Red Dragon |
Red Dragon |
Apr 27 2016, 10:15 PM
Post
#91
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2090 Joined: 13-February 10 From: Ontario Member No.: 5221 |
Things are starting to heat up! (no pun intended).
Although from the sounds of it this is explicitly a technology demonstrator (like the Schiaperelli lander) we can at least hope for some nice HD EDL footage, can't we? A private company can certainly afford to do that sort of outreach when the mass requirements are less stringent than for a science mission... |
|
|
Apr 27 2016, 10:53 PM
Post
#92
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
Red Dragon could enable some exciting future robotic missions to Mars in the future, for sure, but please remember that human spaceflight is beyond the scope of this forum. Go to nasaspaceflight.com to discuss that.
-------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Apr 27 2016, 11:10 PM
Post
#93
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 6-September 12 From: Denver Member No.: 6641 |
I suspect, and would encourage NASA to propose and build instruments for this mission, like they do for ESA missions. I am wondering, if we assume little to no redesign of Dragon 2 for Red Dragon, what kind of instruments could it take to Mars. One idea that I have heard before is a deep, relatively speaking, drill. The drill would be housed in the lander, and drill through the floor and heat shield before drilling into Mars. A deep drill on mars would be have amazing scientific return, if landed in the right area. I know that the Planetary Society was helping to enable that technology. What other instrument ideas would make sense?
|
|
|
Apr 27 2016, 11:17 PM
Post
#94
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 7-January 13 Member No.: 6834 |
In this techno-oriented mission, I imagine more payloads directly related to SpaceX's ultimate goal, such as a greenhouse and a Sabatier reactor for ISRU.
|
|
|
Apr 28 2016, 02:06 AM
Post
#95
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8784 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
I would expect this initial mission to be almost pure flight test. Assessing the endurance of the Dragon's basic systems over an 8-mo cruise period & out from under the Earth's magnetic shelter is undoubtedly a key goal in addition to EDL.
Actual science...probably minimal if any. I would be surprised if they don't send at least one camera for surface imaging, though. -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Apr 28 2016, 03:01 AM
Post
#96
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 291 |
NASA's statement on their partnership with SpaceX for this mission:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/newman/2016/04/27/ex...linkId=23925499 "Among the many exciting things we’re doing with American businesses, we’re particularly excited about an upcoming SpaceX project that would build upon a current “no-exchange-of-funds” agreement we have with the company. In exchange for Martian entry, descent, and landing data from SpaceX, NASA will offer technical support for the firm’s plan to attempt to land an uncrewed Dragon 2 spacecraft on Mars." Doesn't read like NASA is supplying any instruments, or planning on it. With only 2 years... this seems more like an engineering testbed with whatever science they can throw in there being a bonus. Maybe they can get some low cost instruments in there? Or knowing Musk... low cost/high risk/high reward? |
|
|
Apr 28 2016, 03:40 AM
Post
#97
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8784 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
If they're smart--and there's no doubt that they are--this will be an almost pure engineering test flight. Integrating a significant science payload would add a lot of unnecessary risk in all ways (cost, schedule, and performance). If it works, then I'm sure there will be later opportunities to fly science missions using the now-proven platform.
-------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Apr 28 2016, 05:09 AM
Post
#98
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2922 Joined: 14-February 06 From: Very close to the Pyrénées Mountains (France) Member No.: 682 |
When exactly will be 2018 launch window?
-------------------- |
|
|
Apr 28 2016, 05:11 AM
Post
#99
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1729 Joined: 3-August 06 From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E Member No.: 1004 |
launch window should be around May +/- one month
|
|
|
Apr 28 2016, 05:28 AM
Post
#100
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 214 Joined: 30-December 05 Member No.: 628 |
This is an issue that has arisen recently in Schiaparelli's case, and I am still not quite comfortable with the idea of going to the trouble of making landings without a science payload. Clearly, almost any instrument package would weigh significantly more than no instruments at all, and leaving the instruments out would reduce fuel consumption and risks associated with atmospheric entry. But the landing technology to be tested is focused on heavier classes of payloads anyway - we already know that air bags work pretty well for the smaller packages.
The risks of missing a launch window if instrument development falls behind schedule don't seem so serious if instruments tested on earlier missions can be re-used. Even on battery power, photography and remote sensing can probably characterize the immediate vicinity of the landing site in three days just as well as the Viking landers were able to characterize theirs in three years with the help of nuclear power. It wouldn't exactly be new knowledge, but we only possess that kind of data for half a dozen locations on the planet - why not take the opportunity to add a couple more? |
|
|
Apr 28 2016, 09:12 AM
Post
#101
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 3-January 07 Member No.: 1551 |
I'm a little worried about planetary protection issues. Dragon is built in a clean-room, but it's not microbially cleaned, and I imagine 'also survives three days in 200C ethylene oxide' is quite a hard requirement to stick onto a vehicle which hasn't been designed with that in mind from the offset. It would seem a pity, after all the effort involved in cleaning Viking or Curiosity, to send that large an unclean vehicle.
|
|
|
Apr 28 2016, 09:36 AM
Post
#102
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 62 Joined: 11-July 11 Member No.: 6058 |
I am wondering, if we assume little to no redesign of Dragon 2 for Red Dragon, what kind of instruments could it take to Mars. One idea that I have heard before is a deep, relatively speaking, drill. The drill would be housed in the lander, and drill through the floor and heat shield before drilling into Mars. A deep drill on mars would be have amazing scientific return, if landed in the right area. It certainly would be amazing science, but getting a system together that drills through the heat shield sounds like a very big technical ask in two years. (Unless, of course, they've been working on such a concept. Q: do you have a reference for this by any chance? If so, it'd be interesting to read it.) Alternately, they could put a hatch in the heat shield for drill deployment, but as that could potentially compromise the integrity of the shield (wasn't that idea of cutting a hatch in the heat shield considered and discarded for MOL in the 1960s?), I think it's likelier that they'll just stuff the capsule with cameras and a spectrometer (like tanjent says, remote sensing seems a no-brainer), and launch it. A Sabatier demonstrator would be good, and would surely complement the ISRU demonstrator that is scheduled to fly on the 2020 rover. |
|
|
Apr 28 2016, 03:32 PM
Post
#103
|
|
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10191 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
People have been working on the drill design since 2012 if not a bit earlier.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconce...12/pdf/4176.pdf This is from the "Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration" workshop held in 2012, where the mission was referred to as 'Ice Dragon'. This is the mission which was targeted at either the Phoenix area or places near Viking 2 where recent small impacts had exposed ice (seen in HiRISE images). In both areas ice was known to exist at shallow depths. Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke Maps for download (free PD: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Cartography.pdf NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
Apr 28 2016, 04:23 PM
Post
#104
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 62 Joined: 11-July 11 Member No.: 6058 |
Fascinating! Cheers for the link.
And this line now seems to carry a great deal of significance: '... Ice Dragon could become a high-payoff mission as early as the 2018 launch opportunity.' |
|
|
Apr 28 2016, 04:43 PM
Post
#105
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 541 Joined: 17-November 05 From: Oklahoma Member No.: 557 |
Alternately, they could put a hatch in the heat shield for drill deployment, but as that could potentially compromise the integrity of the shield (wasn't that idea of cutting a hatch in the heat shield considered and discarded for MOL in the 1960s?) That was the plan right up to the end. A refurbished Gemini spacecraft was actually flown unmanned with a backhatch in the heat shield during the one and only test flight of MOL, and it worked just fine. It was the entire MOL program that got discarded. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 13th June 2024 - 03:37 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |