Elon Musk says SpaceX will land humans on Mars within 5 to 10 years

Status
Not open for further replies.

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
If you remember, Falcon 9 crashed many times before successfully landing... and now landings are like clockwork.
This is a current radio control transmitter for aircraft and helicopters It has 12 channels with servo reversing, and both mixing and exponential control tweaking.

When I was a boy, we used a device called an "escapement", that you powered with a rubber band. Control was accomplished by "blipping" the actual carrier wave of the transmitter on and off. One pulse for right rudder, two blips for left. Oh, and the transmitters utilized vacuum tubes to generate the signal.

Time marches on. You could more than likely, come close to controlling the booster recovery with the 12 channel rig, but stand zero chance of controlling it with the single channel rig. So, Musk's staff has managed to implement booster recovery with preexisting technology. What has he contributed, other than a load of hot air while garnering the accolades for himself?

As a matter of fact, space flight didn't start with the Falcon 9. Maybe it did for you, but I was watching the air force's "Vanguard" rockets, blow up on the launch pad, before you were born.
 
Last edited:

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 70   +115
The hate on those that succeed or have more financial wealth in these posts just screams Liberalism. This is one of the worst threads about the "hating the rich" I've seen in a while on here.

 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
I'm a little tired of this marketing. I understand we need public support and enthusiasm but first we need to test and prove things on the moon, e.g habitats, resource collection, hubs, stations, equipment, safety checks, growing potatoes with human made organic matter etc.
There is nothing Musk is more enamored with than the sound of his own voice. But not until the news cameras are rolling. He constantly strives to have us to be enamored with it too. In fact, it's his, "higher calling".
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
The hate on those that succeed or have more financial wealth in these posts just screams Liberalism. This is one of the worst threads about the "hating the rich" I've seen in a while on here.
What's wrong with a healthy dose of liberalism, as long as it's not taken to extreme?

I hate people like this:

But I usually don't use it as a basis to establish my position.

I don't want to be super rich or travel to space. I'd rather be here trading viewpoints with you. :p
 
Last edited:

PEnnn

Posts: 745   +782
The hate on those that succeed or have more financial wealth in these posts just screams Liberalism. This is one of the worst threads about the "hating the rich" I've seen in a while on here.

I guess you'd rather see the usual Republican "smile and bend over for the rich" posts??
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,419
I'd honestly like to see it go back to NASA.....with more public oversight. Abuses of cost overruns are notorious in the defense industry, an well as aerospace, for whatever reason. The public wants their food stamps and section 8 housing, which was the necessity of getting NASA off budget and space exploration,:"privatized". Space-X is the most successful, in large part because they've been the company most closely associated with NASA.

As for me, "eating the rich",,Well, Musk is the world's best bullsh!t artist, and almost as big a camera wh*re as any of the Hollywood elite. He's more of a financier, than he is a scientist or innovator. He'll smoke a joint, (which he's done on camera), "imagine" something he wants done, then go back and bully a very talented staff to make it happen.

As is always the case, this last interview, was in response to flagging interest in his projections on mars flights, since nothing is really happening in that area. Or, as in the case of his "spacesuit previews", that was mostly to draw people's attention from Tesla having another quarter when it lost a quarter billion dollars. Musk's part in all this, is very similar to the magicians assistant's black fishnet stockings, which are there to draw attention away from what's really going on.

As for Bezos and the other whatshisname, they're just overly rich billionaire playboys. Bezos has never actually "been to space". His "missions", are no more advanced than NASA shooting a monkey, (sorry, "great ape"), downrange to see if it's safe to try it with a human..

I guess the only way billionaires going through a midlife crisis can gate laid these days, is to have a phallic shaped missile, instead of the more traditional private jet, or luxury yacht.

So, it's their money and they can spend however they choose. But if you want to call my observations, "eating the rich", I can't prevent that either..

Let's review the recent launch of the Webb space telescope. The "Ariane 5" booster, has exactly the same power configuration as did the Space Shuttle. Yet, it has had 98 out 99 mission perfect launches. And yes, the Challenger was a terrible tragedy. But don't you think that NASA could have worked out those issues if properly funded and motivated? Budget cuts and deteriorating morale hurt them badly.

As to private space ventures being "cutting edge". Who do you think is responsible for the ISS, governments, or Elon Musk?

In conclusion, yeah Space-X did fine with a three day orbital mission. But projects like launching ten billion dollar telescopes are best left to governments. They're the only ones who can pull it off.
I mean, nobody claimed Musk was responsible for the ISS. But I do wonder, how would NASA have got their astronauts there without SpaceX? Those old expensive Russian rockets? Also they have contracted SpaceX to take NASA astronauts to the moon, I mean SpaceX does do it at a price that NASA simply just cant match.

But, if Musk does pay $11 billion in tax, hes funding 50% of NASA's yearly costs on his own. Makes you wonder how much NASA could make for the IRS if it was commercialised. Might make them more efficient too and we wont get years of delays. Im not a fan of governments running anything personally. Its important for things like military but space programmes? Why use public money when billionaires will do it for us?

Dont get me wrong, I love NASA, I would sell my own mother to get a job with them and id probably rather work at NASA than SpaceX. But the skies dont belong to the government, commercialisation is needed at this point. Much like how the Europeans colonised the world through commercialisation, thats how Americans will colonise space. Europeans are too busy squabbling over fish or whatever these days.
 

sreams

Posts: 283   +404
I wanted to believe that man on Mars wouldbe a culmination of humanity's advancements.

PLEASE GOD, do not let Elon Musk's name be attributed to man on Mars.

SpaceX appears to be the only company actually successfully pushing advancement in this field.
This is a current radio control transmitter for aircraft and helicopters It has 12 channels with servo reversing, and both mixing and exponential control tweaking.

When I was a boy, we used a device called an "escapement", that you powered with a rubber band. Control was accomplished by "blipping" the actual carrier wave of the transmitter on and off. One pulse for right rudder, two blips for left. Oh, and the transmitters utilized vacuum tubes to generate the signal.

Time marches on. You could more than likely, come close to controlling the booster recovery with the 12 channel rig, but stand zero chance of controlling it with the single channel rig. So, Musk's staff has managed to implement booster recovery with preexisting technology. What has he contributed, other than a load of hot air while garnering the accolades for himself?

As a matter of fact, space flight didn't start with the Falcon 9. Maybe it did for you, but I was watching the air force's "Vanguard" rockets, blow up on the launch pad, before you were born.

Of course spaceflight didn't start with the Falcon 9. That said, advancements have been very slow for some time compared to what SpaceX is doing. If you think Elon himself gets too much credit... well that is beside the point (that's why I mentioned "SpaceX", not "Elon Musk").
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
I am a British diver, I was in Thailand for that rescue (although not part of the cave team, im too young and inexperienced to be doing that) and ive met Mr Unsworth and believe me, if you knew him you’d be egging Musk on for that Tweet. The man is insufferable, brilliant sure but insufferable. Me and many many others wont dive with him. He has the interpersonal skills of a wet fart. On top of this he took Musk to court for $190 million for that tweet. I mean an apology would have sufficed really, nobody should lose $190 million over a single tweet, what a **** move.
So I guess it's safe to say that the human psyche follows rules established in the physical world, in that, "like poles repel"?

However, on this particular event, Musk was (IMO), in the wrong. He came blasting in, 'with an OK, you can put the camera on me now, I'm going to save the day", approach. Which was predicated on his assumption he knew exactly what was going on, when he clearly didn't......and that led to....., "the clash of the titan's, (massive egos)".

As for the sedation and masking being risky, likely very true. But panic was a factor. On a side note, there's an injectible benzo named "Versed", which put's you in a, "don't care if I do die" frame of mind, almost instantly.

In fairness, (and this isn't meant in a derogatory sense), you don't know what was, "behind door number three", in the way of an alternative solution..
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
I mean, nobody claimed Musk was responsible for the ISS. But I do wonder, how would NASA have got their astronauts there without SpaceX? Those old expensive Russian rockets? Also they have contracted SpaceX to take NASA astronauts to the moon, I mean SpaceX does do it at a price that NASA simply just cant match.
OK, NASA just previewed it's "Artemis" booster. It's configured the same as the shuttle, and the Ariene 5, two massive SRBs and LH/LOX main engines, except way bigger. But, it was apparently funded by NASA, to the tune of 30 billion dollars.

Yes, Space-X is the contractor for the lander, in the form of 'his', "Starship". That's not until 2024, assuming all goes well with the missions leading up to the (re) landing of Americans on the moon.

Other of our most often used military defense contractors, have had very limited success in the arena of developments regarding space travel. Space-X specializes in just that, and is a (wink, wink) 'private' extension of NASA itself.

At the end of the Shuttle program, NASA was demoralized and underfunded. So, it is in fact embarrassing that we had to get our astronauts to the ISS, via Russian transport. However, NASA wasn't given the funding to have a, "program running in the background"", ready to replace the Shuttle upon its retirement. You don't think even a, "new for 2022 car model", wasn't on the drawing board for several years prior, do you? Even with a closer time frame, "new cars" oftentimes were just "skin jobs", with the majority of the new offering being simply a "face lift". GM operated on a three year schedule of true new model introduction. For example you can put a door from a 1955 Chevy, on either a '56, or '57 Chevy. I will look like sh!t, but everything else lines up perfectly

So, Space-X is a sub-contractor to NASA at present, and IMO, that's how it should be.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
Of course spaceflight didn't start with the Falcon 9. That said, advancements have been very slow for some time compared to what SpaceX is doing. If you think Elon himself gets too much credit... well that is beside the point (that's why I mentioned "SpaceX", not "Elon Musk").
Right, because NASA had been ignored and underfunded for more than a decade. Pay attention.
As for the US having to use Russian transport to resupply the ISS, he's a couple of Space-X "winners ' for you to mull over: (**)

And IMO, Musk gives himself way, way, too much credit for Space'X's accomplishments,.every time a camera is put in front of him. It's why he's as dis-likable of a person as he is. I can separate Space-X from Elon Musk, can you?

(**) Put that into context against the 98 out of 99 fully successful missions of the French "Ariene 5". But apparently, the European Space Agency doesn't try to "showboat", by recovering spent solid rocket boosters. You can take that up with the fishes.
 
Last edited:

IksPiks

Posts: 16   +16
Shmony Shmark is beside himself as usual. People are still getting obliterated by his "self-driving" cars, a few years old Tesla's need to have their batteries replaced (for 23 grand, mind you), and he's fantasizing about Mars.
One thing I would like about Tesla and this Mr Shmark is to not hear a word about them for a year, for a change.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,360   +2,503
TechSpot Elite
So what I'm getting so far is that early in their tech, SpaceX had a lot of problems. Imagine that!
How a company can come along and revolutionize everything it touches but not get it absolutely perfect the first time is inexcusable. Isn't it?

I have never made it a secret that I am not a huge Musk fan. But I have been a member here at TS for almost 20 years, so bookmark this for the next 10.

Musk aims for SpaceX to have humans on Mars? SpaceX WILL have humans on Mars. And that will be despite the human pan drippings trying to trivialize it.

It will be a bumpy transition, so you will all have plenty to wet your panties over while others revolutionize the world. And you all can continue to shed tears all over everyone you can while accomplishing nothing in your pitiful lives except your next "Game Over".
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,506   +2,736
In 2017 Musk touted a 2018 moon shot. It's now 2022. Happy New Year. No moon shot this year either, 2023 at the earliest. That seems optimistic.

A moon shot is just a ride around the block compared to a human crewed Mars transfer orbit, let alone a landing. I doubt anyone will set foot on Mars for at least 25 years. Pure science fiction at this point having a city the size of Austin on it in 28 years.

If the USA for some improbable reason threw everything at it like they did Apollo, maybe 3-4 percent of GDP every year, perhaps it could be done in 10 years at a rush. But a private company like SpaceX? No.
 
Last edited:

Gezzer

Posts: 250   +124
I applaud Mr. Musk's zeal and vision and more importantly understand his reasoning behind his dream. But the reality simply can't line up with the dream., and that's the big problem.

Could we put a person on Mars by 2023 (if within the 2 year window of course)? Yes we could. Throw enough money at a problem and we can do anything. It's how we put people on the moon using 60's primitive tech. Could we get that person back alive, maybe, but I'd suggest it's a one way trip at this point even if we threw everything we have at the problem. More importantly will that fact change in the next 5-10 years? I really doubt it.

IMHO we've actually been making steady progress towards going from a space exploring race to residing in space. Even when you consider that we've ignored the moon for over 50 years. But going to Mars prematurely won't accelerate the change IMHO. There's simply too much we still need to learn before making the attempt. Fact is it could but efforts back, not push them forward.

IMHO we need to leverage the ISS to create a moon base. While there we'll learn much of the things we'll need to move on to Mars. Without this step and the long term investment/presence it creates going to Mars could be the same as going to the moon was. A great achievement for the history books that's never capitalized on once it's accomplished. For over 50 freaking years!
 

umbala

Posts: 603   +1,007
Enough with the Mars nonsense already. No one is going to Mars and I mean NO ONE in the next 50+ years. Why would they? It's a total and complete waste of money and effort. There's NOTHING there except deadly radiation, a very thin atmosphere with no oxygen, and no water. Mars is literally telling you it doesn't want you there, so why bother?

Here's a brave idea, how about fixing THIS planet where we live, instead of this pipe dream of simply moving to another planet that is completely inhospitable to humans?

PS. - Musk's comment will not age well. Let's come back in 10 years and I guarantee we will be no closer to colonizing Mars than we are right now. In fact, I'm willing to bet most people will be over the whole *****ic idea of trying to go there.
 

umbala

Posts: 603   +1,007
So what I'm getting so far is that early in their tech, SpaceX had a lot of problems. Imagine that!
How a company can come along and revolutionize everything it touches but not get it absolutely perfect the first time is inexcusable. Isn't it?

I have never made it a secret that I am not a huge Musk fan. But I have been a member here at TS for almost 20 years, so bookmark this for the next 10.

Musk aims for SpaceX to have humans on Mars? SpaceX WILL have humans on Mars. And that will be despite the human pan drippings trying to trivialize it.

It will be a bumpy transition, so you will all have plenty to wet your panties over while others revolutionize the world. And you all can continue to shed tears all over everyone you can while accomplishing nothing in your pitiful lives except your next "Game Over".
Your post is hilarious. People like you keep talking about how they have no doubt we'll be colonizing Mars in 10 years. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Ok, and even if it did, what is the point? There's no air, no water, nothing will grow, you can't go outside, etc. So why are we going there exactly? I mean, if you want to live in an inhospitable environment why don't you just build a giant bubble in the middle of Death Valley or something and live there instead?

Also, don't forget that you can't just simply fly to Mars whenever you like. The planets have to be lined up a certain way to have the shortest route, and that line up only comes around once every few years. So if something goes wrong then help is only a few years away!
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
@scavengerspc This "pan dripping" thinks Musk flat out full of sh!t His, "Starship", is nothing more than a moon lander, (tentatively anyway). NASA launched the Webb telescope in conjunction with the European space agency, because they paid for the launch, as they're going share time on it, (assuming it works). What do you think are the chances Musk would have launched the scope with one of his "Falcon Heavy" boosters, if he couldn't make a hundred million on doing so? I mean he's so very interested in progress, right? Or would that be better described as his progress, in his bank about. I'm not jealous of his success, I don't want to be him, but none of that excludes the fact that Musk's primary contribution to "progress", is the fact that he's a fast talking leech..

Anyway, exactly what are his "advancements"? Booster recovery maybe? Do you really think that NASA or any other governmental agency couldn't have accomplished that, if they put their collective minds to it? Lithium ion batteries? Electric motors? No, and no.

You're right though, Musk will put someone on mars. As soon as he can talk enough money our of as many people's pockets as he can, but certainly not in the timetable he doled out in front of the camera..

Hell, he was taking applications for his, "mars mission" years ago. To hear him talk back then, he almost should have been ready to launch. Meh, next year maybe? Spare me.

I'm going to hit reply now. Does that qualify as "game over"?
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
Your post is hilarious. People like you keep talking about how they have no doubt we'll be colonizing Mars in 10 years. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Ok, and even if it did, what is the point? There's no air, no water, nothing will grow, you can't go outside, etc. So why are we going there exactly? I mean, if you want to live in an inhospitable environment why don't you just build a giant bubble in the middle of Death Valley or something and live there instead?
We've already failed at this permanent enclosed environment right here on earth.!

 
Last edited:

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,360   +2,503
TechSpot Elite
I am not going to waste my time with any dedicated do nothings.
Sad as it is for some, you can't complain your way into a meaningful life.
Bookmark this. TS will still be here. Then wait. I promise you all, I'm right.

Your post is hilarious. People like you keep talking about how they have no doubt we'll be colonizing Mars in 10 years. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Ok, and even if it did, what is the point?
Research current products and technologies born from NASA in the 60s'.
So the answer is, at the very least, learning. You do get the concept.
 

sreams

Posts: 283   +404
Right, because NASA had been ignored and underfunded for more than a decade. Pay attention.

Underfunded? SLS is many, many times more expensive than Starship. They are only underfunded because, as a government agency, they have no interest in delivering cost effective technology. They don't need to compete with anybody.

As for the US having to use Russian transport to resupply the ISS, he's a couple of Space-X "winners ' for you to mull over: (**)


2015/2016, when the program was in its infancy? Really? Maybe I should post videos of early Atlas rockets and Space Shuttles exploding and then conclude that those programs, along with NASA itself, were failures. Come on. There is a reason SpaceX, and not Boeing or NASA are ferrying astronauts and cargo to the ISS. If you honestly think SpaceX is a failure, then you imply that NASA, who has selected them time and again, is a failure. Why would you want to hand more money to a government agency that makes such poor decisions?

And IMO, Musk gives himself way, way, too much credit for Space'X's accomplishments,.every time a camera is put in front of him. It's why he's as dis-likable of a person as he is. I can separate Space-X from Elon Musk, can you?

I honestly don't care even a little but about what Musk says. What matters is what actually happens.

(**) Put that into context against the 98 out of 99 fully successful missions of the French "Ariene 5". But apparently, the European Space Agency doesn't try to "showboat", by recovering spent solid rocket boosters. You can take that up with the fishes.

Showboat? When you are flying the same booster 8, 9, 10 times, you are avoiding the very high cost of building 8, 9, 10 boosters. Falcon 9 has been selected by so many customers, including NASA, *because* it can land and be re-used.

As for the Ariene 5... why didn't you post the video of it exploding in 1996? Wouldn't that prove it is also a failure?
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
Research current products and technologies born from NASA in the 60s'.
So the answer is, at the very least, learning. You do get the concept.
The inverse square square laws states that if you double the distance from a point source of light, you have 1/4 of the light falling on the subject.

Most to all earth bound food crops require full sunlight, which is about 16,000 FC. Mars, at its closest, is double the distance from the earth to the sun. So at "high noon", you'd have 4,000 FC of light falling at the surface. Which is fine for seedlings, but not so good for grown plants.

So, that's just. one little detail, or hurdle if you will, which would be somewhat problematic for a colony on mars.
 

sreams

Posts: 283   +404
Your post is hilarious. People like you keep talking about how they have no doubt we'll be colonizing Mars in 10 years. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Ok, and even if it did, what is the point? There's no air, no water, nothing will grow, you can't go outside, etc. So why are we going there exactly? I mean, if you want to live in an inhospitable environment why don't you just build a giant bubble in the middle of Death Valley or something and live there instead?

The idea is not to live in an unhospitable environment for the heck of it. The idea is to start the process of establishing a human presence beyond just this planet. It just so happens that Mars is the easiest place to get started doing that (can you think of any other?)

In the very long term, taking these first steps may be the very thing that ensures the survival of the human race.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,360   +2,503
TechSpot Elite
Most to all earth bound food crops require full sunlight, which is about 16,000 FC. Mars, at its closest, is double the distance from the earth to the sun. So at "high noon", you'd have 4,000 FC of light falling at the surface. Which is fine for seedlings, but not so good for grown plants.

So, that's just. one little detail, or hurdle if you will, which would be somewhat problematic for a colony on mars.
Hydroponics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.