JPL take a look see..... a few days ago seeing all these postings promoting the "Red Dragon" got me thinking.For sample return on Mars a "Red Chaser" (tm would be a superior development.Why It's an atmospheric vehicle. Given changes to its landing method and other developments it might make a superior return system and JPL should look at it.
Quote from: Prober on 09/23/2015 05:51 pmJPL take a look see..... a few days ago seeing all these postings promoting the "Red Dragon" got me thinking.For sample return on Mars a "Red Chaser" (tm would be a superior development.Why It's an atmospheric vehicle. Given changes to its landing method and other developments it might make a superior return system and JPL should look at it.What would be the landing method?
The video we all watched gave me some insightYou think in terms of substitutions, and upgrades of the Dream Chaser (basic design). The end sequence has Red Chaser hatch opening up for a rover, or even better a module moved out. Lot's of possibilities
Quote from: Prober on 09/23/2015 06:00 pmThe video we all watched gave me some insightYou think in terms of substitutions, and upgrades of the Dream Chaser (basic design). The end sequence has Red Chaser hatch opening up for a rover, or even better a module moved out. Lot's of possibilities No possibilities. It is non starter and completely not feasible. Mars atmosphere density is equivalent to over 100kft in earth's atmosphere. 1) The wings are useless, and it have to land like any other Mars lander. 2) So there is no point in continuing this thread.
1) As I said above substitution and upgrades. My major point is that this would be a superior system to a Red Dragon
The Red Chaser landed, can have built in methane/oxygen conversion per Zubrin for future exploration. Tanks refilled, RC can relocate to another location on Mars without the need of rovers. Not talking going Orbital here. I'm not reveling the revised landing system. In theory it works and makes this all possible.
Quote from: Jim on 09/23/2015 06:33 pmQuote from: Prober on 09/23/2015 06:00 pmThe video we all watched gave me some insightYou think in terms of substitutions, and upgrades of the Dream Chaser (basic design). The end sequence has Red Chaser hatch opening up for a rover, or even better a module moved out. Lot's of possibilities No possibilities. It is non starter and completely not feasible. Mars atmosphere density is equivalent to over 100kft in earth's atmosphere. 1) The wings are useless, and it have to land like any other Mars lander. 2) So there is no point in continuing this thread.1) As I said above substitution and upgrades. My major point is that this would be a superior system to a Red Dragon
Quote from: Jim on 09/23/2015 06:33 pmQuote from: Prober on 09/23/2015 06:00 pmThe video we all watched gave me some insightYou think in terms of substitutions, and upgrades of the Dream Chaser (basic design). The end sequence has Red Chaser hatch opening up for a rover, or even better a module moved out. Lot's of possibilities No possibilities. It is non starter and completely not feasible. Mars atmosphere density is equivalent to over 100kft in earth's atmosphere. 1) The wings are useless, and it have to land like any other Mars lander. 2) So there is no point in continuing this thread.1) As I said above substitution and upgrades. My major point is that this would be a superior system to a Red Dragon2) No point in continuing? Why did we continue endless years of Red Dragon threads, and speculation ad nauseam?It's NASA that's talking about building and sending a submersible to another space body. This is no different.The Red Chaser landed, can have built in methane/oxygen conversion per Zubrin for future exploration. Tanks refilled, RC can relocate to another location on Mars without the need of rovers. Not talking going Orbital here. I'm not reveling the revised landing system. In theory it works and makes this all possible.
1) As I said above substitution and upgrades. 2. My major point is that this would be a superior system to a Red Dragon3) No point in continuing? 4. Why did we continue endless years of Red Dragon threads, and speculation ad nauseam?5. It's NASA that's talking about building and sending a submersible to another space body. This is no different.6. The Red Chaser landed, snip7. In theory it works and makes this all possible.
Well, maybe not for sample return, but using it as an impact or it might throw up a nice debris cloud, and we could spectrographically analyse that...
Quote from: Prober on 09/23/2015 08:19 pm1) As I said above substitution and upgrades. 2. My major point is that this would be a superior system to a Red Dragon3) No point in continuing? 4. Why did we continue endless years of Red Dragon threads, and speculation ad nauseam?5. It's NASA that's talking about building and sending a submersible to another space body. This is no different.6. The Red Chaser landed, snip7. In theory it works and makes this all possible.1. And it would take so much and so many that it would no longer have any relation to the Dream Chaser.2. And how do you arrive at that nonsense3. yes, there is no point because it is an idiotic idea. 4. Because it is a viable idea and it takes minimum.5. It is completely different and not even related. The submersible is a purpose built device, it isn't kludged from something else6. No, it does not land, it crashes. 7. No, there is no theory that supports this.here is an Mars airplane, it looks nothing like Dream Chaserhttp://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/platform.html
The whole point of Red Dragon is that its landing method (propulsive) lends itself to landing on a body with low atmospheric pressure.Dream Chaser doesn't use propulsive landing, so it does not lend itself to landing on a body with low atmospheric pressure.Also, propulsive landing lends itself to landing on natural surfaces. It doesn't need a runway to be built. Even if Mars had a thick atmosphere, Dream Chaser couldn't land until someone built a runway.
1. Propulsive landing at this point is unproven concept for Dragon (she's landing on water with chutes)Advantage at this point goes to the lifting body for years of development. 2. Red Dragon a capsule, and Red Chaser is a lifting body cargo carrier.Advantage goes to RC when properly developed. as extended missions outside of just sample return. Yes, RD can refuel and refry but dragon is a spacecraft. Red Chaser is a lifting body and would be more adapt to fly to other locations than hop as RD would need to do.3. Further RD's hatch is located high in the spacecraft. Sure you can redesign the pressure hull on Dragon and move the hatch lower. On the other had RD (designed without the wheels) has its hatch almost flat when opened toward the Martian soil.
However if your creative and want to get more bang for the buck on a mission you look at the Red Chaser, a lifting body. Why a lifting body? "A lifting body is a fixed-wing aircraft or spacecraft configuration in which the body itself produces lift."
Quote from: Prober on 09/23/2015 08:19 pm1) As I said above substitution and upgrades. My major point is that this would be a superior system to a Red DragonI don't see anything superior here. More dead mass. Would require a new engine system for landing. Existing engines would also be a waste of mass.Quote from: Prober on 09/23/2015 08:19 pmThe Red Chaser landed, can have built in methane/oxygen conversion per Zubrin for future exploration. Tanks refilled, RC can relocate to another location on Mars without the need of rovers. Not talking going Orbital here. I'm not reveling the revised landing system. In theory it works and makes this all possible.How can it relocate any easier than a Red Dragon? It would have to be refueling its landing engines, so they will run on methane? Are you replacing the existing engines with ones that run on methane? Is the sample return MAV launched from a ballistic arc that this relocatable RC flies? Does the return MAV run on methane? Does it have common engines with anything on the RC?
Well thank for the linkageThis plane clearly is just that, just a plane and what mission(s) can this plane design do, just fly maybe.
Quote from: Prober on 09/24/2015 01:21 amHowever if your creative and want to get more bang for the buck on a mission you look at the Red Chaser, a lifting body. Why a lifting body? "A lifting body is a fixed-wing aircraft or spacecraft configuration in which the body itself produces lift."No, there is zero much less more bang for the buck because a lifting body can't work on Mars. It can't generate enough lift to land at normal speeds. why can you understand this? A craft on mars needs wings like a sailplane.
