Quote from: francesco nicoli on 09/28/2016 12:05 amAstonished. You get to ask ONE question to EM, the day of his LIFE speech on Mars. and what's your pick? toilets?#speechless.As a trained biologist I'm not surprised at all. Over two decades ago my teacher on human evolution warned of this kind of "easy life"-facilitated degeneration of human-kind.
Astonished. You get to ask ONE question to EM, the day of his LIFE speech on Mars. and what's your pick? toilets?#speechless.
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?
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.
So 100 passengers is for a future (larger) version of the system, it seems.
Isn't that [O2 pressurization] what STS did?
One question about the system: If we can make methane on Mars, would it be more efficient to make it there and send it back to LEO (with most efficient and slow transit) in advance?
Quote from: woods170 on 09/28/2016 09:29 amQuote from: francesco nicoli on 09/28/2016 12:05 amAstonished. You get to ask ONE question to EM, the day of his LIFE speech on Mars. and what's your pick? toilets?#speechless.As a trained biologist I'm not surprised at all. Over two decades ago my teacher on human evolution warned of this kind of "easy life"-facilitated degeneration of human-kind.was your teacher Mike Judge?
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/28/2016 08:51 amRobert Zubrin post on Elon's talk: https://www.facebook.com/robert.zubrin.1/posts/1799839760231952Overall favourable with this caveat:Quote[...]The key thing I would change is his plan to send the whole trans Mars propulsion system all the way to Mars and back. Doing that means it can only be used once every four years. Instead he should stage off of it just short of Earth escape. Then it would loop around back to aerobrake into Earth orbit in a week, while the payload habitat craft with just a very small propulsion system for landing would fly on to Mars.[...]Zubrin makes a good point.
Robert Zubrin post on Elon's talk: https://www.facebook.com/robert.zubrin.1/posts/1799839760231952Overall favourable with this caveat:Quote[...]The key thing I would change is his plan to send the whole trans Mars propulsion system all the way to Mars and back. Doing that means it can only be used once every four years. Instead he should stage off of it just short of Earth escape. Then it would loop around back to aerobrake into Earth orbit in a week, while the payload habitat craft with just a very small propulsion system for landing would fly on to Mars.[...]
[...]The key thing I would change is his plan to send the whole trans Mars propulsion system all the way to Mars and back. Doing that means it can only be used once every four years. Instead he should stage off of it just short of Earth escape. Then it would loop around back to aerobrake into Earth orbit in a week, while the payload habitat craft with just a very small propulsion system for landing would fly on to Mars.[...]
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.
I flat out don't believe that this thing will land on an unprepared surface without shot-peening its engines to death.
If you are putting 1000 ships in LEO - than that means 4000-5000 fuel launches!. That is a lot of course - but it seems wasteful. If we can make methane on Mars, would it be more efficient to make it there and send it back to LEO (with most efficient and slow transit) in advance? If we could make it on the moon that would be a no-brainer, but not sure if that is possible.
People who really did well during the Westward expansion in North America wre the shopkeepers and provisioners. I can see similar industries starting up around this. Travel/Hotel people will outfit the spacecraft interiors with modular units just like they do on cruise ships (though not made out of steel obviously). They will take care of provisioning, entertainment, all that stuff. Like Norwegian Cruise Lines, adapted for much smaller volumes and lighter weight. Selling tickets, housing people nearby before the ship spacecraft departs...
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.
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: 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: Lars-J on 09/28/2016 04:34 pmIsn't that [O2 pressurization] what STS did?Yes, but, there's a helium purge running throughout afaik. No helium = engine shutdown. Maybe the hazard is mitigated by running CH4 rather than H2?
Quote from: NotOnImpact on 09/28/2016 05:25 pmOne question about the system: If we can make methane on Mars, would it be more efficient to make it there and send it back to LEO (with most efficient and slow transit) in advance? No. It would boil off
Wilhelmsen Technical Solutions (WTS) passed a milestone by successfully completing the gas trial for the first LNG carrier built to a Boil Off Rate (BOR) of 0.08% per day.
Quote from: Jim on 09/28/2016 05:27 pmQuote from: NotOnImpact on 09/28/2016 05:25 pmOne question about the system: If we can make methane on Mars, would it be more efficient to make it there and send it back to LEO (with most efficient and slow transit) in advance? No. It would boil offhttp://www.green4sea.com/wilhelmsen-sets-new-standard-for-boil-off-rate/QuoteWilhelmsen Technical Solutions (WTS) passed a milestone by successfully completing the gas trial for the first LNG carrier built to a Boil Off Rate (BOR) of 0.08% per day.So about 30% over an 8 month trip.
Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 09/28/2016 02:47 pmYes, 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.Oh and I forgot, Space Shuttle Orbiter. Over 100 launches and reusable.
Quote from: envy887 on 09/28/2016 01:27 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 09/28/2016 01:09 pmWhat happens if your exploding stage 1 takes out your engines and gear on the pad or low altitude?The landing gear likely aren't needed for a soft landing - the Falcon 9 stages did soft water landings and floated for awhile. An explosion violent enough to take out multiple Stage 2 engines probably breaches the Stage 2 tanks, at which point the whole thing goes kabloomy. I don't see a Stage 2 tank breech during an on-pad booster anomaly being survivable, though it might be survivable if it happens in flight and those spheres inside the tanks hold landing prop.Getting the upper stage moving away quickly as soon as an anomaly is detected would be critical in any evert. And certainly difficult, but not impossible.So I guess we are in agreement then that there is only "one" failure mode abort "if" the S2 engines and gear are not damaged and that is "abort to orbit". Any CRS-7 or AMOS-6 type event, for sake of discussion are impossible or "iffy" at best... Inline staging is not fool proof and the Shuttle side mount was not the only risky type architecture which is why Orion, Dragon 2 and CST-100 all have a dedicated LES...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/28/2016 01:09 pmWhat happens if your exploding stage 1 takes out your engines and gear on the pad or low altitude?The landing gear likely aren't needed for a soft landing - the Falcon 9 stages did soft water landings and floated for awhile. An explosion violent enough to take out multiple Stage 2 engines probably breaches the Stage 2 tanks, at which point the whole thing goes kabloomy. I don't see a Stage 2 tank breech during an on-pad booster anomaly being survivable, though it might be survivable if it happens in flight and those spheres inside the tanks hold landing prop.Getting the upper stage moving away quickly as soon as an anomaly is detected would be critical in any evert. And certainly difficult, but not impossible.
What happens if your exploding stage 1 takes out your engines and gear on the pad or low altitude?