Space X Aims to put a Man on Mars in 10 Years
- Thread starter Wanderlust
- Start date
This'll never happen, and it's fucking stupid too.
They should focus on building infrastructure in useful orbits and Lagrange points, and then move out into the solar system. This "derp derp, I'll just hurl shit out there from the bottom of a big gravity well!" crap will get us nowhere.
They should focus on building infrastructure in useful orbits and Lagrange points, and then move out into the solar system. This "derp derp, I'll just hurl shit out there from the bottom of a big gravity well!" crap will get us nowhere.
"Two Stage"?
TSTO:
What about the American Space Shuttle?
- Three main engines with boosters
- Three main engines with the two Orbital Maneuvering Thrusters
Propellants and hardware don't just magically appear in orbit, Lagrange point or not. You still have to lift them out of the gravity well of Earth or Earth's moon. The only gain would be the dubious distinction of using multiple medium size launch vehicles instead of a larger vehicle. Once the second spacecraft reaches the first you would then have to connect umbilicals/ducts through the docking ports, complicating an emergency hatch closure, make an EVA to connect external umbilicals or use some sort of remote manipulator to make the external connections.
Plus, above Low Earth Orbit a spacecraft/station would be outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field and personnel would be at added heath risk from solar storms.
Although the moon's 1/6 G is less that Earth's there's no established industrial facilities to manufacture spacecraft structures or refine propellants. Any personnel building or operating those facilities would also require new facilities to produce food, oxygen and materials to scrub carbon dioxide from the air in their work and living spaces.
My, what an eloquent argument. Where do you think that "infrastructure in useful orbits" is going to come from? Oh, yeah, the bottom of a big gravity well. And where was it stated that SpaceX was going straight to Mars without the benefit of infrastructure? Besides, Elon Musk became a billionaire, built a rocket company in less than ten years, and plans to have his own manned vehicle in less than 5 years. I think he has a better idea of how to get things done than someone "derp, derping" on an internet forum.
Don't worry, all of that comes with it.
What did I just say? I said no two-stage rocket/scramjet propulsion systems have flown. Plenty of two-stage rockets have flown but there's nothing special about that, they're suboptimal anyway. And more or less, they are (Page 37). There are caveats and things but generally, 3 stages is optimal. They just didn't go with 3 on the SS bc of other considerations.
It's also debateable the shuttle even is 2-stage. You really have the initial stage of SSMEs and SRBs, 2nd stage of SSMEs on the external tank only, and then EOMs; it just depends on whether you consider the EOMs a 3rd stage or not. I think in some situations the EOMs are used to gain altitude, which technically is 'stage' behavior rather than attitude adjustment behavior. It's academic anyway, because we were talking about 2-stage hybrid launch vehicles that use a scramjet.
My, what an eloquent argument. Where do you think that "infrastructure in useful orbits" is going to come from? Oh, yeah, the bottom of a big gravity well. And where was it stated that SpaceX was going straight to Mars without the benefit of infrastructure? Besides, Elon Musk became a billionaire, built a rocket company in less than ten years, and plans to have his own manned vehicle in less than 5 years. I think he has a better idea of how to get things done than someone "derp, derping" on an internet forum.
Yeah, the only way there's something to be gained from orbital platforms in this regard (i.e., trying to avoid dragging everything out of the Earth's gravity well) is if we actually established fabrication capabilities either in orbit or on the moon; then we could actually CREATE spacecraft materials from a place other than Earth. Granted you'd still have to fly supplies and raw materials up there... I'm not sure there would even be any gain to that, I don't know.
Isn't the moon full of precious metals? Mining up there could create jobs, if there is people brave enough. If he then go to mars, the asteriod belt is close and that is full of metals as well. I hope this guy does go to the moon and lower orbit to bring humans into the next stage of exploration and colonization.
You can't just carve spacecraft components out of a lunar or asteroid ore deposit. You would need heavy industrial machinery to refine the metal and fabricate the sheets, extrusions and forgings the spacecraft components are made of. Then you would need equipment to cut/machine the materials to the design specifications and a skilled crew to assemble the spacecraft. Building the industrial equipment itself would have the same requirements. Either way, you would have to launch a lot of equipment from the Earth's surface.
Even though the "gravity well" is shallower than the Earth's, it's still plenty deep and a lot of propellants would be required to get a spacecraft to orbit from its surface. It would take a lot of imported equipment (from Earth's surface) to build those spacecraft on the moon, so you would need additional propellants (lifted from Earth's surface!)to lower spacecraft safely to the moon's surface. The Apollo designers worked hard to keep their spacecraft's weight low, but look how huge the Saturn V's propellant tanks were.
Even though the "gravity well" is shallower than the Earth's, it's still plenty deep and a lot of propellants would be required to get a spacecraft to orbit from its surface. It would take a lot of imported equipment (from Earth's surface) to build those spacecraft on the moon, so you would need additional propellants (lifted from Earth's surface!)to lower spacecraft safely to the moon's surface. The Apollo designers worked hard to keep their spacecraft's weight low, but look how huge the Saturn V's propellant tanks were.
3d printers will helf with being able to use straight up raw materials, though still fifty + years out for any meaningful resource extraction
I think it's plausible, it's just going to have a very steep learning and cost curve. I agree that at this point and for a number of years, it won't be possible to put any kind of fabrication facilities on the moon that can just take moon rocks and turn them into struts or composite alloys. Interesting question, however, is whether there's deposits on the moon that could be used to harvest propellant.
Supposing a method were developed to extract the organic chemistry necessary to manufacture hydrazine on the lunar surface... The overhead to put the production capability in place is high yes, but it would be considerably cheaper to lift 100 metric tons of hydrazine off the lunar surface than it would off Earth.
Again I'm not pretending like this is something we can make happen in the next 5 or even 25 years, but I do think it has merit as a piece of the foundation that will eventually help to make long distance space travel economically feasible. Eliminating inefficiencies and high-cost, low-return avenues in the way this industry is run is exactly what is necessary to make it thrive long term.
The same was true 50 years ago of the electronics industry when there wasn't nearly the worldwide output of silicon, gallium or arsenic to sustain the kind of microelectronics industry we have now - so mining expanded and improved, refining methods were improved and costs reduced, and today that's a crucial reason the consumer/microelectronics industry has been able to explode the way it has.
Supposing a method were developed to extract the organic chemistry necessary to manufacture hydrazine on the lunar surface... The overhead to put the production capability in place is high yes, but it would be considerably cheaper to lift 100 metric tons of hydrazine off the lunar surface than it would off Earth.
Again I'm not pretending like this is something we can make happen in the next 5 or even 25 years, but I do think it has merit as a piece of the foundation that will eventually help to make long distance space travel economically feasible. Eliminating inefficiencies and high-cost, low-return avenues in the way this industry is run is exactly what is necessary to make it thrive long term.
The same was true 50 years ago of the electronics industry when there wasn't nearly the worldwide output of silicon, gallium or arsenic to sustain the kind of microelectronics industry we have now - so mining expanded and improved, refining methods were improved and costs reduced, and today that's a crucial reason the consumer/microelectronics industry has been able to explode the way it has.