SpaceX Wants To Go To Mars — and Has a Plan To Get There 236
mknewman writes with an article at NASA SpaceFlight which lays out the details of a plan from SpaceX to send a craft to Mars, using an in-development engine ("Raptor") along with the company's Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle. "Additionally, Mr. Musk also introduced the mysterious MCT project, which he later revealed to be an acronym for Mars Colonial Transport. This system would be capable of transporting 100 colonists at a time to Mars, and would be fully reusable. Article is technically dense but he does seem to follow through on his promises!"
This is an endeavor that's been on Elon Musk's mind for a while.
Perhaps Mars One and Space X are tighter than we t (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
In addition, Mars one talks about sending 6 ppl at a time. SpaceX is doing 100 at a time.
What Mars one is, is a back-up plan IFF SpaceX fails. Otherwise, SpaceX will be on mars BEFORE Mars-one launches a mission with the robots (though they MIGHT be able to launch one or two exploratory missions.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is a stretch to even suggest that Mars One is a backup plan to SpaceX. At best I would put Inspiration Mars (Dennis Tito's project) in that realm, assuming Mr. Tito goes anywhere with his project as well.
I saw a Reddit conversation with the guys of Mars One that showed they really knew almost nothing about the technical side of things, and sort of thought they could magically buy anything they needed to get the job done. That might work for something such as an Antarctic expedition where the to
Make no small dreams. (Score:5, Insightful)
Elon Musk = D.D. Harriman, only with bigger dreams.
And not a fictional character.
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk = D.D. Harriman, only with bigger dreams.
and fewer resources.
Re: (Score:2)
"And not a fictional character."
Wait - huh - WUT?! Are you implying that Robert wrote FICTION!?!?! I'm not believing it for one second!
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, had you read the article, you would know that MCT is Mars Colonial Transport and supposedly will hold around 100 ppl. They wi
Why not planetary landers. (Score:4, Informative)
I imagine it has something to do with the fact that It takes considerably less energy to escape Earth entirely than to go into even a low orbit, and what is to be gained by stopping in orbit? The craft you transfer to will have had to already make the trip up itself, you may as well just put your passengers in it and save the stop. Our rocket technology is mostly not terribly dependent on whether it's operating in air or vacuum, and for a reusable craft you have to be able to land on Mars and take off again with minimal planet-side infrastructure anyway, so any potential strength and weight reductions for an craft unsuitable for an Earth launch would be severely limited - most of the benefit could likely be gained from a breakaway 1st stage that just handles getting the rocket to a Mars-surface equivalent gravity-well "depth".
Moreover, the vast majority of the craft weight is fuel and tanks which will need to be landed to refuel anyway - no sense adding a bunch of fuel-hauling longboats if you can gracefully land the gas tanks rocket on their tail. The reason the moon missions used a lander were probably twofold: control systems were not yet advanced enough to land a full rocket on it's tail, and fuel for the entire mission had to be carried from Earth. If you could refuel on the Moon then it might well have made more sense to land the whole, potentially much smaller, EarthMoon rocket and refuel it.
Where space-only vessels become useful is once you have multiple "ports" with their own "longboat" / space elevator infrastructure already in place to allow cargo/passenger transfer and refueling. After all surface-to-orbit is the most expensive part of the trip, and much can be gained by not needing to include the capacity to handle that, but only if it doesn't mean hauling along a completely second vessel for the ride.
Alternately if ion drives were mature enough to propel the interplanetary stage, but not yet powerful enough for a surface launch, then the massive efficiency boost might make it worth having it a separate landing vehicle - no sense dropping a large useless ion drive into a gravity well and hauling it up again. Since most of the weight is the drive rather than the fuel as with rockets it changes the dynamics of the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine it has something to do with the fact that It takes considerably less energy to escape Earth entirely than to go into even a low orbit.
That isn't entirely true. Just as the Apollo missions did a brief orbit around the Earth immediately after launch but before TLI (trans-lunar injection), there is no reason to avoid going to LEO and does not require any additional energy. What does cost energy is to perform an orbital plane change to go to the ISS, which is set at an orbital inclination that made it easier to launch from Kazakhstan, thus it is less than ideal for a launch from either Florida or from the ESA launch facility in French Guian
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody seems to have forgotten that there are two additional space stations currently in orbit besides ISS.. They're the Bigelow Aerospace Genesis I/II habitats, that were launched WAY back in 2006/2007. http://www.bigelowaerospace.co... [bigelowaerospace.com] Bigelow is right here in North Las Vegas, and those habitats are still there and certainly could be commercial staging locations for Mars missions, with SpaceX getting everything into orbit. The ISS is great and all, but its encombered by too many governments.. To use
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk and Robert Bigelow have been able to get together. In fact, Bigelow Aerospace has a couple flights on the SpaceX manifest [spacex.com], with a flight that is scheduled for some time next year (assuming SpaceX can push through some of its current customers that are scheduled for this year). I can only imagine that with a flight coming up so soon that the hardware which is going to fly on that rocket is near completion if not already finished.
The largest hang-up right now for Robert Bigelow is that he is insis
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be great if Bigelow can carry on and I'd love to see Bigelow and SpaceX do something together.
I haven't heard much of them the past few years, except that they are currently developing a habitat that would be rated for manned missions. I hope they are moving along with it.
Although the next ting they shou
Good (Score:3, Funny)
It's about time America started acting like America again.
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno, making grand plans and all that is great, but after the *actual* work gets outsourced to China, how do we know they'll be *really* wearing USA T-shirts when they step on Mars on our behalf?
Re: (Score:3)
They will be wearing USA t-shirts. Made in China.
Re: (Score:2)
And you will note that SpaceX, Tesla, And Solar city have less than 10 MBA amongst the 3 companies. Does that tell you something?
IOW, these 3 companies will continue to exists for a LONG LONG time. Even now, Tesla is pulling battery manufacturing back to America and Solar City is getting ready to announce a NEW solar p
Re: (Score:2)
Solar City has decided to get into the panel/cell manufacturing business? That is news to me, as it is a very rough and competitive market that until now they've deliberately stayed out of because of the cut-throat competition and even industrial espionage going on with that industry.
What Solar City does perform is total system integration and installation.
I'd love to put one of the Solar City systems on my house, but unfortunately they haven't been able or willing to deal with my state government yet, in
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think that this is "America", per se. This is more like "A small group of Americans", that small group consisting of Musk, his partners in crime, and his employees, with a few fanbois (like myself) thrown in for good measure. "America" is more concerned with petty nonsense, like appeasing the Muslims, gay marriage, and so-called "reality shows". And, that little freak who escaped protective custody in Canada - what's his name? Beiber?
Re: (Score:3)
I, on the other hand, feel no need to be nice in responding to Luddite swill.
Your exact argument could have been used circa 1500 in opposing exploration and development of the Americas.
Acting American? (Score:2)
I thought he was South African?
Re: (Score:2)
He had Canadian, but I am not sure whether he gave that up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because we can only do one thing at a time! I private company *must not* spend their own money on exploring space or going to Mars until we've fixed problems A, B, and C!
Nobody said that, and broadband penetration in the USA is pathetic, and frankly we cannot claim to be a modern nation while it's so poor. At best, we can claim to have some forward thinkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is little I enjoy more than the timeless argument and ceaseless complaints about the USA being deficient compared to higher population density countries in services (such as mass transit and broadband) that are dependent on high population density.
What a coincidence! There's nothing I enjoy more about excuses about the nation which invented the internet not managing decent penetration with its massive budget.
Re: (Score:2)
This just in: The economy of the US now has mass, and lots of it!
Re: (Score:2)
This just in: The economy of the US now has mass, and lots of it!
You didn't think that just because it is fiat currency that all those coins and bills were weightless, did you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Priorities" is the traditional argument against having the US government explore space. For s private company, it's their own goddamn business. This is why robber barons are good, not evil. In the nineteenth century they gave us steel mills and railroads - and just as a hobby incidental, a whole system of public libraries. May this century's robber barons take us to Mars.
Re: (Score:3)
1) regulate banks so that access to money was guaranteed, which CONgress destroyed.
2) disallow executives of public compa
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Monopolies cannot arise in a free market, because for any lucrative business, competition always springs up. To get monopoly power today, you have to take government officials out for squab and cigars, and arrange for the force of law to prevent others from competing with you. GE and Comcast became monopolies by doing exactly that. When they impose self-serving restrictions on your ability to stream their content, they enforce high prices and restrictive policies.
IBM is not a good example at all for your ar
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Monopolies cannot arise in a free market, because for any lucrative business, competition always springs up.
Utter nonsense. In an unregulated market, any sufficiently large company will be tempted to use its resources to exclude competition, e.g. by temporary selling its products at a loss where/whenever a competitor appears, until that competitor runs out of money and goes out of business, at which point prices can be jacked up again. No subversion of government is required to keep the competitors out, only a large-enough cash reserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Ye olde "cutthroat competition" argument. Consumers win when this actually happens, but nobody has the capital to keep selling below cost indefinitely. We see this argument trotted out by old, small, dowdy downtown shops that suddenly have to deal with the opening of a new Walmart out by the Interstate. WM is not selling below cost; it just does a more effient job of selling mass market goods.
But now look at any place where Walmart has built a new location: it brings massive traffic, and a whole new generat
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Seattle has Centurylink DSL (12Mbps where I live, better or worse depending on your distance from the infrastructure), cable (I don't know what they'll tell you speed-wise, I hate Comcast, but faster than the DSL), Clear WiMax (~10Mbps, last I checked), CondoInternet (specific buildings only, but it's at least 100Mbps), and a few other various options (including LTE from all of the Big 4). The eastside (and possibly other suburbs) can get FiOS from Frontier (I think they have 40+Mbps), and down south there
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the Eastside can get FIOS. Verizon sold off their properties to Frontier, who will milk them for years to come, but will never expand.
Meanwhile, Gigabit Seattle folded up shop before ever connecting a single user.
There's no real competition to Comcast in the Seattle area.
Re: (Score:3)
No thanks, that already bankrupted us.
Ignorance is mankind's biggest problem.
Anything done in space that doesn't serve a direct economic purpose, is just wasted effort.
Stupidity is mankind's second biggest problem.
uh (Score:2)
Article is technically dense but
But?? No but, that's actually what we want here on Slashdot!
he does seem to follow through on his promises!
I wouldn't go that far.
Orbital Sciences and SpaceX are the real players. (Score:4, Informative)
SpaceX, more than any other of the "private" space companies, has shown a compentencey for building rockets.
My Ass Is Blue, or whatever the pipe dream that Jeff Bezos is dumping money into, is not a player, not just for Mars, but for any real space flight.
Orbital Sciences and SpaceX are the real players.
Re: (Score:2)
To even think that they are a real player is a total joke.
Re: Orbital Sciences and SpaceX are the real playe (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, if you're going to talk about the explosion of 1 (out of 9) rockets on one launch, you really should also mention the fact that they were able to complete the primary mission anyhow... they lost one nozzle, it shut down automatically, the fuel was diverted to the other nozzles, and they burned a little longer. They successfully rendezvoused with the ISS anyhow, despite a moderately explosive engine failure during launch. Let that sink in for a moment. Many rockets wouldn't even have been able to reach orbit in the case of a nozzle simply shutting down, much less blowing up.
In fairness to your complaint, though, the secondary goal of the mission was not attempted. SpaceX said they could give 95% assurance that the satellite would reach its safe orbit (not putting the ISS at risk), but NASA required over 99% assurance. Due to the extra fuel they'd had to burn, this could not be guaranteed. Still, it was highly likely they could have pulled it off, and likely would have tried under different circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Call me when their engines stop exploding [youtube.com].
Ring! Ring! The engine didn't explode. Let me quote directly from the youtube link you posted:
Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night's launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket's nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event.
Groovy ... (Score:2, Informative)
Then I'll give a quid about their plans for space travel.
I mean, if they haven't done a manned space flight to outside the atmosphere, it is far-fetched to be running before you can walk or even stand.
The end.
Re:Groovy ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Groovy ... (Score:5, Funny)
Why is putting humans into a forbidding, empty, hostile radiation-blasted hell so important?
Because it's there.
Re: (Score:3)
Because while this pretty blue marble we live on is mostly always habitable, there are points in its history when mass extinction events wipe out the majority of the occupants and cause everyone to start over. Sometimes inhabitants (like us) cause our own mass extinction events (interesting fact, we're killing off enough species and messing the planet up enough that we are in a period of mass extinction).
So, for survivability of our species, we really should start expanding beyond our planet (and our solar
Re:Groovy ... (Score:5, Interesting)
And if external events are of concern to you, note that even at the height of those events, the Earth was more habitable than anywhere else. Even as the asteroids rained down, even as dust plumed into the stratosphere and temperatures first rose, then plunged, the earth remain more habitable than any place that is "not-earth". If you are concerned for the survival of the species, you should be urging us to stay.
Re:Groovy ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Settling space doesn't imply abandoning Earth. It just increases the chance that at least some humans will survive in case something takes out Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
It also implies expanding the box of our thinking about survivability.
You don't just take humans to other worlds - you take fauna and flora of all shapes and sizes as well.
It also implies a lot of other very useful advancements in our industrial base - for one thing, anything which encourages a stable off-world resource and industrial operation is a huge advancement for the biosphere here on Earth, since it means we can think about permanently moving polluting or risky processes off the planet entirely (not
Re: (Score:2)
Settling space doesn't imply abandoning Earth.
Using somewhere 'off earth' as a life boat implies you have lift capacity and enduring off earth capacity to handle the whole population of earth - otherwise, to be brutally honest, you are planning for a scenario in which lots of people die, and promoting this plan above plans in which lots of people don't. Which leads to a few questions:
1. Where is this 'off earth' place that will support the earths population indefinitely whilst the earth recovers from this catastrophe?
2. In the absence of such a place
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth has a vast history of extinction events, conservation or not. Humans have quite successfully endured by 'shifting locations'.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
George Mallory knew it. Hell, Robert Burns knew it back in the 1700s. "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because we've done it before. We even built a city there, which we called Las Vegas.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because there's not enough room here.
Bullshit. If it weren't for human greed, this planet could easily support a population TWICE what it is today.
There's plenty of physical space on the planet to house everyone with plenty of space so that people aren't stacked like sardines.
Also, shipping people off to another planet to build dinky little concrete bunkers as "outposts" is no solution either.
We need the technology to actually turn Mars into a truly habitable, usable world. Even if the surface is a wasteland.
The big bullet points are this.
1:
Re:Groovy ... (Score:5, Insightful)
TWICE, eh? Look up the doubling time on world population. Hell, I'll do it for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... [wikipedia.org]
The short version is, given enough resources, the human population can now double more than once just in a single lifetime. We expect to hit a peak at around 2025 - that's barely over a decade away, now - but if we instead did away with that "human greed" you claim would allow supporting twice as many people, that would give a reprieve of somewhere between 20 years (assuming the historical trend of "each doubling takes half the time of the one before" holds) to possibly as much as 50 years (the estimate for the time to get from half the predicted 2025 pop to 2025). Then we're full up, again.
Aside from your 3rd point, which is frankly stupid (we've been sending people into space without an escape option for half a century now even though recovery from low earth orbit isn't nearly as hard, and yeah, sometimes they died...) the rest of what you say is probably true enough, or at least worth considering. But the argument that we could double the Earth's carrying capacity, as though that would grant more than a few decades reprieve, is bogus. We need a better option.
Re:Groovy ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, colonisation of planets requires people reproducing there, as a result their descendanta being unable to live on Earrh. Sending people by rocket is too expensive to be used for population export.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that you are looking at this in an overly negative way.
This is open space. Fuckups kill you. Fuckups kill other people. Fuckups waste LOTS of money (especially if lawsuits get involved).
Playing it safe is the RIGHT way to do it. The days of just shooting people out and hoping to *insert primal mover of your choice* you thought of everything and nothing goes wrong. The days of having to be crazy AND have balls of solid unobtainium are over. While spontaneously producing corpsicle asteroids can STILL be viewed as "educational", I think we're at the point wh
Re: (Score:2)
Someone going to a small colony on Mars would be no different from Polynesians crossing oceans or people packing up and moving across the continent in 1800s.
If Mars was like California, that would be true. But in fact Mars has no biosphere, little atmosphere, little water, and few accessible natural resources.
Fun fact #1: People living in Antarctica commonly suffer from severe depression due to the fact that they have to spend 6 months of the year indoors with little natural light and not much to do.
Fun fact #2: For humans, Antarctica is a veritable Garden of Eden compared to Mars.
Fun fact #3: People living in Antarctica have the option of returning home at
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they went someplace else STILL ON EARTH.
Re:Groovy ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Groovy ... but before I care, SpaceX needs to first have humans in space.
Then I'll give a quid about their plans for space travel.
I mean, if they haven't done a manned space flight to outside the atmosphere, it is far-fetched to be running before you can walk or even stand.
The end.
When Kennedy made his famous "We choose to go to the moon" speech, the USA had exactly 1 successful manned spaceflight - that being Alan Shepard's 15-minute suborbital hop. SpaceX has multiple successful launches, and are working on a manned version of their Dragon spacecraft.
What Musk is doing is pointing to a finish line that will take many years to accomplish. There will likely be setbacks along the way, but like Kennedy he's setting a grand vision -- hopefully I'll see that vision realized in my lifetime.
Re:Groovy ... (Score:5, Informative)
working on a manned version of their Dragon spacecraft.
As you probably know, the current Dragon is already capable of carrying humans, it's just not "man-rated" yet because it lacks a launch-abort escape system. They will probably begin manned test flights by the end of 2015.
In the meantime, SpaceX continues to push the envelope on other fronts. Next weekend's CRS-3 launch will have landing legs, and attempt a "soft splashdown" in the ocean. By next year they could be regularly recovering and reusing the F9 first stage, which would dramatically reduce the cost of spaceflight. That alone would be a game changer, but that's just one of many innovations they're working on.
I'm just old enough to remember the Apollo program, and to me, the last couple of years have been the most exciting period of space exploration since the early 80s. The Shuttle was supposed to usher in the era of reusable spacecraft, but it turned out to be far more difficult than expected. Instead of 50 flights per year, we were lucky to get even a 10th of that volume. We've been stuck in LEO ever since. Right now, SpaceX is well positioned to be the first to give us the ability to get beyond that again.
I can hardly wait!
Re: (Score:2)
The first two tests required for man-rating Dragon are scheduled for this year.
Note that the are unmanned missions, testing the launch-escape system.
I wrote the article! (Score:5, Interesting)
Glad that yoy liked it. That engine is an enabler. Methane/oxygen works incredibly well in gas-gas cycle. It's unbeatable for that.
What I can tell is that Elon is serious in his desires. But you have to understand that the reason for that is that he has the vision and he's actually doing an ambitious but realistic plan. Next week flight will have legs on the first stage. And they'll try to pin point land it on the sea. If they do, the guys at the Cape with the big red button might let them try to land it in US soild next. But if not, that's still the cheapest rocket in its category in the world. Their modus operandi is realistic and bold. We'd better follow him because we might be watching history in the making.
Re: (Score:2)
That engine is an enabler. Methane/oxygen works incredibly well in gas-gas cycle. It's unbeatable for that.
One thing I didn't understand from the article, and maybe I just missed it; why haven't other people tried the methane/oxygen yet, if it's so good?
Re: (Score:2)
The advantages for methane that are mentioned in the article are that it's cleaner burning than kerosene, which means more re-usability for engines. Also for Mars missions it can be made in situ using electrolysis and the sabatier process.
Re: (Score:2)
Good job writing the article, nice and detailed.
That engine is an enabler. Methane/oxygen works incredibly well in gas-gas cycle. It's unbeatable for that.
One thing I didn't understand from the article, and maybe I just missed it; why haven't other people tried the methane/oxygen yet, if it's so good?
Possibly cost? Kerosene is mostly longer chain elements which are the major component of what you get out of an oil refinery. Methane is much more special order, and harder to transport since you have to keep it liquid (so you're back to needing dual cryostat tanks).
Of course all this changes if you're going somewhere where a planet spanning oil infrastructure is not, but lightweight hydrocarbons are easy to get.
Re:I wrote the article! (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry for the dupe, I forgot to login.
Oh, the reason is very technical. The short story is that CH4/LOX is the best on full flow staged combustion. Exactly the most difficult and expensive cycle that nobody wanted to do. And if they do, since handling a new propellent is a new development in itself, they rather do with the propellents that they know.
In the staged combustion level, CH4 is slightly better than RP-1/LOX, if you have Russian efficiency, else RP-1 is better. But if you have an hydrogen/LOX upper stage is inferior. And since it need 27% more volume than RP-1/LOX, if you are volume limited (like everybody usually is, due to road or train transport limitations), RP-1/LOX is better. And for reusability, it depends on the parameters. Hydrogen can work, and NASA, Rocketdyne, P&W and Aerojet (now, all the same company), had a lot more experience in H2 and might be a better choice for Shuttle like applications. And if you compare to hypergolics (think Proton, Long March, etc.), hydrogen or kerosene, it is more difficult to start.
And again, all this for a first stage, space applications might have different requirements.
So, methane is king for a first full flow reusable engine. Which should be the pinnacle of performance, but nobody had boldly gone there.
Re: (Score:2)
An Airforce General once said... (Score:5, Insightful)
A new plane doesn't make a new engine possible. A new engine makes a new plane possible.
It's great that there Elon Musk is pushing out gains in performance, reusability and most importantly cost in chemical engine design! Kudos to him (and his company).
Of course for the real exploration of the solar system to begin, we'll need nuclear (fusion!) or other such unrealized technologies. Still it's a good start!
Re: (Score:3)
A new plane doesn't make a new engine possible. A new engine makes a new plane possible.
It's great that there Elon Musk is pushing out gains in performance, reusability and most importantly cost in chemical engine design! Kudos to him (and his company).
Of course for the real exploration of the solar system to begin, we'll need nuclear (fusion!) or other such unrealized technologies. Still it's a good start!
It's an excellent start for high lift capacity. You really really REALLY don't want to use nuclear engines in a biosphere, you want to use them in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh. Better yet, build a nuclear rocket that doesn't release any radioactive material at all. After all, you only need the heat. Use a propellant that absorbs UV and flow it around a nuclear lightbulb [wikipedia.org], and you have a rocket many times as efficient as anything we can build today, even at the low end of its theoretical range. Anyhow, it should be usable in atmosphere...
Re:An Airforce General once said... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course for the real exploration of the solar system to begin, we'll need nuclear (fusion!) or other such unrealized technologies.
I'm not sure I'd call nuclear "unrealized." [wikipedia.org] From the sounds of it, they had something ready to be assembled.
Terrible writing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Is anyone making sense of this? I know what all the terms are but the facts are more or less jumbled up together in ways that don't lend themselves to meaningful comparison.
Point Rocket (Score:2)
reusable (Score:3)
This system would be capable of transporting 100 colonists at a time to Mars, and would be fully reusable.
I initially misread that as saying that the 100 colonists would be reusable.
Well, they need something to eat!
Visualization of MCT Heavy Lift Vehicles (Score:3)
Here's a visualization [dropbox.com] of the MCT Heavy Lift Vehicles, to scale with the existing Falcon 9 and the under-construction Falcon 9 Heavy. (Rocket designation is fictional, of course.) The visualization includes possible cargo shrouds.
Yes, this monster will have a larger lift capacity than the Saturn V. Each individual Raptor is less capable than an F-1 engine, but there will be nine of them, rather than five.
Re: (Score:3)
(in this case that humans can live for long periods beyond everything that we take for granted on Earth).
Are you sure that's delusional? Incredibly difficult, sure I'll grant you that. Not going to happen this decade, certainly. We'd need at least two successful Biosphere2 experiments before that will happen, and that's going to take a long time to test.
But completely delusional, would you really go that far? Because to me it seems like something possible, at least. Especially if you can get regular shipments from earth for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure that's delusional?
Yes, because I've researched:
(a) how difficult it is for humans to work in space suits, and
(b) how much the human body does not like ionizing radiation, and
(c) how fucking cold it is on Mars.
We'd need at least two successful Biosphere2 experiments before that will happen,
Hah.
Who builds those biospheres? Lots of people with lots of trucks and cranes. Trucks and cranes... just don't run on Mars. No oxygen.
Where do they build them? In Arizona. Nice, warm, sunny, near-to-civilization Arizona.
Not only build it in deep, frozen Antarctica, but have it succeed in deep, frozen Antarctica an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but why? There's nothing on Mars but... dust and rock. Who the hell wants to live in Antarctica-meets-Atacama-meets-115,000_foot_mountain (not that puny 35,000 foot Everest)?
Really, that's the bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To just advance rocket tech, why send people? Why not bigger (or multiple) robots?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because I've researched:
(a) how difficult it is for humans to work in space suits, and
It's certanly more difficult than working in regular clothes without a breathing apparatus. You won't find anyone arguing that it isn't. That's not the same as impossible. Also, remember that working in a spacesuit in freefall isn't going to be the same thing as working in a spacesuit on a planet with gravity that's on the same order of magnitude as Earth gravity. Restrictive yes, but better spacesuit designs and better tools for compensating for the limited mobility can help with that.
(b) how much the human body does not like ionizing radiation, and
It doesn't, but it's
Re: (Score:3)
maybe even RTGs
I wouldn't get my hopes up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Efficiency [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial [wikipedia.org]
Maybe the Atacama desert would be better?
If the construction crews wore the kind of suits that someone would wear at 115,000 ft altitude.
generated using the sabatier reaction and electrolysis, respectively
Where will all of the feed stock come from?
I've got the sneaking suspicion that lots and lots of people don't realize what a really, really deep chain of industry is required to build something as simple as a one-speed bicycle.
You don't dig caves.
My f
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom line: why would anyone live in a place that's drier and colder than the Atacama, has much less atmosphere, and is a minimum of 34M miles from everyone else? (Because of the distance and gravity, "Because it's there" is a Very Nonsensical Reason.)
Well for one thing, there's a heck of a lot of geologists and biologists who would love to be able to detailed analysis of as much of Mars as they want, whenever they want.
A long term habitation mission which was focused on answering whether there was previously life on mars, and is life today, would be a huge scientific boon.
There are other questions we can tackle too: for one thing, where all the alien civilizations? Exploring the solar system's body's is one way to try and answer that - we've lived on Ea
Re: (Score:2)
What you describe are science missions, which is kinda reasonable, since humans are much more flexible than robots.
But why not spend the money and mass required to keep humans alive on even larger and more complicated robots?
Re: (Score:3)
a really, really deep chain of industry is required to build something as simple as a one-speed bicycle.
We have such a supply chain right here on Earth. For the rest: In-Situ Resource Utilization.
Why dig a tunnel when you can blow up an inflatable hab module and pile a bunch of regolith on top? In 1/3rd gravity, you wouldn't even need heavy equipment, just bring a couple of shovels (or better yet, make them from local materials with the 3D-printer you brought from home).
There are lots of people studying every aspect of living and working on Mars. For example, one guy has figured out how to make cement with al
Re: (Score:2)
We have such a supply chain right here on Earth.
Under a *deep* -- and therefore very expensive -- gravity well.
For the rest: In-Situ Resource Utilization.
Mine it and process it?
1/3rd gravity
3/8g is a much better approximation, but that's just a quibble.
just bring a couple of shovels
*Really*?? Sigh.... :(
So, 200 wheelbarrows full of rock on Earth would be like 600 wheelbarrows of rock on Mars? Get back to me when you've moved 10 wheelbarrowfulls(sp?) of rock 100 yards.
make them from local materials with the 3D-printer you brought from home
And the buttload of infrastructure to convert the local material into something usable by the 3D printer?
one guy has figured out how to make cement with all-Martian materials.
Go see how he made it. I guarantee you that there's a huge load of
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't get my hopes up...
I was including more modern designs like SRGs under the blanket term RTGs. The more modern designs get at least 20% efficiency. So, with 1 kilogram of plutonium 238 producing 500 Watts of heat, you would get 100 Watts and still at least 75 Watts after 30 years. The terrestrial section you linked to is mostly for obsolete equipment. The space section is more representative of what you could expect of anything sent to Mars. It includes a design that masses 35 kilograms total, and produces 140 Watts from 500 W
Re: (Score:2)
Mars is always sunny and, in any location we might colonize early, there's never any precipitation. Antarctica, not so much.
Antarctica gets far less precipitation than Arizona.
Re:Sadly, Elon Musk is proof that (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Howard Hughes had plenty of successful aeronautical and electronics companies, but still went mad.
(Not saying that EM will...)
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you think I'm a nihilist because I think space is empty. But you're not a nihilist because you think our planet is a "rock", and the species is doomed if we don't do what you want us to do?
On the one hand you have me, who advocates stopping wasting time on obvious non-starters, and we have you, who is so lost in imagination and sci-fi you really think you speak for the species.
What's this "we", white man? Nobody asked you to do shit. And you're not doing shit. So quit whining about the shit you're not doing.
On the one hand, we have you, who claims something that has been started and will be continued is an "obvious non-starter", and then we have the rest of us, who don't have a problem watching some guy spend his money.
And you just keep posting your drivel...
Re: Sadly, Elon Musk is proof that (Score:2)
Re: Boldly going to the 1960s (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Deja emacs, you troll.
Re: (Score:2)
A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure... ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Golden Spike is already offering tickets to the lunar surface for $750M a seat, and that price is likely to come down a lot once SpaceX gets its reusable rockets working. Although they are contracting the design of a dedicated lander from Northrup Grumman, I have also seen sketches of a landing stage for the Dragon capsule, so there are multiple efforts underway. It seems likely that at least one of them will reach the moon before anyone gets to Mars.