Slashdot Mirror


Elon Musk To Unveil Mars Spacecraft Later This Year, For 2025 Flight (foxnews.com)

frank249 writes: Fox News is reporting that Space X and Tesla CEO Elon Musk expects to unveil plans for the spacecraft that would send humans to Mars within a decade. Speaking at an event in Hong Kong, Musk said he was 'hoping to describe the architecture' of the spacecraft at the International Astronautical Conference in Mexico in late September. "That will be quite exciting," Musk said. 'In terms of the first flight to Mars, we are hoping to do that around 2025.' As for his plans to go into space, Musk said he was hoping to reach the International Space Station 'four or five years from now.'

101 comments

  1. Timothy!!! by qbast · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The whole page of submissions from 'timothy'. What the hell?

    1. Re:Timothy!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously.

      It sure would be nice if the new management cleaned house a bit.

    2. Re:Timothy!!! by burni2 · · Score: 1

      Actually!

      They did, only poor Timothy was left to run the big slashdotanic through the ice berg infested atlantic ocean of information.

    3. Re:Timothy!!! by myster0n · · Score: 2

      He's the only one sober enough to submit stories.

      --
      Nobody believes the official spokesman, but everybody trusts an unidentified source. -- Ron Nesen
    4. Re:Timothy!!! by fhage · · Score: 1

      He's been the only one posting stories since Thursday morning. I'm willing to cut him a bit of slack at this point.

    5. Re:Timothy!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best poster on here for years now. I'm looking forward to new management.

    6. Re:Timothy!!! by lhowaf · · Score: 3, Funny

      There are new editors. They've eaten Timmay and are submitting stories under his account.

  2. ATTENTION ATTENTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Attention citizens of earth! Elon Musk, the GREAT INVENTOR, has unveiled his next GIGAPROJECT! All stop and listen what he plans to do!

    1. Re:ATTENTION ATTENTION by AchilleTalon · · Score: 0

      And open wide your pockets, he needs money to save the humanity..

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
  3. What will he do when something goes wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When something goes wrong on launch or en route, and all the people on board die, can he be sued for negligence, for sending all those people to their deaths?

    1. Re: What will he do when something goes wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he can be sued.

      Winning the suit is another matter.

    2. Re:What will he do when something goes wrong? by cytg.net · · Score: 1

      can you be sued for being a net negative for the prosperity of humanity? Sure you can .. I problary wont win though'

  4. "Thoguht" ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mars in 2025, Spellchecking in 2026.

  5. Safely??? by Alomex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have no doubt than in ten years he can build a rocket powerful enough to reach Mars. Then if he wishes to do it safely, he would have to send several unmanned missions (I'm thinking three) before he can get a safe certification for the one year (wo)manned journey.

    A hell of a lot of things can go wrong in a year, as the ISS proves, and that is within the protective realm of the earth's magnetic field.

    1. Re:Safely??? by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The rocket is not in question.

      Right now the long pole in manned Mars surface missions is not rocket launch technology, it is Mars surface survival.

      What kind of structure will people live in on Mars? How will it land? Heavy large structures that would be required for human habitation have not been landed on Mars to date and that is quite tricky.

      How will the people live there? What kind of suits and structures will they use for radiation protection? For oxygen and water generation? For food production?

      Obviously all of these problems have been addressed on ISS but only in the sense of solutions that can be relatively quickly resupplied from earth which won't be the case with a Mars surface mission.

    2. Re:Safely??? by Alomex · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that the first trip is a return trip, with only a fortnight on the surface. I might be wrong though.

    3. Re:Safely??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they should just grow potatoes.

    4. Re:Safely??? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What kind of structure will people live in on Mars? How will it land? Heavy large structures that would be required for human habitation have not been landed on Mars to date and that is quite tricky.

      What? Why would you need to land heavy large structures? What you need to land is a heavy large backhoe, so that you can bury things.

      Obviously all of these problems have been addressed on ISS but only in the sense of solutions that can be relatively quickly resupplied from earth which won't be the case with a Mars surface mission.

      There is no point to going to Mars to stay unless you plan for regular resupply.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Safely??? by Rolgar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Earth is moving about 20% faster than Mars. What this means is that the optimal time to launch from Earth to Mars is when Earth is behind Mars. The space ship will continue to have a speed advantage which will have to be negated. Now, the travel time from Earth to Mars is so long that Earth will long pass Mars by the time the spacecraft reaches Mars. Now, since the Earth will be ahead and getting farther away, to catch the Earth before it goes around the Sun, the space craft would have to speed up the difference plus even more to actually catch up. Fuel efficiency wise, the mission will have to last about half a year before the astronauts have an opportunity to launch and head fly on an intercept course with Earth.

    6. Re:Safely??? by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Why do we have to land on first try? I would think we could do like we did with the moon: several manned trips to orbit Mars, test the actual transit technology, with a couple probe drops (and possible launch/recoveries). Kudos for wanting to get it all on the first shot, but this could be several missions before we actually put a boot on the surface and try to return it.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    7. Re:Safely??? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Doesn't even have to be a heavy and large backhoe - a small backyard backhoe would probably be adequate for burying early structures, and if you built it out of carbon fiber it could be pretty darn light. If you need more weight for leverage, just add sandbags that can be filled on site. You could probably even get by with manpower and shovels in a pinch, though I'd be way happier with the backhoe.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:Safely??? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      If they can land a rocket on Earth, I'm pretty sure they could do the same on Mars. And interplanetary travel is going to be WAY more dangerous than a trip to the moon, getting people into radiation shelters on Mars before too much permanent damage is done is going to be a high priority. Plan on a round trip instead, and you have to make each one-way transit in half the time, which means imparting 4x the kinetic energy. And of course that means WAY more than 4x the fuel, which may well make the entire endeavor impossible within the required time window. And that's before you even factor in orbital dynamics - the optimal windows for flights to and from Mars are NOT back-to-back.

      Not to mention you're probably going to get a lot fewer volunteers to do a pointless round trip than to actually land and try to accomplish something. You want me to spend how long in a tin can crossing the gulf between worlds for the sole purpose of finding out if you can avoid killing me in the process?

      Now, you could maybe do autonomous flights first to test the larger propulsion system. You could even carry non-perishable supplies to have waiting for the first manned mission

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:Safely??? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Landing on Mars is difficult. There's not enough air for effective air braking, but enough to cause serious complications with rocket landings. I'm sure we'll figure something out, and Space-X's experiments with recovering boosters may make this easier, but it isn't trivial.

      Also, radiation exposure on the trip is very unlikely to cause acute radiation poisoning, which means that what's significant is the total dosage. Unless the idea is to send people to Mars with no intention of bringing them back, it doesn't matter whether the return trip is immediate or delayed. The landing would probably be more important considering the problems microgravity causes, and spending some time with, what is it, 0.4G? between months effectively weightless might be a very good idea.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. The Musk factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Tesla Model-X unveling: February 2012, planned for deliver in early 2014. Actual deliveries began on September 29, 2015.

    This is only one data point, and space systems are considerably more challenging; but let's say ball-park, the Musk factor is somewhere around 2. See you in 2034. I hope they get rid of any lingering Unix time bugs before they launch.

    1. Re:The Musk factor by cytg.net · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ill take 2034 over ???? though.

    2. Re: The Musk factor by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Didn't George HW Bush promise men on Mars by 2011?

      It's not a shame that Musk is ineligible to run for President because he can actually be effective in the private sector.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re: The Musk factor by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Didn't George HW Bush promise men on Mars by 2011?

      From what I can find, his goal was 2019. Frankly it wasn't a terrible estimate being 30 years away, but it assumed full support from future administrations (which didn't exactly happen).

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    4. Re: The Musk factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it is funny how the same people who cheered Obama scrapping all of the Bush administration's plans for manned space flight came rushing out to cheer Obama's late decision to return to manned missions onward to Mars - only a couple of decades later. Yes, I'm talking about you Neil Degrasse Tyson and you Bill Nye ... and all of you who put politics at the top of your priories.

      They helped trash Griffin and everyone cheered as Obama declared the Bush mission to Mars dead. And then picked up their picket signs and started agitating for a manned space program to head out to the planets. Nice job guys!

  7. You mean Space Coffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This monster is going to get people killed in the name of profit.

    1. Re:You mean Space Coffin by cytg.net · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is .. Worst case, absolutely worst case, its business as usual? Good enough for you, me, corporate america and the rest of the "free" world. Whatcha whining about? Still a shot at mars, chicken shit .. you could, like, you know, not sign up.

    2. Re:You mean Space Coffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better that than getting killed in Iraq in the name of profit.

    3. Re:You mean Space Coffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, when I read troll comments like this... Well, once upon a time, I would have just thought you were an idiot trying to get attention. These days, I have to seriously consider the possibility that you're part of a paid smear campaign by one of Musk's competitors. Because that's actually done these days. Ethical standards in marketing, never very high in the first place, have slipped that far. I suppose it's not the ethical standards of marketers that bother me so much, it's the public acceptance of such methods.

      Either way, whether you're an earnest troll, or a paid shill, or even if you're actually legitimately concerned, I just have to point out how stupid your comment is. Firstly, what profit? There very well may be profit made in colonizing Mars, but Musk isn't likely to see any of it. Musk is clearly an enthusiast. A businessman as well, but he's clearly actually passionate about space travel. Now, there are a lot of people in the space industry who are passionate about space travel - that's why they got into the industry - but they mostly seem to be working under management for whom it's just another business. For those of us who actually want to see this happen, it's great to see someone like Musk at the top. He certainly has his flaws, but he's still someone who could actually pull this off.

      On the profit side, actually, I have thought a lot about the potential of private enthusiast funding for space travel. Public funding and private investment funding seem to be going nowhere.

      As far as public funding goes, I've grown more and more disillusioned with it as a way to get manned spaceflight. There's lots of interesting unmanned stuff, but it's still disappointing. Neither NASA, nor the ESA, nor the Russians have managed to really make a decent assembly line to space. Consider that, all told, Curiosity cost about 1.25 million per pound, with about $250,000 per pound being the costs just to get it to Mars. The delivery costs alone are too high, but the costs of the rover itself are ridiculous. Yes, it makes sense that there are high development costs, and those (and the science program) are a big part of the total cost (including the delivery costs). But those costs should be one time costs spread out over a fleet of rovers and sky cranes. Instead, they're pretty much guaranteed to be a one off. Sure they will "take what we learned for the next time", but they will also still develop the next one pretty much entirely from scratch. As far as manned spaceflight goes, it's not even on the radar.

      Private investment is a no go. The stock markets are overrun with high frequency traders. All they really care about is gambling really, really fast. Investments that take decades to pay off don't interest anyone in investment. The future for them is seconds from now, not decades. Things like mortgages only manage to exist in the modern age of investment because you can leverage the debt into securities that can be used to gamble with.

      So, really, the only hope seems to me to be private enthusiast funding. Sort of like investment, but the returns aren't financial (maybe the funding could be set up in some way so that funders could actually get a share of the profits if there ever are any, but that sort of thing usually runs afoul of all kinds of investment laws, whereas you can simply donate your money with no problem). Instead, the returns come in the form of fulfilling dreams to actually see humans travel to and colonize other planets. The trouble is, for such schemes to work, they need to work on a truly large scale, and they have to come with guarantees. Mars One is is an example of such a plan, and it's very unlikely to make it, and is widely believed to be a scam. If someone trustworthy and with the proven capability to actually make the plan happen came forward with a similar scheme the I, for one, would contribute. Elon Musk would, for example, be someone I could get behind on this. If his company came out with a subscription plan, say $50 per month to fund a mission 10 years for

    4. Re:You mean Space Coffin by catchblue22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This monster is going to get people killed in the name of profit.

      Imagine if the above intrepid poster typified decision makers in sixteenth century. They would never have sent out explorers such as Sir Francis Drake or Ferdinand Magellan on their great voyages to map the world. Hell, if all humans were all like this poster (and those who modded him up), these great explorers would never have existed. Judging by many of the comments on this article, we are turning into a society of Statler and Waldorfs who criticize from the sidelines while offering little of substance. So grow a pair, and remember that all of us are going to die. What are you going to do with your life?

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    5. Re:You mean Space Coffin by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      These days, I have to seriously consider the possibility that you're part of a paid smear campaign by one of Musk's competitors. Because that's actually done these days. Ethical standards in marketing, never very high in the first place, have slipped that far. I suppose it's not the ethical standards of marketers that bother me so much, it's the public acceptance of such methods.

      I have to agree with you. I have been watching Musk and his companies for a long time, and it seems to me that these trolling posts about Space X seemed to start appearing at a particular time, I think about two to three years ago. ULA, Space X's competitor in the US hired S-3 Group as a their propaganda and lobbying company about that time. I think what may have provoked it was that Space X was calling out ULA for using Russian rocket engines in its Atlas V rocket. They were involved in legal motions to prevent the Air Force from buying Russian engines. It seems to me that ULA likely realized that Space X was a real competitor. They likely wrote them off before as a joke because they Elon Musk kept making promises that seemed impossible. However those promises started coming true, albeit a bit later than promised. One thing that I have learned about Elon Musk is that he may make pronouncements that seem impossible, but usually they come true. He is quite brilliant and for the most part honest in what he says. He predicted that Space X would become a globally competitive launcher during a speech he made after their first successful launch, and this has come true. He predicted they would be able to land a first stage, and they succeeded last month. He predicted they would make a capsule that would land like a helicopter, and so far testing looks promising. I know the Mars idea seems unlikely at first glance, but if re-usability pans out (which seems likely because he has landed a first stage, which is the hardest part), then sending three or so astronauts on a fly-by won't be that expensive. Building a lander would be hard, but their experience with supersonic retropropulsion will help, as will their experience landing rockets. As for making fuel on Mars, I think that would require time and testing. I suspect the first flight will be a fly-by, just as it was with the Moon program. That is definitely feasible in the 10-year time frame.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    6. Re:You mean Space Coffin by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      One of the major drivers of the high cost of the rovers (and other spacecraft) is the high launch cost. You need high reliability if you're going to spend a lot of money to get there. High reliability costs a lot. This in turn creates a positive feedback loop - $.5B to launch, $.1B to build, $.3 billion to test. Now that you're up to a billion $ investment, it makes reliability more imperative, so you have $.5B to build and $1.2B to test. As long as you are spending $3B, for only 50% more you can have more capability and even higher reliability. Repeat until you absolutely run out of money then fly.

      You can also look at it from a limits perspective. If launch costs were free, an individual would have the ability to put a rover on Mars. If they go up to $500/kg then you'd have universities with their own rovers. If you spend $50k for launch costs, what is the economic justification for spending money on testing? Doesn't work? Send another.

    7. Re:You mean Space Coffin by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Those guys weren't sent for the joy of exploration. They were sent because somebody thought they could turn a profit. Magellan gave the Spanish a new route to Asia; Drake was looking for a way to circumvent Spanish (and Dutch) control of those routes. They were sent to bring back a load of stuff, as well as a route that would enable them to get more stuff cheaper. They had no plans to turn over the details to anybody except their employer.

      They had very good reason to think that they had a profitable mission, and while they knew it was dangerous, they did plan to return. It was not a suicide mission.

    8. Re: You mean Space Coffin by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Nope. Professional and ameaturs trolling has been going on since F1's first failure. Gaetanomarano has been trolling the site screaming that private space would not only fail, but that NASA should continue to spend more money on building rockets and parts in Europe, esp Italy, along with Russia. Then we saw several Russians get into the act along with Chinese, all screaming that spacex, and all musk ventures will fail. Now, here on /., we have amightywind, who is actually a troll from ULA. Quite regularly, he will troll here as AC, but it is the same bullshit. So plenty of pros and amateurs at this on many of the sites.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:You mean Space Coffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, if all humans were all like this poster (and those who modded him up)

      If they're moderating correctly, the people who modded him up don't necessarily have to agree with him - they just consider his point beneficial to the discussion.

  8. Reality show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It better be part of a reality show or you know it's fake.

  9. Elon Musk's opinions on space offend me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why hasn't Twitter banned this guy yet??

  10. Re:Musk needs to get a grip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's the 'new' Steve Jobs.

  11. Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first crew is doomed. Mars should be governed as a democratic republic. Therefore, the first crew should be the entire US legislature to get things going. QED

  12. Re:Musk needs to get a grip by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    But the media treat him like the second coming. He has opinions about things that are completely outside his sphere and they love him for it.

    For the same reason the media loves Trump - he gets clicks, shares, and forwards. (Plus haven't you seen the Musk worship here on Slashdot?)

  13. Re:Musk needs to get a grip by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    So for the CEO of a rocket company, making a rocket is "outside his sphere"? Interesting.

    --
    It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
  14. Mars Colonial Transporter by frank249 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The first demo flight of the 27 engine Falcon Heavy is in April. SpaceX announced in May 2015 that they are positioning Dragon V2 spacecraft variants—in conjunction with the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle—to transport science payloads across much of the solar system, in cislunar and inner solar system regions such as the Moon and Mars as well as to outer solar system destinations such as Jupiter's moon Europa. Details include that SpaceX expects to be able to transport 2,000–4,000 kg (4,400–8,800 lb) to the surface of Mars, including a soft retropropulsive landing using SuperDraco thrusters following a limited atmospheric deceleration. When the destination has no atmosphere, the Dragon variant would dispense with the parachute and heat shield and add additional propellant.

    SpaceX began development of the large Raptor rocket engine for the Mars Colonial Transport before 2014, but the MCT will not be operational earlier than the mid-2020s. SpaceX have not yet publicly released details of the space mission architecture nor all the system components of the MCT, nor a timeline for earliest MCT missions to Mars. Elon Musk hopes to unveil the space mission architecture at the International Astronautical Congress in September 2016.

    The super-heavy lift launch vehicle for MCT is intended to be fully-reusable. Mars Colonial Transporter has been notionally described as a large interplanetary spacecraft capable of taking 100 people or 100 tonnes of cargo at a time to Mars.

    Sounds far fetched but based on Musk's track record, I would not be surprised if he goes for it.

    --

    Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

    1. Re:Mars Colonial Transporter by frank249 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Th US Air Force has just given SpaceX a $33m contract to develop the Raptor Engine. Raptor is the first member of a family of cryogenic methane-fueled rocket engines under development by SpaceX. It is specifically intended to power high performance lower and upper stages for SpaceX super-heavy launch vehicles. The engine will be powered by liquid methane and liquid oxygen (LOX), rather than the RP-1 kerosene and LOX used in all previous Falcon 9 rockets, which use Merlin 1C & D engines. Methane rocket engines have higher performance than kerosene/RP-1 and lower than hydrogen, with significantly fewer problems for long-term, multi-start engine designs than kerosene—methane is cleaner burning—and significantly lower cost than hydrogen, coupled with the ability to "live off land" and produce methane directly from extraterrestrial sources such as the surface of Mars.

      The Raptor engine will have over six times the thrust of the Merlin 1D vacuum engine that powers the second stage of the current Falcon 9, the Falcon 9 v1.1.

      The broader Raptor concept is a highly reusable methane staged-combustion engine that will power the next generation of SpaceX launch vehicles designed for the exploration and colonization of Mars." According to Elon Musk, this design will be able to achieve full reusability (all rocket stages), and as a result, "a two order of magnitude reduction in the cost of spaceflight.

      --

      Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

    2. Re:Mars Colonial Transporter by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Meh. CH4, H2 and RP1 are all clean, cheap fuels - the levels of pollution and fuel costs are practically non-issues here. ISP, thrust and density are what matter. Methane simply lies on the curve between RP-1 and H2 in terms of thrust, density and ISP (significantly closer to RP-1 than H2). H2 is easier to produce on Mars than methane, which is in turn easier to produce than RP-1 - in this regard, methane is closer to H2 than RP-1 (the mass fractions of current hydrocarbon synthesis from CO2 and H2 tend to produce more methane than heavier hydrocarbons, although the ratios depend on the catalyst, and new catalysts could change this, and you could always do subsequent steps to combine light hydrocarbons)

      Methane probably is a good balance for Mars if you want local propellant production. And really, since Mars round trips are so far down the rocket equation chain, you pretty much have to either use extremely high ISP fuels, or go with local propellant production. SpaceX has chosen the latter.

      --
      It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
    3. Re:Mars Colonial Transporter by rasmusbr · · Score: 2

      This is all very impressive, but the reason why USAF wants better rockets is probably nothing to do with Mars. They probably want cheaper and better satellites and the ability to put heavy weaponry in space, such as tungsten rods with retrorockets and guidance. That old cold war idea.

      The Mars trip will happen when there is a compelling reason for people to go there, like if someone other than the US tries to get there first.

    4. Re:Mars Colonial Transporter by gman003 · · Score: 2

      CH4 has a specific impulse much closer to LH2 than RP1. CH4 is 1 carbon per 4 hydrogen atoms, RP1 is about 1 carbon per 2 hydrogen atoms.

      At vehicle scale, CH4 might be even more efficient than LH2. LH2 is a deep cryogenic fuel - boiling point at 20K. The mass of insulation needed it pretty severe, particularly when you account for its low density. CH4 boils at a much, much more reasonable 110K, making it just barely thermally compatible with LOX at 90K - this is significant for interplanetary flights, where the temperatures of the fuel and oxidizer will eventually equalize without intervention. That's one reason most interplanetary probes use hydrazine for maneuvering once past Earth orbit - they can just regulate the entire spacecraft to one temperature, not worry about boiling their fuel. MCT will have to cool its propellant but at least it's not too cold, nor do they need to insulate one propellant from the other.

      Also, natural methane has been detected on Mars. If we can determine the source, it may be possible to use it simply by condensing it, which will be even easier than producing LH2. Other planets/moons may be even easier.

    5. Re:Mars Colonial Transporter by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Will they be getting Tim Taylor to perform the pre-launch introduction?

    6. Re:Mars Colonial Transporter by Rei · · Score: 2

      CH4 has a specific impulse much closer to LH2 than RP1

      False. But don't just take my word for it, take CEA2's. Parameters: all chamber pressures set to identical 204.08, pi/pe set to give a constant 100:1 expansion ratio, mdot=2223.8 (same as the SSME). All fuels burned with LOX at a stoichiometric ratio. All chemicals at their boiling point except the RP1, which is set to 300K. RP1 simulated by dodecane.

      ISP:
      H2: 436,9
      CH4: 365,6
      C12H26: 360,6

      Seriously, have you never looked at an ISP table before?

      The mass of insulation needed it pretty severe, particularly when you account for its low density.

      Nope. As is typical, it made up about 7% of the shuttle ET's mass. Nowhere near comparable to such an ISP difference.

      CH4 boils at a much, much more reasonable 110K, making it just barely thermally compatible with LOX at 90K

      Nope, CH4 freezes solid at 90,7K (versus LOX boiling at 90,2K). And it becomes way too viscous as it approaches its freezing point. That doesn't mean that they can't share a common bulkhead, but it does complicate it for long-term storage (aka, Mars missions)

      That's one reason most interplanetary probes use hydrazine for maneuvering once past Earth orbit

      That and because it's hypergolic and requires only trivial, lightweight engines - which isn't applicable to CH4.

      Also, natural methane has been detected on Mars. If we can determine the source...

      This is pure fantasy. Mars's atmospheric concentration is 10ppb - in an atmosphere that's only 0,7% the pressure of Earth's to begin with. Earth's is 1700 ppb at two orders of magnitude higher pressure, and the concept of condensing methane out of the atmosphere at "rich spots" is ridiculous even here - where we have extremely detailed global surface-level data on where "rich spots" are. Lastly, as much as I'd love a detailed surface-level whole-planet geological resource survey of Mars, that's just not going to happen anytime remotely soon - if in our lifetimes at all.

      Realistic missions involve using as little speculative technology or speculative data-finds as possible. Even the concept of producing hydrogen from water on Mars is looked at with hesitation (O2 from CO2 is trusted more; the feedstock is much more pure and predictable - the Mars 2020 rover will be testing that one out, hopefully it will go well). Even for O2 we still need to demonstrate a reliable, deliverable system for local storage (as well as industrial-scale production rather than tiny lab-scale production).

      --
      It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
    7. Re:Mars Colonial Transporter by AJWM · · Score: 2

      Meh. CH4, H2 and RP1 are all clean, cheap fuels - the levels of pollution and fuel costs are practically non-issues here. ISP, thrust and density are what matter. Methane simply lies on the curve between RP-1 and H2 in terms of thrust, density and ISP.

      Mostly right. Two out of three for clean: RP-1 has a tendency to coke up and can foul injectors or lead to hot-spots in the cooling tubes if you're re-using the engines. (Merlin's pintle injectors are probably not as prone to coke fouling, and all of this is going to depend on dozens of specific design decisions in the engine.) (The cleanliness of the exhaust is, as you also implied, irrelevant. Expecially compared to storable and/or hypergolic fuels.)

      Isp is what matters above a certain altitude, below that what matters it thrust. All the Isp in the world won't help you get off the ground if your thrust to weight ratio is less than one. We've tested nuclear rockets with Isps in the 900s (three times better than LOX-H2) but they were too heavy to get off the ground. (Ion engines have the same problem in spades, but we're not talking about those.) Methane (and RP-1) will give you higher thrust than a comparable LH2 engine. Again, there are tradeoffs -- you could run LH2/LO2 engines O2-rich for higher thrust during part of the launch (although superheated O2 isn't the most benign environment for your pad, or the engine nozzles.)

      Glad you brought up density. Many people forget about how this affects rocket performance. For any given mass of fuel (or oxidizer), the denser it is the smaller you can make the fuel tanks. The smaller the tanks, the less dead-weight you're lifting. I believe the latest Falcon-9 super-cools the LOX (making it denser) to take advantage of this. Methane also allows for considerably smaller tanks than LH2, making up some of the Isp disadvantage (the reduced insulation needs and simplified handling also help). (Some of Gary Hudson's old Phoenix SSTO proposals considered using densified (slush) hydrogen to get tankage weight down, but we still have hardly any experience with that stuff, and it's still barely 1/5 density of LCH4).

      --
      -- Alastair
    8. Re:Mars Colonial Transporter by Rei · · Score: 2

      My impression when they wrote "clean" was "clean from an environmental perspective". :)

      Thrust is strongly correlated with density (as how fast you can burn a fuel depends on how fast your turbopumps can pump it into the chambers), so one can get a good sense of how good a fuel will be from a thrust perspective by its density. Which is why hydrogen makes for lousy first stages ;) Still, methane's reduced density definitely loses out over RP1. But I'm sure the thrust level will be fine.

      You're correct about the "super-cooling" (they refer to it as densification, to avoid being mistaken for the phenomenon "supercooling"), which gives more thrust and lets them store more propellant - at a cost of additional complexity (mainly on the ground). I imagine they're probably not going to want to have to deal with that sort of complexity on Mars... but who knows?

      You mention slush... slush and gel propellants provide an additional interest possibility, which is the ability to incorporate metal dusts into the burn. Aluminum offers a huge improvement to hydrocarbons and small improvement to LOX/LH in terms of ISP; it also provides a density boost. Lithium provides an even bigger boost to all cases, although obviously it poses additional handling difficulties. The most efficient chemical rocket engine ever tested dispensed with that altogether and burned molten lithium with hydrogen and fluorine (triprop... the hydrogen is there as a working gas, it doesn't contribute to the reaction). Got 542 sec ISP ;) According to CEA sims it's still a killer mix even if you use LOX instead of LF2... although it still depends on how much one is willing to hazard working with lithium. But that's all sort of a side point... if they use gel or slush propellants, particularly with hydrocarbons, they can really benefit by incorporating aluminum powder, which is quite safe and offers excellent density. Aluminum also tends to even out the burn and reduce vibration.

      --
      It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
    9. Re:Mars Colonial Transporter by gman003 · · Score: 1

      False. But don't just take my word for it, take CEA2's. Parameters: all chamber pressures set to identical 204.08, pi/pe set to give a constant 100:1 expansion ratio, mdot=2223.8 (same as the SSME). All fuels burned with LOX at a stoichiometric ratio. All chemicals at their boiling point except the RP1, which is set to 300K. RP1 simulated by dodecane.

      Seriously, have you never looked at an ISP table before?

      I have, in fact, looked at ISP tables, but I was going off memory. Apparently I remember it being a lot more efficient than it is - I think I was remembering sea-level efficiencies rather than vacuum.

      Nope. As is typical, it made up about 7% of the shuttle ET's mass. Nowhere near comparable to such an ISP difference.

      7% is not an insubstantial amount, particularly when Falcon's figures for "all non-propellant, non-payload mass" are down to 3-5%. (It might also be worthwhile to point out that the Shuttle ET insulation was not without its flaws, which were perhaps caused by overzealous trimming of mass.)

      Nope, CH4 freezes solid at 90,7K (versus LOX boiling at 90,2K). And it becomes way too viscous as it approaches its freezing point. That doesn't mean that they can't share a common bulkhead, but it does complicate it for long-term storage (aka, Mars missions)

      Fair point, but it does simplify things more than LH2+LOX would be, or even RP1+LOX if you found a way to synthesize kerosene on Mars.

      This is pure fantasy. Mars's atmospheric concentration is 10ppb - in an atmosphere that's only 0,7% the pressure of Earth's to begin with. Earth's is 1700 ppb at two orders of magnitude higher pressure, and the concept of condensing methane out of the atmosphere at "rich spots" is ridiculous even here - where we have extremely detailed global surface-level data on where "rich spots" are. Lastly, as much as I'd love a detailed surface-level whole-planet geological resource survey of Mars, that's just not going to happen anytime remotely soon - if in our lifetimes at all.

      I wasn't expecting to pull it out of the atmosphere. Many of the theories for where the methane is coming from imply the existence of stores of methane somewhere on Mars. If, for example, it were trapped in underground deposits, we could tap into it relatively easily.

    10. Re:Mars Colonial Transporter by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      Nope, CH4 freezes solid at 90,7K (versus LOX boiling at 90,2K). And it becomes way too viscous as it approaches its freezing point. That doesn't mean that they can't share a common bulkhead, but it does complicate it for long-term storage (aka, Mars missions)

      Fair point, but it does simplify things more than LH2+LOX would be, or even RP1+LOX if you found a way to synthesize kerosene on Mars.

      Those boiling points are presumably at 1 atmosphere, but there is nothing special about that pressure. If you pressurise the LOX tank a little you can probably get them both liquid in the thermal contact at 95-100K.

      The higher density, lower compressibility and higher latent heat of vapourisation of methane all make it easier to pump than LH2, saving mass and complexity.

    11. Re:Mars Colonial Transporter by Rei · · Score: 1

      I have, in fact, looked at ISP tables, but I was going off memory. Apparently I remember it being a lot more efficient than it is - I think I was remembering sea-level efficiencies rather than vacuum.

      Huh? Sea level and vacuum performances are directly proportional, within only a small variation between propellants. Do you even understand why there's a difference between sea level and vacuum performance?

      7% is not an insubstantial amount, particularly when Falcon's figures for "all non-propellant, non-payload mass" are down to 3-5%.

      It is a small difference compared to a 21 percent difference in ISP.

      The tank skin mass difference due to the density is a more relevant issue. But even still, as a general rule, hydrogen-based upper stages perform well better than RP-1 on a mass basis, which is why most companies and space programs use them. The main reason SpaceX doesn't is economic - they're going for mass production of nearly-identical stages with just small variations (engine nozzle shapes, tank lengths, etc).

      I wasn't expecting to pull it out of the atmosphere. Many of the theories for where the methane is coming from imply the existence of stores of methane somewhere on Mars. If, for example, it were trapped in underground deposits, we could tap into it relatively easily.

      No we could not do something that would be difficult on Earth "relatively easily" on Mars. We're not going to be sending freaking natural gas drilling rigs to Mars (Mars being a highly natural gas poor planet), nor are we even going to have the sort of detailed geological survey data we'd need to be able to do that for many decades. We consider it challenging to build a bloody shelter on Mars, and you want to set up a petrochemical industry?

      Things have to be kept simple to make them plausible and affordable. Production systems have to be small, light, exceedingly reliable and not subject to be thrown off by unexpected local variations, with the whole process well-quantified from a Martian perspective. Drilling for resources on Mars fails on every last one of those.

      --
      It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
    12. Re:Mars Colonial Transporter by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Huh? Sea level and vacuum performances are directly proportional, within only a small variation between propellants. Do you even understand why there's a difference between sea level and vacuum performance?

      In theory, yes, they're directly proportional. In practice, almost all LH2 engines have nozzle geometry optimized for high-altitude/vacuum operation, even on the first stage. That's not intrinsic to the rocket chemistry but you can see how I remembered it as so.

      In any case, point conceded. CH4 is closer to RP1 than LH2 in specific impulse. And I agree with your statements about LH2 for upper stages - the tankage mass there doesn't matter quite so much. But SpaceX is looking at a fuel for all stages, and LH2 tankage in a first stage, combined with the other weaknesses of LH2 for their specific mission, is just a bad idea.

      No we could not do something that would be difficult on Earth "relatively easily" on Mars. We're not going to be sending freaking natural gas drilling rigs to Mars (Mars being a highly natural gas poor planet), nor are we even going to have the sort of detailed geological survey data we'd need to be able to do that for many decades. We consider it challenging to build a bloody shelter on Mars, and you want to set up a petrochemical industry?

      Compared to the challenges of getting to Mars, and constructing suitable long-term shelter, yes, setting up a petrochemical industry is easy. I did say "relatively", and when you're talking about anything outside Earth, the difficulty you're measuring relative to goes way up.

      And if there *are* deposits of light hydrocarbons on Mars, wouldn't that be easier to tap into than trying to synthesize it from water and CO2?

  15. Unveiling? by Livius · · Score: 1

    Unveiling plans and unveiling an actual spacecraft are two very different things.

    1. Re:Unveiling? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      He's got a better chance to get it off the ground than does NASA. He runs a dictatorship and is not beholden to the kleptocracy that is the US Congress.

      Bet he gets there before NASA.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Unveiling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unveiling plans and unveiling an actual spacecraft are two very different things.

      No, no they aren't. Wise-ass. I suppose you'd have rather supported Pee-wee Herman making this announcement about his Mars Colony Tricycle express?

  16. musk hypes continues here by sittingnut · · Score: 1

    well new management here seems still under the pay of musk, since every word, regardless of actual achievements (to be fair musk does have some), coming out of musk seems to result in a post here.

    1. Re:musk hypes continues here by Rei · · Score: 1

      First off, I love your expectation that the instant a purchase takes place, everything is supposed to change, as if making and implementing plans and policy changes takes five seconds to complete.

      Secondly, whether you like it or not, lots of people here have interest in SpaceX - both positive and negative. Which you can see by how many people comment on every one of these threads. So if you don't like it, tough. Go read a thread on some other topic.

      --
      It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
    2. Re:musk hypes continues here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well new management here seems still under the pay of musk, since every word, regardless of actual achievements (to be fair musk does have some), coming out of musk seems to result in a post here.

      Good.

  17. Humans can go to Mars. But why should they? by ffkom · · Score: 0, Troll

    Humans have been on the moon, but except for a moment of feeling proud of oneselves, that didn't really earn us more insight than unmanned probes, so it was only plausible that decades went by without further manned visits there.

    It won't be any different with Mars. Somebody will go there one day, for earning the fame "to have done it first". He will find the same boring dust there that we already know about. And again, decades will pass that don't see somebody repeat the stunt.

    I wished that mankind would invest more into exploring the very interesting places that still remain largely unexplored on earth, like the depths of the oceans. And using unmanned probes is fine there, too, it's just much cheaper and means less unnecessary risk.

    1. Re:Humans can go to Mars. But why should they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The benefits to our understanding of our own planets geology alone was a huge payoff from our manned trips to the moon, insights that would not have been possible without a human presence gathering samples for return..... Just because you personally did not learn anything from our trips to the moon does not mean that no one else learned anything.

    2. Re:Humans can go to Mars. But why should they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wished that mankind would invest more into exploring the very interesting places that still remain largely unexplored on earth, like the depths of the oceans. And using unmanned probes is fine there, too, it's just much cheaper and means less unnecessary risk.

      When I go on vacation, I always use an unmanned probe.

      It's cheaper and there's less unnecessary risk.

    3. Re:Humans can go to Mars. But why should they? by ffkom · · Score: 1

      For the massive costs that were required to build life-support into the moon mission, automatic drills, returning samples to the lander, could have been built. And by the time a manned Mars mission can start, chances are that AI's are good enough to even locate and visit the most interesting nearby drilling sites from an unmanned Mars lander.

    4. Re:Humans can go to Mars. But why should they? by ffkom · · Score: 0

      When I go on vacation, I always use an unmanned probe.

      It's cheaper and there's less unnecessary risk.

      Most people I know go on vacation to have some pleasant experiences and relaxing leisure time, which is quite the opposite of risky exploration tours in harsh, life threatening environments.

      Don't get me wrong: If somebody wants to personally go to Mars, for whatever reason, that's fine with me, as long as he does not expect tax payers to pay for his hobby.

    5. Re:Humans can go to Mars. But why should they? by BigFootApe · · Score: 1

      Lots of people use their leisure to challenge their limits. Kayaking, mountain climbing, sky diving, etc. I don't think they'll have trouble finding those who want the life of a pioneer and explorer.

    6. Re: Humans can go to Mars. But why should they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxpayers pay for hobbies of every major CEO and politicians in the US and you whine about a flight to Mars. Jesus... You really just want keep sucking that same old shit from the same old guys instead of even taking a chance with someone like Musk? At least he seems like a human or a real person compared to the hundreds of millionaire CEOs out there silently sucking your tax money on their yachts and golf courses.

    7. Re: Humans can go to Mars. But why should they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No chance.

      The Apollo missions returned a few hundred kg of moon and rocks.

      Terrain, regolith, and the underlying geology can be quite complex. There is no chance an AI will be able to handle this.

      As simple as it sounds, if we want to bring back meaningful rocks then we need people to go pick them up.

  18. Re:Musk needs to get a grip by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Informative

    Everybody knows rockets are cylinders, not spheres (unless, of course, you are a rocket physicist).

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  19. Re:Musk needs to get a grip by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    He has opinions about things that are completely outside his sphere

    Whereas your opinions are limited strictly to areas in which you've been practicing professionally for at least 20 years, right?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  20. Re:Musk needs to get a grip by JohnStock · · Score: 1

    My opinions don't get broadcast all over the world with an air of authority.

  21. Re:Musk needs to get a grip by JohnStock · · Score: 0, Troll

    I walked to the shops today. I suppose that makes me an expert in trans-world marathoning and survival training for the journey too.

  22. What is with all the jealousy in this thread? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one, am looking forward to things getting back to normal around slashdot now that new management is taking over. It is time for the real engineers to come back and post some insightful comments instead of a bunch of jealous cs students complaining about news storeis featuring modern day heroes of innovation.

  23. A Cheaper Ride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    E! Musk could finance a launch to Mars in 60 days.

    All he has to do is to go to Egypt, prance around in drag to attract about 7 Bedouins, murder them, reduce their bodies to ashes by incineration, put them in little tin cans, duct-tape together the little tin cans, then buy a rocket from North Korea and their launch facilities to fire the thing off to the heavens.

    Though there is a change, like a hope in hell, that the duct-taped canisters carrying the ashes of the Bedouins would eventually reach Mars, more likely their journey would would take them to the Sun to be incinerated yet again.

    However, E! the master of self-promotion would recognize an amazing fact. The Bedouins in Canisters would be the first humans to visit the Sun, a spectacularly awesome event!

    Ha ha

  24. Re:Musk needs to get a grip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have some actual example of the kinds of opinions you're referring to?

  25. Re:Meanwhile, on the seismometer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awww. The space nutter troll is still with us. Precious.

  26. Certification??? by chihowa · · Score: 1

    Then if he wishes to do it safely, he would have to send several unmanned missions (I'm thinking three) before he can get a safe certification for the one year (wo)manned journey.

    Who exactly is responsible for "safe certification" of manned spaceflight missions?

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    1. Re:Certification??? by Alomex · · Score: 1

      The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

    2. Re:Certification??? by GNious · · Score: 1

      ...and if you're launching from anywhere outside of the United States of America?

    3. Re: Certification??? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      So whatever nation that is launching it will be their regulator.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re: Certification??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All SpaceX launch facilities are in the US.

  27. Why Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk (and others) want to guard mankind against nuclear holocaust by spreading to other worlds. Isn't a better solution to make large underground bunkers capable of self sustaining life? We could have lots of them for the price of one station on Mars.

    1. Re:Why Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Antarctica is far more hospitable than Mars. This not wanting to keep our eggs in one basket is a silly argument until the human race has the will and means to start terraforming other worlds. Because as it is now, Mars isn't the least bit habitable, and it's much farther away than any remote place on Earth.

  28. Re:Musk needs to get a grip by Sperbels · · Score: 1

    Considering that no one has actually put a man on Mars, how does one become an expert if only experts are allowed to do it?

  29. Re: Musk needs to get a grip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He did something that was thought to be possible only for governments. In other words he has done miracles.

  30. Beyond Rockets by WoOS · · Score: 1

    Maybe before Musks thinks about how to get stuff to Mars he could solve the problem of better (especially with less energy use) getting stuff into space. At about $10000/kg for Earth orbit there will be no way a Mars station will be resupplied for long.

    So we need a space elevator or some mag-lev "cannon" (preferably on the Moon to avoid the air friction) before we can go seriously out to explore space using humans. Rockets are like steam locomotives (actually they are worse) they carry all their propulsion needs with them in a quite inefficient way.

    1. Re:Beyond Rockets by solartear · · Score: 2

      Reducing cost to orbit is precisely what Musk has been working on for the last 15 years. SpaceX has been reducing the cost, and looks to do it even more with re-use of its current rockets. And it is developing a much larger, cheaper launcher, to be completely re-used, since the vast majority of the cost is in building the things. The Shape Shuttle became a bad design because of politics, not because re-use of chemical rockets cannot work well.

  31. Broadcasting Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My opinions don't get broadcast all over the world with an air of authority.

    I've been broadcasting your opinions with an air of authority all over the world for years now.

    I'm posting this a/c so that I don't have to pay you any royalties for the above mentioned activities. I will say that your opinions have made me wealthy beyond my wildest dreams. It would appear that everyone on the planet disagrees with you about everything and will even pay handsomely to post rebuttals to your opinions!

    1. Re:Broadcasting Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will say that your opinions have made me wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. It would appear that everyone on the planet disagrees with you about everything and will even pay handsomely to post rebuttals to your opinions!

      Upped your hyperbole by 2.5 degrees

  32. Re:Musk needs to get a grip by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    Plus anyone that writes something critical of Musk is downgraded. Like others gave you negative marks for pointing out how media treats him like the second coming.

    In the space forums there was one guy who criticized Musk and his "hobby rockets" that will go nowhere beyond LEO. His reasoning is to go BEO need pressure fed rocket engines, requiring powerful turbopumps and liquid hydrogen for fuel because that high of ISP is needed. Though many can argue over the numbers, hardware, rocket equation, etc., this one person was the only one to question Musk's intentions and he was banned from the forums.

    Elon Musk has created some neat stuff, but like Steve Jobs and Howard Hughes they made their share of mistakes and bad projects.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  33. Does Musk's Plan make the NASA's SLS Redundent? by frank249 · · Score: 1

    NASA officials admitted today the Space Launch System — the agency’s next big rocket — is a vehicle without a mission plan NASA Spaceflight reports. The agency acknowledged what is essentially an empty flight manifest for the SLS at NASA's Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida, during an all-hands meeting on Monday.

    The meeting was held to discuss uncertainty about the SLS. Its first test flight with humans aboard has already been delayed once, and the schedule for the SLS’s tests are shaky — there is no definitive launch schedule for the rocket beyond its first uncrewed test flight, which is slated for September 30th, 2018. After that, the SLS's next flight dates are mostly tentative, and the rocket doesn't have any definitive mission plans — only the promise of going to an asteroid and then to Mars someday.

    The SLS was born out of NASA's now-defunct Constellation program, an effort aimed at returning humans to the Moon. Though it was once considered the replacement for the Space Shuttle program, the group far exceeded its budget. President Obama cancelled the initiative in 2010, and out of its ashes, the SLS concept was created — both as a way to salvage parts of Constellation and to provide NASA with a primary vehicle for sending astronauts deep into space. It was also a way to save the jobs of thousands of NASA employees who had been working on Constellation.

    But the SLS is expensive, and NASA's budget is at the lowest it has been in decades, even with the new budget allotment of $19.3 billion for the 2016 fiscal year. The cost of developing the SLS through 2017 is expected to total $18 billion. And once the rocket is built, each launch is going to cost somewhere between $500 and $700 million, which makes it unlikely that the rocket will carry astronauts more than once a year.

    By comparison, Elon Musk has said that that SpaceX could build the Mars Colonial Transporter(MCT), a vehicle in the 140-150 t payload range, for $2.5 billion, or $300 million per launch. If Musk is going to build the MCT anyways, does NASA need to continue the SLS?

    --

    Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

    1. Re:Does Musk's Plan make the NASA's SLS Redundent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the SLS was born out of keeping the money flowing to congressmen's districts that were producing boosters for the shuttle. That is all.

      It is embarrassing to hear our amateur space lobby polishing that knob.

  34. Re: Musk needs to get a grip by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Really? What opinion has he voiced outside of his sphere? More importantly, who the fuck died and made you god so that you can trample on a man's rights?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  35. Re: Musk needs to get a grip by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    You are right, but that is because you have nothing intelligent to say.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  36. MCT: What we know by frank249 · · Score: 1

    reposted from ARS Technica

    We know a few basic things about the SpaceX Mars architecture:

    Two stages to orbit. First stage is a single booster with many Raptor engines which returns to launch site for reuse. Second stage is the Mars Colonial Transport, comprising a pressurized cabin section and a propulsion section, also powered by multiple Raptor engines.

    MCT is refueled in earth orbit by multiple propellant tankers after expending its initial propellant load during launch. After refueling, MCT departs for Mars and performs a propulsive entry, descent, and landing on Mars. MCT is refueled for the return trip using methane and oxygen produced on Mars. It returns to Earth and lands propulsively. Both stages are 100% reusable. Nothing is jettisoned.

    We also know that SpaceX will send Dragon spacecraft to Mars (using Falcon Heavy) before sending the first MCTs, which will be unmanned cargo ships for landing habitation modules and other surface hardware in preparation for the arrival of the first humans.

    We don't yet know some of the technical details, including the number of Raptor engines on each stage and the precise stage diameter. We don't know how many distinct variants of the MCT will be produced (cargo, tanker, etc.) and exactly how they will be configured.

    But mostly, we don't know the business model: Is this a hobby project funded by their commercial launch business, or is there a profit-making opportunity inherent to the Mars plan? To what extent is SpaceX banking on substantial funding from NASA, who might be able to buy rides from SpaceX long before they are able to send astronauts to Mars using their own equipment?

    I don't know if the business model will be clarified as well as the technical architecture when Elon does the reveal in September. That's the part that has space enthusiasts genuinely scratching our heads.

    --

    Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.