Elon asking for help

[GoSlash27]

Rakaydos,

 I'll wait until you see the video and let you get back to me.

Best,

-Slashy

[Rakaydos]

"SpaceX plan disadvantages: requires 8 cargo starships to deliver the solar panels to make the fuel to come home. Also requires local resources to make fuel to come home"

Why are these disadvantages? Even taking the number at face value, the marginal cost of constructing 8 new starships is planned to approach 40 million, total. Less than a falcon 9.

Having that much solar power is actually a safety pro- in a 99% dust storm, turn off your fuel plant, and the remaining 1% is plenty for all essential base functions.

Local use of resources is just forward looking. We have enough mars survey data to be sure of having accessable water on hand if we make it a landing target priority.

And if nasa wants to send a cargo ship with enough hydrogen to make a starship"s worth of methalox, and a kilopower for mission assurance power, that's only one extra flight (plus government access to nuclear power).

[kerbiloid]

This SpaceX Martian "plan" reminds me of one thread on a locally well-known survivalists' forum when a guy was seriously planning his post-apocalyptic lair, listing which shower things he should take to feel comfy (a big towel, a small towel, a backup towel; yes, not "a pack of towels"), in addition to the chair to sit outside the house and enjoy the sunsets.

Same easiness in planning.

If both of them were serious, they would start from sending this to Mars before humans.

Spoiler

No Martian bug could gnaw this.
Humans can. Even after decades in a warehouse.

Edited July 8, 2021 by kerbiloid

[Rakaydos]

21 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

This SpaceX Martian "plan" reminds me of one thread on a locally well-known survivalists' forum when a guy was seriously planning his post-apocalyptic lair, listing which shower things he should take to feel comfy (a big towel, a small towel, a backup towel; yes, not "a pack of towels"), in addition to the chair to sit outside the house and enjoy the sunsets.

Same easiness in planning.

If both of them were serious, they would start from sending this to Mars before humans.

  Hide contents

No Martian bug could gnaw this.
Humans can. Even after decades in a warehouse.

I dont think you get it. DRM and mars direct are plans to visit. SpaceX plans an invasion.  Complaints like "you need 8 cargo ships of solar panels to refuel a ship to come home" are answered with "ok, we'll do that then." Need food? Bring food for 2 synods, in case something goes wrong, in forms that store well and can make a variety of interesting meals. (a thousand frozen burger paddies is less than a cubic meter.) And you can bet there will be a test greenhouse on the first crewed starship, which in addition to any other projects will include potatoes for the memes.

[Shpaget]

1 hour ago, Rakaydos said:

marginal cost of constructing 8 new starships is planned to approach 40 million, total

Is that cost to build or to launch?

[Rakaydos]

Just now, Shpaget said:

Is that cost to build or to launch?

Build. Not including superheavy, which stays in use on earth, and not including the 2 mil marginal launch costs. And not including the fixed upkeep costs of spaceX facilities and personell.

[Jacke]

14 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

...the marginal cost of constructing 8 new starships is planned to approach 40 million, total. Less than a falcon 9.

I'll challenge that, for any design variant of a spacecraft roughly Starship's size.  You can't build a good main battle tank or high performance jet for 5 million dollars each, even in bulk.  And a spacecraft of Starship's size is going to be more complex and thus more costly than that.

 

13 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If both of them were serious, they would start from sending this to Mars before humans.

  Hide contents

No Martian bug could gnaw this.
Humans can. Even after decades in a warehouse.

To eat the pasta on Mars needs water and energy, as well as a kitchen with life support.  None of those is going to be trivial to have.  But having proper rations for the duration is indeed important.

 

13 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

I dont think you get it. DRM and mars direct are plans to visit. SpaceX plans an invasion.

I don't think you get it.  You must not have read the later chapters of The Case for Mars, where Zubrin laid out chaining together successive Mar Direct missions to establish a base and then a colony.  I think that's the better example of an exploration plan that can be developed into a colonization project if and when the will is there.

[kerbiloid]

43 minutes ago, Jacke said:

To eat the pasta on Mars needs water and energy,

Like any other food or activity.

***

Has SpaceX performed anything at least even as ridiculous as Mars-500 experiment?

(That's about the living in Starships).

Spoiler

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500

[DDE]

2 hours ago, Jacke said:

I think that's the better example of an exploration plan that can be developed into a colonization project if and when the will is there.

Well, the formula for success SpaceX seeks to present to the world is that they always learn to run before they learn to walk.

I don't think that's a good representation of their past with F9 and Dragon, and from that I get a fear they're letting their misinformed public reputation go to their heads.

[Rakaydos]

10 hours ago, Jacke said:

I'll challenge that, for any design variant of a spacecraft roughly Starship's size.  You can't build a good main battle tank or high performance jet for 5 million dollars each, even in bulk.  And a spacecraft of Starship's size is going to be more complex and thus more costly than that.

This might suprise you if you dont come from the US, but tanks and jets arnt exactly made for affordability. Oh, every choice has a logical explanation they can point to the military accountants, but there's a gentleman's agreement between the politicians who provide the money and the contractors who provide the workers- dont bite the hand that feeds you.

SpaceX has built more  production pathfinders for Starship than the number of Saturn 5s that ever flew. Their goal is mars invasion, so they need a cheap heavy lifter, so they are focused not just on building Starship, but making the factory such that making starships is cheap.

[southernplain]

On 7/5/2021 at 10:13 PM, 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.

This is an absurd argument. Recommended  human adult salt intake per day is 1.5-2.3 g, per year that is 0.547-0.839 kg per adult. One starship per synod of table salt downmass is enough to sustain a colony of ~60 000 people.

 

There are certainly obstacles to Mars colonization, salt is not one that will “doom” the attempt.

[Jacke]

3 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

This might suprise you if you dont come from the US, but tanks and jets arnt exactly made for affordability. Oh, every choice has a logical explanation they can point to the military accountants, but there's a gentleman's agreement between the politicians who provide the money and the contractors who provide the workers- dont bite the hand that feeds you.

SpaceX has built more  production pathfinders for Starship than the number of Saturn 5s that ever flew. Their goal is mars invasion, so they need a cheap heavy lifter, so they are focused not just on building Starship, but making the factory such that making starships is cheap.

Well, at least we have details on the numbers for actual produced tanks and jets that actually perform.  We have nothing but vague promises for Starship.   And others with better information on what the components cost say Starship isn't going to be delivered for those prices and will not carry 100 people anywhere.

Check out the rest of Common Sense Skeptic's videos on this.  He's done a lot to get real information, not unsupported CEO promises.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgKWj1pn3_7hRSFIypunYog

And the proof of the pudding will be in the making.  I am confident Starship will be no more than an heavy lifter to LEO and even that is not guaranteed.  And if it carries people, without a launch escape system, people will die.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Jacke

[Rakaydos]

51 minutes ago, Jacke said:

Well, at least we have details on the numbers for actual produced tanks and jets that actually perform.  We have nothing but vague promises for Starship.   And others with better information on what the components cost say Starship isn't going to be delivered for those prices and will not carry 100 people anywhere.

Check out the rest of Common Sense Skeptic's videos on this.  He's done a lot to get real information, not unsupported CEO promises.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgKWj1pn3_7hRSFIypunYog

And the proof of the pudding will be in the making.  I am confident Starship will be no more than an heavy lifter to LEO and even that is not guaranteed.  And if it carries people, without a launch escape system, people will die.

so you are "confident" that Starship will lift less than Falcon Heavy? (FH expendable is technically a superheavy lifter)

Forgive me if I am dubious of the claims of someone who's whole public idenitity is finding things to be skeptical of. It is in their best interest to publicise the worst possible interpretation of anything they hear.

SpaceX isnt trying to drum up investors here. They are working on their company internal goal- "making life multiplanetary." If Starship isnt enough to do that goal, they will take the lessons they learn from it to make a rocket that can. But SpaceX seems confident that 9m Starship is enough to do the job. Even slightly too big, if you wanted perfect optimization for ground support costs... but they will make do.

 

Over on NSF, insiders find it unlikely that raptor will hit the quarter million target, but that the half million mark is manageable.

according to a quick google (https://blog.klm.com/8-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-jet-engines/) "Roughly speaking, an (jet) engine can cost anything from 12 to 35 million dollars." Jet engines are crazy engineering masterpieces that put the much simpler rocket engine to shame.

While a 747 only needs 2 engines, and Starship 6, even at a million dollars per raptor, Starship is spending a quarter as much on propulsion as the comparably sized aircraft. It's also not dangling a nose and tail off a midsection supported by wings, so the stress on the vehical is lower and simpler to calculate.  While Starship may not hit 5 million per new build, even 15 million is a gross overestimate.

[Meecrob]

1 hour ago, Jacke said:

 And if it carries people, without a launch escape system, people will die.

...aaaand you lost me. So your argument is that SS/SH WILL suffer RUD's. I prefer to listen to people who are not 100% biased against something when trying to make an objective analysis.


Edited to add: The argument that Starship should cost more because fighter jets and tanks cost more is quite frankly ridiculous.  My car would cost like half a million dollars if I had to equip it for combat, but I do not engage in combat, so is it ridiculous that my car only costs 10 grand?

Edited July 9, 2021 by Meecrob

[Rakaydos]

11 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

...aaaand you lost me. So your argument is that SS/SH WILL suffer RUD's. I prefer to listen to people who are not 100% biased against something when trying to make an objective analysis.

Like, sure, it will inevitably suffer engine faulures. but SpaceX pioneered anti-fratricide armor on Falcon 9 to keep engine failures from even stopping the mission as planned, let alont blow up the rocket.

Now, that's not going to stop a malicius actor from sniping a tank after launch, but that's going to be a different problem.

[Meecrob]

Just now, Rakaydos said:

Like, sure, it will inevitably suffer engine faulures. but SpaceX pioneered anti-fratricide armor on Falcon 9 to keep engine failures from even stopping the mission as planned, let alont blow up the rocket.

Now, that's not going to stop a malicius actor from sniping a tank after launch, but that's going to be a different problem.

Exactly, engine failures do not equal catastrophic loss of vehicle. There are ways to engineer the risk to a minimum. Or you could say "screw this engineering and actual thinking, lets just slap an SRB onto the crew capsule!"  LES is 1960's technology...back in the day when NASA had like 50 launchpads at Cape Canaveral because their rockets kept blowing up. We have advanced a bit since then in terms of keeping rockets unexploded.

[Rakaydos]

Just now, Meecrob said:

Exactly, engine failures do not equal catastrophic loss of vehicle. There are ways to engineer the risk to a minimum. Or you could say "screw this engineering and actual thinking, lets just slap an SRB onto the crew capsule!"  LES is 1960's technology...back in the day when NASA had like 50 launchpads at Cape Canaveral because their rockets kept blowing up. We have advanced a bit since then in terms of keeping rockets unexploded.

That said, if Starship is being launched in waves of thousands of ships per synod toward mars, sure,  some people will die. Aircraft are the safest form of transportation in the world, and people still die on aircraft.

 Some of the Starship passangers might even have been savable by a LSS-style foward engine ring, if it didnt  have to worry about the heat shield. But that's going to be a discussion between SpaceX and the FAA.

[GoSlash27]

6 hours ago, southernplain said:

This is an absurd argument. Recommended  human adult salt intake per day is 1.5-2.3 g, per year that is 0.547-0.839 kg per adult. One starship per synod of table salt downmass is enough to sustain a colony of ~60 000 people.

 

There are certainly obstacles to Mars colonization, salt is not one that will “doom” the attempt.

You're entirely missing the point. If it isn't 100% self- sustaining, it's not a "colony". The moment Earth dies, they die too because of a million reasons, one of which being they can't provide their own salt.

Best,

-Slashy

[mikegarrison]

9 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

This might suprise you if you dont come from the US, but tanks and jets arnt exactly made for affordability. Oh, every choice has a logical explanation they can point to the military accountants, but there's a gentleman's agreement between the politicians who provide the money and the contractors who provide the workers- dont bite the hand that feeds you.

SpaceX has built more  production pathfinders for Starship than the number of Saturn 5s that ever flew. Their goal is mars invasion, so they need a cheap heavy lifter, so they are focused not just on building Starship, but making the factory such that making starships is cheap.

Some of the numbers SpaceX people on these forums toss around are ridiculous beyond all understanding. Why would anybody think an Earth to Mars spaceship is cheaper than an A320?

4 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

While a 747 only needs 2 engines

Somebody here has never seen a 747.

4 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Exactly, engine failures do not equal catastrophic loss of vehicle. There are ways to engineer the risk to a minimum. Or you could say "screw this engineering and actual thinking, lets just slap an SRB onto the crew capsule!"  LES is 1960's technology...back in the day when NASA had like 50 launchpads at Cape Canaveral because their rockets kept blowing up. We have advanced a bit since then in terms of keeping rockets unexploded.

 

[Jacke]

58 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Some of the numbers SpaceX people on these forums toss around are ridiculous beyond all understanding. Why would anybody think an Earth to Mars spaceship is cheaper than an A320?

Exactly.  And no launch vehicle has a perfect record--except Atlas 5, which I think is more  a product of the low number of launches (though even it had one failure which was resolved by the upper stage).  Most launch vehicles now start around a 10% failure rate and get down to 1% or 2%.  And a failure going to orbit with a crew means the vehicle needs abort modes that accommodate the various failures.  The Space Shuttle flew for most of its regime without a launch escape system or a sufficient set of abort modes for circumstances (and even the first flights ejection seats would likely not be good enough, same as those on Gemini).  And the Shuttle lost two crews.

This is a far greater catastrophic failure rate than any other form of transportation.  Flying Starship with crew without a launch escape system is tantamount to killing people.

Far too many people talk as if Starship is a proven system.  It is not and is most certainly open to justified criticism, both in its technical design and in its economics (see the series of videos starting with the one below).  And don't bring up the case of needing a separate civilization on another body to guard against catastrophes on Earth.  A truly independent Mars settlement would likely take over a century to establish.  Better to improve the robustness of Earth societies and keep observation for threats so they can be dealt with promptly.

I saw people go to the Moon and I saw what happened to space exploration without sufficient political and economic reasons to continue: it mostly stopped and got cut down to what could be funded for research and what was either profitable or pushed for national security: Earth observation, GPS, geo-stationary, and orbital stations.  We may be getting another Space Race which will increase the political will to do more.  Let's make sure that more is better sustainable, like Mars Direct (as in the latter chapters of The Case for Mars) rather than poorly planned boondoggles.

 

Edited July 10, 2021 by Jacke

[Rakaydos]

Noone is attempting to justify the SpaceX company goal. But it IS their goal, unreasonable as it is... as unreasonable as "putting a man on the moon and bringing him back before the decade is out" in many ways.

Like Kennedy's mission, the SpaceX goal affects everything they do. "Does this help us get large numbers of people to mars" is a litmus test that led to the cancelation of Red dragon and Lunar Dragon, and almost killed Falcon Heavy, in favor of Lunar Starship and Chomper. 

 

Dismissing the goal as something that could not happen in our lifetime is missing the point. SpaceX is honestly going for it, even if noone else believes. They arnt doing it for the money, they are getting money to accomplish the goal. If a design isnt good enough to accomplish the goal, it will be abandoned for one that can.

[Jacke]

29 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Noone is attempting to justify the SpaceX company goal. But it IS their goal, unreasonable as it is... as unreasonable as "putting a man on the moon and bringing him back before the decade is out" in many ways.

Like Kennedy's mission, the SpaceX goal affects everything they do. "Does this help us get large numbers of people to mars" is a litmus test that led to the cancelation of Red dragon and Lunar Dragon, and almost killed Falcon Heavy, in favor of Lunar Starship and Chomper. 

But Kennedy made that commitment as a shot in the dark but with certain knowledge, like the successful testing of the F-1 engine and what the planning was at NASA for a timeline that was realistic.  And it was being committed to by a nation with deep pockets and a lot of expertise in many areas which could call on more.

It still didn't get much beyond Apollo 17, Apollo-Soyuz, orbital satellites, and orbital stations, of which the International Space Station is the latest.  Because to do things of that scale takes political will and/or economic possibilities.  Which didn't extent to more Moon visits or a base there.

 

Quote

Dismissing the goal as something that could not happen in our lifetime is missing the point. SpaceX is honestly going for it, even if noone else believes. They arnt doing it for the money, they are getting money to accomplish the goal. If a design isnt good enough to accomplish the goal, it will be abandoned for one that can.

I'm not dismissing the goal.  I'm criticizing the execution.  And a lot of this isn't transparent, as it would be if it was a government program.  We don't know the true finances of SpaceX.  But a lot of what they say isn't possible.  Starship isn't going to carry 100 people; it can barely manage 18.

Watch the Common Sense Skeptic's videos.  He goes into a lot of details.  Elon Musk isn't some altruistic genius; he's a billionaire CEO and this is the current line he's pushing.

I want more space exploration and missions.  But I want realistic ones, not some fantasy that doesn't pass the least muster when real science and engineering are used.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Jacke

[Rakaydos]

22 minutes ago, Jacke said:

But Kennedy made that commitment as a shot in the dark but with certain knowledge, like the successful testing of the F-1 engine and what the planning was at NASA for a timeline that was realistic.  And it was being committed to by a nation with deep pockets and a lot of expertise in many areas which could call on more.

It still didn't get much beyond Apollo 17, Apollo-Soyuz, orbital satellites, and orbital stations, of which the International Space Station is the latest.  Because to do things of that scale takes political will and/or economic possibilities.  Which didn't extent to more Moon visits or a base there.

 

I'm not dismissing the goal.  I'm criticizing the execution.  And a lot of this isn't transparent, as it would be if it was a government program.  We don't know the true finances of SpaceX.  But a lot of what they say isn't possible.  Starship isn't going to carry 100 people; it can barely manage 18.

Watch the Common Sense Skeptic's videos.  He goes into a lot of details.  Elon Musk isn't some altruistic genius; he's a billionaire CEO and this is the current line he's pushing.

I want more space exploration and missions.  But I want realistic ones, not some fantasy that doesn't pass the least muster when real science and engineering are used.

"doing things of that scale take political will and or economic possibilities"

Thanks to tax cuts, that's not actually true anymore. Corporations can afford private space programs... and the goverment cant afford to send people to the moon anymore.

 

"Starship isnt going to carry 100, it can barely manage 18"

I'd like to see your math there- it's got the internal cargo volume of a jet that seats 500+, so 18 seems a ridiculusly low number.

 

As I said, I'm not giving clicks to someone who makes a living finding or creating drama. If you think something is a telling argument, tell it yourself, and be prepared to back it with sources that arnt a youtube video.

[Rakaydos]

 

[Jacke]

59 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

"doing things of that scale take political will and or economic possibilities"

Thanks to tax cuts, that's not actually true anymore. Corporations can afford private space programs... and the goverment cant afford to send people to the moon anymore.

But corporations need a ROI that's measured in money.  SpaceX has been riding on government contracts and some selling of satellite launches to external customers.  Same as every other real operatimg space company.  That isn't going to get anything significant to the Moon or Mars because there isn't an immediate ROI except with government contracts.

 

Quote

"Starship isnt going to carry 100, it can barely manage 18"

I'd like to see your math there- it's got the internal cargo volume of a jet that seats 500+, so 18 seems a ridiculusly low number.

 

As I said, I'm not giving clicks to someone who makes a living finding or creating drama. If you think something is a telling argument, tell it yourself, and be prepared to back it with sources that arnt a youtube video.

Common Sense Skeptic isn't finding or creating drama.  They're doing a proper job of criticizing SpaceX and Elon Musk.  If you don't want to even bother watching one video, well, that's you not wanting to risk it, 'cause the marginal benefit of one view is minimal.  And the burden of proof is on the positive: you have to prove that Starship will actually have such performance, as nothing with that performance has flown.  And they haven't release real financials of sufficient detail to be checked, so like @mikegarrison, I'm not going to believe numbers cheaper than current jet aircraft.

 

42 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

 

That reminds me.  It's not the space suit so much as the pad crew, all in black.  When their suits should be anti-flash, which means they should be in all-white, same as what navy crews wear at action stations.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Jacke