Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[_Augustus_]

20 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Perhaps we'll also go back to the Moon on the egos of billionaires, too

Blue Origin's suborbital rocket is named after the first US astronaut who did a suborbital spaceflight. Blue Origin's orbital rocket is named after the first US astronaut who did an orbital spaceflight. Blue Origin's next secret project is named after the first US astronaut who walked on the Moon... what does this tell us?

Could be a whole number of things, really, but that is kind of a strong nod towards the Moon. Also consider that Blue Origin works closely with ULA, and ULA wants to develop cislunar space in the coming decades.

I would agree with this. 

[Lukaszenko]

2 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

Risk equations are probability times consequence.  For instance a 1% chance of losing a million dollars is a much larger risk than a 10% chance of losing 10 dollars.  There is a much larger chance of something going wrong with the lander architecture (say a bad docking causing a tiny hull breach near one of the dicking ports, or one of the landers becoming inoperable), but the consequences are much less for most such failures.

The overall risk is less because, for example, losing one of four redundant landers (and 2-3 crew members with it) in a crash due to a landing computer failure is not nearly so bad as losing the entire ITS due to a couple of the thermal tiles failing in a repeat of the Columbia disaster.  Putting all your eggs in different baskets increases your chances of losing an egg or two- but greatly decreases your chances of losing ALL your eggs...

I don't know man...something's off in these risk calculations.

Which lander would you rather be on? The 1 of many that has a 10% chance of failing, or the single one with many more people....that has a 1% chance of failing?

I'm pretty sure a tiny lander with 2-3 people crashing would be pretty darn bad. Maybe not as bad as a 100 person lander crashing, but certainly not merely 2-3% as bad. If there's a situation where putting all your eggs in one basket, and making sure that basket is as good as you can make it, then this one is it. 

[Frozen_Heart]

I think Musk has decided on this architecture not because it is the best or the most efficient, but because it has the fewest vehicles to develop and so will be cheaper and quicker to produce and has the highest chance of being built.

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I think Musk has decided on this architecture not because it is the best or the most efficient, but because it has the fewest vehicles to develop and so will be cheaper and quicker to produce and has the highest chance of being built.

True, an more efficient transfer interplanetary rocket would cut fuel needs to an faction, However an NTR would require hydrogen to max effect it would also be disposable as you could not land on Mars with it. Other engines will either take too long to develop or don't help much in the Mars in 80-120 days plan. 
 

[Spaceception]

On 10/5/2016 at 7:32 PM, Bluegillbronco2 said:

Just a quick note. According to the Blue Origin website the LES system puts out 70,000 lbs of thrust. And the capsule weighs 6,000 according to the live stream commentator. That means the thing has a TWR off the booster of 11. Quite impressive.

Turn it up to 11!

[Northstar1989]

On Friday, October 07, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Gkirmathal said:

@Northstar1989

Yes I think you are correct, but I also think Musk is fully aware of this and that he is limited in what he can currently accomplish financially. And that makes it a rather Catch-22 situation for them when designing anything. Sacrifices to have to be made

The ITS design shown last week, seems to me, a compromise between what is currently financial possible for SpaceX in the coming two decades and what is technically possible. That is why I think Musk initially chose the easy road.

Maybe RedDragon will add to their current design idea's, maybe it will not. We don't know yet. Might be fully possible that they conclude after RedDragon, they really need an extra LMO only system with ITS. We don't know yet.

Also agree on the need to lay some more initial foundations, although think of it, you have a 'small' budget with an uncertain global economical future. What would you do, extend R&D time with the risk of the whole program coming to a halt due to future economics going bad. Or, design a system now, current ITS plans, which can be build within a foreseeable time frame and with the current economical situation, with the current tech.

As much as I would personally ALSO, like you, want to have separate lander systems for Mars LO/LEO/Moon. I have to give in that currently it would make it too complex to design, for ONE company, within the time frame Musk wants to accomplish it. Like I said, maybe RedDragon will add to their plans.

About the Moon, IMO it would be more possible within 4 years to design something around Falcon Heavy. But I think the Chinese will beat the West to it.

As for the heated discussion you have with Derek, I really think you are both correct. Only your idea lays about 20 years in the future And that is not bad! We need to think and be able to discuss about any possibility and not be harsh about it. Every idea has it's place in time

 

You have a point...  You're right- Musk's current plan is a compromise between an ideal system, and one that doesn't risk too much on the global economy...  Perhaps, seen from that perspective, it makes perfect sense for Musk to do what he's doing.  But I'm not entirely sold on that- if the global economy really crashes hard enough (ssay, due to Peak Oil) I'm not sure *either* plan will survive.

So I don't think there's that much added risk from extending the R&D timeline out a bit- in fact, just the opposite- Musk has a steady cashflow from SpaceX and Tesla Motors right now.  If he stays reliant on that income for longer, rather than borrowing money to get the ITS developed sooner, there's actually *less* risk involved...

 

Regards,

Northstar

 

On Friday, October 07, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Lukaszenko said:

I don't know man...something's off in these risk calculations.

Which lander would you rather be on? The 1 of many that has a 10% chance of failing, or the single one with many more people....that has a 1% chance of failing?

I'm pretty sure a tiny lander with 2-3 people crashing would be pretty darn bad. Maybe not as bad as a 100 person lander crashing, but certainly not merely 2-3% as bad. If there's a situation where putting all your eggs in one basket, and making sure that basket is as good as you can make it, then this one is it. 

The 10% risk was just a number used to illustrate the concept.  In reality it's probably less than that.  But even if it's not, the 10% risk would be of any of the landers crashing by the end of 12 uses, not a specific lander crashing on a specific launch.

This is a perfect example of how the human brain is bad at comparing probabilities, and why we need to do the math...

If you compare  the numbers for a 10 or even 25% chance of losing one 2-man lander crew in 55 or 60 flights (because you could probably increase the per-ITS payload 10-20% with a lander architecture) vs. a 0.5% chance of losing all 100 souls on the ITS in a catastrophic failure, your individual chances of survival are actually *higher* with the lander architecture.  That's because your chances are only 1 in 55 to 1 in 60 of being on the lander that crashes if that occurs (an event with an only 10-25% chance of happening at all), whereas your odds are 100% of being on the ITS if it burns up or crashes...

The odds of death are 1 in 200 with the "classic" ITS architecture vs. between 1 in 220 and 1 in 600 with the lander architecture, depending on the odds of catastrophic lander failure (1 in 10, to 1 in 4) and number of total manned lander flights (55 to 60).  Your odds are somewhere between 10% and 200% better of surviving landing with a lander architecture.

 

Regards,

Northstar

 

 

22 hours ago, magnemoe said:

True, an more efficient transfer interplanetary rocket would cut fuel needs to an faction, However an NTR would require hydrogen to max effect it would also be disposable as you could not land on Mars with it. Other engines will either take too long to develop or don't help much in the Mars in 80-120 days plan. 
 

Nothing about landers, cyclers, or cargo-crew specialization requires NTR's.  In fact, nothing about them requires any technology the ITS won't already have... (the lander architecture is lower-tech in fact, since it doesn't really *need* composite fuel tanks in order to save you a lot of mass...)

NTR's are way out there.  Not saying they couldn't be done, but the stuff I'm describing is actually much lower-tech (Buzz Aldrin did most of his work on Cycler Ship architectures in the 70's, for crying out loud!)

That said, there will always be those who say it cannot be done".  Just like, *not coincidentally*, most of the people who are criticizing me for arguing Musk should be using landers and maybe eventually a Cycler or Cargo/Crew seperation are the *SAME* people saying Musk's ITS plans are unrealistic for "all but glossy-eyed fanboys" and will never be accomplished.

Hint, again, that's *not* a coincidence. There will always be naysayers.  There were plenty of people who said we'd never make it to the Moon (and for that matter, plenty who still deny it ever happened), and there are and will be plenty more who say we'll never colonize Mars.  It's much easier to play the cynic than to think of real solutions, real ways you could accomplish something better, more efficiently, safer, cheaper...

 

On Friday, October 07, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Nibb31 said:

Northstar, I think you really have to let it go.

Musk's space program is Musk's space program. He's been working at it for years, employing thousands of bright people to think up the mission architecture, and this is what he has come up with. It complies to his requirements, which are dictated by SpaceX's business plan, technological capability, and schedule. And it also has to look cool.

What it doesn't involve are cyclers, landers, and smaller vehicles with more frequent launches. You can discuss these things as much as you want, but those ideas are not part of Musk's vision, and nobody is going to make him throw away years of SpaceX studies and prototyping. His plan has plenty of flaws that make it pretty unrealistic for anyone who isn't a starry-eyed fanboy, but you're not going to change the basic architecture. Posting page after page of walls of text on the subject won't change his mind. I suggest that if you want to open a thread to discuss the Northstar Mars Colonization Architecture, you do so.

Studies?  Prototyping?  Musk's plans haven't gotten to that point yet.  He's still working on the Raptor engine and the composite fuel-tanks.  He hasn't even *begun* to challenge the seriously difficult problem of safe orbital refueling, as far as anyone knows.  He definitely hasn't shifted "thousands of bright people" to the overall mission architecture yet (that would be a MUCH larger effort than the "5% of SpaceX's technical staff" he says were *recently* shifted to working on challenges in some way related to his Mars plan or spacecraft)- in fact, he's said himself the architecture may be subject to changes...

I find your suggestion of creating a "Northstar Mars Colonization Architecture" rude and condescending (although, coincidentally, I have given some thought to reviving the long-dead Duna Mission Architecture Challenge on these forums with a new thread if my own on a couple occasions...  But that's not the same as what we're discussing here.)

 

Regards,

Northstar

 

 

Just some numbers to inform future discussions...

Delta-V requirements:

3.8 km/s (approx., depending on ascent efficiency) for launch from Martian surface to LMO

3.9-4.2 km/s approx. Delta-V provided by ITS booster before engine cutoff (note- actual cutoff speed much lower, includes gravity and aero losses)

5.4 km/s to LEO from ITS booster seperation

5.7 km/s for return from LMO to LEO

8 km/s (not including aerobraking) for 3-5 month to Mars and capture.

9.5 km/s (not including aerobraking) for low-energy return from Martian surface to LEO

9.2-9.6 km/s (total, for highly efficient ascents) Delta-V for ascent to LEO from Earth's surface

 

I hope these figures can lead to a more informed discussion.

 

Regards,

Northstar

[Red Iron Crown]

@Northstar1989 Please concatenate your posts, there is no need to double, triple or quadruple post here. 

[Northstar1989]

3 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

@Northstar1989 Please concatenate your posts, there is no need to double, triple or quadruple post here. 

Very difficult to do, as I'm posting from mobile (hence all the typo's, and edits to fix them) and the mobile site doesn't seem to allow me to easily multi-quote multiple different people like I can from my laptop...

Apologies if I missed a way to do so.

 

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 8, 2016 by Northstar1989

[magnemoe]

5 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

Nothing about landers, cyclers, or cargo-crew specialization requires NTR's.  In fact, nothing about them requires any technology the ITS won't already have... (the lander architecture is lower-tech in fact, since it doesn't really *need* composite fuel tanks in order to save you a lot of mass...)

NTR's are way out there.  Not saying they couldn't be done, but the stuff I'm describing is actually much lower-tech (Buzz Aldrin did most of his work on Cycler Ship architectures in the 70's, for crying out loud!)

That said, there will always be those who say it cannot be done".  Just like, *not coincidentally*, most of the people who are criticizing me for arguing Musk should be using landers and maybe eventually a Cycler or Cargo/Crew seperation are the *SAME* people saying Musk's ITS plans are unrealistic for "all but glossy-eyed fanboys" and will never be accomplished.

Hint, again, that's *not* a coincidence. There will always be naysayers.  There were plenty of people who said we'd never make it to the Moon (and for that matter, plenty who still deny it ever happened), and there are and will be plenty more who say we'll never colonize Mars.  It's much easier to play the cynic than to think of real solutions, real ways you could accomplish something better, more efficiently, safer, cheaper...

No NTR is not needed, however most other Mars missions focus on better engines to keep mass faction up and launch size down as this saves money.
Musk goes the other way around, lets build an giant reusable rocket to lift the fuel. 

 

[Red Iron Crown]

1 minute ago, Northstar1989 said:

Very difficult to do, as I'm posting from mobile (hence all the typo's, and edits to fix them) and the mobile site doesn't seem to allow me to easily multi-quote multiple different people like I can from my laptop...

Click the plus sign under each post to multiquote, works on mobile or computer. If you are unable to avoid multiposting on mobile then I will have to ask you to wait until you are on a device where you can; it is unfair to other people attempting to participate in the conversation to have half the posts on each page be from one poster.

[Northstar1989]

11 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

No NTR is not needed, however most other Mars missions focus on better engines to keep mass faction up and launch size down as this saves money.
Musk goes the other way around, lets build an giant reusable rocket to lift the fuel. 

 

Because a giant reusable rocket is cheaper than developing an NTR.  

Unless I'm severely mistaken, building a space-rated NTR would be orders of magnitude more expensive than developing a lander, an interceptor ship to go with a Cycler (because you don't need anything special for the Cycler- the current ITS design would already make a fine Cycler Ship), or a cargo-only ITS.

8 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Click the plus sign under each post to multiquote, works on mobile or computer. If you are unable to avoid multiposting on mobile then I will have to ask you to wait until you are on a device where you can; it is unfair to other people attempting to participate in the conversation to have half the posts on each page be from one poster.

I tried that before, and it did nothing on mobile.  But I just tried it again, and *this time* I noticed a popup on the bottom of my screen that says "quote 2 posts" which I may have missed before due to its small size.  When I tap it (touchscreen, no clicks here) it works!

Still doesn't let me manually merge posts though (it still auto-merges two posted in rapid succession, like it did just now), or add a quote to an existing post w/o overwriting the original post entirely...

 

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 8, 2016 by Northstar1989

[Technical Ben]

If I was a space company, with VASMIR (small scale for now), ion or other types of engines, I'd offer to "one up" Elon with a cycler.

As in, he provides his current mission profile. Offer an extra ticket to people for the cycler. Perhaps with a re-usable Mars lander (Blue Origins style?) offer cargo and postage too!

Want the new iPhone 9? Not getting it from Elon, so you'll need postage on that!

[Mitchz95]

Conspiracy theory: Elon is deliberately making the ITS unnecessarily inefficient to invite competitors to design their own colony architecture, making the colonization of Mars a proper space race.

[shynung]

28 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said:

Conspiracy theory: Elon is deliberately making the ITS unnecessarily inefficient to invite competitors to design their own colony architecture, making the colonization of Mars a proper space race.

I sure hope MSNW finishes that fusion rocket they're working on sooner than later.

[Nibb31]

16 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

Nothing about landers, cyclers, or cargo-crew specialization requires NTR's.  In fact, nothing about them requires any technology the ITS won't already have... (the lander architecture is lower-tech in fact, since it doesn't really *need* composite fuel tanks in order to save you a lot of mass...)

NTR's are way out there.  Not saying they couldn't be done, but the stuff I'm describing is actually much lower-tech (Buzz Aldrin did most of his work on Cycler Ship architectures in the 70's, for crying out loud!)

That said, there will always be those who say it cannot be done".  Just like, *not coincidentally*, most of the people who are criticizing me for arguing Musk should be using landers and maybe eventually a Cycler or Cargo/Crew seperation are the *SAME* people saying Musk's ITS plans are unrealistic for "all but glossy-eyed fanboys" and will never be accomplished.

You missed the point. The point is that there is no point trying to convice us that Musk should use cyclers or separate landers. Musk's architecture is done. You might not like it, but that's what they are working on. If you want to change Musk's mind, then write to him, not to us.

Quote

Studies?  Prototyping?  Musk's plans haven't gotten to that point yet.  He's still working on the Raptor engine and the composite fuel-tanks.  

What he presented at the IAC is the result of several years of internal studies. The Raptor engin and the composite tanks are prototypes. The ITC is literally built around that tank and those engines. They are the core of the design.

5% of the workforce of SpaceX is 250 people. That's a pretty large team for a side-project at this stage, and that represents a lot of money invested already. Those people aren't stupid. They know about cyclers, landers, and orbital mechanics. They have done the math and come up with the current plan because that is what fits Musk's requirements and capabilities.

Quote

He hasn't even *begun* to challenge the seriously difficult problem of safe orbital refueling, as far as anyone knows.  

There are dozens of problems that he hasn't started to tackle, and some of them are serious dealbreakers for the whole plan. But that's how he's decided to roll. It's his money to spend. It's not up to you or anyone of us to tell him otherwise.

Quote

I find your suggestion of creating a "Northstar Mars Colonization Architecture" rude and condescending (although, coincidentally, I have given some thought to reviving the long-dead Duna Mission Architecture Challenge on these forums with a new thread if my own on a couple occasions...  But that's not the same as what we're discussing here.)

Musk has his architecture. You have yours, and it's not the same. You've made your point. At this stage, I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish in this thread. Musk doesn't read the KSP forums. And we can't do anything to change his mind.

 

Edited October 8, 2016 by Nibb31

[tater]

I agree. This thread will be back on track once they return to flight, but generally I think the ITS glop should never have been merged with this thread that until recently was largely about SpaceX operations. Even with unbuilt SpaceX stuff, the thread needs to stick to real stuff. Alternate uses for ITS? That's game. Alternate mission architectures using ITS? Sure, until we have some real F9 launches to talk about. Spacecraft that Musk doesn't have a Powerpoint presentation about? Make a new thread.

Edited October 8, 2016 by tater

[Technical Ben]

I've had trouble getting enough fuel up attempting this in KSP (with the exception of using nuclear rockets, that need no refuelling).

I'm not sure if I need to make my crew capsule smaller, of tanker larger (which would need a larger first stage to lift it)...

[StrandedonEarth]

2 hours ago, tater said:

I agree. This thread will be back on track once they return to flight, but generally I think the ITS glop should never have been merged with this thread that until recently was largely about SpaceX operations. Even with unbuilt SpaceX stuff, the thread needs to stick to real stuff. Alternate uses for ITS? That's game. Alternate mission architectures using ITS? Sure, until we have some real F9 launches to talk about. Spacecraft that Musk doesn't have a Powerpoint presentation about? Make a new thread.

I concur. I dislike having to wade through pages of ITS arguments to see if there are any updates on F9 investigations and operations. I think it should be separate threads about ITS and F9-based missions. I certainly don't think arguments about the pros and cons of different ITS architectures belong here

[Northstar1989]

9 hours ago, tater said:

I agree. This thread will be back on track once they return to flight, but generally I think the ITS glop should never have been merged with this thread that until recently was largely about SpaceX operations. Even with unbuilt SpaceX stuff, the thread needs to stick to real stuff. Alternate uses for ITS? That's game. Alternate mission architectures using ITS? Sure, until we have some real F9 launches to talk about. Spacecraft that Musk doesn't have a Powerpoint presentation about? Make a new thread.

Originally I *did* started posting all this alternative architecture stuff in a different thread that got merged in here.  It's not my fault ot got merged.  And I shouldn't have to abandon my entire line of discussion just because a moderstor merged two threads and you, a player, don't like the topic...  If the mods thought this was off-topic, they should have never merged the threads...

Anyways, your point is no different than the point you've made 100 times before, often on threads I myself started that *were* dedicated to a unique idea (like Suborbital Spaceplanes, Cycler Ships, or Microwave Beamed Power).  Remember your criticisms on those threads, Nibb?  They were *identical*.  I don't appreciate that you keep making the same rude, confrontational things any time I suggest a new idea.  It's not polite, and it's not right, and you really should stop.

ANYTHING space-related that people discuss and hasn't been done before might theoretically be "pointless".  But by discussing an idea, you not only spread it, you also work out the kinks and refine it.  If these ideas ever *were* submitted to SpaceX, they really ought to be debated more first, for instance.

And I already have encouraged anybody here who agrees with any of these ideas to write them up and submit arguments for them to SpaceX.  So maybe something might actually come of this discussion...

11 hours ago, shynung said:

I sure hope MSNW finishes that fusion rocket they're working on sooner than later.

It sounded like a pie-in-the-sky idea to me when I read about it (way more than, say, dedicated landers- which are really just an extension of the concept used in Apollo).  Do you think it has any serious chance of actually working?

 

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 9, 2016 by Northstar1989

[tater]

 I'm not at all suggesting that SpaceX not be a topic of deeply speculative discussion, I just think it derails a standing thread to do so here. The threads that were merged I said should not have been merged. That said, ITS threads at least sort of belong here. ITS is a specific spacecraft, however. I'd say if it is so nonexistent that Elon doesn't even have a slide about it for a talk, it deserves to be in another thread.

[kerbiloid]

One can name a new thread: "Musk must...".

[tater]

26 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

One can name a new thread: "Musk must...".

Say that three times, fast!

Edited October 9, 2016 by tater

[shynung]

3 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

It sounded like a pie-in-the-sky idea to me when I read about it (way more than, say, dedicated landers- which are really just an extension of the concept used in Apollo).  Do you think it has any serious chance of actually working?

Pretty sure. It's being jointly developed by MSNW and The University of Washington, and backed by NASA through the Innovative Advanced Concepts program. They're aiming for a full scale ground test by 2020, and orbital demonstration by mid-20's.

MSNW doesn't exactly have their own space program, though, so it's up to NASA or some other organization to actually use the fusion motor for their spacecraft.

Edited October 9, 2016 by shynung

[Nibb31]

 

Quote

Anyways, your point is no different than the point you've made 100 times before, often on threads I myself started that *were* dedicated to a unique idea (like Suborbital Spaceplanes, Cycler Ships, or Microwave Beamed Power).  Remember your criticisms on those threads, Nibb?  They were *identical*.  I don't appreciate that you keep making the same rude, confrontational things any time I suggest a new idea.  It's not polite, and it's not right, and you really should stop.

You're taking things too personally. I don't resort to ad hominems, so it would be great if you didn't either. None of my criticisms are directed personally to you. In most cases, I don't even look at the name of the person I'm replying to. I didn't even remember (or care) who brought those other subjects up.

And it's not that the ideas are stupid. Some ideas are actually smart, but that doesn't mean they are practical. When you come up with a wall of text claiming that SpaceX should be using cyclers, then you are the one who is insulting. Any aerospace engineer knows perfectly well what a cycler is, and although there might be some benefits in using one, there are also some very strong reasons that make it impractical for the current architecture.

But in this case, I'm not even criticizing your ideas. I'm just saying that your ideas have no place in a SpaceX thread, because they have nothing to do with SpaceX.

Quote

And I already have encouraged anybody here who agrees with any of these ideas to write them up and submit arguments for them to SpaceX.  So maybe something might actually come of this discussion...

So why don't you? You've literally spent hours in this thread, writing down your ideas of how SpaceX could do so much better. That time could have been so much more profitable if you had spent it directly writing to SpaceX.

The problem is that you are assuming that when Elon Musk picked a bunch of smart folks at SpaceX to think about a Mars mission architecture several years ago, those people didn't go through the different options. They most certainly did consider cyclers and LMO rendez-vous. And they rejected thos ideas for reasons. There is no point in advocating the obvious, they already know what a cycler is or what the gains of a separate lander are. If they didn't choose those options, it's because they are not interested, not because they are ignorant or stupid. Which is why I'm asking you respectfully to move on and either start a different thread about alternative Mars mission profiles or to leave this thread to discussion about the Falcon, Dragon, and the ITS.

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by Nibb31

[Lukaszenko]

On 10/8/2016 at 6:46 AM, Northstar1989 said:

This is a perfect example of how the human brain is bad at comparing probabilities, and why we need to do the math...

It's an example of MY brain calculating the wrong numbers. I assumed you were talking about a larger number of less reliable landers. In fact, your calculations (and indeed previous posts) show that you were actually talking a larger number of MORE reliable landers. I don't need to do the math to see that this will be safer.

Obviously if you compare putting your eggs into one basket or putting your eggs into more and stronger baskets, the more & stronger will be the safer option.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Lukaszenko