IDNeon

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

[1] They land verticle. [2] They are not just booster rockets, but rockets and nose cones. You really have a problem with Musk, don't you? 

1) who cares that they land vertical? The Orbiter landed at airports. Way cooler. 

2) All of the Orbiter's rockets, engines, nose cones? Etc were reusable. Only the Hydrogen tank was not.

I'm not trolling. 

Musk just is leading America backwards. 

Just now, beecee said:

Yes, you are confused and wrong. Unless you are simply trolling and being obtuse?

You mean you literally don't know that all of the Orbiters rocket engines were reusable?

Please tell me. How is Musk doing reusable rockets something new? 

I want to know. How is Musk doing something we already have been doing for 40 years "new"

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Reusable rockets: revolutionizing access to outer space:

I'm confused. 

We had this already. For 40 years actually.

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

SpaceX aims for 100% reusability. BFR is planned to be available around the mid 2020s

What a specious claim.

How do they intend to accomplish this without reentry shields?

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

With the "proven" aspects of Space-X already listed, and the benefits of a forward lokking Elon Musk shown, the next question would be, If any International efforts does take place, would/should China be a part of it?

Why would China want to go BACKWARDS in technology?

China wants to be the tip of the spear.

Elon Musk is flying methane rockets. No one wants to use them because they have crap thrust to weight ratios. To achieve the high specific impulses of Hydrogen you MUST master Liquid H2 metallurgy.

So Musk takes the US backward while China leaps forward. 

Is he a Manchurian candidate? 

Oh God Starship uses Methane. Not even RP1.

Cheap.

But HEAVY.

What discussion would you like about the Methane versus H2 propellant?

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

the Space=X achievements are nothing short of outstanding...the first reusable vertical standing return rocket not being the least of those

How is this outstanding?

Everyone else just drops their boosters into the ocean for retrieval. 

Why do we need THIS?

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

You shouldn’t do things just because they’re different. They need to be better

What has he done better? Seriously?

The Chinese are flying Hydrogen. 

Do you want to discuss why that is SO IMPORTANT?

The technology to use Liquid Hydrogen is a crucial technology and China now is using it and the US is now losing it.

Just now, zapatos said:

That's probably because you are not here for discussion but to educate us. That's not what we do here

What do you want to discuss?

Does Musk have any rockets that can get to the Moon? Right now. Any at all?

How short from getting to the moon is Musk? How much money will it take to make up the difference that Musks rockets currently have. 

Also can you make it to the moon using RP1?

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

With the proviso that I most certainly hope I am wrong

What is this? 3 years to get to Mars?

What part of not having enough dV did you not get?

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

This is however a discussion site, not your blog, and certainly you were not hired to come here and teach us.

I have discussed this quite thoroughly and despite even showing the evidence I get told I'm being "rhetorical".

It's laughable.

Look if you think I'm some naysayer you got me wrong.

I want to see a huge increase in space travel.

But we have MAJOR PROBLEMS.

1) space is worthless. 

2) Musk makes dead-end promises.

And he's suckered you all into believing it.

We NEED a paradigm shift. We NEED to change status quo of propulsion.

Musk isn't doing that. 

We need an ORBITER type space craft. Not more capsules. 

We need to replace the ISS and China is jumping on the opportunity there. Don't you see what's happening?

If China already has a space station when we retire the ISS then how does America justify the building of another one?

China is seizing the initiative while Musk is literally a THIEF.

I have shown how he is a thief.

We even are losing Liquid H2 technology because of Musk.

He's using PR1 while China is using H2-LOX.

DO YOU REALIZE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT? 

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Are you looking for praise for your intellect? Perhaps you've improved your inter-personal skills to a level you've never achieved before and wanted to show them off? You are looking to make new friends? 

What exactly is your purpose on this site? What do you hope to achieve?

I hope to educate you because you're wrong or worse...believing Musk isn't a fraud.

And it's not just Musk.

The idea that we can get to Mars is a fantasy for the foreseeable future. 

Status quo has to change. It can't be brute forced by rocketry.

Musk is just blowing disgusting smoke while China is taking the lead in an actual space and arms race.

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

The opposite, really. Rockets to escape gravity. Thrusters to move and navigate once you’re more or less clear

Well I am grossly generalizing but there is zero need for reuse of a rocket fuel on Earth. 

And fuel is a relatively low cost for LEO.

So the implication is its use is for deeper space missions. 

The SCS only ingnitioned in a near 0G environment which is why it was important for the SCS to first Ullage before firing.

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

See here for a fairly good read of all the problems this class of ship has had

Lol. Welcome to all Navies on Earth.

The US has just as many continuous problems with its own operations.

But please continue to cherry pick.

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Construction of the fourth ship, Yuriy Andropov, encountered many delays; her construction was started in 1986 but was not commissioned until 1998. She was renamed Pyotr Veliky (after Peter the Great) in 1992.^[7] She currently serves as the flagship of the Russia's Northern Fleet.

Jesus it's almost like you weren't alive when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Yeah no wonder a ship whose keel was laid in 1986 didn't get finished until 1998.

Who cares?

The finishing and the refitting is what's important.

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

On 23 March 2004, English language press reported the Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief, Fleet Admiral Vladimir Kuroedov said Pyotr Veliky's reactor was in an extremely bad condition and could explode "at any moment", a statement which may have been the result of internal politics within the Russian Navy.^[11] The ship was sent to port for a month, and the crew lost one-third of their pay."

What a bunch of trash. 

From the primary source:

"Some naval and environmental experts, including Bellona, were extremely skeptical of Kuroyedov's actions and suggest that his ordering of the ship back to port was the result of ulterior motives. The Bellona foundation as a whole considers that Kuroyedov is "dramatizing the situation" and that there is no danger that the 'Peter the Great' is in any immediate danger.

"You can say that any ship is capable of exploding at any time," said Alexander Nikitin, Chairman of Bellonas St Petersburg office and a former naval captain first class."

Why do you throw that selective trash at me?

Wikipedia quotes a website whose article literally says the Admiral is dramatizing and lying about the situation.

The site Wikipedia cites even says "

8 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Bellona foundation as a whole considers that Kuroyedov is "dramatizing the situation" and that there is no danger that the 'Peter the Great' is in any immediate danger.

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

Stop pretending.

I literally showed it to you multiple ways.

Showed you where his "firsts" claims aren't actually firsts.

Showed you where his rockets don't achieve the dV needed. 

How this not proof? 🤣

What circle?

I've proven.

1) Musk has accomplished nothing new.

2) China is beating the pants off Musk.

3) SpaceX has a lifespan and its time is running out.

4) Boeing is suing SpaceX's contract award.

5) You can't physically get large payloads to Mars with current propulsion systems.

6) Musk doesn't even have the dV ability to get to the moon.

You realize that China's space station will be as big as the ISS in a year right?

And does everyone just LIE for Musk?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/30/elon-musks-spacex-makes-history-by-launching-a-flight-proven-rocket/

What is this lie?

Nasa has been reusing first stage boosters for 40 years.

I already demolished those supposed achievements.

Doing things other companies have already done and stamping "first private company to do this" on it...is NOT an achievement. 

SpaceX took government money just like all the others.

Just now, iNow said:

Super bad. Please. I simply MUST know how you feel about Musk. You’ve been such a wall flower and so silent about him thus far. Please continue

It's so sad you think Musk will accomplish anything while China quite literally is building a space station in a year.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Stop the feedings. We’ve now had 4 pages with zero progress

Progress?

I have literally itemized ALL the problems with Musk and with the idea of Mars transfer orbits to Low Martian Orbit.

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

No, you supported some facts as they stand at this time

With regards to Musks supposed accomplishments I was pretty thorough. As I stated, he has done nothing new. He's just been a good propagandist. 

He captured some orbital launch commercial market and obviously some political connections. 

Boeing is already preparing their lawsuit and this one will probably finish SpaceX to be honest.

Because Boeing already presented a viable solution to the moon shot NASA wants but the money went to Musk even though every one of his next generation rockets (quite literally all of them) have exploded.

Oh what. You thought government money is just free, and NASA can award it to whoever they want?

Ahahahahahah.

As also mentioned. Northrup Grumman (which works with Boeing and shares contracts) neutered Elon Musk this year.

SpaceX had no future.

That is a LITERAL business assessment. 

NASA gave SpaceX a prestigious but not profitable contract to ferry astronauts to the space station.

Using 1960s technology. 

TESLA's future doesn't look good either. 

Tesla was only able to capture 200,000 car sales a year before the entry of the big car companies to electric cars that are now being launched in the 2022 line up.

200,000 cars a year puts Musk at no competitive scale for anything. 

And he never broke into the Chinese market unlike European car manufacturers. 

I mean. How badly do you want me to rip Musk a new one?

Not a single one of his businesses have ever once been profitable. 

Mic drop

Seems to be an overlooked problem.

Rockets are meant to operate in "0G". Sort of.

There are solutions to this problem not present in your design. The only thing keeping everything downstream in your design is gravity itself.

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

More unsupported agenda based rhetoric. You certainly have a problem with Musk don't you. Did he sack you for something? laziness? insubordination? Ignorance?

I supported all my statements. Do you have a problem with my references?

He's not the first to use reusable rockets. To use reusable spacecraft. To do water landings. To dock at the ISS.

And since SpaceX takes government money and has for its entire lifetime its not the first private company to do anything.

Apollo used private companies to do all its work.

I cited the private companies that built America's spacecraft.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

You keep ignoring the fact that there is tomorrow, next year, next decade, next century etc etc. You seem stuck in some mythical stone age of your own chosing.

If it doesn't happen in your life time then it might as well never have happened.

I'm telling you what the reality is.

Scientists and engineers already looked at other propulsion systems.

None worked 

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

No rhetorical, just as your "Mars may as well be a galaxy away" is....

You literally can't get there. So how is that rhetorical? 

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

rhetorical rant

Nothing rhetorical about reality.

Since no known propulsion system solves dV for large payloads. Mars might as well be a galaxy away.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

That's what I am telling you will happen

Who says it will happen?

We don't have a realistic solution to the propulsion problem.

Not even a theoretical one.

So what makes you so certain it will EVER be solved and economically? 

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Whether Musk does or not is debatable, in the 2024 time frame, but I'm sure he'll have something to do with it.

Why credit Musk with anything. Haven't I already demonstrated that all his claims are propaganda? He's done nothing new. He's not the first. He's not the best.

His rockets are just beefed up North Korean Rockets.

That's not even a joke.

It's 1960s tech masquerading as modern. He's still using RP1 FOR F*** Sake.

This needs to be asked in a different way.

Imagine your galaxy is like a clock.

Imagine the galaxy rotates at a speed such that in the time it takes for light to cross the galaxy, the galaxy has rotated so that the 12 position is now at the 1 position. 

Imagine you are at the 5 position when light leaves 12 to cross the galaxy. You receive that light at the 6 o'clock position and see the object at the 12 o'clock position. 

The actual position of what sent light to you from 12 is at 1. Your current position is at 6. The past positions were 12 and 5, respectively.

What does this visual distortion mean regarding the structural symmetry we see in the spiral arm galaxy for instance.

An apparent straight line is actually a curved line or a bent line.

Or rather? Is the whole face of the clock (space time) turning as well so that 12 and 6 can be a straight line even as the light that left 12 has so much distance to travel it took an hour's time to reach you as per the clock analogy. 

If all of spacetime (face of the clock) is turning then the 12 vs 6 position will be a straight line. 

If the objects of a galaxy are moving through a more static space time then an object at 12 is really at 1. And the apparent straight line is actually a bent line.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Please stop trying to force down my throat and other reasonable  people that a Mars manned landing will never happen. Again for the umpteenth time, with a certain need for science, scientific exploration, and the simple reason of "because its there", in time, 10 years, 100 years, 1000

This is a fallacy. The question is will Musk get us to Mars.

Obviously not.

And unless we develop a propulsion system vastly different from what we have now. We never will.

What incentive do we have to invent a new propulsion system? 

The Moon at least made a little since in the ballistic missile race.

No one is winning any prestige by getting to Mars.

It's too anticlimactic. 

3 day trip to the Moon is epic.

How many people relive the tale of Vasco De Gama's many years Journey to China?

No one.

But at least IT MADE MONEY.

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

Future large-scale Mars surface exploration missions require landed masses beyond the capability of current entry, descent, and landing technology

Boom.

I've been saying this.

Not only have I been saying this but I have been demonstrating it

The ARC paper Is interesting. How ever the paper does not describe what savings in a descent fuel is achieved through use of bank angle. All of that is currently irrelevant until we Solve chemical propulsion Delta V requirements for getting significant payload into low martian orbit.

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

Like I said, while problems and current limitations may exist, these problems are being worked on as we speak, by scientists, engineers, cosmologists etc

 Of course they are these problems have been worked on for 60 years with no proper solution. This is why so much effort was put into discovering new propulsor techniques because The Martian transfer orbit problem is impossible with standard chemical propulsion. All nationalities involved gave up on this particularly with Orion project and they moved into low Earth orbit a missions in particular the orbiter and International space station.

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

Man achieved the first powered flight in 1909, now just a little bit over a 100 years later, we have landed on the Moon six times

The technological gap between the stone age and going to the Moon is smaller than from going from the Moon to Mars.

The dV budget is deceptive. It appears so close but yet it is basically impossibly far at current scales of economy.

Perhaps if the US were 2 or 3x more productive than it is now, the hundreds of billions it would cost to brute force the dV problem for the payload masses involved could be justified. 

Until then, a technological solution must be discovered to change the status quo.

5 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

AFAIK you tube videos are not citations, your mileage may vary.

I'd say the Navy telling you what it's going to do and how it's going to do it is a citation.

You know that CSIS is a highly reputable source. Right? 

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Details please. Assume I am a complete idiot and need the details. Based on your earlier posts I don't think you will struggle with that assumption. Again, based on your earlier posts, I am not optimistic you will meet the first part of my request.

What part have I not already met?

I've provided citations of the dV requirements and constraints.

I've cited the known costs for known weights.

You're lucky we are just assuming everything is linear-scalable and not influence by R&D, low unit volume costs, and any other setbacks.

The raw linear scaling for a mission to Mars at 60000kg payload with about 3.4:6.6 payload to fuel ratio at current prices is literally a doubling of cost for every halving from the current ratio of 1.6:98.4.

So to get from 1.6% to 34% that's 5 doubling.

But only for a payload of about 1000kg.

So gotta times it by 60.

Price to get perseverance to Mars.

2.7billion.

2.7x 32x 60x billion = 5.1trillion Dollars. 

There's your rough FLOOR of getting 60000kg to Mars.

Oh and dying there. 

7 minutes ago, Area54 said:

You don't consider any of the orbital laboratories or surface rovers to have been meaningful payloads

Would you call filling your 2000lbs sedan with 200,000 lbs of gasoline to be...meaningful?

The reason the dV budget is so crucial is with chemical rockets you HAVE to have a ratio of less than 1.6:98.4 payload:fuel to land on Mars one way.

So you see the problems? 

Either we are launching 3.75million kg spaceship to Mars one way or we are finding a new type of propulsion we don't have. 

That's just fuel to payload ratio. Should we get into fuel to weight ratio problems? 

SpaceX has tried to drastically lower THAT ratio but for something meaningful we'd have to build and fuel everything in orbit to have no atmosphere to build structure to withstand