| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
|
misirlou
Portugal3238 Posts
On December 23 2015 05:44 Sn0_Man wrote: Please keep the mod note in mind, thanks. Sorry. I came here to share the excitement. I was pretty nervous watching the live stream and didn't celebrate for like 20 secs after touchdown, half worried that it might tip over like the last barge try and half still in disbelief, not until I was absolutely sure they had nailed it. To my surprise, half the page is a single dude downplaying this. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16711 Posts
On December 23 2015 05:36 misirlou wrote: You should also be happy if Nasa spends less money in their projects and funnel it to private companies (Spx, ULA, BO, SNC, BA) because they are clearly capable of spending that money better. All the money they got in the last 30 years didn't accomplish anything as ground breaking for spaceflight as Musk's little fortune did. Unless you're happy with SLS costs for what it actually does. Or maybe you think that money is better spent on the DoD. it also depends upon what your goals are. for manned space travel NASA has outdone SpaceX by 1000 fold. as far as putting big heavy stuff into orbit these proof of concept style flights are promising, but do not prove they are better than NASA yet. SpaceX has not accomplished what NASA has accomplished in this area. SpaceX and Musk could turn out to be the best thing to happen in the history of space travel. but, what they've done so far hasn't proven much. it'll take at least 20 rocket flights and safe landings to really prove this works.,, maybe more. personal attacks don't help prove your point they merely lower the signal to noise ratio of your post. i'm not american so SpaceX wanting cash from NASA does not impact me. However, when it comes to the CanadArm2/MSS i'll be happy when $0 of government funding is given to MDA Robotics. On December 23 2015 05:58 misirlou wrote: Sorry. I came here to share the excitement. I was pretty nervous watching the live stream and didn't celebrate for like 20 secs after touchdown, half worried that it might tip over like the last barge try and half still in disbelief, not until I was absolutely sure they had nailed it. To my surprise, half the page is a single dude downplaying this. re-usability and low cost are what make Falcon9 POSSIBLY amazing. that stage has not happened yet. what we have right now is a proof of concept. as i stated earlier we're going to need at least 20 safe take-offs and landings to prove re-usability. Low cost proof will be in some accountants office. in the 70s NASA promised the "re-usable" Space Shuttle would do all kinds of crap it never did. Big Space Promises, Big Taxpayer Expenditure And No Results, Nice diagrams eh? i am cautioning against making decisions based on the emotion of a successful proof-of-concept. is humankind ahead of where it was before SpaceX came into existence. yes it is. is Elon Musk a genius? yes he is. will tourists being going to Mars for $500,000 by 2022 as Musk promised in 2012? nah... and i would not want any of my taxpayer dollars being put towards that pipe dream. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
I wonder at what point does it become feasible to actually use rockets to throw away garbage from the Earth. In particular liquefied CO2 to help combat global warming. I'm guessing someone has already asked this online so off I go to research Edit: Well I didn't find much specific, but I did find an extremely fascinating idea proposed by Professor Alfred Wong of the University of California, Los Angeles. For anyone interested, you can use the Earth's magnetic field to help propel ionized CO2 particles into space. www.economist.com. Anyway I shan't derail any further | ||
|
misirlou
Portugal3238 Posts
On December 23 2015 07:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: is humankind ahead of where it was before SpaceX came into existence. yes it is. is Elon Musk a genius? yes he is. will tourists being going to Mars for $500,000 by 2022 as Musk promised in 2012? nah... and i would not want any of my taxpayer dollars being put towards that pipe dream. If governments spend 0$ on R&D like you want them to, yeah we won't. Just out of curiosity, where do you think that money should go? Also all of the money NASA gives to private space isn't a blank check to fill management pockets, they are competitive business contracts. Nasa placed people on space when they were getting BILLIONS annually. The cost for NASA to place people in space during the shuttle era was very high compared to what private space will offer, and atm they don't even have the capability and need to buy seats on a russian vehicle. Private space hasn't achieved that, but that will change in the next couple of years. They also haven't been around for almost 60 years. I don't even know what you are trying to accomplish here. First you bring up the BO launch to downplay this, then you bring up the shuttle to downplay it even more except you said things that were false. It would be ok if you were mis informed but someone that doesn't know what falcon 9 actually does (haul cargo to space) wouldn't know about BO anw. SpaceX and Musk could turn out to be the best thing to happen in the history of space travel. but, what they've done so far hasn't proven much. L O L. I won't try to defend that Musk is the next coming of jesus but saying that he and his company haven't proven much... it's hard to put this in a non insulting way... not even considering what the rest of his companies and himself have done on other industries beyond space flight. Falcon 9 is already the cheapest rocket on the market even without reusability. Dragon 2 is well under development and already completed the pad abort test. A seat on it won't cost even half of what NASA is paying on the soyuz and that's with 2 extra empty seats. SpaceX RTF happens just 6 months after their failure, record breaking in the industry. Compared to Orbital ATK that took over a year to RTF and have to design a new engine. Merlin1D, on the other hand, is becoming one of the most reliable engines ever. 10 engines per launch, no failures yet (crs7 wasn't an engine failure and on top of that falcon9 has the capability to run without one of it's engines), do the math. Don't even need to talk about landing a rocket booster to make the list long. Musk has a vision and he'll go every step to see it through. No other company is even trying to do what he did the way he did. Both ULA and Ariane think landing the whole rocket is overly complicated/impossible and their plan is just returning the engine. There is no doubt in my mind that humans will go to the red planet and that he will be the one to put us there, while he's making our planet better with his other companies. Probably not before 2030 though. e: On December 23 2015 09:54 radscorpion9 wrote: I had no idea reusable rockets were such a big deal. Apparently a single launch from a falcon 9 rocket costs 56.5 million (Wikipedia). Space X stated that if they are successful in developing reusable launch systems, they can bring that cost down to $5 - 7 million. That's quite amazing. The 5-7 million figure is still unknown. At 56.5 million, f9 is already the cheapest launcher, compared to ArianeV and AtlasV that cost about 100$ million. Let's be pessimist and assume only a 25% reduction, at 42 million, who is going to be able to compete in the short term? As for the uses, Musk has that covered as well, he's planning an internet satellite constellation. A very, very big constellation. Many companies want in on that market too, and SpaceX has the cheap rockets to send them all up. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16711 Posts
On December 23 2015 10:12 misirlou wrote: I won't try to defend that Musk is the next coming of jesus but saying that he and his company haven't proven much... it's hard to put this in a non insulting way... not even considering what the rest of his companies and himself have done on other industries beyond space flight. in March, 2012 Musk promised $500,000 per passenger flights to Mars by 2022. Relative to this lofty promise he has not done much. The Falcon9 is still a work in progress. i think its $200,000 USD to refuel the Falcon9. The Falcon9 costs $16 million to build. If it does eventually turn out to be re-usable then Musk will have revolutionized non-human low earth orbit space flight. 1 successful landing does not prove re-usability though. As I said before, Musk is a genius... don't pretend like i didn't state that in my comments about the guy. In other news, NASA's 2016 Mars mission called off due to a problem with a part supplied by CNES. the french space agency is NOT pointing the finger back at NASA though... so that is a good sign. Insight gets to Mars via a ULA Atlas 5 rocket. The next shot for Insight to go to Mars is in 2 years ; spending on the project is capped at $425 million USD ; there is some chance the entire project could be scraped. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/mars-insight-1.3376624 | ||
|
misirlou
Portugal3238 Posts
On December 23 2015 12:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: in March, 2012 Musk promised $500,000 per passenger flights to Mars by 2022. Relative to this lofty promise he has not done much. The Falcon9 is still a work in progress. i think its $200,000 USD to refuel the Falcon9. The Falcon9 costs $16 million to build. If it does eventually turn out to be re-usable then Musk will have revolutionized non-human low earth orbit space flight. 1 successful landing does not prove re-usability though. As I said before, Musk is a genius... don't pretend like i didn't state that in my comments about the guy. It's the second time you bring up the 2022 number up. SOURCE PLEASE. Cause the only source I find on 2022 is for red dragon, an unmanned mission. Otherwise you can cut the crap. Falcon9 has been launching customers for 5 years. Saying it's a work in progress means nothing because that's just how the company operates, continually iterating over their design. It costs one fifth or less of it's current competitors, that's revolutionary by itself. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16711 Posts
"could a person sell all their stuff on earth and go to Mars .. that is the threshold..." its around the 1 minute mark http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17439490 Another Source Later In The Year http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2118643/Round-trip-flights-Mars-500-000-decade-says-rocket-entrepreneur.html http://news.yahoo.com/huge-mars-colony-eyed-spacex-founder-elon-musk-120626263.html http://www.space.com/18596-mars-colony-spacex-elon-musk.html he also says in the Space.com article it should be ready by the time the world population is at 8 billion. This is another guideline as to when the $500,000 return trip tickets to Mars will be available. The world population just passed 7 billion when he said that and every credible estimate of current world population is that we are now close to 7.4 billion. you say i should "cut the crap"? it appears it may be your research skills that are "crap". Musk's 2012 big talk about $500,000 Mars trips is all over the place. There are dozens of sources with no retraction from SpaceX or Musk during the year. Falcon9 As A Work In Progress When SpaceX was founded Musk didn't say "hey guys .. we are just going to do what every one else has been doing for 50 years". The Falcon9 has merely been doing what others have been doing for 40+ years. Sticking stuff 100+ miles above the earth's surface is not revolutionary.. Now, if the Falcon9 can become as reusable as say a 747 then Musk and SpaceX will have really pulled off something pretty cool. From this perspective the Falcon9 is still a work in progress. The Landed Falcon9 Won't Fly Again http://gizmodo.com/despite-landing-in-once-piece-spacexs-reusable-rocket-1749213213 http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10642028/spacex-falcon-9-landing-elon-musk-wont-fly "A small step toward reusability, not a leap" ... which basically summarizes my comments throughout this 2 page back and forth discussion. The Space Shuttles were sold to the US Taxpayer as re-usable and I dont think any one of them flew more than 28 times. And the one that did disintegrated on re-entry in its 28th flight. In the area of manned space flight Musk and SpaceX have accomplished almost nothing relative to their stated goals in early 2012. That landing rocket looked really cool. However, I'm not going to let the emotion of the moment cloud my decision making when a Canadian political party wants to hand MDS Robotics or some other space agency tax payer dollars. Many Americans feel the same was as I do about NASA getting government cash. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
ABOARD THE ORLANDO PRINCESS OFF THE CAPE CANAVERAL COAST—On Monday night, Elon Musk jumped out of his space company’s launch control center to watch this one live. The last time SpaceX launched a rocket, it blew up in a fireball. This one had to go right. But he always wanted to see if the company would be able to land the first stage of the rocket, a momentous first. He was relieved that the launch went off flawlessly; that was the main goal. Then he saw the rocket reappear in the darkness over the Florida Space Coast, tilting toward a landing pad at Cape Canaveral. It seemed to be right on the mark, but then there was a massive boom, and he thought the worst: “It had exploded.” “Well, at least we got close,” he said to himself. But then he went back inside, and people were agog. The sound was a sonic boom-- the shock wave of a rocket traveling through the air faster than the speed sound. “There was this amazing video of the rocket standing there,” he recounted in a call with reporters Monday evening. It was still standing there Tuesday morning. Viewed from this fishing vessel chartered by SpaceX, it towered some 15-stories tall, right next to the launch pad that shot John Glenn into orbit. Many in the space community heralded SpaceX’s achievement of shooting a rocket into space and then recovering the first stage as another momentous step in the history of space flight, one they hope will touch off a boom in commercial space. Being able to recover and reuse the first stage of rockets—the most expensive part because they house the engines—would dramatically lower the cost of space travel, a key step in making space more accessible. Source | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16711 Posts
On December 24 2015 11:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Of course that particular Falcon 9 won't fly again, it's historic now. Columbia flew 28 times along with its historic first voyage.in April 1981. The 2nd stage of the Falcon9 did not land. Therefore, SpaceX still has some work ahead of them to fulfill Musk's early 2012 stated goal of "fully re-usable" rockets. http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a7446/elon-musk-on-spacexs-reusable-rocket-plans-6653023/ | ||
|
oBlade
United States5609 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16711 Posts
On December 23 2015 02:54 Sn0_Man wrote: also the space shuttle had some parts that were NOT fully reuseable (the big orange tank burned up) partially re-usable just like the Shuttle  it'll be interesting to see if Musk/SpaceX can meet the price levels quoted at the end of the PM article with the rocket now only being partially re-usable. I wonder if he revised his price list when he announced Stage2 would not come back? | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
If fact after a landing, they did take apart all critical parts of the space shuttle completely only to put it together again after inspection. It is completely absurd to have a big first stage that's human grade that needs to reenter the atmosphere. Complete idiotic. It boggles the mind that they made the space shuttle and flew it for so long. Human-grade cargo launching main engines, putting them into orbit, deorbiting the whole huge thing with wings and all. Stupid. Let's not even get into the engineering challenges of a shuttle hanging from a fuel tank having SRBs. It is all a complete engineering masochism. Even with the huge maintenance the SH required, it's inherent design flaws still killed two crews. One of the reasons of course was that the space shuttle was also supposed to be a space bomber (lol!) for the USAF. It has like the same disease the F35 has. And it was supposed to launch every week! If anything, the shuttle was mainly meant to mind-fuck the soviets into wasting just as much resources. I guess it did the job. Too bad that Reagan's hawkishness made the soviets so scared, they didn't dare to dismantle the USSR and kept dragging it's dead corpse along for almost a decade. That and the moon landing shot a huge huge gap in any meaningful space endeavors. Just take all that cash basically wasted and imagine what it could have done if used properly. Sad thing, the ISS is going the same way. Basically useless. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
So people have been focused on Mars for about 40 years, when the focus really should have been safe orbits and then safe moon landings (instead of the incredibly lucky versions of those we got). All that said, I know the serious people (Musk, NASA, etc) aren't serious about Mars because they aren't experimenting with prolonged underwater and prolonged closed-environment studies. A responsible human would make sure a crew of 5 can survive in a mini-submarine together for 12 months before presuming they will accomplish that feat in space. | ||
|
Evotroid
Hungary176 Posts
On December 24 2015 16:15 cLutZ wrote: (...) All that said, I know the serious people (Musk, NASA, etc) aren't serious about Mars because they aren't experimenting with prolonged underwater and prolonged closed-environment studies. A responsible human would make sure a crew of 5 can survive in a mini-submarine together for 12 months before presuming they will accomplish that feat in space. I just want to point out, that this is a totally invalid concern. The problem of staying alive once we are there, is dwarfed by the problem of getting there and back alive. I mean, it's not like there is a space station right now out in space where we study those kind of things firsthand for the past 15 years. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On December 24 2015 04:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Musk first mentioned it in a radio interview in March 2012 and he repeated this promise for much of 2012. "could a person sell all their stuff on earth and go to Mars .. that is the threshold..." its around the 1 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSjg9e1bI0 http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17439490 Another Source Later In The Year http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2118643/Round-trip-flights-Mars-500-000-decade-says-rocket-entrepreneur.html http://news.yahoo.com/huge-mars-colony-eyed-spacex-founder-elon-musk-120626263.html http://www.space.com/18596-mars-colony-spacex-elon-musk.html he also says in the Space.com article it should be ready by the time the world population is at 8 billion. This is another guideline as to when the $500,000 return trip tickets to Mars will be available. The world population just passed 7 billion when he said that and every credible estimate of current world population is that we are now close to 7.4 billion. you say i should "cut the crap"? it appears it may be your research skills that are "crap". The 500 000$ figure is all over the place as an end goal, threshold to trigger a massive population to make the move. The "500 000$ in 2022" is harder to find. In 2012, he is more along the lines of "I think we have a plan that could get us there", "first getting to Mars could be done in 10 to 20 years". But yes, to get there he'll need full reusability on the rockets. | ||
|
misirlou
Portugal3238 Posts
On December 24 2015 14:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: cool news! partially re-usable just like the Shuttle it'll be interesting to see if Musk/SpaceX can meet the price levels quoted at the end of the PM article with the rocket now only being partially re-usable. I wonder if he revised his price list when he announced Stage2 would not come back? Stage 2 recovery was never the goal and wasn't considered ever in the cost reduction. They kept it in the back of their minds but they never actually worked on the problem. The price seems about right with this assessment since the engine is the most expensive part and he is recovering 9 out of the 10. BFR/MCT however are intended to be fully reusable. As for taxpayer dollars, I can't speak for Canada cause I have no idea, but there's a lot of $ that the US can cut before they need to cut NASA. For example, they could give 10% of their defence budget to actually provide free healthcare. Or subsidize college education. Let's not forget that when the man landed on the moon, NASA was getting way more than 1% of the federal budget. They aren't getting even 1% now. On December 24 2015 19:12 Oshuy wrote: The 500 000$ figure is all over the place as an end goal, threshold to trigger a massive population to make the move. The "500 000$ in 2022" is harder to find. In 2012, he is more along the lines of "I think we have a plan that could get us there", "first getting to Mars could be done in 10 to 20 years". But yes, to get there he'll need full reusability on the rockets. That's how I remember his quote. Man on mars in a decade (where 2022 might have been the first date he gave but he has moved it to 2030 since then) and EVENTUALY do it by half a million. I might be completely wrong but I believe the quotes are taken out of context and mixed together. In any event, these predictions should be converted to Musk Time. He also failed all of his Tesla predictions but no one can argue the company is doing bad. | ||
|
Hondelul
1999 Posts
On December 24 2015 04:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Musk first mentioned it in a radio interview in March 2012 and he repeated this promise for much of 2012. "could a person sell all their stuff on earth and go to Mars .. that is the threshold..." its around the 1 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSjg9e1bI0 http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17439490 As I wasn't interested in this topic before I watched your video. He said "that's probably 10 years after the flights start". So that's something completely different to your "he said 2022" unless I missed we traveled to mars some years ago? | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16711 Posts
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4805 http://exploration.esa.int/mars/56908-exomars-prepares-to-leave-europe-for-launch-site/ On December 24 2015 21:10 misirlou wrote: Stage 2 recovery was never the goal and wasn't considered ever in the cost reduction. Stage2 recovery and full re-usability was the stated goal in 2011 and re-iterated throughout 2012. It was abandoned in 2014. During Musk's speeches about how cheap it would be to go to Mars he states very specifically that the only cost is the cost of propellant ; full re-usability of rockets in current day projects will set the stage for full re-useability of Mars mission equipment according to Musk's presentations to the media throughout 2012. so they tried and failed to make Stage2 re-usable. On December 24 2015 22:21 Hondelul wrote: As I wasn't interested in this topic before I watched your video. He said "that's probably 10 years after the flights start". So that's something completely different to your "he said 2022" an astute observation on your part. and other journalists interviewed him and got the "mars in a decade" timeline... which i posted. also, he said his $500,000 Mars return flight would be available and he'd have 8 billion people living on earth to choose from when his company is ready to offer it. we're at 7.4 billion now. That is from the Space.com article i posted. We're on track to hit 8 billion people in 2023. So the Space.com article is congruent if not exactly equal to the timeline provided in the "Mars in a Decade" article. Musk's contradictions in timelines does nothing to strengthen his credibility... if anything they weaken it. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
an astute observation on your part. and other journalists interviewed him and got the "mars in a decade" timeline... which i posted. You're both on the same page here. He said in 2012: "mars in a decade" (with a disclaimer that it's the best case scenario) and "round trip 500k$ 10 years after first mars flight". Those are the quotes that were taken as source for all the articles (repeated in 10 different interviews/conferences), the rest is creative writing for the big headline. Not plausible, won't be achieved in that timeframe, but the same press message was defined beforehand and repeated throughout the year (the tools proposed to get low-cost interplanetary flights are what makes it interesting anyway) | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On December 24 2015 17:38 Evotroid wrote: I just want to point out, that this is a totally invalid concern. The problem of staying alive once we are there, is dwarfed by the problem of getting there and back alive. I mean, it's not like there is a space station right now out in space where we study those kind of things firsthand for the past 15 years. I don't think you wrote what you intended, when you said he had a 'totally invalid concern' about prolonged close-environment studies, but then pointed out that staying alive once there is dwarfed by the problem of getting there and back alive. Well getting there and back alive is part of what a 12-month physiological and psychological study aims to accomplish! But anyway it looks like precisely this sort of planning is already underway. To quote a section from Wikipedia's page on "human mission to mars": NASA's Journey to Mars: Pioneering Next Steps in Space Exploration (2015) On October 8, 2015, NASA published its official plan for human exploration and colonization of Mars. The plan operates through three distinct phases leading up to fully sustained colonization. The first stage, already underway, is the "Earth Reliant" phase. This phase continues utilizing the International Space Station until 2024; validating deep space technologies and studying the effects of long duration space missions on the human body. The second stage, "Proving Ground," moves away from Earth reliance and ventures into cislunar space for most of its tasks. This is when NASA plans to capture an asteroid (planned for 2020), test deep space habitation facilities, and validate capabilities required for human exploration of Mars. Finally, phase three is the transition to independence from Earth resources. The "Earth Independent" phase includes long term missions on the lunar surface which leverage surface habitats that only require routine maintenance, and the harvesting of Martian resources for fuel, water, and building materials. NASA is still aiming for human missions to Mars in in the 2030s, though Earth independence could take decades longer. I'm sure SpaceX will learn from these studies (as well as all the other companies, if they are interested in Mars missions). | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Summer Champion…
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Contender
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
