Isn't it possible, under certain circumstances, to get large amounts of oxygen through photodissociation of water vapor in upper layers of planetary atmospheres? Obviously some conditions have to be "just right", for example gravity has to be high enough to keep the oxygen but low enough to let hydrogen escape reasonably quickly given the mean velocities of both species. And since oxygen might combine with elements in planetary crust, there needs to be a steady state established before oxygen starts accumulating. Perhaps absence of tectonic activity would help with that?
The next thing you'll claim will be that the Atlas V can't actually lift 18 tonnes to LEO as per ULA's claims because it never did. You really seem to have some cognitive issues.
If you had any ability at all to work with a few numbers, you'd be able to tell the lower bound on the level of Falcon's LEO capacity from the realized GTO flights. But that would involve the knowledge of high school math with you obviously can't be bothered with.
As to your obsession with my comment posting times, I strongly suggest you find a better hobby. I mean, I am flattered to have a groupie, but still...
Considering that attempted Falcon 9 booster recovery was successful 23 times in a row, with a stage control-wise inferior to the one that would be landing on the Moon, and two thirds of the time it happened with a wobbly landing platform, I'd say that the chances of reliably landing with an improved vehicle on a stationary surface in vacuum several years from now look pretty damn high.
There will always be much more control on an Earth-based whatever
That's exactly the opposite of how it worked with LM vs. Falcon 9. LM had the superior control. That's why landing it was so much easier. That's why landing the F9 is so difficult.
Thoroughly testing everything is a very important step within the process of creating reliable technology.
Well, that must be why SpaceX tests the shit out of stuff. By the time people will fly on the BFS, it will have been thoroughly tested.
What do you think that going in a space ship implies? That it is like using a plane?
What I meant was, is there meaningful difference between training for 0 g and training for 0 g/0.16 g? Or in other words, assuming a flyby as a baseline, what additional "orders of magnitude more difficult" training do you require for 0.16 g compared to already being trained for 0 g? (Assuming no spacesuit EVAs for the time being).
The business case for the settlement of the Americas turned out to be much larger than (and quite different from the one) originally anticipated, too. Our shortsightedness better not discourage us from our efforts.
There's still a ~1 km/s difference between your orbital fuel plant and your flying-by spacecraft so "a low additional in-flight purchase" is rather infeasible.
Of course landing is difficult, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that powered vertical lunar landing is less difficult than powered vertical Earth landing. We've only achieved the latter decades after the former. Adding the easier step if you already absolutely have to do the more difficult one is not a terribly large change. (Especially if the vehicle is already designed to do just that.)
How the training of the people affects the mission design is beyond me. They won't be involved in the operation of the vehicle.
Actually, unlike the Apollo program, the BFR/BFS program intentionally makes a fly-by and a landing differ only in terms of the number of refueling flights. That seems to be the whole point of it. Since Apollo couldn't do the same, they had to invent mission-specific hardware for every part of the flight, at an immense cost.
A correction: He's investing money into a potentially highly profitable company that would coincidentally allow others to spend money on space tourism.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no "multiplanet society" on the horizon. There's no business case for it
How I imagine that conversations went in 10000 BCE: "Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no "agrarian society" on the horizon. There's no business case for it."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm don't see how a 21% concentration limits the photodissociation rate in any way.
Isn't it possible, under certain circumstances, to get large amounts of oxygen through photodissociation of water vapor in upper layers of planetary atmospheres? Obviously some conditions have to be "just right", for example gravity has to be high enough to keep the oxygen but low enough to let hydrogen escape reasonably quickly given the mean velocities of both species. And since oxygen might combine with elements in planetary crust, there needs to be a steady state established before oxygen starts accumulating. Perhaps absence of tectonic activity would help with that?
(GOTO 10)
It's actually (GO 10), you know...
2x Earth, actually.
Just to be sure we're communicating with the same language...
"Can"
"Did"
The next thing you'll claim will be that the Atlas V can't actually lift 18 tonnes to LEO as per ULA's claims because it never did. You really seem to have some cognitive issues.
If you had any ability at all to work with a few numbers, you'd be able to tell the lower bound on the level of Falcon's LEO capacity from the realized GTO flights. But that would involve the knowledge of high school math with you obviously can't be bothered with.
As to your obsession with my comment posting times, I strongly suggest you find a better hobby. I mean, I am flattered to have a groupie, but still...
Considering that attempted Falcon 9 booster recovery was successful 23 times in a row, with a stage control-wise inferior to the one that would be landing on the Moon, and two thirds of the time it happened with a wobbly landing platform, I'd say that the chances of reliably landing with an improved vehicle on a stationary surface in vacuum several years from now look pretty damn high.
You have to if you actually don't have one or two of the two numbers you want to compare.
That would hardly be suffering compared to your inability to calculate your way out of a paper bag.
It suggests that you suffer from innumeracy.
Falcon 9 can lift much more than 10 tonnes to LEO and you're an imbecile.
Working hours vs. productivity
Working hours vs. premature deaths
Or heaps of platinum in M-type asteroids for fuel cell and general chemistry applications? There are people anticipating such finds, you know.
How come we ain't digging there ?
I don't know...because we are?
There will always be much more control on an Earth-based whatever
That's exactly the opposite of how it worked with LM vs. Falcon 9. LM had the superior control. That's why landing it was so much easier. That's why landing the F9 is so difficult.
Thoroughly testing everything is a very important step within the process of creating reliable technology.
Well, that must be why SpaceX tests the shit out of stuff. By the time people will fly on the BFS, it will have been thoroughly tested.
What do you think that going in a space ship implies? That it is like using a plane?
What I meant was, is there meaningful difference between training for 0 g and training for 0 g/0.16 g? Or in other words, assuming a flyby as a baseline, what additional "orders of magnitude more difficult" training do you require for 0.16 g compared to already being trained for 0 g? (Assuming no spacesuit EVAs for the time being).
We know what's out there
We actually don't. That's why we're sending all those probes, but they have barely scratched the surface yet.
So basically, "look into China in the future". Well that's good for future China, I guess. Bummer, since I live in Europe.
The business case for the settlement of the Americas turned out to be much larger than (and quite different from the one) originally anticipated, too. Our shortsightedness better not discourage us from our efforts.
There's still a ~1 km/s difference between your orbital fuel plant and your flying-by spacecraft so "a low additional in-flight purchase" is rather infeasible.
Of course landing is difficult, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that powered vertical lunar landing is less difficult than powered vertical Earth landing. We've only achieved the latter decades after the former. Adding the easier step if you already absolutely have to do the more difficult one is not a terribly large change. (Especially if the vehicle is already designed to do just that.)
How the training of the people affects the mission design is beyond me. They won't be involved in the operation of the vehicle.
other companies have already engineered their cars, built battery plants
A list of car companies with their battery plants would be nice if you're making such claims.
they have tens of gigafactories
If you're talking about battery factories...no, they don't have them, at least not yet.
Actually, unlike the Apollo program, the BFR/BFS program intentionally makes a fly-by and a landing differ only in terms of the number of refueling flights. That seems to be the whole point of it. Since Apollo couldn't do the same, they had to invent mission-specific hardware for every part of the flight, at an immense cost.
he's spending money on space tourism.
A correction: He's investing money into a potentially highly profitable company that would coincidentally allow others to spend money on space tourism.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no "multiplanet society" on the horizon. There's no business case for it
How I imagine that conversations went in 10000 BCE: "Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no "agrarian society" on the horizon. There's no business case for it."
Saturn V is the heaviest rocket system in the world in the same way that Rome is the largest city. I mean, it USED to be, right?