Discussion:
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
(too old to reply)
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-20 20:53:21 UTC
Permalink
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000

"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."

Wow, now that is a goal.

Lynn
s***@yahoo.com
2020-01-20 21:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate rate would be for mars.
J. Clarke
2020-01-20 21:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet. For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided. And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-23 02:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet. For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided. And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents. The Mars people will be taking habitats.
That is a big weight difference. Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up. Plus water. Plus spare Mars suits. Plus ...

Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out. The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2020-01-23 04:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base
overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate
rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet.  For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided.  And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.  The Mars people will be taking habitats. That
is a big weight difference.  Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.  Plus water.  Plus spare Mars suits.  Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out.  The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
The latest plans that I'm aware of call for unmanned landings of robots
to build habitats including oxygen splitting facilities from "native"
materials. Humans wouldn't be sent until facilities and fuel for a
return trip were already in place.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-23 04:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base
overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the
accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet.  For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided.  And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.  The Mars people will be taking habitats.
That is a big weight difference.  Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.  Plus water.  Plus spare Mars suits.  Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars
for the initial load out.  The habitat and oxygen are the big ones
though.
The latest plans that I'm aware of call for unmanned landings of robots
to build habitats including oxygen splitting facilities from "native"
materials.  Humans wouldn't be sent until facilities and fuel for a
return trip were already in place.
That makes sense. One hopes that the robots are fairly robust. One
suspects that the robots will just unfold themselves from the
spaceships. Also gives a chance to check out the landing software.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2020-01-23 06:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base
overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the
accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet.  For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided.  And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.  The Mars people will be taking habitats.
That is a big weight difference.  Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.  Plus water.  Plus spare Mars suits.  Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars
for the initial load out.  The habitat and oxygen are the big ones
though.
The latest plans that I'm aware of call for unmanned landings of
robots to build habitats including oxygen splitting facilities from
"native" materials.  Humans wouldn't be sent until facilities and fuel
for a return trip were already in place.
That makes sense.  One hopes that the robots are fairly robust.  One
suspects that the robots will just unfold themselves from the
spaceships.  Also gives a chance to check out the landing software.
NASA (at least) has a pretty good record of robotic probes lasting
longer than expected or planned for. Spirit lasted 6 years longer than
expected. Opportunity lasted 15 years and almost certainly would have
lasted longer if it hadn't been caught in a planetary dust storm.
Curiosity landed in 2012 and is still operational. Plus Voyagers and
various Jupiter and Saturn missions.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
J. Clarke
2020-01-23 23:00:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet. For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided. And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers. You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big? Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive. That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits. Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out. The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-24 00:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet. For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided. And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers. You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big? Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive. That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits. Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out. The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Did you watch the excellent Mars series on National Geographic channel ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)

That habitat at the end of season two was amazing. And big.

BTW, I did not understand that the initial habitat, oxygen making plant,
and fuel making plants were going to be shipped early on automated space
flights before the colonist's flights. I must admit, that just makes sense.

I am wondering where SpaceX going to get the money for building 1,000
Starships, habitats, pressurized vehicles, oxygen plants, fuel plants,
etc, etc, etc ? This has got to be trillions of dollars.

Lynn
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-24 00:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base
overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the
accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet.  For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided.  And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers.  You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big?  Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive.  That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits.  Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out.  The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Did you watch the excellent Mars series on National Geographic channel ?
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)
That habitat at the end of season two was amazing.  And big.
BTW, I did not understand that the initial habitat, oxygen making plant,
and fuel making plants were going to be shipped early on automated space
flights before the colonist's flights.  I must admit, that just makes
sense.
I am wondering where SpaceX going to get the money for building 1,000
Starships, habitats, pressurized vehicles, oxygen plants, fuel plants,
etc, etc, etc ?  This has got to be trillions of dollars.
Lynn
And Elon Musk acts more and more like D. D. Harriman. I wonder if they
will let him go to Mars on one of his own Starships ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delos_D._Harriman

I just realized that Chuck Sneyd of the New Frontiers series is a D. D.
Harriman. He left the Earth using his own spaceships since he was a
pilot and no one said no.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/bookseries/B01D12GFCA/

Lynn
J. Clarke
2020-01-24 02:22:26 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:38:39 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base
overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the
accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet.  For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided.  And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers.  You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big?  Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive.  That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits.  Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out.  The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Did you watch the excellent Mars series on National Geographic channel ?
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)
That habitat at the end of season two was amazing.  And big.
BTW, I did not understand that the initial habitat, oxygen making plant,
and fuel making plants were going to be shipped early on automated space
flights before the colonist's flights.  I must admit, that just makes
sense.
I am wondering where SpaceX going to get the money for building 1,000
Starships, habitats, pressurized vehicles, oxygen plants, fuel plants,
etc, etc, etc ?  This has got to be trillions of dollars.
Lynn
And Elon Musk acts more and more like D. D. Harriman. I wonder if they
will let him go to Mars on one of his own Starships ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delos_D._Harriman
I think he's kind of in a race against age at this point.
Post by Lynn McGuire
I just realized that Chuck Sneyd of the New Frontiers series is a D. D.
Harriman. He left the Earth using his own spaceships since he was a
pilot and no one said no.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/bookseries/B01D12GFCA/
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-24 02:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:38:39 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base
overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the
accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet.  For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided.  And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers.  You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big?  Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive.  That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits.  Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out.  The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Did you watch the excellent Mars series on National Geographic channel ?
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)
That habitat at the end of season two was amazing.  And big.
BTW, I did not understand that the initial habitat, oxygen making plant,
and fuel making plants were going to be shipped early on automated space
flights before the colonist's flights.  I must admit, that just makes
sense.
I am wondering where SpaceX going to get the money for building 1,000
Starships, habitats, pressurized vehicles, oxygen plants, fuel plants,
etc, etc, etc ?  This has got to be trillions of dollars.
Lynn
And Elon Musk acts more and more like D. D. Harriman. I wonder if they
will let him go to Mars on one of his own Starships ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delos_D._Harriman
I think he's kind of in a race against age at this point.
Post by Lynn McGuire
I just realized that Chuck Sneyd of the New Frontiers series is a D. D.
Harriman. He left the Earth using his own spaceships since he was a
pilot and no one said no.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/bookseries/B01D12GFCA/
Lynn
Elon Musk is 48. Plenty of time to jump on a Starship with an oxygen
machine, blood pressure pills, and a walker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

Lynn
Kevrob
2020-01-24 18:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:38:39 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base
overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the
accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet.  For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided.  And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers.  You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big?  Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive.  That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits.  Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out.  The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Did you watch the excellent Mars series on National Geographic channel ?
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)
That habitat at the end of season two was amazing.  And big.
BTW, I did not understand that the initial habitat, oxygen making plant,
and fuel making plants were going to be shipped early on automated space
flights before the colonist's flights.  I must admit, that just makes
sense.
I am wondering where SpaceX going to get the money for building 1,000
Starships, habitats, pressurized vehicles, oxygen plants, fuel plants,
etc, etc, etc ?  This has got to be trillions of dollars.
Lynn
And Elon Musk acts more and more like D. D. Harriman. I wonder if they
will let him go to Mars on one of his own Starships ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delos_D._Harriman
I think he's kind of in a race against age at this point.
Post by Lynn McGuire
I just realized that Chuck Sneyd of the New Frontiers series is a D. D.
Harriman. He left the Earth using his own spaceships since he was a
pilot and no one said no.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/bookseries/B01D12GFCA/
Lynn
Elon Musk is 48. Plenty of time to jump on a Starship with an oxygen
machine, blood pressure pills, and a walker.
....and the tech for turning his consciousness into an AI,
so when Elon "dies" he can go from Harriman to Waldo to
Robinette Broadhead. :)

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2020-01-24 02:20:48 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:16:58 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet. For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided. And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers. You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big? Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive. That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits. Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out. The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Did you watch the excellent Mars series on National Geographic channel ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)
That habitat at the end of season two was amazing. And big.
BTW, I did not understand that the initial habitat, oxygen making plant,
and fuel making plants were going to be shipped early on automated space
flights before the colonist's flights. I must admit, that just makes sense.
I am wondering where SpaceX going to get the money for building 1,000
Starships, habitats, pressurized vehicles, oxygen plants, fuel plants,
etc, etc, etc ? This has got to be trillions of dollars.
Transportation of course. 90 minutes from New York to Paris, or New
York to Tokyo. And with launch costs down to where Starship/Super
Heavy is going to take them, who knows what kind of space industries
are going to develop. With '60s technology powersats would have been
cost effective at $500/lb. Starship is going to be closer to
$20/pound (that's what, about $5 a pount in 1970 dollars?). I mean at
that price most of us can afford a vacation in an orbital Hilton.

And then there's that whole Starlink thing. Not to mention that he's
got a big chunk of what's looking to be the major automaker of the
rest of this century (it's kind of like what the Japanese did to the
US consumer electronics industry when they went to transistors, and
it's sad to see the other auto makers being just as stupid).

And then there's the question of what Starship will actually cost in
that kind of volume. In volume might be less than a modern commercial
airliner. But SpaceX isn't planning on funding all of it.
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-24 02:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:16:58 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet. For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided. And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers. You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big? Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive. That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits. Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out. The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Did you watch the excellent Mars series on National Geographic channel ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)
That habitat at the end of season two was amazing. And big.
BTW, I did not understand that the initial habitat, oxygen making plant,
and fuel making plants were going to be shipped early on automated space
flights before the colonist's flights. I must admit, that just makes sense.
I am wondering where SpaceX going to get the money for building 1,000
Starships, habitats, pressurized vehicles, oxygen plants, fuel plants,
etc, etc, etc ? This has got to be trillions of dollars.
Transportation of course. 90 minutes from New York to Paris, or New
York to Tokyo. And with launch costs down to where Starship/Super
Heavy is going to take them, who knows what kind of space industries
are going to develop. With '60s technology powersats would have been
cost effective at $500/lb. Starship is going to be closer to
$20/pound (that's what, about $5 a pount in 1970 dollars?). I mean at
that price most of us can afford a vacation in an orbital Hilton.
And then there's that whole Starlink thing. Not to mention that he's
got a big chunk of what's looking to be the major automaker of the
rest of this century (it's kind of like what the Japanese did to the
US consumer electronics industry when they went to transistors, and
it's sad to see the other auto makers being just as stupid).
And then there's the question of what Starship will actually cost in
that kind of volume. In volume might be less than a modern commercial
airliner. But SpaceX isn't planning on funding all of it.
If SpaceX can get lifting costs to $20/lb then the entire transportation
industry will change. And rapidly.

BTW, ballistic from New York City to Tokyo is 39 minutes. I've made
that trip from Houston to Tokyo four times. 12 to 14 hours of misery.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/spacex-elon-musk-mars-moon-falcon/541566/

Lynn
Peter Trei
2020-01-24 03:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:16:58 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet. For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided. And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers. You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big? Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive. That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits. Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out. The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Did you watch the excellent Mars series on National Geographic channel ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)
That habitat at the end of season two was amazing. And big.
BTW, I did not understand that the initial habitat, oxygen making plant,
and fuel making plants were going to be shipped early on automated space
flights before the colonist's flights. I must admit, that just makes sense.
I am wondering where SpaceX going to get the money for building 1,000
Starships, habitats, pressurized vehicles, oxygen plants, fuel plants,
etc, etc, etc ? This has got to be trillions of dollars.
Transportation of course. 90 minutes from New York to Paris, or New
York to Tokyo. And with launch costs down to where Starship/Super
Heavy is going to take them, who knows what kind of space industries
are going to develop. With '60s technology powersats would have been
cost effective at $500/lb. Starship is going to be closer to
$20/pound (that's what, about $5 a pount in 1970 dollars?). I mean at
that price most of us can afford a vacation in an orbital Hilton.
And then there's that whole Starlink thing. Not to mention that he's
got a big chunk of what's looking to be the major automaker of the
rest of this century (it's kind of like what the Japanese did to the
US consumer electronics industry when they went to transistors, and
it's sad to see the other auto makers being just as stupid).
And then there's the question of what Starship will actually cost in
that kind of volume. In volume might be less than a modern commercial
airliner. But SpaceX isn't planning on funding all of it.
If SpaceX can get lifting costs to $20/lb then the entire transportation
industry will change. And rapidly.
Not there yet. Up till 200, launch cost about $18.5k/kg. With F9, it's now
$2.72k/kg, or $1234/ lb. BFR is supposed to bring it down to $75/kg.
Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, ballistic from New York City to Tokyo is 39 minutes. I've made
that trip from Houston to Tokyo four times. 12 to 14 hours of misery.
I once flew London to LA. Almost as bad at 11.5 hours.
Post by Lynn McGuire
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/spacex-elon-musk-mars-moon-falcon/541566/
Lynn
Pt
J. Clarke
2020-01-24 05:49:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:35:32 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:16:58 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet. For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided. And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers. You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big? Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive. That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits. Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out. The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Did you watch the excellent Mars series on National Geographic channel ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)
That habitat at the end of season two was amazing. And big.
BTW, I did not understand that the initial habitat, oxygen making plant,
and fuel making plants were going to be shipped early on automated space
flights before the colonist's flights. I must admit, that just makes sense.
I am wondering where SpaceX going to get the money for building 1,000
Starships, habitats, pressurized vehicles, oxygen plants, fuel plants,
etc, etc, etc ? This has got to be trillions of dollars.
Transportation of course. 90 minutes from New York to Paris, or New
York to Tokyo. And with launch costs down to where Starship/Super
Heavy is going to take them, who knows what kind of space industries
are going to develop. With '60s technology powersats would have been
cost effective at $500/lb. Starship is going to be closer to
$20/pound (that's what, about $5 a pount in 1970 dollars?). I mean at
that price most of us can afford a vacation in an orbital Hilton.
And then there's that whole Starlink thing. Not to mention that he's
got a big chunk of what's looking to be the major automaker of the
rest of this century (it's kind of like what the Japanese did to the
US consumer electronics industry when they went to transistors, and
it's sad to see the other auto makers being just as stupid).
And then there's the question of what Starship will actually cost in
that kind of volume. In volume might be less than a modern commercial
airliner. But SpaceX isn't planning on funding all of it.
If SpaceX can get lifting costs to $20/lb then the entire transportation
industry will change. And rapidly.
Not there yet. Up till 200, launch cost about $18.5k/kg. With F9, it's now
$2.72k/kg, or $1234/ lb. BFR is supposed to bring it down to $75/kg.
They're talking 2 million for 100,000 pounds. That's 20/pound.
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, ballistic from New York City to Tokyo is 39 minutes. I've made
that trip from Houston to Tokyo four times. 12 to 14 hours of misery.
I once flew London to LA. Almost as bad at 11.5 hours.
Post by Lynn McGuire
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/spacex-elon-musk-mars-moon-falcon/541566/
Lynn
Pt
Peter Trei
2020-01-24 17:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:35:32 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:16:58 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet. For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided. And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers. You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big? Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive. That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits. Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out. The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Did you watch the excellent Mars series on National Geographic channel ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)
That habitat at the end of season two was amazing. And big.
BTW, I did not understand that the initial habitat, oxygen making plant,
and fuel making plants were going to be shipped early on automated space
flights before the colonist's flights. I must admit, that just makes sense.
I am wondering where SpaceX going to get the money for building 1,000
Starships, habitats, pressurized vehicles, oxygen plants, fuel plants,
etc, etc, etc ? This has got to be trillions of dollars.
Transportation of course. 90 minutes from New York to Paris, or New
York to Tokyo. And with launch costs down to where Starship/Super
Heavy is going to take them, who knows what kind of space industries
are going to develop. With '60s technology powersats would have been
cost effective at $500/lb. Starship is going to be closer to
$20/pound (that's what, about $5 a pount in 1970 dollars?). I mean at
that price most of us can afford a vacation in an orbital Hilton.
And then there's that whole Starlink thing. Not to mention that he's
got a big chunk of what's looking to be the major automaker of the
rest of this century (it's kind of like what the Japanese did to the
US consumer electronics industry when they went to transistors, and
it's sad to see the other auto makers being just as stupid).
And then there's the question of what Starship will actually cost in
that kind of volume. In volume might be less than a modern commercial
airliner. But SpaceX isn't planning on funding all of it.
If SpaceX can get lifting costs to $20/lb then the entire transportation
industry will change. And rapidly.
Not there yet. Up till 200, launch cost about $18.5k/kg. With F9, it's now
$2.72k/kg, or $1234/ lb. BFR is supposed to bring it down to $75/kg.
They're talking 2 million for 100,000 pounds. That's 20/pound.
Do you have a cite for that? I'd be curious to see it.

pt
Alan Baker
2020-01-24 18:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:35:32 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:16:58 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet. For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided. And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers. You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big? Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive. That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits. Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out. The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Did you watch the excellent Mars series on National Geographic channel ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)
That habitat at the end of season two was amazing. And big.
BTW, I did not understand that the initial habitat, oxygen making plant,
and fuel making plants were going to be shipped early on automated space
flights before the colonist's flights. I must admit, that just makes sense.
I am wondering where SpaceX going to get the money for building 1,000
Starships, habitats, pressurized vehicles, oxygen plants, fuel plants,
etc, etc, etc ? This has got to be trillions of dollars.
Transportation of course. 90 minutes from New York to Paris, or New
York to Tokyo. And with launch costs down to where Starship/Super
Heavy is going to take them, who knows what kind of space industries
are going to develop. With '60s technology powersats would have been
cost effective at $500/lb. Starship is going to be closer to
$20/pound (that's what, about $5 a pount in 1970 dollars?). I mean at
that price most of us can afford a vacation in an orbital Hilton.
And then there's that whole Starlink thing. Not to mention that he's
got a big chunk of what's looking to be the major automaker of the
rest of this century (it's kind of like what the Japanese did to the
US consumer electronics industry when they went to transistors, and
it's sad to see the other auto makers being just as stupid).
And then there's the question of what Starship will actually cost in
that kind of volume. In volume might be less than a modern commercial
airliner. But SpaceX isn't planning on funding all of it.
If SpaceX can get lifting costs to $20/lb then the entire transportation
industry will change. And rapidly.
Not there yet. Up till 200, launch cost about $18.5k/kg. With F9, it's now
$2.72k/kg, or $1234/ lb. BFR is supposed to bring it down to $75/kg.
They're talking 2 million for 100,000 pounds. That's 20/pound.
Do you have a cite for that? I'd be curious to see it.
pt
I think it comes from this:

"If you consider operational costs, maybe it'll be like $2 million" out
of SpaceX's pocket each time, Musk said during a conversation with Lt.
Gen. John Thompson, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center,
Air Force Space Command, at Los Angeles Air Force Base."

<https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-elon-musk.html>

Combined with this:

"Starship is the fully reusable second stage and has an integrated
payload section. Starship serves as a large, long-duration spacecraft
capable of carrying passengers or cargo to Earth orbit, planetary
destinations, and between destinations on Earth.

PAYLOAD CAPACITY
100+ t (220+ klb)"

<https://www.spacex.com/starship>

$2,000,000 for 220,000 pounds is only $9/lb, I know, but we don't know
if he was talking about a maximum payload launch in the first link.
J. Clarke
2020-01-24 22:46:36 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:43:18 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:35:32 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:16:58 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet. For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided. And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers. You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big? Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive. That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits. Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out. The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Did you watch the excellent Mars series on National Geographic channel ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)
That habitat at the end of season two was amazing. And big.
BTW, I did not understand that the initial habitat, oxygen making plant,
and fuel making plants were going to be shipped early on automated space
flights before the colonist's flights. I must admit, that just makes sense.
I am wondering where SpaceX going to get the money for building 1,000
Starships, habitats, pressurized vehicles, oxygen plants, fuel plants,
etc, etc, etc ? This has got to be trillions of dollars.
Transportation of course. 90 minutes from New York to Paris, or New
York to Tokyo. And with launch costs down to where Starship/Super
Heavy is going to take them, who knows what kind of space industries
are going to develop. With '60s technology powersats would have been
cost effective at $500/lb. Starship is going to be closer to
$20/pound (that's what, about $5 a pount in 1970 dollars?). I mean at
that price most of us can afford a vacation in an orbital Hilton.
And then there's that whole Starlink thing. Not to mention that he's
got a big chunk of what's looking to be the major automaker of the
rest of this century (it's kind of like what the Japanese did to the
US consumer electronics industry when they went to transistors, and
it's sad to see the other auto makers being just as stupid).
And then there's the question of what Starship will actually cost in
that kind of volume. In volume might be less than a modern commercial
airliner. But SpaceX isn't planning on funding all of it.
If SpaceX can get lifting costs to $20/lb then the entire transportation
industry will change. And rapidly.
Not there yet. Up till 200, launch cost about $18.5k/kg. With F9, it's now
$2.72k/kg, or $1234/ lb. BFR is supposed to bring it down to $75/kg.
They're talking 2 million for 100,000 pounds. That's 20/pound.
Do you have a cite for that? I'd be curious to see it.
Launch cost:
<https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/06/elon-musk-says-spacexs-starship-could-fly-for-as-little-as-2-million-per-launch/>
or google "Starship 2 million launch cost"

Payload:
<https://www.spacex.com/starship>
Post by Peter Trei
pt
Peter Trei
2020-01-24 23:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:43:18 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:35:32 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:16:58 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:53:08 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
WWII bean counters said it took 12 tons per man to open a base overseas, and a ton per month maintenance. I wonder what the accurate rate would be for mars.
They were supporting a war, not colonizing a planet. For one thing no
ammunition will have to be provided. And US military bases during
WWII never made the slightest attempt to become self-sufficient.
The WWII guys took tents.
They also took trucks and artillery and tanks and bulldozers. You
seem to have this fantasy that a world war II military base was kind
of like a boy scout encampment.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Mars people will be taking habitats.
They'll be taking a fucking huge SPACE SHIP.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That is a big weight difference.
How big? Do you have numbers?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus oxygen until they get the CO2
splitters set up.
The plan is that fuel production will be working before the first
humans arrive. That should also handl the oxygen.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus water.
Locally obtained.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Plus spare Mars suits. Plus ...
Instead of 12 tons per man, it could be 50 tons per person for Mars for
the initial load out. The habitat and oxygen are the big ones though.
Memo to Elon Musk--do not put Lynn in charge of mission planning.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Did you watch the excellent Mars series on National Geographic channel ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_(2016_TV_series)
That habitat at the end of season two was amazing. And big.
BTW, I did not understand that the initial habitat, oxygen making plant,
and fuel making plants were going to be shipped early on automated space
flights before the colonist's flights. I must admit, that just makes sense.
I am wondering where SpaceX going to get the money for building 1,000
Starships, habitats, pressurized vehicles, oxygen plants, fuel plants,
etc, etc, etc ? This has got to be trillions of dollars.
Transportation of course. 90 minutes from New York to Paris, or New
York to Tokyo. And with launch costs down to where Starship/Super
Heavy is going to take them, who knows what kind of space industries
are going to develop. With '60s technology powersats would have been
cost effective at $500/lb. Starship is going to be closer to
$20/pound (that's what, about $5 a pount in 1970 dollars?). I mean at
that price most of us can afford a vacation in an orbital Hilton.
And then there's that whole Starlink thing. Not to mention that he's
got a big chunk of what's looking to be the major automaker of the
rest of this century (it's kind of like what the Japanese did to the
US consumer electronics industry when they went to transistors, and
it's sad to see the other auto makers being just as stupid).
And then there's the question of what Starship will actually cost in
that kind of volume. In volume might be less than a modern commercial
airliner. But SpaceX isn't planning on funding all of it.
If SpaceX can get lifting costs to $20/lb then the entire transportation
industry will change. And rapidly.
Not there yet. Up till 200, launch cost about $18.5k/kg. With F9, it's now
$2.72k/kg, or $1234/ lb. BFR is supposed to bring it down to $75/kg.
They're talking 2 million for 100,000 pounds. That's 20/pound.
Do you have a cite for that? I'd be curious to see it.
<https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/06/elon-musk-says-spacexs-starship-could-fly-for-as-little-as-2-million-per-launch/>
or google "Starship 2 million launch cost"
<https://www.spacex.com/starship>
Thanks! The numbers I gave work out at $34/lb, which, compared to the
historical $10k/lb, is almost the same. A ride would be in the same ballpark
as a ticket on Concorde, or a current first class transcontinental flight.

That would be very, very impressive.

pt
Dan Tilque
2020-01-20 23:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
--
Dan Tilque
J. Clarke
2020-01-20 23:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-21 00:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
I'm not sure how practical it is to get to Mars, have a spaceship land and then take off again to return to earth and land here.
Seems like there's a hell of a lot of fuel being carried
Peter Trei
2020-01-21 01:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
Well, no.

The Falcon 9 first stage uses propulsive landing, but it is traveling far below orbital velocity. SpaceX
doesn't even try to recover second stages, they're going too fast. Starship will bellyflop into the
atmosphere, losing most of it velocity by friction, before switching to propulsive landing in the final
stage. This has yet to be demonstrated.

I haven't studied SpaceX's plan for Mars landing, but I expect it's similar.

Pt
J. Clarke
2020-01-21 01:59:07 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:43:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
Well, no.
The Falcon 9 first stage uses propulsive landing, but it is traveling far below orbital velocity.
Falcon 9 is not going to Mars.
Post by Peter Trei
SpaceX
doesn't even try to recover second stages, they're going too fast.
Yet.
Post by Peter Trei
Starship will bellyflop into the
atmosphere, losing most of it velocity by friction, before switching to propulsive landing in the final
stage. This has yet to be demonstrated.
I haven't studied SpaceX's plan for Mars landing, but I expect it's similar.
So why did you mention Falcon 9? Were you just trying to show us how
smart you are? If so, OK Pt, you're a very clever little boy <pats on
head>.

You are correct that Starship's approach has not been tested. So far
SpaceX has delivered everything they said they would, not necessarily
on the schedule they said they would, so what makes you think that
they won't deliver Starship?
Peter Trei
2020-01-21 02:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:43:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
Well, no.
The Falcon 9 first stage uses propulsive landing, but it is traveling far below orbital velocity.
Falcon 9 is not going to Mars.
Post by Peter Trei
SpaceX
doesn't even try to recover second stages, they're going too fast.
Yet.
Post by Peter Trei
Starship will bellyflop into the
atmosphere, losing most of it velocity by friction, before switching to propulsive landing in the final
stage. This has yet to be demonstrated.
I haven't studied SpaceX's plan for Mars landing, but I expect it's similar.
So why did you mention Falcon 9? Were you just trying to show us how
smart you are? If so, OK Pt, you're a very clever little boy <pats on
head>.
Do you have a problem forming persistent memories? I mentioned Falcon 9 because YOU mentioned Falcon 9. You said:

"The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing, just
like Falcon 9."

...which is simply wrong. Starship's proposed EDL protocol is quite different
from that of Falcon 9's first stage. It's not the 'same way', or 'just like';
its quite different.

Did you forget what you typed? Or are you just hoping everyone else forgets
your error?

pt
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-21 02:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:43:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
Well, no.
The Falcon 9 first stage uses propulsive landing, but it is traveling far below orbital velocity.
Falcon 9 is not going to Mars.
Post by Peter Trei
SpaceX
doesn't even try to recover second stages, they're going too fast.
Yet.
Post by Peter Trei
Starship will bellyflop into the
atmosphere, losing most of it velocity by friction, before switching to propulsive landing in the final
stage. This has yet to be demonstrated.
I haven't studied SpaceX's plan for Mars landing, but I expect it's similar.
So why did you mention Falcon 9? Were you just trying to show us how
smart you are? If so, OK Pt, you're a very clever little boy <pats on
head>.
"The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing, just
like Falcon 9."
...which is simply wrong. Starship's proposed EDL protocol is quite different
from that of Falcon 9's first stage. It's not the 'same way', or 'just like';
its quite different.
Did you forget what you typed? Or are you just hoping everyone else forgets
your error?
J.Clarke appears to be much more interested in the idea that he's right rather than what he typed...
J. Clarke
2020-01-21 04:05:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:24:34 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:43:04 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
Well, no.
The Falcon 9 first stage uses propulsive landing, but it is traveling far below orbital velocity.
Falcon 9 is not going to Mars.
Post by Peter Trei
SpaceX
doesn't even try to recover second stages, they're going too fast.
Yet.
Post by Peter Trei
Starship will bellyflop into the
atmosphere, losing most of it velocity by friction, before switching to propulsive landing in the final
stage. This has yet to be demonstrated.
I haven't studied SpaceX's plan for Mars landing, but I expect it's similar.
So why did you mention Falcon 9? Were you just trying to show us how
smart you are? If so, OK Pt, you're a very clever little boy <pats on
head>.
"The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing, just
like Falcon 9."
...which is simply wrong. Starship's proposed EDL protocol is quite different
from that of Falcon 9's first stage. It's not the 'same way', or 'just like';
its quite different.
Did you forget what you typed? Or are you just hoping everyone else forgets
your error?
Yes, they use it with Falcon 9 but I never suggested that Falcon 9
would land on Mars. Geez. I'm getting too used to neurotypicals.
Post by Peter Trei
pt
Dan Tilque
2020-01-21 07:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
I just googled about this and found a video of Musk explaining how
Starship is going to land. It's basically going to use air resistance to
slow itself down, but use lift to stay in the upper atmosphere to keep
from overheating until the velocity gets low enough. Then it'll come in
for a powered landing.

However, he was clearly talking about landing on Earth. The problem with
Mars is that its atmosphere is way too thin to do this. That's the
problem NASA has.

They've used several different methods. Big parachutes can only slow
small vehicles down. There's just not enough air to slow down big ones.
The did a bouncing ball landing with Sojourner, but there's limits to
how big that can get and not splash. Plus you don't want to land people
in that; too many gees in the first bounce. Finally they used that
complicated landing for Curiosity, which let them land a somewhat bigger
payload, but it's still limited. And there's too many moving parts for
that to be extremely reliable.
--
Dan Tilque
J. Clarke
2020-01-21 08:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
I just googled about this and found a video of Musk explaining how
Starship is going to land. It's basically going to use air resistance to
slow itself down, but use lift to stay in the upper atmosphere to keep
from overheating until the velocity gets low enough. Then it'll come in
for a powered landing.
However, he was clearly talking about landing on Earth. The problem with
Mars is that its atmosphere is way too thin to do this. That's the
problem NASA has.
He was talking about landing, period. Landing on Mars and the Moon
are part of the specs. Starship can land on Earth. Mars has 1/3 the
gravity and half the entry speed. Further, Starship can land on the
Moon, which, while it has half the gravity of Mars, also has no
atmosphere at all.
Post by Dan Tilque
They've used several different methods. Big parachutes can only slow
small vehicles down. There's just not enough air to slow down big ones.
The did a bouncing ball landing with Sojourner, but there's limits to
how big that can get and not splash. Plus you don't want to land people
in that; too many gees in the first bounce. Finally they used that
complicated landing for Curiosity, which let them land a somewhat bigger
payload, but it's still limited. And there's too many moving parts for
that to be extremely reliable.
Remember, NASA couldn't land a booster that had been used to launch a
payload to orbit. Don't use NASA as any kind of guide. At this point
SpaceX has forgotten more about powered landing of rocket vehicles
than NASA has ever known. This isn't some huge insoluble problem.

You can aerobrake to x speed. Then you have to decelerate with
rockets from there down. From that point it's all design.

Also remember that SpaceX isn't trying to do things the NASA way.
Starship is fully fueled when it departs Earth--any fuel that was used
getting into orbit is replenished first. If necessary a tanker can be
sent to Mars and it can refuel on orbit before landing. When you have
a fleet of spacecraft including reentry-capable tankers you can do
things like that.
Robert Woodward
2020-01-21 18:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-2
0-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
I just googled about this and found a video of Musk explaining how
Starship is going to land. It's basically going to use air resistance to
slow itself down, but use lift to stay in the upper atmosphere to keep
from overheating until the velocity gets low enough. Then it'll come in
for a powered landing.
However, he was clearly talking about landing on Earth. The problem with
Mars is that its atmosphere is way too thin to do this. That's the
problem NASA has.
He was talking about landing, period. Landing on Mars and the Moon
are part of the specs. Starship can land on Earth. Mars has 1/3 the
gravity and half the entry speed. Further, Starship can land on the
Moon, which, while it has half the gravity of Mars, also has no
atmosphere at all.
Do you realize that the amount of fuel needed to land is quadrupled if
the entry speed doubles? That makes landing on the moon MUCH easier than
landing on Mars.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
J. Clarke
2020-01-21 23:32:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:46:52 -0800, Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-2
0-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
I just googled about this and found a video of Musk explaining how
Starship is going to land. It's basically going to use air resistance to
slow itself down, but use lift to stay in the upper atmosphere to keep
from overheating until the velocity gets low enough. Then it'll come in
for a powered landing.
However, he was clearly talking about landing on Earth. The problem with
Mars is that its atmosphere is way too thin to do this. That's the
problem NASA has.
He was talking about landing, period. Landing on Mars and the Moon
are part of the specs. Starship can land on Earth. Mars has 1/3 the
gravity and half the entry speed. Further, Starship can land on the
Moon, which, while it has half the gravity of Mars, also has no
atmosphere at all.
Do you realize that the amount of fuel needed to land is quadrupled if
the entry speed doubles? That makes landing on the moon MUCH easier than
landing on Mars.
So it is quartered if the entry speed is halved. What part of "can
land on Earth" are you having trouble with?
Scott Lurndal
2020-01-22 00:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:46:52 -0800, Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-2
0-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
I just googled about this and found a video of Musk explaining how
Starship is going to land. It's basically going to use air resistance to
slow itself down, but use lift to stay in the upper atmosphere to keep
from overheating until the velocity gets low enough. Then it'll come in
for a powered landing.
However, he was clearly talking about landing on Earth. The problem with
Mars is that its atmosphere is way too thin to do this. That's the
problem NASA has.
He was talking about landing, period. Landing on Mars and the Moon
are part of the specs. Starship can land on Earth. Mars has 1/3 the
gravity and half the entry speed. Further, Starship can land on the
Moon, which, while it has half the gravity of Mars, also has no
atmosphere at all.
Do you realize that the amount of fuel needed to land is quadrupled if
the entry speed doubles? That makes landing on the moon MUCH easier than
landing on Mars.
So it is quartered if the entry speed is halved. What part of "can
land on Earth" are you having trouble with?
The difference in atmospheric density (mars is equal to the density
on earth at 35km), most likely.
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-22 00:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:46:52 -0800, Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-2
0-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
I just googled about this and found a video of Musk explaining how
Starship is going to land. It's basically going to use air resistance to
slow itself down, but use lift to stay in the upper atmosphere to keep
from overheating until the velocity gets low enough. Then it'll come in
for a powered landing.
However, he was clearly talking about landing on Earth. The problem with
Mars is that its atmosphere is way too thin to do this. That's the
problem NASA has.
He was talking about landing, period. Landing on Mars and the Moon
are part of the specs. Starship can land on Earth. Mars has 1/3 the
gravity and half the entry speed. Further, Starship can land on the
Moon, which, while it has half the gravity of Mars, also has no
atmosphere at all.
Do you realize that the amount of fuel needed to land is quadrupled if
the entry speed doubles? That makes landing on the moon MUCH easier than
landing on Mars.
So it is quartered if the entry speed is halved. What part of "can
land on Earth" are you having trouble with?
And will land on the Earth. SpaceX is planning on using Starship for
ballistic flights from New York City to Tokyo in 30 minutes for as many
flights a day as he can sell tickets. Can you take 3 Gs ?

https://www.voanews.com/science-health/travel-rocket-new-york-tokyo-30-minutes
and

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/spacex-elon-musk-mars-moon-falcon/541566/

I imagine the barf bags will be free for the two minutes of weightlessness.

Lynn
f***@gmail.com
2020-01-22 07:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

The difference between landing on Earth and landing on Mars is that Earth has a real atmosphere to help slow thins down, and Mars well... doesn't. Mars'mean surface atmospheric pressure is about 7% of Earth's, which means its "upper atmosphere" is practically vacuum. You'd have to dive pretty deep into the Martian atmosphere to register any atmospheric resistance at all, and even then, unless you're planning on litho-braking it is going to be much less than 7% of Earth's atmosphere.


How exactly is SpaceX planning to do the Mars-orbit capture? Traditionally some form of aero-braking is used in combination with thrust from engines but that often involves high-Gs.

Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed going directly from aero-capture to the surface in what would be one exciting ride, but that assumed a big and hefty (read heavy and single use only) heat shield.

Can Starship do a mild aero-braking maneuver, burn some fuel to turn the trajectory into an orbit and then come for a number of aero-braking maneuvers to slowly reduce it's DeltaV? How will the passengers react to multiple high-G passes? How will the structure hold up? What happens when an error in angle of attack or burn results in missing the atmosphere, or diving too deep?

Kind regards,
Frank
J. Clarke
2020-01-22 12:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The difference between landing on Earth and landing on Mars is that Earth has a real atmosphere to help slow thins down, and Mars well... doesn't.
Sorry, but Mars most assuredly does have an atmosphere. Do you
actually know how to do the calculations for planetary entry?
Post by f***@gmail.com
Mars'mean surface atmospheric pressure is about 7% of Earth's, which means its "upper atmosphere" is practically vacuum.
Pressure isn't what counts. Drag and lift are a functions of density.
Post by f***@gmail.com
You'd have to dive pretty deep into the Martian atmosphere to register any atmospheric resistance at all, and even then, unless you're planning on litho-braking it is going to be much less >than 7% of Earth's atmosphere.
Why do you think "diving pretty deep" is an issue? As long as you
don't hit the surface, you can go as deep as you need to.
Post by f***@gmail.com
How exactly is SpaceX planning to do the Mars-orbit capture? Traditionally some form of aero-braking is used in combination with thrust from engines but that often involves high-Gs.
The same way that everything else that has done "mars orbit capture"
does it.
Post by f***@gmail.com
Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed going directly from aero-capture to the surface in what would be one exciting ride, but that assumed a big and hefty (read heavy and single use only) heat shield.
So let's see, you're saying that the atmosphere of Mars is so dense
that "a big and heavy heat shield" is needed, but that its density is
so low that aerobraking is impossible. MAKE UP YOUR DAMNED MIND.
Post by f***@gmail.com
Can Starship do a mild aero-braking maneuver, burn some fuel to turn the trajectory into an orbit and then come for a number of aero-braking maneuvers to slowly reduce it's DeltaV?
Why would it not?
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the passengers react to multiple high-G passes?
The same way anybody does.
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the structure hold up?
It will hold up the way it is designed to hold up. You don't seem to
understand a concept called "engineering". This isn't some random
found object doing something that it was not designed to do.
Post by f***@gmail.com
What happens when an error in angle of attack or burn results in missing the atmosphere, or diving too deep?
The same thing that would happen to any other spacecraft.
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-22 16:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The difference between landing on Earth and landing on Mars is that Earth has a real atmosphere to help slow thins down, and Mars well... doesn't.
Sorry, but Mars most assuredly does have an atmosphere. Do you
actually know how to do the calculations for planetary entry?
"real atmosphere"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Mars'mean surface atmospheric pressure is about 7% of Earth's, which means its "upper atmosphere" is practically vacuum.
Pressure isn't what counts. Drag and lift are a functions of density.
The density of dry air can be calculated using the ideal gas law, expressed as a function of temperature and pressure:

The pressure and density are directly proportional
density = absolute pressure/(specific gas constant * Absolute temperature)

from
https://planetary-science.org/mars-research/martian-atmosphere/

The highest density of the mars atmosphere is equivalent to the density 35km up in Earth's atmosphere

from engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
the density at ground level is 1.225 kg/m^3
and 30km 0.01841 kg/m^3

So there's a pretty significant difference in the atmospheric density
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
You'd have to dive pretty deep into the Martian atmosphere to register any atmospheric resistance at all, and even then, unless you're planning on litho-braking it is going to be much less >than 7% of Earth's atmosphere.
Why do you think "diving pretty deep" is an issue? As long as you
don't hit the surface, you can go as deep as you need to.
Post by f***@gmail.com
How exactly is SpaceX planning to do the Mars-orbit capture? Traditionally some form of aero-braking is used in combination with thrust from engines but that often involves high-Gs.
The same way that everything else that has done "mars orbit capture"
does it.
How many of them have had humans on board?
What forces would they be exposed to?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed going directly from aero-capture to the surface in what would be one exciting ride, but that assumed a big and hefty (read heavy and single use only) heat shield.
So let's see, you're saying that the atmosphere of Mars is so dense
that "a big and heavy heat shield" is needed, but that its density is
so low that aerobraking is impossible. MAKE UP YOUR DAMNED MIND.
Are you an economics expert?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Can Starship do a mild aero-braking maneuver, burn some fuel to turn the trajectory into an orbit and then come for a number of aero-braking maneuvers to slowly reduce it's DeltaV?
Why would it not?
Because you need to get the fuel there, have enough fuel to take off again, air to breath on Mars etc...

IF you're so sure it's possible show your working
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the passengers react to multiple high-G passes?
The same way anybody does.
Nobody's done it for a trip to Mars, what speeds are involved.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the structure hold up?
It will hold up the way it is designed to hold up. You don't seem to
understand a concept called "engineering". This isn't some random
found object doing something that it was not designed to do.
So we can design something to do everything without a problem...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
What happens when an error in angle of attack or burn results in missing the atmosphere, or diving too deep?
The same thing that would happen to any other spacecraft.
There's a bit of a difference between a probe and something carrying people to establish a base.
Peter Trei
2020-01-22 23:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The difference between landing on Earth and landing on Mars is that Earth has a real atmosphere to help slow thins down, and Mars well... doesn't.
Sorry, but Mars most assuredly does have an atmosphere. Do you
actually know how to do the calculations for planetary entry?
"real atmosphere"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Mars'mean surface atmospheric pressure is about 7% of Earth's, which means its "upper atmosphere" is practically vacuum.
Pressure isn't what counts. Drag and lift are a functions of density.
The pressure and density are directly proportional
density = absolute pressure/(specific gas constant * Absolute temperature)
from
https://planetary-science.org/mars-research/martian-atmosphere/
The highest density of the mars atmosphere is equivalent to the density 35km up in Earth's atmosphere
from engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
the density at ground level is 1.225 kg/m^3
and 30km 0.01841 kg/m^3
So there's a pretty significant difference in the atmospheric density
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
You'd have to dive pretty deep into the Martian atmosphere to register any atmospheric resistance at all, and even then, unless you're planning on litho-braking it is going to be much less >than 7% of Earth's atmosphere.
Why do you think "diving pretty deep" is an issue? As long as you
don't hit the surface, you can go as deep as you need to.
Post by f***@gmail.com
How exactly is SpaceX planning to do the Mars-orbit capture? Traditionally some form of aero-braking is used in combination with thrust from engines but that often involves high-Gs.
The same way that everything else that has done "mars orbit capture"
does it.
How many of them have had humans on board?
What forces would they be exposed to?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed going directly from aero-capture to the surface in what would be one exciting ride, but that assumed a big and hefty (read heavy and single use only) heat shield.
So let's see, you're saying that the atmosphere of Mars is so dense
that "a big and heavy heat shield" is needed, but that its density is
so low that aerobraking is impossible. MAKE UP YOUR DAMNED MIND.
Are you an economics expert?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Can Starship do a mild aero-braking maneuver, burn some fuel to turn the trajectory into an orbit and then come for a number of aero-braking maneuvers to slowly reduce it's DeltaV?
Why would it not?
Because you need to get the fuel there, have enough fuel to take off again, air to breath on Mars etc...
IF you're so sure it's possible show your working
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the passengers react to multiple high-G passes?
The same way anybody does.
Nobody's done it for a trip to Mars, what speeds are involved.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the structure hold up?
It will hold up the way it is designed to hold up. You don't seem to
understand a concept called "engineering". This isn't some random
found object doing something that it was not designed to do.
So we can design something to do everything without a problem...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
What happens when an error in angle of attack or burn results in missing the atmosphere, or diving too deep?
The same thing that would happen to any other spacecraft.
There's a bit of a difference between a probe and something carrying people to establish a base.
People on this group often remind me of the alleged medieval academics who
argued endlessly over how many teeth a horse had, citing classical authors,
but rejected going down to the courtyard and asking a groom.

You Can Look This Stuff Up.

Apparently, Starship will land on Mars like it will on Earth; with aerobraking
followed by propulsive descent.

I place a lot more faith in SpaceX's engineers claiming this is workable, than
in rasfw'ers saying it cant.



pt
J. Clarke
2020-01-23 01:17:48 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:55:58 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The difference between landing on Earth and landing on Mars is that Earth has a real atmosphere to help slow thins down, and Mars well... doesn't.
Sorry, but Mars most assuredly does have an atmosphere. Do you
actually know how to do the calculations for planetary entry?
"real atmosphere"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Mars'mean surface atmospheric pressure is about 7% of Earth's, which means its "upper atmosphere" is practically vacuum.
Pressure isn't what counts. Drag and lift are a functions of density.
The pressure and density are directly proportional
density = absolute pressure/(specific gas constant * Absolute temperature)
from
https://planetary-science.org/mars-research/martian-atmosphere/
The highest density of the mars atmosphere is equivalent to the density 35km up in Earth's atmosphere
from engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
the density at ground level is 1.225 kg/m^3
and 30km 0.01841 kg/m^3
So there's a pretty significant difference in the atmospheric density
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
You'd have to dive pretty deep into the Martian atmosphere to register any atmospheric resistance at all, and even then, unless you're planning on litho-braking it is going to be much less >than 7% of Earth's atmosphere.
Why do you think "diving pretty deep" is an issue? As long as you
don't hit the surface, you can go as deep as you need to.
Post by f***@gmail.com
How exactly is SpaceX planning to do the Mars-orbit capture? Traditionally some form of aero-braking is used in combination with thrust from engines but that often involves high-Gs.
The same way that everything else that has done "mars orbit capture"
does it.
How many of them have had humans on board?
What forces would they be exposed to?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed going directly from aero-capture to the surface in what would be one exciting ride, but that assumed a big and hefty (read heavy and single use only) heat shield.
So let's see, you're saying that the atmosphere of Mars is so dense
that "a big and heavy heat shield" is needed, but that its density is
so low that aerobraking is impossible. MAKE UP YOUR DAMNED MIND.
Are you an economics expert?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Can Starship do a mild aero-braking maneuver, burn some fuel to turn the trajectory into an orbit and then come for a number of aero-braking maneuvers to slowly reduce it's DeltaV?
Why would it not?
Because you need to get the fuel there, have enough fuel to take off again, air to breath on Mars etc...
IF you're so sure it's possible show your working
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the passengers react to multiple high-G passes?
The same way anybody does.
Nobody's done it for a trip to Mars, what speeds are involved.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the structure hold up?
It will hold up the way it is designed to hold up. You don't seem to
understand a concept called "engineering". This isn't some random
found object doing something that it was not designed to do.
So we can design something to do everything without a problem...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
What happens when an error in angle of attack or burn results in missing the atmosphere, or diving too deep?
The same thing that would happen to any other spacecraft.
There's a bit of a difference between a probe and something carrying people to establish a base.
People on this group often remind me of the alleged medieval academics who
argued endlessly over how many teeth a horse had, citing classical authors,
but rejected going down to the courtyard and asking a groom.
You Can Look This Stuff Up.
Apparently, Starship will land on Mars like it will on Earth; with aerobraking
followed by propulsive descent.
I place a lot more faith in SpaceX's engineers claiming this is workable, than
in rasfw'ers saying it cant.
http://youtu.be/00CpItR97zY
Especially Hamish, who comes back with a statement concerning an
inconsistency in the previous post with "are you an economics expert".

I really should resurrect my ballistics code.
Moriarty
2020-01-23 01:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:55:58 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The difference between landing on Earth and landing on Mars is that Earth has a real atmosphere to help slow thins down, and Mars well... doesn't.
Sorry, but Mars most assuredly does have an atmosphere. Do you
actually know how to do the calculations for planetary entry?
"real atmosphere"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Mars'mean surface atmospheric pressure is about 7% of Earth's, which means its "upper atmosphere" is practically vacuum.
Pressure isn't what counts. Drag and lift are a functions of density.
The pressure and density are directly proportional
density = absolute pressure/(specific gas constant * Absolute temperature)
from
https://planetary-science.org/mars-research/martian-atmosphere/
The highest density of the mars atmosphere is equivalent to the density 35km up in Earth's atmosphere
from engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
the density at ground level is 1.225 kg/m^3
and 30km 0.01841 kg/m^3
So there's a pretty significant difference in the atmospheric density
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
You'd have to dive pretty deep into the Martian atmosphere to register any atmospheric resistance at all, and even then, unless you're planning on litho-braking it is going to be much less >than 7% of Earth's atmosphere.
Why do you think "diving pretty deep" is an issue? As long as you
don't hit the surface, you can go as deep as you need to.
Post by f***@gmail.com
How exactly is SpaceX planning to do the Mars-orbit capture? Traditionally some form of aero-braking is used in combination with thrust from engines but that often involves high-Gs.
The same way that everything else that has done "mars orbit capture"
does it.
How many of them have had humans on board?
What forces would they be exposed to?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed going directly from aero-capture to the surface in what would be one exciting ride, but that assumed a big and hefty (read heavy and single use only) heat shield.
So let's see, you're saying that the atmosphere of Mars is so dense
that "a big and heavy heat shield" is needed, but that its density is
so low that aerobraking is impossible. MAKE UP YOUR DAMNED MIND.
Are you an economics expert?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Can Starship do a mild aero-braking maneuver, burn some fuel to turn the trajectory into an orbit and then come for a number of aero-braking maneuvers to slowly reduce it's DeltaV?
Why would it not?
Because you need to get the fuel there, have enough fuel to take off again, air to breath on Mars etc...
IF you're so sure it's possible show your working
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the passengers react to multiple high-G passes?
The same way anybody does.
Nobody's done it for a trip to Mars, what speeds are involved.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the structure hold up?
It will hold up the way it is designed to hold up. You don't seem to
understand a concept called "engineering". This isn't some random
found object doing something that it was not designed to do.
So we can design something to do everything without a problem...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
What happens when an error in angle of attack or burn results in missing the atmosphere, or diving too deep?
The same thing that would happen to any other spacecraft.
There's a bit of a difference between a probe and something carrying people to establish a base.
People on this group often remind me of the alleged medieval academics who
argued endlessly over how many teeth a horse had, citing classical authors,
but rejected going down to the courtyard and asking a groom.
You Can Look This Stuff Up.
Apparently, Starship will land on Mars like it will on Earth; with aerobraking
followed by propulsive descent.
I place a lot more faith in SpaceX's engineers claiming this is workable, than
in rasfw'ers saying it cant.
http://youtu.be/00CpItR97zY
Especially Hamish, who comes back with a statement concerning an
inconsistency in the previous post with "are you an economics expert".
Wooosh!

-Moriarty
J. Clarke
2020-01-23 01:32:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 17:26:34 -0800 (PST), Moriarty
Post by Moriarty
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:55:58 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The difference between landing on Earth and landing on Mars is that Earth has a real atmosphere to help slow thins down, and Mars well... doesn't.
Sorry, but Mars most assuredly does have an atmosphere. Do you
actually know how to do the calculations for planetary entry?
"real atmosphere"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Mars'mean surface atmospheric pressure is about 7% of Earth's, which means its "upper atmosphere" is practically vacuum.
Pressure isn't what counts. Drag and lift are a functions of density.
The pressure and density are directly proportional
density = absolute pressure/(specific gas constant * Absolute temperature)
from
https://planetary-science.org/mars-research/martian-atmosphere/
The highest density of the mars atmosphere is equivalent to the density 35km up in Earth's atmosphere
from engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
the density at ground level is 1.225 kg/m^3
and 30km 0.01841 kg/m^3
So there's a pretty significant difference in the atmospheric density
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
You'd have to dive pretty deep into the Martian atmosphere to register any atmospheric resistance at all, and even then, unless you're planning on litho-braking it is going to be much less >than 7% of Earth's atmosphere.
Why do you think "diving pretty deep" is an issue? As long as you
don't hit the surface, you can go as deep as you need to.
Post by f***@gmail.com
How exactly is SpaceX planning to do the Mars-orbit capture? Traditionally some form of aero-braking is used in combination with thrust from engines but that often involves high-Gs.
The same way that everything else that has done "mars orbit capture"
does it.
How many of them have had humans on board?
What forces would they be exposed to?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed going directly from aero-capture to the surface in what would be one exciting ride, but that assumed a big and hefty (read heavy and single use only) heat shield.
So let's see, you're saying that the atmosphere of Mars is so dense
that "a big and heavy heat shield" is needed, but that its density is
so low that aerobraking is impossible. MAKE UP YOUR DAMNED MIND.
Are you an economics expert?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Can Starship do a mild aero-braking maneuver, burn some fuel to turn the trajectory into an orbit and then come for a number of aero-braking maneuvers to slowly reduce it's DeltaV?
Why would it not?
Because you need to get the fuel there, have enough fuel to take off again, air to breath on Mars etc...
IF you're so sure it's possible show your working
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the passengers react to multiple high-G passes?
The same way anybody does.
Nobody's done it for a trip to Mars, what speeds are involved.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the structure hold up?
It will hold up the way it is designed to hold up. You don't seem to
understand a concept called "engineering". This isn't some random
found object doing something that it was not designed to do.
So we can design something to do everything without a problem...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
What happens when an error in angle of attack or burn results in missing the atmosphere, or diving too deep?
The same thing that would happen to any other spacecraft.
There's a bit of a difference between a probe and something carrying people to establish a base.
People on this group often remind me of the alleged medieval academics who
argued endlessly over how many teeth a horse had, citing classical authors,
but rejected going down to the courtyard and asking a groom.
You Can Look This Stuff Up.
Apparently, Starship will land on Mars like it will on Earth; with aerobraking
followed by propulsive descent.
I place a lot more faith in SpaceX's engineers claiming this is workable, than
in rasfw'ers saying it cant.
http://youtu.be/00CpItR97zY
Especially Hamish, who comes back with a statement concerning an
inconsistency in the previous post with "are you an economics expert".
Wooosh!
I'm happy that you and Hamish can understand each other. I don't find
him worth the effort.
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-23 01:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:55:58 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The difference between landing on Earth and landing on Mars is that Earth has a real atmosphere to help slow thins down, and Mars well... doesn't.
Sorry, but Mars most assuredly does have an atmosphere. Do you
actually know how to do the calculations for planetary entry?
"real atmosphere"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Mars'mean surface atmospheric pressure is about 7% of Earth's, which means its "upper atmosphere" is practically vacuum.
Pressure isn't what counts. Drag and lift are a functions of density.
The pressure and density are directly proportional
density = absolute pressure/(specific gas constant * Absolute temperature)
from
https://planetary-science.org/mars-research/martian-atmosphere/
The highest density of the mars atmosphere is equivalent to the density 35km up in Earth's atmosphere
from engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
the density at ground level is 1.225 kg/m^3
and 30km 0.01841 kg/m^3
So there's a pretty significant difference in the atmospheric density
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
You'd have to dive pretty deep into the Martian atmosphere to register any atmospheric resistance at all, and even then, unless you're planning on litho-braking it is going to be much less >than 7% of Earth's atmosphere.
Why do you think "diving pretty deep" is an issue? As long as you
don't hit the surface, you can go as deep as you need to.
Post by f***@gmail.com
How exactly is SpaceX planning to do the Mars-orbit capture? Traditionally some form of aero-braking is used in combination with thrust from engines but that often involves high-Gs.
The same way that everything else that has done "mars orbit capture"
does it.
How many of them have had humans on board?
What forces would they be exposed to?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed going directly from aero-capture to the surface in what would be one exciting ride, but that assumed a big and hefty (read heavy and single use only) heat shield.
So let's see, you're saying that the atmosphere of Mars is so dense
that "a big and heavy heat shield" is needed, but that its density is
so low that aerobraking is impossible. MAKE UP YOUR DAMNED MIND.
Are you an economics expert?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Can Starship do a mild aero-braking maneuver, burn some fuel to turn the trajectory into an orbit and then come for a number of aero-braking maneuvers to slowly reduce it's DeltaV?
Why would it not?
Because you need to get the fuel there, have enough fuel to take off again, air to breath on Mars etc...
IF you're so sure it's possible show your working
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the passengers react to multiple high-G passes?
The same way anybody does.
Nobody's done it for a trip to Mars, what speeds are involved.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the structure hold up?
It will hold up the way it is designed to hold up. You don't seem to
understand a concept called "engineering". This isn't some random
found object doing something that it was not designed to do.
So we can design something to do everything without a problem...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
What happens when an error in angle of attack or burn results in missing the atmosphere, or diving too deep?
The same thing that would happen to any other spacecraft.
There's a bit of a difference between a probe and something carrying people to establish a base.
People on this group often remind me of the alleged medieval academics who
argued endlessly over how many teeth a horse had, citing classical authors,
but rejected going down to the courtyard and asking a groom.
You Can Look This Stuff Up.
Apparently, Starship will land on Mars like it will on Earth; with aerobraking
followed by propulsive descent.
I place a lot more faith in SpaceX's engineers claiming this is workable, than
in rasfw'ers saying it cant.
http://youtu.be/00CpItR97zY
Especially Hamish, who comes back with a statement concerning an
inconsistency in the previous post with "are you an economics expert".
I really should resurrect my ballistics code.
I killfiled Hamish a couple of years ago. Life is too short to take his
abuse. Alan Baker too. Too bad, they do add items to the discussion.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2020-01-23 01:44:25 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:32:26 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:55:58 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The difference between landing on Earth and landing on Mars is that Earth has a real atmosphere to help slow thins down, and Mars well... doesn't.
Sorry, but Mars most assuredly does have an atmosphere. Do you
actually know how to do the calculations for planetary entry?
"real atmosphere"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Mars'mean surface atmospheric pressure is about 7% of Earth's, which means its "upper atmosphere" is practically vacuum.
Pressure isn't what counts. Drag and lift are a functions of density.
The pressure and density are directly proportional
density = absolute pressure/(specific gas constant * Absolute temperature)
from
https://planetary-science.org/mars-research/martian-atmosphere/
The highest density of the mars atmosphere is equivalent to the density 35km up in Earth's atmosphere
from engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
the density at ground level is 1.225 kg/m^3
and 30km 0.01841 kg/m^3
So there's a pretty significant difference in the atmospheric density
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
You'd have to dive pretty deep into the Martian atmosphere to register any atmospheric resistance at all, and even then, unless you're planning on litho-braking it is going to be much less >than 7% of Earth's atmosphere.
Why do you think "diving pretty deep" is an issue? As long as you
don't hit the surface, you can go as deep as you need to.
Post by f***@gmail.com
How exactly is SpaceX planning to do the Mars-orbit capture? Traditionally some form of aero-braking is used in combination with thrust from engines but that often involves high-Gs.
The same way that everything else that has done "mars orbit capture"
does it.
How many of them have had humans on board?
What forces would they be exposed to?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed going directly from aero-capture to the surface in what would be one exciting ride, but that assumed a big and hefty (read heavy and single use only) heat shield.
So let's see, you're saying that the atmosphere of Mars is so dense
that "a big and heavy heat shield" is needed, but that its density is
so low that aerobraking is impossible. MAKE UP YOUR DAMNED MIND.
Are you an economics expert?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Can Starship do a mild aero-braking maneuver, burn some fuel to turn the trajectory into an orbit and then come for a number of aero-braking maneuvers to slowly reduce it's DeltaV?
Why would it not?
Because you need to get the fuel there, have enough fuel to take off again, air to breath on Mars etc...
IF you're so sure it's possible show your working
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the passengers react to multiple high-G passes?
The same way anybody does.
Nobody's done it for a trip to Mars, what speeds are involved.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the structure hold up?
It will hold up the way it is designed to hold up. You don't seem to
understand a concept called "engineering". This isn't some random
found object doing something that it was not designed to do.
So we can design something to do everything without a problem...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
What happens when an error in angle of attack or burn results in missing the atmosphere, or diving too deep?
The same thing that would happen to any other spacecraft.
There's a bit of a difference between a probe and something carrying people to establish a base.
People on this group often remind me of the alleged medieval academics who
argued endlessly over how many teeth a horse had, citing classical authors,
but rejected going down to the courtyard and asking a groom.
You Can Look This Stuff Up.
Apparently, Starship will land on Mars like it will on Earth; with aerobraking
followed by propulsive descent.
I place a lot more faith in SpaceX's engineers claiming this is workable, than
in rasfw'ers saying it cant.
http://youtu.be/00CpItR97zY
Especially Hamish, who comes back with a statement concerning an
inconsistency in the previous post with "are you an economics expert".
I really should resurrect my ballistics code.
I killfiled Hamish a couple of years ago. Life is too short to take his
abuse. Alan Baker too. Too bad, they do add items to the discussion.
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood pressure,
put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he does it again,
then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too short to deal with
assholes on a recreational medium.
Alan Baker
2020-01-23 01:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:32:26 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:55:58 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The difference between landing on Earth and landing on Mars is that Earth has a real atmosphere to help slow thins down, and Mars well... doesn't.
Sorry, but Mars most assuredly does have an atmosphere. Do you
actually know how to do the calculations for planetary entry?
"real atmosphere"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Mars'mean surface atmospheric pressure is about 7% of Earth's, which means its "upper atmosphere" is practically vacuum.
Pressure isn't what counts. Drag and lift are a functions of density.
The pressure and density are directly proportional
density = absolute pressure/(specific gas constant * Absolute temperature)
from
https://planetary-science.org/mars-research/martian-atmosphere/
The highest density of the mars atmosphere is equivalent to the density 35km up in Earth's atmosphere
from engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
the density at ground level is 1.225 kg/m^3
and 30km 0.01841 kg/m^3
So there's a pretty significant difference in the atmospheric density
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
You'd have to dive pretty deep into the Martian atmosphere to register any atmospheric resistance at all, and even then, unless you're planning on litho-braking it is going to be much less >than 7% of Earth's atmosphere.
Why do you think "diving pretty deep" is an issue? As long as you
don't hit the surface, you can go as deep as you need to.
Post by f***@gmail.com
How exactly is SpaceX planning to do the Mars-orbit capture? Traditionally some form of aero-braking is used in combination with thrust from engines but that often involves high-Gs.
The same way that everything else that has done "mars orbit capture"
does it.
How many of them have had humans on board?
What forces would they be exposed to?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed going directly from aero-capture to the surface in what would be one exciting ride, but that assumed a big and hefty (read heavy and single use only) heat shield.
So let's see, you're saying that the atmosphere of Mars is so dense
that "a big and heavy heat shield" is needed, but that its density is
so low that aerobraking is impossible. MAKE UP YOUR DAMNED MIND.
Are you an economics expert?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Can Starship do a mild aero-braking maneuver, burn some fuel to turn the trajectory into an orbit and then come for a number of aero-braking maneuvers to slowly reduce it's DeltaV?
Why would it not?
Because you need to get the fuel there, have enough fuel to take off again, air to breath on Mars etc...
IF you're so sure it's possible show your working
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the passengers react to multiple high-G passes?
The same way anybody does.
Nobody's done it for a trip to Mars, what speeds are involved.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the structure hold up?
It will hold up the way it is designed to hold up. You don't seem to
understand a concept called "engineering". This isn't some random
found object doing something that it was not designed to do.
So we can design something to do everything without a problem...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
What happens when an error in angle of attack or burn results in missing the atmosphere, or diving too deep?
The same thing that would happen to any other spacecraft.
There's a bit of a difference between a probe and something carrying people to establish a base.
People on this group often remind me of the alleged medieval academics who
argued endlessly over how many teeth a horse had, citing classical authors,
but rejected going down to the courtyard and asking a groom.
You Can Look This Stuff Up.
Apparently, Starship will land on Mars like it will on Earth; with aerobraking
followed by propulsive descent.
I place a lot more faith in SpaceX's engineers claiming this is workable, than
in rasfw'ers saying it cant.
http://youtu.be/00CpItR97zY
Especially Hamish, who comes back with a statement concerning an
inconsistency in the previous post with "are you an economics expert".
I really should resurrect my ballistics code.
I killfiled Hamish a couple of years ago. Life is too short to take his
abuse. Alan Baker too. Too bad, they do add items to the discussion.
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood pressure,
put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he does it again,
then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too short to deal with
assholes on a recreational medium.
I've never said an uncivil word to someone who didn't start it.
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-23 03:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:32:26 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:55:58 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Hi all,
The difference between landing on Earth and landing on Mars is that Earth has a real atmosphere to help slow thins down, and Mars well... doesn't.
Sorry, but Mars most assuredly does have an atmosphere. Do you
actually know how to do the calculations for planetary entry?
"real atmosphere"
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Mars'mean surface atmospheric pressure is about 7% of Earth's, which means its "upper atmosphere" is practically vacuum.
Pressure isn't what counts. Drag and lift are a functions of density.
The pressure and density are directly proportional
density = absolute pressure/(specific gas constant * Absolute temperature)
from
https://planetary-science.org/mars-research/martian-atmosphere/
The highest density of the mars atmosphere is equivalent to the density 35km up in Earth's atmosphere
from engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
the density at ground level is 1.225 kg/m^3
and 30km 0.01841 kg/m^3
So there's a pretty significant difference in the atmospheric density
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
You'd have to dive pretty deep into the Martian atmosphere to register any atmospheric resistance at all, and even then, unless you're planning on litho-braking it is going to be much less >than 7% of Earth's atmosphere.
Why do you think "diving pretty deep" is an issue? As long as you
don't hit the surface, you can go as deep as you need to.
Post by f***@gmail.com
How exactly is SpaceX planning to do the Mars-orbit capture? Traditionally some form of aero-braking is used in combination with thrust from engines but that often involves high-Gs.
The same way that everything else that has done "mars orbit capture"
does it.
How many of them have had humans on board?
What forces would they be exposed to?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed going directly from aero-capture to the surface in what would be one exciting ride, but that assumed a big and hefty (read heavy and single use only) heat shield.
So let's see, you're saying that the atmosphere of Mars is so dense
that "a big and heavy heat shield" is needed, but that its density is
so low that aerobraking is impossible. MAKE UP YOUR DAMNED MIND.
Are you an economics expert?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
Can Starship do a mild aero-braking maneuver, burn some fuel to turn the trajectory into an orbit and then come for a number of aero-braking maneuvers to slowly reduce it's DeltaV?
Why would it not?
Because you need to get the fuel there, have enough fuel to take off again, air to breath on Mars etc...
IF you're so sure it's possible show your working
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the passengers react to multiple high-G passes?
The same way anybody does.
Nobody's done it for a trip to Mars, what speeds are involved.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
How will the structure hold up?
It will hold up the way it is designed to hold up. You don't seem to
understand a concept called "engineering". This isn't some random
found object doing something that it was not designed to do.
So we can design something to do everything without a problem...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by f***@gmail.com
What happens when an error in angle of attack or burn results in missing the atmosphere, or diving too deep?
The same thing that would happen to any other spacecraft.
There's a bit of a difference between a probe and something carrying people to establish a base.
People on this group often remind me of the alleged medieval academics who
argued endlessly over how many teeth a horse had, citing classical authors,
but rejected going down to the courtyard and asking a groom.
You Can Look This Stuff Up.
Apparently, Starship will land on Mars like it will on Earth; with aerobraking
followed by propulsive descent.
I place a lot more faith in SpaceX's engineers claiming this is workable, than
in rasfw'ers saying it cant.
http://youtu.be/00CpItR97zY
Especially Hamish, who comes back with a statement concerning an
inconsistency in the previous post with "are you an economics expert".
I really should resurrect my ballistics code.
I killfiled Hamish a couple of years ago. Life is too short to take his
abuse. Alan Baker too. Too bad, they do add items to the discussion.
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood pressure,
put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he does it again,
then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too short to deal with
assholes on a recreational medium.
I've never said an uncivil word to someone who didn't start it.
Lynn's definition of abuse is "responds to my bullshit about global warming with references to scientific knowledge"
Alan Baker
2020-01-23 04:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Peter Trei
You Can Look This Stuff Up.
Apparently, Starship will land on Mars like it will on
Earth; with aerobraking followed by propulsive descent.
I place a lot more faith in SpaceX's engineers claiming
this is workable, than in rasfw'ers saying it cant.
http://youtu.be/00CpItR97zY
Especially Hamish, who comes back with a statement concerning
an inconsistency in the previous post with "are you an
economics expert".
I really should resurrect my ballistics code.
I killfiled Hamish a couple of years ago. Life is too short to
take his abuse. Alan Baker too. Too bad, they do add items to
the discussion.
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood
pressure, put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he
does it again, then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too
short to deal with assholes on a recreational medium.
I've never said an uncivil word to someone who didn't start it.
Lynn's definition of abuse is "responds to my bullshit about global
warming with references to scientific knowledge"
Fair point!

:-)
Chris Buckley
2020-01-23 19:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood pressure,
put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he does it again,
then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too short to deal with
assholes on a recreational medium.
I've never said an uncivil word to someone who didn't start it.
Really, Alan? I regard "Bullshit" as an uncivil word. And I assure you that
I didn't start it.

Chris
Alan Baker
2020-01-23 19:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood pressure,
put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he does it again,
then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too short to deal with
assholes on a recreational medium.
I've never said an uncivil word to someone who didn't start it.
Really, Alan? I regard "Bullshit" as an uncivil word. And I assure you that
I didn't start it.
Sorry, but words directed at statements aren't uncivil. When someone
spouts bullshit, I'll call it "bullshit".

But moreover:

Where did I use "bullshit"?

I replied to a post in this thread that used that word.
Robert Carnegie
2020-01-23 21:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood pressure,
put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he does it again,
then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too short to deal with
assholes on a recreational medium.
I've never said an uncivil word to someone who didn't start it.
Really, Alan? I regard "Bullshit" as an uncivil word. And I assure you that
I didn't start it.
Sorry, but words directed at statements aren't uncivil. When someone
spouts bullshit, I'll call it "bullshit".
Um... statements don't care what you say around
them. People, such as myself, do.
Post by Alan Baker
Where did I use "bullshit"?
I replied to a post in this thread that used that word.
Maybe it was yesterday then. But you could have
elided it.
Alan Baker
2020-01-23 21:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood pressure,
put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he does it again,
then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too short to deal with
assholes on a recreational medium.
I've never said an uncivil word to someone who didn't start it.
Really, Alan? I regard "Bullshit" as an uncivil word. And I assure you that
I didn't start it.
Sorry, but words directed at statements aren't uncivil. When someone
spouts bullshit, I'll call it "bullshit".
Um... statements don't care what you say around
them. People, such as myself, do.
Do you really get upset when someone calls something you've said "bullshit"?

Really?
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Where did I use "bullshit"?
I replied to a post in this thread that used that word.
Maybe it was yesterday then. But you could have
elided it.
Why should I have to elide a word because someone may find it offensive?

Also... ...you appear to be speaking in a "voice" that suggests that you
and the previous poster to whom I replied are both the same person.
Robert Carnegie
2020-01-23 22:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood pressure,
put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he does it again,
then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too short to deal with
assholes on a recreational medium.
I've never said an uncivil word to someone who didn't start it.
Really, Alan? I regard "Bullshit" as an uncivil word. And I assure you that
I didn't start it.
Sorry, but words directed at statements aren't uncivil. When someone
spouts bullshit, I'll call it "bullshit".
Um... statements don't care what you say around
them. People, such as myself, do.
Do you really get upset when someone calls something you've said "bullshit"?
Really?
It would trouble me if you called something Hitler
said "b*llsh*t". (This isn't a great day to go
Hitler, but who else works?). It's just ungraceful.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Where did I use "bullshit"?
I replied to a post in this thread that used that word.
Maybe it was yesterday then. But you could have
elided it.
Why should I have to elide a word because someone may find it offensive?
Also... ...you appear to be speaking in a "voice" that suggests that you
and the previous poster to whom I replied are both the same person.
I think many people have a similar reaction,
so it's probably that.
Alan Baker
2020-01-23 22:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood pressure,
put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he does it again,
then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too short to deal with
assholes on a recreational medium.
I've never said an uncivil word to someone who didn't start it.
Really, Alan? I regard "Bullshit" as an uncivil word. And I assure you that
I didn't start it.
Sorry, but words directed at statements aren't uncivil. When someone
spouts bullshit, I'll call it "bullshit".
Um... statements don't care what you say around
them. People, such as myself, do.
Do you really get upset when someone calls something you've said "bullshit"?
Really?
It would trouble me if you called something Hitler
said "b*llsh*t". (This isn't a great day to go
Hitler, but who else works?). It's just ungraceful.
Which is a far cry from it being insulting and uncivil TO A PERSON.

Which is my point.
Chris Buckley
2020-01-24 00:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood pressure,
put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he does it again,
then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too short to deal with
assholes on a recreational medium.
I've never said an uncivil word to someone who didn't start it.
Really, Alan? I regard "Bullshit" as an uncivil word. And I assure you that
I didn't start it.
Sorry, but words directed at statements aren't uncivil. When someone
spouts bullshit, I'll call it "bullshit".
Um... statements don't care what you say around
them. People, such as myself, do.
Do you really get upset when someone calls something you've said "bullshit"?
Really?
It would trouble me if you called something Hitler
said "b*llsh*t". (This isn't a great day to go
Hitler, but who else works?). It's just ungraceful.
Which is a far cry from it being insulting and uncivil TO A PERSON.
Which is my point.
I disagree: isn't the whole point of using "socially forbidden"
language to be uncivil? That's kind of the definition... But as I've
learned, your definitions are a bit different than mine.

Even so, if someone says "I think X", and you respond "bullshit; you
do not", it's hard to say that's not insulting and uncivil TO A PERSON.
After all, you're calling them a liar or not knowing what they think.
That sounds pretty personal to me.

Chris
...
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
Alan Baker
2020-01-24 01:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood pressure,
put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he does it again,
then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too short to deal with
assholes on a recreational medium.
I've never said an uncivil word to someone who didn't start it.
Really, Alan? I regard "Bullshit" as an uncivil word. And I assure you that
I didn't start it.
Sorry, but words directed at statements aren't uncivil. When someone
spouts bullshit, I'll call it "bullshit".
Um... statements don't care what you say around
them. People, such as myself, do.
Do you really get upset when someone calls something you've said "bullshit"?
Really?
It would trouble me if you called something Hitler
said "b*llsh*t". (This isn't a great day to go
Hitler, but who else works?). It's just ungraceful.
Which is a far cry from it being insulting and uncivil TO A PERSON.
Which is my point.
I disagree: isn't the whole point of using "socially forbidden"
language to be uncivil? That's kind of the definition... But as I've
learned, your definitions are a bit different than mine.
Even so, if someone says "I think X", and you respond "bullshit; you
do not", it's hard to say that's not insulting and uncivil TO A PERSON.
After all, you're calling them a liar or not knowing what they think.
That sounds pretty personal to me.
Chris
...
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
I have never once said that anyone should stop speaking or withdraw
their speech, and the only "spanking" they would get is ridicule for
nonsensical speech.
Robert Carnegie
2020-01-25 22:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood pressure,
put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he does it again,
then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too short to deal with
assholes on a recreational medium.
I've never said an uncivil word to someone who didn't start it.
Really, Alan? I regard "Bullshit" as an uncivil word. And I assure you that
I didn't start it.
Sorry, but words directed at statements aren't uncivil. When someone
spouts bullshit, I'll call it "bullshit".
Um... statements don't care what you say around
them. People, such as myself, do.
Do you really get upset when someone calls something you've said "bullshit"?
Really?
It would trouble me if you called something Hitler
said "b*llsh*t". (This isn't a great day to go
Hitler, but who else works?). It's just ungraceful.
Which is a far cry from it being insulting and uncivil TO A PERSON.
Which is my point.
So you're not saying it about me, but you still are
saying it /to/ me. Please do not.
Alan Baker
2020-01-26 03:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Same here. I've learned that when a post raises my blood pressure,
put the author in the "mark as read" killfile. If he does it again,
then in the "delete unread" killfile. Life's too short to deal with
assholes on a recreational medium.
I've never said an uncivil word to someone who didn't start it.
Really, Alan? I regard "Bullshit" as an uncivil word. And I assure you that
I didn't start it.
Sorry, but words directed at statements aren't uncivil. When someone
spouts bullshit, I'll call it "bullshit".
Um... statements don't care what you say around
them. People, such as myself, do.
Do you really get upset when someone calls something you've said "bullshit"?
Really?
It would trouble me if you called something Hitler
said "b*llsh*t". (This isn't a great day to go
Hitler, but who else works?). It's just ungraceful.
Which is a far cry from it being insulting and uncivil TO A PERSON.
Which is my point.
So you're not saying it about me, but you still are
saying it /to/ me. Please do not.
1. I didn't.

2. If you don't write things that are bullshit, you'll never read me
call it bullshit.

If you're so sensitive that you cannot see the word "bullshit" written,
there's really nothing I can do about it.

But your sensitivity doesn't make calling out things that are actually
bullshit "uncivil"
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-22 00:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dan Tilque
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-2
0-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wondering if they've figured out how to get all that tonnage down to the
surface. That's actually one of the most difficult parts of exploring
Mars. NASA hasn't found a way to get more than about one ton down safely.
The same way they get it to Earth. Starship uses propulsive landing,
just like Falcon 9.
I just googled about this and found a video of Musk explaining how
Starship is going to land. It's basically going to use air resistance to
slow itself down, but use lift to stay in the upper atmosphere to keep
from overheating until the velocity gets low enough. Then it'll come in
for a powered landing.
However, he was clearly talking about landing on Earth. The problem with
Mars is that its atmosphere is way too thin to do this. That's the
problem NASA has.
He was talking about landing, period. Landing on Mars and the Moon
are part of the specs. Starship can land on Earth. Mars has 1/3 the
gravity and half the entry speed. Further, Starship can land on the
Moon, which, while it has half the gravity of Mars, also has no
atmosphere at all.
Do you realize that the amount of fuel needed to land is quadrupled if
the entry speed doubles? That makes landing on the moon MUCH easier than
landing on Mars.
J. Clarke considers facts irrelevant when they don't fit his desired conclusion.
David Johnston
2020-01-21 02:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be able
to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for 20-30
years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
"Hard-headed businessman"...<snort>
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-26 22:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be
able to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for
20-30 years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
"Hard-headed businessman"...<snort>
Are you complaining about Elon Musk ?

Lynn
J. Clarke
2020-01-26 23:16:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:26:24 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be
able to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for
20-30 years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
"Hard-headed businessman"...<snort>
Are you complaining about Elon Musk ?
He doesn't understand the concept of BHAGS. (Big Hard Audacious
Goals). Note that I have heard "BHAG" from the lips of a person who
runs a company with assets under management greater than the GDP of
some European nations--I'm pretty sure he qualifies as a "hard headed
businessman".
Kevrob
2020-01-26 23:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:26:24 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be
able to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for
20-30 years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
"Hard-headed businessman"...<snort>
Are you complaining about Elon Musk ?
He doesn't understand the concept of BHAGS. (Big Hard Audacious
Goals). Note that I have heard "BHAG" from the lips of a person who
runs a company with assets under management greater than the GDP of
some European nations--I'm pretty sure he qualifies as a "hard headed
businessman".
"We close to go to the Moon (and do the other things) not because
they are easy, but because they are hard..."
(....and because, militarily, you never concede the high ground,
if you can help it. Plus, propaganda.")

Don't get me wrong. I think the military aspects are the only
things that make a government space program constitutional.

Kevin R
Alan Baker
2020-01-26 23:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:26:24 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Elon Musk: Starship Will Fly for 20-30 Years, Aiming for Fleet of 1,000"
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/305021-elon-musk-starship-will-last-20-30-years-aiming-for-fleet-of-1000
"The goal, according to the tweets is to have a fleet of about 1,000
Starships in service. Musk believes the company will eventually be
able to produce 100 vessels per year, and each hull should be good for
20-30 years of service. With that many ships, SpaceX would be able to
transport up to 100 megatons of cargo to Mars every year. That’s the
equivalent of 100,000 passengers."
Wow, now that is a goal.
Lynn
"Hard-headed businessman"...<snort>
Are you complaining about Elon Musk ?
He doesn't understand the concept of BHAGS. (Big Hard Audacious
Goals). Note that I have heard "BHAG" from the lips of a person who
runs a company with assets under management greater than the GDP of
some European nations--I'm pretty sure he qualifies as a "hard headed
businessman".
"We close to go to the Moon (and do the other things) not because
they are easy, but because they are hard..."
(....and because, militarily, you never concede the high ground,
if you can help it. Plus, propaganda.")
Don't get me wrong. I think the military aspects are the only
things that make a government space program constitutional.
"Constitutional"? Seriously?

I've got to read this...
Kevrob
2020-01-27 00:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Kevrob
Don't get me wrong. I think the military aspects are the only
things that make a government space program constitutional.
"Constitutional"? Seriously?
I've got to read this...
US Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause:

[quote]

The Congress shall have the power

1.) To..... provide for the common defence...

12.) To raise and support armies, ....

13.) To provide and maintain a navy:

14.) To make rules for the government and regulation
of the land and naval forces:

[/quote]

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art1.asp

If the "land" a foreign power operates from is the
Moon, or Mars, or any other extra-terrestrial body,
our Army and/or Navy have to be able to deal with
them.

There's no allowance for an "Air Force," but it is a
"Navy of the Air," in its way, or "an Army that flies."
It used to be the US Army Air Corps, and perhaps it
still should be, constitutionally speaking.

The Federal government of the US does not have plenary powers.

Kevin R

Loading...