Author Topic: Red Dragon Discussion Thread (1)  (Read 605535 times)

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #840 on: 07/20/2012 04:07 pm »
You also have to remember that it will produce 7G on approach which is far too high for a deconditioned crew to handle.
The "red dragon" mission proposal is unmanned.  And for some future day, we don't know if people will have artificial gravity on the way there or not.  And even if not, whether 7G's would be attempted anyway.  Especially if they get to Mars in less than 1 month... as Elon mentioned. 

I was going to mention that no one is yet suggesting manned dragon as a Mars lander.  Then remembered Mars One... 

But all of this is off topic.
« Last Edit: 07/20/2012 04:12 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #841 on: 07/20/2012 11:11 pm »
The 3.2 figure for the dry mass of the capsule alone is from the engineering article sent up on the first falcon9 launch.
Link below.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-spacex-reveals-first-dragon-engineering-unit-212634/
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline charliem

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 147
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #842 on: 07/21/2012 02:36 am »
2) Red Dragon, as currently proposed, is not really breaking new ground in the way that people are claiming. The propulsion is not to kick in until < mach 3. This is within the range of heritage parachute systems, which would be a more mass-efficient solution.

Sorry but no. No way you can land safely seven tonnes on Mars with today's parachute technology. Too fast too low.

Even MSL, a much, much lighter payload (so smaller ballistic coef., so higher at the same speed), needs rockets for final approach.

Red Dragon, if ever successful, would be braking new ground because landed mass would be more than five times that of any previous lander, and because it would not resort to parachutes at all.

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #843 on: 07/21/2012 09:55 am »

Sorry but no. No way you can land safely seven tonnes on Mars with today's parachute technology. Too fast too low.

Even MSL, a much, much lighter payload (so smaller ballistic coef., so higher at the same speed), needs rockets for final approach.

Red Dragon, if ever successful, would be braking new ground because landed mass would be more than five times that of any previous lander, and because it would not resort to parachutes at all.

I think it's more or less a given that all Mars landing approaches need terminal rocket braking. (Only Beagle 2 tried to do without it and look what happened to that.) But I think there might be a trade between the extra mass of propellant needed for Red Dragon versus the mass of a large inflatable heat shield with a smaller landing rocket impulse.

Having said that, I think the all propulsive approach has the virtue of being simpler with fewer EDL events.
Douglas Clark

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8726
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 4006
  • Likes Given: 829
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #844 on: 07/21/2012 11:33 am »
Only Beagle 2 tried to do without it and look what happened to that.

Unless you know something I don't, there is no correlation between it doing a landing without retros and its failure. That's like me saying propulsive landings are bad because MPL failed.

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #845 on: 07/21/2012 07:12 pm »
Re stock Dragon heat-shield vs larger/inflatable:

It occurs to me that even if a small diameter (lightest) heatshield+lots of propulsion is a winning EDL solution, then you still might choose a larger diameter shield if you need to land a larger volume, lower-density payload.

For fun I mocked what adding a detachable 7m heat-shield stage would look like on a Dragon. As Kaputnik mentioned this would presumably need to be in a PLF which eats into the payload, and a 5m shield is ~2x the stock shield area (which correlates loosely to mass), and a 7m one is 4x. However, all this mass is shed at the last minute when the Dragon performs an 'abort' away from the heat-shield stage, and since this configuration of Red Dragon has no heat shield at all, the Super-Dracos have less mass to decelerate to the surface than the Red Dragon 1.0 config.

If the total package is now too heavy for FH, then the idea won't fly, but if it's not, you get some nice features: A large area below the Red Dragon for your payload (drills, robot arms, MSL class rover?). You need long landing legs, but unlike the Red Dragon POR these can be fixed.


« Last Edit: 11/28/2013 04:24 am by adrianwyard »

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #846 on: 07/21/2012 07:39 pm »

Unless you know something I don't, there is no correlation between it doing a landing without retros and its failure. That's like me saying propulsive landings are bad because MPL failed.

I don't know something you don't. Your point is taken. But without data we don't know one way or the other.

But the fact that all other Mars landing systems have used retros suggests that, all things being equal, retros are a good idea.
Douglas Clark

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1206
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #847 on: 07/21/2012 08:04 pm »
Back in May I speculated what enhancements could be made for a Red Dragon 1.x mission, i.e. without resorting to designing a new vehicle.

The descriptions were very wordy, and it's taken me quite a while to draw mockups, nevertheless, FWIW here they are.

Here comes some more speculation on how SpaceX might do an early Red Dragon with minimal changes from DragonRider:

1] Take a DragonRider, make the necessary propulsion/tankage changes for Mars EDL.
2] Remove the docking system. In its place, add a 'cup' shaped pressure wall that descends into the stock pressure vessel, freeing up a large unpressurized volume. Keep the nose-cap fairing on through EDL to increase the available volume. Place your payload (e.g. science package) in this space.
3] Once on Mars, deploy the nose cap, and push the unpressurized payload - including solar arrays and high-gain antenna, up out of the top of the spacecraft.

The payload(s) would be entirely self-contained, all SpaceX would do is land it and push it out into the Mars environment to fend for itself. They could be provided by NASA, ESA, anyone.

For surface access you need a similar but more aggressive mod:
1] Remove the side hatch.
2] Behind the hatch add a wall that opens up volume into the pressure vessel large enough to accommodate a small rover, robot arm, etc.
3] Once on Mars, deploy the TPS cover over this area. It hinges down toward the surface with the fulcrum located low down where the grapple fixture is on DragonRider.
4] If the you've brought a rover, mount it to the inner surface of this cover. Once the cover has hinged down to the surface, you release the mounts, and roll off.

+ I worry the new pressure walls could be heavy, but perhaps the Dragon atmosphere could be chosen (lowered) to minimize the strength needed?


On solar arrays: yes, I was envisioning phoenix-style solar arrays. Remember, I was suggesting the contents of the cup/tube are pushed upwards out of the spacecraft once its landed, so you have much more than just the top hatch-area to work with. If the cup were 2m deep, then the payload (occupying the cylindrical volume with a diameter about equal to a CBM) ends up rising 2m above the hatch level, i.e. high enough for solar arrays to fold down and deploy. This 'cylinder' has a huge area available for instruments, antennas, etc.

The side-hatch idea could be used to place instruments on the surface rather than a rover. This could include a spectrometer, or a drill but I'm not sure this config is better than drilling through the heat-shield.

And please remember, this is all just speculation.

On the left is the stowed config, and on the right you see the payload canister (red) has been raised, and one of two phoenix/MPCV-style solar arrays deployed. Also, a surface package (mini-rover?) that flew in the side hatch area has been lowered.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2012 08:08 pm by adrianwyard »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6362
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4235
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #848 on: 07/21/2012 10:07 pm »
Cleaned up version of Red Dragon sample return concept from last months Mars concepts conference. The original was a cruddy video frame grab. They talked of pop-off panels to deploy the rovers, and upwards of 1,900 kg of fuel in  expanded tanks.
DM

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1815
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #849 on: 07/22/2012 07:09 am »
A somewhat wacky idea for a Red Dragon precursor mission. Could a Dragon with trunk land on Phobos and take off again? Basically add some deployable legs inside the trunk and additional hypergolic tankage in the Dragon. Maybe just 2 or 4 Super-Dracos is all that's require for high impulse propulsion. Sort of a Fobos-Grunt like sample return mission.  ;D

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #850 on: 07/22/2012 07:59 am »
A somewhat wacky idea for a Red Dragon precursor mission. Could a Dragon with trunk land on Phobos and take off again? Basically add some deployable legs inside the trunk and additional hypergolic tankage in the Dragon. Maybe just 2 or 4 Super-Dracos is all that's require for high impulse propulsion. Sort of a Fobos-Grunt like sample return mission.  ;D

It needs quite a high delta V budget to accomplish the round trip (too lazy to look up the numbers) so I'm not sure you could carry enough propellant inside the standard Dragon shape. Then there's the waste of transporting the heavy Dragon heat shield to Phobos and back just to return a small sample.

If you're using all chemical propulsion it's much more mass efficient to split the craft into a lander and return vehicle with a small recovery capsule. That was the approach Phobos Grunt used.
Douglas Clark

Offline charliem

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 147
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #851 on: 07/22/2012 11:00 am »
I did the math. No way by far.

Dragon needs the atmosphere to slow down enough to be able to land on Mars with its quite small delta-v (~600 m/s).

Not enough to make orbit insertion (unless using aerobraking, something we don't know whether is possible).

The rocket they speculated about in that speech would not be appropriate either, because it is supposed to travel dry and use ISRU on Mars to fill its tanks.

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #852 on: 07/22/2012 03:41 pm »
Yeah, I kind of guessed that. I've criticised various schemes to modify Dragon to do other missions before so I thought I'd be a bit more laid back in my reply this time.

No one's proposed a Dragon Venus lander yet. There's still time....  :)
Douglas Clark

Offline Idiomatic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #853 on: 07/22/2012 09:25 pm »
Yeah, I kind of guessed that. I've criticised various schemes to modify Dragon to do other missions before so I thought I'd be a bit more laid back in my reply this time.

No one's proposed a Dragon Venus lander yet. There's still time....  :)

Wouldn't have all these low atmosphere complaints ;P. How about a buoyant OrangeDragon that floats around in high Venus atmosphere?

Offline Mongo62

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #854 on: 07/22/2012 09:41 pm »
Wouldn't have all these low atmosphere complaints ;P. How about a buoyant OrangeDragon that floats around in high Venus atmosphere?

No need to make it buoyant, simply replace the parachutes with a hydrogen balloon.  Oh, and you can delete the landing gear to allow a greater mass of hydrogen.  If there are funds available, have the heat shield be jettisonable with downward-pointing instruments ready to be uncovered once it is jettisoned.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1815
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #855 on: 07/23/2012 04:01 am »
A somewhat wacky idea for a Red Dragon precursor mission. Could a Dragon with trunk land on Phobos and take off again? Basically add some deployable legs inside the trunk and additional hypergolic tankage in the Dragon. Maybe just 2 or 4 Super-Dracos is all that's require for high impulse propulsion. Sort of a Fobos-Grunt like sample return mission.  ;D

It needs quite a high delta V budget to accomplish the round trip (too lazy to look up the numbers) so I'm not sure you could carry enough propellant inside the standard Dragon shape. Then there's the waste of transporting the heavy Dragon heat shield to Phobos and back just to return a small sample.

If you're using all chemical propulsion it's much more mass efficient to split the craft into a lander and return vehicle with a small recovery capsule. That was the approach Phobos Grunt used.

Reboot the proposal to a one way direct descend to Phobos, so no heat shield.

Any sample return would be like the Fotos-Grunt mission with a tiny hypergolic propelled module. Keeping the trunk during landing will retain the solar arrays and radiators plus carriage of some small cargo items and experiments.

Dragon needs the atmosphere to slow down enough to be able to land on Mars with its quite small delta-v (~600 m/s).

Not enough to make orbit insertion
??? Is that the Dragon without the Super-Dracos and the current propellant tankage for the ~600 m/s delta-V? And it's landing on Phobos. not the Martian surface or orbiting Mars.

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #856 on: 07/23/2012 10:11 am »

Reboot the proposal to a one way direct descend to Phobos, so no heat shield.

Better still, reboot Phobos Grunt or actually design a spacecraft for the task.
Douglas Clark

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #857 on: 07/23/2012 10:28 am »

Wouldn't have all these low atmosphere complaints ;P. How about a buoyant OrangeDragon that floats around in high Venus atmosphere?

How about a MeltedDragon which makes it all the way to the surface?  ;D
Douglas Clark

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #858 on: 07/23/2012 12:09 pm »
Cleaned up version of Red Dragon sample return concept from last months Mars concepts conference. The original was a cruddy video frame grab. They talked of pop-off panels to deploy the rovers, and upwards of 1,900 kg of fuel in  expanded tanks.
Here's a link in case folks missed it
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4356.pdf

Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline DaveH62

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Red Dragon
« Reply #859 on: 07/23/2012 04:45 pm »
Updated article on the inflatable heat shield out today. Actual inflation ration is about 5.4 times the fairing size. The shield was launched in a 22 inch fairing. If the inflatable were used from a 5.2 meter Falcon fairing with a 3.7 meter Dragon capsule, you would increase your shield area size to 2463 square meters from 43 square meters.
If the system were designed to release as the SuperDraco's fired, it should add considerably to drag during entry, even in the thin Martian atmosphere.
No magic bullets, but if a reliable process can be engineered to use, without increasing risk, this would be helpful in propulsive landing more mass at higher altitudes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48287243/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.UA18Q5FdBz0

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1