SpaceX--Spacecraft, rockets, and Mars

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Is the Moon and Mars really and "either/or" situation?  Can't Luna be a waypoint on the way to Mars?

[SpaceChampion]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is the Moon and Mars really and "either/or" situation?  Can't Luna be a waypoint on the way to Mars?

Well the Moon faction keeps trying to sell it that way, but the rationale has to be examined carefully to see where that makes sense and where it doesn't.  I'm all for going to the Moon for various reasons, but as a waypoint for Mars is not one of them.  If NASA is paying for it, it really doesn't add up.  It only works if you pretend the cost of setting up a Moon base doesn't exist, and all you are paying for is operational costs.  Actually, there is a real way to make it work if you inverse the scenario, I'll talk about that further down.

The Moon faction rationale is an engineering claim that the Moon makes going to Mars "easier", because the delta-V of hauling fuel from the Moon is lower than hauling fuel from Earth.  As an economic claim, that doesn't work.  If it's NASA doing it they'd have to build a $100 billion base on one of the poles of the Moon, with life support, nuclear or solar power generation, and a mining operation, but no real likelihood of growing food there if it is occupied, which it probably would have to be to repair breaking equipment, so continual resupply of food and equipment.  Payload margins are typically 2-4% of overall weight of the rocket, so it is a slow build up of material and resources, and doesn't leave you a lot of room to justify on the basis of economics.  So that takes 10-20 years of design and build-up before you're turning water into hydrogen and oxygen and launching it to somewhere near Earth.  (Mars ships would be using methane, not hydrogen, as fuel, so only the oxygen would be useful anyway).  Then you spend another 10 years designing equipment for Mars, because you can reuse the design of very little of the Moon equipment.  Everything has to be redesign from scratch for Mars.  So your moon base is sitting there doing nothing for 10 years, and maybe its 30 years from start to refueling operations total before it's useful?

Instead of getting that fuel from the Moon, hauling it up from Earth does not take 10-20-30 years and $100 billion to refuel a Mars-bound spacecraft.   Even with NASA's expensive SLS rocket it's be about $2 billion per rocket.  With SpaceX's monster Mars rocket, the ITS, it'd be about $2 million just to fuel it, and for every launch $20-50 million price (which includes launch of 5 tanker ships to refuel the main ship) charged to the customer, whether that's a government or 100 people splitting the cost.  SpaceX's plans makes a Moon water mining operation 1000 times more unnecessary for a journey to Mars.  It could also make a Moon base cheaper, certainly, but it is still cheaper to launch from Earth so you don't incur that multi-billion dollar cost ever.

The Moon faction will try to distract you saying but the Moon is only 3 days away, and Mars is 9 months.  The transit time doesn't add anything substantial to cost, and their only claim is about delta-V, ignoring costs completely.  Daddy NASA will pay for anything, they think?  NASA has no business there when a commercial industry should be responsible for mining operations, and paying for establishing mining operations is not what NASA should be doing, only paying for use of the fuel as a customer.

The only way for a Moon base to be useful to continuous journeys back and forth to Mars is if the Mars base already exists, and can be a customer for an independent commercial effort to sell oxygen derived from the Moon to a company like SpaceX.  Build a Mars base first, then someone else would have a rationale to build a Moon base, but the bill for development, set-up and operations is on them, and should serve Moon-based customers primarily, or customers going out to asteroids to mine them.  Don't ask Mars to pay for it.  Mars will have to build its own water mining operations itself, and it would be much, much cheaper than mining on the Moon.  So much cheaper (because it'd be a marginal cost over having a non-mining base on the Mars) I strongly suspect you could send Mars water to the Moon and bankrupt the water miners there by stealing all their customers, then buy their Moon base on auction for a dollar.  ;-)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I'd like to see us going to Luna, and to Mars.

[felice]

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'd like to see us going to Luna, and to Mars.

Yep. There are countless possible problems where being able to get assistance to the base within days rather than months could save the lives of the entire population, and I'm sure we'd learn plenty that would be relevant to colonising Mars. I don't see any reason a moonbase couldn't become self-sufficient for food in the long term, and colonising the solar system is a project of centuries, not years.

[SpaceChampion]

This is not a Hyperloop thread, but I imagine there would be interest here that SpaceX is hosting a Hyperloop competition today and the livestream starts about 2pm PT / 5pm ET.

http://www.spacex.com/hyperloop

 

Also, SpaceX is switching the order of launches of the Echostar sat with the CRS-10 mission to resupply ISS, due to problems getting Pad 39A ready.  CRS-10 is time sensitive and Echostar isn't.

Quote

From SpaceX: "HAWTHORNE, Calif. – Jan. 29, 2017. SpaceX announced today that its first launch from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida will be the CRS-10 mission to the International Space Station. The launch is currently targeted for no earlier than mid-February. Following the launch of CRS-10, first commercial mission from 39A is currently slated to be EchoStar XXIII. This schedule change allows time for additional testing of ground systems ahead of the CRS-10 mission. The launch vehicles, Dragon, and the EchoStar satellite are all healthy and prepared for launch."

 

[drawkcabi]

What are the opinions here on project Breakthrough Starshot?

A ~24 year trip for probes to go to Alpha Centauri and then beam information back. Actually knowing human crafts have visited an extra solar world and to get to see detailed pictures sent back...to see a real close up image of an extra solar world, that's something I never seriously believed would happen in my lifetime. But now it seems feasible, and relatively speaking (no pun intended) the cost (projected $10 Billion) isn't astronomical (pun intended). This excites me more than colonies on the moon or Mars, or anything else space exploration wise in a long time.

So traveling at 20% C, from our POV on Earth, that would still be ~24 years for trip and then information to be sent back, right? A timepiece, clock, what have you, on the probes will have measured a shorter amount of time when its data returns?

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 hours ago, drawkcabi said:

What are the opinions here on project Breakthrough Starshot?

A ~24 year trip for probes to go to Alpha Centauri and then beam information back. Actually knowing human crafts have visited an extra solar world and to get to see detailed pictures sent back...to see a real close up image of an extra solar world, that's something I never seriously believed would happen in my lifetime. But now it seems feasible, and relatively speaking (no pun intended) the cost (projected $10 Billion) isn't astronomical (pun intended). This excites me more than colonies on the moon or Mars, or anything else space exploration wise in a long time.

So traveling at 20% C, from our POV on Earth, that would still be ~24 years for trip and then information to be sent back, right? A timepiece, clock, what have you, on the probes will have measured a shorter amount of time when its data returns?

I don't find this concept all that exciting, to be honest. The tiny size of the probes, and the inability to slow down from the immense speed they will zip through the system at, will likely limit the useful information they can gather quite significantly. What level of instrumentation can you really put on such a small probe? And if it then only sends back fuzzy pictures of a lifeless gas giant or inhospitable Venus type planet, what have we really learnt after the 30 year wait?

Far better in my view to focus on building the ATLAST telescope immediately, which will give us potential direct imaging capabilities to perhaps even spot continents, oceans and vegetation on exoplanets around nearby stars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Technology_Large-Aperture_Space_Telescope

And that won't require a 30 year waiting period to see the results of your investment.

Massive space telescopes are where we should focus our interstellar exploration efforts, in my view. Until such time as we master propulsion techniques that can get large probes up to relativistic speeds.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

I agree with FNR on this one. A space telescope that could image extrasolar planets would be a true landmark in the history of astronomy. It could also be pointed to any star we choose, rather than just selecting Alpha Centauri because it happens to be close. Then if we see any planets with life, we'll know where to send the probes. 

I do support deep-space micro satellites as a platform to advance space propulsion technologies though.

[SpaceChampion]

Here's a direct image of a 4 planet system.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

What's the status of the James Webb Space Telescope?  Doesn't it go up this year or next?

[SpaceChampion]

Planet Labs (or just Planet now) recently bought out Google's stake in Terra Bella, their biggest competitor in the nano-sat market.  They also just deployed 88 satellites on an Indian rocket, giving them photographic coverage of the entire world.    This gif is the sats deploying is really cool:

 

 

[maarsen]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 0:39 PM, Leap said:

Next year I think, it's currently doing vibration tests that it started last Winter but were halted due to an anomalous reading (turned out to be related to the thing that was holding it up, not the telescope itself). 

 

Im also in favour of focussing on telescopes while we're in a limited funding period. 

That direct image is astounding. How much more could we learn with some really big telescopes? 

Along with the James Webb telescope, there is the capability to put up 2 more Hubbles.  Last year, in Scientific American, I think, there was a tiny story about the DIA offering NASA a couple of spare Hubble equivalents. They were backup spysats but are not needed any more. 

Also makes me think that a Webb equivalent,  with the same ability to see in infrared and ultraviolet is pointing towards the earth. 

[Loge]

8 hours ago, maarsen said:

Along with the James Webb telescope, there is the capability to put up 2 more Hubbles.  Last year, in Scientific American, I think, there was a tiny story about the DIA offering NASA a couple of spare Hubble equivalents. They were backup spysats but are not needed any more. 

Also makes me think that a Webb equivalent,  with the same ability to see in infrared and ultraviolet is pointing towards the earth. 

The earth's atmosphere isn't transparent in the infrared and ultraviolet. That's why you need telescopes in space.

The James Webb is built by a contractor that works a lot for the military. But it turned out that the requirements on an astronomical telescope are vastly different from those on spy satellites. Thus the delays and cost overrun. 

[SpaceChampion]

16 hours ago, maarsen said:

Along with the James Webb telescope, there is the capability to put up 2 more Hubbles.  Last year, in Scientific American, I think, there was a tiny story about the DIA offering NASA a couple of spare Hubble equivalents. They were backup spysats but are not needed any more.

It was in 2012, offered by the NRO.  Still not used -- NASA doesn't have any spare launch slots, so it might wait until Falcon Heavy is available for a cheap boost to space.

[maarsen]

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 11:56 AM, SpaceChampion said:

It was in 2012, offered by the NRO.  Still not used -- NASA doesn't have any spare launch slots, so it might wait until Falcon Heavy is available for a cheap boost to space.

Thanks for the correction.nI was relying on my aging memory. Thanks also for keeping us up to date on space related stuff.  I really do appreciate it.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Rumors that Trump may attend tomorrow's launch.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Gwynne Shotwell just announced that Red Dragon has been moved out from the 2018 to the 2020 window.

[SpaceChampion]

21 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Gwynne Shotwell just announced that Red Dragon has been moved out from the 2018 to the 2020 window.

Yes; at this point, expected.  2018 was a No-Earlier-Than date anyway.  The next launch, for CRS-10 to the ISS, is NET tomorrow.  There was some concern weather would scrub it, but the forecast is looking better.  10AM Eastern time, with the first stage landing 10 minutes later at Landing Zone 1 for the first time in daylight.

For commerical crew launches, both Boeing & SpaceX have slipped into 2018 for first crewed flights.  SpaceX needs to focus on that before expending too much energy on Red Dragon.

On the positive side, word from SpaceX is that the pressure shell of the Dragon they used for CRS-4 would be reused for CRS-11, expected April.  This would mark the first reuse of a Dragon.

Update:

Regarding Red Dragon:

Quote

This new schedule would mean:

• Red Dragon 1 | June 2020
• Red Dragon 2 & 3 | August 2022
• ITS uncrewed Mars mission | September 2024
• ITS crewed Mars mission | November 2026

 

[SerHaHa]

10 minutes to launch of the F9.  Great thread, I've learned much from others by reading the posts here.

It's hard to believe that in 2026 we could have a manned mission on the way to Mars.   I wish we would do exactly what many scientists have asked, and double the NASA budget, as well as invest in SPaceX and others.

[SpaceChampion]

yeah, last minute scrub due to a stuck steering valve on the upper stage, which is kind of important if you want your Dragon to get to the right orbit.  SpaceX should be able to fix it and launch tomorrow morning around 9:40am ET.