Red Dragon confirmed!!

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

More like the DC-3.

Yeah, that's actually a better example.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Veeltch

[fredinno]

On 2016-06-06 at 3:41 AM, KSK said:

Or leave it out completely. References to Kool aid are generally used in the same vein as references to fanboys and adding a wink at the end doesn't help turn either of them into a joke.

I've read the MCT Wikipedia page. It's almost entirely based on speculation, as acknowledged in the third paragraph:

"As of early 2016, SpaceX has not publicly released details of the space mission architecture nor all the system components of the MCT, nor a timeline for earliest MCT missions to Mars."

So if that's the best source we have to work with, then I think we can disregard comments on costs, launch rates, payload capacity or indeed pretty much anything else about MCT as being speculative at best and certainly not something to take seriously as a counterargument to anything.

You may be right. Or it could just be that there's a long lead time on planetary exploration missions, which doesn't work too well with a launch vehicle that's been under constant development since its inception and for which the first iteration at least, would only have been capable of launching very modest interplanetary payloads.

Besides, it's not as if ULA is immune to launch delays. They may be comparatively short compared to some SpaceX delays (you would hope so given the combined launch experience of ULA) but 'guaranteeing a successful launch' seems to be overselling things a little.

Oh, ok, sorry.

Granted, the F9 v1.0 could launch the majority of probes- since those cover Atlas V 401 and 411

Yeah, granted, to be entirely fair, Atlas V had some near-fails before, along with one partial fail, but it's the closest you can get right now to "guarantee".

And a long-term launch delay, like after a failed rocket, would still launch a planetary probe within the hiatus if required, or NASA would have to shell out even more money to keep it in full condition... Thankfully, such a situation has never happened.

On 2016-06-06 at 4:35 AM, Hannu2 said:

1. I am sure that 2018 is in any case overoptimistic estimate, like most Musk's suggestions are. But in my opinion it would be great if SpaceX could do Mars mission in 2020 or 2022 windows.

2. Do you also think that it is not insane to ride Niagara falls in barrel, because few crazy individuals have done it? Of course this is just my unprofessional opinion, but I would like to see a little bit longer succession statistics before I would land my billion € spacecraft on Mars with a Skycrane. But on the other hand, space exploration is pioneering work, in which there are no development without brave attempts to do things by new insane ways. In my opinion Skycrane is insane in positive and ingenious way. It is just what space exploration needs. Just as landing of used stages on barges on ocean.

3. This is true but it is exactly why SpaceX probably have to display its capabilities to achieve trust. It can not be done with Musk's overoptimistic promises and fancy videos. They have to make some engineering test missions showing that they can do it reliably and in time before anyone buy even cheap planetary transports. I fear that Musk's daydream level marketing talk about Mars colonies and other unrealistic stuff make this worse instead of increase trust among potential customers.

 

Quote

2. Do you also think that it is not insane to ride Niagara falls in barrel, because few crazy individuals have done it? Of course this is just my unprofessional opinion, but I would like to see a little bit longer succession statistics before I would land my billion € spacecraft on Mars with a Skycrane. But on the other hand, space exploration is pioneering work, in which there are no development without brave attempts to do things by new insane ways. In my opinion Skycrane is insane in positive and ingenious way. It is just what space exploration needs. Just as landing of used stages on barges on ocean.

To be entirely fair, it's not like we've tested out the Dragon V2 landing from space, ever. And Skycrane is not hugely risky- at least risky enough for NASA to not have come up with a different solution, even if it meant using a Atlas 551 instead of a Atlas 541. It's safe enough that we already have launched Billion $ spacecraft on Mars with Skycrane (and will do it again with Mars 2020). That says something about its safety.

Hell, landing on Barges has a lower success rate so far.

Quote

3. This is true but it is exactly why SpaceX probably have to display its capabilities to achieve trust. It can not be done with Musk's overoptimistic promises and fancy videos. They have to make some engineering test missions showing that they can do it reliably and in time before anyone buy even cheap planetary transports. I fear that Musk's daydream level marketing talk about Mars colonies and other unrealistic stuff make this worse instead of increase trust among potential customers.

They are already failing in that goal of attracting potential customers for their planetary program anyways, what with missing deadlines, and launch delays. The FT makes this worse because any delay more than an hour or so requires the rocket to launch the next day- meaning a unlucky set of circumstances leads to week-long delays.

Even you are planning to undergo a "better faster cheaper 2.0", it would be more reasonable for NASA to buy launches on Antares 200 (those probes would be smaller, and need a smaller rocket), since those old NK-33s are no longer used, or Minotaur 6.

SpaceX doesn't miss out on much anyways. NASA only has 1x planetary launch a year on average, on a good year. Probably not worth changing the F9 rocket entirely, so that it has the same performance as the FT version, but without the cryogenic propellants (probably by using a larger rocket diameter, or more efficient engines.

I'm worried about the BFR's supposed use of superccryogenic CH4. Imagine if SpaceX ends up losing the launch window to Mars entirely after constant delays- and the PR fail that would cause. (or on Red Dragon for that matter.)

21 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

More like the DC-3.

But would it really? I mean, it's too small for base building, or even resupply, since Mars launch windows open every 2 years. Maybe a 8m diameter scaled up version, but not the existing version.

[Mitchz95]

There was a teleconference with NASA today regarding Red Dragon. Lots of juicy details regarding the mission and NASA's role in it.

Notes, audio, and powerpoint slides here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41231.0

Edited September 21, 2016 by Mitchz95

[Virtual]

On 9/21/2016 at 5:36 PM, Mitchz95 said:

There was a teleconference with NASA today regarding Red Dragon. Lots of juicy details regarding the mission and NASA's role in it.

Notes, audio, and powerpoint slides here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41231.0

Yeah! I haven't listened to it yet but more details is always exciting! Thanks for the link.