MEM: the Mars Excursion Module of the 1960s

Michel Van said:
back in 1967 NAA made study NAS9-6464 for MEM for NASA
They look into Lifting Body and Capsule shaped lander. last what was recommended
Click to expand...

Does anybody have a copy of this report? Or any reports detailing the MEM? I have an article about the overall Mars concept in the works, but want to write more about the MEM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
blackstar said:
Does anybody have a copy of this report? Or any reports detailing the MEM? I have an article about the overall Mars concept in the works, but want to write more about the MEM.
Click to expand...
I have Volume IV of the NAS9-6464 report, see attached.
 

Attachments

  • 1967-11 Definition of Experimental Tests for a Manned Mars Excursion Module Volume IV - Briefing.pdf
    5.3 MB · Views: 21
Thank you. That is helpful. So it appears that Volume 4 was the briefing volume, with the other volumes being:

Vol 1-Summary
Vol 2-Design
Vol 3-Test Program
Vol 4-Briefing Brochure

The work was done between October 1966 and August 1967. That's earlier than I thought.
 
If it helps, the copy I have of Vol 4 I acquired from Blackstar on another forum a number of year ago. May be the rest are hiding in your archives!
 
Anyone seen these?
jmnet.one

Mars Excursion Module (MEM)

This is my rendition of the MEM proposal for an Apollo-style Mars mission that was planned for use with the Saturn MLV. Hope you enjoy using it! And this one CANNOT preform propulsive landing, it uses parachutes. I am working on one that is more similar to the actual NASA proposal. MEM...
jmnet.one jmnet.one
https://twitter.com/x/status/1493313950657617922
View: https://x.com/Roblox/status/1493313950657617922

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/Czuhqg5rOw_/

falsesteps.wordpress.com

The Mars Excursion Module: One More Small Step (Integrated Program Plan, Part IV)

What it was: The last piece of the Integrated Program Plan’s mission to land astronauts on Mars in the 1980s. First proposed in 1966 (though with a similar, smaller craft being advocated by P…
falsesteps.wordpress.com falsesteps.wordpress.com

I read that Rick Sternbach wanted to build a full size mock-up…a decade or two ago.
 
Michel Van said:
the Fluorine would create a protective layer on inside of oxidizer tank, therefore consider as long storage fuel.
there only concerned was that FLOX (Fluorine oxygen mixture) would separate and the Engine would suck pure Fluorine.
alternative they look to used Oxygen difluoride
The Picture MEM_005 and 006 show the tanks for this fuels combination
Click to expand...
FLOX is bad enough to work with, but some lunatic actually suggested FOOF?!?

How much "Colombian Army Marching Powder" were those engineers on?
 
Scott Kenny said:
FLOX is bad enough to work with, but some lunatic actually suggested FOOF?!?

How much "Colombian Army Marching Powder" were those engineers on?
Click to expand...
Dude, it was the Swingin' Sixties, so take a wild guess... But no worries - I was just old enough to watch the first Human Moon landing on live B&W TV at very early morning German time, and I still hold out hope to near live witness the first landing of Humans on Mars on US TV as well.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
FLOX is bad enough to work with, but some lunatic actually suggested FOOF?!?

How much "Colombian Army Marching Powder" were those engineers on?
Click to expand...
As my first manager said - if the customer wants the wheels on top of the bus, then the wheels go on top of the bus.

And if the mass budget for the mission means you can't meet it without using truly objectionable chemicals, you tell the customer that... and ask how much they really want to do the mission that way.
 
Scott Kenny said:
FLOX is bad enough to work with, but some lunatic actually suggested FOOF?!?

How much "Colombian Army Marching Powder" were those engineers on?
Click to expand...
On Too much

if you think FOOF is crazy, this stuff is absolutely toxic !
They proposed CIF5/MHF-5 as propellants

CIF5 is Chlorine pentafluoride,
MHF-5 is 55% Monomethylhydrazine, 26% Hydrazine and 19% Hydrazinium Nitrate
ISP 330 sec

That stuff was consider as fuel for deep space probe main engine and RCS
it was even consider as RCS fuel for manned Mars space craft and it's Lander MEM in 1969 !

 
Michel Van said:
back in 1967 NAA made study NAS9-6464 for MEM for NASA
They look into Lifting Body and Capsule shaped lander. last what was recommended

Total mass of 64000 kg for 4 man 30 day stay on Mars
The descent stage weight is 29207 kg with 13834 kg fuel
The ascent stage weight is 16874 kg with 9480 kg fuel
With 2040 kg scientific payload down, 136 kg payload (soil samples) up.
Power supply by fuel cells.

as fuel NAA prosed FLOX/CH4 or FLOX/MMH because LOX/LH2 can not achieve the ascent speed
for rocket engine NAA favored for plug nozzles
RCS system NAA want to use toxic ClF5/MHF-5 fuel !



Got someone more picture on this design ?




Source:
Definition of Experimental Test for a Manned Mars Excursion Module
Final Report Volume IV, November 1967
North American Rockwell Corporation
SD 67-755-4
NAS9-6464
Click to expand...
They should have read Ignition! Then they could get even riskier fuels and oxidizers to use.
 
1635yankee said:
They should have read Ignition! Then they could get even riskier fuels and oxidizers to use.
Click to expand...

www.goodreads.com

A quote from Ignition!

It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that’s the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignitio...
www.goodreads.com

the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes.​

Click to expand...
 
Attached to this post: DEFINITION OF EXPERIMENTAL TESTS FOR A MANNED MARS EXCURSION MODULE -- FINAL BRIEFING -- November 1967

My favorite part: MEM landing on the Moon. Very interestingly the main modification would have to be some plumbing between the descent and ascent stages.

Indeed a MEM landing on the Moon would need 7300 ft/s for the descent, but its descent stage would be sized for Mars and its atmosphere, that is only 3500 ft/s - hence a deficit of 3800 ft/s.

No problem them: the engine would shift to the ascent stage tanks. Which are sized for a Mars ascent 16 000 ft/s, when ascending from the Moon is only 6200 ft/s. And thus the ascent stage would be left with 16000 - 3800 = 12200 ft/s, twice as needed for a lunar ascent.

Bottom line: a MEM trading propellants between its descent and ascent stages through specific plumbing, could make a roundtrip to the lunar surface with propellants to spare: 6000 ft/s of them. This could be used to hover near the landing spot.

Capture d’écran 2026-04-19 093106.png
 

Attachments

  • 19680006254.pdf
    6 MB · Views: 5
Fun fact with the MEM. Designed for Mars, they found it could land on Earth and Moon too, with minimal modifications.

For Earth: an additional 1300 pound of ablative coating allowed Earth atmospheric reentry on top of Mars. So two additional safeties: tested on Earth, overkill for Mars.

For the Moon: ascent and descent stages tradding propellants between them.

Moon to Mars.png
 

Attachments

  • pdf24_converted-9.pdf
    4.4 MB · Views: 6
So, with @Jemiba help, eight Mars Excursion Module threads have been consolidated into a single one.
Yes - EIGHT THREADS had been started since 2006: quite a popular subject.
There might be some message cleanup thereafters to help with coherence.
 
Last edited:
Yellow Palace said:
And let's be honest, that's exactly the kind of thing the Devil would choose. I think they studied borated fuel as well, because apparently halogens and hydrazines wasn't nasty enough.
Click to expand...
Drugs were heavy in the air those days - weird chemicals in, weird chemicals out...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom