View Full Version : So who would fly on one of these... (Elon Musk and the BFR)
turnburglar
10-03-17, 11:41
Last Friday at the IAC space conference in Australia Elon Musk announced his future plans for the SpaceX product line. First there was the Falcon 1. Then came the Falcon 9. Soon we may see the Falcon Heavy set off for the stars. In the next 5 years, Elon hopes to fly the BFR. Im pretty sure that means Big Falcon(?) Rocket? Not only will the BFR out lift the legendary moon mover the Saturn V, but it is supposed to be a first in propulsive landing, crew capacity, and 100% reusability. Basically Elon is the first to build humanities first reusable space craft. Capabilities of the BFR include: 150 tons to low earth orbit, lunar missions, 50 tons to mars(?), and 30 minutes to anywhere on planet earth. Thats right, he is planning on using these things like a boeing 747 and doing trips from hong kong to LA in half an hour. In the presentation he doesn't mention pricing, but on his personal instagram account he said seats would cost a smudge more than economy currently costs.
What do you guys think? Personally I am a HUGE space fan and anything to promote human space flight the better. Sending robots all over the solar system is cool, but without Boots on the Ground I just don't see anyone getting inspired like we where during the Apollo era.
SpaceX official(45 minutes of Mr. Musk talking):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdUX3ypDVwI
Answer's With Joe (9 minute break down):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRpcjRd3tQo&t=511s
I will let someone else pay to get Challenger'd or Columbia'd.
I haven't lost anything in space and if the six foot 4 inch tall, green haired amazons in bikini armor want me bad enough, they will come to me.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-03-17, 12:32
Elon has to tickle the fancy and the light fantastic somehow, but frankly, with lay flat seats, I don’t mind long flights. 17hr EWR-BOM is like sleeping for 17 hours. And for how much? Might be cheaper to move Hong Kong closer.
turnburglar
10-03-17, 14:17
Elon has to tickle the fancy and the light fantastic somehow, but frankly, with lay flat seats, I don’t mind long flights. 17hr EWR-BOM is like sleeping for 17 hours. And for how much? Might be cheaper to move Hong Kong closer.
Just the cost of a tank of Methane and a tank of Oxygen. The ENTIRE rocket is COMPLETELY reusable. No 2nd stages with expensive motors falling in the ocean or million dollar fairings that get discarded. In fact methane and Oxygen are some of THE cheapest fuels around. **** you OPEC.
I would fly in one. After a few years of proven safety.
There is a big push for Mars right not, coming from NASA, Elon, EAS etc. I don't get it. I can see congress funding a mars expedition once for the journey there, 3-4 days exploring-collecting samples and then returning to earth but once they discover that the Mars project cost $3 trillion for some rocks and dirt, it will never happen again. Same reason we don't go to the moon anymore, it cost a fortune and there is absolutely no benefit to humanity.
I don't know about that elephant. There's a lot of people that should be sent to both Mars and the Moon for the benefit of humanity!
NYH1.
turnburglar
10-05-17, 12:41
I don't think Mars is the ideal first staging ground for humanity. Personally I think our efforts need to be focused on the Moon and then Mercury for the most efficient manifestation of our solar system.
Elephant- The way the Mars-Earth transfer periods line up: you can't do a "3-4 day mission" to mars. Iirc its either a month or 2 year stay until you can come back to earth. Also I hate to bear false witness, but I think Elon is being overly optimistic when he says a trip to mars will only take 3 months. I don't know what Delta V he is using in that figure, but from other reputable sources (the cosmic train schedule) Mars trips take anywhere from 6 to 9 full months. Personally I don't think mars is doable until we can bring our power with us. We don't even need full blown fusion technology, just a good portable thermal nuclear generator would be nice. Unfortunately we kinda have a ban on flying gear like that.
I don't think Mars is the ideal first staging ground for humanity. Personally I think our efforts need to be focused on the Moon and then Mercury for the most efficient manifestation of our solar system.
I don't think humans are ever going to do anything on Mercury.
turnburglar
10-05-17, 14:58
I don't think humans are ever going to do anything on Mercury.
Why not? It makes the perfect staging ground for an inter solar hub with a year lasting only 88 days, where Mars has a 640(?) day year?The way that the Hohmann transfer method works: the planet moving fastest around its sun has more 'windows' to fly out of to the other planets relative to a year. I could fly from Earth to mercury, then to mars faster than just earth to mars. I know the surface temperature seems steep, but when you get to Mercury's North pole you have an abundant supply of water ice and a much more friendly -90C to -170C. Mercury is also probably one of the richest planets in the system. It's small size produces a ton of gravity meaning it is very dense in metals.
Im in the process of writing a paper actually on how we would 'do' Mercury, and the technological requirements aren't that far off from what it would take to do the moon. Think of Mercury as the most strategic position in the solar system if your whole goal is to fit trillions of humans around our star.
Unmanned missions are the way of the future. Send a drone to mars, collect samples, return samples to earth. End of story. We landed on the moon, which was a great achievement for the US considering the USSR beat us to space. There is absolutely no benefit or value to manned mission visiting Mars, Mercury, Uranus, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune, Venus, asteroids or comets etc. If the science community wasn't hell bent on evolution and searching the cosmos for early signs of the big bang and alien life, space exploration might have some value, I could see sending out a unmanned space ship to collect samples from Mercury, Mars and Venus and maybe some atmospheric samples of Jupiter and Saturn.
Landing a man on Mars will never be as big as landing a man on the moon. The Gemini and Apollo era was built on the greatest minds, mathematicians, scientist and engineers in this country. Men with slide rules, pencils and vellum and drafting tables not high powered super computers with AutoCAD and advanced simulation and stress analysis.
In todays times, it wouldn't be a man who first step foot on mars anyway. Liberals along with the science community would want someone gay, trans, but most likely a woman to be the first.
Diamondback
10-13-17, 17:19
Why not Mercury? Too damn hot... an atmosphere that melts lead is No Bueno for human habitation. Venus looks pretty bleak too.
Best bets would be the Moon, and establishing forward bases on some of the bigger 'roids out in the Belt.
Take a ride? Meh, I'm holding out for my own personal Star Destroyer--and I don't mean one of those pansy little ones from the craptastic Prequel Trilogy. :)
there is a reason no humans are on the other planets :)
no desire at all to go live inside some station with no camping no outside etc..
militarymoron
10-13-17, 23:01
The other day, Leanne Caret (President/CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security) mentioned the intention to send the SLS to Mars.
http://fortune.com/2017/10/11/boeing-mars-rocket/
The other day, Leanne Caret (President/CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security) mentioned the intention to send the SLS to Mars.
http://fortune.com/2017/10/11/boeing-mars-rocket/
I think Mars is a big PR stunt so NASA can get more funding. the SLS mission was to resupply the ISI and heavy lifting, not interplanetary transportation. Going to the moon was a national commitment that ate up a lot of recourses and forced Northrop, Grumman, North American, NASA, USAF, MIT, Caltech, UCLA, Texas Tech, and rice to make a 100% contribution from 1961 to 1970. The US simply does NOT have the capital to fund a Mars mission. We would need $3 trillion a year for 4 consecutive years ($12 trillion) to make a Mars mission happen. I say lets pay off some debt first. NASA has already stated that need to build a vessel that could take a crew of 30+ from LEO to Mars (9 months) and bring enough supplies for 30 months including a Mars habitat that would need to be assembled from smaller sub assemblies (not happening). Its fantasy!! Just like global warming and 76 genders!! Going to mars aint going to happen, going back to the mood aint going to happen unsless a private corporation does so.
Diamondback
10-14-17, 01:46
Going to the Moon, Mars and the outer solar system HAVE to happen as a matter of both species survival and natural resources. Unless you'd rather tell our generations of descendants to just sit here on this rock 'til the sun goes Red Giant and crispy-critters everything...
The sooner we begin colonization and terraforming, the sooner we have a dispersed "gene bank" so that if things go to hell here the species can continue elsewhere, or maybe our other settlemnts can send help.
We definitely need to start opening space up to private industrial operations, mining and manufacturing and yes even suborbital commutes and orbital tourism, rather than just letting the pure scientists have it as their private playground.
turnburglar
10-15-17, 20:49
I get a really good chuckle seeing all of these: "humans are staying on earth" comments. Im sure the idea of crossing the Atlantic seemed impossible too....
And I don't know where such accurate figures of $12 trillion for a 30 man crew came from.... but shit I'd saying advancing humanity to a full blown interplanetary species is atleast as useful as nation building activities in the middle east. Elon and many other Billionaires are taking a serious interest in privatizing spaceflight IE MAKE A PROFIT OFF SPACE TRAVEL. To me that sounds way more hopeful than: "only the guberment is capable enough to get it done..."
Also Im pretty sure from the get go SLS block II had ideas of taking Orion capsules into a mars orbit.
Really surprised, on this forum especially, that it hasn’t been mentioned...
For our continued military superiority, space tech advancement is CRITICAL.
I never consider space travel development “waste”, for that reason.
Diamondback
10-16-17, 07:08
Really surprised, on this forum especially, that it hasn’t been mentioned...
For our continued military superiority, space tech advancement is CRITICAL.
I never consider space travel development “waste”, for that reason.
Space: not just the Final Frontier, but also The Ultimate High Ground.
Space: not just the Final Frontier, but also The Ultimate High Ground.
And don't forget that planets can't dodge.
Diamondback
10-16-17, 18:46
And don't forget that planets can't dodge.
Base Delta Zero is generally just a LITTLE excessive, don't you think? :)
Base Delta Zero is generally just a LITTLE excessive, don't you think? :)
Excessive? Nah. A bit too generous if you ask me. :cool:
High density projectiles sent it from the outer system at relativistic speeds is much better and gets the point across more clearly. :D
Full glassing!
I don't think humans are ever going to do anything on Mercury.
But it's a dry heat.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.