Total Members Voted: 55
Voting closed: 08/20/2018 03:29 pm
Ever since SpaceX laid out their plans, I was curious about one thing: A concrete plan for surface power generation.Saying "solar" doesn't cut it.- What is the planned power demand and production capacity?- What is the tech, generally? (Si, III-V? Rigid/inflatable? Tracking? Cleaning?)- How will they bootstrap?- Any concrete plans to make parts of it on Mars?-----ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
It seams the hardware would be on the cargo flights because it will need to be up and running for propellant generation. Anyone care to speculate on its mass, how does it get deployed, battery mass and how to maintain?
Quote from: testguy on 05/12/2018 08:00 pmIt seams the hardware would be on the cargo flights because it will need to be up and running for propellant generation. Anyone care to speculate on its mass, how does it get deployed, battery mass and how to maintain?See the Powering martian civilisation from ebay thread.In short, one BFS, using off-the-shelf panels and tesla class batteries can provide of the order of 500kW continuous throughout most of the year.In addition, the solar panels the BFS has been using throughout the trip may be re-rigged and provide 10-20kW on the surface with no external deployment.500kW is enough electricity from one BFS to do around a BFS worth of fuel every year.
Quote from: speedevil on 05/12/2018 08:46 pmQuote from: testguy on 05/12/2018 08:00 pmIt seams the hardware would be on the cargo flights because it will need to be up and running for propellant generation. Anyone care to speculate on its mass, how does it get deployed, battery mass and how to maintain?See the Powering martian civilisation from ebay thread.In short, one BFS, using off-the-shelf panels and tesla class batteries can provide of the order of 500kW continuous throughout most of the year.In addition, the solar panels the BFS has been using throughout the trip may be re-rigged and provide 10-20kW on the surface with no external deployment.500kW is enough electricity from one BFS to do around a BFS worth of fuel every year.I read the thread, but I want to hear SpaceX's story too... -----ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Quote from: meekGee on 05/12/2018 10:04 pmQuote from: speedevil on 05/12/2018 08:46 pmQuote from: testguy on 05/12/2018 08:00 pmIt seams the hardware would be on the cargo flights because it will need to be up and running for propellant generation. Anyone care to speculate on its mass, how does it get deployed, battery mass and how to maintain?See the Powering martian civilisation from ebay thread.In short, one BFS, using off-the-shelf panels and tesla class batteries can provide of the order of 500kW continuous throughout most of the year.In addition, the solar panels the BFS has been using throughout the trip may be re-rigged and provide 10-20kW on the surface with no external deployment.500kW is enough electricity from one BFS to do around a BFS worth of fuel every year.I read the thread, but I want to hear SpaceX's story too... -----ABCD: Always Be Counting DownSpaceX is under no such obligation. But if you’re interested in what SpaceX has looked at, there are hints.
Tbh I think SpaceX is hoping for NASA or someone else says "Hey, we can help with power, habitats, etc...".And they may be right, once BFR seems plausible and transport is possible, they will probably get help building infrastructure.
I'm looking for an experienced manufacturing engineer for my team! Ideal candidate is hands-on problem solver with experience ramping up a high volume production line for terrestrial solar arrays. Send me a message if you or someone you know is interested.
SpaceX was founded under the belief that a future where humanity is out exploring the stars is fundamentally more exciting than one where we are not. Today SpaceX is actively developing the technologies to make this possible, with the ultimate goal of enabling human life on Mars.SOLAR ARRAY MANUFACTURING ENGINEERRESPONSIBILITIES:Develop and document processes used in the assembly of low-cost solar panels for space applicationsWork intimately with solder and weld processes for conductor interconnectionEvaluate candidate processes using tools like PFMEA and Six SigmaConduct root cause investigations in the case of process issuesCharacterize photovoltaic devices (LIV, DIV, EL, IR) and interpret resultsSupport the training of manufacturing techniciansBASIC QUALIFICATIONS:Bachelor's degree in an engineering or scientific discipline from an ABET accredited university5+ years experience in high volume, low-cost manufacturing processes5+ years experience with polymeric materials and related processesPREFERRED SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE:Familiarity with spacecraft solar arrays and the space environmentFamiliarity with terrestrial solar arraysEnthusiasm for hands-on prototypingStrong written and verbal communication skills
Johan Karlsson:^BFS?Thiago V Goncalves: Starlink maybe?Mariano Ochoa: Mars base.Joy Dunn: All of these things (and Dragon) need solar power. And all of these things need manufacturing engineers to build them
Can I make a friendly suggestion that because this thread is about Mars and predicated on BFR, it ought to be moved to the SpaceX BFR section?
I want to make one point clear first of all:"Grand plans" are useless. If you expect detailed public plans from SpaceX, you'll never get them as they aren't worth the ink they're written in. Grand plans are WAY over-rated.BFR is all "build it and they will come" right now.NASA doesn't take BFR terribly seriously, yet. The only way to prove SpaceX is serious is for BFR (or at least BFS, which is the most important part for Mars) to fly. When that happens, watch partnerships line up. Same for "regulatory approval." But don't expect much of anything before that. Everyone else barely thinks Mars surface 2040 is doable, let alone 2025 and let alone at such scale.Space suits shown in renderings look very similar to the Dragon Crew ones. And it doesn't make sense for SpaceX to announce detailed plans for Mars suits (which would mean devoting workforce) while they're still doing Dragon Crew suits and learning about suit design. SpaceX should and is devoting workforce to finishing up these things for commercial crew.SpaceX is a large company, but they simply cannot devote enough money to keep people employed working on counting bolts on designs that probably will change drastically. They can't fund every possible permutation like NASA can. SpaceX IS and HAS BEEN working a lot of this stuff internally. You see hint of it in L2 and elsewhere. They've been looking at rovers, various solar power projects, nuclear power projects, etc. But it's still very in flux until BFR is ready.The first cargo missions will likely be pushed back. But even if they aren't, I would not be surprised if the first cargo mission is fairly rushed and thus treated mostly as a tech demo. It would prove propellant production, but not necessarily at the full scale. This is in line with SpaceX's statements as of the 2016/2017 IAC. It won't necessarily be a full, fueled-up BFS on the surface.SpaceX is funding constrained, and so they really hope to try to attract partners to develop as much of the ancillary stuff as they can. SpaceX is focusing mostly on EXACTLY what they should: BFR, starting with BFS.BFS is the lander. It is also almost all the other elements in the mission. It is the primary thing that enables mass human travel to Mars at scale and at low cost. Established players (for the most part) have NOTHING like it in their plans. NASA has plans for Mars suits, Mars rovers (even having done desert test campaigns), etc, etc, etc. It doesn't make sense for SpaceX to duplicate that when they barely have the funding for BFS.If SpaceX can prove BFS, all the rest can be negotiated. Maybe NASA will help with power and rovers and space suits?That said, SpaceX is looking for "terrestrial" solar array tech, now, which I take to mean ground mounted arrays (i.e. on mars for ISRU). This job listing, for instance:https://twitter.com/RocketJoy/status/989261693233479680QuoteI'm looking for an experienced manufacturing engineer for my team! Ideal candidate is hands-on problem solver with experience ramping up a high volume production line for terrestrial solar arrays. Send me a message if you or someone you know is interested.QuoteSpaceX was founded under the belief that a future where humanity is out exploring the stars is fundamentally more exciting than one where we are not. Today SpaceX is actively developing the technologies to make this possible, with the ultimate goal of enabling human life on Mars.SOLAR ARRAY MANUFACTURING ENGINEERRESPONSIBILITIES:Develop and document processes used in the assembly of low-cost solar panels for space applicationsWork intimately with solder and weld processes for conductor interconnectionEvaluate candidate processes using tools like PFMEA and Six SigmaConduct root cause investigations in the case of process issuesCharacterize photovoltaic devices (LIV, DIV, EL, IR) and interpret resultsSupport the training of manufacturing techniciansBASIC QUALIFICATIONS:Bachelor's degree in an engineering or scientific discipline from an ABET accredited university5+ years experience in high volume, low-cost manufacturing processes5+ years experience with polymeric materials and related processesPREFERRED SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE:Familiarity with spacecraft solar arrays and the space environmentFamiliarity with terrestrial solar arraysEnthusiasm for hands-on prototypingStrong written and verbal communication skillsAnd comments by the person (Joy Dunn) running the project at SpaceX on Twitter:QuoteJohan Karlsson:^BFS?Thiago V Goncalves: Starlink maybe?Mariano Ochoa: Mars base.Joy Dunn: All of these things (and Dragon) need solar power. And all of these things need manufacturing engineers to build them Obviously, SpaceX needs solar for a bunch of things, but one of the things they're already looking for is "terrestrial" array experience. I think a lot of this is to help focus on low cost, but doubtless some of it is very Mars-forward.SpaceX can't yet afford a huge team devoted to everything. Thus everything (including surface solar power) has to be as dual-purpose as possible. Which is why they're focusing on things like BFR which can pay for themselves.If BFR works, everything else can and will follow. Without BFR, it won't. So they're focusing on BFR.
I note Elon’s recent estimate that Falcon 9 will launch maybe 300 more missions in its lifetime, before being replaced by BFR. I also note his statement that a reused F9 launch sells for around $50m, giving us a ballpark total revenue of maybe $15 billion from the remainder of F9’s planned useful life.This $15 billion total is what will have to fund BFR development, construction and the mission costs up to the landing of the first pair of BFS ships on Mars.Revenue from Starlink can likely be ignored in the interim, given that Starlink itself will require around $10 billion of investment to become operational. So net contributions from Starlink is likely a longer term goal, after initial investment has been recouped.Furthermore, much of the $15 billion F9 revenue will go into sustaining existing SpaceX costs, with profits being the more relevant number that can go into supporting Mars plans. So reinvested profits plus normal R&D budget gives you maybe $5-7 billion out of the $15 billion that can support the Mars plans until 2022. That is barely enough to design and build BFR.My point with the above being that SpaceX don’t have the funds to finance rovers, power generation, ISRU, and all the other developments needed for Mars colonization. They no doubt have conceptual plans for what is required, but they clearly mean it when they say others will have to come to the party to realize these plans.Building the rocket and successfully landing it on Mars is the big leap forward that is meant to inspire others to jump on the bandwagon.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 05/13/2018 08:19 amI note Elon’s recent estimate that Falcon 9 will launch maybe 300 more missions in its lifetime, before being replaced by BFR. I also note his statement that a reused F9 launch sells for around $50m, giving us a ballpark total revenue of maybe $15 billion from the remainder of F9’s planned useful life.This $15 billion total is what will have to fund BFR development, construction and the mission costs up to the landing of the first pair of BFS ships on Mars.Revenue from Starlink can likely be ignored in the interim, given that Starlink itself will require around $10 billion of investment to become operational. So net contributions from Starlink is likely a longer term goal, after initial investment has been recouped.Furthermore, much of the $15 billion F9 revenue will go into sustaining existing SpaceX costs, with profits being the more relevant number that can go into supporting Mars plans. So reinvested profits plus normal R&D budget gives you maybe $5-7 billion out of the $15 billion that can support the Mars plans until 2022. That is barely enough to design and build BFR.My point with the above being that SpaceX don’t have the funds to finance rovers, power generation, ISRU, and all the other developments needed for Mars colonization. They no doubt have conceptual plans for what is required, but they clearly mean it when they say others will have to come to the party to realize these plans.Building the rocket and successfully landing it on Mars is the big leap forward that is meant to inspire others to jump on the bandwagon. It is possible that SpaceX has accounting practices that go beyond 2nd grade math and these things called investors to boot. Projects like Starlink are a little more complicated than paying off the cost before you can use the revenue somewhere else. Investors aren't loaning them money. They're buying into the business. People and corporations have been "Coming to the party" for ten years.
In many ways, if the choice is to send such a Rover, over sending 150 tons of water, I'd rather send the water.
Quote from: speedevil on 05/13/2018 10:09 amIn many ways, if the choice is to send such a Rover, over sending 150 tons of water, I'd rather send the water.Is 150 tonnes of methane enough to return a BFS from Mars? Could SpaceX send a BFS filled with methane as cargo and get O2 from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, by some process, to make it possible for a BFS to return from Mars without first mining water?
My point with the above being that SpaceX don’t have the funds to finance rovers, power generation, ISRU, and all the other developments needed for Mars colonization. They no doubt have conceptual plans for what is required, but they clearly mean it when they say others will have to come to the party to realize these plans.
I suspect SpaceX simply doesn't have the time or money right now to build rovers when the rocket hasn't been built yet.There are two things that are well-proven on Mars:1) roversand2) solar powerScale is different, speed is different. But there's a real engineering experience base with now literally decades of elapsed mission time. We know what materials work, and what don't. We know that putting a solar array on top of a hill means it'll get cleaned regularly. We know not to use super thin aluminum wheels. We even know (from Phoenix) about digging in icy soil.So honestly, if you're going to pick something to wait until the last minute on, it might be those two.
Specifically I would like to have a discussion on things other than BFR. What is needed, by when, and when should we hope to have details?
Quote from: M.E.T. on 05/13/2018 08:19 amMy point with the above being that SpaceX don’t have the funds to finance rovers, power generation, ISRU, and all the other developments needed for Mars colonization. They no doubt have conceptual plans for what is required, but they clearly mean it when they say others will have to come to the party to realize these plans.Note OP is asking about first manned mission to Mars, not colonization. There's a huge difference between funding a Mars city for colonists and a small base for 6~12 astronauts. Also this has been repeated many times: ISRU is part of the architecture, that's why originally it's called Interplanetary Transport System, they wouldn't leave ISRU to others, they're working on it.As for rovers, if someone can contribute that's great, if not I think it's relatively easy to DIY. Someone brought up Lunar Roving Vehicle as an example, that thing only costs ~$200M of today's dollars to develop, I'm sure SpaceX can do better with today's electric car chassis.This just leaves the surface suit and habitat, but they won't need these until they sent people, so there's still some time.
If they don't start designing and building stuff soon, even 2024 might come and go with a BFR available without a payload.
So, while that challenge remains, I personally struggle to see how there is money left over for other endeavours, critical as they may be for the architecture. Sure, over the next 10-15 years I can see those funds becoming available, once Starlink starts paying off.But before that (over the next 4 years in other words), some kind of capital raising or personal investment by Musk would seem to be required to raise the stated $10 billion required for the project. But then, I could be missing something big in the above picture.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 05/13/2018 12:27 pmSo, while that challenge remains, I personally struggle to see how there is money left over for other endeavours, critical as they may be for the architecture. Sure, over the next 10-15 years I can see those funds becoming available, once Starlink starts paying off.But before that (over the next 4 years in other words), some kind of capital raising or personal investment by Musk would seem to be required to raise the stated $10 billion required for the project. But then, I could be missing something big in the above picture.Starlink is required to be launched in 6 years time from April this year, so April 2024 or so.However, once you have the first plane launched or so - 50 - you can demonstrate the full capability of the constellation at nominal speeds and performances, to sell to investors.This is plausible this year even, maybe next, even if consumer service is a year or two out.
Quote from: speedevil on 05/13/2018 12:42 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 05/13/2018 12:27 pmSo, while that challenge remains, I personally struggle to see how there is money left over for other endeavours, critical as they may be for the architecture. Sure, over the next 10-15 years I can see those funds becoming available, once Starlink starts paying off.But before that (over the next 4 years in other words), some kind of capital raising or personal investment by Musk would seem to be required to raise the stated $10 billion required for the project. But then, I could be missing something big in the above picture.Starlink is required to be launched in 6 years time from April this year, so April 2024 or so.However, once you have the first plane launched or so - 50 - you can demonstrate the full capability of the constellation at nominal speeds and performances, to sell to investors.This is plausible this year even, maybe next, even if consumer service is a year or two out.Yes, but any shares sold at that point are invariably sold at a massive discount compared to what it would be worth once the company is fully operational and earning huge annual revenues.
If NASA, or more importantly, NASA-like practices get involved, you've already lost.If you can get stuff to Mars for $150/kg, and your rover looks anything like curiosity cost-wise, you've lost.(or at least wasted wholly the opportunity)Curiosity cost a couple of billion dollars.For a couple of billion dollars, you can send 500 lightly modified tesla model 3s, as well as a crew to teleoperate them from orbit.(assuming throwaway BFS, if ISRU was working, it's 5000)Curiosity teaches us almost precisely nothing about what is desired for a rover that costs under $100K.It is not repairable, the wheels are fragile little beautiful flowers that shatter on impact, ...In many ways, if the choice is to send such a Rover, over sending 150 tons of water, I'd rather send the water.
Quote from: speedevil on 05/13/2018 10:09 amIf NASA, or more importantly, NASA-like practices get involved, you've already lost.If you can get stuff to Mars for $150/kg, and your rover looks anything like curiosity cost-wise, you've lost.(or at least wasted wholly the opportunity)Curiosity cost a couple of billion dollars.For a couple of billion dollars, you can send 500 lightly modified tesla model 3s, as well as a crew to teleoperate them from orbit.(assuming throwaway BFS, if ISRU was working, it's 5000)Curiosity teaches us almost precisely nothing about what is desired for a rover that costs under $100K.It is not repairable, the wheels are fragile little beautiful flowers that shatter on impact, ...In many ways, if the choice is to send such a Rover, over sending 150 tons of water, I'd rather send the water.Agreed.What most people are mistaking is that it's not really valid to compare the Lunar Rover or the previous Mars rovers with anything that SpaceX will put on Mars. The previous vehicles were both mass-limited and volume-limited, so they had to be super light and fold up like complex mechanical origami puzzles to make the transit and and survive landing.If BFR performs as expected, it removes a massive amount of complexity and cost to designing things like rovers and solar panels for Mars. You still want to optimize both mass and volume, but the problem is an order of magnitude simpler when your mass budget is massively increased.
Quote from: robert_d on 05/13/2018 12:14 pmIf they don't start designing and building stuff soon, even 2024 might come and go with a BFR available without a payload.2022 is some time away.Recently, it was stated the ambition is to get F9 down to $6M/launch incremental costs.Even without BFS, 30 tons to Mars injection or so, with refilling of S2 in orbit would be plausible at under $100M/mission, for SpaceX, perhaps entirely without BFS.
Poll: Does SpaceX have an EXECUTABLE plan (both financial and human resources) for the 2017 MarsI have no idea what this poll is asking
Rovers don’t.
The centrally important question is this: Given a product X here on Earth, what should be modified on it to allow Martian use?Thermal is the No 1 issue. Then, lubrication, I guess. Dust, esp. with electric contacts.So, is it possible to develop the universal rover chassis form an existing Tesla product? With robotized recharging. Cranes? Earth movers?The surface Powerpack comes obviously from Tesla Powerpack via redesigning the thermal control.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/13/2018 04:04 pmRovers don’t. Considering the flip-side - automated self-drive automobiles do.
I just hope SpaceX finds the right balance regarding work force management. BFR/S and Mars is a marathon, not a sprint. On the one hand they cannot overwork and burn out their trusted work force which by now has gained unprallelled experience with the Falcons.On the other hand it won't be economically feasible for SpaceX if the project turns into a rudderless slow-moving money pit. Governments can sustain that, not private companies.I think Human Resources will be the key for this endeavour. SpaceX will have to ensure sustainable work force management. They can't just wing it.
Cash flow for all those items is perfectly on topic. The only reason SpaceX can afford this stuff (particularly well before full Starlink is making a lot of money) is by finding dual uses. BFR has dual use. Rovers don’t. That’s why we have heard a lot more about BFR than rovers. If you start a thread asking why we haven’t heard more about “the rest of the story,” then be prepared for people to answer you.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/13/2018 04:04 pmCash flow for all those items is perfectly on topic. The only reason SpaceX can afford this stuff (particularly well before full Starlink is making a lot of money) is by finding dual uses. BFR has dual use. Rovers don’t. That’s why we have heard a lot more about BFR than rovers. If you start a thread asking why we haven’t heard more about “the rest of the story,” then be prepared for people to answer you.Please reread the last line of my last post. Am I missing something?
Back when Red Dragon was still a thing, NASA was expressing interest in funding an ISRU demo payload for the second synod. If SpaceX is going to punt on leading development of any item critical to an uncrewed round trip and seek NASA involvement, ISRU would be the top candidate. Batteries, solar modules, and wheeled vehicles seem well within the Musk constellation of technology resources.If SpaceX is really going to hit the 2022 window for the initial cargo missions, then the development process for at least the solar modules needs to be underway by the end of 2019. But I think they'll slip to 2024. So I don't think we'll see any evidence of surface hardware in development for a couple years at least.
I think EM is constantly juggling a big picture of how all his technologies work together, especially for Mars....I think with rovers (and diggers/loaders etc,) he will try to use lightly modified earth based machines. CAT produce teleoporated mining machinery, and have done a project with NASA. ...A version of the Tesla Semi could have a large pressurised cabin, instead of the earth-cab! Assuming all controls except steering are electronic, removing the cab and replacing it would not affect its basic functional design....I agree with the Tesla skate sentiment; it being a good starting point for a utility rover.
I can see that many in the aerospace industry won’t take SpaceX seriously about the BFR until it's flying. The real question is how much flying is required before the BFR becomes a game changer? And by that I mean offers of partnership and large quantities of cash? I suspect that 2-3 might generate some tentative discussions whilst 4 would be the breakthrough point.1.BFS low altitude hops up to 10km2.BFS high altitude hops suborbital3.BFB test flight with recovery. BFS carried and recovered4.BFR orbital mission and return to earth unmanned5.BFR orbital mission with satellite deployment6.BFR manned orbital mission7.BFR refuel in orbit8.BFR manned operation BEO9.BFR unmanned Mars mission10.BFR manned Mars mission
Quote from: speedevil on 05/13/2018 05:02 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 05/13/2018 04:04 pmRovers don’t. Considering the flip-side - automated self-drive automobiles do.There’s not a lot in common. If Tesla made autonomous mining equipment, you’d have a point. It’s a little like saying Tesla should build the octograbber just because the octograbber has wheels.(Also, you cut out too much of the context of my quote so it doesn’t make any sense.)
Quote from: philw1776 on 05/13/2018 04:18 pmPoll: Does SpaceX have an EXECUTABLE plan (both financial and human resources) for the 2017 MarsI have no idea what this poll is askingFor me at least what I was getting at is: SpaceX has stated they have an aspirational goal of landing two cargo BFS's on Mars in 2022 followed boots on the ground in 2024. They no doubt have a plan to accomplish this. The question is, is that plan executable? Meaning: 1. Has SpaceX identified all the funding source(s) needed to accomplish those tasks per the schedule specified? 2 Does SpaceX have a hiring plan that would supplement their existing personnel to accomplish the task(s) within Space? Naturally they can't have 2 without 1 being affirmative. If they can accomplish the aspirational schedule they must have already developed a Program Plan consistent with identified funding. Then they will work that program plan with the resources they have or will have available.Side Point: Please let's keep this a friendly discussion. The poll is just to obtain a consensus opinion of this forum.
Equipment designed for use on Earth, whether made by CAT, Tesla, or Ikea, is way overbuilt for Mars. When everything weighs one-third as much, things do not need to be so strong, and it is a waste of effort to transport the excess mass to Mars. EVERYTHING needs to be redesigned.
I would leave at least 50mT on the table for the first flights. Its always good to have contingency. Rocket are rarely launched at their theoretical maximum payload.
There is also the question if one fully refueled BFS couldn't take more than 150t to Mars..........
Quote from: Slarty1080 on 05/13/2018 11:46 amI can see that many in the aerospace industry won’t take SpaceX seriously about the BFR until it's flying. The real question is how much flying is required before the BFR becomes a game changer? And by that I mean offers of partnership and large quantities of cash? I suspect that 2-3 might generate some tentative discussions whilst 4 would be the breakthrough point.1.BFS low altitude hops up to 10km2.BFS high altitude hops suborbital3.BFB test flight with recovery. BFS carried and recovered4.BFR orbital mission and return to earth unmanned5.BFR orbital mission with satellite deployment6.BFR manned orbital mission7.BFR refuel in orbit8.BFR manned operation BEO9.BFR unmanned Mars mission10.BFR manned Mars missionYou seem to be missing the elephant in the room IMO.All those RFI that NASA issued recently were moon related. So SpaceX landing on the moon with an uncrewed BFS would shake a lot of money trees loose IMO.They could fund the mission by selling 20 tons of moon rocks for example.My opinion is that the gamechanger mission is BFS landing on the moon. Simply because everybody else is fixed to the moon. And there's not that much investment needed to do a lunar demonstration mission, it's 1 booster, 1 BFS landing on the moon and 2 BFS tankers. That's about 10 launches for this mission.And they don't have to have completed R&D for this mission. I would estimate they have to spend 2-3 billion dollars to reach the point where they can land a single BFS on the moon. And once they've demonstrated they can land BFS on the moon, they are able to grab all the money that's thrown around.So even if SpaceX is aiming for Mars, i think a BFS moon landing is the game changer.If that test mission is sucessful, the SAME spaceship could be the one that does the first Mars landing. Label a mission to the moon the "MAIDEN CRUISE" of your Spaceship.Consider that for a statement to the rest of the industry.Those are crazy possibilities...
...I agree, but still think that step 3-4 would be sufficient to prove SpaceX are serious and capable. At that point NASA might well become very keen to speak to SpaceX concerning a "step 8.5 Moon landing option". That would provide a lot of funds as well as practice flights for the BFR.
Pardon my ignorance but would wider tracks/treads (more surface area/more traction) compensate for the lower gravity?
Also all your lubricant will freeze/evaporate on Mars. Not good if you want to use your bulldozer for longer than 5 seconds. Not unsolvable but one of the reasons you cant just go and take one that works on Earth. You need near vacuum/cryogenic capable bearings and lubrication. And better make sure that the sand doesnt eat your gears either..
Quote from: Semmel on 05/14/2018 08:09 pmAlso all your lubricant will freeze/evaporate on Mars. Not good if you want to use your bulldozer for longer than 5 seconds. Not unsolvable but one of the reasons you cant just go and take one that works on Earth. You need near vacuum/cryogenic capable bearings and lubrication. And better make sure that the sand doesnt eat your gears either..My job is to design lubrication free undercarriages. Using non-exotic materials, you can expect 15,000-40,000 machine hours or 1,500-4,000 tram hours before the tracks are worn out. Figure roughly 7,000 hours of work a year and an undercarriage with today's technology would last a synod.**This is only the undercarriage, today's technology uses sealed lubricated final drives to propel the undercarriage.
I didnt know such things exist. I just know that we use at work some cryo/vacuum ball bearings which are gold plated halfs and using ruby balls. Gold because its self lubricating and ruby because its not conductive and does not accidentally weld it self to the bearing halfs. But I guess these fall under exotic materials. Just shows that its not that easy to operate things in (near) vacuum as might be expected living in an atmosphere..
This is an old article but Caterpillar and NASA have done research for Moon equipment:https://www.caterpillar.com/en/news/caterpillarNews/innovation/nasa-caterpillar-collaboration-for-technology-advancement.html
Quote from: Kansan52 on 05/14/2018 08:38 pmThis is an old article but Caterpillar and NASA have done research for Moon equipment:https://www.caterpillar.com/en/news/caterpillarNews/innovation/nasa-caterpillar-collaboration-for-technology-advancement.htmlYes... researched some basic stuff in collaboration with NASA... Mostly autonomous and human remote control of machines... which has reached the market now for sale...But doing earthmoving on the scale we take as "ho-hum" on earth... Will be a "moonshot" to pull off on Mars...The attached is one example of the most efficient way man has found to literally move mountains... I am unable to imagine doing such a project on Mars... as the energy alone needed... staggers the imagination...
It would be sensible to bring only the size you need rather than bringing in something larger than required.
In regards to the poll, I chose "No" because I interpret the question as asking if we have been provided with enough information to determine if SpaceX now has everything they need. I don't think we're likely to ever have all the information we need to say yes.
Quote from: Semmel on 05/14/2018 09:09 pmI didnt know such things exist. I just know that we use at work some cryo/vacuum ball bearings which are gold plated halfs and using ruby balls. Gold because its self lubricating and ruby because its not conductive and does not accidentally weld it self to the bearing halfs. But I guess these fall under exotic materials. Just shows that its not that easy to operate things in (near) vacuum as might be expected living in an atmosphere..No, it doesn't.That is only used because you have contamination concerns.Vacuum greases are routinely available and quite inexpensive.Common greases work more-or less fine if you select ones without volatiles. (strictly speaking, vapour pressure lower than the pressure on Mars)https://www.univarsc.com/products/dow-corning-high-vacuum-grease?variant=43082577351This is only expensive as it's one selected for low vapour pressure and contamination.As a general point, if a hydrocarbon is volatile on Mars, to the point of forming bubbles, then it is a solvent, not a grease.Anything with a boiling point under 150C or so will not boil on Mars at average surface conditions.
Quote from: QuantumG on 05/15/2018 12:15 amIn regards to the poll, I chose "No" because I interpret the question as asking if we have been provided with enough information to determine if SpaceX now has everything they need. I don't think we're likely to ever have all the information we need to say yes.To be honest, I dont even understand the question, so I didnt vote.
Quote from: Semmel on 05/15/2018 07:45 amQuote from: QuantumG on 05/15/2018 12:15 amIn regards to the poll, I chose "No" because I interpret the question as asking if we have been provided with enough information to determine if SpaceX now has everything they need. I don't think we're likely to ever have all the information we need to say yes.To be honest, I dont even understand the question, so I didnt vote.Many have stated that they did not understand the question for the poll. I attempted to explain the question in Reply 63 of this thread. I guess that still was not clear because people still are posting that the question is not clear. Please let me try again to clarify:First I added the poll because some had posted that in their opinion, SpaceX did not have a financial plan to support cargo flights in 2022 and boots on the ground in 2024. There were also posts that SpaceX's manpower was not sufficient to support those flights while also designing and fabricating the necessary Mars ground equipment we all know is also needed. The question simply is to get your opinion as to whether SpaceX will have money and people to make the 2022 & 2024 missions. Example - Me, myself, and I can say I have a plan to land men on Pluto in 2020. Everyone understands no matter what I tell you my plan says it is not executable. No way will I have access to the money, or be able to hire talented staff to achieve that task. Not to mention the physics will not work.SpaceX has stated their aspirational plan is to launch cargo flights in 2022 and men to Mars in 2024. Is that plan executable, meaning is there a complete detailed plan, including all the Mars ground equipment now in place that can achieve those objectives?
Quote from: testguy on 05/15/2018 06:12 pmQuote from: Semmel on 05/15/2018 07:45 amQuote from: QuantumG on 05/15/2018 12:15 amIn regards to the poll, I chose "No" because I interpret the question as asking if we have been provided with enough information to determine if SpaceX now has everything they need. I don't think we're likely to ever have all the information we need to say yes.To be honest, I dont even understand the question, so I didnt vote.Many have stated that they did not understand the question for the poll. I attempted to explain the question in Reply 63 of this thread. I guess that still was not clear because people still are posting that the question is not clear. Please let me try again to clarify:First I added the poll because some had posted that in their opinion, SpaceX did not have a financial plan to support cargo flights in 2022 and boots on the ground in 2024. There were also posts that SpaceX's manpower was not sufficient to support those flights while also designing and fabricating the necessary Mars ground equipment we all know is also needed. The question simply is to get your opinion as to whether SpaceX will have money and people to make the 2022 & 2024 missions. Example - Me, myself, and I can say I have a plan to land men on Pluto in 2020. Everyone understands no matter what I tell you my plan says it is not executable. No way will I have access to the money, or be able to hire talented staff to achieve that task. Not to mention the physics will not work.SpaceX has stated their aspirational plan is to launch cargo flights in 2022 and men to Mars in 2024. Is that plan executable, meaning is there a complete detailed plan, including all the Mars ground equipment now in place that can achieve those objectives?If that is your intention, can you phrase the title of the poll a bit better? I have no idea what it has to do with 2017 for instance. Makes no sense to me at all. Also, some more words wouldnt go amiss.
Got it. I rephrased the question. When I said Mars 2017, I was referring to IAC 2017. Understand why that was not clear.Thanks
The poll is question is ambiguous for me due to the emphasis on EXECUTABLE; its wording implies too many questions for a precise, yes/no answer.- Does SpaceX have a complete and executable plan to achieve IAC 2017's objectives? Yes, I believe it does.- Will SpaceX achieve IAC 2017's objectives? Yes- Will it do so on the timeline outlined at IAC 2017? No, likely not.
Quote from: dglow on 05/15/2018 08:13 pmThe poll is question is ambiguous for me due to the emphasis on EXECUTABLE; its wording implies too many questions for a precise, yes/no answer.- Does SpaceX have a complete and executable plan to achieve IAC 2017's objectives? Yes, I believe it does.- Will SpaceX achieve IAC 2017's objectives? Yes- Will it do so on the timeline outlined at IAC 2017? No, likely not.It appears that many believe this is the correct format for the poll so I changed it. BTW executable to me simply means that it is possible to be achieved. Not that it will be achieved just that it is possible.
- Does SpaceX have a complete and executable plan to achieve IAC 2017's objectives? Yes, I believe it does. - Will SpaceX achieve IAC 2017's objectives including aspirational timeline? Yes. - Will SpaceX do it on the timeline outlined at IAC 2017? No, not likely.
Does SpaceX have a complete and executable plan to achieve IAC 2017's objectives? - Yes, and SpaceX will achieve IAC 2017's objectives including aspirational timeline. - Yes, SpaceX has an executable plan but will NOT do it on the timeline outlined at IAC 2017. - No, SpaceX does not have an executable plan to achieve the goals outlined at IAC 2017 in any reasonable timeline.
UNCLE! The tread morphed into wording of the poll. I changed the poll yet again to "Should the poll be deleted? I voted yes. Please let this poll die a peaceful death. There are more important things to discuss.
Quote from: TomH on 05/15/2018 05:08 amIt would be sensible to bring only the size you need rather than bringing in something larger than required.Very insightful post, thank you.I want to comment on the last sentence only. Given that the plan is a constant upgrade and increase of flights every window too big is probably not really possible. What is not needed now will be needed in 2 or 4 years. It may well be the most efficient option to go as big as possible.
I am curious as to how much research they have done on Mars agriculture. I would think the most pragmatic approach would be to have a person, or working group, to first gather and consolidate research that has already been done on ISS, at universities, research labs for Ag giants like ADM, etc.>
Quote from: TomH on 05/18/2018 06:43 amI am curious as to how much research they have done on Mars agriculture. I would think the most pragmatic approach would be to have a person, or working group, to first gather and consolidate research that has already been done on ISS, at universities, research labs for Ag giants like ADM, etc.>Musks brother Kimball runs Square Roots, a company which is based on promoting the growing produce in shipping containers. Akin to SNC/ORBITEC's VEGGIE on steroids.
Quote from: docmordrid on 05/18/2018 09:20 amQuote from: TomH on 05/18/2018 06:43 amI am curious as to how much research they have done on Mars agriculture. I would think the most pragmatic approach would be to have a person, or working group, to first gather and consolidate research that has already been done on ISS, at universities, research labs for Ag giants like ADM, etc.>Musks brother Kimball runs Square Roots, a company which is based on promoting the growing produce in shipping containers. Akin to SNC/ORBITEC's VEGGIE on steroids.SpaceX had also bought produce from a local (to them) company called Local Roots, which was doing a similar thing.
Mushrooms are grown in unused tunnels under London UK. They would add protein, taste and variety to a Mars diet.
Quote from: DistantTemple on 05/29/2018 12:16 amMushrooms are grown in unused tunnels under London UK. They would add protein, taste and variety to a Mars diet.The nauseating texture, smell and taste of mushrooms would be enough to put me off of colonizing the City of London, let alone an airless frozen desert. Even watney-taters sound more attractive. Please, agriculturists, find something better and save HSF.
Of all the things you can grow on mars, mushrooms are the worst choice for starting. They don't grow on thin air, they need heaps of organic material that they will feed on, the parts you eat are only a small part of the organism, essentially only the parts needed for reproduction.
Of all the things you can grow on mars, mushrooms are the worst choice for starting. They don't grow on thin air, they need heaps of organic material that they will feed on, the parts you eat are only a small part of the organism, essentially only the parts needed for reproduction.>
Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars on 05/29/2018 04:50 amOf all the things you can grow on mars, mushrooms are the worst choice for starting. They don't grow on thin air, they need heaps of organic material that they will feed on, the parts you eat are only a small part of the organism, essentially only the parts needed for reproduction.>The cellulosic and other materials they grow on can be agricultural and other waste, and the leftovers can be composted to grow more crops. So long as their growth chamber is maintained at 1 atmosphere (barring a low pressure genmod) they're quite productive, and a large number of people enjoy them more than a little.
Not the first but as soon as there is production of vegetables. There are plenty of plant parts that can not be eaten and are suitable to grow mushrooms on.
As OP says, take it as given that 2022 cargo, 2024 crew take place:(I'll try not to cover what is already discussed unless I have an additional opinion, or input.)[methane available will be important from the start as if it is available it could change the content of the 2024 mission.Exploration This is really important, and IMO needs some kind of mission in 2020 that no one is suggesting, and at the absolute minimum would be satellites with as high quality cameras as EM can get, and remote sensing for water, methane, and other geology. As this will inform 2022, and 2024. A rover(s) would be worth every effort! If not 2020, then obviously 2022 - several satellites and rovers as discussed...
Of all the things you can grow on mars, mushrooms are the worst choice for starting. They don't grow on thin air, they need heaps of organic material that they will feed on, the parts you eat are only a small part of the organism, essentially only the parts needed for reproduction.With regards to machining equipment: IMO needed to make the tools you forgot to bring (because you didn't think you'd need them), but there's no need to manufacture complex rocket parts. There will be quite a few BFS that will stay on mars at first that can be scavenged for parts.You can possibly even use those expended BFS for habitation purposes after you've brought them to a horizontal position. Cut them in half lengthwise, cover with soil from clearing further landing zones. That gives you some protected space that could maybe be a workshop of sorts.
Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars on 05/29/2018 04:50 amOf all the things you can grow on mars, mushrooms are the worst choice for starting. They don't grow on thin air, they need heaps of organic material that they will feed on, the parts you eat are only a small part of the organism, essentially only the parts needed for reproduction.With regards to machining equipment: IMO needed to make the tools you forgot to bring (because you didn't think you'd need them), but there's no need to manufacture complex rocket parts. There will be quite a few BFS that will stay on mars at first that can be scavenged for parts.You can possibly even use those expended BFS for habitation purposes after you've brought them to a horizontal position. Cut them in half lengthwise, cover with soil from clearing further landing zones. That gives you some protected space that could maybe be a workshop of sorts.Mushrooms: disagree. For many they have the emotion and taste of frying bacon. They remind one of Bilbo Baggins, in his burrow, with round "airlock like" doors, under a mound of sheilding. They naturally fit with living below ground. And since (as I claim above) working towards closed biological cycles and sustainability is a long term goal, including some compost as freight will be legitimate, for that goal and for food contribution. I don't know if it can be dried or vacuum packed and still contain all necessary lifeforms on re-hydration. machining equipment: Agree, forgotten tools etc... Yes there will be an immediate spares facility/junkyard! However IMO SX will plan favoured use of each BFS in advance, and modify that if needed depending on landed condition. I said one BFS needs to be undamaged for return, (that is just the absolute safety minimum) but EM has said they will be reused many times. Losing/scrapping 5 out of 6 in two synods would be a large loss. (and only relevant if significantly damaged, or essential for e.g. permanent ISRU tankage.)"possibly even use those expended BFS" However, if one was to be used as a "permanent" habitable space, rotating it horizontal would be really useful. Breaching the habitation pressure vessel would NOT. And the propellant tanks would be most useful as tanks. The benefits (of rotating horizontal) 1. Entry at ground level(ish).2. large accessible volume 3. Possible to build partial radiation shield over it. 4. Removal of spares like engines will be easier closer to the ground. Hopefully batteries/computers ECLSS, equipment may all still be usable and useful. Drawbacks: 1. Mechanism to rotate it, difficult and time consuming, and risk of damage to the pressure structure. 2. Internal accommodations will have had to be optimised for vertical for initial hab use, and this will have to be modified, wasting manpower. 3. The CF shell is strong for pressure, and flight loads, but not against point loads, or accidental bashes. One significant bash might destroy its safety as a human rated pressure vessel. (unlike a Bigello module that is tough to impacts.) 4. the BSF is permanently retired, when otherwise it may have reentered service in the next synod.IMO I now think the initial BFS/hab will not be compromised, but only be used as habitation until surface HABs are commissioned in the first months, then be overflow/alternative/office/lab space without modifying the BFS. The lack of shielding, vertically optimised interior, and $value as a BFS outweigh its limited horizontal shelter value.edit: and so laying a rock free landing surface is an essential economic element. (- in 2022 before 2024)
snip...Your postsnip...My replyThere's a lot more efficient ways to deal with surplus cellulose materials than mushrooms IMO. I don't think they have the pastime to tinker with growing stuff "organic" on Mars. I guess it's more likely to see heavily "bioengineered" crops, possibly algae etc.Returning BFS: Currently SpaceX is expending Block 4 boosters and has only flown 1 Block 5 booster yet. I'm sure there will be quite some updates during the early years of BFS use. I assume they would treat mars missions as end-of-lifetime missions for the first few synods. The first BFS to (try to) land on mars will probably be a partially upgraded prototype.I think what will definitely be needed for the "early mars days" will be some shirtsleeve workshop for working on automated rovers and crewed rovers. I can't see this done with EVA suits. Construction equipment on earth has some really high maintenance needs. I don't think you will be able to design stuff for mars that simply won't break down.To bring an empty BFS into horizontal position, you might just need some winches and cables if you can get appropriate anchor points (here's a showing the principle)