Author Topic: Elon Musk IAC Mars Speech - Sept. 27, 2016 - DISCUSSION THREAD  (Read 441710 times)

Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • France
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 11
So 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.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6817
  • California
  • Liked: 8522
  • Likes Given: 5415
So 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?

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2447
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
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.

      This, on the surface, would seem a good idea.  Especially if the cargo containers could also double as habitat modules of some sort.

      However; unless they would be using Raptor engines at the end of their useful cycle, or possibly Methlox converted Merlins, (yeah, it's a stretch, but possible) the economics of sending an entire craft on a one way trip seem a bit out of kilter.

      In fact; it would be more likely that the initial ITS landers would be retired on Mars, at the end of their useful life, as venting the LOX and Methane tanks should leave no hazardous residuals, and would allow them to be used as additional habitats.  Or, if still capable of being used as tanks, storage for refueling additional craft as needed.

      The engines could be either recycled, stripped for parts or reconditioned on Mars for replacement of engines that may get damaged or need replacing, for one reason or another, on the ITS.

      It is not lost on me that, due to the majority of the craft being made from Carbon Fiber, it may be possible to extract enough carbon from both the atmosphere and other sources, to likewise, either make patching materials or even sufficient carbon fiber to produce other vehicles on Mars.  (Yes, it would take incredible amounts of CO2, but it can be extracted from the CO2 ice at the poles).  As for resins, that may require additional chemistry, but as most polymer resins as hydrocarbon based, this shouldn't be too much of a stretch to produce as well.

      On a different note; I found it rather interesting that Elon, while not really discussing Venus explorations, did not entirely rule out that as a possibility.  Obviously a SIGNIFICANT amount of work would need to go into possible exploration or exploitation of that planet, but it isn't truly beyond the realm of possibility.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • France
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 11
So 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?

No time to go through it again right now, but he mentioned the 200 passenger figure at least twice.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796

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.
Actually the nearest analogy was the Agena vehicle. Often a stage it had mounting areas for on board experiments and various hardware.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2447
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
So 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?

He actually mentioned it a couple of times, including in reference to the per person mass being sent to Mars. (Roughly 1 ton per person, including the person)
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline DOCinCT

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.
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]

Offline GalacticIntruder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Pet Peeve:I hate the word Downcomer. Ban it.
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 70
So 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?

« Last Edit: 09/28/2016 05:05 pm by GalacticIntruder »
"And now the Sun will fade, All we are is all we made." Breaking Benjamin

Offline pobermanns

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Germany
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 166
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.

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...
In what way have the American taxpayers subsidized this system?

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2926
  • Likes Given: 2247

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....

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.....

Need not be "either or". We heard Raptor Vac has a 14 foot (3.66M) nozzle, might it fit as a payload in the 5M shroud? You could test it as an in-space stage that way, using two F9US Oxygen tanks (with GHe pressurization) ... and get performance/validation w/o building an entire US ...

Then if AF wants to commit to a Raptor US of some sort they'll have it. Perhaps alongside funded BO/ULA US?

Merlin Vac was tested (failing restart first time) in flight, as there was no vacuum test stand test.

All AF did was encourage US engine development with cofunding to various efforts, including SX. Nothing more.

The fact that AF has seen the engine built and fired on a test stand likely exceeds requirements, as they will have gotten the test data that they desired. (Many similar programs don't even get that far.)

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6817
  • California
  • Liked: 8522
  • Likes Given: 5415
So 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

That link doesn't work for me, it just starts at the beginning. Can you tell me the time to skip to?

Offline GalacticIntruder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Pet Peeve:I hate the word Downcomer. Ban it.
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 70
So 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

That link doesn't work for me, it just starts at the beginning. Can you tell me the time to skip to?

Start around 25:10 (ish) for context. 26:00 actual quote.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2016 05:02 pm by GalacticIntruder »
"And now the Sun will fade, All we are is all we made." Breaking Benjamin

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2926
  • Likes Given: 2247
Spark (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.
Issues with Kerolox not present with hydrolox/methalox.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2926
  • Likes Given: 2247
In what way have the American taxpayers subsidized this system?

People often confuse "political reality" with "contract law". That I attend a music event by buying a ticket, that means I *own* the performer for the performance. Same holds true for some views of SX. BS of course.

Offline DOCinCT

So 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.
Bigelow Aerospace in their advert for the B330 talks about 6 people as a crew for extended stays in a 330 cu m (12,000 cu ft) volume.   I estimate 2,100 cu m (74,000 cu ft) for the passenger craft,   that would work out to 35-40 passengers.
OR Boeing 777 cockpit/1st class (incl toilet, galley)  749 cu m (25,100 cu ft)  40 passengers - but that is for what? 12 hour flights?

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2354
  • Liked: 2883
  • Likes Given: 2429
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.

I thought that this are specially insulated tanks to store fuel and LOX for the landing.

I think the tanks inside the tanks are to catch boil off for re-condensation/compressing/cooling into liquid to be returned to main tanks.

Matthew

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 129
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.
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]
The difference being that the triconic shape was just for an aeroshell fairing that contained the lander, which did not land vertically. Again, it's to increase the amount of surface area for aerobraking in the thin atmosphere.

Also, Blue's biconic probably isn't meant to be a Mars entry vehicle.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2016 05:09 pm by Pipcard »

Offline TrevorMonty

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.
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
Masten are using same shape for their XS1 design which will land vertically. ESA experimental reentry vehicle which flew uses same design. In away Shuttle and Dream chaser use similar designs and re entry approaches except they've added wings for landing.


Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2926
  • Likes Given: 2247
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.
Too harsh.

Net carbon trade systems have the goal of "any reduction". Clearly booster none, but in space refueling past escape is some. "Good enough". As the rules of the game have been set.

Now, if you really want a follow-on with better, lets talk nuclear. If the ITS dream works out, nuclear is the next logical step. But having seen the Amos anomaly, fear we're not ready for a Pu (or even Th pebble) LV ...

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2926
  • Likes Given: 2247
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.

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...

;) So the first Earth spaceship was LM ascent module ... launched from Earth's Moon? Nice.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1