Someone on reddit said that "Red Dragon is canned for the foreseeable future, if not forever." according to some employees. Can anyone comment/confirm/deny it?
Quote from: TheKutKu on 07/16/2017 10:58 amSomeone on reddit said that "Red Dragon is canned for the foreseeable future, if not forever." according to some employees. Can anyone comment/confirm/deny it?A later comment notes they're going for an intermediate vehicle or straight to BFR.SpaceX was going to build and launch Red Dragon with their own money. I suspect they figured it'd be better spent going straight to BFR or some intermediate.I don't think this is a bad decision.
Not at all. You hit a knee in the curve if you're trying to do a full sized ITS. New factory, new, much larger Raptor (current subscale Raptor would be fine for subscale ITS), need to dig a new flame trench, build a new HIF, new environmental permits, etc, etc. Subscale ITS saves a lot of cash and is right-sized for launching their constellation.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/16/2017 10:21 pmNot at all. You hit a knee in the curve if you're trying to do a full sized ITS. New factory, new, much larger Raptor (current subscale Raptor would be fine for subscale ITS), need to dig a new flame trench, build a new HIF, new environmental permits, etc, etc. Subscale ITS saves a lot of cash and is right-sized for launching their constellation.Subscale BFR is. Subscale ITS, not so much. As usual, the revolutionary new things that ITS has to be designed for that SpaceX has not (yet) done before, are skipped over very lightly: spending months in outer space, landing propulsively on another planet, descending as a lifting body, spending years on a foreign planet and launching again. Developing all this dwarfs the cost of a new factory and launch facilities. Let alone the required time.If that is not what you meant, be sure to quote the part of my post you did respond to.Edit: If by 'ITS' you guys refer only to the booster, that would explain a lot about those timelines you propose for its completion.
Pretty sure they want NASA funding for Red Dragon and aren't getting much traction.
Needless to say that NASA will now not get those things.
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/17/2017 05:29 amPretty sure they want NASA funding for Red Dragon and aren't getting much traction.No, ITS much simpler than that (pun intended). With ITS SpaceX created a competitor for Red Dragon. When that happened the only rationale for Red Dragon was propulsive landing on Mars as proof-of-concept for propulsive landing on CCP and CRS-2 missions. However, NASA is reluctant to do propulsive landing on both CCP and CRS-2. With that, the only remaining viable reason for Red Dragon disappeared. However, Red Dragon being cancelled is generally a lost deal for NASA. In return for NASA helping SpaceX to find suitable landing spots for Red Dragon on Mars, NASA was to get a number of things in return:1. Access to SpaceX-supplied full telemetry and results of retro-propulsive atmospheric entry and propulsive landing on Mars.2. NASA instruments carried on Red Dragon.3. NASA being granted exclusive use, for a limited amount of time, of certain elements of Red Dragon technology.Needless to say that NASA will now not get those things.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/16/2017 10:21 pmNot at all. You hit a knee in the curve if you're trying to do a full sized ITS. New factory, new, much larger Raptor (current subscale Raptor would be fine for subscale ITS), need to dig a new flame trench, build a new HIF, new environmental permits, etc, etc. Subscale ITS saves a lot of cash and is right-sized for launching their constellation.Subscale BFR is. Subscale ITS, not so much. As usual, the revolutionary new things that ITS has to be designed for that SpaceX has not (yet) done before, are skipped over very lightly: spending months in outer space, landing propulsively on another planet, descending as a lifting body, spending years on a foreign planet and launching again. Developing all this dwarfs the cost of a new factory and launch facilities. Let alone the required time.If that is not what you meant, be sure to quote the part of my post you did respond to.Edit: If by 'ITS' you guys refer only to the booster, that would explain a lot about lj timelines you propose for its completion.
If Red Dragon is off the table, and propulsive landings of Dragon 2 on Earth are no longer a thing, is it possible some unexpected problem came up with the concept of landing on Super Dracos? It has been a long time since seeing tether tests and no flights have been reported. Is there some sort of unimagined stumbling block in the way? Matthew
Red Dragon seems to be off the table in order to focus now on Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy, and then move asap to BFR/BFS. I suspect they will try hard to hit the 2020 window with BFS to Mars.
Quote from: envy887 on 07/17/2017 02:15 pmRed Dragon seems to be off the table in order to focus now on Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy, and then move asap to BFR/BFS. I suspect they will try hard to hit the 2020 window with BFS to Mars.It's really hard to see how they can build a complete Mars stack in a little bit more than 2 years. Simply building the launch pad will take longer.
Quote from: jpo234 on 07/17/2017 02:21 pmQuote from: envy887 on 07/17/2017 02:15 pmRed Dragon seems to be off the table in order to focus now on Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy, and then move asap to BFR/BFS. I suspect they will try hard to hit the 2020 window with BFS to Mars.It's really hard to see how they can build a complete Mars stack in a little bit more than 2 years. Simply building the launch pad will take longer.The 2020 window is mid July to late August of 2020, which is 36 to 37 months from now. They could do it if they go sub-scale with a less than 12 meter diameter, use a lot of existing infrastructure, drop a few of the long-pole technologies (carbon fiber LOX tanks, launch mount landing) and are a little further along with Raptor than we think.Coincidentally, if they launch in August and use a high-energy ~90-day transfer, they would attempt a landing only a few days before the 2020 election in the US.
What launch pad?LC-39A is untouchable because of Commercial Crew.SLC-40 is just being rebuild for Falcon 9 and probably too small for a Super Heavy (even if it's smaller than a full BFR).Boca Chica?
Spacex has never met a development schedule.