And THIS is what boggles my mind.. we are talking about a mission to Mars that will certainly do some useful science for a realistic cost less than $60-80M. That's chump change, it's only an order of magnitude more than a well run Kickstarter can raise.
Does anyone think the Raptor upper stage engine and hopefully an upper stage would be ready by 2018? This would greatly improve performance.
And I don''t think it will be that cheap, despite wishful thinking by the SpaceX fan club.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 05/07/2016 09:33 pmAnd I don''t think it will be that cheap, despite wishful thinking by the SpaceX fan club.Why? Rebuking the SpaceX fans isn't always moderated and reasonable if it isn't justified.Falcon heavy is extremely cheap. Usually, every kilogram landed on Mars is a million dollars. A million per kilogram, just think about that.Dragon massively reduces that, even from superficial analysis that's easy to realise - and the deeper you go the more justified the excitement becomes. This is a Mars mission for the price of a comnsat launch.
Quote from: Chalmer on 05/07/2016 10:40 amBut the way I see it, these Mars missions is a much about tech development programs (We want to build a new and bigger rover) as science, so why would NASA/JPL standardize? They would loose tech development part (No new rover or skycrane). Red Dragon could end up being a catalyst for moving away from one off multibillion developments for each mission and towards a more standardized regime with more opportunities to launch. So you would get more science for the same amount of money, but less high tech development within NASA.Why not have the best of the two combined? Launch on a standardized platform in each window with 5 crafts, and for the next window iterate on the platform based on the feedback of the previous sorties (like Falcon is now continuously enhanced based on previous experience). So let's say we have $2.5B for each window. Spend $1B on launch+delivery services (including EDL and basic services on the ground like solar electricity), and $1.5B on science. SpaceX would improve the delivery system on its own from the $1B, and NASA could do R&D, etc. from the $1.5B. If they have a multi-window contract set up this way then each party can very optimally use the resources to make the thing cost effective.
But the way I see it, these Mars missions is a much about tech development programs (We want to build a new and bigger rover) as science, so why would NASA/JPL standardize? They would loose tech development part (No new rover or skycrane). Red Dragon could end up being a catalyst for moving away from one off multibillion developments for each mission and towards a more standardized regime with more opportunities to launch. So you would get more science for the same amount of money, but less high tech development within NASA.
Payload should include some form of deployable solar arrays - and the means to clean them of the dust. If there were circular sets it might be as simple as a rotating wand/brush . That and a camera and possibly a scooper arm to dig down a bit might be enough for flight 1. A good telescope to show Earth and Moon from Mars would be cool too.
... we know that the 5.5 on F9 is ASDS recovery at $62M.
Quote from: spacenut on 05/08/2016 02:10 amDoes anyone think the Raptor upper stage engine and hopefully an upper stage would be ready by 2018? This would greatly improve performance.I've been reading lots of threads on here, but I haven't seen any confirmation that SpaceX are going to develop a Rapter U/S. Any links I have missed?
JamesH65http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39314.0Link to Raptor upper stage. The Air Force gave SpaceX several million dollars to help develop a Raptor upper stage engine. It was figured that a 5.2m diameter upper stage, the same length as the existing upper stage, with a Raptor Metholox engine would greatly improve payloads and throw weight for deep space probes or GSO orbits for larger satellites. It seems the Air Force wants more and complete competition with ULA for large satellites. Some of their larger ones have no competition until FH gets on line. SpaceX is or was already about 2 years in on Raptor development. This would help finish it's development.
Quote from: nadreck on 05/02/2016 05:33 pm... we know that the 5.5 on F9 is ASDS recovery at $62M.We don't know that. The values on that page, until shown otherwise, are full RTLS. Not ASDS.
Still not going to happen for awhile and certainly not on any FH in two years. Especially since FH will have only flown a few times. This is many years away, even in Spacex time.Also, I believe that money was taken away by congress.
Quote from: Jim on 05/08/2016 01:29 pmStill not going to happen for awhile and certainly not on any FH in two years. Especially since FH will have only flown a few times. This is many years away, even in Spacex time.Also, I believe that money was taken away by congress.Latest I can find is that the current draft bill passed out of committee limits AF spending from this particular pot of money to 75% on main stage engines, 25% on everything else:http://spacenews.com/the-rd-180-amendment-was-one-of-two-launch-related-provisions-that-made-it-into-the-national-defense-authorization-act-of-2017-by-the-time-the-committee-voted-60-to-2-to-send-the-bill-to-the-full/
Quote from: robert_d on 05/02/2016 05:31 pmPayload should include some form of deployable solar arrays - and the means to clean them of the dust. If there were circular sets it might be as simple as a rotating wand/brush . That and a camera and possibly a scooper arm to dig down a bit might be enough for flight 1. A good telescope to show Earth and Moon from Mars would be cool too.A lot of people seem to be overestimating how much Red Dragon is going to do. Red Dragon will be a stripped down Dragon 2 with lots of sensors, some interplanetary comms and no scientific payload. It will not deploy a rover. It will not have solar panels (other than what's on the trunk). It will be battery powered and take a few photos. The main purpose of the mission is to get data return on EDL techniques that will input into the design of MCT. Two years is not enough time to design build and test anything fancy.