Red Dragon

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 74 Next
Author Topic: Red Dragon  (Read 129148 times)
Jim
Night Gator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 17632
Location: Cape Canaveral Spaceport



« Reply #405 on: 03/19/2012 10:48 AM »


It is a serious concept which is advancing towards being a serious proposal.


Karcz" believes" it is viable.  Typical PI spin in trying to sell his proposal.  The concept requires two unproven vehicles FH and propulsive landing Dragon.

 FH won't  be on contract for at least 5 years.
The KSC that matters is not working this either.
go4mars
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2920


« Reply #406 on: 03/19/2012 12:41 PM »

The concept requires two unproven vehicles FH and propulsive landing Dragon.

FH won't  be on contract for at least 5 years.
This is looking at 2018 or so IIRC.  So launch in ~6 years.  Does the 1 year between when FH is on contract and the launch date provide enough time for this to possibly happen?  Or would the launch date need to be later? 

As to propulsive landing dragon, I don't understand why being unproven would be a show-stopper (would it?)  It isn't like MSL EDL is more proven (as far as I am aware).   

Jim
Night Gator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 17632
Location: Cape Canaveral Spaceport



« Reply #407 on: 03/19/2012 01:07 PM »


As to propulsive landing dragon, I don't understand why being unproven would be a show-stopper (would it?)  It isn't like MSL EDL is more proven (as far as I am aware).   


yes it is. 
Jim
Night Gator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 17632
Location: Cape Canaveral Spaceport



« Reply #408 on: 03/19/2012 01:08 PM »

This is looking at 2018 or so IIRC.  So launch in ~6 years.  Does the 1 year between when FH is on contract and the launch date provide enough time for this to


3 years between
starsilk
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 336
Location: Denver



« Reply #409 on: 03/19/2012 03:38 PM »

EDIT: should also add, we don't yet know the performance of the super-draco, but given that it is primarily designed for high thrust at low altitudes on Earth, I suspect that it's isp on Mars will be pretty poor. I don't see much room for nozzle extensions without them being burned off during entry. Couple that with major cosine losses and the retro-prop load starts to look very significant. The one tonne payload could easily disappear, IMHO.

could you make nozzle extensions burning off 'work for you' - ie altitude compensation? build in some weak points (or actively drop off) the nozzle extensions once you encounter enough atmosphere.
Robotbeat
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 14572
Location: Minnesota



« Reply #410 on: 03/19/2012 03:42 PM »

EDIT: should also add, we don't yet know the performance of the super-draco, but given that it is primarily designed for high thrust at low altitudes on Earth, I suspect that it's isp on Mars will be pretty poor. I don't see much room for nozzle extensions without them being burned off during entry. Couple that with major cosine losses and the retro-prop load starts to look very significant. The one tonne payload could easily disappear, IMHO.

could you make nozzle extensions burning off 'work for you' - ie altitude compensation? build in some weak points (or actively drop off) the nozzle extensions once you encounter enough atmosphere.
Not enough atmosphere on Mars to make that worth it.
Robotbeat
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 14572
Location: Minnesota



« Reply #411 on: 03/19/2012 03:43 PM »

Everyone keep in mind that the 1-ton payload is probably to low-altitude sites. Landing at low altitudes (2 or 3 miles below Mars "sea level") is considerably easier than landing on the Martian highlands.
baldusi
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3125
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina


« Reply #412 on: 03/19/2012 03:59 PM »

Everyone keep in mind that the 1-ton payload is probably to low-altitude sites. Landing at low altitudes (2 or 3 miles below Mars "sea level") is considerably easier than landing on the Martian highlands.
I would love to see someone land on top of Mount Olympus. That would be a feat.
Comga
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1874



« Reply #413 on: 03/19/2012 04:52 PM »

Everyone keep in mind that the 1-ton payload is probably to low-altitude sites. Landing at low altitudes (2 or 3 miles below Mars "sea level") is considerably easier than landing on the Martian highlands.
Is that necessarily true for propulsive EDL?

That seems to contradict statements about the value and capabilities of braking without parachutes.

Note that the March 5 Aviation Week (Page 38) has an illustration of a "Low-Density Supersonic Decelerator" as a possible EDL tech demo.  This would be an inflatable structure to reduce the terminal velocity of a Mars probe that would still descend under a parachute.  It would probably have to stack on top of a Skycrane, making for a pair of systems with limited potential for growing landed mass. They would be limited to low altitude sites as you say. 

The idea of propulsive EDL is a way to get around this limit.
Robotbeat
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 14572
Location: Minnesota



« Reply #414 on: 03/19/2012 06:02 PM »

Everyone keep in mind that the 1-ton payload is probably to low-altitude sites. Landing at low altitudes (2 or 3 miles below Mars "sea level") is considerably easier than landing on the Martian highlands.
Is that necessarily true for propulsive EDL?

That seems to contradict statements about the value and capabilities of braking without parachutes.

Note that the March 5 Aviation Week (Page 38) has an illustration of a "Low-Density Supersonic Decelerator" as a possible EDL tech demo.  This would be an inflatable structure to reduce the terminal velocity of a Mars probe that would still descend under a parachute.  It would probably have to stack on top of a Skycrane, making for a pair of systems with limited potential for growing landed mass. They would be limited to low altitude sites as you say. 

The idea of propulsive EDL is a way to get around this limit.
Yes, it is a way to get around that limit, but it takes a lot of mass. On the extreme end, you could do it all propulsively and have no heatshield, but that's not what Red Dragon is.

It still helps a lot to have a low altitude landing site. Seriously, the difference in payload can be double or triple.
ugordan
Full Member
*****
Online

Posts: 5472



WWW
« Reply #415 on: 03/19/2012 06:14 PM »

Everyone keep in mind that the 1-ton payload is probably to low-altitude sites. Landing at low altitudes (2 or 3 miles below Mars "sea level") is considerably easier than landing on the Martian highlands.
Is that necessarily true for propulsive EDL?

For the "classic" propulsive EDL method where it kicks in subsonically after a parachute phase, probably. I don't see why it would make much of a difference if you went with what they're proposing - starting the burn while still supersonic.
go4mars
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2920


« Reply #416 on: 03/19/2012 07:37 PM »

Some noteworthy quotes from that proceedings summary:

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/01/23/NAC_Science_Meeting_ReportOctober_31-November_1_2011-finalTAGGED.pdf

It's on page 8

If quoting from the NASA website is a faux pas here, please swiftly delete this and let me know what the guidelines are.  Thanks!

"Regarding costs, Dr. Karcz said that SpaceX estimates a cost of $150 million to $190 million for a launch vehicle and lander. The Dragon already has most of the necessary capabilities: sufficient lifetime and resources for a Mars transfer trajectory; atmospheric entry systems capable of guided lifting and highly capable retro-propulsion thruster. Falcon Heavy, he noted, could throw Dragon to Mars. He also noted that Dragon offers a large interior volume. He believed the EDL technology was scalable to large cargo and human landers. Assuming launch by Falcon Heavy, he said, the trunk would separate nears Mars; the capsule would decelerate through retro-propulsive action. The version under discussion would land on its legs."

"Lemke said that retro-propulsion would start at supersonic speeds. This approach, he stated, should make it possible to land the capsule at much higher Martian elevations than could be done if a parachute was used...He noted that retro-propulsion had been studied by NASA for human landings."

"the group was very comfortable that it could put down more than a ton of payload on the selected landing site."

"Karcz said the angle of attack in landing would not be controllable; however, the length of the flight path could be altered by rolling and banking. Extending the ‘flight path’ of descent would in effect, compensate for adjustments in speed."
Robotbeat
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 14572
Location: Minnesota



« Reply #417 on: 03/19/2012 07:42 PM »

Everyone keep in mind that the 1-ton payload is probably to low-altitude sites. Landing at low altitudes (2 or 3 miles below Mars "sea level") is considerably easier than landing on the Martian highlands.
Is that necessarily true for propulsive EDL?

For the "classic" propulsive EDL method where it kicks in subsonically after a parachute phase, probably. I don't see why it would make much of a difference if you went with what they're proposing - starting the burn while still supersonic.
It definitely still makes a big difference in how big of a payload you can get to the surface for a certain TMI mass. Just because supersonic retropropulsion makes landing at high altitudes possible doesn't mean it isn't helped tremendously by the increased density and length of descent of landing at lower altitudes!
Jim
Night Gator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 17632
Location: Cape Canaveral Spaceport



« Reply #418 on: 03/19/2012 07:45 PM »

The Dragon already has most of the necessary capabilities: sufficient lifetime and resources for a Mars transfer trajectory; atmospheric entry systems capable of guided lifting and highly capable retro-propulsion thruster.

It has not demonstrated any of that.
Dalhousie
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 654


« Reply #419 on: 03/19/2012 09:05 PM »


It is a serious concept which is advancing towards being a serious proposal.


Karcz" believes" it is viable.  Typical PI spin in trying to sell his proposal.  The concept requires two unproven vehicles FH and propulsive landing Dragon.

 FH won't  be on contract for at least 5 years.
The KSC that matters is not working this either.

Larry Lemke's professional opinion is that it is viable.  And that of the other engineers involved.

Still no evidence that it is unworkable?
Tags: spacex mars red dragon 
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 74 Next
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC
All content © 2005-2011 NASASpaceFlight.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.074 seconds with 22 queries.