News Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars.

[N_Molson]

I think - and that's why I suspect I can't understand - that a lot of people here have a complete confidence in the neo-capitalistic political environnement that is currently leading our world to amazing achievements (grins). They need to believe into that and to be sure it is a flawless system so that they can sleep well at night. In that kind of patriarch-istic system you traditionally have industry captains that are the real stars. People need that kind of characters to renew their faith in the system. For some reason it doesn't works on me. Maybe I'm too critical.

Reminds me of your parody post from 2013.

Hehe... One day you might have a surprise... A parody addon... :hmm: That would definitively be a new thing !! :idea: Could be a lot of fun

 

[Urwumpe]

I think - and that's why I suspect I can't understand - that a lot of people here have a complete confidence in the neo-capitalistic political environnement that is currently leading our world to amazing achievements (grins). They need to believe into that and to be sure it is a flawless system so that they can sleep well at night. In that kind of patriarch-istic system you traditionally have industry captains that are the real stars. People need that kind of characters to renew their faith in the system. For some reason it doesn't works on me. Maybe I'm too critical.

Maybe we are all just expecting two possible outcomes:

• Success
• RUD, Explosions, Crashes, Fireworks

I can't really say which of those is bad. I am not expecting to get close enough to that rocket to worry about the second outcome. :lol:


And BTW: If it is just harmlessly written in a book by Arthur C Clarke or hidden in the depths of the NTRS, its OK for you and could be a cool Orbiter add-on. But when somebody comes and possibly really wants to do that... you are complaining?

I want that add-on! :rofl:

 

[C3PO]

I want that add-on! :rofl:

I'd probably prefer this one in KSP.

 

[Pipcard]

Considering how far from "mainstream" this forum is, those kind of statements really don't compute. How can people with such a "niche" interest like space flight, have so little empathy for other people's chosen interests? :blink:

I was only stating that as a possible outcome, but there are some people on spaceflight forums who deeply believe manned missions to and colonization of other planets is a waste of time and money. "Oh, sending robots is cheaper and much more effective for what was invested," they might say.

Or, they might just say "colonization or even manned missions won't be happening this century" (I used to think colonization was something for the next century, too)

 

[Hlynkacg]

Thorsten, N_Molson, et al...

You know, while I find the whole "Cult of Musk" thing annoying, I find the constant naysaying and pessimism from their opposite number to be equally if not more annoying.

Let's be brutally honest here, NASA hasn't done to advance the cause of human spaceflight since the late 80s, and SLS / Orion is arguably a massive step backwards. SpaceX has a accomplished more in the last 10 years than MSFC has in 30, and has done so for a fraction of the cost. For that I think they've earned some benefit of the doubt.

 

[N_Molson]

But when somebody comes and possibly really wants to do that... you are complaining?

Yes, because it competes with the other space program. You know, the one that put people on the Moon and flew 120-tons spaceplanes. The already tight resources are going to be stretched even more. We're going through hard times, it's not going to change tomorrow and focus is necessary to go anywhere. With those hypothetical Mars projects SpaceX completely gets out of the space-taxi role it was initially supposed to fill.

And no, SpaceX isn't funded by Musk, or benefits that could be done. It couldn't exist without a strong support of the Federal Administration.

SLS / Orion is arguably a massive step backwards

I really don't see why. It's a flexible architecture that can be fitted to various mission profiles. It doesn't rules out the possiblity to build a massive "mothership" in LEO, and also support the "send as much stuff as possible to Mars in a few shots" approach.

Also I'm not sure if you fully realize how far we are anyway from sending "millions of people" to Mars. There is a 100% probability we won't see that in our lifetimes. How do you get the people to LEO in the first place ? The Earth will be a barren desert long before enough Falcon9 rockets burn enough Kerosene to achieve that. At this point, I'd say there are more chances we develop a space elevator or even a teleporter before that.

 

[Urwumpe]

It's a flexible architecture that can be fitted to various mission profiles.

I don't see that.

---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

Let's be brutally honest here, NASA hasn't done to advance the cause of human spaceflight since the late 80s, and SLS / Orion is arguably a massive step backwards. SpaceX has a accomplished more in the last 10 years than MSFC has in 30, and has done so for a fraction of the cost. For that I think they've earned some benefit of the doubt.

Lets say it better:

They have managed to produce a rocket engine, that not even NASA dared to research. Should the raptor be as real as SpaceX claims, SpaceX has produced a cryogenic full-flow staged combustion engine with 30 times the thrust that NASA thought was "realistic within budget". And when the performance data is correct, this rocket engine is even generations better than anything the Russians produced in history. It produces more thrust than a SSME or RS-25, has a pretty optimal specific impulse for Methane/LOX and by being FFSC, it could have a total burn time measured in hours or even days.

Yes, it is unbelievable.

But epic.

 

[Pipcard]

"tight resources" - SpaceX wants to do space access more efficiently.

(I see your point there, N_Molson, but they don't plan to send millions of people with kerolox Falcon 9s)

 

[N_Molson]

I don't see that.

I knew you much less biased, that's a bit sad to see you join the ranks of the SLS-haters muskites...

They have managed to produce a rocket engine, that not even NASA dared to research. Should the raptor be as real as SpaceX claims, SpaceX has produced a cryogenic full-flow staged combustion engine with 30 times the thrust that NASA thought was "realistic within budget". And when the performance data is correct, this rocket engine is even generations better than anything the Russians produced in history. It produces more thrust than a SSME or RS-25, has a pretty optimal specific impulse for Methane/LOX and by being FFSC, it could have a total burn time measured in hours or even days.

We'll see how wonderfully works that miracle-engine. And I'm sorry but 382 m/s of Isp is poor if you compare it to the 452 m/s of the SSME. Plus hydrogen is the most abundant fuel in the Universe and has 0 environnemental impact (exhaust = steam). Even the 410 m/s of the more powerful RS-68 are good provided you can have a "clean" launch vehicle with the Delta 4H configuration (no solid boosters). If we want to make spaceflight something durable we should really focus on that. Fossile fuels are the past.

 

[Pipcard]

Liquid hydrogen tends to boil off, and any systems to mitigate that for the several-month journey to Mars were considered to be too heavy, expensive, or complex (this also applied to ground handling systems).

Liquid methane and LOX are close in temperature, so it's easier to handle. You also don't have to deal with hydrogen embrittlement, which is good for reusability.

 

[N_Molson]

Indeed, to go to Mars something more exotic like VASMIR or ionic engines is required. Doing it with conventional chemical rockets is probably doable but not wishable.

 

[Urwumpe]

I knew you much less biased, that's a bit sad to see you join the ranks of the SLS-haters muskites...

When have I been less SLS skeptical? :blink:

Also, is that a binary question? I have to like SLS, but dislike what SpaceX does? Or the other way around?

Also, when have I been SpaceX friendly?

I hate you all the same.

We'll see how wonderfully works that miracle-engine. And I'm sorry but 382 m/s of Isp is poor if you compare it to the 452 m/s of the SSME. Plus hydrogen is the most abundant fuel in the Universe and has 0 environnemental impact (exhaust = steam). Even the 410 m/s of the more powerful RS-68 are good provided you can have a "clean" launch vehicle with the Delta 4H configuration (no solid boosters). If we want to make spaceflight something durable we should really focus on that. Fossile fuels are the past.

1. The integrated powerhead demonstrator developed by NASA was planned in 2005 to become a hydrolox FFSC engine. But guess where it ended - in the archives. Aerojet/Rocketdyne did not use their own money to further develop the first few components into a rocket engine.
2. No hydrolox engine in history produced as much thrust as the Raptor. Only few Kerolox engines have been stronger - with much lower specific impulse
3. You can produce far less hydrogen on Mars than Methane at the same energy consumption.
4. Fossil fuels are the present. Even Tesla has to respect this right now. In a close future, we might need less of it, but most of our primary energy will be generated by fossil fuels for decades.
5. Invent a way to mass-produce fertilizer without oil and become rich.
6. The IPT consumes 8650 tons of propellant per launch, 6150 of this is methane. A single ultra-large container carrier ship consumes more than 250 tons MFO fuel per day. We have 80 of those right now. Bunker fuel is the most toxic kind of fossil fuel around. Everyday, those ships consume 20800 tons of bunker fuel.
7. Ecologically, you would need to launch 11560 IPTs every year to just reach the CO2 emissions of maritime shipping. Good luck with that.
8. If you would really fight for our climate, you would not waste your breath on "ecological rocket engines" (as if large amounts of steam in the upper atmosphere are no pollution), but fix the shipping.
9. Maybe you should convince Elon Musk to fund a company on electric ship propulsion... :rofl:

 

[Thorsten]

You know, while I find the whole "Cult of Musk" thing annoying, I find the constant naysaying and pessimism from their opposite number to be equally if not more annoying.

I look at the track record of Space X, and I don't see anything that would let me believe millions of people to Mars in the mid-future. That's realism in my book, not pessimism.

Let's be brutally honest here, NASA hasn't done to advance the cause of human spaceflight since the late 80s, and SLS / Orion is arguably a massive step backwards. SpaceX has a accomplished more in the last 10 years than MSFC has in 30, and has done so for a fraction of the cost. For that I think they've earned some benefit of the doubt.

True - NASA hasn't done that because, unlike you, the majority of the US population isn't interested in spending money to advance human spaceflight. So NASA followed the mandate.

Which is also why investors won't be interested in manned interplanetary spaceflight. Facebook didn't grow so large because Mark Zuckerberg was interested, it grew because people were interested in the service.

If there'd be a huge enthusiasm in society outside this forum, I could perhaps see something happening. Musk moves 18 billion - that's a lot - but Apollo cost 170 billion US$ (in current money) and the US has a GDP of 18 trillion. It pales in comparison.

If we spin fantasy tales about investors bringing in the rest, let me spin China being interested in grabbing Mars before someone from the US does - and there the money goes where the government says it should. Frankly, I think this scenario is more realistic.

So yes, they're doing it better than NASA - because NASA doesn't really want to in the first place because the US population doesn't want to. But being better than someone who isn't interested is no big achievement - and doesn't equal being able to cut launch costs by several orders of magnitude. They might have an innovative rocket (with a disturbing tendency to blow up...) - that makes them a promising business. Not a miracle that would be needed.

Take your wish that this happens out of the equation, look at support in the rest of the world, look at the vast disparity between the miracle required and the technological advances delivered - and you get your answer.

 

[Urwumpe]

Indeed, to go to Mars something more exotic like VASMIR or ionic engines is required. Doing it with conventional chemical rockets is probably doable but not wishable.

If you had an unlucky accident, will you insist on an electric ambulance car, or will any car be good enough for you that gets the job done?

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

Musk moves 18 billion - that's a lot - but Apollo cost 170 billion US$ (in current money) and the US has a GDP of 18 trillion.

Still, he only wants to get the rocket done. Not the payloads for Mars. 18 billion is likely the money that the SLS will cost, for example. The SLS did already cost 8 billion USD.

 

[N_Molson]

Come on. VASMIR can be done, really.

---------- Post added at 03:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 PM ----------

If you had an unlucky accident, will you insist on an electric ambulance car, or will any car be good enough for you that gets the job done?

You don't know me ! :lol: I'd say "thanks, but an electric ambulance car would have been better !" :lol: Also I'm cautious and try to avoid accidents. Until know, it worked pretty well, never had an ambulance ride. :tiphat:

 

[Urwumpe]

Come on. VASMIR can be done, really.

Sure. Same can be said of BetaMax. It was even the better standard. It was even cheaper. Still VHS won. By getting the job done faster.

(Sony insisted on partners producing their betamax gear in their own local factories, JVC produced VHS gear for the various companies in its own factories according to the design wishes. Building new factories and making them conform to standards takes a while.)

 

[Pipcard]

I thought VASIMR required some ridiculous power source (on the order of a couple hundred megawatts, while ISS only produces tens of kilowatts - such a nuclear reactor would be too heavy or require unrealistic materials)

 

[Urwumpe]

You don't know me ! :lol: I'd say "thanks, but an electric ambulance car would have been better !" :lol: Also I'm cautious and try to avoid accidents. Until know, it worked pretty well, never had an ambulance ride. :tiphat:

:lol: Well, I never needed one myself, but I live next to the local hospital and see ambulance cars and helicopters almost everywhere I look. :lol:

An electric helicopter would be really nice late at night....

---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

I thought VASIMIR required some ridiculous power source (on the order of a couple hundred megawatts, while ISS only produces tens of kilowatts)

Yes, only 200 MW in the 39 day scenario. :lol:

 

[Donamy]

I see 100 passengers as a liability, during transit and after landing. What are they going to do, when they get there? How are they going to be screened ? A few bad apples could be disastrous.

 

[RGClark]

He's started a number of successful Billion $ companies the first being Paypal, that is a long shot for a person to achieve if they planned it.

Robert Zubrin has made his comments on it, overall positive. He has some ideas for improvements too.

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=66acde49870b0e6bc3a161cc0&id=46e8d8b04d&e=66242eccde


I don't know about that, means each refilling craft would have to expend more fuel to reach the higher velocity to refill the Mars craft. Interesting thou.

I'd like to see his calculation for that. He's saying he could accomplish the same thing of sending a habitat for a 100 person crew by using only a 50 ton to LEO launcher(!) instead of the 500 ton launcher Elon describes. So he's saying it could be done just using the Falcon Heavy.

That's hard to believe without seeing the calculation.

Bob Clark