Elon Musk discusses making Mars more habitable by nuking the poles

Within 80 days Elon Musk should reveal a detailed design for the Mars Colonial
Transport Rocket:

"Elon Musk has indicated that Spacex would reveal the design for a Mars Colonial
Transport Rocket by the end of the year. This means the design should be
revealed within 80 days."

See:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/wit...ld-reveal.html

In article ,
says...

Within 80 days Elon Musk should reveal a detailed design for the Mars Colonial
Transport Rocket:

"Elon Musk has indicated that Spacex would reveal the design for a Mars Colonial
Transport Rocket by the end of the year. This means the design should be
revealed within 80 days."

See:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/wit...ld-reveal.html

I doubt that this announcement will happen "on schedule", IMHO.

Right now SpaceX is focused on getting Falcon 9 flying again. This next
flight is the "full thrust" version, so it's more than just returning to
flight.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

Within 80 days Elon Musk should reveal a detailed design for the Mars
Colonial
Transport Rocket:

"Elon Musk has indicated that Spacex would reveal the design for a Mars
Colonial
Transport Rocket by the end of the year. This means the design should be
revealed within 80 days."

See:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/wit...ld-reveal.html

I doubt that this announcement will happen "on schedule", IMHO.

Right now SpaceX is focused on getting Falcon 9 flying again. This next
flight is the "full thrust" version, so it's more than just returning to
flight.


Full Thrust version?

Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

Right now SpaceX is focused on getting Falcon 9 flying again.
This next flight is the "full thrust" version, so it's more
than just returning to flight.

Full Thrust version?

Supposedly that is what SpaceX is calling the latest version of Falcon 9
(mind the word wrap):

Full Thrust Falcon 9 stage conducts first static fire at McGregor
September 24, 2015 by Chris Bergin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/...alcon-9-stage-
testing-mcgregor/

It was previously referred to as the "Falcon 9 v1.2" by "the media":

SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9
Mar 17, 2015 by Amy Svitak in On Space (Aviation Week)
http://aviationweek.com/blog/spacexs-new-spin-falcon-9

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 10/14/2015 6:11 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Full Thrust version?

Supposedly that is what SpaceX is calling the latest version of Falcon 9
(mind the word wrap):

[snip]

It was previously referred to as the "Falcon 9 v1.2" by "the media":

SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9
Mar 17, 2015 by Amy Svitak in On Space (Aviation Week)
http://aviationweek.com/blog/spacexs-new-spin-falcon-9

Jeff


The end of this article mentions the higher performance core being able
to do return to drone ship even on GTO missions. I am wondering how many
successful drone ship landings it will take before SpaceX petitions the
FAA to do return to launch site landings on land?

Of course it will bear watching the pace of conversion of LC-13. The
faster that finishes the sooner SpaceX can petition. Of course one would
expect a series of successful drone ship landings to have occurred
first. The question in my mind is how many?

Will we see any attempts on land in 2016 or 2017?

Dave

David Spain wrote:
Of course it will bear watching the pace of conversion of LC-13. The
faster that finishes the sooner SpaceX can petition. Of course one
would expect a series of successful drone ship landings to have
occurred first. The question in my mind is how many?

I would think at least three. Perhaps even one or two landing on the
drone ship "close" to the launch site. One successful landing could
be luck, two could be coincidence, three is the start of a trend.

rick jones
--
"You can't do a damn thing in this house without having to do three
other things first!" - my father (It seems universally applicable
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

JF Mezei wrote:
On 2015-10-22 13:52, Rick Jones wrote:
I would think at least three. Perhaps even one or two landing on
the drone ship "close" to the launch site. One successful landing
could be luck, two could be coincidence, three is the start of a
trend.

The problem is weather.

Is landing at sea is MUCH more difficult, what happens when you have
1 succesfull landing, followed by 3 failed (due to weather),
followed by another succesful, followed by 4 failed and a 3rd
succesfull ?

Thie *image* it gives is one of an unreliable system. However, if
unreliability is only due to the moving and small landing platform,
will SpaceX be able to convince FAA to give it landing rights
because landing on land is much easier/reliable ?

Well, the FAA *is* a bureaucratic organization, but if the failures
were clearly caused by weather then I suspect they would be able
understand that.

Also, for the case of landing attempts on the ship with the ship near
the launch site, I would think that there isn't much of a delta
between the weather being "good enough" for a landing and being "good
enough" for a launch in the first place.

rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 10/22/2015 8:27 PM, Rick Jones wrote:

Well, the FAA *is* a bureaucratic organization, but if the failures
were clearly caused by weather then I suspect they would be able
understand that.

Also, for the case of landing attempts on the ship with the ship near
the launch site, I would think that there isn't much of a delta
between the weather being "good enough" for a landing and being "good
enough" for a launch in the first place.

rick jones


Which begs a very interesting question. Will SpaceX perform a series of
walk-back procedures with the drone ship? With adequate performance from
the upgraded core booster, it seems feasible that the drone ship could
be "walked-back" closer to the proposed LC-13 landing site over time,
thereby minimizing ocean and weather effects. Well perhaps weather
effects. Based on wave-motion studies I've for freighters, etc. trying
to navigate the relative shallows of the Great Lakes, wave action can
actually be far worse due to weather than deep ocean. But having the
drone ship closer to the launch site even if it should remain in deep
water over the continental shelf would definitely help address bad
weather at the landing site issue. The key of course, is the enhanced
abilities of the higher performance F9 to deal with correction maneuvers
needed to place it closer to the launch site.

I would expect the landing sites not to remain static.

Dave