Red Chaser (Dream Chaser) alternative to Red Dragon

[Jim]

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.

1.  No, there is no such thing as "RC".  It does not work.  There is no way to "enhance" it to work on Mars.

2.  It will have to be done like it would on the moon.  By rocket propelled vehicles, because there is not enough atmosphere.

[Prober]

Red Dragon was promoted as a cheap means to do a sample return mission using existing design. Heard its pushing a 3 Billion dollar concept.

Red Chaser started as an idea or alternative to give it more bang for the buck, among other things.

Yes propulsion is the enhancer......an extreme example.

[pathfinder_01]

I 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).

[CameronD]

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.

[pathfinder_01]

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.

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.

[CameronD]

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.

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.

Well... it'd make for the most impressive belly-flop the planet has ever seen.

[Prober]

I 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

[Jim]

Best 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.

[Prober]

Best 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.

It's the fine details that matter....knowledge is wealth.

Thinking now the "enhancer" might best be served in DARPA hands.   
 

[Kansan52]

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.

[Jim]

Thinking now the "enhancer" might best be served in DARPA hands.   
 

DARPA has no role in planetary exploration.

[Prober]

Thinking now the "enhancer" might best be served in DARPA hands.   
 

DARPA has no role in planetary exploration.

agreed, DARPA does however have interest in the "enhancer" and that deals with propulsion.
 

[Prober]

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.

At this point weight is not an issue.  It might be when this get morphed into a fully developed plan.

Your hopper idea "in general" is what we would go for.  But being able to refuel, and move to another location is the key feature.  If you have a small rover that goes out after landing again, we cover much larger area. Then do the research.

In my view, if we are truly committed to going to mars then its stupid to launch a rover to cover a small area.  Even a sample return in one area is wasteful.

Prior to the moon landings we did site selections.   The moon was close by and we did it one way.  Landing on Mars is a whole different game, because of the travel distance involved.  Basically, your will "living off the land". So I contend the need is there to have a fully developed map of the resources available.

You can do some things from Orbit, but there is nothing like being on the ground.
 

[Prober]

Believe this is proper place for this video.  The interesting stuff happens about 40 sec. in.

We are talking about a smaller rover(s) for this RC project.
This video was sent to me. In Context, this design was from the 90's.  Many universities are using it as a starting point for projects.   But most fascinating to me was who sent this video to me.  See the homebrew, DTY groups want to 3D build a working model and are looking at it from that aspect.  A 2015 version will be different, but its fascinating.

   

[Patchouli]

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.

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.

[Prober]

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.

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

[ChrisWilson68]

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.

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

No, nearly everyone gets it: Using a variant of Dream Chaser on Mars is a horrible, horrible idea.

This is the worst thread I've seen on NSF in months.

[Jim]

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.

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

No, he is just as wrong as you.  There are so many things wrong with his post that it wasn't worth going into. (the last item is just plain silly).   

There is no benefit to using a lifting body on Mars, period.

Enough with this.

[david1971]

The fact that I keep clicking on this thread probably means that I'm failing an intelligence test.

[JasonAW3]

The video we all watched gave me some insight
You 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, both winged and hot CO2 balloon types.  While the designs that they are experimenting with currently, (The Helios flyer as an example) will likely bear very little resembalance to an actual Mars Flyer, the basic concept appears to be sound.

     Using it for a sample return mission, however, would require a great deal of research and some interesting acrobatics and aerial acrobatics that would need to be developed.  The practicality and cost required for such a combined mission may not balance out enough to justify this concept.