IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Red Dragon
Explorer1
post Apr 27 2016, 10:15 PM
Post #91


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2073
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...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elakdawalla
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
acastillo
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stratespace
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Apr 28 2016, 02:06 AM
Post #95


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
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. smile.gif


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dtolman
post Apr 28 2016, 03:01 AM
Post #96


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 124
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Apr 28 2016, 03:40 AM
Post #97


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
climber
post Apr 28 2016, 05:09 AM
Post #98


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2917
Joined: 14-February 06
From: Very close to the Pyrénées Mountains (France)
Member No.: 682



When exactly will be 2018 launch window?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paolo
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tanjent
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tom Womack
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Seryddwr
post Apr 28 2016, 09:36 AM
Post #102


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 11-July 11
Member No.: 6058



QUOTE (acastillo @ Apr 28 2016, 12:10 AM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Apr 28 2016, 03:32 PM
Post #103


Solar System Cartographer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 10128
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
NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Seryddwr
post 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.'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Holder of the Tw...
post Apr 28 2016, 04:43 PM
Post #105


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 540
Joined: 17-November 05
From: Oklahoma
Member No.: 557



QUOTE (Seryddwr @ Apr 28 2016, 04:36 AM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th March 2024 - 01:54 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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.