New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#101 2018-08-07 05:13:52

Oldfart1939
Member
Registered: 2016-11-26
Posts: 1,430

Re: Getting to Mars with REAL technology, & what's currently missing.

SpaceNut-

Please note that my reconfigured vehicle does NOT use the 8 Draco thrusters to land. I'm proposing a new, hypergolic fueled motor in gimbals for landing thrust.. The fuel capacity would be roughly 5x-7x  the Crew Dragon version. I'm nowhere near my notes from this proposal I ran about a year and half ago. Will be back in the States in about 3 weeks. Will complete my thoughts then.

Offline

#102 2018-08-07 17:04:02

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 12,211

Re: Getting to Mars with REAL technology, & what's currently missing.

No worries for replying anytime soon.
I was looking at the superDraco's for launch escape use for not only earth return landing but also for a mars escape if it should not make orbit as they might be possible to fire them to try to get to orbit or to allow for a return to the base. This gives a chance under either risk of failure modes.
Still looking for the straight down facing engine versus the canted protect by the shield air stream answer for the mars lander design. The first stage of the falcon seems to answer but the speed is much slower than what we would see on mars unless we have fuel to burn earlier than normal when we come out of the heat shield mode to where parachutes speed would open.

Offline

#103 2018-08-07 18:56:06

kbd512
Member
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 1,813

Re: Getting to Mars with REAL technology, & what's currently missing.

SpaceNut,

I still think the SkyCrane / tractor design that places the payload on the bottom is the best way to do this.  It minimizes the mass of the landing gear, mitigates issues with egress in the case of a habitat module, and minimizes the need for cranes for surface cargo offloading.  The LEM system worked well because the lunar environment is very low gravity and there was sufficient storage space in the lander stage for the limited scientific experiment equipment.  Now people want to do something entirely different and are still trying to come up with ways to make the LEM propulsion system work at far greater scale.  It's not that it can't work, it's just not a very mass efficient way to do things and mass is at an extreme premium for a Mars mission.

Offline

#104 2018-08-07 20:16:28

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 12,211

Re: Getting to Mars with REAL technology, & what's currently missing.

So could we up scale the skycrane to being the return to orbit with the super draco's doing the landing keeping the craft to a very small package. The system would land with the skycrane empty and then refuel on landing from the cargo landers. Another option is to use a drop tank design to rid the mass on the way up to orbit. Tanks could come from cargo landers to make the launch vehicle.

So sky scrane at the top, followed by the habitat section (small cygnus) then dragon capsule for 2. and landing legs...

So cygnus is cargo hold on return to orbit and is used for living space for the return. Once on orbit the sky crane is sent off so that we can mate up with the orbiting earth return booster with supplies for return home.

So we would boost from earth an eds plus the mars crew unit on a falcon heavy with a second heavy launching 2 cygnus less booster stage (only solar panels) full of supplies with return from mars stage once we mate up in orbit.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB