Jump to content

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 minutes ago, zapatos said:
10 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

And there is no work to be done because there's nothing of any value out there.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."

Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

Yeah whatever.

There is LITERALLY nothing of value in space.

Do we need MORE gold? MORE iron? Do we need to pay $100,000 per pound of bananas because we can't grow enough bananas on earth?

Helium-3 was the best bet and it was recently shown that Fusion power won't even use Helium-3 as fuel.

So EVERY possible reason to be in space died this year. 

Satellites are it's own thing and a mature automated technology 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Elon Musk can't get anyone to even the Moon. Do you think space travel is magic? Has anything changed since Apollo? Physics maybe?  Absolutely not. dV hasn't changed. Rocket engine thru

Boy you're naive. NASA gave money to Musk because Musk is now a billionaire and can tell congressmen to give him money.  The days of the US accomplishing anything are fastly deteriorating. 

Their, they're, there are sew so many weighs ways of getting it wrong. I just make sure I get it write.  Musk seems to think his Starlink revenues will provide the necessary funding.

1 minute ago, IDNeon said:

Boy you're naive.

NASA gave money to Musk because Musk is now a billionaire and can tell congressmen to give him money. 

The days of the US accomplishing anything are fastly deteriorating. 

The US is like Rome in the 300s AD just eating itself.

Musk has shown ZERO capabilities of putting anything on the Moon 

Facts speak louder then online rants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Thankfully many more in the know then yourself, disagree with you

Name one and their argument?

Being higher than LEO is like being in the Chernobyl sarcophagus

1 minute ago, beecee said:
4 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Facts speak louder then online rants

What facts?

You mean that NASA spent $2billion on Musk for a rocket that MUST COST $30 billion dollars?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the feasibility and safety of a manned mission, one oculd also raise the question of how large the influence of private companies in this endeavor should be. As long as it is a purely an explorative/scientific mission, but if, as some posters suggest, there are practical reasons for travel and colonization, the framework might change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IDNeon said:

Name one and their argument?

😉 Try NASA for starters. And no I'm not going to go through the whole argument anymore then what I have said in this thread so far. Perhaps you need to get out of your own bubble and prosthelytizing, and do some reputable researching. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Am I talking to brick walls?

Delta-V is your space currency.

Right now it costs about $400 per m/s per pound.

That hasn't changed since Apollo.

So please tell me how Musk is anywhere close to the moon.

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Try NASA for starters

What part of physics don't you understand? 

NASA paying Musk is outright criminal theft of US tax payer money 

Edited by IDNeon
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

No. There's nothing out there and no reason to be there.

Quite correct. Nothing out there. Other than the rest of the universe.

And aboslutely no reason to be there. Other than scientific exploration, personal challenge, technology development, civilisation insurance, etc.

15 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

1/4 gravity over a lifetime is unsustainable.

And you have the scientific data to back this up, do you? I look forward to you posting the details of the relevant papers from reputable, peer reviewed journals.

 

16 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Radiation is too high.

Radiation via continuous surface exposure is too high.  In the short term (fifty years or so) appropriate shielding provides a solution, in the longer term we may reasonably expect medical techniques to deal efficiently and routinely with any resultant cancers.

 

20 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Machines can do all the work.

See my first repsonse.

 

20 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

And there is no work to be done because there's nothing of any value out there.

I can, if you wish, recommend a good optometrist. You appear to have a severe case of myopia.

4 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Am I talking to brick walls?

Perhaps if you offered solid supporting data for your various claims and toned down the passionate, agenda-driven rhetoric, you might obtain a more sympathetic hearing. But maybe you need the rebuttals in order to feel good. Whatever floats your boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Quite correct. Nothing out there. Other than the rest of the universe

If you can build a chemical rocket big enough to get your life support payload enough dV to get to Neptune. It will take 90 years to get there. 

What more expensive ship will you build to get to Neptune in your lifetime and for what reason? To mine methane? 

5 minutes ago, Area54 said:

In the short term (fifty years or so) appropriate shielding provides a solution

Do you know how hard it is to provide ANY shielding?

Edited by IDNeon
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IDNeon said:

If you can build a chemical rocket big enough to get your life support payload enough dV to get to Neptune. It will take 90 years to get there. 

What more expensive ship will you build to get to Neptune and for what reason? To mine methane? 

When you can ask a question that is not deliberately obtuse I shall be happy to provide a comprehensive reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

There is LITERALLY nothing of value in space.

Of course not! 😆 but it still will happen. Exploration, adventure, the need to establish ourselves further afield will always happen. In 10 years, in a 100 years, in a 1000 years...I'm not too concerned with any time frame, but space exploration, return to the Moon, a Martian manned landing, and a colony will take place...in time, and in time even further afield. 

You seem rather emotional in your fabricated replies as to why we will not/can not/should not, whatever your personal cause/case maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Do you know how hard it is to provide ANY shielding?

Do you know how easy it is to move a 3' pile of Martian regolith?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, beecee said:

You seem rather emotional in your fabricated replies as to why we will not/can not/should not, whatever your personal cause/case maybe

It's because human space travel isn't just absurd. It practicality is almost impossible. 

We will have to invent an entirely NEW type of propulsion to make it practical. No one has yet.

Until then.  Musk isn't going anywhere.

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Do you know how easy it is to move a 3' pile of Martian regolith

Do you know how hard it is to get a shovel to mars?

Also there is no guarantee Martian regolith is 3 feet deep. God forbid we have to break rocks on Mars.

A single bulldozer would cost a couple hundred billion dollars to send to the Moon 

 

 

Musk is a cult leader and that is no joke.

Edited by IDNeon
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

NASA paying Musk is outright criminal theft of US tax payer money 

😆 Rubbish. He has been shown to be worthy of the challenge and already has achieved much and I see no reason why his achievements should not continue.

The only thing I will add as I have said many times, the challenge to get to Mars, and/or establish a colony on the Moon and Mars, should be an International effort.

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, beecee said:

 Rubbish. He has been shown to be worthy of the challenge and alreay has achieved much and I see no reason why his achievements should not continue

What achievement? 

Delta V is as expensive as its always been.

Dragon capsule does what Apollo did 60 years ago.

 

So what? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Do you know how hard it is to get a shovel to mars?

To quote a great Predsident of the USA, "We don't chose to do these things because they are easy, we chose to do them because they are hard" 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Do you know how hard it is to get a shovel to mars?

Probably a lot easier than getting a helicopter there, so no problem really.

 

5 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Also there is no guarantee Martian regolith is 3 feet deep

I suppose if all the thousands of sedimentologists who have studied rocks and rock waste and weathering processes on the Earth, backed up by the fundamental research of thousands of chemists, and applied by hundreds of analysts to photographic evidence, from orbit and landers, is wrong. If they represent ineptness and incompetence of an unparalled degree, then you might be right and there may not be 3 foot deep regolith on Mars. Perhaps much of it is really 1 metre deep.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, beecee said:

To quote a great Predsident of the USA, "We don't chose to do these things because they are easy, we chose to do them because they are hard" 

So you're going to convince people to spend trillions of dollars to dig an igloo on Mars?

Just now, Area54 said:

Probably a lot easier than getting a helicopter there, so no problem really

A helicopter that weighs a couple pounds and cost 100million dollars to get there?

Thanks for proving my point

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

What achievement? 

Are you serious?

9 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Delta V is as expensive as its always been.

So what?  Anything worthwhile is difficult and expensive, but they still happen, eg: the ISS, the LHC, all worthehile scientific achievements that all benefit mankind.

9 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Dragon capsule does what Apollo did 60 years ago.

Except its bigger and better.

I'll reiterate for your education...despite difficulties, despite expnses, colonies on the Moon and Mars will eventuate, in time. But again, I agree and international efort should be established to achieve these goals.

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

So you're going to convince people to spend trillions of dollars to dig an igloo on Mars?

As I noted previously, your posts are singularily devoid of support. If you wish to continue this dialogue please provide the data to support your claim that it will cost trillions of dollars to "dig an igloo on Mars". You have time. I shall be offline for twelve hours or more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Thanks for proving my point

What point is that? The only point is that despite the obvious difficulties that will be encountered, despite the incredible costs that are going to be involved, Moon landings, and colonies, Mars landing and colonies, will in time be achieved...10, 100, 1000 years from now...you chose the time frame, but it will happen. Understand?

But again [a point you obviously keep ignoring, which tells me you have an agenda] all this should be an International effort, just as the ISS was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look the problem is NONE OF YOU know how Musk is full of crap.

Apollo could shoot the CSM to Alpha Centauri if you wanted it to.

Of course it could put a CSM into Mars Transfer Orbit.

You wouldn't be able to capture a Mars Orbit.

It took the ENTIRE Saturn V to capture lunar orbit, land, take off, and get back to Earth.

The ability to go to Alpha Centauri is meaningless. The dV budget is GOD.

And the dV of getting to the moon is far....far out of the reach of the Falcon Heavy.

Even if the Falcon Heavy can shoot a payload into Mars Transfer. It can't keep that payload there.

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Are you serious

Yes I'm damned serious.

Privatizing public assets is not an achievement, it's theft.

The people of the United States invented the rockets that Musk is building. He's using nothing proprietary or new.

NOTHING 

Musks great achievement was tying a bunch of smaller rockets together and calling that a heavy lift capability. 

So what? 

Northrup Grumman has the same capability at the same cost.

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

What point is that? The only point is that despite the obvious difficulties that will be encountered, despite the incredible costs that are going to be involved, Moon landings, and colonies, Mars landing and colonies, will in time be achieved...10, 100, 1000 years from now...you chose the time frame, but it will happen. Understand

What your argument says is that people are bound to build the great pyramids again. Because why not. 

If there's no money in it. It will never happen.

Giant worthless efforts are what economists call "tournaments".

Unless nations see a national security reason to compete sending people to Mars. They never will.

 

And no one will ever be rich enough to do it by themselves. 

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

all this should be an International effort, just as the ISS was

The ISS is astronomically (pun intended) more feasible than the Moon landing let alone going to Mars.

The Moon landings cost the US about 500billion USD in today's money.

15 minutes ago, Area54 said:

As I noted previously, your posts are singularily devoid of support

Do you not know what dV is?

Do you not understand how expensive getting to Mars is in dV. Forget about money. 

There is NO chemical rocket that can achieve a reasonable Low Martian Orbit with any meaningful payload.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Look the problem is NONE OF YOU know how Musk is full of crap.

But you do? 😅 I smell an agenda of sorts.

4 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

The ability to go to Alpha Centauri is meaningless. The dV budget is GOD.

God? Hey matey, this is a science forum, and not the place to discuss mythical nonsense.

The rest of your stuff seems like an  inspired rant.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank God I still had it.

 

There is not a single Rocket in existence that can get any payload of any responsible kind to Mars.

 

The reason we can send probes is because probes fall under the 1.6% payload 98.4% fuel ratio.

Saturn V was 36% payload and 64% fuel.

A Saturn V CANNOT get an apollo space craft (a portable flying toilet in terms of size) to Mars. Let alone get anything back.

 

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable.php

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

But you do? 😅 I smell an agenda of sorts

I just cited the dV problem.

 

There is no rocket on earth in existence today that can get anyone to Mars.

Musk hasnt changed anything. 

It's not about MONEY.

it's about dV

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable.php

 

Do you even know what delta V budget is?

Beece. You mentally do not comprehend what I'm talking about. You clearly have NO Orbital mechanics understanding what-so-ever.

 

How many times do I have to tell you we CANNOT budget for the dV required to go to Mars.

We can land probes that fall within a 1.6% payload ratio.

That's where it ends.

Can you imagine the Saturn V if it was 2^5 times bigger?

Lolololol.

Link to post
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

×
×
  • 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.