Elon asking for help

[DDE]

2 hours ago, Scotius said:

*smacks DDE with a rolled newspaper*

Bad DDE! Bad! No ORIONS allowed near the only habitable planet we have! Bad idea! Bad!

Let the other guys move their stuff first.

[kerbiloid]

Turning a dirty bomb into a clean bomb.

[YNM]

On 7/2/2021 at 4:29 PM, Philae_Rosetta2021 said:

asked the developers of KSP for help with "what SpaceX might be doing wrong"

Honestly given it's Twitter it's probably aimed at the larger public than the actual developers. (I mean imagine how many people follow something right ? and they'd see.) Plus KSP devs are mostly programmers and modellers, and they're not asking for that sort of stuff I can only assume (well ok modellers still come in handy trying to figure out if something fits or not but that's about it, not really large space environment architecture).

Crowdsourcing ideas isn't a bad thing honestly - the larger FoV you have the more thorough view you get - but the only ones who've gone there and back are usually those who've tried as far as they could from one certain vantage point. So is it a joke ? Well that depends a lot on the answers, it's like fishing in otherwise scarce waters. Call those a fool, sure, but if they did get back knowing of a new spot of fishing that no one else knows that's their treasure.

Edited July 5, 2021 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

I would not underestimate Twitter last five years...

[Deddly]

4 hours ago, Kerb Your Enthusiasm said:

Is there a way to block this thread so that it doesn't show up in my 'All activity' section? Thanks!

No, because "all activity" is, by definition, all activity.

As for the topic on hand, the answer, if course, is they should use metallic hydrogen

[Missingno200]

5 hours ago, Shpaget said:

You are running out of reasons to complain.

I'm treating it as he actually means the government contracts, which gives his argument far more credence and makes a bit more sense.

[GoSlash27]

30 minutes ago, Missingno200 said:

I'm treating it as he actually means the government contracts, which gives his argument far more credence and makes a bit more sense.

If it does add any credence, it's only marginal. SpaceX, like any other commercial launch provider, performs a service. The government doesn't "subsidize" them, they pay for their services just like the rest of their customers. If I'm supposed to be angry because the government chooses to employ the services of the cheapest and most reliable contractor (for a change)... Well... That's a tough sell. I'm more likely to get upset about Boeing or the SLS.

Best,

-Slashy

[magnemoe]

11 hours ago, Slyguy3129 said:

What does that have to do with the fact that the entire country is already subsidizing his company?

How are they subsidizing spaceX? US government as in NASA, military and probably some other are buying launch services who he got because spaceX is usually cheapest. 
Just the same as buying any other service. 
Now you can say legacy space with the cost+ contracts. Tesla is also subsided but that is for environmental reasons and is the same for other electrical cars. 

[Shpaget]

35 minutes ago, Missingno200 said:

I'm treating it as he actually means the government contracts, which gives his argument far more credence and makes a bit more sense.

Not much, since governments do business with private companies all the time. This is almost almost always done via public tenders, a system designed to provide an opportunity for everybody to offer their bid. This is not something new and specific to Spacex. I could start giving examples, but I'd wear down my keyboard before scratching the surface. Suffice to say that Apollo 11 would not reach Moon without cooperation and contracts between government and private companies. There would be no Hubble Space Telescope without it, or virtually any other major project, space related or otherwise.

Gov contracts are not subsidies. It's not a case of just shoveling money into private pockets for no return whatsoever. It's always about a service or a product and public tender system is in place to ensure a fair playing field for all parties and transparency for the public.

[Missingno200]

20 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

If it does add any credence, it's only marginal. SpaceX, like any other commercial launch provider, performs a service. The government doesn't "subsidize" them, they pay for their services just like the rest of their customers. If I'm supposed to be angry because the government chooses to employ the services of the cheapest and most reliable contractor (for a change)... Well... That's a tough sell. I'm more likely to get upset about Boeing or the SLS.

Best,

-Slashy

Completely fair. It's not like his arguments were well researched to begin with.

 

8 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

Not much, since governments do business with private companies all the time. This is almost almost always done via public tenders, a system designed to provide an opportunity for everybody to offer their bid. This is not something new and specific to Spacex. I could start giving examples, but I'd wear down my keyboard before scratching the surface. Suffice to say that Apollo 11 would not reach Moon without cooperation and contracts between government and private companies. There would be no Hubble Space Telescope without it, or virtually any other major project, space related or otherwise.

Gov contracts are not subsidies. It's not a case of just shoveling money into private pockets for no return whatsoever. It's always about a service or a product and public tender system is in place to ensure a fair playing field for all parties and transparency for the public.

Some view them as subsidies. My dad and my uncle, both ex-military, view it as such. It depends on world views. That being said, his argument was still based on falsity after falsity so it only corrects his arguments up to a point.

[GoSlash27]

1 minute ago, Missingno200 said:

Completely fair. It's not like his arguments were well researched to begin with.

True

 It's not often that you hear someone argue so vociferously about a subject he's spent absolutely no time researching.

AFA "it depends on world view", I disagree. Subsidization has an actual definition. The fact that some people hold an erroneous belief doesn't make it any less erroneous.

Best,

-Slashy

[swjr-swis]

On 7/2/2021 at 11:29 AM, Philae_Rosetta2021 said:

Hello, I was wondering if anyone has seen the recent news report that Elon Musk has asked the developers of KSP for help with "what SpaceX might be doing wrong" when it comes for colonization of Mars (or something to that effect).

 

Ok, so getting back to the actual topic of this thread (Elon's request for help/ideas in a tweet to KSP):

Quote

What are we doing wrong at SpaceX? You probably have some good ideas.

The fundamental optimization for making life multiplanetary & backing up the biosphere is cost per ton to the surface of Mars.

What system achieves that best?

 

I interpret this as inviting feedback on SpaceX's plans/roadmap, with a specific focus on the achievement of actual colonization of Mars. It looks to me as a genuine request too - it's not worded like a typical KSP game challenge. Input from the KSP community, and by extension from all that have their interest in space enterprise sparked or renewed by KSP, is apparently welcome.

The question I think he's asking, somewhat rephrased for clarity: in what way are we -SpaceX specifically or humanity in general- most likely to succeed in setting up sustainable residence on Mars?  Currently the main focus seems to be on 'cost per ton to the surface of' - in this case Mars.

So. Setting aside for a moment the perhaps much bigger issues involving the creation of a self-sustaining ecosystem on an as-of-yet lifeless planet (not much of a backup if all we do is land a few craft and people and build a station/colony that cannot survive independently from Earth):

Do we -the extended KSP community at large- have any helpful ideas or suggestions on how to optimize 'cost per ton to the surface of'? Maybe even something that SpaceX or the other players aren't yet even doing or trying yet? There's been tons of challenges over the years in this forum and in other parts of the community, focused specifically on launch/lift efficiency. Lots of different approaches, some very hands-on, some very down-to-the-math, others very experimental. Is any of that useful to the real life equivalent?

 

[GoSlash27]

20 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Do we -the extended KSP community at large- have any helpful ideas or suggestions on how to optimize 'cost per ton to the surface of'? Maybe even something that SpaceX or the other players aren't yet even doing or trying yet? There's been tons of challenges over the years in this forum and in other parts of the community, focused specifically on launch/lift efficiency. Lots of different approaches, some very hands-on, some very down-to-the-math, others very experimental. Is any of that useful to the real life equivalent?

I'm sure some of it is. My main practical gripe about SpaceX's plan for Mars is this: It's silly and wasteful to place an entire Starship on the surface of Mars unless you plan on keeping it there. Better to use it to aerocapture, then disgorge a single stage lander. The payload to the surface would actually increase, thus the cost per mass would decrease.

Best,

-Slashy

[kerbiloid]

SpX should first build at least one self-supporting base here on the Earth. With closed air balance. No open windows.

SpX should make the fusion. No fusion - no Mars. And no Moon, too. Any real talk starts from the fusion.

[Nuke]

its actually not a terrible idea. this is probibly one of the smartest game communities out there. lots of young minds who are ahead of the game in the stem fields. if you are an innovator these are the kinds of people you want. 

limiting to the game devs only might be a mistake as this community has a lot of really bright minds to draw from. not mine mind you, i turn 40 next month and have probibly done some things to make me stupid over the last 2 decades. of course nothing elon didn't do himself. 

14 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

SpX should first build at least one self-supporting base here on the Earth. With closed air balance. No open windows.

SpX should make the fusion. No fusion - no Mars. And no Moon, too. Any real talk starts from the fusion.

i think iter is going to be the first, unless the skunkworks secretly has their reactor working. fringe fusion concepts were kind of intriguing, but were usually in the form of "were 10 years away and not 30, oh and by the way we need money". iter has the money, has the plan, an honest timetable, and has the machine, a cash sink though it may be.  fusion changes everything, no skylon or reusable booster will will compare with what that brings. but we need it to work first, and then we need to refine and miniaturize the technology.

Edited July 5, 2021 by Nuke

[kerbiloid]

And this is exactly the community which is the most sceptical about extraterrestrial colonies.

What for others is an inspiring dream, for this community is mundane reality.

Sceptics just think the Martian colony makes no sense, while we exactly know why.

Edited July 5, 2021 by kerbiloid

[swjr-swis]

22 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

It's silly and wasteful to place an entire Starship on the surface of Mars unless you plan on keeping it there. Better to use it to aerocapture, then disgorge a single stage lander. The payload to the surface would actually increase, thus the cost per mass would decrease.

Ok, so if I understand correctly, you disagree with their idea of a returning vehicle, and posit that the material and machinery of the vehicle itself should be used in one-way traffic only, effectively making most of itself part of the payload they move to Mars. Presumably, as a solution for the -at least initial- lack of locally sourced high-grade parts/materials. I can see how this would offer more bang for the buck of a single flight, especially for the first flights. And it's not like the pioneers expect to head back home anytime soon after first landfall.

Would this lower the longer-term cost of the whole endeavour though, during the timespan between first landfall and a self-sustaining colony that can build its own vehicles? If the spaceships cannot be reused in that time? How many one-way ships will be sent on a one-way trip?

Is there any way to quantify, back of a napkin style, whether the local assimilation of a one-way vehicle clearly offers more value/costs less than delivering a bit less total payload, but continuing to reuse the same, largely already paid-for vehicles?

 

[GoSlash27]

29 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Ok, so if I understand correctly, you disagree with their idea of a returning vehicle, and posit that the material and machinery of the vehicle itself should be used in one-way traffic only, effectively making most of itself part of the payload they move to Mars.

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

[swjr-swis]

41 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

SpX should first build at least one self-supporting base here on the Earth. With closed air balance. No open windows.

SpX should make the fusion. No fusion - no Mars. And no Moon, too. Any real talk starts from the fusion.

Well, that's partly why I said 'setting aside the perhaps bigger issues'. The focus of his question was elsewhere.

I may not always play it safe in KSP, but I still try to ensure Kerbals leave with reasonable means to either survive or return already included in the package I send up. And this is a game, with green pixel creatures for which 'death' just means a short moment of inexistence until their next respawn.

Not sure I would consider fusion to be the make or break issue though. We haven't needed it for anything else yet.

15 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

The Starship should be fully reusable, it should just remain in orbit.

Ok thank you, I missed that part.

[GoSlash27]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And this is exactly the community which is the most sceptical about extraterrestrial colonies.

What for others is an inspiring dream, for this community is mundane reality.

Sceptics just think the Martian colony makes no sense, while we exactly know why.

Well- stated!

 The elephant in the room is the fact that a colony that is not 100% self sustained is a "colony" in name only. Its life expectancy is roughly 2 weeks longer than Earth's unless you can transplant an entire ecosystem to Mars.

 Still, I admire his accomplishments and motivation to achieve his goal, even if I don't personally agree with the goal.

Best,

-Slashy

[Missingno200]

I'm going to sign off on one more post and then leave this thread, but you guys seem to think that after the initial groundwork being done in 2026, there's not going to be any improvements to the colony. Quite the opposite, the plan is to slowly make it entirely self sustaining in 30 years. 30 years is a long time for technology to advance.

Right now, I don't think the tech exists for  self sustaining colonies on extraterrestrial planets. Thats also not something SpaceX is working on. SpaceX has adopted the policy of being the transport, and just letting other companies create the equipment necessary to live on another world. Which, in my somewhat uninformed opinion, is the best way to handle it.

Edited July 5, 2021 by Missingno200
Added "slowly".

[GoSlash27]

1 hour ago, Missingno200 said:

the plan is to slowly make it entirely self sustaining in 30 years. 30 years is a long time for technology to advance.

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

Edited July 6, 2021 by GoSlash27

[Kerbart]

Still waiting for that self-sustaining base in the antarctic. If you can't make that proof-of-concept work, Mars ain't going to happen.

[Spacescifi]

6 hours ago, Nuke said:

its actually not a terrible idea. this is probibly one of the smartest game communities out there. lots of young minds who are ahead of the game in the stem fields. if you are an innovator these are the kinds of people you want. 

limiting to the game devs only might be a mistake as this community has a lot of really bright minds to draw from. not mine mind you, i turn 40 next month and have probibly done some things to make me stupid over the last 2 decades. of course nothing elon didn't do himself. 

i think iter is going to be the first, unless the skunkworks secretly has their reactor working. fringe fusion concepts were kind of intriguing, but were usually in the form of "were 10 years away and not 30, oh and by the way we need money". iter has the money, has the plan, an honest timetable, and has the machine, a cash sink though it may be.  fusion changes everything, no skylon or reusable booster will will compare with what that brings. but we need it to work first, and then we need to refine and miniaturize the technology.

 

I reckon Musk already is on ON KSP forums...just undercover.

If he has time to tweet, he surely has time to check out KSP once in a while.

Wisely he won't reveal himself as that would be a PR nightmare.

Unfortunately all the ideas I have involve nuclear power that I am sure Musk cannot get even his hands on.

Money cannot buy happiness. It cannot buy you love. No surprise there. Wanna know something shocking? Sadly, it cannot buy you your own nuclear uranium enrichment program without every government on Earth that has nukes coming to stop you.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Spacescifi

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Not sure I would consider fusion to be the make or break issue though. We haven't needed it for anything else yet.

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

4 hours ago, Missingno200 said:

you guys seem to think that after the initial groundwork being done in 2026, there's not going to be any improvements to the colony. Quite the opposite, the plan is to slowly make it entirely self sustaining in 30 years. 30 years is a long time for technology to advance.

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.