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.
1. Refueling RC and using it to explore stop, refuel explore that's a decent goal. So how would you enhance a lifting body for use in the Martian atmosphere? 2. If your going to send people to explore, live and travel great distances you need to find an answer to not only travel on land but also in the air; this question must also be solved.
Quote from: Prober on 09/24/2015 02:05 amI do understand....how do you enhance "lift" on a spacecraft, plane other ?You design the vehicle properly from the beginning and use rocket propulsion and a body shape for that and ignore the lifting body shape.
I do understand....how do you enhance "lift" on a spacecraft, plane other ?
In order to fly on Mars you would need wings much larger than those on an Earth plane to generate enough lift and Dream Chaser just can't generate enough lift on Mars to fly due the thin atmosphere. For landing on Mars or Traveling on Mars it brings nothing to the table. An jet pack or something like an Jump jet with really large wings might be better ways to go as Dream Chaser or any plane really would need an very high take off speed to even get airborne. Even on Earth something like Dream Chaser would be an questionable means of transport(something with wings, the same size and weight would be able to carry more mass.).The reason why Dream Chaser lacks wings is because on top of an rocket wings would interfere with the flight of the rocket, side mount is not possible(or desirable) and to have wings would mean encapsulating the space plane in an fairing(which presents all sorts of problems with crew is evolved).
So perhaps the question really is: Is there any advantage to using a lifting body shape (of any size, however large) in the Martian environment??Maybe there isn't.. but if there was, the craft could, theoretically, be assembled in LEO from multiple sections and the "wings" used as storage compartments and a surface for solar panels enroute.
Quote from: CameronD on 09/24/2015 03:31 amSo perhaps the question really is: Is there any advantage to using a lifting body shape (of any size, however large) in the Martian environment??Maybe there isn't.. but if there was, the craft could, theoretically, be assembled in LEO from multiple sections and the "wings" used as storage compartments and a surface for solar panels enroute.Not at all, not enough atmosphere to generate enough lift to make this work. What a lifting body could do on an manned mission to Mars(or moon) is carry the crew in for an landing if it had enough heat shield and an strong enough structure(Dream Chaser lacks both). The lower G forces on reentry would be desirable for an crew and even then it is debatable if you need an lifting body to perform this task at all.
Quote from: Jim on 09/24/2015 02:09 amQuote from: Prober on 09/24/2015 02:05 amI do understand....how do you enhance "lift" on a spacecraft, plane other ?You design the vehicle properly from the beginning and use rocket propulsion and a body shape for that and ignore the lifting body shape.The amount of lift an plane can generate is determined by the size and shape of it's wings along with the speed the air passes over the wings and the density of the atmosphere it travels in. The short less "air" equals less lift which means the plane must fly faster or have an larger wing surface to compensate. On earth the loss of lift is called an stall(i.e. the plane is flying too slow or too high(or both) for the load it is carrying). Not enough lift and gravity takes over and it falls. For an lifting body the lift is being generated by the shape of the body and lifting bodies produce poor lift compared to wings. They just produce more lift than an space capsule(itself an form of lifting body) which can be used during reentry to reduce G forces or for more cross range than an capsule. This makes them an attractive way to return to Earth compared to an capsule(which also has it's advantages). In order to fly on Mars you would need wings much larger than those on an Earth plane to generate enough lift and Dream Chaser just can't generate enough lift on Mars to fly due the thin atmosphere. For landing on Mars or Traveling on Mars it brings nothing to the table. An jet pack or something like an Jump jet with really large wings might be better ways to go as Dream Chaser or any plane really would need an very high take off speed to even get airborne. Even on Earth something like Dream Chaser would be an questionable means of transport(something with wings, the same size and weight would be able to carry more mass.).The reason why Dream Chaser lacks wings is because on top of an rocket wings would interfere with the flight of the rocket, side mount is not possible(or desirable) and to have wings would mean encapsulating the space plane in an fairing(which presents all sorts of problems when crew is evolved).
Best post in the thread, just what NSF should be
Quote from: Prober on 09/24/2015 01:14 pmBest post in the thread, just what NSF should be It says the same thing as the other posts. Dream Chaser on Mars is not viable.
Thinking now the "enhancer" might best be served in DARPA hands.
Quote from: Prober on 09/24/2015 04:08 pmThinking now the "enhancer" might best be served in DARPA hands. DARPA has no role in planetary exploration.
How about dropping the idea of a winged body. Could a 'hopper' with a stowable rover be possible? After the hopper produces enough 'in situ' fuel, the rover would come back and be loaded onto the hopper. The hopper then blasts off to a new location.My worry is weight. Having enough 'in situ' equipment to produce fuel seems like a huge payload and cost hit.
Not at all, not enough atmosphere to generate enough lift to make this work. What a lifting body could do on an manned mission to Mars(or moon) is carry the crew in for an landing if it had enough heat shield and an strong enough structure(Dream Chaser lacks both). The lower G forces on reentry would be desirable for an crew and even then it is debatable if you need an lifting body to perform this task at all.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 09/24/2015 03:40 amNot at all, not enough atmosphere to generate enough lift to make this work. What a lifting body could do on an manned mission to Mars(or moon) is carry the crew in for an landing if it had enough heat shield and an strong enough structure(Dream Chaser lacks both). The lower G forces on reentry would be desirable for an crew and even then it is debatable if you need an lifting body to perform this task at all. It might actually handle reentry and deceleration on Mars better then Dragon because of it's lower ballistic coefficient.The TPS should be able to handle a low energy trajectory to Mars as it only around 13,000mph but unlike the shuttle it can be beefed up for higher speed reentries by adding an ablative to the hottest parts.But it's not going to be able to make a gliding landing and would need to perform final descent propulsively.This could be done by having landing legs at a the base and perform a pull up maneuver like DCX or have horizontal landing engines and maybe a supersonic parachute to save on propellant.Another option have a more conventional lander pulled from the back by a parachute after reentry using it as a bus/aeroshell like the NASA biconic aeroshells considered for the manned missions.
Quote from: Patchouli on 10/02/2015 03:11 amQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 09/24/2015 03:40 amNot at all, not enough atmosphere to generate enough lift to make this work. What a lifting body could do on an manned mission to Mars(or moon) is carry the crew in for an landing if it had enough heat shield and an strong enough structure(Dream Chaser lacks both). The lower G forces on reentry would be desirable for an crew and even then it is debatable if you need an lifting body to perform this task at all. It might actually handle reentry and deceleration on Mars better then Dragon because of it's lower ballistic coefficient.The TPS should be able to handle a low energy trajectory to Mars as it only around 13,000mph but unlike the shuttle it can be beefed up for higher speed reentries by adding an ablative to the hottest parts.But it's not going to be able to make a gliding landing and would need to perform final descent propulsively.This could be done by having landing legs at a the base and perform a pull up maneuver like DCX or have horizontal landing engines and maybe a supersonic parachute to save on propellant.Another option have a more conventional lander pulled from the back by a parachute after reentry using it as a bus/aeroshell like the NASA biconic aeroshells considered for the manned missions.Congrats someone gets it
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. The wings are useless, and it have to land like any other Mars lander. So there is no point in continuing this thread.
With respect Jim, JPL has been playing around with several Mars flyer type designs for the last couple of decades,
The fact that I keep clicking on this thread probably means that I'm failing an intelligence test.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 10/02/2015 07:08 pmWith respect Jim, JPL has been playing around with several Mars flyer type designs for the last couple of decades, The issue here is not airplane but a lifting body shape.
Quote from: Jim on 10/02/2015 07:12 pmQuote from: JasonAW3 on 10/02/2015 07:08 pmWith respect Jim, JPL has been playing around with several Mars flyer type designs for the last couple of decades, The issue here is not airplane but a lifting body shape.Jim JPL, is looking at everything. Where does a helicopter get its lift? Let me point out again, the sky crane was not a capsule lander, or airplane it was a new concept.http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4457
Quote from: Prober on 10/03/2015 12:09 amQuote from: Jim on 10/02/2015 07:12 pmQuote from: JasonAW3 on 10/02/2015 07:08 pmWith respect Jim, JPL has been playing around with several Mars flyer type designs for the last couple of decades, The issue here is not airplane but a lifting body shape.Jim JPL, is looking at everything. Where does a helicopter get its lift? Let me point out again, the sky crane was not a capsule lander, or airplane it was a new concept.http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4457A sky crane isn't a lifting body. A helicopter isn't a lifting body.Your point seems to be "someone else did something that isn't a capsule, so therefore everything that isn't a capsule is a good idea". But that doesn't follow.Nobody is saying a capsule is the only way to land on Mars. What they are saying is that (1) a capsule (Dragon) is one way to land on Mars and (2) Dream Chaser is not a way to land on Mars.
Well some of the Boeing Engineers of the 1960's might disagree with your line of thinking. http://www.wired.com/2012/10/dyna-soars-martian-cousin-bonos-mars-glider-1960/
Quote from: Prober on 10/03/2015 01:45 amWell some of the Boeing Engineers of the 1960's might disagree with your line of thinking. :ohttp://www.wired.com/2012/10/dyna-soars-martian-cousin-bonos-mars-glider-1960/Those engineers in the early 60s didn't know the atmosphere was so thin until mariner 4.
Well some of the Boeing Engineers of the 1960's might disagree with your line of thinking. :ohttp://www.wired.com/2012/10/dyna-soars-martian-cousin-bonos-mars-glider-1960/
