Details:
Canada hires Russia to launch 2 Canadian satellites. Each on a Proton rocket. Pay Russia 10% of the price in cash, the other 90% would be applied to restore infrastructure for Energia. I found out NASA had contacted the company NPO Energia in 1994 about using their big rocket, also named Energia. The price they quoted NASA at that time was between $60 million and $100 million US dollars to restore infrastructure, plus $120 million per launch. That would include the Energia Upper Stage. But that was in 1994. There was an accident. On January 1, 2000, ownership of the Baikonur Cosmodrome was handed over to Kazakhstan. On April 25, 2002, they decided to work on the roof of the vehicle assembly building for Energia. They had a problem of theft, so decided to store 10 metric tonnes of roofing material on the flat roof. There was a rain storm. The roof collapsed. The Buran space shuttle orbiter was in there, along with all Energia stages, boosters, and engines. They were all destroyed. Russia and Kazakhstan argued over who should pay for that, so it wasn't repaired. Today when I look at satellite images with Google Maps, I see the roof was repaired for one of the three high bays, but not the other two. I'm hoping that 90% of two Proton launches are enough, because that's all Canada could afford.
When I talked to one Canadian astronaut, he said Canadian Parliament would never authorize money to restore infrastructure in Russia or Kazakhstan. He suggested "hiding" it by doing it through satellite launches. Then I read an article on the internet, English language but from Russia. It detailed cost to operate the Mir space station, including cost of the Soyuz launch vehicle. Russia used that rocket to launch satellites. I noticed the price for the launch vehicle alone, including manufacturing, fuel, vehicle integration and launch services, added up to a total 10% of the price they charged the West to launch a satellite. So they have a 90% profit margin. Ok, Russia figured out this "free enterprise thing"; they aren't stupid. But assuming the same holds for the larger Proton rocket, then paying them 10% in cash would cover their cost. The other 90% would be restoring infrastructure for Energia instead of cash.
If Russia wants to include a Russian cosmonaut on the first ever human mission to Mars, the price would be Russia pays for the Energia rockets. Including manufacturing, fuel, vehicle integration, launch services, everything. And including the Energia Upper Stage. They designed that stage on paper, but never built or tested it. They would have to do that on their own, at their own cost. That would be their contribution.
This would start by launching the Ptichka space shuttle. That's the only Russian space shuttle still intact. And that shuttle was "sold" to a South African company. They dismantled much of the interior, and scratched the heat shield tiles, then the company promptly disappeared. The orbiter is still at Baikonur, in building #240, the orbiter processing building. Russia would have to put it back together, and replace the heat shield tiles. At their expense. But if they do so, Canada would provide one CanadArm, absolutely identical to the ones we provided NASA for their shuttles. Including auxiliary equipment and cosmonaut training. All at Canadian expense, but only Arm stuff. In fact, after NASA decommissioned their Shuttle, they gave back one Arm, the one from Endeavour. We would provide that one.
But the condition is they launch the centrifuge module to ISS. The centrifuge module was supposed to measure long term effects of partial gravity, such as Moon level or Mars level gravity. Italy paid for it, Japan built it, and NASA was supposed to launch it. It was finished and waiting at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, but NASA wanted to reduce Shuttle launches so cancelled it. I'm saying get the same parties to provide that module, but launch with Russia's shuttle Ptichka.
The space station would require additional power for this module. Russia had built solar panels from Russian science modules, originally intended for Mir2. Mir2 was cancelled; those modules are most of Russia's contribution to ISS. After NASA cancelled so many modules, they had surplus power from American solar panels. So they convinced Russia to not launch their solar panels. I would try to convince Russia that they can't rely upon American solar panels, they need to launch their own. Considering what is happening now, that shouldn't be too difficult. Of course the real reason is to provide additional power for the centrifuge module. This would require one launch for structure and half the panels, another for remaining panels. Together with the centrifuge module, that's a total of 3 Russian shuttle launches.
The Russian shuttle is launched with Energia. The American shuttle has main engines on the orbiter. When Russia designed a copy, they developed main engines that worked just as well. In fact they got a hair better fuel efficiency: specific impulse is 455 seconds in vacuum, while American space shuttle main engines get 453. But Russians couldn't get them to be reusable, so they put the engines on the underside of the external tank. That meant the rocket could launch without the shuttle orbiter. They also use 4 main engines instead of 3, allowing their shuttle to lift 30 metric tonnes to low Earth orbit instead of 28.8 tonnes. Just enough for a Russian politician to brag. This also means launching 3 times with entirely Russian crew before we trust any Canadians on that thing.
This may sound harsh, but actually the first Canadian astronaut flew on the fourth launch of the American Shuttle. They first launched 3 times with entirely American crew before we trusted a Canadian on it. So I'm treated the Russian shuttle the same as the American one.
Then Canada would design a spacecraft to go on top of that big Russian rocket.
There is some technology that needs to be demonstrated first. This will use aerocapture, which means aerobraking to enter orbit. That has to be demonstrated with an unmanned probe before using it for a human mission. We would ask the European Space Agency to do that, entirely at their expense. And we would use In-Situ Propellant Production, which means making fuel from stuff we find on Mars. The Mars Direct mission plan already planned to use this. The vehicle would land with fuel tanks almost empty; just a little hydrogen. Then technology from the 1800s would convert CO2 and hydrogen into methane and oxygen; rocket fuel. Each tonne of hydrogen becomes 18 tonnes of methane and oxygen. Mars atmosphere is 95% CO2, and at night it's just a couple degrees above the freezing temperature for dry ice, so collect dry ice every night. At dawn, seal the container then warm to sublimate. That phase change self-pressurizes.
Power for this would come from a small nuclear reactor. During Ronald Regan's Star Wars program in 1989, the US military developed a small nuclear reactor for space. About the size of a truck engine, producing 100 kW electricity. That's all this would require. The Mars Direct mission plan was developed then, so intended to use that. But in 2007 the US military developed a more advanced one: Safe-400. It produces the same amount of electricity, but much lighter. If we can't get that one, I'm sure Russia has something similar.
In-Situ Propellant Production also has to be tested with an unmanned probe before we commit human lives. The best way to do that is a robotic sample return mission. Not anything too fancy, just include a tiny little rover the size of Sojourner to collect samples from the immediate area. That rover was the size of a radio controlled toy car. Use solar panels like Mars Pathfinder or Mars Phoenix, or an RTG like Curiosity Rover; no need for a big nuclear reactor. Keep this mission small and simple. Return the sample directly to Earth with an aeroshell like NASA's Stardust or Genesis. European Space Agency has already expressed interest in a Mars sample return mission, but kept trying to get NASA to help pay for it. This time tell ESA to do it on their own; don't even try to get NASA to participate. The aerocapture satellite and sample return missions would be ESA's contribution. And ask ESA to design science instruments for use by astronauts on the surface of Mars. That would buy them a seat for a European astronaut.
I know one person in Australia who wants his country to participate. He pointed out his country has a deep space station for communication. And Canada recently repaired/renovated our 50-metre diameter radio telescope dish in Algonquin Park. One reason was communication with deep space missions. Between these, and Europe's assets, and Russia's, we should have enough communication to support the mission.
Spreading the cost between multiple countries makes it affordable. Something this dramatic demonstrates how much we can do when countries cooperate. One goal is to end conflict.
Do you think Russia would go for it? The first requirement is they stop the conflict in East Ukraine. Stop trying to take even one square centimetre of Ukrainian land.
Forum Elite 
CKA Elite 
CKA Uber 
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
CKA Moderator 
