SpaceX BFR / MCT Discussion Thread

[fredinno]

18 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

I can definitely see the appeal starting a new life on Mars would have, even for the super-rich. The chance to be a part of something new and exciting like that would be a powerful temptation for many, especially those who have more cash than they know what to do with.

They would also risk losing everything, which is more than most would be willing for.

[Rakaydos]

Considering the ticket price for a cruz to mars will be less than what russia is charging to go to the ISS, I think there will be a market for round trips that can subsidize people going there to stay.

[fredinno]

13 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Considering the ticket price for a cruz to mars will be less than what russia is charging to go to the ISS, I think there will be a market for round trips that can subsidize people going there to stay.

Then such a ticket price is unlikely.

[Rakaydos]

7 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Then such a ticket price is unlikely.

Economy of scale. Tourist is paying russia to put himself and a small capsule into space. Versus tourist paying a share of the price to put him, 99 other people and a large capsule into space. It's a larget overall price, but it isnt 99 times as expensive to do the same thing.

How much less expensive I dont know.

[Nibb31]

Not very many people would go on a million-dollar cruise where they are stuck inside a 737 cabin with 100 other people for a year long round trip with nothing to look at most of the time.

The idea is that people will go there to stay, because the trip won't be a joyride.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Nibb31

[Hcube]

3 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Not very many people would go on a million-dollar cruise where they are stuck inside a 737 cabin with 100 other people for a year long round trip with nothing to look at most of the time.

The idea is that people will go there to stay, because the trip won't be a joyride.

Well... The launch and the first day will probably be a joyride (if all goes well) but it's true that when you paid half a million bucks, 3m² of living space with no windows gets old quickly

[Rakaydos]

5 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Not very many people would go on a million-dollar cruise where they are stuck inside a 737 cabin with 100 other people for a year long round trip with nothing to look at most of the time.

That's up to marketing. Once they've paid and the ship's left, there's no getting off till mars.

(and I suspect that 737 cabin is going to be 4/5 inflatable sections, making it far larger a space habitat than it is at launch.)

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see some random musician/artist hit it big, get stuck in a rut, and decide to blow all the money for a "martian sabbatical." It wont be many, and he/she isnt contributing to the colony, (aside from morale) but as an artist he's getting an experience he would never have had on earth.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Rakaydos

[lukethecoder64]

A lot of the questions asked in this thread can be answered by looking at the past. Specifically by looking at the time that North America was colonized by the Europeans. Most of the basic facts are the same, such as

• The journey to the site of the colonization was really long [citation needed]
• The missions/explorations were be sponsored/run by companies (Back then tea companies, now SpaceX, etc)
• It was a long time before the colonies were self-sustaining
• Everybody going fit into two categories: In search for a better life or for the heck of it
• The ships they got there in were very cramped

All of these facts are true/will most likely be true with the colonization of mars.

 

I will add more to this soon(tm).

Edited December 16, 2015 by lukethecoder64

[Nothalogh]

Here's my take on the "Who has the Means, Motive, and Opportunity" to go to Mars.

Sure there'll be some private individuals here and there, but by and large it will be companies transplanting their workforce due to the ability to operate extrajurisdictionally.

Mars gives you a place to freely work on what the bleeding hearts and bureaucrats would pillory you for.

[fredinno]

On 12/14/2015, 5:29:12, Mitchz95 said:

I can definitely see the appeal starting a new life on Mars would have, even for the super-rich. The chance to be a part of something new and exciting like that would be a powerful temptation for many, especially those who have more cash than they know what to do with.

Would they? Rich people went to the new world a lot because they thought they could become landowners too, and other wise could not get it, due to being a younger sibling. Much of the time.

3 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

That's up to marketing. Once they've paid and the ship's left, there's no getting off till mars.

(and I suspect that 737 cabin is going to be 4/5 inflatable sections, making it far larger a space habitat than it is at launch.)

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see some random musician/artist hit it big, get stuck in a rut, and decide to blow all the money for a "martian sabbatical." It wont be many, and he/she isnt contributing to the colony, (aside from morale) but as an artist he's getting an experience he would never have had on earth.

Still, there is the internet. If it is krakenty there, less people will go.

 

 

1 hour ago, Nothalogh said:

Here's my take on the "Who has the Means, Motive, and Opportunity" to go to Mars.

Sure there'll be some private individuals here and there, but by and large it will be companies transplanting their workforce due to the ability to operate extrajurisdictionally.

Mars gives you a place to freely work on what the bleeding hearts and bureaucrats would pillory you for.

No, there is no workforce or resources to do it anyways.

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, lukethecoder64 said:

A lot of the questions asked in this thread can be answered by looking at the past. Specifically by looking at the time that North America was colonized by the Europeans. Most of the basic facts are the same, such as

• The journey to the site of the colonization was really long [citation needed]
• The missions/explorations were be sponsored/run by companies (Back then tea companies, now SpaceX, etc)
• It was a long time before the colonies were self-sustaining
• Everybody going fit into two categories: In search for a better life or for the heck of it
• The ships they got there in were very cramped

All of these facts are true/will most likely be true with the colonization of mars.

 

I will add more to this soon(tm).

I'm pretty sure it's been specified that life on Mars won't be much better. For quite a while.

And the similarities end there, if not before. There's no profit in going to Mars. Not yet, at least.

[Rakaydos]

25 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

I'm pretty sure it's been specified that life on Mars won't be much better. For quite a while.

And the similarities end there, if not before. There's no profit in going to Mars. Not yet, at least.

I'm pretty sure the Tea companies wernt making a profit for quite a few years either. It takes time to set up a plantation, even with indentured workers... I mean robots,

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, Rakaydos said:

I'm pretty sure the Tea companies wernt making a profit for quite a few years either. It takes time to set up a plantation, even with indentured workers... I mean robots,

Except the profits were within a few years, and there were natives to steal from.

[Hcube]

5 hours ago, lukethecoder64 said:

A lot of the questions asked in this thread can be answered by looking at the past. Specifically by looking at the time that North America was colonized by the Europeans. Most of the basic facts are the same, such as

• The journey to the site of the colonization was really long [citation needed]
• The missions/explorations were be sponsored/run by companies (Back then tea companies, now SpaceX, etc)
• It was a long time before the colonies were self-sustaining
• Everybody going fit into two categories: In search for a better life or for the heck of it
• The ships they got there in were very cramped

All of these facts are true/will most likely be true with the colonization of mars.

 

I will add more to this soon(tm).

But there was air and food in North America. Not sure about Mars...

[Rakaydos]

19 minutes ago, Hcube said:

But there was air and food in North America. Not sure about Mars...

Elon Musk wants to change that about mars...

[Bill Phil]

8 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Elon Musk wants to change that about mars...

And do you know what that will take? Energy, time and money. A lot of it. It might be cheaper to not even go to Mars and just build rotating colonies in Earth Orbit.

[Nibb31]

8 hours ago, lukethecoder64 said:

A lot of the questions asked in this thread can be answered by looking at the past. Specifically by looking at the time that North America was colonized by the Europeans. Most of the basic facts are the same, such as

• The journey to the site of the colonization was really long [citation needed]
• The missions/explorations were be sponsored/run by companies (Back then tea companies, now SpaceX, etc)
• It was a long time before the colonies were self-sustaining
• Everybody going fit into two categories: In search for a better life or for the heck of it
• The ships they got there in were very cramped

All of these facts are true/will most likely be true with the colonization of mars.

 

I will add more to this soon(tm).

The analogy with the colonization of America comes up often, typically due to cultural bias. But it's very wrong.

Exploration and settlement was typically funded by governments, who saw a way of extending their sphere of power by grabbing land and resources before their rivals. The actual countries had reasons for colonization , and they didn't know that it would end with all those colonies going independent. Having independent colonies wasn't a goal. Today, there is no incentive for governments to start a colonization effort. There is no economical or political gain, and we are aware that if a colony ever becomes self-sufficient, it is likely to push for political independence, which means that the whole effort would be lost for the country sponsoring it.

The economical motives existed, and they were basically based on trading local resources from the old world to the new world, or triangle commerce. There are no rare resources on Mars, there is no possible trade other than importing everything at a huge expense.

People didn't migrate "for the heck of it", except for some excentric adventurers. But those weren't actual migrants, but more thrill-seekers who planned to return to civilization to sell books or give lectures. The real migrants left because they were persecuted or poor and looking for a better life. Humans have always migrated to improve their confort or their safety and to get a better life for their children. That still applies today, but it doesn't work for a Mars colony, which would be dangerous and unconfortable. Also, if you can afford a ticket for Mars, then you can also afford a decent life of leisure in many places on the planet. 

There was also the fact that they were poorly qualified and they knew that they could find jobs with low qualification requirements. They knew that they could set up a homestead and live off the land. A Mars colony would need highly trained personel for maintenance work or farming. That sort of profile doesn't typically fit the "persecuted and poor" description. If you're good enough at a job to be useful on a Mars colony, there are chances that you have a pretty decent job on Earth and you will have a lot to lose by moving your family to Mars.

Space colonies are fun plot devices for science fiction stories, but they don't work in reality because there are no actual economical incentives to send thousands of humans to another planet, and because there is no way it can be an attractive place to want to settle and raise kids. The entire business case for a space colony simply doesn't add up. 

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by Nibb31

[Nibb31]

8 hours ago, Nothalogh said:

Here's my take on the "Who has the Means, Motive, and Opportunity" to go to Mars.

Sure there'll be some private individuals here and there, but by and large it will be companies transplanting their workforce due to the ability to operate extrajurisdictionally.

Mars gives you a place to freely work on what the bleeding hearts and bureaucrats would pillory you for.

Why would a company pay half a million dollars per employee to expatriate a workforce that costs them a fraction of that amount per year? What sort of business justifies that kind of cost and long-term planning? Why couldn't they figure out a way that doesn't involve sending hundreds of people, like using robots, or settling an off-shore company on Earth?

It doesn't make sense.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Nibb31

[J.Random]

10 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

What sort of business justifies that kind of cost and long-term planning?

Supervillainy, obviously.

[ChrisSpace]

Mother of god. Leak/rumor from the NSF L2 forum.

Well, after reading the WBW post on SpaceX they have been completely quiet about this, so it's good to know they're still working hard on it.

15 meter diameter... that's far wider than any other rocket in history! Well, for a single-core rocket.

5000-6000mT... Holy ----! That's like 2 Saturn V rockets duct-taped together!

180 meters tall just for the first two stages... then again, they used the word 'Ship' for S2 so perhaps there are only 2 stages.

236mT payload to LEO. So in 2010 they said it would be 140mT, in 2014 they said 150-200mT... by the time this thing launches it's payload will be huge!

20mT nuclear reactor? I see how that makes sense, but wasn't SpaceX against using that sort of thing?

Three tanker trips to fill up, but how big are the tankers?

Well, consider that the BFR is supposed to bring 100 passengers to mars, inside that 100 tons of capacity to mars surface. The same model aircraft configured for passengers has carried 450 to 550 seats. Giving each passenger the volume equivalent to 6 coach aircraft seats to live in for a 6 month trip to mars seems a little small- it seems likely that the BFR's cabin is even larger than that plane.

The leak/rumor did say that the 'Ship' stage would be 60m long and 15m wide, so how does that compare with the aircraft shown? Can someone do a side-by-side comparison of the rocket and some stuff?

Overall though, I am skeptical. How in the #### is Elon about to finance this?

Oh, forgot about that. ----!

The problem is that if you have that sort of money, it's not very likely that you have anything to gain by emigrating to Mars to become a janitor or a cook. The intersection of:

• people who are rich enough to buy the ticket, and
• people who are desperate enough that living on mars represents a better life for them, and
• people who have useful skills to establish a viable colony

isn't big enough to make a sustainable business model, IMO.

200,000 people signed up to colonize Mars when Mars One did their thing. And that was without M1 actually demonstrating or showing anything. SpaceX could get a much larger number of people wanting to join the colony. I'm not going to do the math, but in a world of (by then) 8 billion people should have plenty who have the knowledge, skills and desire to live on a new world.

That's my take on it as well, yes. the key thing to keep in mind is that the habitable volume doesn't need to land on Mars.

The landing unit could pack 100 people as tightly as a commercial airplane just fine, leaving the larger habitat in orbit until the return flight is scheduled.

Perhaps the lander and habitat are the same, but its an inflatable module and the 15x60m launch configuration is the uninflated version?

You would be surprised how many people can scrounge up a million bucks if they literally sell everything they own but the clothes on their back. This isn't an offer for rich people to pay from their vacationing fund; this is an offer for people who completely liquidate their Earth-based existence and leave for a long, long time.

Exactly. Remember Europe from 1492 onwards? It's the same situation.

Musk has previously said that he would publicly present some specifics of his Mars-colonization plans later this year, though he tells me that it may now be early next year. "Before we announce it, I want to make sure that we're not gonna make really big changes to it," he says. "Um, yeah. I think it's gonna seem pretty crazy, no matter what."

If it works, it works. Tell someone in 1949 that there'd be a manned moon landing in 20 years, they'd think that to be pretty crazy as well.

A lot of the questions asked in this thread can be answered by looking at the past. Specifically by looking at the time that North America was colonized by the Europeans. Most of the basic facts are the same, such as

• The journey to the site of the colonization was really long [citation needed]
• The missions/explorations were be sponsored/run by companies (Back then tea companies, now SpaceX, etc)
• It was a long time before the colonies were self-sustaining
• Everybody going fit into two categories: In search for a better life or for the heck of it
• The ships they got there in were very cramped

All of these facts are true/will most likely be true with the colonization of mars.

It wasn't so much that the journey was long, more that it took a long time to get there. The travel times are actually quite comparable, 8 or so moths to get to Mars on a hohmann transfer, and 8 or so months to get from Europe to a new colony somewhere in the new world.

But there was air and food in North America. Not sure about Mars...

How can you tell without breathing the air yourself? But seriously, I think they'd produce air and water from ice in the ground.

[Frozen_Heart]

So this rocket is already crazy big... but could they do a Falcon Heavy and stick three together!

I think that would be something like 700 tons to orbit!

[Rakaydos]

3 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

So this rocket is already crazy big... but could they do a Falcon Heavy and stick three together!

I think that would be something like 700 tons to orbit!

More than that, it's designed to 2 stage to orbit, then be on-orbit refueled in 3 rapid launches, before setting out for mars.

[Nibb31]

Actually, we don't know any of that. Anything you hear about the BFR or MCT at this stage is pure speculation.

[fredinno]

9 hours ago, ChrisSpace said:

 

 

Well, after reading the WBW post on SpaceX they have been completely quiet about this, so it's good to know they're still working hard on it.

15 meter diameter... that's far wider than any other rocket in history! Well, for a single-core rocket.

5000-6000mT... Holy ----! That's like 2 Saturn V rockets duct-taped together!

180 meters tall just for the first two stages... then again, they used the word 'Ship' for S2 so perhaps there are only 2 stages.

236mT payload to LEO. So in 2010 they said it would be 140mT, in 2014 they said 150-200mT... by the time this thing launches it's payload will be huge!

20mT nuclear reactor? I see how that makes sense, but wasn't SpaceX against using that sort of thing?

Three tanker trips to fill up, but how big are the tankers?

 

 

The leak/rumor did say that the 'Ship' stage would be 60m long and 15m wide, so how does that compare with the aircraft shown? Can someone do a side-by-side comparison of the rocket and some stuff?

 

 

Oh, forgot about that. ----!

 

 

200,000 people signed up to colonize Mars when Mars One did their thing. And that was without M1 actually demonstrating or showing anything. SpaceX could get a much larger number of people wanting to join the colony. I'm not going to do the math, but in a world of (by then) 8 billion people should have plenty who have the knowledge, skills and desire to live on a new world.

 

 

Perhaps the lander and habitat are the same, but its an inflatable module and the 15x60m launch configuration is the uninflated version?

 

 

Exactly. Remember Europe from 1492 onwards? It's the same situation.

 

 

If it works, it works. Tell someone in 1949 that there'd be a manned moon landing in 20 years, they'd think that to be pretty crazy as well.

 

 

It wasn't so much that the journey was long, more that it took a long time to get there. The travel times are actually quite comparable, 8 or so moths to get to Mars on a hohmann transfer, and 8 or so months to get from Europe to a new colony somewhere in the new world.

 

 

How can you tell without breathing the air yourself? But seriously, I think they'd produce air and water from ice in the ground.

People thought people would be on Mars by 1980-1990. People thought there would be moon bases by the 80s.

 

Also, people have to give quite a bit of money for this thing anyways, so there will be far fewer applicants than the free entry Mars One.

[B787_300]

4 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Actually, we don't know any of that. Anything you hear about the BFR or MCT at this stage is pure speculation.

Exactly.  Remember the leak that is at the start of the thread is just speculation that may or may not come from SpaceX employees or be right.

 

Also while the analogy to setling of America is not perfect it is okay.  There were people who came to America in the 1600 and 1700s just to explore the continent.  Also there will be minerals and other materials on Mars that might make it worth while to mine.