Author Topic: Atlas V 541 - Perseverance, Mars 2020 Rover - SLC-41 - July 30, 2020  (Read 116994 times)

Offline stoker5432

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 37
Next generation EELV launchers.

What about nuclear certification?

Offline stoker5432

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 37
There are already launchers booked past 2020.

We're talking about NASA here. What other countries will do is irrelevant.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4673
  • Likes Given: 768
Next generation EELV launchers.

What about nuclear certification?
nuclear certification is both a DoD and NASA requirement for various DoD and DoC payloads. Certification is takes place very quickly in the flight life of the launcher .

Offline stoker5432

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 37
Next generation EELV launchers.

What about nuclear certification?
nuclear certification is both a DoD and NASA requirement for various DoD and DoC payloads. Certification is takes place very quickly in the flight life of the launcher .

Good to know. Thanks.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Just that the article clearly says the RTG was installed through a single panel on one side of the fairing, not both.

The article doesn't cover everything.  There is a door 180 degrees from the RTG for HRS servicing.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
There are already launchers booked past 2020.

We're talking about NASA here. What other countries will do is irrelevant.

And what Spacex does is irrelevant.  NASA will fly on what they want.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4673
  • Likes Given: 768
There are already launchers booked past 2020.

We're talking about NASA here. What other countries will do is irrelevant.
yes of course we are: The next generation of NASA Mars orbiters are in the planning stages as some current spacecraft are past or nearing the end of their useful life in the next yew years. Up to 3 are currently being planned between 2020 and 2030 at this time. These Mars Orbiters do not yet have a name and are in the science definition and RFP phase for instruments.

Offline stoker5432

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 37
There are already launchers booked past 2020.

We're talking about NASA here. What other countries will do is irrelevant.
yes of course we are: The next generation of NASA Mars orbiters are in the planning stages as some current spacecraft are past or nearing the end of their useful life in the next yew years. Up to 3 are currently being planned between 2020 and 2030 at this time. These Mars Orbiters do not yet have a name and are in the science definition and RFP phase for instruments.

So what launchers are booked for these missions?

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
The article doesn't cover everything.  There is a door 180 degrees from the RTG for HRS servicing.

What is HRS? I couldn't find it in a search.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
There are already launchers booked past 2020.

We're talking about NASA here. What other countries will do is irrelevant.
yes of course we are: The next generation of NASA Mars orbiters are in the planning stages as some current spacecraft are past or nearing the end of their useful life in the next yew years. Up to 3 are currently being planned between 2020 and 2030 at this time. These Mars Orbiters do not yet have a name and are in the science definition and RFP phase for instruments.

So what launchers are booked for these missions?
None.

Offline Silmfeanor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1254
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 723
The article doesn't cover everything.  There is a door 180 degrees from the RTG for HRS servicing.

What is HRS? I couldn't find it in a search.

heat rejection and recovery system
(found it here - http://papers.sae.org/2009-01-2437/ )

Offline Arb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • London
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 433
So provided there is access into the fairing, is there any reason an RTG couldn't be loaded with the vehicle horizontal on the pad (a bit like late load to CRS missions)? Lowering and raising the F9 is unusually straightforward.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
So provided there is access into the fairing, is there any reason an RTG couldn't be loaded with the vehicle horizontal on the pad (a bit like late load to CRS missions)? Lowering and raising the F9 is unusually straightforward.

Again, need access 180 degrees apart. 

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Let's  keep in mind that Mars 2020 Rover probably falls within the 10% of the space launch business that SpaceX doesn't need to pursue and probably doesn't want to.

•   Payload is nuclear
•   Payload requires vertical integration
•   Payload requires special handling
•   Payload requires custom fairing
•   Payload requires ……

Basically the payload will require a lot of special handling that is above and beyond what a normal commercial payload requires.  To support these requirements would require SpaceX make an investment in the launch support infrastructure that would result in increased OpEx costs. 


"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Look at the size of the door on the left side and look at the cooling duct with nozzles on the right side.
« Last Edit: 08/29/2016 04:10 pm by Jim »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
With Jim's info. It seems that SpaceX could have bid for the Mars 2020 Rover mission. If they have something like a service gantry tower available. Since they can in theory use Astrotech to encapsulated the spacecraft with a RUAG payload fairing and attracted the vehicle stack to the F9 with a PLF adapter. Payload vertically integrated with a large crane at the pad. However no gantry tower means not able to support the GSE for the payload.Therefore SpaceX was not qualified to bid.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
With Jim's info. It seems that SpaceX could have bid for the Mars 2020 Rover mission. If they have something like a service gantry tower available. Since they can in theory use Astrotech to encapsulated the spacecraft with a RUAG payload fairing and attracted the vehicle stack to the F9 with a PLF adapter. Payload vertically integrated with a large crane at the pad. However no gantry tower means not able to support the GSE for the payload.Therefore SpaceX was not qualified to bid.

RTG and Astrotech is a no go.  It has to remain on the spaceport.
Spacex doesn't have a contract with RUAG.
« Last Edit: 08/30/2016 12:07 am by Jim »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
With Jim's info. It seems that SpaceX could have bid for the Mars 2020 Rover mission. If they have something like a service gantry tower available. Since they can in theory use Astrotech to encapsulated the spacecraft with a RUAG payload fairing and attracted the vehicle stack to the F9 with a PLF adapter. Payload vertically integrated with a large crane at the pad. However no gantry tower means not able to support the GSE for the payload.Therefore SpaceX was not qualified to bid.

RTG and Astrotech is a no go.  It has to remain on the spaceport.
Spacex doesn't have a contract with RUAG.

Presume Astrotech does not do anything with the RTG. Which in theory will be installed at the pad with the help of the non-existence gantry tower.

Surely SpaceX can acquire the services of RAUG if they needed the RAUG PLF?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4673
  • Likes Given: 768
With Jim's info. It seems that SpaceX could have bid for the Mars 2020 Rover mission. If they have something like a service gantry tower available. Since they can in theory use Astrotech to encapsulated the spacecraft with a RUAG payload fairing and attracted the vehicle stack to the F9 with a PLF adapter. Payload vertically integrated with a large crane at the pad. However no gantry tower means not able to support the GSE for the payload.Therefore SpaceX was not qualified to bid.

RTG and Astrotech is a no go.  It has to remain on the spaceport.
Spacex doesn't have a contract with RUAG.

Presume Astrotech does not do anything with the RTG. Which in theory will be installed at the pad with the help of the non-existence gantry tower.

Surely SpaceX can acquire the services of RAUG if they needed the RAUG PLF?

That would require another round of certification do to change of PLF and RUAG would have to develop a new custom PLF to be compatible with F9 Stage 2. These are schedule risk items associated with the new entrant thus NASA would go with lowest risk, which would be ULA

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
...
Surely SpaceX can acquire the services of RAUG if they needed the RAUG PLF?
That would require another round of certification do to change of PLF and RUAG would have to develop a new custom PLF to be compatible with F9 Stage 2. These are schedule risk items associated with the new entrant thus NASA would go with lowest risk, which would be ULA
Agree, don't think SpaceX could have won for this mission. However being able to bid would have strengthen their chances of winning bids as launcher for future missions.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0