Author Topic: Red Dragon Discussion Thread (1) (Read 557187 times)

mr. mark · « **on:** 07/31/2011 04:10 pm »

Nasa working with Spacex for Mars mission with Dragon in 2018.

NASA is working with private spaceflight firm Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) to plan a mission that would search for evidence of life buried in the Martian dirt. The NASA science hardware would fly to the Red Planet aboard SpaceX's Dragon capsule, which the company is developing to ferry cargo and astronauts to and from the International Space Station.

http://www.space.com/12489-nasa-mars-life-private-spaceship-red-dragon.html

Jim · « **Reply #1 on:** 07/31/2011 04:27 pm »

That is to ambiguous. A few astrobiologists proposing a mission is not "NASA".

ugordan · « **Reply #2 on:** 07/31/2011 04:34 pm »

This was brought up before by Elon, it's just a concept they're looking at. It could have some advantages over a "proper" lander development, primarily I guess in the cost department, but there are drawbacks as well.

One I can think of right now is: contamination. All other landers (U.S. ones at least) were sterilized pretty well to avoid contaminating Mars with Earth microbes. Can Dragon's innards handle being cooked and sterilized the same way? If it can, that kind of implies Red Dragon would need to launch inside a fairing anyway. Then the question becomes why do you need the entire Dragon, the upper section (pressurized volume) would be pretty useless. Seems like the only useful portion for this would be the heatshield and propulsion section.

Adaptation · « **Reply #3 on:** 07/31/2011 04:40 pm »

Nasa and SpaceX would like to see people on mars in the near future. Do you think they will be sterilized too? I'm all for being reasonably cautious about contamination but lets not take things too far.

ugordan · « **Reply #4 on:** 07/31/2011 04:43 pm »

*Expecting* to see people on Mars in the near future is taking things too far. There's no reason not to sterilize landers while the environment's past/present habitability is still being evaluated (I won't say the search for life).

Once we *do* get to the point of landing humans there, then we can accept the fact the environment will get contaminated one way or the other and stop doing this.

manboy · « **Reply #5 on:** 07/31/2011 04:56 pm »

How would the experiments get out of the Dragon?

docmordrid · « **Reply #6 on:** 07/31/2011 06:14 pm »

First thing that comes to mind is that this would be a Dragon derived vehicle.

Jim · « **Reply #7 on:** 07/31/2011 06:22 pm »

Quote from: docmordrid on 07/31/2011 06:14 pm

First thing that comes to mind is that this would be a
Dragon derived vehicle.

bingo

Prober · « **Reply #8 on:** 07/31/2011 09:42 pm »

Quote from: manboy on 07/31/2011 04:56 pm

How would the experiments get out of the Dragon?

Bigger ? We shure this isn't SpaceX working with China?

opps sorry about the poor joke.

manboy · « **Reply #9 on:** 07/31/2011 10:47 pm »

Quote from: docmordrid on 07/31/2011 06:14 pm

First thing that comes to mind is that this would be a Dragon derived vehicle.

With the pressurized section hollowed out? Would doing that really result in significant cost savings?

NotGncDude · « **Reply #10 on:** 07/31/2011 10:55 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 07/31/2011 04:27 pm

That is to ambiguous. A few astrobiologists proposing a mission is not "NASA".

NASA Ames is explicitly involved on this.

Jim · « **Reply #11 on:** 07/31/2011 11:22 pm »

Quote from: GncDude on 07/31/2011 10:55 pm

Quote from: Jim on 07/31/2011 04:27 pm
That is to ambiguous. A few astrobiologists proposing a mission is not "NASA".

NASA Ames is explicitly involved on this.

A few astrobiologists from Ames, still doen't make it "NASA". Not until it is a selected mission.

A few people from NASA post on NSF, it doesn't mean "NASA" posts on NSF.

beancounter · « **Reply #12 on:** 08/01/2011 02:05 am »

Don't you reckon SpaceX has enough on it's plate??

Adaptation · « **Reply #13 on:** 08/01/2011 05:55 am »

Quote from: Jim on 07/31/2011 11:22 pm

A few astrobiologists from Ames, still doen't make it "NASA". Not until it is a selected mission.

A few people from NASA post on NSF, it doesn't mean "NASA" posts on NSF.

If someones job at NASA is to post on NSF then it dose. If someone is being payed at NASA to look into Red Dragon then NASA is looking into it.

NotGncDude · « **Reply #14 on:** 08/01/2011 07:02 am »

Quote from: Jim on 07/31/2011 11:22 pm

Quote from: GncDude on 07/31/2011 10:55 pm
Quote from: Jim on 07/31/2011 04:27 pm
That is to ambiguous. A few astrobiologists proposing a mission is not "NASA".

NASA Ames is explicitly involved on this.

A few astrobiologists from Ames, still doen't make it "NASA". Not until it is a selected mission.

A few people from NASA post on NSF, it doesn't mean "NASA" posts on NSF.

Riiight.

Well Jim, I don't know. If somebody at NASA is getting paid to look into this, it sounds like NASA to me.

Jim · « **Reply #15 on:** 08/01/2011 11:06 am »

Quote from: GncDude on 08/01/2011 07:02 am

Quote from: Jim on 07/31/2011 11:22 pm
Quote from: GncDude on 07/31/2011 10:55 pm
Quote from: Jim on 07/31/2011 04:27 pm
That is to ambiguous. A few astrobiologists proposing a mission is not "NASA".

NASA Ames is explicitly involved on this.

A few astrobiologists from Ames, still doen't make it "NASA". Not until it is a selected mission.

A few people from NASA post on NSF, it doesn't mean "NASA" posts on NSF.

Riiight.

Well Jim, I don't know. If somebody at NASA is getting paid to look into this, it sounds like NASA to me.

That is a NASA person, and not "NASA". Big difference.

Garrett · « **Reply #16 on:** 08/01/2011 04:13 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 08/01/2011 11:06 am

Quote from: GncDude on 08/01/2011 07:02 am
Quote from: Jim on 07/31/2011 11:22 pm
Quote from: GncDude on 07/31/2011 10:55 pm
Quote from: Jim on 07/31/2011 04:27 pm
That is to ambiguous. A few astrobiologists proposing a mission is not "NASA".

NASA Ames is explicitly involved on this.

A few astrobiologists from Ames, still doen't make it "NASA". Not until it is a selected mission.

A few people from NASA post on NSF, it doesn't mean "NASA" posts on NSF.

Riiight.

Well Jim, I don't know. If somebody at NASA is getting paid to look into this, it sounds like NASA to me.

That is a NASA person, and not "NASA". Big difference.

Just to concur with Jim, it's like all research centers. Researchers have a certain degree of liberty (sometimes quite a lot) to pursue new avenues of research, without ever getting large support from the top. It's only when big money and executive decisions begin being taken on a project can one say that NASA, or whatever institute, is considering something.

Though sometimes it's like sports events: when your team wins, one often tends to say that they unconditionally supported them from the start

baldusi · « **Reply #17 on:** 08/01/2011 07:18 pm »

I'm trying to understand, the difference is the Authority to Proceed?

docmordrid · « **Reply #18 on:** 08/01/2011 08:35 pm »

Musk & Shotwell are talking at AIAA today re: Mars

Videos are supposed to be streamed over LiveStream and posted on the AIAA youtube channel -

http://www.livestream.com/aiaa

http://www.youtube.com/wwwAIAAorg

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #19 on:** 08/01/2011 08:39 pm »

Quote from: docmordrid on 08/01/2011 08:35 pm

Musk & Shotwell are talkibg at AIAA today re: Mars

First headline: Musk doesn't like the idea of a lifting body Mars EDL. He says that a capsule design like Dragon is better and notes that the same basic lander design could thus be used for lunar missions too.