So 100 passengers is for a future (larger) version of the system, it seems.
Quote from: Lars-J on 09/28/2016 04:26 pmSo 100 passengers is for a future (larger) version of the system, it seems.During the talk, he said the ICT was designed for 100 people, but could probably handle 200.
After some consideration, there is one key element missing from the plan.A 'pure play', possibly disposable, cargo transporter.Reason for the possibly disposable. Every shot shows the Spaceship landed on its tail, with all the engines and tankage between the cargo and the ground. This will create serious hardships for the early colonist in removing necessary cargo from the ship to the ground. It will also limit the size of any specific element of cargo to the maximum capability of whatever crane system were to be incorporated (weight and stability of total stack).Additionally, to handle the construction of a permanent base, certain heavy machinery would be required on site. Particularly mars( ) moving equipment and other construction machinery (Cement mixers, cranes, etc).As such, a cargo ship that lands in a horizontal position would seem to be a necessity. A ship capable of transporting and landing something probably on the order of a Mars Optimized Caterpillar D11 as a maximum single weight item.
Quote from: Nibb31 on 09/28/2016 04:40 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 09/28/2016 04:26 pmSo 100 passengers is for a future (larger) version of the system, it seems.During the talk, he said the ICT was designed for 100 people, but could probably handle 200.Can you point to exactly where he said this in the video?
Yes, it seems to me to be a new class of spaceflight vehicle: it is a sort of integrated second-stage and spacecraft rolled into one. Not something we've seen much of (if any) before.The on-orbit re-propellanting for the BEO missions allows the spacecraft itself to also fulfill the role that a second stage usually fulfills in the LV design.
Blue's commercial crew spacecraft was also described as biconic. Both companies use methane, both companies use a biconic spacecraft. It's interesting that they tend to make similar choices.
Quote from: Dante80 on 09/28/2016 02:57 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 09/28/2016 02:53 pmQuote from: pobermanns on 09/28/2016 02:37 pmQuote from: GregA on 09/28/2016 07:35 amQuote from: Jim Davis on 09/27/2016 09:40 pmI was disappointed. Musk seems to subscribe to the idea that space colonization (of whatever sort) is basically a transportation problem and his presentation was virtually all about transportation. I think that kind of narrow focus is a huge mistake which will become more obvious as time goes on.Maybe. I think transportation is his first priority. The overall planning of how a Mars colony could develop is critical, and he must have outlines of how it can come together, problems to be overcome etc, because private enterprise and the competitive aspect he wants needs a structure to build from. But he is hoping for collaboration. And he may plan on handing that over to another company. Perhaps MarsX, but he may hope for NASA too. So a reason to not say much about it?EM's analogy to the Union-Pacific seems spot-on. He's trying to make it possible for other companies to risk their assets, and for individuals to commit part of their lives, for the opportunity to start a grand adventure. It's been over 50 years since I learned about that railroad in school (so feel free to correct my version of history), but it and the later ones were heavily subsidized by the federal government - the railroad companies were outright given all of the land on either side of the right-of-way, out to 50 miles. Initially there was nothing between the endpoints. However, this was coincident with arrival of huge numbers of immigrants to the US, and lots of them took the chance to move into the wilderness and farm that same land. The crops produced had to be shipped out, which increased the justification for the railroad. Et cetera. More people, more economic activity, more innovation, gradually less rugged conditions. Took a long time, but now we have all of those excellent cities, roads, businesses, and farms. But none of that would have happened if the railroad hadn't been built. So yeah, EM is pushing a transportation system. I would be surprised if his people haven't been working on solutions to all of these other problems, too, but making it practical to get there is positively Job #1.IIRC those railroad companies got subsidies and grants and the nation benefited by having a transcontinental RR to transport it's citizens and moving goods to markets. Where in the nation's benefit in dong this for Mars?You cannot think of a benefit from an American company developing a Mars Transportation System that can put people and cargo on another planet for peanuts?Fine for a company from any country, sure... It has to benefit "all" the average US citizens/taxpayers in a government role...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/28/2016 02:53 pmQuote from: pobermanns on 09/28/2016 02:37 pmQuote from: GregA on 09/28/2016 07:35 amQuote from: Jim Davis on 09/27/2016 09:40 pmI was disappointed. Musk seems to subscribe to the idea that space colonization (of whatever sort) is basically a transportation problem and his presentation was virtually all about transportation. I think that kind of narrow focus is a huge mistake which will become more obvious as time goes on.Maybe. I think transportation is his first priority. The overall planning of how a Mars colony could develop is critical, and he must have outlines of how it can come together, problems to be overcome etc, because private enterprise and the competitive aspect he wants needs a structure to build from. But he is hoping for collaboration. And he may plan on handing that over to another company. Perhaps MarsX, but he may hope for NASA too. So a reason to not say much about it?EM's analogy to the Union-Pacific seems spot-on. He's trying to make it possible for other companies to risk their assets, and for individuals to commit part of their lives, for the opportunity to start a grand adventure. It's been over 50 years since I learned about that railroad in school (so feel free to correct my version of history), but it and the later ones were heavily subsidized by the federal government - the railroad companies were outright given all of the land on either side of the right-of-way, out to 50 miles. Initially there was nothing between the endpoints. However, this was coincident with arrival of huge numbers of immigrants to the US, and lots of them took the chance to move into the wilderness and farm that same land. The crops produced had to be shipped out, which increased the justification for the railroad. Et cetera. More people, more economic activity, more innovation, gradually less rugged conditions. Took a long time, but now we have all of those excellent cities, roads, businesses, and farms. But none of that would have happened if the railroad hadn't been built. So yeah, EM is pushing a transportation system. I would be surprised if his people haven't been working on solutions to all of these other problems, too, but making it practical to get there is positively Job #1.IIRC those railroad companies got subsidies and grants and the nation benefited by having a transcontinental RR to transport it's citizens and moving goods to markets. Where in the nation's benefit in dong this for Mars?You cannot think of a benefit from an American company developing a Mars Transportation System that can put people and cargo on another planet for peanuts?
Quote from: pobermanns on 09/28/2016 02:37 pmQuote from: GregA on 09/28/2016 07:35 amQuote from: Jim Davis on 09/27/2016 09:40 pmI was disappointed. Musk seems to subscribe to the idea that space colonization (of whatever sort) is basically a transportation problem and his presentation was virtually all about transportation. I think that kind of narrow focus is a huge mistake which will become more obvious as time goes on.Maybe. I think transportation is his first priority. The overall planning of how a Mars colony could develop is critical, and he must have outlines of how it can come together, problems to be overcome etc, because private enterprise and the competitive aspect he wants needs a structure to build from. But he is hoping for collaboration. And he may plan on handing that over to another company. Perhaps MarsX, but he may hope for NASA too. So a reason to not say much about it?EM's analogy to the Union-Pacific seems spot-on. He's trying to make it possible for other companies to risk their assets, and for individuals to commit part of their lives, for the opportunity to start a grand adventure. It's been over 50 years since I learned about that railroad in school (so feel free to correct my version of history), but it and the later ones were heavily subsidized by the federal government - the railroad companies were outright given all of the land on either side of the right-of-way, out to 50 miles. Initially there was nothing between the endpoints. However, this was coincident with arrival of huge numbers of immigrants to the US, and lots of them took the chance to move into the wilderness and farm that same land. The crops produced had to be shipped out, which increased the justification for the railroad. Et cetera. More people, more economic activity, more innovation, gradually less rugged conditions. Took a long time, but now we have all of those excellent cities, roads, businesses, and farms. But none of that would have happened if the railroad hadn't been built. So yeah, EM is pushing a transportation system. I would be surprised if his people haven't been working on solutions to all of these other problems, too, but making it practical to get there is positively Job #1.IIRC those railroad companies got subsidies and grants and the nation benefited by having a transcontinental RR to transport it's citizens and moving goods to markets. Where in the nation's benefit in dong this for Mars?
Quote from: GregA on 09/28/2016 07:35 amQuote from: Jim Davis on 09/27/2016 09:40 pmI was disappointed. Musk seems to subscribe to the idea that space colonization (of whatever sort) is basically a transportation problem and his presentation was virtually all about transportation. I think that kind of narrow focus is a huge mistake which will become more obvious as time goes on.Maybe. I think transportation is his first priority. The overall planning of how a Mars colony could develop is critical, and he must have outlines of how it can come together, problems to be overcome etc, because private enterprise and the competitive aspect he wants needs a structure to build from. But he is hoping for collaboration. And he may plan on handing that over to another company. Perhaps MarsX, but he may hope for NASA too. So a reason to not say much about it?EM's analogy to the Union-Pacific seems spot-on. He's trying to make it possible for other companies to risk their assets, and for individuals to commit part of their lives, for the opportunity to start a grand adventure. It's been over 50 years since I learned about that railroad in school (so feel free to correct my version of history), but it and the later ones were heavily subsidized by the federal government - the railroad companies were outright given all of the land on either side of the right-of-way, out to 50 miles. Initially there was nothing between the endpoints. However, this was coincident with arrival of huge numbers of immigrants to the US, and lots of them took the chance to move into the wilderness and farm that same land. The crops produced had to be shipped out, which increased the justification for the railroad. Et cetera. More people, more economic activity, more innovation, gradually less rugged conditions. Took a long time, but now we have all of those excellent cities, roads, businesses, and farms. But none of that would have happened if the railroad hadn't been built. So yeah, EM is pushing a transportation system. I would be surprised if his people haven't been working on solutions to all of these other problems, too, but making it practical to get there is positively Job #1.
Quote from: Jim Davis on 09/27/2016 09:40 pmI was disappointed. Musk seems to subscribe to the idea that space colonization (of whatever sort) is basically a transportation problem and his presentation was virtually all about transportation. I think that kind of narrow focus is a huge mistake which will become more obvious as time goes on.Maybe. I think transportation is his first priority. The overall planning of how a Mars colony could develop is critical, and he must have outlines of how it can come together, problems to be overcome etc, because private enterprise and the competitive aspect he wants needs a structure to build from. But he is hoping for collaboration. And he may plan on handing that over to another company. Perhaps MarsX, but he may hope for NASA too. So a reason to not say much about it?
I was disappointed. Musk seems to subscribe to the idea that space colonization (of whatever sort) is basically a transportation problem and his presentation was virtually all about transportation. I think that kind of narrow focus is a huge mistake which will become more obvious as time goes on.
Quote from: dnavas on 09/28/2016 03:45 pmWell, I ask given that the answer seems to suggest that the Raptor needs another system to run in in order to "retire the risk" as you say. You're right, of course, that the recent failures force me to set the bar a little higher than "trust SX", but the thrust of my point was to wonder what that other system is....Well Like Elon said the engine is the same physical size of the Merlin engine, and the USAF is paying them to develop an upperstage engine for Falcon through Raptor.....
Well, I ask given that the answer seems to suggest that the Raptor needs another system to run in in order to "retire the risk" as you say. You're right, of course, that the recent failures force me to set the bar a little higher than "trust SX", but the thrust of my point was to wonder what that other system is....
Quote from: Lars-J on 09/28/2016 04:48 pmQuote from: Nibb31 on 09/28/2016 04:40 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 09/28/2016 04:26 pmSo 100 passengers is for a future (larger) version of the system, it seems.During the talk, he said the ICT was designed for 100 people, but could probably handle 200.Can you point to exactly where he said this in the video?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Uyfqi_TE8?t=1551
Quote from: GalacticIntruder on 09/28/2016 04:51 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 09/28/2016 04:48 pmQuote from: Nibb31 on 09/28/2016 04:40 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 09/28/2016 04:26 pmSo 100 passengers is for a future (larger) version of the system, it seems.During the talk, he said the ICT was designed for 100 people, but could probably handle 200.Can you point to exactly where he said this in the video?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Uyfqi_TE8?t=1551That link doesn't work for me, it just starts at the beginning. Can you tell me the time to skip to?
Quote from: meekGee on 09/27/2016 07:28 pmSpark (and torch) ignition for the engines.Never understood why they didn't go with this from day one. It was the first thing XCOR developed. TEA is nasty, expensive stuff to handle. It baffled me anyone who was serious about reusability would use it.
Spark (and torch) ignition for the engines.
In what way have the American taxpayers subsidized this system?
Quote from: rsdavis9 on 09/28/2016 03:39 pmWhat do you think is in the spherical tanks? I count one in each tank in the S2 and one in the methane tank in S1.I thought that this are specially insulated tanks to store fuel and LOX for the landing.
What do you think is in the spherical tanks? I count one in each tank in the S2 and one in the methane tank in S1.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/28/2016 02:35 pmBlue's commercial crew spacecraft was also described as biconic. Both companies use methane, both companies use a biconic spacecraft. It's interesting that they tend to make similar choices. There are a limited number of functional solutions to bringing back a spacecraft from Earth/Mars orbit and using retro-propulsion to land it, plus have useful volume/payload capability. NASA actually had a triconic design in the Ares planning days for a Mars vehicle [MARS DESIGN REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE (DRA) 5.0]
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 09/28/2016 02:18 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 09/28/2016 02:12 pmI haven't read all the comments in this thread. But I sort of wonder what is the best way to describe the spacecraft, it seems like a cross between a capsule and a lifting body. It has a black heatshield on one side.Seriously, up-thread, someone suggested that it is basically a biconic lifting body but I'll leave that one to the experts.Blue's commercial crew spacecraft was also described as biconic. Both companies use methane, both companies use a biconic spacecraft. It's interesting that they tend to make similar choices. http://www.space.com/15406-blue-origin-private-spacecraft-infographic.html
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/28/2016 02:12 pmI haven't read all the comments in this thread. But I sort of wonder what is the best way to describe the spacecraft, it seems like a cross between a capsule and a lifting body. It has a black heatshield on one side.Seriously, up-thread, someone suggested that it is basically a biconic lifting body but I'll leave that one to the experts.
I haven't read all the comments in this thread. But I sort of wonder what is the best way to describe the spacecraft, it seems like a cross between a capsule and a lifting body. It has a black heatshield on one side.
Some marketing dude will point out that this scheme removes CO2 from the atmosphere, and dumps some of it on Mars, which will make it "better than 0 net". Unfortunately, most of the expended propellant will fall back into the atmosphere, AFAICT, so more of a marketing thing than a genuine contribution to the problem.
Quote from: AncientU on 09/28/2016 02:54 pmQuote from: Llian Rhydderch on 09/28/2016 02:47 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 09/28/2016 02:12 pmI haven't read all the comments in this thread. But I sort of wonder what is the best way to describe the spacecraft, it seems like a cross between a capsule and a lifting body. It has a black heatshield on one side.Yes, it seems to me to be a new class of spaceflight vehicle: it is a sort of integrated second-stage and spacecraft rolled into one. Not something we've seen much of (if any) before.The on-orbit re-propellanting for the BEO missions allows the spacecraft itself to also fulfill the role that a second stage usually fulfills in the LV design.This is the first true Spaceship. Apollo and all previous spacecraft were payloads.I'd argue the the LEM was first...
Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 09/28/2016 02:47 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 09/28/2016 02:12 pmI haven't read all the comments in this thread. But I sort of wonder what is the best way to describe the spacecraft, it seems like a cross between a capsule and a lifting body. It has a black heatshield on one side.Yes, it seems to me to be a new class of spaceflight vehicle: it is a sort of integrated second-stage and spacecraft rolled into one. Not something we've seen much of (if any) before.The on-orbit re-propellanting for the BEO missions allows the spacecraft itself to also fulfill the role that a second stage usually fulfills in the LV design.This is the first true Spaceship. Apollo and all previous spacecraft were payloads.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/28/2016 02:12 pmI haven't read all the comments in this thread. But I sort of wonder what is the best way to describe the spacecraft, it seems like a cross between a capsule and a lifting body. It has a black heatshield on one side.Yes, it seems to me to be a new class of spaceflight vehicle: it is a sort of integrated second-stage and spacecraft rolled into one. Not something we've seen much of (if any) before.The on-orbit re-propellanting for the BEO missions allows the spacecraft itself to also fulfill the role that a second stage usually fulfills in the LV design.