Mars Orbit Configuration

[Rybo]

I didn't see these images on the forums anywhere so hopefully it's something new to look out for you folks. Proposed configuration and timeline of the Orion vehicles on a trip to Mars.

 

 

[Bill Phil]

We need a logistics system that incorporates all of Earth/Lunar Space. An EML-1/2 gateway would be a good start, but we also need a LEO gateway for the gateway, with space tugs for general use.

[Nibb31]

Yeah, Lockheed Martin trying to pitch a Mars orbital space station to dumb Congress members.

The idea is silly. Why go all the way to Mars and just stay in orbit? Why do the solar panels talk about SEP and then the whole thing has LOX/LH2 tanks? Why put a docking module on top where the solar panels are going to interfere? Why bring two Orions all the way to Mars and back ?

[PB666]

1 minute ago, Nibb31 said:

Yeah, Lockheed Martin trying to pitch a Mars orbital space station to dumb Congress members.

The idea is silly. Why go all the way to Mars and just stay in orbit? Why do the solar panels talk about SEP and then the whole thing has LOX/LH2 tanks? Why put a docking module on top where the solar panels are going to interfere? Why bring two Orions all the way to Mars and back ?

SEP is for transfers, the LH2 and LO2 are for landing. And it looks like they want to take on the moons of mars not mars directly, if you are looking for an easy sample return, impact ejecta from mars will be far more abundant on these than any other place in the solar system. Although I do not see any ion drives, with a mass that size you would need have a few square meters of iondrives. I also dont see any Ion drive propellant tanks.

 

 

[VaPaL]

@Nibb31 One of the Orions will go to one of the moons. SEP is probably to interplanetary transfer, LOX,LH2, translunar/landing (possible). The final goal is to land.

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/lockheed-martin-organizations/lockheed-martin-outlines-plan-to-send-humans-to-mars-orbit-by-2028/

 

[Nibb31]

3 minutes ago, PB666 said:

SEP is for transfers, the LH2 and LO2 are for landing.

Landing what? There is no lander. It's an orbital outpost.

If you're landing on Mars, you don't need an orbital outpost.

Quote

And it looks like they want to take on the moons of mars not mars directly, if you are looking for an easy sample return, impact ejecta from mars will be far more abundant on these than any other place in the solar system.

Yeah. They don't plan on landing on Phobos or Deimos either. The picture only talks about "exploring" them with an Orion, which means flyby.

Quote

Although I do not see any ion drives, with a mass that size you would need have a few square meters of iondrives. I also dont see any Ion drive propellant tanks.

It looks like a concept banged together by an intern, or a graphic artist. As an actual concept from one of the biggest aerospace companies, it's amazingly poor.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Nibb31

[Kerbart]

5 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Yeah, Lockheed Martin trying to pitch a Mars orbital space station to dumb Congress members.

The idea is silly. Why go all the way to Mars and just stay in orbit? Why do the solar panels talk about SEP and then the whole thing has LOX/LH2 tanks? Why put a docking module on top where the solar panels are going to interfere? Why bring two Orions all the way to Mars and back ?

Well, to put some perspective to it:

• Landing on a planet is a lot more costly than merely orbiting a planet. Do a search on "DV requirements mars landing" (DV = Delta Velocity. There might even be a couple of video games out there that could introduce you to orbital mechanics to experience first hand these issues) and you'll see that while a landing might initially be a pipe-dream, budget wise, orbiting Mars is not
• There is a ton of technology that needs to be tested out to go to mars. Most of that will be, indeed, to go to Mars; the trip to it. It's not a bad idea to master that first.
• Orbiting missions can lay the groundwork for surface missions. Providing a dormant habitat in orbit, fuel for the way back perhaps?
• The main issue with remote surface operations on Mars right now is that everything has to happen very slowly. A command “nononono STOP STOP STOP!” cannot be sent to a rover, as it will take minutes to get there; by that time your rover is already at the bottom of a ravine. Roving drone-style with a pilot (or driver) giving live commands is possible from orbit, though. So you can explore a lot more, and faster, even without humans on the surface
• Successfully orbiting Mars can open budgets for surface operations like nothing else.

[PB666]

You could actually land on the moons from an orbiter with an EVA suit, The exit velocity is 11 m/s so . . . . . .

Just put a few extra propellant cans and down you go . . . . .get rid of the extra cans and replace them with moon rocks.

 

[insert_name]

50 minutes ago, PB666 said:

You could actually land on the moons from an orbiter with an EVA suit, The exit velocity is 11 m/s so . . . . . .

Just put a few extra propellant cans and down you go . . . . .get rid of the extra cans and replace them with moon rocks.

 

Just jump to get off, the gravity makes Gilly look huge 

[Rakaydos]

17 minutes ago, insert_name said:

Just jump to get off, the gravity makes Gilly look huge 

Olmpic runner Ue Boll could get into a stable low orbit.

[PB666]

1 minute ago, Rakaydos said:

Olmpic runner Ue Boll could get into a stable low orbit.

It take two changes of velocity to reach orbit, and an olympic runner could not get enough traction in low gravity on lose soils. Need those EVA jets.

[VaPaL]

@Nibb31 @PB666 About the images, yes the are artistics conception, too early for engineering drawings. But even them, this 'for media' images are usually wrong. Yesterday Soyuz launched a pair of Galileo Satellites, this are 2 images by ESA:

 

Not only different in quality/detail, but the sats are 'facing' different directions in each one. So, clearly, these kind of images should no be taken into account for this kind of details.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

Well, to put some perspective to it:

• Landing on a planet is a lot more costly than merely orbiting a planet. Do a search on "DV requirements mars landing" (DV = Delta Velocity. There might even be a couple of video games out there that could introduce you to orbital mechanics to experience first hand these issues) and you'll see that while a landing might initially be a pipe-dream, budget wise, orbiting Mars is not

Sure, but what's the point of going all the way to Mars, in at least 3 or 4 SLS launches (4 years of SLS manifest to launch a single 6 mission), if you don't event land on the surface, when you could actually do a landing in 5 SLS launches.

Quote

• There is a ton of technology that needs to be tested out to go to mars. Most of that will be, indeed, to go to Mars; the trip to it. It's not a bad idea to master that first.

Sure. But wouldn't you want to test the same hardware that you would use for a landing rather than a totally different design? 

Quote

• Orbiting missions can lay the groundwork for surface missions. Providing a dormant habitat in orbit, fuel for the way back perhaps?

Not really. You don't need a manned orbital lab to store fuel for the way back.

Quote

• The main issue with remote surface operations on Mars right now is that everything has to happen very slowly. A command “nononono STOP STOP STOP!” cannot be sent to a rover, as it will take minutes to get there; by that time your rover is already at the bottom of a ravine. Roving drone-style with a pilot (or driver) giving live commands is possible from orbit, though. So you can explore a lot more, and faster, even without humans on the surface

This is again, one of those great fallacies of space exploration that sounds good on paper, but isn't worth it in practice.

How long would the manned expedition be? 6 months ? So you would be sending this rover all the way to Mars for just a 6 month mission? Or does it have to be a dual-mode rover than can also run in autonomous mode? In that case what's the point of putting a human operator in the loop for only a small part of the mission? And who gets to decide where the rover goes what are the targets that need to be studied? Are you sure the operator in the orbital station will make better decisions than the team of 30 scientists who run MSL? Or do you expect the orbital operator to report back and await instructions from mission control on Earth? In that case what is the benefit of the orbital operator? You will cut some of that 7 minute latency, but not all of it, because you will always be waiting for feedback from mission control, and your orbital operators will also have their own sleep/eat/rest schedules.

In practice, we already have self-driving cars. Autonomous rovers don't run themselves into ravines. An orbital remote control wouldn't have saved Beagle 2 or Spirit. You have a team of scientists that operate the rover. They discuss the objectives, simulate every move, send a bunch of commands and wait for the response. In practice, this isn't a problem because time isn't limited and it allows input from more people. With an orbital operator, you are going to be under pressure to get a max of science before the return date and that person is going to carry the weight of all the decision making.

Quote

• Successfully orbiting Mars can open budgets for surface operations like nothing else.

But you'll need 80% that budget to send an orbital mission in the first place. You might as well go the full monty for a landing.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Nibb31

[Bill Phil]

Apollo 8 orbited the Moon before Apollo 11's landing. But then again, that's not Mars.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Bill Phil

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

i like this plan, but it makes no sense to hurry so much and go all that way just to confirm a landing site.

[DDE]

Is anyone else bothered by portholes through a liquid hydrogen tank array?