Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[Mitchz95]

Anyway...

and

 

[Vanamonde]

Quote

Don't forget that all this started when some moderator decided is was a good idea to merge all SpaceX related threads into one. 

Quote

Yeah, I think maybe a new thread about notional Mars endeavors might be a good idea. 

There was a thread for Mars colonization details, split off from these discussions for precisely this reason. Arguments got so bad in it that the OP asked for it to be closed. Which is how we arrive at the current situation. So, yeah. Don't blame the moderators. 

[Northstar1989]

22 minutes ago, kunok said:

No, but this is a science subforum. If Musk comes with a total unreal plan we (well, some of us) will critic it, I don't care how cool it looks the render he presented in that conference if the engineering below is still dubious. He showed a big carbon fiber tank to make a point, but then in the reddit AMA he admitted that they still don't know how they will insulate the interior of the tank, it was only a production test (testing the manufacturing machine, looked very good by the way) , so there isn't a basic figure of tank mass to do the numbers.

Then he is also claiming that the biggest rocket ever with a big lifting body as upper stage will cost less than a serial production airplane. As you should understand I don't believe this estimation.

But outside the hypothetical big cool cheapest per kg ever rocket what's the plan? What about any other aspects of the ITS like the life support systems?

On the other hand NASA and other organizations are doing "boring" plans, but realistic with develops step by step, this would get us eventually to mars, probably first a flag mission, then a science camp, and then more and more, step by step but no claiming that you will start colonization in 10 years. Space agencies at most are making initial designs of science camps, not anything similar to a settlement, nothing permanent, nothing really comfortable or habitable. Give them time and resources, and they would do it but if we give them bad PR because SpaceX is cooler and have fancier plans we are putting stones in their way (not sure if this is a correct form in english). That's the part that bothers me, the total unrealistic plans are giving bad reputation to the ones that are working in real ones, with means less support from common people what in the ends would be less money in the step by step effort

The transport cost isn't really the biggest cost here, is all the developing effort, the space goods are already a lot more expensive than the space transport, don't forget that, is a common error here. The only "habitable" place that our stuff will work without mayor modifications is in the clouds of venus, you only need to deal with no oxygen atmosphere, and 4 days long days, and obviously forgetting about the surface (in mars too, you would live in the underground not in the surface, unless you want a collection of cancers), but you have: earthlike pressure and temp, radiation projection, very similar gravity, even more sun energy, all of that is already there. But there is little public interest in Venus, almost nobody knows that there is an habitable zone in the atmosphere at heights of 50-55km and most of the people that knows that think that living in a blimp is weird.

 

What's a strider anyway?

 

Not only less dense bones, we are talking here also about abnormal growth of almost anything. But I'm a engineer not a medic, so here I don't really know, I just read things, and what I'm sure is that there is basically 0 data. We know that 0g is pretty bad. 0,38g? Who knows?

One example like any other: What about if the muscles grown faster than the bones? or viceversa?

Let's try to keep this all on-topic from now on.

The last thing I will say about all this us that Musk's plan might still prove yseful for early NASA missions even if it doesn't lead to colonization.  SpaceX has shown that it can consistently develop launch capability for less than a third of their competitor's prices. So by all accounts, the ITS booster should be cheaper than SLS.  That will necessarily give NASA a lot more payload mass to play around with when designing their missions.

Ok, tangent over.  Can we start a new thread for any more of these theoretical SpaceX discussions?

And moderators, PLEASE don't merge it with this thread again!

Edited November 2, 2016 by Northstar1989

[StrandedonEarth]

15 hours ago, Serpens Solidus said:

Don't forget that all this started when some moderator decided is was a good idea to merge all SpaceX related threads into one.

*hides under table*

Yes, for anyone looking for news about current SpaceX missions, the accident investigations and RTF plans, the signal-to-noise ratio in here is drowning in the ITF and colonization talk. 

Edit: What we need is a thread for "SpaceX Current Missions, launches, Landings, and RUDs," and another for "SpaceX BFR, ITS, and Duna Mars Colonization Plans"

Edited November 2, 2016 by StrandedonEarth

[tater]

Static fire yesterday in preparation for sending a core out for launch (Iridium).

Edited November 2, 2016 by tater

[CatastrophicFailure]

4 hours ago, tater said:

Static fire yesterday in preparation for sending a core out for launch (Iridium).

Was it a full stack or just the first stage? Iridium's going out of Cali, right?

[tater]

It was the usual test fire at the factory, so not a stack I think. Yeah, from VAFB.

[PB666]

On 11/1/2016 at 8:57 AM, Green Baron said:

It's not only the lacking technology to run an autarky for an undefined period. Keeping people healthy and alive requires more than greenhouse and artificial food. That malnutrition is one of the reasons why costs of health care systems in the rich countries explode.

Another problem is radiation. That field is almost without any data. Sending people into the center of the ship between the stored stuff sounds like "pull a leather-bag over your head" ... helpless. But i would expect that more research on radiation shielding can be done once it is better understood what kind of radiation does what kind of damage.

Low g: very well trained atsronauts come down in a bad shape from months in weightlessness. Bones have lost calcium, muscles atrophied and arteries stiffened. They need a ground crew to get them out of the vessels, a g-suit in the first weeks to support blood pressure and a several months long rehabilitation training. It's not even understood what happens to human health after more than a few months, only very few people have been in space for a year or more.

I mean, the colony-dreams are a nice playground but i think SpaceX is playing too fast forward. The transportation thing might be the easiest part ...

 

As I previously said, you can place a hard frozen man on Mars (well if we except the ESA, they would collide him, lol) for the cost of a satellite that can reach interplanetary space.

Each of the Mars problems can be dealt with, the question is can they be dealt with by SPACEX.

1. You need a surface targeting system which is precise on the scale of meters (we do not yet have this capacity), You need to establish a bootstrap powerstation on mars, and hope like crazy that subsequent landings do not damage it.
2. You need automated and robotized excavation/drilling equipment that can remove or move martian substate. We have to argue that the current SPACEX business plan lacks the scope to do this, this would require another enterprise of NASA assistence.
   a. To build a solar or nuclear power station on the surface for required power.
   b. To begin the process of wiring the complex for power distribution.
   c. A series of robots to do the above but also repair and recharge themselves. Essentially First step is to build a village of robots.

3. You need to be able to robotically built a close atmosphere environment, preferably underground (Why: your first occupation is to build a greenhouse and protect your plants). Again the vapor pressure on Mars is insufficient to support any earthen life, even deep in Mars surface. You would have to drill several killometers into the surface to arrive at a pressure were plants can grow. However if you drill sufficiently deep underground it is possible to close off caverns and seal them.

4. Robotic micro electricians, to set up an array of leds in the blue and red-orange wavelengths. Also you need substrate (bootsrap) since there is no composted or compostable material on mars. You need to plants seeds and nuorish the plants.

5. While it is possible to periodically transfer gases, some sort of vapor tight plumbing needs to be established between greenhouse and building. If subterranean building are built adjacent to the greenhouses the radiation problem can be eliminated and stable connections can be made between green house and living quarters.

6. So as I am talking you will note that as the colony expands, its surface impact declines, and more of the colony is subsurface. Not the kind of colony where you have Suits romping around on the surface.

7. We have to assume that Martian gravity will suffice for at least a year or two, otherwise you are going to have to provise crew rotations. Yes, as I mention its possible to build a small (3.5 meter in diameter) human centrifuge that humans can exercise in to maintain cardiovascular health, but this is not going to be an early stage employment.

So now what about Mars support.

That is more than just transport, this means you have a relay environment were stuff is being placed in LEO, then shuttled to MEO (eventually using ION drive ships I an presupposing). And you have an emmense number of these, probably 30 or so) that can shuttle equipment and supplies.

The second problem is assembly on ground is almost absolutely required. The reason is that martian parachuting systems are horribly inefficient, and thus payload drops will be small. Thus the payload has either to be a micro version, or just about everything will need to be assembled on the surface. I see surface building on mars being dropped empty and then the interiors being assembled by other drops. I dont see little martian habitats being dropped complete with human inside. The larger the object i think the more difficult it will be to target were it lands, and the more difficult it will be to move if it is mistargeted.

What SPACEX says (1 million people) I think is incredible, its 100 - 1000 times more difficult to manage resources on Mars relative to earth. When talk about about a million people on Mars you are talking about the management problem for a billion people on Earth. So realistically we need to talk about practicality, a research colony of maybe 10 to 50 people over 200 years or so, just to get that management problem down by a magnitude.

So keeping this on a future SPACEX topic. I think a functional plan is on the scope of about 10 independent SPACEX Mars plans (each unit being a different business model)  to provide a bootstrap facility. Beyond that bootstrap facility I think we are clueless as to how to reach the 'cheaper if a million people travel' idea.

 

 

 

 

 

[Hesp]

Actually, I think SpaceX must design, build and validate a system able to land on another planet and come back to Earth, let alone payloads and colonies.

After doing that, they might raise interest of other companies to develop all the visions they have. But without an operative transport system (no need for it to be cheap at the beginning), it's just sci-fi.

[Northstar1989]

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

As I previously said, you can place a hard frozen man on Mars (well if we except the ESA, they would collide him, lol) for the cost of a satellite that can reach interplanetary space.

Each of the Mars problems can be dealt with, the question is can they be dealt with by SPACEX.

1. You need a surface targeting system which is precise on the scale of meters (we do not yet have this capacity), You need to establish a bootstrap powerstation on mars, and hope like crazy that subsequent landings do not damage it.
2. You need automated and robotized excavation/drilling equipment that can remove or move martian substate. We have to argue that the current SPACEX business plan lacks the scope to do this, this would require another enterprise of NASA assistence.
   a. To build a solar or nuclear power station on the surface for required power.
   b. To begin the process of wiring the complex for power distribution.
   c. A series of robots to do the above but also repair and recharge themselves. Essentially First step is to build a village of robots.

3. You need to be able to robotically built a close atmosphere environment, preferably underground (Why: your first occupation is to build a greenhouse and protect your plants). Again the vapor pressure on Mars is insufficient to support any earthen life, even deep in Mars surface. You would have to drill several killometers into the surface to arrive at a pressure were plants can grow. However if you drill sufficiently deep underground it is possible to close off caverns and seal them.

4. Robotic micro electricians, to set up an array of leds in the blue and red-orange wavelengths. Also you need substrate (bootsrap) since there is no composted or compostable material on mars. You need to plants seeds and nuorish the plants.

5. While it is possible to periodically transfer gases, some sort of vapor tight plumbing needs to be established between greenhouse and building. If subterranean building are built adjacent to the greenhouses the radiation problem can be eliminated and stable connections can be made between green house and living quarters.

6. So as I am talking you will note that as the colony expands, its surface impact declines, and more of the colony is subsurface. Not the kind of colony where you have Suits romping around on the surface.

7. We have to assume that Martian gravity will suffice for at least a year or two, otherwise you are going to have to provise crew rotations. Yes, as I mention its possible to build a small (3.5 meter in diameter) human centrifuge that humans can exercise in to maintain cardiovascular health, but this is not going to be an early stage employment.

So now what about Mars support.

That is more than just transport, this means you have a relay environment were stuff is being placed in LEO, then shuttled to MEO (eventually using ION drive ships I an presupposing). And you have an emmense number of these, probably 30 or so) that can shuttle equipment and supplies.

The second problem is assembly on ground is almost absolutely required. The reason is that martian parachuting systems are horribly inefficient, and thus payload drops will be small. Thus the payload has either to be a micro version, or just about everything will need to be assembled on the surface. I see surface building on mars being dropped empty and then the interiors being assembled by other drops. I dont see little martian habitats being dropped complete with human inside. The larger the object i think the more difficult it will be to target were it lands, and the more difficult it will be to move if it is mistargeted.

What SPACEX says (1 million people) I think is incredible, its 100 - 1000 times more difficult to manage resources on Mars relative to earth. When talk about about a million people on Mars you are talking about the management problem for a billion people on Earth. So realistically we need to talk about practicality, a research colony of maybe 10 to 50 people over 200 years or so, just to get that management problem down by a magnitude.

So keeping this on a future SPACEX topic. I think a functional plan is on the scope of about 10 independent SPACEX Mars plans (each unit being a different business model)  to provide a bootstrap facility. Beyond that bootstrap facility I think we are clueless as to how to reach the 'cheaper if a million people travel' idea.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't mean to sound like a backseat moderator, but please move these discussions to another thread.  Even I agree at this point that these discussions about the details of syrface colonization or economics have gotten far too out of hand.  And, I originally posted about such concepts in a different thread entirely before some musguided moderators merged it into this thread ages back! (hides under table)

Anyways, can we get this back on-track to duscussing SpaceX's current activities please?  And will the OP or a moderator please re-name this thread to identify it as jyst being about SpaceX's current missions ONLY (with a seperate thread for future plans?)

 

Regards,

Northstar

[PB666]

58 minutes ago, Northstar1989 said:

I don't mean to sound like a backseat moderator, but please move these discussions to another thread.  Even I agree at this point that these discussions about the details of syrface colonization or economics have gotten far too out of hand.  And, I originally posted about such concepts in a different thread entirely before some musguided moderators merged it into this thread ages back! (hides under table)

Anyways, can we get this back on-track to duscussing SpaceX's current activities please?  And will the OP or a moderator please re-name this thread to identify it as jyst being about SpaceX's current missions ONLY (with a seperate thread for future plans?)

 

Regards,

Northstar

But it is the big future plan, Note I did not bring the topic here nor did I introduce it as a SPACEX topic, SPACEX has pushed this idea and others dropped it in this thread. You can't control peoples thoughts.

 

ANd I would add this point, Musk's and his associates (I assume) Mars dreams are a major motivating factor for a company called SPACEX, so to say discuss SPACEX without discussing Musk's plans for Mars is the same as saying don't discuss SPACEX's future plans, IMHO.

Why practice landing space ships under a dozen different scenarios. Chute landings would cut the mustard on Earth, cept on Mars, nothing heavy can be landed on Mars without landing thrusters. These little wait for the last minute and take out 1000 m/s of velocity, thats what you need for landing on Mars.

[sojourner]

Holy cow guys!  You have to check out Nat Geo's Mars.  The first episode is available on demand on my cable provider and on the website.  There is some stunning  footage of SpaceX facilities and hardware and the reference mission bears a striking resemblance to ITS.

[Northstar1989]

5 hours ago, PB666 said:

But it is the big future plan, Note I did not bring the topic here nor did I introduce it as a SPACEX topic, SPACEX has pushed this idea and others dropped it in this thread. You can't control peoples thoughts.

 

ANd I would add this point, Musk's and his associates (I assume) Mars dreams are a major motivating factor for a company called SPACEX, so to say discuss SPACEX without discussing Musk's plans for Mars is the same as saying don't discuss SPACEX's future plans, IMHO.

Why practice landing space ships under a dozen different scenarios. Chute landings would cut the mustard on Earth, cept on Mars, nothing heavy can be landed on Mars without landing thrusters. These little wait for the last minute and take out 1000 m/s of velocity, thats what you need for landing on Mars.

Nobody agrees with you more than I that Musk's Mars plans are an important part of understanding what SpaceX is doing- but discussing Mars colonization inevitably brings the Trolls out who think they own this thread and will dismiss literally *any* Mars colonization scheme as impossible and stupid, no matter how much factual evidence and reason you confront them with showing them that they are wrong.  As such, it's best to just have these discussions in a seperate thread, like I tried to do originally...

 

Regards,

Northstar

Edited November 3, 2016 by Northstar1989

[cfds]

2 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

but discussing Mars colonization inevitably brings the Trolls out who think they own this thread

This irony contains enough iron to produce all required steel t build, maintain and supply a Mars colony housing a million people for years....

[Elthy]

5 hours ago, sojourner said:

Holy cow guys!  You have to check out Nat Geo's Mars.  The first episode is available on demand on my cable provider and on the website.  There is some stunning  footage of SpaceX facilities and hardware and the reference mission bears a striking resemblance to ITS.

Sadly it has a geo restriction. Quite stupid if they want to give it away for free anyway...

[Green Baron]

14 hours ago, PB666 said:

As I previously said, you can place a hard frozen man on Mars (well if we except the ESA, they would collide him, lol) for the cost of a satellite that can reach interplanetary space.

Pizza in space :-)

Yeah, even the basis is lacking. There is no launcher rated for human transport and no craft that could transport humans even to the moon. Both are in a state of development, some facing unexpected difficulties.

Robotic plants are a challenge even on earth, as are automated vehicles. A lot (billions) is invested by the manufacturers to develop that, they say it's the future and they have the best paid engineers ....

I understand you wrote this to show the difficulties (read: impossibility) of such a project.

One day soon SpaceX will go to space again.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Green Baron

[Northstar1989]

8 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Pizza in space :-)

Yeah, even the basis is lacking. There is no launcher rated for human transport and no craft that could transport humans even to the moon. Both are in a state of development, some facing unexpected difficulties.

Robotic plants are a challenge even on earth, as are automated vehicles. A lot (billions) is invested by the manufacturers to develop that, they say it's the future and they have the best paid engineers ....

I understand you wrote this to show the difficulties (read: impossibility) of such a project.

One day soon SpaceX will go to space again.

Seriously man, drop this.  You have no right to complain about people going off-topic in one breath, and then go off-topic yourself in the next.  It's almost as if you don't really care what's off-topic, and just want to use that line to suppress any opinions that contradict your own...

If you want to keep this discussion focused, practice what you preach, and take the discussion of the feasibility of ITS and colonization to another thread (you could even start the new thread!)

 

Regards,

Northstar

[YNM]

3 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Pizza in space :-)

Yeah, even the basis is lacking. There is no launcher rated for human transport and no craft that could transport humans even to the moon. Both are in a state of development, some facing unexpected difficulties.

Robotic plants are a challenge even on earth, as are automated vehicles. A lot (billions) is invested by the manufacturers to develop that, they say it's the future and they have the best paid engineers ....

I understand you wrote this to show the difficulties (read: impossibility) of such a project.

One day soon SpaceX will go to space again.

Soyuz and Ariane 5 is human-rated, but won't be for the Moon.

Though an eventual Mars mission needs continued research AND continued development AND continued realization AND mass support from today's condition. So if any of those fail, it'll remain a dream in a few human beings.

Edited November 3, 2016 by YNM

[Green Baron]

Yeah, Soyuz can only reach leo. Ariane 5, are you sure ? It was intended, but is it really ?

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by Green Baron

[Nibb31]

13 minutes ago, YNM said:

Soyuz and Ariane 5 is human-rated, but won't be for the Moon.

Ariane 5 was planned to be man-rated for Hermes, but Hermes was cancelled before development started on Ariane 5 and no provisions for man-rating Ariane 5 were ever included.

 

[YNM]

6 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Yeah, Soyuz can only reach leo. Ariane 5, are you sure ? It was intended, but is it really ?

If it's just increased reliability and reduced max. g force then it's not much of a stretch. More so because it was "intended", unlike, say, Atlas or Delta.

Edited November 3, 2016 by YNM

[Aethon]

 

Further testing of the Orion capsule recovery procedures.

http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/orion-crew-module-underway-recovery-testing

 

[Mitchz95]

They finally figured it out, apparently!

[HebaruSan]

5 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said:

They finally figured it out, apparently!

Either that, or they considered all previous rocket launch problems in history and ruled them out.

[CatastrophicFailure]

Taking that at face value, if it really "never before happened in history" I think SpaceX deserves a bit of a pass. Curious to hear the details but on with the show!

(and soon, Elon, please! Before this thread implodes again! )