5 ms·

Elon Musk's space ship Dragon 'can land on Mars'

103 points by sasvari 16y ago

bfe 16y ago
This is excellent. Many human Mars mission architectures use an Earth return vehicle that is separate from the outbound vessel. The requirements are very different, and there's an overwhelming advantage to placing an Earth return vehicle on the surface ahead of time to produce the methane fuel for its return flight in situ ahead of time, so a vessel that can get astronauts out to Mars without being able to return them is still an important contribution. On a poignant side note, the article notes that the only feature Dragon now lacks to become qualified for carrying humans is a launch abort system; the original Space Shuttle was designed without a launch abort system.
Radix 16y ago
The discussion of not yet having a return vehicle for a trip to Mars reminds me of a Reddit AMA with a Russian engineer through his grandson. There he claims his Grandfather worked on a plan to send an astronaut to Mars orbit then return, but there was a second and favored plan with which the astronaut would land on the surface, walk around, then die. http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/etu2s/i_was_born_in_shchigry_ru_in_1932_i_worked_as_a/c1ax3x1 http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/etu2s/i_was_born_in_sh... I wonder how it would be received if the goal was to create a permanent settlement on Mars rather than returning.
- robryan 16y ago
  I think if we are technologically capable of it, it's a much better plan than return. A kind of 6 months on the surface, return ASAP mission would probably go down like Apollo in that those funding it would be like well that's done now and building on that one mission could take decades again.
- roc 16y ago
  The other benefit to a settlement plan, is that you could send the habitat and tools ahead of time, to be assembled by robots. Which implies multiple missions, which lowers per-mission weight requirements, and allows for habitat tests prior to having human life (and larger, more temperamental resources) on the line and for fixes to be bundled in subsequent missions.
mey 16y ago
As always, landing is the easy part. Escaping the gravity well is not. (Looks like they plan to make it a one way trip, setup a colony, then mfg fuel before the return trip.)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - mey 16y ago
    A multi-phased trip seems reasonable, where you land the production units, and some robotics to deal with the unknowns. Then before the manned trip even happens you know that there is viable base already operating. If something happens between the manned launch, and their landing, their spaceship could be setup to handle a shot around mars for a return trip as an emergency measure. Still making a ship capable of holding 6 years of supplies isn't very attractive.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      I agree, you're going to want a base on Mars before you land there. No point going all the way there just to spend three days there (like the Moon) so significant living quarters are a great idea. To my way of thinking the best way to build is using the local materials -- either digging underground or building out of rocks. If you were clever, and if you could find a decent source of water, you could probably build a pretty good structure by using dirt and ice. This, of course, requires a lot of fancy robots. As far as the ship goes, you're definitely going to need a "mothership" capable of entering and leaving Mars orbit (so, a crapload of fuel onboard or else a new engine technology) as well as a lander, so abort capability shouldn't be that big an issue. The more I think about it, the more difficult a Mars mission seems, and the more sensible it seems to keep on sending robots until we're really ready for a permanent Mars colony (i.e. the point at which it actually makes economic sense).
    - smhinsey 16y ago
      This is pretty close to Mars Direct - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
benl 16y ago
Does anyone know any details of the thrust and delta-v capabilities of the proposed combined launch abort / retro landing system? Is it going to be just a bunch more Draco thrusters, or something else?
Vivtek 16y ago
SpaceX stories always read like they were written by Ben Bova.
hugh3 16y ago
It's nice that it has this capability, but it's still not an ideal Mars lander, and I think the economics work out that it's cheaper to design a new ship than to send a non-ideal ship all the way to Mars. For instance, the Dragon's heat shield is (I assume) far heavier than it needs to be for a Mars entry. A purpose-built Mars lander could be made significantly lighter than a purpose-built Earth lander, and sending unneccessary weight to Mars winds up expensive. Besides, there's going to be a lot of custom hardware needed for a manned Mars mission anyway. At a minimum you'll need a large "Command Module" for the astronauts to travel in (sitting in a Dragon ain't gonna cut it for a one-year voyage) and a custom-built Mars takeoff craft.
- jerf 16y ago
  I went and carefully read the statement. It says the capsule can carry crew, and that the capsule can land on Mars. It did not say that the capsule can carry crew to Mars, which is a wildly different thing. I think the Register added that accidentally. I don't think that's possible, because solving the equations to carry enough supplies to get the crew to Mars alive while still being able to stop when you get there almost certainly has no solution with any capsule primarily designed to get to Earth orbit. On the other hand, merely getting hardware to Mars if you don't care how long it takes can be relatively low energy [1], which would also be an orbit not requiring a lot of propellant to enter Mars orbit. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit
patrickgzill 16y ago
I suggest you read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and think about why any Earth-bound government would hate the idea of allowing space based travel or settlement by any agency not under their direct control.
- api 16y ago
  I'm sure it will be done by governments and/or big business, and will be under their control... at first...
sbierwagen 16y ago
Note that a crew escape system, what the article treats as an absolute minimum for a manned vehicle, doesn't exist on the space shuttle for budgetary reasons. The space shuttle has many, many abort modes[1], but absolutely nothing can be done while the solid boosters are firing, since you can't shut them off or detach them from the stack. Maciej Cegłowski (pinboard.in) complains at length about this in an essay[2] about the space shuttle. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes [2]: http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm
wtn 16y ago
I hate how the British use single quotes. It's sometimes ambiguous and relatively hard to parse.
- arethuza 16y ago
  Like JavaScript?
- hugh3 16y ago
  The convention is that double quotes are for actual quotes, while single quotes are for paraphrasing things that others have said.
bhewes 16y ago
Why do people assume that the people we send to Mars need to come back? Could we not send large supply stores first and then send people on a one way trip? I would guess people would sign up even knowing that the trip to Mars is one way.
ars 16y ago
Landing is the relatively easy part. Surviving the journey is harder. The necessary shielding is too heavy to launch, so we need some new ideas there.

103 points by sasvari 16y ago

bfe 16y ago

This is excellent. Many human Mars mission architectures use an Earth return vehicle that is separate from the outbound vessel. The requirements are very different, and there's an overwhelming advantage to placing an Earth return vehicle on the surface ahead of time to produce the methane fuel for its return flight in situ ahead of time, so a vessel that can get astronauts out to Mars without being able to return them is still an important contribution. On a poignant side note, the article notes that the only feature Dragon now lacks to become qualified for carrying humans is a launch abort system; the original Space Shuttle was designed without a launch abort system.

Radix 16y ago

The discussion of not yet having a return vehicle for a trip to Mars reminds me of a Reddit AMA with a Russian engineer through his grandson. There he claims his Grandfather worked on a plan to send an astronaut to Mars orbit then return, but there was a second and favored plan with which the astronaut would land on the surface, walk around, then die. http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/etu2s/i_was_born_in_shchigry_ru_in_1932_i_worked_as_a/c1ax3x1 http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/etu2s/i_was_born_in_sh... I wonder how it would be received if the goal was to create a permanent settlement on Mars rather than returning.

robryan 16y ago
I think if we are technologically capable of it, it's a much better plan than return. A kind of 6 months on the surface, return ASAP mission would probably go down like Apollo in that those funding it would be like well that's done now and building on that one mission could take decades again.
roc 16y ago
The other benefit to a settlement plan, is that you could send the habitat and tools ahead of time, to be assembled by robots. Which implies multiple missions, which lowers per-mission weight requirements, and allows for habitat tests prior to having human life (and larger, more temperamental resources) on the line and for fixes to be bundled in subsequent missions.

mey 16y ago

As always, landing is the easy part. Escaping the gravity well is not. (Looks like they plan to make it a one way trip, setup a colony, then mfg fuel before the return trip.)

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- mey 16y ago
  A multi-phased trip seems reasonable, where you land the production units, and some robotics to deal with the unknowns. Then before the manned trip even happens you know that there is viable base already operating. If something happens between the manned launch, and their landing, their spaceship could be setup to handle a shot around mars for a return trip as an emergency measure. Still making a ship capable of holding 6 years of supplies isn't very attractive.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    I agree, you're going to want a base on Mars before you land there. No point going all the way there just to spend three days there (like the Moon) so significant living quarters are a great idea. To my way of thinking the best way to build is using the local materials -- either digging underground or building out of rocks. If you were clever, and if you could find a decent source of water, you could probably build a pretty good structure by using dirt and ice. This, of course, requires a lot of fancy robots. As far as the ship goes, you're definitely going to need a "mothership" capable of entering and leaving Mars orbit (so, a crapload of fuel onboard or else a new engine technology) as well as a lander, so abort capability shouldn't be that big an issue. The more I think about it, the more difficult a Mars mission seems, and the more sensible it seems to keep on sending robots until we're really ready for a permanent Mars colony (i.e. the point at which it actually makes economic sense).
  - smhinsey 16y ago
    This is pretty close to Mars Direct - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

benl 16y ago

Does anyone know any details of the thrust and delta-v capabilities of the proposed combined launch abort / retro landing system? Is it going to be just a bunch more Draco thrusters, or something else?

Vivtek 16y ago

SpaceX stories always read like they were written by Ben Bova.

hugh3 16y ago

It's nice that it has this capability, but it's still not an ideal Mars lander, and I think the economics work out that it's cheaper to design a new ship than to send a non-ideal ship all the way to Mars. For instance, the Dragon's heat shield is (I assume) far heavier than it needs to be for a Mars entry. A purpose-built Mars lander could be made significantly lighter than a purpose-built Earth lander, and sending unneccessary weight to Mars winds up expensive. Besides, there's going to be a lot of custom hardware needed for a manned Mars mission anyway. At a minimum you'll need a large "Command Module" for the astronauts to travel in (sitting in a Dragon ain't gonna cut it for a one-year voyage) and a custom-built Mars takeoff craft.

jerf 16y ago
I went and carefully read the statement. It says the capsule can carry crew, and that the capsule can land on Mars. It did not say that the capsule can carry crew to Mars, which is a wildly different thing. I think the Register added that accidentally. I don't think that's possible, because solving the equations to carry enough supplies to get the crew to Mars alive while still being able to stop when you get there almost certainly has no solution with any capsule primarily designed to get to Earth orbit. On the other hand, merely getting hardware to Mars if you don't care how long it takes can be relatively low energy [1], which would also be an orbit not requiring a lot of propellant to enter Mars orbit. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit

patrickgzill 16y ago

I suggest you read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and think about why any Earth-bound government would hate the idea of allowing space based travel or settlement by any agency not under their direct control.

api 16y ago
I'm sure it will be done by governments and/or big business, and will be under their control... at first...

sbierwagen 16y ago

Note that a crew escape system, what the article treats as an absolute minimum for a manned vehicle, doesn't exist on the space shuttle for budgetary reasons. The space shuttle has many, many abort modes[1], but absolutely nothing can be done while the solid boosters are firing, since you can't shut them off or detach them from the stack. Maciej Cegłowski (pinboard.in) complains at length about this in an essay[2] about the space shuttle. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes [2]: http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm

wtn 16y ago

I hate how the British use single quotes. It's sometimes ambiguous and relatively hard to parse.

arethuza 16y ago
Like JavaScript?
hugh3 16y ago
The convention is that double quotes are for actual quotes, while single quotes are for paraphrasing things that others have said.

bhewes 16y ago

Why do people assume that the people we send to Mars need to come back? Could we not send large supply stores first and then send people on a one way trip? I would guess people would sign up even knowing that the trip to Mars is one way.

ars 16y ago

Landing is the relatively easy part. Surviving the journey is harder. The necessary shielding is too heavy to launch, so we need some new ideas there.