My Assistant
Mars Transport, Discussions of the methods of transitting to Mars |
Dec 24 2014, 03:06 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 122 Joined: 19-June 07 Member No.: 2455 |
Today I read an article that was fascinating and seems to offer up new and cheaper options for putting spacecraft into Martian orbit. It's described in this article:
A New Way to Reach Mars Safely, Anytime and on the Cheap |
|
|
|
![]() |
Dec 29 2014, 02:47 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Founder ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Chairman Posts: 14457 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
That's what I got from it as well....the definition of 'reach Mars' is somewhat limited in scope. The article says " the big burn to slow down and hit the Martian bull's-eye—as in the Hohmann scenario—is done away with" ... well, direct landings have no such burn, so there's no benefit there whatsoever.
Moreover "Although launch and cruise costs remain the same...." and "A straight shot with abrupt braking at Mars takes about six months whereas a trip relying on ballistic capture would take an additional several months" are at odds with one another. MAVEN launched on the cheapest LV available - an Atlas V 401 which had more than enough performance to deliver MAVEN and the fuel for a 'traditional' MOI. Saving a few hundreds lbs of MOI fuel would have saved nothing in launch costs, and added costs for extended cruise operations. The same was basically true of MGS, MRO, MEX and Odyssey. Assuming a transition to a cheaper Falcon 9 for similarly sized missions in the future...it has even more performance to spare than the Atlas V 401. Really not sure how applicable this is to anything but a very specific kind of mission...and one we've not actually needed yet. |
|
|
|
Dec 29 2014, 12:25 PM
Post
#3
|
|
![]() Forum Contributor ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1374 Joined: 8-February 04 From: North East Florida, USA. Member No.: 11 |
... "A straight shot with abrupt braking at Mars takes about six months whereas a trip relying on ballistic capture would take an additional several months" are at odds with one another..." I think they are not considering the insertion burn as part of the cruise. Also of course you have several extra months of cruise time which has to be "manned" back on Earth, which also costs money. Also a longer cruise time could mean more time for a failure to occur. |
|
|
|
Dec 29 2014, 03:34 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Founder ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Chairman Posts: 14457 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
|
|
|
|
Art Martin Mars Transport Dec 24 2014, 03:06 PM
mcaplinger http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8856 is a link to the or... Dec 28 2014, 09:07 PM
Art Martin Thanks guys for the analysis. You see science art... Dec 29 2014, 07:27 PM![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 17th December 2024 - 05:55 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. |
|