NASA Mars mission Conops using Starship, derivatives and other hardware

[Slarty1080]

Much of the talk here has been based around NASA Mars mission proposals or SpaceX Mars mission proposals. But it seems to me that the most likely outcome will be a Congress sponsored NASA led program to send the first humans to Mars that uses Starship.

So what are the most likely add-ons and requirements that NASA might call for in the conops? And yes I know it will appear like heresy to the SpaceX purists, but if NASA is the customer and there’s a lot of money involved I would have thought Musk would bend over backwards to accommodate. And if SpaceX charge a reasonable price they would probably be money to spare for knobs bells and whistles to help improve safety and let the pork flow.

As an example Orion capsule for Earth return? A specific human Landing system, a cargo landing system and a Mars transfer habitat some using Starship some perhaps not? A mandatory nuclear power unit? A requirement that the return vehicle does not rely on ISRU re-tanking?

[freddo411]

Much of the talk here has been based around NASA Mars mission proposals or SpaceX Mars mission proposals. But it seems to me that the most likely outcome will be a Congress sponsored NASA led program to send the first humans to Mars that uses Starship.

So what are the most likely add-ons and requirements that NASA might call for in the conops? And yes I know it will appear like heresy to the SpaceX purists, but if NASA is the customer and there’s a lot of money involved I would have thought Musk would bend over backwards to accommodate. And if SpaceX charge a reasonable price they would probably be money to spare for knobs bells and whistles to help improve safety and let the pork flow.

As an example Orion capsule for Earth return? A specific human Landing system, a cargo landing system and a Mars transfer habitat some using Starship some perhaps not? A mandatory nuclear power unit? A requirement that the return vehicle does not rely on ISRU re-tanking?

There is a lot of distance between NASA’s view of “safe” conops and the SX vision of starship conops.  That being said there’s a lot *less* distance between those two things then there was, say two years ago.  The nasa HLS contract will go along way to qualify starship

One of the biggest gaps right now is starship performing entry, descent and landing  — both on Earth and on Mars.  NASA making mostly full use of starship to Mars really needs NASA to qualify starship EDL.  The fastest best way for this to occur is for SX to fly a bunch of successful landings on Mars and Earth.  Until that occurs NASA Mars conops with starship would be really kind of not great

That being said I kind of agree with your premise that NASA funding the very first human landing on Mars is a fairly compelling political concept.   The interesting dynamic here is that SpaceX is probably not interested in being delayed with today’s typical NASA requirements, at least for mars missions, assuming that they can fully fund the effort

If I predict today, I would say that NASA will mostly use SpaceX’s conops to get to Mars. 

I really like Zubrin’s idea of having two vehicles on the surface at the same point, at the same time.  This redundancy is a necessary element for safer Mars missions.  I think starship can add the ability to wildly increase the margins of extra materials that can be brought to Mars, therefore increasing the chance of a successful mission.  Conops  should be constructed to make use of these very large mass margins

[Slarty1080]

Much of the talk here has been based around NASA Mars mission proposals or SpaceX Mars mission proposals. But it seems to me that the most likely outcome will be a Congress sponsored NASA led program to send the first humans to Mars that uses Starship.

So what are the most likely add-ons and requirements that NASA might call for in the conops? And yes I know it will appear like heresy to the SpaceX purists, but if NASA is the customer and there’s a lot of money involved I would have thought Musk would bend over backwards to accommodate. And if SpaceX charge a reasonable price they would probably be money to spare for knobs bells and whistles to help improve safety and let the pork flow.

As an example Orion capsule for Earth return? A specific human Landing system, a cargo landing system and a Mars transfer habitat some using Starship some perhaps not? A mandatory nuclear power unit? A requirement that the return vehicle does not rely on ISRU re-tanking?

There is a lot of distance between NASA’s view of “safe” conops and the SX vision of starship conops.  That being said there’s a lot *less* distance between those two things then there was, say two years ago.  The nasa HLS contract will go along way to qualify starship

One of the biggest gaps right now is starship performing entry, descent and landing  — both on Earth and on Mars.  NASA making mostly full use of starship to Mars really needs NASA to qualify starship EDL.  The fastest best way for this to occur is for SX to fly a bunch of successful landings on Mars and Earth.  Until that occurs NASA Mars conops with starship would be really kind of not great

That being said I kind of agree with your premise that NASA funding the very first human landing on Mars is a fairly compelling political concept.   The interesting dynamic here is that SpaceX is probably not interested in being delayed with today’s typical NASA requirements, at least for mars missions, assuming that they can fully fund the effort

If I predict today, I would say that NASA will mostly use SpaceX’s conops to get to Mars. 

I really like Zubrin’s idea of having two vehicles on the surface at the same point, at the same time.  This redundancy is a necessary element for safer Mars missions.  I think starship can add the ability to wildly increase the margins of extra materials that can be brought to Mars, therefore increasing the chance of a successful mission.  Conops  should be constructed to make use of these very large mass margins

Good point, the key is NASA certifying Starship for EDL on Earth and Mars. With Starship certified there is probably less scope for bolt on extras like human landers and so on. But assuming NASA does eventually certify Starship for human EDL, I'm not sure how well a SpaceX dominated program would go down with Congress.

At that point it would be hard to argue that anything other than Starship was the best solution, but the pork would not flow properly. I suppose a lot could be made out of ISRU, surface suits, ECLSS, rovers and outfitting the interior of Starship. That might make things a little more politically acceptable, I'm not sure, perhaps I'm making too much out of the political angle.

Another possibility perhaps would be to go with SpaceX Starship initially letting the jack of all trades Starship do what it does best, but put out contracts for more advanced craft like dedicated Mars transfer cargo ships, crew Mars transfer ships and Mars entry and return craft. Perhaps this is looking too far ahead to see clearly.

[DistantTemple]

Considering Elon's companies employ maybe 60K Americans, which is likely to grow sharply as Giga Texas comes online, and he is poised to benefit in the EV, Power, Space, internet provider, and AI arenas and more, there comes a point where politicians should be considering the benefit in their states of pork flowing TO MUSK INDUSTRIES! They should remember his "Message Received" tweet to the "F... o.." tweet from a California politician! Texas, Florida, California.... should already be campaigning for contracts and benefits for SpaceX and Tesla... OK this is a space forum... EM is a massive national icon, success story, wealth generator, and overall a massive generator of taxation revenue and US balance of payments for exports - including launch services.
There is plenty of room for senior retirements as the US space program pivots to capitalize on affordable reusable commercial space launch. Once SS flies to orbit... once it lands from orbit, once it refuels... and before it flies humans, politicians should realize they need to get on the right side of history quickly.

[su27k]

Conops changes I think that is likely for a NASA Mars mission using Starship:
1. Return doesn't rely on ISRU: I think this is pretty much a certainty. But it's fairly easy to accommodate using Starship, just need to add LMO refueling.
2. Nuclear surface power: This would be in addition to SpaceX's own solar surface power, mainly as redundant backup for life support.
3. Separate surface habitat: This would be in addition to SpaceX's own habitat that is built as part of Starship, also used as redundant backup.
4. Launch/Landing on Earth: May use Commercial Crew vehicle for this in order to get around certifying Starship for human launch/landing on Earth.

Conops changes I don't see happening at all:
1. Use of SLS/Orion in any shape or form: There's just no way to bring Orion along to Mars.
2. Separate transit habitat or Mars lander: Doesn't add to safety, just add huge costs which is not affordable given the likely budget profile.
3. Nuclear propulsion in any shape or form: Again, doesn't add anything useful, just add huge costs.

[guckyfan]

Conops changes I think that is likely for a NASA Mars mission using Starship:

1. Return doesn't rely on ISRU: I think this is pretty much a certainty. But it's fairly easy to accommodate using Starship, just need to add LMO refueling.

I think at least LOX ISRU is very likely. That's almost 80% by mass and can be produced from the atmosphere. They can bring methane, so large amounts of water are not needed.

2. Nuclear surface power: This would be in addition to SpaceX's own solar surface power, mainly as redundant backup for life support.

Would love that. The one worry I have is that they have the first landing in a dust storm, before they have deployed the large solar arrays. Not likely, but a contingency to plan for, if the first landing happens during dust storm season.

3. Separate surface habitat: This would be in addition to SpaceX's own habitat that is built as part of Starship, also used as redundant backup.

Don't see the need for the first mission, but possible

4. Launch/Landing on Earth: May use Commercial Crew vehicle for this in order to get around certifying Starship for human launch/landing on Earth.

At least atmospheric braking on Mars return is needed. Is landing really an added risk?

[DanClemmensen]

Conops changes I think that is likely for a NASA Mars mission using Starship:
1. Return doesn't rely on ISRU: I think this is pretty much a certainty. But it's fairly easy to accommodate using Starship, just need to add LMO refueling.
3. Separate surface habitat: This would be in addition to SpaceX's own habitat that is built as part of Starship, also used as redundant backup.

My guess: anything they think they need on the surface will be landed on an uncrewed early misson. They will not send the crewed mission until this stuff in already in place and known to be functioning. This can include one or more landed Starships for use as backup habitat.  It can also include a LOX plant that will already be storing LOX.

[Slarty1080]

Conops changes I think that is likely for a NASA Mars mission using Starship:
1. Return doesn't rely on ISRU: I think this is pretty much a certainty. But it's fairly easy to accommodate using Starship, just need to add LMO refueling.
3. Separate surface habitat: This would be in addition to SpaceX's own habitat that is built as part of Starship, also used as redundant backup.

My guess: anything they think they need on the surface will be landed on an uncrewed early misson. They will not send the crewed mission until this stuff in already in place and known to be functioning. This can include one or more landed Starships for use as backup habitat.  It can also include a LOX plant that will already be storing LOX.

I would tend to agree, although I assume NASA would want one of those items that is "already in place and known to be functioning", to be a fully tanked Starship? The reason I ask is that I can see a lot of complications if there is any thought of any conops involving propellant transfer between vehicles on Mars given how far appart they would probably need to land initially. So ISTM the LOX plant would need to be on the returning Starship together with imported methane. But maybe the solar power could be landed separately and a cable run across?

[DanClemmensen]

Conops changes I think that is likely for a NASA Mars mission using Starship:
1. Return doesn't rely on ISRU: I think this is pretty much a certainty. But it's fairly easy to accommodate using Starship, just need to add LMO refueling.
3. Separate surface habitat: This would be in addition to SpaceX's own habitat that is built as part of Starship, also used as redundant backup.

My guess: anything they think they need on the surface will be landed on an uncrewed early misson. They will not send the crewed mission until this stuff in already in place and known to be functioning. This can include one or more landed Starships for use as backup habitat.  It can also include a LOX plant that will already be storing LOX.

I would tend to agree, although I assume NASA would want one of those items that is "already in place and known to be functioning", to be a fully tanked Starship? The reason I ask is that I can see a lot of complications if there is any thought of any conops involving propellant transfer between vehicles on Mars given how far appart they would probably need to land initially. So ISTM the LOX plant would need to be on the returning Starship together with imported methane. But maybe the solar power could be landed separately and a cable run across?

Landing far apart: Maybe the ship with the LOX factory should have six articulated landing legs. After it fills itself up it can walk very slowly over to a newly-landed SS and fill it. Walking on six legs is much simpler than on four.

[Jim]

There isn’t going to be NASA Mars Mission

[Eer]

There isn’t going to be NASA Mars Mission

Well, not a NASA bought and paid for crewed mission. Do I expect NASA astronauts will be part of the SpaceX crew - yes, probably so, as paying passengers and researchers.

But it will be a transportation and logistics commercial service.

IMO.

[freddo411]

There isn’t going to be NASA Mars Mission

I guess #JourneyToMars has always been fluffy propaganda.  Is that what you are implying Jim?

[freddo411]

Conops changes I think that is likely for a NASA Mars mission using Starship:
1. Return doesn't rely on ISRU: I think this is pretty much a certainty. But it's fairly easy to accommodate using Starship, just need to add LMO refueling.
3. Separate surface habitat: This would be in addition to SpaceX's own habitat that is built as part of Starship, also used as redundant backup.

My guess: anything they think they need on the surface will be landed on an uncrewed early misson. They will not send the crewed mission until this stuff in already in place and known to be functioning. This can include one or more landed Starships for use as backup habitat.  It can also include a LOX plant that will already be storing LOX.

This type of thinking is one of the best parts of Zubrin’s mission architecture.  It deserves to be built in to the planning for any Mars efforts.   The Starship efforts both support sending an abundance of material as well as having an abundance of affordable vehicles to get crew and cargo there and back.   

It seems like shear folly to contemplate exploration missions that rely on a sole vehicle. This demonstrates too much imitation of Apollo and other early space missions

[Bananas_on_Mars]

One of the benefits of having so much landed mass available is that they can plan for not making their first return window.
 
It will not be like the moon mission where they would have run out of oxygen or CO2 scrubbers quite fast in case there had been an issue with their ascent stage.

They‘re relatively safe on or under ground, with life support systems that will need to run 3 years or so anyhow. Adding 2 more years isn‘t that much.

If everything goes to plan, the redundancy from the first expedition would be available to other expeditions landing at the same spot or nearby.

So IMO they might be ok if they don’t have redundancy for their ascent vehicle.

And even for the first expedition, the landscape might already be littered with cargo starships that can be scavenged for parts. SpaceX replacing engines in the open with just a forklift within hours makes me confident even changing an engine on mars might be in the cards.

Conops might also include some serious loiter time in mars orbit before the transfer window, to have a buffer for unforeseen problems on ascent.

[Kiwi53]

There isn’t going to be NASA Mars Mission

Not with SpaceX, anyway
Elon Musk has made it clear that the initial model for his Mars Colonisation effort will be settlers, not visitors. A quick (less than three years, say) or indeed any return to Earth is not a necessary part of the deal.
Elon's conceptual model seems to me to be more like 16th/early 17th century pioneers going to North America, or early 19th century colonists going to New Zealand, not that of early 20th century expeditions to Antarctica.
"I hope to die on Mars, just not on arrival"

This is the complete opposite of NASA's way of doing things

[freddo411]

There isn’t going to be NASA Mars Mission

Not with SpaceX, anyway
Elon Musk has made it clear that the initial model for his Mars Colonisation effort will be settlers, not visitors. A quick (less than three years, say) or indeed any return to Earth is not a necessary part of the deal.
Elon's conceptual model seems to me to be more like 16th/early 17th century pioneers going to North America, or early 19th century colonists going to New Zealand, not that of early 20th century expeditions to Antarctica.
"I hope to die on Mars, just not on arrival"

This is the complete opposite of NASA's way of doing things

I take your point ... SpaceX goals are not very aligned with NASA goals for Mars.

On the other hand, if you look back 2 or 3 years and asked the question:  Will SpaceX work with NASA on Artemis to build a lander?    I would have said "No, no at all likely as SpaceX's goals don't involve a landing on the Moon".   99% of the folks here probably would have agreed with that line of reasoning at the time.

Consequently, maybe it's possible that NASA and/or SpaceX will bend a bit so that their different Mars goals can be partially satisfied by working together.   

[StormtrooperJoe]

There isn’t going to be NASA Mars Mission

Not with SpaceX, anyway
Elon Musk has made it clear that the initial model for his Mars Colonisation effort will be settlers, not visitors. A quick (less than three years, say) or indeed any return to Earth is not a necessary part of the deal.
Elon's conceptual model seems to me to be more like 16th/early 17th century pioneers going to North America, or early 19th century colonists going to New Zealand, not that of early 20th century expeditions to Antarctica.
"I hope to die on Mars, just not on arrival"

This is the complete opposite of NASA's way of doing things

I am not so sure this is 100% true. After all, a big part of the marketing for Artemis is that it isn't just flags and footsteps. However, I highly doubt that the very first individuals Nasa sends to Mars will be sent there permanently, but interest in long-term habitation will follow. This actually does mirror how the settlement has actually worked, usually, the first ones to go are not permanent settlers(If only because they had to return to give a report on what they found) and are government-backed(Think Columbus). However, as an organization that is part of the United States government, I think there will be legal issues with trying to setup a government-backed Mars colony, as that is tantamount to claiming portions of Mars. Then again, I don't remember much of the specifics of the Artemis accords so maybe there are provisions in there for settlements

[Jim]

However, as an organization that is part of the United States government, I think there will be legal issues with trying to setup a government-backed Mars colony,

NASA has no role in colonization.

[Jim]

A quick (less than three years, say) or indeed any return to Earth is not a necessary part of the deal.

That isn't true either.  They are not going to be able to put the infrastructure in place for long term stays without short term stays.

[su27k]

There isn’t going to be NASA Mars Mission

Huh? https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/

With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before. We will collaborate with commercial and international partners and establish the first long-term presence on the Moon. Then, we will use what we learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap: sending the first astronauts to Mars.

[su27k]

There isn’t going to be NASA Mars Mission

Not with SpaceX, anyway
Elon Musk has made it clear that the initial model for his Mars Colonisation effort will be settlers, not visitors. A quick (less than three years, say) or indeed any return to Earth is not a necessary part of the deal.

Incorrect, Musk said multiple times that a return ticket is included:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1094796246613516289

Very dependent on volume, but I’m confident moving to Mars (return ticket is free) will one day cost less than $500k & maybe even below $100k. Low enough that most people in advanced economies could sell their home on Earth & move to Mars if they want.

And this makes sense when building a colony, because you don't want to force people to stay there if they don't want to, especially given how dangerous the environment is and how fragile the habitats are.

[Jim]

There isn’t going to be NASA Mars Mission

Huh? https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/

With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before. We will collaborate with commercial and international partners and establish the first long-term presence on the Moon. Then, we will use what we learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap: sending the first astronauts to Mars.

Do you see a budget line item for it?

[su27k]

There isn’t going to be NASA Mars Mission

Huh? https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/

With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before. We will collaborate with commercial and international partners and establish the first long-term presence on the Moon. Then, we will use what we learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap: sending the first astronauts to Mars.

Do you see a budget line item for it?

They'll add one once Starship is more mature and closer to be able to carry out a Mars landing, my guess would be after orbital refueling and simulated Mars re-entry maneuver in Earth's upper atmosphere are demonstrated.

[Jim]

There isn’t going to be NASA Mars Mission

Huh? https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/

With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before. We will collaborate with commercial and international partners and establish the first long-term presence on the Moon. Then, we will use what we learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap: sending the first astronauts to Mars.

Do you see a budget line item for it?

They'll add one once Starship is more mature and closer to be able to carry out a Mars landing, my guess would be after orbital refueling and simulated Mars re-entry maneuver in Earth's upper atmosphere are demonstrated.

Wrong. Anything using a Starship wouldn’t be a NASA Mars mission.  SpaceX will likely be going before NASA and NASA astronauts won’t be the first.

[su27k]

There isn’t going to be NASA Mars Mission

Huh? https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/

With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before. We will collaborate with commercial and international partners and establish the first long-term presence on the Moon. Then, we will use what we learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap: sending the first astronauts to Mars.

Do you see a budget line item for it?

They'll add one once Starship is more mature and closer to be able to carry out a Mars landing, my guess would be after orbital refueling and simulated Mars re-entry maneuver in Earth's upper atmosphere are demonstrated.

Wrong. Anything using a Starship wouldn’t be a NASA Mars mission.  SpaceX will likely be going before NASA and NASA astronauts won’t be the first.

Well Starship is already used in NASA lunar mission, I don't see why a Mars mission would be different.

It's certainly possible that SpaceX could go alone first, but I don't see that as a high probability, NASA and USG just couldn't pass this chance to be the first, boots on Mars has been the goal of the entire US space program for half a century.

[Jim]

, boots on Mars has been the goal of the entire US space program for half a century.

That would be wrong.

[Jim]

Well Starship is already used in NASA lunar mission, I don't see why a Mars mission would be different.

No role for NASA hardware on a Mars mission

[su27k]

Well Starship is already used in NASA lunar mission, I don't see why a Mars mission would be different.

No role for NASA hardware on a Mars mission

There're some roles in terms of surface hardware, see my original comment.

Also not included in my comments is the hardware for scientific investigations, that would be a major NASA contribution.

Edit: Think about it, this would be no different from CLD. What role does NASA hardware has in CLD? The station is built by companies, transportation is provided by companies, NASA's only contribution is astronauts and their experiments, this would be no different from a Mars mission entirely relying on SpaceX hardware.

[rakaydos]

Well Starship is already used in NASA lunar mission, I don't see why a Mars mission would be different.

No role for NASA hardware on a Mars mission

There're some roles in terms of surface hardware, see my original comment.

Also not included in my comments is the hardware for scientific investigations, that would be a major NASA contribution.

Edit: Think about it, this would be no different from CLD. What role does NASA hardware has in CLD? The station is built by companies, transportation is provided by companies, NASA's only contribution is astronauts and their experiments, this would be no different from a Mars mission entirely relying on SpaceX hardware.

Surface hardware doesnt usually involve large cash infusions to states historically opposed to goverment spending.

[Slarty1080]

Landing far apart: Maybe the ship with the LOX factory should have six articulated landing legs. After it fills itself up it can walk very slowly over to a newly-landed SS and fill it. Walking on six legs is much simpler than on four.

I can’t imagine that a 6 legged walking Starship would be a practical proposition on Mars due to the mass of Starship and the difficulty of the terrain.

One of the benefits of having so much landed mass available is that they can plan for not making their first return window.

I doubt that NASA would agree to any mission that required staying on Mars for an extra synod. IMO the unknowns and dangers would be just too great for them.

Wrong. Anything using a Starship wouldn’t be a NASA Mars mission.  SpaceX will likely be going before NASA and NASA astronauts won’t be the first.

That is an interesting point. I had always assumed that once the capability to send astronauts to Mars became available at a reasonable cost that Congress would come round to pressing for a crewed flight. If that’s not the case it would be a bit cringe worthy for NASA no? What would they say to the press when the first SpaceX astronauts set foot on Mars? Well done SpaceX, BTW we should have the latest version of SLS flying soon?

Can you expand on your thoughts in your previous posts concerning NASA’s potential plans and potential involvement or lack of it in the human exploration of Mars?

[DanClemmensen]

Landing far apart: Maybe the ship with the LOX factory should have six articulated landing legs. After it fills itself up it can walk very slowly over to a newly-landed SS and fill it. Walking on six legs is much simpler than on four.

I can’t imagine that a 6 legged walking Starship would be a practical proposition on Mars due to the mass of Starship and the difficulty of the terrain.

If a Starship can land on legs, then the mass is clearly not the constraint. If an area is smooth enough for landing, it's smooth enough for careful movement. Six-legged movement is done by first carefully and slowly raising set A of three legs while verifying that set B is stably bearing the weight. Then swing set A about one meter and slowly lower them until they are bearing the weight. now raise set B and slowly swing set A to re-center the mass. Swing set B, lower it, and repeat. One step every ten seconds or so. One kilometer every 10,000 seconds. change direction by lowering all legs and re-assigning the appropriate legs to set A and set B. Basically, every step is a very slow, very controlled three-legged "landing" with almost no dynamic forces. If the LOX ship starts further away from the crewed ship, start by hopping the LOX ship to within one kilometer before starting the walk.

[Robotbeat]

No. You’re not going to have a walking Starship.

[dglow]

Well Starship is already used in NASA lunar mission, I don't see why a Mars mission would be different.

No role for NASA hardware on a Mars mission

Nothing? Even from SMD?

[M.E.T.]

No. You’re not going to have a walking Starship.

 

Now I have an image of Baba Yaga’s hut in my mind.

[Jim]

Well Starship is already used in NASA lunar mission, I don't see why a Mars mission would be different.

No role for NASA hardware on a Mars mission

Nothing? Even from SMD?

I was referring to SLS/Orion

[DanClemmensen]

No. You’re not going to have a walking Starship.

A previous post stated that is is unsafe to land the crewed Mars ship too near a pre-positioned LOX factory. I proposed a (perhaps infeasible) solution. You dismissed it without analysis. Please propose an alternative.

[Vultur]

Should we expect Starship propulsive landing accuracy to be poor? F9 booster has very high landing accuracy now. Does that depend on GPS?

[su27k]

Notes by a user in /r/SpaceXLounge about Musk's talk today at SSG & BPA. 
 

Should land 2 or 3 Starships on Mars first, without people, hopefully with NASA support and other countries

   

Basically he was asked what is the plan for initial human Mars mission, he said he's not sure, 2 to 3 unmanned landing first, then for human landings it's possible that it would be a cooperation with NASA or even international partners.

[kevinof]

Should we expect Starship propulsive landing accuracy to be poor? F9 booster has very high landing accuracy now. Does that depend on GPS?

The F9 aims for a predetermined GPS spot and lands there, and expects either the drone ship or the landing pad to be at the same location.

No reason to suspect the Earth based landings won’t be the same (if it works then leave it the heck alone). For mars who knows?  I suspect it won’t be able to do the Perseverance trick of using cameras in the final landing phase as it can’t hover/slow down and pick a spot.

[DreamyPickle]

NASA would probably ask that crew is launched on Orion and transfers to Starship via the Gateway.

[Zed_Noir]

Should we expect Starship propulsive landing accuracy to be poor? F9 booster has very high landing accuracy now. Does that depend on GPS?

The F9 aims for a predetermined GPS spot and lands there, and expects either the drone ship or the landing pad to be at the same location.

No reason to suspect the Earth based landings won’t be the same (if it works then leave it the heck alone). For mars who knows?  I suspect it won’t be able to do the Perseverance trick of using cameras in the final landing phase as it can’t hover/slow down and pick a spot.

There might some sort of GPS navigation/communication system deployed by SpaceX with some sort of SmallSats before Starships landing on Mars.


SpaceX could also eject a few optical observation platforms with parachutes to visualized the landing terrain after entry and descend at Mars with Starships.

[whitelancer64]

Should we expect Starship propulsive landing accuracy to be poor? F9 booster has very high landing accuracy now. Does that depend on GPS?

The F9 aims for a predetermined GPS spot and lands there, and expects either the drone ship or the landing pad to be at the same location.

No reason to suspect the Earth based landings won’t be the same (if it works then leave it the heck alone). For mars who knows?  I suspect it won’t be able to do the Perseverance trick of using cameras in the final landing phase as it can’t hover/slow down and pick a spot.

Starship should be able to hover during the terminal landing phase. Especially when loaded with up to 100 tons of cargo. It won't be able to do so for very long, though.

Terrain Relative Navigation for descent is perfectly feasible, with hazard avoidance during final landing. That will probably be sufficient accuracy for the initial test landings, and possibly also for the first cargo landings.

A basic GPS system for Mars would make a lot of things much easier, both for landing and surface operations. Ideally they could also function as Mars to Earth communications relay satellites. That will be one of the first things a human mission to Mars would set up, or it could be deployed shortly before humans arrive.

[whitelancer64]

This brief paper (two pages) from the 52nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference 2021 is entitled "SpaceX Starship Landing Sites on Mars" and mentions the use of Terrain Relative Navigation for Starship to achieve a landing ellipse of less than 200 m diameter.

[Joseph Peterson]

I have a detailed response for a SpaceX led civilization building plan which allows NASA astronauts to tag along for the ride.  The OP states we should be talking about a Congress sponsored NASA led program to send the first humans to Mars though.  Before I could start to craft a topical response I need to know what Congress' motivations are.  I am currently at a loss for any plausible reasons why Congress might abandon the status quo of Mars-in-seventeen-years anytime soon.

[DistantTemple]

I have a detailed response for a SpaceX led civilization building plan which allows NASA astronauts to tag along for the ride.  The OP states we should be talking about a Congress sponsored NASA led program to send the first humans to Mars though.  Before I could start to craft a topical response I need to know what Congress' motivations are.  I am currently at a loss for any plausible reasons why Congress might abandon the status quo of Mars-in-seventeen-years anytime soon.

Unless SpaceX is (deliberately) blocked, it looks like they could land tests, cargo, and humans on their own dime, in under half of that 17 years! Therefore their status quo will become moot.
If Congress wants to remain at all relevant, they have no choice but accept it. They can still choose to have minimal involvement, and allow it to be a commercial endeavor, or conversely they can try to make it appear that its a flagship NASA mission with a high percentage of commercial involvement - which there has always been.
There are enough very elderly senators and administrators that can retire, and allow in a new openness, in a couple of years just as policy openly accepts "facts on the ground" (or in space). That's my prediction. "Our commercial crew program and commercial lunar lander has been an outstanding success, allowing us to bring forward previous projections..." "NASA will, in collaboration with commercial partners..."

[Slarty1080]

I have a detailed response for a SpaceX led civilization building plan which allows NASA astronauts to tag along for the ride.  The OP states we should be talking about a Congress sponsored NASA led program to send the first humans to Mars though.  Before I could start to craft a topical response I need to know what Congress' motivations are.  I am currently at a loss for any plausible reasons why Congress might abandon the status quo of Mars-in-seventeen-years anytime soon.

I have found the discussion on this thread so far to be quite different to what I expected and very thought provoking. I assumed that Elon Musk's usual overly optimistic gung ho approach would be late but would produce a ship capable of putting the first humans on Mars. And that when the means became available to put boots on Mars at a reasonable price that Congress would be up for it.

Perhaps I was wrong, I'm no longer sure. I don't live in the US and only have a rudimentary knowledge of the US political dynamics and this would appear to be vital in understanding what may happen to any future Mars program. I would have thought SpaceX would be very keen on having NASA and Congress on side for contractual cash, technical expertise and political cover for planetary protection and nuclear power options etc.

But if Congress go cold turkey on the whole thing and leave it entirely to SpaceX that changes things a lot. If NASA is not allowed to be involved in the human Mars program then IMO at best it will tarnish NASA's image as a driver for innovation and at worst make it look rather pathetic and irrelevant. And that would not be the end of it.

SpaceX could easily be sucked into all manner of political quagmires by angry critters. I could see a very nasty political position emerging over the next 5 years with NASA painted as the champion of robotic exploration, remote sensing and very limited human involvement, whilst SpaceX was painted as a billionaires reckless play thing that was contaminating and despoiling the Solar System and pumping vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for no good reason. *important note* - I do not believe this at all, I am merely suggesting that it's exactly the sort of nonsense that would be all too easy to fan into a fire storm of protest for political reasons. Current trends towards irrationality, polarisation and fake news would not help either.

[Slarty1080]

I have a detailed response for a SpaceX led civilization building plan which allows NASA astronauts to tag along for the ride.  The OP states we should be talking about a Congress sponsored NASA led program to send the first humans to Mars though.  Before I could start to craft a topical response I need to know what Congress' motivations are.  I am currently at a loss for any plausible reasons why Congress might abandon the status quo of Mars-in-seventeen-years anytime soon.

Unless SpaceX is (deliberately) blocked, it looks like they could land tests, cargo, and humans on their own dime, in under half of that 17 years! Therefore their status quo will become moot.
If Congress wants to remain at all relevant, they have no choice but accept it. They can still choose to have minimal involvement, and allow it to be a commercial endeavor, or conversely they can try to make it appear that its a flagship NASA mission with a high percentage of commercial involvement - which there has always been.
There are enough very elderly senators and administrators that can retire, and allow in a new openness, in a couple of years just as policy openly accepts "facts on the ground" (or in space). That's my prediction. "Our commercial crew program and commercial lunar lander has been an outstanding success, allowing us to bring forward previous projections..." "NASA will, in collaboration with commercial partners..."

I very much hope that you are correct and the concerns from my previous post turn out to be unfounded. That is, no deliberate blocking via planetary protection or peculiarly targeted environmental legislation or other dirty tricks. Either lets agree to the human exploration of Mars lead by NASA or agree to let other organisations do so with good grace.

[DigitalMan]

This brief paper (two pages) from the 52nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference 2021 is entitled "SpaceX Starship Landing Sites on Mars" and mentions the use of Terrain Relative Navigation for Starship to achieve a landing ellipse of less than 200 m diameter.

There is also this paper that Eric Ralph wrote about in a Teslarati article:

http://surveygizmoresponseuploads.s3.amazonaws.com/fileuploads/623127/5489366/111-381503be1c5764e533d2e1e923e21477_HeldmannJenniferL.pdf

I don't think it's recent, but there are a number of folks listed that potentially contributed ideas.

[su27k]

I have a detailed response for a SpaceX led civilization building plan which allows NASA astronauts to tag along for the ride.  The OP states we should be talking about a Congress sponsored NASA led program to send the first humans to Mars though.  Before I could start to craft a topical response I need to know what Congress' motivations are.  I am currently at a loss for any plausible reasons why Congress might abandon the status quo of Mars-in-seventeen-years anytime soon.

The same reasons they abandoned the status quo of Return-to-the-Moon-in-20-years.