Author Topic: Red Dragon Discussion Thread (1)  (Read 414080 times)

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1994
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 0
Red Dragon Discussion Thread (1)
« 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
« Last Edit: 12/25/2013 12:07 AM by Chris Bergin »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32241
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10896
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #1 on: 07/31/2011 04:27 PM »
That is to ambiguous.  A few astrobiologists proposing a mission is not "NASA". 


« Last Edit: 07/31/2011 04:30 PM by Jim »

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7504
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1725
  • Likes Given: 376
Re: Red Dragon
« 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.

Offline Adaptation

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Red Dragon
« 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. 

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7504
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1725
  • Likes Given: 376
Re: Red Dragon
« 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.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #5 on: 07/31/2011 04:56 PM »
How would the experiments get out of the Dragon?
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4760
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1852
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #6 on: 07/31/2011 06:14 PM »
First thing that comes to mind is that this would be a Dragon derived vehicle.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2011 06:35 PM by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32241
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10896
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #7 on: 07/31/2011 06:22 PM »
First thing that comes to mind is that this would be a
Dragon derived vehicle.

bingo

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #8 on: 07/31/2011 09:42 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.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #9 on: 07/31/2011 10:47 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?
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • V
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #10 on: 07/31/2011 10:55 PM »
That is to ambiguous.  A few astrobiologists proposing a mission is not "NASA". 




NASA Ames is explicitly involved on this.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32241
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10896
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #11 on: 07/31/2011 11:22 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.

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 165
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #12 on: 08/01/2011 02:05 AM »
Don't you reckon SpaceX has enough on it's plate??
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline Adaptation

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #13 on: 08/01/2011 05:55 AM »

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.

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • V
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #14 on: 08/01/2011 07:02 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2011 07:18 AM by GncDude »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32241
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10896
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #15 on: 08/01/2011 11:06 AM »
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.

Offline Garrett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
  • France
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 77
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #16 on: 08/01/2011 04:13 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 ;)
« Last Edit: 08/01/2011 04:14 PM by Garrett »
- "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." - Indiana Jones

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1445
  • Likes Given: 4499
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #17 on: 08/01/2011 07:18 PM »
I'm trying to understand, the difference is the Authority to Proceed?

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4760
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1852
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Red Dragon
« 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
« Last Edit: 08/02/2011 04:39 AM by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7116
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 641
  • Likes Given: 751
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #19 on: 08/01/2011 08:39 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.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Tags: