The Flickr Getyourasstomars Image Generatr

Really nice ca. 1977 artist’s promotional artwork for “Capricon One”. I remember seeing this, in color, posted in the lobby of the movie theater.

A very entertaining movie.

Unfortunately, I have no idea who the artist is.

Although there’s no watermark, it’s definitely photographic paper.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One
Credit: Wikipedia

“Nuclear electric rocket approaching Mars orbit.

A small Mars excursion vehicle would descend from the nuclear electric vehicle down to the surface; after completing the surface exploration, it would return and rendezvous with the nuclear electric spacecraft for transit back to the earth.”

Striking artwork by Les Bossinas, who I believe may still be alive. If so, OUTSTANDING!!!

An excellent read regarding Mr. Bossinas:

www.thespacereview.com/article/1211/1
Credit: “The Space Review” website

See also:

twitter.com/NASAglenn/status/713118956610002946
Credit: NASA’s Glenn Research Center/X

To me, reminiscent of this:

www.astronautix.com/s/stuhlingermars1957.html
Credit: Astronautix website

And this:

www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/stuhlingers-mars-nuclear...
Credit: SECRET PROJECTS FORUM website

“Viking I This is a color camera test strip on the Viking I lander’s color bars, this device helps calibrate the color TV camera for sending back true color of the Martian surface.”

Yet another well-crafted, thought out & succinct NASA description.

As a handful of the less than a handful of you that stumbled on this post might recall, the first published color Viking 1 lander photograph featured a blue sky. This was corrected and reissued a day or two later.
So, in this test photo – which shows the color calibration chart – the sky (taking into account the yellowing of the overall image) is definitely blue…at a minimum...‘bluish’. So, wouldn’t/shouldn’t that have been ‘caught’ in this image? I mean, if you get the colors right on the color calibration chart, wouldn’t that have automatically meant the rest of the colors in the image would also be correct, i.e., NOT blue??? I don’t get it.

Interesting:

www.donaldedavis.com/PARTS/MARSCLRS.html
Credit: “Don Davis: Space Artist and Animator” website

Also:

www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16800.html

Finally, maybe the answer lies within the following, but I sure as hell ain’t reading the whole thing:

gillevin.com/pdf/5555-29.PDF

Note also the black grid pattern on the lander’s near pristine white surface, meant to gauge dust deposition both from the soil sampler depositing material in the experiment intakes on top of the lander deck and deposition by atmospheric dust. Earlier during this first Viking year on Mars, there were two great dust storms, the most intense lasting about 90 sols.

“Robert Zubrin’s Mars Direct minimalist concept showing the basic elements of the lander/ascent vehicle, the crew habitat, inflatable greenhouse, and rover.”

“The Mars Direct base consisting of an unconnected cluster of elements: the biconic lander/ascent vehicle, the two-story habitat, the inflatable greenhouse, and a presumably pressurized rover. One example of the minimalism is that there is no pressurized connection between the habitat and the greenhouse. To cultivate or harvest food, the crew must pre-breathe pure oxygen, don a spacesuit, go through checkout, go EVA, enter the greenhouse, and then doff some or all of the spacesuit so that they may use the dexterity of their fingers and arms. To return to the habitat, they must enclose the produce in a pressurized container, repeat the space suit donning process, and walk back to the “farmhouse,” then repeat the ingress and doffing processes.”

All above & image per/at:

www.researchgate.net/publication/282980532_First_Mars_Hab...
Credit: ResearchGate website

See also:

marsdirect.marssociety.org/images-of-mars-direct
Credit: “Mars Direct information” website

“Who’s Robert Zubrin?!” you ask…if not, you should:

www.planetary.org/profiles/robert-zubrin
Credit: The Planetary Society website

Another gorgeous work by Martin Marietta artist Robert S. Murray. A WIN:

www.paintingsbyrobertsmurray.com/about-me.html
Credit: “Paintings by Robert S. Murray” website

midcurrent.com/art/robert-s-murray/
Credit: “MIDCURRENT” website

In this ca. 1988 Martin Marietta artist’s concept, two teams of Astronauts have commenced human exploration of Mars. One team is seen embarking via a pressurized rover towing a supply/provisions?, instrumentation/experiment laden?, power-generating? trailer. In the foreground, two Astronauts are exploring the immediate vicinity of the landing site by foot. A communications relay tower has been erected to facility long distance surface communications & I assume contact with earth? The tower also appears to have meteorological instrumentation…maybe.
Although I’ve found no documentation (with similar imagery) pertaining to this specific aspect of such a proposed mission, with minor variations, the lander looks much like the Mars Descent/Ascent Vehicle (MDAV) in other Martin Marietta Mars concepts I’ve recently posted. And if I’m interpreting the photo ID correctly, this would then be from 1988, thus viable as being related. The others concepts are subsequent and may account for the design variation/evolution. IDK, I’m winging it.

That magnitude of relief, talus slopes, exposed strata, etc…gotta be Valles Marineris…like, in it. Right? Rhetorical.

Whatever it is/is called, it's like an 'open-air' Mars Excursion Module (MEM) and the following addresses/explains how it got there…I think:

“A variety of Artificial Gravity/Mars Transfer Vehicle (AG/MTV) concepts were developed by the Martin Marietta Astronautics Group for NASA’s Mars Exploration Case Studies in 1988 to 1989. Each of these concepts used a large diameter (~39 to 46 m) aerobrake (AB) with a low lift to drag (L/D) ratio of ~0.2 for Mars Orbit Capture (MOC). These large ABs required assembly in LEO before being outfitted with habitation, auxiliary Photo-Voltaic Array (PVA) power and chemical propulsion system elements within their protective envelope. By rotating the AB about its central axis at different spin rates and mounting the habitat modules near the outer perimeter of the AB to increase the rotation radius, a range of centrifugal forces can be generated for the crew during the transit out to Mars and back…

However, initial concepts had several drawbacks, to include being very large, requiring significant orbital assembly for the AB and overall vehicle, with large Initial Mass in Low Earth Orbit (IMLEO) requirements. Additionally, problems of the five different concepts developed ranged from incompatible internal arrangements of varying habitation modules, the required movement of major pressurized mechanical joints, large propellant consumption to start/stop a tethered combination along with associated dynamic control problems & possible critical mechanical failures, even the possibility of crew isolation from systems enclosed within the AB e.g., Mars Descent/Ascent Vehicle (MDAV).

To avoid the deficiencies of those concepts, Martin Marietta proposed ‘Concept 6’, an AG/MTV design that used chemical propulsion and carried twin cylindrical Space Station Freedom (SSF) habitation modules whose long axes were oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal spin axis of the MTV—referred to as the Dumbbell B configuration. The hab modules were connected to a central logistics and docking hub by two pressurized tunnels each ~12.5 m long. Each hab module—designed to accommodate two to three crewmembers—had excess capacity so that either could serve as a safe-haven for the entire crew in case of an emergency. Attached to the Sun-facing side of each tunnel and hab module were ~30 and 75 m2, respectively, of PVAs producing ~26 kWₑ of electrical power for the spacecraft’s various systems. Once fully assembled, the rotation radius from the center of the logistics module to the floor of each hab module was ~17 m allowing centrifugal acceleration levels ranging from 0.38-g to 0.68-g for vehicle spin rates of 4.5 to 6 rpm. At a slightly higher spin rate of 7.25 rpm, 1-g could be achieved. The pressurized logistics hub also provided a shirt-sleeve environment and anytime crew access to the MDAV docked to the front of the vehicle.
The aft end Mars orbit capture stage (MOCS) and forward Trans-Earth Injection Stages (TEIS) used four
~25 thousand pound thrust liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen (LOX/LH₂) RL10B-2 engines with an Iₛₚ of ~460 s. The MOCS also functioned as the TMI stage using propellant supplied from six surrounding drop tanks jettisoned in pairs as they are drained. The vehicle IMLEO at TMI was ~710.8 t.”

The above, at/per:

ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160014801/downloads/2016001...

The second paragraph consists of my paraphrasing, the rest is direct copy/paste.

Yet another spectacular work by Martin Marietta artist Robert S. Murray. A WIN:

www.paintingsbyrobertsmurray.com/about-me.html
Credit: “Paintings by Robert S. Murray” website

midcurrent.com/art/robert-s-murray/
Credit: “MIDCURRENT” website

A segment of the image:

twitter.com/humanoidhistory/status/1399482585827446790?la...
Credit: Humanoid History/Twitter

“Retro fire into a lunar orbit.”

The caption from the black & white version of the photo:

“On arrival at the vicinity of the moon, they will use orientation controls to turn around and ignite the service module again, to hover for about 6 minutes, and slow the spacecraft enough to place it in an orbit about 100 miles above the moon’s surface.”

Amusing nomenclature…”orientation controls”. And I assume “hover” was intended to be “fire”. QC anyone?
10 Mississippi, 9 Mississippi, 8 Mississippi...

The image is oriented to not only match my previously posted black & white version of it, but also because it's sort of correct, north being to the upper left. In fact, I'm pretty sure the two prominent rayed craters to be Copernicus on the left & Tycho to the lower right.

“The thermal-control model of the Viking orbiter mated to the lander thermal-effects simulator was used in August 1973 to verify the effects solar radiation would have on the spacecraft. The science platform with imaging system and other instruments is attached under the orbiter.”

Above at/from, associated with – although somebody forgot to number it – “Plate” 198:

history.nasa.gov/SP-4212/ch6.html

Specifically, since it looks to be the same item:

history.nasa.gov/SP-4212/p198.jpg

Tangential/peripheral; however, to me, really interesting/impressive & highly informative:

www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=7324&...
Credit: Tom Dahl/Planetary Society (Unmanned Spaceflight) website

“The shuttles release parachutes and then fire rockets for a soft landing on Mars. As the new crew arrives, the old crew leaves to rendezvous with the main spacecraft for the return voyage.”

Wow…who knew??? I didn’t. Did you???

Ranging from the artist, Carter Emmart (I think…possibly), if so, identified only because several of his works pertaining to this striking & creative series of who knows how many works (to include this one), eluded NASA/JPL? obfuscation, it apparently being part of the Mars Foundation’s “Mars Homestead Project”…still viewable FOR NOW (only as thumbnails), from its apparently defunct website…is this “available”.
Bits & pieces of this stunning visual record are strewn all over the place, with no rhyme or reason. The fact that this is one of many images of a storyboard is the only PASS NASA/JPL gets for the cursory caption. Other than that, yet another EPIC FAIL for preservation of [fill in the blank]. This is what’s available at the abysmal NASA Image/Video “library”, when searching on the root “AC87-0736-“ photo identification number:

images.nasa.gov/search-results?q=AC87-0736-&page=1&am...

And this, at one of multiple defunct NASA sites. AT LEAST they accidentally got this right, as it’s “being kept online for historical purposes”:

www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2004/mars/mars.html

It’s still TOTAL BS.

I GET IT - you can’t preserve, record, log, document, describe, etc., etc., everything. STILL – from my inconsequential foxhole – I’ve seen absolutely MINIMAL improvement, results, effort??? of such. At least since I’ve been posting my crap to the internet vacuum…and that’s been since 2016. I reiterate, that’s from MY foxhole, which I also acknowledge don’t mean shit & has NO weight.
YET, I’ve come across (at the active/’maintained’ website above) an absurd abundance of recent/contemporary, bland and IMHO, inconsequential images of otherwise great Americans performing mundane tasks at NASA, seemingly taken with the camera in burst mode…and it’s like W – T – F - OVER?! Those seem to be uploaded in earnest.

IN-FU-RI-A-TING.

One of the disjointed, standalone, but pertinent & informative tidbits:

Biconic Aerocapture Vehicle

Huh?
A combination of that, parachutes AND powered descent? Really? Seems excessive, but cool.
Slide no. 20:

www.slideserve.com/maeko/aerobraking
Credit: "SlideServe" website

“In the Spacecraft Assembly and Encapsulation Facility-2 (SAEF-2), the petals on the Mars Pathfinder lander are being closed for flight and won’t open again until the lander has touched down on the Martian surface in July 1997. Tucked inside the compact lander are the Surveyor small rover, which will become the first vehicle to traverse the Martian surface, and the lander’s Mars Pathfinder Imager, a stereo-imaging system camera that will capture images of both the surrounding terrain as well as the rover’s excursions, and the other instrumentation and equipment. The outside of the tetrahedral-shaped lander is padded with airbags that will help cushion the lander from the impact of landing. Once assembly of the entry vehicle is complete, it will be mated to the cruise stage that will carry Pathfinder on its direct trajectory to Mars, and then to an upper stage booster. The Mars Pathfinder is slated for launch aboard a Delta II expendable launch vehicle on December 2 at the beginning of a 24-day launch period.”

“This artist's rendering illustrates a Mars Sample Return mission under study at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). As currently envisioned, the spacecraft would be launched in the mid to late 1990's into Earth-orbit by a space shuttle, released from the shuttle's cargo bay and propelled toward Mars by an upper-stage engine. A lander (left background) would separate from an orbiting vehicle (upper right) and descend to the planet's surface. The lander's payload would include a robotic rover (foreground), which would spend a year moving about the Martian terrain collecting scientifically significant rock and soil samples. The rover would then return to the lander and transfer its samples to a small rocket that would carry them into orbit and rendezvous with the orbiter for a return to Earth. As depicted here the rover consists of three two-wheeled cabs, and is fitted with a stereo camera vision system and tool-equipped arms for sample collection. The Mars Sample Return studies are funded by NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications.”

Above per/at:

images.nasa.gov/details-S87-35313

And:

archive.org/details/HSF-photo-s87_35313
Credit: Internet Archive website

Note the subtle differences between my photo to those online. Primarily, and actually - not so subtle - are the differences in the sample return vehicle. The one in the posted version is more detailed, with what appear to be exposed fuel tanks, apparently belonging to both the descent stage/vehicle and ascent stage/vehicle, as there appears to be an open area between the two, with what looks to be the visible nozzle of the ascent stage. The most interesting & perplexing difference though is the presence of an open hatch near the top of the vehicle. To me, a hatch implies’manned’…hmm.
Multiple minor differences between the rovers are also obvious, notably the snazzy tires of the online version. Yeah, pimp my MRSR!

Graciously, the WIRED website permitted my viewing of their pertinent article (which I’m sure they appropriated from David S. F. Portree’s blog), before slamming the door on others…although offering a bargain price of 10 bucks for a year’s privilege of access. Unfortunately though, I couldn’t find the article at Mr. Portree’s blog. Nonetheless, my ‘copy/paste’ of it:

In 1986, NASA'S Solar System Exploration Committee (SSEC) published its report Planetary Exploration through Year 2000: An Augmented Program. Leading the pack of proposed advanced robotic planetary missions was Mars Rover Sample Return (MRSR), a mission NASA and contractor scientists and engineers had studied in 1984-1985 at the request of the SSEC. At the same time, enthusiasm was building in Congress for joint U.S.-Soviet space ventures.

NASA's Mars Exploration Strategy Advisory Group created the Mars Study Team (MST) in the autumn of 1986 to look at "a potential opportunity not previously examined; namely, a Mars Rover/Sample Return (MRSR) mission which would involve a significant aspect of international cooperation" with "minimum technology transfer, maximum sharing of scientific results, and independent credibility of each mission role." The MST included many participants from the 1984-1985 MRSR studies, as well as scientists and engineers from NASA Headquarters, the U.S. Geological Survey Astrogeology Branch in Flagstaff, Arizona, and NASA Ames Research Center.

The MST assumed that NASA would provide the mission's large sample-collection rover and an unnamed "international partner" would provide the spacecraft that would convey the Mars samples to Earth. This division of labor reflected the institutional preference of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, the home of NASA's robotic planetary program. In addition to the Rover and its lander, the NASA spacecraft would include a Rover Support Orbiter (RSO) which would image Rover traverse routes and relay radio signals from the Rover to Earth. The RSO would image objects on the surface smaller than 1.5 meters wide using a telescopic camera with a one-meter aperture.

The international MRSR mission would commence in 1996 with up to three launches to Earth orbit. The launch vehicles used would depend on the mission design selected; if, for example, the NASA spacecraft entered Mars orbit by aerocapture ("the preferred option"), then its mass would be low enough (2709 kilograms) that a solid-propellant Inertial Upper Stage could push it out of Earth orbit toward Mars. This in turn meant that it could reach Earth orbit on board a Space Shuttle orbiter.

If, on the other hand, the NASA spacecraft fired a rocket motor to slow down so that Mars's gravity could capture it into orbit, the braking propellant it would need, would boost its mass to 3571 kilograms. The 1984-1985 MRSR studies had tapped the powerful liquid-propellant Centaur G' upper stage for Earth-orbit departure. The Centaur G', a variant of the U.S. Air Force Centaur G, was designed to reach orbit in the Shuttle payload bay. Citing safety concerns in the wake of the January 1986 Challenger Shuttle accident, however, NASA had in June 1986 banned Centaur G' from the Shuttle. The NASA MRSR spacecraft and its Centaur upper stage would thus use a Titan IV or other large expendable rocket to attain Earth orbit.

The international partner MRSR spacecraft would comprise the orbiter/Earth Return System (ERS) and the lander/Sample Return System (SRS). In the MST's scenario, the international partner spacecraft would have about three times the mass of its NASA counterpart. The team acknowledged that this might "exceed the near-term, single launch capability of any international partner." It suggested that the international partner might launch its spacecraft and Earth-departure upper stage separately on a pair of rockets and link them together in Earth orbit.

Launch from Earth orbit on the nominal departure date of 17 November 1996, would see the two MRSR spacecraft arrive at Mars on 17 September 1997, after an Earth-Mars transfer lasting 302 days. The NASA lander/Rover/RSO combination would capture into an elliptical Mars orbit with a period of one Martian day and the international partner spacecraft would enter a low circular orbit. The two orbiters would then certify landing site safety through "coordinated orbital reconnaissance."

The MST noted that the dust storm season would begin shortly after the two MRSR spacecraft reached Mars, and that this might delay the MRSR landings. After clearance was given to land on Mars, the SRS would separate from the ERS, land, and activate its radio beacon. The Rover on its lander would then separate from the RSO and home in on the beacon to land close by.

The MST's agile Rover, which it called "one of the most complex elements of the MRSR mission," would be scaled to negotiate rocks and other obstacles up to 1.5 meters high. The 606.5-kilogram vehicle would comprise three "cabs," each with two wheels, linked by "passive axial flexural ties which [would] permit yaw, pitch, and roll motions."

The front cab would carry two robotic arms capable of brandishing a variety of sampling tools, plus a sampling drill and 90 kilograms of sample science equipment. A steerable binocular vision system would be mounted on a stalk on top of the center cab, and an antenna linking the Rover to the RSO would be mounted on top of the vision system. The aft cab would include the radioisotope thermal generator that would power the Rover.

Based on analysis of Viking Orbiter images, the MST proposed 11 candidate MRSR landing sites. Of these, the near-equatorial east Mangala Valles site was most thoroughly characterized. Mangala Valles consists of overlapping channels of different ages and characteristics, the most extensive of which is 80 kilometers long. The Rover would conduct four traverses with a total of 28 sampling stops. Each traverse would start and end at the SRS. The first and shortest traverse would measure seven kilometers long and include three sampling stops, while the last and longest would cover 86 kilometers and have seven stops. After each traverse, the Rover would hand its samples to the SRS, which would place them into a sample canister. In all, it would collect about five kilograms of Martian rock, sand, dust, and other materials.

After handing over the last of its samples, the Rover would move a safe distance away from the SRS. The SRS ascent vehicle would then carry the sample canister into Mars orbit. The ERS would then rendezvous with it and take it on board. The Rover, meanwhile, would begin an open-ended extended mission lasting at least two years.

On 14 August 1998, after 332 days near Mars, the ERS would fire its rocket motors to depart Mars orbit for a 357-day trip to Earth. The Mars samples would arrive in Earth orbit on 6 August 1999, where they would be retrieved and transferred to an Earth-orbiting space station for preliminary analysis and planetary protection quarantine.

The MST envisioned a second MRSR mission overlapping the first. The second mission would begin in late 1998 and would reach Mars at the end of 1999 (in the midst of another Martian dust storm season). After a 489-day stay at Mars, the second mission's ERS would depart Mars for Earth in early 2001. Its samples would reach Earth orbit late in that year. The second Rover's extended mission would last until at least late 2003.

The MST's "very preliminary" cost estimate for the NASA portion of the 1996 and 1998 MRSR missions was between $2 billion and $2.2 billion. The team called its international MRSR mission "technically feasible," though it cautioned that "[a]ll technical issues need to be addressed again in greater depth" before a decision to proceed could be made. Studies planned for 1987-1988 would, the MST explained, add further detail to the scenario of an international mission with a NASA lander/Rover. They would also examine an international scenario in which NASA contributed the lander/SRS and orbiter/ERS spacecraft, as well as a NASA-only scenario. "NASA intends to be prepared for any opportunity that may arise regarding Mars sample return," the MST declared.”

Above, with Mr. Portree’s nice graphics/illustrations, at:

www.wired.com/2014/02/international-mars-rover-sample-ret...

While all of the above is fine ‘n’ dandy, what’s really important here is that the online version left just enough of the artist’s signature strokes visible to allow identification. Ken Hodges. YES.

Thank you for your service Brother, continue to Rest In Peace:

www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/latimes/name/ken-hodges-obit...
Credit: Legacy website

Interesting:

mars.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/?page=0&per_page=25&a...

“A nuclear propelled rocket stage carrying an Apollo-type spacecraft is shown passing by the Martian moon Phobos, in this artist’s conception released by Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. The nuclear vehicle is depicted approaching Mars in preparation for exploration of the Red Planet. Deimos, the red planet’s other moon is seen in the background.
Although first landings on the moon will employ a chemical booster to carry the Apollo spacecraft from the earth to moon orbit position, the National Aeronautics & Space Administration proposes to use a nuclear stage in later missions to Mars and Venus.
Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. is prime contractor for the RIFT (Reactor-In-Flight-Test) stage, the nation’s first nuclear propelled space test vehicle. The RIFT test stage is being developed for NASA under the technical direction of the Marshall Space Flight Center. It will be used to flight test the NERVA engine being developed for NASA and the Atomic Energy Commission by Aerojet-General and Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory. The reactor used in the engine will be based on the KIWI reactor being developed by the AEC Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.”

The above is taken - with great liberties on my part - from the description of what - to me - looks to be the same spacecraft in the linked photo. The hand-annotated numbering of both photos would also seem to support the association, or at the very least, the timeframe.

Another stunning work by Ludwik Źiemba, teaming up again with Anthony Saporito. You can almost reach out & feel the obvious, actual paint texture of the rugged terrain in the foreground. I assume at the time of this work, the moons of Mars were thought to be spherical, and, based on the prominent airglow, that Mars possessed a substantial atmosphere. And, last but not least, possible canals. A wonderful visual feast; grand, dramatic, of delightfully & innocently ignorant misconceptions.

A wonderful depiction of what look like ‘fighter’ spaceplanes rounding the limb of Mars. Patrolling? Setting up for a photon bombing/laser strafing run? In pursuit of Cosmos 9309? Scrambling to intercept an alien intruder? Although, if any of the above, I would’ve expected the USAF roundel to be prominent on the vehicles.

Although the overall popular design of the spacecraft was oft-depicted, I’ve not been able to find this anywhere. It also looks like it might’ve been destined to grace the cover of one of the popular ‘space age’ magazines of the mid/late 1950s - early 1960s, or possibly a sci-fi novel of the time. The precisely marked outline along the periphery of the image, with the fiducial markings, makes me consider – and I’m talking out my ass right now – that this may’ve been the proof photo used for one of the aforementioned.

The verso bears the repeating letters/logo of "EKC". This Eastman Kodak Company backprint technique pre-dates the vintage & coveted "A KODAK PAPER" watermark. which also supports my date range guess.

Finally & thankfully, the artist’s signature is present. So, regardless of what this is, it’s a WIN - Thomas Albin. As a bonus and against the odds, there’s a single reference to him, well written/articulated, at:

www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/thomas-albin-aviation-prin...
Credit: WorthPoint website

Indirectly, the above also supports the date range and raises the possibility that this may have been on behalf of the Martin Company.

And check this out, this shameless SOB has gone apeshit with a bunch of photos I’ve posted and/or linked to in my postings:

www.redbubble.com/i/photographic-print/Spaceplanes-Patrol...

"Mars spacecraft approaching surface"

Not really sure of the configuration, although there are some online that are vaguely similar.
To me, it looks like at least three separate vehicles, possibly four, three of them appearing to have landing gear.
The nearest vehicle has its landing gear retracted, with an apparent requirement that they be flush. So maybe some sort of controlled "powered descent" earth return vehicle?
Docked? to what appears to be another craft with exposed retracted landing gear.
And on the far end, are those also retracted landing gear in-between the cylindrical fuel tanks?
Finally, docked? at the farthest end, a windowed? possibly conical "Mars Excursion Module"?
Possibly a nuclear Mars ‘shuttle’?

Yet another striking work by Rockwell International artist Manuel E. Alvarez.

There is some fundamental similarity. Although included mainly because it has cool older artist’s concepts:

www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/19690804_man...

Fairly similar:

falsesteps.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/lantr-ltvlev-a-new-wa...
Credit: Paul Drye/"FALSE STEPS: The Space Race as it might have been" website

“UNMANNED MARS VISIT ARTWORK —- Art concept
depicting unmanned exploration of Mars, considered
as a possible precursor to a manned exploration of Mars in the next century. A study at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory lead to a series of art concepts depicting scenarios considered.

pg. 41-3”

Above is per the caption associated with the black & white version of the photo.

Possibly an evolution of JPL’s original “Purple Pigeon” concept/proposal, depicting a Mars Surface Sample Return (MSSR) mission.

In lieu of any other imagery, I refer to this as a possible extension of the Mars Purple Pigeon proposal simply because Mr. Portree alludes to such in referencing an image with similar rovers:

spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2018/12/dual-mars-rovers-...
Credit: “No Shortage of Dreams: Mars Multi-Rover Mission (1977)”/David S. F. Portree

One of so many wonderful works for JPL by Ken Hodges.

However, for whatever it's worth, the official caption of a companion?/associated? photo (JPL photo no. P-17055AC) makes absolutely no mention of a sample return intent/capability.

Frankly, the multiple JPL 1970s proposals for Mars exploration during the 1980s & beyond, are rather confusing & convoluted. At least to me.

“III-6 -- WHEN MAN GOES TO MARS -- This could be the way, according to an artist’s concept showing what a 1990s mission armada might entail. Overhead are several solar-sail powered Interplanetary Shuttles each carrying up to 25 tons. They have landed two manned capsules, various rovers and processors to mine and study the Martian surface where most promising. Before astronauts would arrive, a nuclear power station also would be landed. Continuing research and development might make such a 3-year mission by a 4-man crew possible within two decades, a JPL scientific study group says.”

And/or:

“Artist's impression of a mission to Mars in the 1990s. Visible in the image are two manned capsules each with a satellite receiving antenna for transmitting and receiving information. Various rovers and processors would collect samples of Martian soil and rocks for laboratory analysis. Overhead are several Interplanetary Shuttles powered by solar-sails, which transport people and goods between the planets. The mission would last for three years and involve four astronauts. The project would also involve the building of a nuclear power plant on the planet.”

Yet another beautiful work by Ken Hodges. R.I.P. Brother & Thank You:

www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/latimes/name/ken-hodges-obit...
Credit: Legacy website

"NASA 1970's Mars penetrator mission concept. The carrier spacecraft would launch the penetrator by rocket from a tube. An umbrella-like deployable fabric decelerator would be used to slow and stabilize the penetrator, which would leave an aftbody antenna at the surface."

The above, although associated with a black & white diagram of the image I've posted in the comments section, still aptly pertains to the striking view portrayed by Ken Hodges:

www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rlorenz/penetrators_asr.pdf
Credit: College of Science/Lunar & Planetary Laboratory/The University of Arizona website

AND!

“…A Mars Science Working Group (MSWG) chaired by Thomas Mutch was established by NASA to develop a science strategy for a future mission (Mars Science Working Group, 1977). It met four times in 1977. The plan assumed two Space Shuttle launches in December 1983 or January 1984, each carrying a spacecraft consisting of an orbiter, a lander with rover, and three penetrators, set to arrive at Mars in September or October 1984. The penetrators would be deployed just before arrival, but the rovers would wait in orbit until the dust storm season was over. Highly elliptical initial orbits would permit magnetospheric studies. After the rovers landed, the orbiters would enter circular orbits, one near-polar at 500 km altitude for global mapping and communication with the penetrators, the other 1000 km high with about a 30° inclination for rover communications. As the rovers might each deploy an instrument station with a seismometer, there could be ten simultaneously operating landed components.

As each orbiter neared the planet, it would deploy three penetrators which would fall on a circle around the centre of the planet’s disk as seen from the approach direction. After deployment the orbiters would be deflected off the approach path to enter orbit. The six penetrators, carrying seismometers and soil and atmospheric analysis equipment, would form a global array. Three would be placed about 500 km apart in an area likely to be seismically active, such as Tharsis. The other three would be spaced about 5000 km apart to give global coverage. Two additional and more sophisticated seismometers would be deployed by the rovers in areas partly shielded from the wind. Latitudes between 50° N and 87° S would be accessible, and the landing ellipses were 200-km-diameter circles. Slopes would have to be less than 45° at the impact point. Site selection was reported in a Penetrator Site Studies document preserved in Tim Mutch’s papers at Brown University. One potential array design was described (Table 36), along with four deployment options which include several additional sites (Table 37). Option 1 was the potential array described in Table 36. The penetrator sites in Table 37 were also described in Manning (1977), in which the site selection work was attributed to T. E. Bunch and Ronald Greeley.

The rover landing ellipses were roughly 50 by 80 km across. Five landing sites were studied using Viking data, in addition to the four sites previously considered by USGS for the Viking Rover (Figures 109 and 110). Only two sites were identified in the MSWG report, Capri and Candor (Table 38, Figures 111 and 112). The other sites were identified in Working Group documents among Tim Mutch’s papers in the archives at Brown University.

The rover landing ellipses in these documents were 65 by 40 km across. The polar orbiter would be able to deploy its rover from orbit at latitudes between 30° N and 50° N (this range could vary, depending on the launch date), whereas the low-inclination orbit could deliver a rover to latitudes between 20° S and 20° N.

Six rover landing sites were identified in a Rover Site Studies report prepared for the Working Group (Table 38a, Figure 111). Most derived from work done earlier for Viking or the Viking rover study, including proposals to land near Viking 1 and visit it or to explore the abandoned A-1 site with its complex geology. In a memorandum dated 9 May 1977, Hal Masursky followed up on discussions at a meeting of the Mars 1984 Mission Study Group held on 1 April. He asked Tim Mutch to request high-resolution stereoscopic Viking imaging coverage of four of these sites, using slightly different coordinates (Table 38b). These, he said, ‘were sites for which we have made traverse plans’. He added that ‘a backup smoother site near B-1’ at Cydonia had also been studied. Eventually the Capri and Candor sites were chosen, and detailed mission plans were prepared (Figure 109). Traverses near the Chryse sites were also prepared, including those in Figure 114.

The Capri site provided access to cratered uplands, crater ejecta and a fluvial channel. Candor was on the floor of the canyon system, with access to thick-layered deposits, canyon wall materials and, at the end of the extended mission, possibly the volcanic plateau surrounding the canyon. Alba had fractured volcanic plains and crater ejecta, but also small channels.

The Mars 1984 rovers had three traverse modes. Mode 1 was for detailed site investigations and involved only short, precise drives as needed for science operations. Mode 2, the ‘survey traverse mode’, would cover about 400 m per sol and could include some observations along the route. Mode 3, the ‘fast traverse mode’, could cover as much as 800 m per sol, including travel at night. The goal was to cover about 200 km during one Mars year and up to 200 km more in an extended mission in the second Mars year.

On 13 May 1977, Carl Pilcher, Hal Masursky and Ron Greeley suggested a variation on the role of penetrators in this mission. Two penetrators would be dropped in the lander target ellipse, carrying beacons to help guide the rover to a precision landing. After the landing they would operate with instruments on the lander itself as a local area seismic network.

The Mars 1984 orbiters would carry cameras, spectrometers for surface composition, infrared and microwave radiometers, a magnetometer, a plasma probe, a radar altimeter and communication relay equipment.

The relationship between Mars 1984 and other missions was considered by the Working Group. If Viking Lander 1 survived long enough, it might provide useful meteorological data for a Mars 1984 landing at Chryse, if that site was chosen. Conversely, Mars 1984 might be reconfigured to gather samples for collection by a sample return mission in about 1990.

Mars 1984 was not funded, probably in part because significant opposition to it arose in the science community. Jim Arnold and Mike Duke objected publicly that the final report of the Working Group did not reflect the group discussions, particularly in its assertions that the rovers were the only realistic option, that they were essential for future Mars Sample Return missions, and that simpler missions (orbiters, hard landers) were ‘a step backwards’. The report also suggested that only Mars rovers would command broad public interest, whereas missions such as Voyager, Jupiter Orbiter/Probe (Galileo) and the Lunar Polar Orbiter would not. This mention of Voyager refers to the outer planet spacecraft, not the earliest version of Viking (Table 2), and the suggestion that it would attract little public interest turned out to be the opposite of the truth. Elbert King (University of Houston) wrote to Mutch on 29 August 1977, stating emphatically that Mars 1984 ‘would only ensure a repeat of the very limited scientific success of Viking – providing mostly only costly clues and ambiguous answers to the important scientific questions’. He argued that only sample return was justified by the cost. This dismal assessment of Viking’s scientific worth stems from its failure to detect life, or to definitively rule it out, but overlooks its detailed characterization of surface and atmospheric composition, meteorology and landing site geology, not to mention the mission’s orbital data…”

WOW, I say again, WOW. The above phenomenal excerpt from “The International Atlas of Mars Exploration”, written by Philip J. Stooke, and most graciously made available by Cambridge Core/Cambridge University Press, at.
Wait one, maybe NOT so gracious.
Apparently, like everybody/place else, one is required to be registered or possibly possess an esteemed enough pedigree in order to be granted access...I apparently burned my one gratis peek:

www.cambridge.org/core/books/international-atlas-of-mars-...

We've come quite a way, eh? From dropping Jarts from orbit to flying a helicopter!

See also:

spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2017/08/prelude-to-mars-s...

spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2017/08/prelude-to-mars-s...
Both above credit: David S. F. Portree/"No Shortage of Dreams" blogspot

Last, but NOT least. This is a wonderful find, with a lot of fantastic imagery, to include this one. AND, it's still free, with no login/registration required...HOT-DAMN:

rpif.asu.edu/slides_mission_concepts/

Specifically:

rpif.asu.edu/slide_sets/future_mission_concepts/Mars_Pene...
Credit: Ronald Greeley Center for Planetary Studies/Arizona State University website

“A ROVER ON MARS IN 1984 - - Painting shows a Mars Rover studied at Caltech Jet Propulsion Laboratory in an analysis of a future Mars mission. The intelligent machine would land on the red planet in 1984 and traverse at least 100 kilometers (61 miles) during its one-Martian-year mission. The Rover, about the size of a large desk, has loop wheels, stereo cameras (atop booms at front) and a manipulator arm. It would carry more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of scientific instruments, to study the Martian surface. A 250-watt radioisotope thermoelectric generator (at rear of Rover) would supply power. Deployable science packages are in boxes above each wheel and would be put in place at key spots along the traverse. The Rovers would study surrounding terrain, remember obstacles, and avoid hazards depending on what it learned. It would be equipped with proximity sensors, the cameras, laser-ranging instruments, and advanced computers and would move about the Martian surface independent of detailed instructions from Earth. Plans call for the Rover to carry a “science alarm” to immediately alert scientists back on Earth of any important discoveries. The study by JPL is for NASA’s Office of Space Science.”

Current owner not withstanding, note the impeccable provenance. I've sanitized the street address, one never knows in today's dangerous, often perverted and unpredictable world.

Again, beautiful work by Ken Hodges. R.I.P. Brother:

www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/latimes/name/ken-hodges-obit...
Credit: Los Angeles Times/Legacy website

"NASA 1970's Mars penetrator mission concept. The carrier spacecraft would launch the penetrator by rocket from a tube. An umbrella-like deployable fabric decelerator would be used to slow and stabilize the penetrator, which would leave an aftbody antenna at the surface."

The above, associated with a black & white diagram of the image, labeled as Fig. 7, at:

www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rlorenz/penetrators_asr.pdf
Credit: College of Science/Lunar & Planetary Laboratory/The University of Arizona website

AND!

“…A Mars Science Working Group (MSWG) chaired by Thomas Mutch was established by NASA to develop a science strategy for a future mission (Mars Science Working Group, 1977). It met four times in 1977. The plan assumed two Space Shuttle launches in December 1983 or January 1984, each carrying a spacecraft consisting of an orbiter, a lander with rover, and three penetrators, set to arrive at Mars in September or October 1984. The penetrators would be deployed just before arrival, but the rovers would wait in orbit until the dust storm season was over. Highly elliptical initial orbits would permit magnetospheric studies. After the rovers landed, the orbiters would enter circular orbits, one near-polar at 500 km altitude for global mapping and communication with the penetrators, the other 1000 km high with about a 30° inclination for rover communications. As the rovers might each deploy an instrument station with a seismometer, there could be ten simultaneously operating landed components.

As each orbiter neared the planet, it would deploy three penetrators which would fall on a circle around the centre of the planet’s disk as seen from the approach direction. After deployment the orbiters would be deflected off the approach path to enter orbit. The six penetrators, carrying seismometers and soil and atmospheric analysis equipment, would form a global array. Three would be placed about 500 km apart in an area likely to be seismically active, such as Tharsis. The other three would be spaced about 5000 km apart to give global coverage. Two additional and more sophisticated seismometers would be deployed by the rovers in areas partly shielded from the wind. Latitudes between 50° N and 87° S would be accessible, and the landing ellipses were 200-km-diameter circles. Slopes would have to be less than 45° at the impact point. Site selection was reported in a Penetrator Site Studies document preserved in Tim Mutch’s papers at Brown University. One potential array design was described (Table 36), along with four deployment options which include several additional sites (Table 37). Option 1 was the potential array described in Table 36. The penetrator sites in Table 37 were also described in Manning (1977), in which the site selection work was attributed to T. E. Bunch and Ronald Greeley.

The rover landing ellipses were roughly 50 by 80 km across. Five landing sites were studied using Viking data, in addition to the four sites previously considered by USGS for the Viking Rover (Figures 109 and 110). Only two sites were identified in the MSWG report, Capri and Candor (Table 38, Figures 111 and 112). The other sites were identified in Working Group documents among Tim Mutch’s papers in the archives at Brown University.

The rover landing ellipses in these documents were 65 by 40 km across. The polar orbiter would be able to deploy its rover from orbit at latitudes between 30° N and 50° N (this range could vary, depending on the launch date), whereas the low-inclination orbit could deliver a rover to latitudes between 20° S and 20° N.

Six rover landing sites were identified in a Rover Site Studies report prepared for the Working Group (Table 38a, Figure 111). Most derived from work done earlier for Viking or the Viking rover study, including proposals to land near Viking 1 and visit it or to explore the abandoned A-1 site with its complex geology. In a memorandum dated 9 May 1977, Hal Masursky followed up on discussions at a meeting of the Mars 1984 Mission Study Group held on 1 April. He asked Tim Mutch to request high-resolution stereoscopic Viking imaging coverage of four of these sites, using slightly different coordinates (Table 38b). These, he said, ‘were sites for which we have made traverse plans’. He added that ‘a backup smoother site near B-1’ at Cydonia had also been studied. Eventually the Capri and Candor sites were chosen, and detailed mission plans were prepared (Figure 109). Traverses near the Chryse sites were also prepared, including those in Figure 114.

The Capri site provided access to cratered uplands, crater ejecta and a fluvial channel. Candor was on the floor of the canyon system, with access to thick-layered deposits, canyon wall materials and, at the end of the extended mission, possibly the volcanic plateau surrounding the canyon. Alba had fractured volcanic plains and crater ejecta, but also small channels.

The Mars 1984 rovers had three traverse modes. Mode 1 was for detailed site investigations and involved only short, precise drives as needed for science operations. Mode 2, the ‘survey traverse mode’, would cover about 400 m per sol and could include some observations along the route. Mode 3, the ‘fast traverse mode’, could cover as much as 800 m per sol, including travel at night. The goal was to cover about 200 km during one Mars year and up to 200 km more in an extended mission in the second Mars year.

On 13 May 1977, Carl Pilcher, Hal Masursky and Ron Greeley suggested a variation on the role of penetrators in this mission. Two penetrators would be dropped in the lander target ellipse, carrying beacons to help guide the rover to a precision landing. After the landing they would operate with instruments on the lander itself as a local area seismic network.

The Mars 1984 orbiters would carry cameras, spectrometers for surface composition, infrared and microwave radiometers, a magnetometer, a plasma probe, a radar altimeter and communication relay equipment.

The relationship between Mars 1984 and other missions was considered by the Working Group. If Viking Lander 1 survived long enough, it might provide useful meteorological data for a Mars 1984 landing at Chryse, if that site was chosen. Conversely, Mars 1984 might be reconfigured to gather samples for collection by a sample return mission in about 1990.

Mars 1984 was not funded, probably in part because significant opposition to it arose in the science community. Jim Arnold and Mike Duke objected publicly that the final report of the Working Group did not reflect the group discussions, particularly in its assertions that the rovers were the only realistic option, that they were essential for future Mars Sample Return missions, and that simpler missions (orbiters, hard landers) were ‘a step backwards’. The report also suggested that only Mars rovers would command broad public interest, whereas missions such as Voyager, Jupiter Orbiter/Probe (Galileo) and the Lunar Polar Orbiter would not. This mention of Voyager refers to the outer planet spacecraft, not the earliest version of Viking (Table 2), and the suggestion that it would attract little public interest turned out to be the opposite of the truth. Elbert King (University of Houston) wrote to Mutch on 29 August 1977, stating emphatically that Mars 1984 ‘would only ensure a repeat of the very limited scientific success of Viking – providing mostly only costly clues and ambiguous answers to the important scientific questions’. He argued that only sample return was justified by the cost. This dismal assessment of Viking’s scientific worth stems from its failure to detect life, or to definitively rule it out, but overlooks its detailed characterization of surface and atmospheric composition, meteorology and landing site geology, not to mention the mission’s orbital data…”

WOW, I say again, WOW. The above phenomenal excerpt from “The International Atlas of Mars Exploration”, written by Philip J. Stooke, and most graciously made available by Cambridge Core/Cambridge University Press, at.
Wait one, maybe not so gracious. Apparently, like everybody/place else, one is required to be registered or possibly possess an esteemed enough pedigree in order to be granted access...I apparently burned my one gratis token on the above. Hmm, I wonder if the Indonesian document hosting website has it:

www.cambridge.org/core/books/international-atlas-of-mars-...

We've come quite a way, eh? From dropping Jarts from orbit to flying a helicopter!

Also:

spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2017/08/prelude-to-mars-s...

spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2017/08/prelude-to-mars-s...
Both above credit: David S. F. Portree/"No Shortage of Dreams" blogspot

“A ROVER ON MARS IN 1984 - - Painting shows a Mars Rover being studied at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in an analysis of a future Mars mission. Two intelligent machines would land on the red planet in 1984 and traverse at least 100 kilometers (61 miles) during its one-Martian-year mission. In this picture a rover is shown in the 2500 mile long, four-mile deep canyon on Mars, Valles Marineris. The Rovers, about the size of a large desk, have loop wheels, stereo cameras (atop booms at front) and a manipulator arm. Each would carry more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of scientific instruments, to study the Martian surface and a 250-watt radioisotope thermoelectric generator for power (at rear of Rover). The Rovers would study surrounding terrain, remember obstacles, and avoid hazards depending on what it learned. It would be equipped with proximity sensors, the cameras, laser-ranging instruments, and advanced computers and would move about the Martian surface independent of detailed instructions from Earth. The study by JPL is for NASA’s Office of Space Science.”

Yet another excellent work by the prolific & highly-talented Ken Hodges.

I can't seem to find the image at any NASA/JPL website, although it may be buried in some pdf document somewhere online.

However, these ‘fine’ highway rob...err, folks have kindly made it available, in color no less, accompanied by the following insightful caption, “vintage space themed fantasy image depicting possible future advancements”. At:

www.alamy.com/vintage-space-themed-fantasy-image-depictin...
"Credit": Alamy website

Also, fortunately, thanks to Daniel Marín & his blog "Eureka":

danielmarin.naukas.com/2012/08/01/los-curiosity-que-nunca...

Specifically:

danielmarin.naukas.com/files/2012/08/IM-2012-08-01-a-las-...

danielmarin.naukas.com/files/2012/08/IM-2012-08-01-a-las-...

And of course:

spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2017/08/prelude-to-mars-s...
Credit: David S. F. Portree/"No Shortage of Dreams" blogspot

Ken Hodges, thank you for your service Brother, continue to Rest In Peace:

www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/latimes/name/ken-hodges-obit...
Credit: Legacy website

Possibly an evolution of JPL’s original “Purple Pigeon” concept/proposal, depicting a Mars rover, lights ablaze, descending into a shadowed crater. Although only one rover is depicted, could it possibly be one of a pair, per the original PP concept?
And, is the apparent 'original' configuration Viking lander in the background just that…an original Viking lander that the rover may have just visited? Or, a subsequent externally similar derivative/variant? Who knows,

In lieu of any other imagery, the only reason I refer to this as a possible extension of the Mars Purple Pigeon proposal is because Mr. Portree alludes to such in referencing an image with similar rovers:

spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2018/12/dual-mars-rovers-...
Credit: “No Shortage of Dreams: Mars Multi-Rover Mission (1977)”/David S. F. Portree

One of many beautiful works by Ken Hodges for JPL.
Thank you for your service Brother, continue to Rest In Peace:

www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/latimes/name/ken-hodges-obit...
Credit: Legacy website