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 4th October 2017, 02:30 AM   #81
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,308
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Irrelevant nonsense, got it.
It was part of a point I was making. Why are you so often dismissive? Are you not here to discuss stuff?
__________________
<Roar!>

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 4th October 2017, 10:05 AM   #82
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,057
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
They show fields of solar panels in the promotional video, but as I recall, Musk has talked about the possibility of using nuclear power. My feeling is that they'll go solar to get established enough to set up a nuclear plant, and largely nuclear to get built up enough to start producing solar panels from local resources. Beyond that...solar's not as effective on Mars and is subject to dust, but it's a hell of a lot easier to plop down some solar panels to power a remote research outpost.

If they do go nuclear, it's not going to be right away...not unless BFR is badly delayed by even the standards of SpaceX's development timelines. Nothing involving nuclear power happens quickly, and any commercial reactors would require heavy customization. Non-commercial reactors...I'm not sure I'd rely on NASA to produce a nuclear reactor any time this century and for less than the cost of the entire colony effort.
Sounds expensive. Very expensive. Who's going to fund this when the return on investment is zero, or damn close to it? I mean, revolutionary rocketry that can put satellites into orbit or deliver to the ISS I get. But Mars? How will it ever make money?

"The current situation is summed up in a Venn diagram showing two non-intersecting circles representing, on one side, the kind of people who would be up for getting on the Mars rocket and, on the other, those who could afford this kind of adventure. An optimistic estimate of the current cost is put at $10bn per person."

Er, multi-billionaires are unlikely to be young enough and fit enough to make the trip. Then there's the significant risk of death.

'Mark McCaughrean, senior advisor for science and exploration at the European Space Agency, struck a combative tone. Its a wild-eyed investment pitch, pumped up by the enthusiasm of credulous fanboys brought up on comic book sci-fi, wrapped in evangelism of saving humanity from itself and the problems weve wrought on this planet, a kind of modern day manifest destiny, he tweeted in response to the paper.'

link


My highlighting. McCaughrean knows his stuff.
__________________
"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 4th October 2017, 12:01 PM   #83
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,449
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Sounds expensive. Very expensive. Who's going to fund this when the return on investment is zero, or damn close to it? I mean, revolutionary rocketry that can put satellites into orbit or deliver to the ISS I get. But Mars? How will it ever make money?
Why does everything have to have a return on investment? Where's the return on investment in Hubble? Chandra? IRAS? Cassini? Voyager? Pioneer? New Horizons? Galileo? Pure science needs no financial gain. We buy into these things because we want to know; the return on investment is the satisfaction of knowing!

It is human nature to stand on the brow of a hill just climbed, and seeing there is another hill further on, to be compelled to go there and climb that hill too, if for no other reason than to see what lies on the other side.

But if its return on investment you want, then look the Apollo Moon Landings, an achievement that was for political gain as much as anything... Return on Investment is not just about the money you get back, its everything of value that you get back. Without the space program, it is unlikely that we would have the following:

Cordless power tools
CAT scanners
Smoke detectors
Domestic water filters
Satellite TV
Cellphones & Smartphones
Home Computers & Laptops
Digital cameras
Memory foam
Home insulation
Freeze-dried food
TCAS collision avoidance radar for airliners
Joysticks
Scratch resistant lenses

If you are looking for a reason to set up people living in a self sustaining colony on Mars then how about this one..... Insurance.

The Earth is long overdue for an impact from a planet killing asteroid.... the clock is running. The chances are very small, but this will be of little consolation if our luck runs out...we currently have no way to deflect one or protect ourselves from one. If one as big, or bigger than the one which wiped out the dinosaurs, arrives before humanity has a chance to become a multi-planet species, then humanity will become extinct.

The End!
__________________
► 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 4th October 2017, 12:05 PM   #84
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,308
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Why does everything have to have a return on investment? Where's the return on investment in Hubble? Chandra? IRAS? Cassini? Voyager? Pioneer? New Horizons? Galileo? Pure science needs no financial gain.
Yes, and as you probably noticed, they're not exactly routine.
__________________
<Roar!>

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 4th October 2017, 12:18 PM   #85
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,057
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Why does everything have to have a return on investment? Where's the return on investment in Hubble? Chandra? IRAS? Cassini? Voyager? Pioneer? New Horizons? Galileo? Pure science needs no financial gain. We buy into these things because we want to know; the return on investment is the satisfaction of knowing!
Absolutely true and I love those projects and others like them. But somebody was willing to pay. Who will pay for SpaceX's Mars proposals when even Musk accepts he'll need massive financial input?

Seriously - who will pay?

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
But if its return on investment you want, then look the Apollo Moon Landings, an achievement that was for political gain as much as anything... Return on Investment is not just about the money you get back, its everything of value that you get back.

...
And The USA was willing to pay, and the benefits were a pleasant bonus. SpaceX is a company with fiduciary responsibilities.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If you are looking for a reason to set up people living in a self sustaining colony on Mars then how about this one..... Insurance.

The Earth is long overdue for an impact from a planet killing asteroid.... the clock is running. The chances are very small, but this will be of little consolation if our luck runs out...we currently have no way to deflect one or protect ourselves from one. If one as big, or bigger than the one which wiped out the dinosaurs, arrives before humanity has a chance to become a multi-planet species, then humanity will become extinct.

The End!
Mars is more likely to be hit by an asteroid. What's more, the small objects that would burn up in Earth's atmosphere or - at worst - could just leave an inconvenient hole in your roof would be lethal on Mars.

Even then, why aim to survive an asteroid impact here by nipping over to Mars when it's a damn sight easier to survive down here? A lot of life survived the Chicxulub event (including our ancestors) and we'd be a damn sight better placed to survive than they were.
__________________
"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 4th October 2017, 12:51 PM   #86
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,449
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Absolutely true and I love those projects and others like them. But somebody was willing to pay. Who will pay for SpaceX's Mars proposals when even Musk accepts he'll need massive financial input?

Seriously - who will pay?
If you listened to Musk's proposals (and I'm assuming you did) and understood what he was saying, then you will already know the answer.

SpaceX now makes a profit launching satellites. They have more that 50% of the market, doing so at between 1/3 and 1/2 the rate of competitors. They can do this because they have developed a system with much reusability, helping to keep launch costs down. The only problem with it is that its all it can do... launch satellites and take payloads to space-stations.

The next step is to build a bigger, more versatile rocket that is 100% reusable and much more versatile. It should be able to launch bigger satellites, take bigger payloads to space-stations, launch servicing missions to scientific satellites such as Hubble. (who knows, it may even be able to bring a satellite such as Hubble back to Earth for a complete overhaul and refit before launching it back into orbit). Its versatility would extent to carrying passengers point to point on Earth, as well as going to and from the Moon and Mars. It has to be a sort of "One Rocket to Rule Them All". Once you have that up and running, it pays for itself doing the routine operations and Mars becomes the payoff.

Of course, the alternative is, don't bother trying. Just stay at home and be happy living inside your limitations.

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Mars is more likely to be hit by an asteroid. What's more, the small objects that would burn up in Earth's atmosphere or - at worst - could just leave an inconvenient hole in your roof would be lethal on Mars.

Even then, why aim to survive an asteroid impact here by nipping over to Mars when it's a damn sight easier to survive down here? A lot of life survived the Chicxulub event (including our ancestors) and we'd be a damn sight better placed to survive than they were.
Yeah, I guess you missed the point. (clue: eggs, baskets)
__________________
► 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 4th October 2017, 01:58 PM   #87
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,057
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
<snip> It has to be a sort of "One Rocket to Rule Them All". Once you have that up and running, it pays for itself doing the routine operations and Mars becomes the payoff.
That isn't the plan, as is proven by the proposed timescale and Musk's own admissions about the need for billions in outside funding.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yeah, I guess you missed the point. (clue: eggs, baskets)
I got the point entirely, but putting people on Mars as 'insurance' is like lobbing a few of your eggs into a brick basket from 10 feet, then giving it a shake for good measure.

Firstly you committed the "gambler's fallacy" - we are not "due" an asteroid strike. Time elapsed since the last biggie doesn't increase the probability; the probability is what it is. Also, the Chicxulub event was 66 million years ago and the next big one could perfectly well be another 50 miilion years. Or just 5 million, or 150 million.

But the real deal-killer is that you simply can't have a self-sufficient colony on Mars (well, if every nation on Earth devoted its economies over centuries to the task you might stand a chance, but that's not going to happen).

The reason is simple -

Down here a healthy person can wander into the wilds with a rucksack of gear and live a long life, just making do the way Bear Grylls teaches us

On Mars every damn thing that's keeping you alive will wear out and need replacing sooner or later. This includes (but is far from limited to):

Habs
Space suits
Solar panels or other power generation
Oxygen and water production plants
Hydroponics
Transport
Medical facilities
Computers
...

On Earth those things take large industries - often covering a range of suppliers in different countries - to manufacture. And then, even if you have the manufacturing plants, the manufacturing plants themselves will need replacing. Oh, and many vital raw materials for that stuff are either extremely rare or even totally absent on Mars.

Do you really see the people of Earth agreeing to pumping $trillions into 'insurance' for an event that's probably millions of years in the future? And if we get 5 years notice it's far too late, obviously. JesusX, we can't even make effective plans to deal with climate change down here.

On the other hand, with only a little notice we could make arrangements to survive the asteroid strike for decades here on Earth and then emerge to a fundamentally hospitable planet, whereas Mars will always be trying to kill us.
__________________
"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 4th October 2017, 02:45 PM   #88
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 17,721
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Habs
Space suits
Solar panels or other power generation
Oxygen and water production plants
Hydroponics
Transport
Medical facilities
Computers
...
Where is the part about raising all sorts of animals for their nutritious and delicious meat?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 4th October 2017, 07:45 PM   #89
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,449
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I got the point entirely, but putting people on Mars as 'insurance' is like lobbing a few of your eggs into a brick basket from 10 feet, then giving it a shake for good measure.
You're eggzaggerating!

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Firstly you committed the "gambler's fallacy" - we are not "due" an asteroid strike. Time elapsed since the last biggie doesn't increase the probability; the probability is what it is. Also, the Chicxulub event was 66 million years ago and the next big one could perfectly well be another 50 miilion years. Or just 5 million, or 150 million.
Well, that simply isn't true, because we are not talking about random chance here like the draw of a card or the fall of dice. Space scientists are telling us that it is not a matter of if we are going to be hit, its when. Mass extinctions and groups of asteroid impacts are not randomly spaced, they happen at regular intervals (about every 50-55 million years -there is thought to be a galactic mechanism driving this), so the times around those intervals have increased chances of an impact. For example, If you wander around in a one acre paddock while I randomly shoot bullets at body height through the paddock with, say 70% of the bullets being shot a few minutes either side of the hour mark then it is an indisputable, provable fact that your chances of being hit are much higher near the hour mark than they are at the half hour mark.

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
But the real deal-killer is... Mars will always be trying to kill us.
This is all very interesting, but you wanted a return on investment so I gave you ONE possible example; not my fault if you don't like it. There there are others.

If you are looking for a reason to send people to Mars, look no further than pure science. A well known geologist once said that you should not send a machine to do a man's job - a human geologist with a pick can achieve more in a day than a machine can achieve in a year. The Apollo 17 astronauts Schmitt and Cernan worked for three EVAs on the moon totalling 22 hours, 3 minutes, 57 seconds. During that time, they covered a distance of 35 km using the Lunar Rover and a further 3 km between them on foot. Curiosity has been on Mars for over five years and has driven less than half that distance (17.45 km) and still has yet to give us that "orange soil" moment.
__________________
► 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 5th October 2017, 05:49 AM   #90
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,057
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Where is the part about raising all sorts of animals for their nutritious and delicious meat?
It's a good point In the absence of oh-so-tasty animal flesh, long-term colonies will have to ferry in vitamin B12, while self-sufficient colonies would have to synthesise it or extract it from their faeces.

Breed rabbits up there?
__________________
"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 5th October 2017, 06:49 AM   #91
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,308
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Well, that simply isn't true, because we are not talking about random chance here like the draw of a card or the fall of dice. Space scientists are telling us that it is not a matter of if we are going to be hit, its when. Mass extinctions and groups of asteroid impacts are not randomly spaced, they happen at regular intervals (about every 50-55 million years -there is thought to be a galactic mechanism driving this), so the times around those intervals have increased chances of an impact.
I don't think that's how statistics work. The odds don't go up with time. They are estimated over a given period, but there's actually nothing random about it.

Besides, yes there's a semi-regular interval between impacts but it's not like clockwork. It's an average. If there's no big rock heading for us, then nothing's going to hit us. The average doesn't tell you when the next one will occur, and it's never "due".
__________________
<Roar!>

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 5th October 2017, 07:01 AM   #92
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,057
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If you are looking for a reason to send people to Mars, look no further than pure science. A well known geologist once said that you should not send a machine to do a man's job - a human geologist with a pick can achieve more in a day than a machine can achieve in a year. The Apollo 17 astronauts Schmitt and Cernan worked for three EVAs on the moon totalling 22 hours, 3 minutes, 57 seconds. During that time, they covered a distance of 35 km using the Lunar Rover and a further 3 km between them on foot. Curiosity has been on Mars for over five years and has driven less than half that distance (17.45 km) and still has yet to give us that "orange soil" moment.
Have you read SpaceX's plans? -

"According to Musk's new plan, two uncrewed missions would pave the way for future human exploration of Mars. The first would locate sources of water in the soil, and the second would set up a chemical factory to turn that water, plus carbon dioxide in the thin Martian air, into oxygen and methane rocket fuel. "

With good reason too, as it will take months or years to produce that fuel/lox and you don't want people arriving with no fuel to get off the planet. Therefore all that work will have to be done robotically, or at least enough to ensure launch is possible.

But it's fine - they have a pretty short time to get this stuff developed and tested and launched so will do doubt get cracking soon. We'll be hearing about the design and construction of the 'mini methane factory', the excavators and raw material extraction kit, the solar panel deployment methods and so on and so forth pretty soon, then we'll get to watch video of trials out in the desert.

The robotic cranes should be interesting - the cargo/passenger areas in the BFR are half way up the ship.
__________________
"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 5th October 2017, 11:50 AM   #93
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,449
On the evening of January 29, 1986, the day of the Challenger disaster, Mrs June Scobee (wife of mission Commander Dick Scobee) found a handwritten note in his briefcase. It was a quote from multiple award winning author Ben Bova.

We have whole planets to explore. We have new worlds to build. We have a solar system to roam in. And if only a tiny fraction of the human race reaches out toward space, the work they do there will totally change the lives of all the billions of humans who remain on Earth, just as the striving of a handful of colonists in the new world totally changed the lives of everyone in Europe, Asia and Africa.

No-one knows why Scobee wrote that down. Maybe he planned to use it in a presentation, or a speech, or maybe he just liked it.

Twenty years later June was the main speaker at the remembrance ceremony for the crew of Challenger. She said her late husband was aware of the potential danger he faced as a shuttle pilot.

"He knew about the risks and accepted them as a test pilot," she said.

"Without risk, there is no knowledge. ... The greatest risk is to take no risks."


I find myself totally agreeing with all of these statements.
__________________
► 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 5th October 2017, 12:03 PM   #94
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,057
^ You can talk about aspirations and generalities until the cows come home. That's your right.

I'm trying to talk about published SpaceX plans, and no amount of aspiration will pay for it (which Musk freely admits - he agrees they'll need shedloads of outside cash).

Do you have anything to say about their plans? It's the subject of the thread, after all.
__________________
"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 5th October 2017, 12:39 PM   #95
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,573
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
(which Musk freely admits - he agrees they'll need shedloads of outside cash)
You keep trying to **** on their plan, but all you're really showing is that it's ambitious but they've thought it through.
Beelzebuddy 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 5th October 2017, 12:57 PM   #96
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,085
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
^ You can talk about aspirations and generalities until the cows come home. That's your right.

I'm trying to talk about published SpaceX plans, and no amount of aspiration will pay for it (which Musk freely admits - he agrees they'll need shedloads of outside cash).

Do you have anything to say about their plans? It's the subject of the thread, after all.

So what?

If people are willing to invest the money in full knowledge of the pros and cons (Which are not exactly hidden. This thread is only one example) then what's the problem?

He's certainly not hesitant to spend his own gelt. He'll win or lose from the investment just like anyone else.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta 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 5th October 2017, 01:34 PM   #97
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,057
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
You keep trying to **** on their plan, but all you're really showing is that it's ambitious but they've thought it through.
Then why is it that multiple experienced space scientists (some quoted in the thread) explicitly state that SpaceX haven't thought it through? Or did you mis-type that highlighted bit?

Can you try tackling the hard facts, such as the equipment requirements and energy cost of merely generating the fuel and lox for re-launch? SpaceX certainly haven't. "We think we can do it with solar panels" is their best effort, then they refuse to answer specific questions on that technical subject, and others. No mention of what micro methane-generating plant, robotic water acquisition, gear for the electrolysis of water, robotic cranes to unload the gear from the ship, pumping, storage, refuelling the ships ...

Do the most basic of calculations, then relate them to known tech. Allow a 50% improvement in known tech over the next 5 years if you want. It really isn't so hard.
__________________
"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 5th October 2017, 02:03 PM   #98
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,449
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
^ You can talk about aspirations and generalities until the cows come home. That's your right.

I'm trying to talk about published SpaceX plans, and no amount of aspiration will pay for it (which Musk freely admits - he agrees they'll need shedloads of outside cash).

Do you have anything to say about their plans? It's the subject of the thread, after all.
I think their plans are bold, and they are risky. But they are worth the risk.
__________________
► 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 5th October 2017, 03:02 PM   #99
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,449
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Then why is it that multiple experienced space scientists (some quoted in the thread) explicitly state that SpaceX haven't thought it through?
"Multiple experienced space scientists" said that landing first stages was impossible and that SpaceX would never get it to work! Oh dear... it looks like even "multiple experienced space scientists" can experience "failure of the imagination" and fall prey the Clarke's First Law, just like us mere mortals.

No one ever did anything as ambitious as this by presenting the world with a final plan with all the "i"s dotted and the "t"s crossed (which is what you are asking for). All SpaceX has done here is given a detailed outline and said they are beginning designs and construction soon.

I really don't get why SpaceX are always being publicly held to a higher standard than other organisations when they announce bold plans. NASA and JPL never copped such a dogpiling when they announced bold plans such as the Galileo probe, the Cassini missions, the Curiosity Rover and New Horizons Those missions passed almost unnoticed until they were just about to be done and dusted... but as soon as Elon Musk makes an announcement about SpaceX's bold plans, the haters pile on.

Its the worst example of Tall Poppy Syndrome you are likely to see.
__________________
► 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 5th October 2017, 03:58 PM   #100
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,823
Musk likes to set unachievable targets and when he fails to meet them he sets more to distract attention from the failures. He's well short of his targets for delivering the numbers of cars promised so he launched a truck.

It's obvious to most of us that he'll fail to achieve the hyped Mars missions. If his rockets get to Mars at all, they'll be both later and smaller than promised. It's good that he's trying though - we need dreamers like him to make progress with manned space exploration.
ceptimus 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 5th October 2017, 05:07 PM   #101
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,449
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Musk likes to set unachievable targets and when he fails to meet them he sets more to distract attention from the failures. He's well short of his targets for delivering the numbers of cars promised so he launched a truck.

It's obvious to most of us that he'll fail to achieve the hyped Mars missions. If his rockets get to Mars at all, they'll be both later and smaller than promised. It's good that he's trying though - we need dreamers like him to make progress with manned space exploration.
Clarke's Second Law
"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."
__________________
► 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 5th October 2017, 07:46 PM   #102
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,573
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Can you try tackling the hard facts,
No, because I don't think you actually care about "the hard facts." You're just latching on to any ridiculously pessimistic assumption you can find that lets you pooh-pooh the whole notion. If it weren't for this it'd be crew food requirements, or radiation safety issues, or martian murder mania that'd you'd claim is the insurmountable hurdle to the endeavor.

Besides, the Sabatier reaction is a remarkably low-energy one and possibly the least controversial element of the plan.
Beelzebuddy 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 5th October 2017, 08:10 PM   #103
cjameshuff
Scholar
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Musk likes to set unachievable targets and when he fails to meet them he sets more to distract attention from the failures. He's well short of his targets for delivering the numbers of cars promised so he launched a truck.
And despite being behind the targets he set, he's selling more electric cars than any other auto maker on the planet, in a rapidly growing segment of the market.


Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
It's obvious to most of us that he'll fail to achieve the hyped Mars missions. If his rockets get to Mars at all, they'll be both later and smaller than promised. It's good that he's trying though - we need dreamers like him to make progress with manned space exploration.
Like the Falcon 9 failed, only reducing the cost of launch to a fraction of what it was when SpaceX was established, doubling its payload over the first iteration of the vehicle, introducing a form of reuse that is actually economical, and taking a majority of the world's commercial launches over the course of a few years?

If they keep failing like that, I should be able to retire on Mars.
cjameshuff 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 5th October 2017, 09:18 PM   #104
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,449
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
Like the Falcon 9 failed, only reducing the cost of launch to a fraction of what it was when SpaceX was established, doubling its payload over the first iteration of the vehicle, introducing a form of reuse that is actually economical, and taking a majority of the world's commercial launches over the course of a few years?
Its more than just economical, its a very big money saver. The combined cost of taking a landed rocket core, transporting it back to the overhaul centre, and fully refurbishing it back to its "ready to launch" state is substantially less than half the cost of a new rocket core. Add to that, on the SES-10 launch they attempted (and succeeded in) recovery of the payload fairings for reuse, and from what I have heard, they came back in pretty good condition. At $6m per faring, its worthwhile and they say going to attempt this often..... anyone want to bet against them getting this to look routine?

Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
If they keep failing like that, I should be able to retire on Mars.
I'll be joining 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 5th October 2017, 11:21 PM   #105
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,508
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
The technology goes a lot further back,
A lot? The project started in 1991 and NASA became involved in 1994.

Quote:
nobody's claiming it's SpaceX's invention
That's good since Space-X hired two of the DC-X engineers.

Quote:
Also, DC-X was not a NASA project, had little internal support from NASA after being transferred to them, and was promptly killed off when the vehicle was destroyed due to a leg failure.
No. The original vehicle was DC-X in 1991. NASA became involved in 1994. In 1995 they upgraded the design to DC-XA. This vehicle did what it was supposed to. Yes, there has been a great deal of rationalization about the program including that NASA didn't want it and that it competed with Venture Star. But, the truth that its fans don't seem to want to admit is that single stage to orbit was a bad idea. The same bad idea ended Venture Star. Even the ancient Atlas was 1 1/2 stages. It's simple physics. Although you can get to orbit with single stage, you don't have much payload. Space-X's Grasshopper picked up from DC-X. Grasshopper was a similar, suborbital, vertical landing test vehicle.

Quote:
NASA favored their X-33 super-duper-SSTO-spaceplane, which they poured over a billion dollars into before finally canceling.
They put more than that into Ares and more than that into Titan IV. The aerospike engine was an interesting idea. Single stage, not so much.

Quote:
In the meantime, they kept flying the first generation Shuttle despite it proving to be one of the most expensive ways to deliver mass to orbit (and having numerous fundamental issues),
What choice did they have? The only option was Titan IV which wasn't phased out until 2005. It was replaced when Delta IV Heavy came online in 2004. It was the only vehicle with a manipulator arm and until Dragon the only vehicle that could return payload. The Obama administration extended the shuttle for another year in spite of the risk because it was the only way to get the station built.

Quote:
and now they're building the SLS based on the same hardware, primarily as a result of Congress mandating that they do so, despite the fact that each launch will cost more than the X-33 boondoggle.
Well, at least they did cancel Ares 1 with its $1 billion price tag. Falcon 9 is much cheaper. The Obama administration didn't want Ares V; it was a holdover from the Bush administration and as you say, Congress wouldn't let them kill it. I'll have to be honest though. If there actually was a super heavy lift mission then Ares V with the advanced boosters using F-1B engines would look pretty good. The only possible competitor would be Falcon X based on the Raptor engine in a triple stack. That should be in the same lift class.

Quote:
On the other hand, we have SpaceX which has successfully driven launch costs down by a large factor
Well, kind of. The US had most of the international launch business until the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. Then Russia began offering launch services. This pulled prices down and the US lost all of the market except for US NASA and military cargo. But things really got shaken up with Falcon 9 which undercut the Russian price. And now we have several new engines in the works.

Quote:
and is actually reusing first stages of a full scale launch vehicle on operational flights while taking the majority of the world's commercial space launch market. So I'm not sure why you'd prefer NASA support as an indicator of something being economical or practical.
SpaceX wouldn't exist without the commercial resupply contract from NASA. That was the one thing the Bush administration got right. Obama expanded on that with commercial crew which also seems to be moving forward. Without those contracts, SpaceX would be bankrupt rather than developing the Raptor engine. As I recall, the military is funding Be-4 and Vulcan. I also can't give SpaceX too much credit because of how bad Falcon 9 is for geosynchronous due to not having a proper upper stage. We'll see how the re-usability works out.
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 5th October 2017, 11:35 PM   #106
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,508
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The next step is to build a bigger, more versatile rocket that is 100% reusable and much more versatile. It should be able to launch bigger satellites, take bigger payloads to space-stations, launch servicing missions to scientific satellites such as Hubble. (who knows, it may even be able to bring a satellite such as Hubble back to Earth for a complete overhaul and refit before launching it back into orbit). Its versatility would extent to carrying passengers point to point on Earth, as well as going to and from the Moon and Mars. It has to be a sort of "One Rocket to Rule Them All". Once you have that up and running, it pays for itself doing the routine operations and Mars becomes the payoff.
No. That isn't the plan. What SpaceX has for heavy lift now is Falcon Heavy, the triple stack Falcon 9. Musk has stated that a single body rocket of the same lift capacity would be cheaper. That's true, but it also requires an engine about 3x bigger and that is Raptor. You would still fly Falcon 9 for regular missions. But Falcon X would replace Falcon Heavy. It should be good for geosynchronous. Falcon X is also big enough for a lunar flyby. If you triple stacked it then you would out lift Saturn V.

Musk may think he could do a lunar landing but i don't see how he could fund it even if NASA decided to kill SLS in favor of Falcon X Heavy. I think his notion of a privately funded Mars craft is insane. He doesn't have that kind of money or expertise. The only mission even suggested that is interesting is the Mars sample return mission but I don't think that has been approved or funded. Maybe if Falcon Heavy works they'll become more interested.
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 6th October 2017, 12:04 AM   #107
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,449
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
I also can't give SpaceX too much credit because of how bad Falcon 9 is for geosynchronous due to not having a proper upper stage. We'll see how the re-usability works out.
Really?

Atlas V (ULA's nearest comparable rocket to Falcon 9) can get 8.9 tonnes to GTO - $100m/launch.

Falcon 9 can get over 5.5 tonnes to GTO with with reusabiity, up to 8.4 tonnes with a fully expendable launch - $62m/launch.

Delta IV Heavy (ULA's nearest comparable rocket to Falcon 9 Heavy) can get 14 tonnes to GTO - $225m/launch.

Falcon 9 Heavy will be able to get 22 tonnes to GTO - fully expendable - $90m/launch.


Whats "bad" about that?
__________________
► 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; 6th October 2017 at 12:06 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 6th October 2017, 01:30 AM   #108
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,057
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
No, because I don't think you actually care about "the hard facts." You're just latching on to any ridiculously pessimistic assumption you can find that lets you pooh-pooh the whole notion. If it weren't for this it'd be crew food requirements, or radiation safety issues, or martian murder mania that'd you'd claim is the insurmountable hurdle to the endeavor.
No assumption. My original interest arose from doing the calculations: aiming low on fuel load (less than Falcon 9), ignoring the LOX entirely, ignoring the cost of assembling equipment and acquiring raw materials, and assuming 100% process efficiency. Maybe those calculations were in error, but they sat here for a fair while uncorrected.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Besides, the Sabatier reaction is a remarkably low-energy one and possibly the least controversial element of the plan.
Maybe, but it's a known energy to get your calculations going.
__________________
"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 6th October 2017, 01:41 AM   #109
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,003
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Musk has stated that a single body rocket of the same lift capacity would be cheaper. That's true, but it also requires an engine about 3x bigger and that is Raptor. You would still fly Falcon 9 for regular missions. But Falcon X would replace Falcon Heavy. It should be good for geosynchronous. Falcon X is also big enough for a lunar flyby. If you triple stacked it then you would out lift Saturn V.
Raptor currently sits at around twice the power of a Merlin and more or less the same size - hence 31 engines on the booster. And I disagree that you would still fly F9 for regular missions. Musk talked explicitly about cannibalizing the F9 production line. As soon as the BFR flies, F9 production will shut down and people unwilling to fly BFR will be forced to rely on the remaining re-flown F9 boosters. IMO within 3 - 5 years of BFR entering service, the remaining F9 boosters will be mothballed.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo 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 6th October 2017, 01:55 AM   #110
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,720
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Really?

Atlas V (ULA's nearest comparable rocket to Falcon 9) can get 8.9 tonnes to GTO - $100m/launch.

Falcon 9 can get over 5.5 tonnes to GTO with with reusabiity, up to 8.4 tonnes with a fully expendable launch - $62m/launch.

Delta IV Heavy (ULA's nearest comparable rocket to Falcon 9 Heavy) can get 14 tonnes to GTO - $225m/launch.

Falcon 9 Heavy will be able to get 22 tonnes to GTO - fully expendable - $90m/launch.


Whats "bad" about that?
Putting two thirds of a satellite in orbit does me no good, no matter how cheap you make the service.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
theprestige 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 6th October 2017, 02:01 AM   #111
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,772
Probably the wrong question, but:

why go to another planet at all?
Maris is as inhospitable as space. Plus it is at the bottom of a gravity well, making it hard to get back in case of problems.

Wouldn't it make much more sense to land on an asteroid to start with, experiment with living away from earth, mining materials etc., but all with the possibility of a return trip.
__________________
"eventually we will get something done."
- Donald J. Trump
The Great Zaganza 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 6th October 2017, 02:20 AM   #112
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,720
Manned Mars is more romantic.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
theprestige 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 6th October 2017, 02:49 AM   #113
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,003
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Putting two thirds of a satellite in orbit does me no good, no matter how cheap you make the service.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
Name any commercial GTO satellite that weighs > 12 tons and you'd have a point. Once you get that big the limitations start to be volume inside the fairing rather than weight.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo 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 6th October 2017, 02:53 AM   #114
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,003
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Probably the wrong question, but:

why go to another planet at all?
Maris is as inhospitable as space. Plus it is at the bottom of a gravity well, making it hard to get back in case of problems.

Wouldn't it make much more sense to land on an asteroid to start with, experiment with living away from earth, mining materials etc., but all with the possibility of a return trip.
No. Mars has a (thin) atmosphere which helps with radiation shielding for one, plus easily extracted CO2 without the need for mining equipment. Bring a few tons of H2 with you and you don't even need to move water ice for the return.

At 39% earth gravity, Mars should have less deleterious effects on human physiology in the long term while still allowing fairly easy escape from the gravity well (thin atmosphere helps here again)
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo 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 6th October 2017, 03:21 AM   #115
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,449
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Putting two thirds of a satellite in orbit does me no good, no matter how cheap you make the service.
The absolute heaviest satellites in GEO are less than 6.5 tonnes. All of the rockets I listed will put satellites that size into GEO... Delta IV can launch two in one launch, Falcon 9H will be able to launch three in one launch

Where do you get your 2/3 of a satellite idea from?
__________________
► 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; 6th October 2017 at 03:30 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 6th October 2017, 03:43 AM   #116
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,057
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
No. Mars has a (thin) atmosphere which helps with radiation shielding for one, ....
Eh?? Interesting. How does a thin (it has been described as "a laboratory-grade vacuum") help with radiation shielding?

" Five meters of soil will provide the same protection [for the Mars One hab] as the Earth's atmosphere-- equivalent to 1,000 g/cm2 of shielding." link
__________________
"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 6th October 2017, 04:03 AM   #117
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,003
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Eh?? Interesting. How does a thin (it has been described as "a laboratory-grade vacuum") help with radiation shielding?

" Five meters of soil will provide the same protection [for the Mars One hab] as the Earth's atmosphere-- equivalent to 1,000 g/cm2 of shielding." link
Important to note that I said "helps", it doesn't eliminate the problem and it does rather depend on elevation. Thin or not, 11km's of CO2 blocks a fair amount.

The report you linked to mentions 30mSv per year for 3 hours a day exposure. Natural background in the US is 6.4mSv per year, so ~5x more. However this pales in comparison to some places on Earth which have naturally higher levels of background radiation:

Quote:
Inhabitants who live in some houses in this area receive annual doses as high as 132 mSv from external terrestrial sources. The radioactivity of the high background radiation areas (HBRAs) of Ramsar is due to Ra-226 and its decay products, which have been brought to the surface by the waters of hot springs. There are more than 9 hot springs with different concentrations of radium in Ramsar that are used as spas by both tourists and residents.
http://ecolo.org/documents/documents...ty/ramsar.html

132mSv per year versus 30? Are dirt coverings really necessary? I mean, any shielding is better than none, but the idea that the surface of Mars is a radioactive wasteland is fiction.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo 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 6th October 2017, 04:44 AM   #118
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,760
Having read the thread and watched Musk's presentation about this on YouTube, I still don't know what the business plan is. The BFR itself makes sense, but who is paying for it to go to Mars? Who are the customers? People who want to live on Mars? Is he offering a travel service?
__________________
"... 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 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 6th October 2017, 04:55 AM   #119
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,003
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Having read the thread and watched Musk's presentation about this on YouTube, I still don't know what the business plan is. The BFR itself makes sense, but who is paying for it to go to Mars? Who are the customers? People who want to live on Mars? Is he offering a travel service?
No one. The BFR will be paid for using profit from the existing f9 manifest and whatever funding NASA decides to kick in. Instead of having 4 production lines (f9, dragon, BFR, BFS), they'll have only 2. BFR and BFS. As soon as BFR flies all manifests that can be moved to BFR will be. He plans to make his own, highly successful rocket, completely obsolete and replace it with the BFR system.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo 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 6th October 2017, 05:06 AM   #120
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,003
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
No one. The BFR will be paid for using profit from the existing f9 manifest and whatever funding NASA decides to kick in. Instead of having 4 production lines (f9, dragon, BFR, BFS), they'll have only 2. BFR and BFS. As soon as BFR flies all manifests that can be moved to BFR will be. He plans to make his own, highly successful rocket, completely obsolete and replace it with the BFR system.
If any lurkers are interested, there is an awesome forum dedicated to spaceflight and has a vibrant community of armchair and real rocket scientists. It's worth visiting if this stuff interests you: Google nasaspaceflight forums
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo 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 06:53 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.