I thought the cruise stage had it's own RCS,
Quote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 05:26 pmI did, I can't find answers to -What is the max max range of Electra?-What is Electa bit rate at that max range?-Could ASRG be used on this upcoming rover?ASRG will NOT be used on this rover. Mentioned earlier in the thread. I could explain a million reasons why, but the simplest one is that NASA will not put ASRG on a $1.5 billion mission until it is flight tested first on a cheaper mission. Another reason is that you don't want to "clone" Curiosity and then put an entirely different power system on it. That would add risk to the design.
I did, I can't find answers to -What is the max max range of Electra?-What is Electa bit rate at that max range?-Could ASRG be used on this upcoming rover?
Relay is not an issue. I don't know why you guys seem to be obsessed with it, but once MAVEN's primary mission is over it's going to be used for relay until it falls out of the sky. And ESA's going to have an orbiter too. There will be plenty of comm. I work with Mars scientists and they're not worried about the relay issue. Not an issue. There are better windmills to tilt at.
Quote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 05:26 pmNow if you really think flying a lander and orbiter together is a "bad idea" take that up with the designers of Viking, Mars Express, ExoMars, etc. Mars express is not a relevant example since Beagle was a secondary.No US lander since Viking, Pathfinder, MPL, MER, Phoenix, MSL haven't flown with orbiters and that goes with future ones too.
Now if you really think flying a lander and orbiter together is a "bad idea" take that up with the designers of Viking, Mars Express, ExoMars, etc.
Quote from: Jim link=topic=30528.msg988527#msg988527 How not to be a dick is not to ask to be spoon fed data. I am not going to waste time helping someone who is lazy and makes unsubstantiated comments.<snipped a bunch of crap>
How not to be a dick is not to ask to be spoon fed data. I am not going to waste time helping someone who is lazy and makes unsubstantiated comments.
Quote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 11:18 pmQuote from: Jim link=topic=30528.msg988527#msg988527 How not to be a dick is not to ask to be spoon fed data. I am not going to waste time helping someone who is lazy and makes unsubstantiated comments.<snipped a bunch of crap>Some people here need to recognize who the hell they are talking to before they start popping off at the mouth and lobbing grenades. Grenade lobbing is good when you know who you are targeting and know what your doing... you know neither.
We are on the ball for restarting Pu238 production. We need to finish ITAR first.
Thank you for the explanation on relay - we will be fine. Can we let that dead horse lay there... dead... pretty please?
1. Pathfinder, MPL, MER and all weighed a 1/3 as much as Viking (~1 ton total mass per mission verse 3.5 tons for viking) and were launched on much smaller cheaper Delta II verse Viking on Titan IVs. 2. In fact only MSL reached and exceeds viking by 300 kg and was launched on the the Titan IV successor, the gloriously expensive Atlas V. MSL weighs 0.9 tons plus 2.5 tons for the EDL system, Viking lander only weighed 0.6 tons plus 0.5 tons for heat shield..
Oh so you have the money then?
Quote from: FOXP2 on 12/07/2012 03:15 amOh so you have the money then? Money isn't the issue. It is politics.
Is someone going to talk about repurposing the ejected off-set weights, too?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/06/2012 08:47 pmIs someone going to talk about repurposing the ejected off-set weights, too? Actually, it is by far the easiest mass to repurpose. You see there were other methods to offset the flight angle for control. The weights were the lowest risk. I like the trim tab option the best. High loads for sure, but I will guess the tab might have weighed 30kg. That would have freed up 120kg for more useful payload. That is a massive number.What would you have done with that mass?
...Viking lander only weighed 0.6 tons plus 0.5 tons for heat shield..
Quote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 11:18 pm...Viking lander only weighed 0.6 tons plus 0.5 tons for heat shield.. How much did the Viking cruise stage, eer orbiter weigh again? That is why it flew on a Titan! If you had separated the two, it could have flown on smaller rockets, maybe.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 12/07/2012 10:00 amQuote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 11:18 pm...Viking lander only weighed 0.6 tons plus 0.5 tons for heat shield.. How much did the Viking cruise stage, eer orbiter weigh again? That is why it flew on a Titan! If you had separated the two, it could have flown on smaller rockets, maybe.Out of interest would the Falcon 9 be capable of launching this rover along with its EDL and cruise stage?
Quote from: Star One on 12/07/2012 05:14 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 12/07/2012 10:00 amQuote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 11:18 pm...Viking lander only weighed 0.6 tons plus 0.5 tons for heat shield.. How much did the Viking cruise stage, eer orbiter weigh again? That is why it flew on a Titan! If you had separated the two, it could have flown on smaller rockets, maybe.Out of interest would the Falcon 9 be capable of launching this rover along with its EDL and cruise stage?Considering MSL launched on an Atlas 541, don't you mean Falcon Heavy?
That's a good point and by then the FH should have clocked up enough flights to prove its reliability for such a mission.
Quote from: Star One on 12/07/2012 05:28 pmThat's a good point and by then the FH should have clocked up enough flights to prove its reliability for such a mission.For the just announced next rover, Falcon (9 or Heavy) needs to be Nuclear certified.
Jim and Blackstar would be the ones to answer that. Since the Atlas V is the only nuclear currently certified launcher, it is more likely that the next rover will be going on an Atlas V. I am curious since the 2018 and 2020 windows are more favorable than MSL's, will they be dropping a solid or two off of the Atlas? (531? 521?).
But would keeping them and launching it in the 541 configuration allow the rover to reach a greater area of Mars?
Quote from: Star One on 12/07/2012 05:46 pmBut would keeping them and launching it in the 541 configuration allow the rover to reach a greater area of Mars?No, if you can reach Mars, you can reach all of Mars. Launching on a 541 in a more favorable windows gives you either more mass to Mars (if the Sky Crane can land the extra mass) or more margin in the event of LV under performance.