"A solar-powered rover lasting for over seven terrestrial years on Mars??? Ridiculous!!! Can't be done!!! It would have to rove FAR off the reservation!"

Yeah, Jim, c'mon...enough already. REAL easy to belittle, so very much more difficult to imagine & innovate, after all.

Engineering is the art of making apparent miracles come true by thinking of ways to not only perform within constraints, but so often & predictably transcend them.

I must also add that ZLD's observations are correct: Blanket criticism is entirely unproductive in the concept development phase of ANY project, where any idea, no matter how apparently wild, must be heard and evaluated on its individual merits. You have made no real attempt to do so, and in fact your comments would act to stifle creative thinking in an actual developmental environment.

Any engineer...in fact,, any person with a modicum of creative capacity...understands this obvious fact instinctively. You clearly either do not, or refuse to do so for your own reasons. Neither reason supports your argument.

Jim has been asked, in private, and publicly, by UMSF admins, to behave in a cordial manor.

He has refused to do so, repeatedly. His time here is done.

I suggest we just ignore his comments and move on.

"The idea is like grass,
It craves light, likes crowds,
thrives on crossbreeding,
grows better for being stepped on."

Ursula K. LeGuin

I think people have posted several ideas of how SOME science could get done with a Dragon, but I don't think any of that science is compelling enough to outweigh the great risk of trying to land a very large unproven system on Mars. Dragon is simply not optimized for unmanned robotic science missions...really no great surprise there. Still, if anyone can sell this, Chris McKay and Elon Musk can.

"...but I don't think any of that science is compelling enough to outweigh the great risk of trying to land a very large unproven system on Mars."

Oh well, better not send Curiosity to land on Mars using Skycrane then!

I imagine a snake crawling out of the hatch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLjDjXzTiU

Or maybe a flying tadpole:

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2...-flight-testing

- Would be cool to have such a relatively low-cost delivery system to Mars one day!

Don't remind me...

It might be worth simply emailing Elon Musk and asking him to comment. He's not 8 levels high in a government bureaucracy. He's just like the majority of us on UMSF (gear heads), except he's got more money and toys. Or at least more than me. I don't know how much you guys are worth.

there is an article on Red Dragon on this week's Nature:
Dragon offers ticket to Mars

Usually teams that are proposing Discovery or NF missions keep the details pretty close to the vest. Interesting that the Red Dragon team is doing almost the exact opposite and advertising this mission a couple years even before the next Discovery AO is released.

True! But nobody else is likely to steal this idea.

Phil

Dragon is a platform, not a specific mission proposal.

ADMIN - Full inline quote removed. You should know better, you've been here long enough.


According to the press accounts, Chris McKay (with Ames?) will propose Red Dragon for the next Discovery selection for a mission to sample the high latitude subsurface ice. SpaceX would be the industrial partner.

Sometimes, proposing groups are fairly open with at least some aspects of their proposals as the TIME and AVIATr teams were. In this case there is a unique resource, the Red Dragon, design that other teams can't copy so getting reviewers used to a 'radical' idea may be a good idea.

And someone else could also propose a Red Dragon platformed mission as a discovery mission. It's not significantly different to details of launch vehicles being available. The point remains - it's a platform, not a proposal.

Dragon is a platform, Red Dragon is a specific mission proposal. From what little information is available, I don't think SpaceX has said they are going to modify the engineering of the Dragon capsule for this mission, beyond what is obviously required to acquire science data. If Red Dragon was just the platform, then it would make no sense why Chris McKay and his colleagues would already be involved (and talking about it!) with a specific mission proposal (specifically, this polar drill idea). I suppose SpaceX could consider partnering with another group of scientists for a different mission utilizing Dragon.

Let's send a Dragon capsule. What science can it do? Nothing. It's an empty box.

NOW - let's put some science in it - NOW let's send it. NOW....we have a mission.

McKay is proposing one such payload for it. Someone else could propose a different payload.

Red Dragon is a box. It's up to scientists to put something it it. McKay is one such scientist proposing a contents for that box.

Well, let's redirect by all means, then!

Anybody got the scoop on the proposed analytical lab? Seems like it's designed to find complex organics, specifically DNA. I am remarkably ingnorant of organic chemistry; how would this work?

I didn't think that a GCMS was capable of identifying complex molecules with any degree of precision, but I suppose the technology has probably advanced considerably since the Viking days...

The ExoMars rover payload is pretty advanced for finding and analyzing organics. Various papers are presented at conferences on possible instruments. Don't know how much can be afforded on a Discovery budget. Generally after the spacecraft, money is tight for instruments, which is one reason that several Discovery missions have flown with a large percentage of instruments paid for by foreign governments.

I would definitely expect foreign instruments (or donated instruments) were something like this to fly. The amount of payload that a Discovery budget could afford would be well below the payload capacity of a Dragon capsule.

Hmm. All that terrific payload capacity...

What do you think the odds would be of allowing ride-along payloads sponsored by various universities and perhaps organizations like TPS in addition to the core payload? It would be a shame to waste a single gram or CC of capacity (within ample safety margins, of course).

Bad parts of that idea: Increased integration complexity & possibly problems complying with PPP requirements.

Don't ever wonder that. The question answers itself.

I don't see everything you do of course, but I've noticed that most of your recent posts take the form of rebuttals of one kind or another. Exasperation is the word that comes to mind. Perhaps that's unavoidable, but please don't give up!

this presentation of Red Dragon has been posted on the NASA spaceflight forum
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php...0;attach=343334

Admin Note: Link above is to a 2.68mb PDF file

From Emily's Planetary Society blog:



Not to blow my own horn (well, not too loudly) but here is a post I made here seven months ago:

Good call, Mongo! Now, do you have some suggestions about how they can avoid contaminating the samples?

It's been interesting to figure out how Red Dragon is supposed to work, as more details have been released.
When the idea was first mooted, I was extremely sceptical. It seemed that a Dragon would simply have too high a ballistic coefficient to work as a Mars lander.

The key information that has emerged is that Dragon appears to have a very low dry mass, and, crucially, the landing profile relies on a last-moment blast of the retros to produce a 7G deceleration to bring the craft to a soft landing from an approach speed of more than Mach 2.

Given this landing profile, some of the more inventive ideas suggested upthread, such as dropping off additional payloads on the way down, or having propellant in reserve to make a 'hop' after landing, seem IMHO to be all but impossible.

What would be *really* exciting would be if SpaceX were to offer their best price for a dedicated Mars lander, using a more conventional design which would be much more flexible wrt payload, but using their in-house technologies (e.g. PICA-X and Draco), as well as a Falcon launcher, to greatly reduce the cost.

That's the big question -- whether it would be more cost-effective to use a nearly stock Dragon, with its very low cost, to deliver a science cargo of several tonnes to the Martian surface, or to design a vessel specifically for Mars, which could deliver a substantially larger payload to Mars surface but at a much greater cost.

My guess is that a specially designed landing vehicle plus Falcon Heavy launcher could deliver maybe six tonnes of scientific payload to the Martian surface in a single package, but would cost as much as three separate two-tonne payload Red Dragon landers plus launchers.

A 'nearly stock' Dragon would be aiming to deliver about 1t to the surface (not 'several tonnes'). The papers from AMES suggest an entry mass of about 7t, with 2t of that being the propellant burned in the last few seconds to reduce speed from Mach 2 to a soft landing. That leaves 5t to be landed, of which 4t is the capsule itself.
Now, that 4t figure for an empty Dragon equipped with landing gear and Super-Dracos is one that I find a little hard to digest. Bear in mind the far smaller Soyuz capsule, which has no large liquid fuelled engines or landing legs etc, is 3t. The Super Draco thrusters are going to have to pretty special indeed (i.e. have exceptionally high thrust:weight).
Not saying that this cannot work, obviously SpaceX and AMES think it can, but I think we should be aware of the margins that the system has.

Entry mass is proportional to the amount of drag that the vehicle can generate. A dedicated Mars lander would use the full 4.6m payload capacity of the FH, allowing, in theory, up to 60% greater entry mass than Red Dragon (i.e. over 11t). In addition, a dedicated platform could offer wider scope for different payloads, and could probably offer some mass savings by not carrying unnecessary hardware all the way to the surface.

I'm not saying that Red Dragon isn't a cool proposal- just I think some people are pinning too many hopes on it.

Acording to SpaceX, the dry mass of a Dragon is 3,180 kg (albeit without landing structure).

The landed mass according to this proposal for Red Dragon EDL is stated as 5,180 kg

5,180 kg minus 3,180 kg is 2,000 kg

The "1,000 kg" figure being thrown about is a conservative estimate of landed payload, with a considerable safety margin. Depending on reentry trajectory and altitude of the surface, it can go higher (perhaps considerably higher, as seen in the above report).

A 3180kg Dragon does not have, as far as I am aware, the Super-Draco engines included in that mass.

No data has been released on the mass of these engines. However, we do know that they will provide an a total axial thrust of 120,000lb; given that they are canted at an angle of at least 35 degrees, and probably more, the actual thrust produced must be in the region of 150,000lb or higher. A generous figure for thrust:weight ratio is about 50:1 (IMHO) which gives an engine mass of 1363kg, plus tank mass. The engine mass could easily be greater than this if they are canted at a steeper angle and/or if the T:W is lower. Admittedly the mass could be lower as well, but, again IMHO, not by much.

As you say, the landing gear and its deployment system also has to be accounted for.

If SpaceX have managed to squeeze the engines, tanks, and landing gear into a capsule the same weight as a Soyuz (which has none of those things), yet at the same time made it twice as big.... then I take my hat off to them!

A few days ago Space.com posted a speculative article about a Mars sample return mission built off of the SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule, where it would rendezvous with the 2020 Mars Rover to pickup its return cargo. What makes it a bit more interesting, is that this does not appear to be a mission organized by the SpaceX corporation - instead the plan is from NASA's Ames Research Center as a feasibility study of a potential 2022 mission using cost reducing "off the shelf equipment" - with the added benefit of being simpler than other model missions they have considered.

To quote the relevant bits from the article:
In the Red Dragon study, the spacecraft would make a direct entry into the atmosphere of Mars. It would descend to the Red Planet's surface without a parachute system, using retro propulsion for a precision touchdown.

As currently envisioned, the sample-toting Red Dragon return vehicle would blast off the Martian surface (with the aid of the MAV) and head directly for Earth.

A study scenario sees a later mission, using a Dragon and launched by a Falcon Heavy, performing a rendezvous with the return vehicle in high Earth orbit. The mission would then retrieve the sample container and break the chain of contact with Mars by transferring the sample into a sterile and secure container.
...
Other recent Mars sample-return ideas would employ three Red Planet missions, requiring a lot of flight hardware and numerous interfaces.

EDIT: I meant to post this in the Past/Future forum - my apologies on the misplacement. - Merged with existing Red Dragon thread - Mod

I have a question concerning the CGI used to showcase Red Dragon. In this attached composite they used an image from Curiosity. I wanted to check whether or not they had scaled the Dragon correctly. Does anybody know what sol that image was made?

Just beyond Dingo Gap sol 528

Thanks eoincampbell!

By my reckoning that places the craft ~93 meters away, and vertically spanning 6.5° in the NAVCAM image gives it a height of around 10.5 meters, quite a bit bigger than the actual height which is around 5 or 6 meters depending on source. Taking the largest value of 6.1 meters, this is how it would have really looked in that spot (attached).

I am hearing that Red Dragon is more likely to get to mars than InSight, in 2018 or 2020. NASA is going to have the opportunity to 'instrument the hell out of it'. It is a fairly concrete effort within NASA, for something I've only heard rumors about before recently. Are we allowed to speculate or wish for a set of instruments? (Nobody say seismometer)

We probably won't have to wait more than a year to hear a lot more about the project, but I'm curious about what could be done.

I know sample return has been discussed, but on this timeline I think scientific instruments are more likely.

As it stands now, it has to compete with Insight's sunk costs for that to happen.

Citation needed.

There's a lot of work needed to design and qualify systems that can reliably function for the months required for a Mars mission and then to ensure that the lander can function in the temperature extremes of Mars with just a few hours a day of good sun exposure.

To give a comparison, one of the engineers I correspond with tells me that the standard CubeSat deployment racks that work well in Earth orbit need to be redesigned to ensure reliability on a planetary mission where the deployment may occur months or years after launch. Think of every system on a Red Dragon mission, and every one needs to be rated and tested for a longer and environmentally more extreme mission than the Earth-orbiting Dragon spacecraft with a lifetime of days or weeks.

Red Dragon is an intriguing idea, but it's not something that that I think gets done quietly by some small team with some small budget. Space is hard.

Click to view attachment

Phil

We're gonna need more wheels...



Seriously, as someone with no insider knowledge of the industry, I thought this concept was on the back burner at Hawthorne. Everything seemed to go completely quiet until a few months ago. I have never been happier to discover I'm wrong!

The article at Gizmodo has more details than the tweet, and it looks like this may be the start of a private wave of planetary expeditions for SpaceX... and that this isn't a one-off. Note the use of plural - "Red Dragon missions".

---
A spokesperson for SpaceX has shared some additional details about the planned mission—and they are, to put it plainly, thrilling.

It will be, as expected, an uncrewed flight. The purpose of these initial missions will be to figure out how safely land large payloads on Mars. To do that, SpaceX plans on launching their Red Dragons with the Falcon Heavy rocket—an ultra souped-up version of the Falcon 9 rocket that we saw land on a barge earlier this month.

Most exciting, though, is that these Red Dragon missions are also intended to lead into upcoming plans for building something on Mars. Elon Musk previously promised to reveal details about plans for a Martian city at the upcoming International Aeronautical Conference this September. According to the spokesperson, the Red Dragon missions will inform that future Mars colonization architecture.

----

Mars is the destination for this mission, but Elon Musk is already hinting at places much, much more further afield. The re-designed Dragon was built to withstand environments all over the solar system he said

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

When exactly will be 2018 launch window?

launch window should be around May +/- one month

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?