Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Wants To Go To Mars — and Has a Plan To Get There
mknewman writes with an article at NASA SpaceFlight which lays out the details of a plan from SpaceX to send a craft to Mars, using an in-development engine ("Raptor") along with the company's Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle. "Additionally, Mr. Musk also introduced the mysterious MCT project, which he later revealed to be an acronym for Mars Colonial Transport. This system would be capable of transporting 100 colonists at a time to Mars, and would be fully reusable. Article is technically dense but he does seem to follow through on his promises!"
This is an endeavor that's been on Elon Musk's mind for a while.
I'm wondering if the Mars One project hasn't had a more complex working relationship than previously thought. For all we know, Mars One could just be a separatist marketing arm of Elon Musk.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Elon Musk = D.D. Harriman, only with bigger dreams.
And not a fictional character.
It's about time America started acting like America again.
Article is technically dense but
But?? No but, that's actually what we want here on Slashdot!
he does seem to follow through on his promises!
I wouldn't go that far.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
SpaceX, more than any other of the "private" space companies, has shown a compentencey for building rockets.
My Ass Is Blue, or whatever the pipe dream that Jeff Bezos is dumping money into, is not a player, not just for Mars, but for any real space flight.
Orbital Sciences and SpaceX are the real players.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Is it me or is space just nostalgia at this point?
Groovy ... but before I care, SpaceX needs to first have humans in space.
Then I'll give a quid about their plans for space travel.
I mean, if they haven't done a manned space flight to outside the atmosphere, it is far-fetched to be running before you can walk or even stand.
The end.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Why?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
even very smart, very successful, technologically savvy people have impossible delusions (in this case that humans can live for long periods beyond everything that we take for granted on Earth).
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Glad that yoy liked it. That engine is an enabler. Methane/oxygen works incredibly well in gas-gas cycle. It's unbeatable for that.
What I can tell is that Elon is serious in his desires. But you have to understand that the reason for that is that he has the vision and he's actually doing an ambitious but realistic plan. Next week flight will have legs on the first stage. And they'll try to pin point land it on the sea. If they do, the guys at the Cape with the big red button might let them try to land it in US soild next. But if not, that's still the cheapest rocket in its category in the world. Their modus operandi is realistic and bold. We'd better follow him because we might be watching history in the making.
If he invents warp drive the Vulcans will take us there.
A new plane doesn't make a new engine possible. A new engine makes a new plane possible.
It's great that there Elon Musk is pushing out gains in performance, reusability and most importantly cost in chemical engine design! Kudos to him (and his company).
Of course for the real exploration of the solar system to begin, we'll need nuclear (fusion!) or other such unrealized technologies. Still it's a good start!
Is anyone making sense of this? I know what all the terms are but the facts are more or less jumbled up together in ways that don't lend themselves to meaningful comparison.
Light match. Its the same plan we all have.
An interesting experiment would be for him to go with 99 other libertarian fellow to see how they could survive without big govt
You know, if you're going to talk about the explosion of 1 (out of 9) rockets on one launch, you really should also mention the fact that they were able to complete the primary mission anyhow... they lost one nozzle, it shut down automatically, the fuel was diverted to the other nozzles, and they burned a little longer. They successfully rendezvoused with the ISS anyhow, despite a moderately explosive engine failure during launch. Let that sink in for a moment. Many rockets wouldn't even have been able to reach orbit in the case of a nozzle simply shutting down, much less blowing up.
In fairness to your complaint, though, the secondary goal of the mission was not attempted. SpaceX said they could give 95% assurance that the satellite would reach its safe orbit (not putting the ISS at risk), but NASA required over 99% assurance. Due to the extra fuel they'd had to burn, this could not be guaranteed. Still, it was highly likely they could have pulled it off, and likely would have tried under different circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
We did away with NASA for the most part to privatize it. ; (
So I wonder how profitable it is for a corporation to go to mars on a science mission? Paid for no doubt by our taxes, so what's the diffrence, other than corporate profits?
Call me when their engines stop exploding.
Ring! Ring! The engine didn't explode. Let me quote directly from the youtube link you posted:
Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night's launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket's nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
While I think your comments are leaning towards sarcastic, I'll try to be nice, so you have no problem wasting money and time, to fly to a dead planet for what? Is it going to cure disease? Is it going to cause the entire human race to stop with foolish wars over religion, patriotism, or ego?
Those are A FEW problems, out of many I have with it!
When I was younger I was all into this stuff, I have at least need to admit to that. In some ways I still am with astronomy. But it is a tremendous waste of time and money that could be put to better use. Like a planet called earth, and if you think you could escape the flaws of mankind on earth by living on Mars without your mates going insane and it turning to complete chaos, you should remember humans are animals, even with are 'advanced brain' there are things you will not control.
That seems bold. Everybody else so far has practiced their aim on the moon first.
This system would be capable of transporting 100 colonists at a time to Mars, and would be fully reusable.
I initially misread that as saying that the 100 colonists would be reusable.
Well, they need something to eat!
to grow buy a good mafia suit and a cat he's attached to and slick his hair back..nah Elon Musk can't do the evil genius.
I thought he was South African?
Where's that hyperloop thing again? What a nutter.
If you're not willing to die on Mars then you probably shouldn't go.
Most of our ancestors came to the Americas with no intent of returning to their homeland. They were the bright eyed wannabes of their age.
Musk has already dumped the plans (pie n' the sky) and will now play to Pump N' Dump the stock.
zero chance. Mars one is talking about putting individual dragons connecting together, on the surface. There is little chance of that really working for ppl and dealing with the constant radiation.
In addition, Mars one talks about sending 6 ppl at a time. SpaceX is doing 100 at a time.
What Mars one is, is a back-up plan IFF SpaceX fails. Otherwise, SpaceX will be on mars BEFORE Mars-one launches a mission with the robots (though they MIGHT be able to launch one or two exploratory missions.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
OSC being a real player? Not even close. They own NO ip related to launching. And even in sats, they are only SO-SO.
To even think that they are a real player is a total joke.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I imagine it has something to do with the fact that It takes considerably less energy to escape Earth entirely than to go into even a low orbit, and what is to be gained by stopping in orbit? The craft you transfer to will have had to already make the trip up itself, you may as well just put your passengers in it and save the stop. Our rocket technology is mostly not terribly dependent on whether it's operating in air or vacuum, and for a reusable craft you have to be able to land on Mars and take off again with minimal planet-side infrastructure anyway, so any potential strength and weight reductions for an craft unsuitable for an Earth launch would be severely limited - most of the benefit could likely be gained from a breakaway 1st stage that just handles getting the rocket to a Mars-surface equivalent gravity-well "depth".
Moreover, the vast majority of the craft weight is fuel and tanks which will need to be landed to refuel anyway - no sense adding a bunch of fuel-hauling longboats if you can gracefully land the gas tanks rocket on their tail. The reason the moon missions used a lander were probably twofold: control systems were not yet advanced enough to land a full rocket on it's tail, and fuel for the entire mission had to be carried from Earth. If you could refuel on the Moon then it might well have made more sense to land the whole, potentially much smaller, EarthMoon rocket and refuel it.
Where space-only vessels become useful is once you have multiple "ports" with their own "longboat" / space elevator infrastructure already in place to allow cargo/passenger transfer and refueling. After all surface-to-orbit is the most expensive part of the trip, and much can be gained by not needing to include the capacity to handle that, but only if it doesn't mean hauling along a completely second vessel for the ride.
Alternately if ion drives were mature enough to propel the interplanetary stage, but not yet powerful enough for a surface launch, then the massive efficiency boost might make it worth having it a separate landing vehicle - no sense dropping a large useless ion drive into a gravity well and hauling it up again. Since most of the weight is the drive rather than the fuel as with rockets it changes the dynamics of the situation.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Here's a visualization of the MCT Heavy Lift Vehicles, to scale with the existing Falcon 9 and the under-construction Falcon 9 Heavy. (Rocket designation is fictional, of course.) The visualization includes possible cargo shrouds.
Yes, this monster will have a larger lift capacity than the Saturn V. Each individual Raptor is less capable than an F-1 engine, but there will be nine of them, rather than five.
I think it is a stretch to even suggest that Mars One is a backup plan to SpaceX. At best I would put Inspiration Mars (Dennis Tito's project) in that realm, assuming Mr. Tito goes anywhere with his project as well.
I saw a Reddit conversation with the guys of Mars One that showed they really knew almost nothing about the technical side of things, and sort of thought they could magically buy anything they needed to get the job done. That might work for something such as an Antarctic expedition where the tools and experience of going there has already been done and is in large scale production for other purposes, but it doesn't work for going well beyond the frontier of human experience.
At least SpaceX has put stuff into space, where photos like this are something that their equipment has actually taken. The guys with Mars One have been no higher than what you can get with a commercial jetliner, and that is as a passenger as well. I like big dreams, but either company needs to unfortunately produce much of the equipment needed for going to Mars in-house as nobody else is even making the stuff necessary. SpaceX knows how to make stuff that works in space and has stuff in space right now to show it can get the job done. What does Mars One even have?
I've always been wondering, if the end goal is to eventually colonize and extract resources, why not start with the moon first? The 2~3 day trip of zero gravity in a claustrophobic environment is infinitely less risky than the 150~300 day trip to Mars. Not to mention something were to go awry in a moon mission, there's at least a chance of rescue and immediate form of communication.
I love Musk's vision and respect what he's doing, but with my admittedly limited knowledge, I just don't get the leap he's taking here. If someone can rationalize it for me, please do.
I've always been wondering, if the end goal is to eventually colonize and extract resources, why not start with the moon first? The 2~3 day trip of zero gravity in a claustrophobic environment is infinitely less risky than the 150~300 day trip to Mars. Not to mention something were to go awry in a moon mission, there's at least a chance of rescue and immediate form of communication.
I love Musk's vision and respect what he's doing, but I just don't get the leap he's taking here. If someone can rationalize it for me, please do.
Life fills all niches and space is just another niche to fill.
First
Is it really that hard to write "people?"
Astronaut Chang Diaz says he can get us to Mars in 39 days, which is a good idea. Space Travel is dangerous & you would want the commute to be as short as possible. Unfortunately, it would take 3 months of aero braking to slow the ship down so that you could land on Mars.
When I was in the Service and my time was almost up in the Air Force and I pissed off my First Sargent in Anchorage AK, he sent me to a place 50 miles south of the arctic Circle on the Yukon River called Galena Air Force Base. The average Temperature was 45 below 0 F. It got down to -80 one day. I hated it more than anything. Now at least it had ice fishing, snow-mobiling, plenty of Indians to hang out with get get drunk with, none of that will be found on MARS. Now MARS will Make Galena AK in the Winter look like a tropical paradise. There is a reason people don't live on MARS today. That reason is that it's no inhabitable and it's to fucking cold and the atmosphere is not heavy enough with enough O2 to support human life. So why do I want to go to MARS, oh yeah I fuck don't want to go to MARS. I'm very fucking happy living here on earth riding my Harley's all over God creation. You can ride a Harley around Galena AK but you would never be able to on MARS cause MARS Sucks Dick
Paul E. Bahre
we fight.