Red Dragon confirmed!!

[fredinno]

Well, most manned spaceflight does science as the end goal (ie space station turnover) or as a secondary mission (Space Shuttle).

3 hours ago, tater said:

 

If you build spacecraft for other people to launch, you are a "contractor."

My definition is if you are selling the product in the first place, than that's being a contractor. ESA is a contractor to NASA when NASA buys/barters the Orion SM from them. And often, the launching and construction of a satellite is done within one company (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuSTAR ) which was built and launched by Orbital.

3 hours ago, tater said:

If you launch spacecraft for your own purposes without the requirement that all your funding come at gunpoint, you are a "private space program." If you launch crew for money for a national space program, you are still a private space program, just like Delta is an airline, but not an airforce, even though the USAF flies passengers (troops) in "airliners" that they own. If Delta bombed places for money, they'd be a private airforce.

Why a different definition for crew? That's confusing.

Don't have a double standard for crew.

Also, Space is different than air. A company selling only airborne cargo flights is still and airline, is it not?

 

"If you launch spacecraft for your own purposes without the requirement that all your funding come at gunpoint, you are a "private space program." "

So if SpaceX launches a internally-made internet satellite on a F9, does that make them a private space program?

What space program directly owns and operates internet sats? (TDRS is for spacecraft radio communications, not internet)

4 hours ago, tater said:

So to be called a Space Program you have to use other people's money? SpaceX qualifies there. Or you cannot do it with a profit motive? I think if you look into the history of NASA, and how some of LBJ's buddies made out, NASA might not qualify  .

I think it's enough to launch vehicles for your own purposes to be called a Space Program, though this is pretty much a semantic argument. 

Look above.

 

Also,

Quote

Or you cannot do it with a profit motive? I think if you look into the history of NASA, and how some of LBJ's buddies made out, NASA might not qualify  .

Source?

[tater]

NASA is, and has always been a pork factory. The votes are bought with pork, and there are many in government who ended up rich, who didn't start out rich. Government (even the Presidency) doesn't pay well, they got rich somehow... you do the math.

[fredinno]

13 hours ago, tater said:

NASA is, and has always been a pork factory. The votes are bought with pork, and there are many in government who ended up rich, who didn't start out rich. Government (even the Presidency) doesn't pay well, they got rich somehow... you do the math.

WEll, it's not a direct profit motive. You could argue many donations have an indirect profit motive.

[tater]

There's a lot of cross-pollination between contractors and their "customer" the US government.

Anyone with a good definition of what constitutes a "space program" I'd love to see, I don't claim my ideas are well-stated

 

[fredinno]

On 5/19/2016 at 10:40 AM, tater said:

There's a lot of cross-pollination between contractors and their "customer" the US government.

Anyone with a good definition of what constitutes a "space program" I'd love to see, I don't claim my ideas are well-stated

 

A science-oriented set of space missions, that is not-for- (direct) profit.

[Rakaydos]

Space Program

An independant, organized effort relating to space.

ULA is not intependant of the NASA or DoD space programs. Virgin Galactic, otoh, is potentially sending people to "space" without any goverment money at all, and thus would be an independant program.

SpaceX is using the NASA space program to get a leg up on it's own planned Mars Program

[PB666]

7 minutes ago, fredinno said:

A science-oriented set of space missions, that is not-for- (direct) profit.

Im sure all of them have some level,of science, right now SX is learning how to build a rocket pad on a polluted wetland, sure the are going to do some mat science on the last launch engine bay. You have a specific set of sciences that you want to limit to....are they going to engage in space science, prolly, if its for the benefit of space travel and including manned space travel. Things like what is the most efficient way to do......I you don't think the current pardigms suffice then you have to design and test new ones. 

On each succesive launch spaceX is testing the limits, performance, and durability of their equipment, a rather empiracle science but science none the less. Not every test result will profit them. Science is a big blobby boundary layer, its that which expands itsel outward and that which releases knowledge to its interior. No they are not testing bacterial hypothesis on enceladas, but then neither am I. 

[sevenperforce]

If you think about it, the space programs of the USA and Russia didn't start with science as the primary objective; they were a colossal measuring contest between military superpowers. So it is all rather muddled. 

[fredinno]

14 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Space Program

An independant, organized effort relating to space.

ULA is not intependant of the NASA or DoD space programs. Virgin Galactic, otoh, is potentially sending people to "space" without any goverment money at all, and thus would be an independant program.

SpaceX is using the NASA space program to get a leg up on it's own planned Mars Program

Virgin Galactic is sending people to space for the eventual promise of profit.

 

In any case, when NASA contracts Orion to Lockmart, that's relating to space, isn't it? It isn't a space program though.

NASA's Discovery Program is definitely a space program, but not independent. Not is ExoMars.

 

Your definition is flawed.

11 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Im sure all of them have some level,of science, right now SX is learning how to build a rocket pad on a polluted wetland, sure the are going to do some mat science on the last launch engine bay. You have a specific set of sciences that you want to limit to....are they going to engage in space science, prolly, if its for the benefit of space travel and including manned space travel. Things like what is the most efficient way to do......I you don't think the current pardigms suffice then you have to design and test new ones. 

On each succesive launch spaceX is testing the limits, performance, and durability of their equipment, a rather empiracle science but science none the less. Not every test result will profit them. Science is a big blobby boundary layer, its that which expands itsel outward and that which releases knowledge to its interior. No they are not testing bacterial hypothesis on enceladas, but then neither am I. 

Dedicated to science. The Early Shuttle wasn't really a space program, but SpaceLab was. Neither is SpaceX launching sats and testing how much they can launch a year without a launch disaster.

SX building a pad on a polluted wetland isn't dedicated to science or engineering.

Probably science in general.

 

Just now, sevenperforce said:

If you think about it, the space programs of the USA and Russia didn't start with science as the primary objective; they were a colossal measuring contest between military superpowers. So it is all rather muddled. 

Bu that's what they quickly molded into. Science oriented, with a lot of competition between the too, integrated into a measuring contest.

[PB666]

18 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Virgin Galactic is sending people to space for the eventual promise of profit.

 

In any case, when NASA contracts Orion to Lockmart, that's relating to space, isn't it? It isn't a space program though.

NASA's Discovery Program is definitely a space program, but not independent. Not is ExoMars.

 

Your definition is flawed.

Dedicated to science. The Early Shuttle wasn't really a space program, but SpaceLab was. Neither is SpaceX launching sats and testing how much they can launch a year without a launch disaster.

SX building a pad on a polluted wetland isn't dedicated to science or engineering.

Probably science in general.

 

Bu that's what they quickly molded into. Science oriented, with a lot of competition between the too, integrated into a measuring contest.

There ia an assumptiom there that they are not doing survielance on the equipment, e.g. Xray and surface sampling, along with the other stuff. As far as i know no-one yet has tried to build up on a riparian overflow and the same circumstances as they are doing, and for them to complete they will have to do alot more. Sure its not a dedication, but then sampling on mars is alot more about getting there and designing equipment with remote sampling, analysis and results presentation than it is about sampling. Engineering and science in science in general are wrapped together, even more so when you talk about space. 

You need to broaden your horizon a bit, someone in a grage fixing cars is essentially applying the scientific method, the only realmdifference between an enginneer, a technician and a scientist is the way information is used. The engineers play the role of engineer and technician in remote space, the scientist are fed a pretty package of data and make decisions like probe this rock or take sample here, data comes back. 

The work is reporting what you have done, as a scientist.. You guys have asked the questions, how fast did F9 land, how much force, how many engines, etc. They are reporting back in an unprocessed format speed acceleration, etc. As disturbing as that sounds, if it has not been reported before and if its a process that is new, its science. Landing a rocket on a barge in the middle of night you did not expect to make back and using that as a standard, testing its weaknesses and failures, thats science. Why, because it pushes the boundaries of what we know, the next step is to figure out why it worked, and the final step is to report why. 

Crashing dummies in cars into brick walls is science, 

To get frum Sol p3 to keplar ...... is going to require alot more if the same kind of science. 

[Rakaydos]

4 hours ago, fredinno said:

Virgin Galactic is sending people to space for the eventual promise of profit.

 

In any case, when NASA contracts Orion to Lockmart, that's relating to space, isn't it? It isn't a space program though.

NASA's Discovery Program is definitely a space program, but not independent. Not is ExoMars.

 

Your definition is flawed.

Yes. my definition does not exclude a profit motive. It is an organized effort, intependant of other organized efforts, to technically reach "space."

When NASA contracts Orion to LockeedMartin, it is part of NASA's organized effort relating to space. I'm pretty sure that's what a contract means in the first place. Likewise the various NASA subprograms.

[Spaceception]

Here's a pretty good video

 

[fredinno]

On 2016-05-20 at 0:38 PM, PB666 said:

There ia an assumptiom there that they are not doing survielance on the equipment, e.g. Xray and surface sampling, along with the other stuff. As far as i know no-one yet has tried to build up on a riparian overflow and the same circumstances as they are doing, and for them to complete they will have to do alot more. Sure its not a dedication, but then sampling on mars is alot more about getting there and designing equipment with remote sampling, analysis and results presentation than it is about sampling. Engineering and science in science in general are wrapped together, even more so when you talk about space. 

You need to broaden your horizon a bit, someone in a grage fixing cars is essentially applying the scientific method, the only realmdifference between an enginneer, a technician and a scientist is the way information is used. The engineers play the role of engineer and technician in remote space, the scientist are fed a pretty package of data and make decisions like probe this rock or take sample here, data comes back. 

The work is reporting what you have done, as a scientist.. You guys have asked the questions, how fast did F9 land, how much force, how many engines, etc. They are reporting back in an unprocessed format speed acceleration, etc. As disturbing as that sounds, if it has not been reported before and if its a process that is new, its science. Landing a rocket on a barge in the middle of night you did not expect to make back and using that as a standard, testing its weaknesses and failures, thats science. Why, because it pushes the boundaries of what we know, the next step is to figure out why it worked, and the final step is to report why. 

Crashing dummies in cars into brick walls is science, 

To get frum Sol p3 to keplar ...... is going to require alot more if the same kind of science. 

Yeah. My main point was a DIRECT PROFIT MOTIVE. I agreeed with you on the science part.

On 2016-05-20 at 4:51 PM, Rakaydos said:

Yes. my definition does not exclude a profit motive. It is an organized effort, intependant of other organized efforts, to technically reach "space."

When NASA contracts Orion to LockeedMartin, it is part of NASA's organized effort relating to space. I'm pretty sure that's what a contract means in the first place. Likewise the various NASA subprograms.

By your definition, ULA has a space program. So does pretty much every space contractor. Suddenly "space program" loses its special meaning.

 

It's the same reason why the IAU redefined "planet". People consider "planets" to be a special designation, so a huge number of them makes the meaning of "planet" a lot less special.

[PB666]

24 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Yeah. My main point was a DIRECT PROFIT MOTIVE. I agreeed with you on the science part.

Yes and my point is that there is only so much science you can do without exerting your science effort on technological improvements. Unless you have completely ignored my posts over the last few months many of the critiques are directed at current technologies and where we need to improve to make things like a martian landing/base plausible. Its not stictly svience, although I know our society can afford it, directing science to increase efficiency is another parallel route relative to outlaying a trillion for a martian flag planting mission. Currently I estimated it would take 4 ships to complete a mission, 6 comfortably, two could be ion driven relay position tugs, but two need to be manned capable. If we can cut that down to 2 the you can save 10s of billions of dollars. I don't think you can get it down to one, but if you are doing realively cheap surface to leo runs, you could markedly reduce the cost of the two missions, by stockpiling reserves for those missions in space. 

Ultimately however we are going to have to put current generation efficiency technologies to work on the manned side of the mission, getting the weight of the capsule down, and we need a really efficent land and relaunch vehicle for mars. See other thread, this process is behind schedule and likely getting more delayed on the ESA side.

I actually couldn't care if humans reach and return, but i would like to see a well planned, diverse strata collect- sample and  return mission. I really don't care who does it and why. 

Edited May 22, 2016 by PB666

[CatastrophicFailure]

20 hours ago, Spaceception said:

Here's a pretty good video

 

I watched this video on my iPad, at first. I could not, for the life of me, figure out why the heck you posted it, especially after some discussions here & on the other SpaceX thread. Then I pulled the thread up on my PC, and had a good laugh. For some reason, HERE is the video I was seeing on mobile. 

[Spaceception]

11 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

I watched this video on my iPad, at first. I could not, for the life of me, figure out why the heck you posted it, especially after some discussions here & on the other SpaceX thread. Then I pulled the thread up on my PC, and had a good laugh. For some reason, HERE is the video I was seeing on mobile. 

Mobile, you cray' cray'!

[PB666]

41 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Mobile, you cray' cray'!

Hey, i had the exact problem, it was nothing but bore. at CF , thanks will watch on PC. 

That guy was creepy.

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by PB666

[Rakaydos]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

By your definition, ULA has a space program. So does pretty much every space contractor. Suddenly "space program" loses its special meaning.

It's the same reason why the IAU redefined "planet". People consider "planets" to be a special designation, so a huge number of them makes the meaning of "planet" a lot less special.

Really? I was under the impression that ULA was part of the NASA space program, and the DoD space program, and the saterlite division of their various contract payload's space programs. What is ULA's objective in space?

The only thing making SpaceX a space program, where ULA is not, is their independamt mars ambitions.

[Spaceception]

Just now, PB666 said:

Hey, i had the exact problem, it was nothing but bore. at CF , thanks will watch on PC. 

 

What's wrong with YouTube loading videos on mobile anyway?

@Red Iron Crown @Val ?

[CatastrophicFailure]

2 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

What's wrong with YouTube loading videos on mobile anyway?

@Red Iron Crown @Val ?

It's not just on the forum, I've seen the same odd behavior on videos posted on the dev blog page. Seems Safari-related. 

[Val]

2 hours ago, Spaceception said:

What's wrong with YouTube loading videos on mobile anyway?

@Red Iron Crown @Val ?

Don't know. Looks fine to me on Android phone. I see the Red Dragon video, not the Space tourism one.

[fredinno]

8 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

Really? I was under the impression that ULA was part of the NASA space program, and the DoD space program, and the saterlite division of their various contract payload's space programs. What is ULA's objective in space?

The only thing making SpaceX a space program, where ULA is not, is their independamt mars ambitions.

ULA is a launch services provider, and primarily a DOD contractor. But technically, yes, ULA is part of the NASA space program through being a contractor. On the other hand, so is the LC-39B launch pad rebuilders- but they have nothing to do with space. Thus, why I made the distinction between contractor and space program-it makes it a lot easier to work with than "part of a space program".

9 hours ago, PB666 said:

Yes and my point is that there is only so much science you can do without exerting your science effort on technological improvements. Unless you have completely ignored my posts over the last few months many of the critiques are directed at current technologies and where we need to improve to make things like a martian landing/base plausible. Its not stictly svience, although I know our society can afford it, directing science to increase efficiency is another parallel route relative to outlaying a trillion for a martian flag planting mission. Currently I estimated it would take 4 ships to complete a mission, 6 comfortably, two could be ion driven relay position tugs, but two need to be manned capable. If we can cut that down to 2 the you can save 10s of billions of dollars. I don't think you can get it down to one, but if you are doing realively cheap surface to leo runs, you could markedly reduce the cost of the two missions, by stockpiling reserves for those missions in space. 

Ultimately however we are going to have to put current generation efficiency technologies to work on the manned side of the mission, getting the weight of the capsule down, and we need a really efficent land and relaunch vehicle for mars. See other thread, this process is behind schedule and likely getting more delayed on the ESA side.

I actually couldn't care if humans reach and return, but i would like to see a well planned, diverse strata collect- sample and  return mission. I really don't care who does it and why. 

Quote

Yes and my point is that there is only so much science you can do without exerting your science effort on technological improvements. Unless you have completely ignored my posts over the last few months many of the critiques are directed at current technologies and where we need to improve to make things like a martian landing/base plausible. Its not stictly svience, although I know our society can afford it, directing science to increase efficiency is another parallel route relative to outlaying a trillion for a martian flag planting mission.

Yes, "technology" is a science. I never specified anything against that.

Quote

Currently I estimated it would take 4 ships to complete a mission, 6 comfortably, two could be ion driven relay position tugs, but two need to be manned capable. If we can cut that down to 2 the you can save 10s of billions of dollars.

Yeah. Because we'll definitely be making a Mars Colony or Base within the next 50 years.

Quote

I don't think you can get it down to one, but if you are doing realively cheap surface to leo runs, you could markedly reduce the cost of the two missions, by stockpiling reserves for those missions in space. 

Please clarify, I don't understand what you are saying.

Quote

Ultimately however we are going to have to put current generation efficiency technologies to work on the manned side of the mission, getting the weight of the capsule down, and we need a really efficent land and relaunch vehicle for mars. See other thread, this process is behind schedule and likely getting more delayed on the ESA side.

"Keeping the weight of the capsule down" and "current tech" don't mix very well.

And your argument seems to have drifted off A LOT.

Stick to one topic, please. You're acting like you have serious problems with it, and it's impossible to follow your argument.

Quote

I actually couldn't care if humans reach and return, but i would like to see a well planned, diverse strata collect- sample and  return mission. I really don't care who does it and why. 

I thought we were arguing over what should be called a space program?

[PB666]

9 hours ago, fredinno said:

Please clarify, I don't understand what you are saying.

Because there are two different operations going on to get to mars and back.

One operation is to get people into Martian SOI
The second operation is to take people from Martian SOI, land them and then return them to Martian SOI.

It could be further broken down into getting people into Terran SOI, transporting them from Terran SOI to Martians SOI, Landing them on Mars, Housing them on Mars, Returning them to Martian SOI, Transferring them back to Terran SOI, and then landing them.

Technically you only have to worry about getting them from the ISS to Martian SOI, since SOPs can be used to get them to the ISS, the same is true for Landing. We can just forget about these two since we expect the cost to go down on these in the future. The return vessel can be remotely stationed by a space tug around mars, its not that cost intensive to have a heat shield since the shield can be used to aerobrake at earth. The landing vessel can be stations around Martian SOI, if you are very efficient you can used the same heatshield for landing on mars and aerobraking to earth. Thats one vessel, a Mars landing and return and dV is virtually capped a maximum if you use ION drives to station that vessel around mars. The first vessel then goes from Earth to Mars and then transfers to the second vessels orbit, the crew transfer.

For design purpose it simply easier to stations many (land, relaunch, and earth return) vessels around Mars, the cost may be an issue. Its seems that a direct earth Mars vessel is possible, but the safest option is a vessel built in space for the purposes of having fuel reserves and crew protection again, that would drive up cost.
 

There are many possible combinations of missions

Mission impossible - the whole thing
Take off and earth return split by martian landing and return LMO. mission
Take off and enter martian SOI ended by Martian landing and full earth return.
Take off and enter martian SOI, refuel vessel mission, martian landing and return to LMO.
Take off and assemble martian station, station around mars mission, land and return to martian station mission, leave earth and martian to earth return.

etc.

 

 

[fredinno]

8 hours ago, PB666 said:

Because there are two different operations going on to get to mars and back.

One operation is to get people into Martian SOI
The second operation is to take people from Martian SOI, land them and then return them to Martian SOI.

It could be further broken down into getting people into Terran SOI, transporting them from Terran SOI to Martians SOI, Landing them on Mars, Housing them on Mars, Returning them to Martian SOI, Transferring them back to Terran SOI, and then landing them.

Technically you only have to worry about getting them from the ISS to Martian SOI, since SOPs can be used to get them to the ISS, the same is true for Landing. We can just forget about these two since we expect the cost to go down on these in the future. The return vessel can be remotely stationed by a space tug around mars, its not that cost intensive to have a heat shield since the shield can be used to aerobrake at earth. The landing vessel can be stations around Martian SOI, if you are very efficient you can used the same heatshield for landing on mars and aerobraking to earth. Thats one vessel, a Mars landing and return and dV is virtually capped a maximum if you use ION drives to station that vessel around mars. The first vessel then goes from Earth to Mars and then transfers to the second vessels orbit, the crew transfer.

For design purpose it simply easier to stations many (land, relaunch, and earth return) vessels around Mars, the cost may be an issue. Its seems that a direct earth Mars vessel is possible, but the safest option is a vessel built in space for the purposes of having fuel reserves and crew protection again, that would drive up cost.
 

There are many possible combinations of missions

Mission impossible - the whole thing
Take off and earth return split by martian landing and return LMO. mission
Take off and enter martian SOI ended by Martian landing and full earth return.
Take off and enter martian SOI, refuel vessel mission, martian landing and return to LMO.
Take off and assemble martian station, station around mars mission, land and return to martian station mission, leave earth and martian to earth return.

etc.

 

 

Quote

Technically you only have to worry about getting them from the ISS to Martian SOI, since SOPs can be used to get them to the ISS, the same is true for Landing.

The fauq is a "SOP?" And the ISS is a horrible staging point, due to its high inclination.

Quote

We can just forget about these two since we expect the cost to go down on these in the future.

Mars landers are expected to get cheaper? huh?

Quote

The return vessel can be remotely stationed by a space tug around mars, its not that cost intensive to have a heat shield since the shield can be used to aerobrake at earth.

If you plan for reuse, it's great. If not, the conventional solution of setting down a mars lander from an elliptical orbit, and slowly reducing the orbit from aerobraking is probably more mass efficient and flexible.

Quote

Thats one vessel, a Mars landing and return and dV is virtually capped a maximum if you use ION drives to station that vessel around mars. The first vessel then goes from Earth to Mars and then transfers to the second vessels orbit, the crew transfer.

That's one landing vessel. With significant mods to remove the landing hardware, and add tanks and a propulsion system to the MTV, along with an artificial gravity setup, you might be able to extend that to the Mars Transfer Vehicle, but not for the MAV. (and even then, you would only want to in the case of reuse (as the heat shield could only be used to go to enter Earth Orbit, otherwise, you'd enter Mars Orbit without any way to return to Earth)- which would assume we have multiple Mars missions instead of a few, and program cancellation).

Maybe you could bring a extra transfer stage at Mars Orbit so that the heat shield actually has a point outside reuse, but then you have 3 pieces of hardware needed (granted, a simpler piece of hardware)

Any way you look at it, you need at least 3 pieces of base hardware (4 if you include the rocket, and 5 if you include the return capsule).

 

And ION is not needed to station keep around Mars. The delta-V to station keep around earth is a 100m/s or so. It's even lower on Mars due to the thinner atmosphere.

Quote

For design purpose it simply easier to stations many (land, relaunch, and earth return) vessels around Mars, the cost may be an issue. Its seems that a direct earth Mars vessel is possible, but the safest option is a vessel built in space for the purposes of having fuel reserves and crew protection again, that would drive up cost.

If you call 3 "many" sure, why not.

And a direct Earth Mars vessel is possible, but you would need something like Sea Dragon to launch it in one piece. Not practical.

 

 

 

 

[PB666]

21 minutes ago, fredinno said:

The fauq is a "SOP?" And the ISS is a horrible staging point, due to its high inclination.

Mars landers are expected to get cheaper? huh?

If you plan for reuse, it's great. If not, the conventional solution of setting down a mars lander from an elliptical orbit, and slowly reducing the orbit from aerobraking is probably more mass efficient and flexible.

That's one landing vessel. With significant mods to remove the landing hardware, and add tanks and a propulsion system to the MTV, along with an artificial gravity setup, you might be able to extend that to the Mars Transfer Vehicle, but not for the MAV. (and even then, you would only want to in the case of reuse (as the heat shield could only be used to go to enter Earth Orbit, otherwise, you'd enter Mars Orbit without any way to return to Earth)- which would assume we have multiple Mars missions instead of a few, and program cancellation).

Maybe you could bring a extra transfer stage at Mars Orbit so that the heat shield actually has a point outside reuse, but then you have 3 pieces of hardware needed (granted, a simpler piece of hardware)

Any way you look at it, you need at least 3 pieces of base hardware (4 if you include the rocket, and 5 if you include the return capsule).

 

And ION is not needed to station keep around Mars. The delta-V to station keep around earth is a 100m/s or so. It's even lower on Mars due to the thinner atmosphere.

If you call 3 "many" sure, why not.

And a direct Earth Mars vessel is possible, but you would need something like Sea Dragon to launch it in one piece. Not practical.

ION drives imo would only be used for transfer and insertion of staged vehicles. At LMO they could be used for station keeping,,there is no need however because post insertion the could just be allowed drift untill the Manned transfer reaches mars. A direct mars is possible, a full go and return is not. Its not necessary to have a separate return if you have a refueled E to M vessel. Again a space tug could provide that fuel. 

Theres alot of thinks that spaceX could do, one is to provide the fuel the second is to transport the lander to Mars and or at the same time refuel the M to E vessel.