Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
GDRRiley

NASA next mars rover launch delayed again

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

Summary

The next Nasa Mars rover Perseverance an improved and heavier version of Curiosity launching aboard a ULA Atlas 541 is again having issue. the rover is fine but the rocket upper stage is having problems and already half of the launch window to mars is gone. if this gets delayed it will be over 2 years and hundreds of millions if it misses this launch window

Spoiler

50036907518_621ceb3cff_k-1440x960.jpg

 

Quotes

Quote

NASA says it will be forced to delay the launch of its multibillion-dollar Perseverance mission to no earlier than July 30. The Mars-bound large rover must launch on an Atlas V rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida before the middle of August, or it will miss Earth's conjunction with the red planet.

 

A source in Florida indicated that the issue was related to the Atlas V rocket's Centaur upper stage, which is fueled with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.

 

My thoughts

I'd like to see this launched this year and not pushed back years. next time maybe a falcon9 would be a better launch vehicle given they would in the 2-3 month window have spares available. ULA doesn't have time to remake the centar stage and they likely don't have any in the pipeline close to being done.

 

Sources

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/nasas-mars-perseverance-launch-date-has-slipped-eight-more-days/


Good luck, Have fun, Build PC, and have a last gen console for use once a year. I should answer most of the time between 9 to 3 PST

NightHawk 2.0: R7 2700 @4.0ghz, B450m Steel Legends, H105, 4x8gb Gell EVO 3000, XFX RX 580 8GB, Corsair RM750X, 500 gb 850 evo, 500gb 850 pro and 5tb Toshiba x300

Skunkworks: R5 3500U, 16gb, 250 intel 750, 500gb Adata XPG 6000 lite, Vega 8. HP probook G455R G6

Condor (MC server): 6600K, z170m plus, 16gb corsair vengeance LPX, samsung 750 evo, EVGA BR 450.

Bearcat (F@H box) core 2 duo, 1x4gb EEC DDR2, 250gb WD blue, 9800GTX+, STRIX 660ti, supermicro PSU, dell T3400.

Compute server Rappter(remember to add link) HP DL380G6 2xE5520 24GB ram with 4x146gb 10k drives and 4x300gb 10K drives, running NOTHING can't get anything to work

WIP NAS Spirt Cisco Security Multiservices Platform server e5420 12gb ram, 1x6 1tb raid 6 for plex + Need funding 16+1 2tb raid 6 for mass storage.

PSU Tier List      Motherboard Tier List      How to get PC parts cheap    HP probook 445R G6 review

 

"Stupidity is like trying to find a limit of a constant. You are never truly smart in something, just less stupid."  @CircleTech

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

the rover is fine but the rocket upper stage is having problems and already half of the launch window to mars is gone.

Should've gone SpaceX! Seriously though, it is bad news as I was looking forward to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

my uncle worked on preparing for it


main HP compaq 8300 prebuilt - Intel i5-3470 - 14GB ram - 500GB HDD - bluray drive

old windows 7 gaming desktop - Intel i5 2400 - lenovo CIH61M V:1.0 - 4GB ram - 1TB HDD - 160GB HDD - MSI GT 710 - dual DVD roms 

main laptop acer e5 15 - Intel i3 7th gen - 16GB ram - 1TB HDD - dvd drive                                                                     

school laptop lenovo 11e Chromebook 3rd gen - Intel celeron - 4GB ram - 32GB SSD (currently don't have this laptop)                                                          

storage server - AMD X2 250 - ASUS m4a785-m - 4GB ram - 500GB HDD - 320GB HDD - 80GB HDD                                  

myanimelist

#Muricaparrotgang                                                                                                

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BlueScope819 said:

Should've gone SpaceX! Seriously though, it is bad news as I was looking forward to it.

Why ? That makes no sense.

 

SpaceX currently doesn't have the proven capability to go to mars, much less when the project was being planned (several years ago).

 

The Atlas rocket has an incredible reliability record and ULA has a much bigger history with NASA.


~New~  BoomBerryPi project !  ~New~


new build log : http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/533392-build-log-the-scrap-simulator-x/?p=7078757 (5 screen flight sim for 620$ CAD)LTT Web Challenge is back ! go here  :  http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/448184-ltt-web-challenge-3-v21/#entry601004

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, givingtnt said:

Why ? That makes no sense.

  1. It's cheaper
  2. SpaceXs Falcon Heavy has the required parameters in order to insert it onto the proper orbit. It's not about the Falcon Heavy or any other rocket going to Mars, it's about it's ability to insert it into the correct transfer orbit. The only additional complexity is relighting the engine in LEO to push it to Mars, which they did with their test launch of the Falcon Heavy.
18 minutes ago, givingtnt said:

SpaceX currently doesn't have the proven capability to go to mars, much less when the project was being planned (several years ago).

See: Falcon Heavy test flight, 2 years ago, yes, you are correct in that the rocket selection takes place before that. I was being half sarcastic but at this point SpaceX does in fact have that capability in their catalogue currently.

18 minutes ago, givingtnt said:

The Atlas rocket has an incredible reliability record and ULA has a much bigger history with NASA.

Correct, but in terms of number of recent launches with the vehicle configuration (I did not look at the spec sheet before making this post so I don't know it would be launched on Falcon 9 Block V or Falcon Heavy, but because it's launching on the configuration with 4 SRBs it seems right on the limit), SpaceX does have more experience than ULA when it comes to number of Falcon 9 launches. SpaceX has launched 88 Falcon 9s, while ULA has launched 84 Atlas Vs.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BlueScope819 said:
  1.  

They can fit an extra SRB still (its allowed 5)

 

Either way. These things are planned so let ng in advance NASA would have never bothered with a potential offer from SpaceX lol

 

SpaceX has no experience with getting things out of low earth orbit / geostationary yet tho. 

 

And don't forget to add up previous rocket launches too :P

 

 


~New~  BoomBerryPi project !  ~New~


new build log : http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/533392-build-log-the-scrap-simulator-x/?p=7078757 (5 screen flight sim for 620$ CAD)LTT Web Challenge is back ! go here  :  http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/448184-ltt-web-challenge-3-v21/#entry601004

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, givingtnt said:

They can fit an extra SRB still (its allowed 5)

 

Either way. These things are planned so let ng in advance NASA would have never bothered with a potential offer from SpaceX lol

Yup, totally agree on both counts. Seems like NASA suffered a case of buyers remorse in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BlueScope819 said:

Yup, totally agree on both counts. Seems like NASA suffered a case of buyers remorse in this case.

Not if they launch. It's not entirely off yet.


~New~  BoomBerryPi project !  ~New~


new build log : http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/533392-build-log-the-scrap-simulator-x/?p=7078757 (5 screen flight sim for 620$ CAD)LTT Web Challenge is back ! go here  :  http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/448184-ltt-web-challenge-3-v21/#entry601004

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, givingtnt said:

And don't forget to add up previous rocket launches too :P

And dont forget other rockets that could also have done the same job

 

7 hours ago, BlueScope819 said:
  • It's cheaper
  • SpaceXs Falcon Heavy has the required parameters in order to insert it onto the proper orbit. It's not about the Falcon Heavy or any other rocket going to Mars, it's about it's ability to insert it into the correct transfer orbit. The only additional complexity is relighting the engine in LEO to push it to Mars, which they did with their test launch of the Falcon Heavy

 

While SpaceX might be cheaper, its not the launch that is the expencive bits of these crafts. So just getting a reliable launch vehicles with the fairing capabilities and upperstage options are far more important. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

While SpaceX might be cheaper, its not the launch that is the expencive bits of these crafts. So just getting a reliable launch vehicles with the fairing capabilities and upperstage options are far more important. 

Yup, that is accurate. The entire rover is $2.1 billion, but a lot of that cost is 1 time R&D that doesn't have to be done over again, so that number isn't really 100% the cost of the metal on the top of the rocket. The point I'm trying to make here is that SpaceX in my book would be a better option because

  • It's cheaper
  • They gain more experience with Mars bound payloads to help solve some of the design problems with Starship
  • SpaceX hasn't had these types of problems with the rocket second stage having issues while on the pad.

Of course, this is all a moot point now because as I said in a previous comment the selection process for the rocket takes place long before SpaceX proved themselves with the Falcon Heavy test flight, but it's interesting food for thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlueScope819 said:

They gain more experience with Mars bound payloads to help solve some of the design problems with Starship

How does this help the rover guys?

 

1 hour ago, BlueScope819 said:

SpaceX hasn't had these types of problems with the rocket second stage having issues while on the pad.

Do they have a deep space stage that has been able to do corrections and be relitt multiple times?

 

1 hour ago, BlueScope819 said:

this is all a moot point

Well its also the case that spaceX may not offer what they were looking for, even if they were available

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

How does this help the rover guys?

Long term.

5 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Do they have a deep space stage that has been able to do corrections and be relitt multiple times?

The Merlin vacuum engine, or any other mars transfer stage for that matter, is not carried to Mars with the payload. Course corrections aren't handled by the second stage main engines, but rather with very tiny thusters located on the payload. You can see this in action in this animation of the Curiosity launch. The thing that I'm talking about is jettisoned at 0:57 in the video.

 

8 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Well its also the case that spaceX may not offer what they were looking for, even if they were available

See: Falcon Heavy Test flight. They can do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

How does this help the rover guys?

It doesn’t help them specifically, but it does help NASA in general to have multiple Mars rocket options. 

11 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Do they have a deep space stage that has been able to do corrections and be relitt multiple times?

Yes. The second stage is capable of all of that. It has redundant ignition systems. 

11 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Well its also the case that spaceX may not offer what they were looking for, even if they were available

The Falcon Heavy on paper is 100% capable of this mission. 
 

Their maiden test flight launched a Tesla Roadster into a sun orbit (escaping Earths orbit). It was on a Mars injection trajectory but they didn’t bother actually moving it into Mars orbit. 
 

The roadster is currently in orbit around the sun and will remain there until someone collects it someday. 


For Sale - iPhone SE 32GB - Unlocked - Rose GoldSold

Spoiler

 

 

* Intel i7-4770K * ASRock Z97 Anniversary * 16GB RAM * 750w Seasonic Modular PSU *

* Crucial M4 128GB SSD (Primary) * Hitachi 500GB HDD (Secondary) *

* Gigabyte HD 7950 WF3 * SATA Blu-Ray Writer * Logitech g710+ * Windows 10 Pro x64 *

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

It doesn’t help them specifically, but it does help NASA in general to have multiple Mars rocket options. 

Indeed it does, but its not as if its lacking in that department in regards to other rockets with similar capabilities. Even if those options may not sit strictly in the US

 

11 minutes ago, BlueScope819 said:

Long term.

Atm, its one vehicle. So while it mat help other launches. It doesnt help them now. I do see the point tho.

 

 

16 minutes ago, BlueScope819 said:

The thing that I'm talking about is jettisoned at 0:57 in the video.

Fair enough. 

 

9 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The Falcon Heavy on paper is 100% capable of this mission. 

Same with the Delta 4 heavy, or Proton M. 

 

Which both have far more launches under their belt

 

Seemingly the Ariane 5 can do it aswell, tho current active config is more for geostationary launches it seems. 

 

So assuming SpaceX was in its current state at the time of choosing. They still may not have been picked. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Indeed it does, but its not as if its lacking in that department in regards to other rockets with similar capabilities. Even if those options may not sit strictly in the US

?

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Same with the Delta 4 heavy, or Proton M.

The Atlas V 541 can launch 17,443 KG to LEO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V#cite_note-guide-33

The Falcon 9 can launch 22,800 KG to LEO.

https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/falcon-9/

I couldn't find a spec sheet for the Atlas V 541 payload to mars, other than a crappy online "rocket builder" which doesn't give accurate Mars payload info, only Earth escape.

This means that actually the Falcon 9 would be able to launch the rover, as it can launch 5 more tons to LEO than the Atlas V 541, which logically follows that it will be able to launch more mass to Mars.

11 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Which both have far more launches under their belt

Delta IV heavy has 11 launches. Falcon 9 has 88.

 

The main reason why the Falcon Heavy hasn't seen much use is because of the upgrades made to the Falcon 9 Block V, it's been able to take on many of the payloads intended for the Falcon Heavy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BlueScope819 said:

Delta IV heavy has 11 launches. Falcon 9 has 88

Falcon 9 heavy has 3........

 

4 minutes ago, BlueScope819 said:

This means that actually the Falcon 9 would be able to launch the rover, as it can launch 5 more tons to LEO than the Atlas V 541, which logically follows that it will be able to launch more mass to Mars.

Also doesnt change that other rockets could also have taken the payload instead. 

 

While the falcon 9 heavy is great and all. There are other rockets that can do the same, but with more launches under their belt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GoldenLag said:

Falcon 9 heavy has 3........

 

Also doesnt change that other rockets could also have taken the payload instead. 

 

While the falcon 9 heavy is great and all. There are other rockets that can do the same, but with more launches under their belt.

I said Falcon 9, not Falcon 9 heavy. As I said with my quick maths, Falcon 9 can handle this payload. And yeah, multiple different rockets can handle the payload, that's not a surprise to anyone. I know. Out of the other rockets I looked at Falcon 9 has the most launches of all of them, including the Atlas V (all models)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BlueScope819 said:

said Falcon 9, not Falcon 9 heavy.

I realize ive for some reason when lookign up rockets, managed to confuse the two when looking at specs. My bad. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, BlueScope819 said:

I couldn't find a spec sheet for the Atlas V 541 payload to mars

Well, obviously. The required C3 will vary, so the max payload mass will as well.

Here is the figure  "Minimum departure energies for Earth to Mars Ballistic Missions: 1990 to 2045" from "Interplanetary Mission Design Handbook: Earth-to-Mars Mission Opportunities 2026 to 2045" (2010).

We'll just use a value of 14 and put it into the NASA Launch Vehicle Performance Website, and we immediately find that Falcon 9 Full Thrust ASDS is not even an option (using a C3 of 10 gives 2220 kg on Falcon 9 vs 4625 kg with the 541). Here are the plots for a C3 of 0, just to show. You can clearly see how the maximum payload falls much faster for the Falcon 9.

Using a C3 of 14, here are the launch vehicles capable of launching at least as much as the 541:

So the Falcon Heavy in recovery mode is barely able to carry more than the 541 (4600 vs 4270), and the 551 is able to carry more than that again (4680). Considering there have only been three launches of the Falcon Heavy, vs 84/84 successful launches of the Atlas V, the Atlas seems like a no-brainer to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

$90M vs $145M is just the cost of the launch itself, and the total cost of the mission is quite a lot higher.

52 minutes ago, BlueScope819 said:

This means that actually the Falcon 9 would be able to launch the rover, as it can launch 5 more tons to LEO than the Atlas V 541, which logically follows that it will be able to launch more mass to Mars.

I recommend studying the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. The FT second stage engine has a specific impulse of 348s vs 450.5s on the RL-10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

 

 

Edit: Obligatory "come on guys, it's not rocket science" joke

Edited by seon123
Something something

 

Quote

Women. They are a complete mystery.

-Stephen Hawking

 

I think the hoomans put their builds here?

Why do you hoomans give your builds a name? Here's my build, which I shall call "Do as I Say, Not As I Do" (seriously, don't get this build)

Spoiler

Ryzen 1500X @3,925 GHz

Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo + 2x ML120

MSI B350 Tomahawk Arctic

2x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000 MHz CL15 (Micron B-die) @2933 MHz

Sapphire Radeon R9 280 Dual-X @1120 MHz / 1450 MHz

120GB 850 Evo

120GB Kingston SSD

500GB WD Blue

Cooler Master Elite 430

Seasonic Prime Titanium 650W

Logitech G710 with Kailh Box Jade

Logitech G502

HyperX Cloud

And my laptop, which I shall call "If It's Stupid But It Works" (It can actually play CS:GO at 50 FPS, and Civ V at 25 FPS)

Spoiler

Lenovo Thinkpad L460

Intel Core i3 6100U

4GB (probably) DDR4 2133 MHz

Intel HD Graphics 520 0.3-1.0 GHz

128GB Samsung MZ7LF128HCHP

Corsair M65 Pro RGB (worst mouse I've ever had)

Sennheiser CX 5.00G

And here would be where I would put a picture of my cat. But apparently, images are not allowed here. So take this instead (*ΦωΦ*)

Hello fellow night theme users

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, seon123 said:

Well, obviously. The required C3 will vary, so the max payload mass will as well.

Here is the figure  "Minimum departure energies for Earth to Mars Ballistic Missions: 1990 to 2045" from "Interplanetary Mission Design Handbook: Earth-to-Mars Mission Opportunities 2026 to 2045" (2010).

We'll just use a value of 14 and put it into the NASA Launch Vehicle Performance Website, and we immediately find that Falcon 9 Full Thrust ASDS is not even an option (using a C3 of 10 gives 2220 kg on Falcon 9 vs 4625 kg with the 541). Here are the plots for a C3 of 0, just to show. You can clearly see how the maximum payload falls much faster for the Falcon 9.

  Reveal hidden contents

Using a C3 of 14, here are the launch vehicles capable of launching at least as much as the 541:

  Reveal hidden contents

So the Falcon Heavy in recovery mode is barely able to carry more than the 541 (4600 vs 4270), and the 551 is able to carry more than that again (4680). Considering there have only been three launches of the Falcon Heavy, vs 84/84 successful launches of the Atlas V, the Atlas seems like a no-brainer to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

$90M vs $145M is just the cost of the launch itself, and the total cost of the mission is quite a lot higher.

I recommend studying the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. The FT second stage engine has a specific impulse of 348s vs 450.5s on the RL-10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

 

 

Edit: Obligatory "come on guys, it's not rocket science" joke

Wow, you certainly know more about the math side than I do. Thank you very much for letting me know, and I will absolutely check out the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. Have a good one mate!

Link to post
Share on other sites

theoretical

25 minutes ago, seon123 said:

Well, obviously. The required C3 will vary, so the max payload mass will as well.

Here is the figure  "Minimum departure energies for Earth to Mars Ballistic Missions: 1990 to 2045" from "Interplanetary Mission Design Handbook: Earth-to-Mars Mission Opportunities 2026 to 2045" (2010).

We'll just use a value of 14 and put it into the NASA Launch Vehicle Performance Website, and we immediately find that Falcon 9 Full Thrust ASDS is not even an option (using a C3 of 10 gives 2220 kg on Falcon 9 vs 4625 kg with the 541). Here are the plots for a C3 of 0, just to show. You can clearly see how the maximum payload falls much faster for the Falcon 9.

  Reveal hidden contents

Using a C3 of 14, here are the launch vehicles capable of launching at least as much as the 541:

  Reveal hidden contents

So the Falcon Heavy in recovery mode is barely able to carry more than the 541 (4600 vs 4270), and the 551 is able to carry more than that again (4680). Considering there have only been three launches of the Falcon Heavy, vs 84/84 successful launches of the Atlas V, the Atlas seems like a no-brainer to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

$90M vs $145M is just the cost of the launch itself, and the total cost of the mission is quite a lot higher.

I recommend studying the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. The FT second stage engine has a specific impulse of 348s vs 450.5s on the RL-10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

 

 

Edit: Obligatory "come on guys, it's not rocket science" joke

So just a quick question as I was thinking about this. I would assume that the reason why all of this math works out how it does is that trans mars injection is conducted by the second stage, the same stage used for orbit insertion. This would be the only way, at least how I am thinking about it, that the Falcon 9 would be less capable than the Atlas even though it can put more mass into LEO. This is how I was thinking about it:

 

So let's say that the Falcon 9, according to the SpaceX website, can carry 22,800 KG into LEO. The numbers I were able to find for the mass of the rover was 1,000 KG, or thereabouts. Assuming another 1,500 KG for all of the other stuff it needs on it's way to mars (decent stuff, parachutes, skycrane, aeroshell, etc), it would have around 20,000 KG worth of payload margin left over in order to either carry a mars transfer stage, or to reduce weight on the rocket in general in order for the second stage to have enough DeltaV to insert the payload into the proper trajectory.

 

If the same style of logic applies to the Atlas V, it would have less payload margin overall in terms of the difference between the mass of the payload and the max payload to LEO, which would mean, at least to me, that the Falcon 9 would be able to insert a larger mass onto the correct trajectory.

 

This is different than the math laid out below, in which the Atlas V 541 is much much better than the Falcon 9. (This is what I'm confused about)

 

I redid the math with a C3 of 8, and looking at your chart it seems like we would be launching at a rather inopportune time in terms of the C3 required.

falcon.PNG.ee1633567bb22dfa81e54ae403555a4a.PNG

Assuming my payload estimate of 2500 KG is close to being accurate, Falcon 9 with ASDS would just barely not be able to make it, requiring use of Falcon Heavy. But, looking at where those graphs are crossing, even with the current day C3 of 13.2, looking at the graph above it seems like Falcon Heavy (Recovery) would offer just slightly better payload than the Atlas V 541.

 

For all of the above, is there something that I am missing here? I know this is all just a theoretical discussion because Falcon Heavy wasn't ready when the mission was in the proper planning stages, but it's interesting to discuss anyways.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BlueScope819 said:

For all of the above, is there something that I am missing here? I know this is all just a theoretical discussion because Falcon Heavy wasn't ready when the mission was in the proper planning stages, but it's interesting to discuss anyways.

 

 

if i remember right it had something to do with the second stage engine being more efficient than the space x one, i could be wrong though

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

if i remember right it had something to do with the second stage engine being more efficient than the space x one, i could be wrong though

Yup, I think you may be right. The ISP of the SpaceX Merlin Vacuum engine is 348 s, while the Centaur is 453.8 s. Is that the reason for the difference @seon123?

   
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×