Part of the scheme to move colonists to Mars. Apparently they plan to do it in groups of 100s.
http://spacenews.com/spacex-unveils-mars-mission-plans/
QuoteThe system Musk described is intended to fulfill a long-term vision of making humanity interplanetary. While his focus is on settling Mars, he noted the spacecraft could travel throughout the solar system, "planet-hopping" and "moon-hopping" from destination to destination, refueling at each stop. The spacecraft could also be used on Earth by itself as a suborbital point-to-point vehicle.
Why though?
Did you think something like the discrediting of earthly empires would stop humanity's eternal need to colonize? Hell no. Watch out universe.
Quote from: Liep on September 28, 2016, 03:33:02 PM
Why though?
Cheap real-estate. The middle class of Britain might finally have a place to live.
Seems a bit... implausible.
Quote from: celedhring on September 28, 2016, 03:37:11 PM
Seems a bit... implausible.
It does, but so did most of Musk's other high profile ventures before they were implemented. Pay Pal seemed pretty far fetched before it came around, same with Tesla. In retrospect they seem pretty reasonable. Same with Space X so far, really.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:35:33 PM
Did you think something like the discrediting of earthly empires would stop humanity's eternal need to colonize? Hell no. Watch out universe.
But who would want to live there? I get why people would want to be the first to go there, the desire to explore, etc, but to actually colonize it and have people live there permanently? I don't see it.
Quote from: celedhring on September 28, 2016, 03:37:11 PM
Seems a bit... implausible.
It's plausible, but the timeline is extremely ambitious.
Quote from: Liep on September 28, 2016, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:35:33 PM
Did you think something like the discrediting of earthly empires would stop humanity's eternal need to colonize? Hell no. Watch out universe.
But who would want to live there? I get why people would want to be the first to go there, the desire to explore, etc, but to actually colonize it and have people live there permanently? I don't see it.
Enough people will. Especially if all he needs is a few hundred.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:43:09 PM
Enough people will. Especially if all he needs is a few hundred.
Yes sure, but he's talking about a "self-sustaining civilization". That has got to be more than a few hundreds.
Quote from: Liep on September 28, 2016, 03:45:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:43:09 PM
Enough people will. Especially if all he needs is a few hundred.
Yes sure, but he's talking about a "self-sustaining civilization". That has got to be more than a few hundreds.
Why? Iceland sorta managed it.
I think his goal is 80,000... and I think the plan calls for each of them to pay $0.5M. So that should take care of the funding.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:47:09 PM
Quote from: Liep on September 28, 2016, 03:45:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:43:09 PM
Enough people will. Especially if all he needs is a few hundred.
Yes sure, but he's talking about a "self-sustaining civilization". That has got to be more than a few hundreds.
Why? Iceland sorta managed it.
I guess that's a fair comparison.
Quote from: Jacob on September 28, 2016, 03:39:42 PM
It does, but so did most of Musk's other high profile ventures before they were implemented. Pay Pal seemed pretty far fetched before it came around, same with Tesla. In retrospect they seem pretty reasonable. Same with Space X so far, really.
I wouldn't call Pay Pal farfetched ex ante. Pretty closefetched in fact. I pay the internet, the internet pays you.
I would argue with Tesla he has yet to demonstrate the ability to produce a cost-competitive electric car with reasonable performance.
The same issue is raised with colonizing Mars. I'm not aware of any impossible technical hurdles, but the question is cost.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2016, 03:51:20 PM
I would argue with Tesla he has yet to demonstrate the ability to produce a cost-competitive electric car with reasonable performance.
I don't get the reasonable performance part. Electric motors are nice because they can apply instant torque. They should accelerate and perform better provided they have equivalent horse power.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:56:27 PM
I don't get the reasonable performance part. Electric motors are nice because they can apply instant torque. They should accelerate and perform better provided they have equivalent horse power.
I was thinking primarily of time between charging.
Quote from: Liep on September 28, 2016, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:35:33 PM
Did you think something like the discrediting of earthly empires would stop humanity's eternal need to colonize? Hell no. Watch out universe.
But who would want to live there? I get why people would want to be the first to go there, the desire to explore, etc, but to actually colonize it and have people live there permanently? I don't see it.
Let's say .0001% of people disagree and want to do it. That's almost 10,000 people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 28, 2016, 04:18:12 PM
Let's say .0001% of people disagree and want to do it. That's almost 10,000 people.
From a pool of people with $500,000. :P
Even if the ticket price for the first few is in the range of several million, I don't think there'll be any trouble filling the first few ships.
Quote from: Liep on September 28, 2016, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:35:33 PM
Did you think something like the discrediting of earthly empires would stop humanity's eternal need to colonize? Hell no. Watch out universe.
But who would want to live there? I get why people would want to be the first to go there, the desire to explore, etc, but to actually colonize it and have people live there permanently? I don't see it.
They won't have civil strife on Mars because no one in the Space X target group is a complete twat.
Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2016, 04:36:20 PM
Quote from: Liep on September 28, 2016, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:35:33 PM
Did you think something like the discrediting of earthly empires would stop humanity's eternal need to colonize? Hell no. Watch out universe.
But who would want to live there? I get why people would want to be the first to go there, the desire to explore, etc, but to actually colonize it and have people live there permanently? I don't see it.
They won't have civil strife on Mars because no one in the Space X target group is a complete twat.
There's a strict "no millennials" policy.
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 28, 2016, 04:32:10 PM
Even if the ticket price for the first few is in the range of several million, I don't think there'll be any trouble filling the first few ships.
I don't understand who would want to do that though. Old folk? People with lots of cash who love deprivation and the notion of being deprived for the rest of their lives?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2016, 03:51:20 PM
The same issue is raised with colonizing Mars. I'm not aware of any impossible technical hurdles, but the question is cost.
The answer here is of course there's no feasible way for Elon Musk to do this on his own. Not from his own money, not from private citizens.
What he wants to do is have NASA buy into his vision and fund this plan. Which is pretty much what he has done with Tesla and SpaceX. Tesla's models were only affordable at first because of very generous tax credits, and SpaceX relies on most of its funding by providing launches to NASA.
Quote from: garbon on September 28, 2016, 04:41:08 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 28, 2016, 04:32:10 PM
Even if the ticket price for the first few is in the range of several million, I don't think there'll be any trouble filling the first few ships.
I don't understand who would want to do that though. Old folk? People with lots of cash who love deprivation and the notion of being deprived for the rest of their lives?
People in love with the romance of space, people in search of adventure, people who want to be trailblazers, people who want to make history, people who love the challenge.
While most of us a fairly risk averse and partial to our usual comforts, there'll always be some who are not.
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 28, 2016, 04:32:10 PM
Even if the ticket price for the first few is in the range of several million, I don't think there'll be any trouble filling the first few ships.
I think the time required would kill the demand for casual Mars sightseeing.
Quote from: Jacob on September 28, 2016, 04:43:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 28, 2016, 04:41:08 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 28, 2016, 04:32:10 PM
Even if the ticket price for the first few is in the range of several million, I don't think there'll be any trouble filling the first few ships.
I don't understand who would want to do that though. Old folk? People with lots of cash who love deprivation and the notion of being deprived for the rest of their lives?
People in love with the romance of space, people in search of adventure, people who want to be trailblazers, people who want to make history, people who love the challenge.
While most of us a fairly risk averse and partial to our usual comforts, there'll always be some who are not.
Spot on. Just because garbon can't imagine why people would want to do it doesn't others dream about it.
For the record, I wouldn't want to go.
I do know a few people who would jump at the chance if they could afford the ticket.
Quote from: Jacob on September 28, 2016, 04:43:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 28, 2016, 04:41:08 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 28, 2016, 04:32:10 PM
Even if the ticket price for the first few is in the range of several million, I don't think there'll be any trouble filling the first few ships.
I don't understand who would want to do that though. Old folk? People with lots of cash who love deprivation and the notion of being deprived for the rest of their lives?
People in love with the romance of space, people in search of adventure, people who want to be trailblazers, people who want to make history, people who love the challenge.
While most of us a fairly risk averse and partial to our usual comforts, there'll always be some who are not.
They sound like delusional people who deserve to be parted with their money. Unlike terrestrial colonization, they know there is literally nothing that is waiting them. The opportunity to leave in a little space box on a planet with a hostile atmosphere? You gotta be nuts to want that.
Note: I can totally understand if you can come back but that's not really doable in this short timespan is it?
Oh I just read the announcement and he is saying they'd come back. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on September 28, 2016, 04:47:24 PM
They sound like delusional people who deserve to be parted with their money. Unlike terrestrial colonization, they know there is literally nothing that is waiting them. The opportunity to leave in a little space box on a planet with a hostile atmosphere? You gotta be nuts to want that.
Note: I can totally understand if you can come back but that's not really doable in this short timespan is it?
Ultra-radical identitarian grabon can't fathom that people different from him might want different things out of life? Color me surprised. :lol:
(just not too dark, in case he gets triggered)
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 28, 2016, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 28, 2016, 04:47:24 PM
They sound like delusional people who deserve to be parted with their money. Unlike terrestrial colonization, they know there is literally nothing that is waiting them. The opportunity to leave in a little space box on a planet with a hostile atmosphere? You gotta be nuts to want that.
Note: I can totally understand if you can come back but that's not really doable in this short timespan is it?
Ultra-radical identitarian grabon can't fathom that people different from him might want different things out of life? Color me surprised. :lol:
(just not too dark, in case he gets triggered)
Don't play stupid.
Also, I'm not the one with a habit of running away from Languish in tears. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on September 28, 2016, 04:53:33 PM
Also, I'm not the one with a habit of running away from Languish in tears. :contract:
:pinch:
I was gonna say I don't understand why anyone would want to go to a sterile place with a hostile atmosphere, hanging out for years with a bunch of strangers who may be obnoxious, while living on one's own recycled turds.
But then, I remembered that I posted on Languish. :P
Quote from: Liep on September 28, 2016, 04:23:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 28, 2016, 04:18:12 PM
Let's say .0001% of people disagree and want to do it. That's almost 10,000 people.
From a pool of people with $500,000. :P
There are probably others who wouldn't go themselves but would sponsor someone else.
I'd be willing to bet people willing to go could raise that kind of money on kickstarter, etc, without enormous difficulty
Shark. Jumped
I think it will be difficult to achieve the right kind of demographic mix. Ideally you want young people and half of them to be females. But the US$500k entry fee kinda ensures that it will be older people.
Quote from: Monoriu on September 28, 2016, 05:59:04 PM
I think it will be difficult to achieve the right kind of demographic mix. Ideally you want young people and half of them to be females. But the US$500k entry fee kinda ensures that it will be older people.
Well, you could probably ship up a bunch of unfertilized eggs and sperm donations too if you're concerned about genetic viability. Maybe they can sell that too. $0.5M to go yourself, $10K to send a sperm sample or some eggs that will be carried to term via in-vitro fertilization.
I wanted to post about this, but it's just a long term proposal so I figured it would be received negatively here if I posted it. I'm interested in the test launch of the 27 falcon heavy that will be tested early next year.
I perspose a whip-round to buy Timmy a dictionary.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2016, 06:55:34 PM
I perspose a whip-round to buy Timmy a dictionary.
Or an enema.
Is there anything that can be economically exploited on Mars?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2016, 06:55:34 PM
I perspose a whip-round to buy Timmy a dictionary.
Instead, lets hold a whip round to send timmy to mars. also martinus.
I've read somewhere that cosmic radiation is a real health hazard to spacecraft crew. How does Elon Musk propose to solve that problem? :unsure:
By not offering insurance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2016, 06:55:34 PM
I perspose a whip-round to buy Timmy a dictionary.
It's the fault of the autocorrect on my phone. :weep:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2016, 09:40:42 PM
It's the fault of the autocorrect on my phone. :weep:
You want me to believe that your phone autocorrected proposal to perposal? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2016, 09:45:12 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2016, 09:40:42 PM
It's the fault of the autocorrect on my phone. :weep:
You want me to believe that your phone autocorrected proposal to perposal? :huh:
I type fast and on a phone it makes my spelling even worse and I don't really pay attention to the corrections. :blush:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2016, 07:37:55 PM
Is there anything that can be economically exploited on Mars?
80,000 colonists?
I mean, if they go there in the first place.
I also wonder: why not the moon first? It is a lot closer.
Quote from: Liep on September 28, 2016, 04:23:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 28, 2016, 04:18:12 PM
Let's say .0001% of people disagree and want to do it. That's almost 10,000 people.
From a pool of people with $500,000. :P
so that's about 8000 Chinese :p
Quote from: alfred russel on September 28, 2016, 08:33:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2016, 06:55:34 PM
I perspose a whip-round to buy Timmy a dictionary.
Instead, lets hold a whip round to send timmy to mars. also martinus.
Dictionary is a pretty poor substitute for a trip to Mars.
Quote from: Monoriu on September 28, 2016, 10:09:57 PM
I also wonder: why not the moon first? It is a lot closer.
Mars has ice and more regular day and night.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:56:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2016, 03:51:20 PM
I would argue with Tesla he has yet to demonstrate the ability to produce a cost-competitive electric car with reasonable performance.
I don't get the reasonable performance part. Electric motors are nice because they can apply instant torque. They should accelerate and perform better provided they have equivalent horse power.
The thing about Tesla's thingie is not that they are doing anything specifically different, but that they are setting themselves up to be the battery manufacturer for everyone. They did all the work to get all the permits and are planning incredible capacity out there in Fallon. They have contracts already from most of the traditional car manufacturers to make batteries for them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2016, 05:05:01 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 28, 2016, 10:09:57 PM
I also wonder: why not the moon first? It is a lot closer.
Mars has ice and more regular day and night.
Especially in the core.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2016, 05:05:01 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 28, 2016, 10:09:57 PM
I also wonder: why not the moon first? It is a lot closer.
Mars has ice and more regular day and night.
Well then why not Antarctica? It is way more hospitable, has considerably more ice, and is much easier to transport things both to and from.
It lacks the Mystique.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 29, 2016, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2016, 05:05:01 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 28, 2016, 10:09:57 PM
I also wonder: why not the moon first? It is a lot closer.
Mars has ice and more regular day and night.
Well then why not Antarctica? It is way more hospitable, has considerably more ice, and is much easier to transport things both to and from.
You can't ship nuclear waste below 60 degrees south.
Watched a bunch of videos and read a lot of articles about this recently and got all excited all over again! :w00t:
Epic video of Musk's Mars plans. This is a Warner Von Braun level of egomaniacal mad rocket science!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R_yYFA
They've already built the fuel tank
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.collectspace.com%2Fimages%2Fnews-092716f-lg.jpg&hash=a4d681b05c067518c387c0858153e9767ba5befe)
They've already tested an engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7kqFt3nID4
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parabolicarc.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F09%2Fspacex_mars_upper_stage.jpg&hash=1204d9a0d777c1c3c437e85a214cee6b5387732e)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.parabolicarc.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F09%2Fspacex_mars_booster.jpg&hash=de9dd7dd096dbd304e101a023615c86e7c4c9f09)
QuoteMusk's Mars moment: Audacity, madness, brilliance—or maybe all three
Ars dissects the feasibility of SpaceX's plan to colonize Mars in the coming decades.
ERIC BERGER - 9/28/2016, 11:13 PM
Elon Musk finally did it. Fourteen years after founding SpaceX, and nine months after promising to reveal details about his plans to colonize Mars, the tech mogul made good on that promise Tuesday afternoon in Guadalajara, Mexico. Over the course of a 90-minute speech Musk, always a dreamer, shared his biggest and most ambitious dream with the world—how to colonize Mars and make humanity a multiplanetary species.
And what mighty ambitions they are. The Interplanetary Transport System he unveiled could carry 100 people at a time to Mars. Contrast that to the Apollo program, which carried just two astronauts at a time to the surface of the nearby Moon, and only for brief sojourns. Moreover, Musk's rocket that would lift all of those people and propellant into orbit would be nearly four times as powerful as the mighty Saturn V booster. Musk envisions a self-sustaining Mars colony with at least a million residents by the end of the century.
Beyond this, what really stood out about Musk's speech on Tuesday was the naked baring of his soul. Considering his mannerisms, passion, and the utter seriousness of his convictions, it felt at times like the man's entire life had led him to that particular stage. It took courage to make the speech, to propose the greatest space adventure of all time. His ideas, his architecture for getting it done—they're all out there now for anyone to criticize, second guess, and doubt.
It is not everyday that one of the world's notables, a true difference-maker, so completely eschews caution and reveals his deepest ambitions like Musk did with the Interplanetary Transport System. So let us look at those ambitions—the man laid bare, the space hardware he dreams of building—and then consider the feasibility of all this. Because what really matters is whether any of this fantastical stuff can actually happen.
The hardware
During his talk, Musk outlined an extremely large new rocket, with a primary structure made from carbon-fiber composites that are lighter and stronger than the aluminum and other metals used in traditional rockets. A staggering 42 Raptor engines, burning liquid oxygen and densified liquid methane, would power the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS) booster to orbit. "It's a lot of engines," Musk acknowledged. Presumably the software to integrate all of that power has come a long way since the Soviets tried their 30-engine N1 rocket in the late 60s and early 70s. All four N1 launches were failures.
The expendable variant of the ITS rocket would have an unprecedented lift capacity of 550 metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO), which is roughly equivalent to 50 full-size yellow school buses. The most powerful rocket flying today, the Delta IV heavy, has a payload-to-LEO capacity of only about 28 metric tons; the most powerful rocket ever to successfully fly, the Saturn V, could haul 140 metric tons to LEO. Musk's plan relies on a reusable variant of the the ITS rocket (300 tons to orbit), sending it up and landing it back at the launch pad. After accelerating to a staging velocity of 8,650km/h, the booster would use 7 percent of its propellant for a return trip.
The ITS spaceship would stand 50 meters tall (the Apollo capsule was a mere 3 meters high) atop its rocket, with a maximum diameter of 17 meters. Instead of departing Earth orbit at 4.5km/s, its six Raptor engines optimized for the vacuum of space would accelerate it to 6 km/s, cutting the journey to Mars from six months to about three. After launching and being fueled on orbit, the ITS could deliver 450 tons to the surface of Mars. The largest payload NASA—or anyone—has ever safely landed on the Martian surface is the Curiosity rover, which weighs less than a single ton.
There are more details in the presentation SpaceX has posted on its Web site. Suffice it to say the company has proposed building breathtaking space machines orders of magnitude greater than NASA or anyone else has ever constructed. These are truly audacious space-faring vessels, designed to go where no one has gone before. They are almost unbelievable.
Really, Elon?
Understandably, one might dismiss Elon Musk as a crank, a once-promising visionary slowly degenerating into a Howard Hughes-like madness. A million people on cold, dead Mars? Humans haven't even been to the Moon, which is right next door to Earth, in nearly half a century.
However, SpaceX has made some demonstrable technical progress. Engines represent the bedrock of any rocket, and SpaceX has already built a full-scale version of its Raptor engine, which it tested this month in Texas. The Raptor is approximately the same size as the company's Merlin 1-D engine, but has three times the thrust due to its capability to withstand higher pressures.
Additionally, in one of the real "wow" moments of of Tuesday's talk, Elon showed several photos of an ITS liquid oxygen tank, made of carbon fiber composites to withstand high pressures. This is real hardware, equivalent in scale to the tankage NASA is building for its SLS rocket, and offers some insight into the company's plans.
It seems clear that SpaceX will build as much Mars hardware as it can afford, in hopes of showing the aerospace community and space agencies around the world that it is serious about this venture, and has the technical chops to pull it off. "As we show this is possible, that this dream is real, I think the support will snowball over time," Musk said during his presentation.
Costs and timelines
Musk also spent some time Tuesday discussing costs. Eventually, he said, SpaceX would like to bring down the per-person cost to Mars to $200,000, about the same price as a middle-class home in America (at least, the parts of America with sane real estate markets). At this cost, he believes, enough people will be able to afford a trip to Mars to find permanent new homes there. The ride, he said, would be enjoyable enough. Passengers would have access to a restaurant, zero-g games, movies, cabins, and more. "It will be really fun to go," he quipped. "You'll have a great time."
But Musk cannot simply will such a transport system into existence. He estimated it would take about $10 billion in development costs to produce the first rocket, spacecraft, and other components of the ITS needed to safely bring the first astronauts to the surface of Mars. (This seems shockingly low, and based upon several interviews with industry officials the real costs are probably at least two to three times greater than this).
For now, SpaceX is investing only a "few tens of millions of dollars" annually into the ITS, Musk said, or about five percent of the company's capacity. After SpaceX finalizes its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon 2 spacecraft in the next couple of years, Musk said the company would devote more resources to the ITS. He said that by the end of the decade SpaceX might be able to spend about $300 million annually on the Mars launcher and spacecraft.
Technically, Musk believes it is feasible to launch the initial ITS mission to Mars in 2024, just eight years from now, and reach the Martian surface by 2025. "That's optimistic," he admitted during a teleconference with reporters after his speech. "I would describe that as an aspiration. But if it did go later, I don't think it would go a lot later than that." That will necessitate significant capital.
The budget shortfall
Elon Musk cannot afford the plan by himself. During his presentation he showed a slide that jokingly suggested the company had some strategies to raise funds for the ITS, including "steal underpants" and "Kickstarter." The reality is that SpaceX will need to raise billions, and probably tens of billions of dollars, to bring about this venture. The company's own revenues, now or in the foreseeable future, will not come close to supporting Mars colonization.
Indeed, Musk suggested the plan would probably need to come about through a public-private partnership, which essentially means that he would conceive of the plans, and his company would build the space hardware, but a government would pay. This is because there is no near-term profit in developing a Mars colony. It would only be be brought about through public financing, or less likely, philanthropic means.
The backing government need not be the United States. It could be a European country. Or an Asian nation. Or perhaps even Middle Eastern states rich with oil money and willing to bankroll an extension of their culture to a new planet. Musk said he deliberately chose the International Astronautical Congress as his forum because this was a worldwide endeavor. "I wanted to come and describe this to the world," Musk said. "To encourage companies and organizations around the world to do something perhaps like this. That's why I wanted to do it at IAC. To get the community in general to think about going to Mars."
But first, undoubtedly, Musk will look to NASA as a potential partner. For most of the last decade NASA has been his steady financial backer, providing the majority of his company's revenues. It is thanks to multibillion dollar contracts from the space agency to deliver cargo (and eventually astronauts) to the International Space Station that Musk has been able to spend funds on the Raptor engine, and invest in Mars-related technology like supersonic retropropulsion. "In the future there may be a NASA contract," he said of the ITS. "There may not. If there is a NASA contract it would be a good thing. If not, that's not a good thing."
Whither NASA?
Let's be painfully honest: Musk's announcement is a potential embarrassment to the space agency. By the time NASA launches a handful of astronauts in the early 2020s on its own new vehicles, the space agency will have spent about $30 billion on the Space Launch System rocket and Orion crew capsule. And for what? A crewed flight around the Moon and back. According to Musk's timeline and stated budget, for about $10 billion, he could send humans all the way to the surface of Mars in the same time frame. So why would NASA spend so much cash for an hors d'oeuvre when it could get a seven-course meal for one-third the price?
Musk walked into a dangerous minefield on Tuesday, and he knows it. NASA has been his meal ticket with its launch contracts, and will remain so for some time. But now having expressed ambitions beyond low-Earth orbit, SpaceX is competing with NASA, with the agency's own hardware and its much promoted "Journey to Mars." These government programs stand in the way of spending federal dollars on ITS.
So while the founder of SpaceX praised NASA for its support of his company, Musk also subtly undermined the agency's Space Launch System rocket. NASA has said its SLS rocket will slash several years off the transit time for scientific spacecraft to Europa and other moons of interest in the outer solar system. Showing a picture of the ITS on Europa, Musk said Tuesday, "It would be really great to do a mission to Europa, particularly."
And asked where he would construct his massive rocket and spacecraft, Musk said he could see building and testing the systems at locations in Louisiana and Mississippi, the same places where NASA is currently working on its Space Launch System. The unsaid implication from Musk for NASA seemed clear: Why bother spending your billions to build the expensive SLS rocket, when I can build you a launcher many times more powerful, for less money, and keep people employed at some of your facilities?
Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos has tangled with Elon Musk on Twitter and in the court room over space achievements and sea-based landings. His company will likely become a direct competitor to SpaceX for government launch contracts. Win McNamee/Getty Images
Tory Bruno, chief executive officer of United Launch Alliance, urged the Department of Defense to reconsider SpaceX's safety record after the recent Falcon 9 accident. His company has been under intense pressure because its rockets have much higher launch costs than the Falcon 9. Drew Angerer/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Lori Garver, a deputy administrator of NASA earlier this decade, was a staunch supporter of SpaceX. She has since left NASA, but might return as an influential space policy leader in a Hillary Clinton administration. NASA
SpaceX is also up against the old guard of the aerospace industry, whom are all involved in the Space Launch System. Here, from left, are NASA's Bill Gerstenmaier, Charlie Precourt, Vice President and General Manager, ATK Space Launch Division; John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager, Boeing Space Exploration; Julie Van Kleek, Vice President, space programs, Aerojet Rocketdyne; and Jim Crocker, Vice President and General Manager, civil space, Lockheed Martin Space Systems. NASA
So far, at least, the current NASA leadership isn't interested. Earlier this month, in a clear reference to SpaceX, NASA administrator Charles Bolden said he wasn't a "big fan" of private companies building heavy lift launch vehicles that could take humans into deep space. That was for NASA to do.
Congress staunchly supports NASA in this view. Key members in the House and Senate have gone out of their way to stress the importance of the Space Launch System and Orion vehicles, plussing up budgets each year and demonstrating this is where they want the government's space dollars to go. There seems to be very little appetite in Washington D.C. to divert money away from the blessed plan, and its lucrative cost-plus contracts for traditional aerospace contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Congress also seems dubious about promises from Musk. And why not? They have those big contractors, and their lobbyists, constantly in their ears telling them how Musk will fail.
Credibility
During his speech Musk did not once mention the recent loss of his Falcon 9 rocket, which lies at the core of everything SpaceX wants to do right now. This booster delivers commercial satellites and cargo to orbit. It will fly astronauts into orbit in a couple of years. It is the basis of proving the reusability of orbital launch systems. So if there is no Falcon 9, there is no business. And there have been two Falcon 9 failures in 15 months, including a catastrophic ground test accident at the beginning of September that led to the total loss of the rocket and its Israeli satellite payload.
Musk was asked about the investigation into this second accident when he met with reporters later on Tuesday. The inquiry into the root cause of the recent failure was a "most vexing and difficult thing," Musk said. "We have eliminated all of the obvious possibilities for what occurred there. What remains are the less probable answers."
But despite the uncertainty about the loss of the Falcon 9 rocket during fuel loading operations, Musk said it represented just a "small thing" on a long road. Moreover he blamed the press for its focus on the failure. "If something happens to SpaceX it gets 100 times the press than if another rocket fails," he said. "Maybe 1,000 times."
It is probably more accurate to say that SpaceX garners an outsized amount of attention because it does the fantastic and the unprecedented—like fly large rockets into space, and then have them make spectacular, fiery landings on small barges in the middle of the ocean. It has a flamboyant chief executive who dares mighty things. When the company fails at what is perceived as a relatively straightforward task, like delivering a payload into orbit, the failure raises questions about the credibility of enacting a vision to deliver humongous payloads to the surface of Mars.
This is not the mere speculation of a reporter at Ars Technica. It is a message that comes through in discussions with very senior engineers at NASA, astronauts, and private industry officials who closely follow happenings at SpaceX and have watched the company successfully disrupt the global launch business.
But Elon Musk is a charismatic leader who, for better or worse, is driven by his own vision. He cannot help himself by grabbing for what is unimaginable to most of us. This single-minded drive to continue innovating, and continue pushing boundaries, may ultimately blow up his company. Or, one day, it may lead to the founding of Musk City on Mars.
The vision
Perhaps the biggest contribution from Tuesday's speech will come from Musk's clarion call to make humanity a multiplanetary species. In a particularly poetic moment, Musk expressed the need for "ensuring that the lamp of consciousness is not extinguished." What would happen if we fail to act upon his vision, or something like it, to have humans settle other worlds? "We're confined to one planet until an extinction event," he said.
Here, Musk differs markedly from NASA and the US government. For the agency, spaceflight can be measured a series of discrete goals. In the 1960s that meant a sequenced build-up of flights each building on the last, from Mercury to prove humans could survive in space, to Gemini to prove out rendezvous and long-duration flight, and culminating in a half-dozen Apollo missions to the surface of the Moon. Now NASA would like to begin with a few brave astronauts on the surface of Mars beginning in the late 2030s. It is about going, doing, proving, and then coming back. For Musk, though, it is about releasing the masses into space, and letting them create a new life in space.
That is the ethos espoused by Musk and the "new space" movement. They seek not to explore space to plant flags, but rather to open up new frontiers and provide humanity a backup plan. "This is different from Apollo. This is really about minimizing existential risk and having a tremendous sense of adventure," Musk said.
Although Musk has certainly become by far the most visible proponent of the "settlement" of space, others have come before him, such as the physicist Gerard O'Neill in the 1970s. Another scientist, Princeton astrobiologist Christopher Chyba, more recently said, "Humanity should become a space-faring civilization, and if that is not the point of human spaceflight, what the hell are we doing?"
Yet on Tuesday Elon Musk brought the "settlement" conversation out of the halls of space conferences and among the space Twitterati, and into the broader public consciousness. His plans for Mars became international news. The question now becomes whether the public shrugs this off, or if his message gains traction in the months and years ahead. Was it a moment, or a movement?
Tuesday's speech marked only the opening salvo in Musk's evangelism about the colonization of Mars. His search for a deep-pocketed backer now begins in earnest. For him, personally, and his company, this represents a huge gamble. By putting his entire vision out for the world to see, Musk has emboldened his doubters. Opponents will use details to undermine him. Certainly, they will mock his concept of using a booster with 42 engines. And Musk may just be OK with that. SpaceX has always been a longshot, Musk confided, sharing a delightfully awkward photo from 2002, when the company began. He had only given SpaceX about a 10 percent chance of "doing anything." Today they've upended the global launch business.
Musk's greatest attribute in an era of space timidity and a stagnated launch industry is probably this: he was never afraid to fail. In what may be his most revealing comment of all on Tuesday, he said, "I just kind of felt that if there wasn't some new entrant into the space arena with a strong ideological motivation, then it didn't seem like we were on a trajectory to ever be a spacefaring nation, and be out among the stars."
Musk decided fourteen years ago to see if he could do something about that. On Tuesday, he finally let it all hang out. This audacious plan might be madness, or brilliance—or both.
Musk is not the only one going full bore into space. Jeff Bezos, currently the world's 3rd richest man and worth a staggering $72 billion, recently released an only slightly less ambitious plan.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.space.com%2Fimages%2Fi%2F000%2F058%2F257%2Foriginal%2Fnew-glenn-large2.jpg%3F&hash=f31fbfbb40b5a3e6388e8b4a14b453c75d0af20d)
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/did-the-fourth-richest-human-just-tease-plans-to-colonize-the-moon/
QuoteWhy Bezos' rocket is unprecedented—and worth taking seriously
Why Blue Origin's crazy big rocket might fly, and what it means for spaceflight.
ERIC BERGER - 9/13/2016, 8:57 AM
We can say this much for Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com and Blue Origin—he does not lack ambition. First Bezos founded an online bookstore that became the largest retailer in the western world, and now he plans to self-fund a New Glenn rocket that is nearly as tall as the Saturn V launch vehicle and more than half as powerful.
As wild as Bezos' idea sounds, Blue Origin might be able to get the job done. And if Bezos and Blue Origin can fly their massive orbital rocket in the next three to four years, it would be a remarkable, unprecedented achievement in a number of ways that could radically remake spaceflight.
Proof of concept
First, a few words about why this might really be viable. It is true that all Blue Origin has flown so far is a propulsion module, powered by a single BE-3 engine, and a capsule on a suborbital flight. The company's New Shepard spacecraft is designed to carry six passengers on 10- to 15-minute hops up to about 100km before bringing them back down to Earth. This is not dissimilar to the first Mercury flights in the early 1960s, hence the moniker New Shepard, named after pioneering astronaut Alan Shepard.
But as simple as the New Shepard system appears, everything in it is designed to scale into New Glenn. The rockets are shaped similarly. The BE-4 engine is a progression from the reusable BE-3 engine. Both New Shepard and New Glenn are designed to have a flight life of at least 25 missions. And here's the crazy thing about Bezos—he thinks the bigger New Glenn rocket will be easier to land.
"The reason I like vertical landing is because it scales so well," he explained earlier this year. "New Shepard is about 80 feet tall. It's the shortest vehicle we will ever make. It gets easier to land the vehicles the bigger they get. It's the inverted pendulum problem. It's easier to balance bigger things. I like those architectures. Parachutes have the opposite problem; as things get bigger, it's very difficult. You can't build a parachute 1,000 feet in diameter. Even wings, they scale pretty well to a certain size, but they end up being a lot of dead weight to carry."
The bottom line: New Shepard may be small, but because Blue Origin has launched and landed the same rocket four times now, there is reason to believe an orbital rocket based upon the same concepts writ large just might work. New Shepard is the test bed, the proof of concept. So far it has worked nearly flawlessly.
Self-funded
Bezos is worth in excess of $60 billion, which makes him the third or fourth richest person in the world, depending upon the value of Amazon's stock. Although he has not publicly disclosed his investment in Blue Origin since 2014, it likely now exceeds $1 billion. That small (for someone with his resources) investment has funded the company for 16 years and led to the development of four generations of engines, including the BE-4. Its impressive 550,000 pounds of thrust power the orbital rocket.
SpaceX and Elon Musk deserve credit for shaking up the aerospace industry with lower-cost rockets and reusability, but SpaceX has not been largely self-funded. A majority of its revenues have come from NASA. Multibillion dollar contracts have allowed SpaceX to develop the workhorse Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule. Blue Origin, on the other hand, has received a scant $25.7 million from NASA as part of the early stages of the commercial crew program.
Bezos is under no pressure from investors to rush development, and he is under no pressure from customers to promise a certain delivery date. The success of his vehicle is neither reliant on winning a contract from NASA nor a subcontract from one of the big aerospace companies like Lockheed Martin or Boeing. New Glenn is solely dependent upon the ambition of Bezos and his willingness to fund the project, which seems ample.
"I'm perfectly willing to fund this for as long as is required," he said earlier this year. "There are way easier ways to make money. You don't go through the list of best risk-return possibilities and find spaceflight. That's not it. The reason you do this is because you're a missionary for this. You're passionate about it."
Ambitions
Rumors circulate of Bezos stepping back from his chief executive role at Amazon. He wants to spend more than the one day a week he works on Blue Origin. This indicates his passion in the future will be focused on spaceflight rather than commerce. He has always been fascinated by space travel, of course. Now he has the money to fulfill those interests.
Bezos reiterated Blue Origin's goal in an e-mail today: "Our vision is millions of people living and working in space." And although he may have started small with his proof-of-concept vehicle, New Shepard, the scope of New Glenn reveals that Bezos is really, really serious about spaceflight. For his orbital rocket, he could have chosen a launch vehicle based on one or two BE-4 engines, which would have been powerful enough to launch satellites into low-Earth orbit. This would have marked an incremental step toward bigger ambitions. Instead, he went for seven engines and 3.85 million pounds of thrust, nearly twice as powerful as any rocket flying today. Put another way, Blue Origin wants to go from a small, suborbital rocket to one that stands four times as tall and possesses 35 times the thrust. That is quite a leap.
Beyond an orbital rocket, when I had a chance to speak with Bezos earlier this year, he did not specify a plan about how millions of people will live and work in space once they get there. But it's clear he believes they will have to live off the land, be it the Moon, asteroids, or worlds beyond. "I think we have a lot of time to figure that out," Bezos said. "My view is you make plans for the near future, and you develop scenarios for the longer term, because so many things will change between now and then it doesn't make sense to make detailed plans for things like how you're going to do harvesting of resources from near-Earth objects. You want to think about those things, you want to develop scenarios, but you don't need to go all the way to a planning stage."
"Near-Earth objects" is an interesting choice of words. We can further glean some of his intentions from the name for the next rocket beyond New Glenn, which will be called New Armstrong. If New Shepard's namesake Alan Shepard made America's first suborbital flight and John Glenn made the first orbital flight, well, we all know what Neil Armstrong did. On Monday morning, will the fourth richest person in the world tease plans to mine or perhaps even colonize the Moon?
All available evidence suggests he is serious. We watch eagerly to see whether he succeeds.
That's from last September, Tim.
It's still pretty cool.
If we are still working up to Saturn V size and power, it seems pretty disappointing.
I mean, I would think modern technology would mean Saturn V capability would be much easier to get to and surpass...
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2017, 07:45:58 AM
That's from last September, Tim.
I said
QuoteWatched a bunch of videos and read a lot of articles about this recently and got all excited all over again!
Quote from: Berkut on February 27, 2017, 08:26:34 AM
If we are still working up to Saturn V size and power, it seems pretty disappointing.
I mean, I would think modern technology would mean Saturn V capability would be much easier to get to and surpass...
Space X's
Falcon Heavy and Blue Origin's
New Glenn while only having half the capacity of the Saturn V are much cheaper than previous launch systems, and the fact that they are reusable will cut costs further still.
Musk's
Interplanetary Transport System (and presumably Blue Origin's
New Armstrong) would blow the Saturn V out of the water.
In expendable mode it is designed to lift 550 metric tons of vs 140 for the Saturn V to LEO. For perspective the International Space Station masses 450 tons.
It's designed to deliver 450 tons to Mars. The Curiosity probe masses less than a ton and it's the largest thing ever delivered to Mars.
This is designed to deliver a 100 men to Mars. Apollo delivered two men to the Moon. The Apollo capsule was three meters long. The ITS ship is 50 meters long.
The New Horizon probe that flew by Pluto was the fastest thing ever launched by man at 36,000 mph. The ITS is designed to travel at 62,000 mph.
Apollo cost 4% of US GDP to pull off. Space X and Blue Horizon's programs are being supported by vastly less than that.
Quote from: Berkut on February 27, 2017, 08:26:34 AM
If we are still working up to Saturn V size and power, it seems pretty disappointing.
I mean, I would think modern technology would mean Saturn V capability would be much easier to get to and surpass...
There haven't been payloads worth spending the money on to exceed Saturn V lift capability. It is rather interesting that the US still hasn't been able to build a rocket engine that can compete effectively with the Russian rocket motors, and that it was only a year ago that a rocket engine was even tested that was more powerful for the weight than the NK-33 last manufactured in the Soviet Union in 1972.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 27, 2017, 08:57:52 AM
I said QuoteWatched a bunch of videos and read a lot of articles about this recently and got all excited all over again!
I cannot wait for you to breathlessly announce that the South Carolina militia
has fired on Fort Sumpter!!!111oneoneone :D
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2017, 09:09:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 27, 2017, 08:26:34 AM
If we are still working up to Saturn V size and power, it seems pretty disappointing.
I mean, I would think modern technology would mean Saturn V capability would be much easier to get to and surpass...
There haven't been payloads worth spending the money on to exceed Saturn V lift capability. It is rather interesting that the US still hasn't been able to build a rocket engine that can compete effectively with the Russian rocket motors, and that it was only a year ago that a rocket engine was even tested that was more powerful for the weight than the NK-33 last manufactured in the Soviet Union in 1972.
Indeed. I wonder if that is simply because the Soviets just weren't all that worried about safety, or complexity for that matter.
I suspect that most US rockets were relatively over-engineered compared to their Soviet counter parts....and when it comes to something like building the most efficient possible rocket from a thrust/weight standpoint, simplicity and size might be the way to go...
Quote from: Berkut on February 27, 2017, 09:13:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2017, 09:09:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 27, 2017, 08:26:34 AM
If we are still working up to Saturn V size and power, it seems pretty disappointing.
I mean, I would think modern technology would mean Saturn V capability would be much easier to get to and surpass...
There haven't been payloads worth spending the money on to exceed Saturn V lift capability. It is rather interesting that the US still hasn't been able to build a rocket engine that can compete effectively with the Russian rocket motors, and that it was only a year ago that a rocket engine was even tested that was more powerful for the weight than the NK-33 last manufactured in the Soviet Union in 1972.
Indeed. I wonder if that is simply because the Soviets just weren't all that worried about safety, or complexity for that matter.
I suspect that most US rockets were relatively over-engineered compared to their Soviet counter parts....and when it comes to something like building the most efficient possible rocket from a thrust/weight standpoint, simplicity and size might be the way to go...
Size isn't that important.
Space X's new Raptor engines are the same size as the previous Merlin engines, but they're using methane fuel under high pressure and are three times as powerful.
Quote from: Liep on September 28, 2016, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:35:33 PM
Did you think something like the discrediting of earthly empires would stop humanity's eternal need to colonize? Hell no. Watch out universe.
But who would want to live there? I get why people would want to be the first to go there, the desire to explore, etc, but to actually colonize it and have people live there permanently? I don't see it.
When a call went out for volunteers a large number applied.
Quote from: Berkut on February 27, 2017, 09:13:32 AM
Indeed. I wonder if that is simply because the Soviets just weren't all that worried about safety, or complexity for that matter.
I suspect that most US rockets were relatively over-engineered compared to their Soviet counter parts....and when it comes to something like building the most efficient possible rocket from a thrust/weight standpoint, simplicity and size might be the way to go...
It also had to do with the fact that the Soviets had better metallurgy than anyone since then, so could make rockets using techniques not seen since the 1970s. Modern Russia has the knowledge but not the quality control.
Huh. Better metallurgy? Really? As in "We can make materials stronger/lighter than you can" kind of thing?
What an odd thing to be better at - it would seem like a pretty easy thing for the US to figure out...
Quote from: Berkut on February 27, 2017, 11:24:04 AM
Huh. Better metallurgy? Really? As in "We can make materials stronger/lighter than you can" kind of thing?
What an odd thing to be better at - it would seem like a pretty easy thing for the US to figure out...
The process apparently required expensive-to-maintain equipment and environments, which is why the Soviets built a lot more engines than they needed and stored several hundred of them - because they knew couldn't maintain the capability and that they'd never invest in such an expensive process again. Forty-five years later, we still haven't used up all of those engines. It is an odd story, in many ways, and I might be misremembering parts of it, but the gist is correct.
I find that hard to believe. Materials science has made great strides in the last feew decades. Do you have a link or a cite for that?
Sweet! :cool:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/27/technology/spacex-moon-tourism/
Quote
SpaceX to fly two space tourists around the moon in 2018
by Matt McFarland @mattmcfarland
February 27, 2017: 4:44 PM ET
Two thrill seekers are paying SpaceX to make a trip around the moon next year.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk announced Monday afternoon that the space tourists had already placed a significant deposit for the trip. The travelers will undergo fitness tests and begin training later this year.
"Like the Apollo astronauts before them, these individuals will travel into space carrying the hopes and dreams of all humankind, driven by the universal human spirit of exploration," SpaceX said in a blog post.
For takeoff, SpaceX will use the same launch pad near Cape Canaveral, Florida, that was used for the Apollo programs missions. No humans have traveled past low Earth orbit since the final Apollo mission in 1972. (Low-earth orbit is essentially the first rung on the ladder in being to space. It's also where some satellites that circle the Earth reside.)
The company doesn't expect this to be a one-time mission. SpaceX said that other people have expressed strong interest in making the trip. The names of the first two travelers have not been released. They are likely paying millions for the adventure.
For comparison, space tourists have previously paid the Russia government upwards of $20 million for a trip to the International Space Station. NASA has paid the Russians $80 million a seat to send astronauts to the space station. SpaceX has not revealed the price of the roughly week-long trip.
SpaceX is putting forward an aggressive timeline for the mission, which will rely on a rocket and spacecraft that have not flown yet. The Falcon Heavy rocket is expected to make a test flight this summer. And the Crew Dragon spacecraft, which will hold the two tourists, will complete a demo mission later this year.
"Next year is going to be a big year for carrying people to the space station and hopefully beyond," Musk said in a conference call with reporters.
Musk is a fag
Speaking of Musk, how's the giant vacuum train project going?
I'm planning a trip to orbit Katmai. Orbits last 72 hours.
It's not going to happen in 2018, Tim. This is just Musk selling more hype. They're not ready.
Those are nine-figure tickets. Not too many guys who can drop that on a vacation, especially one that dangerous.
Quote from: Neil on February 28, 2017, 12:36:36 AM
It's not going to happen in 2018, Tim. This is just Musk selling more hype. They're not ready.
Those are nine-figure tickets. Not too many guys who can drop that on a vacation, especially one that dangerous.
Well yeah, a 12-18 month delay is just asumed I think. Still, that's quite soon and plausible.
We'll see. We're talking about a booster that still hasn't even had a test flight, launching a very large payload, with a living cargo. If this happens before the end of the decade I'd be somewhat surprised.
Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin get in on the action!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/02/an-exclusive-look-at-jeff-bezos-plan-to-set-up-amazon-like-delivery-for-future-human-settlement-of-the-moon/?utm_term=.6da1360b7e07
Quote
An exclusive look at Jeff Bezos's plan to set up Amazon-like delivery for 'future human settlement' of the moon
By Christian Davenport March 2
More than four decades after the last man walked on the lunar surface, several upstart space entrepreneurs are looking to capitalize on NASA's renewed interest in returning to the moon, offering a variety of proposals with the ultimate goal of establishing a lasting human presence there.
The commercial sector's interest comes as many anticipate support from the Trump administration, which is eager for a first-term triumph to rally the nation the way the Apollo flights did in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The latest to offer a proposal is Jeffrey P. Bezos, whose space company Blue Origin has been circulating a seven-page white paper to NASA leadership and President Trump's transition team about the company's interest in developing a lunar spacecraft with a lander that would touch down near a crater at the south pole where there is water and nearly continuous sunlight for solar energy. The memo urges the space agency to back an Amazon-like shipment service for the moon that would deliver gear for experiments, cargo and habitats by mid-2020, helping to enable "future human settlement" of the moon. (Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, owns The Washington Post.)
"It is time for America to return to the Moon — this time to stay," Bezos said in response to emailed questions from The Post. "A permanently inhabited lunar settlement is a difficult and worthy objective. I sense a lot of people are excited about this."
The Post obtained a copy of the white paper, marked "proprietary and confidential," and the company then confirmed its authenticity and agreed to answer questions about it.
Bezos's proposal comes as SpaceX founder Elon Musk made a stunning announcement this week that his company planned to fly two unnamed, private citizens on a tourist trip around the moon by next year — an ambitious timeline that, if met, could beat a similar mission by NASA.
[SpaceX plans to fly two private citizens around the moon by late next year.]
Anticipating that the Trump administration is focusing on the moon, the space agency recently announced it is considering adding astronauts to the first flight of its Space Launch System rocket and Orion crew capsule. That flight, originally scheduled to fly without humans in 2018, would also circle the moon. But as the space agency seeks to move faster under the Trump administration, it is now studying the feasibility of adding crew for a mission that would then occur by 2019.
Obama killed plans for a lunar mission, saying in 2010 that "we've been there before." But the administration's Mars plan was still far from actually delivering humans there, and critics grew frustrated that NASA has not been able to fly humans out of low Earth orbit since the 1970s. A shot around the moon, however, could be feasible, even within a few years.
Blue Origin's proposal, dated Jan. 4, doesn't involve flying humans, but rather is focused on a series of cargo missions. Those could deliver the equipment necessary to help establish a human colony on the moon — unlike the Apollo missions, in which the astronauts left "flags and footprints" and then came home.
NASA already has shown a willingness to work closely with the commercial sector, hiring companies to fly supplies and eventually astronauts to the International Space Station. It is providing technical expertise, but no funding, to SpaceX's plan to fly an uncrewed spacecraft to Mars by 2020.
The prospect of a lunar mission has several companies lining up to provide not just transportation, but also habitats, science experiments and even the ability to mine the moon for resources.
The United Launch Alliance, the joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, has also been working on plans to create a transportation network to the area around the moon, known as cislunar space.
"I'm excited by the possibilities," said Tory Bruno, the alliance's chief executive. "This administration, near as we can tell, feels a sense of urgency to go out and make things happen, and to have high-profile demonstrations that are along the road map to accomplish these broad goals. ... There is an opportunity to begin building that infrastructure right now — within the next four years."
Robert Bigelow, the founder of Bigelow Aerospace, a maker of inflatable space habitats, said his company could create a depot that could orbit the moon by 2020, housing supplies and medial facilities, as well as humans. A smaller version of the possible habitats, known as the BEAM, is docked to the International Space Station, where astronauts have been testing it.
In an interview, Bigelow said he was glad the administration seems to be refocusing on the moon. "Mars is premature at this time. The moon is not," he said. "We have the technology. We have the ability, and the potential for a terrific business case."
At an Aviation Week awards ceremony Thursday evening, Bezos added that the moon could help propel humans even further into space, to destinations such as Mars: "I think that if you go to the moon first, and make the moon your home, then you can get to Mars more easily."
After remaining quiet and obsessively secretive for years, Blue Origin's attempt to partner with NASA is a huge coming out of sorts for the company, which has been funded almost exclusively by Bezos. The paper urges NASA to develop a program that provides "incentives to the private sector to demonstrate a commercial lunar cargo delivery service."
Blue Origin could perform the first lunar mission as early as July 2020, Bezos wrote, but stressed that it could "only be done in partnership with NASA. Our liquid hydrogen expertise and experience with precision vertical landing offer the fastest path to a lunar lander mission. I'm excited about this and am ready to invest my own money alongside NASA to make it happen."
Last year, Blue Origin successfully launched and landed its suborbital rocket, the New Shepard, five times within less than a year, flying just past the 62-mile edge of space and then landing vertically on a landing pad at the company's West Texas facility.
That same technology could be used to land the Blue Moon vehicle on the lunar surface, the company said. Its white paper shows what looks like a modified New Shepard rocket, standing on the moon with an American flag, a NASA logo and Blue Origin's feather symbol.
The company said it plans to land its Blue Moon lunar lander at Shackleton Crater on the moon's south pole. The site has nearly continuous sunlight to provide power through the spacecraft's solar arrays. The company also chose to land there because of the "water ice in the perpetual shadow of the crater's deep crevices."
Water is vital not just for human survival, but also because hydrogen and oxygen in water could be transformed into rocket fuel. The moon, then, is seen as a massive gas station in space.
The Blue Moon spacecraft could carry as much as 10,000 pounds of material and fly atop several different rockets, including NASA's Space Launch System, the United Launch Alliance's Atlas V or its own New Glenn rocket, which is under development and expected to fly by the end of the decade, the company said.
"Once on the surface, the lander's useful payload can be used to conduct science or deploy rovers," the company said. "A robotic arm attached to the lander will deploy to examine the lunar surface with an array of instruments."
The initial landing "is envisioned as the first in a series of increasingly capable missions," including flying samples of lunar ice back to Earth for study.
The company said it could also help deliver the cargo and supplies needed for human settlements.
"Blue Moon is all about cost-effective delivery of mass to the surface of the Moon," Bezos wrote. "Any credible first lunar settlement will require that capability."
So they'll bring the cargo, but nothing about the economic basis of said human habitation.
News on the New Glenn. The Two stage version will be able to lift 45 tons to LEO or 13 tons to geostationary transfer orbit.
Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTEhohh6eYk
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/blue-origin-releases-details-of-its-monster-orbital-rocket/?comments=1
Quote
Blue Origin releases details of its monster orbital rocket
The privately developed rocket will also be capable of 100 reuses, Jeff Bezos says.
Eric Berger - 3/8/2017, 12:00 AM
After months of speculation, Blue Origin finally released more details about its New Glenn rocket on Tuesday. The 82-meter-tall rocket will have the capacity to lift 45 tons to low Earth orbit and an impressive 13 tons to geostationary transfer orbit. The two-stage rocket should be ready for its maiden flight by the end of 2019, company founder Jeff Bezos said.
New Glenn, named for the first US astronaut to orbit Earth, John Glenn, will also have a fully reusable first stage. In addition to remarks by Bezos at the Satellite 2017 conference in Washington, Blue Origin released a video showing the rocket's return to Earth. It will employ aerodynamic strakes for maneuvering during the return and will land on a barge. It is designed for up to 100 reuses. The rocket's return looks similar to that of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, but New Glenn is a larger and considerably more powerful booster.
Were it flying today, New Glenn would in fact be the most powerful rocket on Earth. However, other large boosters are also under development that will likely fly first. SpaceX is building the Falcon Heavy, which will have the capacity to deliver 53 tons to low Earth orbit, and NASA is developing the Space Launch System with a 70-ton capacity.
Today's announcement, therefore, marks the beginning of a golden era of heavy-lift booster development. During the next few years, these three rockets will be competing on performance, price, and reliability. In addition to large satellite launches, they will also potentially enable NASA's deep-space exploration plans—including lunar exploration—and potentially missions to Mars. Both Blue Origin and SpaceX anticipate much lower operating costs than the government rocket, and both will be pursuing reusability. But as ever in the rocket business, it's one thing to show a video rendering a future launch. It's another thing to reach the launch pad, fly, and reuse.
During his talk on Tuesday, Bezos expressed confidence in the prospects for New Glenn, saying the company has learned important lessons from the development of its New Shepard rocket and spacecraft, which has already demonstrated low-cost reusability and could begin suborbital tourism flights as early as next year. "This is what is making it possible for us to build an orbital vehicle," he said. "The orbital vehicle is 100 percent informed by all of the lessons that we learned in the course of the New Shepard program, so it's very directly relevant."
Some critics have dinged Blue Origin for its initial focus on space tourism, saying the company isn't really serious about space exploration. But such criticism is misguided, Bezos said, noting that in the past, entertainment has been a driver for important innovation. "There are historical cases where entertainment turns out to be a driver of technologies that then become very practical and utilitarian for other things," he said, citing the early use of aviation for barnstorming, and GPUs originally developed for PC gaming now employed in machine learning.
Whatever one thinks of New Shepard and its brief suborbital hops, however, there can be little question that New Glenn is a serious rocket. The booster already has a customer, too—Eutelsat has contracted with Blue Origin for a geostationary satellite launch. Moreover, New Glenn is also, as Bezos repeated Tuesday, "the smallest orbital rocket Blue Origin will ever build." In the future, even larger boosters are coming, such as the previously teased New Armstrong rocket. The tech mogul has recently said that lunar exploration is the next logical step for human activity in space.
My plan to orbit Katmai has hit a snag. My Swastika shaped rocket exploded on the pad.
Not very aerodynamic. You should just go with the traditional penis shape.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 07, 2017, 08:00:31 PM
Not very aerodynamic. You should just go with the traditional penis shape.
More symbolic of the Nazis, to boot.
I changed the design to a FN symbol.
MAXIMIUM TROLLING
Fuckin' incredible! :punk:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/mar/30/spacex-falcon-9-elon-musk-reusable-rocket
Quote
SpaceX becomes first to re-fly used rocket
Partially recycled Falcon 9 rocket successfully launched and landed, a step toward vastly less expensive spaceflight
Alan Yuhas in San Francisco
Friday 31 March 2017 00.24 BST
SpaceX launched its first "pre-flown" rocket on Thursday, marking the first time anyone has relaunched a booster into space in what CEO Elon Musk called "a milestone in the history of space".
"This is going to be ultimately a huge revolution in spaceflight," Musk said on a SpaceX broadcast of the launch.
He said that accomplishment – to "fly and re-fly an orbital-class booster" – was like finally achieving reliable aircraft rather than throwing away an airplane after every flight.
"It's taken us a long time, a lot of difficult steps along the way," he said, "but I'm just incredibly proud of the spaceflight team."
The success is a step toward vastly less expensive spaceflight, which some hope can revolutionize travel in the solar system and take humans to Mars. While Nasa for decades used reusable spacecraft – its famous space shuttle fleet – the space agency has found that the intense maintenance the shuttles need makes them more expensive than rockets, at least with current technology.
"No one has ever done anything like this before," SpaceX CEO Gwynne Shotwell said in a company broadcast before the launch. "We're not one-way trip to Mars people. We want to make sure that whoever we take can come back."
Under clear skies at the Kennedy Space Center, near Cape Canaveral, Florida, SpaceX launched its partially recycled Falcon 9 rocket at 6.37pm local time. A few minutes later the booster separated from its payload, to raucous cheers from engineers at the space center.
Then the rocket sank downward back toward the earth, burning back through the shield of the atmosphere, on its way toward its destination: a drone ship in the Atlantic Ocean, called the Of Course I Still Love You.
The equivalent of a 14-story building, the rocket hurtled downward at nearly a mile a second, thrusters firing to slow down, until finally it landed, secure and upright on the ship, to a final burst of applause.
The rocket had already secured its place in SpaceX's history: in April 2016 it became the first rocket to successfully land on a droneship in the Atlantic, after a supply mission to the International Space Station. The booster – the nine-engine base of the rocket – was then taken back to the mainland and refurbished.
The booster carried a communications satellite for the Luxembourg company SES, which reportedly received a discount on the launch, which normally cost around $60m per launch. Reliable, reusable rockets could dramatically lower that cost, making it easier for space agencies and private companies to get satellites, telescopes, supplies and, eventually, people into space.
Analysis/ SpaceX mission could herald new era of reusable rockets
Plan for Falcon 9 rocket, due to launch on Tuesday, to land on giant floating platform in ocean will be 'like balancing a broomstick on your hand in a storm'
SpaceX first landed one of its Falcon 9 rockets in 2015, a month after another tech billionaire, Jeff Bezos, and his company Blue Origin landed. A smaller rocket has reached the lower edge of outer space – still far below the orbital zones reached by SpaceX missions. SpaceX has launched and landed eight of 13 attempted rocket launches, with several explosive failures over the years. Blue Origin has launched and landed four rockets, and this month Bezos unveiled a new, larger rocket booster as well as a planned tourist capsule.
Two would-be space tourists have already signed up to travel with SpaceX, Musk revealed last month, without any details about who the "private citizens" were or what "significant deposit" they paid to fly around the moon. He said they are aiming for a 2018 mission, even though SpaceX has yet to test the heavy rocket that would carry people, or to take any humans into space.
Musk's ambitions have costly risks. One of SpaceX's rockets exploded on its launch platform last September, destroying the booster, the spacecraft and its cargo – a multimillion-dollar satellite, in part owned by Facebook – setting back the company's plans to relaunch a used rocket. The explosion also underscored the dangers for human passengers on private spacecraft, and a government audit released this year questioned whether SpaceX could safely resolve rocket problems or realize some of its lofty goals.
Ever optimistic, Musk has said that he believes most rocket parts can be used dozens of times, and that even heat shields could survive more than 10 burning passages through the atmosphere.
Nasa is working on its own new rocket, called the Space Launch System, whose designs would make it the most powerful rocket yet devised. The agency hopes to use the SLS to send explorer spacecraft and robots into deep space, and humans to an asteroid and Mars.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 07, 2017, 07:52:01 PM
My plan to orbit Katmai has hit a snag. My Swastika shaped rocket exploded on the pad.
No problem. Just ask your wife for another pad.
Wut
Sigh.
Musk published his plans in an online journal. :)
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/space.2017.29009.emu
Quote from: Liep on September 28, 2016, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:35:33 PM
Did you think something like the discrediting of earthly empires would stop humanity's eternal need to colonize? Hell no. Watch out universe.
But who would want to live there? I get why people would want to be the first to go there, the desire to explore, etc, but to actually colonize it and have people live there permanently? I don't see it.
Earth won't sustain human life in a few billion years. We need to act early.
Seriously, it is true that the missions to the Moon or Mars seem to lack real purpose other than achieving a successful landing.
Quote from: Rex Francorum on June 19, 2017, 11:41:02 PM
Quote from: Liep on September 28, 2016, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2016, 03:35:33 PM
Did you think something like the discrediting of earthly empires would stop humanity's eternal need to colonize? Hell no. Watch out universe.
But who would want to live there? I get why people would want to be the first to go there, the desire to explore, etc, but to actually colonize it and have people live there permanently? I don't see it.
Earth won't sustain human life in a few billion years. We need to act early.
Seriously, it is true that the missions to the Moon or Mars seem to lack real purpose other than achieving a successful landing.
Bezos and Musk definitely have huge long term plans.
Musk wants to build a sustainable civilization on Mars.
Bezos wants to move industry into cislunar space, colonize the orbitals and monopilze the resources of near Earth asteroids.
Musk is a homo.
I'm still not seeing what is economical about a city on Mars. Cities tend to be built near places where there are natural resources or areas of easy transportation. This is like building a city in the middle of Baffin Island without the benefit of air.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 20, 2017, 12:17:32 AM
Bezos wants to move industry into cislunar space,
Transphobic of him.
This is stupid. NASA should be doing all this.
Oh wait, I forgot. Government performing in the name of the national interest sucks.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 20, 2017, 12:17:32 AM
Bezos and Musk definitely have huge long term plans.
Musk wants to build a sustainable civilization on Mars.
Bezos wants to move industry into cislunar space, colonize the orbitals and monopilze the resources of near Earth asteroids.
The fact that two billionaires have vanity projects and are trying to raise money from similarly-minded idle rich does not address the question of what the fuck the point would be for the rest of us.
Must there be a point for us? I'm not investing anything.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 20, 2017, 05:18:58 PM
Must there be a point for us? I'm not investing anything.
Timmy has talked before about public funding for building Muskville on Mars.
Do we need a reason to expand our stellar colonial empire? Pity about the lack of natives to exploit though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2017, 04:57:25 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 20, 2017, 12:17:32 AM
Bezos and Musk definitely have huge long term plans.
Musk wants to build a sustainable civilization on Mars.
Bezos wants to move industry into cislunar space, colonize the orbitals and monopilze the resources of near Earth asteroids.
The fact that two billionaires have vanity projects and are trying to raise money from similarly-minded idle rich does not address the question of what the fuck the point would be for the rest of us.
Is this a serious question? The first men and the first nation that effectively exploits the resources of the solar system will grow fabulously wealthy. That's like asking "what's the point of these rich merchants investing in steam engines to the rest of us" in the mid18th century.
Cheap platinum group metals and rare earth minerals will lower the cost of electronics and many industrial devices, and allow engineers to design and build many technological advances that rely on those materials being cheap. As a bonus, mining in space has none of the enviornmentally harmful effects that mining on earth does.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2017, 12:34:51 AM
As a bonus, mining in space has none of the enviornmentally harmful effects that mining on earth does.
:lol: I'm sure environmental groups are gonna fully agree. They don't even think we have the right to fuck up our own planet, surely they'll love for us to rape space.
Quote from: The Brain on June 21, 2017, 01:14:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2017, 12:34:51 AM
As a bonus, mining in space has none of the enviornmentally harmful effects that mining on earth does.
:lol: I'm sure environmental groups are gonna fully agree. They don't even think we have the right to fuck up our own planet, surely they'll love for us to rape space.
The lunatic fringe, maybe, but they won't get much traction without NIMBY types.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 21, 2017, 03:00:07 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 21, 2017, 01:14:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2017, 12:34:51 AM
As a bonus, mining in space has none of the enviornmentally harmful effects that mining on earth does.
:lol: I'm sure environmental groups are gonna fully agree. They don't even think we have the right to fuck up our own planet, surely they'll love for us to rape space.
The lunatic fringe, maybe, but they won't get much traction without NIMBY types.
Like how the interior of Antarctica is fair game?
I have no idea.
But I'll note that changes to the environment in Antarctica(like the hole in ozone layer) affect the rest of the planet. Will this e true of asteroid mining? I don't know.
Of course not. They are committed to saving the Earth Mother. The sexist Sky Father can go get fucked.
But speaking of saving Father Sky we might want to clean up all that space trash orbiting earth at 8 km a second before we start mining all the asteroids.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2017, 12:34:51 AM
The first men and the first nation that effectively exploits the resources of the solar system will grow fabulously wealthy. That's like asking "what's the point of these rich merchants investing in steam engines to the rest of us" in the mid18th century.
The first people and the first nation to exploit the resources of the Andromeda galaxy will also be fabulously wealthy. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to invest billions of dollars into an inter-galactic mining venture now.
It's a simple question of ROI given existing technology. If it's there - fine, but if it's not there then the fact that someone will become fabuously wealthy in the future is irrelevant. All that will happen now is that someone fabulously wealthy will become somewhat less fabulously wealthy - or, more likely, that they will waste a bunch of other peoples' money.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2017, 12:34:51 AM
The fact that two billionaires have vanity projects and are trying to raise money from similarly-minded idle rich does not address the question of what the fuck the point would be for the rest of us.
Is this a serious question? The first men and the first nation that effectively exploits the resources of the solar system will grow fabulously wealthy. That's like asking "what's the point of these rich merchants investing in steam engines to the rest of us" in the mid18th century.
Cheap platinum group metals and rare earth minerals will lower the cost of electronics and many industrial devices, and allow engineers to design and build many technological advances that rely on those materials being cheap. As a bonus, mining in space has none of the enviornmentally harmful effects that mining on earth does.
Well if you make a mistake in earth orbit with hundred million tons of iron or platinum you might just cause a mass extinction.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2017, 03:59:43 PM
Is this a serious question? The first men and the first nation that effectively exploits the resources of the solar system will grow fabulously wealthy. That's like asking "what's the point of these rich merchants investing in steam engines to the rest of us" in the mid18th century.
Cheap platinum group metals and rare earth minerals will lower the cost of electronics and many industrial devices, and allow engineers to design and build many technological advances that rely on those materials being cheap. As a bonus, mining in space has none of the enviornmentally harmful effects that mining on earth does.
Well if you make a mistake in earth orbit with hundred million tons of iron or platinum you might just cause a mass extinction.
It wasn't a question at all, serious or ridiculous. It was a statement.
Second, I was responding to a post chain that, at least in my perception, was about colonizing Mars, not remote mining.
Third, see Joan's post about the relationship between getting fabulously wealthy, technology, and rate of return.
Oops.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2017, 02:08:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2017, 12:34:51 AM
The first men and the first nation that effectively exploits the resources of the solar system will grow fabulously wealthy. That's like asking "what's the point of these rich merchants investing in steam engines to the rest of us" in the mid18th century.
The first people and the first nation to exploit the resources of the Andromeda galaxy will also be fabulously wealthy. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to invest billions of dollars into an inter-galactic mining venture now.
It's a simple question of ROI given existing technology. If it's there - fine, but if it's not there then the fact that someone will become fabuously wealthy in the future is irrelevant. All that will happen now is that someone fabulously wealthy will become somewhat less fabulously wealthy - or, more likely, that they will waste a bunch of other peoples' money.
Without question it exists now. Musk has already cut the cost to orbit by 80%. The United Launch Alliance charges the military over 400 million dollars per launch, Musk charges 90 million. And that's nearly a 50% mark up due to all the national security loops they have to go through. He charges commercial ventures 65 million.
That's not even taking into account the reusable rockets he has just developed. That's going to cut the cost to launch F9s to 30 million (a conservative estimate).
Blue Origin has likewise developed reusable rocket technology.
Musk on the March!
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40404201
QuoteSpaceX completes launch and landing double bill
By Jonathan Amos
BBC Science Correspondent
US rocket company SpaceX completed back-to-back launches at the weekend.
Late on Friday, it used one of its refurbished Falcon 9 vehicles to put up a Bulgarian satellite from Florida.
Then on Sunday, SpaceX lofted another 10 spacecraft for telecommunications company Iridium. This time, the rocket flew out of California.
Both missions saw the Falcon first-stages come back to Earth under control to drone ships that had been positioned out on the ocean.
It means SpaceX has now had 13 landing successes for those missions it has sought to recover the booster. That said, Friday's first-stage had a particularly hard landing, and looked bent over on the live video feed.
"Rocket is extra toasty and hit the deck hard (used almost all of the emergency crush core), but otherwise good," quipped SpaceX chief executive, Elon Musk, on Twitter.
His firm does not expect to recover every booster, because the flight profile required on many satellite launches will lead to re-entry speeds that are simply too fast to curtail with the available propellant.
Friday's mission was launched from the US East Coast, from the Kennedy Space Center's famous Apollo and shuttle pad, 39A.
The "second-hand" Falcon 9 lifted off at 15:10 local time (1910 GMT).
Its passenger, BulgariaSat-1, was dropped off in orbit, some 30 minutes later.
The spacecraft will be used to beam TV into homes in Bulgaria and Serbia.
The Falcon booster was last flown in January, to launch 10 satellites for the Iridium sat-phone and data-relay company. And it was another Iridium launch that topped out the weekend's activities.
This second mission, on a brand new Falcon, occurred on the West Coast, from the Vandenberg Air Force Base.
Iridium is in the midst of replacing its global network of satellites. Another 10 went up on this latest flight.
SpaceX has another six launches on the books for Iridium, whose existing network of more than 60 spacecraft is now well past its design life.
Sunday's lift-off occurred at 13:25 local time (20:25 GMT). The returning booster on this occasion sported new titanium grid fins to help steer the vehicle back to its waiting drone ship.
The titanium ought to be more robust than the previous aluminium type, said Mr Musk, removing the requirement for repair or replacement. This should speed the turnaround of future boosters for re-use.
"New titanium grid fins worked even better than expected. Should be capable of an indefinite number of flights with no service," the CEO tweeted.
The numbers for my claim two posts up.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/air-force-budget-reveals-how-much-spacex-undercuts-launch-prices/?comments=1&post=33504873
QuoteSCIENTIFIC METHOD —
Air Force budget reveals how much SpaceX undercuts launch prices
Spoiler alert: It's a lot.
ERIC BERGER - 6/16/2017, 7:55 AM
A Delta IV Heavy rocket launches a national security satellite in 2016.
United Launch Alliance
In 2014, the US Government Accountability Office issued a report on cost estimates for the US Air Force's program to launch national security payloads, which at the time consisted of a fleet of rockets maintained and flown entirely by United Launch Alliance (ULA). The report was critical of the non-transparent nature of ULA's launch prices and noted that the government "lacked sufficient knowledge to negotiate fair and reasonable launch prices" with the monopoly.
At around the same time, the new space rocket company SpaceX began to aggressively pursue the opportunity to launch national security payloads for the government. SpaceX claimed to offer a substantially lower price for delivering satellites into various orbits around Earth. But because of the lack of transparency, comparing prices was difficult.
The price uncertainty was largely due to the fact that the government pays both a firm, fixed-price cost for the rocket used for each ULA launch—be it an Atlas V, Delta IV, or Delta IV Heavy—as well as a cost-plus incentive fee known as an ELC contract. This ELC contact was essentially a payment to ULA to maintain "launch readiness" for critical national security payloads. And the large-rocket company, co-owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, put the money to good use with a perfect launch record for the federal government. To critics, however, this large, nebulous payment amounted to an anti-competitive subsidy once SpaceX began offering the Falcon 9 rocket as a viable alternative.
Now, transparency is coming to the federal launch market, allowing lawmakers to more directly compare the costs of ULA's launch vehicles against those of new space competitors, such as SpaceX. Because of the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, the Air Force budget request must consolidate rocket launch costs into a single budget line beginning in fiscal year 2020.
A $422 million launch?
The Air Force recently released budget estimates for fiscal year 2018, and these include a run out into the early 2020s. For these years, the budget combines the fixed price rocket and ELC contract costs into a single budget line. (See page 109 of this document). They are strikingly high. According to the Air Force estimate, the "unit cost" of a single rocket launch in fiscal year 2020 is $422 million, and $424 million for a year later.
FURTHER READING
ULA executive admits company cannot compete with SpaceX on launch costs
This is a complex number to unpack. But based upon discussions with various space policy experts, this is the maximum amount the Air Force believes it will need to pay, per launch, if United Launch Alliance is selected for all of its launch needs in 2020. ULA launches about a half-dozen payloads for the Air Force in a given year, on variants of its rockets. Therefore, the 2020 unit cost likely includes a mix of mostly Atlas V rockets (sold on the commercial market for about $100 million) and perhaps one Delta rocket launch (up to $350 million on the commercial market for a Heavy variant).
One person who has reviewed the Air Force budget and is sympathetic to the new space industry said the following:
That is a tad more expensive than the amount ULA would ever tell taxpayers they are paying for one of its launches, and it illustrates the extent to which those taxpayers are forced to subsidize ULA in order to maintain the fiction that it is a competitive private sector company.
Essentially, then, while ULA has talked publicly about lowering the costs of its boosters for the commercial sector and the federal government, the US Department of Defense is suggesting in its budget that ULA's costs are as high as they have ever been. In response to a media query from Ars, a spokeswoman for the Colorado-based United Launch Alliance referred questions to the Air Force. (Update: On Friday morning the chief executive of United Launch Alliance, Tory Bruno, responded to the article on Twitter, calling it "misleading." He did not provide additional cost details, however.)
SpaceX costs are lower
The ULA monopoly ended when SpaceX began to compete for national security payloads alongside ULA, and launch them. (The California-based company's first national security launch, a National Reconnaissance Office spy satellite, came in May). And side-by-side the government's estimates for ULA launches, SpaceX's costs appear to be considerably lower.
For example, about 14 months ago, the Air Force awarded SpaceX an $83 million contract to launch a GPS 3 satellite. And in March 2017, SpaceX won a contract to launch another GPS 3 satellite for $96.5 million. These represent "all-in, fully burdened costs" to the government, and so they seem to be roughly comparable to the $422 million "unit cost" in the Air Force budget for 2020.
FURTHER READING
Citing costs, US Air Force turns to SpaceX for its next spy plane launch
SpaceX sells basic commercial launches of its Falcon 9 rocket for about $65 million. But, for military launches, there are additional range costs and service contracts that add tens of millions of dollars to the total price. It therefore seems possible that SpaceX is taking a loss or launching at little or no profit to undercut its rival and gain market share in the high-volume military launch market.
The deal appears to be a good one for taxpayers, regardless. During a congressional hearing earlier this month, new Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson acknowledged this by saying, "The benefit we're seeing now is competition. There are some very exciting things happening in commercial space that bring the opportunity for assured access to space at a very competitive price." A careful reading of the new Air Force budget provides an inkling of just how great those savings might be.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 22, 2017, 04:02:28 AM
Without question it exists now. Musk has already cut the cost to orbit by 80%. The United Launch Alliance charges the military over 400 million dollars per launch, Musk charges 90 million. And that's nearly a 50% mark up due to all the national security loops they have to go through. He charges commercial ventures 65 million.
That's not even taking into account the reusable rockets he has just developed. That's going to cut the cost to launch F9s to 30 million (a conservative estimate).
What is the "it"? My question is - what is the ROI on a asteroid mining project? Launch to orbit is just one component of the cost of that project. What is the cost of getting mining equipment to an asteroid, what is the cost or feasibility of doing the mining, what is the cost of extracting and transporting it back, what is the likely yield in mineral content from such a project and the revenue from that yield, what is the probability of some failure during this whole chain?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2017, 12:40:24 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 22, 2017, 04:02:28 AM
Without question it exists now. Musk has already cut the cost to orbit by 80%. The United Launch Alliance charges the military over 400 million dollars per launch, Musk charges 90 million. And that's nearly a 50% mark up due to all the national security loops they have to go through. He charges commercial ventures 65 million.
That's not even taking into account the reusable rockets he has just developed. That's going to cut the cost to launch F9s to 30 million (a conservative estimate).
What is the "it"? My question is - what is the ROI on a asteroid mining project? Launch to orbit is just one component of the cost of that project. What is the cost of getting mining equipment to an asteroid, what is the cost or feasibility of doing the mining, what is the cost of extracting and transporting it back, what is the likely yield in mineral content from such a project and the revenue from that yield, what is the probability of some failure during this whole chain?
From my little experience in the mining industry, mining is incredibly cost-sensitive. There are any number of ore bodies that have been discovered but are not being developed because they can not be done profitably. There's no element or mineral that just can't be found on earth, or that is worth so much you would pay almost any price to obtain.
Lots of potential mines in places like Canada's north that could be developed, but the travel costs make it uneconomical. And it's a lot easier to get to the NWT than it is the asteroid belt.
Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2017, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2017, 12:40:24 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 22, 2017, 04:02:28 AM
Without question it exists now. Musk has already cut the cost to orbit by 80%. The United Launch Alliance charges the military over 400 million dollars per launch, Musk charges 90 million. And that's nearly a 50% mark up due to all the national security loops they have to go through. He charges commercial ventures 65 million.
That's not even taking into account the reusable rockets he has just developed. That's going to cut the cost to launch F9s to 30 million (a conservative estimate).
What is the "it"? My question is - what is the ROI on a asteroid mining project? Launch to orbit is just one component of the cost of that project. What is the cost of getting mining equipment to an asteroid, what is the cost or feasibility of doing the mining, what is the cost of extracting and transporting it back, what is the likely yield in mineral content from such a project and the revenue from that yield, what is the probability of some failure during this whole chain?
From my little experience in the mining industry, mining is incredibly cost-sensitive. There are any number of ore bodies that have been discovered but are not being developed because they can not be done profitably. There's no element or mineral that just can't be found on earth, or that is worth so much you would pay almost any price to obtain.
Lots of potential mines in places like Canada's north that could be developed, but the travel costs make it uneconomical. And it's a lot easier to get to the NWT than it is the asteroid belt.
They're uneconomical to mine because they don't have enough metals/minerals to make it worth it to mine.
A single 500 meter near earth asteroid has more nickel, gold, platinum group metals and rare earths than has ever been mined in history.
CNBC estimates a market cap for SpaceX of at least $75 Billion and believes that they will eventually get the cost of launch down to $5-7 million.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/elon-musks-spacex-more-attractive-than-tesla-or-solarcity-commentary.html
You and your fucking space mining. STFU already.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2017, 06:49:25 PM
You and your fucking space mining. STFU already.
Space Mining is what is actually going to Make America Great Again.
Musk and Bezos will be Titans of the 21st Century.
(https://www.servicetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/millennial_falcon.png)
I laughed
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2017, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2017, 06:49:25 PM
You and your fucking space mining. STFU already.
Space Mining is what is actually going to Make America Great Again.
Musk and Bezos will be Titans of the 21st Century.
I'd like to believe this, too.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2017, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2017, 06:49:25 PM
You and your fucking space mining. STFU already.
Space Mining is what is actually going to Make America Great Again.
Musk and Bezos will be Titans of the 21st Century.
Someone will whisper in Trumps ear that it risks allowing in illegal aliens, and he'll close the enterprises with a stroke of his manly pen.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2017, 06:41:35 PM
A single 500 meter near earth asteroid has more nickel, gold, platinum group metals and rare earths than has ever been mined in history.
There are 2 possibilities here:
1) It is prohibitively difficult and expensive to get that material off the asteroid and back to earth in which case the quantity of material is irrelevant.
2) It is feasible to extract all that material at reasonable cost. But if that is true, the commodities market will immediately became massively glutted, crashing the prices across the board.
QuoteCNBC estimates a market cap for SpaceX of at least $75 Billion and believes that they will eventually get the cost of launch down to $5-7 million.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/elon-musks-spacex-more-attractive-than-tesla-or-solarcity-commentary.html
OK . . . SpaceX is a successful launch company, there is money to be made in commercial launch if you can get contracts and keep costs down.
That has nothing to do asteroid mining.
I don't think SpaceX has made a profit yet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2017, 04:49:21 PM
I don't think SpaceX has made a profit yet.
It's a privately held company. It doesn't have to say.
Some googling suggests that as of 2015 it was generally not profitable. However Space X is rocketing (ahem) along in terms of launches in 2017, so may well be profitable now.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/05/how-profitable-is-spacex-really.aspx
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2017, 04:57:45 PM
However Space X is rocketing (ahem) along in terms of launches in 2017, so may well be profitable now.
:thumbsup:
:bleeding:
Brain is a rocket man.
The factory to build this will be in L.A.
Musk has dialed back a bit on his ambitions in favor of making this more quickly then the Falcon Heavy.
The ship will be 9 meters in diameter and be able to transport 150 tons of material to Mars. SpaceX already posses most of the machine tools to make vessels this big, while if they had gone with the original plans they would have had to retool everything.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/spacex-indicates-it-will-manufacture-the-bfr-rocket-in-los-angeles/
Quote
SpaceX indicates it will manufacture the BFR rocket in Los Angeles
"A facility to manufacture large commercial transportation vessels."
Eric Berger - 3/20/2018, 3:42 AM
Anyone who has visited SpaceX's rocket factory in Hawthorne, California, knows that the company has filled up its facilities with Falcon 9 first stages, payload fairings, and Dragon capsules. In the coming years, as the company transitions into manufacturing the Big Falcon Rocket, or BFR vehicle, it will need a lot more capacity.
The company has not explicitly stated where it will build the BFR, expected to measure 106 meters tall and nine meters wide. However, it needs to do so near water, because such a large vehicle cannot be transported to the launch pad or test sites via a highway, the means currently used to move the Falcon 9 rocket.
A new document from the Port of Los Angeles indicates that the company is moving ahead with plans to build a "state-of-the-art" industrial manufacturing facility near Long Beach, about 20 miles south of its headquarters. The document summarizes an environmental study of the site for the port, on behalf of a proposed tenant—WW Marine Composites, LLC. This appears to be a subsidiary company of SpaceX.
The company seeks to use an 18-acre site at Berth 240 in the port "for the construction and operation of a facility to manufacture large commercial transportation vessels." Operations at the site would include "research and development of transportation vessels and would likely include general manufacturing procedures such as welding, composite curing, cleaning, painting, and assembly operations." Completed vessels would need to be transported by water due to their size, the document states, as a means to explain why the company needs a facility immediately adjacent to the water.
The document also noted that the 10-year lease, with up to two 10-year renewals, would "accommodate recovery operations undertaken by Space Exploration Technologies to bring to shore vehicles returning from space that are retrieved by an autonomous drone ship offshore." This would be for first-stage recoveries of the Falcon 9 rocket and probably payload fairings as well.
Although the document was approved earlier this month, it only came to wider attention on Monday when it was shared on the social news site reddit. The company did not confirm that the facility will be used for the BFR. Asked for comment, SpaceX spokeswoman Eva Behrend told Ars, "SpaceX is in preliminary discussions with the Port of LA about the potential of leasing additional land for operations."
However, an independent source confirmed that this facility is, indeed, intended for the manufacture of the BFR rocket in Los Angeles.
It is not clear when SpaceX would begin manufacturing vehicles in the new facilities. However, the company may begin testing the large "spaceship" portion of the BFR at its Brownsville, Texas, launch site some time in 2019. This would include testing during short "hops" of the seven Raptor engines that will provide propulsion for the spaceship portion of the BFR.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musks-big-fking-rocket-is-a-big-fing-deal
QuoteElon Musk's 'Big F**king Rocket' Is a Big F**ing Deal
SpaceX's new spaceship changes the whole game of deep space voyaging by making it much simpler. This could be just the beginning of the New Space Age.
Clive IrvingClive Irving
03.17.18 10:02 PM ET
Elon Musk, the maestro of SpaceX, has figured out a new way to fly into deep space. In doing so he seems to have disrupted all previous proposals for returning to the moon and reaching beyond to Mars.
Musk is gambling on the success of a project that is a radical departure from anything seen before—and far simpler than any competing space program. It is centered on a 157-foot long spaceship named BFR (Big Fucking Rocket). No kidding: That's longer than the longest version of the Boeing 737 and, with a width of 29 feet it's eight feet wider than the Airbus A380 super jumbo's fuselage.
It will be designed to be used in three ways: to carry three kinds of payloads—people, cargo, or fuel (playing the role of a tanker to refuel other vehicles in space).
The project was first revealed last September at a congress in Australia, and he elaborated on its progress at a conference last weekend. Now, as SpaceX is due to begin building the first BFR, new details make clear how much of a game-changer this could be. (Musk promises a more palatable moniker soon. A suggestion: Why not name it Hawking after the sadly departed navigator of the universe?)
What is driving this highly ambitious technology is the same principle that Musk applies to all the SpaceX projects: economy and utility. The spaceship is intended to be reusable and perform frequent missions to deep space. Essentially Musk is stripping down the main components needed to break free of Earth's gravity to just two parts, the launch rocket and the spaceship.
Consider how different this is: NASA's Apollo missions to the moon needed the 36-story high three-part Saturn V rocket to get off the pad and then, once in space, four separate vehicles to get to the moon and back—a service module; a command module (the capsule that returned to Earth); and the lunar lander with a descent stage (left on the moon); and the ascent stage (from which the astronauts transferred back to the command module).
Musk's breakthrough idea is to conflate all the deep space roles into the one vehicle. This is a really tough call. As Musk said, talking to Aviation Week, "That is a pretty ridiculous set of requirements for a ship."
It sure is. First, the spaceship has to safely handle a huge range of speeds: subsonic, transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic. No single vehicle has ever done that. To land on Mars it would have to travel through that planet's atmosphere and land on unprepared terrain and then, its mission completed, takeoff, blast back to Earth and then, depending critically on its heat shield, come safely down through the atmosphere to a landing.
Some of this technology was demonstrated in action with breathtaking effect in February. SpaceX launched its Falcon Heavy rocket from Florida, sending one of Musk's Tesla Roadsters into a trajectory that will fly by Mars in July. But by far the main attraction was the way in which the main rocket's two booster rockets returned to launch pads in a perfectly synchronized descent, ready to be used again.
The first test flights of the BFR will be from a new launch complex in the desert near Brownsville, Texas, sometime next year, although last weekend Musk allowed that his timelines "historically have been optimistic." They will be short sub-orbital hops, followed in three to four years by orbital tests. To get the spaceship into deep space—it will weigh around 330,000 pounds, fully loaded—will require a massive new rocket, with 31 engines instead of the nine used in the Falcon Heavy.
This is the first time that any space program has invoked the word "spaceship" with any credibility. The term has been devalued by other projects that will never fly beyond low Earth orbit, if at all, like Richard Branson's perpetually postponed Virgin Galactic "space tourism" enterprise. In fact, until now no space vehicle has actually looked like they were initially imagined in the early fantasies of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells—with the pointy-nosed profile of a large artillery shell.
The Apollo 11 lunar module, for example, that made the first moon landing in 1969, resembled a bag lady's cart of strapped-together junk. That's because in the vacuum of space a blunt-nosed object can move as fast as a pointy-nosed one.
The only time you need streamlining, the fine sculpting developed on Earth to speed through the resistance of air, is to get through the fiery re-entry of the Earth's atmosphere (or the atmospheres of other planets, if they have them)—hence all the astronaut capsules with pointy-nosed heat shields or the ball-shaped Russian Soyuz capsules, used to ship people and cargo to the International Space Station.
In contrast, Musk's spaceship looks like we always thought a spaceship should, a very large artillery shell or rocket warhead.
And, suggestively, the SpaceX website is showing the sub-orbital possibilities of the spaceship in which it could fly hypersonically from New York to London in 30 minutes. Just exactly who or what would take that ride and at what cost is not explained.
What is for sure is that Musk intends to open a pathway to the moon and Mars that is far cheaper and simpler than that of any rival.
Take, for example, the NASA program designed to return to the moon, called Constellation. After delays and cost overruns this was canceled by President Obama in 2011. Yet it lives on in the form of a capsule called Orion, being built by Lockheed Martin, that is planned to make an unmanned flyby of the moon, and return to Earth, late next year. Orion is basically an upgraded version of an Apollo command module with none of the capacity or reusability of the BFR.
Jeff Bezos, the other significant disruptor in the space business, who is spending a billion dollars a year of his own money on his space projects, is also devoted to reusable, not expendable, rockets. He is developing a huge three-stage rocket, New Glenn, named for pioneering astronaut John Glenn, with reusable engines intended to replace the Russian-built engines that NASA still depends on for deep space missions.
The traditional players in the space business, established when NASA was the only game in town, like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, have been overly complacent in their attitude to Musk and Bezos. A Boeing spokesman, for example, sneered at Musk's Falcon Heavy as a mere "golf cart" alongside Boeing's future heavy lifter rocket—but that was before Musk unveiled the BFR and his Falcon Heavy demonstrated its reusable boosters.
The other people likely to be outpaced by the disruptors are the Chinese. They plan to get to the moon by 2030. Their national agency, China Aerospace and Technology Corp, CASC, is still figuring out how to overcome the problems of building the large rockets needed to launch conventional NASA-style missions.
But in trying to deal with that problem the Chinese have come up with a novel idea that others might copy.
Instead of using a giant rocket to lift all the components of a moon mission at one time they have talked of a "park and assemble" plan in which the vehicle used in deep space would be broken down into three parts. Each part would be launched into Earth orbit, needing only smaller rockets to lift them. The first two would be parked until the third part arrives, when they would all be united in space through docking procedures. When the mission returned to Earth it would be reduced to the one manned section, like the Apollo command module, for re-entry.
However, by the very nature of their official bureaucracy, the Chinese are stuck with the party-run state as the master of their space program. There is no room there for disruptors like Musk and Bezos, who approach everything as hard-nosed businessmen.
Bezos told a conference of space industry chiefs in Colorado last year that their industry was too small. As he did when he conceived Amazon, a business that for years lost millions, Bezos is the prophet of scale—a believer that once a business reaches a self-determined critical mass it becomes a profit gusher.
His point was that the real promise of deep space as a viable business depends on the reliable, frequent and cost-effective movement of cargo and people, taking it from the slow and cautious pace of scientific exploration to an everyday delivery system—Musk makes the same point by calling his spaceship an "interplanetary transportation system."
In this scheme the moon will become not just a place where its rare minerals can be mined but a handy transportation terminal where the larger spaceships needed for exploring and colonizing Mars—and planets beyond—will be assembled and, once in regular use, be serviced on their return, with Earth just a commuter trip home.
We can already see that much of this traffic will involve unmanned flights; for many missions humans will be redundant. The overall operations will be planned and executed by robots using artificial intelligence, demonstrating a new age of technological hubris unlike any seen before.
Indeed, it has become a commonplace now to look at the Apollo missions and be stunned at how relatively little computing power they had available, far less than in an iPhone. However, it's essential to remember that at the time that endeavor represented the ultimate of what our technology could then achieve—the whole enterprise served us well by pushing innovation to the limits of the possible and brought out the best in human vision and courage.
If the end result—the docking and undocking of the modules, the strange boxy contours of the lander and its final bifurcation—looked like some aberrant Rube Goldberg contraption, which it did, the remarkable thing is that every piece of it actually worked. Even when hit by catastrophic failures during the Apollo 13 mission the system was capable of being reconfigured on the fly to allow the astronauts to survive.
In 1970 this did seem to be America's greatest "can-do" moment. But since December 1972, at the completion of Apollo 17's mission, when Frank Borman, James Lovell, and William Anders made a Christmas Eve TV broadcast reading the first 10 verses from the Book of Genesis, nobody has walked on the moon. The Space Age seemed to be in abeyance, with no appetite to revive it.
But we have now reached another and very different stage in the journey to deep space. There is clearly a creative tension between the ingrained habits of state-funded projects where defense contractors have grown used to burning up billions of dollars performing on contracts made with sclerotic bureaucracies and people like Musk and Bezos who cut through all the orthodoxy with the energy of entrepreneurs and the experience of building huge businesses from scratch, like Henry Ford and Bill Boeing before them.
Musk has admitted that his two bets on the shape of things to come, Tesla cars and SpaceX, are both stretching his resources to the limit: "Space X is alive by the skin of its teeth. So is Tesla. If things had gone a little bit the other way, both companies would be dead."
Bezos has deeper pockets: His net worth is $131 billion and the piggy bank of Amazon stock that funds his space business is $125 billion, and growing by the day. The New York-based Explorers Club just gave him their Buzz Aldrin Space Exploration Award, where he said, "The price of admission to space is very high, but I'm in the process of converting my Amazon lottery winnings into a much lower price of admission so we can go explore the solar system."
After the Apollo missions the word "moonshot" became a wistful synonym for the kind of giant leaps of imagination and daring that once seemed uniquely American. Part of a lost spirit needing new will power to bring it back. Now the hope of rekindling that spirit is in the hands of a few individuals like Musk and Bezos.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLSKFT5e.png&hash=f99dc18890abd41160ab20fcb556572c12c9be17) (https://imgur.com/LSKFT5e)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2017, 04:46:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2017, 06:41:35 PM
A single 500 meter near earth asteroid has more nickel, gold, platinum group metals and rare earths than has ever been mined in history.
There are 2 possibilities here:
1) It is prohibitively difficult and expensive to get that material off the asteroid and back to earth in which case the quantity of material is irrelevant.
2) It is feasible to extract all that material at reasonable cost. But if that is true, the commodities market will immediately became massively glutted, crashing the prices across the board.
Isn't there an intermediate possibility - that the costs of production are significant per unit recovered, but asteroid mining nonetheless proves capable of outcompeting terrestrial mining?
Are we against the collapse of the price of commodities? I mean, if we are not Russians or Arabic princes?
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2018, 11:25:09 AM
Are we against the collapse of the price of commodities? I mean, if we are not Russians or Arabic princes?
Yes we are against the collapse of the price of commodities! :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2018, 11:31:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2018, 11:25:09 AM
Are we against the collapse of the price of commodities? I mean, if we are not Russians or Arabic princes?
Yes we are against the collapse of the price of commodities! :mad:
I'll feel sorry for you while eating with my platinum cutlery.
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2018, 11:31:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2018, 11:25:09 AM
Are we against the collapse of the price of commodities? I mean, if we are not Russians or Arabic princes?
Yes we are against the collapse of the price of commodities! :mad:
They're not going to find any oil up there.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 22, 2018, 12:35:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2018, 11:31:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2018, 11:25:09 AM
Are we against the collapse of the price of commodities? I mean, if we are not Russians or Arabic princes?
Yes we are against the collapse of the price of commodities! :mad:
They're not going to find any oil up there.
Canada has a bunch of mines too, and is a pretty big player in the international mining industry as well. A commodity collapse will hurt our economy - but we'll have a bit of time to see it coming, I think.
Quote from: Jacob on March 22, 2018, 01:26:50 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 22, 2018, 12:35:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2018, 11:31:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2018, 11:25:09 AM
Are we against the collapse of the price of commodities? I mean, if we are not Russians or Arabic princes?
Yes we are against the collapse of the price of commodities! :mad:
They're not going to find any oil up there.
Canada has a bunch of mines too, and is a pretty big player in the international mining industry as well. A commodity collapse will hurt our economy - but we'll have a bit of time to see it coming, I think.
If mining executives believe this is a risk then it would reduce the spend on exploration and development, but the existing mines would likely produce until the end of their mine life since most have set contracts for their production and most of the development costs have already been incurred . So yes, a bit of time to adjust if this does indeed happen.
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2018, 12:20:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2018, 11:31:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2018, 11:25:09 AM
Are we against the collapse of the price of commodities? I mean, if we are not Russians or Arabic princes?
Yes we are against the collapse of the price of commodities! :mad:
I'll feel sorry for you while eating with my platinum cutlery.
One amusing fact: prior to the invention of the modern process for separating out aluminum from other ores, aluminum was considered a precious metal.
Some royalty kept aluminum cutlery for other royals to dine with - mere nobles got the gold stuff. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2018, 05:41:07 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2018, 12:20:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2018, 11:31:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2018, 11:25:09 AM
Are we against the collapse of the price of commodities? I mean, if we are not Russians or Arabic princes?
Yes we are against the collapse of the price of commodities! :mad:
I'll feel sorry for you while eating with my platinum cutlery.
One amusing fact: prior to the invention of the modern process for separating out aluminum from other ores, aluminum was considered a precious metal.
Some royalty kept aluminum cutlery for other royals to dine with - mere nobles got the gold stuff. :lol:
How absolutely boorish! Let them eat cake!!
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2018, 11:25:09 AM
Are we against the collapse of the price of commodities? I mean, if we are not Russians or Arabic princes?
Aluminum was once the most expensive precious metal in the world. The Hall–Héroult process that allows us to smelt aluminum on an industrial scale crashed the market, but Alcoa managed to leverage that process into becoming an industrial titan and now aluminum is used in everything. Platinum and gold would be equally useful and valuable on a mass industrial scale.
Also, the smaller more practical BFR will only have 31 engines.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2018, 06:16:02 PM
Also, the smaller more practical BFR will only have 31 engines.
See, commodities are safe. No way such a small ship has any effect.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 22, 2018, 06:48:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2018, 06:16:02 PM
Also, the smaller more practical BFR will only have 31 engines.
See, commodities are safe. No way such a small ship has any effect.
It's bigger than the Saturn V
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2018, 11:25:09 AM
Are we against the collapse of the price of commodities? I mean, if we are not Russians or Arabic princes?
No. Let those commodities collapse. Cheaper products for everybody.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2018, 08:38:03 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 22, 2018, 06:48:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2018, 06:16:02 PM
Also, the smaller more practical BFR will only have 31 engines.
See, commodities are safe. No way such a small ship has any effect.
It's bigger than the Saturn V
Also, it can be refueled in orbit.
The Saturn V could launch 140,000 kg into low earth orbit, but the lander that reached the moon only weighed 16,400 kg.
The BFR can deliver a 150,000 kg to Mars (and I may be wrong but I think that's not counting the mass of the ship)
Tooling for the main body of the BFR
https://www.instagram.com/p/BhVk3y3A0yB/
SpaceX crushed the competition. Now the sole lander in development for the next Moon landing.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/as-artemis-moves-forward-nasa-picks-spacex-to-land-next-americans-on-moon/
QuoteNASA is getting ready to send astronauts to explore more of the Moon as part of the Artemis program, and the agency has selected SpaceX to continue development of the first commercial human lander that will safely carry the next two American astronauts to the lunar surface. At least one of those astronauts will make history as the first woman on the Moon. Another goal of the Artemis program includes landing the first person of color on the lunar surface.
The agency's powerful Space Launch System rocket will launch four astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft for their multi-day journey to lunar orbit. There, two crew members will transfer to the SpaceX human landing system (HLS) for the final leg of their journey to the surface of the Moon. After approximately a week exploring the surface, they will board the lander for their short trip back to orbit where they will return to Orion and their colleagues before heading back to Earth.
The firm-fixed price, milestone-based contract total award value is $2.89 billion.
"With this award, NASA and our partners will complete the first crewed demonstration mission to the surface of the Moon in the 21st century as the agency takes a step forward for women's equality and long-term deep space exploration," said Kathy Lueders, NASA's associate administrator for Human Explorations and Operations Mission Directorate. "This critical step puts humanity on a path to sustainable lunar exploration and keeps our eyes on missions farther into the solar system, including Mars."
SpaceX has been working closely with NASA experts during the HLS base period of performance to inform its lander design and ensure it meets NASA's performance requirements and human spaceflight standards. A key tenet for safe systems, these agreed-upon standards range from areas of engineering, safety, health, and medical technical areas.
"This is an exciting time for NASA and especially the Artemis team," said Lisa Watson-Morgan, program manager for HLS at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. "During the Apollo program, we proved that it is possible to do the seemingly impossible: land humans on the Moon. By taking a collaborative approach in working with industry while leveraging NASA's proven technical expertise and capabilities, we will return American astronauts to the Moon's surface once again, this time to explore new areas for longer periods of time."
SpaceX's HLS Starship, designed to land on the Moon, leans on the company's tested Raptor engines and flight heritage of the Falcon and Dragon vehicles. Starship includes a spacious cabin and two airlocks for astronaut moonwalks. The Starship architecture is intended to evolve to a fully reusable launch and landing system designed for travel to the Moon, Mars, and other destinations.
The HLS award is made under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP-2) Appendix H Broad Agency Announcement (BAA).
In parallel with executing the Appendix H award, NASA intends to implement a competitive procurement for sustainable crewed lunar surface transportation services that will provide human access to the lunar surface using the Gateway on a regularly recurring basis beyond the initial crewed demonstration mission.
With NASA's Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, HLS, and the Gateway lunar outpost, NASA and its commercial and international partners are returning to the Moon for scientific discovery, economic benefits, and inspiration for a new generation. Working with its partners throughout the Artemis program, the agency will fine-tune precision landing technologies and develop new mobility capabilities to enable exploration of new regions of the Moon. On the surface, the agency has proposed building a new habitat and rovers, testing new power systems and more. These and other innovations and advancements made under the Artemis program will ensure that NASA and its partners are ready for human exploration's next big step—the exploration of Mars.
For more information about the human landing system, visit:
The Scott Manley analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuSM_-Aw5HM
That's downright cheap compared to the historic cost of Boeing.
I don't know, an Elon Musk company overpromising? Say it ain't so.
Quote from: celedhring on April 19, 2021, 09:20:58 AM
I don't know, an Elon Musk company overpromising? Say it ain't so.
He definitely over-promises, but what he delivers is also far beyond what just about anyone else manages.
When it comes to cost, SpaceX is both cheap and very reliable. See the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program.
I am actively following Starship development since before they started welding steel rings in Boca Chica. The speed of progress - though slower than Musk's estimations - is still absolutely astonishing for the industry.
Especially compared to Boeing's SLS.
Oh and speaking of SLS: It and the Orion capsule are now demoted to LEO taxi service for Moon Starship, something Falcon9 and Crew Dragon could achieve more often and for less then a tenth of the price per launch. So expect massive attacks against Moon Starship from those senators, who want that fat Boeing pork for their states.
Success
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/spacex-successfully-lands-a-starship-test-flight/
QuoteSpaceX successfully lands a Starship test flight
Given that it's meant to be the basis for a lunar lander, landing it is good.
JOHN TIMMER - 5/6/2021, 7:55 AM
By now, many readers are familiar with SpaceX's Starship tests. The rocket makes its way skyward and performs maneuvers that seem like impossibilities to a generation raised on rockets that simply shot things to orbit. These maneuvers are followed by an ungainly looking float toward the Earth below, which ends in a sudden lurch as the rocket struggles to a vertical orientation and tries to lose speed.
In general, this has been followed by a dramatic explosion as one aspect or another of the incredibly complex series of events required doesn't work quite right. The biggest exception was one case where that explosion waited for several minutes after the rocket's landing.
Today's launch followed the script right up to the landing, at which point everything changed. The landing went off without a hitch this time, and the hardware stayed intact—albeit on fire—well after the landing.
Conditions were cloudy above the launch site, which posed a bit of a problem for tracking the flight. Starship quickly disappeared above the clouds, at which point the video stream from the craft failed. As live timers ticked off progress and data indicated engines shut down to bring the craft to a hover, there was no visual confirmation of any of it. Video returned sporadically after the belly flop started, providing some dramatic images of thunder clouds off in the distance.After landing, a small fire burned on one side of the base of the rocket, but it was out within 20 minutes. Whether it stopped due to lack of fuel or was put out by hardware on the landing pad is unclear.
The landing is a tremendous success and comes at an important time for the company, as NASA has chosen Starship as its intended lander for future Moon missions. While the company had the advantage of having working prototypes, their tendency to explode may have provided an argument against the contentious decision. The successful landing should strengthen SpaceX's case.
Given the lack of context, the maneuver that brought Starship to a vertical took place very suddenly. But the first views from the ground made clear that the maneuver was happening at a higher altitude than in previous attempts that ended in explosions. Given that extra space to work with, the hardware easily reached a vertical orientation well above the ground and then managed a gentle descent for the remaining distance.
29 Raptor engines installed on the super heavy booster.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7zARpUWEAI65OI?format=jpg&name=small)
Good article on the matter
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/spacex-installed-29-raptor-engines-on-a-super-heavy-rocket-last-night/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/spacex-installed-29-raptor-engines-on-a-super-heavy-rocket-last-night/)
QuoteSpaceX installed 29 Raptor engines on a Super Heavy rocket last night
Progress on the regulatory side of things remains murky, though.
ERIC BERGER - 8/3/2021, 2:23 AM
Sometimes it is difficult to write objectively about the rate at which SpaceX makes progress. The advancements we're seeing at the company's Starbase site in South Texas are unprecedented.
Like, seriously unprecedented.
On Sunday, SpaceX finished stacking what it is calling "Booster 4," the first of its Super Heavy rocket boosters expected to take flight. This is a massive, single-core rocket that is approximately 70 meters tall, with a diameter of 9 meters. It has a thrust approximately double that of the Saturn V rocket that launched NASA astronauts to the Moon.
Then, overnight, something remarkable happened. Technicians and engineers at the SpaceX build facility near Boca Chica Beach attached 29 Raptor rocket engines to the rocket. Twenty-nine engines. Each with intricate plumbing lines and connections. This is the number of engines that Super Heavy will fly with for initial flight tests, although the final configuration is likely to have 33 engines.
I'm not really sure what to write or say about all this, because typically in the rocket business it takes a few days to install a single engine.
After some initial checkouts in the assembly area, Booster 4 will roll to the launch site a couple of kilometers down the road. This may happen as early as Tuesday. After this, there likely will be pressure tests and a series of static fire tests. With this many valuable Raptor engines on the line, we can probably expect SpaceX to be fairly cautious with the test program for this vehicle.
SpaceX has also nearly completed "Ship 20," the latest Starship upper-stage prototype that will be placed on top of Booster 4 for a full-stack launch of the Starship system.
While SpaceX has made substantial progress on hardware, the company's movement on the regulatory side of things remains murky. It appears as though the rapid assembly of Starship, its Super Heavy booster, and the orbital launch complex in South Texas will set up yet another high-stakes showdown between the FAA and SpaceX. The company is going to be ready to fly, but there's no clarity on when the Federal Aviation Administration will complete its environmental review of the Starbase location and approve orbital launches from the site.
For months, SpaceX has been working with the FAA on an environmental assessment. After a "draft" of this assessment is published, there will be a minimum of a 30-day period for public comments. This will be followed by other steps, including a determination by the FAA on whether SpaceX's proposed environmental mitigations will be enough, or if more work is required. More information about this process is available on the FAA's website.
Given all of that, it is difficult to see SpaceX receiving the required regulatory approvals to launch Starship on an orbital test flight before this fall, if not later.
Even so, SpaceX has reportedly been staffing up in South Texas, bringing hundreds of employees in from its California-based headquarters and elsewhere in order to complete assembly of Booster 4 and the launch site facilities. Why would it be doing this if regulatory approval is not coming for months?
It seems like a calculated effort to induce the FAA to move more quickly with the regulatory process. The optics of a completed rocket, by far the largest and most powerful in the world, sitting on a launch pad waiting for paperwork is not great. And with both NASA and the US Department of Defense now having a vested interest in Starship's success, SpaceX may find allies elsewhere in the US government.
A 50 minute interview with Musk on Starship and Superheavy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t705r8ICkRw
(https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/2082_Kepler-16b_1200_preview.jpg)
Posted here because I couldn't find Tim's space thread.
Success or failure, this should be fun. Mark Monday on your calendar!
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/14/world/spacex-starship-launch-license-scn/index.html
QuoteSpaceX's Starship rocket, the most powerful ever built, receives government approval for launch
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2023, 10:54:30 PMSuccess or failure, this should be fun. Mark Monday on your calendar!
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/14/world/spacex-starship-launch-license-scn/index.html
QuoteSpaceX's Starship rocket, the most powerful ever built, receives government approval for launch
Rocket go boom.
Not sure how much its muskite cope but apparently this was OK as they were really just aiming for getting the thing off the launch pad?
so the story is Elon Musk launches giant metaphor for his recent business activity?