Elon Musk at the 15th Annual International Mars Society Convention

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13 Next  All
Author Topic: Elon Musk at the 15th Annual International Mars Society Convention  (Read 18966 times)
spacetraveler
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 409
Location: Atlanta, GA


« Reply #15 on: 08/12/2012 10:04 AM »

The poorly lit interlaced low bitrate video of all the talks is pretty unacceptable. It looks like it's taken from VHS by amateurs.

Pretty much everyone in the Mars society is amateurs. Listen to the end where the guy mentions that it's all volunteers with minimal funds.

Nothing wrong with that but they obviously don't have the money for expensive professional equipment.
Hernalt
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 711
Location: Tucson, AZ



WWW
« Reply #16 on: 08/12/2012 10:16 AM »

Great content. Shame about the mike. Quantum, what was your problem with the keynote address by Richard Gott? I thought it was a riot. Elon has a detached, wry sense of humor. I got the impression during Zubrin's call for pledges that this was a 'stand up and be counted' moment. Is that standard for Mars Society Conventions?
spectre9
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1734
Location: Australia



« Reply #17 on: 08/12/2012 10:33 AM »

Spacevidcast were amateur when streaming shuttle launches live in HD weren't they?

Space geeks should be smarter than normal people. It's expected.
charliem
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #18 on: 08/12/2012 12:58 PM »

Hearing Elon's speech at the Mars Society reunion I had, once again, this odd, uncomfortable sensation.

He can't be a real person. He has no place in the real world. At most Elon Musk should be a character in a comic book.

And I know it's not just me. He is irritatingly weird for so many.

He is because he shatters everyone's (even mine) preconceptions about what a geek -and not just a geek but a nutty geek- should be.

By his words he should be expending his weekends roaming one scifi convention or other, disguised like an empire trooper or something. He should be boring to death his relatives and coworkers with fantasies about space exploration, and fusion reactors, and new particles found by the LHC, and so on and so forth.

What he, definitely, should not be doing is building anything remotely resembling real, useful, hardware. He should not have founded at least three different companies in three completely different fields, and not gone broke in the first year. Even worse, he should not have become a millionaire, first, and then a billionaire with them.

When my relatives hear me talk about colonizing Mars they know all they have to do is keep calm for a little while and switch the conversation to a more interesting subject as soon as possible, like the last Big Brother development, or how ugly the present political scandal is, or how hot was today, or something.

What they need not is to actually think about what I'm saying.

What for? I'm just one of those futuristic, out of the world, daydreamers.

Problem is they can't do the same with someone like Elon Musk ... although they try. They try hard.

It's evident even here.

The most "feet on the ground" people around here had been saying once and again that he was doomed to fail ... and still are, just with a bit less conviction, but none the less ...

For most outside here I think it's just that they don't want to waste their time with what they think is only fairy tales, or at least something that will never have any measurable impact on their lives.

For us I think it's a mix between fear and jealousy. Fear that in the end he might not deliver. Jealousy that he could do what so many before failed to do.

Yep, an irritating fellow.
MATTBLAK
Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2244
Location: New Zealand


'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)


« Reply #19 on: 08/12/2012 01:33 PM »

Excellent post!! So its not just me who feels this way?! Elon Musk is like someone who has dropped in from a parallel world - its like somehow; he shouldn't actually be here - its almost as though he should go back to the Ben Bova novel that he sprung from. Elon used to a poor public speaker, but he is now much improved. Will he be a 'Howard Hughes of Space' or will he do better than Hughes? I'm picking he will.

But I don't want him to be a cult figure - cult figures burn out too soon.

Or; "Elon is not the Messiah - he's just a very naughty boy!"

But define 'naughty' or 'bad'. Elon almost defies proper description - but in a good way, I hasten to add.
dcporter
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 507


« Reply #20 on: 08/12/2012 02:05 PM »

Or we're you being sarcastic?

Nope, I took stephen's statement to mean that getting on and off rocks was easier than looping between them. Probably I misread. Thanks all
MikeAtkinson
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 645
Location: Bracknell, England


« Reply #21 on: 08/12/2012 02:52 PM »

I agree with Elon, reusable spaceships are harder than launchers. I don't know what his reasoning is but mine is simple. For the same number of reuses spaceships have to be operated for a much, much longer duration. During that time they will become outdated and extremely difficult to maintain.

For example compare a reusable launcher which has a mean lifetime of 1000 flights with the equivalent spaceship on the Earth - Mars run, using the same level of technology. The launcher would be operated for maybe 10 years, the spaceship for 2000 years. Even with likely technology advances over the next 100 years a round trip to Mars is likely to take 3 months, so a lifetime of 250 years would be required for the same number of missions.

We don't build hi-tech items to last hundreds of years. Acquiring the ability to do so would mean creating whole new technologies from the ground up.

Put it another way for Elon to meet his goal of $500,000/person colonisation the cost of launch needs to drop by 2 orders of magnitude (maybe a bit more). There is a clear path through reusability to get there, it is hard but it seems doable.

The cost of the spacecraft needs to drop at least 4 orders of magnitude over ISS. There is no clear path to get there. The design, manufacturing and maintenance cost of the spacecraft would be too high per passenger even if it were launched for free, didn't use fuel and had complete recycling.
grythumn
Full Member
**
Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #22 on: 08/12/2012 03:45 PM »

I've nearly finished writing it - all I need to do now is get some software to convert a large Word file into a PDF! ;)

PrimoPDF works well and is free. I'd use a random postscript printer driver, output to file, and convert with ghostscript manually, but I'm weird and like command line utilities. You can also use Libre Office, but it occasionally has trouble importing complexly formatted Word files IME.

-R C
zt
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #23 on: 08/12/2012 04:53 PM »

Google Docs imports Word and exports PDF.
FinalFrontier
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3319


Space Watcher


« Reply #24 on: 08/12/2012 05:16 PM »

Can't say I agree with him on the need for a ground to LEO FRLV, but I most definitely agree on the need for a fully reusable system going to and from LEO to any other destination.


Still think that ground to LEO RLV's are and always will be cost prohibitive but I will be happy if the RFL project proves me wrong.
FinalFrontier
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3319


Space Watcher


« Reply #25 on: 08/12/2012 05:20 PM »

Where will you publish it?

I'm calling the article *Version 1.0* because the more detailed, full-length version will be 'peer-reviewed' first by a couple NASA engineer friends of mine. I'm not a trained Engineer - just a Science Fiction writer. Many quality Sci-Fi writers: Clarke, Asimov, Baxter, Stanley-Robinson - have science or engineering backgrounds - I do not, so that effectively makes me second-rate. So until I've had it looked over, only a more cut-down version will reach limited eyes.

The final magazine of the soon to be disbanded 'N.Z. Spaceflight Association' will have that rather cut-down version of the article. Some illustrations I've done by hand - the editor may not use them - but they are more like 'place holders' until I can persuade someone who is a professional or semi-professional artist to do them.

If it 'passes muster' I'm happy to then post it somewhere on here so folk can see it. I don't imagine for a minute it will generate the same stir that 'DIRECT' did a few years back.

EDIT: Thumbnails of some of my drawings: 'ganged' Earth Departure propulsion stages (based on Falcon 9 second stage), Command Dragon with 'Long Trunk' Service Module - lots of storable propellants, 10,000lb thrust hypergolic engine, ganged MOI/TEI propulsion stages with 2x hypergolic engines - stages are propellant-only and based on the Long Trunk Dragon Service Module.



So this implies all chemical propulsion.



I somehow doubt he will do this, he has stated previously an interest in an advanced system of some sort. And with plenty of such systems already around (vasimir, NTR's, SEPstugs,ect) or in development it would be easy to either buy one from someone or build off existing designs to create something far more cost effective then a chemical system.

Plus, how are you going to re-use an all chemical system? The implication is that once each "stage" does its primary burns it does not have enough fuel to return to an LEO parking orbit and it can't re couple or be refurbished easily. The logistics of trying to make that work would be impossible, not to mention cost prohibitive.

I just don't see them using an all chemical system.
MikeAtkinson
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 645
Location: Bracknell, England


« Reply #26 on: 08/12/2012 06:47 PM »

Can't say I agree with him on the need for a ground to LEO FRLV, but I most definitely agree on the need for a fully reusable system going to and from LEO to any other destination.


Still think that ground to LEO RLV's are and always will be cost prohibitive but I will be happy if the RFL project proves me wrong.

LEO-Mars spacecraft reusability gives at best a factor of 10 reduction in costs, and in my opinion much less.

Balancing no need to launch the spacecraft each time (which only reduces launch costs by 20%) are increased R&D costs, refurbishment cost, any extra fuel needed to put the spacecraft in an orbit where it might be reused, decreased production economies of scale and lower rate of introduction of technological improvements.

If launch costs are 30% of a typical HSF mission at present then changing to a RLV will at best reduce costs by 30%. Add in spacecraft reusability for another 10x reduction then a mission similar to DRM5 but using reusable elements would cost at best 7%.

Musk needs 4 orders of magnitude improvement in cost, just adding reusability to existing mission architectures gives at best 2 orders of magnitude reduction and probably only a bit better than 1 order of magnitude.

His plans/hopes are on a much bigger scale than for DRM5 and economies of scale will give lower unit costs, but I doubt that will be more than an order of magnitude.

What remains are architecture improvements. He seems to be aiming for mainly one way (to Mars) for colonists, return flights are necessary for reuse not having to provide consumerables for many passengers on the return trip leads to efficiencies all through the architecture.

I just can't see how Elon hopes to get prices down to $500,000/person. With reusability and economies of scale and a lot of optimism I could see $5M/person, but that last factor of 10 must be either imaginary or something I've overlooked.
ArbitraryConstant
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 823


« Reply #27 on: 08/12/2012 08:09 PM »

Plus, how are you going to re-use an all chemical system?
I don't think it's necessary to re-use everything initially.

Musk might see it as a necessity for mass emigration, but we can do a lot with expendable departure stages.

For a reusable architecture, it seems to me that the optimal rendezvous orbit probably isn't LEO. There's a lot of mass associated with transporting people to Mars that would not benefit from making that whole trip up and down the gravity well each time. It seems like it would make more sense to meet it at a much higher orbit.
charliem
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #28 on: 08/12/2012 08:40 PM »

all I need to do now is get some software to convert a large Word file into a PDF! ;)

If you are a Windows user PDFcreator is free, and extremely easy to find and to use (http://www.pdfforge.org/download).

If you are a Linux user then you can choose. Cups-PDF is also very easy to install via your package manager.

I don't think you are a Mac user because in OSX this is a standard feature.
IRobot
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 465
Location: Portugal


« Reply #29 on: 08/12/2012 09:25 PM »

My understanding is that the $500.000 price is from LEO to Mars...
Tags:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13 Next  All
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC
All content © 2005-2011 NASASpaceFlight.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.066 seconds with 22 queries.