Worth pointing out that in addition to the Rube Goldbert mix of deceleration modes that seems to be required, you're going to need a much sturdier spacecraft than was used on the Moon.
The LEM could be made very lightweight because it encountered no aerodynamic forces at all, and never acclerated at what, more than a fraction of a g at full thrust? That translated into a very light skeleton covered with super-thin aluminum for the crew section, and just covered with mylar film on the descent section.
Very different for Mars -- it's easy to imagine that vehicle subject to some signficiant g loads during peak entry deceleration, parachute deployment, winds, etc. Not to mention significant aerodyamic pressure on the exposed skin. That means a stronger structure, real external walls, and much sturdier features inside -- couches for the crew, whereas the Apollo guys just stood there, and likewise to hold equpment in place. I.e., something more like the Apollo CM than the LEM, except big enough to hold a huge amount of fuel, ascent engines, months worth of exploration supplies and equipment, etc. Not easy.
Space/Science » in reply to 60 tonnes and counting...
Strong structure -- no LEM here
The whole thread (33 posts)
- No way to land large fast payloads on Mars
- I still think they should revive the original Project Orion
- re: No way to land large fast payloads on Mars
- If only..
- Quite True Currently
- Falling into Mars.
- Did my reply get deleted?
- Nuclear rockets
- Very interesting!
- If it means a brief stopover in martian parking orbit, before descending, I don't see the problem.