• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Merged SpaceX’s Starship Rocket Explodes After Launch/Starship hop

Robots are so much easier. They run on pure energy. Humans run on energy that has to be transformed inefficiently multiple times.

Robots are gay less susceptible to cosmic radiation. The cities portrayed on the SpaceX website are not radiation proof. The ISS is not exposed to the full force of cosmic radiation.

Robots don't care about low gravity. We have no idea what the effects of long term low gravity are on a population.

You can send an email to book a place on a mission to Mars on the SpaceX website.

Sure, I agree with all of that. For most purposes, I think robotic missions are preferable to manned missions. There is one class of mission that I think requires humans, though, and that's "human exploration". If the point is to send humans to Mars, then you need to send humans. Why would you make that your goal? That's a different discussion*, but given that many people see it as a goal in its own right, it's not a goal that can be achieved with robotic missions.

*One example, is that there are people who want to go to Mars. If they want to go to Mars, that's not a desire that can be sated by any achievement of robots. Some other people just want to see other humans on Mars. You may not see either of these desires as valuable, but that's a discussion about other people's values.
 
At the moment I don't see that SpaceX is doing the necessary R&D to make a manned flight even to Mars orbit possible. Yes they appear to be doing an excellent job at reducing the resources necessary to get things off the Earth but that is one of the simpler - and yes simpler is very relative here - tasks that needs to be accomplished.
 
I agree that 2029 seems unlikely, but unless there's a great power war in the meantime, I'd be willing to bet that we get the first humans to set foot on Mars by 2040.

I can't see it happening. We haven't even begun to solve the physiological issues with extended exposure to low and no G environments. We haven't seriously looked at the logistical problems or the psychological problems that we know will cause serious troubles.

And a company like spacex doesn't even come close to being able to solve these issues, I don't believe that if the US strained every sinew to solve the problem they would be able to do it. It is likely to take a worldwide effort just to make the first journey possible.
 
Nah, it's just it would take worldwide effort to make the trip safely. That's not how progress was made in the past though. If you allow one way trips, disregard damage to health, and allow for high chance of sudden unexpected death, on the level of sea explorer voyages of the past, it's IMHO quite doable.
 
At the moment I don't see that SpaceX is doing the necessary R&D to make a manned flight even to Mars orbit possible. Yes they appear to be doing an excellent job at reducing the resources necessary to get things off the Earth but that is one of the simpler - and yes simpler is very relative here - tasks that needs to be accomplished.

They're only very slightly reducing the amount of fuel to get out of earth orbit with their plan. And that involves using very complicated systems and processes (some of which, like fuel transfer at low G, they haven't even begun to start solving) which make failure more likely. Of their four trips to low orbit two didn't get there, the third entered low orbit height in an uncontrolled manner and crash landed and the fourth barely got back with severe failures. And all this for something that we already have a good solution for.
 
They're only very slightly reducing the amount of fuel to get out of earth orbit with their plan. And that involves using very complicated systems and processes (some of which, like fuel transfer at low G, they haven't even begun to start solving) which make failure more likely. Of their four trips to low orbit two didn't get there, the third entered low orbit height in an uncontrolled manner and crash landed and the fourth barely got back with severe failures. And all this for something that we already have a good solution for.

You'll note it got a bit better every time. I think that's the point.

Yes, we have a solution for single use capsules. NASA had a solution for the shuttle but it didn't actually work very well at all. Everything else has had ablative heat shields. i.e. non-reusable.


You're right about the refueling and all the other Mars related shenanigans.
 
They're only very slightly reducing the amount of fuel to get out of earth orbit with their plan. And that involves using very complicated systems and processes (some of which, like fuel transfer at low G, they haven't even begun to start solving) which make failure more likely. Of their four trips to low orbit two didn't get there, the third entered low orbit height in an uncontrolled manner and crash landed and the fourth barely got back with severe failures. And all this for something that we already have a good solution for.

One thing at a time, yeah? SpaceX is busy enough right now, just working on the basic Starship flight regime. Plenty of opportunities to work on orbital refueling, once Starship is flying regularly.

Personally, I think it's a damn shame that because Musk is the only one talking about orbital refueling, you (and others) seem to have decided figuring it out is SpaceX's job and nobody else's.

I think orbital refueling is a must have, for the next era of space exploration. I think it's a goddamn travesty that NASA is focused on putting humans back on the moon, instead of developing the infrastructure and know-how for orbital refueling.

You want global cooperation in space? That's where it should be: Building out an orbital shipyard for everyone to use. Stop holding Musk responsible for everyone else's lack of vision.
 
At the moment I don't see that SpaceX is doing the necessary R&D to make a manned flight even to Mars orbit possible. Yes they appear to be doing an excellent job at reducing the resources necessary to get things off the Earth but that is one of the simpler - and yes simpler is very relative here - tasks that needs to be accomplished.

What exposure do we really have to what SpaceX does? Well, mostly it's from when they actually launch stuff. And they aren't launching stuff for a manned mission to Mars. So we've got little to no idea what they may or may not be doing about that.

But supposing you're right, so what? Getting stuff off the ground and into space is still a prerequisite. And doing it FAR cheaper than we could with older stuff is also basically a prerequisite (otherwise a Mars mission will simply be too expensive even if technically feasible). And since any solution they develop for the particulars of a manned mission to Mars are going to depend on the constraints of their launch vehicle, working out the details of that launch vehicle before they sink too many resources into the rest seems sensible to me. And they've got finite resources available to work on this stuff. If you just hire twice as many people, you won't get twice as much done.

Now, maybe (again, only a maybe, we don't know what they're doing behind closed doors) they're losing time by not working on that stuff more now, but... meh. If it takes longer to get to Mars than some have predicted, that's OK.
 
At the moment I don't see that SpaceX is doing the necessary R&D to make a manned flight even to Mars orbit possible. Yes they appear to be doing an excellent job at reducing the resources necessary to get things off the Earth but that is one of the simpler - and yes simpler is very relative here - tasks that needs to be accomplished.

What exposure do we really have to what SpaceX does? Well, mostly it's from when they actually launch stuff. And they aren't launching stuff for a manned mission to Mars. So we've got little to no idea what they may or may not be doing about that.

But supposing you're right, so what? Getting stuff off the ground and into space is still a prerequisite. And doing it FAR cheaper than we could with older stuff is also basically a prerequisite (otherwise a Mars mission will simply be too expensive even if technically feasible). And since any solution they develop for the particulars of a manned mission to Mars are going to depend on the constraints of their launch vehicle, working out the details of that launch vehicle before they sink too many resources into the rest seems sensible to me. And they've got finite resources available to work on this stuff. If you just hire twice as many people, you won't get twice as much done.

Now, maybe (again, only a maybe, we don't know what they're doing behind closed doors) they're losing time by not working on that stuff more now, but... meh. If it takes longer to get to Mars than some have predicted, that's OK.

Meanwhile, my opinion is very little such R&D is necessary at this time. And most of it is already being done, or will soon be being done, by others, starting with the ISS.
 
You'll note it got a bit better every time. I think that's the point.

Yes, we have a solution for single use capsules. NASA had a solution for the shuttle but it didn't actually work very well at all. Everything else has had ablative heat shields. i.e. non-reusable.


You're right about the refueling and all the other Mars related shenanigans.


There is a point at which the iterative method breaks. The time required to physically set up a Mars colony means that they don't just send up more people to die every few years as the existing colony fails.
 
There is a point at which the iterative method breaks. The time required to physically set up a Mars colony means that they don't just send up more people to die every few years as the existing colony fails.

"The iterative method" with respect to manned spaceflight has never been "send up untested crewed vehicles, watch people die, figure out what went wrong, repeat". And that is not anyone's plan for mars.

For instance, there are plans for Starship to carry passengers to orbit and beyond. But the way to get there is first to test the vehicle with unmanned flights. Currently we're in the "test the vehicle without expensive cargo" phase because it doesn't make sense to even risk someone's expensive satellite or space probe or resupply for the ISS on a vehicle that will probably explode. Only once they've iterated enough on this test phase and are confident in a high success rate will they be flying cargo. Only once they've flown cargo quite a bit and have greater confidence in the safety of the vehicle will it be used for passenger missions. Those missions will require some technical changes, but those changes will also be tested before they are used for actual manned missions.

Expect the same for any crewed missions to Mars. You'll have to fly to supplies to Mars prior to any crew landing there, so the same vehicle and landing technique can be applied to those supply missions and the "iterative method" can be applied in that way. Etc.
 
You are narrowly focused on the rocket physically making it there. AUP specifically was talking about an existing colony failing.
 
You are narrowly focused on the rocket physically making it there.

And correctly so! That is where the focus should be, as its the first step.

AUP specifically was talking about an existing colony failing.

As Tom Hanks's character said in Apollo 13... "There's a thousand things that have to happen in order. We are on number eight. You're talking about number 692"

But hey, as for failing, I see Boeing's Starliner is in a spot of bother, stranding its crew on teh ISS for an extra couple of weeks. Its very likely that SpaceX are quietly prepping for a Dragon rescue mission - I will LMAO if that happens, and the haters' will lose their ******* minds as their collective heads explode!!

ETA: I'm not rejoining the discussion, I'm just calling out the bollocks!
 
Last edited:
And correctly so! That is where the focus should be, as its the first step.



As Tom Hanks's character said in Apollo 13... "There's a thousand things that have to happen in order. We are on number eight. You're talking about number 692"

But hey, as for failing, I see Boeing's Starliner is in a spot of bother, stranding its crew on teh ISS for an extra couple of weeks. Its very likely that SpaceX are quietly prepping for a Dragon rescue mission - I will LMAO if that happens, and the haters' will lose their ******* minds as their collective heads explode!!

ETA: I'm not rejoining the discussion, I'm just calling out the bollocks!
But you aren't. You say you have high quality evidence from other forums but refuse to provide any of it. All you do is call bollocks.

I don't think there are any Boeing fanboys here. You are creating a false dichotomy.

Boeing lost the plot years ago when the executives decided that engineers were a commodity and they only existed trip enrich shareholders.

The crewdragon will be going up on a Falcon.


You also have to plan ahead for the possibilities. This isn't about attempting to hack a solution to disaster. The problem of cosmic radiation has to be addressed. What's the point of eventually developing a rocket that can get people to Mars, but they are going to be made sick or die from radiation. It's pointless.
 
Last edited:
"Dear Moon" project cancelled.


https://dearmoon.earth/


In 2018, Yusaku Maezawa announced dearMoon, the world’s first civilian circumlunar voyage
aboard SpaceX’s space vehicle, Starship. The plan had included artists from around the
world who would participate in the project to share the invaluable experience in space with
the rest of the world. Arrangements were being made with SpaceX to target the launch
by the end of 2023.
Unfortunately, however, launch within 2023 became unfeasible, and without clear schedule
certainty in the near-term, it is with a heavy heart that Maezawa made the unavoidable
decision to cancel the project. To all who have supported this project and looked forward to
this endeavor, we sincerely appreciate it and apologize for this outcome.
Although dearMoon is cancelled, Maezawa and dearMoon crew members will continue to
challenge themselves in their respective fields.
We will hold deep respect for SpaceX as they continue to venture into uncharted territories,
while we ourselves will move on to the next challenge.
 
What exposure do we really have to what SpaceX does? Well, mostly it's from when they actually launch stuff. And they aren't launching stuff for a manned mission to Mars. So we've got little to no idea what they may or may not be doing about that.

Musk is not known for being quiet about what he is doing, the opposite, indeed this strand of discussion is predicated on him telling us what he plans to do! There is no reason to assume he has decided to never mention other research his companies are doing to get people to Mars (and of course who he hires is closely watched and he hasn't hired people with the necessary qualifications nor experience - that is from memory from an article from a few years ago of course you may have more up to date information on his latest hires).


But supposing you're right, so what? ...snip....

Because it takes more than a rocket to get people safely to Mars therefore if we are discussing the likelihood of a prediction as to when we will get people to Mars we must look at the complete trip, not just one part of the trip.
 
Because it takes more than a rocket to get people safely to Mars therefore if we are discussing the likelihood of a prediction as to when we will get people to Mars we must look at the complete trip, not just one part of the trip.

And? That stuff needs to get done before we go to Mars, but you haven’t said why it needs to be done now, and by SpaceX. Do you think NASA won’t be involved?
 
And? That stuff needs to get done before we go to Mars, but you haven’t said why it needs to be done now, and by SpaceX. Do you think NASA won’t be involved?

Such research takes years, if they are not doing the research now then it adds years onto any possible successful i.e. safe flight. I can't find anything that Musk has said that he would be relying on research from other organisations - have you such quotes?
 
Such research takes years,

And? We aren’t on a time limit here. Plus, as I already pointed out, SpaceX has finite resources to allocate to development, it makes sense to focus those resources on more immediate needs first.

I can't find anything that Musk has said that he would be relying on research from other organisations - have you such quotes?

Again, do you think NASA won’t be involved? Musk hasn’t said they’ll do it all on their own either, so if you want to read into silence, well….
 
And? That stuff needs to get done before we go to Mars, but you haven’t said why it needs to be done now, and by SpaceX. Do you think NASA won’t be involved?

They both have to be solved before we get to Mars. Why the rocket before the radiation? How can you even plan the rocket if you don't know what the radiation solution is?

 
Last edited:
They both have to be solved before we get to Mars. Why the rocket before the radiation?

Because there are other things that you can do with the rocket besides Mars, and do them much faster and sooner and even profitably. For example, SpaceX is already planning on using Starship to launch Starlink satellites more cheaply. No radiation solution required.
 
Plus, as I said before, there's other motivated parties working on the radiation angle. Might as well focus on the more-immediately-profitable rocket part while you wait to see what they bring to the table.

Depending on what they come up with, you might incorporate it into newer versions of Starship, or you might build a Starship-derived rocket that includes it.
 
And correctly so! That is where the focus should be, as its the first step.



As Tom Hanks's character said in Apollo 13... "There's a thousand things that have to happen in order. We are on number eight. You're talking about number 692"

That's your answer? We shouldn't talk about it because it's too far in the future to worry about right now, despite it being such a crucial question that it could render all the preparatory work moot?

For what it's worth, we already have rockets that can take things to Mars and leave them there. SpaceX is testing its very own specific solution, but that's by choice; holistically, the technology exists and has been used for decades. So no, I don't think SpaceX getting its proprietary rocket working is something we need to wait for before we can discuss things like the practical viability of a Mars colony.

But this seems to be a propensity among fans of Musk's specific personally-advertised vision, to handwave concerns and questions with an appeal to faith. It will somehow be solved in the future, therefore it's not really a problem, therefore we don't need to engage with it. Look over here at the shiny rocket.
 
We go to Mars so we don't have to pay taxes.

An actual colony, ie.. something self-sufficient on Mars is indeed impossible for generations to come.
And no one has suggested a way in which such a colony could pay for itself.
It certainly shouldn't be a priority target for resource allocation.
 
That's your answer? We shouldn't talk about it because it's too far in the future to worry about right now, despite it being such a crucial question that it could render all the preparatory work moot?

Nobody said that. All anyone is saying is that it's not a problem if SoaceX isn't working on it right now. Even if it proves an intractable problem, Starship has other uses, so work on starship won't go to waste. Discuss it all you want, nobody objects to that.
 
They both have to be solved before we get to Mars. Why the rocket before the radiation? How can you even plan the rocket if you don't know what the radiation solution is?

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_60266747a41646aa.png[/qimg]

The last time I looked into it the expected exposure over a return mission to Mars is approximately the lifetime radiation exposure that NASA already allows for their astronauts. This certainly means some increased risk of death, but it doesn't mean a mission to Mars is not feasible. No one said going to Mars isn't dangerous. There is also the risk of a major solar flare happening during the trip, but there are already plausible solutions to that problem, such as astronauts sheltering behind the mission's supplies (which will include a relatively large amount of water) for the duration of the event. You don't need massive shielding for the whole ship, just enough for a small room.

Maybe these concerns are a good reason to support the Gateway, manned missions to the moon, and other intermediate goals, which will be exposed to the risk of both more cosmic rays, solar radiation, and solar flares, than ISS which is still protected by the earth's magnetosphere. But that actually seems to be the path we're on.
 
The last time I looked into it the expected exposure over a return mission to Mars is approximately the lifetime radiation exposure that NASA already allows for their astronauts. This certainly means some increased risk of death, but it doesn't mean a mission to Mars is not feasible. No one said going to Mars isn't dangerous. There is also the risk of a major solar flare happening during the trip, but there are already plausible solutions to that problem, such as astronauts sheltering behind the mission's supplies (which will include a relatively large amount of water) for the duration of the event. You don't need massive shielding for the whole ship, just enough for a small room.

Maybe these concerns are a good reason to support the Gateway, manned missions to the moon, and other intermediate goals, which will be exposed to the risk of both more cosmic rays, solar radiation, and solar flares, than ISS which is still protected by the earth's magnetosphere. But that actually seems to be the path we're on.
Which is about what I guessed for the technology capabilities that are being designed. Get a man there and back. No extended mission and it's their only mission. That is nothing like what Musk is projecting.
 
I agree that 2029 seems unlikely, but unless there's a great power war in the meantime, I'd be willing to bet that we get the first humans to set foot on Mars by 2040.

I'm pretty certain that won't happen. I also doubt we'll have humans returning to the moon before the 2030s. But I'm more certain about Mars.
 
Last edited:
Which is about what I guessed for the technology capabilities that are being designed. Get a man there and back. No extended mission and it's their only mission. That is nothing like what Musk is projecting.

Once you're on the surface the options for radiation shielding become much more viable. The journey itself is hazardous but doable. Living on the surface is also hazardous but doable and the radiation risks in particular can be mitigated (mostly because you can live under some regolith). Even the thin atmosphere of Mars does offer some protection.
 
I'm pretty certain that won't happen. I also doubt we'll have humans returning to the moon before the 2030s. But I'm more certain about Mars.

Well, as I said I do think this is a reasonable position, even if its not the one I share.

What sort of odds do you put on your confidence here? "pretty certain" seems to me to be in the 90+% range, but maybe you mean something more like 70-80%?
 
Like, 95%+ range. A common test for statistical significance used in science is greater than 95% confidence.

I don't think people fully appreciate all of the technological challenges for a trip to Mars and back. Assuming this also includes actually landing on the surface and returning. (You did say "set foot on" Mars so I assume that you mean literally putting a human on the surface of the planet.)

We have gone to the moon before but that is a much shorter journey. My confidence on that prediction is more like 80%. It's much more doable, but a lot of the necessary equipment hasn't been built yet, such as a lunar lander. The scheme for refueling in orbit is also unproven. These timelines always take longer than originally proposed. The JWST was supposed to launch in 2010. It finally launched near the end of 2021.

I think it's a real possibility that the Chinese will land a person on the moon before the Artemis mission does. (Which they plan to do in 2030).
 
It partly depends on what you are trying to achieve. Artiemis is supposed to be part of a generalised space exploration infrastructure. The Apollo project was optimised for getting a man on the moon.


The Saturn 5 was optimised for a moon landing, Starship is a general purpose heavy lift vehicle.
 
Nobody said that. All anyone is saying is that it's not a problem if SoaceX isn't working on it right now. Even if it proves an intractable problem, Starship has other uses, so work on starship won't go to waste. Discuss it all you want, nobody objects to that.

Well somebody does; I mean, I made that post in response to someone telling me it's not important enough to discuss, after all.
 
Musk is clearly more interested in having sex and children with his subordinates than taking care of his companies.
He is just like every Cult Leader: it's all just so he can **** whoever he wants, and pretend it's for the survival of the species.
 
You are misinterpreting his post.

I'm not so sure; but that's one of the perils of communicating via movie quote instead of via one's own ideas.

But okay, now that we've established that we can discuss this after all, I go back to AUP's post:

There is a point at which the iterative method breaks. The time required to physically set up a Mars colony means that they don't just send up more people to die every few years as the existing colony fails.

Roboramma responds:

"The iterative method" with respect to manned spaceflight has never been "send up untested crewed vehicles, watch people die, figure out what went wrong, repeat". And that is not anyone's plan for mars.

For instance, there are plans for Starship to carry passengers to orbit and beyond. But the way to get there is first to test the vehicle with unmanned flights. Currently we're in the "test the vehicle without expensive cargo" phase because it doesn't make sense to even risk someone's expensive satellite or space probe or resupply for the ISS on a vehicle that will probably explode. Only once they've iterated enough on this test phase and are confident in a high success rate will they be flying cargo. Only once they've flown cargo quite a bit and have greater confidence in the safety of the vehicle will it be used for passenger missions. Those missions will require some technical changes, but those changes will also be tested before they are used for actual manned missions.

Expect the same for any crewed missions to Mars. You'll have to fly to supplies to Mars prior to any crew landing there, so the same vehicle and landing technique can be applied to those supply missions and the "iterative method" can be applied in that way. Etc.

Again, this entire response is misdirected because AUP wasn't talking about a rocket failing, he was talking about the colony failing.

Visiting Mars has been SpaceX's long-term goal since very early on. Indeed, landing on Mars isn't just one thing it is assumed Starship might be able to do once it's fully developed, it is the foundational mission of the vehicle. Starship's original name was "Mars Colonial Transporter". Musk talks about how important colonizing Mars is a lot, and to my knowledge SpaceX has not indicated anywhere that this eventuality is no longer its overarching mission.

With that in mind, it's natural to be curious about how seriously the company is taking this goal in terms of R&D. The rocket itself is important of course, but it seems to be rapidly approaching completion, so...what's being done, developed, announced? Or are we going to wait until the rocket's finished and then let Starship languish for twenty years while we start planning, developing and prototyping for what we're supposed to actually be doing once the rocket gets us to Mars?
 
Visiting Mars has been SpaceX's long-term goal since very early on. Indeed, landing on Mars isn't just one thing it is assumed Starship might be able to do once it's fully developed, it is the foundational mission of the vehicle.

To the extent that this might be true, I don't think it's really relevant. At this point, Starship has really two defining features. One, it's really big. Two, it's designed for atmospheric re-entry and reusability. Now, those things might be useful for Mars missions, but they are absolutely not specific to Mars missions. Rapid reusability is arguably more important for non-Mars missions. So regardless of what Musk talks about, when I look at the vehicle itself, it doesn't look like it's designed for Mars. It just looks like it's designed for big payloads and reusability. Which means that it's going to have a lot of near term applications independent of any Mars missions.

With that in mind, it's natural to be curious about how seriously the company is taking this goal in terms of R&D. The rocket itself is important of course, but it seems to be rapidly approaching completion, so...what's being done, developed, announced?

Artemis. People seem to forget about this, but it's in active development by NASA and SpaceX together.
 
To the extent that this might be true, I don't think it's really relevant.

....sigh.

We just spent like the last few posts going over this.

AUP's original statement, and my question, were specifically about Mars colonization, so in that respect it's the only thing about the rocket that's relevant to the question I asked.


Artemis. People seem to forget about this, but it's in active development by NASA and SpaceX together.

SpaceX is supposed to be developing a Moon landing vehicle, using Starship as a platform, that's right. But Starship's job on the Moon is going to be just the landing and taking off from the surface part. Do we know if SpaceX is working on anything besides that?

To be more specific, I'm curious if anyone at SpaceX is actually designing or prototyping, for instance...infrastructure, or habitat-building tech. Surface vehicles. Supply mechanisms. Something beyond, like, AI-generated concept art.
 
Back
Top Bottom