If you get to Mars faster, you just end up having to wait longer to launch back to Earth, and you get back at the same time. Unless you're flying a opposition class mission with a 30-day stay
The ITS is built to the wrong scale, it's a fantasy, etc. crowd simply can't get their heads around the proven fact,
Reasons to close this thread- So much concern trolling- So little that's not been said in other threads.- So many incorrect statements- So much lack of understanding of Musk's plansReasons to leave this thread open- It's a place to send the concern trolls so we can keep them out of other threads.That one's winning, so far.
QuoteIf you get to Mars faster, you just end up having to wait longer to launch back to Earth, and you get back at the same time. Unless you're flying a opposition class mission with a 30-day stayThere is zero stay requirement for ITS, apart from time to offload, reload, and refuel.
Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 02/17/2017 06:29 pmQuote from: Oli on 02/17/2017 06:13 pmA typical mid-L/D Mars lander with 40mt payload has the dimensions 30m x 10m.ITS has the dimensions 50m x 12m. Only ~1/3 of that volume is available for the payload, so it's questionable whether SpaceX can land much more volume on Mars than a typical 40mt lander from NASA. DRM 5.0 needs 2 40mt landers.Making ITS smaller in terms of volume might not be an option if SpaceX plans to sells Mars flights to NASA.So about 1,800 m3 of volume for payload, at CRS payload densities that is over 200 tonnes, SpaceX say that they will land 100 tonnes (maybe more later).The IAC presentation says up to 450 tonnes landed. Nominally 300.
Quote from: Oli on 02/17/2017 06:13 pmA typical mid-L/D Mars lander with 40mt payload has the dimensions 30m x 10m.ITS has the dimensions 50m x 12m. Only ~1/3 of that volume is available for the payload, so it's questionable whether SpaceX can land much more volume on Mars than a typical 40mt lander from NASA. DRM 5.0 needs 2 40mt landers.Making ITS smaller in terms of volume might not be an option if SpaceX plans to sells Mars flights to NASA.So about 1,800 m3 of volume for payload, at CRS payload densities that is over 200 tonnes, SpaceX say that they will land 100 tonnes (maybe more later).
A typical mid-L/D Mars lander with 40mt payload has the dimensions 30m x 10m.ITS has the dimensions 50m x 12m. Only ~1/3 of that volume is available for the payload, so it's questionable whether SpaceX can land much more volume on Mars than a typical 40mt lander from NASA. DRM 5.0 needs 2 40mt landers.Making ITS smaller in terms of volume might not be an option if SpaceX plans to sells Mars flights to NASA.
ITS highlighted the deep flaws of SLS and Ares: completely expendable with no ability to meet #1 Space Grand Challenge Economic Access to Space in the short term nor 'Colonize' Mars in the long term.
QuoteIf you get to Mars faster, you just end up having to wait longer to launch back to Earth, and you get back at the same time. Unless you're flying a opposition class mission with a 30-day stayThere is zero stay requirement for ITS, apart from time to offload, reload, and refuel. ITS is not intended to function as a Martian habitat. ...
Quote from: muomega0 on 02/18/2017 12:57 pmITS highlighted the deep flaws of SLS and Ares: completely expendable with no ability to meet #1 Space Grand Challenge Economic Access to Space in the short term nor 'Colonize' Mars in the long term.Do you know why Ares was designed as an expendable vehicle in the first place?I'm saying this yet again: before SpaceX started designing the MCT/ITS, almost no one thought that there was going to be enough demand to make development of reusable super-heavy lift launch vehicles worthwhile.
Note however that SLS then is too small for Mars Colonization for the future, and too big for and expendable to cut costs today. Between a rock and a hard place.
Quote from: Lar on 02/18/2017 11:11 amReasons to close this thread- So much concern trolling- So little that's not been said in other threads.- So many incorrect statements- So much lack of understanding of Musk's plansReasons to leave this thread open- It's a place to send the concern trolls so we can keep them out of other threads.That one's winning, so far.When you have nothing in defense of your poorly laid out plans other than to support the base and the top 1%, the result has been http://alternativefacts.com . Sadly, to support the base requires actions outside of reason but their our lines not to cross.
Quote from: muomega0 on 02/18/2017 12:57 pmNote however that SLS then is too small for Mars Colonization for the future, and too big for and expendable to cut costs today. Between a rock and a hard place.show yout work.... i thimk it is just right.QuoteQuote from: Lar on 02/18/2017 11:11 amReasons to close this thread- So much concern trolling- So little that's not been said in other threads.- So many incorrect statements- So much lack of understanding of Musk's plansReasons to leave this thread open- It's a place to send the concern trolls so we can keep them out of other threads.That one's winning, so far.When you have nothing in defense of your poorly laid out plans other than to support the base and the top 1%, the result has been http://alternativefacts.com . Sadly, to support the base requires actions outside of reason but their our lines not to cross.you just described SLS... poorly laid out plans redux...
Quote from: Rei on 02/18/2017 12:50 pmQuoteIf you get to Mars faster, you just end up having to wait longer to launch back to Earth, and you get back at the same time. Unless you're flying a opposition class mission with a 30-day stayThere is zero stay requirement for ITS, apart from time to offload, reload, and refuel. ITS is not intended to function as a Martian habitat. ...That's not true. Musk explicitly said the crew would stay in the ITS while on the surface.
Where did you see something stating that ITS would be used as a habitat?
IF SpaceX did start with a smaller prototype, them segue to the full sized ITS, how feasible would it be for them then to sell the prototype to NASA for use in Lunar exploration?
Quote from: Rei on 02/19/2017 12:04 amWhere did you see something stating that ITS would be used as a habitat?Elon Musk had said this before. It makes all kind of sense too. We must always differentiate between the long term intended use, that is return after refuelling and specific mission requirements. The first crew arrives and there is no other habitat than the ITS at that time. ITS is plenty big for a crew of 12 to 18. There is likely also no fuel for an immediate return of the ITS.So they get there, live in the ITS until they have set up fuel ISRU and possibly a habitat. Later missions would arrive and there is a habitat waiting for them and fuel in the tanks. They disembark, unload cargo and the ship goes back. Will they even have a ship on standby? I doubt it.
7. The sending of a large habitat on a roundtrip from Earth to Mars and back. This, too, is a very bad idea, because the habitat will get to be used only one way, once every four years. If we are building a Mars base or colonizing Mars, any large habitat sent to the planet’s surface should stay there so the colonists can use it for living quarters. Going to great expense to send a habitat to Mars only to return it to Earth empty makes no sense. Mars needs houses.
Quote from: guckyfan on 02/19/2017 04:51 amQuote from: Rei on 02/19/2017 12:04 amWhere did you see something stating that ITS would be used as a habitat?Elon Musk had said this before. It makes all kind of sense too. We must always differentiate between the long term intended use, that is return after refuelling and specific mission requirements. The first crew arrives and there is no other habitat than the ITS at that time. ITS is plenty big for a crew of 12 to 18. There is likely also no fuel for an immediate return of the ITS.So they get there, live in the ITS until they have set up fuel ISRU and possibly a habitat. Later missions would arrive and there is a habitat waiting for them and fuel in the tanks. They disembark, unload cargo and the ship goes back. Will they even have a ship on standby? I doubt it.I'm trying to find anywhere that he actually said that. Do you perchance have a link? What I have is:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Uyfqi_TE8?t=801Re, local propellant production: "Again, if we didn't do this, it would have at least a half order of magnitude increase in the cost of a trip, so 500% increase in the cost of a trip. And it would be pretty absurd to try to build a city on Mars if your spaceships just kept on staying on Mars and not going back to Earth. You would have this, like, massive graveyard of ships. You would have to, like, do something with them. So it really wouldn't make sense to leave your spaceships on Mars, you really want to build a propellant plant on Mars and send the ships back."To be fair, this could be interpreted through the lens of "eventually". There still is the question of what to do in the beginning - whether a propellant plant and tanks would be delivered by Red Dragon, or whether you have to have one ITS sitting around acting as a refuelling tank, with its payload being a propellant plant. But that describes only a very small number of ships, and still says nothing about using ITS ships as habitats. I know Zubrin at the very least hasn't interpreted Musk's statements as meaning using the spaceships as habitats - he published an editorial criticizing Musk for that purpose:http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/colonizing-marsQuote7. The sending of a large habitat on a roundtrip from Earth to Mars and back. This, too, is a very bad idea, because the habitat will get to be used only one way, once every four years. If we are building a Mars base or colonizing Mars, any large habitat sent to the planet’s surface should stay there so the colonists can use it for living quarters. Going to great expense to send a habitat to Mars only to return it to Earth empty makes no sense. Mars needs houses.And honestly, they'd make pretty poor long-term habitats. The design does not call for any sort of heavy radiation shielding (clear from their mass figures, but also their design drawings), and it's surely not rated to bear such added regolith loads - nor would it be easy to dump regolith over such a thing.But, if he's said some other things elsewhere, I'd be very curious to hear them.
Interesting mix of responses so far in this thread. In addition to the voice of Lars-slayer-of-Trolls I notice 3 opinions come up regularly from differing people:1) Make a smaller ITS for quicker development2) Make full-scale ITS to avoid complicating development3) Potential use of ITS as a Martian habitatThe first two are actually equal in merit; a smaller ship might be easier to build, but scaling it up later might generate development problems. One lesson the STS/shuttle taught us: implementing (significant) vehicle improvements are nearly impossible to do while on a budget, which NASA is likely to be tight on for the foreseeable future. In the case of the SLS, especially if competition from Blue Origin and SpaceX emerge, it may advance no further than block 1B or forced to settle for a maximum liftoff mass less than the 130 mt intended for 2. My personal opinion on the matter of a mini-ITS: miniaturize the spaceship/payload component but fly the booster itself at full-scale; that way SpaceX has the workhorse at full strength.Using the ITS spaceship as a habitat is an interesting thought. Drawing on Mars Direct for comparison, it's meant to be more like a giant ERV rather than a Hab. However, especially at full scale, the spaceship may as well be a luxury yacht given it's bigger than the total module volume of the ISS. All the same, it's a ship not a hotel.These questions ought to be given to Elon Musk directly if possible. ITS is his baby, and I'm sure his engineers are trying to prepare its delivery.