Register here

Author Topic: Space X Interplanetary Transport System  (Read 11140 times)

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 736
Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« on: September 27, 2016, 10:51:05 am »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2016, 11:15:44 am »
The idea of landing the booster back on the launch pad and recycling it within 24 hours (implied) seems pretty incredible.  As in, I don't think that's a credible approach.  They're nowhere close to that level of precision in their landings yet.  Also, the potential for a pad accident to damage the tanker vehicle seems way too high.  It would seem to make much more sense to have two boosters and to launch the two rockets in relatively rapid succession, then recycle both for future missions. 

And I'm not sure why you'd launch the spacecraft with people aboard first.  Launch the tanker first and make sure you have fuel on orbit, then put the manned spacecraft up to rendezvous with it.  If the tanker fails, you can delay the manned launch until you have fuel available.

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 736
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2016, 11:28:58 am »
Does seem a bit illogical as any kind of issue with the tanker and/or booster is going to leave a bunch of colonists stuck in orbit with nowhere to go.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2016, 12:05:12 pm by Flyaway »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2016, 11:29:12 am »
Two years ago pad landings were "impossible", let alone one on a barge floating at sea.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 736
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2016, 12:14:26 pm »
Looking at the design of the interplanetary vehicle on its own I guess Mr Musk must have been a Dan Dare fan when younger.

With suitable fuel depot it is designed to reach Jupiter & Saturn.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2016, 01:09:02 pm by Flyaway »

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3600
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2016, 01:23:10 pm »
Saw some figures on Musk preservation
http://www.spacex.com/mars


The Rocket is HUGE it dwarfs the Saturn V
As expendable it would carry 550 tons to Low orbit
Reuse and Refuel it carry 450 tons to Mars
passengers around 100 to 200 people !

Launch mass is around  10000 tons (NOVA Size)
lift off  by 42 raptor engine (Lox/CH4 fuel) in Booster (6700 tons) and 6 raptor engines in Spaceship (1900 tons).
Once refuel the Spaceship can get any were in Solarsystem and land there (it will take travel-time of Years) 
the Mars rocket build from Carbon-fiber material, they got already a LIFE SIZE prototype tank under testing !
and Raptor engine made first test firing

Time tabel ?
Vage but aiming for 2023, so NASA hurry up, other wise a private company land first on Mars...

What will be Zubrin reaction on that ?
i bet pure excitation...
« Last Edit: September 27, 2016, 01:31:00 pm by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3600
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2016, 01:30:14 pm »
Thank to NASA Space Flight Forum and Chris Bergin some picture













Prototype tank
I love Strange Technology

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 736
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2016, 02:39:32 pm »
Quite a few of the questions in the Q & A were pretty dire.

As a Douglas Adams fan like the idea of him calling the first ship Heart of Gold.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2016, 02:57:09 pm »
Only requires a reusable rocket over three times bigger than a Saturn V, with 42 engines in the first stage.

Seems totally reasonable.

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 736
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2016, 02:59:13 pm »
Webcast recording.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2016, 03:16:30 pm »
Quite a few of the questions in the Q & A were pretty dire.

As a Douglas Adams fan like the idea of him calling the first ship Heart of Gold.

Dire?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3600
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2016, 03:41:58 pm »
Only requires a reusable rocket over three times bigger than a Saturn V, with 42 engines in the first stage.

Seems totally reasonable.

Actually it make quite sense

until 1964 NASA study for Manned Mars Mission, the use of a gigantic rockets called NOVA with payload on 400 tons in low orbit
To reduce the Launches to minimum Two or Three
SpaceX ITP goes same direction but with one big differences ITP is reusable, NOVA not !
and New Glenn from Blue Origin almost in size of Saturn V and  reusable...

Oh i yeah the current reaction at ULA, ArianeSpace and NASA...
I
I love Strange Technology

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6746
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2016, 05:19:28 pm »
Quite a few of the questions in the Q & A were pretty dire.

As a Douglas Adams fan like the idea of him calling the first ship Heart of Gold.

Dire?

"Dire" as in "Release the dire wolves on these fricken' morons. Who let these hippies, self-promoters and whackjobs anywhere near the microphones?"

This is in a sense the PR flacks worst nightmare. Sometimes a questioner comes along who is so awful that their awfulness rubs off on the questionee. Musk did a fair job of dealing with them by either not understanding them, or outright shoving them aside.

"I have a bus outside..."
"I'm sorry, that's not a hair question. NEXT!"
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2016, 07:43:49 pm »

Oh i yeah the current reaction at ULA, ArianeSpace and NASA...
I

Honestly, I doubt those folks much care, except maybe NASA.  They know that the ITS, successful or not, is not relevant for commercial space launch services.  Demand for launches in the existing weight classes isn't going to dry up just because SpaceX can lob 400 tons at Mars every so often.  Heck, this probably helps ULA and Ariane because SpaceX engineering talent that could be refining a next gen Falcon Heavy successor will instead be designing the non-commercial ITS.

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 736
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2016, 11:48:52 pm »
Here is the official slide set from the presentation including pictures of that monstrous LOX tank they've already fabricated.

http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/mars_presentation.pdf

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3600
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2016, 12:14:23 am »


Honestly, I doubt those folks much care, except maybe NASA.  They know that the ITS, successful or not, is not relevant for commercial space launch services.  Demand for launches in the existing weight classes isn't going to dry up just because SpaceX can lob 400 tons at Mars every so often.  Heck, this probably helps ULA and Ariane because SpaceX engineering talent that could be refining a next gen Falcon Heavy successor will instead be designing the non-commercial ITS.

Yes
Therefor is very interesting that Musk mention in presentation incidental
About to use the Booster as suborbital Intercontinental cargo flights (ROMBUS)
If SpaceX manage to create this market, they can finance there Mars project
I love Strange Technology

Offline ADVANCEDBOY

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 264
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2016, 01:44:52 am »
At first you need to show a capability to build a LOX for Venture Star/X-33 size vehicle before going  any further. If you can`t build a colony on The  Moon , you can`t do it on Mars either. There is no existing expertise to land a man on the Moon let alone on Mars no matter how much I would like to be wrong.
If you are hotter than me, I must be cooler than you:)


Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6746
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2016, 03:00:35 am »

About to use the Booster as suborbital Intercontinental cargo flights (ROMBUS)


Not the booster, but the spacecraft itself. I believe *that* was what he said could be made into an SSTO or a suborbital hopper. The SSTO option seems of dubious value, since the ship would be stuck on orbit unable to come back unless refueled, but the suborbital hopper seems like it might be of some value. but I believe he was wrong on his estimates of flight times. I believe trans-Atlantic is more than 10 minutes...
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 825
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2016, 04:03:03 am »
Raptor engine test at McGregor site.  I think this is a subscale demonstrator and that the full size version is to be tested at Nasa Stennis.


Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2016, 04:40:06 am »
The idea of landing the booster back on the launch pad and recycling it within 24 hours (implied) seems pretty incredible.  As in, I don't think that's a credible approach.  They're nowhere close to that level of precision in their landings yet.

Okei, so in vacuum your points would be correct and fair. But you are ignoring two major things;

1; History.

2; As Elon often says, one doesn't know one is on an exponential curve until one zooms out.

Do you know what their accuracy was with the first landings like CASSIOPE and CRS-3? About 10km +/-. About a year later they got that down to like 10-20 meters. Year later still, they landed a stage, for first time ever. By anyone. Less than a year after that again, they had landed half dozen, many of which were within 1-2m of bulls eye. If they managed to go from landing 0 stages within 1-2m to landing safely 6 stages in just little over 2 years - why is it logical to assume they won't improve on that even more in 6 years or so? So you are at best operating as if we were in 2013.

As to the second point, before any BFR-ITS ever flies, they would have A LOT of F9/FH flights under their belts. They managed to land safely 6 stages in under a year. Before BFR-ITS ever flies it will be over a hundred stages. A hundred landings and 6 years to improve accuracy even more and to test out technology and software they dont have *today*. Don't underestimate just how rapidly they are developing technology.

Pulled high res pictures from the presentation, all here; http://imgur.com/a/NRIvz
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 04:42:01 am by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline observer144

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 3
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2016, 06:02:44 am »
The idea of landing the booster back on the launch pad and recycling it within 24 hours (implied) seems pretty incredible.  As in, I don't think that's a credible approach.  They're nowhere close to that level of precision in their landings yet.

Okei, so in vacuum your points would be correct and fair. But you are ignoring two major things;

1; History.

2; As Elon often says, one doesn't know one is on an exponential curve until one zooms out.


Personally, I don't doubt that SpaceX can obtain the accuracy. The issue is about risk mitigation. Assumption: Lift-off and landing, like an aircraft, are the most risky parts of the flight. If there were an issue with the landing (and no complex system can be made 100% without fault), the risk is that it could damage the launch/landing pad. This would take the launch pad out of commission while the repairs are made and investigation into what went wrong.

From a risk mitigation perspective, it would be far better to land the stage back 'near' the launch pad. That way you could continue to fly if one of the landings fails. This is especially critical if SpaceX continues to plan to launch passengers first, then their fuel. The launch pad would seem to be a single-point-of-failure; a new launch pad could take a year or more to build but a new landing pad should be easy to build in a few months - it's not like America has a problem making parking lots :).

And talking about the passenger plans, it would seem lower risk to launch all the fuel first (as others on this thread have stated), and have the tankers LEO rendezvous, then launch the passengers and again LEO rendezvous with the tankers, refuel, and finally TMI (trans-Mars injection).


-r.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 06:09:38 am by observer144 »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2016, 08:23:07 am »
This is my main issue -- an accident on a fixed pad during landing kills the entire launch infrastructure for weeks (minimum) and has a high chance of at least dinging the spacecraft waiting to be loaded.  (Same issue on launch, too.  A pad accident like the most recent one would also destroy the other waiting vehicle, if it's as close as shown). It makes sense, IMO, to get the landing pad away from the launch site.

Assuming they can achieve the required precision, perhaps the solution is to use a set of mobile pads similar to the Crawler-Transporters at KSC now but designed to work as part of the launch/land system.  Launch from one such pad, then land on another one a half-mile or so away (or whatever your safe distance looks like).  Then swap the crawlers, bringing the one with the recovered booster back to the launch site while the one that just launched the booster moves over to the recovery site for the next landing.  A similar  vehicle can bring the next spacecraft payload to the launch site from a safe distance as well. 

Admittedly, this is more launch infrastructure, and thus more cost, but I'd bet it's cheaper than replacing the pad facilities or one of the spacecraft after an accident.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2016, 08:37:28 am »
Assuming they can achieve the required precision, perhaps the solution is to use a set of mobile pads similar to the Crawler-Transporters at KSC now but designed to work as part of the launch/land system.  Launch from one such pad, then land on another one a half-mile or so away (or whatever your safe distance looks like).  Then swap the crawlers, bringing the one with the recovered booster back to the launch site while the one that just launched the booster moves over to the recovery site for the next landing.  A similar  vehicle can bring the next spacecraft payload to the launch site from a safe distance as well.

I was thinking something just like this.  :)  It also gives you options for taking it to a VAB relatively easy if something needs to be looked at or replaced.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline red admiral

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 456
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2016, 11:16:44 am »
Related landing question:

How large a hole are those engines going to plow when it lands vertically on Mars?

I can see a definite need for pre-missions to scout and establish a landing site, and probably pre-position anciliary equipment and fuel production facilities.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2016, 01:12:23 pm »
Don't underestimate just how rapidly they are developing technology.

And don't over-hype it either: Falcon Heavy was supposed to fly in 2012.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1605
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 02:36:10 pm by blackstar »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2016, 02:48:46 pm »
"I like to imagine SpaceX planted these questioners to make the guy on stage talking about colonizing Mars look like the sane one in the room."


That is just sad.  That somebody could think that pretty much summarizes today's twitterati generation.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #28 on: September 28, 2016, 05:20:12 pm »
Don't underestimate just how rapidly they are developing technology.

And don't over-hype it either: Falcon Heavy was supposed to fly in 2012.

Sure, if one ignores the reason for the delays time after time. FH in 2012 is not the same FH in 2016. Between then and now they have been through 3 major versions of Falcon 9 with one more coming up next year. So if anything - you just proved my point. ;)

And i am not over hyping it. It is a fact that they have been through 3 major versions of Falcon 9 in 3 years or so. Dragon 2 in 2012 doesnt look anything like Dragon 2 from 2016 either.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2016, 05:22:18 pm by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #29 on: September 28, 2016, 06:44:45 pm »
Sure, if one ignores the reason for the delays time after time. FH in 2012 is not the same FH in 2016. Between then and now they have been through 3 major versions of Falcon 9 with one more coming up next year. So if anything - you just proved my point. ;)

Now you're being silly.

Missing deadlines is not a good thing, no matter what the excuse.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2016, 06:52:23 pm »
Raptor engine test at McGregor site.  I think this is a subscale demonstrator and that the full size version is to be tested at Nasa Stennis.


Full size engine, just without the extended bell if a flight article. Raptor is actually quite compact.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 655
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #31 on: September 28, 2016, 06:59:27 pm »
There is no existing expertise to land a man on the Moon let alone on Mars no matter how much I would like to be wrong.

Nonsense.  You are wrong.   It exists.  Landing on a planet is easy and has been done many times.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 356
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #32 on: September 28, 2016, 07:11:17 pm »
The problem with the plan, as far as is presented, is that the operational design represents a huge risk. Musk requires the ITS have reliability on the order of modern day transport aircraft. That reliability can only be ensured after a huge number of flight tests. For the 787, Wikipedia says that the flight test program involved 1,700 flights.

No rocket system has flown a fraction of that number of flights. Saturn V flow ~1% of the 787 test flights. The space shuttle flew <10% of the total number of 787 test flights.

Unless Musk can magically assure reliability or ensure several hundred flights of the largest rocket booster ever, he cannot achieve the per-flight reliability he requires.

Which brings us to the next logistical problem. The ITS will represent a mammoth pre-flight and launch risk. It'll have explosive power on the order of a tactical nuke. How does Musk even begin a flight test program with that rocket? He has to ensure system reliability to a high level before he can even begin flights, because of the risk the rocket poses.

I don't think his architecture is remotely feasible, because it requires a reliability level never yet seen on a space launch system. To get that reliability, he needs a flight rate never yet seen on a space launch system. And that flight rate is needed for a rocket which requires a massive reliability to even begin flying and whose size is far too large for any commercial use.

All of this is before we begin dealing with the Martian trip architecture, which doesn't seem to be very solid. For one, he will need a bunch of launch sites and a bunch of rockets and an industrial amount of propellant.

Those problems aside, what is interesting is the new rocket engine and the rocket engine design. If Musk can achieve his design goals there, that will be very useful and very impressive.

Offline JeffB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 61
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #33 on: September 28, 2016, 08:28:46 pm »
I still don't understand the attraction of going to Mars, especially 100 or 200 people at a time.  The infrastructure required to support them would be massive and the likelihood of disaster would be significant. 

This whole drive for Mars strikes me as a rather poorly thought out flag-planting exercise.  We still need to build a significant level of capability in the near-Earth region before we start seriously thinking about moving hundreds of people to Mars.  It's every bit as dangerous to live on as the moon is except its 10x further away from support and in a gravity well that's about 10x deeper to boot.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6746
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #34 on: September 28, 2016, 09:07:44 pm »
I still don't understand the attraction of going to Mars[/qote]

I don't understand the appeal of living in Los Angeles, Manhattan, Tokyo or London, but a lot of people do.


Quote
The infrastructure required to support them would be massive and the likelihood of disaster would be significant. 

That's why cowards would be ill-advised to go.

Quote
This whole drive for Mars strikes me as a rather poorly thought out flag-planting exercise. 

What's wrong with planting flags, if you plants homes and farms and businesses right next to 'em?

Quote
We still need to build a significant level of capability in the near-Earth region before we start seriously thinking about moving hundreds of people to Mars.

Why? What infrastructure could you build in LEO or GEO that would greatly enhance transport to Mars?

Quote
It's every bit as dangerous to live on as the moon is except its 10x further away from support and in a gravity well that's about 10x deeper to boot.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Getting the hell away from the control of Earth has a whole lot of appeal. At some point the population and infrastructure of Mars would be self-sustaining... whether that's 1000 people or 10,000, who knows; but the moon  will always be an outpost of Earth until people start shovign around tens-of-kilometer scale carbon asteroids and water comets.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline JeffB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 61
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #35 on: September 28, 2016, 10:27:42 pm »
I still don't understand the attraction of going to Mars
I don't understand the appeal of living in Los Angeles, Manhattan, Tokyo or London, but a lot of people do.


Quote
The infrastructure required to support them would be massive and the likelihood of disaster would be significant. 

That's why cowards would be ill-advised to go.

Quote
This whole drive for Mars strikes me as a rather poorly thought out flag-planting exercise. 

What's wrong with planting flags, if you plants homes and farms and businesses right next to 'em?

Quote
We still need to build a significant level of capability in the near-Earth region before we start seriously thinking about moving hundreds of people to Mars.

Why? What infrastructure could you build in LEO or GEO that would greatly enhance transport to Mars?

Quote
It's every bit as dangerous to live on as the moon is except its 10x further away from support and in a gravity well that's about 10x deeper to boot.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Getting the hell away from the control of Earth has a whole lot of appeal. At some point the population and infrastructure of Mars would be self-sustaining... whether that's 1000 people or 10,000, who knows; but the moon  will always be an outpost of Earth until people start shovign around tens-of-kilometer scale carbon asteroids and water comets.

It IS a bad thing.  Distance doesn't automatically guarantee independence, Mars is just as likely to be treated as an outpost of Earth for a period as well until they can make themselves self-sustaining, and even then they may not want to let you go.  Set up a small colony in the Asteroids if you're that desperate to be independent, the smaller the outpost probably the better and like Grizzly Addams, be prepared to move on as soon as you see the "smoke of another mans fire".  Ultimately though, you know that "government" will follow.  Once you have that critical mass of people, the political class will appear and hey presto, you'll be back where you started, metaphorically.

The question in this case is why would you build your completely experimental, largely untested, off-world colony on a planet 6 months away when you could build it just as easily on the moon which is only 3 days away?  Once you've worked how to do that reliably and repeatedly in what is effectively our back-yard, then you'll be ready to face the challenges of landing and building a colony on something the size of Mars.  But then why would you bother?  The gravity still isn't high enough to not affect the human physiology significantly. The atmosphere is toxic and the radiation levels are very high given Mars' near non existent magnetic field.  Once you've mastered the necessary skills, it'd be far easier to build centrifuges with sufficient shielding to support larger populations at normal g's from materials mined from the moon and asteroids and built with fuel mined from same.

What could we do in LEO or GEO?  Well, given that the biggest cost of doing any of this is getting up the first 150 miles, technologies that could assist that process like skyhooks or other tether based momentum transfer systems would be extremely useful.  Especially if your initial target is the moon because the mass transfer back from the moon either as processed resources or just rocks is sufficient to keep pushing people and supplies up the well.

This is all just my opinion of course, obviously you see other benefits of going straight to Mars that I missed.




Offline RLBH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #36 on: September 29, 2016, 02:19:16 am »
The problem with the plan, as far as is presented, is that the operational design represents a huge risk. Musk requires the ITS have reliability on the order of modern day transport aircraft. That reliability can only be ensured after a huge number of flight tests. For the 787, Wikipedia says that the flight test program involved 1,700 flights.

No rocket system has flown a fraction of that number of flights. Saturn V flow ~1% of the 787 test flights. The space shuttle flew <10% of the total number of 787 test flights.
Soyuz-U has had 784 flights of which 764 were successful; the entire R-7 family has 1,859 flights of which 1,744 are successful. Now granted, by aircraft standards that's still only just out of testing, and that's the only launcher that has come close to mass production, but it has been achieved.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #37 on: September 29, 2016, 04:37:04 am »
The problem with the plan, as far as is presented, is that the operational design represents a huge risk.

How could it not?  Lots of things present risk.  Sailing to the "New World", going to the moon, etc. etc.  The bold move forward and overcome those challenges.  The timid stay home and waste away.


Musk requires the ITS have reliability on the order of modern day transport aircraft. That reliability can only be ensured after a huge number of flight tests. For the 787, Wikipedia says that the flight test program involved 1,700 flights.

And?  How reliable were the first turbojets?  Maybe we shouldn't have built one until we knew the first one would have the reliability of a GE90?  I mean how could we have been so heartless to force people onto those first 707s?

No rocket system has flown a fraction of that number of flights. Saturn V flow ~1% of the 787 test flights. The space shuttle flew <10% of the total number of 787 test flights.

And?  How do you expect to flight 1700 flights without, you know, flying 1700 flights?

Unless Musk can magically assure reliability or ensure several hundred flights of the largest rocket booster ever, he cannot achieve the per-flight reliability he requires.

Maybe he should wait until reliability magically appears and THEN start to build his rockets?

Which brings us to the next logistical problem. The ITS will represent a mammoth pre-flight and launch risk. It'll have explosive power on the order of a tactical nuke. How does Musk even begin a flight test program with that rocket? He has to ensure system reliability to a high level before he can even begin flights, because of the risk the rocket poses.

Just plain Chicken Little scare mongering.  It wouldn't be significantly more dangerous than a Saturn V or Shuttle.

I don't think his architecture is remotely feasible, because it requires a reliability level never yet seen on a space launch system.

And never will be as long as the mentality of "we can't move until there is zero risk" exists. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #38 on: September 29, 2016, 04:56:26 am »
Sure, if one ignores the reason for the delays time after time. FH in 2012 is not the same FH in 2016. Between then and now they have been through 3 major versions of Falcon 9 with one more coming up next year. So if anything - you just proved my point. ;)

Now you're being silly.

Missing deadlines is not a good thing, no matter what the excuse.

I am not saying it is a good thing - i am saying there is a reason for it. And the reason for it is that Falcon 9 development simply outruns Falcon Heavy development since the later is based on the former. First FH was based upon v1.0 F9. v1.0 was replaced with v1.1 which was radically different and basically a whole new rocket. v1.2 was a heavy evolution of v1.1 but none the less it still required extra work for the octaweb. Which also applied to FH. Etc etc.

There is no existing expertise to land a man on the Moon let alone on Mars no matter how much I would like to be wrong.

Nonsense.  You are wrong.   It exists.  Landing on a planet is easy and has been done many times.



I don't think his architecture is remotely feasible, because it requires a reliability level never yet seen on a space launch system.

And never will be as long as the mentality of "we can't move until there is zero risk" exists.

Nailed it. "Nothing is worth doing until there is 100% safety guarantied." We always assume a certain risk level in our daily lives, and yet we just deal with it.

Regarding "why send crew up first", Elon's comments;

Quote
Elon says that this is the plan if the refueling process is quick, like a couple weeks or less. If it takes a lot longer, then the spacecraft will be launched first without people, and then whenever it’s all refueled and ready to go, a spacecraft carrying just people will be launched and it will deliver the crew to the spacecraft for an Earth orbit rendezvous.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/09/spacexs-big-fking-rocket-the-full-story.html
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 356
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #39 on: September 29, 2016, 11:28:39 am »
Soyuz-U has had 784 flights of which 764 were successful; the entire R-7 family has 1,859 flights of which 1,744 are successful. Now granted, by aircraft standards that's still only just out of testing, and that's the only launcher that has come close to mass production, but it has been achieved.

Thanks for that, so there is a rocket with the sufficient number of flights.

Sferrin - you fundamentally misunderstood my issue with Musk's proposal. His Mars colonization proposal requires changing the rocket launch paradigm from 'single-launches at a time' with very low launch rates to a reliability of a modern jet liner. It took 50 years of constant jet flights to reach today's jet-liner reliability. Space launches are nowhere near the reliability required for multiple heavy rocket launches in a week with sufficiently cheap infrastructure to make the whole system economical.

This isn't a problem of accepting zero risk. This is a problem of understanding just what Musk is implicitly proposing. He implicitly proposes shifting space launch costs, via the development of low-maintenance high-reliability systems. That is the space-launch Holy Grail which has eluded developers for 50 years. He is following the underpants gnome school of development:
- design cutting edge rocket
- ...
- airline like reliability, operational cost, and safety to enable high-volume interplanetary travel!

Musk never stated how he is going to fill in the '...' If we base rocket development upon the airline and automobile industry, it will take 50 years of relatively high-volume use to understand what is required. Rockets have barely begun to be designed for high-volume use. Nobody has the experience required to design for high-volume use. Musk gave no proposal about how to fill that knowledge and experience gap.

Now, to a degree Musk's Mars proposal is constrained by SpaceX. SpaceX is a rocket company, so the Mars transport will be a traditional rocket. That may not be the best option. Perhaps another technological breakthrough (high-ISP electric propulsion) will allow Mars colonization without as many space launches.

However, all of the above is besides another point: why go to Mars in the first place? Is there anything of value there for people on Earth?

And, we are still jumping ahead of the first problem. SpaceX has to build a rocket with the cutting edge features:
- brand new, high performance engine
- Nearly all-composite structure, especially unlined tanks
- Two gas/liquid internal pressurization (I don't know the technical word here, but basically replacing helium.)
- Validating the use of 42 engines for launch and flight, including the attendant problems that causes: launch platform design, acoustic loading, etc.

I'm glad SpaceX is looking at doing the above. If it can succeed, then space launch will be much cheaper than today.

PS: Christopher Columbus got lucky.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #40 on: September 29, 2016, 01:23:55 pm »
Sferrin - you fundamentally misunderstood my issue with Musk's proposal.

No, I understand exactly what you mean.  Basically, he's smoking dope because nobody has operated a rocket like an airliner, or has 1700 flights on one design.  That about it?  My response to that is (again)- "and?"   One has to start somewhere, and you can't really wait until you have 1700 launches under your belt before finally decided to undertake the mission.  And they won't be going full rate right out of the gate but would ramp up over years, if not decades.  The first Comet airliner didn't have the reliability of a 787.  Should they have put the brakes on air transport until they'd achieved 787-levels of reliability?


His Mars colonization proposal requires changing the rocket launch paradigm from 'single-launches at a time' with very low launch rates to a reliability of a modern jet liner. It took 50 years of constant jet flights to reach today's jet-liner reliability. Space launches are nowhere near the reliability required for multiple heavy rocket launches in a week with sufficiently cheap infrastructure to make the whole system economical.

You can't seem to see the forest for the trees.  He's not proposing going from 1 launch one month to 6 a week the next.  What he's proposing is similar to the process airlines took but on an accelerated time frame.  As for cost, space launches never will reach those levels without trying.  Do you think air travel was as cheap in 1950 as it is today?  Should we have stopped air travel until it was cheap enough for everybody?  How exactly would that have been achieved?

This isn't a problem of accepting zero risk. This is a problem of understanding just what Musk is implicitly proposing. He implicitly proposes shifting space launch costs, via the development of low-maintenance high-reliability systems. That is the space-launch Holy Grail which has eluded developers for 50 years. He is following the underpants gnome school of development:
- design cutting edge rocket
- ...
- airline like reliability, operational cost, and safety to enable high-volume interplanetary travel!

There were those who thought similarly of flying people across oceans on airplanes.  (On, not in, because in 1900 one "rode" those things.)

Musk never stated how he is going to fill in the '...' If we base rocket development upon the airline and automobile industry, it will take 50 years of relatively high-volume use to understand what is required. Rockets have barely begun to be designed for high-volume use. Nobody has the experience required to design for high-volume use. Musk gave no proposal about how to fill that knowledge and experience gap.

Why would he?  Seriously.  You think he'd lay out a mile long gantt chart for the public at a one hour media event? 

However, all of the above is besides another point: why go to Mars in the first place? Is there anything of value there for people on Earth?

Oh, I don't know, how about survival of the species? 

PS: Christopher Columbus got lucky.

No such thing.  If he hadn't done it somebody else would have. 
« Last Edit: September 29, 2016, 01:25:54 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 356
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #41 on: September 29, 2016, 02:15:08 pm »
Sferrin - had Musk said words to the effect that: "I'm embarking ok a decade long quest to push rocket operations to airplane levels" I'd be ok. Instead, we get this nice "wow" picture of a rocket and a cool CGI video, followed by hordes of people saying "I'm so glad that at least someone is willing to try to dream." That same crowd conveniently passes over the revolution SpaceX will have to achieve before this Mars plan can work. They also ignore that Musk's dream has been the dream for spaceflight for the past 50 years. His dream was the dream of the Space Shuttle, the NASP, the Venture Star. All programs which failed to reach that goal.

Musk has demonstrated successful rocket landing, he hasn't demonstrated reuse and reliability with the vehicle compromises required for reuse. (this is a recent development)

I wanted to hear how he plans to reach the reliability, because that's the major problem. Him dreaming or laying out a plan makes him just like every other developer of a major new space-launcher. (Albeit, landing a rocket does give him credibility)

Re: Columbus - given that his math was wrong, it is an open question if anyone would have tried for another century, or until sailing ships had enough range to reach across the combined Atlantic and Pacific. There's an interesting counter-factual. And Columbus did get lucky, if there was no America, his ships would have starved before they reached his destination, Asia.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #42 on: September 29, 2016, 02:58:10 pm »
I wanted to hear how he plans to reach the reliability, because that's the major problem. Him dreaming or laying out a plan makes him just like every other developer of a major new space-launcher. (Albeit, landing a rocket does give him credibility)

Keep in mind that his dream also left out a bunch of other things:

-the in-space element, including long-duration life-support.
-the on-Mars element, including life-support, spacesuits, habitation modules, etc.
-who is going to develop those other things (note that Musk did not say that SpaceX is going to do any of that other stuff).
-who is going to pay for it all.

If it is not SpaceX developing all that other stuff, then it's gotta be some combination of other space hardware developers, such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, NASA, etc. And the people who are most rabid about SpaceX think that all those other actors are bloated, expensive, inefficient, and generally lousy (I've seen people on the internet who hate Boeing, NASA, et. al.). So does the overall dream collapse because SpaceX is not going to do all of it but needs other actors to come on board, or evolve?

And where is the magical funding going to come from if Elon is not going to pay for it all?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #43 on: September 29, 2016, 03:34:23 pm »
Musk has demonstrated successful rocket landing, he hasn't demonstrated reuse and reliability with the vehicle compromises required for reuse. (this is a recent development)

Don't just gloss over that achievement, particularly the at-sea landings.  Of all the major players, SpaceX has the most credibility. 

Re: Columbus - given that his math was wrong, it is an open question if anyone would have tried for another century, or until sailing ships had enough range to reach across the combined Atlantic and Pacific.

Not really.  There were other explorers.  Had Columbus sailed off into the unknown, never to be heard of again, others would have tried. 

"or until sailing ships had enough range to reach across the combined Atlantic and Pacific."

So never then right?  After all, how would they ever know which ships had the range if they never made the trip, or if they could sail that far if they'd never done it before?

This seems particularly appropriate:

"31. (Mo's Law of Evolutionary Development) You can't get to the moon by climbing successively taller trees."
« Last Edit: September 29, 2016, 03:38:35 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 356
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #44 on: September 29, 2016, 03:52:13 pm »

Don't just gloss over that achievement, particularly the at-sea landings.  Of all the major players, SpaceX has the most credibility. 

That's very true. He does have a ton of credibility in rocket building. That's why I'm not discounting him building the ITS rocket.

Quote
Not really.  There were other explorers.  Had Columbus sailed off into the unknown, never to be heard of again, others would have tried. 

"or until sailing ships had enough range to reach across the combined Atlantic and Pacific."

So never then right?  After all, how would they ever know which ships had the range if they never made the trip, or if they could sail that far if they'd never done it before?

This seems particularly appropriate:

"31. (Mo's Law of Evolutionary Development) You can't get to the moon by climbing successively taller trees."

People roughly knew the distance from Europe to Asia. They also would have had a decent idea about the range of their ships across open ocean. Combine those two facts and you have the necessary technological conditions for a proper exploration of the Atlantic route to Asia.

The historical analogy would be using a Titan II for moon launch missions and it working. I.E. using a totally unsuited vehicle and it working out by happenchance.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3600
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2016, 01:14:50 am »
Oh yes, Musk is insane:
He co-invented PayPal
Then build up Green energy company Solar City, TESLA motors show the world Electric cars are Cool,
SpaceX landed the biggest rocket back to launch site and want send people supersonic true Tubes with Hyperloop.
next he working on Artificial Intelligence and VTOL that use electric motors and want to build a City on Mars

Oh you know also was labeled als insane ?
Thomas Edison ideal of Electric Light
Henry Ford idea to mass produce Cars for people
The Wright brothers idea to build airplanes
Nicholas Tesla concept of alternating current (AC)
Robert Goddard idea to build large Rockets, using liquid fuels and send scientific instrument near space.
Licklider and Welden Clark idea of "On-Line Man-Computer Communication"
Steven Jobs as he had idea too sell music online

Today i live in world with Electric Light with AC (Europe),
driving my affordable car, while listening music on Ipod and look on Internet how SpaceX launch rocket or Musk ideas for Mars City.

He is insane just like the others, who changed the World forever...
« Last Edit: September 30, 2016, 01:21:49 am by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #46 on: September 30, 2016, 07:10:58 am »
Oh yes, Musk is insane:
He co-invented PayPal
Then build up Green energy company Solar City, TESLA motors show the world Electric cars are Cool,
SpaceX landed the biggest rocket back to launch site and want send people supersonic true Tubes with Hyperloop.
next he working on Artificial Intelligence and VTOL that use electric motors and want to build a City on Mars

Oh you know also was labeled als insane ?
Thomas Edison ideal of Electric Light
Henry Ford idea to mass produce Cars for people
The Wright brothers idea to build airplanes
Nicholas Tesla concept of alternating current (AC)
Robert Goddard idea to build large Rockets, using liquid fuels and send scientific instrument near space.
Licklider and Welden Clark idea of "On-Line Man-Computer Communication"
Steven Jobs as he had idea too sell music online

Today i live in world with Electric Light with AC (Europe),
driving my affordable car, while listening music on Ipod and look on Internet how SpaceX launch rocket or Musk ideas for Mars City.

He is insane just like the others, who changed the World forever...

You know who is also insane? Dr. Emilio Lizardo.

Nobody believed him either.

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 503
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #47 on: September 30, 2016, 12:43:34 pm »

Keep in mind that his dream also left out a bunch of other things:

-the in-space element, including long-duration life-support.
-the on-Mars element, including life-support, spacesuits, habitation modules, etc.
-who is going to develop those other things (note that Musk did not say that SpaceX is going to do any of that other stuff).
-who is going to pay for it all.

If it is not SpaceX developing all that other stuff, ...

And where is the magical funding going to come from if Elon is not going to pay for it all?

Long-duration life support is being worked on. Wasn't part of the announcement because the company contracted (by SpaceX) to design the system wasn't ready to reveal much yet. A one-hour presentation, this early in the program isn't going to give complete details.

Dismissing the project based on what we know so far is as premature as buying a ticket to Mars right now. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #48 on: September 30, 2016, 01:04:17 pm »
This weeks Aviation Week has a more detailed write up of SpaceX's plans.  Pretty interesting.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline antiquark

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I like the space shuttle!
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #49 on: September 30, 2016, 04:13:04 pm »
I think Elon's vision of ground processing is wildly optimistic. Made me think of these pictures from Wikipedia:


The original, simplified, vision of Space Shuttle ground processing


Actual, vastly more complex and much slower, Space Shuttle ground processing

via  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program

Offline antiquark

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I like the space shuttle!
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #50 on: October 01, 2016, 09:45:07 pm »
Detailed critique of the vehicle, along with some ideas for improvements...

http://jalopnik.com/heres-how-to-fix-the-big-problems-with-elon-musks-mars-1787163420

Lol...

« Last Edit: October 01, 2016, 09:49:31 pm by antiquark »

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 825
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #51 on: October 02, 2016, 06:05:56 am »
The dynamics of critiquing a private venture is different than for a government project.  Public programs can be subjected to political pressure particularly as applied to budget and schedule.  As long as Spacex is footing the bill, "recommendations" offered by 3rd parties can be given whatever consideration they merit.  Of course Spacex could just press ahead and hope that one day they might be as famous and successful as Jalopnik.  Personally, I find it odd how some people with no stake in the game get so insistent on forcing someone else to do something their way.  I have no idea if Spacex will get anywhere close to succeeding on this.  The scale of the project is incredible.  However, I wish them luck and I also give them the benefit of a doubt that they have established their expertise with real world hardware and have more credibility than anyone else who hasn't.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #52 on: October 02, 2016, 07:01:42 am »
Detailed critique of the vehicle, along with some ideas for improvements...

http://jalopnik.com/heres-how-to-fix-the-big-problems-with-elon-musks-mars-1787163420

Lol...



A blogger at Jalopnik (home of the soon to be defunct Gawker Media) is gonna tell Elon Musk what's what huh?  Maybe somebody should tell them it was 3D modeller who made the animation. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #53 on: October 02, 2016, 10:47:24 am »
One should never question Elon Musk. SpaceX does not make mistakes.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2016, 05:32:23 am by blackstar »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #54 on: October 02, 2016, 10:49:01 am »
One should never question Elon Musk. SpaceX does not make mistake.

I'm fairly certain Elon Musk didn't create that animation.  (Or do you honestly believe he thinks it would only take 6 seconds to raise the 2nd stage from the ground and mount it on the 1st stage?  This is a marketing tool designed to communicate an idea to the masses, nothing more.)
« Last Edit: October 02, 2016, 10:52:05 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 655
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #55 on: October 02, 2016, 10:55:47 am »
One should never question Elon Musk. SpaceX does not make mistake.

I'm fairly certain Elon Musk didn't create that animation.  (Or do you honestly believe he thinks it would only take 6 seconds to raise the 2nd stage from the ground and mount it on the 1st stage?  This is a marketing tool designed to communicate an idea to the masses, nothing more.)

It is accelerated, look at the sun movement.  So your premise is wrong.  This is an approved SpaceX animation.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2016, 10:58:09 am by Byeman »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #56 on: October 02, 2016, 11:32:04 am »
One should never question Elon Musk. SpaceX does not make mistake.

I'm fairly certain Elon Musk didn't create that animation.  (Or do you honestly believe he thinks it would only take 6 seconds to raise the 2nd stage from the ground and mount it on the 1st stage?  This is a marketing tool designed to communicate an idea to the masses, nothing more.)

It is accelerated, look at the sun movement.  So your premise is wrong.  This is an approved SpaceX animation.

Given that it's on both the SpaceX site and youtube channel, it's unlikely to be otherwise. Doesn't change the fact that it's a marketing tool. There are many, MANY other such videos, by other companies, that are just as easy to pick apart if taken for anything other than what they are.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline ZacYates

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • LHX SuperTeam fanboy
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #57 on: October 02, 2016, 02:18:37 pm »
Where do you sit?

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 793
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #58 on: October 03, 2016, 03:02:13 pm »
-the in-space element, including long-duration life-support.

That's what his comment about "Fleets of ships". It's so simplistically brilliant -- you don't need 5 nines reliability if you have spares. Ship A starts to have problems during trans mars coast? Redeploy the people from Ship A to others in the fleet, along with critical items and continue on with voyage.

As opposed to "it's just one ship, so reliability must be fantastic!"

Offline antiquark

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I like the space shuttle!
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #59 on: October 03, 2016, 03:32:48 pm »
The SpaceX commentary never ends!

The top 7 ways a trip to Mars could kill you, illustrated

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/9/30/13099898/mars-death-risk-illustrated


Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 478
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #60 on: October 03, 2016, 03:44:37 pm »
I didn't watch the full on-stage presentation, so this cleared a few things up for me:



The BFR booster performs six launches over a few weeks - first is getting the ITS / MCT into orbit, then it launches the tanker 5 times to get enough propellant into orbit and into the manned system.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #61 on: October 03, 2016, 03:50:42 pm »
The SpaceX commentary never ends!

The top 7 ways a trip to Mars could kill you, illustrated

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/9/30/13099898/mars-death-risk-illustrated



Interesting social commentary.  In the past when people had grand ideas people cheered them on.  Now they eagerly crap all over them.  Another left-wing rag of course. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Bgray

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #62 on: October 03, 2016, 08:34:26 pm »



Interesting social commentary.  In the past when people had grand ideas people cheered them on.  Now they eagerly crap all over them.  Another left-wing rag of course.

Actually, if it's a left wing rag it has a very conservative message-- let's not let enthusiasm lead us off the cliff. Getting the booster working is just the first step. Not properly analyzing risks and having an hard headed appreciation for them is the hall mark of sterotypical leftist thought. 

And Vox isn't against it-- they're just pointing out the risks.

Quote
Going to Mars is unbelievably risky. But that’s no reason to shy away.

Early expeditions to Mars could prove as dangerous as any in human history. Anyone who signs up will have to know they’re venturing to another planet with the real expectation that they may never get there, or potentially, never come back.

Still, it’s unlikely this fact will deter every last volunteer. Humans are innately curious and love exploring new worlds; it's one of our greatest qualities. McKay recounts how he used to go down to Antarctica every year with a relatively small team to conduct research. About once a year, someone would die due to an unforeseeable accident — a helicopter crash, or a person falling down a crevasse, or a diver suffering an embolism.

Every death was awful and tragic. But it didn’t put a halt to research in Antarctica. "There was always a long line of scientists who wanted to go," McKay says. "We never, ever took safety casually. I certainly did not want to die. But we were working in an environment that was intrinsically hostile and didn’t have all the safety infrastructure they have back in civilization. So to do the things we wanted to do, we had to take risks."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #63 on: October 04, 2016, 05:13:58 am »
Actually, if it's a left wing rag it has a very conservative message-- let's not let enthusiasm lead us off the cliff.

"Risk" didn't use to be a 4-letter word.  Now it sends people scurrying to their safe spaces.  (In the West anyway.  Russia and China seem to view it normally.)
« Last Edit: October 04, 2016, 06:11:18 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3600
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #64 on: October 04, 2016, 07:01:01 am »
Quote
The top 7 ways a trip to Mars could kill you, illustrated

yeah, there alway some one who badmouth around it

oh i wonder after Columbus proposed his Expedition westwards to India in 1490, came this pamphlet ?

The 7 ways a trip to west edged could kill you, illustrated

in the west lies the edged, the end of world you will fall down and die


before that Sea monster will eat your ship and you & crew


Sirens or worst Women will lure you into Doom


Malstrøms will devour your Ship


You will face sickness and SCURVY


You will face Mutiny


and Even you find land on edge of World it will be inhabited by CANNIBALS
Illustration not show, to atrociously   


had this pamphlet  be successful
all US Americans would not exist today also the authors about The top 7 ways a trip to Mars could kill you...
I love Strange Technology

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #65 on: October 04, 2016, 09:03:19 am »

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3075/1

"As for cost, Musk said only a small fraction of the company’s resources are being spent on the Mars plan. “Right now the resources that are being put into the Interplanetary Transport System are pretty low: certainly well under five percent of the company,” he said. “Maybe we’re spending a few tens of millions of dollars on it right now. So, it’s relatively small.”

That will grow, he said, as engineers shift from the Falcon 9 and Heavy and the Crew Dragon spacecraft to the transport system. “Within a year and a half to two years, we should have most of SpaceX engineering working on the Interplanetary Transport System.” That would increase spending to $300 million a year, he said, with ultimately an investment “on the order of $10 billion” before it starts generating revenue. (At just $300 million a year, though, it would take decades to get to $10 billion, a slower rate than a vision he projected of Mars-bound spacecraft in the mid-2020s.)

And where does that money come from? “Obviously it’s going to be a challenge to fund this whole endeavor,” he said. Some of it, he said, would come from “a pretty decent net cash flow” from SpaceX’s launch and ISS transportation activities, and perhaps the company’s interest in developing a broadband satellite constellation. Private investors could step in, too.

He acknowledged, though, that private money alone won’t develop this transportation system. “Ultimately this is going to be a huge public private partnership,” he said. “That's probably what occurs.”

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #66 on: October 04, 2016, 09:09:04 am »
Hopefully any public funding will be coming from the US instead of China.  (They're not stupid.  I could see them trying to get in on it if it's looking serious.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1561
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #67 on: October 05, 2016, 01:57:38 am »
Reading Stephen Baxter Voyage I was never really convinced about Mars exploration missions that landed a maximum of 6 people for either a month or a year. Apollo to Mars wasn't going to get funded anytime soon.
That ITS architecture is the polar opposite: and a kind of return to von Braun's Colliers of 1952.
It is a brute force approach to Mars, perhaps the maximum that can be done with chemical propulsion.
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline RLBH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #68 on: October 05, 2016, 02:31:25 am »
Reading Stephen Baxter Voyage I was never really convinced about Mars exploration missions that landed a maximum of 6 people for either a month or a year. Apollo to Mars wasn't going to get funded anytime soon.
That ITS architecture is the polar opposite: and a kind of return to von Braun's Colliers of 1952.
It is a brute force approach to Mars, perhaps the maximum that can be done with chemical propulsion.
Remember, of course, that ITS isn't designed to generate tens to thousands man-days of science, which is the scale that most Mars expeditions are designed on. It's intended to result in a self-sustaining human population and industrial base, which inherently means an architecture built to a completely different scale.

At its' core, though, the architecture is quite simple - chemical EOR with ISRU for earth return. Not quite Mars Direct, but hardly a big step in complexity from that. You could easily conceive of a scaled down version with expendable launchers aimed at the more conventional exploration aims. Which, from the sounds of it, is more or less what SpaceX envisages for Red Dragon.

Offline dark sidius

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 267
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #69 on: October 05, 2016, 04:58:58 am »
people of today are afraid by their shadow, exact there is a risk of death with the space exploration , and there is a risk of death to just living everyday , and you  "little" VOX guy you know a day every body on earth will be die and may be it will be the Mars colony the only hope of humanity .  >:(
« Last Edit: October 05, 2016, 05:01:21 am by dark sidius »

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 825
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #70 on: October 05, 2016, 10:10:10 am »
Boeing vows to beat Musk to Mars.  Of course he didn't say this was contingent on having a giant government program to finance it all but since there is no private Boeing venture to do anything that would be an obvious inference.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg sketched out a Jetsons-like future at a conference Tuesday, envisioning a commercial space-travel market with dozens of destinations orbiting the Earth and hypersonic aircraft shuttling travelers between continents in two hours or less. And Boeing intends to be a key player in the initial push to send humans to Mars, maybe even beating Musk to his long-time goal.

“I’m convinced the first person to step foot on Mars will arrive there riding a Boeing rocket,” Muilenburg said at the Chicago event on innovation, which was sponsored by the Atlantic magazine.

Offline JeffB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 61
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #71 on: October 06, 2016, 10:30:58 pm »
Boeing vows to beat Musk to Mars.  Of course he didn't say this was contingent on having a giant government program to finance it all but since there is no private Boeing venture to do anything that would be an obvious inference.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg sketched out a Jetsons-like future at a conference Tuesday, envisioning a commercial space-travel market with dozens of destinations orbiting the Earth and hypersonic aircraft shuttling travelers between continents in two hours or less. And Boeing intends to be a key player in the initial push to send humans to Mars, maybe even beating Musk to his long-time goal.

“I’m convinced the first person to step foot on Mars will arrive there riding a Boeing rocket,” Muilenburg said at the Chicago event on innovation, which was sponsored by the Atlantic magazine.

Given the amount of work they've put into designing  systems for Mars missions over the years, maybe they're hoping to convince Musk that they've got a better design that's ready to go sooner than his. A partnership between them probably couldn't hurt.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #72 on: October 07, 2016, 05:20:48 am »
I think Elon's vision of ground processing is wildly optimistic. Made me think of these pictures from Wikipedia:


The original, simplified, vision of Space Shuttle ground processing


Actual, vastly more complex and much slower, Space Shuttle ground processing

via  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program

Good thing Elon has a very strict control and understanding of the whole rapid part of reusability, unlike NASA. JCSAT-14 booster has experienced some of the highest stresses and temperatures during re-entry they have ever done. And they have test fired it 8 times, where atleast 4 was day after each other. Want to guess how much refurbishment they did? Or the fact that they have done some of the testing with higher throttle setting than what was done in flight, as part of qualification to uprate the engines again.

Elon is fully aware of what Shuttle's issues were - which is why he is referring to it as able to be refurbished, not reusable. Will spacecraft part be harder to refurbish and prepare to flight? Yes, and clearly SpaceX thinks so too. But it wont be anywhere close to Shuttle levels and before ITS ever flies they will have experience with reused Dragon's. As soon as next year they will be flying a CRS mission with a reused pressure vessel from a previous mission.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #73 on: October 08, 2016, 08:28:13 am »
Good thing Elon has a very strict control and understanding of the whole rapid part of reusability, unlike NASA.

http://spacenews.com/spacexs-shotwell-on-falcon-9-inquiry-discounts-for-reused-rockets-and-silicon-valleys-test-and-fail-ethos/

Gwynne Shotwell now saying SpaceX will offer only a 10% discount for customers flying on a reused F9 booster,  much less than the 30% number being discussed earlier.

So, maybe their "understanding" of reusability is evolving, and the cost advantages are disappearing.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #74 on: October 08, 2016, 10:47:31 am »
Or, in the true capitalist way, they'very determined that's as much as they need to discount to get the business.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline red admiral

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 456
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #75 on: October 08, 2016, 02:06:44 pm »
Or, in the true capitalist way, they'very determined that's as much as they need to discount to get the business.

Indeed - but that goes against the ethos of the company. Even if you come up with a much cheaper space launch system then there is little incentive to charge much less - only enough less to fulfill investment.

We'll see whether Musk wants to make himself poor

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1605
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #76 on: October 08, 2016, 02:55:22 pm »
I just got a Barnes & Noble coupon in the mail. It's for 20%.

10% doesn't get people into the stores. But I'm sure rockets are different and 10% for a "pre-enjoyed" rocket will grab lots of customers who are not at all worried about it blowing up.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #77 on: October 08, 2016, 03:12:55 pm »
I just got a Barnes & Noble coupon in the mail. It's for 20%.

10% doesn't get people into the stores. But I'm sure rockets are different and 10% for a "pre-enjoyed" rocket will grab lots of customers who are not at all worried about it blowing up.

Whoa.  You mean nobody else has ever blown up a rocket?  Color me shocked.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline antiquark

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I like the space shuttle!
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #78 on: October 08, 2016, 05:06:54 pm »
Good thing Elon has a very strict control and understanding of the whole rapid part of reusability, unlike NASA.

http://spacenews.com/spacexs-shotwell-on-falcon-9-inquiry-discounts-for-reused-rockets-and-silicon-valleys-test-and-fail-ethos/

Gwynne Shotwell now saying SpaceX will offer only a 10% discount for customers flying on a reused F9 booster,  much less than the 30% number being discussed earlier.

So, maybe their "understanding" of reusability is evolving, and the cost advantages are disappearing.

So instead of $1,233 per pound, it's $1,109 per pound?

Hardly the stuff of revolutions.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6746
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #79 on: October 08, 2016, 09:52:09 pm »

So instead of $1,233 per pound, it's $1,109 per pound?

Hardly the stuff of revolutions.

Successful revolutions are rarely cheap in the beginning.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 825
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #80 on: October 10, 2016, 04:58:06 am »

So instead of $1,233 per pound, it's $1,109 per pound?

Hardly the stuff of revolutions.
-------------------------------------------------

Boeing and Airbus will launch $multibillion programs to sell new airliners for that kind of price reduction. I suppose airlines are being too easy and should insist on 30%.

If you read the article, Spacex says 10% right now.  They will reduce prices further as development R&D expenses are amortized.  Even at 10%, when you talking $60M or so, that isn't anything to sneeze at.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #81 on: October 10, 2016, 05:45:20 am »

So instead of $1,233 per pound, it's $1,109 per pound?

Hardly the stuff of revolutions.

Successful revolutions are rarely cheap in the beginning.

Unless it goes from $1200 to $12 it's not worth doing.  That's how all advancements are made.  After all we didn't just start air travel with the Wright Brothers you know.  We waited until we had the A380.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2016, 05:47:02 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline RLBH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #82 on: October 10, 2016, 07:28:19 am »
Here's the thing:

It could be a 10% reduction because that's all they can manage.

It could be a 10% reduction because they can't build enough rockets to fly all the payloads that would appear at 30%.

It could be a 10% reduction because all the payloads that will fly at 30% will also fly at 10%.

It could be a 10% reduction because that's the point where they're most profitable.

It could be a political move to avoid Arianespace et al complaining that they're being undercut.

Or it could be some combination of the above. Or SpaceX plucking numbers out of the air. Only time will tell.

Offline Desert Dawn

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 191
    • Stratosphere Models
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #83 on: October 13, 2016, 03:59:59 pm »
You mean like the "hallmark of stereotypical leftist thought" that build the entire Soviet space program that first put a satellite into space, that first put a man into orbit, that first launched a space station into space, that did the first EVA, that did the first rendez-vous in space, that send the first vehicle on the Moon, that was the first and one of the 2 most successful space programs and the one with the longest duration manned space flight records ? Some people are still living in such a cloud of political delusion that they totally forget the hard facts.

Similarly, the Chinese (despite the particularly damaging extreme and uneducated social and environmental experiments of Mao) are now the factory of the world and the 2nd largest economy of the planet (soon no.1 no doubt at the rythm they are going), and they are still "leftist rags" (...), to borrow the totally uneducated and insulting expression of another poster.

Go figure, there must be some type of magical mushrooms in the cereals of some people in the West to continue to be in so much denial.

We all saw the same thing again and again with Iran, North Korea, and before that Russia:

"Bwa-ha-haa...! They will never get there ! Their rockets are blowing up all the time ! "Bwa-ha-haa...!, it will take them 30 years to build a single atomic bomb !" RRRMMMMBB....!! Uh,oh... wait.... WHAT was THAT...!!??  And they did all that by perfecting a WWII vintage descendant of the SCUD missile (a weapon which in its time was so bad it would generally blow up in flight or burn up on reentry). I guess they did the same thing as in the West... who also started by COPYING German WWII V2 rockets to develop their entire space program. None of these people (Russia, USA, China, N.Korea invented the wheel. The Germans did (with the V2) (Oups, no, the Chinese did, lets give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar).

Not properly analyzing risks you say ? Oh, i think i remember seeing a LOT of movies of US launched V2 and their derivatives as well as pretty much all the rockets that followed up to and including many Atlas blow up in flames one after another. So my guess is, there must have been a lot of clones of Mao and of Che Guevara in the US space program. And even today (how many Space Shuttles did we lose already because of human stupidity and "typical leftist" insane risk taking at the expense of the Shuttle crews ?).

You should also look at how the Dyna-Soar X-20 military bomber/satellite killer was designed from a structural and from a heat shield point of view: it was a flying oven with a man in it. The idea was pretty much flying by the seat of the pants for the technology that was available back then. And from a reusability point of view, it was more a: "Ooops.. we fried the heat shield by heat corrosion after just one reentry... it needs to be completely rebuilt..." thing than an actual real "space shuttle" type of vehicle with airliner flight frequency (the MOL Project was trying to do in Earth orbit with an FDL-7 (similar in structure and heat shield concept to X-20) what Elan Musk is trying to do with Mars today). Again, technological limits of the materials of that time, but they were willing to do it. Today, NASA would not even get within a 100 mile of such a concept (and when X-33 showed up, we already had decades of new material development and used a vastly less risky fairly low lift-to-drag-ratio reentry trajectory versus the Sanger-Bredt type of trajectory of the X-20 which would have been very taxing on its structure (but that's not to say that a private company should put at risk the lives of 100's or 1000's of people by using such risks to send them colonize Mars. Those were military missions for war fighters where they were anyway expecting to die in combat at any moment. NOT civilian missions to go start families on a different planet).

So ya, there was plenty of risk taking, now it have all but disappeared thanks to the very heavy (and inefficient, and counter progress) structure that large organizations like Nasa, ULA, Lockheed, Boeing, etc, have turned into (and lets not forget that these people are feeding each other, large industries don't care if the next Nasa project is a success or gets launched into space or not, they just want to continue getting the taxpayers money. Success is not a pre-requisite anymore for them since a long time. And anyway, each time the US changes administration, the head of Nasa goes bye-bye as well as the current space program (exit Venture Star, exit Constellation, etc). Of course, those programs were not without their own defects. Venture Star was nothing but a new rehash of the old FDL-5 and Star Clipper designs (with a round nose instead of a sharp one and just a slightly better set of metallic heat tiles and stand-off clips. The engine was also a derived from the old aerospike engine from the 1960's), and the idea of sending an old chemical rocket with a (gasp...) space capsule on a years long voyage to Mars and back with just 2 or 3 more men and women than Apollo (and then see that capsule constantly shrink to the point it reverted to practically the same tin can as Apollo instead of sending a spaceship equipped with something called a VASMIR engine which could do the trip in a much shorter time is stupid.

Who will pay for the hundreds of "test" flights to develop airline-like operations and safety ? Why, of course but the lemmings (i mean the space tourists and the taxpayers) !  This seems to be going in the direction of the typical crass business plan where the billionnaire does not pay much out of his pockets, it is the people who will travel on his rockets who will pay the bill. And the most brilliant declaration of all this totally narcissistic business plan is his declaration: "You will maybe die but it will be fun !".

With a tag line like that, i "SUUURE would fly on his death traps.... When a billionnaire guy tells me you may die if you fly on my airline but it will be fun, i say they should be put him in prison. Kind of reminds me of the even worse scheme of the Dutch company who wanted to send a bunch of people on a one-way-trip there.

At least the Bleriot and the Wright brothers flew their own contraptions and took the risks on their lives themselves, and some of these early pioneers died doing it, like Otto Lilienthal and others. But a rich guy who is sending others to take chances by busloads of 100 in his place ? No thank you. There are more agreable ways to commit suicide than having all the liquid in your body come out of your mouth, ears, eyes and other orifices while you freeze by minus 300 degrees at the same time, or burn up in a big fireball and shrapnel, or just get lost in space, out of fuel, run out of air, slow death, etc.

Of course i hope some of you studied history and remember that almost none of the people who were sailors in the time of Christopher Columbus or Jacques Cartier were volunteers. The job of sailor was nearly one of slavery and most sailors were dragged out by force to work on those voyages, because they knew very well that most of the people who participated in those trips (even the routine commercial ones) had more than 50 percent chances of not coming back. Even during the much more recent era of the large Clippers and Cap Horniers, the term being "shanghaied" meant what it meant. People really didn't want to serve on merchant ships, it was slavery and very high risk. So most of the time they would make a sailor drink until he pass out or drug him, and then he would wake up on a ship that already left port.

There were no colonists that left to the other side of the world of their own free will in the early days. Most of the people who got sent there were either condemned criminals or people that European powers wanted to get rid of (opponents), and soldiers, and slaves, or some unsavory characters who were running from the authorities in their own country, and refugees fleeing religious persecution in Europe. There were also poor people and European children who got moved overseas to the colonies as cheap labor (or slave labor) (that happened even after WWII in the UK). And then of course the non-ending stream of people who wanted to convert the native populations or who wanted to die at their hand to win their paradise, or greedy people with weapons looking for gold (wasn't it the first motivation anyway for both explorers and their backers and for pillferers back then ? To reach the riches of China, the country where "everything is covered with gold").

Today, it is another kind of irrationality, one where people think it is preferable to run from the problems we created here on Earth, where we used to have a paradise (we still have, in many places) instead of working at solving them (which is quite simple actually), and run away to live in a tin can on another planet that does not even have a breathable atmosphere and where sand storms can tear the flesh off your bones and where you have to recycle our own poo and urine to drink water and take "shower" only once a month, and pray you won't die of decompression or starvation the next day, weeks, or month).

Don't get me wrong, i am for space exploration, but not like this. This is not space exploration, it is the nonsensical egocentric trip of a rich guy at the expense of other people's lives. We DON'T even have a permanent space station on the Moon, and the International Space station with 2 guys inside does not even count, it's a JOKE, they just spend their whole time patching it up and keep it running and pretty much nothing else. It was supposed to be a factory in space for new molecules for pharmaceutical companies, new metals, etc. The Space Shuttle frequent flights were supposed to make it possible... and so on.

We are using 3000 years old technology to send people into space. What we need is lightcrafts, micro-wave crafts, electric propulsion, fusion engines (they all exist or they all can be built with today's know how and some more testing, but we are not pouring money into it}. You know how fast it took the Europeans/Germans to go from inventing jet engines (from Henri Coanda in the 1920's) to flying ballistic missiles ? 20 years.

We already Have the VASMIR engine and some people just invented a Fusion engine for interplanetary exploration (and might even work for long duration extra-solar travel)(University of Washington). But nobody is putting the necessary amounts of money into these to put them into service. People who are in the industry are still thinking into that old box. Airliners continue to all look the same. All the aeronautical giants laughted when Mr. Picard said he would build an aircraft that could fly around the world only on electric power. They all refused to give him any money or to be partners in his adventure. It is only when he was about the land to his final destination, having nearly completed his flight, that Nasa and other aerospace giants announced all of a sudden in a panic that they would develop solar powered airplanes... (and did so only when they were about to lose face in front of the spectacular success of Solar Impulse).

There is no point traveling to another planet with a steam engine. We have to use the much more efficient and more modern tools that we have at our disposal. There is no point traveling for months or years when we can do the same thing in days or weeks with just a little bit more push and development work (i would say no more than 10 years of intense development and testing would get it done). The Germans could do what they did in just 4-7 years in WWII. I don't see why we couldn't do today's equivalent technological leap in 10 years time for new (non-chemical) propulsion systems. The Manhattan Project took only 4 years and did cost a billion dollars at the time (half of which only to keep things secret) and only to build something to kill people. It would take a fraction of that today to develop propulsion systems in the open and get results, because we have invinitely more tools and tech at our disposal today versus in the 1940's to develop existing discoveries.

Oh, and in typical communist, social assistance person who does not want to pay out of his own pocket (the rich and the military industrial complex are the worst offenders in that domain: they all suck the taxpayers money to make their dosh), Mr. Musk says that "Ultimately this is going to be a huge public private partnership". THERE YOU GO, it's not him who will pay most of it, it is the taxpayers who will pay for his toy and so called "business". When you are a billionaire and that you start crying for money from the State to build your projects, i say you should not even exists as a business, because in a TRUE Capitalist world, if you are NOT able to exist without the crutch of the State, you should not even be a company. That's  the way i see the bloodsuckers who balk at paying out of their own pocket, or who produce hare-brained schemes like this one where their so called "business plan" cannot even say "how" they will pay for this, and oh, ya, we will need the public money..." ("Brilliant", in its all its most pathetic sense). But given that capitalism is already just a game of casino played at what they call the Stock Exchange with other people's money and pensions, little surprise there... If i went to a bank with a "business plan" like his and told the banker at the end, oh, by the way, i think the State should foot up half the bill for me, then it will work (!). Guess what he would do. He would slam the door. But someone like Elon Musk says the same publicly, and just watch, he may succeed at sucking taxpayers money for his toy. It's as if people's brain go on "park" when people like that start to blabber about their next "project". So, he build an extremely expensive electric 2 places sport car with the money he made with Paypal ? Big deal, Toyota did much better with a car which is a lot more affordable and lot more usable by the general population.  He started a fairly conventional satellite launching company with same money with promises of huge savings to clients (surprise: it costs nearly the same despite supposed advantages of the reusable booster), big deal. Every new billionaire is playing with space companies as a new pride toy (it used to be who would have the biggest mega yacht, now it's who's got the biggest space launch or space tourism company).

And by the way, Musk never invented anything with the so called "hyper-loop", that was already in Science&Vie back in the 1970's when i was a kid, the difference is that, unlike Elon Musk's scheme, the bullet trains were not going to travel to Mach 1 or 2 into tunnels, they were going to travel at 25 TIMES the speed of sound in vacuum tunnels as Maglev projectiles !! He just recycled a 40 years old idea in a far less ambitious way.

When European colonists and explorers arrived to the Americas, their main motivations were: gold, and "lets convert (and then enslave) those heatens"... Today, the "lets get rich quick" and the religious mantra have been replaced by a new, bizarre, quasi-religious mantra of "lets go live on Mars to save the human race from extinction because we are too incompetent and lazy to even want to try fixing global warming and man-made pollution and lets run away to Mars thinking that it will fix all our problem by magical thinking and lets not forget an asteroid might fall on our heads and kill us all" (insert magician avatar with rainbow vomit here).


Then there are the extremely important aspects that no one is talking about in this grandiose plan to put in place a city of a million people on a planet where there is no air and no life and where no plants grow and where only potentially a small quantity of water does exist, heavily dispersed in the ground: Put a population in isolation on another planet where there is no air in a tin can for a prolonged period of time (years, decades), the longer humans stay there, the weaker their immune system gets. Then send newcomers to their colony, and just watch the massive epidemics and decimation of space colonists happen, because this is what happens when you isolate a small population group for a prolonged time with relatively little or no contact with the outside world. Even a simple flu bug could eventually kill them. Because lets be honest, there wouldn't be "hundreds" of regular airline flights to Mars. Who would pay for it ? Would be colonists ? Let's be serious, the costs would be totally out of this world even if they flew hundreds of flights, no one could afford the ticket, except maybe the few top billionaires. You think countries would have the budgets (and the motivation) to send colonists to Mars on a regular basis at the cost of billions of dollars per ship ? Not a chance.

2. I don't know if you have read the latest reports from Mars missions, but it appears that Martian soil is a material which is toxic to humans. On Mars, that soil would get everywhere, on space suits, on vehicles and tools, and on and inside the habitats.

3. The idea of setting up a colony on a world where the gravity is much smaller than on Earth with the idea of making humans a "space based species" supposedly to "save" the human specie from some impending looming future giant asteroid catastrophe also forgets the following: the next generation of children these people would have, either on the Moon or on Mars would look like anorexic giants with elongated thin limbs and big heads who would bear little similarity with the mankind we know, and would like mentioned above,have a very weak immune system making them prime victims for a massive extinction of their population from just a common virus. So the very idea of putting a population in space on a planet with no air, living in thin cans or inflatable tents and with weak or non-existent immune system is non-sensical as a "solution" to avoid a potential mass extinction of our specie here on Earth.

4. Some twit even started mentioning in the on National radio no less that Martians would soon start to replace their body parts with mechanical parts, changing themselves into cyborgs to "adapt" to their environment and to survive. I don't know, but i think someone's been reading too many science-fiction mangas... Last time i checked, cyborgs could not have offpsrings, and even if you stretch it (very much) into the realm of sci-fi and have these Martians tweak the human genetic code and do in-vitro fertilization and build artificial uteruses to grow human brains into tanks and then transplant them into cyborg bodies, somehow i "don't think" this is going to happen. Beside, even IF Martians turned themselves into cyborgs, it is kind of counter-productive versus the whole initial idea which was to "save our specie" from possible extinction. Cyborgs are essentially machines and (even if you somehow you make abstraction of the reproduction problem) the very idea of moving human beings to another world to then turn them into machines, is again, nonsense. You might as well have continued to send roboy probes into exloration missions, that would give the same end result: machines and saved us a lot of trouble and efforts.

5. Feeding a population of say a thousand (and even a million, as is the plan) would be incredibly difficult to realize. Imagine the size and quantity of crops that would be necessary to accomplish this, and which would have to give crops all year long. All it would take for these plants living in an isolated enclosed environment is a single fungus, disease or parasite to start dying off en masse, and then your colonists would starve. You think there is a magical solution ? Ever did gardening ? Ever planted food crops ? Try it, and then learn. The hard way. Then try the same in space, and we'll talk about it again. I think Nasa tried to put plants in space only once. And that was not even for a sustained, food producing crop. ONCE, in a 55 year long space program. I am not impressed for the future.

6. Mars might be a sterile world, where, if there were ever bacterias long ago when water used to flow on the surface may long have disappeared (though this is not yet a given: there are still traces of water underground). However, if it was sterile, human beings may very well already have contaminated it with bacterias and viruses from Earth. Ever read reports on the sterilization of Nasa martian probes ? Not all the probes that were sent to Mars were sterilized the same way, some were more poorly treated then others. They ran tests and many methods to see how they could most efficiently eliminate all traces of viruses and bacterias from all the surfaces of their probes. They also combined methods such as UV irradiation, chlorine, ozone, etc, when single methods did not give acceptable results. They found out a combination of all the methods could eliminate "most" micro-organisms (but was costly), but not all. There always remain some, and, worse, when you combine all those methods, you actually create stronger, more resistant bugs generation which, like we saw on Earth with antibiotics, the more you use antibiotics against pathogens, the more you make them resistant to counter-measures. And, now, the very last antibiotic that we had as a last ditch barrier against epidemics is already starting to not work against several viruses. And it's been quite a while that there is a syphillis virus as well as other similar illnesses that are resistant to antibiotics in the Asia. So colonists on Mars may end up with a nasty man-made surprise, which will have the chance to mutate some more thanks to the fact there is no ozone layer on Mars to filtrate UV rays and stop stronger mutations from happening to these bacterias (no tentacle jokes please, we all know what happened when the Europeans reached the shores of North and South America: it was a massive extinction of the local populations who's immune systems were totally unprepared to the new viruses they came in contact with. We are talking a 90% loss of the original populations).

7. Some will probably mention terraforming... Lets not mention Michael Zubrin here... (Michael Zubrin writes books. He is not a botanist nor a farmer). Terraforming is a project that, IF such an utopia would ever happen would take at the very best, hundreds, if not thousands of years. And there is no guarantee is would last or even work. By the time you are done devoting colossal energies and centuries trying to turn a small ball of iron oxide into a vague facsimile of Earth, other people would already have reached a Earth-like planet with a breathable atmosphere on Proxima Centauri or on another close solar-system. So it is, again, a non-sense. With today's new propulsion technologies, you could already launch a long range mission with a few hundred people in say 50 years that would make a travel of 50 to a 100 years to a solar system close to ours and probably colonize an exoplanet more suitable to human life than Mars, and with far fewer efforts than trying to terraform a whole planet. Though we still have to pinpoint and precisely make sure such an exoplanet would indeed already have oxygen in its atmosphere, and water (or ice) on its surface (the new Webb telescope might help to do that)(it's still better to wear winter coats all year long rather than space suits). If we sent enough spaceships with colonists (say 10 ships), the chances of surviving the long trip and seeing their offsprings reach those habitable worlds would be far greater than just sending 1 ship. It would obviously not be easy even for those who would reach their destination without major problems, they would no doubt face a whole series of problems on the surface itself and in adapting and surviving to their new world, but compared to living on a planet without an breathable atmosphere while using a life support systems all the time, forever, their life would be infinitely safer and more simple and would't depend on so many critical mechanical systems for survival.

So it is not because some people have been watching Matt Damon plant potatoes on Mars in a Hollywood movie too many times that sending thousands of people there on a permanent basis would actually work or last longer than until the next catastrophe that would hit them. Don't get me wrong, i love Matt Damon, and i loved the movie. But, it's just that, a movie. Reality is way more complicated. So, hubris aside, the plans of Musk are no more than a wide scale, badly planned, uninformed,  badly implemented and badly equipped suicide mission. And then, when they reach there, you think everyone will live forever thereafter in peace and loving each other ?  It didn't take long for the American colony to end up in a war/revolution. Humans will remain humans in behavior and character. Wouldn't take long in a situation of conflict or if someone become mentally unstable to completely scrap an outer-world colony, once someone targets the life-support system and the crops, bye-bye...

I don't says that in a tightly controlled environment like a Nasa mission with scientists and professional astronauts (instead of hundreds of average Joe and Jane would be colonists), things would stay mostly under-control (that's the best case scenario, with small groups), but even then, i would not necessarily cross my fingers and assume only for the best, remember a certain Spacelab mission where the astronauts decided to give the finger to Earth control because they were pissed off with their bad living conditions ? Or a certain training mission for Mars where a female astronaut from Canada was sexually assaulted by a Russian male astronaut ? The training mission had to be cancelled as a result. I doubt there will be police on Mars. or if there is, under what jurisdiction ? Under Musk's company ? Under a private security company ? Under US law ? United Nations ? NATO ? Zouave Vatican guards ? No nation is supposed to be able to claim ownership of a celestial body under international law. Perhaps they left a big loophole there as they probably did not mention private companies in that agreement. Leaving room for potentially all kinds of human rights abuse once you set up a colony there and they basically do as they wish in term of dealing (or not dealing) with conflict or crimes. So basically, we are talking about recreating a whole society on another world as well, with all its infinite complexity of laws and customs. What laws apply, which ones do not, who applies them if any ? Where are the judges, jury, police, detention system, re-introduction into society, who decides of the fate of whom and under whose guidance and where are the safety checks to make sure human rights are not violated ? Etc. And then you have religions, political systems, elections if any, and conflicts if there are none. Say hello to the same thing we have on Earth. Moving to a new apartment does not magically solve problems. And asteroids can still fall on their head.

And thinking about it, the whole project of Musk actually is nothing more than a plan to grab himself a lot more money to get richer: that's why he said: eventually, money will have to come from public funds. HIs plan of Mars colonization actually doesn;t even have to work, all he have to do is provoke the sense of pride of nations just enough to make them go into a bit of a panick and re-start their national Mars mission projects (NASA, ESA, China, Russia), and then show up and tell them, we can all join together in MY colonization/Mars mission plan (kashing... sound of the cash register of Elan Musk), and then he might only have to send one mission, which may eventually fail, blow up, and even if it does, he will already have made his money from public funds, and made sure that he had every colonist participant sign a release contract stating that if they die accidentally for whatever technical reason or God's act, they release him of any financial compensation payment to their families, thus protecting his financial assets... Then there will be a long, world-wide commission who will eventually determine that those missions pause too great a risk to human life and wasted huge public sums, and will cancel further flights, but he will already have made his money. Given the way his totally over-bloated plan sounds (totally unrealistic), it is not too hard to tell that this is what is the main plan here. Just another money grab from a big company with big appetite. Given the latest announcement from the US administration we saw in the news yesterday where they announced that they would launch a mission to Mars for 2030, it is clear that the plan of Musk of provoking their pride is working...

Now of course he can do what he wants with his own billions, but the moment he will start pumping pubic money for this, oh boy...

So i am sorry for deflating this dream balloon, but that's what hard reality is. And the "we must become a multi-world based civilization to save the Human race from certain doom from an asteroid" is a Very weak motivation at best, we've got an infinitely more pressing and concrete emergency here that must be fixed within the next 10 years, or we will really face long term consequences that will damage the chance of survival of millions if not billions of human beings here on Earth: Global Warming. So, sorry, playing astronauts and playing human colonists on Mars may work with Legos, but it is not a realistic nor a pressingly urgent proposal in our current situation, we've got things to fix here, move to electric transports (thankfully is is contributing a bit to that change, i give him credit for that, especially for his electric energy stocking system for solar and wind-mill power), eliminate coal-oil based power generation, drastically reduce/eliminate fossil fuels, put in place more recycling and less pollution.

Website: http://www.picturetrail.com/stratospheremodels

« Last Edit: October 13, 2016, 05:00:19 pm by Desert Dawn »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #84 on: October 13, 2016, 04:05:48 pm »
Jeeeeeezus.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline ZacYates

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • LHX SuperTeam fanboy
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #85 on: October 13, 2016, 05:28:26 pm »
I'm just curious where you sit.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6746
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #86 on: October 13, 2016, 06:16:55 pm »
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline antiquark

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • I like the space shuttle!
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #87 on: October 17, 2016, 03:45:28 pm »
The criticism continues...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-17/why-elon-musk-s-mars-vision-needs-some-real-imagination

Mars chronicler Kim Stanley Robinson offers some pointers on the road to the red planet.


Question: It’s 2024. Musk figures everything out and gets funding. He builds his rocket, and 100 people take off. Several months later, they land (somehow) and have to get to work remaking a planet.

Answer: I have to note, first, that this scenario is not believable, which makes it a hard exercise to think about further. Mars will never be a single-person or single-company effort. It will be multi-national and take lots of money and lots of years.

Musk’s plan is sort of the 1920s science-fiction cliché of the boy who builds a rocket to the moon in his backyard, combined with the Wernher von Braun plan, as described in the Disney TV programs of the 1950s. A fun, new story.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #88 on: October 17, 2016, 04:39:07 pm »
It’s 2024. Musk figures everything out and gets funding. He builds his rocket, and 100 people take off. Several months later, they land (somehow) and have to get to work remaking a planet.

Answer: I have to note, first, that this scenario is not believable, which makes it a hard exercise to think about further. Mars will never be a single-person or single-company effort. It will be multi-national and take lots of money and lots of years.

Musk’s plan is sort of the 1920s science-fiction cliché of the boy who builds a rocket to the moon in his backyard, combined with the Wernher von Braun plan, as described in the Disney TV programs of the 1950s. A fun, new story.

Meh.  And this is how they thought they were going to go to the moon at one time:





and how'd that turn out?   I'd rather cheer them on and wish them well than to just rag all over them for thinking big.  At least they're trying, which is more than you can say about anybody else.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #89 on: October 17, 2016, 10:54:55 pm »
I understand the point KSR is making but I'm really fighting the urge to go all Internet Commentator by pointing out the silly parts of the Red Mars trilogy in response.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 655
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #90 on: October 18, 2016, 09:11:57 am »
Jeeeeeezus.

One can always find somebody rambling on about nonsense on the internet.  They can reach more people that way vs screaming on street corners.

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 135
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #91 on: October 20, 2016, 06:41:09 pm »
Wow...
As I see it, that meticulously crafted wall of text has three legitimate concerns.
1: the toxicity of the oxidizing martian soil.
    This might require at worst, for non-emergency EVA's, a three stage don, doff procedure for spacesuits like in a biohazard  facility or Hazmat cleanup site.  That this is possible is strongly hinted at by the existence of biohazard facillities and hazmat cleanup sites.

2: Farming: there are plenty of indications that Martian soil will grow crops, however even if that is a deal breaker, hydroponics work and depending on the type of set-up, one can grow fish too. This is not as efficient as plants, but would be a side item to provide a bit of a morale booster and as an added bonus might make everything non-vegan, thereby keeping out an undesireable element.

3: Low gravity: a possible show stopper. I'm more of a Dandridge Cole/ Gerald K O'Neal guy for this reason, however a variable gravity research facility is well within our capabilities, and tests on such a facility would give an answer one way or another.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1106/maryland01b.pdf       
http://www.artificial-gravity.com/JANNAF-2005-Sorensen.pdf

Note that if Martian gravity proves adequate, then it is a non issue. If lunar gravity or therabouts is sufficient, then we have a whole lot of potential spacesteads in the outer system. If not then the Stanford Torus is waiting for a big big reuseable rocket...which conveniently enough, is the centerpiece of the endeavor being discussed.

As for terraforming being beyond reason, Ziggurats and Pyramids were built by people for whom working copper was bleeding edge technology. The mounds of the Mississippi basin were built by those for whom Jade was the toughest tool material, and the closest equivalent to this, the Medieval Cathedrals were built over generations by people with chisels and hammers. We on the other hand, have split the atom, have crisper gene editing, can make greenhouse gasses in prodigious quantities and have had the math worked out on moving asteroids and comets with mass drivers since 1974. If we decide to use these tools, Mars becomes something akin to a Cathedral in scale.

All we lack is faith and a sense of purpose.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 06:43:28 pm by Brickmuppet »

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #92 on: October 23, 2016, 06:36:44 am »
Giving heads up; 8.5 hours from now, 22:00 UTC Elon Musk will have "ask me anything" on Reddit;

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/58yc14/elon_musk_will_be_doing_an_ama_on_rspacex_at_3pm/
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 478
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #93 on: October 23, 2016, 07:10:51 am »
And in case anyone's concerned; this AMA / Q&A is being hosted by / overseen by the SpaceX subreddit moderators; the questions that get pushed to the top aren't going to be ones about Burning Man sanitation or requests for kisses.

Offline antigravite

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 558
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #94 on: October 24, 2016, 12:54:02 am »
Hi everybody,

slightly off topic - but we keep on track. The overall design looks as if very much inspired by 1930s early pulp science fiction artworks. Such as the one attached from Astounding Stories (April 1936 issue), and war-era youth technical magazines, such as Soviet Tecknika Molodjezhi (1941, 6). Just enjoy.

A.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2016, 12:39:27 am by antigravite »
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L e t   b o l d s   b e   l i g h t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 825
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #95 on: November 28, 2016, 03:34:25 am »
This seems apropos for this thread:

Frozen water bigger US Great Lake found on MARS – paving way for human exploration
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/736752/MARS-discovery-colonisation-great-lake-nasa

The new study by Nasa revealed the massive, icy sub-surface lake is covered by just 10 metres of soil and holds 12,100 cubic kilometres of frozen water.


The water is located in Utopia Planitia which is in the lower latitudes rather than up near the poles.

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 736
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #96 on: May 29, 2017, 06:10:45 am »
Elon will likely reveal more details on his Big Mars Colonization Rocket at IAC 2017 Sept 25-29 2017

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/05/elon-will-likely-reveal-more-details-on-his-big-mars-colonization-rocket-at-iac-2017-sept-25-29-2017.html

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3600
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #97 on: May 30, 2017, 11:06:49 pm »
Some rendering von fans to show the size of ITS compare to Falcon 9

That show SpaceX ITS is mother of all launch rocket*

*Except:
Super NEXUS design, Seadragon and what ever Blue Origin will build under name "New Armstrong"...


Picture source
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6dumqx/spacexs_its_vs_falcon_9_size_comparison/
I love Strange Technology

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #98 on: May 31, 2017, 04:51:35 am »
I certainly HOPE we get to see a space race between SpaceX and Blue Origin.   ;D
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 770
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #99 on: May 31, 2017, 07:46:01 am »
I certainly HOPE we get to see a space race between SpaceX and Blue Origin.   ;D

And NASA ?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9061
Re: Space X Interplanetary Transport System
« Reply #100 on: May 31, 2017, 08:11:34 am »
I certainly HOPE we get to see a space race between SpaceX and Blue Origin.   ;D

And NASA ?

They're not really in the race. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.