BluestarE3
Active Member
Didn't Elon say at one time that this could be achieved relatively quickly by setting off a bunch of nuclear explosions but, obviously, this wasn't an acceptable option?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The event's video is already de-listed from SpaceX and is no longer public for some reason. Only people who has the direct link can still see it. Not sure why they do that. But just in case, here is the link to the video. There are tons of great graphics/charts/diagrams that is very useful.
oops, looks like they just uploaded an even better version of the video in 4k.
note there is also a date of 2018 for the first ship to depart looking closely at timelines, perhaps as a scout and to rescue Mark Watney
He did but I don't think he was saying that was the best choice to warm up Mars.
Yes but that is a Crew Dragon capsule and it won't be manned.
Here is a link to an article that has all of the slides from the presentation:
Slides: Elon Musk unveils SpaceX Mars Architecture – Spaceflight101
Also, since the Q&A went into left field and was so short, Elon had a conference call with space reporters after his presentation. He went into a lot of the detail he said he would cover in the Q&A but never got a chance to do. The details have yet to surface but there is more information to come.
Here is one of them:
Slides: Elon Musk unveils SpaceX Mars Architecture – Spaceflight101
Also, since the Q&A went into left field and was so short, Elon had a conference call with space reporters after his presentation. He went into a lot of the detail he said he would cover in the Q&A but never got a chance to do. The details have yet to surface but there is more information to come.
Here is one of them:
Last edited:
jerjozwik
Active Member
"...it will take lives" got me thinking more about how musk insist the radiation problem is not a deal breaker. could it be a round about way of saying that some people might get cancer from the trip, but in the grand scheme of things it does not really matter?
I think he has missed a trick to set an example and use zero emissions (in this case hydrogen) for the booster stage. Yes he said they did a trade off but what was presented was overly simplistic and looked at the choice of propellants for all stages of the mission. Nothing wrong with using different ones for each stage.
Yes we want methane for Mars because it's easy to make there and actually warming the place up is no bad thing, but can you imagine 50,000+ flights of that 10000 tonne booster spewing CO2 everywhere? Perhaps that's really why Tesla exists, to sell credits to use to offset SpaceX...
Yes we want methane for Mars because it's easy to make there and actually warming the place up is no bad thing, but can you imagine 50,000+ flights of that 10000 tonne booster spewing CO2 everywhere? Perhaps that's really why Tesla exists, to sell credits to use to offset SpaceX...
I think he has missed a trick to set an example and use zero emissions (in this case hydrogen) for the booster stage. Yes he said they did a trade off but what was presented was overly simplistic and looked at the choice of propellants for all stages of the mission. Nothing wrong with using different ones for each stage.
Yes we want methane for Mars because it's easy to make there and actually warming the place up is no bad thing, but can you imagine 50,000+ flights of that 10000 tonne booster spewing CO2 everywhere? Perhaps that's really why Tesla exists, to sell credits to use to offset SpaceX...
CO2 + 2H20 --energy-> CH4 + 2O2
CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H20
Plus, he wants reusable rockets, which is made a lot easier by using methane instead of hydrogen.
It's all about the energy supply.
The same trick for making Methane on Mars can work on Earth; taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere makes it carbon neutral.I think he has missed a trick to set an example and use zero emissions (in this case hydrogen) for the booster stage. Yes he said they did a trade off but what was presented was overly simplistic and looked at the choice of propellants for all stages of the mission. Nothing wrong with using different ones for each stage.
Yes we want methane for Mars because it's easy to make there and actually warming the place up is no bad thing, but can you imagine 50,000+ flights of that 10000 tonne booster spewing CO2 everywhere? Perhaps that's really why Tesla exists, to sell credits to use to offset SpaceX...
One of the questions was about "did you consider a cycling(? That's what I thought I heard) approach?" I didn't understand the question, and Elon's reply assumed the audience knew what it was, so that meant nothing to me either. Can anyone give me a pointer?
So, I wonder how the folks at NASA feel about Elon's plan? I can imagine that it's quite disheartening for all of the aspiring scientists and engineers who are working there to see their dreams and vision being usurped by an outside company.
It would be easy enough for them to laugh SpaceX and Musk off, but for the fact that he's actually succeeded in converting many of his prior wild-eyed ideas into reality. Who on earth ever would have thought, a decade ago, that in 2016 you'd have a private company completely upending the near-earth space industry, doing things that only a select few nations have done, and other things that have never been done. If anybody is laughing they're not laughing too hard.
I feel a bit sorry for the good and great people within NASA.
It would be easy enough for them to laugh SpaceX and Musk off, but for the fact that he's actually succeeded in converting many of his prior wild-eyed ideas into reality. Who on earth ever would have thought, a decade ago, that in 2016 you'd have a private company completely upending the near-earth space industry, doing things that only a select few nations have done, and other things that have never been done. If anybody is laughing they're not laughing too hard.
I feel a bit sorry for the good and great people within NASA.
Similar threads
