A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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
  #1  
Old March 15th 17, 06:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Musk plans for mars

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 3:41:42 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
Musk outlined some plans for mars colonisation. He says the plan is to
bring transport costs down by many orders of magnitudes so tha
Musk wants to R&D so that carbon fibre can be used for tanks.


Just a note of advice. Before actual flight to Mars, a
human rated rocket needs to be demonstrated. AND a human
rated orbiter and lander and re-lifter needs demonstration.
Also the engine for the trip needs lifting to orbit at Earth also.

FalconX is failed and nonhuman ratable.

So Musk need to begin finally.

NOW. Is the design even in the cad stations even? Is
Musk playing a sales pitch or are engineers functioning?
The best way for Musk to go to Mars is to use NASA's
booster. Orion is the name or Delta?

Use Orion Musk.
  #3  
Old March 16th 17, 12:36 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,220
Default Musk plans for mars

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 3:41:42 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
Musk outlined some plans for mars colonisation. He says the plan is to
bring transport costs down by many orders of magnitudes so tha
Musk wants to R&D so that carbon fibre can be used for tanks.


Just a note of advice. Before actual flight to Mars, a
human rated rocket needs to be demonstrated. AND a human
rated orbiter and lander and re-lifter needs demonstration.
Also the engine for the trip needs lifting to orbit at Earth also.

FalconX is failed and nonhuman ratable.


Bull****. You fix the issues and keep flying. SpaceX just won another
GPS 3 launch contract from DOD. I guess Falcon 9 is still good enough
for GPS 3 satellites.

NASA needs Falcon 9 to launch Dragon 2 for commercial crew. I'm sure
NASA and SpaceX will continue to work together to resolve any issues
until NASA feels it's safe enough to fly. Safe enough doesn't mean
perfect safety. You're never going to have perfect safety in any
transportation system, even walking.

So Musk need to begin finally.

NOW. Is the design even in the cad stations even? Is
Musk playing a sales pitch or are engineers functioning?
The best way for Musk to go to Mars is to use NASA's
booster. Orion is the name or Delta?


NASA is developing SLS, the Space Launch System. It's a fancy name for
a partly shuttle derived "inline" launch vehicle with an all new upper
stage. It's also going to cost well over $1 billion per launch. Just
how much it will cost depends on details like how often it launches.

Suffice it to say that SpaceX is better off building its own vehicles
since they'll be far cheaper.

Jeff

Use Orion Musk.


Orion is NASA's bloated capsule that's too heavy to launch (when it's
fully fueled) on pretty much anything but SLS. Why would SpaceX ever
want that? It would likely add about another $1 billion to the mission,
so now you're up to $2 billion, and you haven't even paid for a HAB to
get you to Mars. Since Orion is only good for 21 days on its own,
that's not going to get you to Mars and back.

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.
  #4  
Old March 16th 17, 11:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,008
Default Musk plans for mars

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-03-16 02:00, Fred J. McCall wrote:

What would be the point of that other than to flush more and more
money into the sewer? You won't 'cut funding' overall. You'll just
cut the annual requirement while spending more overall before you have
a flyable system.


The whole point of Ares and then SLS/Orion was to keep generating pork
jobs in politically sensitive areas and pork contracts to companies who
make nice big donations to the party.

Shuttle killed, replaced with Ares. Ares killed, replaced with SLS.

If they kill SLS/Orion, there would be intense lobby pressure to replace
it with some new pork project. Musk may have Trump's ears, but
lobbyists for the "legacy" space business have all of congressmens'
wallets.

That is why I am thinking that scaling back budget for the rocket to
nowhere saves on annual budget while not requiring the government start
a replacement project.


Why not just take a pile of cash out in the parking lot and burn it?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #5  
Old March 17th 17, 12:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,220
Default Musk plans for mars

In article . com,
says...

On 2017-03-15 20:36, Jeff Findley wrote:

get you to Mars. Since Orion is only good for 21 days on its own,
that's not going to get you to Mars and back.



But ! But ! But ! NASA claims Orion is the spaceship to Mars !!!!


It's the taxi to get astronauts from the earth to the HAB module which
will take them to Mars and back. Then, Orion will be the taxi to
reenter the atmosphere to take astronauts back to the earth's surface.

It will be interesting to see how politicians or NASA build the face
saving way to justify cancellation of the programme.


It lives on, at least for one more year.

For the Shuttle, there was the Comumbia report which required major
maintenabnce cycles which increased operating costs and would have
require too much budget to continue to operate the Shuttle.


Not really. We could have kept flying the shuttle if the issues
outlined had been addressed. Besides, nothing is 100% safe.

But for Orion/SLS, NASA and Politicians have refused to admit they were
ships to nowehere, so it becomes hard to admit this as justification for
shutting it down.


I'm sure the Congress knows that. They're the ones that demanded NASA
build it and funded it.

I wonder if instead, they may cut funding and stretch program by 10 years.


I'm pretty sure this budget has SLS/Orion getting a bit more money.

Note that the fact that NASA moved ahead first manned test fight
indicates they know they are under some pressure to deliver something of
face program cut.


They're "studying" it. I doubt they'll do it, because it would only
delay EM-1 even further. The interim upper stage for EM-1 was never
"man-rated". That and there is no crew access arm and the like.
Changes to ground infrastructure was supposed to happen between EM-1 and
EM-2.

My guess is the Administration will see the schedule slip that making it
manned would cause, curse a lot, and then scuttle the idea.

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.
  #6  
Old March 19th 17, 02:20 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,008
Default Musk plans for mars

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-03-18 12:19, Jeff Findley wrote:

Yes. For ICBMs they're a huge advantage (store for many decades, yet
can be launched at a moment's notice). But large solids have several
disadvantages for launch vehicles.


I was wondering about that.

SpaceX, which developped its own tech instead of relying on external
contractors, did not choose solids.


Because SpaceX wanted actual reusability.


Russia appears to be set on kerosene. right ?


Russia tends to use 'half stages', where they just dump a bunch of
engines off.


However, Arianne uses SRBs.


Sometimes.


With 1970s technologies (era when Shuttle designed), could they have
build the Shuttle with _expandable_ liquid boosters and launch in same
time and budget ?


Yep. One of the designs had liquid fueled flyback boosters.


We've seen that even with 21st century tech, returning liquid rockets to
ground is a challenge, so perhaps having re-usable liquid boosters for
Shuttle was not even close to realistic in the 1970s.


It was just more expensive than the alternative solids.


Were SRBs chosen because it was the only way to make a claim of
re-usability since they can be dunked in salt water and re-used ?


No.


Different slant to question: if re-usability had not been such an
important aspect, would NASA have chosen liquids instead of solids for
the Shuttle boosters or would SRBs still have been a necessary evil to
give the needed performance ?


No. Once they got rid of flyback boosters, solids were bigger 'bang
for the buck' than anything else.


Anyone know if Arianne 5 chose SRBs for engineering or political reasons?


People choose SRBs because they're cheaper for the amount of thrust
they can deliver.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
 




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's Mars plans in a Redit Rick Jones[_6_] Policy 1 October 25th 16 03:32 AM
Musk plans for mars Jeff Findley[_6_] Policy 54 October 12th 16 08:57 PM
Musk plans for mars bob haller Policy 2 October 3rd 16 06:21 AM
Musk and Mars Greg \(Strider\) Moore Policy 15 July 5th 14 05:59 AM
Musk lays out plans for reusability of the Falcon 9 rocket Jeff Findley[_2_] Policy 4 January 5th 14 06:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.