Where are we now?

louis · 2018-09-05 12:43:55

Well it does bring fuel to Mars. to land, if it ran out of fuel it would crash.

Your objections to Space X's mission could also have been applied to Apollo - also risk of death if anything went wrong, but they never lost a life on a lunar mission (was it 9 missions in total?).

spacetechsforum wrote:

Louis, BFR does not bring any fuel to any place. It has only necessary load to land on Mars and is unable to proceed if stopped in orbit. I did look at those calculations very closely and they do clearly show that BFR is not the most efficient solution when the cargo is not live. Furthermore BFR is so very risk that i do not know if i would board this ship even for free.
Firstly they must land immediately when they arrive at Mars so if there is a dust storm or BFR is in state of emergency the crew is dead. Next the landing... They need to do quite dangerous reentry procedure then fire the engines in atmospheric flight(!) and stabilize very heavy load that needs to hit the specific flat surface. I am assuming that the whole in situ operation on the Mars surface will be conducted before first human mission so the resources to get back will be available but still i do not think that after refilling the rocket crew will be able to do the maintenance, so the way back will look exactly the same except the rocket will be vary.
Now, the flight is hard but can be done, yet we can expect the same situation as with the first spacex rockets, when first attempts failed.

SpaceNut · 2018-09-05 16:44:10

A marginal landing fuel supply and no ability to stay in orbit is really looking for a dead crew at some point even if we do make it back home safely a few times. Just look to Apollo 13 and know that we need to do something simular for how we will give a crew the best chance to survive....Since we are already doing refueling we can now alter what we refuel and what we do assemble for the best case chances to make it to and from mars safely.

louis · 2018-09-05 18:32:53

You're talking about the high risk Mission One. Thereafter everything is much lower risk in my estimation.

SpaceNut wrote:

A marginal landing fuel supply and no ability to stay in orbit is really looking for a dead crew at some point even if we do make it back home safely a few times. Just look to Apollo 13 and know that we need to do something simular for how we will give a crew the best chance to survive....Since we are already doing refueling we can now alter what we refuel and what we do assemble for the best case chances to make it to and from mars safely.

SpaceNut · 2018-09-05 21:02:40

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars

The best cycles are when we are the closest as this takes the least amount of fuel.

List of Nasa Plans:
1988 "Mars Expedition"
1989 "Mars Evolution"
1990 "90-Day Study"
1991 "Synthesis Group"
1995 "DRM 1"
1997 "DRM 3"
1998 "DRM 4"
1999 "Dual Landers"

Its missing DRM 5....2007 with update using Orion in 2009...

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/mars-direct-1990/

Seems like Nasa could be following this plan or at least parts of it.

40-metric-ton propellant factory and unmanned Earth Return Vehicle (ERV)
propellant factory/ERV would aerobrake into Mars orbit behind a 23-meter-diameter, 5.26-metric-ton umbrella-like "flex-fabric" heat shield.

propellant factory/ERV would deploy a robot "utility truck" rover carrying a 4.5-metric-ton SP-100 nuclear reactor. The rover, which would burn methane fuel and oxygen oxidizer, would carry the reactor a few hundred meters away and place it into a natural crater or one blasted "with the aid of a few sticks of dynamite."
The SP-100 would supply 100 kilowatts of electricity to compressors in the ERV. These would draw in martian air, which is mostly carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would be reacted in the presence of a catalyst with 5.8 metric tons of liquid hydrogen brought from Earth, yielding 37.7 metric tons of methane and water.
Meanwhile, carbon dioxide would be split into oxygen, which would be chilled and stored, and carbon, which would be discarded. In a year, these chemical processes would produce 107 metric tons of methane and oxygen for the ERV's rocket motors.

louis · 2018-09-06 02:31:17

NASA's plans would be the equivalent of taking a Model T Ford along to compete in a Formula One race. It ain't gonna happen!
At some point they will abandon them. NASA could become a powerhouse of scientific exploration and research on Mars - they already have the lead there - using Space X transport and Space X life support for the teams of researchers it will send to Mars.

That data spread for the Earth-Mars transport cycles is v. useful and interesting. I see it has 2025 as a close approach, not 2024 - interesting given that Space X refer to a 2024 human mission...perhaps it's a late 2024 launch they are proposing?

SpaceNut wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … e_appr.png
The best cycles are when we are the closest as this takes the least amount of fuel.
List of Nasa Plans:
1988 "Mars Expedition"
1989 "Mars Evolution"
1990 "90-Day Study"
1991 "Synthesis Group"
1995 "DRM 1"
1997 "DRM 3"
1998 "DRM 4"
1999 "Dual Landers"
Its missing DRM 5....2007 with update using Orion in 2009...
https://www.wired.com/2013/04/mars-direct-1990/
https://media.wired.com/photos/59335cb6 … irect2.jpg
Seems like Nasa could be following this plan or at least parts of it.
40-metric-ton propellant factory and unmanned Earth Return Vehicle (ERV)
propellant factory/ERV would aerobrake into Mars orbit behind a 23-meter-diameter, 5.26-metric-ton umbrella-like "flex-fabric" heat shield.
https://media.wired.com/photos/59335cb7 … irect4.jpg
propellant factory/ERV would deploy a robot "utility truck" rover carrying a 4.5-metric-ton SP-100 nuclear reactor. The rover, which would burn methane fuel and oxygen oxidizer, would carry the reactor a few hundred meters away and place it into a natural crater or one blasted "with the aid of a few sticks of dynamite."
The SP-100 would supply 100 kilowatts of electricity to compressors in the ERV. These would draw in martian air, which is mostly carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would be reacted in the presence of a catalyst with 5.8 metric tons of liquid hydrogen brought from Earth, yielding 37.7 metric tons of methane and water.
Meanwhile, carbon dioxide would be split into oxygen, which would be chilled and stored, and carbon, which would be discarded. In a year, these chemical processes would produce 107 metric tons of methane and oxygen for the ERV's rocket motors.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-09-06 08:52:37

I am increasingly pessimistic about a 2022 unmanned flight by a BFS in freighter configuration; not nearly enough secondary work has been accomplished and that window is really only 3 1/2 years away. So far, there's been no hardware shown to public view, and other than reports from GW, we don't have much news regarding the engines. I worry that unlike government attitudes about certain businesses being "too big to fail," I'm now worried that Musk's plans are "too big to succeed."

Tis is NOT what I want to see, as like Louis, I'm an enormous SpaceX supporter.

louis · 2018-09-06 10:34:23

The glass is half full, and the money tap is full on...

Musk did tweet in May that there had been

"Good progress. Really proud of this design & SpaceX propulsion team. This engine is something special."

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1001565360783474688

Make of that what you will!

And he did say in March 2018 the BFR would be ready for short hop flights in the first half of 2019...

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43367191

I don't see any reason for pessimism...they could go from hop flights in 2019 to orbital and lunar orbital in 2020...several test landings on difficult terrain on Earth in 2021 with test cargo and cargo unloading...leading to the Mars flight in 2022.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I am increasingly pessimistic about a 2022 unmanned flight by a BFS in freighter configuration; not nearly enough secondary work has been accomplished and that window is really only 3 1/2 years away. So far, there's been no hardware shown to public view, and other than reports from GW, we don't have much news regarding the engines. I worry that unlike government attitudes about certain businesses being "too big to fail," I'm now worried that Musk's plans are "too big to succeed."
Tis is NOT what I want to see, as like Louis, I'm an enormous SpaceX supporter.

Last edited by louis (2018-09-06 10:50:46)

GW Johnson · 2018-09-06 10:39:36

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Spacex supporter as well. But being a realist, I see many problems yet to solve before BFS and BFS/BFR fly successfully. If they've missed one, and they peruse these forums, then maybe pointing out the one they missed will help them avoid it.

Like Oldfart1939, I see a great deal of unreality to the 2022 schedule for first cargo flights to Mars. I don't think it'll happen that quick, even if Musk solves his Tesla problem and returns to work with Shotwell at Spacex. The whole history of schedule projections by Musk has been like that: overoptimistic. But, on the other hand, he actually does pretty much what he says he will do. It just takes longer than he thought.

I really do think BFR/BFS will eventually fly, and that it is uniquely a breakthrough in payload size and cost-effectiveness on Mars. It is also riskier than some other mission architectures. But more is required for that kind of mission than just a transportation system. And Spacex has its hands quite full just making that transportation system fly at all. As I understand it, the initial short-hop tests of the BFS second stage will take place at the south Texas site near Brownsville. Hard to say when, since none are yet under construction in California.

There are several missing pieces, and other outfits are going to have to belly up to the bar and produce them, for this to succeed at all, no matter when the ships actually fly.

First and foremost is the in-situ propellant production plant. Who will build that, so Musk can put it in the belly of his ship? I'm not talking about some demonstration lander, I'm talking about a real production plant! It must be ready by the time the ships are ready to fly to Mars. So who is working on that? Best I can tell, NO ONE.

Second, who is going to supply the electric rechargeable dozers and road graders qualified for Martian conditions? These need to be ready by the time the ships are ready to fly to Mars, so Musk can load them into the belly of one or more ships. Without them to prepare proper landing fields, more of the ships will crash. Anybody working on that? NO.

You cannot set up and operate hardware like that, even wearing something no more restrictive than the old Apollo moon suit. And what we're using today is even worse. We need a supple non-restrictive space suit for Mars, easily launderable, easily repairable, easily adaptable to varying conditions, and tolerant of damage. We need it by the time the ships are ready to fly to Mars. MCP done as vacuum-protective underwear, with mix-and-match outerwear, fills the bill, but NO ONE is working on it anymore. So who is going to supply that?

We're going to need GPS satellites and surface radar beacons to safely guide the landings. Who is going to supply them? How will we send them there? How will we see they are properly installed, especially the surface beacons? Who is actually working on such things? (Answer: NO ONE.)

Who is going to do the drill-rig probe (10+ m deep) on the various sites to confirm or deny the presence of suitable mass ice deposits for propellant, potable water, and oxygen production? Where's the drill rig probe design? How will we send it there? Who is working on sch a thing? (Answer: NO ONE.)

NASA actually is working on a nuclear power electricity source with its kilopower project. I doubt it will be ready in time, though, although it could be if SLS and Gateway didn't sop up 100-200% of the budget. The mission will need a lot of these nuke power sources in order to make thousands of tons of propellant on 2-3 year timescales. How will we send them?

None of those questions have any answers yet at all. 2022 is a fantasy. 2030 might not be, but it will be a fantasy if nobody else bellies up to the bar and answers these (and other) questions.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-09-06 10:51:12)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-09-06 13:55:31

Just some random thoughts here: what is the status of SpaceX at this moment in time? Looking at the launch manifest, the most important mission they have currently is the first flight of the Dragon 2 manned capsule--suitably unmanned for the test flight to ISS. This in itself, is a major step in the right direction. There are also 2 Falcon Heavy missions, one for the Air Force, and a second one for Arabsat. I'm looking forward with great anticipation to the upcoming flights, as they will indicate a LOT about the ability of SX to make progress and move forward from initial experimental flight to those of a more routine nature. I would be hoping that Musk would seize the opportunity to combine the best of both systems and renew his planned Red Dragon flights as interim substitutes for the BFR 2022 missions. A Red Dragon could conceivably be ready to fly sometime in mid 2020, with some reshuffling of priorities. So...what could Red Dragon accomplish?

(1) Demonstrate navigational software works adequately, and has an orbital intercept with the planet.
(2) Demonstrate an ability to accomplish a aerocapture reentry and make a retropropulsive landing. Any landing would work that didn't destroy the vehicle.
(3) Have onboard a prototype Sabatier Reactor and a supply of L H2.
(4) Have onboard a prototype Moxie unit.
(5) Have a solar powered radar transponder system for a surface reference for later inbound flights.

These experiments--if the necessary experimental fuel manufacturing equipment can be assembled in time--would go a long way towards assuring that the concept of ISRU is indeed viable.

SX would then come to grips with actually LANDING something, and not simply say how they intend to accomplish same in their promos.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-09-06 13:57:50)

louis · 2018-09-06 14:09:54

Well I am probably repeating myself as there have been similar discussions before...but Musk's reputation for time slippage in rocket development is unfair I think. Re the original Falcon 9 development, Space X found it very difficult initially to attract the right engineering and design talent to a start up. This no longer applies. Space X are seen as a leader in the field and I imagine all the young talent wants to work for them. Re the Falcon 9 Heavy, well that can be seen as an unhelpful detour, analogous to the Space Shuttle fiasco...basically
joining three rockets together was not a good idea...even if they got there finally and the results made for a spectacular launch. The BFR is as far as I can see is essentially a scaling up exercise.

The landings issue are complex but I don't think we know for sure whether it will be necessary to have robotic preparation of the landing area. I don't think Wooster mentioned that... (just checked the video again - looks like he didn't - he talks about "identifying hazards" - that could be done with a "toy rover", but it might just be using on board cameras and other remote assessment).

Space X will have access to very detailed knowledge of the landing site, down to the size and position of individual rocks and boulders. If I was preparing for this, I would make an exact replica of the landing site, down to individual boulders on top of Mars analogue regolith. and see what happens when you try to land on it with your BFR. You might want some system where the cargo BFRs can eject the equivalent of coloured balls in the area, which could then be used to determine the exact location of the landing site for the human passenger BFR. Lock on to that with a laser guidance system and also use topographical mapping to get you into the zone. Transponders can get you into the right general zone before you lose radio contact.

I've stated before that I don't think a Mars GPS is any way necessary. Again, I don't think Wooster mentioned any such system being necessary.

I'm not a technician but I am sure there will be ways of getting cargo ships to do a close up assessment of water content (maybe using lasers to burn off regolith, or again using a "toy rover"). I think there is confusion over where they will be looking for a pure ice source at a permafrost layer or at a glacier, or whether they are going to heat near surface regolith, (or maybe they will surprise us and opt to extract from the atmosphere - extracting water from the atmosphere is probably the most dependable method, although we'd have to see how much mass of machinery was required).

Anyway, the way Wooster tells it, the water extraction doesn't start until 2024. So they've got about 5 years from now to fine tune that.

Ultralightweight PV panels can supply the power. Space X are clearly committed to solar power.

2024 a fantasy? Let me put this hypothesis to you: if you were Musk, wouldn't you be concerned about politicians, commercial rivals, establishment scientists, econuts and others trying to stymie your plans as you approach your goal. We know there is a movement in the science community to stop human exploration and settlement of Mars? In those circumstances might you not encourage your staffers to keep using the "aspirational" word as you approach your goal...wouldn't you keep a fair degree of radio silence about your progress...rather than kicking up a PR hullabaloo...in other words, wouldn't you tread softly, try and lull the opposition into a false sense of security - "Space X will never pull this off on this timeline".

Wooster makes clear in the video presentation that Space X will be looking to other organisations to contribute to the project. Makes sense - rather than trying to build up an expert base in so many different fields.

GW Johnson wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Spacex supporter as well. But being a realist, I see many problems yet to solve before BFS and BFS/BFR fly successfully. If they've missed one, and they peruse these forums, then maybe pointing out the one they missed will help them avoid it.
Like Oldfart1939, I see a great deal of unreality to the 2022 schedule for first cargo flights to Mars. I don't think it'll happen that quick, even if Musk solves his Tesla problem and returns to work with Shotwell at Spacex. The whole history of schedule projections by Musk has been like that: overoptimistic. But, on the other hand, he actually does pretty much what he says he will do. It just takes longer than he thought.
I really do think BFR/BFS will eventually fly, and that it is uniquely a breakthrough in payload size and cost-effectiveness on Mars. It is also riskier than some other mission architectures. But more is required for that kind of mission than just a transportation system. And Spacex has its hands quite full just making that transportation system fly at all. As I understand it, the initial short-hop tests of the BFS second stage will take place at the south Texas site near Brownsville. Hard to say when, since none are yet under construction in California.
There are several missing pieces, and other outfits are going to have to belly up to the bar and produce them, for this to succeed at all, no matter when the ships actually fly.
First and foremost is the in-situ propellant production plant. Who will build that, so Musk can put it in the belly of his ship? I'm not talking about some demonstration lander, I'm talking about a real production plant! It must be ready by the time the ships are ready to fly to Mars. So who is working on that? Best I can tell, NO ONE.
Second, who is going to supply the electric rechargeable dozers and road graders qualified for Martian conditions? These need to be ready by the time the ships are ready to fly to Mars, so Musk can load them into the belly of one or more ships. Without them to prepare proper landing fields, more of the ships will crash. Anybody working on that? NO.
You cannot set up and operate hardware like that, even wearing something no more restrictive than the old Apollo moon suit. And what we're using today is even worse. We need a supple non-restrictive space suit for Mars, easily launderable, easily repairable, easily adaptable to varying conditions, and tolerant of damage. We need it by the time the ships are ready to fly to Mars. MCP done as vacuum-protective underwear, with mix-and-match outerwear, fills the bill, but NO ONE is working on it anymore. So who is going to supply that?
We're going to need GPS satellites and surface radar beacons to safely guide the landings. Who is going to supply them? How will we send them there? How will we see they are properly installed, especially the surface beacons? Who is actually working on such things? (Answer: NO ONE.)
Who is going to do the drill-rig probe (10+ m deep) on the various sites to confirm or deny the presence of suitable mass ice deposits for propellant, potable water, and oxygen production? Where's the drill rig probe design? How will we send it there? Who is working on sch a thing? (Answer: NO ONE.)
NASA actually is working on a nuclear power electricity source with its kilopower project. I doubt it will be ready in time, though, although it could be if SLS and Gateway didn't sop up 100-200% of the budget. The mission will need a lot of these nuke power sources in order to make thousands of tons of propellant on 2-3 year timescales. How will we send them?
None of those questions have any answers yet at all. 2022 is a fantasy. 2030 might not be, but it will be a fantasy if nobody else bellies up to the bar and answers these (and other) questions.
GW

Oldfart1939 · 2018-09-06 15:38:37

Louis-

That is again a lot of wishful thinking which demonstrates a total ignorance of how landing systems operate. Transponders NEVER lose contact during landings at airfields, which is how the big Airbus 320s and Boeing 787 aircraft conduct landings in total IFR conditions. They use a combination of GPS and ground based transponders to accurately determine the position of an airplane w/r runway systems to an accuracy previously undreamed of. They are using an "autoland system," which may not give the most featherlike landings, are always SAFE landings.

Area mapping of landing hazards is not possible with the present reconnaissance satellites due to inadequate optics and pixel size of the cameras. Period. One of the recent speakers at our Mars Society chapter meetings, a gentleman from Ball Research in Boulder Colorado (who had designed and supervised construction of MRO) stated that clearly. I can't remember the surface size corresponding to a camera pixel at this time, and after 8 months of hearing the discussion.

Your assertion that GPS satellites AREN'T NECESSARY is absurd. Without GPS to fine tune the trajectory of the incoming spacecraft, we could wind up as far away as other side of the planet. This is all going to be programmed into the onboard computer of the spacecraft, and there's NO ABORT option. We need absolutely all the data possible in order to land somewhere where we might have access to a supply of water.

What I was attempting to summarize was how we can make use of present assets to ensure later success with the BFS.

louis · 2018-09-06 16:14:20

I referred to loss of radio contact, so not wishful thinking on my part. Laser landing is already well advanced:

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/features/alhat.html

Individual boulders can be identified:

"The watershed moment came in 2006 when the HiRISE camera aboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter went live, able to resolve rocks the size of a basketball on the surface. " (and that's from six years ago - things have improved further since then)...

https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm?Fus … logsID=240

It's not "my" assertion that GPS isn't necessary for Mission One counts - it's the fact Wooster makes no mention of it!

I think this is the difference since our last outing on this discussion: we have now heard directly from the Chief Engineer for Space X's Mars Project, and he doesn't seem to agree with what you consider to be "absolutely essential".

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Louis-
That is again a lot of wishful thinking which demonstrates a total ignorance of how landing systems operate. Transponders NEVER lose contact during landings at airfields, which is how the big Airbus 320s and Boeing 787 aircraft conduct landings in total IFR conditions. They use a combination of GPS and ground based transponders to accurately determine the position of an airplane w/r runway systems to an accuracy previously undreamed of. They are using an "autoland system," which may not give the most featherlike landings, are always SAFE landings.
Area mapping of landing hazards is not possible with the present reconnaissance satellites due to inadequate optics and pixel size of the cameras. Period. One of the recent speakers at our Mars Society chapter meetings, a gentleman from Ball Research in Boulder Colorado (who had designed and supervised construction of MRO) stated that clearly. I can't remember the surface size corresponding to a camera pixel at this time, and after 8 months of hearing the discussion.
Your assertion that GPS satellites AREN'T NECESSARY is absurd. Without GPS to fine tune the trajectory of the incoming spacecraft, we could wind up as far away as other side of the planet. This is all going to be programmed into the onboard computer of the spacecraft, and there's NO ABORT option. We need absolutely all the data possible in order to land somewhere where we might have access to a supply of water.
What I was attempting to summarize was how we can make use of present assets to ensure later success with the BFS.

Last edited by louis (2018-09-06 16:15:54)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-09-06 16:24:37

How about Kilopower nuclear reactors on Mars? This is from NASA.

https://youtu.be/NLE5YFuCmhw

P.S. The guy speaking at our meeting designed HiRise. He's a member of the Colorado Front Range Mars Society.

louis · 2018-09-06 16:53:42

"We're hoping we can get that mission going pretty soon..." Sounds like Kilopower...They still haven't built a working prototype have they? Just smaller scale units.

We have space-rated PV systems now, existing. And Musk's companies are among the world's leaders in PV design and batter storage. What's not to like?

Oldfart1939 wrote:

How about Kilopower nuclear reactors on Mars? This is from NASA.
https://youtu.be/NLE5YFuCmhw
P.S. The guy speaking at our meeting designed HiRise. He's a member of the Colorado Front Range Mars Society.

SpaceNut · 2018-09-06 19:06:09

Reputations are fleeting when you make poor choice to vocalize, have projects that burn up, blow up and are not competing at all for the dollars other than from the very rich.

A work full size kilowatt unit takes cash and it would happen. A mission using one is coming soon as a proving point of full functionality.

Cameras can not look at anything in a dust storm .

The radio blackout is because of the plasma heating up around the shield but it does not last long as its not like you are steering the craft in any direction when it occurs.

The gps and landing site beacons allow for the error correction...

Laser also fails under heavy dust clouding as it relys on the reflected optics....

Oldfart1939's pilot run to mars is just what space x should do to prove that it does not need these things...

Even the nasa DRM 5 was over 1250 mT going from LEO to mars and BFR is what, no risk assessment for anything ect....it can not even prove that it can unfurl the solar panels for the journey of about 8 months let alone tuck them back in for the landing only to unpack them again with out issues requiring a man to get out of the craft to fix it....

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Mars Mission Systems Analysis and Requirements Definition

Videos do not cut it for documentation for what spacex wants and will be able to do... Even this student level is better than that...
Inspiration Mars Student Competition 2014 a Joint Ventures in Mars Exploration

This tells you what you much account for even in the DRM 3.0... Human Missions to Mars Reality or Fantasy? by Donald Rapp

Determining An Affordable Mars Mission Capable NTP Thrust Size

https://iepc2017.org/sites/default/file … ure_r1.pdf

Even Mars one did a flyby free return analysis Feasibility Analysis for a Manned Mars Free-Return Mission in 2018

Oldfart1939 · 2018-09-08 11:52:30

SpaceNut-

My suggestion about the pilot missions to Mars using Falcon Heavy and Dragon 2 was based on the huge reduction in development time by using essentially COTS hardware. The Falcon Heavy central cores should be production items now, since there are 2 FH launches on the manifest for 2018. Using Block 5 strap-on stages should allow immediate reuse of the vehicles. The only throwaway parts, "expendable" components, could actually be recovered Dragon 1's, suitably upgraded with advanced terminal guidance systems and Falcon 2nd stage rockets. Essentially a resurrection of the Red Dragon concept, except that it's now within reach. I'm looking at the economic impact this could have on NASA as well as on SpaceX.

SpaceNut · 2018-09-08 13:45:52

Recoverability of the Falcon 9 heavy:
1080.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=560edea095531bf013fffbd02eec8196

Payload proof of capability :
1046.jpg?width=800&quality=85&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=214247f0c7644d2b6cec0ffa690de4c9

2 out of 3 was not bad:
1525.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=bb3baba04aadb999747713c94d8eca60

Musk’s 2008 Tesla Roadster was launched with the goal of going into an elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars.

http://earthsky.org/space/elon-musk-spa … eroid-belt

According to the revised data … it will take the Tesla about 18.8 months to complete one trip around the sun. This means that the car will reach its farthest distance from Earth in about half that time. The Tesla will cross the orbit of Mars twice per orbit, so Musk is still fulfilling his wish to send his Tesla ‘to’ Mars — it’ll just take a little longer between visits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … space.html

For the destination being mars it wouild seem that more testing is needed before men should ride a falcon 9 heavy....

The orbital path seems to have been off or underpowered to get it right to mars....

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/961 … 38/photo/1

louis · 2018-09-08 16:12:55

I used to be a fan on here of discussing how you could undertake minimal missions to Mars...I think there are probably a number of architectures you could use, taking small tonnages and then using intensive ISRU. My ideas used to be built around "throwing" a lot of the supplies at the surface and then having a small scale Apollo style lander/ascender.

But I really don't see any point now, and for the short term, in thinking about anything other than a BFR landing.

I think the BFR rocket is a done deal, whether it's 2022 or 2024 before the mission gets going. The real issue is whether Space X have thought through all the other issues: landing in rock fields, taking off from rock fields, water sourcing, propellant production, gravity deficiency health effects etc

Oldfart1939 wrote:

SpaceNut-
My suggestion about the pilot missions to Mars using Falcon Heavy and Dragon 2 was based on the huge reduction in development time by using essentially COTS hardware. The Falcon Heavy central cores should be production items now, since there are 2 FH launches on the manifest for 2018. Using Block 5 strap-on stages should allow immediate reuse of the vehicles. The only throwaway parts, "expendable" components, could actually be recovered Dragon 1's, suitably upgraded with advanced terminal guidance systems and Falcon 2nd stage rockets. Essentially a resurrection of the Red Dragon concept, except that it's now within reach. I'm looking at the economic impact this could have on NASA as well as on SpaceX.

SpaceNut · 2018-09-08 20:23:34

As far as expendable mission and throw away items at the end of life I never thought that throwing money away was a good thing and that its only recently that we have a proven reasonable method that shows that we were wrong all along.

Take for instance what do we need to make a lunar or mars lander that can be reused. I think being single stage to orbit would be just one of the conditions needed in a design for either.

Next would be long term on orbit around the moon or earth deep sleep mode until refueled for the next use.

kbd512 · 2018-09-09 00:01:02

The point to the small scale missions is finding the water that BFS needs to return to Earth. Personally, I just don't see this concept working well without a purpose built interplanetary transport vehicle and a BFS that remains at Mars and makes round trips from the surface to orbit and back to the surface again to fetch more cargo and personnel.

SpaceNut · 2018-09-09 09:09:19

Wow we discuss so many things and well losing track of what is posted seems to be part of that effect.
The 2018 Mars Society Convention Paul Wooster briefly presented on the company’s BFR and Mars colony ambitions and I posted a short transcript from Reddit on this.
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-first- … -habitats/

https://twitter.com/MaxLenormand/status … 45/photo/1

2 cargo in 2022
2 cargo + 2 crewed in 2024

past to present table in this update
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-da … plans.html

The updated concept does not drastically depart from SpaceX's original plan, but does add insights into how the new rocket and spacecraft—which Musk estimated would cost $10 billion to develop—might be funded.

History of what was the larger BFR of the past....
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/09 … bfr-plans/

louis · 2018-09-10 03:49:33

I think some people are overplaying the significance of the human passenger BFR being used as a habitat. Clearly it has to be used as a habitat for some length of time after landing, even if it's only a few hours. However, I really can't see the habitat being used for any great length of time. For one thing, the habitat will have been designed primarily for zero G not 0.38 G. That affects every aspect of the design.

I think it much more likely that there will be a "pop-up" hab - an inflatable that will be used initially on the surface. Possibly a larger hab will then be constructed at a more leisurely pace.

SpaceNut wrote:

Wow we discuss so many things and well losing track of what is posted seems to be part of that effect.
The 2018 Mars Society Convention Paul Wooster briefly presented on the company’s BFR and Mars colony ambitions and I posted a short transcript from Reddit on this.
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-first- … -habitats/
https://twitter.com/MaxLenormand/status … 45/photo/1
2 cargo in 2022
2 cargo + 2 crewed in 2024
past to present table in this update
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-da … plans.html
The updated concept does not drastically depart from SpaceX's original plan, but does add insights into how the new rocket and spacecraft—which Musk estimated would cost $10 billion to develop—might be funded.
History of what was the larger BFR of the past....
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/09 … bfr-plans/

louis · 2018-09-10 13:48:02

An interesting video but with annoying robot voice...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWUWoR7xekc

Some thought-provoking speculation on what the layout and interior of the BFS might look like.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-25 06:39:04

Report: State Of The Space Industrial Base: Winning the New Space Race for Sustainability, Prosperity and the Planet
https://spaceref.com/science-and-explor … he-planet/

Chinese astronauts set up new lab on space station
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 … ce-station

How Nasa’s new Moon rocket compares to the Saturn V of the Apollo programme
https://www.yahoo.com/now/nasa-moon-roc … 16013.html

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2018-09-05 12:43:55

Re: Where are we now?

#77 2018-09-05 16:44:10

Re: Where are we now?

#78 2018-09-05 18:32:53

Re: Where are we now?

#79 2018-09-05 21:02:40

Re: Where are we now?

#80 2018-09-06 02:31:17

Re: Where are we now?

#81 2018-09-06 08:52:37

Re: Where are we now?

#82 2018-09-06 10:34:23

Re: Where are we now?

#83 2018-09-06 10:39:36

Re: Where are we now?

#84 2018-09-06 13:55:31

Re: Where are we now?

#85 2018-09-06 14:09:54

Re: Where are we now?

#86 2018-09-06 15:38:37

Re: Where are we now?

#87 2018-09-06 16:14:20

Re: Where are we now?

#88 2018-09-06 16:24:37

Re: Where are we now?

#89 2018-09-06 16:53:42

Re: Where are we now?

#90 2018-09-06 19:06:09

Re: Where are we now?

#91 2018-09-08 11:52:30

Re: Where are we now?

#92 2018-09-08 13:45:52

Re: Where are we now?

#93 2018-09-08 16:12:55

Re: Where are we now?

#94 2018-09-08 20:23:34

Re: Where are we now?

#95 2018-09-09 00:01:02

Re: Where are we now?

#96 2018-09-09 09:09:19

Re: Where are we now?

#97 2018-09-10 03:49:33

Re: Where are we now?

#98 2018-09-10 13:48:02

Re: Where are we now?

#99 2022-08-25 06:39:04

Re: Where are we now?

Board footer