Skip to content

Martian dreams

Despite the various hardships that the Russian space program has endured since the break-up of the Soviet Union, there are those who still dream of going to Mars, and the Energiya website has a section devoted to a proposed Martian mission.

As ever, NASA dominates any discussion of Mars missions in the general media, particularly in the West. From the many novels, documentaries and Hollywood movies produced, you would get the impression NASA and America had laid claim to the planet already! Admittedly they have the most prolific funding – NASA (and the USA in general) seems to have billions of dollars to throw like confetti at various projects.

Russia’s Energiya Corporation is looking for potential investors in a bid to launch a manned flight to Mars costing $20 billion. The 70-tonne spacecraft, based on Soyuz space station modules and equipped with ion propulsion systems, would carry up to six crew and could be launched in 2014-2015. Given the current budget restrains and downturn in the space market, such a mission is highly unlikely.

– “Space news”, Spaceflight magazine, December 2002

The billions already spent on the beleaguered International Space Station program (U.S.$40 billion and counting) could easily have paid for such a mission! The U.S.-Russian space partnership might have been better directed towards this goal rather than be sidetracked by the ISS – little is being done on the ISS that wasn’t already achieved on the venerable Mir space station. A Mars mission would also have excited the public like nothing else.

Interplanetary probes

Russia (then the Soviet Union) was the first nation to successfully land a small probe on the Martian surface (after several failures). Mars-2 landed on 27 November, 1971. It didn’t make the planned soft landing but managed to deposit a pennant with the Soviet coat-of-arms! Only two more Mars landers were successful after that, Numbers 3 and 5. NASA enjoyed great success with its Viking landers in 1976 and, in 1997, Pathfinder and Sojourner – though it had failures like the subsequent loss of the Mars Polar Orbiter and Mars Polar lander in 1999. 2004, though, saw the rovers Spirit and Opportunity land on opposite sides of Mars and spend months sending back reams of data and high-resolution photos. ESA’s Mars Express orbiter also took spectacular photos from orbit (though the British Beagle lander ejected from it unfortunately vanished without a trace). In 2006 yet another NASA Mars probe, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, successfully entered Mars orbit.

The last Russian attempt at an unmanned Mars mission was Mars-8, launched in 1996 amidst continual funding difficulties, the scientists and engineers working on it often going without pay cheques. The Proton rocket was launched on 17 November, but the Block-D upper stage failed and its cargo fell out of orbit. The “Mars Curse” had struck again, in a disheartening blow for the Russian scientists and engineers who had worked so hard on the mission. There were no more funds available for another mission. Sadly, it seems that the era of independent (and media-attention-getting) Russian interplanetary exploration is over for the time being; their efforts have dropped out of the public consciousness.

Some Russian instruments were, however, onboard ESA’s Mars Express orbiter and the Venus Express missions.

The next major Russian unmanned Mars probe is the Phobos-Grunt, «Фобос-Грунт» (“Phobos-Soil”) soil sample return mission, the launch date set for 2009. The ambitious plan for this mission is for the spacecraft to touchdown on Phobos, collect soil samples, then a smaller craft takes off (leaving the main body behind), leaves Mars, returns to Earth orbit and ejects a capsule with the samples which will parachute down to the surface for pickup! The main body of the craft on Phobos would continue transmitting data for some time. Hopefully this mission will be successful, and compensate for the previous failures!

Mission profile

Russian Mars missions have been planned since the 1950s; the current mission outline has been developed and refined since 1988, with various technologies tested on Mir (the Sofora truss and solar panels being two of these). The initial vehicle mass would be 600 tons, with a crew of up to six to travel on a approximately 2-year mission. Ion/electric engines with an interplanetary thrust of 300 Newtons provide a relatively cheap and reliable method of propulsion (the electricity provided by two huge solar film arrays mounted on a truss). The interplanetary expedition vehicle. The habitation segment is based on the Zvezda module of the ISS. The two huge solar films, generating a total of 15 megawatts, dominate the spaceship design. Nuclear engines were considered, but do not meet crew safety and cost requirements (not to mention environmental concerns at launch).

(On a side note, the Bush administration allotted $250 billion dollars in its 2003 NASA budget towards development of nuclear engines for space exploration, scientists involved claiming that safety would be a priority of the new program and that the technology wouldn’t be used for military purposes. Somehow I don’t find that reassuring.)

The ascent craft, surface habitation module and 6-wheeled rover vehicle are enclosed in a protective, aerodynamically-shaped discus.

The various parts of the interplanetary spacecraft would be launched by the Energiya heavy-lift booster and/or Saturn-V, taking 6 to 7 launches. The Energiya booster launched the Buran orbiter in November of 1988 on its one and only mission, then was mothballed when the Buran project was canceled. The Energiya, with four strap-on Zenit boosters, had a thrust even mightier than the Saturn-V’s. (I don’t know why the Energiya isn’t resurrected, anyway – it’s still the most powerful booster rocket ever and could be used to send up ISS modules.)

Automated docking systems, solar arrays, closed life support and control systems have all been tested for years on the Salyut and Mir space stations. An electrical rocket engine called the DAS-55 was operated in orbit. Cosmonaut Valerii Polyakov set the record for the longest single-duration stay in orbit at 14 months and returned to Earth in good health.

Energiya suggests that international co-operation with the USA and other countries (Europe, Canada, Japan and possibly China) would be the most feasible way to organize such a mission. Russia has expertise in long-term spaceflight and space stations, while NASA has experience in building interplanetary landers. Such co-operation would enhance international relations and spread out the funding needed. Twenty billion is not that great an amount when you consider the hundreds of billions America alone spends each year on its military. That $250 billion allocated to developing nuclear engines could instead fund several of the missions proposed by Energiya!

A manned Mars mission could have been launched two or three decades ago, especially if America and Russia had not wasted so much energy and resources on the Cold War. A mission could be launched NOW, with current technologies. There would surely be a few eager volunteers amongst the nearly-200 or so astronauts and cosmonauts who will otherwise wait years for their next spaceflight, especially with the Shuttle fleet reduced and grounded after the Columbia disaster, then only launching occasionally. The mission certainly would not be risk-free; there’s a likely chance someone might perish. There are also the long-term effects of radiation exposure to consider; the robotic Mars Odyssey spacecraft measured the radiation it encountered, which was nearly twice the amount those in low-Earth orbit experience. (The interplanetary spacecraft would obviously need a “storm shelter” to protect against solar storms, also.) I doubt that the more adventurous types would be put off by the risk, though! (If anyone’s looking for volunteers, I’ll go!)

The governments of the countries involved do not seem interested in going to Mars; most politicians have no interest in spaceflight and are too busy bickering, backstabbing and taking bribes, anyhow. They are entirely lacking in any imagination or vision. The general public seems mainly indifferent to the space program (it is admittedly remote and irrelevant to many people’s lives), though there are plenty of enthusiasts and dreamers on the Internet. (And when it comes to space travel, dreaming is about all that most people will ever get to do.)

What would be the point of going to Mars, anyway? I guess, if nothing else, it’s somewhere else to go and something to do. And it is surely a better use of taxpayers’ money than spending billions of dollars on more effective ways to kill people.

Martian spacesuits

As described in the book Russian Spacesuits, RD & PE Zvezda has been doing some research into a spacesuit required for the surface of Mars. Spacesuits designed for orbital VKDs have different characteristics to those used in a planet’s atmosphere. The former have a high mass (112 kg for the Orlan and more for the EMU) that enable stability for their wearers in microgravity, and the emphasis is on “high performance capability for the cosmonaut’s hands”, as legs are not used much in maneuvering around the outside of a space station. As they are still within Earth’s protective magnetic Van Allen belts, radiation exposure is not as severe as it would be on Mars.

The cosmonauts and astronauts on Mars will be doing a lot of bending and kneeling as they collect rock samples and the like, so leg and ankle mobility of the Martian suit is a high priority (unlike for spacesuits used in orbit). Other considerations are radiation shielding and thermal insulation. A hard-shell upper torso similar to the current Orlan design – a semi-rigid suit – is recommended for future planetary spacesuits.

Zvezda has done some development of footwear for a Mars suit with the U.S. company Hamilton Sundstrand (though this is not mentioned on the HS website that I could find).

~ Page last updated: 12 March 2007

  1. Home
  2. Miscellaneous