-
ISRO - Mars Orbiter Mission-2 (Mangalyaan-2) - 2024
by
sanman
on 14 Jan, 2014 01:45
-
What if another mission to Mars was done using GSLV-MkIII? From the ISRO General News thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32023.msg1136504#msg1136504VSSC Chief Hints at Second Mars Mission Using GSLV
Highly unlikely, but who knows!
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/VSSC-Chief-Hints-at-Second-Mars-Mission-Using-GSLV/2013/12/21/article1957410.ece
Exactly.If i am not wrong didn't DR Radhakrishnan say that the GSLV can carry only 25 kgs of scientific payload and place the satellite just one orbit above.So whats the point of sending another Technology demonstrator satellite.
Besides it's highly unlikely that the govt would approve it.
Just highlighting something in that article which I didn't notice before:
The second mission, unlike the first, will have a lander.
Hmm, so that would require development of Mars EDL technologies beyond what might be recyclable from Chandrayaan-2. A lander would require an aeroshell and parachutes as well - that's a lot of mass. How much payload could a GSLV-Mk-III or IV(4 SRBs) send to Mars, assuming Hohmann transfer method is used for greatest efficiency?
Which geographic/areographic location could ISRO target a lander at for study?
What scientific objectives could a lander mission encompass, beyond technology demonstration?
-
#1
by
antriksh
on 14 Jan, 2014 02:08
-
Just highlighting something in that article which I didn't notice before:
The second mission, unlike the first, will have a lander.
Hmm, so that would require development of Mars EDL technologies beyond what might be recyclable from Chandrayaan-2. A lander would require an aeroshell and parachutes as well - that's a lot of mass. How much payload could a GSLV-Mk-III or IV(4 SRBs) send to Mars, assuming Hohmann transfer method is used for greatest efficiency?
Which geographic/areographic location could ISRO target a lander at for study?
What scientific objectives could a lander mission encompass, beyond technology demonstration?
I guess Based on the success of MOM, the next mission, if approved , will use GSLV mk2. Lander would be based on chandrayaan2 lander. Parachutes and reentry shell technology could be derived from space capsule recovery experiment (SRE). for experiments, ISRO can duplicate experiments from the chandrayaan 2 lander and rover plus some new experiments. Hoping for the approval of this mission with launch by end of 2016.
-
#2
by
sanman
on 14 Jan, 2014 02:31
-
I guess Based on the success of MOM, the next mission, if approved , will use GSLV mk2. Lander would be based on chandrayaan2 lander. Parachutes and reentry shell technology could be derived from space capsule recovery experiment (SRE). for experiments, ISRO can duplicate experiments from the chandrayaan 2 lander and rover plus some new experiments. Hoping for the approval of this mission with launch by end of 2016.
But as we know, Mars requires special supersonic parachutes since that atmosphere is too thin to slow an aeroshell down sufficiently. They'll have to figure out how to test that stuff, to ensure it works correctly.
Furthermore, will a lander designed to work in lunar conditions (lighter gravity, vacuum) work adequately in a Mars situation? What kind of modifications will be required?
Would the use of ion propulsion allow any mass savings to then increase the payload amount?
-
#3
by
Star One
on 14 Jan, 2014 06:31
-
I guess Based on the success of MOM, the next mission, if approved , will use GSLV mk2. Lander would be based on chandrayaan2 lander. Parachutes and reentry shell technology could be derived from space capsule recovery experiment (SRE). for experiments, ISRO can duplicate experiments from the chandrayaan 2 lander and rover plus some new experiments. Hoping for the approval of this mission with launch by end of 2016.
But as we know, Mars requires special supersonic parachutes since that atmosphere is too thin to slow an aeroshell down sufficiently. They'll have to figure out how to test that stuff, to ensure it works correctly.
Furthermore, will a lander designed to work in lunar conditions (lighter gravity, vacuum) work adequately in a Mars situation? What kind of modifications will be required?
Would the use of ion propulsion allow any mass savings to then increase the payload amount?
Surely the research of others in areas such as this will be open to them to study as a baseline. It's not like they will developing these things completely from scratch.
-
#4
by
Sparky
on 14 Jan, 2014 07:28
-
I guess Based on the success of MOM, the next mission, if approved , will use GSLV mk2. Lander would be based on chandrayaan2 lander. Parachutes and reentry shell technology could be derived from space capsule recovery experiment (SRE). for experiments, ISRO can duplicate experiments from the chandrayaan 2 lander and rover plus some new experiments. Hoping for the approval of this mission with launch by end of 2016.
But as we know, Mars requires special supersonic parachutes since that atmosphere is too thin to slow an aeroshell down sufficiently. They'll have to figure out how to test that stuff, to ensure it works correctly.
Furthermore, will a lander designed to work in lunar conditions (lighter gravity, vacuum) work adequately in a Mars situation? What kind of modifications will be required?
Would the use of ion propulsion allow any mass savings to then increase the payload amount?
Didn't NASA and ISRO sign a collaboration agreement sometime last year? NASA could easily provide a parachute from their own research, possibly in exchange for allowing NASA to fly instruments.
-
#5
by
cave_dweller
on 14 Jan, 2014 08:37
-
I don't think this has been tried before. But here is a thought:
Mars has atmosphere. Deploy a helium (helium is stored in a compressed canister) + hot air hybrid balloon at about 100 KM altitude. The balloon can initially act as a parachute and help slow down the craft. And then helium is deployed along with heating the captured CO2.
The balloon can be fitted with a fine tunable control valve which slowly loses the helium and also varies the temperature of the air gently bringing down the craft to the martian surface.
This approach methodology in theory should be plenty cheaper.
-
#6
by
ss1_3
on 14 Jan, 2014 14:41
-
IMO, the next logical step would be to map the Martian surface. Next mission could be another orbiter mission but with a longer life expectancy and a closer orbit to facilitate mapping. This would subsequently pave way for a lander-rover mission where the orbiter can also serve as a relay for two way communication.
-
#7
by
baldusi
on 14 Jan, 2014 15:14
-
I don't think this has been tried before. But here is a thought:
Mars has atmosphere. Deploy a helium (helium is stored in a compressed canister) + hot air hybrid balloon at about 100 KM altitude. The balloon can initially act as a parachute and help slow down the craft. And then helium is deployed along with heating the captured CO2.
The balloon can be fitted with a fine tunable control valve which slowly loses the helium and also varies the temperature of the air gently bringing down the craft to the martian surface.
This approach methodology in theory should be plenty cheaper.
Do you mean as a way to slow the craft's descent (i.e. replacing a parachute) or do you actually want it to float the craft?
In the first case, why mess with CO2 at all? Just inflate it. The Martian pressure is almost nil, so it will inflate with very little pressure. In the second case, the martian pressure is so low that I doubt any sort of flotation device makes any sort of sense.
-
#8
by
johnxx9
on 14 Jan, 2014 16:44
-
-
#9
by
AJA
on 14 Jan, 2014 17:23
-
I don't think this has been tried before.
I've thought about it.
Turns out, it's been considered on the web as well.Alright, it's also been considered for Mars EDL. They call it a ballute (balloon+parachute)Firstly, like all EDL mechanisms seem to, the feasibility is STRONGLY dependent on the mass of your payload.
But in the case of Mars EDL, as has been mentioned, you'd essentially need to have a vacuum volume to get any buoyancy - atleast at the entry interface altitudes. The challenges of finding a material that can handle the heat dissipation due to the initial friction
-compression slowdown; handle the static (differential pressure, given that it's a balloon) and dynamic atmospheric pressure stresses; while remaining "inflated" to offer both the area required for the drag slowdown, as well as the requisite large volume for the buoyancy; while still being light enough to offer an advantage -- are, I guess, currently prohibitive.
That said though, NASA's
actively pursuing HIAD.
Inflation for deployment presents an interesting paradox (if you want to use the balloon for buoyancy). It requires pressures higher than the ambient atmospheric pressure, while floating, requires lower pressures.
If you found a lightweight, thermoplastic/thermosetting material, which you could inflate (at higher pressures) at EI -- whereby the heat from the slow-down cures the structure, and makes it a rigid balloon -- you could potentially then pump out the gas inside, once you've slowed down enough. Although, the system you're going to design, in order to evacuate such a large volume in the span of 7-10 minutes -- ok...being generous, let's say 15 minutes -- will probably involve some rockets (setup like the diffuser systems used to simulate high-altitudes in rocket engine test rigs); which kind of makes you wonder why you shouldn't simply use the rockets as retros in the first place.
-
#10
by
cave_dweller
on 14 Jan, 2014 17:57
-
I don't think this has been tried before. But here is a thought:
Mars has atmosphere. Deploy a helium (helium is stored in a compressed canister) + hot air hybrid balloon at about 100 KM altitude. The balloon can initially act as a parachute and help slow down the craft. And then helium is deployed along with heating the captured CO2.
The balloon can be fitted with a fine tunable control valve which slowly loses the helium and also varies the temperature of the air gently bringing down the craft to the martian surface.
This approach methodology in theory should be plenty cheaper.
Do you mean as a way to slow the craft's descent (i.e. replacing a parachute) or do you actually want it to float the craft?
In the first case, why mess with CO2 at all? Just inflate it. The Martian pressure is almost nil, so it will inflate with very little pressure. In the second case, the martian pressure is so low that I doubt any sort of flotation device makes any sort of sense.
See attached. Its a 6 stage process. The basic ideas are:
1) Use the Balloon both as a parachute and a balloon
2) Use Helium and Heated CO2 as buoyancy against Martian gravity/lack of pressure (might require heating CO2 to very high temp). Helium is stored in a pressurized canister. CO2 is captured from Martian atmosphere. CO2 is heated using hypergolic fuels. Helium is not let out into the Martian atmosphere. Instead it is pumped back and forth between the storage canister and Balloon Helium chamber to control buoyancy.
3) Lightweight & Inexpensive (hopefully!) but loss of location precision.
I am sure there are many specifics that need to be considered at depth. For all intents and purposes it may not be feasible. Its a thought. :-)
-
#11
by
sanman
on 14 Jan, 2014 19:56
-
But in the case of Mars EDL, as has been mentioned, you'd essentially need to have a vacuum volume to get any buoyancy - atleast at the entry interface altitudes. The challenges of finding a material that can handle the heat dissipation due to the initial friction-compression slowdown; handle the static (differential pressure, given that it's a balloon) and dynamic atmospheric pressure stresses; while remaining "inflated" to offer both the area required for the drag slowdown, as well as the requisite large volume for the buoyancy; while still being light enough to offer an advantage -- are, I guess, currently prohibitive.
What about everyone's favorite magic material -
graphene? High strength, high thermal conductivity to mitigate localized heat buildup, and high impermeability to gases, including even hydrogen. A graphene-impregnated polymer might be the best possible material ever for balloon applications.
That being said, the ballute/balloon approach sounds much too unconventional for ISRO, which would probably go a conservative route by using something that's already been proven successful.
-
#12
by
cave_dweller
on 14 Jan, 2014 20:27
-
That being said, the ballute/balloon approach sounds much too unconventional for ISRO, which would probably go a conservative route by using something that's already been proven successful.
Physics won't lie.
We have to brave enough to fail and stupid enough to try!
A fine balance.
I think ISRO is fully capable of venturing into the unknown. However, they may choose not to do so due to budgetary and time constraints. In country like India failures are not easily forgiven!
I think India is slowly arriving on the world stage.
-
#13
by
sanman
on 15 Jan, 2014 05:55
-
Well, if a potential follow-up mission to Mars does have a rover, I hope it will include a ChemCam-like instrument on it.
But actually, looking at NASA's various Mars rovers, what are the most useful lessons that can be borrowed from them?
The MER rovers experienced significant power losses due to Martian dust, so I think a future rover should have some kind of windshield wiper thing on its solar panels.
http://www.universetoday.com/97597/the-dust-windshield-wiper-that-didnt-go-to-mars/There were some nail-biting moments when MER rovers got stuck in the sand, so more thought has to be applied on how to address that kind of problem. Is there a way to use LIDAR or something to measure the consistency of the ground in front of you?
-
#14
by
sanman
on 19 Jan, 2014 03:57
-
Also, the MER rovers were dropped away from the chutes using the big bouncing airbag method for a cushioned landing. Wouldn't that be a better way for ISRO to go on a rover mission?
-
#15
by
sanman
on 21 Jan, 2014 22:59
-
Here's a question I put on on Stackexchange, which elicited some responses:
http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3428/could-india-send-a-lander-to-mars
India has recently sent a small spacecraft to Mars, as a technology demonstration mission. It has also subsequently successfully demonstrated its much-delayed cryogenic upper stage engine with the launch of its GSLV D5.
Cryogenic propulsion is a prerequisite for India's next generation of rocket, the GSLV-Mark-III. The planned payload capacity of the Mk-3 is much higher than the PSLV rocket which launched India's Mars Orbiter Mission, giving rise to calls to send a more substantive mission to Mars; this in the form of a lander mission.
Based on the projected launch capacity of the Mk-3 -
How massive a lander could India send to Mars?
Would there be adequate margin to accommodate a rover?
Strictly from the lifting capacity perspective, yes. ISRO now quotes expected GSLV Mk. III lifting capacity to GTO (Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit) at 4,000 kg, which is greater than, for example, Delta II-H 7925H-9.5 that was used for MER-B (Opportunity) which had lifting capacity to GTO at 2,170 kg (1,265 kg to HCO). Spirit (MER-A) was launched on an even slower transfer orbit (Heliocentric or HCO) on Delta II 7925-9.5 with lifting capacity of up to 1,819 kg to GTO and (1,508 kg to HCO).
That's of course assuming ISRO can pull off something similar to MER-A and MER-B and GSLV Mk. III cryogenic upper stage can follow required mission profile (here's a PDF of NASA's MER project mission profiles). GTO are otherwise somewhat comparable to HCO, since they require upper stage engine restarts to successfully launch satellites into GTO and achieve desired inclination, something that would also be required to perform Oberth maneuvers to reach escape velocity and achieve Hohmann Transfer Orbit to Mars.
So it's very likely that ISRO could hurl, guesstimating here, up to around 3 metric tonnes heavy cargo into HCO. But even expected Mk. III performance (even if it was 5,000 kg to GTO, as Wikipedia quotes it) wouldn't be enough to do something similar to MSL, that was launched on an Atlas V 541 with lifting capacity of 8,240 to GTO.
-
#16
by
sanman
on 20 Jul, 2014 02:44
-
-
#17
by
Dalhousie
on 21 Jul, 2014 08:40
-
three tonnes to Mars would mean about 1.5 tonnes on the surface, or about 750 kg rover. That's quite substantial.
If they want to do that. They might decide to have multiple smaller landers for a network for example.
-
#18
by
vineethgk
on 25 Aug, 2014 06:53
-
three tonnes to Mars would mean about 1.5 tonnes on the surface, or about 750 kg rover. That's quite substantial.
If they want to do that. They might decide to have multiple smaller landers for a network for example.
Splitting payloads across multiple smaller landers seems to be a good idea, from a redundancy perspective. I guess there would a higher chance of atleast one lander making it successfully to the surface then. But the catch would be that the payload would be reduced as the lander system needs to be replicated consuming more weight than if the whole thing was put in a single lander.
-
#19
by
Dalhousie
on 25 Aug, 2014 07:33
-
if you want to do sub-payloads then 750 kg is ten Beagle 2s, thirty MetNets, or several hundred Deep Space 2 sized penetrators.