More on Musk's Mars Mission Machinations

smartcooky said:
What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Please don't confuse me with an actual rocket scientist! There are several arguments around the numbers that I've seen. There aren't enough details to do the math properly, so people argue about the mass fraction, exact isp, gtow, exactly how much fuel must be reserved for landing, fuel to o2 mix ratio, boil off during transit etc.

Presumably, SpaceX has these numbers are believe the math works. Plus, I was being overly cautious - presentation says 4 tankers for a Mars trip, 1 for a moon round trip. (to the surface of the moon and back to earth surface)
 
On a side note, this morning, SpaceX had another successful Falcon 9 launch from Vandenburg AFB and a successful return and soft landing of the first stage to to the Pacific Ocean platform. The payload was 10 (yes, 10) satellites for the Iridium next mobile communications fleet. Who said Falcon 9 couldn't do satellite stacking?

Tomorrow, another launch, this time from Pad 39A at KSC, carrying the SES-11/EchoStar 105 hybrid communications satellite to replace the AMC-15 and AMC-18 satellites. They will be using a previously-flown first stage. Not sure if they intend to recover Stage 1 downrange, at the Cape or at all.
 
smartcooky said:
Not sure if they intend to recover Stage 1 downrange, at the Cape or at all.
Click to expand...

Well SES-11 weighs less about 200kg less than SES-10, so an ASDS landing attempt would seem to be indicated. And then of course there's this from Elon on Instragam (alonside a picture of a booster landing on an ASDS):

Elon Musk said:
Aiming for two rocket landings in 48 hours this weekend
Click to expand...
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZzchfKg07f/
 
Octavo said:
Well SES-11 weighs less about 200kg less than SES-10, so an ASDS landing attempt would seem to be indicated. And then of course there's this from Elon on Instragam (alonside a picture of a booster landing on an ASDS):


https://www.instagram.com/p/BZzchfKg07f/
Click to expand...

TBH, I hadn't looked all that hard, and I don't have any of those instant media accounts like twitter or instagram or snapchat (and I'm never likely to).

It was fascinating this morning watching the Iridium satellites deploying from the two stacked distribution rings (five on each). You didn't get to see all of them due to camera position and the downlink dropping out as the second stage passed between relay stations, but it was worth the watch.

For mine, this was the "money" shot....

Iridium3-29.png

Iridium 3-29 (the 9th off the stack) has just deployed, and in the background, top left, you can see three other Iridium satellites that had been deployed in the previous few minutes.

https://youtu.be/SB4N4xF2B2w?t=5544
 
Last edited:
I guess it helps to do the actual math instead of doing rough estimates like I did earlier. NASA did a paper back in 1992 where they used a 150 day Earth to Mars time and a 210 day return time with 30 days at Mars.

On page 12:
The delta V from LEO to Mars transfer was 3.63 km / sec
The return delta V was 4.92
And 0.29 for Earth orbit insertion

On Wikipedia
The Raptor engine Isp is listed as 375 seconds
The total weight for the SpaceX spaceship is 1,335 metric tons
Maximum fuel is 1,100 metric tons
Empty weight is 85 metric tons

So, running the numbers using the Ideal Rocket Equation:
Delta V = Ve * ln m0 / mf

Delta V = 3,630 meters/sec
Ve = 375 sec * 9.8 meters/ sec^2
m0 = 1,335,000 kg
mf = 497 metric tons

Fuel burned outbound: 838 metric tons. So, that's quite a bit less than my earlier rough estimate of 998 metric tons burned outbound.
I get 1,200 metric tons burned for the round trip. That's pretty close to the maximum fuel capacity of 1,100 metric tons.
It's not that precise because that leaves 150 metric tons left over after subtracting empty weight and fuel. Presumably on a manned mission that 150 tonnes would be water, food, clothing, exercise equipment, supplies, etc. plus whatever people weight you have. I would assume that the fuel tanks would be sized for round trip. But I'm not seeing any mistake unless NASA's numbers for return Delta V are wrong. The only other option I can think of is if the ship gets more velocity before leaving Earth orbit.

Anyway, with these numbers you basically you arrive at Mars with about 412 metric tons of non-ship mass per ship. If you plan on coming back you need 367 metric tons of fuel per ship. I assume that you use two manned ships to have one as a backup.

You need 4.1 km/sec delta V to land on Mars from low Mars orbit
So, if the vehicle total weight is 497 metric tons you burn up 334 tonnes of fuel landing. That leaves 163 tonnes. If we subtract the empty weight of 85 tonnes then we have 78 tonnes.

I assume you could use the tanks on the cargo ship for storage but the same ratio applies taking it back into orbit. It takes 334 tonnes of fuel to get 78 tonnes into orbit.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone tell me if this site that just published my article is associated in any way with Musk?
Can We Reverse Global Warming?

They have the similar theme. a colony on Mars at the same time as weaning Earth off fossil fuels and developing sustainable systems. With the idea in principle that leaving all eggs in one basket, then polluting that basket, is unwise.

But I did not see any direct association mentioned. Maybe it is just a theme that Musk is inspiring?
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Can anyone tell me if this site that just published my article is associated in any way with Musk?
Can We Reverse Global Warming?

They have the similar theme. a colony on Mars at the same time as weaning Earth off fossil fuels and developing sustainable systems. With the idea in principle that leaving all eggs in one basket, then polluting that basket, is unwise.

But I did not see any direct association mentioned. Maybe it is just a theme that Musk is inspiring?
Click to expand...


Umm ...

You know that that idea of getting the human race established off-planet for pretty much just that reason has been a major theme in science and science fiction since probably before any of us were born, don't you?
 
quadraginta said:
Umm ...

You know that that idea of getting the human race established off-planet for pretty much just that reason has been a major theme in science and science fiction since probably before any of us were born, don't you?
Click to expand...
Yes of course, but only in theory, not in the actual doing of the thing. You think there is someone else actively promoting both a space colonization of Mars and also manufacturing alternative sustainable energy/products here on Earth?

We all have our silos. If there is one I'd be happy to know about it.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Yes of course, but only in theory, not in the actual doing of the thing. You think there is someone else actively promoting both a space colonization of Mars and also manufacturing alternative sustainable energy/products here on Earth?

We all have our silos. If there is one I'd be happy to know about it.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what your point is. We have reached a threshold where available technology and the focused investment in engineering makes these things much more feasible than they have been in the past. Many people in both hard science and speculation have pursued these sorts of goals

Musk is taking advantage of that. Others are, too, as far as they can afford.

Why are you so bothered by this?
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Who said I was bothered, I am just curious to find out if someone knows.
Click to expand...

Pretty hard to prove a negative, but I'm a pretty avid follower of Mr. Musk and I'm not aware of his involvement.

His big initiatives are: Tesla Energy, SpaceX, The Boring Company, OpenAI and Neuralink. He has holdings in a few other startups, but those 5 seem to be his "plan" for society.
 
I thought this would be as good a place as any to drop this youtube link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrahBJkKAs

Yes, I know we have a few of the "I don't click on youtube links" crowd here. All I can say is, your loss.

I also know we have a few from the "can't be bothered watching, give us a summary" community. To them I say, don't be lazy, its less than 15min long

I'll only give one clue, its Emily Calandrelli (and there's a good a reason as any to click on it) host of Fox's Xploration Outer Space , speaking at a 2015 TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.
 
smartcooky said:
I thought this would be as good a place as any to drop this youtube link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrahBJkKAs

Yes, I know we have a few of the "I don't click on youtube links" crowd here. All I can say is, your loss.

I also know we have a few from the "can't be bothered watching, give us a summary" community. To them I say, don't be lazy, its less than 15min long

I'll only give one clue, its Emily Calandrelli (and there's a good a reason as any to click on it) host of Fox's Xploration Outer Space , speaking at a 2015 TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.
Click to expand...

:D:D:D The sarcasm is strong with her! Thanks for posting!
 
smartcooky said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrahBJkKAs

Emily Calandrelli host of Fox's Xploration Outer Space , speaking at a 2015 TEDx event
Click to expand...
Yes, for those worshiping at the Musk alter, it has the required genuflecting and plugs. "A million people on Mars! It's like backing up the human race on a hard drive!"

However, even for those who understand that most of Musk's ambition is nonsense, there were still some good points. I hadn't heard about Web One. They're talking about gigabit speeds and 10 satellites next year with service in 2019. That's a long way from the 100 satellites that Emily mentioned (well, what is the world without hype?). And, curiously, the launch vehicle will be Ariane, not Falcon 9.
 
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
 
barehl said:
Yes, for those worshiping at the Musk alter, it has the required genuflecting and plugs. "A million people on Mars! It's like backing up the human race on a hard drive!"
Click to expand...

Do I believe that one day there will be a permanent population on Mars? Yes I do, if the human race doesn't wipe itself out (or get wiped out) before it gets the chance? Also, they won't all go there, the majority of them will be born there, and they may eventually reach a population approaching a million..

Will it happen in my lifetime. No, and not in my children' lifetimes or my grand-children's either... but it will happen, and someone has to think about it seriously and start the ball rolling, the sooner the better.

You know, there was a chance to get things started many years ago, but both NASA and the US government dropped the ball. They had the lead in manned flight into deep space, and a foothold on another planet, but they let it slip. Instead of pushing forward with it, they allowed themselves to get sidetracked into the costly dead end that was the Space Shuttle, NASA's '58 Edsel.

IMO we are about 40 years behind where we could have been. It is likely that we would now have a permanent manned presence on the Moon, and would have already landed people on Mars. I think they could have been better served keeping on with the Apollo programme to Apollo 22 as originally, planned and continued developing the Saturn family of rockets. I would have loved to have seen how far they could have pushed the development of the F1 rocket engine.
 
Last edited:
barehl said:
I hadn't heard about Web One. They're talking about gigabit speeds and 10 satellites next year with service in 2019. That's a long way from the 100 satellites that Emily mentioned (well, what is the world without hype?). And, curiously, the launch vehicle will be Ariane, not Falcon 9.
Click to expand...

Indeed, OneWeb and Starlink are direct competitors. If Musk can produce his own satellites (and if the factory and hiring spree they've embarked on in Seattle is anything to go by, I'd bet they will) and launch them on his own, reused boosters, the savings in launch costs alone will allow him to dominate the market.

Call me a naive fan boy, but I'm happy to watch Musk blow deadlines and promises, even if he only delivers 20% of what he says he will.
 
smartcooky said:
I thought this would be as good a place as any to drop this youtube link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrahBJkKAs

Yes, I know we have a few of the "I don't click on youtube links" crowd here. All I can say is, your loss.

I also know we have a few from the "can't be bothered watching, give us a summary" community. To them I say, don't be lazy, its less than 15min long

I'll only give one clue, its Emily Calandrelli (and there's a good a reason as any to click on it) host of Fox's Xploration Outer Space , speaking at a 2015 TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.
Click to expand...

Daniel Lelievre
1 year ago
She is indeed intelligent but that way of communicating her ideas gave me cancer.
REPLY
402



A isGood
A isGood
11 months ago
I thought you were being silly, but my doctor told me this video gave me stage 2 brain cancer. Apparently the sarcasm was so heavy that my cells mutated. This lady needs to be more careful with her sarcasm, next time someone that cares about dying may be affected.
REPLY
16



The Ultimate Reductionist
The Ultimate Reductionist
10 months ago (edited)
Agree to both of you. I CANNOT stand her perky voice combined with sarcasm.
And, in general, I LOVE sarcasm.
REPLY
10



Truth Speaker
Truth Speaker
10 months ago
Americans shouldn't try sarcasm... it is inherently British! Sorry.
REPLY
15
Click to expand...

It was exceedingly painful to watch. I couldn't even watch the full 15 min. And the subject does interest me.
 
Octavo said:
Indeed, OneWeb and Starlink are direct competitors. If Musk can produce his own satellites (and if the factory and hiring spree they've embarked on in Seattle is anything to go by, I'd bet they will) and launch them on his own, reused boosters, the savings in launch costs alone will allow him to dominate the market.

Call me a naive fan boy, but I'm happy to watch Musk blow deadlines and promises, even if he only delivers 20% of what he says he will.
Click to expand...

His 20% is like 200% from most others. I remember the promises NASA made back in the early 1970's. The Space Shuttle was going to be like this...

naive-shuttle-concept.jpg


... a space plane with a flight-line maintenance type turnaround, launching every week, with re-usability that was going to make putting payloads into orbit cheap. But what they gave us was was this...

the-cold-hard-reality.jpg


... the most complex machine ever built, one that took months to turn around, not weeks, and was unable to launch more than eight times in any year (not 52 as promised) and averaged less than 5 per year. It ran way over budget, cost over $450m per launch (more than twice the cost of any other comparable launch system), and pushed the price per kg of payload up not down. Worse yet, the design was compromised the hell out of by pork barrel politics (which led directly to the Challenger disaster) and by having to satisfy the needs of the military (e.g. the payload bay design was changed so that it could launch the NRO's KH-9 Spy Satellite).

SpaceX have actually done what they promised They have used reusability to deliver frequent and reliable, low cost payloads to orbit. They aren't subject to the biannual and quadrennial whims of politicians, and they do not compromise their basic design for anyone. So far this year, they have had fifteen launches, all with 100% successful payload deployments, twelve of which they have successfully recovered the Stage 1 booster (the other three were expendables, so recovery was not attempted). They will be attempting another five launches before the end of the year).

I grow tired of the haters and the TPS merchants, and I just don't get what motivates people to be so negative about someone who is clearly a visionary and has the ability to see his ideas through and bring them to fruition. I can only think that envy plays a key part.
 
Turns out space planes are hard, and big dumb rockets are easy. So easy, it's cheaper to make the rockets smarter, than to operate a space plane.

Sometimes you still need a space plane, though.
 
smartcooky said:
Do I believe that one day there will be a permanent population on Mars? Yes I do, if the human race doesn't wipe itself out (or get wiped out) before it gets the chance? Also, they won't all go there, the majority of them will be born there, and they may eventually reach a population approaching a million..
Click to expand...
That will happen right after the flying cars.

Will it happen in my lifetime. No, and not in my children' lifetimes or my grand-children's either...
Click to expand...
That I agree with.

someone has to think about it seriously and start the ball rolling, the sooner the better.
Click to expand...
Musk isn't rolling the ball. Musk is delusional. He's doing pretty good in terms of rockets. He's doing just okay with his electric cars. He's failing miserably with his silly, Hyperloop concept. Why pretend about Mars?

You know, there was a chance to get things started many years ago, but both NASA and the US government dropped the ball. They had the lead in manned flight into deep space, and a foothold on another planet, but they let it slip.
Click to expand...
Unless you live in an alternative reality, I don't know what you are talking about. We've never had a foothold on another planet. In the real world, the probes sent to Mars have steadily improved.

Instead of pushing forward with it, they allowed themselves to get sidetracked into the costly dead end that was the Space Shuttle, NASA's '58 Edsel.
Click to expand...
I've already talked about this. The main thing NASA did was to cancel the Saturn-IB. And, the Falcon 9 is a lot like a modernized Saturn-IB. On the other hand, there was a lot of new technology on the shuttles. The current space station would not have been possible without that technology. I wish I could make that claim with Venture Star or Ares 1. But those do indeed seem to be nothing but a waste of money.

IMO we are about 40 years behind where we could have been. It is likely that we would now have a permanent manned presence on the Moon
Click to expand...
Not likely.

and would have already landed people on Mars.
Click to expand...
No.

I think they could have been better served keeping on with the Apollo programme to Apollo 22 as originally, planned and continued developing the Saturn family of rockets. I would have loved to have seen how far they could have pushed the development of the F1 rocket engine.
Click to expand...
You don't seem that familiar with the F-1. Those were enormously expensive rockets. Almost everything on them was hand-made. That was the best they could do in the 1960s. Each F-1 engine cost $35 million.

However, I'm very pleased with Dynetics efforts for the F-1B. They not only matched the performance of the F-1A (which never flew) but they greatly reduced the cost and complexity. I would like to see that continue. I'll also say that it is good to see Michoud operational instead of being used as a storage building.
 
Last edited:
barehl said:
That will happen right after the flying cars.
Click to expand...

Well that is only a matter of time now. I think we'll see flying cars, or more correctly, personal aerial transport, a lot sooner than you think. We already have many people who have flown personal airborne vehicles.

Musk isn't rolling the ball
Click to expand...

Really? We're thinking about it, and talking about it.

Musk is delusional.
Click to expand...

One man's delusion is another man's vision. I guess you would have thought Werner von Braun delusional when he talked about rockets to the Moon. The scoffers did... they were wrong weren't they?

He's doing pretty good in terms of rockets.
Click to expand...

Pretty good? I'd say he's doing a lot better than "pretty good"

Unless you live in an alternative reality, I don't know what you are talking about. We've never had a foothold on another planet.
Click to expand...

62043main_Footprint_on_moon.jpg


I've already talked about this. The main thing NASA did was to cancel the Saturn-IB. And, the Falcon 9 is a lot like a modernized Saturn-IB. On the other hand, there was a lot of new technology on the shuttles. The current space station would not have been possible without that technology. I wish I could make that claim with Venture Star or Ares 1. But those do indeed seem to be nothing but a waste of money.
Click to expand...

That technology may have come from the Shuttle programme, but it didn't need the Shuttle program for development. All that was needed was a heavy lift capability, and NASA already had that in the Saturn family of rockets. In going down the STS route, they started from scratch and created a multi-billion dollar white elephant. The Space Shuttle was an abject failure. It failed to deliver on every promise

► 65 launches per year promised - less than 5 per year delivered
► $50m per launch promised - $450m per launch delivered
► 1/100,000 failure rate promised - 1/67.5 delivered.

It killed 14 astronauts in 135 launches... more that one every 10 launches, and NASA were damned lucky it didn't kill 50 more!! It was with good reason that, after the Challenger disaster inquiry, , Richard Feynman wrote “Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a world of reality,” and, “They must live in reality in comparing the costs and utility of the Shuttle to other methods of entering space,”. The pity of it was that his words fell on deaf ears; NASA learned nothing from STS51L, and exactly the same type of administrative mismanagement led to STS-107 (Columbia).

You don't seem that familiar with the F-1. Those were enormously expensive rockets. Almost everything on them was hand-made. That was the best they could do in the 1960s. Each F-1 engine cost $35 million.
Click to expand...

That is only because there were a limited number made. The first few SpaceX Merlin engines cost about $30 million each to make. Now they run out at about $2.2 million each...they have built a total of 52 Falcon 9 rocket cores so far... that's 468 Merlin Engines... its a concept known as mass production, maybe you've heard of it.

However, I'm very pleased with Dynetics efforts for the F-1B. They not only matched the performance of the F-1A (which never flew) but they greatly reduced the cost and complexity. I would like to see that continue. I'll also say that it is good to see Michoud operational instead of being used as a storage building.
Click to expand...

Now imagine they had continued developing the F1 from the start rather than taking a 40 year hiatus and having to resurrect everything again. The $200 billion they wasted going down the Shuttle dead end would have bought a lot of F1 engines. It would also have bought a lot of Saturn launches to LEO (about 650 by my estimate) They might have arrived at something like the F1B 25 years ago.

Look, I get that you are a hater and all that, but do you really believe that the human race will never venture out into the the Solar System, and that we will always be resident only on this planet for the next million years?
 
There was a nice vote of confidence from the writers of the new Star Trek TV series in the most recent episode; they had the Captain of the Discovery, referring to successful pioneers, list "The Wright brothers, Elon Musk and Zephron Cochran".
 
smartcooky said:
Look, I get that you are a hater and all that, but do you really believe that the human race will never venture out into the the Solar System, and that we will always be resident only on this planet for the next million years?
Click to expand...

Can we do a deal here where you (and others) stop poisoning the well with words like that, and in return aren't labelled as "delusional fanboys"? It's blatant well-poisoning and costs you 3 penalty points on your skeptic's licence every time you do it.

A thought (though it involves some simple numbers, and one or two supporters of the SpaceX plan don't seem to like numbers) -

The 'aspirational plan' will see 6 ships, a number of people and a lot of equipment on Mars in 2024. Each of those ships will also have taken 4 refuelling launches, making a total of 30 launches before we even learn whether the refuelling system is going to work. If it does, at least one ship has to launch from Mars with the people on board and (presumably?) be refuelled in Earth orbit ready for its landing on Earth. Total 34 launches and 5 ships still on Mars. And that project constitutes "proof of concept".

Oh, and those ships on Mars won't be 'refurbished' for relaunch, will they? They'll also be landing and taking off from a rocky surface without the mass of equipment (gantry, anyone? mission control room?) required for current launches. If that's a reasonable plan why do they faff around with all these refinements down here?

If there's one thing I "hate" about this business it's the mindless and uncritical devotion that Musk's every word attracts. "Trust SpaceX to do the calculations"? Well, show us the calculations then, however rough.

Final thought - Isaac Newton was a genius, a visionary. He was also an alchemist. The possession of 'vision' shouldn't blind people to the possibility that the visionary is being blinded by his own vision and veering towards megalomania. And when such a person is at the helm of a big company like Tesla, whose finances make little sense to business analysts, you start to wonder.
 
GlennB said:
Can we do a deal here where you (and others) stop poisoning the well with words like that, and in return aren't labelled as "delusional fanboys"? It's blatant well-poisoning and costs you 3 penalty points on your skeptic's licence every time you do it.

A thought (though it involves some simple numbers, and one or two supporters of the SpaceX plan don't seem to like numbers) -

The 'aspirational plan' will see 6 ships, a number of people and a lot of equipment on Mars in 2024. Each of those ships will also have taken 4 refuelling launches, making a total of 30 launches before we even learn whether the refuelling system is going to work. If it does, at least one ship has to launch from Mars with the people on board and (presumably?) be refuelled in Earth orbit ready for its landing on Earth. Total 34 launches and 5 ships still on Mars. And that project constitutes "proof of concept".

Oh, and those ships on Mars won't be 'refurbished' for relaunch, will they? They'll also be landing and taking off from a rocky surface without the mass of equipment (gantry, anyone? mission control room?) required for current launches. If that's a reasonable plan why do they faff around with all these refinements down here?

If there's one thing I "hate" about this business it's the mindless and uncritical devotion that Musk's every word attracts. "Trust SpaceX to do the calculations"? Well, show us the calculations then, however rough.

Final thought - Isaac Newton was a genius, a visionary. He was also an alchemist. The possession of 'vision' shouldn't blind people to the possibility that the visionary is being blinded by his own vision and veering towards megalomania. And when such a person is at the helm of a big company like Tesla, whose finances make little sense to business analysts, you start to wonder.
Click to expand...

Nice post... you whinge about others "poisoning the well", asking for a deal to stop doing it....and then you poison the well!
 
smartcooky said:
One man's delusion is another man's vision. I guess you would have thought Werner von Braun delusional when he talked about rockets to the Moon. The scoffers did... they were wrong weren't they?
Click to expand...

Smartcooky, no offense but this just sounds like fanboyish adulation. The man's not the new Einstein or Newton, but he doesn't need to be a complete crackpot either. As I posted earlier plenty of geniuses have made both inventive advancements to technology and science AND make completely unrealistic, batcrap crazy predictions, claims and projects. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

There's no need to entirely dismiss Musk, nor is there any need to accept his claims at face value. His hyperloop, for instance, is going nowhere fast.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/5delwjrlzt9rh6g/62043main_Footprint_on_moon.jpg?dl=1[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That's not a moonbase. It's a footprint, which isn't what anyone would call a foothold.
 
Argumemnon said:
Smartcooky, no offense but this just sounds like fanboyish adulation. The man's not the new Einstein or Newton, but he doesn't need to be a complete crackpot either. As I posted earlier plenty of geniuses have made both inventive advancements to technology and science AND make completely unrealistic, batcrap crazy predictions, claims and projects. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

I just don't see why "certain people" single Musk out to be held to a special standard that is not being demanded of others in similar fields. Where were the demands for Richard Branson to come up with the numbers to prove that his Virgin Galactic is a viable concept? Where are the demands for calculations and details from NASA for their manned Mars plans? I'm listening, but all I hear is crickets!!

Argumemnon said:
There's no need to entirely dismiss Musk, nor is there any need to accept his claims at face value. His hyperloop, for instance, is going nowhere fast.
Click to expand...

Really? Well, speaking of Richard Branson....

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...rd-branson-virgin-group-invests-hyperloop-one


Argumemnon said:
That's not a moonbase. It's a footprint, which isn't what anyone would call a foothold.
Click to expand...

Its was a start. They put 12 people on the moon, then failed to go on with it. t. It would be like Columbus finding The New World, and then saying. "nothing to see here folks" and no-one ever going back.
 
GlennB said:
The 'aspirational plan' will see 6 ships, a number of people and a lot of equipment on Mars in 2024. Each of those ships will also have taken 4 refuelling launches, making a total of 30 launches before we even learn whether the refuelling system is going to work. If it does, at least one ship has to launch from Mars with the people on board and (presumably?) be refuelled in Earth orbit ready for its landing on Earth. Total 34 launches and 5 ships still on Mars. And that project constitutes "proof of concept".

Oh, and those ships on Mars won't be 'refurbished' for relaunch, will they? They'll also be landing and taking off from a rocky surface without the mass of equipment (gantry, anyone? mission control room?) required for current launches. If that's a reasonable plan why do they faff around with all these refinements down here?
Click to expand...

GlennB, you rail about uncritical devotion, yet then demonstrate you do not understand the plan you are critisising.

First of all, refueling in space is a proven technology. You don't think the ISS has some magic thrusters with infinite amounts of prop, do you? And how would we only find out if refueling works after 30 Tanker flights? Surely the first one would tell us?

You then talk about people leaving and having to refuel back in Earth orbit. Again demonstrating you haven't actually bothered to understand the plan.

As for the mars ascent that you deride, you've clearly not given it much thought. The ship is designed for 100's of reflights, so no, no refurbishment will be required on the surface of Mars. Again you'd know this if you bothered to try and understand the plan.

Did you know that the Merlin engine was designed to withstand FOD? They dropped actually deliberately dropped nuts into the fuel tanks to ensure the engine could handle it. What makes you think Raptor will be any different?

The biggest danger will be to the vacuum bells on the 4 vacuum engines. I am confident SpaceX will have a design solution for this.

Argumemnon said:
There's no need to entirely dismiss Musk, nor is there any need to accept his claims at face value. His hyperloop, for instance, is going nowhere fast.
Click to expand...

I let this go the last time as merely uninformed nonsense, but since it's being repeated:

Please show me the HyperLoop company that Elon Musk owns/runs that is supposedly going nowhere.

Elon Musk has *nothing* to do with Hyperloop beyond hyping the idea and putting on a student competition.
 
smartcooky said:
I just don't see why "certain people" single Musk out to be held to a special standard that is not being demanded of others in similar fields.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant, though. Are his claims nonsense or not? He can make electric cars and rockets on the one hand, and make cooky claims about (for example) bigfoot and ancient aliens on another. Again, the two aren't mutually-exclusive. I think you're usually a reasonable person, so you tell me: do you not think that some of Musk's claims and projections are nonsense?

Where were the demands for Richard Branson to come up with the numbers to prove that his Virgin Galactic is a viable concept?
Click to expand...

Never heard of him before today.

Where are the demands for calculations and details from NASA for their manned Mars plans? I'm listening, but all I hear is crickets!!
Click to expand...

Actually, plenty of people have said that a Mars mission is head and shoulders more challenging than a moon mission, and have been saying that for decades.

They put 12 people on the moon, then failed to go on with it.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said: no foothold.

It would be like Columbus finding The New World, and then saying. "nothing to see here folks" and no-one ever going back.
Click to expand...

The moon's a barren rock. The new world was not. It's also not quite as dangerous to sail to the Americas, even in the 1500s.
 
Argumemnon said:
Why would me doing that have anything to do with what I said? He supports it, and it's bunk. That is all I need to say. It's a cooky idea and he's in on it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough - I'm not going to argue the kookiness of his plans. I'll admit that many of his plans stretch the bounds of credibility and are unlikely to be accomplished in the sorts of time frames he likes to quote. On the other hand, just about everyone thought landing a kerelox first stage on a floating barge was kooky too and yet he did it for 10x less than Nasa's internal projections.
 
Octavo said:
Fair enough - I'm not going to argue the kookiness of his plans. I'll admit that many of his plans stretch the bounds of credibility and are unlikely to be accomplished in the sorts of time frames he likes to quote. On the other hand, just about everyone thought landing a kerelox first stage on a floating barge was kooky too and yet he did it for 10x less than Nasa's internal projections.
Click to expand...

We seem to be in general agreement. Is that even allowed on the internet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom