Tour" flyby's but as I pointed out we could with the right incentive actually come out far ahead of the best hoped for outcome on that with some work. (And I'll be honest I was taking notes when I posted the NIMF stuff and while it started to make a mildly interesting "vignette" as a Mars mission the more I write the more it gets more interesting to apply it to the Outer Planets such as Jupiter and Saturn. I keep recalling the 'hype' over such missions OTL in the early 2000s and thinking "these guys have 'spare' Saturn-V's and probably more than they can find museum's to put them in so..." )

The bad however is TTL never saw the post-Apollo aerospace 'slump' and coupled with the (likely) fall of the USSR the whole "Peace Dividend" and "We won the Cold War" collapse looks a lot uglier. One reason I'm hoping the Soviets get to Venus is because that's 'spin-able' into a need to keep SOMETHING going after Ares shuts down. But I'm optimistic and if I'm honest with myself I may "want" it to much to see thing rationally and admit it.

But I'm optimistic by nature and tend to see the glass as half full not half empty. (Unlike some engineers I've know who simply point out either someone in manufacturing made the glass twice as big as it was designed to be or someone in operations dropped the ball and is not keeping up with the recommended "glass-liquid-level" maintenance program, but it's not a problem on THEIR end at any rate )

Randy

 

[Drizzt]

It's too bad that after all this effort, chances are when they finally get to Mars they'll be greated by some guy going "Yo Dude! How's it hanging?" who'll then proceed to steal all their thunder with his new invention .

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Most nations dropped H2O2, (and nuclear propulsion) because they didn't maintain enough of either while nations that did maintain such ended up doing quite well with them. (England and Russian to be specific)

England and Russia did 'quite well' with h2o2? I refer you to the Kursk disaster on the one hand, and HMS Exploder on the other.

 

[Kloka]

I think at some point when this is done, I'll write a version of this story that follows the more logical path than a Mars mission. Would anyone be interested in seeing essentially the same POD, but a more budget friendly American response? Maybe "NASA's Austerlitz"?

Yes

 

[RanulfC]

It's too bad that after all this effort, chances are when they finally get to Mars they'll be greeted by some guy going "Yo Dude! How's it hanging?" who'll then proceed to steal all their thunder with his new invention .

No spoilers! I haven't read that book yet, probably not going to but...

England and Russia did 'quite well' with h2o2? I refer you to the Kursk disaster on the one hand, and HMS Exploder on the other.

England: Black Prince/Black Arrow, Russia:RD-0140/NPPS (see: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#twisted)

And I'll point out the 'exceptions' prove the rule in this case if in a reversed manner: HMS Explorer/Excalibur (especially the former) were based on known problematical German designs, (from a scuttled test submarine) to prove or disprove theories in Air-Independent-Propulsion (AIP). What it DID prove is that a flawed war-time expedient design built with scare resources and support does not improve with more resources and no war and that most of the initial theories were in fact wrong. Meanwhile the use of peroxide in aviation and rocketry was proceeding quite well once you took into account its peculiarities and issues. As for the Kursk keep in mind the Type 65 torpedoes had been in service use since 1973 (or almost 30 years) with few issues, so yes they knew how to handle peroxide operationally.

Randy

 

[prolemasses]

Welcome to the penultimate chapter of part III! Due to real life delays, part IV is not finished, and so there will likely be a bit of a gap between parts III & IV.

Part III Chapter 10:

“All that way for nothin’.”

-unknown Ares program worker on Ares 1.


The Ares 1 mission was the primary focus of NASA throughout 1980. Ares 1 was planned to be the Apollo 10 (with hopeful fewer explosions), for the Ares program. The crew would travel to Mars orbit, test the mission structure for the actual landing, and test the MEM. However, there were some within NASA that objected to Ares 1 traveling all the way without landing. They argued that if Ares 1 was redesignated a landing mission, then there would be more than one landing, and it would be achieved two years early. However, most Ares mission planners felt that a Mars orbital mission was necessary for Ares 1. Firstly, the MEM had never been tested for a full Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing. This would be part of the crew of Ares 1’s job. Secondly, it was felt that the scientific team was still preparing the surface crew for the 1983 mission, and would not have time to adequately prepare the Ares 1 crew. And third, there was no guarantee that if Ares 1 was made the Mars landing, that Congress would not just cancel Ares 2. After all, both they and the President had shown hostility to any Mars landings beyond the one.


Oblivious to these debates, the crew of Ares 1 continued their training behind closed doors. They were about to embark on the greatest adventure ever undertaken by humanity. Commanding the mission was veteran Joe Engle, who had flown the X-15, flown to Skylab and was supposed to walk on the Moon on Apollo 19. The MEM Pilot was John Blaha, and the Surface Specialist was Norman Thagard. The CSM Pilot, and commander of the orbital crew was veteran Robert Crippen, and the Orbital Specialist was to be Ronald McNair, who would also become the first African-American in space. Because Ares 1 would not land, Blaha would focus more on his duties as the Copilot to Crippen, and as a mechanic, while Thagard would work with McNair on orbital science, and would serve as the crew's doctor. The crew trained for months, practicing every conceivable scenario, and going over their mission schedule in exhaustive detail. The crew also participated in extensive psychological prep, as they would have to spend the better part of two years with each other, and no one else. Their mission would be less like Charles Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic, and more like Amundsen crossing Antarctica, or Magellan circling the world. The crew all got along relatively well, and were all professionals, but there was still concern within NASA that such a mission might drive astronauts “stir crazy”. In fact, known only to a select few, in the medical supplies carried aboard Ares, there were a generous amount of tranquillisers, in case the crew needed to subdue one of their own who'd lost their mind.


However, almost no one who knew the crew considered these concerns reasonable. The crew were prepared, and were looking forward to their flight. Ground crews were also preparing for the flight, going over every piece of hardware that would be used. Every component of the Ares mission would have to function perfectly, sometimes for years on end, if the crew were to succeed and come back safe. Everything was checked and double checked, every failsafe was tested, every contingency was planned for. Everything had to go right, the stakes were just as high as they had been for Apollo 11. Finally, in February of 1981, the first piece of hardware for Ares 1 was installed onto its launch vehicle. PPM-2A “Tesla” was loaded onto its Saturn VB, and rolled out to the pad, months before the crew would launch. On March 3, 1981, Ares 1-A lifted off from LC-39B. Tesla was safely delivered to its parking orbit, and transmitted the “ok” signal back home, as its systems came online successfully. Celebrations ensued at NASA, the first part of an actual mission to Mars was safely away! Newspapers trumpeted the achievement, and across the nation, countdowns to the actual launch of Ares 1 began. Ground technicians were already preparing PPM-2B, “Tycho” for a May launch, when Tesla reached orbit. The two stages would use the loiter capability of the PPM to wait on orbit, until the Core PPM and mission stack would join them, near the end of the year.


On May 11, 1981, PPM-2B, Tycho lifted off from LC-39A, reaching an orbit nearly equal to that of Tesla. While the two stages would not dock, ground controllers maneuver them into close orbits, near one another. Over the next few months, the craft would carefully maintain their orbits, to remain in relatively close proximity. Everyday, each PPM would transmit home data on how its systems were functioning, and how much loss hydrogen propellant was lost to boil off, with everything to be closely inspected by ground control. PPM-2C “Galileo” was planned for a launch in August, and pad 39B was being prepared for it. The five month turnaround for each pad was a bit faster than Apollo, but after four launches, the pads would not see use for another two years, so it was manageable. Every launch of the Saturn VB damaged the pad, and repairs would need to be made, in addition to preparing the actual rocket.


Flying high over Kazakhstan, US intelligence satellites captured the first Herakles being rolled out in almost two years. In secret meetings, government officials speculated if the Soviets were planning to one up the American’s once again. The rocket rolled out to the pad, and on August 10, 1981, lifted off, carrying a secret payload to Earth orbit. The 100 ton payload was larger than anything the Soviets had ever launched, and was nervously tracked by ground stations. Military officials wondered if perhaps the Soviets had just launched a massive, first strike space weapon, capable of annihilating the United States in one go. There were discussions on whether to intercept the mystery payload, to inspect, or even destroy it.


On October 10, 1981, the first manned N1 Herakles since Rodina 5 back in 1973 lifted off. Carried aboard were Leonid Popov, and Valeri Polyakov. Popov had flown a seventh month tour to Salyut 5, but Polyakov was making his first flight. Both had trained for years on the ground for this mission however. Their capsule proved a bit roomier than the Soyuz they were used to, and for the first time, they would have a view through their tiny window for the entire ascent. Once on orbit, they opened the hatch in their heatshield, and climbed back into their Salyut derived habitat module. The module was a bit cramped, as it was jam-packed with supplies for their long journey. Attached behind the habitat module was the Block G stage that had propelled the Rodina flights to the Moon. As the crew orbited the planet, they caught up on the “mystery object” that had caused so much anxiety in the United States. The Block T propulsion module came into view. It was a 100 ton rocket stage, derived from the N1 Block G, but stretched. It had been equipped with additional insulation to prevent the liquid oxygen from boiling off in the almost two months since launch. On one end, were two NK-19 engines, on the other, a docking ring. Popov moved to the rear of the habitat, where the docking console was located. Using radar and docking cameras, Popov guided the docking ring on the rear of the Block G, to it's matching counterpart on the Block T. The two stages settled together with a deep “clunk”, that was audible, as the sound traveled through the two spacecraft. After connecting the two stages, Popov and Polyakov began performing systems checks, making sure that each component of their mission was ready. Finally, after three days on orbit, the crew oriented the spacecraft, and the first burn began on October 13.


The Block T fired, accelerating the spacecraft around the planet. Finally, after almost six minutes, the Block G burned out, leaving Popov and Polyakov on an elliptical orbit. They coasted up to Apogee, watching the Earth get smaller below them. Then, gravity caught up with them, they slowed, and began to fall back towards the Earth. To take full advantage of the Oberth effect, they waited until they would reach the lowest and fastest part of their orbit to burn again. Almost six hours after the their first burn, they approached perigee once more. Finally, they lit up the Block G again, and this time, propelled themselves free of the Earth's gravitational field. They discarded the Block G, and flipped their craft around. Popov and Polyakov watched the Earth shrink smaller and smaller as they slipped away from it. Pravda announced to the world that two brave Soviet Cosmonauts had “left the Earth on the first interplanetary journey”, aboard their spacecraft Mechta. Cunning ground observers noticed that Mechta had left the Earth in a retrograde direction, and their suspicions were confirmed two days later. The Soviets announced that the destination for Popov and Polyakov was to be the planet Venus, and that they would become the first people to visit another planet. There was some frustration at NASA, as at first they believed that the Soviets may have leapfrogged them again. Nevertheless, preparation continued for Ares 1, now only weeks away.

 

[Michel Van]

their spacecraft Mechta

what means the Word Mechta ?

 

[prolemasses]

what means the Word Mechta ?

It means "Dream"

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Michel, you'd spell it Metchta...

 

[Michel Van]

Michel, you'd spell it Metchta...

oh, ok
i copy and paste it from prolemasses Part III Chapter 10:

 

[prolemasses]

Michel, you'd spell it Metchta...

Not according to Google Translate, or any of the articles I've read about Luna 1, which was also nicknamed Mechta, which was partially an inspiration for the name, since it was the first human made object to orbit the Sun, like the crew of Mechta are the first humans to leave Earth to orbit the Sun. When it was going to be a Mars flyby, the name was Aelita, after the famous Soviet movie about Mars, and the names of several Soviet Mars programs.

 

[Wolttaire]

Not according to Google Translate.

Google translate is known for being very reliable

 

[prolemasses]

Google translate is known for being very reliable

That's why I referenced the articles about Luna 1, like this one, and this one, and this one. Also, Google Translate is fairly reliable for single word translations, especially between two European languages like English and Russian, which have similar grammar structures, and even share quite a few cognates and similar roots. It's like Wikipedia, I wouldn't cite it academically, but it is pretty good if you need to get a basic understanding of something.

 

[RanulfC]

Wait? Not going to land? (Well that might change at this point given the Russians are headed for Venus, maybe they've seen us and welcome us all.... er sorry about that, nope as the wife notes, note sorry at all )

Specifically they just lost 99% of the political and programmatic reasons to not land short of the MEM being KNOWN to be unable to land on Mars for some reason. (If either the CM or any portion of the vehicle is named "Capricorn" note that I WILL FIND YOU! Just saying ) The Russian's will arrive at Venus first that's a given, they will have traveled into interplanetary space first, at least flown by another planet, and returned to Earth likely before Ares 1 even arrives at Mars. It can be argued they didn't go into orbit nor land but the latter is a dubious complaint since it's likely known they can't anyway so once again America went from a definite lead to a questionable one and both the public and politicians are going to be asking why. And yes "we" and the NASA administrators all know it's not for 'nothing' but at this point their 'knowledge' like their 'opinions' no longer matter.

We're back to the situation of the very early Space Race, coupled with the memories of the failure of the Moon race and frankly this will be far to much like that latter loss to NOT cause a tidal wave of anxiety that the US is getting set up to be out-firsted again in some major way. Actually they are and it will come straight down from the top that unless they is a VERY clear and un-workable reason NOT to that Ares-1 WILL land on Mars.

On some other notes:

-I'm worried about how the USSR is getting the Cosmonauts down after the mission. Cutting a hatch in the heat-shield was acceptable for return from LEO but there's not way you could make it work for a return from an interplanetary trajectory to direct return to Earth. Even aerobraking is questionable. Since they had to dock with the departure stage I'd have thought a "simpler" transposition and docking maneuver rather than try and keep the system in a linear block.

-"Tesla"!! So this is the set up to have a 'behind-the-scenes' story of the issues with the ORIGINAL PPM's which refused to work together or even acknowledge the other existed when they finally "sidelined" the PPM called "Edison"?

Randy

 

[Mikhail Gorbachev]

I'm enjoying this.

 

[prolemasses]

Wait? Not going to land? (Well that might change at this point given the Russians are headed for Venus, maybe they've seen us and welcome us all.... er sorry about that, nope as the wife notes, note sorry at all )

Specifically they just lost 99% of the political and programmatic reasons to not land short of the MEM being KNOWN to be unable to land on Mars for some reason. (If either the CM or any portion of the vehicle is named "Capricorn" note that I WILL FIND YOU! Just saying ) The Russian's will arrive at Venus first that's a given, they will have traveled into interplanetary space first, at least flown by another planet, and returned to Earth likely before Ares 1 even arrives at Mars. It can be argued they didn't go into orbit nor land but the latter is a dubious complaint since it's likely known they can't anyway so once again America went from a definite lead to a questionable one and both the public and politicians are going to be asking why. And yes "we" and the NASA administrators all know it's not for 'nothing' but at this point their 'knowledge' like their 'opinions' no longer matter.

We're back to the situation of the very early Space Race, coupled with the memories of the failure of the Moon race and frankly this will be far to much like that latter loss to NOT cause a tidal wave of anxiety that the US is getting set up to be out-firsted again in some major way. Actually they are and it will come straight down from the top that unless they is a VERY clear and un-workable reason NOT to that Ares-1 WILL land on Mars.

On some other notes:

-I'm worried about how the USSR is getting the Cosmonauts down after the mission. Cutting a hatch in the heat-shield was acceptable for return from LEO but there's not way you could make it work for a return from an interplanetary trajectory to direct return to Earth. Even aerobraking is questionable. Since they had to dock with the departure stage I'd have thought a "simpler" transposition and docking maneuver rather than try and keep the system in a linear block.

-"Tesla"!! So this is the set up to have a 'behind-the-scenes' story of the issues with the ORIGINAL PPM's which refused to work together or even acknowledge the other existed when they finally "sidelined" the PPM called "Edison"?

Randy

NASA is being cautious, and they want to fly an Apollo 10 like mission before the landing. They feel confident enough that the Russians aren't going to beat them to Mars to err a bit more on the safe side. They have not flown any interplanetary missions before, and like I said previously, the landing characteristics of the MEM in the Martian atmosphere are not fully understood. They did not have the same kind of software that we have today, and landing a 65 ton lander vs a 4 ton one is judged to be different enough that a test must be performed before crew ride aboard it. While an unmanned MEM launched directly to Mars might have been able to accomplish this, NASA also desires a full up "Dress Rehearsal", testing assembly, life support, and hardware. There are a lot of people in NASA that agree with you, and want Ares 1 to land, but for reasons listed in the post, this is not happening. As for the VA, I'm assuming the hatch in the heat shield can be worked around. Chelomei proposed a VA with a heatshield hatch for his lunar orbiting OPS station, and Nixonshead had a hole in the HS of his "Sapfir" capsule that traveled to the Moon. Also, the Russians were always a bit crazier than the Americans, look at the LK or the N1.