Elon asking for help

[Missingno200]

3 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Missingno200,

 The problem with that plan is that there's no technological advancement that's going to save you if you're stranded in the middle of a desert with no water. Humans need a long laundry list of elements and compounds to survive, and those simply don't exist on Mars.

 Humans live as a part of a mind-bogglingly huge and intricate biosphere, and a suitably sized *complete* biosphere must be transported there in order to sustain even a small human presence. Until it's self- sustaining, we're talking about an outpost, not a colony. As long as it's an outpost, it's a liability rather than an asset.

 Moreover, as long as there are no marketable commodities on Mars, there's no fiscal basis for supporting a colony there. NASA, ESA, Roscosmos and all the rest are left on the hook to spend their budgets supporting a colony on a far away planet that provides nothing instead of using their funding for science.

 This is not a trivial matter. The top of Mt. Everest is a far more habitable place than the surface of Mars, yet nobody lives up there because there's no benefit to it. People spend a lot of money and effort to visit... but they don't establish a settlement.

 Musk hasn't given serious thought to any of this, but hey... it's his money so what the heck. *shrug*

Best,

-Slashy

Okay, since this is addressed to me, I shall try to dissect this argument. First off, the compounds. There's literally nothing stopping Mars from recycling these compounds once they're here. There's also nothing really stopping you from synthesizing them, as long as you have the ingredients and equipment, both of which could be shipped, and the ingredients don't necessarily have to even come from Mars. A lot of them actually could come from inorganic compounds. Admittedly, chemistry is one of my weak points, so I'll accept that I'm probably wrong on a bit, and that you should take this with grains of salt. I'm only making generalizations based on what I remember from a 2 semester high school class I had from 2 years ago.

Now, biosphere. What is absolutely essential in a biosphere? Water and an energy source, usually some form of sugar. Oxygen is optional, but appreciated by most living organisms. Water is probably the trickiest one, and thankfully, accessible! Not only would the polar caps have water too, on top of CO2, but its been hypothesized (and I believe is currently being tested for) that there is subsurface water. This would mean that one of the biggest requirements is out of the way. You can synthesize oxygen out of the water as needed, but more than likely you're going to keep the same oxygen in your bases, and in an emergency, are going to resort to hauling some dry ice to scrub. That leaves energy, which can simply be recycled compounds. This is even just relying on what we have now, so no doubt this'll get greatly improved as technology invented solely because of Mars habitation occurs.

This one is a doozie. Let's be polite, and suggest they aren't going to separate from our government and make their own medical advancements and other things they could trade. What do they have that we don't? Well, for starters, Mars is very close to the asteroid belt. Perfect, Mars now has a mining industry that is unparalleled to Earth's. Even if they focused on ONE asteroid, an asteroid like 16 Psyche could be used to fund a tonne of things. Given Mars has a gravity field, it also helps avoid one of the biggest problem of space living:decaying muscular structures. But wait, it's too expensive to reliably bring materials back from an asteroid to Earth... sounds like an excuse for factories to me. Its also a lot easier to take off from Mars than it is to take off from Earth, adding to viability for mining and manufacturing.

Finally, let's address Mt. EVEREST. You're kidding. That was your counter? Jeff Bezo's counter too? First, have you TRIED to find an area flat enough for a nice, cozy home? Mars has way more real estate than Everest ever will, and thats before landscaping. Than let's address the cold, the thing atmosphere... so what, you're gonna build a pressurized pod in the mountains because you couldn't make a dome or something? How will you power that, an RTG that won't fit up there? And you won't be able to wear a protective suit either because EARTH'S gravity is too high for that!

Elon Musk has a plan. I can't say that I agree with all of it, but its definitely well more thought out than a certain billionaire who hasn't even gotten a single orbit has ever put into a space plan. Also, none of this addresses potential technologies we can't even dream of, which appear as a result of necessity on Mars.

 

As I'm writing this someone responded to me. I really hope I don't have to write the same article again.

9 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

We haven't been living outside of the Earth paradise yet. Out of air, out of oil, out of coal, out of water.

Theoretically,  I can keep a milk farm. Practically, I saw a cow  about thirty years ago and never touched it.

The same with the Martian colony. Before trying it on Mars, one should first try it on Earth.

And they have. To minimal success with a full biosphere on earth, but to extreme success with hydroponics in space, water recycling, and so on. Current technology is enough to live, but not exactly thrive or be properly self sustaining.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Missingno200

[GoSlash27]

35 minutes ago, Missingno200 said:

Okay, since this is addressed to me, I shall try to dissect this argument. First off, the compounds....

Funny you should mention "grains of salt". There's no sodium or chlorine on Mars, so good luck finding a grain of salt. Humans need salt to survive, BTW. That's enough to doom colonization right there. I'm afraid you've underestimated the magnitude of the problem.

 AFA mining asteroids, what do you imagine asteroids contain that isn't cheaper and easier to access right here?

Finally, the issue of "Mt. Everest". You don't like that as an example because it's not flat, fine. Go with the Gobi Desert or Antarctica if it makes you feel better. Both are more habitable than Mars and offer more resources (and plenty of real estate), yet nobody lives there. There's a reason for that.

 I agree with kerbiloid; These practical matters need to be ironed out *before* committing to such a grand endeavor, not after.  Otherwise it makes less sense than a 5 year old planning to run away to join the circus.

Best,

-Slashy

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by GoSlash27

[Missingno200]

34 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Funny you should mention "grains of salt". There's no sodium or chlorine on Mars, so good luck finding a grain of salt. Humans need salt to survive, BTW. That's enough to doom colonization right there. I'm afraid you've underestimated the magnitude of the problem.

 AFA mining asteroids, what do you imagine asteroids contain that isn't cheaper and easier to access right here?

Finally, the issue of "Mt. Everest". You don't like that as an example because it's not flat, fine. Go with the Gobi Desert or Antarctica if it makes you feel better. Both are more habitable than Mars and offer more resources (and plenty of real estate), yet nobody lives there. There's a reason for that.

 I agree with kerbiloid; These practical matters need to be ironed out *before* committing to such a grand endeavor, not after.  Otherwise it makes less sense than a 5 year old planning to run away to join the circus.

Best,

-Slashy

 

 

 

Kerbiloid:And they probably will be. We have 4 years before any serious attempts occur.

Asteroids:Copper, titanium, gold, and more common elements like iron. Sure, you can easily access all of those on earth(although we are running out of copper), but its a lot less polluting, and there's far more resources. As time goes on, it'll also get cheaper.

Antarctic:No. Extreme weather prevents any sort of emergency supply of food. Its arguably harder to get supplies to there than to Mars. My source is my dad, someone who did constant missions in the summer between New Zealand and Antarctica.

Gobi Desert:This is fair. The main problem is excessive heat and even less water than Mars has. Soft terrain also becomes a problem, but that can be overlooked. You can easily sustain a long term settlement in the desert, the problem is that the Gobi doesn't have any good way to make back its money invested(no nearby metals, not really fantastic land for factory use, no materials to make anything that isn't a glass house), and short of proper terraforming or using the EXACT TECHNOLOGY THAT MARS WILL NEED FOR SELF SUSTAINING, you're really not going to self sustain that area. But hey, you know what, great idea! If it wasn't for the heat, I think this would be the perfect place to test that kind of equipment! One of you should start a company to do just that.

Salt:Theres an untapped potential for sodium in urine. Pretty sure they even reuse it on the ISS, but I might be wrong. But what I'm not wrong about is that there are probably salts on Mars, which can be used for the missing sodium. Quick Google search, come on. At least I have an excuse, I'm too young to drink and I'm on a phone that can't support my fat fingers.

 

No more please, I don't have a computer, I only have a phone that I struggle to type on.

[Piscator]

Considering the much-discussed problem of perchlorates in the Martian soil, I find the claim that "there's no chlorine on Mars" a little surprising. (Sodium is present too, by the way.)

[Deddly]

I think we have explored the planet too little to assert so adamantly that a certain element is missing. 

[funnelton]

18 hours ago, Shpaget said:

 

Also, a quick google search for Spacex subsides comes up with only the ones related to Starlink, or more precisely, the act of bringing broadband internet service to rural areas, something that was available to all internet service providers, yet there wasn't much interest in providing it. Spacex saw a market that wasn't being serviced and jumped in. Nothing to complain about here.

 

Sorry but there has been satellite internet providers before starlink came into existence, viasat and hughesnet.

[GoSlash27]

4 hours ago, Missingno200 said:

Kerbiloid:And they probably will be. We have 4 years before any serious attempts occur.

Asteroids:Copper, titanium, gold, and more common elements like iron. Sure, you can easily access all of those on earth(although we are running out of copper), but its a lot less polluting, and there's far more resources. As time goes on, it'll also get cheaper.

Antarctic:No. Extreme weather prevents any sort of emergency supply of food. Its arguably harder to get supplies to there than to Mars. My source is my dad, someone who did constant missions in the summer between New Zealand and Antarctica.

Gobi Desert:This is fair. The main problem is excessive heat and even less water than Mars has. Soft terrain also becomes a problem, but that can be overlooked. You can easily sustain a long term settlement in the desert, the problem is that the Gobi doesn't have any good way to make back its money invested(no nearby metals, not really fantastic land for factory use, no materials to make anything that isn't a glass house), and short of proper terraforming or using the EXACT TECHNOLOGY THAT MARS WILL NEED FOR SELF SUSTAINING, you're really not going to self sustain that area. But hey, you know what, great idea! If it wasn't for the heat, I think this would be the perfect place to test that kind of equipment! One of you should start a company to do just that.

Salt:Theres an untapped potential for sodium in urine. Pretty sure they even reuse it on the ISS, but I might be wrong. But what I'm not wrong about is that there are probably salts on Mars, which can be used for the missing sodium. Quick Google search, come on. At least I have an excuse, I'm too young to drink and I'm on a phone that can't support my fat fingers.

 

No more please, I don't have a computer, I only have a phone that I struggle to type on.

All of this, just no. It's specious nonsense; a vain attempt to sound "right" about something you haven't seriously considered. You're attempting to hand- wave major problems with solutions that don't exist. AFA "salts", not the same thing as Sodium Chloride. Humans have little use for poison.

 

Best,

-Slashy

3 hours ago, Deddly said:

I think we have explored the planet too little to assert so adamantly that a certain element is missing. 

I think it would be in our best interest to prove that the necessary elements are there *before* committing to building a colony rather than after.

Best,

-Slashy

[K^2]

On 7/2/2021 at 2:29 AM, Philae_Rosetta2021 said:

"what SpaceX might be doing wrong" when it comes for colonization of Mars

The answer is "Colonization of Mars." There are enough good arguments for not going down another gravity well at all, but if we have to settle down somewhere, Venus is a much better place. The only thing Mars has going for it is solid ground under your feet, and that's overrated. Especially, when that ground is irradiated, chemically toxic, and abrasive for a good measure. Almost total lack of atmosphere and radiation protection means that the only possible living on Mars is in small, stuffy tunnels underground. Not sure what will limit your life span on Mars more, constant stress over maintaining all the air seals in confined space or the effects of low gravity.

Venus gives you almost a full Earth gravity and temperatures just above freezing at altitudes where atmospheric pressure is close to Earth's. The atmosphere's not breathable and toxic if you inhale it directly, but it's there, meaning that even if you lost pressure, you could hold your breath and have a couple of minutes. And since the pressure in habitat is pretty much equal to outside pressure, you can build large clear domes out of plastic really easily. No need to be stuffed in a tiny tube with no windows. Plus, small leaks are effectively harmless.

Mars has such thin atmosphere that CO2 capture is actually somewhat of a challenge there, especially given the fine dust that will damage and clog any turbines you build to compress it. And carbon is the easy part. Water is present pretty much only as ice, and you have to dig through aforementioned toxic dirt to get to it. Good luck getting nitrogen. All of this makes manufacturing on Mars actually very, very difficult. You are in luck with a lot of metals, but getting them out of soil is going to be a complex process requiring very significant infrastructure. Prospects of more conventional mining are unclear.

Venusian atmosphere is basically giving you all the building blocks of hydrocarbons. The CO2 and nitrogen are readily available for capture. The atmosphere is often quoted as very dry, but that's because all the water is bound in sulfuric acid droplets. If you account for that, Venus is actually quote moist. At relevant altitudes, the sulfuric acid content can reach 0.1g/m³, which is comparable to typical moisture content of dense fog. The sulfuric acid is trivially decomposed into sulfur oxides and water vapor at temperatures of a few hundred Celsius. And because all of this is taking place at high altitude, you don't have to worry about solids damaging your condensers.

The only disadvantage of Venus in terms of long term sustainability is access to heavy elements. Early on, any colony will have to be good at recycling. I would argue that recycling metals is a lot easier than recycling organics, making it easier to build an outpost on Venus that can be self-sustaining for years or decades. To make it properly lasting, you would have to come up with some sort of a scheme for mining. Whether it would involve dropping scoops on the surface or some other arrangement. This is entirely feasible if you have a healthy industry and large population. And the fact that the colony can grow with just minimal supplies of minerals from off world initially is already a huge advantage, which means we have an actual chance to expand a Venusian colony to self-sustaining levels, whereas a Martian colony would rely entirely on off world supplies for a very long time.

At the end of the day, we might end up bothering with neither, sticking to building in space instead. But either way, trying to build a colony on Mars before Venus is entirely silly.

[Rakaydos]

13 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

swjr-swis,

 No, not at all. The Starship should be fully reusable, it should just remain in orbit. It's like the lunar orbit rendezvous question back in the Apollo days; it makes no sense to send the entire CM down to the surface only to launch it again.

 Conversely, if they want to send it down to the surface it should remain there as infrastructure rather than using it as a return vehicle.

HTHs,

-Slashy

Staging events are usually benificial, of course. But you need a habitat on the surface big enough for the crew that used the ship habitat to get there. And you are using ISRU, unlike apollo, so you need to fill the departure tanks on the CSM, whether it be on the ground, or shipped to orbit. (and in general, larger launches are more efficent, and an additional fuel transfer is extra equipment you need to bring. best part is no part.) And you also need landing engines big enough to lift the refueling flights, which might as well be part of your departure burn.

SpaceX is using the whole buffalo here. So what exactly are you leaving in orbit?

Edited July 6, 2021 by Rakaydos

[GoSlash27]

10 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Staging events are usually benificial, of course. But you need a habitat on the surface big enough for the crew that used the ship habitat to get there. And you are using ISRU, unlike apollo, so you need to fill the departure tanks on the CSM, whether it be on the ground, or shipped to orbit. (and in general, larger launches are more efficent, and an additional fuel transfer is extra equipment you need to bring. best part is no part.) And you also need landing engines big enough to lift the refueling flights, which might as well be part of your departure burn.

SpaceX is using the whole buffalo here. So what exactly are you leaving in orbit?

Habitat: Nobody's talking about using the Starship as a habitat, not even Elon.

ISRU: The Starship can be refueled in Martian orbit just as easily as in Earth orbit.

Efficiency: The most efficient profiles are those where you don't land and launch anything that doesn't need to be there.

[Rakaydos]

4 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Habitat: Nobody's talking about using the Starship as a habitat, not even Elon.

ISRU: The Starship can be refueled in Martian orbit just as easily as in Earth orbit.

Efficiency: The most efficient profiles are those where you don't land and launch anything that doesn't need to be there.

...that doesnt actually answer the question. What are you leaving in orbit "that doesnt need to be be there", that doesnt require an additional  copy on the lander anyway?

What needs to be lifted from mars:

Unitary starship- A complete starship, any return payload,  and the fuel for mars departure burn.

Zubrin-style MEM- enough refueling flights to refill the departure stage, (plus deorbit burns for the lander), and a separate flight for any returning cargo, plus the mass of the lander multiplied by the number of flights required.

The number of refueling flights will quickly eliminate any fuel savings from using a smaller lander, while introducing many more failure points in the conops related to rendevous, docking, and precision relanding.

[Deddly]

In the spirit of this thread, it sounds like someone should test these ideas out in KSP with RO/RSS installed. I'd love to see what the results are. 

I can see good things and bad things with both proposals. But some actual data would be great. 

[Spacescifi]

9 minutes ago, Deddly said:

In the spirit of this thread, it sounds like someone should test these ideas out in KSP with RO/RSS installed. I'd love to see what the results are. 

I can see good things and bad things with both proposals. But some actual data would be great. 

 

Ask Matt Lowne or Scott Manley.

 

It's literally what they DO.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

7 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

It's literally what they DO.

Not really…. They make YouTube videos about space part-time. Neither of them are in the aerospace industry. Scott is a software developer and Matt is an optician. 

Plus ML doesn’t really play with mods. Large missions to Mars take A LOT of time with RO anyway. 

There is actually a decent sized RO community. Why not try it yourself and ask for help is you need it?

[Deddly]

RO might not be necessary to get meaningful results. Stock KSP could give us a good indication too. 

[kerbiloid]

Matt Lowne definitely knows how to do this right.

Spoiler

 

 

[Rakaydos]

2 minutes ago, Deddly said:

RO might not be necessary to get meaningful results. Stock KSP could give us a good indication too. 

The key point, IMO, is that any orbiter with empty tanks requires multiple refueling flights , which adds  significant complication to conops. My assertion is that, unlike LEO, there are not any gains to be made from this  archetecture, because while it would reduce the departure DV requirement relative to the POR (Starship single stage earth return), this reduction is rendered moot by  the fact that the vehical configuration during mars departure is the same as the vehical configuration during earth departure, minus whatever payload is left on mars. You cannot reduce the performance of the mars departure stage without crippling the earth departure stage.

 

[Spacescifi]

1 hour ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Not really…. They make YouTube videos about space part-time. Neither of them are in the aerospace industry. Scott is a software developer and Matt is an optician. 

Plus ML doesn’t really play with mods. Large missions to Mars take A LOT of time with RO anyway. 

There is actually a decent sized RO community. Why not try it yourself and ask for help is you need it?

 

What is RO and where is it?

I would love to see a few of my crazy spaceship ideas take flight on KSP via youtube if anyone wanted to see proof of concept...bad or workable.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

2 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

 

What is RO and where is it?

I would love to see a few of my crazy spaceship ideas take flight on KSP via youtube if anyone wanted to see proof of concept...bad or workable.

RO is Realism Overhaul. It is a mod for KSP. 
If you have CKAN you can search for it and install it. Mind you the latest version it works on is 1.10.1

 

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/155700-181-1101-realism-overhaul-v1311-29-jun-2021/

[Spacescifi]

Thank you both

[GoSlash27]

12 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

...that doesnt actually answer the question. What are you leaving in orbit "that doesnt need to be be there", that doesnt require an additional  copy on the lander anyway?

To clarify: 6 Raptor engines plus associated thrust puck/ plumbing. Tankage and structure necessary for a fully fueled transit. Drag fins, thermal tiles, crew quarters, life support, and all the associated plumbing/ wiring/ etc.

 That all doesn't need to go down to the surface just to turn around and relaunch.

I'm talking about doing something closer to Mars Direct 3.0.

 Best,

-Slashy

[Deddly]

The idea is for at least the first few craft to stay on the surface and form part of the infrastructure. Is it worth the added work for some extra payload capability for future craft to use an entirely different system? And how much extra payload are we talking about, bearing in mind that Starship can scrub almost all its speed in the atmosphere, but a separate lander would not be able to do that to the same extent? 

Elon's philosophy is that "no part is the best part". Would the added complexity, necessary R&D, and extra points of failure that are introduced for a new landing craft pay off, do you think?

[Jacke]

5 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

I'm talking about doing something closer to Mars Direct 3.0.

I'm not familiar with Mars Direct 3.0.  But I read Dr. Robert Zubrin's original work and thought the original Mars Direct laid out the only reasonable plan to explore Mars and possibly lead to a colony there.  Each mission 2x Saturn V sized launch vehicles, first the Earth Return Vehicle, uncrewed, which makes the fuel using carried hydrogen and ISRU, then 2 years on, the Mars Habitat Unit to take out the crew.  Ground checkout of the spacecraft to reduce cost and increase reliability.  Good abort modes throughout the mission.  And chain them to perhaps create a colony.

As others have pointed out, there's a lot of challenge getting to Mars, surviving on Mars, and creating a colony on Mars.  Primarily sufficient benefit to doing so with such challenges when there's damn little return possible.

And then there's the problem: Elon Musk is a billionaire CEO who's actually rather shady and done a lot wrong.  This YouTube channel is rather strong on this, but they've made careful arguments that hold together.  Elon Musk is not someone to be in any leadership position in a critical program.  He's all flash and no substance.  And now he's running out of ways to string this out, because many of his misdeeds from the past are finally coming home to roost.

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Jacke

[Rakaydos]

12 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

To clarify: 6 Raptor engines plus associated thrust puck/ plumbing. Tankage and structure necessary for a fully fueled transit. Drag fins, thermal tiles, crew quarters, life support, and all the associated plumbing/ wiring/ etc.

 That all doesn't need to go down to the surface just to turn around and relaunch.

I'm talking about doing something closer to Mars Direct 3.0.

Best,

-Slashy

I dont have access to the video at work,  but  doesnt your lander need drag fins, thermal tiles, crew quarters, life support, landing engines, and tankage and structure? Plus associated plumbing/wiring, AND the lift capacity and plumbing to refuel the mothership?

Perhaps it's explained better in the video,  but  you've got duplication of effort all across that archetecture. Earth is the wrong planet for SSTO, but Mars is the right one, and Starship is designed to take advantage of that fact.

[Rakaydos]

Edit:

Here's one way to look at it.  The starship, with features required for earth return, can land with just enough header tank fuel to cancel mars terminal velocity, or about 300 m/s, plus gravity drag during the burn. Call it 350 m/s to be generous.

A raptor is pushing 378 seconds of ISP at mars landing and 2.21x6= 13.26 meganewtons,  divided over 220 tons (120 ton starship + 100 tons payload) is 66m/s^2. A suicide burn is about 5 ish seconds, call it 10 for easy math, times the mass flow of 6 raptors (650 kg/s each) gives a conservitive landing fuel load of... 39 tons of landing fuel.

 

That's a little less than 2/3 the mass of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Lunar_Lander (which isnt even rated for 100 tons payload on mars)

What are you stripping out of Starship (that wont cripple it on earth return) to make up that kind of mass deficit, so that Initial Mass in LEO isnt made worse with the addition of a lander?

Edited July 7, 2021 by Rakaydos