Thread: Musk

Theres talk about 2020 mars or moon landing, but they're always saying things like that to keep us on our toes. Space X with Musk is a good bet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ci9xIgNZM

Think about NASA (Taxpayers) taking 10 times the amount of material they are currently taking into to space. And that is only with the current technology Space X proclaims to have. It will undoubtedly get better as we demand it more for increasing use of interstellar space.

Then the moon will begin to look good to the "Haves", colonies will be built as luxury resorts at some point. Governments putting things there in case of mass extinction on earth. Probably experiments to be done eventually. The next thirty years will hopefully be exciting in the space exploration field.

Originally Posted by ChadSitze

Theres talk about 2020 mars or moon landing, but they're always saying things like that to keep us on our toes. Space X with Musk is a good bet.

I would certainly be willing to bet that Space X has not performed a successful manned mission to Mars, returning a live human, by 2020.

By 2020 they won't have. maybe the moon if were lucky. its just a point to be made that like everything else around us space exploration is going to expand as well.

The logical first trip would be Phobos. That moon is so small that it would be more a docking manoeuvre than a landing. Fuel-wise, that would be easier than a trip to land on the moon.

Originally Posted by ChadSitze

By 2020 they won't have. maybe the moon if were lucky. its just a point to be made that like everything else around us space exploration is going to expand as well.

Why ?

The U.S. manned space program has been effectively canceled. That is hardly evidence of expansion.

[quote="DrRocket"]

Why ?

The U.S. manned space program has been effectively canceled. That is hardly evidence of expansion.

I would argue the opposite. By letting our old space program go we are opening up to the new ideas. Were going to embrace the new technology that seems to me to be clearly emerging all around us. Is Moores law not applicable to all branches of technology? Perhaps not to the same extent as processing power but I can't help but feel that once its cheap and inexpensive to rocket anything into space things will quickly accelerate.

[quote="ChadSitze"]

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Why ?

The U.S. manned space program has been effectively canceled. That is hardly evidence of expansion.

I would argue the opposite. By letting our old space program go we are opening up to the new ideas. Were going to embrace the new technology that seems to me to be clearly emerging all around us. Is Moores law not applicable to all branches of technology? Perhaps not to the same extent as processing power but I can't help but feel that once its cheap and inexpensive to rocket anything into space things will quickly accelerate.

You clearly have not built many space launchers.

Dr. Rocket, could you elaborate?

Originally Posted by 15uliane

Dr. Rocket, could you elaborate?

1. The cost of space launches has relatively little to do with the rocket but has a great deal to do with government regulations and the standing army at the launch sites. NASA manned programs are especially expensive, largely due to aspects of the way that NASA does business that contribute very little to reliability and mission success. Contractors wind up with a doubled work force -- one to do the work and one to baby-sit NASA.

2. There is nothing new in the technology of Eldon Musk/Space X, except for private funding and a demonstrated tendency to cut corners and overlook what should be obvious issues to anyone who has ever built rockets. They screwed up the staging event, twice, due to errors that would be obvious to most professionals. What they have demonstrated to me is incompetence.

3. Space X is following in the footsteps of Beal Aerospace, which got nowhere. Gravity is a bitch and of necessity rockets are driven by performance that is tied to economic reality. That results in systems that have a number of single-point failure modes, which in turn requires extreme attention to detail and quality control. Short cuts lead to eventual disaster.

If you like a small window into the propulsion business, get a copy of Truth, Lies and O-rings by Al McDonald. Read it skeptically, as it is the perspective of one man, who is pretty kind to himself. But there is a lot of truth in that account of the Challenger disaster.

Originally Posted by skeptic

The logical first trip would be Phobos. That moon is so small that it would be more a docking manoeuvre than a landing. Fuel-wise, that would be easier than a trip to land on the moon.

Landing on Phobos would require you to get your velocity exactly right. Remember that adjusting your own velocity, even if it's purely to slow down, requires you to use thrust. The faster you're going when you arrive, the more thrust you'll need in order to stop.

Landing on Mars, on the other hand, you could use atmospheric slowing to help. Even if you're landing on the Moon you have gravity to help you steer toward your target, which means you can be a little bit less precise and still get there.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by 15uliane

Dr. Rocket, could you elaborate?

1. The cost of space launches has relatively little to do with the rocket but has a great deal to do with government regulations and the standing army at the launch sites. NASA manned programs are especially expensive, largely due to aspects of the way that NASA does business that contribute very little to reliability and mission success. Contractors wind up with a doubled work force -- one to do the work and one to baby-sit NASA.

That makes me think it might not be such a bad thing to see NASA get under-funded to death after all. Is there any way to just start over with a new program?

Originally Posted by kojax

[
That makes me think it might not be such a bad thing to see NASA get under-funded to death after all. Is there any way to just start over with a new program?

They cancel programs and start new ones with regularity. That is part of the problem.

I think you really mean a new agency. That would be politically difficult as congress uses NASA to dole out pork (they use other agencies as well). But it might not be a bad idea. Cancellation of the Constellation program, if it is ever really halted, creates sufficient upheaval that if there will ever be a good time to do it, this is that time. I consider that step very unlikely.

Originally Posted by kojax

Landing on Phobos would require you to get your velocity exactly right. Remember that adjusting your own velocity, even if it's purely to slow down, requires you to use thrust. The faster you're going when you arrive, the more thrust you'll need in order to stop.

Landing on Mars, on the other hand, you could use atmospheric slowing to help. Even if you're landing on the Moon you have gravity to help you steer toward your target, which means you can be a little bit less precise and still get there.

Actually, you could use atmospheric braking for a Phobos landing also, skipping in and out of the atmosphere. You would need to use thrust to get down to an adequate low speed, though. A Mars landing would require the use of thrust also, to the same degree. You cannot hit the atmosphere at interplanetary velocities and survive. Not even the thin atmosphere of Mars.

A Phobos landing, though, requires no propellant to overcome planetary gravity on take-off. This means a fuel requirement less than a trip to a moon landing and back.

NASA is working on ion drive engines, which can only be used in space, but which provide the potential for very high velocities with relatively little propellant, compared to the engines used to clear a planetary gravity well. To travel to Phobos or Mars would require massive rockets just to get into Earth orbit. Once in orbit, those massive and inefficient devices can be jettisoned, and the rest of the voyage to Phobos done with much more efficient ion drives.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Originally Posted by kojax

Landing on Phobos would require you to get your velocity exactly right. Remember that adjusting your own velocity, even if it's purely to slow down, requires you to use thrust. The faster you're going when you arrive, the more thrust you'll need in order to stop.

Landing on Mars, on the other hand, you could use atmospheric slowing to help. Even if you're landing on the Moon you have gravity to help you steer toward your target, which means you can be a little bit less precise and still get there.

Actually, you could use atmospheric braking for a Phobos landing also, skipping in and out of the atmosphere. You would need to use thrust to get down to an adequate low speed, though. A Mars landing would require the use of thrust also, to the same degree. You cannot hit the atmosphere at interplanetary velocities and survive. Not even the thin atmosphere of Mars.

Oh yeah. I didn't think about the proximity of Mars, and using it's atmosphere and gravity to assist. It probably would be pretty easy to land then. I was thinking of it like it was an independent body... which it clearly isn't. :?

A Phobos landing, though, requires no propellant to overcome planetary gravity on take-off. This means a fuel requirement less than a trip to a moon landing and back.

NASA is working on ion drive engines, which can only be used in space, but which provide the potential for very high velocities with relatively little propellant, compared to the engines used to clear a planetary gravity well. To travel to Phobos or Mars would require massive rockets just to get into Earth orbit. Once in orbit, those massive and inefficient devices can be jettisoned, and the rest of the voyage to Phobos done with much more efficient ion drives.

Yeah. They've run a few missions with them already. They're pretty great on the unmanned probes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thr...ional_missions

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14776628

[quote=DrRocket]2. There is nothing new in the technology of Eldon Musk/Space X, except for private funding and a demonstrated tendency to cut corners and overlook what should be obvious issues to anyone who has ever built rockets.[quote]
Thats kind of true, in NASA basically gave them the F-1 design and then helped them all the way down the path.