A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Musk plans for mars



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 2nd 16, 11:47 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Musk plans for mars

While you can reach sub-zero kelvin temperatures in a lab, and they may be useful in creating quasi crystals that store positronium in the future,

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-g...e-zero-1.12146

They are not needed to produce a zero boil off cryogenic system. Such ZBO Systems were achieved for LOX and LNG by Lockheed in 2007. A 635 litre tank of methane and LOX was kept indefinitely liquid with no pressure rise using a 15 W pulse tube cooler. Cryocoolers 14 - pages 583-588.


On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 8:05:36 AM UTC+13, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-10-02 14:20, Fred J. McCall wrote:

... that remain in earth orbit with zero boil off cryogenics,


Which we don't have.


Sure we do.


True.

It is just that NASA is too cheap to buy Sub Zero fridges
http://www.subzero-wolf.com/sub-zero that could keep oxygen and
hydrogen below 0° Kelvin, at which point they stay nice and solid and
also stay very still :-)

But below 0°K, would electrons start to spin backwards ? :-)


Fanciful - but essentially accurate. Excepting the brand name Sub-Zero has nothing to do with the surprising result reported in Nature that you actually can get below zero kelvin.

(Actually I think the fridges on ISS are from Sub-Zero).


Somehow I doubt it...
  #22  
Old October 2nd 16, 11:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Musk plans for mars

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:28:32 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 11:54:14 AM UTC+13, bob haller wrote:
at some point a nuke booster for travel from earth orbit to mars will be necessary..

to shorten travel time, and lessen supplies for the manned portion of flights.

a realtively small but very fast booster would be nice to have available for emergencies.

hey the water recycler is totally kaput, get earth to sen a replacement immediately!

of course sending one manned vehicle to mars with 2 backups flying close by will also help


Suspended animation, ...


Which we don't have.


Tell that to the people whose lives have been saved by placing them in suspended animation before they were transported to the ER.

We don't have Mars ships yet either. But we can see how they can be built. By the same token we can see that by the time we're sending large numbers of people to Mars, suspended animation will be a viable way to reduce costs dramatically and improve safety given the ability to shield people in stasis.



... improved virtual reality, ...


Which is unnecessary.


A cruise ship has about 4100 cubic feet of space for each passenger and crew. The weight of this is about one ton of displacement for every 100 cubic feet. 41 tons per passenger! This is obviously too damn heavy for a spacecraft. Advanced materials, and improved construction techniques radically reduce weight. Reducing required volume to that of a first class airline seat is possible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84WIaK3bl_s

But to stay 100x the 15 hours of a Dubai to New York City flight requires the perception at least of larger space.. You can either build a bigger ship, or equip a smaller ship with improved virtual reality. The best approach is the latter to reduce costs.


in combination with a long-duration second skin type spacesuit, ...


Gods, he FINALLY suggested something that we might actually be able to
put into production in a few years.


I've been talking about mechanical counter pressure suits in this thread for 20 years - and ever since Paul Webb donned the first one in 1971 in my home state of Ohio!



... can do much to achieve very efficient travel along hohman transfer orbits from Earth to Mars and back.


snip remaining Mookie fantasies


You're a clueless idiot.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

  #23  
Old October 3rd 16, 12:52 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Musk plans for mars

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:16:35 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-10-01 20:29, Alain Fournier wrote:

It isn't easier for a person to be functional after ~3-4 months enclosed
with 5 others to be functional than for the same person to be functional
after the trip with 100 others.


Think space for the "gym". You're not going to be able to keep 100
people fit with just one threadmill and one stationary bike. And you
can't say 24 persons can use the threamill 1 hour each day, so you only
need 4 threadmills because people don't want to exercise just before
they go to bed (otherwise you won't sleep). And since mechanical
exercise devices break down, you also need to have extra machines for
when one breks down until it is repaired.

100 people exercising every day also produces much more CO2, and
increases water requirements (which also increases need for water
reclamation capacity from sweat that has evaporated into cabin air).


These ships are BIG. Space shouldn't be a problem and you need all
that stuff anyway.


Especially if you use the 'wet' station concept of inhabiting the empty propellant tanks during the journey.


So unless you do like in Avatar and put everyone into a tube where they
fall asleep for months (and none of their body functions/muscles
weaken), then you are likely to need for more space and ECLSS capacity
than for a short suborbital trip from new York to Sdyney with 100 pax.


Well, of course, Captain Obvious. Nobody is talking about people
spending 100 days sitting in an airline seat here. And nobody but
Mook thinks 'hibernation' is a viable approach.


Yeah, me and NASA ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFVZ76SOg6Y

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...PhI_Torpor.pdf

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploa...2010162015.pdf

and since Musk was at the 2015 IAF conference in Israel, he likely was referring to this 100 person transfer vehicle in his 2016 announcement.

Just guessing.

Whom do you expect to be on the cutting edge? People who post to this site? Or people who attend every IAF conference and sometimes give talks? (like me and Musk)




The other aspect: once you start to add enough gear to support 100
people for months including the gym, toilets etc, do you really want to
bring all that down to mars and then back up ? Might make sense to have
a lot fo the stuff put in orbit at Mars so you don't have to brakme it
down and accelerate it back up (depending on its mass).


A long duration garment with built in devices to keep it and its wearer clean, and can double as a spacesuit with the right attachments, and can act as a 'man multiplier' and stasis chamber (since its control of gases that bring about stasis using hydrogen sulphide according to Mark Roth's research) can also stimulate muscle activity electronically. That is, with a stereoscopic display inside a heads up display helmet, that is slaved to the motion of your eyes and head - and a fabric with optical fibres and accelerometers woven in to sense precise body motion - one can create a virtual reality simulation of any exercise required in any environment desired.


But now you've got the problem of connecting all that stuff with a
little narrow airlock/docking tunnel. You can build more robustly if
you make it all one piece.


The same low mass low complexity approach that makes it a joy to travel for months in space, also make it a joy to survive on the surface of Mars.

Survey teams, which will pre-date settlers and more casual tourists, will likely have their ships stay on orbit near Diemos or Phobos, and use resources there to refuel their ship for return. Meanwhile, early adopters will use rocket belt technology to visit as many spots on Mars as they can and follow procedures to surveil them for possible settlements - being directed by earlier orbital surveys and using a network of satellites deployed by the arriving spacecraft.

Self-replicating machine systems that mass about 285 kg - are deployed that build structures from the locally found resources form the basis of up to 1400 cities spaced around Mars.

Each 2 sq km city-state is self-contained and can support up to 35,000 persons initially and grow to 105,000 each - covering 100 sq km. The 285 kg collection - called UTILITY FOG - is capable of doubling in mass in a month's time. So, in the 25 months from one synodic period - a small seed planted can grow to 100s of tons per person for a 35,000 person city.

At 35,000 and 2 sq km we have an engineered space the size of Monaco. At 105,000 people across 100 sq km we have something the size of the US Virgin Islands for each city state. So, total area ranges from 2800 sq km to 140,000 sq km. Compare this to 144.9 million sq km for the entire planet.

At normal rates of population growth, populations grow to 3x their starting number in 100 years. Filling 28 cities per synodic period it takes a century to populate all cities.

The first three synodic cycles will have early adopters visit the red planet and survey sites for their potential as future city states. Those who help identify and develop these regions, will name streets and landmarks, and be able to sell on developments to those who settle later. All information is brought back to Earth as part of a large database, and people bid for spots. Those who actually end up travelling to the red planet during a later epoch will take training, and design their Mars compound and businesses on line testing it first in a virtual setting - as the utility fog shapes the features on Mars, and makes use of materials sent ahead of the settlers. The settlers then arrive to take possession of their Mars compound.




It's not as if you have to unload the ship in 15 minutes. I don't see
a problem here.


How big/bulky would the spacesuits need to be for each passenger?


Why does each passenger need one?


They're useful on Mars, and if designed, layers can be worn in a vareity of ways to minimise other hardware. A mechanical counter pressure suit that has active skin to maintain pressure, can also provide counter force in response to motion to create a sensation of interacting with the environment. Such a system could replace a treadmill or exercise equipment. A smart cloth that kept itself and its wearer clean and fresh, could dispense with toilets baths and showers as well as laundries - while improving health. A suit that maintain temperature and air quality would minimise the need for environmental systems throughout the ship. In a pinch, they could be used as a life boat - traversing from a damaged ship to a functioning one. Going outdoors during transit to look at the stars would also be an exciting activity. According to Apollo 17 astronaut Ron Evans, this could be more exciting than surface EVAs ever could be.


Shuttle EVA? Sokol?n (not just for the trip, but also to live on Mars.
You,.ll need one to go out to walk the dog every day :-)


A soft suit like those that were worn by SR-71 pilots should be
sufficient. You don't need a pressure suit unless your job involves
going outside. Habitat and vehicles would probably be pressurized.




And how much autonomy would a suit have to have at time of landing?
(what if it lands off target, 2 hours walking distance from base, and
suits only have 1 hour autonomy ?)


If you're landing 2 miles off target you've got bigger problems than
not enough air. That would mean you can't reliably put down a colony
at all, since your cargo and settlers would be scattered all over.

If you're worried about 'one off' errors, in that case they just stay
with the ship until someone sends a bus for them.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn


First travellers will likely stay on orbit and resupply from Diemos or Phobos for return. They will also use rocket belt technology to visit multiple sites on the surface, and ones deemed the most interesting and viable for further development, will be sent one of 1400 'utility fog seeds' a 285 kg collection of solar powered micro-robots that will grow into a city for 35,000 covering 2 sq km (the size of Monaco) in one synodic period - and over the course of the next 100 years grow to cover 100 sq km and support 105,000 people.

Cities will be opened for settlement, and promoted broadly throughout Earth.. As each fills, other will be opened - up to 14 per synodic period - and trade will take place for positions between settlers. The early 'surveyors' will be the prime beneficiaries and promoters of 'their' sites. Later adopters will see their payment not only result in a one way trip to Mars - but also ownership of a self sustaining compound on Mars serviced by AI controlled utility fog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZNzz4SaTYk

A new life awaits you in the off world colonies.
A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure.
  #24  
Old October 3rd 16, 02:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Musk plans for mars

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-10-02 13:57, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Why would they be 'lethargic'? They wouldn't even be particularly
sedentary.


100 people in a glorified capsule ?


Not what anyone is talking about. ITS has about half the internal
volume of a cruise ship carrying the same number of passengers. This
is hardly "a glorified capsule".


When ISS crewmembers come back to
earth, despite having strict exercise regimens have typo be carried off
the capsule and rest on couches. Yet, you expect 100 "civilian"
passengers to just walk off the rocket, check-in and get keys to their
new home and just function normally. (granted gravity on mars is much less)


This is primarily because of balance issues, not because of muscle
atrophy. There's no hurry for people to rush off the ship once it
touches down on Mars.


It also means that return to Earth would be far more involved after a
few years on Mars.


Unknown.



Not so much space. And volume is easy. Also keep in mind that you
don't need the sort of 'hard suit' that you're probably thinking of,
since there is at least some atmospheric pressure on Mars.


0.087 PSI compared to earth's 14.7

Body temperature water boils at ~0.9psi


That little bit of external pressure helps a lot. SR-71 flew at
altitudes that had a comparable pressure. They used a soft suit.



And why would everyone need their own pressure suit, anyway? You
could unload the passengers in groups and not everyone is going to
have jobs that require them to go outside pressurized habitat.


Initially they would since they would constantly be building new homes
for the next batch of people to arrive.


And you think they're all outside with shovels, or what? Habitats
will at least start out as 'shipped' items. Vehicles (including any
used for construction) will be pressurized. They've got over two
years before the next batch of people arrives.

Again, why do you think everyone needs their own pressure suit?




Probably no more so than unloading any other large transport vehicle.


How many cycles of airlock will be needed, how long does each cycle take ?


Have you ever seen a cargo ship or aircraft unloaded? Why do you need
an airlock? Just pump the whole cargo area down and open a big door.
anything pressure sensitive would be in a pressurized container. Most
of the offloading would be automated.


And with each cycle, how much cabin air is lost ? How much energy will
be needed to run those pumps, and once landed, where does the ship gets
its energy from since solar panels would be folded for re-entry ?


No 'cabin air' is lost. You just make that a separate pressurized
area. Once landed the ship would presumably plug into 'shore power',
which is probably coming from a nuclear reactor.

Have you ever read the Mars Reference Mission? Any colony would start
small (first trips probably being in the dozens rather than the
hundreds) and build gradually.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #25  
Old October 3rd 16, 02:44 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Musk plans for mars

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:20:49 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Suspended animation ...


Which we don't have.


Yes we do, and it will be adequate to this task by 2022 when we start sending large numbers of people off world at low cost.


Fantasy. Lab studies are not operational reality. What's the
casualty rate?




... allows launching people on a regular basis in drones, ...


Why 'drones'? It's ORBIT.


A drone is an unmanned aircraft or ship (including spaceship) that can navigate autonomously, without human control.


A mook is a stupid or incompetent person. By your definition ALL
spacecraft are 'drones' because pretty much none of them are under
'human control'. You are aptly named.


Putting people in suspended animation aboard a drone ship that can last for years in space, powered by the sun, is the absolute lowest cost way to send people off world.


Such a ship has no need to 'navigate'. Not a 'drone'.


So, it will be done, and soon, after we start doing that.


In your fantasies. I'd bet on pixie dust first.




... that remain in earth orbit with zero boil off cryogenics,


Which we don't have.


Yes we do

Here's a 2002 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0020017748.pdf


Lab paper.


Here's a 2010 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0110004377.pdf


So in eight years it's gone from a lab paper to, well, a lab paper.

snip


... until the synodic period alignment, and they are all blasted to Mars around the same time.


Mook, you always want to complicate the **** out of everything.


Obviously you don't know how Hohman transfer orbits work do you?


Obviously you think zillions of little parts on storage orbit for
years are 'simple'. Obviously you think moving lab technologies to
RELIABLE operational technologies is 'simple'. Obviously, YOU are
'simple'.

snip MookSpew

You obviously have no clue, you Mook.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #26  
Old October 3rd 16, 03:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Musk plans for mars

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:44:49 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:20:49 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Suspended animation ...


Which we don't have.


Yes we do, and it will be adequate to this task by 2022 when we start sending large numbers of people off world at low cost.


Fantasy. Lab studies are not operational reality. What's the
casualty rate?


For the system that's operating in 2022 and beyond? I'd say pretty damn close to zero. Mark Roth has developed a gas based system that drops users fairly safely and keeps them in low consumption mode.

Operational systems when available will have people spend 25 days in stasis and 3 days awake for monitoring. Passengers trade slots with one another - online pre-launch and each has its own activity planned. Typically you have 3 periods in flight. Departure, mid-journey, arrival...




... allows launching people on a regular basis in drones, ...


Why 'drones'? It's ORBIT.


A drone is an unmanned aircraft or ship (including spaceship) that can navigate autonomously, without human control.


A mook is a stupid or incompetent person.


In English sure. In other languages meanings vary.

Even so, I am absolutely certain you can fairly be described to BE a mook in that context.

Yet, this has nothing to do with my name, which originates in Mongolian and means 'eternal leader' - transliterated into 'monk' throughout Asia.

By your definition ALL
spacecraft are 'drones' because pretty much none of them are under
'human control'.


All of them are directed by humans, being built by humans for various purposes. The point is sending people in stasis in automated ships that are visited infrequently by service crews is the least costly way to send people to Mars.

You are aptly named.


Thank you. There is a town called Mook in Holland - named after the Mongolian derived gypsies that attended Columbus' return to the Old World from the New, after the Alhambra Decree.

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php?cID=44


Putting people in suspended animation aboard a drone ship that can last for years in space, powered by the sun, is the absolute lowest cost way to send people off world.


Such a ship has no need to 'navigate'. Not a 'drone'.


You obviously are unaware of the requirements of high precision interplanetary flight.


So, it will be done, and soon, after we start doing that.


In your fantasies. I'd bet on pixie dust first.


You are the one fantasizing and projecting your ignorance on to your betters.





... that remain in earth orbit with zero boil off cryogenics,


Which we don't have.


Yes we do

Here's a 2002 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0020017748.pdf


Lab paper.


A 2002 lab paper - read it. It resulted in a 635 litre test system for LOX and LNG that maintained zero boil off for an extended period using 15 watts of power with an 8 kg pulse tube cryocooler.


Here's a 2010 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0110004377.pdf


So in eight years it's gone from a lab paper to, well, a lab paper.


You have no appreciation of the value of these things and what they mean for the art of space travel. It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come to practical matters of importance.


snip


... until the synodic period alignment, and they are all blasted to Mars around the same time.


Mook, you always want to complicate the **** out of everything.


Obviously you don't know how Hohman transfer orbits work do you?


Obviously you think zillions of little parts on storage orbit for
years are 'simple'.


Compared to what? See, this is what you don't get. A business makes profit by exploiting capital to create value for their customers. When that capital sits idle, it is of no use to anyone. Now, the nature of interplanetary flight using chemical boosters is such that the ideal time of departure is quite limited. This launch window occurs once every 2.1 years. Now, you can have big heavy lift launchers and launch pads and flight operations centers sit idle for 2.05 years and spend only a few days active over this period. Or you can observe that a flight system designed to support its passengers and crew for up to three years off world, is not very different from a system designed to support its passengers and crew for up to five years off world - and as such, the expensive launcher, flight operations systems, and launch center can be kept busy continuously launching payloads into parking orbits and then dispatching them on to Mars at the appropriate time..

Obviously you think moving lab technologies to
RELIABLE operational technologies is 'simple'.


They've ALREADY been reduced to practice. That's the part you don't get because you don't really follow the industry in any meaningful way.

Obviously, YOU are
'simple'.


You are projecting again.

snip MookSpew

You obviously have no clue, you Mook.


Let's see, you have no idea what a Hohman transfer orbit is or how it relates to a synodic period, you have no appreciation that a ship designed for a three year flight cycle could easily be extended to a five year flight cycle, you have no idea how that flight cycle impacts launch operations and the efficiency of the most expensive part of the capital equipment used to support operations, you have no clue about the current state of ZBO technologies and why SpaceX chose LNG/LOX in the first place - yet in response to someone who knows about all these things, and troubles themselves to post here to benefit this group - you respond in the most atrocious of ways - projecting your cluelessness on to them.

lol.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

  #27  
Old October 3rd 16, 05:47 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Musk plans for mars

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:28:32 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 11:54:14 AM UTC+13, bob haller wrote:
at some point a nuke booster for travel from earth orbit to mars will be necessary..

to shorten travel time, and lessen supplies for the manned portion of flights.

a realtively small but very fast booster would be nice to have available for emergencies.

hey the water recycler is totally kaput, get earth to sen a replacement immediately!

of course sending one manned vehicle to mars with 2 backups flying close by will also help

Suspended animation, ...


Which we don't have.


Tell that to the people whose lives have been saved by placing them in suspended animation before they were transported to the ER.


So each of your people in 'suspended animation' requires a wide awake
and active anesthesiology team. And even then, try to do that for
very long and you'll wind up with irreversible brain damage or dead
people.

Is this what happened to you?


We don't have Mars ships yet either. But we can see how they can be built. By the same token we can see that by the time we're sending large numbers of people to Mars, suspended animation will be a viable way to reduce costs dramatically and improve safety given the ability to shield people in stasis.


Delusional fantasy.



... improved virtual reality, ...


Which is unnecessary.


A cruise ship has about 4100 cubic feet of space for each passenger and crew. The weight of this is about one ton of displacement for every 100 cubic feet. 41 tons per passenger! This is obviously too damn heavy for a spacecraft. Advanced materials, and improved construction techniques radically reduce weight. Reducing required volume to that of a first class airline seat is possible


Then it's good we won't be hurling big cruise ships to Mars, I guess.
Instead we'll be hurling 'Mars ships', which are a totally different
thing. No, it is not possible to stick them in airline seats for
months.

snip




in combination with a long-duration second skin type spacesuit, ...


Gods, he FINALLY suggested something that we might actually be able to
put into production in a few years.


I've been talking about mechanical counter pressure suits in this thread for 20 years - and ever since Paul Webb donned the first one in 1971 in my home state of Ohio!


How nice for you. Got one that works in an operational environment?
Webb didn't. He wrote a paper about the problems.




... can do much to achieve very efficient travel along hohman transfer orbits from Earth to Mars and back.


snip remaining Mookie fantasies


You're a clueless idiot.


You don't know the difference between papers of lab tests and the real
operational world (which is why you're a clueless idiot who sprays a
lot of electrons over fantasies).


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #28  
Old October 3rd 16, 06:14 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Musk plans for mars

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:16:35 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-10-01 20:29, Alain Fournier wrote:

It isn't easier for a person to be functional after ~3-4 months enclosed
with 5 others to be functional than for the same person to be functional
after the trip with 100 others.


Think space for the "gym". You're not going to be able to keep 100
people fit with just one threadmill and one stationary bike. And you
can't say 24 persons can use the threamill 1 hour each day, so you only
need 4 threadmills because people don't want to exercise just before
they go to bed (otherwise you won't sleep). And since mechanical
exercise devices break down, you also need to have extra machines for
when one breks down until it is repaired.

100 people exercising every day also produces much more CO2, and
increases water requirements (which also increases need for water
reclamation capacity from sweat that has evaporated into cabin air).


These ships are BIG. Space shouldn't be a problem and you need all
that stuff anyway.


Especially if you use the 'wet' station concept of inhabiting the empty propellant tanks during the journey.


But nobody is going to do that.




So unless you do like in Avatar and put everyone into a tube where they
fall asleep for months (and none of their body functions/muscles
weaken), then you are likely to need for more space and ECLSS capacity
than for a short suborbital trip from new York to Sdyney with 100 pax.


Well, of course, Captain Obvious. Nobody is talking about people
spending 100 days sitting in an airline seat here. And nobody but
Mook thinks 'hibernation' is a viable approach.


Yeah, me and NASA ...


Paper studies.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFVZ76SOg6Y


Not by NASA.


https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...PhI_Torpor.pdf


Study paper. WAY not ready for prime time yet.


http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploa...2010162015.pdf

and since Musk was at the 2015 IAF conference in Israel, he likely was referring to this 100 person transfer vehicle in his 2016 announcement.

Just guessing.


And guessing wrong. He was referring to the BFS. It was the size of
that that motivated SpaceWorks to produce this paper, not the other
way around.


Whom do you expect to be on the cutting edge? People who post to this site? Or people who attend every IAF conference and sometimes give talks? (like me and Musk)


Musk I believe. You, on the other hand, are just a buffoon.




The other aspect: once you start to add enough gear to support 100
people for months including the gym, toilets etc, do you really want to
bring all that down to mars and then back up ? Might make sense to have
a lot fo the stuff put in orbit at Mars so you don't have to brakme it
down and accelerate it back up (depending on its mass).



A long duration garment with built in devices to keep it and its wearer clean, and can double as a spacesuit with the right attachments, and can act as a 'man multiplier' and stasis chamber (since its control of gases that bring about stasis using hydrogen sulphide according to Mark Roth's research) can also stimulate muscle activity electronically. That is, with a stereoscopic display inside a heads up display helmet, that is slaved to the motion of your eyes and head - and a fabric with optical fibres and accelerometers woven in to sense precise body motion - one can create a virtual reality simulation of any exercise required in any environment desired.


Or we can sprinkle them with magic pixie dust!



But now you've got the problem of connecting all that stuff with a
little narrow airlock/docking tunnel. You can build more robustly if
you make it all one piece.


The same low mass low complexity approach that makes it a joy to travel for months in space, also make it a joy to survive on the surface of Mars.


You have a strange notion of 'joy'.


Survey teams, which will pre-date settlers and more casual tourists, will likely have their ships stay on orbit near Diemos or Phobos, and use resources there to refuel their ship for return. Meanwhile, early adopters will use rocket belt technology to visit as many spots on Mars as they can and follow procedures to surveil them for possible settlements - being directed by earlier orbital surveys and using a network of satellites deployed by the arriving spacecraft.


These are not the hurtling moons of Barsoom, Mook. They're little
tiny (essentially resourceless) rocks. Ships will either stay in
orbit and use their remaining fuel to return, stay in orbit and ship
fuel up from the surface of Mars, or land and use fuel made on the
surface of Mars. Depends on whose mission you're looking at. Only
the Mookie Mars Mission contemplates what you suggest. Presumably
Mook plans to use Magical MEMS Machines (tm) to create the materials
needed to make fuel.

snip Mookie Fantasy





It's not as if you have to unload the ship in 15 minutes. I don't see
a problem here.


How big/bulky would the spacesuits need to be for each passenger?


Why does each passenger need one?


They're useful on Mars, ...


Useful is not 'need'. I've snipped the remainder of your magical
self-cleaning, self-repairing lifeboat suit fantasy.

More Mookie Magical Mystery Tour removed


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #29  
Old October 3rd 16, 06:48 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Musk plans for mars

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:44:49 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:20:49 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Suspended animation ...


Which we don't have.


Yes we do, and it will be adequate to this task by 2022 when we start sending large numbers of people off world at low cost.


Fantasy. Lab studies are not operational reality. What's the
casualty rate?


For the system that's operating in 2022 and beyond? I'd say pretty damn close to zero. Mark Roth has developed a gas based system that drops users fairly safely and keeps them in low consumption mode.


Roth has withdrawn or terminated all trials of this technology.


Operational systems when available will have people spend 25 days in stasis and 3 days awake for monitoring. Passengers trade slots with one another - online pre-launch and each has its own activity planned. Typically you have 3 periods in flight. Departure, mid-journey, arrival...


There is no evidence that people can tolerate this sort of thing for
periods longer than a couple of weeks and even less evidence than that
for being able to do the sort of cycle you're talking about and do
anything when they're done.






... allows launching people on a regular basis in drones, ...


Why 'drones'? It's ORBIT.


A drone is an unmanned aircraft or ship (including spaceship) that can navigate autonomously, without human control.


A mook is a stupid or incompetent person.


In English sure. In other languages meanings vary.


And what language do we speak, Mook?


Even so, I am absolutely certain you can fairly be described to BE a mook in that context.


Tu quoque is the best you can do? You ARE aptly named!


Yet, this has nothing to do with my name, which originates in Mongolian and means 'eternal leader' - transliterated into 'monk' throughout Asia.


Back to your yurt, you mook.


By your definition ALL
spacecraft are 'drones' because pretty much none of them are under
'human control'.


All of them are directed by humans, being built by humans for various purposes.


Nonsense. By that claim, ALL drones are 'directed by humans' so there
is no such thing as a drone.


The point is sending people in stasis in automated ships that are visited infrequently by service crews is the least costly way to send people to Mars.


Incinerating them and shipping them as ash is even more efficient.


You are aptly named.


Thank you. There is a town called Mook in Holland - named after the Mongolian derived gypsies that attended Columbus' return to the Old World from the New, after the Alhambra Decree.

http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php?cID=44


You're so full of crap you should have been named with the Mongolian
word for 'bowel'.


Putting people in suspended animation aboard a drone ship that can last for years in space, powered by the sun, is the absolute lowest cost way to send people off world.


Such a ship has no need to 'navigate'. Not a 'drone'.


You obviously are unaware of the requirements of high precision interplanetary flight.


You obviously are unaware of, well, almost everything.


So, it will be done, and soon, after we start doing that.


In your fantasies. I'd bet on pixie dust first.


You are the one fantasizing and projecting your ignorance on to your betters.


You're a loonytoon ****wit.






... that remain in earth orbit with zero boil off cryogenics,


Which we don't have.


Yes we do

Here's a 2002 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0020017748.pdf


Lab paper.


A 2002 lab paper - read it. It resulted in a 635 litre test system for LOX and LNG that maintained zero boil off for an extended period using 15 watts of power with an 8 kg pulse tube cryocooler.


I did. Lab paper.


Here's a 2010 paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0110004377.pdf


So in eight years it's gone from a lab paper to, well, a lab paper.


You have no appreciation of the value of these things and what they mean for the art of space travel. It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come to practical matters of importance.


You have no appreciation of the unreality of these things as other
than lab studies and what that means when you try to roll a real
operational mission. It is truly unfortunate that someone who is as
interested in this subject as you, is so utterly clueless when it come
to practical matters of importance.


snip


... until the synodic period alignment, and they are all blasted to Mars around the same time.


Mook, you always want to complicate the **** out of everything.

Obviously you don't know how Hohman transfer orbits work do you?


Obviously you think zillions of little parts on storage orbit for
years are 'simple'.


Compared to what? See, this is what you don't get. A business makes profit by exploiting capital to create value for their customers. When that capital sits idle, it is of no use to anyone.


So deliberately complicating things so that more capital is 'utilized'
(albeit not usefully) is your approach. This is why Musk is making
rockets while you are merely making CO2.

snip Mookie Fantasy

Obviously you think moving lab technologies to
RELIABLE operational technologies is 'simple'.


They've ALREADY been reduced to practice. That's the part you don't get because you don't really follow the industry in any meaningful way.


No, they haven't. They've been reduced to lab studies.

Obviously, YOU are
'simple'.


You are projecting again.


You are projecting again (and very dimly, too).

snip MookSpew

You obviously have no clue, you Mook.


Let's see, you have no idea what a Hohman transfer orbit is or how it relates to a synodic period, you have no appreciation that a ship designed for a three year flight cycle could easily be extended to a five year flight cycle, you have no idea how that flight cycle impacts launch operations and the efficiency of the most expensive part of the capital equipment used to support operations, you have no clue about the current state of ZBO technologies and why SpaceX chose LNG/LOX in the first place - yet in response to someone who knows about all these things, and troubles themselves to post here to benefit this group - you respond in the most atrocious of ways - projecting your cluelessness on to them.


So YOU have fantasized in your delusions. But then, you're just a
Delusional Dip**** Dimwit (tm).


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #30  
Old October 3rd 16, 11:35 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Musk plans for mars

In article om,
says...

On 2016-10-02 10:11, Jeff Findley wrote:

These are details, but if the ship is that big, I wouldn't rule out
designing pressurized shipping containers which can be easily slid out
of a cargo hold and lowered to the surface via a crane.


"that big" is the keyword here. You can't ignore those details when,
combined, they may require a ship that is much bigger than "that big".


SpaceX has years to work out the details. They're just now starting to
fire Raptor engines on the test stand.

Aviation evolved. It didn't go from a plane that carries 6 people to
one that carries 100 in one shot. Granted, the move from 707 to 747 was
a big one.


We're more than half a century into manned spaceflight (John Glenn first
orbited the earth in 1962, so 54 years ago). Wright Brother's first
flight was 1903 and the Boeing 747's first flight was in 1969, so 66
years.

So, give SpaceX another 12 years to develop and fly this thing and they
will have matched the amount of time between the Wright Flyer to the
747.

But to go from something that carries 3-6 passengers on a 6 month
camping trip with no luggage but with regular delivery trucks for food,
oxygen, spare parts etc to an autonomous ship that carries 100 people
moving with all their baggage is a huge leap.


We've been flying space stations since the 1970s. Hopefully by now we
know what it takes to keep people alive for an extended period of time.
If not, then we've learned nothing from that experience.

I am confident Musk has the propulsion figured out. But i am really not
sure about the people aspect of it.


Maybe, maybe not. But if he does fly this thing, I'm sure he's betting
that others will help to "outfit" it. SpaceX can't do this alone
anymore than they did Falcon 9 and Dragon alone (i.e. NASA helped quite
a bit).

And BTW, the experience on ISS shows that threadmills are not all that
reliable. (then again, probably no need for vibration isolation system
on musk's ship).


No, the experience shows that on ISS, their initial super duper
lightweight aerospace grade treadmill didn't work so well. But, we've
learned from that and I'm sure the next iteration of the design will be
better. Besides, everything gets easier when you can throw more mass at
the problem.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Musk and Mars Greg \(Strider\) Moore Policy 15 July 5th 14 05:59 AM
Musk and Mars Robert Clark[_4_] Astronomy Misc 1 June 30th 14 03:40 PM
Musk lays out plans for reusability of the Falcon 9 rocket Jeff Findley[_2_] Policy 4 January 5th 14 07:13 PM
Elon Musk and Mars Greg \(Strider\) Moore Policy 19 August 3rd 13 06:43 AM
Elon Musk: ticket to Mars for $500,000. Jeff Findley[_2_] Astronomy Misc 3 April 3rd 12 03:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.