A Cheap Solution for Getting to Mars?

by Nancy Atkinson on January 8, 2009

Two shuttles on the pads in September 2008.Credit: NASA

Two shuttles on the pads in September 2008.Credit: NASA


The space shuttles are slated to be retired in September of 2010. NASA put out a call recently to ask what should be done with the shuttles post-retirement, and many think they should be put in museums or on display in rocket parks. But futurist and entrepreneur Eric Knight, (founder of UP Aerospace and Remarkable Technologies) has a somewhat novel idea of what to do with the shuttles after they are done with their current duties: Send them to Mars. He says his formula is simple and will allow humans to travel to Mars in years, not decades.

Knight’s proposal, which he calls “Mars on a Shoestring,” outlines two shuttles going into Earth orbit, hooking them together with a truss and strapping on a powerful enough propulsion system. And that’s pretty much it. A pressurized inflatable conduit would connect the two orbiters so the astronauts could go back and forth between the two shuttles.

Then comes the really cool part; a way to provide artificial gravity during the trip to Mars. From Knight’s webpage:

• Once the propulsion stage has accelerated this entire system on its trek to Mars, the truss is detached from the two orbiters and the truss-propulsion assembly is jettisoned.

• The two orbiters then separate to a distance of a few hundred feet, but remain connected — top to top — by a tether cable that is spooled out.

• During the separation, the accordion-style inflatable crew-transfer conduit equally elongates.

• Once the orbiters are at their maximum fixed distance apart, they would simultaneously fire their reaction control systems to set the pair into an elegant pirouette — creating a comfortable level of artificial gravity for the crew’s voyage to the red planet.

It gets a little dicey once the shuttles arrive at Mars, however. How would these huge spacecrafts get to Mars surface? Knight’s only proposal is separating the orbiters and each having a REALLY huge parachute. Right now, the largest parachute that’s been successfully tested is 150 ft (45 m) in diameter.

However, in an interview we did with JPL’s Rob Manning for a previous article on Universe Today (see “The Mars Landing Approach: Getting Large Payloads to the Surface of the Red Planet), Manning says there’s currently no way and there’s not a parachute big enough to allow a big spacecraft, even a high lift vehicle like a shuttle to land successfully on Mars. The atmosphere is too thin to provide any drag.

From our earlier article:

“Well, on Mars, when you use a very high lift to weight to drag ratio like the shuttle,” said Manning, “in order to get good deceleration and use the lift properly, you’d need to cut low into the atmosphere. You’d still be going at Mach 2 or 3 fairly close to the ground. If you had a good control system you could spread out your deceleration to lengthen the time you are in the air. You’d eventually slow down to under Mach 2 to open a parachute, but you’d be too close to the ground and even an ultra large supersonic parachute would not save you.”

Supersonic parachute experts have concluded that to sufficiently slow a large shuttle-type vehicle on Mars and reach the ground at reasonable speeds would require a parachute one hundred meters in diameter.

“That’s a good fraction of the Rose Bowl. That’s huge,” said Manning. “We believe there’s no way to make a 100-meter parachute that can be opened safely supersonically, not to mention the time it takes to inflate something that large. You’d be on the ground before it was fully inflated. It would not be a good outcome.”

So, while Knight’s proposal is interesting and perhaps forward-thinking, it would need quite a bit of work to actually be feasible. He admits as much, saying “This thought paper is certainly not meant to be the technical be all, end all on the topic — but merely a springboard to new thought. The science and topics touched on herein are superficial; the concepts are simply provided to fuel the imagination and promote discussion.”

Knight said he was inspired by Robert Zubrin’s Mars Direct concept, and he also wanted to “repurpose” the space shuttle fleet.

“In all, I hope that my thought paper provides a catalyst for additional thinking as we ponder our place in the universe — and the methods to transport us to new frontiers.”

Who knows? Many successful endeavors start out as crazy ideas. But first, someone has to have the idea.

Source: Remarkable Technologies


  • anon

    this would never work and even if you somehow managed to send 2 shuttles to mars it would just be a complicated way for the astronauts on board to commit suicide. The shuttle is designed for low earth orbit, the astronauts would fry on their way to mars.

  • dollhopf

    anon said “The shuttle is designed for low earth orbit, the astronauts would fry on their way to mars.

    Likewise Jason said “that the shuttles were only designed to operated within the protection of earth’s radiation shield. They do not have enough shielding on them to withstand the radiation on a trip to mars.

    What is not just a shuttle specific problem but a still unsolved problem which could doom every manned deep space mission. A gleam of hope emerged a view weeks ago when Ian O’Neill reported that British scientists invented a “mini-magnetosphere” to protect astronauts during solar storms. (“Ion Shield for Interplanetary Spaceships Now a Reality“, 4th November 2008, filed under: Physics, Space Flight).

    Maybe in five years this mechanism would even allow you to fly through a solar storm in a Vostok spacecraft.

  • Planetwatcher

    How about including a LEM like vehicle on this double shuttle-truss space ship?

    Just leave the shuttles attached to the truss for the whole mission and it can remain in orbit of Mars, like the command module of the Apollo missions to the Moon.
    The truss could even carry extra fuel tanks, or extra decent modules for the LEM like vehicle.

  • peter petrov

    “It gets a little dicey…”

    Define “little.”

  • dollhopf

    to: peter petrov;

    Have you already read the following article from Mrs. Atkinson?

    The Mars Landing Approach: Getting Large Payloads to the Surface of the Red Planet“, 17th July 2007

    It is claimed that large vehicles cannot be brought to the Martian ground safely with the means of parachutes.

  • Kevin

    More April Fools day material.

    Did I oversleep a couple of months?

  • Vanamonde

    Mars can wait. Better to think about how to live on the Moon and build mass drivers to make L5 colonies.

    It is too late to save us, but it is the only positive solution I have seen to the poplulation explosion. Gigadeath is coming.

  • KevinM

    Too fantastic and contrived for a serious proposal. There is not enough room on the shuttles for comfortable living for that long. An expandable tube? That is right out of 1950′s sci-fi. We won’t get to Mars soon, except on very long, very risky missions, but who wants to live on the lifeless moon? Yuck. What’s the rush? Let’s do Mars right, on budget and safely.

  • dollhopf

    I just want to remind you on the context, Kevin.

    Eric Knight is an entrepreneur. Therefore, economical factors have a meaning for him, in contrary to the managers of some federal agencies.

    He is also founder and CEO of UP Aerospace, Inc. Therfore, he has good expertise.

    Kevin said: “More April Fools day material.”

  • Relic Flyer

    Here’s an idea: Since we appear to have a need for access to orbital space, and the Ares/Constellation will not be ready soon, how about we give our remaining shuttles a good going over and just keep them in service until the new space craft is ready? The original design specifications for the Orbiter called for “up to 100 flights”. We aren’t even close to that yet.
    The “Shuttles to Mars” is a bold and interesting idea, but we might want to save the shuttle for work it was designed for.

  • dollhopf

    Both fatal accidents with space shuttles were not caused by the wonderful design of the ships itself. The first time an external Solid Rocket Booster caused the ignition of the external liquid fuel tank. Also cause of the second event, the Columbia disaster, the external tank was the origin of the catastrophy when tank debris hit Columbia and thus damaged her.

    So if the shuttle program would not have been a significant part of the Cold War conflict then the cooperation of the the space agencies of Russia and The States might have spared us this tragedies. The Russians used the Energia launcher for their own Buran-called shuttle successfully. With the Energia connected to Columbia and Callenger to heave them into the skies no damage from external components would ever have occured to them. The Cold War was the ultimate reason for the real mistakes of the shuttle program! We should finally realize this.

    The shuttles itself are incredibly marvellous.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWefw976CYM dollhopf

    I ever wondered why they let this ugly external crap steal the show. Here you can see the undiscovered salvation for the contemporary Western spaceflight from all its misery:

    www .youtube .com /watch?v=NWefw976CYM

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWefw976CYM dollhopf

    Of course one has to remove the blanks from the above link so that it works.

    A comment here containing a link is object of anti-spam policy. So blanks are a mean to prevent a comment with including links from being prevented.

    And here is propaganda with a climpse of truth.

  • beowulf2700

    heres a simple solution to last problem…

    Keep the shuttle in orbit!

    have in one of the cargo bays a landing module and launch from the shuttle to surface… we then redock with shuttle before leaving planet… Lo and behold Humanitys first landing on another planet. the shuttle could be used as a ‘space only’ vehicle… with rockets like the ares ferrying personel to the ship..

  • dollhopf

    Great idea!

    beowulf2700 Says: “the shuttle could be used as a ‘space only’ vehicle

    Let us not forget that not the shuttle itself failed on January 28, 1986. Any other spaceship would rarely have survived the explosion of the strapped-on fuel tank.

    But if one has left the right path once then it is hard to come back. Consequently, the use of the same auxiliary tank caused the next extermination of one of the shuttles.

    And so the component with the smallest complexity caused the most serious damage to the most sophisticated spaceship design mankind ever owned!

  • maudyfish

    Silver thread, what are you going to do with the tiles off the space shuttle? Make a kiln?
    It would be like money going down the drain tying to retrofit it.

    Better to make it a museum and send it off to be a “Good Will Ambassador” to outer space.

  • penny

    The main problem is primary cosmic rays–and the Magnetic
    shield NASA proposes isn’t good enough to stop them.
    The crew will be fried.

    There are two ways to get humans to mars:
    1) Use an atomic engine to make the trip FAST.
    2) Use solid and heavy shielding ( put up slowly in stages
    by the shuttle) and use an atomic engine to drag this heavy ship to mars. Assemble it all in orbit.

    Ion engines don’t have enough force to drag the shielding in a reasonable time—unless the crew is put in suspended animation using the new hydrogen sulfide method discovered at NASA.

    We have a test ban treaty that bans atomic reactors in space and that was the death of the original project Orion, which would have gotten humans to mars in the 1970′s.

    No atomic engine–no mars trip for humans.

  • penny

    The energy of a primary cosmic ray boggles the mind.
    You would need a nuclear reactor to power the magnetic shield and even then, it would not really work. You would get enough primary cosmic exposure over several months to turn your brain into handburger.

    As to the shuttle: The shuttle is 1960′s technology. TIme for something better, such as an airbreathing hypersonic engined ship that gets 90% of the way to space without
    using heavy oxidizer–and then uses a small liquid fuel engine to get the rest of way.

    That’s worth designing. I recall the plan for this project being discussed in a 1970′s issue of Aerospace Week–as a European project.

    What I loathe about NASA is its tendency to go forward with
    glacial speed–forty year old shuttle tech, and the Aries
    project wants to go back the 1950′s tech of Apollo ( launched in the sixties, but 1950′s tech).

  • penny

    On the other hand, the shuttle could be used—in a linked cluster–to get back to the moon. The Apollo module had even less cosmic ray shielding.

    A cluster of Shuttles–with all the space in the cargo bay for extra fuel and landers–could mount an expedition to the moon.

    I always thought this was the secret agenda for the shuttle–built as the Apollo program was destroyed.,

    We could also follow the original idea of the Russians
    and use the international space station as a place to assemble a fleet of non-streamlined spacecraft
    ( hence lighter) to go to the moon.

    I read that idea ( which goes back to the early 20th century in Russia) in “Conquest of the Moon” by Wiley
    Ley and W. Von Braun—back in the 1950′s.

  • penny

    Wiley Ley also had a book for kids–in the early 1960′s–that suggested that we put a supply dump on the asteriod Eros
    and use it to go to mars–with return fuel.

    More sensibly, we could bury the astronauts living quarters on Eros, and that would protect them from the primary cosmic rays. Use Eros as a bus.

    Sometimes, it is a positive advantage to be over fifty.

Previous post:

Next post: