Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Unveils Heavy-Lift Rocket Designs
FleaPlus writes "At the recent Joint Propulsion Conference, SpaceX's rocket development facility director Tom Markusic unveiled conceptual plans for how its current Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 commercial rockets can be evolved into heavy-lift rockets, ranging from a Falcon X capable of lifting 38,000kg to orbit, up to a 140,000kg Falcon XX (more than either the Saturn V or the 75,000kg shuttle-derived rocket Congress currently plans on having NASA spend >$13B building). SpaceX presentations also discuss a new Merlin 2 heavy-lift engine, solar-electric cargo tugs, adapting their current engines for descent/ascent vehicles fueled by Mars-derived methane, and a desire for the government to take the lead on in-space nuclear thermal propulsion while commercial focuses on launchers. In a recent interview, SpaceX CEO/CTO Elon Musk expressed his goal of lowering the price of Mars transportation enough to enable early colonization in 20 years, and his own plans for retiring to Mars."
That, my friends, is vision.
Not, "one day mankind must blah blah blah..." but: 'I'm planning to retire to Mars.'
If he wants to die in a harsh, hostile environment, why doesn't he spend a few $billion retiring to Compton or Afghanistan?
Americans are taxed on citizenship, not residency. And, giving up citizenship for tax reasons is not as easy as you might think. However, there is the FEIE: Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, for monies earned outside the U.S. from non-U.S. sources, if you live outside the U.S. for a contiguous year or more. But, you don't have to go to Mars to take advantage of that.
In Liberty, Rene
Two different designs (Falcon X Heavy and Falcon XX), either capable of boosting a Mars Direct type mission on its way...
Which would give us capabilities in space we haven't had since the last Saturn V was launched.
Hopefully, SpaceX won't have problems coming up with the cash (or contracts) required to finish the designs and get them certified, since I'd really like to see the first manned Mars mission in my lifetime. And from the looks of things today, if SpaceX doesn't do it, no-one will.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I like nuclear thermal as much as the next /.er, but is there really any point in thermal rockets beyond attaining orbit?
Personally, I'd rather see the money go into a space-borne power reactor and rely on VASIMR or other electric engines for the transit. As SpaceX and Musk should know, a modular system is a lot more flexible, and we know a lot more about how to design and build power reactors than nuclear thermal rockets. More to the point, you'd need a gas-core reactor to match the specific impulse of current VASIMR prototypes, and gas-core reactors are ENTIRELY theoretical.
(If you don't know, specific impulse is the rough analogue of how 'fast' a engine is in space, although it actually bears more in common with fuel economy than power).
Who are going to be the customers?
For space exploration to begin in earnest, we need it to be economically profitable, beyond LOE and geostationary. Has there been a study on the economic feasability of mining asteroids or something else (i.e. 4He on the moon)?
Americans are taxed on citizenship, not residency.
That reminds me of an old Monty Python quip: "To boost the British economy I'd tax all foreigners living abroad."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I'm not sure the distinction is as clear as you're making it. It's not like NASA ever really built rockets. Rockwell International built the shuttle for them. They just set the spec and take bids, like any other government agency. The question is a somewhat less dramatic one: should the government specify the rockets it wants and get aerospace companies to build them, or should it let the aerospace companies build whatever they want, buy the products that fit best and make it work? For what it's worth (not much) my own view of the situation is that launch vehicle tech has progressed to the point where the latter approach is likely to save some cash. But let's not act like it's a difference between some free-market fantasy and a soviet design bureau.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
...but when I do, I prefer Falcon Dos Equis.
Stay orbital, my friends.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Off the top of my head with its imposing craglike forehead, denoting intelligence beyond your ability to comprehend,... oh where was I?
How about SpaceXterminate, SpaceXtinction, SpaceXploit? They could be divisions. One kills you, one makes sure you're dead, and one converts the ruins of your puny civilization to, um, something profitable, maybe RC toy cars.
First off, I have to say that SpaceX announcing they have the intention and potential designs for a Saturn-class lifter is some of the most exciting news I've heard about space in my lifetime (yes, I'm a post 70's child).
However, there is one key thing that SpaceX needs as they develop as a company. First, and foremost, SpaceX needs to get its LEO business to become lucrative and profitable. If that company can develop enough profit to start breaking away from NASA prize money and other political tie-ins, then they will be set. I have not doubt in my mind that the engineers at SpaceX can deliver what they advocate in this article if they are given the money and opportunity to do so. However, I also have little doubt that folks at the various NASA labs could do the same thing. The key advantage that SpaceX has, over NASA, however, is that it has the potential to be independent of Congress fucking about in it's vehicle designs. That, above all else, is what makes SpaceX special.
If SpaceX can break it's ties from the government through contracts and cheap launches, then we will be to Mars in my lifetime. However, if they get roped into the political games that so many defense contractors and other space companies do, then America is screwed for a mission to Mars. Right now, the single greatest threat to space explorations is the United States Congress. It really is that simple.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
A far better vision would be much more expansive than Space X's -- which in my opinion consists of nothing more than building well engineered reusable reliable rockets at affordable prices.
Some guidelines:
1. Never use a rocket for material you can hurl or lift into space (i.e. non-G sensitive "mass").
2. Never use humans when robots can do much of the work (i.e. systems assembly, parts replacement, etc.).
3. Minimize the risks that humans face (keep them out of space as much as possible or well sheltered from the hazards there).
4. Invest only once. Build the factories to use materials from space in space.
You would start with (1) by throwing out the idea of rockets that can lift increasingly larger payloads. Instead you would invest one or more times in building ocean-equatorial based rail/mass guns [7] (to launch fuel, H2O, O2, food, "station"/"factory" subunits using solar power. This would lead to the construction of orbiting sky hooks which could augment the mass guns and/or pick up astronauts from SpaceShip Two type "ferries". Then SpaceTugs pick the astronauts up from the hooks and relocate them to ships under construction in "Dry Dock" (@ L1|L2).
But before one wants to engage in a vision like this one needs to *seriously* have a discussion regarding when molecular nanotechnology, i.e. when can nanofactories build nanorobots, when can nanorobots build nanofactories (allowing exponential expansion either on the Earth or in space). Nanorobots and nanofactories significantly lower the costs of access to space as well as the development of space (because they eliminate the need for biological "human" environments, safety systems, resource supplies, etc.). So one has to face up to the question of whether we want "human" or "nanorobot" development of space (when one path is clearly less expensive and likely to be more efficient), though perhaps less emotionally fulfilling.
Many engineers 'dis molecular nanotechnology, but for people who understand genome biology, that genomes are "software", that enzymes, esp. DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase and the ribosome are "assemblers", and who may have read Drexler's 1981 PNAS paper in which biological systems were cited as existence proofs for molecular nanotechnology, and perhaps who have read Nanosystems as well, the only questions that remain are how and when we could engineer systems of such complexity.
Then the question becomes whether we spend billions of $ on 40-50 y.o. visions (rockets to the moon or Mars) or equivalent or even greater amounts on say a 11-29 y.o vision... [1]. It is clear, at least to me, that the 40-50 y.o. vision provides some great stories, improves our technologies and lets us go where we have never gone before. In contrast the 11-29 y.o. vision frees most individuals on the planet from having to ever work again to survive, may indefinitely extend their lifespans and enables the evolution of humanity from a pre-Kardashev Type I level civilization to a Kardashev Type II level civilization [6].
I know which vision I'd be inclined to vote for.
1. Drexler's PNAS paper was published in 1981 [2]. Engines of Creation (Vsn. 1 was published in 1986) and (Vsn 2.0 published in 2007) [3]. Nanosystems (Eric's MIT PhD thesis) was published in 1992 [4]. Nanomedicine Vol. 1 by Robert Freitas was published in 1999 [5]. Almost all other nanotechnology "literature" tends to be long on either speculation or technical details and short on "vision" and facts. Those are the references for "science "visifact"ion.
2. http://www.pnas.org/content/78/9/5275.abstract
3. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Engines-of-Creation/Eric-Drexler/e/9780385199735
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engines_of_Creation
No, I'm not espousing a free-market fantasy. If I had I would have advocated getting rid of NASA altogether.
What nasa should do is develop new technologies that will be required for space exploration. The end specs/components/implementation should be left to someone else however(in my opinion, of course). Preferably smaller, leaner, space startups. Companies that are willing to and capable of taking more risks. There comes a point when decreasing the chance of failure another .0001% isn't worth the next 10 million dollars. You do a run, if it fails, you do another one. The money spent on R&D is still there plus you now have practical data.
Making a material that absorbs heat better, or a combination thereof, or an entirely new system for dispersing the heat. Those sorts of things. They should be the realm of NASA. That should be the realm of NASA. Government funding is very good. Very very good. Its great at getting things invented. What government generally isn't good at doing until its forced on them is innovating. Thats what business is good at.
On the other hand, particularly lately with all these insanely rich but incredibly risk-averse asses out there, a lot of businesses are either slowing down massively on new tech or giving up developing new things entirely, letting someone else do it and then either stealing it or licensing it from them, and innovating with it.
Theres a good chance I can utilize technology X after its finished development... but if I put money into it now theres a chance it never finishes and those dollars are completely gone. On the other hand if Technology X is finished and working... well theres something I can do with it right now! It removes a layer of risk for new endeavors to not develop most of the technologies involved yourself.
Thats the main reason I think R&D should become even more the responsibility of government than it is now... for almost everything I feel it would improve everyones lives, and mostly abolish a lot of the industry patent lockouts that happen now, since everyone would have access at the same rate.
What's being discussed is not a "colony" in any normal sense of the word. It's a base. "Colony" implies a large degree of self sufficiency, which requires the most massive engineering engineering effort in the history of humankind to even get started. What Musk is doing is working on lower-cost spacecraft. Spacecraft that, IMHO, are still 1-2 orders of magnitude too expensive to make true colonization realistic. If all you do is go there and use some regolith for shielding and make some methane fuel using equipment shipped from Earth, perhaps growing some plants in greenhouses shipped from Earth, etc -- you're not colonizing. Namely, because not only could such a "colony" not independently expand itself, but if the shipments from Earth suddenly stopped, the next time something significant broke, the entire colony would die. You're not going to, say, jury-rig a new compressor out of duct tape and rocks. You couldn't even make duct tape itself without an entire petrochemical industry. A sustainable colony requires a mind-boggling amount of sustainable industry and the use of structures and devices engineered to be produceable by said industrial infrastructure.
But anyway, kudos to Musk for at least doing *something* useful rather than building palm tree islands or city-sized yachts.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Been there, done that.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Depends on your politics but I subscribe to the homesteading principle which basically states how some unowned resource becomes property. It isn't a settled matter mind you but offers a good start. So say you land on Mars with a rover capable of traveling a 10 mile radius from your base. The land you traveled to would now be your property for you to do with what you wish. Sell chunks of to people on earth, ect. So using this theory the US wouldn't own the moon because we did not travel everywhere. We would own just the outline of where the astronauts walked/drove. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I do wonder which would be more effective at a proper use of tax dollars: A massive increase in NASA's budget to something on the order of about $30 billion per year and a major push to Mars, or simply enacting a law that would remove all federal taxes (including corporate and personal income taxes) for individuals and companies who are directly engaged in the development of hardware and equipment that actually goes into space.
If for some reason a completely "tax holiday" were to be put onto companies developing spaceflight equipment, I'm quite certain that Wall Street would take notice and there would likely be far more money put into spaceflight (both robotic and manned) than NASA could ever dream. Furthermore, the tax receipts that the federal government would lose would be relatively minor in comparison, and I would argue would be less than the current outlays to NASA. Since it would still be private individuals putting their own money on the line instead of lining up to the government pork trench, the most cost effective and profitable approaches would also be used for nearly every design that would actually make it into orbit. Silly things like paper studies to nowhere would become a thing of the past.
If, after some time it becomes apparent that certain areas of industry may need a little bit of a boost due to capital requirements... perhaps a little bit of federal involvement could happen. But seriously, I am not convinced that would even be necessary under such a tax-free space investment environment. The capital necessary to do spaceflight is around, the question is mainly how is it going to be allocated and if it should go through the hands of a bunch of senators and congressmen first.
Given NASA's track record over the past 30 years in singularly failing to develop even a single useful manned spaceflight vehicle in spite of nearly a hundred billion dollars spent along those lines, almost anything would be better than the current approach. I'm not convinced that NASA could possibly be reformed in any meaningful way to do better. Still, wouldn't it be an amazing experiment to even maintain or slightly cut but not eliminate NASA's budget at current levels and do a tax holiday to see just what would come from this kind of activity? Eliminate ITAR restrictions on civilian commercial spaceflight, and it would be an almost ideal environment. The government is the problem, not the solution.
And so is the rest of the "let's colonize Mars" crowd - because there's simply no reason to colonize Mars. For one thing, even if the wildest dreams of SpaceX become true (and here's a hint: they probably won't, at least not completely), getting a colony to Mars is going to be unbelievably expensive. You need to not only haul the people, but all their life support equipment, capital goods (they're going to have to earn a living, right?), at least some minimal housing, energy generation, startup food, plants, greenhouses for the plants, fertilizer for the plants (unlike you're going to find fixed nitrogen on Mars, for one thing), minimal personal possessions, etc, etc, etc.
And once you've spent the trillions of dollars that would require, then what? How are you ever going to recoup your investment? Mars is mostly made of the same stuff as earth - iron, silicon, oxygen, carbon, etc. What are you going to find or make there that's worth the enormous expense to do it? The answer, pretty much, is that there isn't anything.
I doubt there's any realistic hope of retirement communities there either. The Gobi desert, for example, is a lot easier and cheaper to get to, has the advantage of a breathable atmosphere, and looks about the same as Mars (less pink), but I haven't seen a flood of Happy Acres Assisted Living developments going in there.
Look, I get that space colonization is all cool and romantic and stuff. The problem is that it's not remotely practical, and most likely won't ever be.