Meeting Underway: Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration
“NASA is sponsoring a three-day workshop to actively engage the technical and scientific communities in the early stages of a longer-term process of collaboration that bridges the objectives of the sponsoring NASA organizations. This workshop will be held June 12-14, 2012, at the Lunar and Planetary Institute.”
Meeting website with Livestream feeds of sessions.
What’s really nice is that they’re limiting presentations to 10 minutes with Q&A’s at the end, forcing speakers to be succinct.
Day 1 saw quite a bit of talk about Ice Dragon, Red Dragon and Red Dragon-MSL. One presenter had a concept for a Dragon-based sample return mission that took methane with it and processed Martian ice for O2. Return rocket was stored in a central cylinder, and there were 2 small rovers. Seems they think Dragon’s sidewalls can be easily modded to open up to deploy them.
Cool 🙂
I did some of the google sketchups for the Red Dragon (JSC ISRU/Ames drill code name) we aren’t sure if we can maybe use the side hatch to get the rover out that way.
Didn’t sound like they were talking about the side hatch in the day 1 talks Q&A, but opening up a larger ‘door’ (or doors) in the pressure hull – which is designed for 1 atmosphere but would be flown unpressurized. That makes the existing structure massive overkill & prime for modification.
Doc
Since it is over kill shouldn’t they plan multi task missions. Or design for future salvage by Martians ????
add
nice to see ideas for taking humans to other rocks again.
Doc,
Remember back to how the Apollo spacecraft solved this requirement — the rovers (which started with Apollo 15) were partially folded up and were attached to the outside of a revised version LM design. After landing, the rover was levered down via lanyards from where it was mounted on the lower-side of the LM, and then “unfolded” and locked into driving configuration. Unless there have been some major advances in related materials sciences that I haven’t seen, I think something similar would still be necessary today, unless you’re willing to take up all of your Dragon cargo space with a rover and make the hatch big enough to pass it outboard. Structurally, I just can’t see that working out. If this was attempted, the result would not be a revised Dragon, but a whole new spacecraft.
As an unsupported guess pulled out of thin air, in order to get a Mars rover large enough to be worth having on a manned Mars mission, I think they may consider putting a rover in a Dragon extended trunk, and then ejecting it while still in orbit and landing it separately, like is currently done with science missions. It will be interesting to see if some of the current proposals are modified if the MSL landing goes off without a hitch. Even doing it this way, I think we’d still need a “stowed” rover that was deployed into a driving configuration after landing. Ideally, the rover would also have an autonomous or semi-autonomous “drive home” mode that would bring it to the capsule/base location if it lands too far away. And, of course, we’d need to think about a Mars GPS. Anyhow, this is all just guess work.
Steve
Steve W,
I can envision a Dragon that only carries a rover. People and/or cargo on the same mission would fly in a different Dragon(s). That idea may seem far-fetched but perhaps only because we can’t imagine doing something like that with Apollo and certainly not with Orion. But if the cost of Dragon and associated launch vehicle is as low as Musk is aiming for then it may be a practical method.
Doc, Steve P,
I can see the possibilities in what you’re each suggesting, but to be honest, I don’t think I’d be happy with either approach if I were on the mission myself.
I approached the situation as if I were going to Mars myself, as part of the first team (or perhaps the second). I did a rough rover requirements list — with an eye to on-rover redundant systems and field maintenance spares, etc. — and considered the things that I’d want that rover to be used for. When I considered all of the things that I was likely to ask of it: the distances it would have to travel; the need for significant “haul” capability (on-board and/or trailer, pressurized and not); full environmental (shirt sleeve) containment; the lengths of time that it might have to double as a shelter; and the ability to carry enough consumables (fuel, food, heating, etc.) for trips of more than a few hours; the rover was starting to get pretty large. And we haven’t yet added in the scientific equipment we will want it to carry.
So, my point (made in my usual long-winded fashion) is that if I was relying on this rover to be transportation for people and cargo, a science lab, a dump truck for ISRU, emergency/overnight shelter, and many other things that I haven’t yet imagined, that won’t get buried or destroyed in the first sand storm, then I want something big and robust, and at the same time tricked out with all of the “extras” that I’m going to need. And it will need to be serviceable and repairable on Mars, and probably in the middle of an outing far from base. This thing is going to need to be BIG, probably have a trailer, and we’ll want at least two of them, or else we’ll have dead people on Mars when the first one breaks down a mere 30K from base.
Like many people, I’m a big fan of the Dragon family (does that make us Merlins or McCaffreys?), but they can’t do everything. Also, consider that these rovers are going to need “garages,” which means materials from which an environmentally-tight garage can be constructed, as well as “clean” transfer routes from rovers to labs/habs. This means that getting a rover out of its “box” is something that will need to be done repeatedly, probably even daily. All of this cries out for a custom rover-delivery spacecraft, one of the very few spacecraft that will be broken down for its components and differently reassembled on Mars instead of being adapted as-is for a “building.”
Next consideration: assuming that we’re planning to stay on Mars once there, and grow the population, we’re going to want lots of rovers, not just two. This factor further argues for developing a dedicated (and optimized) rover/trailer delivery system, which would also accommodate the above-mentioned garage materials. We will also need to accommodate moving a non-functioning rover, probably using a another rover and a trailer/adapter, which means lots of horsepower (thoat-power?) required. Who do you call when your tow truck breaks down?
I think I’ve made my point; we’re going to want the Mars version of a super-duper Dodge RAM, not a go-cart like the Apollo missions used. And the requirements of it’s delivery to Mars and storage/maintenance on Mars rule out using a Dragon. Keep in mind that every component of a spacecraft (or other delivery system) will be precious on Mars; nothing can afford to be wasted and everything should be used as many times and as many different ways as possible. If we do things right, there will be no garbage collection on Mars because there will be no garbage. Everything gets used, reused, and then used again… everything! Let’s call this The First Law of Sustainability.
I’m completely convinced that, in the future, a “rover” on Mars will be understood to be something big, complex and highly durable, and getting these rovers to Mars and landing them intact is a challenge yet to be met and solved. Keep your fingers crossed for MSL coming down smooth.
Steve
Steve you laid out a well thought out and robust rover. It sounds like something that would be used on an international partnership long-stay mission which I am sure will eventually be done. However I would take a guess that the first Mars mission will not be that elaborate especially if it is done by a single country, and would most likely be a short-stay mission. Rover sorties would be day trips not the multi-day expeditions that you would have on a long-stay mission.
I am just thinking about Musk’s seemingly audacious idea that SpaceX will eventually send people to Mars, and I was thinking how would he do it (“What would Elon do?” pun not intended). The mission would have to be as basic and as short as possible because even that would push SpaceX and whoever else they might be working to their absolute limit.
The vehicles needed are a crew habitat for the trip to and from Mars, which has to be as large as possible. That could be a Bigelow inflatable, unless Musk comes up with something on his own. Also needed are vehicles to launch things from Earth, land things on Mars, launch the crew from Mars, and re-enter the crew into Earth’s atmosphere. Continuing with my premise that Musk will try to use Dragons exclusively, I come up with a Bigelow hab and three Dragons:
Dragon 1 – crew capsule
Dragon 2 – cargo capsule
Dragon 3 – rover capsule
Dragons 2 and 3 are launched a few days ahead of the crew and travel to Mars where they both land at the designated landing site. In case one or both fail to land the mission would be aborted and the crew would loop around Mars and head back to Earth without landing.
The crew uses Dragon 1 to land on Mars and it would also serve as their quarters while on the surface.
The crew launches from Mars on Dragon 1 with whatever rock and soil samples they can carry with them. Dock with Bigelow, transfer home. At the end of the mission they climb into Dragon 1 for the re-entry and landing on Earth.
Steve,
I think you’re probably quite right in your view of a short stay mission being what will happen, which means one of two possibilities: 1) It will be real short; or 2) either the trip to Mars or the trip back is going to be longer than minimum transit time.
Putting aside for a moment the question of who will do it and how many countries will be involved, I really think that a short mission to Mars, even for the first one, would be a mistake. The unknowns relating to the spacecraft trips are the only real argument, in my mind, for a short mission, and they are the one thing that can’t (currently) be shortened. If we’re going to do a short Mars stay because of cost and/or risk, then we might as well do a Mars moon or asteroid first instead, which would involve significantly less cost and risk, but still teach us about the flight (I’m being serious, not facetious).
If we approach Mars (or our Moon) too modestly, we’ll end up doing Apollo again — a series of flags and footprints missions with no real accumulated off-Earth assets. And that’s an expense that I could never stand behind. Whether it’s just one country or many, the real need is to cut away all of the waste, overheads and crap in all of the Reference Mission Plans and do it smart instead of flashy; include only mission-related tasks, not everybody’s pet projects. We can only do that if we get everybody involved thinking lean and mean (not just Musk and SpaceX, but everybody). For whatever it’s worth, the only way that I’ve ever come across to get all of the players in a program to play smart is to start out by showing them two scenarios at the outset, what I call the With Plan and the Without Plan. When people see their own contributions to the garbage, presented clearly and up front, they’re quick to agree that it must stop. I used to tell engineers, “I don’t want to hear from you about anybody else’s problems and bloat; tell me how you’re controlling and reducing your own.” And I don’t see any reason why big companies, government agencies and even countries can’t be “managed” the same way.
I won’t list reasons for doing a longer mission here; you know them as well as I do, maybe better. But if you can see why I think a short mission is a mistake, let’s take it a step further — imagine the US, Russia, China, SpaceX, and whoever else is up to the challenge each doing their own Mars mission, and doing short stay missions. That’s the most inefficient scenario that I can imagine. So, I guess that tells you how I feel about international cooperation. We need to do space bigger, smarter and together, or in another 50 years we’ll still be right where we are now.
What we need, I’ve become convinced, is an overall space plan, a big picture to which all of everybody’s space efforts is dedicated. After half a century we still have as many different goals and priorities as ever, so everybody’s combined efforts don’t add together (let alone grow geometrically). In science fiction it’s often the UN that orchestrates the planetary space effort… ah, com’n now, stop that laughing…
I think you’re almost certainly quite right about the initial Mars mission(s), but I can’t see it working out. Just imagine what we could do without SLS, and if we were all rowing in the same direction. Thanks for your thoughts and for letting me blow off some steam.
Steve
Steve, I read through you and docs ideas fast and need to read again and I’m not disagreeing with your thoughts that we will need a large rover truck to get a base/outpost/mission going.
Steve Pemberton
You dragon capsule rover look something Like this??
Dragon rider capsule modified into Mars and moon rovers.
Dragon rovers land on their legs with or without two humans on board. Once landed their fold down electric wheels deploy.”
Dragon rider rover uses a hybrid tesla electric battery power train with methane generator backup. It can use solar panels or and skin for slow travel backup.
Astronauts berth near the cone. Dragon rider inflatable access pressure chamber that is deployed once the capsule has landed.
2018
To test the dragon rider rover soon to do a moon mission NASA will have Spacex land two astronauts in the Mojavee dessert
Once landed the astronauts will find a highway and drive the landed capsule back to Hawthorn at an average speed of forty miles per hour without breaking the air seal till they are safely in the factory. ISS down supples will be transferred to NASA there.
Dragon rover can make emergency hops when it has enough fuel.
Are you familiar with the carpentry term “dutchman”? It’s a recess cut into a piece of wood. Glue in a matching piece to join it to another panel with added strength, but it could easily be looked at as metal plates used to make a recess into either side of the pressure hull. Auto customizers build such recessed boxes all the time.
Put a small rover into each, install your winches and blow-off SPAM panels. After you land pop the panels, winch down the rovers & you’re off to the races without modding the aerodynamics.
Using the same hull for multiple purposes has its inefficiencies, however my guess is that Musk believes that he can save money and most importantly time by not having to design two different spacecraft if he can instead use one basic design for multiple purposes.
Reminds me of what Boeing tried to do with the Dash-80, although it didn’t quite work out as they had hoped because they wound up having to use different hull diameters for the KC-135 and the 707. Maybe Musk will have better luck in his attempt to use the same Dragon hull for multiple purposes.
I don’t have a way to do tons of research like many of you so I’m left to my imagination.
Anyway has anyone put together a Titan mission plan using Spacex dragon and dragon trunk and falcon heavy reusable as a platform for an orbital/lander submarine mission????
Dragon Titan Mission
Couldn’t dragon and a specially designed dragon trunk both with nuke batteries head to Titan and use Titans atmosphere to aero brake both of them. Then once in orbit the dragon capsule could use it’s las super dragon system to land on one of the methane lakes where it would float. Then out it’s hatch its could launch many mini robot subs that submerge and resurface near the dragon capsule/boat.
Titan Robot sub fish with critter cam lol.
The subs could even bring back samples of things found to the dragon boat which studies them and relays info back to orbiting dragon trunk which is relayed back to earth.
Imagine using a used ISS dragon capsule as a platform for a fantastic mission like that lol.
Cheaper deep space missions Inc.
I’ve actually avoided posting anything about them so far. Byt maybe I will. There are so many holes in their “plan” that it’s hard not to laugh out loud.
And doesn’t shooting holes in an idea like this possibly lead to future better plans? I just love that people are daring to think mars settlement is possible again. Most fun I had since reading Zubrins case for mars 🙂 and what if you applied their cheap dragon base ideas to a moon outpost.