Figure 25—Mars Base 1: the crew docks its Habitat on the surface with a second Habitat and begins a 600-day stay. They use a pressurized rover (left) to explore up to 500 kilometers from base. (NASA Photo S93-45582)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/28.png
Figure 11—The 1967 Planetary Joint Action Group’s Mars flyby spacecraft releases automated probes and deploys instruments. Close Mars flyby would last mere hours, but the astronauts would study themselves throughout the mission, helping to pave the way for future Mars landing expeditions. (NASA Photo S-67-5999)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/10.png
Figure 26—Using the propellant factory as a launch pad, the Mars Ascent Vehicle blasts off burning propellants made from terrestrial hydrogen and Martian atmospheric carbon dioxide. (NASA Photo S93-050644)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/29.png
Figure 27—Mars Orbit Rendezvous: The Mars Ascent Vehicle docks with the Earth Return Vehicle in Mars orbit. The Earth Return Vehicle’s rocket engines would place the crew on a six-month low-energy trajectory homeward. (NASA Photo S93-27626)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/30.png
Figure 4—Conjunction-class Mars missions include a low-energy transfer from Earth to Mars, a long stay at Mars, and a low-energy transfer from Mars to Earth. 1 Earth departure. 2- Mars arrival. 3 - Mars departure. 4 Earth arrival. (Manned Exploration Requirements and Considerations, Advanced Studies Office, Engineering and Development Directorate, NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, February 1971, p. 1-7.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/4.png
Figure 5—Opposition-class Mars missions offer a short Mars stay but require one high-energy transfer, so they demand more propellant than conjunction-class missions. 1 - Earth departure (low-energy transfer). 2 - Mars arrival. 3 - Mars departure (high-energy transfer). 4 - Earth arrival. (Manned Exploration Requirements and Considerations, Advanced Studies Office, Engineering and Development Directorate, NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, February 1971, p. 1-8.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/5.png
Figure 3—Returning to Mars orbit: Like the Apollo Lunar Module, Aeronutronic’s lander design used its descent stage as a launch pad for its ascent stage. Unlike the Lunar Module, it cast off spent propellant tanks as it climbed to orbit. (’Summary Presentation: Study of a Manned Mars Excursion Module,’ Franklin Dixon, Proceeding of the Symposium on Manned Planetary Missions: 1963/1964 Status, NASA TM X-53049, Future Projects Office, NASA George C. Marshall Spaceflight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, June 12, 1964, p. 468.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/3.png
Figure 12—In January 1968, Boeing proposed this complex Mars expedition plan using nuclear rockets and an opposition-class trajectory. The company’s Mars ship would measure nearly 200 meters long and support a crew of six. (Integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft Concept Definition, Vol. 1, Summary, D2-113544-1, Boeing Company, Aerospace Group, Space Division, Seattle, Washington, p. 7.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/11.png
Figure 17—Last gasp (for a while): NASA’s 1971 Mars spaceship design, the last until the 1980s, proposed to reduce cost by using projected Space Shuttle technology and rejecting nuclear engines in favor of cheaper chemical propulsion. (Manned Exploration Requirements and Considerations, Advanced Studies Office, Engineering and Development Directorate, NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, February 1971, p. 5-2.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/17.png
Figure 8—Typical piloted Mars flyby mission. 1—depart Earth orbit. 2, 4, 10—course corrections. 3, 5, 6, 7—eject automated Mars probes. 8—automated probe collects Mars surface sample and launches it off the planet. 9—piloted flyby craft retrieves Mars surface sample. 11—crew leaves Mars flyby craft in Earth return capsule. The abandoned flyby spacecraft sails past Earth into solar orbit. 12—Earth atmosphere reentry and landing. (Planetary Exploration Utilizing a Manned Flight System, Office of Manned Space Flight, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, October 3, 1966, p. 16.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/7.png
Figure 19—During return to Earth the flyby spacecraft discards empty propellant tanks, revealing cylindrical Command and Mission Modules between twin almondshaped Orbital Transfer Vehicles. (’Concept for a Manned Mars Flyby,’ Barney Roberts, Manned Mars Missions: Working Group Papers, NASA M002, NASA/Los Alamos National Laboratories, Huntsville, Alabama/Los Alamos, New Mexico, June 1986, Vol. 1, p. 210.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/19.png
Figure 22—Two Orbital Transfer Vehicles would push the Science Applications International Corporation piloted Mars ship out of Earth orbit. The company assumed that Orbital Transfer Vehicles would be built for non-Mars programs in time to support its expedition, slated to reach Mars in 2005. (Piloted Sprint Missions to Mars, Report No. SAIC87/1908, Study No. 1-120-449-M26, Science Applications International Corporation, Schaumburg, Illinois, November 1987, p. 27.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/22.png
Lunar module on the lunar surface
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/0.png
Figure 18—In 1985, NASA’s Johnson Space Center responded to suspected Soviet Mars plans by proposing a U.S. Mars flyby using Space Station and lunar base hardware then planned for the 1990s. Here the flyby spacecraft orbits Earth before setting out for Mars. (’Concept for a Manned Mars Flyby,’ Barney Roberts, Manned Mars Missions: Working Group Papers, NASA M002, NASA/Los Alamos National Laboratories, Huntsville, Alabama/Los Alamos, New Mexico, June 1986, Vol. 1, p. 210.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/18.png
Figure 24—The crew Habitat lands near the propellant factory with empty propellant tanks. Note wheels for moving the Habitat on the martian surface. (NASA Photo S93050645)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/27.png
Figure 7—The 1966 Planetary Joint Action Group study used existing and near-term technology for its piloted Mars flyby spacecraft design. Note the Earth Entry Module (left) based on the Apollo Command Module. (NASA Photo S-66-11230)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/14.png
Figure 30—In 1998, NASA Lewis Research Center proposed a reusable Solar-Electric Transfer Vehicle (SETV) and clever use of orbital mechanics to reduce Mars expedition mass. SETV’s solar panel spars would inflate in orbit, spreading ’wings’ of solar cell fabric. (NASA Photo S99-03585)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/25.png
Figure 20—The flyby crew prepares to aerobrake in Earth’s atmosphere. As Earth grows from a bright star to a disk, they undock the Command Module and one Orbital Transfer Vehicle, abandoning the second Orbital Transfer Vehicle and their home for the previous year, the Mission Module. (’Concept for a Manned Mars Flyby,’ Barney Roberts, Manned Mars Missions: Working Group Papers, NASA M002, NASA/Los Alamos National Laboratories, Huntsville, Alabama/Los Alamos, New Mexico, June 1986, Vol. 1, p. 213.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/20.png
Figure 2—Astronauts exploring Mars near Aeronutronic’s lander would take pains to collect biological specimens before terrestrial contamination made study impossible. A large dish antenna (left) would let them share their discoveries with Earth. (’Summary Presentation: Study of a Manned Mars Excursion Module,’ Franklin Dixon, Proceeding of the Symposium on Manned Planetary Missions: 1963/1964 Status, NASA TM X-53049, Future Projects Office, NASA George C. Marshall Spaceflight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, June 12, 1964, p. 470.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/2.png
Figure 28—NASA’s 1997 Mars plan proposed to reduce weight by using an aerobrake integrated with the spacecraft hull and nuclear rockets. These steps would help eliminate need for a heavy-lift rocket, permitting a cheaper Shuttlederived launch system. (NASA Photo S97-07844)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/23.png
Figure 14—North American Rockwell’s plan for landing on Mars and returning to Mars orbit. The company’s lander, a two-stage design, would support up to four astronauts on Mars for up to 30 days and return to the orbiting mothership with up to 300 pounds of rocks. (Integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft Concept Definition, Vol. 4, System Definition, D2-113544-4, Boeing Company, Aerospace Group, Space Division, Seattle, Washington, January 1968, p. 145.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/13.png
Figure 29—Nuclear stages in NASA’s 1997 Mars plan included engines (left) based on revived 1960s NERVA technology. (NASA Photo S97-07843)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/24.png
Figure 10—Following final S-IVB stage separation, the 1967 Planetary Joint Action Group’s Mars flyby spacecraft deploys solar arrays and a dish-shaped radio antenna. (NASA Photo S-67-5991)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/9.png
Figure 23—NASA’s 1993 Mars mission plan: after landing on Mars, the automated propellant factory manufactures liquid methane and liquid oxygen propellants for the conical Mars Ascent Vehicle it carries on top. (NASA Photo S93-50643)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/26.png
Figure 1—Landing on Mars. Aeronutronic’s Mars lander, a lifting body glider, relied on aerodynamic lift to minimize required propellant. The design was based on optimistic estimates of Martian atmospheric density. (’Summary Presentation: Study of a Manned Mars Excursion Module,’ Franklin Dixon, Proceeding of the Symposium on Manned Planetary Missions: 1963/1964 Status, NASA TM X-53049, Future Projects Office, NASA George C. Marshall Spaceflight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, June 12, 1964, p. 467.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/1.png
Figure 13—Cutaway of North American Rockwell’s 1968 Mars lander. Based on the Apollo Command Module shape, its design incorporated new Mars atmosphere data gathered during the 1965 Mariner 4 automated Mars flyby. (Manned Exploration Requirements and Considerations, Advanced Studies Office, Engineering and Development Directorate, NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, February 1971, p. 5-3.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/12.png
Figure 16—Compared with cramped Apollo spacecraft, the lodgings proposed for NASA’s 1980s Mars ships were palatial. In this cutaway, note the four-deck Mission Module (center) and large conical Mars lander (right). (NASA Photo S-69-56295)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/16.png
Figure 15—Twin Mars ships blast their all-male crews from Earth orbit using NERVA nuclear rocket stages. In August 1969, Wernher von Braun used images such as this to present NASA’s vision of a Mars expedition in the 1980s to the Space Task Group and to Congress. (NASA Photo MSFC69-PD-SA-176)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/15.png
Figure 21—Science Applications International Corporation developed its Mars mission plan for NASA during 1987. The piloted spacecraft (shown here in cutaway) would reach Mars with empty propellant tanks and dock with a waiting automated cargo ship to fill up for the trip home—a controversial departure from past Mars plans. (Piloted Sprint Missions to Mars, Report No. SAIC-87/1908, Study No. 1-120-449-M26, Science Applications International Corporation, Schaumburg, Illinois, November 1987, p. 9.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/21.png
Figure 9—Three modified Apollo S-IVB stages burn one after the other to launch the 1967 Planetary Joint Action Group Mars flyby spacecraft out of Earth orbit. (NASA Photo S-67-5998)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/8.png
Figure 6—TRW’s 1964 Mars ship design, shaped like a missile warhead, sought to minimize required propellant by aerobraking in the Martian atmosphere. This cutaway shows the Mars lander and Earth Return Module inside the spacecraft. (’Summary of Manned Mars Mission Study,’ Robert Sohn, Proceeding of the Symposium on Manned Planetary Missions: 1963/1964 Status, NASA TM X-53049, Future Projects Office, NASA George C. Marshall Spaceflight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, June 12, 1964, p. 150.)
https://askpandipro.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/users/1/documents/616/figures/6.png

Mars mission media gallery

Related Content From The Pandipedia