Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars

[rdl]

Posts which do little but spew ridicule and derision toward others and repeat the same weak arguments over and over are less than useless. There are many things which make travel in our solar system difficult, but distance is pretty far down the list. So is dangerous.

[Koen]

It's weird how he keeps on inventing people to argue with ? "It's like people who say this", "it's like people who do that". As if he had ever met any outside his self-congratulatory made-up arguments.

My point is that some people think building a SPACE ELEVATOR is just a question of buying the right epoxy at Home Depot. 

These are people who look at pictures of nebulae light years away and start ordering trucks from the Caterpillar catalog for the mining operations. 

[Brumby]

Beware of applying science to predicting failure.  That path is littered with goofs.  Profiles of the Future,  Arthur Clarke's excellent book on the problems and pitfalls of predicting the future has two telling examples.  Professors at the University of Cornell (a leading aeronautical research institute at the time) in the 1930s used detail calculations of power available, drag and weight to poo poo the idea of trans-atlantic passenger transport.  They proved that at best a handful of passengers at a time could be carried and it could never reach economic break even.  Their calculations were completely correct.  I will leave as an exercise for the student how their calculations could be correct while today anyone can book a cross ocean airline flight carrying dozens or even hundreds of passengers.  While many will argue that airlines still haven't reached economic break even, the profs clearly missed a couple of inventions.  In the second example, in the late 1940s the British Interplanetary Society used information from material science, rocketry and the energy content and Isp potential of various fuels to prove that it was impossible to place a man made object on the moon.  Again it is informative to understand why they were wrong, even though there were no errors in their calculations.

This typifies a fundamental issue I have with those who want to predict the future - especially those at the pessimistic and of the scale:  Predicting future capabilities from current technology is a guarantee that you will be wrong - the only variable will be the degree of wrong.

[donotdespisethesnake]

This typifies a fundamental issue I have with those who want to predict the future - especially those at the pessimistic and of the scale:  Predicting future capabilities from current technology is a guarantee that you will be wrong - the only variable will be the degree of wrong.

It works the other way as well. Human imagination is infinite, so we an imagine faster than light travel, time machines, AGI, fusion reactors, anti-matter reactors, Dyson spheres etc. Some of those are probably theoretically impossible, otherwise practically impossible. There are hundreds of inventions than have been imagined but never implemented. "Where's my flying car?"

Additionally, some of the unpredicted stuff turns out to be on the bad side, e.g. DDT, CFSs, lead in petrol, fossil fuels, plastics.

The assumption that just because we can think of it, one day technological advance will make it happen, is wrong and naive. Although our technology continues to advance, there is no reason to believe it will continue to advance forever. At some point, our technological capability will peak, and then the degree of wrong will trend to zero.

We have seen some peaks already, e.g. supersonic passenger travel. It'll be interesting to see what happens when oil becomes too expensive to use as a fuel source as well.

[CatalinaWOW]

Predictions fail in both directions, but the biggest failures have been those predicting the end of science, the point at which nothing more can be known.  All indications are that we are very far indeed from that.  Local peaks have been passed without loss to the world.  The largest steam locomotive and largest battleship are under mourned prior peaks. 

[Brumby]

Certainly predictions fail in both directions - but inevitably, those that "fail" because of an achievement "never attained" are because of a date that was put on them.  Many of those I will leave as "open", not as failures because of a date.

Flying cars being one example.  We may not be looking at a solution that looks like a BTTF hover converted DeLorean in the foreseeable future, but it would be asinine to state it an impossibility - unless you are limiting the technology to that which we comprehend here and now ... which would also be asinine.  Even then, we may need to redefine what is meant by "car" and extend that definition to something less constraining.  "Horseless carriage" is an example where this has already occurred.  Technologically speaking, aerial taxis are a thing - and this is really nuzzling close to the "flying car" playground.

The point I was making is more on the aspect of things that have been declared as "impossible".  Some examples have already been given - and there are bound to be many more.


In short, I make no pretence to have the knowledge necessary to be able to make ANY categorical statement about what cannot ever be achieved.  I envy those who do (if they were to exist), but I pity those who think they do.

[Eka]

In the second example, in the late 1940s the British Interplanetary Society used information from material science, rocketry and the energy content and Isp potential of various fuels to prove that it was impossible to place a man made object on the moon.

They must have missed the 1903 report by Russian school teacher Konstantin Ysiolkovskii, and Hermann Oberth's 1923 book. 

"Where's my flying car?"

Caught in a legal quagmire. Many decently working ones have been invented already. No insurance company is willing to insure the makers. Plus in most countries you would need a pilots license to fly one. They usually have some strict requirements to get one. Thus the market for them is rather small. BTW, the flying car you see in one of the Bond movies is real, and actually worked. That gives you and idea how long they have been around.

We have seen some peaks already, e.g. supersonic passenger travel. It'll be interesting to see what happens when oil becomes too expensive to use as a fuel source as well.

You'd be surprised at what you can make oil out of. When oil gets expensive, the greedy who don't care about the environment, will wreck the earth to make it to keep the gas guzzlers going. Yet another reason to let the meek inherit the earth. The rest of us will need to go to the stars to have clean air to breath, safe water to drink, and food for the table. Yes, food for the table. I've been wondering on the progress of Musk's super sonic electric jet. For those of you who scoff at it, run the fucking numbers. The latest batteries they are using in the Model 3 just make it that much easier to do. My main complaint about the Concorde was noise, but a good pair of noise canceling headphones solved that. Even at ticket prices that made profits, people still booked them. 4 hours from gate to gate for Washington DC to Paris was real nice, but a bit cramped compared to having a whole Gulfstream III to one's self.

It's weird how he keeps on inventing people to argue with ? "It's like people who say this", "it's like people who do that". As if he had ever met any outside his self-congratulatory made-up arguments.

Kinda like that idiot going senile in public housing next to The Mall in Washington DC.

[CatalinaWOW]

In the second example, in the late 1940s the British Interplanetary Society used information from material science, rocketry and the energy content and Isp potential of various fuels to prove that it was impossible to place a man made object on the moon.

They must have missed the 1903 report by Russian school teacher Konstantin Ysiolkovskii, and Hermann Oberth's 1923 book. 

They were quite aware of those papers.  They went to another level of detail, showing to their satisfaction that real world limitations existed.

Flying cars face a moving bar of regulatory requirements.  To be operated as cars on the road they must also meet crash standards, have air bags, pass emissions tests, have high mounted central tail lights ......Which is why most current attempts at the market either do something to allow them to be classified as motorcycles (!) or just avoid driving (the multicopter approaches).

[In Vacuo Veritas]

Flying cars face a moving bar of regulatory requirements. 

So do airliners. Yet they exist. You conveniently blame regulations when time has shown over and over that when there is an actual technology that exists, regulations will change.

Your refusal to acknowledge real-world limits and incapacity to imagine constraints (for example, imagine the flying debris from millions of flying cars taking off and landing all the time), is indicative of a wide-eyed daydreamer. This is an engineering forum.

Where's the engineering?

You won't get flying cars. You won't get practical fusion power, or a shiny happy society of technological abundance. We could have done it by now, yet we didn't.

That's all there is to it. It's called "reality". Give it a try sometime. Then you'll see it has nothing to do with vitriol, or any of the emotional outrage you guys spew.

It's very, very simple: 92 stable elements, most of which are either useless or dangerous. Four fundamental forces, only one of which we can claim to control somewhat, and two others we can sometimes tickle.

That's it. No Star Trek, no Space Elevators, no Moon colonies, no brave Martian homesteaders, no warp drive, no replicators, hell we couldn't even manage a leisure society with minimum guaranteed conditions for everyone because we're such stupid animals we can't tolerate someone doing nothing all day even though we're surrounded by so much technology we think we'll colonize the universe.

I think you guys watched a bit too much of this



as kids.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

You'd be surprised at what you can make oil out of.

You'd be surprised at how much energy you need in the first place to do that. Do you seriously not understand EROEI? Do you really think when the oil runs out ... we'll just MAKE MORE?

You're like a kid asking your parents to buy more money.

You probably think Santa Claus brings coal, so make oil out of that! Just WISH harder, it'll happen!



Thank you for your humorous insights, it's fascinating to watch someone who doesn't understand how the world works imagine how it works. People born and raised in a technological society without the understanding of how it got there, or how people lived just a century ago, have a hard time realizing that things are temporary. The Romans once marched over the planet. Now they can't build bridges.

[Bud]

I read all 17 pages of this topic "Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars" , and the only thing i could not get out of it was Why SpaceX are going to beat NASA to Mars.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

I read all 17 pages of this topic "Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars" , and the only thing i could not get out of it was Why SpaceX are going to beat NASA to Mars.

Send what to Mars? I guess the usual fever-dream is to send brave test pilots in a tin can to go kick some rocks for SCIENCE or some such nonsense. NASA already sent probes and rovers. Big deal. Besides a few minutes of interest in looking at pictures of dead far away rocks, I lost interest decades ago. I can dig in my backyard and see rocks no one has ever seen before and we're in space too. So what?

[Brumby]

You'd be surprised at what you can make oil out of.

You'd be surprised at how much energy you need in the first place to do that. Do you seriously not understand EROEI? Do you really think when the oil runs out ... we'll just MAKE MORE?

Why not?  EROEI is more of an economic issue than a technological one.  Convenience - especially for an established infrastructure - is worth a premium.  That's not to say alternative mechanisms won't be pursued, but oil can be made.  It won't be fossilised dinosaurs, but then it doesn't need to be.


Your whole tone is nothing short of that I would expect from a troll - and one that would be better placed in the Middle Ages

[In Vacuo Veritas]

Why not?  EROEI is more of an economic issue than a technological one. 

Wow. Full-on cornucopian mindlessness...



If you have the energy in the first place, you don't have an energy problem. If you have an energy problem, you don't have an economy for much longer. Jesus Christ, does this really need explaining to functional adults?

You can't "tech" your way out of fundamental limits. FFS.

[Brumby]

If you have the energy in the first place, you don't have an energy problem.

You can have all the energy under the sun and still have an energy problem.

If you can't figure out why, then there's no point trying to explain it to you.



Your facepalm is hilarious.

Your myopia unfortunate.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

If you have the energy in the first place, you don't have an energy problem.

You can have all the energy under the sun and still have an energy problem.

You just said "EROEI is more of an economic issue than a technological one. " Then you said "You can have all the energy under the sun and still have an energy problem."

Uhhh.... 

That's the point... Um... Think it through.

[rdl]

I think the most likely way SpaceX might get to Mars before NASA, is with NASA's help.

I read all 17 pages of this topic "Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars" , and the only thing i could not get out of it was Why SpaceX are going to beat NASA to Mars.

[Brumby]

If you have the energy in the first place, you don't have an energy problem.

You can have all the energy under the sun and still have an energy problem.

You just said "EROEI is more of an economic issue than a technological one. " Then you said "You can have all the energy under the sun and still have an energy problem."

Uhhh.... 

That's the point... Um... Think it through.

Oh, I certainly have - and it's very clear the point I was making has gone straight over your head.  And to add to your confusion, it's not based on some esoteric principle or obscure concept, but some rather practical and tangible issues.

The fact you cannot even argue to the point displays your tunnel vision and mediaeval mentality - especially when there are things being done now at a commercial level that undermine your assertions.


But enough.  I have some more appealing things to do like clean up some "stuff" so I can mow the lawns.

[a59d1]

Be nice, fellas.

[Brumby]

Edited to be more nice.