Author Topic: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars  (Read 31405 times)

Offline starsalor

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Naple, Florida
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #40 on: 04/05/2011 09:47 pm »
According to Musk.... F9 Heavy has the ability to send a sample return mission to Mars without any additional launches..................
"Without Risk There Can Be No Adventure "

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #41 on: 04/06/2011 05:37 am »
According to Musk.... F9 Heavy has the ability to send a sample return mission to Mars without any additional launches..................

Yes, the payload capacity of the F9H is significantly upgraded now that the Merlin engine's performance has a 40% improvement(?). Capacity is now 53,000 kg to LEO, which is HUGE. This is a large improvement over the original expectation of 32 tonnes. They said 30 tonnes to Mars Transfer, or about 35 tonnes for TLI.

The big change is $1000/kg launch cost !!!! This is something the nay sayers have been trashing for a LONG time.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #42 on: 04/06/2011 05:45 am »
According to Musk.... F9 Heavy has the ability to send a sample return mission to Mars without any additional launches..................

Yes, the payload capacity of the F9H is significantly upgraded now that the Merlin engine's performance has a 40% improvement(?). Capacity is now 53,000 kg to LEO, which is HUGE. This is a large improvement over the original expectation of 32 tonnes. They said 30 tonnes to Mars Transfer, or about 35 tonnes for TLI.

The big change is $1000/kg launch cost !!!! This is something the nay sayers have been trashing for a LONG time.

It's $1000/lb, which is about $453 $2204/kg.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 06:35 am by 2552 »

Offline mnagy

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #43 on: 04/06/2011 06:24 am »
According to Musk.... F9 Heavy has the ability to send a sample return mission to Mars without any additional launches..................

Yes, the payload capacity of the F9H is significantly upgraded now that the Merlin engine's performance has a 40% improvement(?). Capacity is now 53,000 kg to LEO, which is HUGE. This is a large improvement over the original expectation of 32 tonnes. They said 30 tonnes to Mars Transfer, or about 35 tonnes for TLI.

The big change is $1000/kg launch cost !!!! This is something the nay sayers have been trashing for a LONG time.

It's $1000/lb, which is about $453/kg.
Actually, it's $2204/kg.
http://www.google.com/search?q=1000%20dollars%20per%20lbs%20to%20dollars%20per%20kg

Offline MP99

Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #44 on: 04/06/2011 11:48 am »
They said 30 tonnes to Mars Transfer, or about 35 tonnes for TLI.

He said 30 klb to Mars Transfer, or about 35 klb for TLI.

Divide by 2.2 to get a tonne / mT figure.

cheers, Martin
« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 11:48 am by MP99 »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #45 on: 04/06/2011 02:47 pm »
They said 30 tonnes to Mars Transfer, or about 35 tonnes for TLI.

He said 30 klb to Mars Transfer, or about 35 klb for TLI.

Divide by 2.2 to get a tonne / mT figure.

cheers, Martin

Also calculated the number in his head on the spot. Mileage will vary...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Gravity Ray

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #46 on: 04/06/2011 06:15 pm »
Sorry if a bit off topic, didnt know where to look. Anybody knows of a good web resource about the size and mass of the smallest Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators out there?

Just want to know how an RTG that can be designed can work with the amount of weight a Falcon Heavy (published stats) can get to Mars in one shot.

Thanks.

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #47 on: 04/06/2011 06:40 pm »
Sorry if a bit off topic, didnt know where to look. Anybody knows of a good web resource about the size and mass of the smallest Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators out there?

Just want to know how an RTG that can be designed can work with the amount of weight a Falcon Heavy (published stats) can get to Mars in one shot.

Thanks.

Depends on the power you need.
Minimum of 2.7W was 2.1kg SNAP 3B
More conventional 300W is a little less than 60kg GPHS-RTG

Although at 15t to Mars, you might want to look into reactors.
Snap-10 weighed 290kg, and delivered 10kW.
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #48 on: 04/06/2011 07:24 pm »
Just so people will think of it the "right" way, 30k lb is the weight to TMI, not the weight to the Martian Surface.
The MER's weigh a little over 400 lb & the weight of the entire MER Spacecraft was in the neighborhood of 3k lb at TMI.
I'd bet an FH payload to be on the order of 5k to 6k on the Martian Surface.
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #49 on: 04/06/2011 07:30 pm »
Sorry if a bit off topic, didnt know where to look. Anybody knows of a good web resource about the size and mass of the smallest Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators out there?

Just want to know how an RTG that can be designed can work with the amount of weight a Falcon Heavy (published stats) can get to Mars in one shot.

Thanks.

You can research the ASRG (Advances Sterling cycle Radioisotope Generator IIRC) but mass is not the issue.   You can go to the MSL foruns here or at the JPL site to learn more about the getting a standard RTG to the surface of Mars, but that's not the issue either.

Only one US vehicle, the Atlas V, is currently approved for RTG missions, as I understand it.  Getting another approved will require a real track record, long and good, and a very high pile of paperowrk including public reviews.  Fun!
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #50 on: 04/06/2011 07:34 pm »
Just so people will think of it the "right" way, 30k lb is the weight to TMI, not the weight to the Martian Surface.
The MER's weigh a little over 400 lb & the weight of the entire MER Spacecraft was in the neighborhood of 3k lb at TMI.
I'd bet an FH payload to be on the order of 5k to 6k on the Martian Surface.

2,343 lb was it at TMI.
including:
408 lb Rover
767 lb Lander
So about half the TMI mass.

Which gives more like 8 tons to the surface.

MSL uses a 45lb RTG in an 2000lb lander.
I think your lander could have a 290 kg reactor in a 8000kg lander...


JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #51 on: 04/06/2011 07:36 pm »
Just so people will think of it the "right" way, 30k lb is the weight to TMI, not the weight to the Martian Surface.
The MER's weigh a little over 400 lb & the weight of the entire MER Spacecraft was in the neighborhood of 3k lb at TMI.
I'd bet an FH payload to be on the order of 5k to 6k on the Martian Surface.
Yeah, I think ~3mT to the surface is doable with a simple scale-up of MSL EDL technology and a PLF mod (MER's airbags aren't nearly as efficient for amount of payload to the surface versus payload through TMI). Larger is possible if landing at low altitudes on a relatively flat spot (Hellas Planitia?), with better parachutes, more optimized descent stage... maybe add in a ballute, etc.

A ballute plus a SEP kick-stage (you need a cruise-stage anyways) would allow probably ~5-10 tons.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #52 on: 04/06/2011 08:04 pm »

2,343 lb was it at TMI.
including:
408 lb Rover
767 lb Lander
So about half the TMI mass.

Which gives more like 8 tons to the surface.

MSL uses a 45lb RTG in an 2000lb lander.
I think your lander could have a 290 kg reactor in a 8000kg lander...
The Lander isn't part of the Science Package. If you include that then the surface weight could be in the neighborhood of 12k lb to 14k lb.
IMO of course
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline Moe Grills

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Falcon 9Heavy for Mars
« Reply #53 on: 04/08/2011 01:04 am »
Any sort of mission to Mars I think will be multiple launches. Regardless of the launch vehicle.


Agreed.
 But it would nice to see two F9H's deliver 120,000Ibs x 2 to LEO where they can be assembled for a Mars ORBITAL mission.

One 120,000Ib module being the VASIMR propulsion module (will solar panels be enough juice?); the other 120,000Ib module holding a three person crew and all their provisions for an mission lasting lesss than a year.

What did PS magazine claim for VASIMR? 39 days one way to Mars?
A one month orbital mission around Mars (maybe with a detour to land
a couple of astronauts to bounce about on Phobos for a few hours); and the return to Earth (4-6 months with VASIMR?).

Doable on a modest budget? ;)

What's a few billion dollars nowadays anyways?

Online Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Falcon 9Heavy for Mars
« Reply #54 on: 04/08/2011 01:24 am »
Any sort of mission to Mars I think will be multiple launches. Regardless of the launch vehicle.


Agreed.
 But it would nice to see two F9H's deliver 120,000Ibs x 2 to LEO where they can be assembled for a Mars ORBITAL mission.

One 120,000Ib module being the VASIMR propulsion module (will solar panels be enough juice?); the other 120,000Ib module holding a three person crew and all their provisions for an mission lasting lesss than a year.

What did PS magazine claim for VASIMR? 39 days one way to Mars?

With a 200 MW power supply, yes. Can't generate that with solar. Need a nuke.

Quote
A one month orbital mission around Mars (maybe with a detour to land
a couple of astronauts to bounce about on Phobos for a few hours); and the return to Earth (4-6 months with VASIMR?).

Doable on a modest budget? ;)

What's a few billion dollars nowadays anyways?


A 200 MW space-rated nuclear reactor won't be modest.
JRF

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Falcon 9Heavy for Mars
« Reply #55 on: 04/08/2011 01:41 am »
Any sort of mission to Mars I think will be multiple launches. Regardless of the launch vehicle.


Agreed.
 But it would nice to see two F9H's deliver 120,000Ibs x 2 to LEO where they can be assembled for a Mars ORBITAL mission.

One 120,000Ib module being the VASIMR propulsion module (will solar panels be enough juice?); the other 120,000Ib module holding a three person crew and all their provisions for an mission lasting lesss than a year.

What did PS magazine claim for VASIMR? 39 days one way to Mars?

With a 200 MW power supply, yes. Can't generate that with solar. Need a nuke.
Can't generate that with a nuke, either. The design they were using for that 200MW figure is something that has never been done even on the ground: a gas-core reactor. There are a lot of issues with this design, and I believe the main guy behind it has been seriously accused of fraud.

No matter what your power source is, 200MW electric is ridiculous. This is an incredibly unrealistic suggestion. 1-10MW is far more realistic but still powerful. No 39-day missions, though.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 935
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #56 on: 04/08/2011 01:57 am »
I'm not sure what you're referring to by saying 200 MW is impossible, unless it's a radiator issue. Your average commercial reactor is about a GW of power.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #57 on: 04/08/2011 02:04 am »
I'm not sure what you're referring to by saying 200 MW is impossible, unless it's a radiator issue. Your average commercial reactor is about a GW of power.
Not just radiator:
"Current light water nuclear reactor power plants have 36-51 tons of steel per MWe and 324 tons of cement per MWe."

So, average commercial reactors are a poor example.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 935
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #58 on: 04/08/2011 02:16 am »
Well the concrete isn't exactly a nuclear requirement. And neither is that much steel.

Most of that mass is for preventing escape of radioactivity to the environment or for protection of plant operators. Not a big concern in space.

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: Falcon 9 Heavy for Mars
« Reply #59 on: 04/08/2011 02:50 am »
A Nuc from a Sub makes a better analogy.

Small Nuclear Power Reactors
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1