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

Status
Not open for further replies.

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.

Imagine it is 1959 and someone tells you people will land on the Moon and return to Earth 10 years from now...

You'd sound very reasonable if you said "NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN". And you'd be wrong.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
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?
First of all, I don't think Space-X is a failure. I think Elon Musk is an a**hole.

But for every one of NASA's screw ups, Musk has been able to profit from them. Call them, one less mistake he has to endure, for the progress he expects to make.

And no, corporations normally involved in defense contracting, are not doing at all well in the rocket propulsion arena
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?
Why should I, when I can post a video of Musk exploding one of his Starships just a couple of years ago?

And tell me, should I go back 60 years and post a video of the Air Force exploding Vanguard rockets on the pad trying to launch out first satellites? I'd better not. I'm sure that would solidify your opinion of Musk as the "messiah of space travel"
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
Hydroponics.
So, even that methodology requires gobs and gobs of light. Do you think that just because their roots are in water, plants will grow in the dark. I guess we'll need "grow lights

So, solar panels for power? they're not going to have anywhere near the output that they would on earth. How about nuclear power? Whoops, no water to cool the reactor or shield its radiation.

I guess you could mushrooms in the dark. They're delicious. Unfortunately, they have almost no food value.

So maybe, just maybe, we might have to perfect cold fusion, before we decide we can colonize another planet
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,360   +2,503
TechSpot Elite
So, even that methodology requires gobs and gobs of light. Do you think that just because their roots are in water, plants will grow in the dark. I guess we'll need "grow lights

So, solar panels for power? they're not going to have anywhere near the output that they would on earth. How about nuclear power? Whoops, no water to cool the reactor or shield its radiation.

I guess you could mushrooms in the dark. They're delicious. Unfortunately, they have almost no food value.

So maybe, just maybe, we might have to perfect cold fusion, before we decide we can colonize another planet
You can answer every question by watching "The Martian". They have all been solved.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,360   +2,503
TechSpot Elite

sreams

Posts: 283   +404
First of all, I don't think Space-X is a failure. I think Elon Musk is an a**hole.

Amazing. Why does something that doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things bother you so much? I'll always take actual progress and greatly reduce taxpayer costs if all it means is I have to put up with an a**hole.

Musk is a guy with ton of money and a ton of balls. It would be foolish not to attribute a large part of SpaceX's and Tesla's accomplishments to a guy who has been willing to put it all on the line allowing engineers who would have had no other opportunity to try the things they have tried. If those same engineers had worked for Bezos, Boeing, or NASA, there is no way they'd be attempting booster landings or belly-flop/flip-maneuvers by now. Elon may be an a**hole in your eyes, but he's the only kind of a**hole that promotes these kinds of leaps forward. And this isn't just about fancy landing capabilities. It's about costs. Everything NASA has come up with has cost taxpayers far, far, far more than what SpaceX is up to. This is especially true with NASA's latest SLS project. It's a giant, disposable money pit, despite the re-use of existing tech. And you would throw more money at it, because it ain't Musk. Maybe stop letting one guy's personality get to you, and think bigger.

But for every one of NASA's screw ups, Musk has been able to profit from them.

Good for him. Maybe NASA will learn something from this. Somebody who is offering an actual, cost effective solution *should* profit.

And tell me, should I go back 60 years and post a video of the Air Force exploding Vanguard rockets on the pad trying to launch out first satellites? I'd better not. I'm sure that would solidify your opinion of Musk as the "messiah of space travel"

Why are you using quotes when I said no such thing?
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
Musk is a guy with ton of money and a ton of balls. It would be foolish not to attribute a large part of SpaceX's and Tesla's accomplishments to a guy who has been willing to put it all on the line allowing engineers who would have had no other opportunity to try the things they have tried.
Yeah, and Musk made the news recently poor mouthing about how "Space-X might be going bankrupt". This was after his last stunt claiming he was going to "take Tesla private". The SEC nipped that in the bud..

Musk has never made a promised date for one of his projects. Do I think we could land on mars in 10 years? Well, it currently takes about two years to get there. So, that means, he's (tentatively) going to have to launch in eight years.
If you add the travel time, to the time, (2 plus years), Musk always subtracts from when one of his projects actually comes to fruition, (2 plus years), we're already out to fourteen years. How about if we round that out to something we can turn into a simple fractional equivalent, fifteen years, and say it's gonna take 1 1/2 times more than he's predicting to make it happen. So, fifteen years, maybe? .I figure that at about eight years out, he'll find another TV camera, push back the date, while pretending it's the first time he's talked about going to mars, and rely on the public;s short memory to bail himself out.
Why are you using quotes when I said no such thing?
That's a dumb question by even Quora's standards.
(**) 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.
The last Ariene they drilled was in 1996, with 99 successful missions since. Musk doesn't have anywhere that success rate, with any of his Space-X projects. So, the question should be, "why are you using that vehicle's 25 year old incident, as part of your argument"? And not, "why am I using quotes".

When Musk has 99 Falcons in a row fly successfully, and/or 99 boosters recovered successfully, we can talk again.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
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.
And here you go again, comparing apples to oranges. "Starship", is merely a lander.

Somehow, NASA managed to get on and off the moon in this rattletrap:

Notice it doesn't come close to resembling, "Commando Cody's" rocket, as does , "Starship". But it worked just the same
commandocodyrockethistorical-1.jpg
 

sreams

Posts: 283   +404
Musk has never made a promised date for one of his projects. Do I think we could land on mars in 10 years? Well, it currently takes about two years to get there.

Nope. Seven months.



That's a dumb question by even Quora's standards.

Only dumb to someone who doesn't understand how to use quotes, I suppose.

The last Ariene they drilled was in 1996, with 99 successful missions since. Musk doesn't have anywhere that success rate, with any of his Space-X projects. So, the question should be, "why are you using that vehicle's 25 year old incident, as part of your argument"? And not, "why am I using quotes".

So... a 99% success rate for Ariene 5. You say Falcon 9 isn't anywhere close to that:

"Rockets from the Falcon 9 family have been launched 137 times over 12 years, resulting in 135 full mission successes (98.54%)"


Booster landings are a bonus and are not required for a 100% successful mission. If you want to require booster landings in the definition of success, Ariene 5 has a 0% success rate.

As for Starship, if you think it is only a "lander", you clearly don't understand the system. Then again, since the hyper-expensive SLS is 100% disposable, maybe you do. SLS is wasted, while Starship actually lands (booster and second stage) and can be reused again and again. So yes, SLS is not a lander.

Can SLS make it to Mars and return? No.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
So yes, SLS is not a lander.

Can SLS make it to Mars and return? No.
basically you're trying to use earth's gravity to win your argument, To pose the same question, "can the Falcon Heavy make it to mars and return"? After all, they're both simply booster stages. I think the last time the "heavy" was launched, only two out of the three booster involved were recovered, by the excellent staff at Space-X. Musk had nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:

sreams

Posts: 283   +404
basically you're trying to use earth's gravity to win your argument, To pose the same question, "can the Falcon Heavy make it to mars and return"? After all, they're both simply booster stages. I think the last time the "heavy" was launched, only two out of the three booster involved were recovered, by the excellent staff at Space-X. Musk had nothing to do with it.

No. I'm using fuel and the ability to relaunch to win my argument. Starship can travel to Mars, land there, refuel using local resources (due to its use of LN2 as a fuel), relaunch, and then return to Earth.

Sure, I suppose you could place the Starship 2nd stage on an SLS booster, but then you'd be paying for a booster that will always be immediately trashed after launch.

You keep saying Starship (which is the whole system, including booster) is "just a lander". What, specifically, can SLS do that Starship cannot?
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
No. I'm using fuel and the ability to relaunch to win my argument. Starship can travel to Mars, land there, refuel using local resources (due to its use of LN2 as a fuel), relaunch, and then return to Earth.
Since I'm not anywhere as knowledgeable as yourself, wouldn't you have to have liquid oxygen and hydrogen facilities installed on mars, for this to be accomplished?

At least for the first mission, finding a place to gas up the Starship, would be like trying to find a Supercharger in the middle of a cornfield.

Since you don't approve of the way I use quotes, I'll go to italics. How's that?
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
Yes it should. I was more pointing to the facts and the science of the write-up than the opinions.
The Ariene 5 booster has held the max payload lift record , (at times?), of something on the order of 22,000 pounds. (11 (US) tons). That's not much, when you're talking about transporting mining, shelter, liquid gas storage facilities, and literally, "the kitchen sink", and other such heavy equipment a hundred million miles away, lifting off from earth.

I'm sure you have am answer for this, and I eagerly await it.
 

sreams

Posts: 283   +404
Since I'm not anywhere as knowledgeable as yourself, wouldn't you have to have liquid oxygen and hydrogen facilities installed on mars, for this to be accomplished?

This is how it could work:


The first missions would be unmanned and would carry all of the equipment necessary. Starship are incredibly inexpensive to build compared to other systems, so sending, say, 10 of them ahead would be quite doable.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
This is how it could work:


The first missions would be unmanned and would carry all of the equipment necessary. Starship are incredibly inexpensive to build compared to other systems, so sending, say, 10 of them ahead would be quite doable.
I thought, (at least currently), that all Musk's crap is running on plain , old, rotgut, kerosene. (Sorry, "RP-1"), the same as the half century old Saturn 5.

As far as the Starship being "incredibly inexpensive to produce", I don't care if you can buy them at Walmart, you still have to get them off the ground.
 
Last edited:

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,360   +2,503
TechSpot Elite
The Ariene 5 booster has held the max payload lift record , (at times?), of something on the order of 22,000 pounds. (11 (US) tons). That's not much, when you're talking about transporting mining, shelter, liquid gas storage facilities, and literally, "the kitchen sink", and other such heavy equipment a hundred million miles away, lifting off from earth.

I'm sure you have am answer for this, and I eagerly await it.
Of course I have an answer. Only 2 people have had answers lately and you ain't one of them to be honest. Thing is, your entire premise is based on technology staying exactly the same for the next 10 years, give or take.

As far as payloads go, do you think maybe, I don't know, they will build a bigger SRB!!?? :eek:
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
As far as payloads go, do you think maybe, I don't know, they will build a bigger SRB!!?? :eek:
Sure. But then your partner in arms will be running his mouth about them being "non reusable". He's already run his yap about the Artemis,m its size, and its lack of being recoverable.

And since that's both the case, and your contradictory stance, it takes away the argument about how much money Musk is saving by recovering those puny Falcons.

Combined the Artemis SRBs have 14 million pounds of thrust, and that's just to launch one Starship.

To wit: "Booster landings are a bonus and are not required for a 100% successful mission. If you want to require booster landings in the definition of success, Ariene 5 has a 0% success rate". (which BTW, I don't)

You two need to get your stories straight.

And I still think a modern 12 channel radio control transmitter, hooked up to a very powerful server, provides enough control axes, for booster recovery, (of the liquid fuel variety)..
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
Of course I have an answer. Only 2 people have had answers lately and you ain't one of them to be honest.
Gee, maybe we're both wrong and we both suffer from the same delusion, that we know ir all.

See, now isn't that more tactful one one participant saying, "I know it all, and you don't know sh!t"?.
 

sreams

Posts: 283   +404
I thought, (at least currently), that all Musk's crap is running on plain , old, rotgut, kerosene. (Sorry, "RP-1"), the same as the half century old Saturn 5.

Starship's Raptor engines have never run on RP-1.

As far as the Starship being "incredibly inexpensive to produce", I don't care if you can buy them at Walmart, you still have to get them off the ground.

They have gotten 8 prototypes off the ground, and landed 5 of them.

It's interesting how much of your stance is driven by flatly incorrect information.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
Starship's Raptor engines have never run on RP-1.
But all of those successful Falcon missions have run on kerosene.
They have gotten 8 prototypes off the ground, and landed 5 of them
60% (**) is an "E" or "F", in any of the schools I've attended. But I assume aerospace progress is marked on a different curve.

(**) Sorry, I meant "62.5%". I'll strive to be more accurate in the future.


As is predictable, Musk proclaimed himself tight, and the FAA "wrong".

“Unlike its aircraft division, which is fine, the FAA space division has a fundamentally broken regulatory structure,” Musk tweeted Jan. 28. “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.”
 
Last edited:

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,360   +2,503
TechSpot Elite
You two need to get your stories straight.
Why? It's a basic agreement in principle. The facts check out, so it leaves you out there to complain.
See, now isn't that more tactful one one participant saying, "I know it all, and you don't know sh!t"?.
Sometimes that is true, even if unsaid.

Your entire premise, stripped down, is basically "That car will never work. One tire has low air pressure".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.