5 ms·

This is, of course, still not for manned flights as previously discussed (damned if anyone's gonna spend six months to a year crammed into a Dragon) but it woul

by hugh3 16y ago

This is, of course, still not for manned flights as previously discussed (damned if anyone's gonna spend six months to a year crammed into a Dragon) but it would be interesting to know how the economics work out for unmanned probes. On one hand, you've got the fact that a lot of the Dragon is excess weight you don't really need to send to Mars. On the other hand, you've got the savings in R&D if you can just send your robot up in a commodity capsule rather than having to design a landing system from scratch. Oh, and let's not forget the fact that one-off custom-designed landing systems don't have a great record of successful landings on Mars.

rbanffy 16y ago
You would go to Mars on a larger spacecraft (or a space station placed on an Aldrin cycler orbit) and use your Dragon to catch up with the transfer vehicle and then, again, to land on your destination. With this, you only need to pack your supplies for the trip on the Dragon plus any spares the cycler-station has to carry. Please note the Dragon, once landed on Mars, will stay there. You could mount it on top of a return stack if you had a crane. I wonder what's heavier - a Dragon or a crane that could lift one. The return stack could be deployed before the astronauts arrive and manufacture fuel required for the ascent and rendezvous with the return (or cycler) vehicle while they are on their way to Mars. I find a Moon landing more interesting. On Mars you can use the atmosphere to brake, but on the Moon you have to fight a lower gravity to land.
- FrojoS 16y ago
  Moon landing with humans has been done before but on Mars there seem to be still a few open problems. [1] However, I would bet all my money and more, that Musk, SpaceX and co. will get the job done within two decades if not a lot sooner. [1] This was posted on HN before by joey http://www.universetoday.com/7024/the-mars-landing-approach-getting-large-payloads-to-the-surface-of-the-red-planet/ http://www.universetoday.com/7024/the-mars-landing-approach-... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2479053 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2479053
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    I would recommend a Moon landing and a permanent base before we attempt to go for Mars.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      I used to be in two minds about this, but now I think I agree with you. Let's solve the problem of building a semi-self-sufficient colony on the rock in our own backyard before we try to solve the same problem on a rock a thousand times further away. All progress in space exploration has been made with baby steps. We flew men around the backside of the Moon three times before actually attempting a landing. Apollo 10 took a lunar lander within 40,000 feet of the lunar surface without landing. Whatever problems are going to arise with a Mars base I think it'd be better to solve 'em with a Moon base first. Apart from anything else it's easy to get home from the Moon if you need to evacuate, whereas easy transfers from Mars to Earth only crop up every eighteen months or so. Oh, and if you're not aware there's already a SpaceX flight to the Moon scheduled for 2013; one of the teams for the Lunar X-Prize (Astrobotic Technology) has booked one up.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        > Oh, and if you're not aware there's already a SpaceX flight to the Moon scheduled for 2013 Wow! That's really cool. What kind of mass can SpaceX put on the lunar surface? Anyone cares to do the math?
        hugh3 16y ago
        Luckily SpaceX has already done it for us. A Falcon 9 can supposedly put three tons on the Moon, or two tons on Mars: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/02/08/01.xml&headline=SpaceX%20Lands%20Contract%20To%20Fly%20To%20Moon http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?cha... Not sure if that includes the fuel you'll need for a soft landing, though. For comparison, an Apollo lunar lander was fifteen tons including fuel. I'm guessing a Falcon 9 Heavy could manage that.
rimantas 16y ago
> (damned if anyone's gonna spend six months to a year > crammed into a Dragon) Yep, they got much more space in Mars-500: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500
- rbanffy 16y ago
  They had the benefit of never having to accelerate the thing to escape velocity.

by hugh3 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago

You would go to Mars on a larger spacecraft (or a space station placed on an Aldrin cycler orbit) and use your Dragon to catch up with the transfer vehicle and then, again, to land on your destination. With this, you only need to pack your supplies for the trip on the Dragon plus any spares the cycler-station has to carry. Please note the Dragon, once landed on Mars, will stay there. You could mount it on top of a return stack if you had a crane. I wonder what's heavier - a Dragon or a crane that could lift one. The return stack could be deployed before the astronauts arrive and manufacture fuel required for the ascent and rendezvous with the return (or cycler) vehicle while they are on their way to Mars. I find a Moon landing more interesting. On Mars you can use the atmosphere to brake, but on the Moon you have to fight a lower gravity to land.

FrojoS 16y ago
Moon landing with humans has been done before but on Mars there seem to be still a few open problems. [1] However, I would bet all my money and more, that Musk, SpaceX and co. will get the job done within two decades if not a lot sooner. [1] This was posted on HN before by joey http://www.universetoday.com/7024/the-mars-landing-approach-getting-large-payloads-to-the-surface-of-the-red-planet/ http://www.universetoday.com/7024/the-mars-landing-approach-... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2479053 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2479053
- rbanffy 16y ago
  I would recommend a Moon landing and a permanent base before we attempt to go for Mars.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    I used to be in two minds about this, but now I think I agree with you. Let's solve the problem of building a semi-self-sufficient colony on the rock in our own backyard before we try to solve the same problem on a rock a thousand times further away. All progress in space exploration has been made with baby steps. We flew men around the backside of the Moon three times before actually attempting a landing. Apollo 10 took a lunar lander within 40,000 feet of the lunar surface without landing. Whatever problems are going to arise with a Mars base I think it'd be better to solve 'em with a Moon base first. Apart from anything else it's easy to get home from the Moon if you need to evacuate, whereas easy transfers from Mars to Earth only crop up every eighteen months or so. Oh, and if you're not aware there's already a SpaceX flight to the Moon scheduled for 2013; one of the teams for the Lunar X-Prize (Astrobotic Technology) has booked one up.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      > Oh, and if you're not aware there's already a SpaceX flight to the Moon scheduled for 2013 Wow! That's really cool. What kind of mass can SpaceX put on the lunar surface? Anyone cares to do the math?
      - hugh3 16y ago
        Luckily SpaceX has already done it for us. A Falcon 9 can supposedly put three tons on the Moon, or two tons on Mars: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/02/08/01.xml&headline=SpaceX%20Lands%20Contract%20To%20Fly%20To%20Moon http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?cha... Not sure if that includes the fuel you'll need for a soft landing, though. For comparison, an Apollo lunar lander was fifteen tons including fuel. I'm guessing a Falcon 9 Heavy could manage that.

rimantas 16y ago

> (damned if anyone's gonna spend six months to a year > crammed into a Dragon) Yep, they got much more space in Mars-500: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500

rbanffy 16y ago
They had the benefit of never having to accelerate the thing to escape velocity.