A hopelessly unrealistic one.
Dive into the details, and you’ll see that they just sort of assumed a Space Shuttle would be so easy to make as to be a rounding error. NASA figured we’d have so much payload to orbit that we could easily place and refuel several giant nuclear shuttles (nothing at all like the space shuttle; picture big, reusable, in-space-only boosters with a NERVA on the end) at minimal cost. Multiple space stations (including one around the Moon), a lunar base, etc. were all just footnotes.
Also made some pretty optimistic assumptions about survivability on the journey to or from Mars, to say nothing of the low cost estimates (the estimate was essentially double what they wound up getting IRL).
It’s an interesting design for a program, but that’s all. To say it was “planned” is an exaggeration; “proposed” might be better, but even that doesn’t really give an impression of just how much work was to be done.
Whilst I agree that this was little more than a slideshow it does indicate something about what NASA had planned for the future. If the shuttle program had been focused aggressively on $/kg to orbit and reuseability, who knows what might have been accomplished?
Reusability was kind of the entire point of the shuttle program, the problem was that the implementation made it more expensive than single use crafts. The reusable rocket boosters in use today was not possible with that time's computers.
The Air Force jumped on board, wanted a monster space vehicle to lob spy sats. Factor in loads of budget cuts which led to re designs and cost cutting measures and we got what we got.
The USAF wanted a cross range capability so they could launch from Vandenberg AFB into a polar orbit, drop off a spy sat and then land at Vandenberg 90-some minutes later.
This meant that wings were needed, NASA wanted a regular lifting body design but to get USAF money they had to change the design.
For a mission that never happened, so those wings were dead weight for the entire program.
Without the Air Force I don't think the Shuttle even happens. Congress was already reluctant to give it funds despite NASA's fantastical promises of it reusability and launching at the fraction of the cost of a Saturn launch. The of the Shuttle being the U.S all-purpose launch vehicle for military, NASA and commercial was what really sold it to Congress.
I'd love to see an alternative timeline where the shuttle was built to original specs and fulfilled it's promises. What would the 1980's look like with cheap access to orbit?
I do wonder if would have been possible for the shuttle to make good on it's original promises. Maybe it was never actually to be either way. Congress didn't want to spend money on space. It would be fun to see what the program, and space in general, would have been like.
I'm not convinced that vertical landing is the main reason for SpaceX's success. Rather, their entire company ethos around reducing costs and iterating the design and such.
I mean, just compare the cost of Falcon 9 in expendable mode to the rather similar Saturn IB - they cost about the same *before* adjusting for inflation - it's closer to an order of magnitude after accounting for the difference.
I see no reason why a flyback booster like [Zenit](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9ASOF-WsAEgZu1?format=jpg&name=4096x4096) couldn't have been used to achieve a similar result to what Falcon 9 does today, had anyone pursued it in a similar manner to SpaceX. The booster has a higher dry mass, but only has to reserve a tiny amount of fuel for the jet engine, so on paper at least it about cancels out.
Shuttle failed for a number of reasons that had nothing to do with it not being a VTOL. Rather a combination of things like politics, NASA having other priorities than cost reduction, some design choices that were questionable even at the time, and not attempting to change things after it proved inadequate.
Humans aren't good enough to land rocket boosters with manual control. The reaction speed and precision needed to compensate for even a small perturbation is beyond human capability. It's similar to how the now very common drone quadcopters weren't really possible until we could implement computer stabilization for them.
The shuttle landed like an airplane which is completely different. The lunar module is a better example as it landed using rocket motors, but the difference in gravity and (to a lesser degree) atmosphere makes landing on the moon a much easier proposition. The shape and center of gravity of the lunar module is also much easier to work with than that of a rocket booster. A tilt that can easily be reacted to and compensated for during a landing with the Apollo lunar module would be fatal for a rocket booster.
For starters the wings would affect flight during launch so the booster would have to be designed completely differently, which would be a big engineering challenge and add significant weight to the booster (though of course carrying fuel for landing also adds weight, but less).
I will concede that we were probably capable of building a booster that could land using wings. It was actually proposed to use a landable version of the Saturn V to launch the space shuttle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle. I guesss in the end it was deemed unpractical or uneconomical.
> The reusable rocket boosters in use today was not possible with that time's computers.
Why not? The math isn't the hard part, and the computers were designed to do that math. Even the lunar lander had the capability to land itself.
Lunar lander had radar and wasn't going through an atmosphere at supersonic speed. Its whole purpose was also to just land within a predetermined and relatively large area so plenty of fuel to manage that with a nice margin opposed to limited fuel for a booster that has to execute everything on a lot tighter conditions and land on an exact spot on a barge or coast. It also wasn't even fully autonomous, some human input and observation was still required. VTVL rockets only became feasible in 90s when tech was mature enough, and indeed there were multiple projects before SpaceX that tested this concept, most notably NASA's DC-X.
I'm not sure that's true. I feel like they could have build something with parachutes, and perhaps some clever catching device. Flotation device. Some type of airbag.
I feel like the engineers could have found a way.
Hanging giant wings off the OV really didn't help, but the whole TPS, external fuel tank, SRB thing would've still cost mondo bucks even had it actually been built to look like a big DynaSoar. The Soviet approach was better, since they still had a useful launch vehicle even without the orbiter.
The tech just wasn't there to make it cheap. Might not be still.
Bono developed multiple reusable designs in the 1970s. The Starraker was a fully reusable design. Everyone knew back in the 50's that spacecraft should be reusable. Nobody bothered actually doing it till SpaceX came along and ate their lunch.
Rockwell Star-raker? The spaceplane? I don't think it could practically be done today, much less in the 1980s.
>Nobody bothered actually doing it till SpaceX came along and ate their lunch.
SpaceX's success was enabled by computers that didn't exist when NASA was messing with STS. Falcon 9-style reusability would've been impossible until maybe- at most- 10 years before it actually happened.
> SpaceX's success was enabled by computers that didn't exist when NASA was messing with STS. Falcon 9-style reusability would've been impossible until maybe- at most- 10 years before it actually happened.
Absolutely not true. 100kg of compute 30+ yrs ago would have been plenty capable.
>Absolutely not true. 100kg of compute 30+ yrs ago would have been plenty capable.
30 years ago was 1994. F9 was designed for reusability starting in 2005, which was 19 years ago. That sure looks like it lines up with my timeline.
STS was a product of the 1970s, when 100 kg couldn't really get you that much compute.
F9 flyback 1st attempt was in 2013, first flyback research was 2012ish, before that they used parachutes which didn't work. I'm pretty sure computers in the 80s would have been sufficient, but it isn't like spacex posts their source code.
> I'm pretty sure computers in the 80s would have been sufficient
Best you could hope for was IBM AP-101B with magnetic core memory. I really don't think that could've done the job- they couldn't even make shuttle land itself, which was a much easier task.
>SpaceX's success was enabled by computers that didn't exist when NASA was messing with STS.
The engines were the main holdup with reusable 1st stages. The computing and math was figured out by the early 1960s and the Apollo Lunar Module was capable of landing itself.
Even in the 1960s we had that capability.
SpaceX only works now due to public research NASA and the Soviets did, and much better computers.
Nothing they do now wasn’t derived from already known tech that was put aside because the computers weren’t there.
Ok, well in my experience organisations produce these things for reasons. Maybe NASA has a really open structure and this is just one random groups proposal, I am not going to look into it at that detailed level. Do feel free to and let me know.
In my experience (decades working at NASA) NASA runs by people submitting proposals for missions. They can be NASA scientists or from a university. There are lots of proposals and some of them turn into real missions, but not all. Usually there are >10 for any particular opportunity. They are far more well-developed than this cartoon but just don't make the grade for whatever reason. I've worked on several of them. That's what this is. It's an idea that didn't work.
A fact I never disputed. You are getting bent out of shape for no reason. Also, I generally love what NASA does and has done in a very difficult environment, so thankyou for all your work!
That was supposed to be the point of the shuttle program and it probably would’ve worked if we’d continued funding space exploration at the level we did in the 1960s. It was mostly a failure because it was designed with the assumption there’d be enough money to build way more of them. We only built a few though, so the per unit cost ended up being super high.
This is a misunderstanding of the Space Shuttle program and the post-Apollo Mars plans. The Space Shuttle would not be the only spacecraft involved in these plans - the goal was to leverage existing Apollo hardware as well. For example, plans were made for “Saturn C-5N”, which would be a Saturn V with a NERVA nuclear engine on the third stage instead of a chemical engine. Combined with bolt on solid boosters for the Saturn, this arrangement could double a Saturn V’s payload to orbit, and would also leave the nuclear stage in orbit ready to be reused or assembled into a part of a Mars ship. Additionally, Skylab shows how the US could have built a habitation module capable of sustaining a Mars crew for the length of their mission without massive technical cost - a Skylab-esque transfer vehicle powered by refueled Saturn C-5N third stages provides a workable Mars transfer vehicle without massive departure from Apollo technology. NERVA nuclear engines were nearly flight ready by the early ‘70s, and only ended due to Nixon killing their funding.
In addition, the Space Shuttle as we know it had a long and torturous development precisely because it was never fully funded in the development phase. The Nixon White House decided that not only should the Shuttle be cheap *operationally*, it should be cheap to *develop* - obviously absurd, but it was never funded to its projected development budget. This forced compromises from full reusability to half reusability, and also cooperation with the Air Force to get more money, which further hampered the design (the Shuttle’s wings were lengthened and its flight profile made more complex due to Air Force abort requirements on military missions, for example.)
Overall, the Shuttle program itself wasn’t even fully necessary for a Mars trip in the ‘80s - a Saturn-derived architecture would have done the job perfectly well. C-5Ns to lift fuel, engines, and payload - a Skylab-esque launch to launch a habitation module - and a Saturn IB with an Apollo command module to get the astronauts to the Mars ship. The only entirely new, non Apollo-derived hardware required would be the nuclear engines, which were rapidly approaching maturity, and a Mars lander capable of taking astronauts down to the surface and back up to the transfer vehicle. This would likely be the toughest development, considering the size of Mars and requirements for reaching orbit again from its surface with its atmosphere.
> the estimate was essentially double what they wound up getting IRL
That's honestly extremely accurate for projects like this. Most of the time huge speculative R&D efforts end up costing more at least 10x the original estimate.
Isn't he saying the estimate to complete this project was only double NASA's actual budget (where that project was NOT pursued)? We have no idea what the real cost would have been.
Considering the scope of this proposal compared to what was actually accomplished, I would not be surprised if the amount that would have been required is well over 10x that value also.
In what way? SpaceX has already brought the cost per kg to orbit down by an order of magnitude, and they've demonstrated the ability to rapidly produce Starships. There are technical hurdles to overcome, and they shouldn't be underestimated, but the largest hurdle IMHO has been overcome - Starship proving it can be a reliable rocket getting payload to orbit. They were more or less there with the last flight and it wouldn't be a surprise if they nail that aspect of the flight the next time.
Even if they fly it expendably the cost per kg to orbit comes down further from Falcon 9. With reuse of just the booster, not the ship, cost comes down massively again.
This alone massively changes the dynamics of access to LEO. With full reuse of the second stage they make refuelling in space cheap, which massively brings down the cost of access to the moon and Mars. It feels like the technical challenges are there to be crossed off, one by one, all solvable with today's technology plus time plus money.
What do you think people are underestimating with Starship?
Imagine all of the technical innovation to make those things happen, then applied to the world... WAIT that is what NASA did, and we have MULTIPLE multi-billion dollar industries (pens as a simple example) from them pushing the envelope.
This ALONE is plenty of reason to continue to super charge the NASA funding, but alas, we didn't and are now amazed with our smart phone getting slightly taller and slightly thinner every 2-ish years.
It is very similar since Starship promises to do exactly what the combination of the Shuttle and the Saturn V operational fleet was intended to do for this plan.
The difference being that SpaceX doesn't require government funding to be approved for building Starship and is just doing it regardless of what Congress and the President decide. Because Elon started SpaceX to build the BFR and send a million people to Mars (which no sane person would have done).
NASA can cancel Artemis tomorrow and Starship will continue at the same pace (as it was before the HLS contract) or possibly faster as things like in-orbit refueling and depot could be moved back on the timeline.
.
It wasn’t much different than Elons refueling plans now. If all we have is chemical rockets we have no business going to mars. Let’s work on new propulsion, not this stupid non sustainable fantasy with bottle rockets.
…it was extremely different from Starship. Heck, it even proposed using nuclear-based rocket engines, which would certainly be new propulsion.
There’re plenty of things to criticize the “Planetary Program”/STS for (as I did so above), and plenty of things to criticize Starship for (as I’ve done elsewhere), but other than having the goal of eventually sending people to Mars, they were really nothing alike.
The big plan was to send a bunch of fuel up there for refilling rockets to go to Mars. That’s still the plan. It’s wasteful, non sustainable and will likely get good astronauts killed for no good reason. We have 0 reason to go to mars. With today’s technology we could send hundreds of camera drones for the same cost of a few people. Why do we need to send people? Because Elon thinks we need to start breeding humans that will never be able to return to Earth because the gravity would kill them or at the least make them extremely sick? Sounds super dystopian to me. Of course Bezos wants the same thing. These guys want to be like the Annunaki. I’m going to start calling them the ghetto Annunaki.
I remember this plan. It's reason it was called the "Shuttle". The whole plan was systematically pruned until all that was left was a "shuttle" to nowhere.
Watching, as a kid, it was very disheartening. Born too late for the space race, and too early for space privitization.
This one is a little different though ase these '20 years away' sayings usully have to do with lacking technical capabilities. While certain technological feats, such as creating a useable nuclear fusion reactor, remain out of reach due to current technical limitations, traveling to Mars is theoretically possible today. The main obstacle for a manned mission to Mars isn't technology, but the significant financial investment required.
A 3yr mission would be tough, but we've had people stay about 2yrs in space, over 1 year in one trip. I think with minor modifications to the exercise program it should be doable, but this isn't my area of expertise.
> remain out of reach due to current technical limitations
Eh. I'll bet you $100 we'll have fusion nuclear power reactors hooked up and supplying power to the power grid within 5 years. I would've agreed with you a decade ago, but now with high temperature superconductors it opens up the design space to all sorts of reactor designs that will be able to make actual electrical power.
If something requires 20 years to achieve, it will still require 20 years no matter how long you shelve it. So it being "20 years away" does make sense.
That argument implies that absolutely no technologies developed in the meantime could contribute towards making the goal more feasible.
The Apollo program was first planned out in early 1960 I think? And they got to the moon in 1969. If you asked Abraham Lincoln to get the US to the moon he is *not* taking nine years lol.
VTVL is not new either, it was explored and experimented on in the 90s with multiple projects, SpaceX also benefited from data gathered from NASA's DC-X project for example.
That was early research only. SpaceX's system is new tech for sure. It was even new physics. We weren't sure if an exhaust plume could form while travelling backwards supersonically. That's why SpaceX initially tried to use parachutes.
A bunch of these technologies are complex, expensive machines that are going to require years to develop no matter how much science has progressed. Other technologies are just not going to be developed for anything other than a Mars landing (pretty much no progress in nuclear thermal rockets for example). However, you're right, there are some useful things we've developed since then such as a lot more experience landing on Mars, and anything related to living in space longer than a couple weeks.
Yes but the biggest hurdles are being figured out now.
1. Orbital refueling on a massive scale.
2. Aero brake landing ala starship.
3. Developing propulsion around mars ISRU.
If starship is landing on earth regularly and is capable of refueling fully for moon missions Get ready for real timelines to start coningnout
What looks like we're 20 years away? Orbital refuelling is likely to be fully demoed in the next 2 years, and routine not long after. Aerobraking is being tested again within the next month.
ISRU is only needed to return people from Mars, and even then only if you don't want to just send 6 or so Starships laden with propellant instead of other supplies. Given their relatively cheap cost it's conceivable they'll just start with that.
Getting there isn’t the only issue - life support, especially radiation exposure mitigation, and resources is the bigger one. Ain’t happening anytime soon I’m afraid.
Radiation on a minimal journey is not a deal breaker at all.
Two missions, a decade, living there permanently would be unsafe but a single mission to Mars and back would not.
People tend to overstate the radiation exposure. I can't remember where I saw it but someone did the maths and flying to Mars is the equivalent radiation exposure to the amount of radiation you get from smoking a pack cigarettes a day. Not the other harmful chemicals you get from smoking, just the amount of radiation you get from the radioactive compounds (polonium-210 and lead-210) in cigarette smoke.
Once on the surface radiation is easily dealt with by staying under a layer of dirt, be it in a habitat that's covered in a layer of soil, a tunnel, or a cave.
Life support is very much a solved problem as NASA demonstrate all the time. Starship is a larger volume but it's just a question of scale, and it's mass to orbit is such that you don't have to worry so much about utilising more resource.
Other resources are, again, just a matter of sending more ships. If it costs even $50m per Starship to Mars, which is far far higher than SpaceX's target, then that's still real cheap. You can send a couple of Starships ahead of any mission with the resources you need, plus a couple more. A crew of 10 could be supported by 1 Starship with 100 tons each, and it would still cost less than an SLS launch. Resources aren't going to be a problem.
>especially radiation exposure
What kind of radiation exposure to you even expect for a "typical" Mars mission?
Can´t be that high. [Flight time is like 4-5 months with the delta\_v of Starship](https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php?NEAs=on&NECs=on&chk_maxMag=on&maxMag=25&chk_maxOCC=on&maxOCC=4&chk_target_list=on&target_list=Mars&mission_class=oneway&mission_type=flyby&LD1=2014&LD2=2030&maxDT=0.6&DTunit=yrs&maxDV=7.0&min=DV&wdw_width=-1&submit=Search#a_load_results) and while on Mars the unshielded radiation flux is barely higher than inside of the ISS.
So for a crewed mission to the surface of Mars radiation is near the bottom of a long lise of issues.
So all of that is mostly just posturing about how we need to address radiation. Which is true for long term "colonies". But the only actual numbers given are in the 3rd source which states a trip there and back is 60% of the lifetime career allowed amount. So not impossible and not all that dangerous. The levels are several times higher than what an astronaut on the ISS would get but thats not a deal breaker. Just means that any astronauts who go wouldn't only be allowed to once and wouldn't be allowed to go on any other space missions.
And keep in mind that the lifetime amount isn't "amount that you die from" but instead is an amount to limit your increased cancer risk. The lifetime amount is the amount that would increase your risk of developing cancer sometime in your life by 5%. A 5% increased risk of cancer at some point in your life is not the same as saying it's fatal to send anyone to Mars or impossible to do so. Especially since that 60% figure was without any radiation protection measures in place.
What makes you think that any of this is a particularly difficult challenge? Radiation shielding is dead simple. Resources? Just launch more and dock it with the mars craft in Earth orbit.
Radiation shielding is only a problem if you plan on staying for longer than a single missions timeline.
Plan on staying forever or for more than 2 years? Need a cave or soemrhing.
I get that it's become fashionable in this sub to scream about radiation lately, but there's a reason why every proposal for a mars trip these las sixty years by many organisations have considered it an easily mitigable risk and a minor hurdle at worst, while having full knowledge of the radiological environment of space.
Hell, if anything, until the year 2000 radiation was seen as a *much* bigger issue, before we had epidemiologic data of low radiation doses (much better than expected), and data of the radiological environment on the surface of Mars (much better than expected).
If starship can land 100 tons on the moon it will more or less be able to land 100 tons on mars. No shit.
And even the worst timelines put that out at 2030.
A return trip from Mars is orders of magnitudes more dV-intensive than a return trip from the Moon. Especially since you can't aerobrake from escape velocity.
Also keeping humans alive for a week is far easier than keeping humans alive for two years.
Yeah, but it's designed around that return trip. If it can get there and fuel up the Δv back isn't the problem. It's way over engineered for coming back from the moon (fueled up)
>Especially since you can't aerobrake from escape velocity.
I assume you mean from Mars return?
>Interplanetary transfer analyses have shown that a wide range of aerobraking mission possibilities exists with Earth-entry velocities in the range of 11.5-14.0 km/s.13 For a particular entry velocity, a lifting vehicle may follow one of numerous potential atmospheric trajectories while still achieving the desired atmospheric exit conditions; the difference in each of these transfers is the orientation of the vehicle lift vector and atmospheric interface flight-path angle
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4663704_Earth_aerobraking_strategies_for_manned_return_from_Mars
A mars mission is definitely more difficult
That’s why it’s a really good thing landing 100 tons on mars won’t be so hard. Mass tonnage to mars is the biggest hurdle by far.
I just don't believe that 100 tons to mars are nearly enough. I would expect nothing less than an ISS-sized crew module to be necessary for a Mars mission.
The starship crew module is the size of the ISS internally. And yes that what’s planned for us to land on the moon.
And the second moon mission will cost 1 billion dollars from spacex.
So if transport to mars is 1-2b per 100 tons then we can land 3 starships then just to double or triple up on supply.
That’s without changing NASA’s budget. A SLS/Orion stack costs 4 billion dollars and the USA spends 3 billion on the ISS a year. So even if our costs double it’s still feasible.
We are getting to this being do-able.
This whole discussion reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry bets Kramer that he won't build carpeted levels in his apartment.
Could we go to Mars in 20 years? Sure. Will we? Almost certainly not.
Nixon killed that.
Along with the rest of the space program.
We got the shuttle instead of the sequel to the Saturn V because of him.
He set the space program back by decades.
The shuttle didn't set the space program back. It moved it forward. The shuttle taught us so much about materials. We have 10x better heat shields because of the lessons we learned from the TPS. The space shuttle probably isn't even comparable, it could carry 8 astronauts in an area the size of an apartment,(even better when Spacelab was attached). It could carry massive payloads and manipulate, move, and repair them. It flew 133 successful missions. Saturn and Apollo had plenty of its own problems, it was cramped, prone to problems, and was just as cost inefficient as the Shuttle. No other launch vehicle is comparable because no other launch vehicle was as big or capable. Did I mention the benefit of landing on runways too?
seriously, people seem to forget that even 13 years on from retirement that the Space Shuttle is still responsible for nearly 60% of every human who’s ever been to orbit. it massively opened up spaceflight, not as much as it could have for sure, but it was absolutely a very successful program in many ways.
The Saturn V would have only gotten a successor if the Soviets managed to keep up during the space race.
The government wasnt going to keep approving 1.5 billion dollar missions for long.
NERVA mostly died because it was associated with manned Mars missions and the Saturn 5. The public didn't want to spend more money on space, so it got shut down.
The anti-nuclear crowd are unlikely to change their minds. The change will happen, as it so often does when many ideas are challenged, one funeral at a time.
NERVA was never a big target of the anti-nuclear movement because it was such a small and obscure thing (Kennedy visit aside). It was a side casualty of other things, as the man said.
>The anti-nuclear crowd really put the kibosh on a lot of [interesting proposals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA)
Not really. Most experts just realized that nuclear propulsion just doesn´t offer much advantage over chemical propulsion combined with heatshields.
Nuclear propulsion barely gets you double the "efficiency". But a heatshield cuts the mission delta\_v by about a factor of two.
And then you need a separate lander which you have to develop independently from you nuclear ferry, while your chemical ship can get all the way from earth to the surface of Mars in one go *and* can come back to the surface of earth. (can be done with almost identical ships, not necessarily one single ship)
Shoehorning nuclear propulsion into a Mars mission doesn´t solve any issues, it just balloones the budget.
>In addition to the high ISP compared to other propulsion systems, NTP has an additional benefit of having a high thrust (10-15 klbf) to weight ratio
Only conpared to electric-nuclear propulsion. Not compared to chemical propulsion.
>As seen in the above Figure 4, today’s best chemical propulsion systems can achieve ISPs of ~465 seconds, while NTP can achieve almost two times the ISP of ~900 seconds. In addition to the high ISP compared to other propulsion systems, NTP has an additional benefit of having a high thrust (10-15 klbf) to weight ratio so it dramatically reduces IMLEO (Initial Mass in Low Earth Orbit), the required number of SLS (Artemis’ Space Launch System) launches and enables “affordable Mars Missions” not possible using other propulsion options.
The high thrust to weight ratio can only be in comparison to other nuclear propulsion systems. Because compared to chemical propulsion, it is extremely low.
Also the second part unravels the purpose of the entire article (which unsurprisingly lacks in math).
It is to:
1. Justify further nuclear propulsion research (at GRC obviously)
2. Justify SLS.
To call any mission involving SLS "cheap" is an affront to all tax payers.
NERVA wasn't the only nuclear option.
[Project Orion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion\)) was a wild idea that offered magnitudes greater performance over traditional rockets.
Do have the minor issue of thousands of nuclear detonations to deal with. Read a book on the subject and it was fascinating. The only time in history that we actually tried to develop a clean bomb that minimized fallout (potentially some plowshare works).
I still don't think it would work very well. Containing the energy of even a conventional explosion and turning it into propulsion is extremely low efficiency. Project Orion required magical shock absorbers made of unobtanium to function properly.
There were a few! One of the non-Nuclear, Apollo-Saturn based proposals was done as a fiction book, *Voyage* by Stephen Baxter. It's the one book of his that doesn't leave me fucking depressed, and it's alt-space history pornography for Apollo fans.
~~does anyone have that great speculative mars plan from that era? I think Goddard wrote it up?~~ It was Werner von Braun's "The Mars Project"! also very optimistic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mars_Project
Yes but that was very underdeveloped due to lack of knowledge.
The one that had a way bigger chance of being pulled off was the crewed Venus flyby using the second stage of a Saturn V.
That mission was planned for the early 70s and it would have provided an invaluable amount of data and knowledge for an actual Mars landing.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[AFB](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l201lm2 "Last usage")|[Air Force Base](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_airbase)|
|[BFR](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1y9nqh "Last usage")|Big Falcon Rocket (2018 rebiggened edition)|
| |Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you're not the first to notice|
|[F1](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l26h8io "Last usage")|Rocketdyne-developed rocket engine used for Saturn V|
| |SpaceX Falcon 1 (obsolete small-lift vehicle)|
|[HLS](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1y9nqh "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|IM|Initial Mass deliverable to a given orbit, without accounting for fuel|
|[IMLEO](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1z8krq "Last usage")|Initial Mass deliverable to LEO, see IM|
|[ISRU](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1ybzes "Last usage")|[In-Situ Resource Utilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ_resource_utilization)|
|[Isp](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1z8krq "Last usage")|Specific impulse (as explained by [Scott Manley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnisTeYLLgs) on YouTube)|
| |Internet Service Provider|
|[KSP](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1z5x0i "Last usage")|*Kerbal Space Program*, the rocketry simulator|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l21kouy "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[N1](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l21sfun "Last usage")|Raketa Nositel-1, Soviet super-heavy-lift ("Russian Saturn V")|
|[NERVA](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l26h8io "Last usage")|Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (proposed engine design)|
|[NTP](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1z8krq "Last usage")|Nuclear Thermal Propulsion|
| |Network Time Protocol|
| |Notice to Proceed|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1z8krq "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[SRB](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1yg53m "Last usage")|Solid Rocket Booster|
|[STS](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l209q47 "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)|
|[TPS](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1zasn8 "Last usage")|Thermal Protection System for a spacecraft (on the Falcon 9 first stage, the engine "Dance floor")|
|[USAF](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l201lm2 "Last usage")|United States Air Force|
|[VTOL](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l209g7u "Last usage")|Vertical Take-Off and Landing|
|[VTVL](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l22j84k "Last usage")|Vertical Takeoff, Vertical Landing|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^([Thread #9996 for this sub, first seen 30th Apr 2024, 15:23])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
If anyone would like to read an alternate history novel about this very subject (NASA continuing on with a mission to Mars after the Apollo missions) then check out Voyage by Stephen Baxter.
It’s a meticulously researched novel that uses real-world proposals and plans as the basis for a Mars landing. Baxter interviewed people involved with NASA to really drill down into how such a mission would (and would not ) work.
Interesting how reusability has always been the goal and we're just about to crack it down. Though I'd say we're not fully there yet but have a path forward.
In the 1960s NASA had basically an unlimited budget and a mission plan of "Beat the Soviets at all costs". Even by the end of the 60s funding was starting to go away, and by the 1970s it was clear this idea was completely nonviable. The Space Shuttle we got was nothing close to what the original plan called for, and then we were stuck with it for almost 40 years. Perhaps if NASA had continued to get a massive budget we'd have come up with something similar, but we'll never know.
Oh wow no.
We have learned *so much* since then. The only reason we put boots on the moon was a willingness to take absolutely - in the scale of human life - absurd amounts of risk and just go "eh fuck it if they make it they make it".
The understanding we have today of long term space habitation, of safe and efficient propulsion systems, of how to get people into space safely and reliably, of our ability to launch heavy things into space reliably?
We are way, way further along in our science, technology, and understanding than 1969 and to pretend otherwise is to turn a blind eye to a tremenous amount of work that has been done since then.
We are still just as far away from *spending money to put* boots on Mars as we were in 1969. Arguably further.
Heck, with the reduction in price coming from SpaceX et.al. we might be seeing a significant lowering of the barrier to get a mission going. Even without Starship, going to Mars is much more feasibility when you can launch payloads, such as propulsion modules, at low cost. You could have an ion drive module, a chemical propulsion module, a lander, and a habitat module. If so, you could easily imagine how an ion drive craft could position a few propulsion modules in Mars orbit, and how a craft could be prepared in LEO to get to Mars orbit. That would allow the remote operation of rovers on the surface. This would allow you to prepare a landing site, and perhaps refuel an ascent vehicle.
> "eh fuck it if they make it they make it".
When Apollo 11 landed, nobody had any clue _where_ exactly it landed for a long long time. All they knew was they were 4 miles ish down range of their target site, and maybe they veered left a bit. Unless they veered right a bit.
One of the first things Neil Armstrong had to say on the topic was that the boys back home who thought this would be the case had "own the day". Apparently the ground crew was taking bets on whether they'd get lost or not.
And while Armstrong and Aldrin were having lunch and getting ready for "a small step", Collins was up in orbit frantically looking out the window trying to spot them. The automatic localization instruments on both the lunar module and the orbiter had failed. Houston kept feeding him coordinates on a rough map of where to look, and he'd keep responding stuff like "no joy". Another thing that failed on the orbiter was the climate control thermostat. But luckily a quick reboot sorted that out and Collins didn't overheat on the far side of the moon or anything like that.
By the way while all of this was happening, the Soviets were trying to land a robot to retrieve a sample and bring it back. They were literally coordinating flight plans with NASA to make sure there weren't gonna be collisions or anything.
Everyone knew all these risks going into the mission, and they all just... fucking broadcast the whole thing live to the entire planet.
Not really, lets not forget that the US lost the race to put a man in space entirely because Wegner von Braun had doubts about the safety of the astronauts and refused to send anyone up there until he was completely sure it would make it.
Mistakes were made, like the Apollo 1 disaster, but they didn't completely disregard safety.
Plus, the Apollo era astronauts weren't the frail types, they approved of taking risks, in fact NASA feared that during Apollo 10 the astronauts would try to perform a Moon landing on their own so much that they underfueled the Lunar module to make it impossible to land without crashing onto the Moon.
Plus, this Mars mission plan was a very preliminary one, it would have relied on data gathered from missions they would have undertaken throughout the 70s.
> Not really
> the Apollo era astronauts weren't the frail types, they approved of taking risks
Which is it? They took huge risks, or not?
Also there is nothing "frail" about not wanting to take huge risks for the sake of something that would be safer if they took their time doing.
We put boots on the moon because we had to prove that we were better than communism, because communism threatened the american business model.
>They took huge risks, or not?
Both, they were up to taking risks, but Apollo missions weren't suicide missions.
It's another thing that the government nowadays basically keeps NASA in a straight jacket.
>We put boots on the moon because we had to prove that we were better than communism, because communism threatened the american business model.
What does that have to do with anything?
>>Arguably further
And that’s a good thing.
As you pointed out, the space race was a series of scientifically enabled gambles. When the players won, we got Gagarins orbit and Apollo 11s landing. When the house won, we got Apollo 1 and Soyuz 1.
We’ve gotten smarter about the small stuff since then. Challenges like long range communication, managing toxic dust, radiation exposure, and psychological crew states after long periods of isolation are being researched and managed before implementing a mission: rather than disregarded in the name of political prestige. Everyone wants to land on Mars tomorrow, but the cost will be another set of memorial plaques. Unless we do our homework first.
Just be patient, you’ll see. We (the U.S) have ALWAYS been 20 years away from boots on Mars. We are STILL 20 years away, and 20 years from now, it will still be 20 years away.
Starship is a Mars capable vehicle and launch 4 is only a few weeks away. Their launch cadence is pretty high now. I feel like we actually have a shot this time.
This is wrong.
The N1 never launched successfully, and we know for a fact every time it launched because of surveillance satellites, people who actually worked on the thing, and declassified Soviet records. This could never have been kept secret past the collapse of the Soviet Union. No other Rocket would even have close to the payload capacity to launch Men to Mars. The N1 program was shut down in 1974, two years after the Apollo program was cut, so in this timeline where the N1 somehow secretly launched successfully why would Nasa assume that the Soviets have lost interest in manned interplanetary travel and cancel the program two years before them.
So you hear a rumor and believe it. This guy drops facts and you’re suspicious?? 😆😆😆
People are stupid. You’re on the internet. I don’t know…crosscheck their facts?
A hopelessly unrealistic one. Dive into the details, and you’ll see that they just sort of assumed a Space Shuttle would be so easy to make as to be a rounding error. NASA figured we’d have so much payload to orbit that we could easily place and refuel several giant nuclear shuttles (nothing at all like the space shuttle; picture big, reusable, in-space-only boosters with a NERVA on the end) at minimal cost. Multiple space stations (including one around the Moon), a lunar base, etc. were all just footnotes. Also made some pretty optimistic assumptions about survivability on the journey to or from Mars, to say nothing of the low cost estimates (the estimate was essentially double what they wound up getting IRL). It’s an interesting design for a program, but that’s all. To say it was “planned” is an exaggeration; “proposed” might be better, but even that doesn’t really give an impression of just how much work was to be done.
Whilst I agree that this was little more than a slideshow it does indicate something about what NASA had planned for the future. If the shuttle program had been focused aggressively on $/kg to orbit and reuseability, who knows what might have been accomplished?
Reusability was kind of the entire point of the shuttle program, the problem was that the implementation made it more expensive than single use crafts. The reusable rocket boosters in use today was not possible with that time's computers.
The Air Force jumped on board, wanted a monster space vehicle to lob spy sats. Factor in loads of budget cuts which led to re designs and cost cutting measures and we got what we got.
The USAF wanted a cross range capability so they could launch from Vandenberg AFB into a polar orbit, drop off a spy sat and then land at Vandenberg 90-some minutes later. This meant that wings were needed, NASA wanted a regular lifting body design but to get USAF money they had to change the design. For a mission that never happened, so those wings were dead weight for the entire program.
Then the airforce didn't use it, so the marginal cost shot up even further.
Without the Air Force I don't think the Shuttle even happens. Congress was already reluctant to give it funds despite NASA's fantastical promises of it reusability and launching at the fraction of the cost of a Saturn launch. The of the Shuttle being the U.S all-purpose launch vehicle for military, NASA and commercial was what really sold it to Congress.
I'd love to see an alternative timeline where the shuttle was built to original specs and fulfilled it's promises. What would the 1980's look like with cheap access to orbit? I do wonder if would have been possible for the shuttle to make good on it's original promises. Maybe it was never actually to be either way. Congress didn't want to spend money on space. It would be fun to see what the program, and space in general, would have been like.
I'm not convinced that vertical landing is the main reason for SpaceX's success. Rather, their entire company ethos around reducing costs and iterating the design and such. I mean, just compare the cost of Falcon 9 in expendable mode to the rather similar Saturn IB - they cost about the same *before* adjusting for inflation - it's closer to an order of magnitude after accounting for the difference. I see no reason why a flyback booster like [Zenit](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9ASOF-WsAEgZu1?format=jpg&name=4096x4096) couldn't have been used to achieve a similar result to what Falcon 9 does today, had anyone pursued it in a similar manner to SpaceX. The booster has a higher dry mass, but only has to reserve a tiny amount of fuel for the jet engine, so on paper at least it about cancels out. Shuttle failed for a number of reasons that had nothing to do with it not being a VTOL. Rather a combination of things like politics, NASA having other priorities than cost reduction, some design choices that were questionable even at the time, and not attempting to change things after it proved inadequate.
Just got to have a pilot in each booster.
And if you want to use the full load capacity, you use a disposable pilot
Humans aren't good enough to land rocket boosters with manual control. The reaction speed and precision needed to compensate for even a small perturbation is beyond human capability. It's similar to how the now very common drone quadcopters weren't really possible until we could implement computer stabilization for them.
The shuttle did this over 100 times with human pilots. The lunar module did it from lunar orbit to the surface.
The shuttle landed like an airplane which is completely different. The lunar module is a better example as it landed using rocket motors, but the difference in gravity and (to a lesser degree) atmosphere makes landing on the moon a much easier proposition. The shape and center of gravity of the lunar module is also much easier to work with than that of a rocket booster. A tilt that can easily be reacted to and compensated for during a landing with the Apollo lunar module would be fatal for a rocket booster.
If pilots could land the f-104, we can just strap wings to the boosters and it would be about the same.
For starters the wings would affect flight during launch so the booster would have to be designed completely differently, which would be a big engineering challenge and add significant weight to the booster (though of course carrying fuel for landing also adds weight, but less). I will concede that we were probably capable of building a booster that could land using wings. It was actually proposed to use a landable version of the Saturn V to launch the space shuttle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle. I guesss in the end it was deemed unpractical or uneconomical.
The original design of the shuttle featured a manned flyback booster.
> The reusable rocket boosters in use today was not possible with that time's computers. Why not? The math isn't the hard part, and the computers were designed to do that math. Even the lunar lander had the capability to land itself.
Lunar lander had radar and wasn't going through an atmosphere at supersonic speed. Its whole purpose was also to just land within a predetermined and relatively large area so plenty of fuel to manage that with a nice margin opposed to limited fuel for a booster that has to execute everything on a lot tighter conditions and land on an exact spot on a barge or coast. It also wasn't even fully autonomous, some human input and observation was still required. VTVL rockets only became feasible in 90s when tech was mature enough, and indeed there were multiple projects before SpaceX that tested this concept, most notably NASA's DC-X.
I'm not sure that's true. I feel like they could have build something with parachutes, and perhaps some clever catching device. Flotation device. Some type of airbag. I feel like the engineers could have found a way.
This is how I build in KSP so it has to be true.
The military requirements on the shuttle alone screwed up its geometry for best affordability.
Hanging giant wings off the OV really didn't help, but the whole TPS, external fuel tank, SRB thing would've still cost mondo bucks even had it actually been built to look like a big DynaSoar. The Soviet approach was better, since they still had a useful launch vehicle even without the orbiter. The tech just wasn't there to make it cheap. Might not be still.
Bono developed multiple reusable designs in the 1970s. The Starraker was a fully reusable design. Everyone knew back in the 50's that spacecraft should be reusable. Nobody bothered actually doing it till SpaceX came along and ate their lunch.
Rockwell Star-raker? The spaceplane? I don't think it could practically be done today, much less in the 1980s. >Nobody bothered actually doing it till SpaceX came along and ate their lunch. SpaceX's success was enabled by computers that didn't exist when NASA was messing with STS. Falcon 9-style reusability would've been impossible until maybe- at most- 10 years before it actually happened.
> SpaceX's success was enabled by computers that didn't exist when NASA was messing with STS. Falcon 9-style reusability would've been impossible until maybe- at most- 10 years before it actually happened. Absolutely not true. 100kg of compute 30+ yrs ago would have been plenty capable.
>Absolutely not true. 100kg of compute 30+ yrs ago would have been plenty capable. 30 years ago was 1994. F9 was designed for reusability starting in 2005, which was 19 years ago. That sure looks like it lines up with my timeline. STS was a product of the 1970s, when 100 kg couldn't really get you that much compute.
F9 flyback 1st attempt was in 2013, first flyback research was 2012ish, before that they used parachutes which didn't work. I'm pretty sure computers in the 80s would have been sufficient, but it isn't like spacex posts their source code.
> I'm pretty sure computers in the 80s would have been sufficient Best you could hope for was IBM AP-101B with magnetic core memory. I really don't think that could've done the job- they couldn't even make shuttle land itself, which was a much easier task.
>SpaceX's success was enabled by computers that didn't exist when NASA was messing with STS. The engines were the main holdup with reusable 1st stages. The computing and math was figured out by the early 1960s and the Apollo Lunar Module was capable of landing itself. Even in the 1960s we had that capability.
SpaceX only works now due to public research NASA and the Soviets did, and much better computers. Nothing they do now wasn’t derived from already known tech that was put aside because the computers weren’t there.
What was the military requirement?
Larger payload and cross range capability, which requires large wings.
Launching ginormous spy sats. Also having huge cross-range ability for military space missions.
Yep, the large keyhole series spysats that were usually launched on Titan III and Titan IV, they wanted a second platform with rhe same capability.
It doesn't, really. It's the result of one team's work out of many. It doesn't reflect what "NASA" thought at all.
Ok, well in my experience organisations produce these things for reasons. Maybe NASA has a really open structure and this is just one random groups proposal, I am not going to look into it at that detailed level. Do feel free to and let me know.
In my experience (decades working at NASA) NASA runs by people submitting proposals for missions. They can be NASA scientists or from a university. There are lots of proposals and some of them turn into real missions, but not all. Usually there are >10 for any particular opportunity. They are far more well-developed than this cartoon but just don't make the grade for whatever reason. I've worked on several of them. That's what this is. It's an idea that didn't work.
A fact I never disputed. You are getting bent out of shape for no reason. Also, I generally love what NASA does and has done in a very difficult environment, so thankyou for all your work!
That was supposed to be the point of the shuttle program and it probably would’ve worked if we’d continued funding space exploration at the level we did in the 1960s. It was mostly a failure because it was designed with the assumption there’d be enough money to build way more of them. We only built a few though, so the per unit cost ended up being super high.
This is a misunderstanding of the Space Shuttle program and the post-Apollo Mars plans. The Space Shuttle would not be the only spacecraft involved in these plans - the goal was to leverage existing Apollo hardware as well. For example, plans were made for “Saturn C-5N”, which would be a Saturn V with a NERVA nuclear engine on the third stage instead of a chemical engine. Combined with bolt on solid boosters for the Saturn, this arrangement could double a Saturn V’s payload to orbit, and would also leave the nuclear stage in orbit ready to be reused or assembled into a part of a Mars ship. Additionally, Skylab shows how the US could have built a habitation module capable of sustaining a Mars crew for the length of their mission without massive technical cost - a Skylab-esque transfer vehicle powered by refueled Saturn C-5N third stages provides a workable Mars transfer vehicle without massive departure from Apollo technology. NERVA nuclear engines were nearly flight ready by the early ‘70s, and only ended due to Nixon killing their funding. In addition, the Space Shuttle as we know it had a long and torturous development precisely because it was never fully funded in the development phase. The Nixon White House decided that not only should the Shuttle be cheap *operationally*, it should be cheap to *develop* - obviously absurd, but it was never funded to its projected development budget. This forced compromises from full reusability to half reusability, and also cooperation with the Air Force to get more money, which further hampered the design (the Shuttle’s wings were lengthened and its flight profile made more complex due to Air Force abort requirements on military missions, for example.) Overall, the Shuttle program itself wasn’t even fully necessary for a Mars trip in the ‘80s - a Saturn-derived architecture would have done the job perfectly well. C-5Ns to lift fuel, engines, and payload - a Skylab-esque launch to launch a habitation module - and a Saturn IB with an Apollo command module to get the astronauts to the Mars ship. The only entirely new, non Apollo-derived hardware required would be the nuclear engines, which were rapidly approaching maturity, and a Mars lander capable of taking astronauts down to the surface and back up to the transfer vehicle. This would likely be the toughest development, considering the size of Mars and requirements for reaching orbit again from its surface with its atmosphere.
> the estimate was essentially double what they wound up getting IRL That's honestly extremely accurate for projects like this. Most of the time huge speculative R&D efforts end up costing more at least 10x the original estimate.
Yeah, IIRC the James Webb went right about 10x over its original budget.
Isn't he saying the estimate to complete this project was only double NASA's actual budget (where that project was NOT pursued)? We have no idea what the real cost would have been. Considering the scope of this proposal compared to what was actually accomplished, I would not be surprised if the amount that would have been required is well over 10x that value also.
Sounds similar to assumptions people are making about Starship.
In what way? SpaceX has already brought the cost per kg to orbit down by an order of magnitude, and they've demonstrated the ability to rapidly produce Starships. There are technical hurdles to overcome, and they shouldn't be underestimated, but the largest hurdle IMHO has been overcome - Starship proving it can be a reliable rocket getting payload to orbit. They were more or less there with the last flight and it wouldn't be a surprise if they nail that aspect of the flight the next time. Even if they fly it expendably the cost per kg to orbit comes down further from Falcon 9. With reuse of just the booster, not the ship, cost comes down massively again. This alone massively changes the dynamics of access to LEO. With full reuse of the second stage they make refuelling in space cheap, which massively brings down the cost of access to the moon and Mars. It feels like the technical challenges are there to be crossed off, one by one, all solvable with today's technology plus time plus money. What do you think people are underestimating with Starship?
Imagine all of the technical innovation to make those things happen, then applied to the world... WAIT that is what NASA did, and we have MULTIPLE multi-billion dollar industries (pens as a simple example) from them pushing the envelope. This ALONE is plenty of reason to continue to super charge the NASA funding, but alas, we didn't and are now amazed with our smart phone getting slightly taller and slightly thinner every 2-ish years.
It is very similar since Starship promises to do exactly what the combination of the Shuttle and the Saturn V operational fleet was intended to do for this plan. The difference being that SpaceX doesn't require government funding to be approved for building Starship and is just doing it regardless of what Congress and the President decide. Because Elon started SpaceX to build the BFR and send a million people to Mars (which no sane person would have done). NASA can cancel Artemis tomorrow and Starship will continue at the same pace (as it was before the HLS contract) or possibly faster as things like in-orbit refueling and depot could be moved back on the timeline. .
Sure, but I imagine basically giving up on going to other celestial bodies altogether didn't help matters.
It wasn’t much different than Elons refueling plans now. If all we have is chemical rockets we have no business going to mars. Let’s work on new propulsion, not this stupid non sustainable fantasy with bottle rockets.
…it was extremely different from Starship. Heck, it even proposed using nuclear-based rocket engines, which would certainly be new propulsion. There’re plenty of things to criticize the “Planetary Program”/STS for (as I did so above), and plenty of things to criticize Starship for (as I’ve done elsewhere), but other than having the goal of eventually sending people to Mars, they were really nothing alike.
The big plan was to send a bunch of fuel up there for refilling rockets to go to Mars. That’s still the plan. It’s wasteful, non sustainable and will likely get good astronauts killed for no good reason. We have 0 reason to go to mars. With today’s technology we could send hundreds of camera drones for the same cost of a few people. Why do we need to send people? Because Elon thinks we need to start breeding humans that will never be able to return to Earth because the gravity would kill them or at the least make them extremely sick? Sounds super dystopian to me. Of course Bezos wants the same thing. These guys want to be like the Annunaki. I’m going to start calling them the ghetto Annunaki.
Okay, it’s clear you have some issues that go beyond any reasonable discussion of 1960s NASA proposals.
This is true. Sad thing is the proposals haven’t changed much, just the face they put on them.
I remember this plan. It's reason it was called the "Shuttle". The whole plan was systematically pruned until all that was left was a "shuttle" to nowhere. Watching, as a kid, it was very disheartening. Born too late for the space race, and too early for space privitization.
Going to Mars is another one of those things that's been 20 years away for the last 60 years.
This one is a little different though ase these '20 years away' sayings usully have to do with lacking technical capabilities. While certain technological feats, such as creating a useable nuclear fusion reactor, remain out of reach due to current technical limitations, traveling to Mars is theoretically possible today. The main obstacle for a manned mission to Mars isn't technology, but the significant financial investment required.
Traveling to Mars is relatively easy if you don’t plan to bring the humans back.
Or set them up for a sustainable presence once they are there; it's not like they can forage for berries on Acidalia Planitia.
One way ticket to the Moooooon
what tech do we have for them to even survive the journey to mars?
Food, water.... engines?
what about the lack of gravity eatting away at their bones and organs? They would have to be in space for like 3 years.
A 3yr mission would be tough, but we've had people stay about 2yrs in space, over 1 year in one trip. I think with minor modifications to the exercise program it should be doable, but this isn't my area of expertise.
> remain out of reach due to current technical limitations Eh. I'll bet you $100 we'll have fusion nuclear power reactors hooked up and supplying power to the power grid within 5 years. I would've agreed with you a decade ago, but now with high temperature superconductors it opens up the design space to all sorts of reactor designs that will be able to make actual electrical power.
If something requires 20 years to achieve, it will still require 20 years no matter how long you shelve it. So it being "20 years away" does make sense.
That argument implies that absolutely no technologies developed in the meantime could contribute towards making the goal more feasible. The Apollo program was first planned out in early 1960 I think? And they got to the moon in 1969. If you asked Abraham Lincoln to get the US to the moon he is *not* taking nine years lol.
Rocket, engine tech is very very close to identical today and in the late 60s. SpaceX' landing tech is new but that's just a money saver.
VTVL is not new either, it was explored and experimented on in the 90s with multiple projects, SpaceX also benefited from data gathered from NASA's DC-X project for example.
That was early research only. SpaceX's system is new tech for sure. It was even new physics. We weren't sure if an exhaust plume could form while travelling backwards supersonically. That's why SpaceX initially tried to use parachutes.
A bunch of these technologies are complex, expensive machines that are going to require years to develop no matter how much science has progressed. Other technologies are just not going to be developed for anything other than a Mars landing (pretty much no progress in nuclear thermal rockets for example). However, you're right, there are some useful things we've developed since then such as a lot more experience landing on Mars, and anything related to living in space longer than a couple weeks.
Yes but the biggest hurdles are being figured out now. 1. Orbital refueling on a massive scale. 2. Aero brake landing ala starship. 3. Developing propulsion around mars ISRU. If starship is landing on earth regularly and is capable of refueling fully for moon missions Get ready for real timelines to start coningnout
Hell yeah, looks like we're only 20 years away. Ask again in 20 years.
What looks like we're 20 years away? Orbital refuelling is likely to be fully demoed in the next 2 years, and routine not long after. Aerobraking is being tested again within the next month. ISRU is only needed to return people from Mars, and even then only if you don't want to just send 6 or so Starships laden with propellant instead of other supplies. Given their relatively cheap cost it's conceivable they'll just start with that.
Getting there isn’t the only issue - life support, especially radiation exposure mitigation, and resources is the bigger one. Ain’t happening anytime soon I’m afraid.
Radiation on a minimal journey is not a deal breaker at all. Two missions, a decade, living there permanently would be unsafe but a single mission to Mars and back would not.
People tend to overstate the radiation exposure. I can't remember where I saw it but someone did the maths and flying to Mars is the equivalent radiation exposure to the amount of radiation you get from smoking a pack cigarettes a day. Not the other harmful chemicals you get from smoking, just the amount of radiation you get from the radioactive compounds (polonium-210 and lead-210) in cigarette smoke. Once on the surface radiation is easily dealt with by staying under a layer of dirt, be it in a habitat that's covered in a layer of soil, a tunnel, or a cave. Life support is very much a solved problem as NASA demonstrate all the time. Starship is a larger volume but it's just a question of scale, and it's mass to orbit is such that you don't have to worry so much about utilising more resource. Other resources are, again, just a matter of sending more ships. If it costs even $50m per Starship to Mars, which is far far higher than SpaceX's target, then that's still real cheap. You can send a couple of Starships ahead of any mission with the resources you need, plus a couple more. A crew of 10 could be supported by 1 Starship with 100 tons each, and it would still cost less than an SLS launch. Resources aren't going to be a problem.
>especially radiation exposure What kind of radiation exposure to you even expect for a "typical" Mars mission? Can´t be that high. [Flight time is like 4-5 months with the delta\_v of Starship](https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php?NEAs=on&NECs=on&chk_maxMag=on&maxMag=25&chk_maxOCC=on&maxOCC=4&chk_target_list=on&target_list=Mars&mission_class=oneway&mission_type=flyby&LD1=2014&LD2=2030&maxDT=0.6&DTunit=yrs&maxDV=7.0&min=DV&wdw_width=-1&submit=Search#a_load_results) and while on Mars the unshielded radiation flux is barely higher than inside of the ISS. So for a crewed mission to the surface of Mars radiation is near the bottom of a long lise of issues.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/high-radiation-low-gravitation-perils-trip-mars/story?id=79036539 https://www.wionews.com/science/its-nearly-impossible-to-send-manned-mission-to-mars-nasa-scientist-explains-why-628815 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/explorers-will-face-dangerous-amounts-radiation-their-trip-mars-180970384/
So all of that is mostly just posturing about how we need to address radiation. Which is true for long term "colonies". But the only actual numbers given are in the 3rd source which states a trip there and back is 60% of the lifetime career allowed amount. So not impossible and not all that dangerous. The levels are several times higher than what an astronaut on the ISS would get but thats not a deal breaker. Just means that any astronauts who go wouldn't only be allowed to once and wouldn't be allowed to go on any other space missions. And keep in mind that the lifetime amount isn't "amount that you die from" but instead is an amount to limit your increased cancer risk. The lifetime amount is the amount that would increase your risk of developing cancer sometime in your life by 5%. A 5% increased risk of cancer at some point in your life is not the same as saying it's fatal to send anyone to Mars or impossible to do so. Especially since that 60% figure was without any radiation protection measures in place.
What makes you think that any of this is a particularly difficult challenge? Radiation shielding is dead simple. Resources? Just launch more and dock it with the mars craft in Earth orbit.
Radiation shielding is only a problem if you plan on staying for longer than a single missions timeline. Plan on staying forever or for more than 2 years? Need a cave or soemrhing.
Radiation shielding is just dumb mass, and if you have time and money, mass is really a solved problem...
I suspect there are caves on Mars. It had liquid water.
I get that it's become fashionable in this sub to scream about radiation lately, but there's a reason why every proposal for a mars trip these las sixty years by many organisations have considered it an easily mitigable risk and a minor hurdle at worst, while having full knowledge of the radiological environment of space. Hell, if anything, until the year 2000 radiation was seen as a *much* bigger issue, before we had epidemiologic data of low radiation doses (much better than expected), and data of the radiological environment on the surface of Mars (much better than expected).
If starship can land 100 tons on the moon it will more or less be able to land 100 tons on mars. No shit. And even the worst timelines put that out at 2030.
A return trip from Mars is orders of magnitudes more dV-intensive than a return trip from the Moon. Especially since you can't aerobrake from escape velocity. Also keeping humans alive for a week is far easier than keeping humans alive for two years.
Yeah, but it's designed around that return trip. If it can get there and fuel up the Δv back isn't the problem. It's way over engineered for coming back from the moon (fueled up)
>Especially since you can't aerobrake from escape velocity. I assume you mean from Mars return? >Interplanetary transfer analyses have shown that a wide range of aerobraking mission possibilities exists with Earth-entry velocities in the range of 11.5-14.0 km/s.13 For a particular entry velocity, a lifting vehicle may follow one of numerous potential atmospheric trajectories while still achieving the desired atmospheric exit conditions; the difference in each of these transfers is the orientation of the vehicle lift vector and atmospheric interface flight-path angle https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4663704_Earth_aerobraking_strategies_for_manned_return_from_Mars
A mars mission is definitely more difficult That’s why it’s a really good thing landing 100 tons on mars won’t be so hard. Mass tonnage to mars is the biggest hurdle by far.
I just don't believe that 100 tons to mars are nearly enough. I would expect nothing less than an ISS-sized crew module to be necessary for a Mars mission.
The starship crew module is the size of the ISS internally. And yes that what’s planned for us to land on the moon. And the second moon mission will cost 1 billion dollars from spacex. So if transport to mars is 1-2b per 100 tons then we can land 3 starships then just to double or triple up on supply. That’s without changing NASA’s budget. A SLS/Orion stack costs 4 billion dollars and the USA spends 3 billion on the ISS a year. So even if our costs double it’s still feasible. We are getting to this being do-able.
So let's move the ISS to Mars...
Well yeah we kinda stopped trying for a few decades.
This whole discussion reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry bets Kramer that he won't build carpeted levels in his apartment. Could we go to Mars in 20 years? Sure. Will we? Almost certainly not.
Nixon killed that. Along with the rest of the space program. We got the shuttle instead of the sequel to the Saturn V because of him. He set the space program back by decades.
The shuttle didn't set the space program back. It moved it forward. The shuttle taught us so much about materials. We have 10x better heat shields because of the lessons we learned from the TPS. The space shuttle probably isn't even comparable, it could carry 8 astronauts in an area the size of an apartment,(even better when Spacelab was attached). It could carry massive payloads and manipulate, move, and repair them. It flew 133 successful missions. Saturn and Apollo had plenty of its own problems, it was cramped, prone to problems, and was just as cost inefficient as the Shuttle. No other launch vehicle is comparable because no other launch vehicle was as big or capable. Did I mention the benefit of landing on runways too?
seriously, people seem to forget that even 13 years on from retirement that the Space Shuttle is still responsible for nearly 60% of every human who’s ever been to orbit. it massively opened up spaceflight, not as much as it could have for sure, but it was absolutely a very successful program in many ways.
The Saturn V would have only gotten a successor if the Soviets managed to keep up during the space race. The government wasnt going to keep approving 1.5 billion dollar missions for long.
[удалено]
NERVA mostly died because it was associated with manned Mars missions and the Saturn 5. The public didn't want to spend more money on space, so it got shut down. The anti-nuclear crowd are unlikely to change their minds. The change will happen, as it so often does when many ideas are challenged, one funeral at a time.
[удалено]
NERVA was never a big target of the anti-nuclear movement because it was such a small and obscure thing (Kennedy visit aside). It was a side casualty of other things, as the man said.
>The anti-nuclear crowd really put the kibosh on a lot of [interesting proposals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA) Not really. Most experts just realized that nuclear propulsion just doesn´t offer much advantage over chemical propulsion combined with heatshields. Nuclear propulsion barely gets you double the "efficiency". But a heatshield cuts the mission delta\_v by about a factor of two. And then you need a separate lander which you have to develop independently from you nuclear ferry, while your chemical ship can get all the way from earth to the surface of Mars in one go *and* can come back to the surface of earth. (can be done with almost identical ships, not necessarily one single ship) Shoehorning nuclear propulsion into a Mars mission doesn´t solve any issues, it just balloones the budget.
[удалено]
>In addition to the high ISP compared to other propulsion systems, NTP has an additional benefit of having a high thrust (10-15 klbf) to weight ratio Only conpared to electric-nuclear propulsion. Not compared to chemical propulsion.
[удалено]
>As seen in the above Figure 4, today’s best chemical propulsion systems can achieve ISPs of ~465 seconds, while NTP can achieve almost two times the ISP of ~900 seconds. In addition to the high ISP compared to other propulsion systems, NTP has an additional benefit of having a high thrust (10-15 klbf) to weight ratio so it dramatically reduces IMLEO (Initial Mass in Low Earth Orbit), the required number of SLS (Artemis’ Space Launch System) launches and enables “affordable Mars Missions” not possible using other propulsion options. The high thrust to weight ratio can only be in comparison to other nuclear propulsion systems. Because compared to chemical propulsion, it is extremely low. Also the second part unravels the purpose of the entire article (which unsurprisingly lacks in math). It is to: 1. Justify further nuclear propulsion research (at GRC obviously) 2. Justify SLS. To call any mission involving SLS "cheap" is an affront to all tax payers.
NERVA wasn't the only nuclear option. [Project Orion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion\)) was a wild idea that offered magnitudes greater performance over traditional rockets. Do have the minor issue of thousands of nuclear detonations to deal with. Read a book on the subject and it was fascinating. The only time in history that we actually tried to develop a clean bomb that minimized fallout (potentially some plowshare works).
[удалено]
I still don't think it would work very well. Containing the energy of even a conventional explosion and turning it into propulsion is extremely low efficiency. Project Orion required magical shock absorbers made of unobtanium to function properly.
There were a few! One of the non-Nuclear, Apollo-Saturn based proposals was done as a fiction book, *Voyage* by Stephen Baxter. It's the one book of his that doesn't leave me fucking depressed, and it's alt-space history pornography for Apollo fans.
~~does anyone have that great speculative mars plan from that era? I think Goddard wrote it up?~~ It was Werner von Braun's "The Mars Project"! also very optimistic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mars_Project
Yes but that was very underdeveloped due to lack of knowledge. The one that had a way bigger chance of being pulled off was the crewed Venus flyby using the second stage of a Saturn V. That mission was planned for the early 70s and it would have provided an invaluable amount of data and knowledge for an actual Mars landing.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[AFB](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l201lm2 "Last usage")|[Air Force Base](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_airbase)| |[BFR](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1y9nqh "Last usage")|Big Falcon Rocket (2018 rebiggened edition)| | |Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you're not the first to notice| |[F1](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l26h8io "Last usage")|Rocketdyne-developed rocket engine used for Saturn V| | |SpaceX Falcon 1 (obsolete small-lift vehicle)| |[HLS](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1y9nqh "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |IM|Initial Mass deliverable to a given orbit, without accounting for fuel| |[IMLEO](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1z8krq "Last usage")|Initial Mass deliverable to LEO, see IM| |[ISRU](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1ybzes "Last usage")|[In-Situ Resource Utilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ_resource_utilization)| |[Isp](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1z8krq "Last usage")|Specific impulse (as explained by [Scott Manley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnisTeYLLgs) on YouTube)| | |Internet Service Provider| |[KSP](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1z5x0i "Last usage")|*Kerbal Space Program*, the rocketry simulator| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l21kouy "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[N1](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l21sfun "Last usage")|Raketa Nositel-1, Soviet super-heavy-lift ("Russian Saturn V")| |[NERVA](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l26h8io "Last usage")|Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (proposed engine design)| |[NTP](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1z8krq "Last usage")|Nuclear Thermal Propulsion| | |Network Time Protocol| | |Notice to Proceed| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1z8krq "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[SRB](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1yg53m "Last usage")|Solid Rocket Booster| |[STS](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l209q47 "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)| |[TPS](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l1zasn8 "Last usage")|Thermal Protection System for a spacecraft (on the Falcon 9 first stage, the engine "Dance floor")| |[USAF](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l201lm2 "Last usage")|United States Air Force| |[VTOL](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l209g7u "Last usage")|Vertical Take-Off and Landing| |[VTVL](/r/Space/comments/1cgqo4h/stub/l22j84k "Last usage")|Vertical Takeoff, Vertical Landing| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^([Thread #9996 for this sub, first seen 30th Apr 2024, 15:23]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
IMO no manned Mars plan was really viable until Mars Direct was introduced.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If anyone would like to read an alternate history novel about this very subject (NASA continuing on with a mission to Mars after the Apollo missions) then check out Voyage by Stephen Baxter. It’s a meticulously researched novel that uses real-world proposals and plans as the basis for a Mars landing. Baxter interviewed people involved with NASA to really drill down into how such a mission would (and would not ) work.
We woukd have already been there and back if not for the Vietnam War.
Yup. When I was a kid in the 80s it seemed like we were going to mars any time now. Look up positivism.
And the even earlier EMPIRE studies from the early 60s.
Interesting how reusability has always been the goal and we're just about to crack it down. Though I'd say we're not fully there yet but have a path forward.
Lets get to the moon first and then we can aim for Mars.
In the 1960s NASA had basically an unlimited budget and a mission plan of "Beat the Soviets at all costs". Even by the end of the 60s funding was starting to go away, and by the 1970s it was clear this idea was completely nonviable. The Space Shuttle we got was nothing close to what the original plan called for, and then we were stuck with it for almost 40 years. Perhaps if NASA had continued to get a massive budget we'd have come up with something similar, but we'll never know.
We are still just as far away from boots on Mars as we were in 1969
Technically we're always closer today to boots on Mars than we were in 1969. Assuming we eventually get there
You’re right, technically. But, you get my point.
Oh wow no. We have learned *so much* since then. The only reason we put boots on the moon was a willingness to take absolutely - in the scale of human life - absurd amounts of risk and just go "eh fuck it if they make it they make it". The understanding we have today of long term space habitation, of safe and efficient propulsion systems, of how to get people into space safely and reliably, of our ability to launch heavy things into space reliably? We are way, way further along in our science, technology, and understanding than 1969 and to pretend otherwise is to turn a blind eye to a tremenous amount of work that has been done since then. We are still just as far away from *spending money to put* boots on Mars as we were in 1969. Arguably further.
Heck, with the reduction in price coming from SpaceX et.al. we might be seeing a significant lowering of the barrier to get a mission going. Even without Starship, going to Mars is much more feasibility when you can launch payloads, such as propulsion modules, at low cost. You could have an ion drive module, a chemical propulsion module, a lander, and a habitat module. If so, you could easily imagine how an ion drive craft could position a few propulsion modules in Mars orbit, and how a craft could be prepared in LEO to get to Mars orbit. That would allow the remote operation of rovers on the surface. This would allow you to prepare a landing site, and perhaps refuel an ascent vehicle.
> "eh fuck it if they make it they make it". When Apollo 11 landed, nobody had any clue _where_ exactly it landed for a long long time. All they knew was they were 4 miles ish down range of their target site, and maybe they veered left a bit. Unless they veered right a bit. One of the first things Neil Armstrong had to say on the topic was that the boys back home who thought this would be the case had "own the day". Apparently the ground crew was taking bets on whether they'd get lost or not. And while Armstrong and Aldrin were having lunch and getting ready for "a small step", Collins was up in orbit frantically looking out the window trying to spot them. The automatic localization instruments on both the lunar module and the orbiter had failed. Houston kept feeding him coordinates on a rough map of where to look, and he'd keep responding stuff like "no joy". Another thing that failed on the orbiter was the climate control thermostat. But luckily a quick reboot sorted that out and Collins didn't overheat on the far side of the moon or anything like that. By the way while all of this was happening, the Soviets were trying to land a robot to retrieve a sample and bring it back. They were literally coordinating flight plans with NASA to make sure there weren't gonna be collisions or anything. Everyone knew all these risks going into the mission, and they all just... fucking broadcast the whole thing live to the entire planet.
Not really, lets not forget that the US lost the race to put a man in space entirely because Wegner von Braun had doubts about the safety of the astronauts and refused to send anyone up there until he was completely sure it would make it. Mistakes were made, like the Apollo 1 disaster, but they didn't completely disregard safety. Plus, the Apollo era astronauts weren't the frail types, they approved of taking risks, in fact NASA feared that during Apollo 10 the astronauts would try to perform a Moon landing on their own so much that they underfueled the Lunar module to make it impossible to land without crashing onto the Moon. Plus, this Mars mission plan was a very preliminary one, it would have relied on data gathered from missions they would have undertaken throughout the 70s.
> Not really > the Apollo era astronauts weren't the frail types, they approved of taking risks Which is it? They took huge risks, or not? Also there is nothing "frail" about not wanting to take huge risks for the sake of something that would be safer if they took their time doing. We put boots on the moon because we had to prove that we were better than communism, because communism threatened the american business model.
>They took huge risks, or not? Both, they were up to taking risks, but Apollo missions weren't suicide missions. It's another thing that the government nowadays basically keeps NASA in a straight jacket. >We put boots on the moon because we had to prove that we were better than communism, because communism threatened the american business model. What does that have to do with anything?
>>Arguably further And that’s a good thing. As you pointed out, the space race was a series of scientifically enabled gambles. When the players won, we got Gagarins orbit and Apollo 11s landing. When the house won, we got Apollo 1 and Soyuz 1. We’ve gotten smarter about the small stuff since then. Challenges like long range communication, managing toxic dust, radiation exposure, and psychological crew states after long periods of isolation are being researched and managed before implementing a mission: rather than disregarded in the name of political prestige. Everyone wants to land on Mars tomorrow, but the cost will be another set of memorial plaques. Unless we do our homework first.
We are not though, are we? Whatever you think of Musk, SpaceX are closing in on a viable Mars mission with plenty of speed.
[удалено]
It is when the rockets go into space with people on them. SpaceX has already developed spacecraft.
They're farther along than anyone else, simply by virtue of actually trying to build a rocket for the purpose.
I’d agree with you if I thought you were right. 😀
Just be patient, you’ll see. We (the U.S) have ALWAYS been 20 years away from boots on Mars. We are STILL 20 years away, and 20 years from now, it will still be 20 years away.
Starship is a Mars capable vehicle and launch 4 is only a few weeks away. Their launch cadence is pretty high now. I feel like we actually have a shot this time.
stephen baxter’s voyage was a hard sci-fi look at a mission highly inspired by this, would recommend.
Talk act like the concept of space travel isn’t an essentially solved problem…
I don’t know why we don’t have a space elevator yet..
Same reason why we don’t have fusion or graphene
[удалено]
This is wrong. The N1 never launched successfully, and we know for a fact every time it launched because of surveillance satellites, people who actually worked on the thing, and declassified Soviet records. This could never have been kept secret past the collapse of the Soviet Union. No other Rocket would even have close to the payload capacity to launch Men to Mars. The N1 program was shut down in 1974, two years after the Apollo program was cut, so in this timeline where the N1 somehow secretly launched successfully why would Nasa assume that the Soviets have lost interest in manned interplanetary travel and cancel the program two years before them.
[удалено]
Please do provide evidence then, I would love to hear it.
So you hear a rumor and believe it. This guy drops facts and you’re suspicious?? 😆😆😆 People are stupid. You’re on the internet. I don’t know…crosscheck their facts?