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
Why? It's a basic agreement in principle. The facts check out, so it leaves you out there to complain.

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".
Overall, my opinion is that the mars project will never come to pass in the time frame windbag Musk has predicted.. (IMO), Mars certainly won't be "colonized" in that span of time.. And Musk certainly won't be going..

How how about if I take make my ignorance of all things relating to Musk's character. and quit this discussion. I mean after all, he's met every timetable he's ever promised, hasn't he?

On your part, go find someone else's intelligence to insult. I'm obviously too stupid to keep pace. So, "game over", and you can go stand in the mirror and congratulate yourself on your (self proclaimed), victory.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,360   +2,503
TechSpot Elite
Overall, my opinion is that the mars project will never come to pass in the time frame windbag Musk has predicted
OK. I can see that.
On your part, go find someone else's intelligence to insult. I'm obviously too stupid to keep pace. So, "game over", and you can go stand in the mirror and congratulate yourself on your (self proclaimed), victory.
I never said, and do not think, you are stupid. And I don't recall claiming victory.
 

sreams

Posts: 283   +404
But all of those successful Falcon missions have run on kerosene.

Which is exactly the right fuel for what that rocket system is intended to do. And exactly not the right fuel for what Starship's purpose is.

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.

*Prototypes*. These are certainly not production rockets, and are absolutely designed with failure as an option. SpaceX is testing brand new technologies (stainless steel tanks, the first full flow staged combustion engine ever flown, the first orbital methalox engine, the first 100% re-usable rocket system, a brand new deceleration and landing method, etc) and they expect failures they can learn from during the prototyping stage.

Fortunately, SpaceX doesn't care if nothing they do impresses you. They are getting the lions share of the business, and NASA is fully on board with both Falcon and Starship. If you support NASA, and think they should be better funded, then you must also support the decisions they are making.

“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.”

And this is exactly correct. The regulatory systems in place are not designed around a company that can manufacture cost effective, reusable rockets at a rate of one per week.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
*Prototypes*. These are certainly not production rockets, and are absolutely designed with failure as an option. SpaceX is testing brand new technologies (stainless steel tanks, the first full flow staged combustion engine ever flown, the first orbital methalox engine, the first 100% re-usable rocket system, a brand new deceleration and landing method, etc) and they expect failures they can learn from during the prototyping stage.
No sh!t, really? This should be starting to be fun, forcing you to waste your time by typing paragraph after paragraph stating the patently obvious.

But as B.B.King stated so eloquently, "the thrill is gone".....

"Elon, Elon, he's your man, if hr can't do it, mo one can". Even if he has to make up his own rules along the way..
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,360   +2,503
TechSpot Elite
"Elon, Elon, he's your man, if hr can't do it, mo one can". Even if he has to make up his own rules along the way..
NOW YOU GET IT!

And that is one of the few things I like about Musk. He doesn't give a s**t what anyone thinks is possible. A new approach, some creative thinking, and a new few billion dollars, and we have what was once thought to be decades away in a matter of years. NASA once said reusable SRB's would be very difficult and not at all cost-effective. Enter Musk.

He has lived his professional life very much like I do. He is just a lot smarter.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
NOW YOU GET IT!

And that is one of the few things I like about Musk. He doesn't give a s**t what anyone thinks is possible. A new approach, some creative thinking, and a new few billion dollars, and we have what was once thought to be decades away in a matter of years. NASA once said reusable SRB's would be very difficult and not at all cost-effective. Enter Musk.

He has lived his professional life very much like I do. He is just a lot smarter.
While powerful, solid motors can't be turned off once ignited. SpaceX's Falcon 9 uses only liquid propellants, rocket-grade kerosene and liquid oxygen, and the result, the astronauts said, was a relatively fluid flight. “It was a very smooth ride. You could see it on the webcast,” Musk said after the launch.J
"SRB" = Solid Rocket Booster>
 
Last edited:

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,360   +2,503
TechSpot Elite
While powerful, solid motors can't be turned off once ignited. SpaceX's Falcon 9 uses only liquid propellants, rocket-grade kerosene and liquid oxygen, and the result, the astronauts said, was a relatively fluid flight. “It was a very smooth ride. You could see it on the webcast,” Musk said after the launch.J
"SRB" = Solid Rocket Booster>
So I guess I should have said the engine tubes. I get it. My bad.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
So I guess I should have said the engine tubes. I get it. My bad.
First, the SRB from the Shuttle were recovered, and reconditioned. The process was very involved. Basically they were "stripped for parts". An SRB is pretty much a 4th of July skyrocket, albeit an extremely technologically advanced one. (Almost), the entire machine is the combustion chamber, and the propellant is ignited from the top, and it burns from the inside out..he fuel charge itself is basically a (very, very) thick walled tube.

For your reading enjoyment:
And I think this is the NASA article where the Wiki page was ripped from:

A liquid fueled rocket is basically two tanks ABOVE an engine, in this case the Merlin in the Falcon 9. For comparison's sake, picture the Merlin as the engine in a top fuel dragster. It (the "hemi"),produces somewhere between 8,000 and 11,000 HP. and it's only good for one run. So, between runs, the engine is replaced, but you don't throw away the car.
The idea of landing the booster vertically, certainly isn't new. Hell, Buck Rogers did it back in the 50's. But, to recover the booster that way, you have to sacrifice payload for fuel capacity.. Which is fine if you want to grandstand, which is certainly within the realm of Musk's shtick.

Now, the F-16 "Falcon", (where have I seen that name before?), uses what is called "fly by wire" control, with absolutely NO direct connection between the pilot and the flight surfaces. The aircraft has been around and in service, for 40 years. So spare me as to what Musk has contributed, designed, or even imagined, to this technology. It's just "borrowed".more or less en toto from modern aviation reality.

Here is the Apollo guidance computer, check out the specs:
Given how computer processing power has increased, (like;ly at least 100 times) since then, I honestly don'r see how you could fail to be able to land a booster vertically.

Musk is not a scientist,an inventor, or anything of the sort. He's a carnival barker, a bullsh!t artist, but most importantly he's possibly the greatest fund raiser the world has ever seen. I think this is an old cliche but holds true to this day; "he could talk the pennies out of a dead man's eyes".

I despise the man, that doesn't mean that I won'y give credit where credit is due. In fact, I just did.

You to can hang on his every word, and buy into his timetable projections if you like. But please please, don't make me endure any more of your inane accolades as to "his scientific achievements".

To summarize, yes he made sh!t happen, but he himself hasn't "made sh!t". He's collected the money, that's about it.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,360   +2,503
TechSpot Elite
First, the SRB from the Shuttle were recovered, and reconditioned. The process was very involved. Basically they were "stripped for parts". An SRB is pretty much a 4th of July skyrocket, albeit an extremely technologically advanced one. (Almost), the entire machine is the combustion chamber, and the propellant is ignited from the top, and it burns from the inside out..he fuel charge itself is basically a (very, very) thick walled tube.

For your reading enjoyment:
And I think this is the NASA article where the Wiki page was ripped from:

A liquid fueled rocket is basically two tanks ABOVE an engine, in this case the Merlin in the Falcon 9. For comparison's sake, picture the Merlin as the engine in a top fuel dragster. It (the "hemi"),produces somewhere between 8,000 and 11,000 HP. and it's only good for one run. So, between runs, the engine is replaced, but you don't throw away the car.
The idea of landing the booster vertically, certainly isn't new. Hell, Buck Rogers did it back in the 50's. But, to recover the booster that way, you have to sacrifice payload for fuel capacity.. Which is fine if you want to grandstand, which is certainly within the realm of Musk's shtick.

Now, the F-16 "Falcon", (where have I seen that name before?), uses what is called "fly by wire" control, with absolutely NO direct connection between the pilot and the flight surfaces. The aircraft has been around and in service, for 40 years. So spare me as to what Musk has contributed, designed, or even imagined, to this technology. It's just "borrowed".more or less en toto from modern aviation reality.

Here is the Apollo guidance computer, check out the specs:
Given how computer processing power has increased, (like;ly at least 100 times) since then, I honestly don'r see how you could fail to be able to land a booster vertically.

Musk is not a scientist,an inventor, or anything of the sort. He's a carnival barker, a bullsh!t artist, but most importantly he's possibly the greatest fund raiser the world has ever seen. I think this is an old cliche but holds true to this day; "he could talk the pennies out of a dead man's eyes".

I despise the man, that doesn't mean that I won'y give credit where credit is due. In fact, I just did.

You to can hang on his every word, and buy into his timetable projections if you like. But please please, don't make me endure any more of your inane accolades as to "his scientific achievements".

To summarize, yes he made sh!t happen, but he himself hasn't "made sh!t". He's collected the money, that's about it.
Nice story Cap. I said I was wrong about the SRB thing. And only that, BTW.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,360   +2,503
TechSpot Elite
:eek: :rolleyes:
You really don't see anything past 2 hours from now do you?
I've never known you to be so damn closed-minded and short-sighted.


:eek::rolleyes:
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
You really don't see anything past 2 hours from now do you?
I've never known you to be so damn closed-minded and short-sighted.
I'm not being closed minded. Nor do I think that Space-X is going to go, "bankrupt"..

I put that up so that you could see how D-head Musk likes to screw around with markets, is a chronic bullshitter., and the "South African pale puss speakum with forked tongue", to pinch a line from the old cowboy movies.

I'm always suspicious of "leaks". Generally there's an ulterior motive behind them. I think the vernacular, "accidentally on purpose", pretty much sums them up.

Musk was signing up people for the mars mission years ago. And IMO, this latest bunch of malarkey, was engineered to rekindle interest. After all, the public does have a very short memory and a shorter attention span.

As for the "leaked email", for all I know,, the pr*ck is going to start selling "Starship whistles", at a thousand dollars a pop, to stave off, "financial ruin".

Hey, it's not like he hasn't pulled sh!t like that before. Perhaps thus, "I can't keep my promise of the delivery date of the Cyberrtruck, but gimme fifty bucks and you can have this whistle to tide you over".

Or, it could simply be, that he has so much money, he doesn't want to appear, "too rich". "I'm only a trillionaire, please don;t hate me because of it". Besides, since Space-X is on the verge of tanking, he might say. "I won't be out on the street, but I may have to sleep in my jet".

Here, listen to some nice music, it's about going into space. It should settle your nerves,
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 18,538   +7,376
From being fan of the best human ever walked on this planet and brain dead hater I would chose the first option.
So, now your end of the discussion has bottomed out to the point where all you can do is call names? Your self professed great love for Musk is beginning to sound like borderline stalker. You should drop him an email, and tell him how you, "straightened me out". Maybe he'll take you for a ride in his jet plane. The very least he should do, is sell you a whistle at half price.

I think it was Milton (**) who said, "it is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven".. Let's end on that note, shall we?

(**) Actually Satan said it, in Milton's Paradise Lost
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.