(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--2fjAoGEV--%2F1166394113222297959.jpg&hash=4446026644bd77b555ed325b975b3fe4097402a9)
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/02/news/companies/musk-mars-2025/
QuoteMusk: SpaceX could take humans to Mars in 9 years
June 02 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Elon Musk believes SpaceX should be able to land humans on Mars nine years from now.
Musk reiterated confidence in his Mars timeline at the Code Conference on Wednesday night.
"If things go according to plan, we should be able to — we should be able to — launch people in 2024, with arrival in 2025," Musk said.
"That's the game plan," he added.
Musk said he's planning to share an architectural plan for the colonization of Mars at a conference in September.
The tech conference audience was enthralled by Musk's comments. He told interviewers Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg that plotting travel throughout the Solar System, and "ultimately other star systems," provides the kind of inspiration that makes life worth living.
Musk, the CEO of SpaceX, has previously said that he would "like to die on Mars, just not on impact."
On Wednesday night he quipped that he doesn't have a "Martian death wish," but "I think if you're going to choose a place to die, then Mars is probably not a bad choice."
For human travel to Mars, Musk has been targeting the middle of the next decade since at least 2014.
"This will be a very big rocket," he said Wednesday.
He outlined SpaceX's recent breakthroughs with reusable rockets and said the company plans to "re-fly one of the landed rocket boosters" toward the end of the summer.
Musk has missed some self-imposed deadlines before. But he said that he intends to send SpaceX's Dragon Version 2 spacecraft to Mars in 2018.
Related: Boeing falls behind SpaceX in next space race
"It has the interior volume of a large SUV," and the trip takes six months, so it's "probably not ideal" for humans, Musk said with classic understatement.
Oh, and it "also doesn't have the capability of getting back to Earth," he said, stirring laughter from the crowd. "We put that in the fine print!"
But SpaceX's plan is to establish "cargo flights to Mars that people can count on" before launching a larger spacecraft with people on board.
When Matt Damon's film "The Martian" came up, Musk said he "actually enjoyed the movie," and said, "it was like 80% scientifically correct."
Much closer to home, Musk was also asked about the U.S. presidential election, a topic on which he was noticeably less animated.
Without saying anything about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton specifically, he said, "I don't think it's the finest moment in our democracy."
Yet first lines say should and could. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2016, 09:08:41 AM
Yet first lines say should and could. :hmm:
You know I like Musk, but he doesn't do anything these days without government funding. I think that's what he's hinting at - we could go to Mars if only the US Goverment would pay us to do so...
No, they won't. Not by 2025 and not by the year 2525. If Man is even still alive.
The question is - can they bring the man back once they put him on Mars?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 03, 2016, 06:29:16 AM
No, they won't. Not by 2025 and not by the year 2525. If Man is even still alive.
Ridiculous. Mars isn't Alpha Centauri. Most of the technology needed to get there already exists.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 03, 2016, 06:29:16 AM
No, they won't. Not by 2025 and not by the year 2525. If Man is even still alive.
If woman can survive...
If you believe they'll put a man on the Mars...
Who let the dogs out? Woof, woof, woof, woof!
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 03, 2016, 07:46:44 PM
If you believe they'll put a man on the Mars...
If you thought that was the next line in the song...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2016, 07:34:24 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 03, 2016, 06:29:16 AM
No, they won't. Not by 2025 and not by the year 2525. If Man is even still alive.
Ridiculous. Mars isn't Alpha Centauri. Most of the technology needed to get there already exists.
The technology to do it has basically existed for over 40 years. That we haven't done it has been due to lack of the will and funding to do it, not lack of technology.
Quote from: dps on June 04, 2016, 09:00:50 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 03, 2016, 07:34:24 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 03, 2016, 06:29:16 AM
No, they won't. Not by 2025 and not by the year 2525. If Man is even still alive.
Ridiculous. Mars isn't Alpha Centauri. Most of the technology needed to get there already exists.
The technology to do it has basically existed for over 40 years. That we haven't done it has been due to lack of the will and funding to do it, not lack of technology.
Will, technology, and funding don't exist in a vacuum separate from one another.
I am not even sure if the technology for this did exist 40 years ago, at least not in a fashion that made it realistic or affordable.
But we're all still in a simulation right?
Quote from: dps on June 04, 2016, 09:00:50 AM
The technology to do it has basically existed for over 40 years. That we haven't done it has been due to lack of the will and funding to do it, not lack of technology.
Actually, the technology to do it still doesn't exist. Mars lacks sufficient atmosphere to slow an interplanetary ship that is going to get there in less than decades. Current rocket technology won't get us to mars with sufficient fuel to slow down using rockets (you need a lot of fuel, which increases the weight of the rocket you are sending, thus requiring more rockets and fuel to get it to speed, thus increasing the weight you need to devote to slowing it again, ad infinitum).
Look at the effort, risk, and weight that went into getting Curiosity to the surface - and Curiosity was under 1,000 kilos. There's no current technology that could duplicate the Curiosity landing system for the necessary weight of a manned mission.
The entry/landing problem is the log pole in the Mars mission tent, and I have seen no evidence that Elon Musk and SpaceX have solved that problem. They claim that they will, with a more efficient engine, but can't even start to demonstrate that for some time yet.
Just crack water into hydrogen and oxygen and make rocket fuel on site.
How to bring the man back from Mars though? I imagine that they will need another rocket to escape Mar's gravity :unsure:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2016, 05:20:50 PM
Just crack water into hydrogen and oxygen and make rocket fuel on site.
How's that going to help with the problem grumbler described?
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2016, 05:47:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2016, 05:20:50 PM
Just crack water into hydrogen and oxygen and make rocket fuel on site.
How's that going to help with the problem grumbler described?
Ah, I skimmed it. Thought he was talking about the problem of bringing enough fuel to get off Mars once you land there.
You could simply build a ship in orbit. Make multiple launches. The individual parts of the ship, the fuel stocks and the supplies can be made much larger that way.
He's free to crowdsource it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2016, 06:53:54 PM
You could simply build a ship in orbit. Make multiple launches. The individual parts of the ship, the fuel stocks and the supplies can be made much larger that way.
(a) We haven't had (and don't have) the technology to "simply build a ship in orbit." When we develop such a technology, that doesn't get around the fact that you have to land a huge mass on Mars without a cooperating atmosphere.
(b) Even assuming that most of the supplies necessary for a mars colony are sent remotely, the size of the lander needed to get the people to the surface is beyond current (though not proposed) rocket engine technology.
One of the factors accepted by NASA and other proponents of a Mars mission, BTW, is that anyone undertaking the mission will accept the fact that radiation exposure on the trip to Mars will take at least several decades off their life. There will be no old people on Mars until the Mars-born descendants of the first colonists grow old.
The very first colonists will likely all die of misadventure, much like the Roanoke Colony. The second wave may well produce a stable population, but won't live long enough to know of their success. I'm not sure there will be a third wave, once people back home see the fate of the second wave. Those first two waves will almost certainly exist, though, because there will be enough people willing to die to be part of something bigger than themselves.
I have no idea how you guys can find the funding for this. This is going to cost, what, hundreds of billions of US$? With no financial return whatsoever?
Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2016, 07:44:31 PM
The very first colonists will likely all die of misadventure, much like the Roanoke Colony. The second wave may well produce a stable population, but won't live long enough to know of their success. I'm not sure there will be a third wave, once people back home see the fate of the second wave. Those first two waves will almost certainly exist, though, because there will be enough people willing to die to be part of something bigger than themselves.
They'll Donner party like it's 2525.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2016, 02:18:27 AM
I have no idea how you guys can find the funding for this. This is going to cost, what, hundreds of billions of US$? With no financial return whatsoever?
Lots of bake sales.
Elon Musk is genderfluid.
I am sure the Nazi refugees there will greet us with open arms.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Elon Musk is genderfluid.
He has five kids, so I kind of doubt it.
Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2016, 07:44:31 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2016, 06:53:54 PM
You could simply build a ship in orbit. Make multiple launches. The individual parts of the ship, the fuel stocks and the supplies can be made much larger that way.
(a) We haven't had (and don't have) the technology to "simply build a ship in orbit." When we develop such a technology, that doesn't get around the fact that you have to land a huge mass on Mars without a cooperating atmosphere.
(b) Even assuming that most of the supplies necessary for a mars colony are sent remotely, the size of the lander needed to get the people to the surface is beyond current (though not proposed) rocket engine technology.
One of the factors accepted by NASA and other proponents of a Mars mission, BTW, is that anyone undertaking the mission will accept the fact that radiation exposure on the trip to Mars will take at least several decades off their life. There will be no old people on Mars until the Mars-born descendants of the first colonists grow old.
The very first colonists will likely all die of misadventure, much like the Roanoke Colony. The second wave may well produce a stable population, but won't live long enough to know of their success. I'm not sure there will be a third wave, once people back home see the fate of the second wave. Those first two waves will almost certainly exist, though, because there will be enough people willing to die to be part of something bigger than themselves.
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1465194271&sr=1-1&keywords=the+case+for+mars (http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1465194271&sr=1-1&keywords=the+case+for+mars)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct)
QuoteThe first flight of the Ares rocket (not to be confused with the similarly named rocket of the now defunct Constellation program) would take an unmanned Earth Return Vehicle to Mars after a 6-month cruise phase, with a supply of hydrogen, a chemical plant and a small nuclear reactor. Once there, a series of chemical reactions (the Sabatier reaction coupled with electrolysis) would be used to combine a small amount of hydrogen (8 tons) carried by the Earth Return Vehicle with the carbon dioxide of the Martian atmosphere to create up to 112 tonnes of methane and oxygen. This relatively simple chemical-engineering procedure was used regularly in the 19th and 20th centuries,[8] and would ensure that only 7% of the return propellant would need to be carried to the surface of Mars.
Seems doable.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 05, 2016, 09:22:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Elon Musk is genderfluid.
He has five kids, so I kind of doubt it.
Sounds like plenty of gender fluid to me.
OMG, HE NEEDS A VASECTOMY
Speaking of space architecture, a prototype inflatable module was blown up on the space station. :)
http://www.popsci.com/this-is-what-it-looks-like-to-inflate-habitat-on-space-station
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2016, 06:53:54 PM
Ah, I skimmed it. Thought he was talking about the problem of bringing enough fuel to get off Mars once you land there.
You could simply build a ship in orbit. Make multiple launches. The individual parts of the ship, the fuel stocks and the supplies can be made much larger that way.
Way to sidestep the problem of generating enough thrust and acceleration for escape velocity in virtually nil atmosphere. Conventional rocketry relies on the Earth's atmosphere to break free of it; that's a totally different problem with the Martian atmosphere.
They have no plans to return anyone from Mars. It is very clearly being advertised as a one way trip.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 06, 2016, 09:41:06 PM
Way to sidestep the problem of generating enough thrust and acceleration for escape velocity in virtually nil atmosphere. Conventional rocketry relies on the Earth's atmosphere to break free of it; that's a totally different problem with the Martian atmosphere.
Wait... what?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 06, 2016, 09:41:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2016, 06:53:54 PM
Ah, I skimmed it. Thought he was talking about the problem of bringing enough fuel to get off Mars once you land there.
You could simply build a ship in orbit. Make multiple launches. The individual parts of the ship, the fuel stocks and the supplies can be made much larger that way.
Way to sidestep the problem of generating enough thrust and acceleration for escape velocity in virtually nil atmosphere. Conventional rocketry relies on the Earth's atmosphere to break free of it; that's a totally different problem with the Martian atmosphere.
Is this a joking reference to NY Times editorial that ripped Goddard and said rockets would never work in space, and that the Times officially retracted after Apollo 11 landed on the Moon?