Author Topic: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars  (Read 25174 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline German_EE

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2400
  • Country: de
Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« on: July 14, 2018, 06:57:20 pm »
The attitude of the company and the people who work there. I'm a space geek, I've always been a space geek and the thought of a man or woman walking on Mars is enough to make the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. NASA are however too cautious, the two shuttle failures have beaten the spirit out of the organization and now they only want to take the tiniest of baby steps. They might, maybe, make it to Mars by 2030 but it's more likely that they will piss away their time in low Earth orbit.

SpaceX are however different. Not only are they willing to make mistakes they treat those mistakes as part of the engineering process and then they try again, and again, and again until things start to work. This is what NASA did in the 1950's and 1960's until they ended up with Armstrong's 'one small step'. What's prompted this little piece? Someone sent me a link to the SpaceX Youtube channel where there are lots of cool rocket launches, and there's THIS!



The day commercial space flight becomes a reality I want them to show this as part of the pre-flight video  :-DD

If you want the main Youtube channel it's here https://www.youtube.com/user/spacexchannel/videos?disable_polymer=1

Now get your ass to Mars!!
Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.

Warren Buffett
 
The following users thanked this post: SeanB

Online jpanhalt

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 797
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2018, 07:09:57 pm »
Don't forget the enormous fallout from the Apollo 1 fire.  The military (remember Vanguard?) and NASA aren't allowed to make mistakes as our media blame it on the government.  Media don't understand risk.   SpaceX has had plenty of failures, but none got the media and Congressional attention of any of the failures mentioned.  When private enterprise has a failure, it is reported and forgotten. 

American exploration and innovation has generally been led by entrepreneurs.  NASA is the exception.  I am glad to see the private sector leading again.
 

Offline chris_leyson

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1411
  • Country: wales
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2018, 07:39:30 pm »
I don't think NASA have a big enough budget, they have to rely on Soyuz to get astronauts to the space station. SpaceX have a manned test flight of the Dragon 2 capsule late 2018 or early 2019. Boeing Starliner was scheduled for a manned test flight later this year but that is on hold. SpaceX are improving their technology all the time, they'll get more satellite launches and they even have the European Space Agency looking into reusable hardware.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 07:42:33 pm by chris_leyson »
 

Offline German_EE

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2400
  • Country: de
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2018, 07:42:18 pm »
Oh, I haven't forgotten Apollo 1, or the three men who died. However, after the fire there was a detailed investigation and then they carried on at full steam eager to beat the goal set by President Kennedy. It's a testiment to Grissom, White and Chaffee that they made it with five months to spare.

Want to see another tribute? Watch CSI. William Petersen is also a space geek and he named his character, Gil Grissom, as a tribute to the Command Module pilot.
Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.

Warren Buffett
 

Offline ttelectronic

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 41
  • Country: ca
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2018, 07:43:56 pm »
Unless there is a significant leap in tech, I don't think either will get there any time soon with humans.
 

Offline Eka

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2018, 12:12:05 am »
Unless there is a significant leap in tech, I don't think either will get there any time soon with humans.
The tech is there, or at least only a development budget away. It's been there for ages, and has been steadily improving. Just nobody has bothered to try to pay for it until now. Elon Musk has the will to do it and has figured out how to make launch vehicles massively cheaper so he can afford to do it with the profits from a satellite launch service. Yeah, there is a lot that still needs to be designed, but a lot of that is already being worked on. Musk isn't just building reusable rockets, electric cars, and tunnel building machines just because they are neat. They all fit into the picture and are needed for a Mars colony. Decades ago a fleet of Saturn Vs could have been built, the transport ships could have been designed, the mars landers could have been made, and habitats built, but the will of the people wasn't behind it. Musk doesn't have to listen to the will of the people, not even shareholders. Just his own will. Notice that SpaceX is controlled by him, not shareholders. The profits can remain dedicated to the task.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2018, 01:06:40 am »
Unless there is a significant leap in tech, I don't think either will get there any time soon with humans.

Depends on what your goal is.
Zubrin's Mars Direct style concept will get you to Mars in no time with minimal fuss.
I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to find someone willing to go on the trip knowing they will almost certainly die there if they make it. But that's not good PR.
I'm sure SpaceX could send a human to Mars one-way within a few years if that was the only concern, but it's not, so it won't happen within the next decade, maybe two.

Remember, for all of Space-X triumphs, they still haven't flown a single human to low earth orbit, this stuff takes time, and Space-X still want to do it "by the book" so to speak.
 
The following users thanked this post: jolshefsky, D-Jack

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2018, 01:39:00 am »
American exploration and innovation has generally been led by entrepreneurs.  NASA is the exception.  I am glad to see the private sector leading again.

It's a kind of funny, almost machiavellian twist of words to call "private sector enterpreneur" a company that's designed solely to suck public money by the millions^W billions, to do for a profit the job the NASA ought to be doing instead, isn't it?
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 
The following users thanked this post: gnavigator1007

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2018, 01:48:00 am »
American exploration and innovation has generally been led by entrepreneurs.  NASA is the exception.  I am glad to see the private sector leading again.

It's a kind of funny, almost machiavellian twist of words to call "private sector enterpreneur" a company that's designed solely to suck public money by the millions^W billions, to do for a profit the job the NASA ought to be doing instead, isn't it?
Company which is preventing ULA from uncontrollably sucking taxpayer money by being very competitive. FYI NASA never built it's own rockets. Not to say most Spacex launches are commercial/foreign government.
 
The following users thanked this post: Echo88

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2018, 01:54:40 am »
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2018, 02:04:00 am »
With such expenses you'll never send anything meaningful to Mars.
Quote
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was stated that the SLS program had a projected development cost of $18 billion through 2017, with $10 billion for the SLS rocket, $6 billion for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2 billion for upgrades to the launch pad and other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[19] These costs and schedule were considered optimistic in an independent 2011 cost assessment report by Booz Allen Hamilton for NASA.[90] An unofficial 2011 NASA document estimated the cost of the program through 2025 to total at least $41bn for four 95 t launches (1 uncrewed, 3 crewed),[2][3] with the 130 t version ready no earlier than 2030.[91]

The Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) estimated unit costs for Block 0 at $1.6bn and Block 1 at $1.86bn in 2010.[92] However, since these estimates were made the Block 0 SLS vehicle was dropped in late 2011, and the design was not completed.[93] The Space Review estimated the cost per launch at $5 billion, depending on the rate of launches.[94][95] NASA announced in 2013 that the European Space Agency will build the Orion Service Module.[96]
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2018, 02:19:18 am »
Imagine Von Braun, back in the day, calling on the phone like this: "Hi Musk, I have no clue man, how long will it take you to invent some moon rockets for me? I need them asap!" Imagine that? Of course NASA can subcontract subassemblies, bolts and nuts, but subcontract the whole damn thing that's their job to do? How come? Why?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 01:49:41 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline Eka

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2018, 03:18:24 am »
Of course NASA can subcontract subassemblies, bolts and nuts, but subcontract the whole damn thing that's their task to do? How come? Why?
NASA's hands were tied by a bunch of special interest groups setting the parameters they could work by. Additionally part of the goal was to develop the technologies in a way that they could also be of greater use to the nation. Yes, it was a huge new technology development effort and technology transfer to industry. In some cases industry just needed deep pockets to pursue a project that they otherwise couldn't see the profit in doing. Take a look at the history of the IC. As a nation we gained a huge advantage from it. Also NASA needed to keep their best engineers working on the big design issues, not solving production headaches.
 
The following users thanked this post: coldfiremc

Offline coldfiremc

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 65
  • Country: cl
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2018, 04:55:11 am »
Soviets taken humans and dogs outside, with less budget, techology and time than spaceX. Some of their designs still are in use (Soyuz, Energia rockets).
Nasa never developed nothing completely "inside", always was contract-driven. So State owned v/s private in United states, is quite nonsense. NASA served as a coordinator and financial support for many technological developments carried by universities, private companies, from US and another countries. Without it, probably some technologies never reached commercial/industrial grade.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 05:07:30 am by coldfiremc »
 

Online CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3591
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2018, 05:03:50 am »
One of my mentors was particularly strong on motivation/organization of teams.  One of his catch phrases was that before you can do anything "yougottawanna".  NASA used to "wanna".  Now they don't know what they "wanna" and every four or eight years the politicians change their direction for them.  Musk and SpaceX definately "wanna".
 
The following users thanked this post: coldfiremc

Offline ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3512
  • Country: de
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2018, 06:53:08 am »
SpaceX are however different. Not only are they willing to make mistakes they treat those mistakes as part of the engineering process and then they try again, and again, and again until things start to work.
[...]
Now get your ass to Mars!!

Any chance that the "make mistakes, then try again and again" paradigm would change once human pilots and passengers get involved?  :-\
 

Offline donotdespisethesnake

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1106
  • Country: gb
  • Embedded stuff
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2018, 07:18:00 am »
The goal of NASA's manned program was to beat the Soviets, and now to allocate pork. The whole thing about being pioneers in space was just propaganda to justify the expense. NASA's manned program is just a waste of time, compared to the robotic and other missions which are excellent. No US president will ever allocate NASA the funds required to put humans on Mars, nor to "go back" to the Moon. NASA have no interest or skill in reducing the cost of access to space, which is the only way it will get done.

Since SpaceX was set up with the express purpose of putting humans on Mars, and doing it by reducing cost, they will likely achieve it. NASA aren't even in the race - they might end up buying rockets or seats from SpaceX. There might be a "NASA mission to mars", but it will be a NASA badge on a private ship.

Bob
"All you said is just a bunch of opinions."
 

Offline Eka

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2018, 07:33:03 am »
SpaceX are however different. Not only are they willing to make mistakes they treat those mistakes as part of the engineering process and then they try again, and again, and again until things start to work.
[...]
Now get your ass to Mars!!

Any chance that the "make mistakes, then try again and again" paradigm would change once human pilots and passengers get involved?  :-\
I seam to recall SpaceX already has a payload on the way to Mars. I expect many more before any human goes. They seam to be doing their testing before humans are part of the equation.
 

Offline Nusa

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1802
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2018, 07:44:04 am »
US Presidents can propose budgets, make requests, and threaten vetos, but in the end it's still Congress that actually allocates funds to NASA.

Which of course is hundreds of people with political agendas that have trouble getting on the same page even within the groups that are theoretically on the same side of issues.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2018, 09:52:31 am »
Soviets taken humans and dogs outside, with less budget, techology and time than spaceX. Some of their designs still are in use (Soyuz, Energia rockets).
Energia is not in use for decades. It was used to launch Buran spacecraft. As making it with lower budget, it's certainly not true when compared with Spacex. Also currently Soyuz and Proton are more expensive than Falcon.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2018, 10:33:37 am »
SpaceX are however different. Not only are they willing to make mistakes they treat those mistakes as part of the engineering process and then they try again, and again, and again until things start to work.
[...]
Now get your ass to Mars!!

Any chance that the "make mistakes, then try again and again" paradigm would change once human pilots and passengers get involved?  :-\
FWIW there was not a single human death and only 2 failures of Falcon 9 (the cause was found and fixed). You can't count landing attempt failures as launch failures. They were additional landing test missions after launch already happened. Since they got it right, every landing was successful except center booster of Falcon heavy (test mission and quiet different from F9 booster). Nobody else got the landing right, Blue Origin don't really count as it's not something that can place any payload into orbit. Spacex tests everything as much as possible, including firing engines on fully assembled rocket unlike anyone else. They try to not use anything non testable before use. For this reason they don't use pyro separation like others but hydraulic instead. Also unlike anyone else they take used rocket apart and inspect it, thus are able to find issues which others can't. Space shuttle was the most dangerous manned space vehicle. Both catastrophes were caused by already known problems which were not fixed and continued to use as is. Particularly solid booster seal issues and thermal tile issues.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 10:38:10 am by wraper »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2018, 11:20:05 am »
SpaceX are however different. Not only are they willing to make mistakes they treat those mistakes as part of the engineering process and then they try again, and again, and again until things start to work.
[...]
Now get your ass to Mars!!

Any chance that the "make mistakes, then try again and again" paradigm would change once human pilots and passengers get involved?  :-\

Yep, and this will be the huge test, when someone dies in a Space-X mission (it's probably inevitable).
And let's hope that Space-X is profitable, because if it's run like Tesla, then the wheels might eventually fall off the billy cart just because of that. Although I suspect NASA and hence the government won't let that happen.
Musk isn't that rich that he can fund Mars mission on his own, the company has to fund all this mars stuff through the profitable missions.
No bucks, no buck rogers.
So if/when a human accident happens, that will put a huge halt to things for a long time at the very least. There won't be any "beat the ruskies" 60's era go-fever to help it.
 
The following users thanked this post: schmitt trigger, coldfiremc

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2018, 11:23:33 am »
US Presidents can propose budgets, make requests, and threaten vetos, but in the end it's still Congress that actually allocates funds to NASA.
Which of course is hundreds of people with political agendas that have trouble getting on the same page even within the groups that are theoretically on the same side of issues.

And the only way they all get on the "same page" is money in their pockets, from the campaign donors. It's the way the US system works.
Musk might have to pony up huge $ to congressmen in order to grease the wheels.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2018, 11:26:16 am »
Also unlike anyone else they take used rocket apart and inspect it, thus are able to find issues which others can't. Space shuttle was the most dangerous manned space vehicle. Both catastrophes were caused by already known problems which were not fixed and continued to use as is.

And if you think Space-X aren't eventually going to get over-confident and get complacent and/or get pressured to meet schedules, then I've got a moon rock to sell you. It'll happen, just wait...
 
The following users thanked this post: SeanB, tooki

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2018, 11:47:59 am »
Also unlike anyone else they take used rocket apart and inspect it, thus are able to find issues which others can't. Space shuttle was the most dangerous manned space vehicle. Both catastrophes were caused by already known problems which were not fixed and continued to use as is.

And if you think Space-X aren't eventually going to get over-confident and get complacent and/or get pressured to meet schedules, then I've got a moon rock to sell you. It'll happen, just wait...
SRB O-ring failure was known for 9 years and still not fixed.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #25 on: July 15, 2018, 11:58:05 am »
In some cases industry just needed deep pockets to pursue a project that they otherwise couldn't see the profit in doing. Take a look at the history of the IC.
Would you go as far as saying that we wouldn't have ICs if it were not for NASA?
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline Eka

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #26 on: July 15, 2018, 03:20:55 pm »
In some cases industry just needed deep pockets to pursue a project that they otherwise couldn't see the profit in doing. Take a look at the history of the IC.
Would you go as far as saying that we wouldn't have ICs if it were not for NASA?
No, but it is the feeling of many that they would have not come as early as they did.
 
The following users thanked this post: GeorgeOfTheJungle, tooki

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4644
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX certified product design
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #27 on: July 15, 2018, 05:47:27 pm »
Yep, and this will be the huge test, when someone dies in a Space-X mission (it's probably inevitable).
And let's hope that Space-X is profitable, because if it's run like Tesla, then the wheels might eventually fall off the billy cart just because of that. Although I suspect NASA and hence the government won't let that happen.
Musk isn't that rich that he can fund Mars mission on his own, the company has to fund all this mars stuff through the profitable missions.
No bucks, no buck rogers.
So if/when a human accident happens, that will put a huge halt to things for a long time at the very least. There won't be any "beat the ruskies" 60's era go-fever to help it.
No, in a few years it will be " beat the Chinese to Mars" space race.
Meanwhile in Europe, we spend 3.7 Billion Euro on ESA. This is 0.05% of the EU28 national budgets. Good job Europe, you will make some meaningful contribution to space flight in no time. >:(
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2018, 05:01:05 pm »
I don't understand this geek fascination with space. It's a dead end, no one's going anywhere. Deal with it.
 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1290
  • Country: cn
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2018, 08:14:32 pm »
That Canadian space guy who played and sang David Bowie major Tom in ISS said that few of them astronauts would
on free will be passenger on Musks rocket to mars as it looks now and a part into future. I can assume he had
very good reasons.

Heey! yet another opportunity to hate Musk or arselick Musk, your choice! ^-^
« Last Edit: July 17, 2018, 12:19:47 pm by MT »
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10027
  • Country: au
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #30 on: July 17, 2018, 06:05:25 am »
I don't understand this geek fascination with space.
It's not just a geek thing, regular people are interested too.  The fact that you don't understand is something that I feel lessens your experience in life.  I'm not saying you need to share their fascination, but making a bit of an effort to understand it is, IMHO, invaluable.  I don't understand people who collect string - but I accept they find interest in it.

Quote
It's a dead end
Hardly - but I suppose it depends on what you see the objectives are.

Quote
no one's going anywhere.
I find that rather mediaeval thinking.

Quote
Deal with it.
I could say the same.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #31 on: July 17, 2018, 07:34:44 am »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #32 on: July 17, 2018, 08:16:29 am »
And what is the point posting that? Nobody besides SpaceX made a real rocket that can place a payload into orbit and can vertically land. When you see F9 booster landing, it may not look so big but it's as high as 14 story building.


 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #33 on: July 17, 2018, 08:30:52 am »
And let's hope that Space-X is profitable, because if it's run like Tesla, then the wheels might eventually fall off the billy cart just because of that. Although I suspect NASA and hence the government won't let that happen.
Companies designed to suck public money need not be profitable to survive.

https://ideapod.com/elon-musks-business-empire-fueled-4-9-billion-government-subsidies-businesses-self-sustainable/
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 07:56:33 am by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #34 on: July 17, 2018, 08:54:15 am »
And let's hope that Space-X is profitable, because if it's run like Tesla, then the wheels might eventually fall off the billy cart just because of that. Although I suspect NASA and hence the government won't let that happen.
Companies designed to suck public money don't have to be profitable to survive.

https://ideapod.com/elon-musks-business-empire-fueled-4-9-billion-government-subsidies-businesses-self-sustainable/
Except this has nothing to do with SpaceX and Tesla did not receive any of that as money. Having reduced tax is not the same as sucking taxpayer money. Also a very large part of that figure is over next 10-20 years, thus not that significant if you look at it annually.
 

Offline Koen

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 524
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #35 on: July 17, 2018, 09:55:27 am »
I wonder which one of Musk or GeorgeOfTheJungle will run out of steam first.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #36 on: July 17, 2018, 10:29:36 am »
That Canadian space guy who played and sang David Bowie major Tom

I recorded a video of Chris Hadfield singing that live

 
The following users thanked this post: JPortici

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #37 on: July 17, 2018, 11:10:48 am »
Except [..] Tesla did not receive any of that as money.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/if-tesla-is-worth-more-than-gm-why-are-taxpayers-still-subsidizing-it/
Quote
For every Tesla car sold (up to No. 200,000), federal taxpayers kick in $7,500 to lower the costs. State taxpayers in a multitude of states pony up still more. In Colorado, they contribute another $5,000 to the electric car kitty, in California, it's $2,500.

When the Los Angeles Times crunched the numbers two years ago, it found that Tesla buyers had received more than $284 million in federal tax incentives and more than $38 million in California rebates. And that was before Tesla's banner 2016 year.

The taxpayer help only starts there. Tesla also collects hundreds of millions from competing automakers by selling environmental credits in California and more than half a dozen other states to car companies that can't meet the states' "zero emissions" sales mandates.

Plus, Nevada ponied up $1.3 billion in incentives to convince Tesla to build its huge battery factory near Reno.

And this doesn't include the fact that electric car owners don't pay into the Highway Trust Fund — which is funded by the per-gallon tax on gasoline and pays for road construction and upkeep.
[..]
That is a lot of welfare-for-the-rich for very little environmental benefit.

That's for the US, but it's ~ the same all over the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, he's also planning to offshore Model Y and Model 3 production out of the States, to China:
https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-shanghai-tesla-gigafactory-china-500k-production/

"Dear US taxpayers, thank you very much for your hard earned money, and fuck you. Signed Elon Musk."

Sorry for the off topic.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 01:31:38 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 
The following users thanked this post: coldfiremc

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #38 on: July 17, 2018, 11:13:45 am »
And what is the point posting that?
A bit of history of rocketry, just for your info.
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #39 on: July 17, 2018, 11:21:32 am »
None of that rebuffs what I said. Any other EV buyer also gets tax credit. Tesla actually is in disadvantage there because of the largest amount of electric cars produced. Tax credit for Tesla purchase gets reduced and soon will be gone. https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/12/tesla-ev-tax-credit/  Of course they want factory in China which is the largest market for EVs and has 40% import duty on american cars (was 25% before trade war). Also please go away with your chronic EV butthurt, this thread is about space, not cars.
Except [..] Tesla did not receive any of that as money.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/if-tesla-is-worth-more-than-gm-why-are-taxpayers-still-subsidizing-it/
...
« Last Edit: July 17, 2018, 11:32:46 am by wraper »
 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1290
  • Country: cn
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #40 on: July 17, 2018, 12:32:24 pm »
None of that rebuffs what I said.  Except [..] Tesla did not receive any of that as money.

To an extent it does!

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2018/02/02/is_spacex_wasting_taxpayer_dollars_110494.html

Qoute:
It is dumbfounding that more questions aren’t being asked about SpaceX. Despite the government’s knowledge of systemic deficiencies with SpaceX rockets and systems, it continues to contract with them, putting billions of taxpayer dollars in the hands of an unreliable company. The government should release the details of SpaceX’s recent failed launch to the public. The taxpayers deserve greater transparency and reassurance that our money is not funding celebrity companies while compromising national security and fiscal responsibility.
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2543
  • Country: dk
  • Country: Broken Britain
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #41 on: July 17, 2018, 01:08:21 pm »
I think the UK will beat both NASA and SpaceX to Mars, just as soon as we've collected enough cardboard boxes and rubber bands to build our £2.5m 3 space ports.  :palm:
CML+  That took much longer than I thought it would.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #42 on: July 17, 2018, 01:13:13 pm »
systemic deficiencies with SpaceX rockets and systems
That's some BS reporting. Systemic deficiencies, do they dare to show them?
ULA $400 million per single launch + $1 billion in subsidies annually for doing nothing is much better I guess.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #43 on: July 17, 2018, 01:39:03 pm »
None of that rebuffs what I said.  Except [..] Tesla did not receive any of that as money.

To an extent it does!

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2018/02/02/is_spacex_wasting_taxpayer_dollars_110494.html
Yep, let's not differentiate between SpaceX and Tesla  :palm:. Supposedly it does not matter they are 2 separate companies. What I said about Tesla is about Tesla. What I said about SpaceX is about SpaceX. Very nice to take a quote about Tesla and rebuff it with low quality reporting about SpaceX. I read more of it, they mentioned and linked NASA report about non-conformities. A little issue with that, they forgot to mention that ULA was not any better.


« Last Edit: July 17, 2018, 01:42:21 pm by wraper »
 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1290
  • Country: cn
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #44 on: July 17, 2018, 10:18:50 pm »
None is rebuffing anything,,, well maybe you do, point are no matter Tesla,Musk, Spacex, ULA, Kaddafi, King Kong, NASA, they all para siting on taxpayers money one way or the other, you just dont what to see or hear that......as an Musk fan boi! ;)
 

Online CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3591
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #45 on: July 18, 2018, 12:08:48 am »
None is rebuffing anything,,, well maybe you do, point are no matter Tesla,Musk, Spacex, ULA, Kaddafi, King Kong, NASA, they all para siting on taxpayers money one way or the other, you just dont what to see or hear that......as an Musk fan boi! ;)

In one sense you are right, but in that sense you left some off like ESA, Arianespace, BAE and others.  Along with everyone using one of the satellite location services like GPS.

In another sense you are wrong.  People are making (and or saving) money with comsats, earth observation, satellite TV, and others.  And those people are paying for launch services and space vehicles.  Are those subsidized through launch facilities and other things.  Sure.  Just like the roads you drive your car on.

If using roads, postal services, libraries and other similar public facilities makes you a parasite, call me a happy parasite.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #46 on: July 18, 2018, 12:14:14 am »
NASA's budget is absolutely tiny in the grand scheme of things, it's no wonder they haven't undertaken anything really monumental in a long time.

I think space is fascinating, but unlike many I'm not so enamored by the idea of sending people to Mars. Even under the best conditions, it's a less hospitable and far more isolated environment than the most climate-extreme, desolate "corners" of the Earth. What exactly is someone who goes there going to do? I suspect the novelty of being on another planet will wear off pretty quickly once they get there. If an emergency occurs, they are on their own, even if we were to send them needed supplies it would take months for them to get there.

I would be more interested in sending unmanned robotic probes to more places. It's much cheaper and less risky, and we can send them to far more places, learning much more than we can by putting a human on Mars. Exploration can be mechanized and automated, the only reason to send a human there is because we can.
 
The following users thanked this post: apis, tooki, schmitt trigger

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1290
  • Country: cn
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #47 on: July 18, 2018, 12:19:58 am »
None is rebuffing anything,,, well maybe you do, point are no matter Tesla,Musk, Spacex, ULA, Kaddafi, King Kong, NASA, they all para siting on taxpayers money one way or the other, you just dont what to see or hear that......as an Musk fan boi! ;)

In one sense you are right, but in that sense you left some off like ESA, Arianespace, BAE and others.  Along with everyone using one of the satellite location services like GPS.

In another sense you are wrong.  People are making (and or saving) money with comsats, earth observation, satellite TV, and others.  And those people are paying for launch services and space vehicles.  Are those subsidized through launch facilities and other things.  Sure.  Just like the roads you drive your car on.

If using roads, postal services, libraries and other similar public facilities makes you a parasite, call me a happy parasite.

Bottom line is perhaps from the very start it was tax money who enabled the whole hoopla! Saving money is a very relative issue. Your a happy parasite as long as tax money is used for  postal services, libraries and other similar public facilities , here for example they are mismanaging the hospital system vaste'ing tax payers money, so im not even enable to parasite! No and i dont want the American system thankyvery much! I dont mind space but thinks the crap on earth should be fixed first!

But im surprised an american actually talking about government payd public benefits, thats socialism! :)

« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 12:24:34 am by MT »
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #48 on: July 18, 2018, 12:52:43 am »
People love to argue about the little stuff, but if you look at where American taxpayer money ends up (I say American because that's where I live and what I'm familiar with, not because I'm not aware other countries exist) our military expenditures absolutely dwarf everything else. NASA, the cost of healthcare, the cost of college education, and even smaller, even more hot button issues like welfare, that's all peanuts compared to what we spend on military. That's not to say I don't support our soldiers but come on, if there's fat to trim that's the place to look! I'd like to stop blowing up other places for a bit and focus on home.
 
The following users thanked this post: mtdoc, wraper, GeorgeOfTheJungle, tooki

Online rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2968
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #49 on: July 18, 2018, 01:29:17 am »
At the risk of repeating myself:


NASA's entire 2018 budget is under $20 billion which is less than 0.5% of the total federal budget. The Department of Defense burns through that much money in less than two weeks.

The money spent by NASA on space exploration is a drop in the bucket when compared to the entire US federal budget and it's probably worth it for the entertainment value alone.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4997
  • Country: ch
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #50 on: July 18, 2018, 02:05:22 am »
The attitude of the company and the people who work there. I'm a space geek, I've always been a space geek and the thought of a man or woman walking on Mars is enough to make the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. NASA are however too cautious, the two shuttle failures have beaten the spirit out of the organization and now they only want to take the tiniest of baby steps. They might, maybe, make it to Mars by 2030 but it's more likely that they will piss away their time in low Earth orbit.

SpaceX are however different. Not only are they willing to make mistakes they treat those mistakes as part of the engineering process and then they try again, and again, and again until things start to work. This is what NASA did in the 1950's and 1960's until they ended up with Armstrong's 'one small step'. What's prompted this little piece? Someone sent me a link to the SpaceX Youtube channel where there are lots of cool rocket launches, and there's THIS! [...]
Sorry, but this has to be one of the most idiotic (or at minimum, profoundly uninformed) things I’ve read in a while.

NASA is “cautious” because of a) past mistakes* and b) lack of funding. NASA’s budget is half of what it was back during the Space Race. They have neither the money nor staff to perform heroic acts of engineering like they could in the Space Race.

And I’m not sure how you can see innovation and inspiration in a video showing failures as silly as “ran out of fuel”. That, to me, just plain shows poor design or planning.


What I will agree with, though you didn’t exactly say it, is that the US as a whole (both as a government and as a society) has lost nearly all ambition. Whenever any diffucult, but worthwhile, effort is suggested, it gets knocked down as impossible or impractical. (Here’s a guaranteed-to-work example: propose adopting any public policy that works in a small country, like Switzerland, to a group of Americans. I guarantee you, at least half will dismiss it off the bat, saying “the USA is bigger, it could never work here”. And it’s said not as an invitation to flesh out a way to make it work, but rather as a resigned way to shut down the avenue of exploration. It’s massively frustrating to me.)



*If you’re the space geek you claim to be, then you should know that the Challenger disaster was the direct result of management’s lack of caution, despite expert warning.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #51 on: July 18, 2018, 07:47:30 am »
And I’m not sure how you can see innovation and inspiration in a video showing failures as silly as “ran out of fuel”. That, to me, just plain shows poor design or planning.
So poor that nobody else besides them got landing working. All other space companies and most people overall were laughing about their "silly attempts" those days. Now nobody in those companies is laughing because SpaceX ate a lot of their market share. How to see inspiration? This video was created by SpaceX themselves and posted on their own channel. Those all were landing attempts before they got technology working. Once they got landing working, now it seems more like a routine operation.
Quote
silly as “ran out of fuel”.
About this I certainly can repeat your "most idiotic (or at minimum, profoundly uninformed) things I’ve read in a while."
You might not be aware, but it's extremely weight prohibitive to put any extra fuel on rocket. Especially if it's a launch to GTO. So you want to put just enough of it. And when you are still in stage when you are just trying to get very difficult technology working, it's no wonder that real world situation may require more fuel than it was simulated. Don't forget that early landings were additional test mission after rocket launch was already completed.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #52 on: July 18, 2018, 07:55:31 am »
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #53 on: July 18, 2018, 12:43:29 pm »
Quote
no one's going anywhere.
I find that rather mediaeval thinking.

I prefer that to child-like magical thinking.

www.distancetomars.com

Antarctica during six months of dark winter is more hospitable to human life than Mars, where's your rush to colonize that?

NASA sent a small hatchback to Mars almost 40 years ago. Who is SpaceX "beating" to Mars here?

Are you software dreamers thinking of sending people???

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/

Reality is not like software; you can't just download a new reality when the old one doesn't satisfy you. Reality doesn't care about your thinking, your dreams, or where you believe you'll retire.

Grow up. We don't even have the Concorde anymore and you guys are picking out the counter finish on your Mars condos?  :-DD
 
The following users thanked this post: coldfiremc

Offline gore

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 89
  • Country: lt
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #54 on: July 18, 2018, 01:24:09 pm »
Quote
no one's going anywhere.
I find that rather mediaeval thinking.

I prefer that to child-like magical thinking.

www.distancetomars.com

Antarctica during six months of dark winter is more hospitable to human life than Mars, where's your rush to colonize that?

NASA sent a small hatchback to Mars almost 40 years ago. Who is SpaceX "beating" to Mars here?

Are you software dreamers thinking of sending people???

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/

Reality is not like software; you can't just download a new reality when the old one doesn't satisfy you. Reality doesn't care about your thinking, your dreams, or where you believe you'll retire.

Grow up. We don't even have the Concorde anymore and you guys are picking out the counter finish on your Mars condos?  :-DD

The idea is to spread humanity beyond the Earth in case of a cosmic catastrophe. No one is rushing to colonize Antarctica (located on the Earth) because it's irrelevant. It's a difficult problem to solve, but certainly not unattainable.

The same 'software' dreamers, as you call them, managed to land a rocket vertically in the middle of an ocean. Not so long ago it was considered science fiction. Give it some time and it will happen. I don't understand your point of view. What exactly do you propose? To do nothing at all?
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #55 on: July 18, 2018, 01:26:23 pm »
Antarctica during six months of dark winter is more hospitable to human life than Mars

It has that small thing called oxygen  ;D

Quote
Grow up. We don't even have the Concorde anymore and you guys are picking out the counter finish on your Mars condos?  :-DD

Living on Mars for say the first 50 years after first settlement will still be nothing like the movies. It'll be a pathetic, cramped, bleak existence. There won't even be Johnny Cab or three boob mutants.

I didn't like Andy Weirs new book about the moon as much as The Martian, but his description of a practical colony on the moon sounds at least realistic compared to setting up a Mars colony.
We can get a lot more tonnage to the moon much cheaper and quicker, and tourists could take realistic two week long vacations there.
Mars is more hospitable to larger scale colonisation for sure, but several orders of magnitude more tricky.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #56 on: July 18, 2018, 01:33:55 pm »
Antarctica during six months of dark winter is more hospitable to human life than Mars

It has that small thing called oxygen  ;D

Quote
Grow up. We don't even have the Concorde anymore and you guys are picking out the counter finish on your Mars condos?  :-DD

Living on Mars for say the first 50 years after first settlement will still be nothing like the movies. It'll be a pathetic, cramped, bleak existence. There won't even be Johnny Cab or three boob mutants.

I didn't like Andy Weirs new book about the moon as much as The Martian, but his description of a practical colony on the moon sounds at least realistic compared to setting up a Mars colony.
We can get a lot more tonnage to the moon much cheaper and quicker, and tourists could take realistic two week long vacations there.
Mars is more hospitable to larger scale colonisation for sure, but several orders of magnitude more tricky.

 :palm: You're an engineer who slams ridiculous concepts for a living, but lose your marbles over sci-fi daydreams. This space crap is a modern religion.

Why would tourists go to the Moon for two weeks? Just drop them in the desert and kick them for two weeks. I'll do it cheap!!
 
The following users thanked this post: coldfiremc

Offline ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3512
  • Country: de
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #57 on: July 18, 2018, 01:34:22 pm »
The idea is to spread humanity beyond the Earth in case of a cosmic catastrophe.

A "human-induced catastrophe" seems like a far more likely path to making Earth uninhabitable than a "cosmic catastrophe". Maybe our human efforts should rather be directed at avoiding to mess up Earth, than at establishing a rescue pod on Mars?  :-\
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #58 on: July 18, 2018, 01:37:32 pm »
The idea is to spread humanity beyond the Earth in case of a cosmic catastrophe.

Paraphrasing Neil Tyson:
Whatever it takes to ship a million (insert your own number) people to Mars and make them permanently sustainable in a terraformed environment suitable for continuation of the species in the absence of Earth blowing up. It would be way easier to deflect the asteroid, control the virus, or reverse climate change, or fix whatever threatened earth.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #59 on: July 18, 2018, 01:45:59 pm »
:palm: You're an engineer who slams ridiculous concepts for a living, but lose your marbles over sci-fi daydreams. This space crap is a modern religion.
Why would tourists go to the Moon for two weeks? Just drop them in the desert and kick them for two weeks. I'll do it cheap!!

Are you serious?
If going to the moon was safe enough and relatively cheap enough, you would have a line a mile long for people wanting to pay top dollar for the experience of a lifetime, the ultimate bucket list item.

We already have rich people paying $20M a pop for the "trip of a lifetime" just a few hundred km above our heads.
That's about to get ever cheaper and more consumer friendly with Space-X or others no doubt.

You already have 1000+ people a year shelling out $50k+ for the miserable several month expedition to climb mount Everest with a 1% chance of dying. Have that same 1% chance of dying for a moon shot at a few hundred $k for a week and you'd have to beat them off with a stick.

It's practically guaranteed that individuals will continue to pay money for "space tourism".
Heck, you wouldn't even need to land on the moon, people would be lining up to take a trip around the back side and seeing it up close and doing the thumb thing with the earth in the window. Or landing and having a day walk around could be a package option, no need for a colony.
This is the complete opposite of a daydream, a space tourism lap around the moon is practically doable right now.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 01:52:17 pm by EEVblog »
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #60 on: July 18, 2018, 01:47:05 pm »
Quote
no one's going anywhere.
I find that rather mediaeval thinking.

I prefer that to child-like magical thinking.

www.distancetomars.com

Antarctica during six months of dark winter is more hospitable to human life than Mars, where's your rush to colonize that?

NASA sent a small hatchback to Mars almost 40 years ago. Who is SpaceX "beating" to Mars here?

Are you software dreamers thinking of sending people???

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/

Reality is not like software; you can't just download a new reality when the old one doesn't satisfy you. Reality doesn't care about your thinking, your dreams, or where you believe you'll retire.

Grow up. We don't even have the Concorde anymore and you guys are picking out the counter finish on your Mars condos?  :-DD

The idea is to spread humanity beyond the Earth in case of a cosmic catastrophe. No one is rushing to colonize Antarctica (located on the Earth) because it's irrelevant. It's a difficult problem to solve, but certainly not unattainable.

The same 'software' dreamers, as you call them, managed to land a rocket vertically in the middle of an ocean. Not so long ago it was considered science fiction. Give it some time and it will happen. I don't understand your point of view. What exactly do you propose? To do nothing at all?

Who is "proposing" anything? You're the one with the quasi-religious space fever "idea is to spread humanity beyond the Earth in case of a cosmic catastrophe".

This religious drivel comes up over and over with clueless children. Evolution is happening one way or the other. There wasn't a humanity a million years ago, and there won't be one in another million, no matter how much you cry every time Elon Musk tweets some bullshit.

You have a religion complete with a doomsday scenario, the "chosen people" who have posters of rockets in their bedrooms, the mean "unbelievers" who just can't understand what you're raving about.

Any "cosmic catastrophe" would still leave the Earth orders of magnitude more hospitable than Mars could ever be.

"The same 'software' dreamers, as you call them, managed to land a rocket vertically in the middle of an ocean"

Oh well then we are protected against cosmic catastrophes for sure! Praise Elon! Hurrah! BTW, do you have titanium roof shingles over your house to protect from cosmic catastrophes? No? Why not? But you expect the rest of us to follow in your space delirium?

Look, at the peak of America's industrial might, they were able to send three people to the Moon at a time, and two of them bounced around for a bit, picked up some dust, and came back within about a week.

Right now, NO ONE has replicated this even with all your Holy Progress that you devoutly worship. We are adding 200000 more people EVERY DAY to the planet. It would take about 70000 Saturn V launches... A DAY. Just. To. Break. Even.

So tell me, who are the chosen people to "protected humanity from a Cosmic Catastrophe (tm)?" You gonna go pick a representative sample of every ethnic group, or just your close circle of fart smellers that believe the same horsecrap you do?
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #61 on: July 18, 2018, 01:54:24 pm »
:palm: You're an engineer who slams ridiculous concepts for a living, but lose your marbles over sci-fi daydreams. This space crap is a modern religion.
Why would tourists go to the Moon for two weeks? Just drop them in the desert and kick them for two weeks. I'll do it cheap!!

Are you serious?
If going to the moon was safe enough and relatively cheap enough, you would have a line a mile long for people wanting to pay top dollar for the experience of a lifetime, the ultimate bucket list item.

We already have rich people paying $20M a pop for the "trip of a lifetime" just a few hundred km above our heads.
That's about to get ever cheaper and more consumer friendly with Space-X or others no doubt.

It's practically guaranteed that individuals will continue to pay money for "space tourism".
Heck, you wouldn't even need to land on the moon, people would be lining up to take a trip around the back side and seeing it up close and doing the thumb thing with the earth in the window. Or landing and having a day walk around could be a package option, no need for a colony.
This is the complete opposite of a daydream, a space tourism lap around the moon is practically doable right now.

Bullshit. It's been possible for decades. It always dies on the vine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRAG
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9705/25/japan.space/

"If going to the moon was safe enough and relatively cheap enough,"

Yeah and if my grandma had wings she'd be an F-15. So what? It's all just bullshit dreams, Dave.

"a space tourism lap around the moon is practically doable right now."

Going up in MiG-29 is not just "practically" doable, it is LITERALLY doable. How many do it? Did you?

https://www.migflug.com/en/jet-fighter-flights/flying-with-a-jet/mig-29-edge-of-space.html

Why not? Because you are more attracted to the dream than the reality. If everyone COULD go to the Moon, you'd want something even more exotic because this isn't about space, it's about a dream. You'd want to visit the core of Jupiter instead because THAT's unattainable.

That's fine, just don't confuse daydreams with the toxic space religiosity or sci-fi nonsense of children who grew up on TV and no critical thinking skills.
 

Offline schmitt trigger

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1695
  • Country: mx
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #62 on: July 18, 2018, 02:01:42 pm »
As someone who was born before Sputnik, and who both lived thru some of the coldest Cold War periods and the height of the Space Race, I can tell you that the Space Race was a very essential component of the Cold War.

The Space Race objectives were not only showing the rest of the World whose system was better, but the science and technology development involved with it, had immediate and very real military applications.

I don't see an existential threat like the Cold War today, and therefore neither the government nor the public is interested as much as it used to be.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #63 on: July 18, 2018, 02:32:43 pm »
As someone who was born before Sputnik, and who both lived thru some of the coldest Cold War periods and the height of the Space Race, I can tell you that the Space Race was a very essential component of the Cold War.

The Space Race objectives were not only showing the rest of the World whose system was better, but the science and technology development involved with it, had immediate and very real military applications.

I don't see an existential threat like the Cold War today, and therefore neither the government nor the public is interested as much as it used to be.

I always saw it as: the military applications came first, and the Space Race was just the sugar-coated PR face of it. I mean some of the NASA artwork of the era was amazing in its Norman Rockwell-esque depictions of the Moon.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #64 on: July 18, 2018, 02:41:06 pm »
Bullshit. It's been possible for decades. It always dies on the vine.

That doesn't mean larger space tourism won't be viable in the near future, there have been a LOT of advances since then in cost reduction and specific private venture companies dedicated to it. Space tourism has already happened.

Quote
"If going to the moon was safe enough and relatively cheap enough,"
Yeah and if my grandma had wings she'd be an F-15. So what? It's all just bullshit dreams, Dave.

Except for the people who have already paid $20M a pop to go into space, it's already an industry that has had a half billion dollar customer turnover. Not to mention those who have already ponied up the money to go with Virgin Galactic.
Bullshit dreams huh?

Quote
Going up in MiG-29 is not just "practically" doable, it is LITERALLY doable. How many do it? Did you?

Thanks for bringing that up. I was actually very close to paying the $10,000 or so back in the 90's when this became a thing. I was seriously trying to decide between a Mig-29, SU-27, or even the Mig-25 "edge of space" experience. I'm not joking, I almost booked the ticket. Ultimately decided it was better to save that money at the time due to various circumstances. Sure I talked about this in a live show long ago.
It's still on my bucket list. It's not like I can now say "see you honey, I'm taking a week off to go to Russia and fly in Mig, mind the kids for me".

Quote
Why not? Because you are more attracted to the dream than the reality. If everyone COULD go to the Moon, you'd want something even more exotic because this isn't about space, it's about a dream. You'd want to visit the core of Jupiter instead because THAT's unattainable.

You don't seem to be grounded in reality.
Of course not everyone goes on these thing, majority of the population of the US for example have never even left their own country.
I would not go for a shot into space or the moon right now because I have kids I want to see grow up, and the circa 1% chance I wouldn't come back is too high for me. But in my retirement I most certainly would take that risk.


Quote
That's fine, just don't confuse daydreams with the toxic space religiosity or sci-fi nonsense of children who grew up on TV and no critical thinking skills.

I'm basing this on actual data, and the blindingly obvious psychology of human adventure.
Do you think those 1000+ people a year who pay $50k+ to be hauled up everest for bragging rights and spend a few months doing it in horrible conditions would rather do that, or take the same chance of death and fly to the moon instead that could be done in a week in far more comfort and also zero prep in comparison? FYI, there is already a zero death rate for space tourism, and it's an actual thing.
And that's just for starters. Once people see it's a "tourist thing", albeit an extreme once-in-a-lifetime tourist thing, they will flock.
And by flock I mean, a few thousand a year tops, just like other extreme things like Everest, or Mig flights, not hundreds of thousands.
Heck, once-in-a-lifetime trips to the antarctic take longer than a moon flight would.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 02:59:09 pm by EEVblog »
 

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4644
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX certified product design
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #65 on: July 18, 2018, 06:35:01 pm »

Look at this. People want this. These are beautiful images, because it shows how tiny we are and then suddenly entire continents are lit up, or planets changed completely for better or worse.
It doesnt matter how much it costs. Money is a made up thing.
It is human nature, to go beyond where we were yesterday. I dont know why you want to deny this.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #66 on: July 18, 2018, 06:57:13 pm »
I for one hate cruise tours because you end up jailed in a ship where the only thing you can do is look at the sea which, after more than a few hours, is quite boring really. Good for drinking and fishing at the disco at night, though, for those that like that.

Now imagine being jailed in a tight capsule for days or weeks, breathing the same recirculated filtered air conditioned air all the time, jeez, no. I'd rather watch the nice scenery of somebody else's trips in 4K on youtube, with a nice background music, thanks.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 08:06:43 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #67 on: July 18, 2018, 07:44:24 pm »
I tend to agree, however there are certainly people who would jump at the chance, who am I to judge?

I've been tempted more than once to take a flight on a vintage airliner or WWII combat aircraft, a lot of people would consider that uncomfortable and boring but it sounds pretty exciting to me. If I had money to burn I'd be all over it, I'd rather take a cross country trip on a DC-3 or Lockheed Constellation than go to the moon on a rocket but that's just me.
 

Offline Echo88

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 610
  • Country: de
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #68 on: July 18, 2018, 08:05:19 pm »
@ In Vacuo Veritas
"Dreams are for pathetic losers! Losers i say! *spits from his porch while rocking his wheelchair*
*later that day* "I really dont know why my children never visit me"

 

Online CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3591
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #69 on: July 19, 2018, 12:27:59 am »
It is easy to logically demonstrate the stupidity of living on land.  I mean there isn't any water to hold you up and keep your gills moist.  Nothing to eat there either.  And radiation from the sun will burn you. And ......

Fortunately there weren't any thinking creatures making that decision.  So their descendants eventually took over a new environment with possibilities that literally don't exist in the water.  Fire.  High speeds.  And many others.

If our descendants are to take advantage of these new environments it will have to start someday.  Why not now?  If we start now we may not even have to wait for evolution to create very different versions of us.

For those who want to remain fish forever, that is fine - the oceans actually are quite nice.  So nice that creatures like whales, dolphins and seals went back.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #70 on: July 19, 2018, 05:08:49 am »
We will probably blow ourselves up here eventually anyway. If humans manage to spread to another planet it won't take long for fighting to break out there too, only if it's a completely lifeless planet that we colonize there won't be the huge diversity of other species around. I suspect at least the first several attempts at colonizing another planet will fairly quickly end in catastrophe of one sort or another. Eventually something might work out but I think we're a long way off.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #71 on: July 19, 2018, 05:51:20 am »
The idea is to spread humanity beyond the Earth in case of a cosmic catastrophe.

Paraphrasing Neil Tyson:
Whatever it takes to ship a million (insert your own number) people to Mars and make them permanently sustainable in a terraformed environment suitable for continuation of the species in the absence of Earth blowing up. It would be way easier to deflect the asteroid, control the virus, or reverse climate change, or fix whatever threatened earth.

Exactly. I’ve never understood what makes people think that if we can’t survive here, on a planet quite literally perfectly designed to promote  our survival, we would be able to survive on another planet.

Sure, small numbers, for short time periods, in a small, environmentally controlled space, maintained and stocked with supplies from earth - but the idea of “terraforming” another planet is science fiction in its most improbable form.

Maybe we should put more effort into “terrapreserving” the one planet nearby that can support human life.
 
The following users thanked this post: apis, GeorgeOfTheJungle, schmitt trigger

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #72 on: July 19, 2018, 08:17:31 am »
Colonization ends up at war with the colonizers, most often  >:D
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 
The following users thanked this post: schmitt trigger

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #73 on: July 19, 2018, 11:02:54 am »
People love to argue about the little stuff, but if you look at where American taxpayer money ends up (I say American because that's where I live and what I'm familiar with, not because I'm not aware other countries exist) our military expenditures absolutely dwarf everything else. NASA, the cost of healthcare, the cost of college education, and even smaller, even more hot button issues like welfare, that's all peanuts compared to what we spend on military. That's not to say I don't support our soldiers but come on, if there's fat to trim that's the place to look! I'd like to stop blowing up other places for a bit and focus on home.

Or just do better accounting. The Pentagon lost $2.3T (Trillion)



And more has been "lost" since then.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #74 on: July 19, 2018, 11:07:54 am »
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG
Quote
The United States Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced.
 

Offline Eka

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #75 on: July 19, 2018, 11:48:54 am »
on a planet quite literally perfectly designed to promote  our survival, we would be able to survive on another planet.
Obviously you don't understand evolution. The planet wasn't designed for us. We evolved to survive on it.

We need our eggs in more than one basket. Another rift volcano will erupt, or large meteor will hit earth. If we haven't solved the issues of living elsewhere by then, we are done for as a species.
 
The following users thanked this post: MT

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1290
  • Country: cn
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #76 on: July 19, 2018, 11:50:19 am »
People love to argue about the little stuff, but if you look at where American taxpayer money ends up (I say American because that's where I live and what I'm familiar with, not because I'm not aware other countries exist) our military expenditures absolutely dwarf everything else. NASA, the cost of healthcare, the cost of college education, and even smaller, even more hot button issues like welfare, that's all peanuts compared to what we spend on military. That's not to say I don't support our soldiers but come on, if there's fat to trim that's the place to look! I'd like to stop blowing up other places for a bit and focus on home.
Oh please stop you stupidity! I have in several threads mentioned the mysteriously disappearance of 21 trillion USD getting ridiculed by your fellow citizens for it now you trying to make point of very same Pentagon spending and you didnt know it was 21 trillions, as if i dont know how the corrupt USA works. The soldiers is not yours but the oligarchs mercenaries im not baffled you support such pathetic criminal crap! There is a reason USA is the planet laughing stock so MAGA and Covfefe!

Have you figured out why your so called fellow soldiers still invading and stationary in Afghanistan do you?
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 12:21:06 pm by MT »
 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1290
  • Country: cn
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #77 on: July 19, 2018, 12:17:05 pm »
We will probably blow ourselves up here eventually anyway. If humans manage to spread to another planet it won't take long for fighting to break out there too, only if it's a completely lifeless planet that we colonize there won't be the huge diversity of other species around. I suspect at least the first several attempts at colonizing another planet will fairly quickly end in catastrophe of one sort or another. Eventually something might work out but I think we're a long way off.

Why this constant negativism on homo sapiens sapiens? But to an extent i agree to your conclusion if Americans are let to spread to other planets there will be endless wars. But if peaceful Faroeans and Scandinavians in general there will be no blowups only flowers and soft pillow thumping then french sex.

Americans are always afraid of something, if not the fellow John Doe on the street its his neighbor, if not its the people of another town, if not its the federal government and if not, its the Canadians and Mexicans, and if not its the Russians  and if not they will invent something to be afraid of as a lame excuse for arming them selfs to the teeth even into space!  What a sad story!  I dont see the Greenlandics behave in this way.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 12:31:42 pm by MT »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #78 on: July 19, 2018, 02:24:13 pm »
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG
Quote
The United States Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced.

How is this not the single most important thing being investigated by Congress?
 
The following users thanked this post: apis, tooki

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #79 on: July 19, 2018, 04:44:46 pm »
People love to argue about the little stuff, but if you look at where American taxpayer money ends up (I say American because that's where I live and what I'm familiar with, not because I'm not aware other countries exist) our military expenditures absolutely dwarf everything else. NASA, the cost of healthcare, the cost of college education, and even smaller, even more hot button issues like welfare, that's all peanuts compared to what we spend on military. That's not to say I don't support our soldiers but come on, if there's fat to trim that's the place to look! I'd like to stop blowing up other places for a bit and focus on home.
Oh please stop you stupidity! I have in several threads mentioned the mysteriously disappearance of 21 trillion USD getting ridiculed by your fellow citizens for it now you trying to make point of very same Pentagon spending and you didnt know it was 21 trillions, as if i dont know how the corrupt USA works. The soldiers is not yours but the oligarchs mercenaries im not baffled you support such pathetic criminal crap! There is a reason USA is the planet laughing stock so MAGA and Covfefe!

Have you figured out why your so called fellow soldiers still invading and stationary in Afghanistan do you?


What are you even talking about? So I admire people who are willing to serve their country, so what? Nowhere did I mention that I approve of what our military gets used for or the people sending the orders. Calm down and take a deep breath, you're reading far more into what I said than I put there.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #80 on: July 19, 2018, 05:21:37 pm »
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG
Quote
The United States Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced.

How is this not the single most important thing being investigated by Congress?

It’s all about who owns Congess Dave.

 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #81 on: July 19, 2018, 05:30:53 pm »
It’s all about who owns Congess Dave.
But it's Elon Musk gets called out by media as a top donor after donating $40k to GOP (DNC too but only few mentioned)  :palm:.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Online CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3591
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #82 on: July 19, 2018, 11:53:43 pm »
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG
Quote
The United States Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced.

How is this not the single most important thing being investigated by Congress?

It’s all about who owns Congess Dave.



The really sad thing is that our Congress critters have been so successfully bought (or so successfully sold themselves) that these numbers are hardly influential.  While the numbers in the chart look huge, they are a tiny fraction of the net worth of all but the newest and least influential, even if focused on only a couple of people.

 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #83 on: July 20, 2018, 12:23:28 am »
It should be a criminal offense to take contributions from any entity. Maybe have a general campaign fund that can be contributed to and then divided out evenly, or do something to even out that process. I'm ok with political positions paying a modest salary but for the most part it should be a public service one does to serve their country and not a path to great wealth.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #84 on: July 20, 2018, 01:30:30 am »
The only answer IMO is full public financing of elections and once you leave congress, a lifetime ban on lobbying or working in any industry you were involved in regulating.   I know, it will never happen, but I can dream...
 
The following users thanked this post: james_s, schmitt trigger

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4997
  • Country: ch
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #85 on: July 20, 2018, 01:15:26 pm »
The only answer IMO is full public financing of elections and once you leave congress, a lifetime ban on lobbying or working in any industry you were involved in regulating.   I know, it will never happen, but I can dream...
In theory I agree, yet in practice, that’d be impossible in some industries. For example, if you’re a nuclear physicist, you’ve really only got 3 major types of employers: the government, nuclear power, or nuclear physics research. So if we instituted a “no revolving doors” law, anyone who worked for the government could never work for the others, and so if they left the government, they’d de facto have to choose a new, unrelated career. And to be sure, we need for regulators to be deeply knowledgeable about the fields they regulate. When they aren’t, we get shit like the horrible net neutrality laws, the attempted laws on encryption (Clipper Chip, remember that??), and the US government’s panel on vaccines. Did you hear about that last one? Because they don’t want it to be “biased” by vaccine researchers, they expressly avoid any members with any background in vaccine research...  |O :palm: |O :o :palm: :wtf: >:(  |O
 

Offline Bassman59

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1432
  • Country: us
  • Yes, I do this for a living
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #86 on: July 20, 2018, 05:45:14 pm »
How is this not the single most important thing being investigated by Congress?

It’s all about who owns Congess Dave.



The really sad thing is that our Congress critters have been so successfully bought (or so successfully sold themselves) that these numbers are hardly influential.  While the numbers in the chart look huge, they are a tiny fraction of the net worth of all but the newest and least influential, even if focused on only a couple of people.

While I completely agree with those who state that there is too much corporate money in politics, and that politicians are easily bought (on the state level, legislators are pretty cheap!), this chart is misleading.

Under the "contributor" column is a list of corporations. But under US law, corporations cannot donate to political campaigns. (They can donate to allegedly-independent PACs, but that is not what this chart describes.) So how can this list be created?

Easy. If you've ever donated to a political campaign, you are required to disclose the name of your employer. When the candidates report their contributions, that information is included, and the agency that tallies this all up reports the total amount donated by the employees of each company. Remember, for a federal campaign, a US citizen is allowed to contribute something like only $4600 to each candidate. Divide the $3,158,849 by $4600 and you get a whopping 686 individuals employed by Northrup Grumman donating to candidates of both parties.

And since most people do not donate the maximum, not even close. I read somewhere that the average donation is $250 (take the CEOs who give the max and the line workers who give $20, and that sounds about right), so that's 12,635 individuals who work for Northrup Grumman who gave money to a candidate. How many employees does NG have? A lot more.

So I'd like to think that the $250 I give to my various preferred candidates will influence their votes, but the reality is that they already vote the way I want them to vote. I give them money so the guy who votes the other way doesn't get into office.

So the real money influence on campaigns comes not from individual donations, but from the super PACs legalized by the Citizens United decision, which basically allowed unlimited money contributed by anonymous people to run "issue ads" supporting preferred candidates and blasting opposition.  The real money influence comes from lobbyists who can promise "jobs" in a district , and they can sweep that PAC money to a candidate.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #87 on: July 20, 2018, 06:06:52 pm »
In two words: rotten politics.
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Online CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3591
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #88 on: July 20, 2018, 06:18:21 pm »
Before I retired I had direct personal contact with several pols in DC.  It is difficult to overstate how driven by money they are, and how warped they and their staffs have become over years of exposure to the system.  I think most do not enter politics with the intention to be corrupt, but the forces on them are huge and subtle.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #89 on: July 20, 2018, 07:04:09 pm »
. But under US law, corporations cannot donate to political campaigns. (They can donate to allegedly-independent PACs, but that is not what this chart describes.)
That is a distinction without meaning. Corporations cannot only donate to a PAC that is specifically dedicated to electing an individual, but they can also donate to local or national party "committees" whose sole focus may be electing one particular individual ("The committee to elect John Smith"). In the end the  result is that individual corporations or industries can indeed donate very large amounts of money to particular candidates.  Which is, for example, how Koch Industries alone has been able to donate $6.5 million just so far in the 2018 election cycle.

Quote
If you've ever donated to a political campaign, you are required to disclose the name of your employer.
Not really true - it's only true for donations > $200. I've donated to several candidates campaigns without disclosing my profession or employer. 

Quote
Remember, for a federal campaign, a US citizen is allowed to contribute something like only $4600 to each candidate.

Actually, individual can contribute up to $10k per year to a local party committees and  up to $10K (or in some cases 100K) per year to national party committees. For example

As for where congressional donations come from, there is very little of that money that is coming from small individual donors.  Most of it comes from big donors and PACs.

The above info can be verified on the Wikipedia article on US campaign finance

Quote
So the real money influence on campaigns comes not from individual donations, but from the super PACs legalized by the Citizens United decision, which basically allowed unlimited money contributed by anonymous people to run "issue ads" supporting preferred candidates and blasting opposition.  The real money influence comes from lobbyists who can promise "jobs" in a district , and they can sweep that PAC money to a candidate.

I agree. The figures in the defense contribution chart does not even include the very large amounts spend by the defense industry on lobbying congress.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #90 on: July 20, 2018, 07:41:21 pm »
NASA's budget is absolutely tiny in the grand scheme of things, it's no wonder they haven't undertaken anything really monumental in a long time.

I think space is fascinating, but unlike many I'm not so enamored by the idea of sending people to Mars. Even under the best conditions, it's a less hospitable and far more isolated environment than the most climate-extreme, desolate "corners" of the Earth. What exactly is someone who goes there going to do? I suspect the novelty of being on another planet will wear off pretty quickly once they get there. If an emergency occurs, they are on their own, even if we were to send them needed supplies it would take months for them to get there.

I would be more interested in sending unmanned robotic probes to more places. It's much cheaper and less risky, and we can send them to far more places, learning much more than we can by putting a human on Mars. Exploration can be mechanized and automated, the only reason to send a human there is because we can.
Yes, exactly. There isn't even any scientific reason to send humans to Mars; it's extremely expensive, impractical and dangerous, and you have to go through the trouble of sending all the people back again. A robot can do any necessary job "cheaply", safely and it can be left at the destination when the mission is finished.

As for setting up a permanent settlement on Mars. What would they do there? They would be completely isolated, living in little huts in a desert with no air outside. They would die from boredom. Sure there are people who voluntarily live in cloisters and stuff, so there are probably those who could and would do it, but why would anyone else pay for it.

Colonising Mars? No atmosphere, no magnetic field, no water. Terra-forming isn't realistic. I guess you could have people living in pressurised underground structures. But how would the colonists construct them and set up the necessary manufacturing facilities and mining operations (for the raw materials) without massive support from Earth. It's not going to happen any time soon.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #91 on: July 20, 2018, 07:52:30 pm »
I didn't like Andy Weirs new book about the moon as much as The Martian, but his description of a practical colony on the moon sounds at least realistic compared to setting up a Mars colony.
We can get a lot more tonnage to the moon much cheaper and quicker, and tourists could take realistic two week long vacations there.
Mars is more hospitable to larger scale colonisation for sure, but several orders of magnitude more tricky.
Haven't read that book (yet  :)) but I agree, a permanent settlement on the moon makes much more sense than a base on Mars, as well as a bigger space station in earth orbit. And there are actually both scientific and economic applications for a moon base.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #92 on: July 20, 2018, 08:00:57 pm »
Colonising Mars? No atmosphere, no magnetic field, no water. Terra-forming isn't realistic. I guess you could have people living in pressurised underground structures. But how would the colonists construct them and set up the necessary manufacturing facilities and mining operations (for the raw materials) without massive support from Earth. It's not going to happen any time soon.



« Last Edit: July 20, 2018, 09:02:26 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline Nusa

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1802
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #93 on: July 20, 2018, 08:21:08 pm »
... There isn't even any scientific reason to send humans to Mars; ....

There are all sorts of scientific reasons to send humans to Mars. Nearly everything that happens to those humans in that environment, and much of what they see and do, would be scientific data that's unobtainable anywhere else. It doesn't stop being science just because it's expensive as hell and may not happen in our lifetimes.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #94 on: July 20, 2018, 08:26:38 pm »
... There isn't even any scientific reason to send humans to Mars; ....

There are all sorts of scientific reasons to send humans to Mars. Nearly everything that happens to those humans in that environment, and much of what they see and do, would be scientific data that's unobtainable anywhere else. It doesn't stop being science just because it's expensive as hell and may not happen in our lifetimes.
But the same data can be collected by robots for a fraction of the cost and risk, so there is no reason to send humans.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2018, 08:33:34 pm by apis »
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #95 on: July 20, 2018, 08:45:56 pm »
But the same data can be collected by robots for a fraction of the cost and risk, so there is no reason to send humans.
Nope, it cannot. Unless artificial general intelligence is developed. And not such which runs remotely on earth but which can be shipped to Mars.
 

Offline Nusa

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1802
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #96 on: July 20, 2018, 08:49:24 pm »
... There isn't even any scientific reason to send humans to Mars; ....

There are all sorts of scientific reasons to send humans to Mars. Nearly everything that happens to those humans in that environment, and much of what they see and do, would be scientific data that's unobtainable anywhere else. It doesn't stop being science just because it's expensive as hell and may not happen in our lifetimes.
But the same data can be collected by robots for a fraction of the cost and risk, so there is no reason to send humans.
Did you even read what I wrote? Let me know when a robot can collect data on how humans function in a Martian environment without having humans in a Martian environment.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #97 on: July 20, 2018, 09:19:07 pm »
... There isn't even any scientific reason to send humans to Mars; ....

There are all sorts of scientific reasons to send humans to Mars. Nearly everything that happens to those humans in that environment, and much of what they see and do, would be scientific data that's unobtainable anywhere else. It doesn't stop being science just because it's expensive as hell and may not happen in our lifetimes.
But the same data can be collected by robots for a fraction of the cost and risk, so there is no reason to send humans.
Did you even read what I wrote? Let me know when a robot can collect data on how humans function in a Martian environment without having humans in a Martian environment.
Alright, sure, you need to send a human to see how a human function in a martian environment ;D. I really doubt anyone is going to want to spend the money required just to get the answer to that question though.

But the same data can be collected by robots for a fraction of the cost and risk, so there is no reason to send humans.
Nope, it cannot. Unless artificial general intelligence is developed. And not such which runs remotely on earth but which can be shipped to Mars.
Why not? What a human would be doing is collecting rock/soil samples and operating the measurement equipment that was prepared back on earth. A robot (remote controlled from earth) can do that as well (that's what the mars rovers have been doing). A human might be better at it but not enough that it motivates the extra cost/risk.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #98 on: July 20, 2018, 09:27:54 pm »
Why not? What a human would be doing is collecting rock/soil samples and operating the measurement equipment that was prepared back on earth. A robot (remote controlled from earth) can do that as well (that's what the mars rovers have been doing). A human might be better at it but not enough that it motivates the extra cost/risk.
Results of what could be done with robots is pretty evident as they were already sent. The answer is - not that much. Something very simple for a human often is extremely difficult for a robot. Robots are good for doing tasks which are easily automated and need high volume of repeated operations. But general tasks are extremely difficult for them.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2018, 09:31:17 pm by wraper »
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #99 on: July 20, 2018, 09:35:54 pm »
Why not? What a human would be doing is collecting rock/soil samples and operating the measurement equipment that was prepared back on earth. A robot (remote controlled from earth) can do that as well (that's what the mars rovers have been doing). A human might be better at it but not enough that it motivates the extra cost/risk.
Results of what could be done with robots is pretty evident as they were already sent. The answer is - not that much. Something very simple for a human often is extremely difficult for a robot. Robots are good for doing tasks which are easily automated and need high volume of repeated operations. But general tasks are extremely difficult for them.
What specifically is it you need a human for that you couldn't have a remote controlled robot do? (And something that couldn't just as well be done here on earth, the ISS or on the moon)

Compare with what the astronauts on the moon did for example.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2018, 09:40:00 pm by apis »
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #100 on: July 20, 2018, 09:40:49 pm »
Why not? What a human would be doing is collecting rock/soil samples and operating the measurement equipment that was prepared back on earth. A robot (remote controlled from earth) can do that as well (that's what the mars rovers have been doing). A human might be better at it but not enough that it motivates the extra cost/risk.
Results of what could be done with robots is pretty evident as they were already sent. The answer is - not that much. Something very simple for a human often is extremely difficult for a robot. Robots are good for doing tasks which are easily automated and need high volume of repeated operations. But general tasks are extremely difficult for them.
What specifically is it you need a human for that you couldn't have a remote controlled robot do?
Say dig a few meter deep hole in fully automated way. It would be quiet a task to make one which can do this reliably by itself. Remote control from earth pretty much won't work because of communications delay.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #101 on: July 20, 2018, 09:46:01 pm »
Even drilling a few inch deep hole is quiet a task https://bgr.com/2017/10/24/nasa-curiosity-drill-bit-testing-mars/
 

Online rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2968
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #102 on: July 20, 2018, 11:30:26 pm »
Since 2012 the Curiosity Rover on Mars has traveled a little over 18 km. The Apollo 17 astronauts drove over 30 km in three days. As cool and impressive as our Martian robots have been, they don't really compare to what humans could do in the same situation. I think Mars is a great place for humans to explore. Colonizing can and should wait until it would be easy.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #103 on: July 20, 2018, 11:31:58 pm »
Say dig a few meter deep hole in fully automated way. It would be quiet a task to make one which can do this reliably by itself. Remote control from earth pretty much won't work because of communications delay.
It would also be quite a task to send humans to mars and back again. We have machines that are good at digging here on earth. I don't see why adding an excavator to a mars mission wouldn't be possible. I disagree that remote control won't work, it just takes a lot longer time, but digging very slowly is still a lot easier and safer than sending humans all the way to mars.

Today I would envision you would use a combination of autonomous digging and a human just guiding the work remotely so that the robot could dig without the operator having to control every single motion of the excavator. That way it would be able to dig fairly quickly. Although autonomous robot technology is something that is evolving very rapidly right now so it's hard to tell exactly what will be possible in the near future. In a few years it might even be possible to just tell a robot you want a hole over there that is x wide and y deep and it will go off and dig it for you.

Even drilling a few inch deep hole is quiet a task https://bgr.com/2017/10/24/nasa-curiosity-drill-bit-testing-mars/
Because the drill was broken. Hard for humans to drill with broken equipment as well...

A human would be much better and adaptable but in 99.9% of the time a robot will be able to do it well enough to get the job done.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #104 on: July 20, 2018, 11:47:30 pm »
Because the drill was broken. Hard for humans to drill with broken equipment as well...
Exactly, you'll have a tiny issue somewhere, and mission is doomed. Robots cannot fix themselves or face unexpected situations gracefully. Autonomous robot could simply drive into a pit and get stuck there or roll over.
Quote
99.9% of the time a robot will be able to do it
That 0.1% likely will happen in just a few hours of operation if you try doing something beyond simplest tasks and doom the mission.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #105 on: July 21, 2018, 12:23:44 am »
Because the drill was broken. Hard for humans to drill with broken equipment as well...
Exactly, you'll have a tiny issue somewhere, and mission is doomed. Robots cannot fix themselves or face unexpected situations gracefully. Autonomous robot could simply drive into a pit and get stuck there or roll over.
Quote
99.9% of the time a robot will be able to do it
That 0.1% likely will happen in just a few hours of operation if you try doing something beyond simplest tasks and doom the mission.
A human can fix a lot of things a robot couldn't, but there are a lot of things that can go wrong that a human wouldn't be able to fix either and then all the astronauts would be dead. Worst case when sending a robot is that you have to send another robot after you fix the problem.

There have been four very successful rover missions to Mars so far, despite the difficulties. If you look at this list there are lots of failed missions as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars
Not because the rovers get stuck in a pit or roll over but because there was a problem getting to mars or landing.

« Last Edit: July 21, 2018, 12:28:44 am by apis »
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #106 on: July 21, 2018, 12:40:26 am »
There have been four very successful rover missions to Mars so far, despite the difficulties. If you look at this list there are lots of failed missions as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars
Not because the rovers get stuck in a pit or roll over but because there was a problem getting to mars or landing.
As I already said:
Quote
Results of what could be done with robots is pretty evident as they were already sent. The answer is - not that much.
Things those missions have accomplished are a joke compared to what humans on the site could explore.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #107 on: July 21, 2018, 12:55:32 am »
There have been four very successful rover missions to Mars so far, despite the difficulties. If you look at this list there are lots of failed missions as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars
Not because the rovers get stuck in a pit or roll over but because there was a problem getting to mars or landing.
As I already said:
Quote
Results of what could be done with robots is pretty evident as they were already sent. The answer is - not that much.
Things those missions have accomplished are a joke compared to what humans on the site could explore.
You said that, but you haven't been able to provide any good examples of what humans on the site would explore that a modern custom robot couldn't. If those missions are a joke compared to a human mission surely you could provide a long list of things that only a human would be able to accomplish.

If a robot could do it even if it would be doing it slowly and awkwardly it would almost certainly be more cost effective to use the robot, and definitely safer.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #108 on: July 21, 2018, 01:17:29 am »
You said that, but you haven't been able to provide any good examples of what humans on the site would explore that a modern custom robot couldn't.
Do you realize how complicated should be mechanism to just take a ground sample prepare it and make a simple analysis? Rovers not only cannot drill any deep, they are not even able to pick up a rock lying somewhere nearby. My work involves analytic laboratories, so I have some clue that certain things involved in sample analysis are very hard to fully automate, especially in a compact way. Heck, human could pick up a pneumatic hammer and blow shit out of the rock. Curiosity could not drill a decent hole even when mechanism was not broken.
Quote
certainly be more cost effective to use the robot, and definitely safer.
It's always safer to sit in mama's basement than go out and do something. Cost effective for what? If you don't achieve anything significant, it does not matter how low was the cost.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2018, 01:19:15 am by wraper »
 

Online CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3591
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #109 on: July 21, 2018, 01:40:47 am »
It is interesting that there seems to be a consensus on this forum that self driving cars that can perform as well as the average Joe Schmoe are very far from reality, while many also feel that self driving exploration machines can match or exceed carefully selected and trained astronauts. 

But that is just an observation.  Those who are fervently for purely robotic exploration and those who argue for purely human exploration are both wrong.  They both have their strengths and weaknesses.  Robots have done particularly well to date in space because it is true that they are better suited to survive and operate in that environment, but also because when you are completely ignorant the low hanging fruit is easy to pick.  Improving our knowledge and utilizing that knowledge is going to get harder as time goes along which will tend to tip the balance to on scene human level intelligence.  Explorers that are not limited by huge communication delays and limited bandwidth between the sensors and the intelligence.

Of course if Musk is right the machines will have superhuman intelligence soon and this whole conversation will be moot.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #110 on: July 21, 2018, 02:54:49 am »
That's an apples to oranges comparison. All being equal, a trained astronaut is going to be vastly superior to an automated rover but when you look at the whole mission cycle things change dramatically. A human needs far greater consideration to safety and redundancy, life support, creature comforts and all the other challenges that come with keeping human occupants comfortable, healthy and safe. A manned mission is vastly more expensive and more complex, and in most cases that tradeoff is simply not worth the advantages.

A remote rover on the other hand can "sleep" indefinitely on the voyage there, it needs no life support or food, it doesn't need to bathe, it's never going to argue with other rovers, it doesn't produce any waste to deal with, and the biggest of all advantage is it doesn't need a return trip. We can send a dozen rovers on one-way trips to different places and if half of them arrive safely at their intended destinations that could be considered a successful mission. Send out a dozen human crews and it's a whole different matter of half of them don't make it where they're going and none ever return home.
 

Online CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3591
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #111 on: July 21, 2018, 03:34:02 am »
This not just a human vs machine discussion, but a society discussion.  In the age of exploration huge numbers of explorers and later colonists didn't survive.  And that was fine.  In today's society when people react with horror to very low risk things even sending a machine is questionable.  What if a launch failure makes it fall on our head.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #112 on: July 21, 2018, 06:35:05 am »
Huge numbers of explorers died because there was no alternative, today we have alternatives. A launch failure that killed people could happen and it would be a disaster, but it's far less likely than a mission failure that kills the crew. The main thing is that unmanned missions are far cheaper and far simpler. You don't need human rated rockets, you don't need life support, you don't need to carry food, you don't need to dispose of bodily waste, you don't need to solve the huge problems of crew comfort and preventing muscle atrophy in zero G. There is a large array of problems and challenges you can simply bypass and not worry about. The end result is much like any other form of automation, automate the factory and you get people out of dangerous jobs, you greatly increase productivity and consistency while greatly reducing cost. At least in automating space missions you aren't putting millions of working class people out of a job. I don't have the numbers offhand but we can probably send out *at least* a dozen or more robotic explorer missions for the cost of one single manned mission and we can send them to places far too distant to send humans in a reasonable time scale. That's another big problem, Mars is the nearest planet, it takes months to get there and we've already sent rovers there. Where is the next closest planet that has conditions within the realm of human survival and how many centuries will it take to get there?
 
The following users thanked this post: Eka

Offline donotdespisethesnake

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1106
  • Country: gb
  • Embedded stuff
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #113 on: July 21, 2018, 07:32:49 am »
Since 2012 the Curiosity Rover on Mars has traveled a little over 18 km. The Apollo 17 astronauts drove over 30 km in three days. As cool and impressive as our Martian robots have been, they don't really compare to what humans could do in the same situation. I think Mars is a great place for humans to explore. Colonizing can and should wait until it would be easy.

How much did the Apollo 17 mission cost vs Curiosity? Not that the two mission are in any way equivalent.
Bob
"All you said is just a bunch of opinions."
 

Online rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2968
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #114 on: July 21, 2018, 12:35:54 pm »
I think if you compare only the mission cost they would probably not be too far apart, but if you factor in total development cost Apollo would be much more costly. The Curiosity mission was around $2.5 Billion whereas the entire Apollo Program cost is estimated at $20-25 Billion, which would be something like $120 Billion in 2012 Dollars. However, a lot of the Apollo cost was basic R&D, which Curiosity also eventually benefited from.


How much did the Apollo 17 mission cost vs Curiosity? Not that the two mission are in any way equivalent.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #115 on: July 21, 2018, 12:47:47 pm »
Had to be many billions because at one point, during the space race, in the USA there were thirteen (IINM) totally different, independent, competing rocket designs.

« Last Edit: July 21, 2018, 12:49:32 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline Eka

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #116 on: July 21, 2018, 10:09:32 pm »
Huge numbers of explorers died because there was no alternative, today we have alternatives. A launch failure that killed people could happen and it would be a disaster, but it's far less likely than a mission failure that kills the crew. The main thing is that unmanned missions are far cheaper and far simpler. You don't need human rated rockets, you don't need life support, you don't need to carry food, you don't need to dispose of bodily waste, you don't need to solve the huge problems of crew comfort and preventing muscle atrophy in zero G. There is a large array of problems and challenges you can simply bypass and not worry about. The end result is much like any other form of automation, automate the factory and you get people out of dangerous jobs, you greatly increase productivity and consistency while greatly reducing cost. At least in automating space missions you aren't putting millions of working class people out of a job. I don't have the numbers offhand but we can probably send out *at least* a dozen or more robotic explorer missions for the cost of one single manned mission and we can send them to places far too distant to send humans in a reasonable time scale. That's another big problem, Mars is the nearest planet, it takes months to get there and we've already sent rovers there. Where is the next closest planet that has conditions within the realm of human survival and how many centuries will it take to get there?
There are many deaths of brothers and sisters of my own ancestors who also tried to colonize North America pre 1700. All told around 30% of those that tried died on the voyage, or within a year of reaching North America. Yet members of my ancestral families kept sending their own over knowing full well others in their own families who had gone before had died. Many of my relatives are also the survivors of those that initially settled the midwest. Quakers would initially set up a town, and move their families there. Then others would move in. Eventually the area would get filled in by farms, non Quakers, etc. A bunch of young men with new families would go and setup a new town further west, and send for their wives and children once the houses were up, and crops were soon to be harvested. Many would die from raids on the new frontier towns, yet they kept at it, generation after generation.

Deaths trying to explore and colonize the moon or Mars are inevitable. The people who are willing to try, know they may die. That is life being an explorer or pioneer.

As for water, their is plenty on Mars. New outflows are being seen all the time. Looks like some drilling and maybe heating is what is needed to get at it. Habitats, what do you think the tunnel boring company Musk owns is for? You can sleep quite a few people in nice accommodations in a kilometer length of tunnel 30 feet in diameter. Some researcher had written an AI based control system for earth movers so a bunch of them could make the initial hole for placing the boring machine in before humans arrived. A large landing site could also be graded flat right next to the pit for the excavator and boring machine flights to land at. The site can be fully prepared and all the tunnel boring machinery landed before the first humans arrive. If you send 6 boring machines distributed over 28 rocket loads, loss of a half won't stop the program. In the process you learn how to land large loads long before any human makes the trip. My expectation is they will use a minor modification of the booster landing systems to land most of the initial supply loads on Mars. To save fuel, a huge airbag system could be used for initial atmospheric slowing to get down near to orbital speeds, then jettisoned before final decent on the booster rockets. They have been experimenting with bringing large booster sized craft in sideways so the heat of reentry is spread over the whole carbon fiber side rather than just the small end. That may be all they need for braking at Mars. Landing on mars will be routine by the time humans go. I also bet they will eventually refuel them and fly them home for reuse. Water can be cracked into hydrogen and oxygen which are great rocket fuels. Just design an engine that can have it's core replaced with a H2 O2 fuel system. The rock and mineral samples sent home in one of them would be a gold mine for researchers back on earth. It would be nothing to send back a few thousand kg of samples gathered from all over on each return flight. Those samples then could be analysed back on earth and construction materials developed from them. Except now there will be thousands of kg to work with. Construction materials for the moon have already been proposed and some even developed based on the small samples returned.

PS, I bet once large loads are successfully landed on Mars, world wide public interest will explode. Sometime go and read about the world wide interest in the US space program during the Apollo missions. I think Musk's biggest hurdle will be not having his effort nationalized.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #117 on: July 22, 2018, 12:09:26 am »
I remain skeptical. I'm sure interest will explode, for a while. During the Apollo missions there was huge worldwide interest at first, but after just a few years this died down substantially to the point where a launch was only a small mention somewhere, not the front page news it had been previously. The first time humans go to Mars it will be big news, a while after that it will be routine missions. The same happened with the space shuttle, the launches were a big deal at first, but after they became somewhat routine it wasn't really news anymore unless there was a disaster.

I also still think that a lot of the people who do take a one way trip to Mars will soon regret it when it sinks in that they are marooned in a small base on a desolate planet with the same small group of people for the rest of their lives. If a person wants to live in extreme isolation in a hostile environment there are still plenty of empty spaces right here on Earth that are more inviting than Mars. I suppose we could take the Australia approach and start shipping our criminals off to Mars and let them fend for themselves and maybe some day they will morph into a civilized society as happened to Australia. I think it's more likely they will all die though.
 

Offline donotdespisethesnake

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1106
  • Country: gb
  • Embedded stuff
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #118 on: July 22, 2018, 05:17:38 am »
Getting to Mars and surviving for a few weeks will be a major technical achievement, on a par with achieving sustainable nuclear fusion. It's also probably 30 years away for a while yet.

Creating a "colony" on Mars is another order of magnitude (at least). It will be more like a research base for a century or two, solely dependent on supplies for Earth.

As for being a destination for pioneers like the New World, that will probably never happen. Living on Mars will be like living in a spaceship, on Mars. The only thing Mars brings to the table is some gravity. There are no natural resources available that don't need mining/extraction. There is nothing of sufficient value on Mars that could be traded with Earth, apart from Mars rocks. The only viable businesses are tourism and souvenirs, which doesn't get very far.
Bob
"All you said is just a bunch of opinions."
 
The following users thanked this post: mtdoc

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #119 on: July 22, 2018, 07:12:34 pm »
You said that, but you haven't been able to provide any good examples of what humans on the site would explore that a modern custom robot couldn't.
Do you realize how complicated should be mechanism to just take a ground sample prepare it and make a simple analysis?
I do. Do you realise how complicated, expensive and risky it is to send people back and forth to Mars!? Making such a mechanism is trivial compared to the challenges involved in a manned mission to Mars. I'm sure it's doable though, but the money is better spent elsewhere, since rovers can do (almost) all of the things a human astronaut would for a fraction of the cost without any risk to human life.

Quote
certainly be more cost effective to use the robot, and definitely safer.
It's always safer to sit in mama's basement than go out and do something. Cost effective for what? If you don't achieve anything significant, it does not matter how low was the cost.
To say the mars rovers haven't achieved anything significant is just preposterous. NASA wouldn't keep sending these robots to Mars if they didn't achieve anything. It's fine to take a calculated risk if it is necessary to achieve something meaningful. It's not fine to gamble with people's lives just for a publicity stunt. I'm convinced that if it made scientific sense to send people to Mars NASA would have done so a long time ago.

People have gotten too fixated on Mars. It makes much more sense to build a base on the moon (why not colonize the moon ;)), and a bigger space station with spin gravity and facilities for long time stay in orbit.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #120 on: July 22, 2018, 07:27:28 pm »
People have gotten too fixated on Mars. It makes much more sense to build a base on the moon (why not colonize the moon ;)), and a bigger space station with spin gravity and facilities for long time stay in orbit.
Nope people are too fixated on spending their money on time wasting things like iphone. If Apple revenue was spent on space exploration, we'd already have a base on Mars. Moon has fine dust that destroy everything it touches.
https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-moon-dust/
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 07:41:23 pm by wraper »
 

Offline Eka

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #121 on: July 22, 2018, 07:38:14 pm »
There are no natural resources available that don't need mining/extraction. There is nothing of sufficient value on Mars that could be traded with Earth, apart from Mars rocks.
Well, for starters, Helium 3 would be worth shipping back to earth. It should be very abundant in Mar's regolith.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #122 on: July 22, 2018, 08:06:59 pm »
People have gotten too fixated on Mars. It makes much more sense to build a base on the moon (why not colonize the moon ;)), and a bigger space station with spin gravity and facilities for long time stay in orbit.
Nope people are too fixated on spending their money on time wasting things like iphone. If Apple revenue was spent on space exploration, we'd already have a base on Mars.
Smartphones are pretty darn useful I'd say. But people spend a lot of money on junk, no argument there. The way the economy works all of the wealth accumulates in the pockets of a tiny minority. It's not that there isn't enough money in the world, it's just that it's in the pockets of a few people who doesn't care about scientific advances, space exploration or the common good. People like Elon Musk and Bill Gates are notable exceptions. Not that politicians are any better. If anything they are spending less and less on science like space exploration in favour of tax cuts and military.

Moon has very small dust particles that destroy everything they touch.
https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-moon-dust/
And Martian soil is full of toxic perchloate. If we can't build a base on the moon I don't think we would be able to build one on Mars either.
https://www.space.com/21554-mars-toxic-perchlorate-chemicals.html
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #123 on: July 22, 2018, 08:09:24 pm »
There are no natural resources available that don't need mining/extraction. There is nothing of sufficient value on Mars that could be traded with Earth, apart from Mars rocks.
Well, for starters, Helium 3 would be worth shipping back to earth. It should be very abundant in Mar's regolith.
There's plenty of Helium 3 on the moon, makes no economic sens to go all the way to Mars for that.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #124 on: July 22, 2018, 08:54:06 pm »
Smartphones are pretty darn useful I'd say.
They increase productivity for maybe 5% of users at best. Others just waste their time and decrease productivity by using them for useless things. Selfies, instagram, facebook, youtube, you name it.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #125 on: July 22, 2018, 09:38:58 pm »
I find my smartphone to be an indispensable tool. It's my still camera, it's my video camera, it's my appointment book, my watch, my GPS navigator, map, bus schedule, universal communication device, music player, calculator, compass, and any number of other things. Sure a lot of people use them for pointless things but what else is new? It's not as if people didn't find ways to waste time back before smartphones. I lived a majority of my life without them and I've always known loads of lazy people who found pointless stuff to do.

It's not that I absolutely need one, but it sure is a convenient tool and it beats carrying around a pile of gadgets and hoping I have the one I need when I need it.
 

Offline ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3512
  • Country: de
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #126 on: July 23, 2018, 12:37:17 pm »
Nope people are too fixated on spending their money on time wasting things like iphone. If Apple revenue was spent on space exploration, we'd already have a base on Mars.

Smartphones are pretty darn useful I'd say.
They increase productivity for maybe 5% of users at best. Others just waste their time and decrease productivity by using them for useless things. Selfies, instagram, facebook, youtube, you name it.

OK. Given your clear value system, and assuming that you put your money where your mouth is -- may I assume that you do not own a smartphone, and are donating the savings to the good cause of Mars colonization instead?
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #127 on: July 23, 2018, 12:54:39 pm »
OK. Given your clear value system, and assuming that you put your money where your mouth is -- may I assume that you do not own a smartphone, and are donating the savings to the good cause of Mars colonization instead?
I have a smartphone, not the most expensive. I rarely waste the time with it, it more like for occasional use. And I don't replace it annually as some. I waste my time mostly on PC and eevblog is one of the worst time wasters of mine. At least I admit that I waste my  time and money on nonproductive things. No way I pretend to be holier than thou.
 
The following users thanked this post: ebastler

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #128 on: July 23, 2018, 01:02:48 pm »
Most businesses' applications have web front ends nowadays, that means you can use them at any time, while on the move, wherever you are, with your smartphones.
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #129 on: July 23, 2018, 01:09:51 pm »
Most businesses' applications have web front ends nowadays, that means you can use them at any time, while on the move, wherever you are, with your smartphones.
You can does not mean that you will. Chatting, using social networks during work hours is certainly nonproductive. Heck, I cave a customer which is a small company consisting of a few people. Business owner once told me they had no internet for 2 days and they previously never were as productive as during those two days.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #130 on: July 23, 2018, 01:25:20 pm »
Tetris was the problem back in the early days of PCs.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2018, 01:54:26 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #131 on: July 23, 2018, 01:45:01 pm »
There are no natural resources available that don't need mining/extraction. There is nothing of sufficient value on Mars that could be traded with Earth, apart from Mars rocks.
Well, for starters, Helium 3 would be worth shipping back to earth. It should be very abundant in Mar's regolith.
There's plenty of Helium 3 on the moon, makes no economic sens to go all the way to Mars for that.

You Space Nutters have odd definitions of "plenty". And just what do you think you need He3 for? Slightly lighter party balloons?
 

Offline Nusa

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1802
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #132 on: July 23, 2018, 01:51:39 pm »
Tetris was the problem back in the early days of computing.
Tetris didn't show up until the mid 1980's. The early days of computing are generally regarded as those up to around 1960.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #133 on: July 23, 2018, 01:53:44 pm »
Tetris was the problem back in the early days of computing.
Tetris didn't show up until the mid 1980's. The early days of computing are generally regarded as those up to around 1960.

 :-+ [ x ] Fixed.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2018, 01:58:08 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #134 on: July 23, 2018, 02:03:29 pm »
There are no natural resources available that don't need mining/extraction. There is nothing of sufficient value on Mars that could be traded with Earth, apart from Mars rocks.
Well, for starters, Helium 3 would be worth shipping back to earth. It should be very abundant in Mar's regolith.
There's plenty of Helium 3 on the moon, makes no economic sens to go all the way to Mars for that.

You Space Nutters have odd definitions of "plenty". And just what do you think you need He3 for? Slightly lighter party balloons?
It's potential fuel for the "soon" to be finished fusion reactors. It could potentially be valuable in the far future (potentially being the operative word here). But even if it does become valuable, there is enough on the moon to power fusion reactors on earth for quite a while, so shipping it all the way from Mars would probably not be competitive is my guess.

You could also mine valuable metals on Mars of course, but you then have to launch them into orbit and send them to earth. It would probably be easier and cheaper to mine asteroids in that case since they are already "floating" in space, but who knows.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #135 on: July 23, 2018, 02:30:13 pm »
It's potential fuel for the "soon" to be finished fusion reactors. It could potentially be valuable in the far future (potentially being the operative word here). But even if it does become valuable, there is enough on the moon to power fusion reactors on earth for quite a while, so shipping it all the way from Mars would probably not be competitive is my guess.

You could also mine valuable metals on Mars of course, but you then have to launch them into orbit and send them to earth. It would probably be easier and cheaper to mine asteroids in that case since they are already "floating" in space, but who knows.

"of course"!
 :-DD :-DD :-DD

Oh, it's Comedy Monday on EEVblog, I didn't get the memo. How do otherwise rational engineers end up with so many bullshit ideas? It's like you mention "space" and 5 years of university education go in the trash, and the entire Star Trek box set gets uploaded into your brains. Space is bullshit. Get over it. It's pseudo-religious garbage that tickles your monkey brain and excites the same parts of the brain that religions have always tickled.

("Of course", you could also extract platinum from seawater, why hasn't anyone done that? Oh wait, let's do it on Mars, now suddenly it makes sense!)

We don't even have D-T fusion power reactors. And quite likely never will. You know, we just need to exceed the conditions at the center of the Sun by a few orders of magnitude to get it to work, but I suppose computers got better so we can assume that's a solved problem... |O  Invoking even higher levels of He3 unreality won't make it happen. If you put a bunch of wind turbines around a H-bomb explosion you'll generate more power than any fusion projects have ever made, or ever will.

The only fusion project I give a greater than zero chance of maybe lighting a LED in the next 20 years is General Fusion. And even that seems to be taking forever.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #136 on: July 23, 2018, 03:18:03 pm »
It's potential fuel for the "soon" to be finished fusion reactors. It could potentially be valuable in the far future (potentially being the operative word here). But even if it does become valuable, there is enough on the moon to power fusion reactors on earth for quite a while, so shipping it all the way from Mars would probably not be competitive is my guess.

You could also mine valuable metals on Mars of course, but you then have to launch them into orbit and send them to earth. It would probably be easier and cheaper to mine asteroids in that case since they are already "floating" in space, but who knows.

"of course"!
 :-DD :-DD :-DD

Oh, it's Comedy Monday on EEVblog, I didn't get the memo. How do otherwise rational engineers end up with so many bullshit ideas? It's like you mention "space" and 5 years of university education go in the trash, and the entire Star Trek box set gets uploaded into your brains. Space is bullshit. Get over it. It's pseudo-religious garbage that tickles your monkey brain and excites the same parts of the brain that religions have always tickled.

("Of course", you could also extract platinum from seawater, why hasn't anyone done that? Oh wait, let's do it on Mars, now suddenly it makes sense!)

We don't even have D-T fusion power reactors. And quite likely never will. You know, we just need to exceed the conditions at the center of the Sun by a few orders of magnitude to get it to work, but I suppose computers got better so we can assume that's a solved problem... |O  Invoking even higher levels of He3 unreality won't make it happen. If you put a bunch of wind turbines around a H-bomb explosion you'll generate more power than any fusion projects have ever made, or ever will.

The only fusion project I give a greater than zero chance of maybe lighting a LED in the next 20 years is General Fusion. And even that seems to be taking forever.
Clearly you haven't bothered to read previous posts or it would be clear that I don't believe colonising Mars is practical. Also you seem to have missed the quotation marks around "soon" indicating a bit of irony in this case. Indeed, fusion seems to have been looming just beyond the horizon for several decades now.

The answer about He3 is to the hypothetical question: "if there was a colony on Mars, would they have some resource they could trade with earth?" My guess is that they probably do not. He3, if it turned out to be valuable in the distant future would likely be cheaper to mine on the moon than on mars.

I don't see why you think a hypothetical mars colony wouldn't be able to mine for metals/ores on Mars? I can't think of any reason not. Wouldn't be that much different from mining on earth I imagine. (Aside from the normal challenges of living and operating on mars would impose, they are not trivial of course, but I assume a hypothetical mars colony will have found ways to deal with those.) Will it be cost efficient to mine metals on Mars and sell them to earth? Probably not, which was my point.

What do you mean by "Space is bullshit"? Space is definitely a real thing and it's demonstrably possible to send people to the moon and back. Not sure why you would think otherwise unless you are one of those flat earthers who think the moon landing was a hoax?
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #137 on: July 23, 2018, 03:19:52 pm »
A hypothetical Mars colony could also have all-you-can-eat hot fudge sundaes every day, what does this have to do with engineering?

Maybe this is a sci-fi writer's workshop on how to write the most impractical bullshit?
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #138 on: July 23, 2018, 03:31:20 pm »
If you put a bunch of wind turbines around a H-bomb explosion you'll generate more power than any fusion projects have ever made, or ever will.

That's a great idea >:D Imagine if you could contain the explosion in a big deep underground vessel, and let it out little by little through a bunch or turbines. That would even be "green" !
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 07:55:30 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline Nusa

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1802
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #139 on: July 23, 2018, 03:32:30 pm »
A hypothetical Mars colony could also have all-you-can-eat hot fudge sundaes every day, what does this have to do with engineering?

Maybe this is a sci-fi writer's workshop on how to write the most impractical bullshit?

Of course, that would require a hypothetical dairy animal herd on mars, plus some hypothetical cocoa trees planted in your hypothetical simulated tropical environment. Also some hypothetical plants suitable for sugar production.

The primary export of an early colony would be knowledge. Observations, survival successes and failures, experimental data, and of course human interest stuff (blogs, videos, whatever).
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #140 on: July 23, 2018, 03:36:52 pm »
A hypothetical Mars colony could also have all-you-can-eat hot fudge sundaes every day, what does this have to do with engineering?

Maybe this is a sci-fi writer's workshop on how to write the most impractical bullshit?

Of course, that would require a hypothetical dairy animal herd on mars, plus some hypothetical cocoa trees planted in your hypothetical simulated tropical environment. Also some hypothetical plants suitable for sugar production.

The primary export of an early colony would be knowledge. Observations, survival successes and failures, experimental data, and of course human interest stuff (blogs, videos, whatever).

Oh brother... We had the same opportunity with the bottom the ocean. Quick, without Googling, who was the first person to reach the bottom of the Mariana Trench!?

The answer is: No one gives a shit.

You want knowledge about Mars? Here's some knowledge for you: it's the same periodic table of elements there as here. So what's the motivation? We'll blow trillions to send test pilots in diapers to see how rust behaves on Mars?

Wow wee. I can't wait.

www.distancetomars.com
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #141 on: July 23, 2018, 03:37:15 pm »
A hypothetical Mars colony could also have all-you-can-eat hot fudge sundaes every day, what does this have to do with engineering?
Few things are more engineering related than space exploration? If you don't wan't to talk about sending people to mars then go read/post in some other thread.

There have been a lot of "serious" discussion about sending people to Mars and starting a colony there, notably by president Bush junior (iirc). Personally I think it makes more sense to send robotic rovers like NASA have been doing. Colonising mars seems very impractical indeed.

(It's not that unlikely that China will try it as a publicity stunt either.)
« Last Edit: July 23, 2018, 03:44:17 pm by apis »
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10027
  • Country: au
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #142 on: July 23, 2018, 03:39:12 pm »
I could say more than I dare ... but I'm laughing too much.

For those who understand why, no explanation is necessary.  For those who do not, no explanation is safe.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #143 on: July 23, 2018, 03:39:38 pm »
Blogs about their depressing thoughts about their miserable lifes, I'd guess.
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #144 on: July 23, 2018, 03:51:28 pm »
A hypothetical Mars colony could also have all-you-can-eat hot fudge sundaes every day, what does this have to do with engineering?
Few things are more engineering related than space exploration? If you don't wan't to talk about sending people to mars then go read/post in some other thread.

There have been a lot of "serious" discussion about sending people to Mars and starting a colony there, notably by president Bush II (iirc). Personally I think it makes more sense to send robotic rovers like NASA have been doing. Colonising mars seems very impractical indeed.

Most of space (that's a BIG place) was explored... FROM THE GROUND. You've heard of observatories? You've heard of Galileo? He explored Jupiter and the Solar System, with hand ground glass.

Please describe what a monkey in a space suit is accomplishing by getting 400 kilometers closer to stars light years away? Or are you claiming being personally close to a perfect vacuum is "exploring space". I didn't know I was exploring space when my Mum packed my lunch in a Thermos flask!

I read this because it is instructive in people's capacity for self-delusion. "Oh I'm an engineer so therefore I don't need to check this engineery-looking stuff, it's all legit!" "Hey we don't need to worry about THIS planet, we'll just fuck off in a magical science spaceship when we're done! Because the universe OWES US!!"

You don't realize how you've been manipulated by horseshit space religion and goofy-ass propaganda about weapons disguised as "exploration".
 

Offline ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3512
  • Country: de
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #145 on: July 23, 2018, 03:59:58 pm »
The early days of computing are generally regarded as those up to around 1960.

I don't think there is a generally accepted definition, and would argue that the personal interpretation of "early days" will very much depend on the age of the interpreter.  ;)
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #146 on: July 23, 2018, 04:10:44 pm »
Please describe what a monkey in a space suit is accomplishing by getting 400 kilometers closer to stars light years away? Or are you claiming being personally close to a perfect vacuum is "exploring space". I didn't know I was exploring space when my Mum packed my lunch in a Thermos flask!
Now this is just uninformed and plain stupid. In the space station a huge number of scientific experiments are done which are possible only in microgravity conditions. Results of many of those experiments are then used on earth to make something useful in everyday life.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/search.html?
Quote
You've heard of Galileo? He explored Jupiter and the Solar System, with hand ground glass.
I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #147 on: July 23, 2018, 04:14:22 pm »
A hypothetical Mars colony could also have all-you-can-eat hot fudge sundaes every day, what does this have to do with engineering?
Few things are more engineering related than space exploration? If you don't wan't to talk about sending people to mars then go read/post in some other thread.

There have been a lot of "serious" discussion about sending people to Mars and starting a colony there, notably by president Bush II (iirc). Personally I think it makes more sense to send robotic rovers like NASA have been doing. Colonising mars seems very impractical indeed.
Most of space (that's a BIG place) was explored... FROM THE GROUND. You've heard of observatories? You've heard of Galileo? He explored Jupiter and the Solar System, with hand ground glass.

Please describe what a monkey in a space suit is accomplishing by getting 400 kilometers closer to stars light years away?
Those monkeys at the ISS do a ton of experiments that can only be done in micro gravity. Kind of hard to do down on Earth.

Did you read any of what I wrote? I've repeatedly stated I don't think sending people to Mars makes sense (which is closer to 54.6 million kilometers away, minimum).

Sending a robotic rover to Mars however lets you look for water, analyse the composition of the atmosphere and analyse the soil and the layer beneath the top soil, that is obviously valuable in order to understand the geology of other planets and the formation of the solar system, etc. They also look for signs of life (fossilised or living), and numerous other things.

You don't realize how you've been manipulated by horseshit space religion and goofy-ass propaganda about weapons disguised as "exploration".
Indeed, I might not have realised as a kid but today it's feels like an open secret. If not for the military aspect of it, there would probably not be any satellites or satellite navigation, etc.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #148 on: July 23, 2018, 04:19:41 pm »
You don't realize how you've been manipulated by horseshit space religion and goofy-ass propaganda about weapons disguised as "exploration".
So what, GPS was purely military system in the past. Pleas comment if navigation is not useful in everyday life?
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #149 on: July 23, 2018, 04:22:48 pm »
Please describe what a monkey in a space suit is accomplishing by getting 400 kilometers closer to stars light years away? Or are you claiming being personally close to a perfect vacuum is "exploring space". I didn't know I was exploring space when my Mum packed my lunch in a Thermos flask!
Now this is just uninformed and plain stupid. In the space station a huge number of scientific experiments are done which are possible only in microgravity conditions. Results of many of those experiments are then used on earth to make something useful in everyday life.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/search.html?
Quote
You've heard of Galileo? He explored Jupiter and the Solar System, with hand ground glass.
I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

Ah yes, that old chestnut.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #150 on: July 23, 2018, 04:25:03 pm »
You don't realize how you've been manipulated by horseshit space religion and goofy-ass propaganda about weapons disguised as "exploration".
So what, GPS was purely military system in the past. Pleas comment if navigation is not useful in everyday life?

Please comment if that is exploration or colonization? No one is arguing against slapping radios in tin cans into orbit.

Extrapolating that into Mars Cornucopia and The Species Is Doomed(tm) horseshit is where I draw the line.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #151 on: July 23, 2018, 04:27:17 pm »
You don't realize how you've been manipulated by horseshit space religion and goofy-ass propaganda about weapons disguised as "exploration".
So what, GPS was purely military system in the past. Pleas comment if navigation is not useful in everyday life?
I think weather satellites, satellites monitoring global climate, communications satellites, etc, are pretty useful as well. And why not systems for deflecting asteroids that would otherwise hit earth?
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #152 on: July 23, 2018, 04:28:12 pm »

Please describe what a monkey in a space suit is accomplishing by getting 400 kilometers closer to stars light years away?
Those monkeys at the ISS do a ton of experiments that can only be done in micro gravity. Kind of hard to do down on Earth.

[/quote]

Yes! Vitally important .. stuff! Come on, at this point it's like historical re-enactment theater.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #153 on: July 23, 2018, 04:34:24 pm »
You don't realize how you've been manipulated by horseshit space religion and goofy-ass propaganda about weapons disguised as "exploration".
So what, GPS was purely military system in the past. Pleas comment if navigation is not useful in everyday life?
I think weather satellites, satellites monitoring global climate, communications satellites, etc, are pretty useful as well. And why not systems for deflecting asteroids that would otherwise hit earth?

Again, none of these are manned, none of these are on Mars, none of these are exploring or colonizing anything. So what's the point in bringing that up?

Deflecting asteroids? What??? How the hell do you even propose to begin to be able to think that we are able to do that?

It would be like farting at a hurricane and expecting it to shift trajectory.

You've been daydreaming you're Q from Star Trek again, haven't you? We can't even predict earthquakes or volcanoes right here on Earth and can barely manage to do anything about it except run as fast as possible.

What exactly do you think we're capable of, exactly? We'll just thaw Bruce Willis out in 2050 and strap some dynamite to a Space Shuttle and
Save The Species from SPAAAAACE DOOOOOOOOOOM!!!
Mental onanism for nerds.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #154 on: July 23, 2018, 04:39:04 pm »
It would be like farting at a hurricane and expecting it to shift trajectory.
If you fart on asteroid far away enough from the Earth, tiny change of it's trajectory would be enough for it to miss the Earth.
 
The following users thanked this post: Brumby, tooki

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #155 on: July 23, 2018, 04:39:37 pm »
The issue with mining any kind of resources from another planet is the immense cost of returning them to Earth. There could be a literal mountain on mars made entirely of stacks of gold bars and I'm not sure it would ever be worth going to get any of them. The cost of retrieval would likely exceed the value of the gold, and that's ignoring the fact that adding a large amount of gold would likely cause the price to drop. Helium is far lighter than gold, but even so I don't see how a significant enough quantity could be shipped back to Earth. Even if you can reuse the rocket, it still requires a massive amount of fuel to escape gravity, that's just physics.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #156 on: July 23, 2018, 04:48:40 pm »
Quote
Please describe what a monkey in a space suit is accomplishing by getting 400 kilometers closer to stars light years away?
Those monkeys at the ISS do a ton of experiments that can only be done in micro gravity. Kind of hard to do down on Earth.
Yes! Vitally important .. stuff! Come on, at this point it's like historical re-enactment theater.
Here you go (not an exhaustive list):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_International_Space_Station

Deflecting asteroids? What??? How the hell do you even propose to begin to be able to think that we are able to do that?
So you are one of those "how dare we insignificant ants think we can change the course of mighty nature or avoid that asteroid that God sent here to punish us". Give me a break. Of course it would be possible to nudge a rock a bit if it looks like it will hit earth. And it would be worth all the money in the world if we can do it. Depends on the precise circumstances of course, we might not be able to prevent all possible asteroid impact scenarios, but we might just be able to divert the majority of dangerous asteroids... if we prepare for it.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #157 on: July 23, 2018, 04:52:16 pm »
The issue with mining any kind of resources from another planet is the immense cost of returning them to Earth. There could be a literal mountain on mars made entirely of stacks of gold bars and I'm not sure it would ever be worth going to get any of them. The cost of retrieval would likely exceed the value of the gold, and that's ignoring the fact that adding a large amount of gold would likely cause the price to drop. Helium is far lighter than gold, but even so I don't see how a significant enough quantity could be shipped back to Earth. Even if you can reuse the rocket, it still requires a massive amount of fuel to escape gravity, that's just physics.
Yes, exactly. A hypothetical Mars colony would have very little to trade with earth in terms of resources.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #158 on: July 23, 2018, 04:53:01 pm »
It would be like farting at a hurricane and expecting it to shift trajectory.
If you fart on asteroid far away enough from the Earth, tiny change of it's trajectory would be enough for it to miss the Earth.

Yes, of course, it's a trivial effort, left as an exercise for the reader.

The issue with mining any kind of resources from another planet is the immense cost of returning them to Earth. 

You'll find that 100% of Space Nutters will always look at you like a Special Ed student when you mention "returning to Earth". Obviously, Space Minerals are to be used by Space Humans. You know, those vital populations of humans in free fall exposed to healthy Space Radiation and osteoporosis, huge demand for Space Diamonds there.

It's religious circular reasoning couched in pseudo-scientific language so that the engineer part of the brain doesn't notice right away.

So you are one of those "how dare we insignificant ants think we can change the course of mighty nature or avoid that asteroid that God sent here to punish us". Give me a break. Of course it would be possible to nudge a rock a bit if it looks like it will hit earth. And it would be worth all the money in the world if we can do it. Depends on the precise circumstances of course, we might not be able to prevent all possible asteroid impact scenarios, but we might just be able to divert the majority of dangerous asteroids... if we prepare for it.

No, otherwise washing your hands before surgery would be changing the course of nature too, wouldn't it?

You don't seem to understand that all the nonsense you're talking about is simply not possible, not now, not ever.

It's space garbage for children. Sometimes I read the stuff I wrote 25 years ago and it's the same shit you're writing now, word for word. Like a religious homily, or sermon.

 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #159 on: July 23, 2018, 04:53:56 pm »
You could build some really amazing looking houses on Mars out of solid gold bricks though :)
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #160 on: July 23, 2018, 04:56:10 pm »
The issue with mining any kind of resources from another planet is the immense cost of returning them to Earth. There could be a literal mountain on mars made entirely of stacks of gold bars and I'm not sure it would ever be worth going to get any of them. The cost of retrieval would likely exceed the value of the gold, and that's ignoring the fact that adding a large amount of gold would likely cause the price to drop. Helium is far lighter than gold, but even so I don't see how a significant enough quantity could be shipped back to Earth. Even if you can reuse the rocket, it still requires a massive amount of fuel to escape gravity, that's just physics.
Yes, exactly. A hypothetical Mars colony would have very little to trade with earth in terms of resources.

The amusingly desiccated corpses of Space Nutter suicides might fetch a good price for serious collectors.

You could build some really amazing looking houses on Mars out of solid gold bricks though :)

Naturally. I assume when Elon Musk retires with his Space Tesla in his 3D printed Space Condo, you'll toss some Space Meat on the Space Barbecue, and in the 15 seconds you'll have left to live, you'll laugh heartily at all those ridiculous flatfoots back on Earth with their breathable air and water....  ::)
 

Online rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2968
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #161 on: July 23, 2018, 04:59:24 pm »
The best thing to mine, as has been pointed out many times before, is probably going to be an asteroid. As far as deflecting asteroids, there are several viable and practical methods to do so using existing technology. Doing so successfully depends a lot on the asteroid, not Bruce Willis.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #162 on: July 23, 2018, 05:05:17 pm »
It would certainly be an interesting experiment to mine an asteroids, however I remain highly skeptical that it will ever be cost effective. It's probably worth giving it a try for the novelty and to learn anything we don't already know about asteroids but just don't expect it to be a profitable endeavor.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #163 on: July 23, 2018, 05:06:45 pm »
The best thing to mine, as has been pointed out many times before, is probably going to be an asteroid. As far as deflecting asteroids, there are several viable and practical methods to do so using existing technology. Doing so successfully depends a lot on the asteroid, not Bruce Willis.

But of course! Just double the distance again, make everything work in free fall with fully automated space-rated machinery... Oh no wait, we'll send people with shovels, they can do so much more than machines, which is why we see so many mines with bare-handed people in them.

Funny how the Great Space Vision of the future is ... people working with shovels.

Viable! Practical! Deflecting asteroids!  :-DD :-DD :-DD

You can't even deflect incoming ICBMs with known trajectories with all the technology and resources of the entire planet. What do you hope to achieve against Space Doom?

Maybe if you pile your comic books high enough, it'll make a shield?

It would certainly be an interesting experiment to mine an asteroids, however I remain highly skeptical that it will ever be cost effective. It's probably worth giving it a try for the novelty and to learn anything we don't already know about asteroids but just don't expect it to be a profitable endeavor.

Why hasn't anyone "mined" seawater? It's viable! It's practical!  :-DD
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #164 on: July 23, 2018, 05:49:40 pm »
Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project

This book was my Holiest of Holy Writings when I was stupid and in my larval stage. Now I read it when I need to howl with laughter until the tears come.
 

Online rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2968
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #165 on: July 23, 2018, 05:54:36 pm »
It costs a huge amount of money to put a ton of anything into orbit. Asteroids are already there.

It would certainly be an interesting experiment to mine an asteroids, however I remain highly skeptical that it will ever be cost effective. It's probably worth giving it a try for the novelty and to learn anything we don't already know about asteroids but just don't expect it to be a profitable endeavor.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #166 on: July 23, 2018, 06:03:01 pm »
It costs a huge amount of money to put a ton of anything into orbit. Asteroids are already there.

Sure, but it's not trivial to return something safely to earth either. All of the mining equipment as well as any cargo vessels for carrying the mined material will have to be launched into orbit. Maybe it would be worth it if we happen to find an asteroid made of solid gold, platinum or other extremely valuable and useful substance but I wouldn't bank on it.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #167 on: July 23, 2018, 06:05:25 pm »
It costs a huge amount of money to put a ton of anything into orbit. Asteroids are already there.

It would certainly be an interesting experiment to mine an asteroids, however I remain highly skeptical that it will ever be cost effective. It's probably worth giving it a try for the novelty and to learn anything we don't already know about asteroids but just don't expect it to be a profitable endeavor.

Of course! They're already there! I suppose also they're already sorted by the periodic table of elements? They're THERE! Just go reach for the stars (well, dead rocks) and grab them! Or maybe you can just sit on one like the Little Prince and look at the stars?

What exactly do you think mineral ore is worth, and what use is it in space, where (news flash) there's NOBODY?

I think you fail to understand just how thinly spread things are out there. Do you think it's just like pure platinum and osmium boulders smashing into each other like in Star Wars, and you'll be Han Solo and fight the bad aliens and get the rocks to impress the Space Princess in your space mining ship?

More circular hope.

It costs a huge amount of money to put a ton of anything into orbit. Asteroids are already there.

Sure, but it's not trivial to return something safely to earth either. All of the mining equipment as well as any cargo vessels for carrying the mined material will have to be launched into orbit. Maybe it would be worth it if we happen to find an asteroid made of solid gold, platinum or other extremely valuable and useful substance but I wouldn't bank on it.

But you don't get it. It's for building things IN space, for all those brave colonists tempted by hard vacuum and cosmic rays! Space is just a giant Wal Mart, after all.

How valuable would gold be after you find an asteroid of it?
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #168 on: July 23, 2018, 06:20:01 pm »
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #169 on: July 23, 2018, 06:25:29 pm »
And the space is empty.
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #170 on: July 23, 2018, 06:38:19 pm »
It costs a huge amount of money to put a ton of anything into orbit. Asteroids are already there.
Sure, but it's not trivial to return something safely to earth either. All of the mining equipment as well as any cargo vessels for carrying the mined material will have to be launched into orbit. Maybe it would be worth it if we happen to find an asteroid made of solid gold, platinum or other extremely valuable and useful substance but I wouldn't bank on it.
Yeah, you couldn't exactly just trow it down to earth. I'm also sceptical but I haven't tried to make any calculations, too many unknowns.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #171 on: July 23, 2018, 06:44:45 pm »
And the space is empty.

Uh, that could get you the Space Death Penalty in Space Court. Space is the Holy Manifest Destiny of Humanity, we'll just evolve to breathe solar wind and float among the neutrinos.

That is, if the evil Earth Flatfoots stop flinging their poo at your anti-matter-powered warp spaceship that everyone is preventing you from building.

You see, it's not physical limits or engineering problems holding us back from meeting voluptuous green-skinned temptresses on Mars, it's that part of humanity struggling to hold you back!
 
The following users thanked this post: mtdoc, GeorgeOfTheJungle

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #172 on: July 23, 2018, 08:25:25 pm »
You see, it's not physical limits or engineering problems holding us back from meeting voluptuous green-skinned temptresses on Mars, it's that part of humanity struggling to hold you back!
It seems like everything is very black or white to you, seems to be an emotionally loaded topic?

I don't really understand why you think we couldn't have a research base on the moon or mine an asteroid for resources that are very limited on earth just because colonising mars (the galaxy ???) is a pipe dream?
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #173 on: July 23, 2018, 08:57:33 pm »
I think having a research base on the moon is a neat idea, Mars could be interesting too but the moon is a whole lot closer and seems like a more reasonable first step. Mining an asteroid could certainly be interesting too, I'm just not sold on the fantasy of it turning into some wonderful sci-fi scenario where hundreds or thousands of people are spread across the galaxy or building a bustling community on another planet.

If we do find another habitable plane to spread the human race to then it will be a case of sending a few seeds (people) to grow a new batch somewhere else, it won't do anything to help the people on Earth. There is no practical way to rescue a significant number of people from some catastrophic event. My cynical side wonders if there is really a practical benefit to the universe from saving the human race by spreading our seeds to other worlds. In the grand scheme of things humans have existed for a miniscule period of time on a microscopic rock floating in space. What difference is it really going to make if the species survives once the earth is dead and gone?
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #174 on: July 23, 2018, 09:47:46 pm »
I don't think the universe cares one way or another. But if a new habitable planet were found within reach from earth I suspect it is inevitable that some group of humans will try to go there eventually. I think the temptation is just too great to resist. People have settled in most of the remote areas of the world that can sustain human life, for all kinds of reasons.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #175 on: July 24, 2018, 12:29:09 am »
If we do find a habitable planet then sure, no reason not to send some people there, it would be interesting if nothing else. I don't consider Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much. The biggest problem with other possible candidates is that it will take multiple human lifespans to reach one even if it is found. Much of science fiction relies on the possibility of faster than light transport, but I just don't see that happening. It's roughly in the same realm as over-unity stuff.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #176 on: July 24, 2018, 12:34:23 am »
Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.
It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.
 

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2821
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #177 on: July 24, 2018, 03:30:58 am »
Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.
It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.

How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?
 

Offline bson

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1651
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #178 on: July 24, 2018, 05:38:01 am »
Mmm, well in his own mind Musk has already beaten NASA to Mars.  All that remains is the practical detail of actually going there. :)
 
The following users thanked this post: schmitt trigger

Offline Tepe

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 571
  • Country: dk
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #179 on: July 24, 2018, 07:16:01 am »
I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

Ah yes, that old chestnut.
So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?
ceterum censeo systemd-inem esse delendam
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #180 on: July 24, 2018, 09:18:02 am »
Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.
It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.

How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?
It would release frozen CO2 trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO2 would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO2. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #181 on: July 24, 2018, 09:39:19 am »
The atmosphere of Mars is 96% CO2 already.
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #182 on: July 24, 2018, 09:48:11 am »
The atmosphere of Mars is 96% CO2 already.
But density is only 0.6% of the earth atmosphere.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #183 on: July 24, 2018, 10:29:29 am »
Because its mass is 1/10 that of the earth?
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #184 on: July 24, 2018, 11:26:46 am »
Because its mass is 1/10 that of the earth?
Nope, because it lost it's atmosphere at some point of time.
EDIT: BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 11:59:53 am by wraper »
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #185 on: July 24, 2018, 01:01:04 pm »
Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.
It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.

How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?
It would release frozen CO2 trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO2 would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO2. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.

See how simple everything is? Why they don't hand over the Nuclear Football to someone clearly grounded in reality as you is a mystery.

We could have a whole other planet if only people listened to you!  :-DD

PS: Maybe add some glitter to the bombs, it would make Martian sunsets so awesome!!
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #186 on: July 24, 2018, 01:01:40 pm »
I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

Ah yes, that old chestnut.
So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?

So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #187 on: July 24, 2018, 01:06:41 pm »
I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

Ah yes, that old chestnut.
So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?

So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?
Says walking logical fallacy itself.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #188 on: July 24, 2018, 01:13:20 pm »
I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

Ah yes, that old chestnut.
So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?

So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?
Says walking logical fallacy itself.

There is no logical fallacy on my part, the burden of proof is entirely on the people making the extraordinary claims. You are nothing but cloud-shoveling daydreamers with an odd techno-religion.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #189 on: July 24, 2018, 01:23:37 pm »
There is no logical fallacy on my part, the burden of proof is entirely on the people making the extraordinary claims. You are nothing but cloud-shoveling daydreamers with an odd techno-religion.
Wait a minute. Logical fallacy and burden of proof are two completely different things. You are just changing the topic. And burden of proof for what particularly? Most of extraordinary claims are coming from you.

Quote
Logical fallacy changing subject
A related concept is that of the red herring, which is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject. Ignoratio elenchi is sometimes confused with straw man argument.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 01:25:58 pm by wraper »
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #190 on: July 24, 2018, 01:39:25 pm »
There is no logical fallacy on my part, the burden of proof is entirely on the people making the extraordinary claims. You are nothing but cloud-shoveling daydreamers with an odd techno-religion.
Wait a minute. Logical fallacy and burden of proof are two completely different things. You are just changing the topic. And burden of proof for what particularly? Most of extraordinary claims are coming from you.

Quote
Logical fallacy changing subject
A related concept is that of the red herring, which is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject. Ignoratio elenchi is sometimes confused with straw man argument.

The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.

Burden of proof is on your side. You're the ones with the borderline maniacal claims of blowing up Mars's poles to get an atmosphere, or your "Preserve The Species" sermons, or "Asteroid of DOOM!!".

Do you not see where maybe a little tiny little bit of ... um... skepticism is warranted?

How did you even arrive at your hysterical world view anyways?
 

Offline ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3512
  • Country: de
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #191 on: July 24, 2018, 01:56:27 pm »
How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?
It would release frozen CO2 trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO2 would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO2. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.

Oh yeah -- let's mess up a planet before we even live there!
Progress!! 

:-\
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #192 on: July 24, 2018, 01:59:06 pm »
The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.
Please insert a quote to prove your claim (burden of proof).
From my side I said:
And I’m not sure how you can see innovation and inspiration in a video showing failures as silly as “ran out of fuel”. That, to me, just plain shows poor design or planning.
So poor that nobody else besides them got landing working. All other space companies and most people overall were laughing about their "silly attempts" those days. Now nobody in those companies is laughing because SpaceX ate a lot of their market share. How to see inspiration? This video was created by SpaceX themselves and posted on their own channel. Those all were landing attempts before they got technology working. Once they got landing working, now it seems more like a routine operation.
Which certainly is not what you suggested. That was rebuffing what was said about particular company, by stating their achievements. Not a joke about some historical figure.
Quote
Burden of proof is on your side. You're the ones with the borderline maniacal claims of blowing up Mars's poles to get an atmosphere, or your "Preserve The Species" sermons, or "Asteroid of DOOM!!".
Maybe you have a problem understanding a context and satire like preschool kids do. That was first said more like a joke. Then I explained it is possible in theory. Nobody said it is viable or should be actually done.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #193 on: July 24, 2018, 02:02:15 pm »
How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?
It would release frozen CO2 trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO2 would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO2. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.

Oh yeah -- let's mess up a planet before we even live there!
Progress!! 

:-\
You apparently fave the same problem as In Vacuo Veritas. Read my previous post.



 

Offline Tepe

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 571
  • Country: dk
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #194 on: July 24, 2018, 02:16:35 pm »
I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

Ah yes, that old chestnut.
So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?

So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?
What fallacy? I haven't offered any opinion about the feasibility of space travel here.
ceterum censeo systemd-inem esse delendam
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #195 on: July 24, 2018, 02:26:52 pm »


 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #196 on: July 24, 2018, 02:32:03 pm »
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #197 on: July 24, 2018, 02:37:37 pm »
This sure is very sound and strong argument.
stupid sci-fi picture
From someone just a while ago wrote V  :palm:
The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #198 on: July 24, 2018, 02:38:22 pm »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #199 on: July 24, 2018, 02:47:50 pm »
EDIT: BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.

I didn't know that. It's pretty cool. Well, no, cool, no:

"The mass of its atmosphere is 93 times that of Earth's, whereas the pressure at its surface is about 92 times that at Earth's [..] The density at the surface is 65 kg/m3, 6.5% that of water or 50 times as dense as Earth's atmosphere [..] surface temperatures of at least 735 K (462 °C; 864 °F)"

WTF!
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 02:11:17 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #200 on: July 24, 2018, 03:19:58 pm »
It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.
I hadn't heard about that before, interesting.

So you release a lot of CO2 which provides a thicker atmosphere, rises the temperature and in turn melts water. Liquid water and CO2 might be enough for micro organism and some plants which then could oxygenate the atmosphere over a time period of 100 000's of years. That could make the planet more friendly to biological life but not enough to make it habitable to humans. Earth's atmosphere has about 410 ppm CO2 (used to be 280 ppm before the industrial era). Even at concentrations as low as 0.1% CO2 has negative health effects on humans and at 7% it's lethal.

There's also the problem of toxic perchlorate in the soil mentioned earlier:
https://www.space.com/21554-mars-toxic-perchlorate-chemicals.html

because it lost it's atmosphere at some point of time.
EDIT: BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.
Mars has no magnetic field like the earth, so Mars has no shield against charged particles from the sun which is what is believed to have stripped away its atmosphere in the past. If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?

Living on Mars will be like living in a bunker in the middle of a toxic dessert in a vacuum (or at least a non breathable atmosphere). It would be quite a challenge.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #201 on: July 24, 2018, 03:24:52 pm »
If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html
 

Online rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2968
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #202 on: July 24, 2018, 03:32:54 pm »
Considering Mars as somewhere to live is a big mistake. It would be far more trouble than it's worth, not to mention expensive and time consuming.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #203 on: July 24, 2018, 03:33:47 pm »
This sure is very sound and strong argument.
stupid sci-fi picture
From someone just a while ago wrote V  :palm:
The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.

Psst: in this example, you are Bozo the Clown.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #204 on: July 24, 2018, 03:35:25 pm »
If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html

Yes, linking to sci-fi is very much the same as proof. Thank you, my mind is changed now. Maybe we can be neighbors on Mars and chat over the fence when we are mowing our space lawns with our space lawnmowers...

PS: No one is going anywhere. Not you, not me, not Elon Freaking Musk. Get over it.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #205 on: July 24, 2018, 03:37:48 pm »
BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.
Actually, colonising Venus would probably be easier, by living in floating cities in venus atmospere:
Quote
In effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 kilometres above the Venerian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System – a pressure of approximately 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to 50 °C range. Protection against cosmic radiation would be provided by the atmosphere above, with shielding mass equivalent to Earth's.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus

And even if you find people who would like to live under such extreme condition (I'm sure there are some who would like the challenge), there is still the question of why go through the trouble (i.e. who would be willing to pay for it and why, same as with a colony on Mars). Naah, at most there will be small research bases, but to me it still makes much more sense to just send "disposable" robotic rovers.

A moon base and larger space station with spin gravity seems a lot more realistic and potentially useful.
 

Offline @rt

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 988
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #206 on: July 24, 2018, 03:38:35 pm »
I had a video of mine get related by YouTube to the last SpaceX live feed, which one would think is a YouTuber’s dream,
but who’s going to exit the live feed to go watch some other video :D I got 1500 views out of it :D
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #207 on: July 24, 2018, 03:42:54 pm »
This sure is very sound and strong argument.
stupid sci-fi picture
From someone just a while ago wrote V  :palm:
The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.

Psst: in this example, you are Bozo the Clown.
FYI this is a name-calling and in given context ad hominem fallacy.


 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #208 on: July 24, 2018, 03:49:05 pm »
If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html

Yes, linking to sci-fi is very much the same as proof. Thank you, my mind is changed now. Maybe we can be neighbors on Mars and chat over the fence when we are mowing our space lawns with our space lawnmowers...

PS: No one is going anywhere. Not you, not me, not Elon Freaking Musk. Get over it.
Seems you have no real argument just as always. That is not sci-fi but theory.
 

Offline ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3512
  • Country: de
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #209 on: July 24, 2018, 03:49:28 pm »
FYI this is a name-calling and in given context ad hominem fallacy.

... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy!  ;)

Come on, guys, can't we cool it a bit? Wraper loves space stuff (although he does not state that everything which can be contemplated should also be done), others are more skeptical. So what?  :-//
 
The following users thanked this post: wraper, apis

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10027
  • Country: au
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #210 on: July 24, 2018, 03:53:57 pm »
So what is worse...

Aiming low and hitting your target
  or
Aiming high and possibly missing - but hitting a mark higher than where you currently are?
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #211 on: July 24, 2018, 03:58:55 pm »
If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html

Yes, linking to sci-fi is very much the same as proof. Thank you, my mind is changed now. Maybe we can be neighbors on Mars and chat over the fence when we are mowing our space lawns with our space lawnmowers...

PS: No one is going anywhere. Not you, not me, not Elon Freaking Musk. Get over it.
Seems you have no real argument just as always. That is not sci-fi but theory.

It's not even theory.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #212 on: July 24, 2018, 03:59:33 pm »
... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy!  ;)
Sorry but you need to read the definition of it again. Not to say, I'm not pointing out his logical fallacies just because. He claimed that others are full of logical fallacies but himself being holier than thou.

VVV
I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

Ah yes, that old chestnut.
So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?

So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?
Says walking logical fallacy itself.

There is no logical fallacy on my part, the burden of proof is entirely on the people making the extraordinary claims. You are nothing but cloud-shoveling daydreamers with an odd techno-religion.
 

Offline ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3512
  • Country: de
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #213 on: July 24, 2018, 04:03:05 pm »
... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy!  ;)
Sorry but you need to read the definition of it again. Not to say, I'm not pointing out his logical fallacies just because. He claimed that others are full of logical fallacies but himself being holier than thou.

I was referring to the very post which I quoted, where you complained about the ad-hominem attack and name-calling. That is "responding to tone", right?
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 11509
  • Country: lv
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #214 on: July 24, 2018, 04:15:03 pm »
I was referring to the very post which I quoted, where you complained about the ad-hominem attack and name-calling. That is "responding to tone", right?
I did not complain about the used language. Just pointed out logical fallacies which by then were already part of the discussion.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #215 on: July 24, 2018, 07:30:19 pm »
FYI this is a name-calling and in given context ad hominem fallacy.

... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy!  ;)

Come on, guys, can't we cool it a bit? Wraper loves space stuff (although he does not state that everything which can be contemplated should also be done), others are more skeptical. So what?  :-//

So did I.

I was 8.
 

Offline Koen

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 524
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #216 on: July 24, 2018, 10:23:14 pm »
And going on 14 it seems.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #217 on: July 24, 2018, 10:53:49 pm »
Wraper loves space stuff
Most people loves space stuff, I certainly do too.

Quote
In a 2011 Pew Research survey, 58% of Americans said it is essential that the U.S. be a world leader in space exploration.
source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/14/5-facts-about-americans-views-on-space-exploration/

It's one of the few science and engineering related subjects that also interests non-technical people I know.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #218 on: July 25, 2018, 12:39:43 am »
BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.
Actually, colonising Venus would probably be easier, by living in floating cities in venus atmospere:
Quote
In effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 kilometres above the Venerian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System – a pressure of approximately 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to 50 °C range. Protection against cosmic radiation would be provided by the atmosphere above, with shielding mass equivalent to Earth's.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus

And even if you find people who would like to live under such extreme condition (I'm sure there are some who would like the challenge), there is still the question of why go through the trouble (i.e. who would be willing to pay for it and why, same as with a colony on Mars). Naah, at most there will be small research bases, but to me it still makes much more sense to just send "disposable" robotic rovers.

Exactly. There is absolutely no point in a human habitat floating high in the venus atmosphere. You couldn't go outside, you probably couldn't see much if anything interesting in the surface, just stuck in a bubble with no goal.
The problem with any human habitation of anything is either giving people a goal (e.g. spending 9 months in deep space to Mars), or keeping it interesting for them (e.g. doing science and exploring the martian surface, or on the moon being able to just constantly gaze at the earth.
Humans get bored easily.

Quote
A moon base and larger space station with spin gravity seems a lot more realistic and potentially useful.

Like I said, tourists would line up to go there, seriously.
If anything could work financially, and in the hearts and minds of the people, it's a moon base. People can look up and see the moons surface and think about the people up there, and maybe dream of going in their retirement, or as a scientist etc. You don't get that same dream with mars, it's not visible enough.
A Mars colony would be super cool, but I always doubt it's viability.
 

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2821
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #219 on: July 25, 2018, 01:32:05 am »
Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.
It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.

How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?
It would release frozen CO2 trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO2 would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO2. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.

To melt an appreciable amount, one would probably need a fairly large number of nukes.  The dust resulted by the nuclear winter would probably exceed whatever greenhouse effect may gain.  That green house v nuclear winter effect estimation is just a guess work, but even if that is wrong, any CO2 gained will be temporary.

Many Mars scientist believes the evidence points to Mars once having an atmosphere and an ocean.  It lost both because of a frozen core which doesn't support a protective magnetic field.  If they are right, melting the CO2 (or water) on the pole is but a waste.  That small amount of CO2/water vapor will be lost to space quickly as well for the same reason it lost its original atmosphere.  Whatever CO2/ice it may have, it may be far better to use them in a "targeted" manner such as melting it directly into use as oppose to letting the CO2/vapor sit inside a temporary atmosphere.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #220 on: July 25, 2018, 01:54:19 am »
Artemis is being made into a movie, can't wait!  :-+
It'll be really interesting to see a large colonised style moon tourist base on the big screen.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/movies/a22238110/artemis-andy-weir-movie-treatment/
 

Online CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3591
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #221 on: July 25, 2018, 03:38:10 am »
All talk about modifying the climate of Mars is speculative, but it isn't as far fetched or futile as some are saying.

All of the science says that any atmosphere created will be "quickly" blown away by the solar wind.  But that is "quickly" on geologic scales.  The time would be measured in tens or even hundreds of thousand years.  Which might be long enough in its own right, and certainly long enough to allow additional technology to be applied.  Like shifting Oort belt objects to replace existing atmosphere.  That would be energetically difficult if attempted in years or decades, but given the rate of solar wind erosion transit times of millenia could be adequate.   Requires thinking differently than we have as a race, but who knows, maybe we will grow up someday.
 

Offline Eka

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #222 on: July 25, 2018, 05:20:07 am »
or "Asteroid of DOOM!!".


If any one of the largest 5 chunks had hit earth, we would not be having this conversation. If it didn't kill you outright, you likely will have eventually starved. I say this as a farmer with a garden and the ability to can food. I'd be lucky to have food on the table a few years later. Those of you in cities would have most likely starved. Our infrastructure for producing and delivering food is to fragile, and stretched to the limit. The medium and smaller fragments likely would have caused famines, but would not have been civilization ending.

The moon is to close. It would be peppered by huge numbers of meteors thrown up from the impact. Any colony there would be wiped out by them. Same goes for any space stations in earth orbit. That leaves the asteroid belt, moons around other planets, and other planets.

Mars has the raw materials needed for building a colony all in one place. The asteroids may not. Once Mars is self sufficient, it doesn't need space capabilities. Any colonization of the asteroid belt will forever need space ships. At the minimum to divert asteroids on collision courses with the habitats. That means fuel to propel them. Where will you get it?  Shipping fuel around requires lots of fuel.

Yeah, any self sufficient colony is a multi generational project, but it must be started some time. We don't have a choice. That clip of Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 hitting Jupiter in 1994 is a warning. BTW, in 2009 another slightly smaller sized impact hit Jupiter. That time nobody knew it was going to happen. We only got to see the pacific ocean sized scar left behind.

So what is worse...

Aiming low and hitting your target
  or
Aiming high and possibly missing - but hitting a mark higher than where you currently are?
Always go for batting the ball out of the heliosphere. ;)

So far NASA is the only one to have done it. Voyager 1 left the heliosphere back in 2012.
 

Offline Eka

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #223 on: July 25, 2018, 05:29:40 am »
All talk about modifying the climate of Mars is speculative, but it isn't as far fetched or futile as some are saying.

All of the science says that any atmosphere created will be "quickly" blown away by the solar wind.  But that is "quickly" on geologic scales.  The time would be measured in tens or even hundreds of thousand years.  Which might be long enough in its own right, and certainly long enough to allow additional technology to be applied.  Like shifting Oort belt objects to replace existing atmosphere.  That would be energetically difficult if attempted in years or decades, but given the rate of solar wind erosion transit times of millenia could be adequate.   Requires thinking differently than we have as a race, but who knows, maybe we will grow up someday.
Yep, also let the sun do the work. Black carbon soot distributed all over the polar ice caps. It would take a lot, but it would be doable if you didn't expect it to all show up in a year. It's something that could easily be robotized. Nukes would be much quicker.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10027
  • Country: au
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #224 on: July 25, 2018, 08:26:57 am »
So what is worse...

Aiming low and hitting your target
  or
Aiming high and possibly missing - but hitting a mark higher than where you currently are?
Always go for batting the ball out of the heliosphere. ;)

So far NASA is the only one to have done it. Voyager 1 left the heliosphere back in 2012.

Yet there are some who feel that looking to the skies is an exercise in futility and our efforts should be focussed on the ground in front of them.

It seems a shame that such people could never dream of the benefits of air travel or consider quantum mechanics as being useful in any way - before their success - when they were just ideas.  The word 'visionary' would seem to not exist in their lexicon.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #225 on: July 25, 2018, 09:16:12 am »
Yet there are some who feel that looking to the skies is an exercise in futility and our efforts should be focussed on the ground in front of them.

I for one believe that the many billions $ spent in the space race have benefited much the elites not the rest of mere mortals that paid for it, as always. But that's what the powers that rule do all time, nothing new.

https://youtu.be/fuWkcKbBQkg?t=2m25s
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 01:28:21 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10027
  • Country: au
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #226 on: July 25, 2018, 10:49:23 am »
Some might say that your statement has a rather subjective bias.
 

Offline ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3512
  • Country: de
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #227 on: July 25, 2018, 12:57:03 pm »
Some might say that your statement has a rather subjective bias.

That's because objective bias is so hard to come by.  :P

In fairness, George did preface his post with "I for one believe...". Why would you blame him for voicing a subjective view after that introduction? In contrast, your prior post seems to claim objective truth (and moral high ground), for views which some might find debatable too...
 
The following users thanked this post: GeorgeOfTheJungle

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10027
  • Country: au
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #228 on: July 25, 2018, 01:49:35 pm »
In fairness, George did preface his post with "I for one believe...".

Yes.  I should have presented my comment as one of disagreement.

Apologies.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #229 on: July 25, 2018, 01:52:03 pm »
Humans get bored easily.

They also die easily, Dave.

The word 'visionary' would seem to not exist in their lexicon.

Visions are a dime a dozen.



The problem with all you hubristic techno-extrapolators is that hindsight is 20/20, you think: someone had a vision, it became real! Ignoring entirely the millions of visions that were never viable and simply died. You think that picture is funny? Your 1960s space fantasies will look just as funny and dated to someone in 2060.

Remember fusion power too cheap to meter? Oh my. Remember supersonic passenger transport? Oh my!

Remember the leisure society? Uh oh.

Looks like REALITY is the arbiter of "visions", not how emotionally invested you are in them. You're not going anywhere. I'm not going anywhere. There is no Human Migration To The Stars (tm) (Ad Astra!) in our future. As engineers, you have the knowledge of how seriously limited our technology is, and how seriously large and hostile space is.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2015/09/you-call-this-progress/

One glaring flaw I see over and over with the Space Nutter crowd is the following argument they always trot out: "But computers got better!" As if going into space was an information processing problem!  :-DD "Hey I can't breathe but CHECK OUT MY TERABYTE USB KEY!! COUGH COUGH ACK!"

The reason our computers got better is that the fundamental unit of information is such a small quantity of energy! It took decades for our manufacturing processes to make parts small enough to scale down to that level!

In the meantime, you'll find no such orders of magnitude leaps in energy use, material strength, propulsion technologies (real ones, not imaginary 1970s LSD visions).

You can't breathe bytes. You can't eat gigahertz.

It's pretty much game over for all those grandiose 1960s space dreams. I know it looks cool, I had my walls plastered with NASA posters, I built the Saturn V kit, I had the Space Shuttle on my nightstand, I collected astronaut bios and stories... And one day, I just saw it for the useless theater it all is. No one gets excited by the 1960s Sealab... Why not? The same ideas of "exploration" and tourism apply here too!

Hell we know less about the structure of our own planet than we do about Jupiter's magnetic field. Why is that? There are bacteria deep underground! You wanted alien life, THERE IT IS! It's RIGHT HERE!!!!

The fact that this DOESN'T excite you means you don't care about knowledge or exploration, you just care about the emotional symbolism of the whole space narrative. It's garbage.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10027
  • Country: au
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #230 on: July 25, 2018, 02:04:13 pm »
The problem with all you hubristic techno-extrapolators is that hindsight is 20/20, you think: someone had a vision, it became real! Ignoring entirely the millions of visions that were never viable and simply died.

That is a rather ignorant perspective.  Simply self-serving and laughably lacking logic.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #231 on: July 25, 2018, 02:20:07 pm »
The problem with all you hubristic techno-extrapolators is that hindsight is 20/20, you think: someone had a vision, it became real! Ignoring entirely the millions of visions that were never viable and simply died.

That is a rather ignorant perspective.  Simply self-serving and laughably lacking logic.

Again, reality is not motivated by your disbelief. Self-serving?? YOU're the ones who think the whole universe is just a giant Wal Mart that owes YOU space colonies and asteroid mines! You want laughable ??  ???

And logic? How about this for logic: besides Apollo, no one has gone further than LEO for almost 50 years.

How you like that? You can shove that into a Karnaugh map and permutate it as much as you want, but in any case, it spells GAME OVER.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #232 on: July 25, 2018, 02:56:09 pm »
Mars has the raw materials needed for building a colony all in one place. The asteroids may not. Once Mars is self sufficient, it doesn't need space capabilities.

Here is another aspect I'm not buying.
Define self-sufficient.
To be a truly independent civilisation you need the ability to manufacture *everything* we take for granted now.
Advanced electronics, advanced materials, even relatively simple materials like plastics, and that's just for starters.
Were does all this magically come from?
If you sit down and make a list of stuff you's have on a mars base, and the vast mining, transportation, and manufacturing infrastructure required here on earth to produce them, you'd be shocked.
It's taken us hundreds of years here on earth to get the point we are at now.

Quote
Yeah, any self sufficient colony is a multi generational project

My bet is 10 generations minimum.

Quote
, but it must be started some time. We don't have a choice. That clip of Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 hitting Jupiter in 1994 is a warning.

And it would cost many orders of magnitude less than a Mars colony to get serious about mapping near-earth objects and devising ways to deflect them.
If you goal is to protect us again getting hit, the solution is obvious.

BTW, we have to protect earth first. What are we going to do, just ignore 5km asteroids and let them hit us and wipe us out? And don't worry, because we have some people on Mars as a backup.
The argument of using Mars as a backup for humanity is an utterly flawed and silly concept.

The argument "because we can" is all we humans need.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 02:57:55 pm by EEVblog »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31346
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #233 on: July 25, 2018, 03:03:25 pm »
It's pretty much game over for all those grandiose 1960s space dreams.

Nope. A moon base for research and tourism is completely doable without reasonable engineering limitations.
Mars is not.
You simply can't beat being able to get there and back in a few days and have almost real-time communications with earth.

Quote
Hell we know less about the structure of our own planet than we do about Jupiter's magnetic field. Why is that? There are bacteria deep underground! You wanted alien life, THERE IT IS! It's RIGHT HERE!!!!

Finding life off this planet would be a HUGE deal.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #234 on: July 25, 2018, 03:50:40 pm »

Nope. A moon base for research and tourism is completely doable without reasonable engineering limitations.


Except for a reason to do it, I guess. And you have a funny notion of "completely doable". Making a SEALAB for research and tourism is "completely doable" as well, where is it?

Here's a research station:

http://www.southpolestation.com/

Are you keeping up to date with the research done there? Why not? Planned any trips there? Why not?
 

Offline Eka

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #235 on: July 25, 2018, 04:28:31 pm »

Visions are a dime a dozen.
So is your vision of it being impractical/impossible to colonize Mars and space.

Those that do, try, try, and try again until they succeed. That video of all the landing failures is those tries before success. Now they routinely land them. The fact that you don't have the motivation anymore is an issue with you, not Elon Musk and crew.

Mars has the raw materials needed for building a colony all in one place. The asteroids may not. Once Mars is self sufficient, it doesn't need space capabilities.

Here is another aspect I'm not buying.
Define self-sufficient.
To be a truly independent civilisation you need the ability to manufacture *everything* we take for granted now.
Advanced electronics, advanced materials, even relatively simple materials like plastics, and that's just for starters.
Were does all this magically come from?
If you sit down and make a list of stuff you's have on a mars base, and the vast mining, transportation, and manufacturing infrastructure required here on earth to produce them, you'd be shocked.
It's taken us hundreds of years here on earth to get the point we are at now.

Quote
Yeah, any self sufficient colony is a multi generational project

My bet is 10 generations minimum.

Quote
, but it must be started some time. We don't have a choice. That clip of Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 hitting Jupiter in 1994 is a warning.

And it would cost many orders of magnitude less than a Mars colony to get serious about mapping near-earth objects and devising ways to deflect them.
If you goal is to protect us again getting hit, the solution is obvious.

BTW, we have to protect earth first. What are we going to do, just ignore 5km asteroids and let them hit us and wipe us out? And don't worry, because we have some people on Mars as a backup.
The argument of using Mars as a backup for humanity is an utterly flawed and silly concept.

The argument "because we can" is all we humans need.
If we can build a colony on Mars, finding and deflecting a killer asteroid is easy. We'd have to map the asteroid belt for reliable transport back and forth. No reason we can't have both programs and many others at the same time. We as a society just need to divert 1/4 the money spent on the military to space exploration, asteroid finding projects, etc. Where there is a will, there is a way. General society doesn't have the will. They are to focused on sports and entertainment. I applaud Musk and crew for having the will and putting their money and effort towards the cause. I wish I was healthy enough to join in. Instead I'm spending my time trying to get researchers to fill in the voids in the knowledge of cellular chemical processes so it is possible to figure out why my body isn't producing enough ATP, and whatever else is needed to keep me active and healthy.
 

Offline Nusa

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1802
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #236 on: July 25, 2018, 04:36:19 pm »

Nope. A moon base for research and tourism is completely doable without reasonable engineering limitations.


Except for a reason to do it, I guess. And you have a funny notion of "completely doable". Making a SEALAB for research and tourism is "completely doable" as well, where is it?

Here's a research station:

http://www.southpolestation.com/

Are you keeping up to date with the research done there? Why not? Planned any trips there? Why not?
Tour groups do travel to the south pole.

It's not cheap, which limits the audience to the wealthy. It's also not luxurious, which eliminates all those who expect pampering. And it requires a certain level of physical fitness, including the ability to walk in heavy clothing and acclimate to high altitude, which eliminates many of the elderly, disabled, and those with health problems.

Despite all the barriers, there are some tourists to the South Pole go every year.  We've had tourism to the ISS, which proves that there are always some people willing to spend whatever it takes to get here. Once it's possible to visit the Moon, there WILL be some tourists wanting to go. Ditto for any other truly remote place that humans someday inhabit.
 

Online GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2481
  • Country: tr
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #237 on: July 25, 2018, 04:47:48 pm »
So is your vision of it being impractical/impossible to colonize Mars and space.

Those that do, try, try, and try again until they succeed. That video of all the landing failures is those tries before success. Now they routinely land them. The fact that you don't have the motivation anymore is an issue with you, not Elon Musk and crew.

At least I hope you understand you're paying for all those gigantic altruist (not) efforts, even though nobody asked if you wanted to pay them or not. That's what irritates me most.

Your country's public debt is ~= $18036300000000 (not counting interests). You are the public.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 05:16:25 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
http://brave.com <- BETTER AND FASTER BROWSER. YOUTUBE W/O ADS/INTERRUPTIONS.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11987
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #238 on: July 25, 2018, 05:12:25 pm »
As has been mentioned already, the amount each of us pays for the entire space program is miniscule, it's an insignificant drop in the bucket and not worth getting irritated over. Less than $40 a year for the average American anyway, not sure about other countries. People blow more than that on a single night at the bar.
 

Offline In Vacuo Veritas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 319
  • Country: ca
  • I like vacuum tubes. Electrons exist, holes don't.
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #239 on: July 25, 2018, 05:14:35 pm »

Visions are a dime a dozen.
So is your vision of it being impractical/impossible to colonize Mars and space.

Um, that's not how logic works. YOU have the burden of proof that your claim is practical. YOU make the claim, YOU back it up.

Stating that your claim is not backed by evidence is not a "vision", it is SEEING. Reality, give it a try!


Despite all the barriers, there are some tourists to the South Pole go every year. 

What barriers? It's the same planet, air is always there, gravity is correct, radiation is shielded, water and food are available, technology used to get there is commonly available, it's not far.
 

Offline Nusa

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1802
  • Country: us
Re: Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars
« Reply #240 on: July 25, 2018, 05:30:06 pm »