Author Topic: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)  (Read 9456 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4886
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #40 on: 10/07/2017 02:35 AM »
Did you get mine ?

You shouldn't trust everything that Elon says just because he's Elon.
No one is forcing you on this thread.

We get it. These might be just totally random CGI assets. But they don't look like it, they have what looks like intentional design features made for Mars and that fit with SpaceX's architecture.

SpaceX was asked about their intentions for building a city on Mars, they said that their intention was to build the transportation for it but that they won't build the actual city. They have no intention of building a Moon base either.

You'll need to find a direct quote because Musk disagrees with you:
Quote
"This is intended to be a significant amount of revenue and help fund a city on Mars. Looking in the long term, and saying what's needed to create a city on Mars? Well, one thing's for sure: a lot of money."
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-seattle-2015-2015-01-15
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline colbourne

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #41 on: 10/14/2017 01:02 PM »
We dont actually need heavy bulldozers and boring equipment. I am sure some good old fashioned explosive can dig nice holes perfect for housing our flattened sphere or dome.
The dome does not need to be wasted space if you make use of it with multi floors.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6419
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1612
  • Likes Given: 1433
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #42 on: 10/14/2017 03:25 PM »
SpaceX was asked about their intentions for building a city on Mars, they said that their intention was to build the transportation for it but that they won't build the actual city. They have no intention of building a Moon base either.

You'll need to find a direct quote because Musk disagrees with you:
Quote
"This is intended to be a significant amount of revenue and help fund a city on Mars. Looking in the long term, and saying what's needed to create a city on Mars? Well, one thing's for sure: a lot of money."
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-seattle-2015-2015-01-15

We have the much more recent statement by Gwynne Shotwell at Stanford a few days back.

Quote
Will SpaceX work with other companies regarding infrastructure on the surface of Mars?

SpaceX is focused on the transportation part of the Mars problem, but people need somewhere to go once they arrive. I don't think it's an accident that Elon started the Boring Company, tunnels will be very important in the first steps of living on Mars, before we build domes and terraform. We want other companies to start thinking about it and working on it, but we'll do it if we have to. I think the BFR might be ready before these other components of actually living on Mars.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4886
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #43 on: 10/14/2017 03:44 PM »
And?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6419
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1612
  • Likes Given: 1433
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #44 on: 10/14/2017 04:25 PM »
And?

I was confirming your position with a newer quote.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 778
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #45 on: 10/14/2017 10:23 PM »
More or less. SpaceX will do it if no else does it isn't the same thing as we will build a city on Mars. 

In any event, here is another recent quote:

Quote from: Elon Musk
Our goal is get you there and ensure the basic infrastructure for propellant production and survival is in place. A rough analogy is that we are trying to build the equivalent of the transcontinental railway. A vast amount of industry will need to be built on Mars by many other companies and millions of people.

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/76e79c/i_am_elon_musk_ask_me_anything_about_bfr/dodh7t2/?context=3
« Last Edit: 10/14/2017 10:39 PM by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 778
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #46 on: 10/14/2017 10:31 PM »
About the city on Mars image, Elon says:

Quote from: Elon Musk
Wouldn't read too much into that illustration

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/76e79c/i_am_elon_musk_ask_me_anything_about_bfr/dodhms4/?context=3


Offline vaporcobra

BTW, much more detailed renders. Always good to be cautious with clearly notional designs, but it's blindingly obvious that these artistic impressions have some level of engineering guidance and were done with rendered structures, rather than simply (matte) painting something. SpaceX doesn't really hire people without technical expertise, so no surprise there!
« Last Edit: 10/21/2017 02:39 AM by vaporcobra »
spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace

Offline mikelepage

BTW, much more detailed renders. Always good to be cautious with clearly notional designs, but it's blindingly obvious that these artistic impressions have some level of engineering guidance and were done with rendered structures, rather than simply (matte) painting something. SpaceX doesn't really hire people without technical expertise, so no surprise there!

It was blindingly obvious that there was some level of engineering guidance in the Ridley Scott and James Cameron Alien movies too ;) Don't belittle the artists who work on this stuff, who often have engineering experience themselves, but decided to go for a more artistic career.

The problem with artistic impressions is not that there won't be a high level of attention to engineering detail, but that they'll do things for expedience or that betray a lack of basic knowledge, like in Gravity where all three space locations were in the same orbital regime.  Elon might have approved these pics because they look very sci-fi and will get people excited, when in reality he might be planning to bore tunnels to deal with the radiation issue.  Like he said, don't read too much into it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4886
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #49 on: 10/21/2017 03:23 AM »
I still think the design of the brown habs is not a generic 3D asset. I have never seen anything like them in pictures of notional Mars settlements. They also have design features not common in terrestrial buildings (the odd vertical-opening huge shutters look designed to shield the interior from radiation even when the window cover is open slightly).

I think partly the reason they look so different from other Mars concepts is they're supposed to be transported flat-pack in BFS like Musk earlier said.

I'm sure they're still very notional, but I still think their design is intentional.

Too bad, Elon. I'm going to read into that picture. So deal with it.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline lamontagne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Liked: 1473
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #50 on: 10/21/2017 04:16 AM »
We dont actually need heavy bulldozers and boring equipment. I am sure some good old fashioned explosive can dig nice holes perfect for housing our flattened sphere or dome.
The dome does not need to be wasted space if you make use of it with multi floors.
Explosive are heavy in large quantities.
An explosive is just a method to add energy to rock.  And explosives need to come from Earth.  So good old explosives don't cut it compared to locally produced power, even if it is applied more slowly using digging machines.
Since you need a large machine to remove the exploded rock anyway, might as well provide it with a cutting head.  Or have two, one shovel and one cutting head.
I urge all interested parties to google The Hard Rock Miner's Handbook, rather than handwaving stuff about.  Explosives in particular  :-)
« Last Edit: 10/21/2017 04:17 AM by lamontagne »

Offline Explorer

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Third rock from the sun
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #51 on: 10/21/2017 12:16 PM »
Explosive are heavy in large quantities.
An explosive is just a method to add energy to rock.  And explosives need to come from Earth.

I kinda doubt you can't find the resources on Mars needed to create at least simple explosives like black powder.
Send orbiters to Uranus and Neptune, dammit.

Online speedevil

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 456
  • Fife
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 188
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #52 on: 10/21/2017 12:47 PM »
I kinda doubt you can't find the resources on Mars needed to create at least simple explosives like black powder.

LOX/methane is in principle fine as an explosive. (Or LOX/soot.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyliquit
Quote
In 1930, over 3 million pounds of liquid oxygen were used for this purpose in Germany alone, and additional 201,466 lb (91,383 kg) were consumed by British quarries.

Online nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 145
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #53 on: 10/21/2017 01:10 PM »
And it doesn't involve finding nitrogen.

Offline lamontagne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Liked: 1473
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #54 on: 10/21/2017 01:31 PM »
And it doesn't involve finding nitrogen.
Yes but making the LOx and H2 from scratch takes more energy than just breaking the rock mechanically.  The energy in the explosive needs to be put into it.  There is no magical gain to be had here.  You just store the solar energy into a chemical system, rather than use it directly.  Less efficient for many reasons: compression, storage, thermal losses, etc.  Just make the electricity and grind away.  The larger the chunks the better, because there is less breaking to do.  And a LOxH2 bomb probably is poorly packaged, as far as delivering the energy to the rock goes.  You will need to bore holes, insert the tank and hope to get good mixing.

You could deliver the energy to the rock using an LOx H2 torch, but again the efficiency would be poor because you melt the rock.  Perhaps a very focused laser would outperform mechanical rock breaking, but lasers are hopelessly inefficient, overall. 
Big mining plants have large secondary plants that manufacture the explosive locally, because it is cheaper and safer to make it locally than to move it. The ammonia used to make explosives comes from the chemical industry and required a lot of energy to be created.

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 864
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 245
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #55 on: 10/21/2017 03:48 PM »
And it doesn't involve finding nitrogen.
Yes but making the LOx and H2 from scratch takes more energy than just breaking the rock mechanically.  The energy in the explosive needs to be put into it.  There is no magical gain to be had here.  You just store the solar energy into a chemical system, rather than use it directly.  Less efficient for many reasons: compression, storage, thermal losses, etc.  Just make the electricity and grind away.  The larger the chunks the better, because there is less breaking to do.  And a LOxH2 bomb probably is poorly packaged, as far as delivering the energy to the rock goes.  You will need to bore holes, insert the tank and hope to get good mixing.

You could deliver the energy to the rock using an LOx H2 torch, but again the efficiency would be poor because you melt the rock.  Perhaps a very focused laser would outperform mechanical rock breaking, but lasers are hopelessly inefficient, overall. 
Big mining plants have large secondary plants that manufacture the explosive locally, because it is cheaper and safer to make it locally than to move it. The ammonia used to make explosives comes from the chemical industry and required a lot of energy to be created.

Assuming SpaceX finds a site rich in accessible water resources, as we look at stuff like construction, ISRU, farming, early chemical industry it becomes more and more apparent that energy is the fundamental limiting resource for even a "small" initial Mars base housing a dozen or two early pioneers.
“When it looks more like an alien dreadnought, that’s when you know you’ve won.”

Offline vaporcobra

I still think the design of the brown habs is not a generic 3D asset. I have never seen anything like them in pictures of notional Mars settlements. They also have design features not common in terrestrial buildings (the odd vertical-opening huge shutters look designed to shield the interior from radiation even when the window cover is open slightly).

I think partly the reason they look so different from other Mars concepts is they're supposed to be transported flat-pack in BFS like Musk earlier said.

I'm sure they're still very notional, but I still think their design is intentional.

Too bad, Elon. I'm going to read into that picture. So deal with it.

Heheh... I am in the same boat, for sure. There are far too many extremely specific and relatively unique/unusual details in the renders, both on the Moon and Mars.

The base designs are almost without a doubt VERY notional, but it's SpaceX after all, so there is almost inevitably going to be a significant level of truth and functional intent in the renders.

There simply is no way that SpaceX is not already thinking about the specifics of habitats at this point. If internal ISRU development is "pretty far along" and Shotwell has already semi-publicly stated that SpaceX is "actually trying to get hold of some nuclear material", you can be damn sure that at least several employees at SpaceX are spending a considerable portion of their work hours, if not full-time, white papering surface survival needs and beginning to consider what will be included in the first ~150-300t sent to Mars in the '20s.
spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace

Online nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 145
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #57 on: 10/21/2017 11:04 PM »
And it doesn't involve finding nitrogen.
Yes but making the LOx and H2 from scratch takes more energy than just breaking the rock mechanically.  The energy in the explosive needs to be put into it.  There is no magical gain to be had here.  You just store the solar energy into a chemical system, rather than use it directly.  Less efficient for many reasons: compression, storage, thermal losses, etc.  Just make the electricity and grind away.  The larger the chunks the better, because there is less breaking to do.  And a LOxH2 bomb probably is poorly packaged, as far as delivering the energy to the rock goes.  You will need to bore holes, insert the tank and hope to get good mixing.

You could deliver the energy to the rock using an LOx H2 torch, but again the efficiency would be poor because you melt the rock.  Perhaps a very focused laser would outperform mechanical rock breaking, but lasers are hopelessly inefficient, overall. 
Big mining plants have large secondary plants that manufacture the explosive locally, because it is cheaper and safer to make it locally than to move it. The ammonia used to make explosives comes from the chemical industry and required a lot of energy to be created.

I was more commenting on the lack of nitrogen available. 2% of the atmosphere I think. It's going to be more valuable for breathing at first rather than making explosives. So interesting that there alternatives. No comment on their usefulness.

Offline Oersted

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 736
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 200
Re: SpaceX surface habs & infrastructure (from IAC 2017)
« Reply #58 on: 10/21/2017 11:10 PM »
About the city on Mars image, Elon says:

Quote from: Elon Musk
Wouldn't read too much into that illustration

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/76e79c/i_am_elon_musk_ask_me_anything_about_bfr/dodhms4/?context=3

QFT.

It will be tunnels on Mars. They are simply the construction that makes the most sense.

Offline vaporcobra

About the city on Mars image, Elon says:

Quote from: Elon Musk
Wouldn't read too much into that illustration

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/76e79c/i_am_elon_musk_ask_me_anything_about_bfr/dodhms4/?context=3

QFT.

It will be tunnels on Mars. They are simply the construction that makes the most sense.

I'd agree that tunnels will be of immense value eventually. The task of developing an ultralight TBC that can be operated remotely in near-vacuum conditions is not to be underestimated. When there is so little upmass available in the first, there is simply no chance that a huge fraction of that mass will be sacrificed for a TBM.

At least initially, one can relatively simply use a combination of the Martian landscape and water ice to counter radiation risks, even simply burying surface dwellings in regolith is far more doable than tunnel boring. It's going to be all about balancing risks, and having to depend upon an utterly unproven technology is an immense and unnecessary risk. We know almost nothing about Martian geology, at least at the level of detail needed for intensive mining/tunneling.
spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace

Tags: