Red Dragon Discussion Thread (1)

[Lurker Steve]

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.

Obviously, a lifting body doesn't work on a planet with little to no atmosphere. I'm not sure a capsule is the best design either. Do you need a heavy heatshield for Mars or the Moon ? I certainly don't remember the LEM being capsule shaped.

If SpaceX wants to do planetary exploration, develop a ship that is capable of supporting it's cargo and crew for long durations, plus landing on that surface. And it doesn't have to be named Dragon. Give us a break, your not George Foreman. No need to name all of your kids George....

[grr]

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.

Obviously, a lifting body doesn't work on a planet with little to no atmosphere. I'm not sure a capsule is the best design either. Do you need a heavy heatshield for Mars or the Moon ? I certainly don't remember the LEM being capsule shaped.

If SpaceX wants to do planetary exploration, develop a ship that is capable of supporting it's cargo and crew for long durations, plus landing on that surface. And it doesn't have to be named Dragon. Give us a break, your not George Foreman. No need to name all of your kids George....

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1105/18mslaeroshell/

That is the heatshield for a much smaller load (MSL) going to Mars.


SpaceX will be trying hard to make as little change as possible (which means more Design, building and most of all testing).
As it is, keep in mind that SpaceX IS the kid on the block.
From where I sit, SpaceX is doing it right: reuse as much of a tested system as possible, and keep the costs LOW. If Dragon can be used to go to the moon, mars, even Europa, that becomes a low cost to each of these missions, and higher probability of success.

[Drkskywxlt]

The idea that this mission would be proposed to Discovery is astounding.  ~$450M to land something as big as Dragon + payload on Mars? 

If they can do that, that's a game changer. 

[docmordrid]

And SpaceX and NASA Ames tweaked PICA into he PICA-X variant SpaceX is using on Dragon -

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20090223

A sample of PICA-X heat shield material subjected to temperatures of up to 1850 degrees Celsius (3360 degrees Fahrenheit), at the Arc Jet Complex at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. The NASA-originated PICA material holds the record for high-speed reentry into the Earth's atmosphere. The SpaceX-developed and manufactured PICA-X variants meet or exceed the performance of the original material, and will protect the Dragon spacecraft on its return to Earth.

[Wyvern]

Does anyone have any direct links to the talk where Elon specifically announces the "Red Dragon" plan?

I am not really up to shifting through Youtube at this point.

[Chris-A]

Does anyone have any direct links to the talk where Elon specifically announces the "Red Dragon" plan?

I am not really up to shifting through Youtube at this point.

I think it was from Monday's AIAA presentation.

[Wyvern]

NVM found a video.

[majormajor42]

SpaceX will be trying hard to make as little change as possible (which means more Design, building and most of all testing).
As it is, keep in mind that SpaceX IS the kid on the block.
From where I sit, SpaceX is doing it right: reuse as much of a tested system as possible, and keep the costs LOW. If Dragon can be used to go to the moon, mars, even Europa, that becomes a low cost to each of these missions, and higher probability of success.

Great reasoning. Why reinvent the wheel every mission? Why spend $$$ for the perfect vessel for a specific mission when an almost as good vessel for less money is good enough. I'll take it, and fly more often.

I think there is another reason for not "deriving" the Dragon too much for this possible mission. One day in the future, there will be a similar thread about NASA (or a couple guys from NASA Ames ) looking at using a Dragon to land humans on another planet or moon. Folks like Jim may say it hasn't been proven, it's never landed there before. This may be a good opportunity to preemptively deny that argument. Life support and other things may get proven on other shorter HSF BEO missions but here they might be able to prove that a Dragon can land on the Martian surface intact. Not that I agree with using precious Science Mission money to conduct an experiment for HSF.

So what sort of payload would best fit in an unmodified Dragon? What would be able to get out the door? I'm thinking something like Robonaut, but 2018 may be too soon for an anthropomorphic robot to be ready, and at that $400 million price, I don't really know. I wasn't necessarily a fan of Project M when I started to understand that it wasn't really going to do much of anything scientific (or ISRU experiments) on the surface of the Moon, maybe I was misinformed. But if they could conduct real science, if a humanoid robot could be a good choice for digging in the dirt for life, then the rest is gravy.

The idea that this mission would be proposed to Discovery is astounding.  ~$450M to land something as big as Dragon + payload on Mars? 

If they can do that, that's a game changer. 

yes. If the mission is cost capped at $425M and that doesn't include the launcher, that's great. So how do they get away with not including launch costs? Most Discovery missions, it seems, used the Delta II which cost about what? Half as much as FH proposed cost?

[docmordrid]

>
If the mission is cost capped at $425M and that doesn't include the launcher, that's great. So how do they get away with not including launch costs?
>

Maybe a mission like that has so much free advertising/PR value it makes up for the nominal loss.  If it works it also shuts up all the right people.

[cosmicvoid]

So, what would Red Dragon use for communications while enroute to Mars? Would some sort of high-gain dish pop out of the trunk, once beyond LEO, and keep aimed at earth? I assume it would depend on the satellites already in Mars' orbit for relaying comm, once it got close to Mars.

Would it depend on commands from Earth (for course corrections, etc.), or be completely autonomous? I guess the EDL phase would have to be autonomous, anyway.

[majormajor42]

>
If the mission is cost capped at $425M and that doesn't include the launcher, that's great. So how do they get away with not including launch costs?
>

Maybe a mission like that has so much free advertising/PR value it makes up for the nominal loss.  If it works it also shuts up all the right people.

Maybe I mis-phrased it. I think I mean to say how do the Discovery folks get away with picking missions based on the payload costs alone? The launch costs end up in some separate side budget line item it seems. I'm trying to get it down to an apples vs apples decision. As far as they are concerned, does the bottom line include launch costs or not? Cause as far as the taxpayer is concerned, launch costs do matter.

[grr]

So, what would Red Dragon use for communications while enroute to Mars? Would some sort of high-gain dish pop out of the trunk, once beyond LEO, and keep aimed at earth? I assume it would depend on the satellites already in Mars' orbit for relaying comm, once it got close to Mars.

Would it depend on commands from Earth (for course corrections, etc.), or be completely autonomous? I guess the EDL phase would have to be autonomous, anyway.

Ideally, they would include multiple sats in the trunk area. They will have plenty of capability for nano-sats that handle relay with one another and perhaps one small sat just to handle a comm link. Such arrangement would be ideal for testing on the moon and then send it to Mars.
But I have nothing to back this one up with. It is my own crazy idea.

[Jim]

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.

Obviously, a lifting body doesn't work on a planet with little to no atmosphere. I'm not sure a capsule is the best design either. Do you need a heavy heatshield for Mars or the Moon ? I certainly don't remember the LEM being capsule shaped.

If SpaceX wants to do planetary exploration, develop a ship that is capable of supporting it's cargo and crew for long durations, plus landing on that surface. And it doesn't have to be named Dragon. Give us a break, your not George Foreman. No need to name all of your kids George....

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1105/18mslaeroshell/

That is the heatshield for a much smaller load (MSL) going to Mars.

Define smaller load.  Dragon can't do a rover as large as MSL.  In fact, Dragon would have trouble doing any of the previous missions. 

[Jim]

SpaceX will be trying hard to make as little change as possible (which means more Design, building and most of all testing).
As it is, keep in mind that SpaceX IS the kid on the block.
From where I sit, SpaceX is doing it right: reuse as much of a tested system as possible, and keep the costs LOW. If Dragon can be used to go to the moon, mars, even Europa, that becomes a low cost to each of these missions, and higher probability of success.

Great reasoning. Why reinvent the wheel every mission? Why spend $$$ for the perfect vessel for a specific mission when an almost as good vessel for less money is good enough. I'll take it, and fly more often.

I think there is another reason for not "deriving" the Dragon too much for this possible mission. One day in the future, there will be a similar thread about NASA (or a couple guys from NASA Ames ) looking at using a Dragon to land humans on another planet or moon. Folks like Jim may say it hasn't been proven, it's never landed there before. This may be a good opportunity to preemptively deny that argument. Life support and other things may get proven on other shorter HSF BEO missions but here they might be able to prove that a Dragon can land on the Martian surface intact. Not that I agree with using precious Science Mission money to conduct an experiment for HSF.

So what sort of payload would best fit in an unmodified Dragon? What would be able to get out the door? I'm thinking something like Robonaut, but 2018 may be too soon for an anthropomorphic robot to be ready, and at that $400 million price, I don't really know. I wasn't necessarily a fan of Project M when I started to understand that it wasn't really going to do much of anything scientific (or ISRU experiments) on the surface of the Moon, maybe I was misinformed. But if they could conduct real science, if a humanoid robot could be a good choice for digging in the dirt for life, then the rest is gravy.

The idea that this mission would be proposed to Discovery is astounding.  ~$450M to land something as big as Dragon + payload on Mars? 

If they can do that, that's a game changer. 

yes. If the mission is cost capped at $425M and that doesn't include the launcher, that's great. So how do they get away with not including launch costs? Most Discovery missions, it seems, used the Delta II which cost about what? Half as much as FH proposed cost?

How about some clear reality based thinking here?  Again, Spacex has just barely learned to walk and you are speculating its college grades.

[agenttokyo]

Would it be enough for a sample return platform?   Put a drop ramp on one side for a rover, tuck in a Zubrin style ISRU to make propellant, and put a sample return rocket on top with a "mini-dragon"... it'd be like matryoshka dolls. =)

It would help validate the lander for Mars, the ISRU component, and give us a return sample.

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?

[Prober]

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.

Obviously, a lifting body doesn't work on a planet with little to no atmosphere. I'm not sure a capsule is the best design either. Do you need a heavy heatshield for Mars or the Moon ? I certainly don't remember the LEM being capsule shaped.

If SpaceX wants to do planetary exploration, develop a ship that is capable of supporting it's cargo and crew for long durations, plus landing on that surface. And it doesn't have to be named Dragon. Give us a break, your not George Foreman. No need to name all of your kids George....

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1105/18mslaeroshell/

That is the heatshield for a much smaller load (MSL) going to Mars.

Define smaller load.  Dragon can't do a rover as large as MSL.  In fact, Dragon would have trouble doing any of the previous missions. 

Jim did you get a chance to look over the Dragon when it was on display at the cape?

[majormajor42]

Would it be enough for a sample return platform?   Put a drop ramp on one side for a rover, tuck in a Zubrin style ISRU to make propellant, and put a sample return rocket on top with a "mini-dragon"... it'd be like matryoshka dolls. =)

It would help validate the lander for Mars, the ISRU component, and give us a return sample.

Careful, Jim might throw you in the crib for saying such things. But a more constructive response might be that I'm not sure if Discovery funding could be used for a ISRU demonstration. From what little we know about this possible mission, they want to dig into Mars and search for life. Can you also do ISRU and return for $400 Million?  Another thing about Discovery missions is that in spirit, they are supposed to avoid mission creep of adding on additional goals. That might mean, no ISRU, no return, no Robonaut,...Just a drill or shovel and mini-lab with a microscope. Bare bones, simple, but better chance of success.

Define smaller load.  Dragon can't do a rover as large as MSL.  In fact, Dragon would have trouble doing any of the previous missions. 

why couldn't Dragon deliver something like a Spirit Rover? because of the size of the door? ramp?

So what sort of payload would best fit in an unmodified Dragon? What would be able to get out the door? I'm thinking something like Robonaut, but 2018 may be too soon for an anthropomorphic robot to be ready, and at that $400 million price, I don't really know. I wasn't necessarily a fan of Project M when I started to understand that it wasn't really going to do much of anything scientific (or ISRU experiments) on the surface of the Moon, maybe I was misinformed. But if they could conduct real science, if a humanoid robot could be a good choice for digging in the dirt for life, then the rest is gravy.

The idea that this mission would be proposed to Discovery is astounding.  ~$450M to land something as big as Dragon + payload on Mars? 
If they can do that, that's a game changer. 

yes. If the mission is cost capped at $425M and that doesn't include the launcher, that's great. So how do they get away with not including launch costs? Most Discovery missions, it seems, used the Delta II which cost about what? Half as much as FH proposed cost?

How about some clear reality based thinking here?  Again, Spacex has just barely learned to walk and you are speculating its college grades.

this thread is about a possible 2018 mission. What grade will Elon be in then?

Anyway it does nothing to answer the valid question of how Discovery missions are budgeted? If two competing missions are similar side by side and both cost $400M without the rocket, will it matter that one mission uses a cheaper rocket than the other? In this case I'm actually making a point against FH for Discovery missions if you were able to read into what I was saying. Prior missions used cheaper ~$50M rockets and now they're talking ~$150M. Something seems inconsistent.

[Jim]

Anyway it does nothing to answer the valid question of how Discovery missions are budgeted? If two competing missions are similar side by side and both cost $400M without the rocket, will it matter that one mission uses a cheaper rocket than the other? In this case I'm actually making a point against FH for Discovery missions if you were able to read into what I was saying. Prior missions used cheaper ~$50M rockets and now they're talking ~$150M. Something seems inconsistent.

No, missions do not select launch vehicles.  A mission is selected and it is LV agnostic.  The LV is selected later.

[Jim]

this thread is about a possible 2018 mission. What grade will Elon be in then?

Could be a high school dropout, which is my point we don't know  where they will be.

[hop]

why couldn't Dragon deliver something like a Spirit Rover? because of the size of the door? ramp?

Aside from possible packaging issues, a MER only needed a Delta 2. Getting Dragon to Mars requires FH, right ? Where a MER sized payload could be done use MER style hardware with a regular F9.

Red dragon would seem more suited to something that needs a large fixed volume.

this thread is about a possible 2018 mission. What grade will Elon be in then?

Depends how many times he's held back.

Anyway it does nothing to answer the valid question of how Discovery missions are budgeted?

The 2010 AO http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=234098/DSC10%20Amendment%203.pdf (sec 5.9.2 Launch Services) goes into the gory details. It looks like NASA covers a "standard" launch, which might be one of the light Atlas V, Delta IV or Falcon 9 variants. The proposer can upgrade to a more capable variant, but the difference comes out of the cap. As Jim says, the actual launcher selection is later. I assume this rule change has to do with the end of Delta II and other changes in the market.

That's for the 2010 AO. Red Dragon is too late for the current cycle, so the rules might be different next time around.