When SpaceX gets ITSy going, maybe NASA should design missions and equipment around the launch capability of ITSy. What size would the payload bay be on an ITSy? Internally? 8m x say 15m and weigh around 100 tons.
Throwing in an entirely different propulsion technology just because one NASA center is working on it just complicates things.
The best place from which to explore Martian moons is from Mars, by Martian residents. Imagine how much you could see just with optical telescopes on the Mars surface? Yeah I know there is dust - but you are 30K times closer than here.
Nice Pics, cooperation is always a good thing!It’s certainly possible, to do it like this.
But why not land with the BFS on both moons and then return to Mars to refuel?
Maybe NASA could also develop a huge tanker vessel in Mars Orbit, that is filled with Methalox produced on Mars and periodically topped off by a SpaceX tanker ship.Methalox in Orbit has several advantages.The tanks don’t need to land; the fuel needed to get fuel into orbit doesn’t need to be storred; less fuel is wasted in refuel-landings.A lot of technology goes into such a tanker ship that NASA is perfectly capable of, and making another lander seems double work.
Also creation of other in situ resources, seems like a task for NASA.
cooperation is always a good thing!
I've mused to myself about putting Orion in an ITS cargo bay as a daughter craft. The cargo bay doors on the original ITS did look to be about 5 meters x 5 meters.
The would-be-mission setup (bare-bones version):1) SEV-vehicle launched from Earth and, via solar electric, put into either Deimos or Phobos orbit.2) 1st ITS launched unmanned and lands on Mars.3) 2nd ITS launched with crew and lands on Mars.4) Crew transfers to 1st ITS and launches to Deimos/Phobos orbit.5) Rendezvous with SEV.6) SEV performs a ~week-long visit to a Martian moon.7) SEV returns to ITS. ITS returns to Earth.
Quote from: redliox on 09/26/2017 04:34 amThe would-be-mission setup (bare-bones version):1) SEV-vehicle launched from Earth and, via solar electric, put into either Deimos or Phobos orbit.2) 1st ITS launched unmanned and lands on Mars.3) 2nd ITS launched with crew and lands on Mars.You lost me on step 3, are you saying the first human landing on Mars is not a SpaceX/NASA cooperation? Or is this thread about how to explore Deimos/Phobos after Mars landing? If it's the latter, I think the title should be modified to reflect this. If it's the former, well I just don't see how it could happen, no way SpaceX is going to Mars alone.
The would-be-mission setup (bare-bones version):1) SEV-vehicle launched from Earth and, via solar electric, put into either Deimos or Phobos orbit.2) 1st ITS launched unmanned and lands on Mars.3) 2nd ITS launched with crew and lands on Mars.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 09/27/2017 02:52 amI've mused to myself about putting Orion in an ITS cargo bay as a daughter craft. The cargo bay doors on the original ITS did look to be about 5 meters x 5 meters.Here is a size reference for the rover-variant of SEV to consider. More than likely there will be some cargo offloaded to Mars by (mini or otherwise) ITS, but I don't know if a full-blown, pressurized crew vehicle would be among them; an unpressurized but modernized version of the lunar "dune buggy" rover would be more feasible since it can be folded.Orion at Mars would be, to put it bluntly, little more than a glorified paperweight. Useful life support for a lunar mission, but vastly under-powered propulsion is its Achilles heel. Lockheed just wanted an excuse to build more on NASA's bill.
Quote from: redliox on 09/27/2017 03:20 amQuote from: ncb1397 on 09/27/2017 02:52 amI've mused to myself about putting Orion in an ITS cargo bay as a daughter craft. The cargo bay doors on the original ITS did look to be about 5 meters x 5 meters.Here is a size reference for the rover-variant of SEV to consider. More than likely there will be some cargo offloaded to Mars by (mini or otherwise) ITS, but I don't know if a full-blown, pressurized crew vehicle would be among them; an unpressurized but modernized version of the lunar "dune buggy" rover would be more feasible since it can be folded.Orion at Mars would be, to put it bluntly, little more than a glorified paperweight. Useful life support for a lunar mission, but vastly under-powered propulsion is its Achilles heel. Lockheed just wanted an excuse to build more on NASA's bill.Adding 2 Orions would add 1.5-2 km/s of total vehicle maneuverability to the original ITS. Adding one adds about 1 km/s. Frankly, things impossible to do with either alone could be done with them together. Not to mention it is nice to have a dissimilar redundant system when your main vehicle has an issue.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 09/27/2017 05:12 pmQuote from: redliox on 09/27/2017 03:20 amQuote from: ncb1397 on 09/27/2017 02:52 amI've mused to myself about putting Orion in an ITS cargo bay as a daughter craft. The cargo bay doors on the original ITS did look to be about 5 meters x 5 meters.Here is a size reference for the rover-variant of SEV to consider. More than likely there will be some cargo offloaded to Mars by (mini or otherwise) ITS, but I don't know if a full-blown, pressurized crew vehicle would be among them; an unpressurized but modernized version of the lunar "dune buggy" rover would be more feasible since it can be folded.Orion at Mars would be, to put it bluntly, little more than a glorified paperweight. Useful life support for a lunar mission, but vastly under-powered propulsion is its Achilles heel. Lockheed just wanted an excuse to build more on NASA's bill.Adding 2 Orions would add 1.5-2 km/s of total vehicle maneuverability to the original ITS. Adding one adds about 1 km/s. Frankly, things impossible to do with either alone could be done with them together. Not to mention it is nice to have a dissimilar redundant system when your main vehicle has an issue.I must be missing something. The mass of the 2 Orions counts against ITS's Km/sec for a given payload. Orion is far less ISP efficient than ITS.
Quote from: philw1776 on 09/27/2017 06:32 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 09/27/2017 05:12 pmQuote from: redliox on 09/27/2017 03:20 amQuote from: ncb1397 on 09/27/2017 02:52 amI've mused to myself about putting Orion in an ITS cargo bay as a daughter craft. The cargo bay doors on the original ITS did look to be about 5 meters x 5 meters.Here is a size reference for the rover-variant of SEV to consider. More than likely there will be some cargo offloaded to Mars by (mini or otherwise) ITS, but I don't know if a full-blown, pressurized crew vehicle would be among them; an unpressurized but modernized version of the lunar "dune buggy" rover would be more feasible since it can be folded.Orion at Mars would be, to put it bluntly, little more than a glorified paperweight. Useful life support for a lunar mission, but vastly under-powered propulsion is its Achilles heel. Lockheed just wanted an excuse to build more on NASA's bill.Adding 2 Orions would add 1.5-2 km/s of total vehicle maneuverability to the original ITS. Adding one adds about 1 km/s. Frankly, things impossible to do with either alone could be done with them together. Not to mention it is nice to have a dissimilar redundant system when your main vehicle has an issue.I must be missing something. The mass of the 2 Orions counts against ITS's Km/sec for a given payload. Orion is far less ISP efficient than ITS.Dry mass of Orion is an order of magnitude lower than ITS. It is like staging a rocket vs SSTO even with hypergolics for the upper stage.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 09/27/2017 06:35 pmQuote from: philw1776 on 09/27/2017 06:32 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 09/27/2017 05:12 pmQuote from: redliox on 09/27/2017 03:20 amQuote from: ncb1397 on 09/27/2017 02:52 amI've mused to myself about putting Orion in an ITS cargo bay as a daughter craft. The cargo bay doors on the original ITS did look to be about 5 meters x 5 meters.Here is a size reference for the rover-variant of SEV to consider. More than likely there will be some cargo offloaded to Mars by (mini or otherwise) ITS, but I don't know if a full-blown, pressurized crew vehicle would be among them; an unpressurized but modernized version of the lunar "dune buggy" rover would be more feasible since it can be folded.Orion at Mars would be, to put it bluntly, little more than a glorified paperweight. Useful life support for a lunar mission, but vastly under-powered propulsion is its Achilles heel. Lockheed just wanted an excuse to build more on NASA's bill.Adding 2 Orions would add 1.5-2 km/s of total vehicle maneuverability to the original ITS. Adding one adds about 1 km/s. Frankly, things impossible to do with either alone could be done with them together. Not to mention it is nice to have a dissimilar redundant system when your main vehicle has an issue.I must be missing something. The mass of the 2 Orions counts against ITS's Km/sec for a given payload. Orion is far less ISP efficient than ITS.Dry mass of Orion is an order of magnitude lower than ITS. It is like staging a rocket vs SSTO even with hypergolics for the upper stage.The post said ADDING 2 Orions to ITS
While the bit with the ISS isn't exactly Mars-centric, it now leads me to wonder how they'll handle airlocks and docking.
but dragon 2 will be sertified. so just bring one cargo dragon in cargo bay. BFR could dock with dragon wich then could dock to ISS. repeat until done. BFR could wait in some distance near ISS. too long but no sertification needed.
Quote from: redliox on 09/30/2017 04:40 amWhile the bit with the ISS isn't exactly Mars-centric, it now leads me to wonder how they'll handle airlocks and docking.They don't need airlocks. But docking the BFR with the ISS is going to put a lot of mechanical stress on the IDS. The bigger issue is getting NASA to certify BFR for ISS operations, and SpaceX implementing any changes, before ISS is retired. I don't see that ever happening.
If the BFS is serving the ISS, then it make sense to replace the current IDS docking system with a more robust docking demi-module with the IDS as a sub-system for pressurized connection and the new demi-module for the mechanical connection.
SpaceX will need some sort docking hardware to connected with orbital infrastructures. They might as well as sell and delivered a comparable docking module to anyone who needs a docking port in space.
NASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.Antarctica on Moon and Mars.
...What I'd rather see is Bezos to realize that Blue is in a difficult position competitively and to offer to cooperate with or become a 49% partner with Musk. ...
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/30/2017 08:32 pmNASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.Antarctica on Moon and Mars.I largely agree, except NASA does not have to rely (and should not rely!) on SpaceX alone for the transportation elements of its human exploration missions. Between Falcon Heavy, Vulcan/ACES, New Glenn/Blue Moon, New Armstrong, and BFR/ITS, there's no reason NASA can't put out solicitations for heavy lift, transit, and landers and have some robust competition and alternatives.I'd also say that there's still a role for NASA in advanced in-space transportation. Large SEP for more efficient cargo transport. And maybe nuke-thermal at some point.But NASA does not need to be in the space trucking business.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/30/2017 08:32 pmNASA should make kilopower modules, habs, labs, rovers, instruments, etc, and just pay SpaceX for logistics wherever they want to go.Antarctica on Moon and Mars.But of course, if NASA sponsors a rover, it must be cancelled if a SpaceX powerpoint is released with one that looks better. And how exactly are rovers and power not logistics?
I largely agree, except NASA does not have to rely (and should not rely!) on SpaceX alone for the transportation elements of its human exploration missions.
Between Falcon Heavy, Vulcan/ACES, New Glenn/Blue Moon, New Armstrong, and BFR/ITS, there's no reason NASA can't put out solicitations for heavy lift, transit, and landers and have some robust competition and alternatives.
I'd also say that there's still a role for NASA in advanced in-space transportation. Large SEP for more efficient cargo transport. And maybe nuke-thermal at some point.
But NASA does not need to be in the space trucking business.
I largely agree, except NASA does not have to rely (and should not rely!) on SpaceX alone for the transportation elements of its human exploration missions. Between Falcon Heavy, Vulcan/ACES, New Glenn/Blue Moon, New Armstrong, and BFR/ITS, there's no reason NASA can't put out solicitations for heavy lift, transit, and landers and have some robust competition and alternatives.I'd also say that there's still a role for NASA in advanced in-space transportation. Large SEP for more efficient cargo transport. And maybe nuke-thermal at some point.But NASA does not need to be in the space trucking business.
In order to shut-down SLS, I think NASA needs two commercial companies that can provide the heavy lift service.I can see SpaceX and Blue developing a standard interface to an orbit propellant depot. But I don't see them sharing rockets.