They tested the merlin vacuum by sticking it on a rocket. Using your examples (Beagle 2 or MPL), if they made a few of them at the same time instead of just 1, then subsequently launched versions would have been better and cheaper. It isn't like SpaceX plan to only ever land 1 thing on Mars. Doing the mission faster better and cheaper could be a good way of gathering data for follow-on red dragons (improving the success). Conversely, if you don't aim to be faster & better & cheaper, you likely won't be.
I think they will, because like you, I believe Elon is sincere in his Mars ambitions.If he can't do it a lot cheaper those ambitions won't amount to much. So it seems that for the first time there is someone with the 'possible' means and the sincere desire too get to Mars, IF they can to it cheaply enough.
You talk about Mars landers as if they were something coming off the production line and "we'll just keep launching them (along with an FH each time) until we get it right." This is completely unrealistic. That is how you make yourself bankrupt if you're a private company.
I don't understand the skepticism in your statement above.
There isn't a production line for Mars landers. The Dragons being produced are for COTS.
Is the COTS Dragon production line easily modified for Dragon Rider/ Red Dragon?
Quote from: oiorionsbelt on 04/23/2012 11:44 pmIs the COTS Dragon production line easily modified for Dragon Rider/ Red Dragon?The cost estimate and statements made with the proposal suggest that the production line is easily modified for red dragon (a few bells and whistles added to a stock dragon).
... I think that comparing the development of a launch vehicle with the development of a spacecraft might not be too useful. Spacecraft (I mean main payloads) are often more expensive than their launch vehicles. ...I think it makes more sense to compare like with like. We should compare a hypothetical SpaceX Mars lander with real Mars landers past and present when we debate whether SpaceX can do a Mars lander radically cheaper.And in return, my question to you is, do you think they can do a Mars lander a lot cheaper than in the past and if so, why?
6 successful landings on Mars to date, one more in the coming.
The main reason I started this thread was to hear opinions about the feasibility of using an almost untouched Dragon for this role, because if it were feasible it would mean maximizing commonality, and in doing so, minimizing costs, starting with development.
1. Keep the current Dragon heat shield and mold line2. Use the current thrusters and Super Dracos for an all propulsive landing3. Get rid of the pressure vessel and have a backshell which separates4. Jettison the heat shield before braking to reduce landing mass and allow the super Dracos to point straight down5. Replace the trunk with a cruise stage.
It's not so much for the cost savings since they'll get private funding for such a mission, it's because they can do it much sooner and with less required development.
Quote from: meekGee on 06/11/2012 01:45 pmIt's not so much for the cost savings since they'll get private funding for such a mission, it's because they can do it much sooner and with less required development.Will they? From where?
1. Look at how many rich folks are willing to put funds into developing their own launch technology. 2. Supporting a Mars mission with an existing rocket and vehicle is a) cheaper, b) less risky, c) quicker, and d) more gratifying. Of course they'll fund it.
Still, they might send a single minimally-modified Dragon in order to validate and qualify subsystems and to be able to incorporate lessons learned into the first Martian lander.
Quote from: meekGee on 06/11/2012 01:45 pmStill, they might send a single minimally-modified Dragon in order to validate and qualify subsystems and to be able to incorporate lessons learned into the first Martian lander.No, because its viability is not a given
Quote from: meekGee on 06/11/2012 04:43 pm1. Look at how many rich folks are willing to put funds into developing their own launch technology. 2. Supporting a Mars mission with an existing rocket and vehicle is a) cheaper, b) less risky, c) quicker, and d) more gratifying. Of course they'll fund it.1. Not an applicable analogy.2. Meaningless. There is no return for investors.Of course, they won't fund it.
Quote from: Jim on 06/11/2012 05:27 pmQuote from: meekGee on 06/11/2012 01:45 pmStill, they might send a single minimally-modified Dragon in order to validate and qualify subsystems and to be able to incorporate lessons learned into the first Martian lander.No, because its viability is not a givenSo you're saying they won't test it because it's not tested... I can't really argue with that.