Jump to content

SpaceX


Can Elon Musk get us to Mars by 2024?  

11 members have voted

  1. 1. Can Elon Musk get us to Mars by 2024?

    • Yes!
      3
    • Absolutely Not
      8


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Yes, especially since they're publicly shared plans state next year as their actual target date. 

The target date for an umanned attempt. Thus the answer to

 

3 hours ago, ThatSpaceBoy said:

get us to Mars by 2024

. . depends upon what ThatSpaceBoy means by "us" -  humans, or simply human made machines with the potential to carry - at a later date - actual humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ThatSpaceBoy said:

Do you think that SpaceX and Elon Musk can get us to Mars by 2024?

I wish Elon, SpaceX and/or any other orginization, all the best in achieving a manned Martian landing, and returning them safely, as soon as is humanly possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

I wish Elon, SpaceX and/or any other orginization, all the best in achieving a manned Martian landing, and returning them safely, as soon as is humanly possible.

I think  it's one-way trip for the first Mars landers. There's no way to take off again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

I think  it's one-way trip for the first Mars landers. There's no way to take off again.

That is what is was planned by Mars One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One

Just now found out that they have gone bust, actually a couple of years ago. I still understand that plans by NASA, SpaceX do include a return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this data from Wiki also.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mars_program

extracts:

"The program includes fully reusable launch vehicles, human-rated spacecraft, on-orbit propellant tankers, rapid-turnaround launch/landing mounts, and local production of rocket fuel on Mars"

" After landing on Mars, the spacecraft would be loaded with locally-produced propellants to return to Earth".

His long term plans are the colonization of Mars..."SpaceX Mars program is a development program initiated by Elon Musk and SpaceX in order to facilitate the eventual colonization of Mars". "However, Musk has advocated since 2016 a larger set of long-term Mars settlement objectives, going far beyond what SpaceX projects to build; any successful colonization would ultimately involve many more economic actors—whether individuals, companies, or governments—to facilitate the growth of the human presence on Mars over many decades"

When questioned in an interview he answered... "No. Your probability of dying on Mars is much higher than Earth. Really the ad for going to Mars would be like Shackleton’s ad for going to the Antarctic [in 1914]. It’s gonna be hard. There’s a good chance of death, going in a little can through deep space. You might land successfully. Once you land successfully, ... there's a good chance you'll die there. We think you can come back; but we're not sure."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The WIKI article on Musk and SpaceX is quite good and revealing as to his plans and methodology in achieving them...worth reading in full.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

depends upon what ThatSpaceBoy means by "us" -  humans, or simply human made machines with the potential to carry

Fair, but even with that clarity my point remains. If they can get a ship there, then technically speaking that ship could also have a human aboard. We likely just won’t let them do it due to safety concerns. 

And above I meant their, not they’re 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think SpaceX even doing an uncrewed visit to Mars orbit by 2024 seems overly optimistic. With crew, with landing, with return - no chance. Without outside funding - which I can't see any means for being recouped, which makes funding much harder to find - no. Throwing all resources SpaceX has available at it might get something there - at the risk of going broke. The enthusiastic optimists will tolerate deferred targets better than SpaceX will tolerate going broke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SpaceX have just been awarded ~$3 billion to land humans on the moon for NASA some time after 2024. It will be a version of the same ship that is planned to go to Mars. I imagine they will use that as a test run for longer term missions.

But an unmanned version? Quite possibly. They plan to get the vehicle to LEO this year, run commercial missions by 2022, human lunar orbital missions (dearMoon) by 2023. They could attempt an unmanned Mars mission in the 2024, but I think the current 2026 goal of manned flight is optimistic - they might know enough physics, but i don't think enough is known about the medical effects to risk it. Fun to watch them try though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, iNow said:

And above I meant their, not they’re 

Their, they're, there are sew so many weighs ways of getting it wrong. I just make sure I get it write.  :)

14 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Throwing all resources SpaceX has available at it might get something there - at the risk of going broke.

Musk seems to think his Starlink revenues will provide the necessary funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Their, they're, there are sew so many weighs ways of getting it wrong. I just make sure I get it write.

Lol. Actually think autocorrect bit me on that one :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Area54 said:

Musk seems to think his Starlink revenues will provide the necessary funding.

I don't think that makes it better. Starlink has a huge potential revenue stream that can be reinvested in commercial opportunities and makes commercial sense but trips to Mars do not. There is still no potential future revenue stream from spending all that money going to a dead end destination and will be a bad investment.

I think Mars only looms large in popular imagination because of generations of overly optimistic popular fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I don't think that makes it better. Starlink has a huge potential revenue stream that can be reinvested in commercial opportunities and makes commercial sense but trips to Mars do not. There is still no potential future revenue stream from spending all that money going to a dead end destination and will be a bad investment.

I think Mars only looms large in popular imagination because of generations of overly optimistic popular fiction.

It appears to me that Mars is Musk's folly and his accumulating wealth is the means to that end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think Mars only looms large in popular imagination because of generations of overly optimistic popular fiction.

Do you believe that plans and efforts to finally put a man/woman on Mars is uneccessary? Or are you only speaking of the current near time frame to do that in? The facts that we havn't been back to the Moon in near 40 years, may seem to support your opinion, but supports my suggestion that continued space exploration should be a world united effort. The eventual benefits will flow to all and as I personally believe, we/humanity are not meant to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb, which does have a "use by date". If we can extend that date, we must.

To quote Captain, [now Admiral Kirk] we must boldly go where no man has gone before..apologies if that sounds corny. 😊

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Do you believe that plans and efforts to finally put a man/woman on Mars is uneccessary? Or are you only speaking of the current near time frame to do that in? The facts that we havn't been back to the Moon in near 40 years, may seem to support your opinion, but supports my suggestion that continued space exploration should be a world united effort. The eventual benefits will flow to all and as I personally believe, we/humanity are not meant to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb, which does have a "use by date". If we can extend that date, we must.

To quote Captain, [now Admiral Kirk] we must boldly go where no man has gone before..apologies if that sounds corny. 😊

SpaceX has just got the moonlander contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, beecee said:

Do you believe that plans and efforts to finally put a man/woman on Mars is uneccessary? Or are you only speaking of the current near time frame to do that in? The facts that we havn't been back to the Moon in near 40 years, may seem to support your opinion, but supports my suggestion that continued space exploration should be a world united effort. The eventual benefits will flow to all and as I personally believe, we/humanity are not meant to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb, which does have a "use by date". If we can extend that date, we must.

To quote Captain, [now Admiral Kirk] we must boldly go where no man has gone before..apologies if that sounds corny. 😊

The quoting from SF may be making my point for me. It IS corny, sorry and I don't accept that it is true; machines are doing it better at this point, already going where Man cannot go boldly or at all.

We are way short of stagnation and the disparagement of our blue orb is not called for; nothing in our solar system can compare, not even close. Our harshest deserts are more hospitable. And I think the Grand Space Dreams that science fiction inspires absolutely depend on an enduring, prosperous and wealthy Earth economy. Should we manage to achieve some kind of colonising of space I think it will arise from servicing Earth's needs for resources - at this point the standout resource is nickel-iron and Mars would not be the place to try and mine it. And to succeed, will have to ruthlessly eliminate the need for astronauts wherever possible; nothing adds more costs and complications to doing things in space than including people.

Mars is interesting if you are a planetologist or we want to look for evidence of life apart from planet Earth but it's a terrible place for people and I do think sending crewed missions there is pointless as well as extraordinarily wasteful. Also very high risk. It is hyper expensive theatre with a high likelihood of turning to tragedy. If people want to do it out of their own resources, sure, but I don't want taxpayers funding it.

Edited by Ken Fabian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Mars is interesting if you are a planetologist or we want to look for evidence of life apart from planet Earth but it's a terrible place for people and I do think sending crewed missions there is pointless as well as extraordinarily wasteful. Also very high risk.

It's not pointless as it's done the spirit of exploration and curiosity - it is its own reward (though a good case can be made for humans being better than rovers for scientific discovery).  Even if SpaceX fail in their Mars objective they would have made LEO far more accessible to humans.

Waste is a matter of perspective. The estimated cost of sending humans to Mars was ~$500 billion. That's about what the development cost of the F-35, or 5 years worth of haircare products.Given those 3 options, i wouldn't be picking a Mars mission as the wasteful option - but that's just me.  And that estimate was made before private companies started to reduce costs. Mars One had an estimated of $6 billion. SpaceX are estimating $10 billion for development then $1/2 billion per passenger. Also, billionaire's are the ones sinking money into this - so who cares? Surely it's better than buying diamond encrusted yachts or football clubs.

It's very risky - but so was trying to circumnavigate the globe, fly across the atlantic, even learning to control fire probably burnt more than a few of our ancestors. Some humans are willing to take those risks. Not only would I not try to stop them, i would cheer them on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

The quoting from SF may be making my point for me. It IS corny, sorry and I don't accept that it is true; machines are doing it better at this point, already going where Man cannot go boldly or at all.

We are way short of stagnation and the disparagement of our blue orb is not called for; nothing in our solar system can compare, not even close. Our harshest deserts are more hospitable. And I think the Grand Space Dreams that science fiction inspires absolutely depend on an enduring, prosperous and wealthy Earth economy. Should we manage to achieve some kind of colonising of space I think it will arise from servicing Earth's needs for resources - at this point the standout resource is nickel-iron and Mars would not be the place to try and mine it. And to succeed, will have to ruthlessly eliminate the need for astronauts wherever possible; nothing adds more costs and complications to doing things in space than including people.

Mars is interesting if you are a planetologist or we want to look for evidence of life apart from planet Earth but it's a terrible place for people and I do think sending crewed missions there is pointless as well as extraordinarily wasteful. Also very high risk. It is hyper expensive theatre with a high likelihood of turning to tragedy. If people want to do it out of their own resources, sure, but I don't want taxpayers funding it.

I won't comment too much on your thoughts other then to say I couldn't disagree more. As Prometheus said eloquently, "It's not pointless as it's done in the spirit of exploration and curiosity" While I quoted a line from sci/fi, let me say you will never stop humanity from exploring. Columbus showed we wouldn't fall of the edge of the Earth by his desire for exploration, curiosity and to go where [he thought] man had not gone before. There are of course countless and countless other examples. And sure we certainly need to fix how home [Earth] that goes without saying. Has there been any example of better International co-operation then that achieved through building the ISS? Worth noting that mankind/humankind has had a presence in space everyday for more then 20 years now because of the ISS. I will agree totally with you that  automation and robots will always play a part, and be forerunners to those places before mankind, but you can bet your short n curlies, that humans will follow when conditions and safety are as compatible and as best as we can achieve. 

Again as Prometheus said, there are those amongst us who are willing to take the risk, and like Prometheus, I also cheer them on and wish them the best, whether its SpaceX, China, Russia or whoever.

It will happen, and should happen. I just hope I'm still around to see it. 

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are exploring and better than ever. 21st century humans do space exploration from swivel chairs in front of computer monitors on Earth - it is the in-person explorer thing that is anachronistic.

With roots in Astronomy and science, space exploration done from a distance, remotely, is normal and works extraordinarily well, whilst the gloves-on, in-person human space explorer is wishful thinking. Leaving out the crew part simplifies any space mission, extends it's reach and reduces costs enormously.

We still do space exploration and we share in it through remote machines and their feeds, in different ways to crewed missions of the Apollo era. But the claim that humans do space exploration better is bunk, with probes and rovers already having explored far beyond the reach of the most ambitious crewed missions.

There are some worthwhile taxpayer funded goals in space beyond Earth orbit, eg meteor defense - but Mars colonisation is a poor one. It isn't the spirit of adventure that will carry space enterprises over the line into self supporting viability but commercial viability and Mars doesn't have any.

 

 

Edited by Ken Fabian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beecee said:

I won't comment too much on your thoughts other then to say I couldn't disagree more. As Prometheus said eloquently, "It's not pointless as it's done in the spirit of exploration and curiosity"

The two aren't mutually exclusive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

We are exploring and better than ever. 21st century humans do space exploration from swivel chairs in front of computer monitors on Earth - it is the in-person explorer thing that is anachronistic.

Anachronistic only in the sense that almost all human space exploration has yet to come.

 

59 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

With roots in Astronomy and science, space exploration done from a distance, remotely, is normal and works extraordinarily well, whilst the gloves-on, in-person human space explorer is wishful thinking.

Arguably all major advances in human achievement begin with wishful thinking.

 

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

But the claim that humans do space exploration better is bunk, with probes and rovers already having explored far beyond the reach of the most ambitious crewed missions.

That strikes one as a specious argument. "Our probes and rovers have done a much better job of space exploration of the places they have gone to, than have the human explorers who have not gone there." Well, duh!

Ultimately, George Mallory said it best. "Because it's there."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Area54 said:

 That strikes one as a specious argument. "Our probes and rovers have done a much better job of space exploration of the places they have gone to, than have the human explorers who have not gone there." Well, duh!

Not specious, IMO. We haven't sent crewed craft places because we either can't or won't. Robotic craft can survive a much wider range of environments as opposed to humans. Even if you aren't counting on the humans to return to earth, they still need to survive to their destination to do the mission. Missions with crewed craft are much more expensive, owing to the need to protect the fragile crew.

How do you justify the added cost and complexity, while accounting for the reality of finite budgets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

We are exploring and better than ever. 21st century humans do space exploration from swivel chairs in front of computer monitors on Earth - it is the in-person explorer thing that is anachronistic.

It's not so much Mars we want to explore, but the limits of human ingenuity and bravery. Mars is currently the ultimate test. There is a reason people still climb mountains rather than a helicopter up.

If we do make it to Mars, the asteroid belt would probably be the next thing the intrepid among us would eye up.

 

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

There are some worthwhile taxpayer funded goals in space beyond Earth orbit, eg meteor defense - but Mars colonisation is a poor one. It isn't the spirit of adventure that will carry space enterprises over the line into self supporting viability but commercial viability and Mars doesn't have any.

If a few billionaires want to try, why blow raspberries at them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.