Nibb31

[Reference needed]

Where the heck is this thread going?

He's also convinced that AI are going to take over the world, that we need to become cyborgs if we don't want to become their pets, and that he can build colonies on Mars. Even broken visionaries can be right twice a day. Or something like that.

I doubt that. They don't sell rockets. They sell a launch service for payloads. What the cost doesn't cover is the payload, the insurance, and probably a bunch of other costs. The NASA COTS contracts are different though. NASA pays a bulk sum for delivery of X tons of cargo or Y crew rotations to the ISS. That also covers development of Dragon and Falcon, so NASA pays well above the $60 million. Estimates are that Dragon 2 flights will be valued at approx $150 million. Who says they do have enough money? Also, the satellite constellation idea seems to have been dropped after they actually ran the business case numbers.

Think about the billions of humans who have lived and died before people have landed on Mars. Why do you think you are are entitled to anything different? Notwithstanding the ethical issues (the media and the general public would tear your idea to pieces), dying people don't make very reliable astronauts.

Flamenco.

A flamingo is a bird, not a dance. Musk has claimed that he wants to die on Mars, so he definitely does plan to go one day. When he goes will probably be determined by whether he thinks he is more useful running his businesses on Earth or starving to death on Mars.

The whole BFS thing is as big as an Apollo program, but on limited private funds. No way is it going to be flying in less than 8 years. They still have land to purchase, the biggest factories and launch pads in the world to build, and the biggest rocket and manned spacecraft ever imagined to build and test, as well as plenty of other work just to earn the money to build those things.

It's at least going to BEO on its maiden flight. Isn't every new vehicle? You don't build an operational vehicle out of unproven new technology. The risk is too high. Each technology has to reach a given TRL level before it can be used in an operational manned vehicle.

Which ones? In the US, there has always been two government space programs, NASA and DoD (USAF, NRO, DARPA, and little bit of US Navy). Most of the time, those programs were independent, with projects sometimes being transferred from one to the other (like DC-X or X37) or handled jointly (like X-15, X-24, X-30, etc...)

The material used for inflatables is actually heavier than conventional modules. The only advantage of inflatable modules is more volume, but the downside is that you need to fill that volume, which requires additional cargo launches and lots of outfitting work on orbit. Then there's the cost factor.

Well, there was Gemini 11. They generated about 0.00015g while tethered to their Agena.

Hydrazine and NTO are very nasty substances. I doubt that any hypergolic propellants are legal or safe to use as a hobbyist. This is what hypergolic fueling operations look like in real-life: Those hazmat suits aren't for cool looks. Trust me, you don't want to be handling this stuff in your garage.

Government agencies are not allowed to "shower money" over private corporations without following procurement laws.

We all know that thank you very much. Nobody knows that. He is still going to need major amounts of funding, which has to come from somewhere. SpaceX is a commercial launch provider, mostly funded by NASA and the DoD. For Mars, he'll be on his own. He needs to find customers to sell tickets to. And where does that funding come from? What is the expected ROI for any potential investors? We are veering off-topic again. Why does every thread have to turn into a SpaceX jerkfest?

The whole point of NASA's Mars Design Reference Architecture plans are to figure out how NASA would actually do it. The DRA 5.0 had elements of Mars Direct, but it still took 5 Ares V launches to send people to Mars and back. The more recent Evolvable Mars Campaign, based on SLS, is even more ridiculous. The original Mars Direct was debunked by Zubrin himself as being overly optimistic. The only entities that could fund a colonization effort are governments, but governments aren't in the business of colonization, and I don't see that becoming a political or social priority any time within this century. Space exploration isn't even mentioned in the current US presidential campaign. As for private initiatives, there is no economical or social incentive for businesses or individuals to relocate to Mars. Colonization is a non-starter.

We advance. It just takes a long time. For younger generations who expect to get everything here and now, it's hard to wait, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Technological advancement is driven by need. When there will be an economical or political need to expand into space, developing the technological capability will be the easiest part. It's only engineering after all.

That doesn't answer why a fuel depot has to be at a manned station. The ISS is a research facility. It's in a bad inclination to be used as a fuel depot, and refueling operations would be detrimental to its research work.

It takes 30 years to send a manned mission to Mars. It takes 10 years to design and build several robotic missions for a fraction of the cost. The manned mission spends 6 months on the surface, a large part of which is dedicated to staying alive, monitoring and maintaining support systems and attending to biological needs. A robotic probe can spend several years and study seasonal variations. Humans are limited to EVAs of a couple of hours, and within a safe radius around their lander or base. Robots can study many different environments for years and travel longer distances. Humans are limited to their visual acuity from around 1m70 above ground, while being distracted by navigating, monitoring supplies and trying not to fall over. Robots are controlled by entire teams of scientists, monitoring arrays of sensors that can extensively study every inch of terrain. The only scientific reason to send humans to other planets is to learn about sending humans to other planets.

There is no way Orion is ever going to the ISS. It can only launch on SLS, and they are not going to waste one of those billion-dollar puppies just to go to the ISS when two Commercial Crew vehicles are available for 10% of the price.

It nominally lands on 3 main parachutes, so I guess the idea is either to land on 2 chutes (and see how it goes) or to pop a backup chute.

What does that have to do with Orion ?

Pessimistically, I think it will fly 1 or 2 missions manned. Cancelling it before that would be politically unacceptable. Optimistically, somebody in the next administration realizes that the only thing SLS/Orion can really be used for is to return to the Moon, and they kick off a new Apollo 2.0. Orion is a dead weight for Mars.

It won't be able to be controlled from Earth because of the huge latency. It will take several years to beam back any info, and by the time we get it, it will have flown by the system. An interstellar probe can only work if it's autonomous enough to select a target in its own. It won't brake (and hopefully, it won't break either). If you're going at interstellar speed, you are going to be travelling very fast, so the best you can do once you get there is to modify your trajectory for a good flyby. The actual flyby will only last a few minutes. The same way New Horizons didn't miss Pluto. Maths. Lots of maths. Probes don't usually come back. That's the whole point of sending an unmanned probe. It will need to beam back any data, which at the speed of light, will take many years to arrive at us. It will need a big antenna. None of this tech has really been proven yet, so it's really all hypothetical at this point. So don't worry, this isn't going to happen before many years.

If you find one, let us know.