Could a manned mission to Mars (and back) be done NOW!?
Discussion
RobDickinson said:
Given the premis of this thread is funds/resources are irrelevant thats an odd argument to make.
As for funding it have you noticed how SpaceX is making money out of launching rockets? And going to make it cheaper by reusing them?
Elon and SpaceX are a new wave not weighed down with nasa bureaucracy and political shackles. They are fast and dynamic, have you seen the rate of change they are developing the falcon 9 with? How they have increased the boost capacity significantly over a very short time?
How the Falcon 9 heavy ( which should lift half the SLS capacity) comprises of 3 reusable cores - those cost somewhere less than $60mil each too. Once SpaceX get the reusability thing nailed they can out 50tons into orbit fore almost nothing in space terms.
Oops sorry its a fantasy thread and I agree if money and resources were not an issue then we would be on our way to Mars. As for funding it have you noticed how SpaceX is making money out of launching rockets? And going to make it cheaper by reusing them?
Elon and SpaceX are a new wave not weighed down with nasa bureaucracy and political shackles. They are fast and dynamic, have you seen the rate of change they are developing the falcon 9 with? How they have increased the boost capacity significantly over a very short time?
How the Falcon 9 heavy ( which should lift half the SLS capacity) comprises of 3 reusable cores - those cost somewhere less than $60mil each too. Once SpaceX get the reusability thing nailed they can out 50tons into orbit fore almost nothing in space terms.
You often see writing about Elon Musk and how his fortune is paying for the space X but his is not true, He must have put company money in to the project but Space X has funding from other sources including the DoD for the falcon program during 2003-2007 for advanced technology facilities ($15.6M) and yes its launch costs are reported as 1/3 of of the launch costs of other vehicles but isn't that nature of progress.
NASA is paying Space X as a supplier along with other providers I suspect that the other manufactures will follow suit in reducing their costs or they won't have a business. NASA does not build Rockets.
Toaster said:
Oops sorry its a fantasy thread and I agree if money and resources were not an issue then we would be on our way to Mars.
You often see writing about Elon Musk and how his fortune is paying for the space X but his is not true, He must have put company money in to the project but Space X has funding from other sources including the DoD for the falcon program during 2003-2007 for advanced technology facilities ($15.6M) and yes its launch costs are reported as 1/3 of of the launch costs of other vehicles but isn't that nature of progress.
NASA is paying Space X as a supplier along with other providers I suspect that the other manufactures will follow suit in reducing their costs or they won't have a business. NASA does not build Rockets.
I honestly have no idea what point you are making.You often see writing about Elon Musk and how his fortune is paying for the space X but his is not true, He must have put company money in to the project but Space X has funding from other sources including the DoD for the falcon program during 2003-2007 for advanced technology facilities ($15.6M) and yes its launch costs are reported as 1/3 of of the launch costs of other vehicles but isn't that nature of progress.
NASA is paying Space X as a supplier along with other providers I suspect that the other manufactures will follow suit in reducing their costs or they won't have a business. NASA does not build Rockets.
RobDickinson said:
I honestly have no idea what point you are making.
The point is US Government agencies will be involved in a mission to Mars its to big for one company to do by itself. Whilst Space X are planning a heavy launch vehicle that is only one piece of a range of technologies and suppliers that will need to be involved in such a mission. To also say that they will not be weighed down (affected) by politics is naive, its government money therefore politics will be involved and it will have an effect on timescales. Nasa/DoD pay SpaceX to do stuff (research, launches etc).
If they want to pay SpaceX to do Mars mission stuff fine.
But SpaceX is created and exists entirely to send people to Mars. With or without government help. They are also a commercial company using that space to drive their goals.
If they want to pay SpaceX to do Mars mission stuff fine.
But SpaceX is created and exists entirely to send people to Mars. With or without government help. They are also a commercial company using that space to drive their goals.
SpaceX isn't a huge amount different to other launch companies. Its main attribute is that it is a new kid on the block rather than an old, legacy manufacturer and therefore has fresh ideas about how to go about things. Having said that, like the legacy guys, a large chunk of its income is still coming from the US taxpayer, whether through the DoD or NASA or other government agencies.
However, the old manufacturers had got a bit lazy and complacent in how they did things and it's good that they have a bit of fresh competition from the likes of SpaceX.
I wish them well.
However, the old manufacturers had got a bit lazy and complacent in how they did things and it's good that they have a bit of fresh competition from the likes of SpaceX.
I wish them well.
RobDickinson said:
Nasa/DoD pay SpaceX to do stuff (research, launches etc).
If they want to pay SpaceX to do Mars mission stuff fine.
But SpaceX is created and exists entirely to send people to Mars. With or without government help. They are also a commercial company using that space to drive their goals.
Absolutely unlike Boeing etc Space X is not a subsidiary company of larger organisation they have to succeed in what they do or they are no longer in business and without commercial contracts they won't survive. I am not sure its just Mars as they also launch satellites as part of the business model. Marketing stories about going to Mars helps gain funds from the Government via Nasa and DoD. NASA will be involved even if its all Space X hardware there is to much at stake and too much invested in NASA who lets face it have been doing R&D about the challenges and possibilities for decades. If they want to pay SpaceX to do Mars mission stuff fine.
But SpaceX is created and exists entirely to send people to Mars. With or without government help. They are also a commercial company using that space to drive their goals.
Eric Mc said:
SpaceX isn't a huge amount different to other launch companies. Its main attribute is that it is a new kid on the block rather than an old, legacy manufacturer and therefore has fresh ideas about how to go about things. Having said that, like the legacy guys, a large chunk of its income is still coming from the US taxpayer, whether through the DoD or NASA or other government agencies.
However, the old manufacturers had got a bit lazy and complacent in how they did things and it's good that they have a bit of fresh competition from the likes of SpaceX.
I wish them well.
I agree that Space X are changing the way boosters are built, im not sure the existing suppliers are lazy (I am sure the staff wont feel that way) but the approach space X are taking will shake up how and who will provide the hardware in the future, I suspect that over the next few years there will be many 'me too' manufacturers. However, the old manufacturers had got a bit lazy and complacent in how they did things and it's good that they have a bit of fresh competition from the likes of SpaceX.
I wish them well.
Its happened and happening in most industries doesn't matter if its retail farming or the service industry. Changes in technology and by this I mean computing power, software and networking all has part to play.
I wasn't referring to the staff of the aerospace companies being "lazy". What I was referring to was the way contracts were being negotiated with the US government agencies. Like a lot of modern corporate dealings, the choice available to the customer (i.e. the government)has shrunk drastically over the decades. In the 1950s, at the beginning of the rocket and missile procurement era, there were quite a few independent aerospace companies competing for government contracts -
Boeing
Douglas
McDonnell
Convair
Grumman
Bell
Lockheed
Martin
Northrop
Fairchild
Cessna
Beechcraft
Piper
Republic
Sikorsky
Hughes
Ryan
(I'm sure I've left a few out)
Today, most of those names have disappeared as they were subsumed in mergers and takeovers. As a result, there have been less alternatives to chose from and less ability to have one company in competition with another.
The arrival of SpaceX and a few others has injected a bit of much needed competition into this area
Boeing
Douglas
McDonnell
Convair
Grumman
Bell
Lockheed
Martin
Northrop
Fairchild
Cessna
Beechcraft
Piper
Republic
Sikorsky
Hughes
Ryan
(I'm sure I've left a few out)
Today, most of those names have disappeared as they were subsumed in mergers and takeovers. As a result, there have been less alternatives to chose from and less ability to have one company in competition with another.
The arrival of SpaceX and a few others has injected a bit of much needed competition into this area
SpaceX's plans for Mars.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-w...
Also, just checked the wiki about the space shuttle and it could only lift 30 tons?! Considering the size of the hold I'd have thought it would be much more, SLS must be enormous to lift 100 tons!
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-w...
Also, just checked the wiki about the space shuttle and it could only lift 30 tons?! Considering the size of the hold I'd have thought it would be much more, SLS must be enormous to lift 100 tons!
AshVX220 said:
SpaceX's plans for Mars.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-w...
Also, just checked the wiki about the space shuttle and it could only lift 30 tons?! Considering the size of the hold I'd have thought it would be much more, SLS must be enormous to lift 100 tons!
The shuttle itself weighs a fair bit, so it's already compromised in terms of pure lifting capacitiy.http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-w...
Also, just checked the wiki about the space shuttle and it could only lift 30 tons?! Considering the size of the hold I'd have thought it would be much more, SLS must be enormous to lift 100 tons!
Yes, the Shuttle system could launch almost 100 tons into earth orbit. Unfortnately, most of that was the Orbiter itself. A relatively small element was useful payload.
Quite often the payload carried into orbit by the Shuttle was way less than 30 tons.
Did you know that teh Shuttle also carried ballast weight into and out of orbit? It needed ballasting to maintain centre of gravity points during its descent and landing phase.
The SLS capitalises on Shuttle technology but most of what gets deposited into orbit is payload.
Quite often the payload carried into orbit by the Shuttle was way less than 30 tons.
Did you know that teh Shuttle also carried ballast weight into and out of orbit? It needed ballasting to maintain centre of gravity points during its descent and landing phase.
The SLS capitalises on Shuttle technology but most of what gets deposited into orbit is payload.
RobDickinson said:
Also note its actually cheaper (fuel wise) to go to and land something on Mars than it is to land on the moon!
How come? That sounds interesting.I would have thought that it would require greater delta V to escape Earth's orbit (the moon obviously orbiting Earth), and the exponential increase in fuel required (greater delta V meaning more fuel at every stage, so massively more fuel at launch).
While typing, I thought I ought to google - I thought it was going to involve gravity assists. There are some people with extraordinary minds.
Edit: scratch that, the delta V totals are over 10 for Mars and 6.4 for the moon (from LEO as a common point) - so my initial question still stands!
Edited by xRIEx on Thursday 3rd March 11:45
Eric Mc said:
Yes, the Shuttle system could launch almost 100 tons into earth orbit. Unfortnately, most of that was the Orbiter itself. A relatively small element was useful payload.
Quite often the payload carried into orbit by the Shuttle was way less than 30 tons.
Did you know that teh Shuttle also carried ballast weight into and out of orbit? It needed ballasting to maintain centre of gravity points during its descent and landing phase.
The SLS capitalises on Shuttle technology but most of what gets deposited into orbit is payload.
Thanks Eric and catatafish above. Quite often the payload carried into orbit by the Shuttle was way less than 30 tons.
Did you know that teh Shuttle also carried ballast weight into and out of orbit? It needed ballasting to maintain centre of gravity points during its descent and landing phase.
The SLS capitalises on Shuttle technology but most of what gets deposited into orbit is payload.
xRIEx said:
How come? That sounds interesting.
To get too and land.It takes 3000 m/s from LEO to transfer to the moon, it takes 4500m/s to transfer to Mars (lots further away but it takes a lot longer to get there).
Once you get to the moon its all about powered flight, you spend 700m/s to orbit then another 1700m/s from orbit to land.
Mars you can land straight from transfer trajectory, use the atmosphere to slow down to 400m/s, use a chute to get to 80m/s then a short burn to land from there.
You do have to haul a heat shield and parachutes etc.
In reality similar sized probes have cost about the same delta v overall to land on both.
A Mars lander might forgo chutes but still gets atmospheric reduction to 400m/s
RobDickinson said:
xRIEx said:
How come? That sounds interesting.
To get too and land.It takes 3000 m/s from LEO to transfer to the moon, it takes 4500m/s to transfer to Mars (lots further away but it takes a lot longer to get there).
Once you get to the moon its all about powered flight, you spend 700m/s to orbit then another 1700m/s from orbit to land.
Mars you can land straight from transfer trajectory, use the atmosphere to slow down to 400m/s, use a chute to get to 80m/s then a short burn to land from there.
You do have to haul a heat shield and parachutes etc.
In reality similar sized probes have cost about the same delta v overall to land on both.
A Mars lander might forgo chutes but still gets atmospheric reduction to 400m/s
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff