ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th October 2017, 02:46 PM   #321
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
From my perspective, you are just some guy on the web who calls himself "barehl: Master Poster".. oooooh! impressive name, but you seem no more qualified that anyone else here.
No, I'm the guy who has ideas on human-level machine intelligence that aren't mainstream that others here keep decrying. In other words, we seem to have a double standard unless you invoke special pleading.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 02:49 PM   #322
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
All very interesting I'm sure, but none of it answers my questions.

Has anyone asked him to provide calculations to prove the veracity of his plans?. If so, where are they; if not, why not?

Again, this is all very interesting, but none of it answers my questions.

Has anyone asked them to provide calculations to prove the veracity of their plans?. If so, where are they; if not, why not?
Maybe you could explain what plans and calculations you are talking about.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 02:51 PM   #323
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
It reached 112 km altitude..
Wait, phunk said it doesn't go anywhere near orbit and you reply that it reached 112km?

I think you should do some basic reading. Orbit =/= space and if you think reaching 112km is a particularly big deal, you have no business lecturing anyone else on this thread.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 02:56 PM   #324
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,678
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Really? Show me these personal airborne vehicles.


If this.....


...can become this.....

...in less than 60 years, with no advanced materials science, and with electronic flight control systems in their infancy, what could this real, actual flying machine become...


now that advanced composites and flight control systems are commonplace?

https://kittyhawk.aero/
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 03:02 PM   #325
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,463
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
All very interesting I'm sure, but none of it answers my questions.

Has anyone asked him to provide calculations to prove the veracity of his plans?. If so, where are they; if not, why not?



Again, this is all very interesting, but none of it answers my questions.

Has anyone asked them to provide calculations to prove the veracity of their plans?. If so, where are they; if not, why not?
Probably because they're taking a longer-term, incremental approach, and are doing the appropriate calculations at each phase of the project. And probably also because they don't have a celebrity spokes-chairman claiming he knows how much it's going to cost and that they can pay for it by cannibalizing all their other projects. And probably also because they're not claiming they can deliver commodity manned missions to Mars, using a rocket that hasn't been designed yet, on a direct ascent architecture, complete with fuel manufacturing on Mars, within six years.

We're not asking Musk to provide calculations. We're looking at our watches and wondering if he'll have time to finish doing the math before his deadline's up.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 03:06 PM   #326
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,678
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
No, I'm the guy who has ideas on human-level machine intelligence that aren't mainstream that others here keep decrying. In other words, we seem to have a double standard unless you invoke special pleading.
Me invoke special pleading? That's rich, when you are one claiming that you are something special...

"I'm not sure who you think you are talking to. I've traced the development of the spacesuits, rockets, guidance, and life support systems. I'm familiar with Braun's ideas, most of which were not used." blah blah blah!

You repeatedly claim superiority, and belittle those who argue against you,
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 03:08 PM   #327
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,678
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
We're not asking Musk to provide calculations. We're looking at our watches and wondering if he'll have time to finish doing the math before his deadline's up.
GlennB is. That is who I am debating against on this issue
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 03:13 PM   #328
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,678
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
Wait, phunk said it doesn't go anywhere near orbit and you reply that it reached 112km?

I think you should do some basic reading. Orbit =/= space and if you think reaching 112km is a particularly big deal, you have no business lecturing anyone else on this thread.

Yup,

112 km is about ball park for SpaceX stage1 altitude at MECO, Stage 2 separation and boostback burn. However, it would not make orbit and on expendable missions, they burn up on re-entry.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 04:16 PM   #329
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,643
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Me invoke special pleading? That's rich, when you are one claiming that you are something special...

"I'm not sure who you think you are talking to. I've traced the development of the spacesuits, rockets, guidance, and life support systems. I'm familiar with Braun's ideas, most of which were not used." blah blah blah!

You repeatedly claim superiority, and belittle those who argue against you,
Would it be possible for you two to take Elon Musk less personally? It's like I'm watching a discussion between his girlfriend and his ex.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 04:27 PM   #330
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,463
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Would it be possible for you two to take Elon Musk less personally? It's like I'm watching a discussion between his girlfriend and his ex.
I don't think it's so much about Musk personally, as about having to give up on the romantic dream of human colonies on Mars.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 04:37 PM   #331
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,643
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't think it's so much about Musk personally, as about having to give up on the romantic dream of human colonies on Mars.
Barren landscapes are cool, but I wouldn't call them romantic.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 05:40 PM   #332
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,996
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
Sure, but nothing is contradictory about this. As I said earlier: with full tanks, the ship should be capable of returning 50t from Mars surface back to Earth surface.

Now whether you can fit ECLSS for 12 people for 4 months in 50t is perhaps the more relevant question.
Oh, I agree.

I was objecting because when GlennB brought up issues with getting enough fuel to return people to earth, you said that wasn't the plan, then when he brought up issues with keeping those people on Mars you said that they'd probably return them to earth.

I don't think either is impossible, but clearly one or the other is necessary.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:05 PM   #333
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
Wait, phunk said it doesn't go anywhere near orbit and you reply that it reached 112km?
I never said it reached orbit. I was comparing it to the first suborbital Mercury flight. I thought that was obvious.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:13 PM   #334
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,463
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
I never said it reached orbit. I was comparing it to the first suborbital Mercury flight. I thought that was obvious.
But we were comparing SS1 to the Space Shuttle Orbiters.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:20 PM   #335
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yeah, looks interesting. Too bad you can't buy one. To put this in perspective, Boeing is offering a $2 million prize for anyone who can build a jetpack that can fly 20 whole miles in the next 2 years. That is less performance than a typical ultralight.

You know, the Gossamer Condor won the Kramer prize in 1977. Now, fully forty years later we can proudly look at ... no, actually we can't. No one builds or flies human powered aircraft.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:31 PM   #336
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
But we were comparing SS1 to the Space Shuttle Orbiters.
I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously SpaceShip One was never a serious spacecraft. But, do you believe that Dream Chaser will have the same level of heating and stress as the Orbiter? I think it would probably be less. Japan gave up on HOPE and the ESA gave up on Hermes. It seems like there are four possibilities.

A. Shuttles in general are not practical.
B. The technology at that time wasn't up to the task but it might be today for a smaller shuttle.
C. The technology today would make even an Orbiter sized vehicle safe.
D. They gave up too soon and these smaller vehicles would have been safer than the Orbiter, even with older technology.

I'm inclined to think it's B.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:52 PM   #337
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Me invoke special pleading? That's rich, when you are one claiming that you are something special...
No, I'm saying that you can't make a definition of visionary that includes Musk but excludes me. And, if you use demonstrated success to exclude me then that also excludes most of what you've been talking about for Musk. I've never said that I was a visionary, but your definition seems to be someone who ignores people who disagree and keeps moving ahead. That fits me.

Quote:
"I'm not sure who you think you are talking to. I've traced the development of the spacesuits, rockets, guidance, and life support systems. I'm familiar with Braun's ideas, most of which were not used."

You repeatedly claim superiority
That's not a claim of superiority. I've had lots of conversations with moon hoaxers and some who claimed that the US space program was built with alien technology obtained from the Nazis. I'm sure you've come across these nuts too. Anyway, the common claim is that some piece of technology vital to Apollo wasn't available in the 1960s. So, to counter these arguments I traced the technology so that I knew where it came from. That's why when you mentioned Braun I knew that most of his early ideas were unrealistic and that he was a proponent of the Shuttle which you've criticized. So, I'm not sure how you can have it both ways.

I can think of a number of people who kept plugging away with little support. Alexander Graham Bell, The Wright Brothers, Robert Goddard, Frank Whittle. You have to give people like that credit. But then what do you say about people like John Logie Baird who worked on mechanical television? That's what I'm not understanding. Are you using a definition where they become a visionary in the past if it turns out they were right?

Quote:
and belittle those who argue against you
It is not my intention to belittle. If you felt that way then my apologies.

Last edited by barehl; 13th October 2017 at 07:06 PM.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:59 PM   #338
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Probably because they're taking a longer-term, incremental approach, and are doing the appropriate calculations at each phase of the project. And probably also because they don't have a celebrity spokes-chairman claiming he knows how much it's going to cost and that they can pay for it by cannibalizing all their other projects. And probably also because they're not claiming they can deliver commodity manned missions to Mars, using a rocket that hasn't been designed yet, on a direct ascent architecture, complete with fuel manufacturing o n Mars, within six years.
I guess I could mention too that SpaceX didn't put up a proposal for either phase 1 or phase 2. If they are serious about a Mars mission they'll have to develop the same habitat technology. It's like they've had some success and now they think they can go it alone. I think a Mars mission is too big for one company just as Apollo was in the 1960s.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:02 PM   #339
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,463
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
I guess I could mention too that SpaceX didn't put up a proposal for either phase 1 or phase 2. If they are serious about a Mars mission they'll have to develop the same habitat technology. It's like they've had some success and now they think they can go it alone. I think a Mars mission is too big for one company just as Apollo was in the 1960s.
If SpaceX can deliver the transportation infrastructure, habitat is payload and anybody can bid in.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:08 PM   #340
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If SpaceX can deliver the transportation infrastructure, habitat is payload and anybody can bid in.
I'm not sure what you are saying. NASA is working on long duration habitat now but the proposals aren't due back until late 2018. It will probably make use of technology on ISS.

Presumably Musk would need to duplicate this effort to build his own habitat technology.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:11 PM   #341
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,463
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
I'm not sure what you are saying. NASA is working on long duration habitat now but the proposals aren't due back until late 2018. It will probably make use of technology on ISS.

Presumably Musk would need to duplicate this effort to build his own habitat technology.
Why?

Why wouldn't he just invite anyone with habitat technology to pay him for transportation, and carry their tech as payload?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 10:17 PM   #342
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why?

Why wouldn't he just invite anyone with habitat technology to pay him for transportation, and carry their tech as payload?
This. Listen to the damn presentations people! Musk has said several times that they are focusing on the transportation link and expect others to provide payloads. They don't even have an astronaut training corps.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 11:19 PM   #343
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
GlennB is. That is who I am debating against on this issue
Just a rough clue would be fine. "We think we can do it with solar panels" is awfully thin. Diggers, transport, electrolysis gear, containment, pumps, pressurisation and all the rest .... All we've heard about is some solar panels and producing methane from local sources.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 06:53 AM   #344
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,877
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Not really. The "yes" was in response to what I quoted. The "but" introduced a caveat: that it was a preamble doesn't make it immune to criticism.

Seriously, we're going to argue this?



I didn't laugh. Sorry.
I did. It was very funny.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 09:22 AM   #345
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Remember, we are only talking propellent here; a very small part of the cost of a launch. It doesn't cost you the price of your whole car for every tank of fuel you buy. When you take Mrs GlennB and the little GlennBs off for your family holiday to Grand Teton, do you include the purchase cost of your $39,000 Dodge Durango in your budget?
What the ... ??

You might be talking purely propellant, but I'm talking about the whole mission cost including tankers, boosters and fuel.

There comes a point when there are 6 ships on Mars. Cost. There has to be enough booster + tanker capacity to get them fueled and on their way with a reasonable degree of synchronisation. Cost.There needs to be some redundancy, as people arriving with no supplies would be a bad thing, ditto a tanker failure at a crucial point. Cost. Then there's the equipment required on Mars itself. Cost.

Half of this stuff hasn't been developed. Cost.

Your analogy is nonsense.

Plus - you might be interested in the mass of Martian soil that needs to be excavated and processed to provide to mass of water (using crazy-generous figures) to generate the required LOX for Mars launch, based on water content detected by Curiosity Rover. Have you given that any thought, let alone (heaven forbid) crunch a few numbers?

Do I trust SpaceX to do the calculations? Yes. Do I trust them to publish a plan that's based on those calculations? About as far as I could throw a BFR.

Musk is pimping his brand, no more no less. The 'mission' will be kicked down the road forever.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 14th October 2017 at 09:24 AM.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 10:28 AM   #346
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,643
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
I did. It was very funny.
Well, obviously my opinion is better than yours.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 01:33 PM   #347
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,129
Not everybody think that Musk's Hyperloop is such a failure:
Virgin Hyperloop One: Branson Boosts Elon Musk's Futuristic Tube Transport
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 02:15 PM   #348
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,678
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
What the ... ??

You might be talking purely propellant, but I'm talking about the whole mission cost including tankers, boosters and fuel.

There comes a point when there are 6 ships on Mars. Cost. There has to be enough booster + tanker capacity to get them fueled and on their way with a reasonable degree of synchronisation. Cost.There needs to be some redundancy, as people arriving with no supplies would be a bad thing, ditto a tanker failure at a crucial point. Cost. Then there's the equipment required on Mars itself. Cost.
All valid points, If BFR is being built only to go to Mars. You appear to be still stuck in the pre-private space era mindset of single use space vehicles, where the whole cost of the project is only for that project. However, just like your family car wasn't bought just to go on one family holiday, so BFR is not built just to go to Mars and/or the Moon; its being built for other tasks as well, such as launching payloads, resupplying and restaffing the ISS, and eventually commercial aviation. Remember, this is all about re-use, and amortising the cost over multiple units over many years because it make no sense to build a vehicle for the sole purpose of going somewhere and then throwing it away.

Take for example, the Boeing 747 (all figures in 2017 $US). The very first B747 rolled off the production line in 1969 at a cost of $24.7 billion . however they sell for between $175m and $210m each depending on the variant. A later example is the B777... first unit $18 billion - unit cost ~$300m, or the Airbus 380 - est $30 billion development cost - unit cost $436m
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 09:59 PM   #349
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Plus - you might be interested in the mass of Martian soil that needs to be excavated and processed to provide to mass of water (using crazy-generous figures) to generate the required LOX for Mars launch, based on water content detected by Curiosity Rover. Have you given that any thought, let alone (heaven forbid) crunch a few numbers?
I not sure why you think they'd bother to process soil, when you could just land on a glacier.

Like, seriously, are all of the critics just poorly informed, or is this deliberate?

This article is from 2008. It's hardly news.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...alert-massive/
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 10:35 PM   #350
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,678
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
I not sure why you think they'd bother to process soil, when you could just land on a glacier.

Like, seriously, are all of the critics just poorly informed, or is this deliberate?

This article is from 2008. It's hardly news.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...alert-massive/
Just read the middle line of my signature!
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 11:15 PM   #351
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,996
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
I not sure why you think they'd bother to process soil, when you could just land on a glacier.

Like, seriously, are all of the critics just poorly informed, or is this deliberate?
Personally I believe in the principle of charity in discussion. I think we are all better off if we just assume that when someone says something wrong they really are just misinformed. Part of the point of threads like this is informing each other. We can discuss potential problems and their solutions.

It's actually what makes the whole exercise interesting. What are the challenges of doing what Musk proposes? How can we go about meeting those challenges?

You seem pretty well informed about this topic and as such I appreciate your input on how those challenges can be overcome. But if someone like GlennB doesn't bring up potential difficulties we won't have that discussion. Even if he wasn't objecting in good faith you've just informed me about a potential means of accessing what on Mars. I didn't realize that there were accessible water glaciers, at least away from the poles. Next maybe we can talk about how feasible it is to use that water.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 11:23 PM   #352
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,678
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
It's actually what makes the whole exercise interesting. What are the challenges of doing what Musk proposes? How can we go about meeting those challenges?
Some of us tried to do that in the beginning, but pretty much got shouted down by the default naysayers
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 11:46 PM   #353
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Personally I believe in the principle of charity in discussion. I think we are all better off if we just assume that when someone says something wrong they really are just misinformed. Part of the point of threads like this is informing each other. We can discuss potential problems and their solutions.

It's actually what makes the whole exercise interesting. What are the challenges of doing what Musk proposes? How can we go about meeting those challenges?

You seem pretty well informed about this topic and as such I appreciate your input on how those challenges can be overcome. But if someone like GlennB doesn't bring up potential difficulties we won't have that discussion. Even if he wasn't objecting in good faith you've just informed me about a potential means of accessing what on Mars. I didn't realize that there were accessible water glaciers, at least away from the poles. Next maybe we can talk about how feasible it is to use that water.
I apologize to GlennB and others. You are right and I was needlessly snarky.

I'm certainly not an expert, but I follow the NSF forums linked earlier and have a paid subscription to their insider L2 section, where we occasionally get some insider pics or hints.

A lot of the criticisms here have been hashed out endlessly there.

I'm happy to try and answer or inform as much as I can, with a bit less and snark.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 12:07 AM   #354
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
I not sure why you think they'd bother to process soil, when you could just land on a glacier.

Like, seriously, are all of the critics just poorly informed, or is this deliberate?

This article is from 2008. It's hardly news.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...alert-massive/
All of which is easily found, and I had. They resemble terrestrial glaciers. Did you look into very far?:

"It would be difficult to take a hike on the fretted terrain because the surface is folded, pitted, and often covered with linear striations."

and:

"exhibiting ridges and grooves that seem to flow around obstacles. Shadow measurements show that at least some of the ridges are several metres high. "

and:

"Shadow measurements from HiRISE indicate the ridges are 4-5 meters high"

Perhaps you overestimate your knowledge, or just saw "glaciers" and thought it was a winning put-down? Sounds like a bad place to land a 50m-tall ship to me. What's more, it would certainly be known to SpaceX and they'd hardly miss the opportunity to land on an expanse of frozen water rather than go out and prospect for it. Maybe I missed their mention of glaciers?

In the next few weeks a Tesla will drive from LA to NYC entirely self-driven. What's more it will plot its own route according to prevailing traffic conditions. Musk said so last spring and I look forward to reports of this drive. Or maybe it won't, we shall see. If it doesn't, that doesn't mean Tesla is a bad company, or that SpaceX do a poor job. It means that Musk sometimes shoots his mouth off then reins in his ambition at a later date when faced with reality.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 15th October 2017 at 12:10 AM.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 12:45 AM   #355
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
All of which is easily found, and I had. They resemble terrestrial glaciers. Did you look into very far?:

"It would be difficult to take a hike on the fretted terrain because the surface is folded, pitted, and often covered with linear striations."

and:

"exhibiting ridges and grooves that seem to flow around obstacles. Shadow measurements show that at least some of the ridges are several metres high. "

and:

"Shadow measurements from HiRISE indicate the ridges are 4-5 meters high"

Perhaps you overestimate your knowledge, or just saw "glaciers" and thought it was a winning put-down? Sounds like a bad place to land a 50m-tall ship to me. What's more, it would certainly be known to SpaceX and they'd hardly miss the opportunity to land on an expanse of frozen water rather than go out and prospect for it. Maybe I missed their mention of glaciers?

In the next few weeks a Tesla will drive from LA to NYC entirely self-driven. What's more it will plot its own route according to prevailing traffic conditions. Musk said so last spring and I look forward to reports of this drive. Or maybe it won't, we shall see. If it doesn't, that doesn't mean Tesla is a bad company, or that SpaceX do a poor job. It means that Musk sometimes shoots his mouth off then reins in his ambition at a later date when faced with reality.
You dismiss the possibility of a flat enough section of glacier to land on, or one within roving distance of a glacier?

Evidence?

I think I've fairly comprehensively acknowledged that I think Musk's timelines are aspirational, but by all means, let's concern troll some more.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 01:22 AM   #356
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
You dismiss the possibility of a flat enough section of glacier to land on, or one within roving distance of a glacier?

Evidence?
All the descriptions of the glacial terrain. Within 'roving distance' is an interesting and plausible-sounding idea, but one that needs thinking about. You can't just have it work by throwing an idea out there.

To get a handle on the issue, let's suppose we have in mind a 1-year timeframe for the refueling of a single ship. Call that 1000 tonnes of oxygen for all purposes - LOX, drinking water and so on. 30 tonnes a day, ballpark, to be carved out of the surface, transported, put through desalination and into liquid form, electrolysed and the output H2 and O2 stored. The H2 needs to get to the methane plant, the O2 to bulk storage for eventual refuelling.

How far away was this glacier, did you say? How much ice can a Mars truck (obviously much heftier than the rovers we're familiar with) carry in one trip over 1km, say. (What trucks? What ice-digging machines? But never mind that). This is all to be powered by solar panels and batteries on a rocky surface and makes powering the methane production look trivial.

All we've had so far is empty generalities, like "Produce methane from local sources" and "We think we an do it with solar panels". Sorry, but "land on a glacier" is another empty generality. All that material must be extracted, moved and processed. That's a lot of solar panels, not to mention that they're powering pretty exotic equipment that doesn't yet exist.

Do you genuinely believe this project is doable, or are you just enjoying the discussion?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 01:39 AM   #357
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,678
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
All of which is easily found, and I had. They resemble terrestrial glaciers. Did you look into very far?:

"It would be difficult to take a hike on the fretted terrain because the surface is folded, pitted, and often covered with linear striations."

and:

"exhibiting ridges and grooves that seem to flow around obstacles. Shadow measurements show that at least some of the ridges are several metres high. "

and:

"Shadow measurements from HiRISE indicate the ridges are 4-5 meters high"
How strange that I'm not seeing any of those quoted phrases in the article linked by Octavo. You didn't by any chance, shop around and mine some quotes from other sources to suit your argument, did you? Oh wait, yes, you did... from a Wikipedia article about Ismenius Lacus quadrangle. However, you didn't bother to read far enough to find the really interesting stuff...

"Even after the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) took a variety of pictures of fretted terrain, experts could not tell for sure if material was moving or flowing as it would in an ice-rich deposit (glacier). Eventually, proof of their true nature was discovered by radar studies with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter showed that they contain pure water ice covered with a thin layer of rocks that insulated the ice."

Try this one

https://www.space.com/7998-hidden-gl...mmon-mars.html

"The glaciers could be a promising target for a future mission to Mars, the scientists said."

NOTE: My quote does come from the article I linked.


PS: to answer your question to Octavo

"Do you genuinely believe this project is doable, or are you just enjoying the discussion?"

First, yes, I believe its doable, and yes, I am enjoying the discussion.

But a better question would be "Do you genuinely believe this project is doable within the time frame announced by Musk?"

The answer to that would be, no, I do not. I think that downhill, with a strong tailwind, 2030 is the earliest for a manned landing on Mars if everything goes according to plan and there are no major problems with BFR.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 15th October 2017 at 01:48 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 02:24 AM   #358
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,128
Some quotes from the recent reddit ama.

Originally Posted by Elon Musk
Will be starting with a full-scale Ship doing short hops of a few hundred kilometers altitude and lateral distance. Those are fairly easy on the vehicle, as no heat shield is needed, we can have a large amount of reserve propellant and don't need the high area ratio, deep space Raptor engines.

Next step will be doing orbital velocity Ship flights, which will need all of the above. Worth noting that BFS is capable of reaching orbit by itself with low payload, but having the BF Booster increases payload by more than an order of magnitude. Earth is the wrong planet for single stage to orbit. No problemo on Mars.
Originally Posted by Elon Musk
Landing site needs to be low altitude to maximize aero braking, be close to ice for propellant production and not have giant boulders. Closer to the equator is better too for solar power production and not freezing your ass off.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.

Last edited by Octavo; 15th October 2017 at 02:25 AM.
Octavo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 09:12 AM   #359
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,334
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
Some quotes from the recent reddit ama.
Originally Posted by Elon Musk
Landing site needs to be low altitude to maximize aero braking, be close to ice for propellant production and not have giant boulders. Closer to the equator is better too for solar power production and not freezing your ass off.
Right. How close (to ice) is close enough? It must depend on terrain, capacity and recharging times for your equipment, no? A point I made before - if the first wave's (2 ships) prospecting finds inadequate water close enough to their landing area they would appear to be dead meat. Could there be sufficient fuel left to 'hop' to another location, after reloading the water-prospecting rover(s)? If not then they'd need a second such wave to actually locate the water before you could risk further landings and the people on board.

p.s. while thinking about an 'ice' landing it occurred to me that the engines of these ships are going to blast the surface pretty hard on landing and takeoff. Did your forum discuss how big a hole it might be? On a related note, it seems to me that the whole eventual fleet of 6 ships had better not get too close, as there's going to be some serious debris flying around in that low g and thin atmosphere.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 10:40 AM   #360
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why?

Why wouldn't he just invite anyone with habitat technology to pay him for transportation, and carry their tech as payload?
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
This. Listen to the damn presentations people! Musk has said several times that they are focusing on the transportation link and expect others to provide payloads. They don't even have an astronaut training corps.
Who would do this? Obviously NASA isn't going to be his customer. Are you talking about the ESA or China maybe, Russia? I don't know of any private companies like Boeing or Lockheed that are itching to send a bunch of people to Mars. I don't see this as a real business model. If that is his intention then I assume he will be waiting indefinitely.

Last edited by barehl; 15th October 2017 at 10:41 AM.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.