You are not logged in.
I read in the Sunday Times today that Musk was intending to reach Mars and return, using the Dragon capsule, by 2018.
I couldn't recall if I had seen that date before.
Does anyone else know about this.
Is he planning an orbital trip like Apollo 8? That would still be a stupendous achievement.
Interested to hear comments on this.
2018 is only six years away!
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Louis:
I crawled around on their website just now. I saw nothing there to indicate a Mars shot of any kind, much less a date. That included looking at their recent press releases. But, they do have a habit of springing very unexpected surprises.
I rather think they could send a Dragon unmanned one-way to Mars rather easily with Falcon-Heavy, and probably even just Falcon-9. I'm not sure they could land it there with what hardware and technology they have so far revealed. The new SuperDraco's have more than enough thrust to make a powered landing, but I don't see 1290 Kg of on-board propellant being enough, at hydrazine Isp's and a 45-degree cosine factor, without some sort of aero-decelerator help. Spacex lists no Isp's, but says "deep-throttleable" and "120,000 lb axial thrust" on their website.
One cannot count on the volume in the cylindrical service module for the fuel supply to do a rocket landing, because that module has to be jettisoned prior to atmospheric entry. Sad, because it would be fairly easy to store several thousand pounds of extra propellant tanks in there.
I just don't see that much delta-vee from 1.29 tons of propellant in a capsule flown "lightweight" at around maybe 5 or 6 tons, given Isp in the neighborhood of 300 sec and a 0.71 cosine factor for canting. On the other hand, if they use maybe 3 tons of extra propellant from the service module to slow way down before entry, a one-way landing starts looking better. Not so very efficient, but it might work.
All that being said, given an entry aero-decelerator, followed by a powered rocket landing, I think Dragon might go to Mars very soon. Falcon-Heavy is listed as flying for the first time from Vandenburg in 1013. I just don't see the hardware for a sample return, much less anything manned.
After all, if one has gone to all the trouble to send men to Mars, what is the point of not landing? Doing an Apollo-8-like flyby or orbit-only trip seems nuts, given what it takes just to get there.
There's no telling what folks are working on "in secret". But, as of yet, I have seen nothing that looks like anybody working on a lander for Mars, other than some tiny sample-return rockets. I suspect that a two-way lander will drive the design of a manned Mars mission, more than any other single item. (That same basic "how-do-we-land-and-take-off-again?" problem drove the Apollo/Saturn designs, too.)
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2012-05-13 18:21:34)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
I think that was a first manned useage for the ISS date up until then it is only a cargo transport....
Offline
This is undoubtably a reference to Red Dragon, a Discovery-class mission proposal to land a dragon on the surface of Mars. It would launch in the 2018 window on a Falcon Heavy.
Offline
Offline
Thanks guys - looks like the Sunday Times took a "could" and made it a "will".
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
If somebody was working on a real Mars lander, we could easily go that soon.
But we do need that lander. What's the point of sending men to Mars, if we don't land?
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
If somebody was working on a real Mars lander, we could easily go that soon.
But we do need that lander. What's the point of sending men to Mars, if we don't land?
GW
An interesting question. Why did they do Apollo 8? Was it simply a PR exercise or was there a purpose to it?
Of course, with a Mars mission, doubling up the zero G time is probably not a good idea. Landing will probably reduce the risks to human health.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
GW Johnson wrote:If somebody was working on a real Mars lander, we could easily go that soon.
But we do need that lander. What's the point of sending men to Mars, if we don't land?
GW
An interesting question. Why did they do Apollo 8? Was it simply a PR exercise or was there a purpose to it?
My uneducated guess is that they wanted to pass steps one by one; the more new things you try at the same time, the bigger the risk for unexpected results. Unexpected results are expected to be bad, in such activities. Leaving earth orbit had never been done before, & doing just that was a way to ensure that it could be done, without all the landing elements.
I've been trained as engineer with the motto "never make a new kind of piece with a new process in a new material". I guess them either. They made & tried innovations one by one. That's already risky enough.
Of course, with a Mars mission, doubling up the zero G time is probably not a good idea. Landing will probably reduce the risks to human health.
Unless you can make your vehicle turn. Can be 2 parts linked by a cable(à la Zubrin), or, IMHO better, by inflatable tubes(improved rigidity & maniability for the whole spaceship made of 2 parts).
[i]"I promise not to exclude from consideration any idea based on its source, but to consider ideas across schools and heritages in order to find the ones that best suit the current situation."[/i] (Alistair Cockburn, Oath of Non-Allegiance)
Offline
My opinion/Apollo 8: They did it to "beat the Russians" even if it wasn't a proper landing. The big Russian N-1 moon rocket was on the pad being fitted out at the time the Apollo-8 mission decision was made. Events later proved that the N-1 wasn't ready to fly yet. Ultimately it never successfully did. Neither was the US LEM ready. Apollo-8 flew without one (meaning an Apollo-13-type problem would have killed them - no lifeboat).
My opinion/artificial gravity: the smartest way to go to Mars with men, considering the mass that must go, is with a vehicle assembled in LEO by docking. Why not make a long stack with the habitat at one end? Then spin it end-over-end for 1 full gee. Only takes 4 rpm and a 56 m spin radius. Forces are fairly low. No cables, no trouble de-spinning to maneuver. Keep the zero-gee intervals short that way.
My opinion/is Mars gee therapeutic? No one knows, those experiments have never been done excepting very questionable surrogates like enforced bed rest. 0.38 gee can't hurt, it may help. Is it enough? Who knows? I hope it's enough, but you don't bet lives on it. Not yet.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Had the Japanese Centrifuge been launched to the ISS we would have been able to get that answer.....
Offline
Spacenut: "ISS centrifuge module that never got launched" --- yes, I know. Sad. Pathetic.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
A new tune after the budget for Nasa has ben lessened.....
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/ma … Group.html
The Mars Program Planning Group (MPPG), tasked with developing options for a reformulated Mars Exploration Program, will consider the workshop inputs for the various options, taking into consideration budgetary, programmatic, scientific, and technical constraints.
NASA aims for human rendezvous at Mars in 2033 humans would arrive in Mars orbit in order to pick up and return to Earth a canister containing the hopes and dreams of Mars scientists: a small collection of Mars rocks that would have been previously collected and put into orbit.
Offline
That's... Lame. All that way to pick up a few rocks, and not actuallyy land? There must be more to it than that - exploring the moons perhaps?
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
I think the move away from a focus on sample return is the correct choice. In Apollo the short nature of the surface stay, the near total lack of geologic training of the astronauts and the lack of compact analytical tools meant the samples HAD to be returned to the Earth to gain much of any scientific knowledge about the sample.
These factors no longer apply to Robotic landers especially ones of the Curiosity size/power class, they are equipped with spectrometers, lasers, drills etc and can analyze any sample they collect in a myriad of ways. Likewise they are directed by a skilled team of geologists that is not under much immediate time pressure. This is not to say that robots are better then human explorers, that's not the relevant comparison. The question is will a Sample return mission, of which most scenarios return tiny amounts of rock that can't be analyzed much when on Mars to determine its worth anything, be more or less informative then a big rover? Unless we really expect to see fossil microbes (exceedingly unlikely) it not worth the risk that we end up with a hunk of uninformative basalt.
If you wanted to do Robotic Sample return right you would have an initial Curiosity type Rover complete its full mission and save samples of every interesting rock it found in a little sealed cylinder. Then send a second static lander with a Mars Assent Rocket and land it as close as possible to the rover and have the rover place the samples in it for return rocket. This would guarantee an interesting group of samples that are taken from locations both diverse and identified.
Offline
That's... Lame. All that way to pick up a few rocks, and not actuallyy land? There must be more to it than that - exploring the moons perhaps?
I agree - so lame.
Fortunately, you can be assured that Musk is NOT thinking like that. All his honeyed words about NASA are to be taken not too much at face value. Musk is seeking to establish on a permanent basis, human civilisation on Mars. He wants to visit himself. He's in a hurry. I think his primary aim at the moment is probably to build a war chest for his Mars project. He maybe needs to build up a reserve of a billion dollars - might take him 5 or so years. In the meantime I am sure he will be doing a lot of design work.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Well, instead of a tow sack of surface dirt and rocks (Apollo), why not add a real drill rig to the back of the rover. Just about anybody can be trained to operate a drill rig. Get your samples meters to a km down, based on whatever you're seeing in the output cores. Just like the oil drillers here. Could do that pretty easily on Mars, the moon, or any other body with say 10% gee gravity.
Drilling deep for samples. Now there's a good reason to land men. How do you program a robot to do that? And with the time lag, it's impractical to do it by remote control.
Until that kind of thing is done, you cannot answer fully the two questions: "what all is there?", and "where exactly is it?". Until you answer them, you have not really explored.
Isn't exploration supposed to be the purpose in going there?
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Mars landing 2045, +/-8 years.
Offline
Mars landing 2045, +/-8 years.
It's going to be way sooner than that. If Musk can get from nothing to docking a space capsule in 8 years, he can get to Mars in another 8. The only thing preventing him going straight for Mars is the money. He will need a few years to accumulate a cash pile.
Last edited by louis (2012-05-25 18:21:09)
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
I never know if this is blind optimism or just delusional thinking.
SpaceX is achieving dramatic results based on applying organizational and logistical changes that NASA has not adopted- there is no magical science to what SpaceX is doing. It is proven science. If you understand this, then you quickly realize that no private enterprise is going to "lead" the way to mars (or space). They will follow in the footsteps of NASA and other international efforts.
SpaceX may provide the rockets to get humans to mars, but it will be done on Nasa's timetable and dime.
Offline
Well, SpaceX sending anything other than the Red Dragon demonstrator to Mars in less than eight years is pretty unlikely, but 2045 is pretty far out too. NASA could certainly send humans there in the 2020's if there was enough of a shake-up, so I don't see why SpaceX couldn't do the same with enough resources. NASA footing the bill would be nice, but not at all necessary. Keep in mind that many of the people who pioneered the latest generation of space tech now work for SpaceX. As long as there's money coming in the door, there's nothing they can't do as good or better and faster.
Offline
I never know if this is blind optimism or just delusional thinking.
SpaceX is achieving dramatic results based on applying organizational and logistical changes that NASA has not adopted- there is no magical science to what SpaceX is doing. It is proven science. If you understand this, then you quickly realize that no private enterprise is going to "lead" the way to mars (or space). They will follow in the footsteps of NASA and other international efforts.
SpaceX may provide the rockets to get humans to mars, but it will be done on Nasa's timetable and dime.
Nonsense. Everything Musk has ever said outside the diplomatic world of co-operation with NASA demonstrates his intention of reaching Mars as soon as possible and under his own steam, precisely because he was absolutely dismayed by NASA arthritic approach to space exploration.
To get to Mars does not demand a huge step change in technological ability - that would apply more to exploring the outer planets or even more, an adjacent star.
All we are talking about is mastering the difficulties of landing on Mars - difficulties that have been hugely overstated by NASA. Otherwise, what we will be doing is very much an extension of existing technology. We have already successfully fired about 50 rockets at Mars - it's not as though we don't know how to get there. How many of those rockets have failed to reach Mars? HArdly any as far as I recall.
EDL is slightly problematic but it is more a money and logistical problem than anything else I believe.
There are of course health issues, but no one is going to suggest we go to Mars on a do or die mission. Of course our ability to go from 1 G to zero G to one third G and back again over a couple of years, will need to be tested realistically. But there are ways to test that.
I think it will be interesting to see how things develop. At the moment Musk is a junior partner. In a few years, in terms of a Mars mission, he may be the senior partner. He may have several billion dollars at his disposal (remember if you are a company with a guaranteed income of say $500 million a year, you can easily borrow $2 or $3 billion, and I have no doubt Musk will attract other philanthropists as well). I suspect we may at some stage see a dramatic announcement proposing the formation of a consortium.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
What's SpaceX valued at now? If/when it goes public, how much could Musk get while still retaining a majority stake?
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
These factors no longer apply to Robotic landers especially ones of the Curiosity size/power class, they are equipped with spectrometers, lasers, drills etc and can analyze any sample they collect in a myriad of ways. Likewise they are directed by a skilled team of geologists that is not under much immediate time pressure. This is not to say that robots are better then human explorers, that's not the relevant comparison. The question is will a Sample return mission, of which most scenarios return tiny amounts of rock that can't be analyzed much when on Mars to determine its worth anything, be more or less informative then a big rover? Unless we really expect to see fossil microbes (exceedingly unlikely) it not worth the risk that we end up with a hunk of uninformative basalt.
Which is better, sample return or a big rover, is the wrong question to ask. Both have their complementary roles, and they can even be part of a larger over arching mission, where the large rover characterises and collects samples for return.
Terrestrial laboratories can carry out many more analyses, with much greater accuracy and precision than even the most sophisticated rovers. In addition many more types of analyses can be performed, in many different laboraties. The sample can be archieved and rexamined years or decades later with tools that had not been invented at the time the samples were collected.
A good example of this is the famous SNC meteorite ALH84001. Massing 2.9 kg, this is perhaps three times what we would get with a large sample return mission (up to 1 kg). Some 2800 papers have been published on this meteorite over the past 24 years. Remember ALH84001 (like all Mars meteorites) is a single random sample of Mars - we have no context and no idea of how representative or significant it is. In fact we have can be fairly sure it is not particularly representative or significant.
In contrast samples returned from Mars would consist of multiple types materials, even when collected from a single site, their context would be known and docuented. Sample return is by far and away the most productive type of mission than can be done, short of sending people. It is also the most expensive.
Offline
What's SpaceX valued at now? If/when it goes public, how much could Musk get while still retaining a majority stake?
I'm not sure what it's currently valued at, but I find it highly unlikely that they will go public any time soon, at least prior to their first manned mission to Mars. Investors could always cash out via secondary markets, and between the Tesla and Solar City IPO's Elon will have no shortage of cash.
Going public would be a burden for SpaceX--they would have new shareholder pressures to focus on quarterly growth, which doesn't align well with being a nimble long-term growth company with an eye on Mars.
Offline