Quote from: Dalhousie on 05/03/2017 05:10 amQuote from: Lar on 05/03/2017 04:09 amMusk:QuoteAnd I should say also that the main reason I'm personally accumulating assets is in order to fund this."this" is colonization. The whole shebang. Not the initial transport. That's just a small part of the puzzle. I'm in the camp that believes as SpaceX ratchets up, as each flight grows their capability and fixed plant/assets and people, and bank account, that they'll do ITS itself almost wholly internally. The upper stage raptor money might possibly be the only government money invested. At all. And that is at 2:1, SpaceX puts up twice as much.I don't think there is the slightest evidence that SpaceX will be able to do this internally. It's just wishful thinking.Plus, as seen above, it's obviously not what Musk says himself.
Quote from: Lar on 05/03/2017 04:09 amMusk:QuoteAnd I should say also that the main reason I'm personally accumulating assets is in order to fund this."this" is colonization. The whole shebang. Not the initial transport. That's just a small part of the puzzle. I'm in the camp that believes as SpaceX ratchets up, as each flight grows their capability and fixed plant/assets and people, and bank account, that they'll do ITS itself almost wholly internally. The upper stage raptor money might possibly be the only government money invested. At all. And that is at 2:1, SpaceX puts up twice as much.I don't think there is the slightest evidence that SpaceX will be able to do this internally. It's just wishful thinking.
Musk:QuoteAnd I should say also that the main reason I'm personally accumulating assets is in order to fund this."this" is colonization. The whole shebang. Not the initial transport. That's just a small part of the puzzle. I'm in the camp that believes as SpaceX ratchets up, as each flight grows their capability and fixed plant/assets and people, and bank account, that they'll do ITS itself almost wholly internally. The upper stage raptor money might possibly be the only government money invested. At all. And that is at 2:1, SpaceX puts up twice as much.
And I should say also that the main reason I'm personally accumulating assets is in order to fund this.
Quote from: pippin on 05/03/2017 05:39 amQuote from: Dalhousie on 05/03/2017 05:10 amQuote from: Lar on 05/03/2017 04:09 amMusk:QuoteAnd I should say also that the main reason I'm personally accumulating assets is in order to fund this."this" is colonization. The whole shebang. Not the initial transport. That's just a small part of the puzzle. I'm in the camp that believes as SpaceX ratchets up, as each flight grows their capability and fixed plant/assets and people, and bank account, that they'll do ITS itself almost wholly internally. The upper stage raptor money might possibly be the only government money invested. At all. And that is at 2:1, SpaceX puts up twice as much.I don't think there is the slightest evidence that SpaceX will be able to do this internally. It's just wishful thinking.Plus, as seen above, it's obviously not what Musk says himself.No argument from me. Although is does play somewhat disingenuously on this issue depending on the crowd. Unfortunately quite a lot of the amazing people and fangirrls do think that SpaceX will be able to go to Mars internally..
Do you think the plan is finalized and carved in stone? Because I never got the impression they worked out all the details yet.
(fan boy hat) You guys are wrong. As long as you are just wrong but stay out of the way and let Musk fail (as you know he will) you'll get no further argument.
(mod hat) Use "fanboi" (that particular spelling) again where I see it? == Deleted post. If you don't understand why, use Google to search for it.(fan boy hat) You guys are wrong. As long as you are just wrong but stay out of the way and let Musk fail (as you know he will) you'll get no further argument. But if you keep the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). pushing that rocket to nowhere, I'll argue against you strenuously.
Quote from: Lar on 05/03/2017 12:46 pm(mod hat) Use "fanboi" (that particular spelling) again where I see it? == Deleted post. If you don't understand why, use Google to search for it.(fan boy hat) You guys are wrong. As long as you are just wrong but stay out of the way and let Musk fail (as you know he will) you'll get no further argument. But if you keep the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). pushing that rocket to nowhere, I'll argue against you strenuously.You have lost your objectivity here Lar. I am not going to "get out of the way". Firstly I am not "in the way". Secondly, I work daily in Mars research, so I am not going to stop just because tell me to. if you you can't except constructive criticism of the SpaceX cult then the problem is yours, not mine. Fifthly, here is a useful description of "fanboi" A fanboi is someone who is unusually attracted or devoted to a particular technology or tech company.. See https://www.techopedia.com/definition/28754/fanboi. Lastly, I have reported your post.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 05/04/2017 02:09 amQuote from: Lar on 05/03/2017 12:46 pm(mod hat) Use "fanboi" (that particular spelling) again where I see it? == Deleted post. If you don't understand why, use Google to search for it.(fan boy hat) You guys are wrong. As long as you are just wrong but stay out of the way and let Musk fail (as you know he will) you'll get no further argument. But if you keep the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). pushing that rocket to nowhere, I'll argue against you strenuously.You have lost your objectivity here Lar. I am not going to "get out of the way". Firstly I am not "in the way". Secondly, I work daily in Mars research, so I am not going to stop just because tell me to. if you you can't except constructive criticism of the SpaceX cult then the problem is yours, not mine. Fifthly, here is a useful description of "fanboi" A fanboi is someone who is unusually attracted or devoted to a particular technology or tech company.. See https://www.techopedia.com/definition/28754/fanboi. Lastly, I have reported your post.I have no objection to the term amazing people, and the connotation it carries. Nor do I have any issue with criticism, constructive or otherwise. I think you didn't take my point, I apologise if I wasn't clear... criticise all you want. But what Tyson is doing isn't helpful. Your criticism is founded in understanding of SpaceX. His isn't.
What do you see as the most important venture in space exploration right now?I like that there's a desire to want to send people to Mars. I have my scepticism about how and when that will happen, but I will not stand in their way because somebody's got to dream like that....The money. To go to Mars because you want to, my reading of history says that doesn't work. We didn't go to the Moon because we wanted to.... war and economics are the big drivers of major expenditures.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 05/02/2017 03:02 pmQuote from: su27k on 05/02/2017 01:49 pmHis argument is predicated on the assumption that a manned Mars mission would exceed the current NASA HSF budget by a wide margin, Where did he say that?How else do you interpret "The money. To go to Mars because you want to, my reading of history says that doesn't work. We didn't go to the Moon because we wanted to. We may remember it that way, because it serves a certain self-image – we're Americans, we're explorers, it's in our DNA, so we went to the Moon. That's just assuming it's a thing you do, without asking what's driving this, what's allocating the money for this?"?
Quote from: su27k on 05/02/2017 01:49 pmHis argument is predicated on the assumption that a manned Mars mission would exceed the current NASA HSF budget by a wide margin, Where did he say that?
His argument is predicated on the assumption that a manned Mars mission would exceed the current NASA HSF budget by a wide margin,
Quote from: su27k on 05/03/2017 03:09 amQuote from: Lee Jay on 05/02/2017 03:02 pmQuote from: su27k on 05/02/2017 01:49 pmHis argument is predicated on the assumption that a manned Mars mission would exceed the current NASA HSF budget by a wide margin, Where did he say that?How else do you interpret "The money. To go to Mars because you want to, my reading of history says that doesn't work. We didn't go to the Moon because we wanted to. We may remember it that way, because it serves a certain self-image – we're Americans, we're explorers, it's in our DNA, so we went to the Moon. That's just assuming it's a thing you do, without asking what's driving this, what's allocating the money for this?"?He didn't say it had to be government money. He's asking what motivation is there to go to Mars that would justify the cost. In the past, very large expenditures like this have had to be government money because there's no profit in doing it privately. There's plenty of private money available for ventures of this size, but there has to be a sound, usually economic reason for those expenditures to be made. I don't see it here, and neither does Neil. How many ultra-wealthy people will pay millions of dollars for a very high-risk trip to a place where there's absolutely nothing when they could spend thousands of dollars and go to any one of hundreds of spectacular places on Earth with drastically lower risk? A few super-dedicated explorer types perhaps, but I doubt that is even a beginning business model, much less a sustainable one.
Neil deGrasse Tyson doubts humans will ever walk on Mars
QuoteNeil deGrasse Tyson doubts humans will ever walk on MarsThis is quite a bold assumption. Ever/Never is a very long period of time. Ever in his forseeable lifetime? Possible, but unlikely (unlikely that it is not happening). And walking? Walking is quite doable. After the first testflight + powered landing, we could put a human into a dragon2 capsule and send it to Mars. That person will eventually walk on mars, but will not come back to earth (essentially, that person would just give proof that person can walk on Mars). So having a human walking on Mars is easily achievable and yet pointless (We know that it works at 1G, we know that it works at 1/6th G (okay, it's more like hopping around), so what would lead to the assumpution that walking doesn't work at 1/3 G).Yet, the broader meaning is (in my opinion) have humans living on Mars, at best from birth to death. Yet I'm not convinced that Mars is the best place to go. It's possible to go there, it's possible to set up a colony there, it's just not the ideal place to go. The ideal place to go seems to me is a rotating station around an asteroid of sufficient size (Ceres). But if the term "ever walk on Mars" gets expanded to "ever live and thrive on another world" Tyson is just wrong. He is even wrong at the close meaning, that a person has to walk on the surface of Mars ever. Because even if we chose to live on rotating space station, there'll be that urge to just go to Mars and other locations in the solar system and beyond. Even if there are just flag and foodprint missions.