izbtmnhd
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Mon May 08, 2017 5:28 pm

VSMUT wrote:
izbtmnhd wrote:
How can Oroka hit the nail on the head? Seasons aren't weather according to that person yet you are talking about the weather!


Well what on earth do you think changes from season to season if not the weather?!? That comment is about as stupid as Quarkfly stating that you can't grow plants/crops in an artificial environment.


Right, I agree. Reread it and realize the person you're arguing with isn't me but the individual "who nailed it on the head" according to you.

Anyway, I don't get why some are touchy about this. The Mars window large and it will take a long while before it's ever really shortened. It doesn't mean this venture isn't worthwhile but it's just the most dangerous journey humanity will have ever taken. Seafaring isn't comparable on a lot of levels.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Tue May 09, 2017 4:27 pm

izbtmnhd wrote:
Seafaring isn't comparable on a lot of levels.


It isn't, but they risk level should be lower than on early sea voyages. I don't know what the current reliability leven in Human spaceflight is, but I don't think we are going to send people unless the chance of not getting them back is below 1%.

Best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
izbtmnhd
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Tue May 09, 2017 6:49 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
izbtmnhd wrote:
Seafaring isn't comparable on a lot of levels.


It isn't, but they risk level should be lower than on early sea voyages. I don't know what the current reliability leven in Human spaceflight is, but I don't think we are going to send people unless the chance of not getting them back is below 1%.

Best regards
Thomas


Below 1%? I highly doubt this is possible. I mean it's 2 years there and 2 years back. Then there are the 2 years when travel is unfeasible from either planet. Not to mention the communication issues. Not that communication would really matter anyway because if something goes wrong from a long distance there will be no rescue crew to save these folks. At least with sea voyages there was 1/10000 chance you could bump into an uncharted isle if something went wrong. There is no "Castaway Island" for the Mars mission.

It's way more complex than travelling to the to Moon and I bet the risk factors associated with those launches were over 1%. Look at what happened on Apollo 1 and 13.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Wed May 10, 2017 1:11 am

Really? You cant tell the difference between seasons and weather? Weather is day to day, seasons are an annual pattern of average weather based on region and time of year. Your weather can change from day to day, seasons are a general annual trend. Should I explain climate too? Okay, climate is the average trend of weather and temperature over decades and even centuries or millennia. Your cold day last week when it is normally hot is not proof that climate change is a lie, that is called weather. Weather ≠ Seasons ≠ Climate.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Wed May 10, 2017 6:00 am

izbtmnhd wrote:
I bet the risk factors associated with those launches were over 1%. Look at what happened on Apollo 1 and 13.


Apollo was reckless and that was politically motivated. Taking the first manned Saturn 5 flight all the way to the moon .....

I mean it's 2 years there and 2 years back. Then there are the 2 years when travel is unfeasible from either planet


Nonsense. It isn´t even close to 4 years if you use a free return trajectory to Mars. You can do Mars in 420 days, including 50 days science at Mars. Just check out NASA Sprint and Split Sprint Mission profiles.

Not to mention the communication issues.


better, since we have communication to Mars distance and beyond down pretty good.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
GDB
Posts: 12871
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Wed May 10, 2017 11:14 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
izbtmnhd wrote:
I bet the risk factors associated with those launches were over 1%. Look at what happened on Apollo 1 and 13.


Apollo was reckless and that was politically motivated. Taking the first manned Saturn 5 flight all the way to the moon .....

I mean it's 2 years there and 2 years back. Then there are the 2 years when travel is unfeasible from either planet


Nonsense. It isn´t even close to 4 years if you use a free return trajectory to Mars. You can do Mars in 420 days, including 50 days science at Mars. Just check out NASA Sprint and Split Sprint Mission profiles.

Not to mention the communication issues.


better, since we have communication to Mars distance and beyond down pretty good.

Apollo was only reckless by today's standards, the Soviets did stuff way more risky for instance putting 3 men in a Vostok in 1964 so squezzed in no spacesuits, no means of control and nothing to do.

Two unmanned Saturn V flights were done before anyone flew it, two more than the Shuttle which was intrinsically more dangerous, not least with no real escape system and a very narrow and risky abort window.
The CSM had been tested, unmanned and on Apollo 7.

Apollo 8 was politically motivated, it was a useful risk too, in that they spent enough time in Lunar orbit and making the trip at all, to free up Apollo 10 to concentrate more on following up Apollo 9's CSM/LM test but this time in Lunar orbit.
Added to that, the Soviet Zond flights were clearly preparing for a manned free return Lunar mission, NASA could not know the difficulties the Soviets were having with the unmanned one. Still, with Apollo 8 it became a moot point and NASA could ease up a bit, not much with that end of decade deadline but Apollo 8 got a lot out of the way, operationally and politically.

Being reckless surely would have been to wait for the LM that was light enough and fly Apollo 10 as the first landing attempt?

Polotics used to drive space exploration forward, now if anything, it holds it back, which is where Musk and probably others to follow, come in.


best regards
Thomas
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Thu May 11, 2017 10:01 am

GDB wrote:
Apollo was only reckless by today's standard


Exactly. The Mars mission will however be flown by todays standards.

The NASA CCP human-rating standards require that the probability of a loss on ascent is no more than 1 in 500, and that the probability of a loss on descent is no more than 1 in 500. The overall mission loss risk, which includes vehicle risk from micrometeorites and orbital debris while in orbit for up to 210 days, is required to be no more than 1 in 270


best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Thu May 11, 2017 12:08 pm

SpaceX plans on sending 2 Red Dragon missions to Mars in the 2020 launch window. In addition to these two missions, NASA, ESA and CNSA are all sending rovers to Mars the same year. Exciting times!

https://www.inverse.com/article/31431-s ... -jim-green

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05 ... s-in-2020/
 
izbtmnhd
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Fri May 12, 2017 2:51 pm

Oroka wrote:
Really? You cant tell the difference between seasons and weather? Weather is day to day, seasons are an annual pattern of average weather based on region and time of year. Your weather can change from day to day, seasons are a general annual trend. Should I explain climate too? Okay, climate is the average trend of weather and temperature over decades and even centuries or millennia. Your cold day last week when it is normally hot is not proof that climate change is a lie, that is called weather. Weather ≠ Seasons ≠ Climate.


Saying weather does not equal climate is like saying pages are not part of a book. It makes no sense. But I digress and you can believe what you want. This isn't the forum to debate the subject anyway.

tommy1808 wrote:
Apollo was reckless and that was politically motivated. Taking the first manned Saturn 5 flight all the way to the moon .....


That's a fair point although I still highly doubt the risk factor involved going to Mars is below 1% with current technology or will be reduced to that point by the 2020s.

tommy1808 wrote:
Nonsense. It isn´t even close to 4 years if you use a free return trajectory to Mars. You can do Mars in 420 days, including 50 days science at Mars. Just check out NASA Sprint and Split Sprint Mission profiles.


Yes, it is my bad and I know this. I know it doesn't take 2 years to get there, it's much shorter when the planets are aligned the "correct" way. I had the window period in my head when I wrote this.

tommy1808 wrote:
better, since we have communication to Mars distance and beyond down pretty good.


Elon's Mission Control won't be communicating with a robot taking pictures. The communication speed limit set by Einstein's Special Relativity equations will be a very specific problem for this mission. No information can move faster than the speed of light except for some very unique circumstances not involved here. So as the spacecraft moves further away from Earth, communication will become slower. By the time the spacecraft reaches Mars I believe there will be about a 30 second delay. This can become a serious problem if something goes wrong and instant action needs to be taken. Imagine if you had to give complex directions and there was a one minute delay for each command. People travelling there will have to have extreme patience and need to be independent problem solvers if an Apollo 13 situation happens.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Sat May 13, 2017 2:10 am

izbtmnhd wrote:
Saying weather does not equal climate is like saying pages are not part of a book. It makes no sense. But I digress and you can believe what you want. This isn't the forum to debate the subject anyway.


dictionary.com wrote:
[weth -er] 1.
the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture, pressure, etc.


dictionary.com wrote:
[see-zuh n] 2.
a period of the year characterized by particular conditions of weather, temperature, etc.:


dictionary.com wrote:
[klahy-mit] 1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Sat May 13, 2017 2:26 am

izbtmnhd wrote:
Elon's Mission Control won't be communicating with a robot taking pictures. The communication speed limit set by Einstein's Special Relativity equations will be a very specific problem for this mission. No information can move faster than the speed of light except for some very unique circumstances not involved here. So as the spacecraft moves further away from Earth, communication will become slower. By the time the spacecraft reaches Mars I believe there will be about a 30 second delay. This can become a serious problem if something goes wrong and instant action needs to be taken. Imagine if you had to give complex directions and there was a one minute delay for each command. People travelling there will have to have extreme patience and need to be independent problem solvers if an Apollo 13 situation happens.


Yes, there will be risk. That is why you send people who can react and adapt. Using the Apollo 13 example, it was the crew that saved the day, advised by experts in Houston. If a robot has to wait the 4-24 min one way transmission time (so 8-48 min for a instant reply), it could be too late. A trained person on site can react instantly. There is risk, and it is worth it. Just because something is hard or dangerous does not make it not worth doing. Crew dies, we learn something, make changes, send another crew.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Sat May 13, 2017 10:45 am

Oroka wrote:
izbtmnhd wrote:
Elon's Mission Control won't be communicating with a robot taking pictures. The communication speed limit set by Einstein's Special Relativity equations will be a very specific problem for this mission. No information can move faster than the speed of light except for some very unique circumstances not involved here. So as the spacecraft moves further away from Earth, communication will become slower. By the time the spacecraft reaches Mars I believe there will be about a 30 second delay. This can become a serious problem if something goes wrong and instant action needs to be taken. Imagine if you had to give complex directions and there was a one minute delay for each command. People travelling there will have to have extreme patience and need to be independent problem solvers if an Apollo 13 situation happens.


Yes, there will be risk. That is why you send people who can react and adapt. Using the Apollo 13 example, it was the crew that saved the day, advised by experts in Houston. If a robot has to wait the 4-24 min one way transmission time (so 8-48 min for a instant reply), it could be too late. A trained person on site can react instantly. There is risk, and it is worth it. Just because something is hard or dangerous does not make it not worth doing. Crew dies, we learn something, make changes, send another crew.


However, in the Apollo 13 case, removing the crew would have removed the urgency with which the problems needed fixing...

And the Apollo 13 crew werent reacting instantly, they were running checklists and implementing suggestions from ground, they didnt come up with any of the major solutions.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Sun May 14, 2017 2:53 am

If Apollo 13 didnt have a crew, it would have been an instant failure right there. A machine couldnt do anything with the solutions the ground controllers came up with. Then if it was a robotic mission, it wouldnt have needed the O2 tank that exploded. But if we didnt care about going to see stuff, we wouldnt send robots. Lets just stay home because it is dangerous out there. What would you say to a person who never went anywhere because flying on an airliner is dangerous, but is perfectly okay hopping in a car?

I noticed something funny today. We spend millions of dollars on this...
Image

to replace this...
Image
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Sun May 14, 2017 3:05 pm

Oroka wrote:
I noticed something funny today. We spend millions of dollars on this...


They'll do much better on Mars than the actual donkeys, don't you think?
 
imperialairways
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:38 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Mon May 15, 2017 11:38 am

JetBuddy wrote:
Oroka wrote:
I noticed something funny today. We spend millions of dollars on this...


They'll do much better on Mars than the actual donkeys, don't you think?


Considering the're both breathing oxygen, probably not. ;)
Now an electric version...
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Mon May 15, 2017 12:41 pm

izbtmnhd wrote:
Imagine if you had to give complex directions and there was a one minute delay for each command.


Not that unusual, ever worked with an FAE on a problem? You ask, they consult plans and manual and you get your reply between a few seconds and minutes later...

People travelling there will have to have extreme patience and need to be independent problem solvers if an Apollo 13 situation happens.


So, pretty much the same as people on a submarine.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Mon May 15, 2017 5:12 pm

imperialairways wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
Oroka wrote:
I noticed something funny today. We spend millions of dollars on this...


They'll do much better on Mars than the actual donkeys, don't you think?


Considering the're both breathing oxygen, probably not. ;)
Now an electric version...


True! This one will do better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7xvqQeoA8c
 
imperialairways
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:38 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Tue May 16, 2017 9:13 am

JetBuddy wrote:
imperialairways wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:

They'll do much better on Mars than the actual donkeys, don't you think?


Considering the're both breathing oxygen, probably not. ;)
Now an electric version...


True! This one will do better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7xvqQeoA8c


Fascinating and at the same time somewhat creepy. Reminds me of 80s sci-fi movies (Robocop and the likes).
What's the devolopment time for this, around 10 years? Imagine where they will be in another 10 years. Might well be interesting for Mars exploration and eventual colonization.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Tue May 16, 2017 2:31 pm

imperialairways wrote:
Fascinating and at the same time somewhat creepy. Reminds me of 80s sci-fi movies (Robocop and the likes).
What's the devolopment time for this, around 10 years? Imagine where they will be in another 10 years. Might well be interesting for Mars exploration and eventual colonization.


I know right! BostonDynamics seem to show us a new, improved fascinating robot every year or so.. I think the robot evolution is going pretty fast these days. The development of each one probably takes longer though, as they're working on multiple designs simultaneously. Combine this with the latest in neural nets (AI) software, a few 3D printers, solar panels with docks for recharging, interchangeable tools and wheels and a bunch of spare parts. I think it would be brilliant for building a Mars base!

Then add in a few "mules" or pets if you like. Also electric:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf7IEVTDjng
 
Oroka
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Wed May 17, 2017 4:27 am

lol I wasnt talking about using a donkey on Mars. Big dog is designed to be used to carry packs for soldiers on rough terrain where wheeled motor vehicles are not effective. Point being, they could just use a donkey rather than millions on developing a donkey replacement. Same thing with sending robots to mars when you can send men. spend billions developing ai, computers, robots that can just barely do the tasks a person can do, rather than just using a human. why send a human when my robotics company can just lobby that it is too dangerous for humans and you should spend billions (at my company) to make robots to do it instead?

Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Wed May 17, 2017 6:12 am

Oroka wrote:
Big dog is designed to be used to carry packs for soldiers on rough terrain where wheeled motor vehicles are not effective. Point being, they could just use a donkey rather than millions on developing a donkey replacement.


One that doesn´t need sleep, never makes a noise when told to, and carries 180 kg....

Same thing with sending robots to mars when you can send men. spend billions developing ai, computers, robots that can just barely do the tasks a person can do, rather than just using a human. why send a human when my robotics company can just lobby that it is too dangerous for humans and you should spend billions (at my company) to make robots to do it instead?


Because robots don´t breath, eat and don´t move around. That saves weight. And for each Kg you are not flying to Mars, you are saving some 250 to 500kg of Lunch weight. So, you add easily a couple of hundred tons take of weight for each person.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Thu May 18, 2017 2:45 am

Yeah, how much science has those pricey rovers on mars done? driven a few hundred km at best, took some pics, looked at some rocks closely. A trained geologist can do all that in a few days and still learn more. How many interesting things has a rover driven over that a geologist looking at the ground as he/she walked would have seen? How many rovers would it take to replace a single capable human? If you establish a viable base on mars that can be reused, expanded, grow food, do science... the costs go down as new crews come and go.

Its doable, just not in the old fashion mindset of NASA and its corporate associates. Got a problem? Throw massive amounts of money to advance tech that has been around since the 50s and 60s... rather than innovating new gear. That is why SpaceX is landing and reusing rockets, doing it cheaper, and making money at it. What is ULA going to do when SpaceX is launching satellites for more than $100m cheaper than ULA can? That is how you get million dollar robots instead of a $500 donkey. Im sure that loud wurrrrrwurrrrrwurrrrrwurrrrr would be great sneaking up on Osama Jr.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 740
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Fri May 19, 2017 7:57 am

tommy1808 wrote:
izbtmnhd wrote:
I bet the risk factors associated with those launches were over 1%. Look at what happened on Apollo 1 and 13.


Apollo was reckless and that was politically motivated. Taking the first manned Saturn 5 flight all the way to the moon .....


Apollo 8 was a reasonable risk for the program. Once Apollo 8 was in earth orbit, the Saturn V was largely irrelevant, and they had the opportunity to verify everything else was working properly before proceeding. The Saturn V's only remaining task was the 3rd stage TLI burn, which had already been tested on an unmanned flight.

I would not call the Apollo program reckless on the whole, especially since they stopped to address the problems exposed when the accidents occurred, but our appetite for risk certainly was a lot higher 45 years ago and in a significantly different political context.

JetBuddy wrote:
True! This one will do better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7xvqQeoA8c


Only for about 90 minutes if it's not working too hard, then they have to figure out how to get a 55 pound robot to carry a 90 pound RTG to recharge the batteries. Energy is far more of a limitation for Mars rovers than agility.

imperialairways wrote:
Imagine where they will be in another 10 years.


Possibly to the point of having found an actual practical application for the design. Boston Dynamics is doing some really interesting R&D, but it's not without compromises, and efficiency is a big one.

Oroka wrote:
Point being, they could just use a donkey rather than millions on developing a donkey replacement. Same thing with sending robots to mars when you can send men. spend billions developing ai, computers, robots that can just barely do the tasks a person can do, rather than just using a human.


Total inflation-adjusted Mars spending so far over the last 50 years is probably in the $20-30 billion ballpark, which has included a huge amount of R&D over that time - the MSL cost less than half as much as each Viking lander, for example, but has far more capabilities. The Mars 2020 rover will re-use the same chassis but with a new package of science instruments yet still lower the overall mission cost - around $2.1 billion.

A manned Mars program might be conducted for less than $200 billion, not counting similar prior decades of R&D to the unmanned programs. Cost is not even remotely in favor of a manned mission. While it might be credibly argued that a manned mission will return more total information per dollar, the likely tradeoff is we do more detailed study, but of a smaller area than if we stick to unmanned missions. We also still have to decide as a nation or group of nations that the information is worth that much money.

I very much like to believe it is, but it's not my decision alone. So far, the majority of the US disagrees with me.

Oroka wrote:
Yeah, how much science has those pricey rovers on mars done? driven a few hundred km at best, took some pics, looked at some rocks closely. A trained geologist can do all that in a few days and still learn more.


Quite a bit actually. Also, you're repeating, in crude form, an argument made by Dr. Squyres, one of the leading Mars robotic researchers, who has also been in favor of manned missions, because he knows as well as anybody what the limitations of unmanned missions are.

Part of what you're missing that muddies the comparison is that once the geologist is done looking at the rocks under the microscope, like the rover does, and feeling their consistency and texture, which the rover currently does only poorly, what he's going to be really eager to do is get the rocks under more specialized instruments like spectrometers, which the rover also does.

While the human will almost certainly work faster, ultimately both are limited in how much they can study by travel range and the capabilities of the instruments available, and both of those are problems closely linked to landed mass, which is a factor the manned mission is at a big disadvantage due to the need to dedicated literally dozens of tons worth of equipment and supplies to keeping the delicate human bodies alive and getting them back to earth - NASA's Mars Design Reference Mission 5.0, requires around 60 tons of landed mass.

The Mars 2020 rover has a landed mass of right around 1 ton, and by the way, will actually be testing one of the critical technologies without which a manned Mars mission will not happen.

Oroka wrote:
Throw massive amounts of money to advance tech that has been around since the 50s and 60s... rather than innovating new gear. That is why SpaceX is landing and reusing rockets, doing it cheaper, and making money at it.


SpaceX is also advancing tech that has been around since the 60's. They are not creating new technology. The difference is they're taking more risks by using the existing technology in more ambitious ways and doing it leaner. They may someday make money at it...real money, not just money that appears to exist due to accounting methods that defer R&D costs complemented by development grants like CRS and CCDev. I actually think based on my own rough estimates they're getting close to that point.

Oroka wrote:
What is ULA going to do when SpaceX is launching satellites for more than $100m cheaper than ULA can?


If that ever happens, ULA will work on reducing their costs to the degree necessary such that their significantly better reliability record still supports their price premium.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Sat May 20, 2017 7:53 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
the MSL cost less than half as much as each Viking lander, for example, but has far more capabilities.


I would hope so 40 years later. My watch is more powerful than my whole desktop PC 10 years ago at probably 1/4 the price.


iamlucky13 wrote:
A manned Mars program might be conducted for less than $200 billion


That is if you start from scratch, and using traditional aviation companies. The heaviest lift you can do right now is a Delta 4 Heavy at $375 million per launch compared to an estimated $90 million for the Falcon 9 Heavy (which can put nearly twice as much payload in mars orbit). That is a 76% drop in per launch costs. If you do by weight that is 88% drop getting gear into orbit. There is a ton of existing tech that could be used for long term trips in the ISS. Tweek those designs and use them. They have lasted far longer than a trip to Mars and back. SpaceX runs their operations as a business (duh), so they are streamlined. ULA runs it like they are being fed massive amounts of money from the government, and that model is why it would take $200B to do a trip to mars.

iamlucky13 wrote:
Part of what you're missing that muddies the comparison is that once the geologist is done looking at the rocks under the microscope, like the rover does, and feeling their consistency and texture, which the rover currently does only poorly, what he's going to be really eager to do is get the rocks under more specialized instruments like spectrometers, which the rover also does.


The scientist can quickly eliminate items not of interest, and the scientist will bring back interesting samples to base to be looked at with better gear. When that scientist leaves... that gear can be reused by the next guy. Rover is disposed.

iamlucky13 wrote:
the manned mission is at a big disadvantage due to the need to dedicated literally dozens of tons worth of equipment and supplies to keeping the delicate human bodies alive and getting them back to earth - NASA's Mars Design Reference Mission 5.0, requires around 60 tons of landed mass.


Okay, 60 tons for the first mission (I bet that could be brought down to less than 40). That is 5 launches of a Falcon 9 Heavy costing $450M, or 7 launches for the Delta IV Heavy costing $2625 Million... so $2B savings right there. Where are the other $199.5 Billion going? SpaceX already has the Red Dragon well under development, it wouldnt take too much to design a crew capsule that stays in orbit of Mars, or even heads back to earth for resupply while an empty crew capsule is en route for the return trip. There could be 4 capsules, one at mars, one enroute to mars, one enroute to earth, and one being resupplied. Heck, if there was a base on the moon just for servicing mars missions, it would be even easier. grow your food there, make fuel from materials there... be cheaper than hauling everything out of earths gravity well. Dont think like NASA.

iamlucky13 wrote:
SpaceX is also advancing tech that has been around since the 60's.


Yes, but they are not doing it the way ULA is doing it... make things more complicated and spend boat loads of money getting there. They are using existing tech in new ways, and developing new tech that will decrease costs.

Yes they get grants from NASA and the US Government... because its going to save them a boat load of money. ULA was launching rockets for the USAF for around $160m on a recent contract IIRC, SpaceX does it for $64m... wont take long for those grants to SpaceX to pay off (dont forget ULA got grants too).

iamlucky13 wrote:
If that ever happens, ULA will work on reducing their costs to the degree necessary such that their significantly better reliability record still supports their price premium.


SpaceX is already about $35M cheaper than ULAs recently cut prices ($160m down to $100m). SpaceX has stated that launching a reused rocket cuts launch prices in half... so that will bring them to $65M cheaper than ULA. I guarentee that Mr Musk has all his tech copyrighted to heck... ULA has their stuff copyrighted for sure. So, ULA is what... 10 years behind on reuse-ability.

As for reliability... SpaceX has been at this alot less time than ULA. How many losses have they had? They came damn close to losing a Atlas V last year. Look at the success - failure rate of the Atlas during its early development. I would hope they worked out most of the bugs after launching Atlas rockets for 60 years. Would you use a recall on a 2017 car as a reason to buy an updated 57 chevy for 3X the cost?


If we engineer all risk out of launching stuff into space atop of giant tanks feeding a massive directional explosion... we will never be able to afford even going to the moon. Anyways, Elon will easily make up for loss of life when stupid humans no longer get to drive cars.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 9088
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Mon May 22, 2017 10:31 pm

Are space elevators planned at some point ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 740
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Tue May 23, 2017 9:01 pm

Meaning no disrespect Oroka, but you're doing a lot of hand-waving real technical, practical, and economic matters aside.

Aesma wrote:
Are space elevators planned at some point ?


No. Space elevators are a speculative concept being dabbled with to determine if it is worth pursuing in earnest, not something that is clearly known to be technically viable or economically feasible.

While the concept is simple, the execution really is far from it. There is a general idea how it might be approached, but a zillion details to work through, and several pieces of unproven technology it depends on.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Wed May 24, 2017 11:55 am

Oroka wrote:
If Apollo 13 didnt have a crew, it would have been an instant failure right there.


Only in a political sense - if you take all politics out of it, it was a sample return mission, little more.

A machine couldnt do anything with the solutions the ground controllers came up with. Then if it was a robotic mission, it wouldnt have needed the O2 tank that exploded. But if we didnt care about going to see stuff, we wouldnt send robots. Lets just stay home because it is dangerous out there. What would you say to a person who never went anywhere because flying on an airliner is dangerous, but is perfectly okay hopping in a car?


If manned missions were imperative above everything else, we wouldn't have had Cassini, Voyager, Mariner, Rosetta....

All of our space observatories are unmanned (and yes I am aware that Hubble requires servicing by manned missions, but that is by design - its far from the only observatory that we have put into space, but its the only one that requires periodic servicing).

Obviously unmanned missions have immense value.

In my opinion, the only reason to send people is if they intend to stay there permanently. For everything else, unmanned missions are cheaper and less risky.

I noticed something funny today. We spend millions of dollars on this...
Image

to replace this...
Image


Theres a lot of snark in that comment, but the replacement offers huge advantages over the original -

- if it breaks you can airdrop a part quickly, you cant airdrop a new leg for a donkey, you have to send a whole new donkey.
- it won't get cranky and refuse to do something.
- you can send it across a field in open fire without caring about it.
- you don't have to tend it and care for it anywhere near as much.
- you don't have to include provision for its food.

Etc etc etc.

Its no different to the switch from horses to motor vehicles at the start of the 20th century.

There are many reasons why the world fell in love with the motor vehicle even when we were using horses and donkeys for everything - the motor vehicle is much much better at doing the same job in almost all situations.
 
PITingres
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Wed May 24, 2017 6:52 pm

moo wrote:
In my opinion, the only reason to send people is if they intend to stay there permanently. For everything else, unmanned missions are cheaper and less risky.


Cheaper and less risky, maybe, but also a LOT less productive and slower. If you look at the manned vs unmanned Moon missions, the unmanned missions cost perhaps 1/10 the manned, but produced maybe 1/100 the science. The Mars rovers produced a lot of science but took a hell of a lot longer to do it than a manned mission would have. (And, that time translates directly to years of people's lives.) You have a triangle not unlike the bigger / cheaper / faster triangle for data storage, or speed / quality / cost for software projects. If you ramp up the unmanned complexity to get the same results in the same time as a manned mission, it's going to cost at least as much as manned, and probably a heck of a lot more.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
Oroka
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Thu May 25, 2017 4:43 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
Meaning no disrespect Oroka, but you're doing a lot of hand-waving real technical, practical, and economic matters aside.


Until someone posts some serious credentials, everything posted here is arm chair rocket man territory.

My IRL job has me finding solutions to tasks that people straight up say you cant do, its just in my nature to take 'nope you cant do that' as a challenge. I find a way to make it happen, my company pays trades to do it. Cant = Wont for me.

No, going to Mars on the same mentality that took man to the Moon will not work. It will work, but it will be too expensive. That inst financially feasible, so approach it from a different angle. That is why Elon Musk is so successful (you cant deny that he is), he takes old ideas, adds a dash of new technology and concepts, then uses it in a new way to great results. He recently bought a Tunnel Boring Machine to play with, learn, then re-engineer it to be significantly faster... he isnt reinventing the wheel... just putting tires on it.


I have been thinking, a permanent base on the Moon would be a great idea before Mars. Maybe decommission the ISS (as much as I hate to say it), use those funds for a moon base. A bit closer to Earth, good chance to explore the Moon and develop tech for the hop to Mars. $1B would be enough to establish a permanent base on the Moon as long as you dont throw it at Lockheed or Boeing. They were perfectly happy charging $160M to launch stuff when SpaceX has shown it was doable for $60M and getting cheaper, and SpaceX had to start from scratch. Oops, clients are now saving $100M per launch by using SpaceX... they must be dumb.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Thu May 25, 2017 12:46 pm

PITingres wrote:
moo wrote:
In my opinion, the only reason to send people is if they intend to stay there permanently. For everything else, unmanned missions are cheaper and less risky.


Cheaper and less risky, maybe, but also a LOT less productive and slower. If you look at the manned vs unmanned Moon missions, the unmanned missions cost perhaps 1/10 the manned, but produced maybe 1/100 the science. The Mars rovers produced a lot of science but took a hell of a lot longer to do it than a manned mission would have. (And, that time translates directly to years of people's lives.) You have a triangle not unlike the bigger / cheaper / faster triangle for data storage, or speed / quality / cost for software projects.


You say that as if "faster" is an imperative or a requirement - it isn't always, and I'm not exactly sure that it is in this situation. You put a manned mission on Mars, and you *immediately* have a firm end date to that mission - the Mars rovers are well past their planned mission end date at this point.

In fact, the Curiosity rover, at this point in time, is so far into its mission timewise (5 years) that it has surpassed the entire manned portion of the Apollo moon program... I'd rather have multiple Curiosity rovers than the Apollo program!

Sending people is a prestige thing at this stage, nothing more. A manned Cassini mission would never have been on the cards, for example.

If you ramp up the unmanned complexity to get the same results in the same time as a manned mission, it's going to cost at least as much as manned, and probably a heck of a lot more.


Sorry, I *really* don't agree with that - time on the DSN is cheaper than sending a person, in all cases. And sending a second, replacement mission should the first one fail will always be cheaper if its unmanned.

There is a reason that all the manned missions in spaceflight history are the most expensive - Cassini-Huygens cost a total of $3.26billion, for a science mission duration of 13 years (2004 - 2017) and a total mission duration of 19 years, which is significantly less than the cost of the ISS at $150Billion to date, for less science mission duration!
 
PITingres
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Thu May 25, 2017 12:56 pm

You can disagree all you like, but the fact remains that additional complexity is very expensive. It's MUCH more than just time on a network, it's time and money spent getting all the bits working and qualified, and this does not scale linearly with complexity. And science mission duration isn't the right way to measure science returns. As for whether "faster" is relevant, as I pointed out, it's directly translatable into time out of people's lives either waiting for results or running the mission, so yes, "faster" is generally better.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Thu May 25, 2017 1:38 pm

PITingres wrote:
You can disagree all you like, but the fact remains that additional complexity is very expensive. It's MUCH more than just time on a network, it's time and money spent getting all the bits working and qualified, and this does not scale linearly with complexity.


And developing and certifying a life support system that CAN NOT FAIL EVER is much less complex :roll:

And science mission duration isn't the right way to measure science returns. As for whether "faster" is relevant, as I pointed out, it's directly translatable into time out of people's lives either waiting for results or running the mission, so yes, "faster" is generally better.


In the example I give, mission duration is *perfect* for measuring scientific returns - Cassini-Huygens has done *massive* amounts of science during its mission, and quite simply we won't see a manned mission in its league any time in the next 100 years...

You can also hand over an unmanned mission to a second or third generation of scientists once the primary mission has been completed - this has happened with pretty much all the long running programs.

You can't do that with a manned mission.
 
PITingres
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Thu May 25, 2017 1:51 pm

Good grief. Duration is never a sufficient metric because you aren't taking into account rate of discovery and rate of return. It has nothing to do with whether a manned mission is feasible or not, or whether a certain mission is doing science and returning results as quickly as possible or not. In general, if all you are considering is duration, you're not measuring amount of useful science done, by definition.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Thu May 25, 2017 2:51 pm

PITingres wrote:
Good grief. Duration is never a sufficient metric because you aren't taking into account rate of discovery and rate of return. It has nothing to do with whether a manned mission is feasible or not, or whether a certain mission is doing science and returning results as quickly as possible or not. In general, if all you are considering is duration, you're not measuring amount of useful science done, by definition.


Good grief yourself, stop fixating.

Good science missions don't care about how quickly they get results - they CANT because the freaking budget isnt there for "lets do this next week". Fast science would be great - doesn't happen though, people have to scrimp and save and lobby and beg to get scraps from the bottom of the barrel while everyone else gets funded.

Manned missions are by far and above the most expensive types of mission there is - and there is utterly no proof that they deliver better results on *science* than unmanned missions. You can argue until you are blue in your face, but you can't show any metrics to back your argument up.

Mission duration does matter and it is a sufficient metric - you can't go on a grand tour of the planets and moons like Cassini-Huygens without it being an exceptionally long mission, precisely because its a loooooong mission. Getting out there is the hardest part - and with a manned mission of *any* duration out there you have to think about bringing the crew back home. Or leaving them out there permanently. Either way, the costs of including a crew just bumped up the mission cost significantly, as in orders of magnitude significantly.

But if you are bringing them back, suddenly thats a whole bunch of extra time tacked on. Cassini is being dumped this September, its costs end when that happens, but if we are talking crewed mission then the mission still eats up funding for another 18 months minimum. Your only argument is that the science they do is more valuable than the budget to bring them home - and thats debatable.

Personally, if it takes 20 years to do something a manned mission could accomplish in 1, I'm happy with the 20 year duration because it will cost peanuts (relatively) and thus be far far easier to get a budget for.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 740
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Fri May 26, 2017 1:08 am

Oroka wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
Meaning no disrespect Oroka, but you're doing a lot of hand-waving real technical, practical, and economic matters aside.


Until someone posts some serious credentials, everything posted here is arm chair rocket man territory.


Sometimes I feel like wading deep into these discussions and substantiating my claims further, but that's pretty time intensive, and we're not having a policy-setting discussion here, so for the moment, I'm just going to leave it having made my point and accept that you disagree.

As a basic qualifier, however, I'm an engineer in aerospace industry with professional familiarity of some small parts of what is going on - to be honest some of the simpler things. Even these simple things I know factually, for reasons I can't expand upon, SpaceX finds fairly challenging. My professional experience also informs my personal, long-running enthusiasm for space exploration which has had me easily spend hundreds of hours over the years studying our challenges, accomplishments, and future plans.

That enthusiasm extends to SpaceX, what they're currently doing, and their goals. Those goals are extremely difficult, however, and SpaceX has likely spent in the ballpark of $4-5 billion just getting to where they are so far, which is a rocket with less than 1/4 the payload of the shuttle and significantly simpler (although mostly for the better with regards to simplicity), and they're still working their way towards basic manned capability.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Topic Author
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 pm

Lets take a short break from the invigorating conversation here -- to whet everybody's appetites....Elon Musk is going to update the architecture for the Mars systems -- BFR, ITS, etc. We should hear more in a few months...

https://futurism.com/elon-musk-spacex-i ... s-to-mars/

For a refresher...
BFR: "Big F**king Rocket" .. how quaint -- which carries the following...
ITS: "Interplanetary Transport System" (if I'm correct?) -- holds at least 100 lucky colonizers to land on Mars and other planets...Has restaurants, Starbucks, video games, the works !!

So hope the Droids and AI do not take over earth before Elon can make it happen !!
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
Oroka
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Tue May 30, 2017 12:47 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
As a basic qualifier, however, I'm an engineer in aerospace industry with professional familiarity of some small parts of what is going on - to be honest some of the simpler things.


Not saying you are making those statements up, but im sure you know there are thousands of people who claim to be many things. This is a board of discussion, we are all discussing something we have passions for. Aviation and in this case, the future of space travel.

iamlucky13 wrote:
That enthusiasm extends to SpaceX, what they're currently doing, and their goals. Those goals are extremely difficult, however, and SpaceX has likely spent in the ballpark of $4-5 billion just getting to where they are so far, which is a rocket with less than 1/4 the payload of the shuttle and significantly simpler (although mostly for the better with regards to simplicity), and they're still working their way towards basic manned capability.


Dont forget that Mr Musk has a track record of doing things people say he cant do. He has established a non traditional aerospace company who does things differently. I remember many discussions about that quirky company SpaceX, and how they would burn their money and go under, never amount to anything. Or an electric car company... lol, ELECTRIC cars? Remember what electric cars looked like back in Tesla's early days? Whats that, he bought a tunnel boring machine to build those tunnels he talked about (see those electric sleds he is already testing for that?).

If there is one person who can pull off the goals he set, Elon Musk is that person, and he has the track record to do it. There is a new generation of Billionaire entrepreneurs out there doing things differently, Musk, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg... they dont know how it is supposed to be done, so they are doing it how they think it should be done, hiring like minded engineers, and it is changing the world.


(The reactions of competitive countries and companies now working towards going to mars shows that they think Musk may pull it off and will have a huge advantage if he does).
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Tue May 30, 2017 8:52 am

Oroka wrote:
Dont forget that Mr Musk has a track record of doing things people say he cant do.

...

If there is one person who can pull off the goals he set, Elon Musk is that person, and he has the track record to do it.


He also has a track record of his companies being on the bread line a *lot* - Tesla has been hours away from bankruptcy several times in its life, SpaceX was set to be shut down before it got its NASA CRS contract (which itself is basically the sole payer for the Falcon 9 development program), the Boring company idea is a play thing, it won't solve anything in reality for anyone other than Musk...

Don't get me wrong, I like the things SpaceX are doing, but don't confuse SpaceX success with validation for Musk - he tends to talk a lot and then what succeeds becomes the official history. Take his solar roof idea, it was pitched by Musk as a replacement roof which would cost less than a normal roof but generate you electricity and possibly income at the same time. Now its out on the market, the reality is turning out to be somewhat different...
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 9088
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Tue May 30, 2017 10:17 pm

I love anything related to space and wouldn't disagree to a ten-fold increase in spending, however I'm not convinced there is much science left to do on Mars. Sure there are things to learn, but things worth billions upon billions of taxpayer's money ?

On the other hand colonization is a completely different goal, in a way it's a metaphysical goal, humanity starting its expansion beyond its home planet.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Wed May 31, 2017 3:19 am

PITingres wrote:
The Mars rovers produced a lot of science but took a hell of a lot longer to do it than a manned mission would have. (And, that time translates directly to years of people's lives.) You have a triangle not unlike the bigger / cheaper / faster triangle for data storage, or speed / quality / cost for software projects. If you ramp up the unmanned complexity to get the same results in the same time as a manned mission, it's going to cost at least as much as manned, and probably a heck of a lot more.


considering that people on Mars with a Rover either need a back up rover or need to stay withing walk-back distance to base, i highly doubt that. I am pretty sure you get the most cost-effective science by the right mixture of manned and unmanned missions.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
treetreeseven
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:18 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Wed May 31, 2017 9:58 am

Aesma wrote:
I love anything related to space and wouldn't disagree to a ten-fold increase in spending, however I'm not convinced there is much science left to do on Mars. Sure there are things to learn, but things worth billions upon billions of taxpayer's money ?

There's enough science left to do on Earth to keep us busy for quite a while, let alone Mars.
 
treetreeseven
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:18 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Wed May 31, 2017 10:00 am

PITingres wrote:
You can disagree all you like, but the fact remains that additional complexity is very expensive.

I actually thought this was a comment in support of simpler robotic missions until I read the rest of it.

The complexity of sending a crewed mission to another planet is orders of magnitude greater that that of sending a rover or ten.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Wed May 31, 2017 1:04 pm

treetreeseven wrote:
Aesma wrote:
I love anything related to space and wouldn't disagree to a ten-fold increase in spending, however I'm not convinced there is much science left to do on Mars. Sure there are things to learn, but things worth billions upon billions of taxpayer's money ?

There's enough science left to do on Earth to keep us busy for quite a while, let alone Mars.


We learn so much by space exploration that we can't learn by staying on Earth. We also learn about Earth by exploring Mars and other planetary bodies like Europa, Titan and Enceladus. Learning how to terraform Mars is the ultimate goal - if we can achieve that, we can also save Earth from just about anything. Colonizing Mars is a double positive.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Topic Author
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Wed May 31, 2017 5:20 pm

Some good info on the scale of things...guess you can figure why its called BFR...

Image


...And once in space the ITS (crewed part...on the nose)...needs to be refueled two or three times before it's off to Mars and beyond !!
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Wed May 31, 2017 10:31 pm

Wow. Just wow.

filler
filler
filler
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:55 pm

Yep, that's an impressive design. BFR for sure. I heard Elon Musk was considering pulling out of the Trump administration's advisory council because of the Paris Accord. Without getting political, I think it would be wise of him to keep close ties to the administration for SpaceX/Mars mission reasons. Purely pragmatic.
 
treetreeseven
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:18 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:34 am

I suppose anybody can make a pretty picture, but I do feel a little more hopeful that I'll see human beings walk on another world before I croak.
 
semiless
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:20 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:22 pm

It's not like Elon is going to serve all the necessary attributes for sustained human presence on Mars.
Alot of other companies will do their part in creating the necessary equipment. As for agriculture. I think Bigelow airspace inflatable habitats is a good low weight and small volumetric cargo module to allow large greenhouse spaces in which the necessary food can be grown.

They will use hydroponics for sustained climate in the greenhouses and they'll only grow plants in there anyway. So everybody would be (A) vegan, and little mass/volume would be required on board a Earth deperture stage to get it to Mars.

I also thought Elon mentioned that the mars colony transport would first bring unmanned modules to the planet leaving a secondary return vehicle on the surface of Mars.
So if the main return vehicle fails they will still have a secondary to get back to Earth. So spare parts would not be needed. At worst they can refit parts from one return rocket to the other assuming they brought equipment for dissasembly and reassembly. Obviously that will be difficult if there is a internal construction failure on both rockets.
But if it would go that bad then you will just have to make peace with the fact that you are unlucky and screwed. These things may happen on these journeys. Elon states, "only go to mars if your ok with dying"

I think they said the same to the colonists crossing the oceans in the 16th and 17th century. Advancements will cause casualties, that's just part of the game of life, take it or leave it. Don't like it? Then don't go to Mars.
 
kellyon
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:17 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:29 am

I think that only NASA has all the capabilities to send the first human visitors to Mars. I read at http://solarstory.net/planets/mars that NASA began sending probes to the planet surface to find a means for it to support human life in the early 2000's. However, it has yet to be determined if the colonization of Mars will happen anytime soon. For me it sounds unreal.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Sorry Elon, You're Not Going to Colonize Planets

Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:09 pm

kellyon wrote:
I think that only NASA has all the capabilities to send the first human visitors to Mars. I read at http://solarstory.net/planets/mars that NASA began sending probes to the planet surface to find a means for it to support human life in the early 2000's. However, it has yet to be determined if the colonization of Mars will happen anytime soon. For me it sounds unreal.


Just like going to the moon sounded unreal in the early 60s. A Mars mission will be a collaboration between NASA and a multitude of commercial space companies. The Orion Command Module is being built by Lockheed Martin. The Orion Service Module is being built by Airbus. The Delta rockets are built by United Launch Alliance (Lockheed Martin and Boeing).

If there's to be a colonization of Mars, it will happen through a number of missions by various space companies. SpaceX is hoping to put in place the transport infrastructure needed, and other companies will have to follow up and use this infrastructure to colonize the planet.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cumulushumilis, kmz and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos