something i thought was neat from spacex

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
<p>I remember reading that the Dragon was designed to make Lunar trips as well as being an LEO Taxi. This article makes no mention of that. Do you have any idea what the Mission Parameters would be? I would think it would be an Earth Orbit Rendezvous to Lunar Orbit rather than, say a surface to surface type mission.</p><p>Any other theories?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
Does this mean we could design and build the needed soft-landing probe/3rd stage, buy launch services from SpaceX and win the Google Lunar-X Prize? And turn handsome profit in the process?<br />
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does this mean we could design and build the needed soft-landing probe/3rd stage, buy launch services from SpaceX and win the Google Lunar-X Prize? And turn handsome profit in the process? <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />SpaceX has already stated that they would provide a Falcon vehicle to any X Prize team at cost for their attempts, so, yes, you could buy launch services from SpaceX.</p><p>Profit is another story altogether <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
D

danhezee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpaceX has already stated that they would provide a Falcon vehicle to any X Prize team at cost for their attempts, so, yes, you could buy launch services from SpaceX.Profit is another story altogether <br /> Posted by Swampcat</DIV></p><p><br />&nbsp;<font size="2">Yea from what the pdf says the F9 can put 9000kg in earth orbit but a direct lunch to the moon the paylaod is about 1000kg. The F9 cost more than the lunar xprize. The F1 (~500kg) and F1e (~1000kg) only put paylaods into earth orbit and the paylaod needs to supplies the third stage to get to the moon and then land, I think it would be extremely hard to develop such a light rover to fly on the F1 or F1e.&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="2">How much fuel weight would you need for 1kg to go from earth orbit to the lunar surface? is there a formula for that?</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

keermalec

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Yea from what the pdf says the F9 can put 9000kg in earth orbit but a direct lunch to the moon the paylaod is about 1000kg. The F9 cost more than the lunar xprize. The F1 (~500kg) and F1e (~1000kg) only put paylaods into earth orbit and the paylaod needs to supplies the third stage to get to the moon and then land, I think it would be extremely hard to develop such a light rover to fly on the F1 or F1e.&nbsp; How much fuel weight would you need for 1kg to go from earth orbit to the lunar surface? is there a formula for that? <br />Posted by danhezee</DIV><br /><br />LEO&nbsp;to lunar surface is about 6 km/s. Using the rocket equation gives about 73% propellant (assuming LOX/LH engines with 4.5 km/s exhaust velocity). Susprisingly enough, a hypothetical Mars X-Prize mission could actually cost less than the Lunar X-prize because aerobraking at Mars brings down the total propulsive delta-v to about 4.7 km/s, therefore requiring only 64% propellant.</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>LEO&nbsp;to lunar surface is about 6 km/s. Using the rocket equation gives about 73% propellant (assuming LOX/LH engines with 4.5 km/s exhaust velocity). <br /> Posted by keermalec</DIV></p><p>Does this include braking to lunar surface aswell? The 3rd stage should be capable of raising the orbit to get captured by Moon, then do a controlled descent down to the surface.</p><p>And then start crawling around and snapping those pictures to be beamed back.</p><p>I think this is doable. By somebody, atleast.&nbsp;</p>
 
K

keermalec

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does this include braking to lunar surface aswell? The 3rd stage should be capable of raising the orbit to get captured by Moon, then do a controlled descent down to the surface.And then start crawling around and snapping those pictures to be beamed back.I think this is doable. By somebody, atleast.&nbsp; <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />Yes, 6 km/s&nbsp; includes 4 km/s from LEO to LMO and 2 km/s for landing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, 6 km/s&nbsp; includes 4 km/s from LEO to LMO and 2 km/s for landing. <br /> Posted by keermalec</DIV></p><p>So that would be the total delta-V for the mission. Thanks. </p>
 
D

danhezee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So that would be the total delta-V for the mission. Thanks. <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Well you might be able to win the X-Prize and make a profit with the F1e, only $9.1 million.&nbsp; 270 kg on the surface of the moon is more than enough to demostrate the requirements to win. hell even with the F1, $7.9 million, you can put 141 kg on the surface.<br /> </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Well you might be able to win the X-Prize and make a profit with the F1e, only $9.1 million.&nbsp; 270 kg on the surface of the moon is more than enough to demostrate the requirements to win. hell even with the F1, $7.9 million, you can put 141 kg on the surface. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by danhezee</DIV></p><p>Airbags could be used to soften the landing. Powered soft-landing requires too much technology. You'd need altitude radar, attitude control and throttleable booster rockets.</p><p>Simple airbags that would be filled just before contact with the surface.&nbsp; </p>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p>What about the required 3rd stage and the method to get to moon,</p><p>is the amount of fuel needed the same whether the orbit is raised gradually until the apogee is close enough to be captured by moon vs. straight TLI burn?</p><p>Is the fuel consumption always linear whether you add delta-V with many small burns compared to just one burn to accelerate to the needed escape velocity?&nbsp;</p>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p>I'll reply myself,</p><p>ofcourse the quantity of fuel required is pretty much the same in any case. There are no such things as air resistance that increases by the square of velocity to consider in space.&nbsp;</p><p>Only here on earth you could conserve fuel by traveling the distance with lower velocity. Because of air resistance.&nbsp;</p>
 
D

danhezee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Airbags could be used to soften the landing. Powered soft-landing requires too much technology. You'd need altitude radar, attitude control and throttleable booster rockets.Simple airbags that would be filled just before contact with the surface.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>i dont know if airbags would work on the moon. on mars they used a parachute to slow down the lander before the airbags kicked in. what are you gonna do to slow down the lander on the moon??&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>i dont know if airbags would work on the moon. on mars they used a parachute to slow down the lander before the airbags kicked in. what are you gonna do to slow down the lander on the moon??&nbsp; <br /> Posted by danhezee</DIV></p><p>Airbags would absolutely work on the moon. To slow down enough I was thinking of using the same engine that raised the orbit to reach moon's gravity.</p><p>Burn the engine for as long as possible and then fill the airbags using N20 cartridges to take the impact. N20 is self-pressurizing. </p>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts