What if we did go to Mars (and failed)?

[kamaz]

Some time ago on this board, MaDeR has made the following argument against a Mars mission:

ISS and their constantly breaking machinery proves that we are not ready for [a Mars mission]

However, there have been at least two occasions -- under Nixon and Bush I -- when a Mars mission was on the table. (Actually, under Bush I there were two plans for a Mars mission, one from the 90-day study, and the other from Mars Direct). So we can imagine an alternate timeline, in which one of the proposed Martian programs was funded. So...

(1) Would the mission really fly with inadequate hardware and fail catastrophically? If so, what would be the implications for manned spaceflight?

(2) Would the insufficient reliability problem be found instead during the preparation phase, leading to cost overruns and delays? Would the program run to completion anyway, or be canceled?

(3) Or, do you believe that this would not be a problem, because we had better hardware back then, and the mission design was robust enough to allow for failures? Such argument can be especially made in favor of von Braun's plan, because it was both based on tested hardware (Saturn) and massively overcommitting resources (tens of people to Mars!).

My main point here is that people frequently lament that we are in a timeline where Mars mission was never funded -- but I can envision timelines where Mars mission was funded and fizzled (or failed en route) due to insufficient technology, leading to the end of spaceflight program. Obviously, our timeline is better than that! So I do not complain.

Okay. If you have any thoughts on the matter, the floor thread is open.

[Paul Wally]

There were probably good reasons why it wasn't funded. Are you then asking what would have happened if they ignored those reasons and went ahead anyway?

[kamaz]

Except I am not aware of any studies which deemed these mission plans impossible. They were all killed because of budgetary reasons AFAIK.

The assertion of insufficient reliability stems from the ISS experience, which we didn't have back when these missions were proposed.

[IsaacKuo]

(1) Would the mission really fly with inadequate hardware and fail catastrophically? If so, what would be the implications for manned spaceflight?

History shows that space missions have been flown with inadequate hardware that has failed catastrophically. This has included tragic loss of life. These failures have caused pauses in manned spaceflight programs.

(2) Would the insufficient reliability problem be found instead during the preparation phase, leading to cost overruns and delays? Would the program run to completion anyway, or be canceled?

Unfortunately, people would plausibly have to die for the problems to be addressed. This might be during the preparation phase, as in Apollo 1. Or it might be during a mission, as in the Space Shuttle tragedies.

Based on Apollo and the Space Shuttle, I'd say the programs will run to completion. While the Columbia tragedy obviously impacted the timing of the Space Shuttle cancellation, the truth is that the Space Shuttle wasn't supposed to have been in service for so long.

(3) Or, do you believe that this would not be a problem, because we had better hardware back then, and the mission design was robust enough to allow for failures? Such argument can be especially made in favor of von Braun's plan, because it was both based on tested hardware (Saturn) and massively overcommitting resources (tens of people to Mars!).

We didn't have better hardware back then. We had, maybe, better luck back then. On the other hand, we had fewer launches so maybe it wasn't really better luck. In any case, the sample size is too small.

It seems plausible that there would not have been room for both the Space Shuttle and a hypothetical Mars mission. So, the viability of a spaceplane system would still have been a big question mark. It's possible that we could have ended up with a safer more sustainable architecture by accident. But it seems likely that there would still be a big push to transition to a futuristic spaceplane. So, our harsh and deadly spaceplane learning curve would be delayed, rather than avoided.

My main point here is that people frequently lament that we are in a timeline where Mars mission was never funded -- but I can envision timelines where Mars mission was funded and fizzled (or failed en route) due to insufficient technology, leading to the end of spaceflight program. Obviously, our timeline is better than that! So I do not complain.

I could see the "end of spaceflight program" occur in either circumstance with equal likelyhood.

[danscope]

If a mission failed in deep space , it is just as likely that we would never know why it failed , and
they would never know what had hit them . We are playing with their very lives at the end of a very long and distant thread . Maybe someday. Not now .

[Noclevername]

If a mission failed in deep space , it is just as likely that we would never know why it failed , and
they would never know what had hit them . We are playing with their very lives at the end of a very long and distant thread . Maybe someday. Not now .

(bold mine)

No, space explorers are volunteering to put their lives on the line in what they know is a dangerous environment. We lose soldiers, cops, and firefighters every day, and we honor them as fallen heroes and then others equally as brave step in and move on with their work.

[Githyanki]

Mars becomes a memorial planet and we name lots of schools after the astronauts and move on with the space program. Someday, I think the Chinese will colonize space; not because they are good astronauts; because they know it takes great sacrifices to achieve great things and the lost of a few Mars-bound crews wouldn't deter their space-program.

[JustAFriend]

There have always been potential for missions to end catastophically
(and both the US and Russia have lost astronauts)

That's why test pilots were the first; they always live on the edge of disaster.

If we didn't keep going we'd still be living back in the caves...

[neilzero]

It will always be probabilities of arriving at Mars alive. Do we need 99.9% or are we ok with 90% which is much less costly and a reasonable probability by 2020? Perhaps we should barely plan the return flight. If sufficient supplies are sent, safe return may be much safer a decade or so after the first human landing on Mars.
The return flight will likely be a different vehicle, different mission, in many ways, so safe return probability will be mostly guess work even on the day we begin the return flight. Neil

[J Riff]

I'll jump back in and say we did go. It was a huge success.
But, they did ask for assistance with basics, things like air. I assume that's been taken care of, because if I find out you guys have let Mars die, I will sic the giant spider on you.