Elon Musk Is Webcasting a Live Update About 'Starship' (youtube.com) 156
An anonymous reader writes:
Elon Musk is speaking live right now on SpaceX's YouTube channel, promising an update on his plans for "Starship". Dressed entirely in black -- and joking about the wind -- he first thanked the SpaceX team, as well as its suppliers, for an "incredible vehicle....the most inspiring thing I've ever seen" and then promised tonight's speech would "inspire the public and get people excited about our future in space." In addition to solving earth's problems, he said, "We also need things that make us glad to be alive...and be fired up about the future... Space exploration is one of those things."
He also says it's possible for us to become a space-faring civilization, "being out there among the stars," adding "We're faced with a choice. Which future do you want?" Looking back over the history of SpaceX, he describes their goal of creating a rapidly reusable -- and fully reusable -- rocket, and traces their progress on a long-term goal "to make space travel like air travel." (He calls earth "a deep gravity well" with a thick atmosphere, adding "this is a tough but not impossible thing.")
But is he preparing a bigger announcement?
UPDATE (9/29/2019): Summarizing the event, The Los Angeles Times reported that "A prototype of SpaceX's Starship Mars spaceship could reach orbit in less than six months and fly humans next year... Musk did not give an updated timeline for when Starship -- essentially a second-stage rocket and lander -- would go to Mars. SpaceX has said its 'aspirational goal' is to send cargo missions to the Red Planet in 2022."
GeekWire added that SpaceX is also "working on technologies to convert carbon dioxide from Mars' atmosphere and water ice extracted from Martian soil into methane and oxygen, which are the propellants for Starship's Raptor engines."
"In response to a question, Musk said the tunneling technologies being pioneered by another one of his ventures, the Boring Company, could come in handy for building underground habitats Mars. And he acknowledged that Tesla's electric-vehicle technology could be applied to Mars rovers as well. 'Teslas will work on Mars...because electric cars don't need air."
He also says it's possible for us to become a space-faring civilization, "being out there among the stars," adding "We're faced with a choice. Which future do you want?" Looking back over the history of SpaceX, he describes their goal of creating a rapidly reusable -- and fully reusable -- rocket, and traces their progress on a long-term goal "to make space travel like air travel." (He calls earth "a deep gravity well" with a thick atmosphere, adding "this is a tough but not impossible thing.")
But is he preparing a bigger announcement?
UPDATE (9/29/2019): Summarizing the event, The Los Angeles Times reported that "A prototype of SpaceX's Starship Mars spaceship could reach orbit in less than six months and fly humans next year... Musk did not give an updated timeline for when Starship -- essentially a second-stage rocket and lander -- would go to Mars. SpaceX has said its 'aspirational goal' is to send cargo missions to the Red Planet in 2022."
GeekWire added that SpaceX is also "working on technologies to convert carbon dioxide from Mars' atmosphere and water ice extracted from Martian soil into methane and oxygen, which are the propellants for Starship's Raptor engines."
"In response to a question, Musk said the tunneling technologies being pioneered by another one of his ventures, the Boring Company, could come in handy for building underground habitats Mars. And he acknowledged that Tesla's electric-vehicle technology could be applied to Mars rovers as well. 'Teslas will work on Mars...because electric cars don't need air."
Yeah, no (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you not want people in space? (Score:5, Insightful)
I want the future where space isn't dominated by capitalist corporations. No "Planet Starbux" for me, pal.
How will it be "Planet Starbux" just because Space X is building the rocket that will go there?
Say we do what you say and wait for the government. Ok, MAYBE in 20 years a rocket will be going there. But it sure will not be you, it will be people the government selects as optimal...
Isn't a system where anyone could buy a ticket to go if they really wanted one, really better?
Why do you want to limit passengers to space to those the government deems worthy? To me that's a way more depressing future than having a private company in space.
Re: Why do you not want people in space? (Score:2, Insightful)
You shouldn't try to understand commies. Their entire world view is centred around jealousy and the idea that, if someone other than them is doing incredible things, it must be because he's somehow oppressing them. People like you and me watch Musk give his presentation and are filled with joy, wonder, and excitement at the prospect of an incredible future for mankind. People like drh1138 watch his presentation, and the only emotion that can muster is disgust.
These world views cannot be reconciled. It i
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever Musk announces something I just remind myself of all the broken promises. Self driving Teslas by 2017, for example.
It's good that he aims high and does achieve quite a lot, but you have to take everything he says with a handful of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is the attitude that's doing most to hold us back, particularly in space.
The world is stuck in the incremental improvement groove. We need more people willing to dream up crazy plans and execute them. If their timeline slips a bit, who cares?
There's a nice illustration in this paper:
https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstre... [tdl.org]
Launch costs dropped precipitously from the late 50s to 1970. Then utter stagnation. All of a sudden in 2010 SpaceX shows up and gets the ball rolling again.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the article carefully, the cost went up in the 1970s because NASA was saddled with the impossible task of designing a safe Shuttle. Cost per kg to LEO went down only a factor of 2 between the Saturn V and Falcon 9. That is not bad, by any stretch but not that revolutionary. The Saturn V was not designed for commercial use. The article associates this progress with simple, effective design, no subcontracting and commercial culture, not much to tech improvement.
With commercial culture comes also wild est
Launch cost floor (Score:2)
Yes, energy requirements, a.k.a. fuel costs, definitely put pretty hard floor on how far launch costs can fall. (at least until we start building launch-assist infrastructure such as skyhooks)
However - a Falcon 9 launch currently costs around $57 million, while the fuel costs only $200k-$300k of that: about 0.5% of the total cost. There's plenty of room for a couple orders of magnitude improvement in launch costs before fuel becomes a majority of the expense. *IF*, like a commercial airliner, the rocket t
Re: (Score:3)
Musk very specifically said that Tesla would do a coast to coast demonstration, full self driving, in 2017. He is now predicting 2020, which is also certainty not going to happen.
Re: Why do you not want people in space? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with him is: he wants to do all by himself.
We have self driving cars in Germany since 20 years, not officially on the road, due to regulations and mire testing. But they work just fine. He simply could buy the technology from Continental etc. the minds behind Audi, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, VW etc.
Re: (Score:2)
We've had self-driving cars since at least the late 1980s, but they are not at level 5 or even 4, more like a level 3: they can stay in their lane on the highway, slow down and accelerate as a response to traffic. They can't get in or out of the highway by themselves, and they can't deal with too much traffic. The driver must keep their hands on the wheel. This is more or less the level Tesla and others are now, despite some demo videos on youtube.
The most useful safety-related auto-drive that could actuall
Re: (Score:3)
Or to put it another way: remember every year for the past decade that we've been hearing that "traditional automakers" would be producing more EVs, with better stats, faster on road trips, sooner, and with better autonomy systems than Tesla?
Meanwhile, Tesla keeps moving further ahead. Indeed, in the US, they sell a literal order of magnitude more EVs than their next closest BEV competitor. They have by far the longest range, they have much faster vehicles than even the next-closest EV (which costs twice a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or to put it another way: remember every year for the past decade that we've been hearing that "traditional automakers" would be producing more EVs, with better stats, faster on road trips, sooner, and with better autonomy systems than Tesla?
Nope. Ford, GM et al have been fairly quiet about their plans. GM has put a few EVs out there, and has fulfilled its promises. Neither company has claimed they have a self driving car solution ready to go.
Oh I don't doubt you can find some Internet rando moron claiming they're ready, but that rando isn't the CEO of one of the major automakers.
I'm quite sure that was specifically in response to the absolute hordes of internet randos claiming that Tesla would be blown away in short order who appear every time someone claps their hands and says Elon three times. Yeah, you're right that those people aren't CEOs. But it's still disingenuous to suggest that they aren't hypocrites because they aren't CEOs. They're complaining that Elon exaggerates, they exaggerate, that point seems cogent enough.
His Muskiness certainly does make promises he can't keep,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are self-driving now. Perfect? No, but no thing made by human hands is. But it is a largely fulfilled promise.
No they aren't. If they were you wouldn't need a human babysitter hovering over the controls. You wouldn't even need controls. They are technically able to drive themselves but that is a far cry from self driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, you don't have to be a miserable cunt to think that capitalist priorities are sometimes seriously out of whack. Like you have people making millions of dollars because they're really good at throwing a ball or playing the guitar because that can draw a crowd while nurses struggle to take care of the sick and elderly for a few bucks. If you value people simply by the size of their wallet where the homeless bum is a worthless person while the rich are VIPs to brown-nose I think most would consider that
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people could do amazing things if they were a government chosen winner.
And how does one become a government chosen winner ?
Re: (Score:3)
We have plenty of people good at self promoting and having the right friends, and end up getting a 50k board seat. But I see only one guy revolutionizing space industry. I guess you're still missing a few things in your story.
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain how I can get a 50k/month board seat in an industry where I have no experience, in a country where I have no prior history of connections if my dad isn't VP.
I never said you could. Learn to read before you comment.
Either way, Musk is doing a lot more than just getting himself a nice job and a lot of money. He's building a new industry, employing thousands of people, and building useful products for the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's talking about interstellar travel? Unless we meet some friendly aliens with FTL, it's pretty much guaranteed humanity is not leaving our solar system for a very long time to come. And that's fine - the solar system is an incredibly vast and rich place, especially the asteroid belt, where we can mine heavy elements of all kinds directly from the metallic cores of ancient proto-planetoids, and establish a thriving industry using the less valuable bulk materials like iron and "CHON". We've got enough r
Re: Why do you not want people in space? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like why the fuck do you think the UK lost 90% of its land to colonies declaring independence?
Re: (Score:2)
No, most colonization was done by companies, like the (in)famous UK East India Corporation.
Do you actually know that whole Africa and most of Asia was once colonized by European robbers and bandits? Escalating into the Vietnam war?
Re: Yeah, no (Score:2)
I want the future where space isn't dominated by capitalist corporations.
You mean like the nonexistent past, where the Age of Sail wasn't dominated by capitalist corporations?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think about what you're saying and how you're saying it. You're likely in a home built by a developer, typing on a device built by a litany of different tech companies (GPU, CPU, power supply, semi conductors, etc), fed by agricultural products from a variety of farming/retail businesses and employed by a company of some kind that allows you to pay for all of that. Governments likely contributes less than 5% of your daily life. None of this negates having a separate government, hopefully democratically e
Re:Yeah, no (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly what "massive government subsidies" are you talking about?
* SpaceX runs the vast majority of the global commercial satellite market. Entirely unsubsidized.
* NASA funded the development of COTS (as they fund the development of all sorts of things with other companies, which it uses as suppliers/contractors), but it's saved them vastly more money than they put in.
* It'll be the exact same story for Commercial Crew (which SpaceX is doing for much cheaper than Boeing).
* Starlink and Starship/Super Heavy use no government funds.
Re: (Score:2)
Weyland-Yutani is the only one that seems to actually have a business plan that doesn't involve massive government subsidies like SpaceX)
I could all but guarantee you that if Weyland-Yutani were a real company they would be hip deep in corporate welfare.
Go Elon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
He is bringing bold thinking into the limelight. There is alot more bold thinking and research going on that we are not fully aware of (E.g. CRISPR) in different fields of science. I see him as an inspiration.
On his record, I do not believe the engineering capabilities were of commodotized to a point necessary to achieve what he is doing. It would only be possible inside secret government facilities.
Re:Go Elon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Go Elon (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go Elon (Score:5, Informative)
He came to the US with a couple hundred dollars. He founded Zip2, which eventually sold to Compaq for $307M, earning Musk $22M. Which he funneled into founding X.com, which eventually merged with Confinity to form Paypal, which eventually sold to Ebay for $1,5B, earning Musk $165M. Musk then funneled that money into SpaceX, Tesla, and SolarCity, running the former two, and eventually acquiring the latter. Tesla is currently worth $43B, of which Musk owns about 20%. SpaceX's current valuation is $33B (of which Musk owns over half), but is expected to rise to ~120B if Starlink is successful. Musk also owns the vast majority of The Boring Company, which is worth over $1B. Tesla is the world's largest EV manufacturer (and by far the largest BEV manufacturer), and sells an order of magnitude more BEVs in the US than the next-closest competitor - despite Tesla getting only $1875 federal credits vs. most of its competitors getting $7500. SpaceX controls the lion's share of the global commercial satellite market, without any subsidies whatsoever - including beating (heavily subsidized) government-run system around the world.
But please, tell me about what you've done.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk also owns the vast majority of The Boring Company, which is worth over $1B.
I'm sorry but how is the boring company worth a billion bucks? They are using normal boring machines, hooked up to a electicity supply and the only projects listed on their website are the test tunnels for hyperloop. They just fucking make it up as they go along.
Re: (Score:2)
No I'm not. The proof is in the pudding. Con men don't change industries that have gigatons of inertia. A huge amount of luck is necessary, but no less necessary is the genius, fortitude, and foresight.
How much of that has he done though? Or is he just the figurehead. People make out that he's out there persoannly working out all the details for hyperloop not working out how he can sell a 100+ year old idea as something new and somehow now feasable.
He's the boss of space x but how much rocket design has he done? Resusable stages isn't a new idea either. As far as I can tell he's studied economics and physics and dropped out of physics to get rich. Which part of any falcon variant has he worked on? Whch
Re: (Score:2)
Such an exaggeration. His rockets are decently reliable. Almost as reliable as the Soyuz and certainly more than the Proton.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Such an exaggeration. His rockets are decently reliable. Almost as reliable as the Soyuz and certainly more than the Proton.
You'd almost think they got to work off the back of all that.
Re: (Score:2)
The ultimate accolade for being right on Slashdot is having your own troll. I am proud to have my own troll too. They are what the luddites have to use when they have no arguments.
tipo? (Score:2)
Great idea for a Tesla ad! (Score:2)
Then, a red Tesla Roadster comes roaring over the hill, it does some donuts around the car, and comes to a halt. The door opens to reveal Starman in the driver's seat, and 'he' beckons the astronaut to get in.
The astronaut toddles over, and the Roadster races off into the distance, where we see a dome
Re: Great idea for a Tesla ad! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have 3 or 4 electric rovers on Mars, too. ... powered by solar panels. Yes, they suck at night ...
One is even bigger and heavier than an ordinary car
Elon Musk is David Bowie (Score:2)
Obligatory film reference.
Re: (Score:2)
The Man Who Fell to Earth? Or maybe it's a Space Oddity reference.
I'm thinking Elon Musk is probably a huge Paul Kantner fan. I may just be projecting and Starship was definitely the worst incarnation of the band he is famous for, but
"You know - a starship circlin' in the sky - it ought to be ready by 1990
They'll be buildin' it up in the air even since 1980
People with a clever plan can assume the role of the mighty
and HIJACK THE STARSHIP
Carry 7000 people past the sun
And our babes'll wander naked thru the
Re: Elon Musk is David Bowie (Score:2)
i am pro space flight (Score:2)
Until gretas start shouting at UN accusing governments of not doing more for space flights
Re: Is he on Ambien again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shitty CEO went from launching toy rockets to orbit 11 years ago to pretty much the best launch system in existence just over a year ago.
You've got 10 years; let's see you do better.
Re: (Score:2)
Shitty CEO went from launching toy rockets to orbit 11 years ago to pretty much the best launch system in existence just over a year ago.
You've got 10 years; let's see you do better.
You might want to rethink the launch system he created. Seems if NASA disappeared and took it's infrastructure with it, Musk would have to pretty much start all over. He's still launching rockets using other groups launch systems. Perhaps you made a mistake conflating rockets with launch systems?
This thing he has going is very good, very cool. But people should avoid becoming sycophants.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you made a mistake conflating rockets with launch systems?
I wouldn't call it a mistake. It's actually quite common to use "launch system" to describe a rocket.
For example, the wiki entry for SLS says: "The Space Launch System (SLS) is a US super heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle..."
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you made a mistake conflating rockets with launch systems?
I wouldn't call it a mistake. It's actually quite common to use "launch system" to describe a rocket.
For example, the wiki entry for SLS says: "The Space Launch System (SLS) is a US super heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle..."
Pretty much bastardizing the entire concept of system. A launch system is everything that allows a rocket to be launched, or at least it should be. Launchpad, towers, umbilicals, elevators. My bad - "Complex" is how they refer to the system that launches the rockets.
Here's a nice pdf about the launch site for the Starship and Superheavy site. https://netspublic.grc.nasa.go... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Starship has it own launch facilities.
So Falcon 9, and F9 heavy can be launched from Startship right now?
Seriously, the Starship facility isn't going to launch big rockets until they clear all of the people out of the way, and duplicate a lot of what they have at Cape Canaveral. Even then, it really isn't a big enough area. The folks in Port Isabel might look a bit askance if one of the Starships goes kaboom on the launch pad.
I know it is a bitter pill for Spacex sycophants, but Elon didn't invent rocket flight. Spacex is standing on the s
Re: Is he on Ambien again? (Score:2)
In fact, other than being the first to design and make truly reusable flight system, his focus has NOT been on technology, but on costs. He is the first to truly lower the costs, and it will only keep going down.
And as to NASA hate, that is just from a bunch of far right extremists. The majority of SpaceX followers are appreciative of NASA and individuals like Lori Garver and Michael grif
Re: (Score:2)
Elon will be the first to tell you that he is standing on shoulders like von braun, who stood on Goddard's shoulders. In fact, other than being the first to design and make truly reusable flight system, his focus has NOT been on technology, but on costs. He is the first to truly lower the costs, and it will only keep going down.
And the time is right for doing exactly that. NASA is based on cutting edge technology and pushing the envelope. We are at the point however, where the candles really aren't cutting edge any more. NASA is performing what is left with it's SLS. Spacex is following a sort of modern version of the N-1 Rocket. 24 to 37 Raptor engines, versus 30 for the N1. Enough technological time has passed to make this a more likely successful option. It's applied engineering.
But agreed, it is cheaper to strap a lot of kn
Re: Is he on Ambien again? (Score:2)
Putting up with the hate that so many Spacex fans have for NASA.
I've never met a single fan of SpaceX who didn't also have a deep appreciation for all that NASA has accomplished. Maybe you've run into a few such people, but unless you're seeking them out on purpose there's no way it was more than a handful.
You're correct about SpaceX benefiting from the infrastructure which NASA has made available to them, but you're grossly overestimating the cost/effort of replicating that infrastructure should they need to. SpaceX has always planned to build their own launch facili
Re: (Score:2)
Putting up with the hate that so many Spacex fans have for NASA.
I've never met a single fan of SpaceX who didn't also have a deep appreciation for all that NASA has accomplished. Maybe you've run into a few such people, but unless you're seeking them out on purpose there's no way it was more than a handful.
Read some of the posts in here.
Re: Is he on Ambien again? (Score:2)
Link to one.
Re: Is he on Ambien again? (Score:2)
Ok, I hereby authorize you to go start another business first. Happy?
Re: Is he on Ambien again? (Score:2)
Exactly what business did Musk found?
That would be PayPal, dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem that a thin layer of Aerogel would be better than some stainless steel. Maybe there isn't a good way to bond on that, but perhaps just a few anchors points that go through the gel layer which are made of the stainless steel.
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem that a thin layer of Aerogel would be better than some stainless steel
The steel isn't used as insulation, it's used as the main structural component of the rocket. And even a coating of aerogel would be problematic, as the stuff is incredibly delicate. Not really suitable for slamming into the atmosphere at Mach 15.
Re: THAT NEW HEAT-SHIELD ! (Score:2)
may of
The ability to speak properly: a dying art.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't know that stainless steel was only 40 years old. Wow, my education must have sucked! 'Murica!
Re: (Score:2)
There was a proposal to build the Shuttle out of Rene-41 way back when but it was both too heavy and too expensive.
Re: THAT NEW HEAT-SHIELD ! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you think your stainless steel kitchenware is the same steel used for heat shielding on me t gen rockets?
Musk mentioned that he's using 301 stainless, which is, indeed, also used for kitchen utensils. He's not using some crazy novel alloy. It's a standard product.
Re: THAT NEW HEAT-SHIELD ! (Score:4, Informative)
Stainless also isn't new for rockets; early Atlas balloon tanks were also made of stainless steel.
However, the argument, "If its so good, why hasn't anyone else done it?" could literally be applied to every technological innovation in the history of the world, so it's a vacuous argument. At a glance, 301 stainless doesn't look that great, from a mass to strength ratio (figures are generally reported at ambient temperature or graphed at increasing temperatures above ambient). Initially even SpaceX wasn't pursuing it - they first focused on alumium alloys, then composites, only eventually coming around to 301. But beyond it being resilient, cheap to buy, cheap to assemble, and easy to repair - it has surprisingly high strength in the extreme conditions that rockets operate in - as strong as composites at cryogenic temperatures (unlike most metals, which become too brittle), and able to tolerate far higher temperatures (which simplifies the TPS).
I was never a fan of SpaceX going with composites (brittle, hard to repair while retaining the original strength/weight, limited heat tolerance, extremely expensive, lots of capital investment needed for making tankage, reactive with cryogenic propellants, etc etc), and mentioned it on Slashdot (at the time, I was hoping that they'd go with titanium instead). I was thrilled when they switched from composites to steel. The potential of what they can do with it is tremendous, and I couldn't be happier with the design. :)
Re: THAT NEW HEAT-SHIELD ! (Score:2)
Tell us some more about how landing a rocket will never work and, besides, won't save any money.
Re: (Score:3)
They abandoned it because, you guessed it, it doesn't save any money.
Their tiles were very fragile, and required a lot of maintenance. Also, because of the wings, the tiled area on the orbiter was irregular, and every tile had a different shape, making it an enormous jig saw puzzle that was a huge pain to put together.
SpaceX uses much more robust tiles, and the main body of the rocket is a regular cylinder, allowing the same shape tile to be used for majority of area. In addition, the underlying steel can withstand a much higher temperature, allowing for a simpler, lighter,
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it turns out that Shuttle's design was overall bad. Big surprise? Probably not.
Your beryllium remark is completely out of place. What has that to do with anything? Nobody is trying to absorb the heat here.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about how smart Musk is for having a one-piece reusable heat shield, and how much smarter he is than NASA - when NASA had the same thing 60 years ago, and rejected it for very good engineering reasons.
Foaming at the mouth fanbois are not good engineers or evaluators of engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
when NASA had the same thing 60 years ago
No, they did not. The Mercury capsule was not a monocoque rocket stage. They had entirely different considerations, such as not frying the pilot sitting close to it in a long-duration deceleration. The current structure that the Starship has was chosen precisely because it's very much unlike a friable pilot, for example.
Re:....checks the calendar... (Score:4, Insightful)
For which public company that he's President/CEO/grand pubah of? You mean that private one that doesn't respond to quarterly "shareholder" pressures?
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX has multiple investors. The stock isn't publicly traded, but Elon still has to report to them.. Probably quarterly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It helps that he was already rich but the world does need more people like Musk... not afraid to take chances.
Re: (Score:2)
A manned mission is impossible with known technology. But sending a probe with known technology to a nearby star is certainly possible.
Re: (Score:2)
But sending a probe with known technology to a nearby star is certainly possible.
Sure, provided that it doesn't need to stop when it gets there, and you don't need to receive communications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he'll ever go to Mars, but I think it's still an amazing project. If all we end up getting is dirt cheap access to Earth orbit, and better science studies on other planets, it'll be worth all the Mars bullshit he's trying to sell.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't believe that we can build this dream together, standing strong forever?
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Musk has already severely disrupted the launch industry with the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy which are substantially cheaper than their competition even before reuse, and they both are able to do reuse of their first stages, dismissing what he's doing or assuming that it must be the work of delusions or "sham" seems unjustified. To then make the burden of evidence be bringing back material from Mars to decide otherwise is to insist on a very high burden of proof to change your own position, when e
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Musk has already severely disrupted the launch industry with the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy which are substantially cheaper
While I don’t agree with him that it is necessarily impossible, his point isn’t about cost but practicality. Yes Musk has been able to launch cheaper but that’s not the main unknown of any manned Mars mission. There are many fundamental engineering challenges like humans surviving years in space with limited resupply. Currently ISS gets new supplies every few months.
Add to that, most of the fuel in any space venture is overcoming Earth gravity. Long term plans for Mars involve the Moon for
Re: (Score:2)
even refueling from the Moon would be significantly easier than the Earth; however, this requires establishing a Moon base first
That's a strange usage of the word "easier", when it involves building a Moon base first.
Refueling in Earth orbit is a lot easier. It just wastes a bunch of fuel to get a tanker in orbit, but fuel is relatively cheap on Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
By wasting a bunch of fuel you mean 95+% of the mass of any Earth based rocket is to get payload to LEO. This requires proportionally larger rockets with bigger payloads meaning the ratio of rocket to payload increases. With the Moon having far less gravity, launching there requires much smaller rockets. For example the Apollo lunar landers had a tiny rocket to get off the Moon’s surface. On Earth, would take something like an Atlas V to launch a lunar lander. This applies to refueling where you
Re: (Score:2)
No, you won't talk. You'll just move the goalposts like you do every time Musk achieves something you said was impossible.
In the space field this has been going on not just since SpaceX got started, but since Sputnik and since Arthur C Clarke's first speculative article about "relay satellites." Satellites would never be useful for anything, would never return any valuable scientific data, the Moon was permanently out of reach, and so on.
Those goalposts must be made of unobtainium for them to have been moved so often and so fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Shuttle was doing that, but not economically.
SpaceX designs are similar to the N1 Russian rocket (that never flew): many small, simple, identical engines. The Falcon 9 has nine engines from the Falcon 1. The Falcon heavy is basically 3 falcon 9s.
Re: (Score:2)
They re-use rockets. No one else can do that.
Just because they aren't, doesn't mean they can't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You know nothing about space/rockets. So why pretending you know what they invented? Obviously Elon did nit invent anything, but he engineers he hired did e.g. methane / oxygen rockers and the "complicated" pumping system. What have you invented?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, no.