/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9788433
That's like 70 years away. Much too long. A 2030 Mars colony is doable. Who cares if they get cancer, they're on fucking Mars.

>>9788433
humans will never step foot on mars.

>>9788458
Fun fact, if people on the colony get cancer or are busy shitting their guts out because the martian soil doesn't go well with our gut microflora, they're dead weight. Not only are they not working, but more and more people are needed to take care of them. And if it gets serious, you more or less need them to fly back to earth for treatment. Not a good start for a permanent colony.

>>9788498
>"Anon, why are you shoveling dirt in your mouth? There's a sink over there, wash your vegetables."

>>9788463
Oh no, a retard

>>9788433
Well, yeah. But try and tell Elon that.

>>9788579
This, the guy is determined to the point of suicide; he will get there eventually, and definitely before everyone else because he is willing to do almost anything (including giving the middle finger to NASA's safety regulations) to get there. What happens when Elon and co get there, and how many corpses they leave behind is anyone's guess.

>>9788433
Literally none of your arguments make sense.

>>9788433

Maye this Mars thing is a distraction from his real goal which is colonizing the Saharan desert to capitalize on copious solar resources

>>9788651
Try setting up a city the size of New York in Antarctica. That's the challenge that a mars colony faces. Now set it up that instead of being able to fly in supplies from the mainland in about 1-2 days, supplies trips take anyway from 3 months to two years.

>>9788658
It is illegal to settle Antarctica.

>>9788662
You know what I mean brainlet. The point that it's going to be extremely difficult and expensive even assuming some kind of black swan even doesn't pop up, which it probably will. A RL example would be Biosphere 2, where it turns out, trees needs wind to properly mature, without the presence of wind, their trunks don't harden, leading them to collapse as they grow.

Elon plans to have 1 million people on Mars by 2060, you need to rule out things like "long term exposure to Maritain soil causes alzheimer's disease" or "Mars fever, where for some unknown reason, 20% of colonist on Mars go batshit insane" before you start colonizing at such a scale. And worse is, if the worst case scenario does happen and the colony goes tits up, then the mass death of so many Americans will pretty much ensure no more Mars colony for the next century.

>>9788682
there aren't any black swans on Mars.

>>9788698
But how do we know that? The answer is that we have no idea and there could be millions of people living there before the first black swan waddles into the colony. By then it's too late

>we are doing more space related science than ever
>Star Trek retards claim we lost decades because we still don't have a colony

Why are people that stupid?

>>9788704
We could have been increasing the amount of space shit earlier

>>9788704
Yeah, it's quite absurd.

Humans are just dead weight for space exploration.

>>9788433
Wow, thanks for looking out for us anon. I'm glad a competent member of an Uruguyan thumb wrestling forum is looking out for us instead of those dumb SpaceX and NASA """experts""".

>>9788433
Why would it give you cancer? Cancer is caused by chemicals smashing up your DNA.

>>9788914
None of them are actually looking for a Mars colony.

>>9788433
I agree, more research needs to be done first. My main issue with Musk's plans is not that going to Mars is unrealistic but that his plans are too rushed and grandiose.

>>9788921
son

>>9788652
Dear lord would that be nice.
A Dam on Gibraltar would be nice too.
How bout Large scale geothermal?
....

>>9788939
>A Dam on Gibraltar would be nice too.
>fucking up the most importing trading route.

>>9788433
>Mars
>Colony

JELLO BABIES!!!
JELLO BABIES!!!
JELLO BABIES!!!

>>9788991
Memes aside, are you in favour of humanity's glorious crusade into the stars?

>>9789115
Of course. We aren't going to get anything done sitting around.

>>9788940
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal

>>9788433
Lol, we aren't going to Mars in the next 20 years, the BFR won't fly and a Mars colonisation will never happen.

>>9789198
>THERE IS NO WAY WE WILL COLONIZE THE NEW WORLD

>>9789247

Lmao this. At most you're going to have a few fur trader posts. By all means, send fishing boats to harvest the Grand Banks off Cape Cod. This is already happening to a degree. But actual settlements are a complete pipe dream and won't even be possible as late as the 19th century. For one thing, the native fauna are completely hostile to good Christian Englishmen.

Does a permanently staffed research base count as a colony?

>>9789275
no
there have to be people born there for it to be a colony

>>9789170
exactly

>>9789198
What makes you think that the BFR will not fly? SpaceX has generally been hitting its goals, albeit sometimes a few years later than what Ol'Musky promised. Even if the BFR is five years late and cost twice as much to fly as the current projected cost, Martian landings & later on colonies will still be possible.

>>9789768
No one is interested in actually making a mars colony.

>>9789134
Actually we don't know if Mars', or even the Moon's for that matter, gravity is too low. We only have data for 1G and 0G, but we don't have any data of the effects of gravity on the human body for any amount of gravity in between.
It may turn out humans only need .01G... it could just as well turn out that we need .99G. We just don't know.

>when people realize that most would need viagra to have sex on Mars.

>>9789768
Because building a super heavy rocket is extremely hard, and SpaceX doesn't have the kind of ressources and brainpower to pull that off.

>>9789256
So very agreed.

until someone figures out how the plutocrats who own the earth will make money from setting up a colony on mars I do not believe it will happen.

theirs no profit incentive to set up a mars colony.

>>9789256
Yes, that analogy is very suited, because as we all know, Mars, like the Americas, is already inhabited by countless native tribes and nations, so we know for sure it is suited for humans.

>>9789975
You don't need profit to do things

Economist here! Space colonization isn't worth the cost.

>>9788433
I don't understand why we don't build more space stations, or colonies and slowly extend outward into space.

>>9790355
Because it would be tremendously costly and quite frankly rather pointless to just build arbitrary numbers of space stations and sending them out in space arbitrarily hoping we'll build some sort of "network" that will allow us to spread through the overwhelming vastity of space.

It would be lots of money and resources to "try" to reach a goal in the most aimless way possible while we could be focusing on fixing the problems of our planet instead.

>>9790014
Life support technology has improved a fair bit since the 1600s

>>9790366
Why exactly are we only able to do one single thing at a time
This isn't a video game with build queues

>>9790355
Why would we? It's extremely difficult and costly, with no material benefit for doing it.
You'd be spending billions of dollars on R&D to create a habitat of people who don't create or mine product you can put back into the country.

>>9790378
>well we can do more than one thing so why not do everything, giving more money to one thing doesnt stop other fields from doing their own thing and it's not like these space scientists are doing anything else
This is the most 'high schooler who thinks he's smart' reply that people ALWAYS spam in any discussion related to space. And they always forget that governments don't have infinite money to spend on sci-fi nonsense ideas

>>9790366
Well, it's not really that costly, since you don't need to do it in like 10 years. If you invested 20 billion a year over a course of 100-200 years that would be 2-4 trillion overall investment. Slowly but steadily, and without putting too much of a strain on the economy, you could build up a self-sustaining, and eventually self-growing space economy over 100-200 years.

You just need to get started at some point, problem is we are really bad at this, 50 years after lunar landing and we still don't have a base there. A base should have happened 40 years ago, we should be fully into actually building space cylinders right now.

And the pay-off of having a self-sustaining space colony is obviously gigantic, it could export all kinds of raw materials to earth and over time extend our living space to infinity.

>>9790487
This, a lunar base first then asteroid mining and space colonies. A mars colony is nice but space habits and asteroid mining is what will really benefit us.

>>9789961
I think Spacex can build the rocket. The problem is all the stuff that goes in it to make a Mars colony. That stuff isn't even developed yet and the cost would be crazy. More importantly is development time.

For example they need a water drill that has to be completely sealed so the water doesn't sublimate to atmosphere.

>>9789768
USA and USSR both failed yet some dude's glorified garage workshop will not?
Its doubtful if even the defense budget will be able to put a small outpost on Mars in reasonable time frames.

>>9790589
It depends on how you define success. Musk talking about sending 50 people at a time is a pipe dream. Actually I think it irresponsible to even suggest. However sending 5 people, totally dependent on monthly Earth supply rockets is doable, but not what people want.

>>9790579
Sublimation doesn't happen in an instant. It's not like poking a hole in the ground will result in some black hole suction that will consume whatever underground ice or liquid water is reached.
If they are going at it they'll have to build everything for the base themselves though. Existing aerospace pricetags for hardware and r&d will render any attempt futile otherwise.

>>9790596
>monthly earth resupply
>mars
naysayers, everyone.

>>9790599
I'm not saying it isn't feasible, but it is just one example of equipment that needs development. Nothing about a sealed water drill is in any way difficult. With all our drilling technology it is easy. But! It still needs to be built. Plus you can't send one. They would need three minimum, spare parts. Oh and it has to all be able to be built and repaired while wearing a Mars pressure suit.

>>9790589
SpaceX has 6000 employees and massive facilities across four states. They build 90% of their rockets in-house.What do you mean by “garage”?

>>9790579
He will most likely not succeed in the development of that rocket. People are just too caught up in SpaceX's gigantic marketing scheme. BO though vertically landing a rocket is so unremarkable they didn't even tell anyone. Just when SpaceX kept saying how amazing that is they released a video like "yeah, we did that a while back".

Building a super heavy rocket is hard and expensive. Even the Saturn 5, whose development went super smooth and without any major set-back thanks to having the aryan Übermensch von Braun as the chief designer, cost something like 50 billion.

SpaceX is nowhere even close to having that kind of brainpower or ressources. They had heavy set-backs when developing a small launcher like the Falcon 9. Just so you know what kind of brainpower SpaceX has access to. But even if they did have the brainpower, they dont have the ressources. SpaceX doesnt generate nowhere near the needed money to finance something like this, and the american government is already financing the SLS, they sure as fuck wont pour additional tens of billions into the BFR.

>>9790635
Falcon Heavy is half Saturn V and perfectly capable for lunar missions. Falcon 9 is not small launcher.

>>9790635
I'll be the first to be critical SpaceX on their mars colony plans, but saying they can't build the rocket is being a dick with no basis in reality.

>>9790635
the Augustine commission said that NASA's Moon program had to be cancelled, because the development of the necessary heavy lift booster would take 12 years and 36 billion dollars. SpaceX did it in half the time and for 1.4% of the cost.

Similarly, the NAFCOM price estimate said that Falcon 9 program would cost 3.9 billion dollars. It ended up costing 300 million.
to say that they can't build BFR, which is a tube with TPS, life support and avionics at one end and some raptors and landing legs at the other end is moronic. They've bought the tooling. They're moving dirt at the factory. It's happening. Both Shotwell and Elon both say that suborbital tests are happening next year. When shotwell agrees on a timeline with Elon, you know things are chugging along

>>9790643
Falcon 9 is not a remarkable launcher, either. Every half capable nation can produce something like this in <5 years.

>>9790653
They can't do it on the budget they are planning to do it.

>>9790689
Fuck off shill, the non-shills are talking.

>>9790721
[bait.jpg]

>>9790602
achievement and progress is heresy
only ass dragging for decades and decades allowed
if they had their way, we wouldn't leave the earth until the sun burnt out

The more Elon achieves, the more obvious the BO shills get
They aren't even trying anymore

>>9788433
>costs too much
I've stopped reading there,...

How much it fucking cost? It's technology we need for automatic meteorite mining that get us to mars...

We could just simulate and not test, because test are expensive, but getting testing survival somewhere far and supplychain that can't just stop and stuff like that is IMO more important than colonizing Afghanistan or simillar country which costed more.

Anyway... Greenforming enviroment, such as desert, providing food, etc, these challanges could be solved sooner....

50years means solved.

>>9788645
Nah he isnt, you're really overestimating him. Also just because he 'really really wants it' doesnt necessarily mean he can make it reality, as current and near future technology might be insufficient.

Even if it fails, just going for it will result in an incredible technological advancement. It's worth it.

>>9790869
>he's still shilling
He's succeeded repeatedly in the past, there is no reason that he wont do so again
the only arguments you have are pure lies and canned responses your bosses and focus groups thought up

>>9789852
It will be a curve and somewhere on that curve there will be a tipping point. We absolutely need to find that tipping point. Yet, nothing at all is being done in any manner. We don't even have a single rotating model for artificial gravity experiments. Hell, we don't even have a spinning mouse cage for the same reasons. Every single NASA program on it has been cancelled. Even Mars Gravity Biosatellite got cancelled and it was just spinning mice in something.

It is a bit frustrating.

just send a fuckton of robots up there, why are we leaping to humans, baby steps

>>9790689
>3.9B
>yfw they made a "revised" version to make the number slightly smaller and less scary ~1.5B

>>9791197
stuff will keep getting cheaper and cheaper as the economies of scale kick in. It's gonna be gr8

>>9790332
>You don't need profit to do things
killing me

>>9791109

This

The fact that we have less than 10 robots doing anything on mars right now is pathetic

>>9790332
>communists in charge of budget

Honestly we can make no real judgements on this subject until we see the results of Block 5 and how reusable it really is. In my opinion if all the engineers at both SpaceX and BO agree it can be done then I am inclined to agree since they know a hell of a lot more than the fucking shitposters here that just make baseless accusations based on ridiculously bloated and beauracratic governmental programs.

>>9791564
it already works. the moment a reused stage costs less to fly again than building a new one it shows that reusability works. This was the case with SpaceX starting with the 2nd 1st stage they reflew. Sure, there is the $1b that SpaceX put into reusability R&D that they have to "pay off", but those are sunk costs and the delta between new 1st stage and flight ready used 1st stage is well into the double-digits as of now

It's not all about direct costs as well. Reusability allows for putting your manufacturing capabilities towards more useful activities as you only need to maintain a fleet of a certain size rather than continually building stages, among other things

>>9791577
I agree in part but their whole thing is rapid and total reusability, they have said themselves that to reach the desired price points they need to be able to land, inspect, refuel and takeoff. If you have to start dissassembling to replace a whole bunch of parts and shit, sure it's cheaper, but still too expensive.

>>9791582
they're still well in the cautious phase right now, as every launch is with a 100mil+ comm or govt payload. The true rapid reusability will be demonstrated probably when starlink missions start flying, as SpaceX can risk more on those launches.

They definitely have the physical ability and willingness to fly a 1st stage twice in 24 hours, but there just isn't any reason to. You'd have to coordinate two different partners to line up their payloads at the integration facility, AND they would have to be able to be launched 24hr apart (with respect to orbital planes/alignment), AND the 1st payload would have to be a RTLS (it takes a whole day to get the ASDS back to shore to begin with)

>>9791109
>just send a fuckton of robots
>>9791349
>The fact that we have less than 10 robots doing anything on mars right now is pathetic

What are the robots supposed to do?
We need machinery on Mars. Heavy machinery.
Things to make concrete; drill, pump, and store water; make power, build farms.

Your little pathetic robots and drones can't do this.

>>9791587
Again I agree, what I am getting at is the reusability of the components in the rocket. From the outside pics of Block 5 after landing it looks like all the exterior problems are sorted but there are a lot of other problems such as structural fatigue, engine wear, microfractures, etc... They haven't released any details on this which is fair enough since it is probably sensitive details but still, for all we know the fatigue on various components could be too much after 3-4 flights. The stresses are pretty extreme and they are very limited on how they can strengthen parts because of weight limits. I have high hopes because they are confident and shitloads of money is being thrown around, but we still lack the information to say whether the rockets can be truly reusable many times over.

>>9791606
You use the small robots to make bigger robots. We're really only a decade or two out from advanced enough general robots that would be up to the task.

>>9788433
Why use such a pussy method instead of just letting evolution work itself out?

This is a disgrace to our 3.8b year lineage

Instead of pampering weak earthlings, engineer or force evolution for naturally mars-adept humans

>>9791828
This, the recent advancements in robotics are pretty impressive. I don't know about self replicating bots, but construction, mining and general use ones really are just around the corner.

>>9791828
>We're really only a decade or two out from advanced enough general robots that would be up to the task.

Okay let us say you are right in that two decades robotics is going to be able to do a lot more than now. Okay fine, but Musk isn't waiting two decades to start his colony.

>>9791919
Well, he should.
He has no right to endanger people's lives.

>>9791577
>the moment a reused stage costs less to fly again than building a new one it shows that reusability works. This was the case with SpaceX starting with the 2nd 1st stage they reflew.

Yeah, just like the Space Shuttle, they reused it, therefore reusing works.

Let's be honest, since their whole PR is build around reusing rockets they would definetely reuse them even on a loss, just like NASA did.

>>9791852
yeah, just throw a few 1000s on Mars with nothing, I'm sure the strong ones will 'evolve' and thrive.
I bet you're a /pol/tard.

>>9791577
>cheaper

>>9792177
how is it not cheaper you stupid fucking nigger

>>9792194
They wouldn't need subsidies like crazy if everything is that much cheaper.

>>9788433
Human space exploration won't happen until we can either get cyborg bodies or genetically engineer our bodies to be much more robust and able to 'eat' electricity.

>>9792195
there are no subsidies, only contracts
just how much is Tony Bruno paying you per post?

>>9788433
Don't worry OP, it's never going to happen. Enjoy your iPhone 15 and super heroin, because that's all you have to look forward to. Humanity is done kiddo
*Sheathes katana and moonwalks away.

Space is entertainment.

>>9792212
>contracts

There is no reason to have a human colony on Mars. Humans in space in general is a waste of time and resources, at least until more progress is made towards better modes of launch/travel. But we are very irrational beings; so giving our irrational desires room to be massaged is just another part of the equation to keeping a space program healthy. How long they drag this "Mars colony" bait out for without ever letting us bite? Probably beyond our lifetimes.

>>9791101
Whenever a small project gets started on Mars they will probably take mice there and see if they can reproduce properly and see how they turn out. Most of the effects on humans could be measured with experiments on them first.

If they don't do that, we'll still find out at some point. Eventually some astronaut will get knocked up on Mars and then we get to see if low gravity reproduction is feasible. If. not, though, it means probably several more centuries of little space activity.

>>9792468
I don't think we'll see women on mars for a very long time. Mixed-gender trips leads to logistic issues, health issues, all sorts of new failure modes are introduced. Not good. Equality politics has to take a back seat to maximizing the effectiveness of every kg we send

>>9792474
You're right but I simply don't believe that the NASA team in charge of planning this thing out will be able to pitch that to a company full of equality hires. Even if NASA could agree on it, everyone outside the industry would flip. It doesn't matter how well you explain it, there would still be outrage over it.

You can see the exact same thing happen when it comes to mixed gender combat units in the military. There are serious issues it causes, but the people (outside the military) who support it simply don't care. They want equality everywhere it can be and that's that.

>>9792423

>>9792485
would make more sense to have the 'public' bar be 1/8th the height of the private bar lel

>>9788458
>>9788498
Give me a 60% survival probability and I will go. Add some suicide pills and I would terminate the mission accordingly.

>>9788433

Why the fuck do people want to colonize planets when orbital stations are so much more viable?

Just turn it into a Prison Planet

>>9792500
Because people watched star wars and thing overcoming a gravity well is as easy as point the spaceship up.

>>9788498
Ya or we could just let them die there, learn from their failure, and prepare the next batch of colonists a little better. It's a trial and error thing, and besides, its not like we don't have more than enough humans to spare.

>>9792558
>Whole world watching hundreds of thousands of people die a slow death on live TV

Yeah, this will surely drive up interest in a Mars colony, not be political suicide and gets thousands of volunteers to be the next one to die on Mars. The OP already explained what could be done instead. Send actual scientist and researchers and in small numbers too, montior their health for a decades or two before you start sending in colonists by the thousands. Meanwhile, Elon wants a full self sustaining colony with more then a million people by 2050-2060. That's the definition of rushing things.

>>9792586
Musk is an idiot

>>9792586
oh... you actually thought I was serious... how sad...

>>9788927
Pretty sure he's starting out with a rushed and grandiose plan cause it's gonna get low balled in the counter argument and he'll agree to that because the low ball sum of funding is actually what he's looking for.

>>9788498
>if
Why would sterile soil cause diarrhea?
No one is making you to mars anon.

>>9788645
>ignoring NASA's safety regulations
>T. NASA
Why should spacex listen to their crafted safety regulations. You're assuming that their regulations are correct. Also you're assuming he plains to go against the regulations.

>>9788645
elon snake oil aint got the money or the capacity to go to mars

9792830
You have been posting this on a daily basis for the past several years now
it hasn't worked once

>>9788433
Duh, mars is a barren wasteland with next to no atmosphere. If it wasnt for sci-fi fucktards its "colonization" wouldnt even be up for discussion.

>>9792917
go and stay go, never ever poster

>>9792102
kek

>>9792917
Begone luddite

>>9788463
this desu. we'll sooner destroy ourselves before we even come to a martian colony

>>9792917
there's better things to do with money than feeding the spic-nig cycle

>>9793019
>>9793465
>>9793475
You people are fucking idiots. This simply isnt feasible and even if it was theres no economic incentives to do it. Period.

This is essentially our generations flying cars concept.

Mars is largely a meme because vast areas of the Earth have been abandoned to civilization merely because savages inhabit it
The west is going the same way too

This running off to mars shit is just liberalist escapism

>>9793486
Cool story bro, you are welcome to leave any time.

>>9788433
The global white population is shrinking. The world is fucked. We will go backwards.

In 50 years, most of the world will like Detroit.

>>9793652
Its quite a childish fantasy. A slightly more evolved version of running away from home.

>>9788433
Goes to Mars to save Earth.
Fucks Mars hard for resources, contaminate bioshere with waste and germs.
Save Mars or just say Fuck it?
Serious question: When does this Save the Environment end?

>>9793803
As far as we know, mars doesn't have any life on it. If it gained human life, even if its wasteful human life, would be a net gain of life to the solar system. As conscious beings we should try to protect our environment to the best of our ability, so we can protect the ability for all life to flourish. I believe its our duty to protect life in all forms. Even if its our own. Humans must survive, and protecting the ecology of our world is the best way we can ensure it remains a world inhabitable by us in perpetuity.

>>9788433
>true self sustaining Mars colony
Said no colony ever.
You really need to define what self-sustaining means and study the history of colonization before really understanding paths to Mars colonization. Systemic patterns trigger colonization events at a high level. Colonization happens iteratively; successful colonies have other sites within transportation range for trade. No ships, no colonies. Self-sustaining in that context means interconnected profitability not being off the grid.
If you follow Musk's plans, there needs to be many groups and companies that build these colonies. SpaceX can't do it alone.

>>9790529
A lunar base is key. Even if just a large launching pad for deeper space missions we need the moon first and will be an easier target to practice techniques.

>>9788645
Bezos with his idea of orbital colonies and space mining is more sane than Musk though

>>9792485
>because of government corruption we should give tax money to rich people

drank too much cool-aid didnt you little fella?

>>9790898
>just going for it will result in an incredible technological advancement. It's worth it.
THIS.The inevitable Chinese colony on Mars will be build on corpses of Musk’s colonists.

>>9795239
>A lunar base is key.
Patently untrue. JPL is pretty good at making Mars orbit. Lunar surface is same delta-V as Mars assuming Mars aerocapture. Anything done on the Moon has to justify itself.
Want to get to Mars safer and better? Install beacons and weather stations on the surface and in orbit.

>>9788658
No it's not. Antarctica might be warmer in Summer and have air but it also has far fewer accessible resources.
Once you've actually set up the initial colony it's far easier to keep it going. You can actually build an autarky on Mars.

>>9788905
Rovers are dumb, unadaptable, and slow as fuck. The amount of coddling they need to function is ridiculous. All the science every Mars rover and lander has ever done could be done by a person in a week.
>>9789134
>>9788991
We have no idea if Mars' gravity is too low for healthy people. We have literally 2 data points for long term habitation - Earth and micro-g. We have no idea if the line to fit between those points is linear or exponential or what.
>>9790610
I get your point, tech is there but actual implementations need to be developed first, but your example is flawed. There's huge shallow glaciers that can mined fairly traditionally.
>>9790635
BO didn't land an orbital rocket, just a sub orbiter hopper which is much much easier. And they still bragged about it like crazy. It was Spacex that said "yeah we did that with grasshopper years ago".

>>9791852
>Evolution
Too slow its better to mass produce the first martians.

>>9796008
>Rovers are dumb, unadaptable, and slow as fuck. The amount of coddling they need to function is ridiculous. All the science every Mars rover and lander has ever done could be done by a person in a week.

the opposite actually

>>9788463
We'll maybe do the Moon thing. But other than that Mars won't see any humans

>>9796056
Even the people designing and building the rovers admit it.

Curiosity is far and away the best, most advanced rover ever built, with autonomous driving, and it still can only do 200m a day at theoretical Max speed, doing no science and not stopping. And it can't even reach this speed because the terrain is never good enough, and it's too likely to break itself or get stuck. Apollo 17 did 35,000m in 22hrs of EVAs.

>>9796008
That doesn't change the fact that vertical landing just isn't that remarkable. Vertical landing has been done countless times, by fighter jets, too. At the end of the day, the point still stands. Space Shuttle couldn't be reused despite being landed, too, and in a fashion that puts less stress on the ship. The landing isn't the hard part of making a rocket reusable.

>>9796257
>the time you need to send a rover to Mars
vs.
>the time you need to send a human research team

>>9796262
Also even ignoring that a human researcher wouldn't be able to move that much outside of its base because of the lack of air.

>>9788433
>pic
Grid city design is cancer. Easy to build but terribly inefficient as a living space. Free yourselves from the tyranny of pen and paper. Just because it's easy to draw up the plan, doesn't mean it's the best thing you can come up with.

>>9793511
It's illegal to kill niggers. Its not illegal to run away from niggers. Yet.
Are those not reasons enough?

>>9788682
>>9788433
Elon jack is a blow hard, stop caring what that huckster says

>>9792586
That 100,000 would also be the cream of the human race - our fittest, strongest, most intelligent and educated. What would happen to earth's population if we spent a few generations skimming off the best and sending them away? Would be a brain drain on a planetary scale. Earth would end up like a trailer park.

>>9796258
Rocket landings are in no way comparable to fighter jets, anon. The fact you even suggested implies you know very little about the implementation.
A suicide burn landing from orbit of a several hundred tonne rocket stage is an incredibly difficult task.
>>9796266
....you know space suits and roving vehicles exist right?

>>9796296
You are right, it is actually way harder to make a jet land vertically than a rocket.

Also, this still doesn't change the fact the landing isn't the hard part of making rockets reusable, and all the additional hardware and fuel consumption in making them land vertically is not worth it.

>>9796296
It's literally not possible to send humans on mars stop with this conman pr nonsense.

>>9796296
>....you know space suits and roving vehicles exist right?

And you know that their capacities for air is limited

>>9796302
>You are right, it is actually way harder to make a jet land vertically than a rocket. Also, this still doesn't change the fact the landing isn't the hard part of making rockets reusable, and all the additional hardware and fuel consumption in making them land vertically is not worth it.
Wow that is entirely wrong. You do realize that the Shuttle didn't do what SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing, right? They're landing the booster, while the Space Shuttle is doing the equivalent of landing the the capsule. They're working on recovering everything thats not the shuttle in pic related, as well as the capsules i.e. the entire launch system. The Shuttle ONLY recovered the Shuttle and did it poorly. The Falcon family already has the capability to recover everything but the small second stage, and theres no reason that the next in line won't recover that either.
You're also completely wrong about VTOL jets being harder than rockets. Jets like the Harrier can sit on their thrust for minutes at a time, and can abort to let the engine cool down and extend hover time. A rocket can't do that. It has to achieve velocity 0 precisely before altitude 0 - too soon or too late and you get an RUD, it has to accommodate for a radically changing thrust to weight ratio, it has to do it far far far less responsive engines and it needs to adjust the entire burn based on ever-changing environmental factors. It also can't abort a landing for another attempt and it has to do all this completely autonomously.
>>9796381
You replied to a post talking about how much ground actual people covered.
>Apollo 17, which was a crewed mission, covered 35km in a total of 22hrs of EVA time, more than any other rover with the sole exception of Opportunity, which did it over a period of 14 years.
>Yeah but people can't go that far because their air is limited
What the hell are you talking about?

>>9796507
A rocket engine just need to burn retrograde to kill of the velocity, nothing hard about that. The hard part is nailing the landing manuveur. Thats hard for a rocket, but way harder for an airplane that wasnt designed to go up or down vertically. You need some major changes to the engine to do it regardless.

>>9796507
>moon

>>9796523
Oh, and as to recovery, SpaceX is also recovering their first stages most likely with a cost bigger than or similar to new-built, but of course they wouldn't admit that since they built their whole brand around it.

>>9796527
It was never a cost thing, if reducing costs was that easy we would have seen seen decades ago.

It's about increasing annual starts.

>>9796535
Of course it's a cost thing, SpaceX is all about making rockets like airplanes, land-check-refuel-start again, in order to bring down launch costs by a huge margin.

I doubt it will ever work, but I guess it's better Besoz and Musk try again than using their billions for some other bullshit.

>>9790818
BO shills??

>>9796553
>SpaceX
>cheap

They get subsidies like crazy.

>>9796523
Hurdur and you just point the jet engine thrust down.
Shit changes as you go down. Air is thinner or thicker, clouds, humidity, the ship moves, wind blows, previous burn wasn't perfect, weight prediction wasn't right etc. Predicting it all, making the adjustments and calculations necessary to correct what you can, and do it fast enough is not simple.
A jet can just sit on its thrust and slowly reduce it until it lands using a nice clean feedback loop. A rocket has to decide how long it has to burn for before it gets down and start the burn. If it guesses wrong and goes too early, it runs out of fuel while its still in the air and crashes. If it goes too late it hasn't left enough time to decelerate and it crashes.
This is rocket science but this isn't hard to understand, just hard to do.
Also if it was easier to do it with a rocket, why did was a VTOL jet, in actual service mind, not just experimental, before the Moon Landing but only just now are getting rockets landing.
>>9796524
Because Mars has less Air in the atmosphere than the Moon?
>>9796535
No anon, its definitely a cost thing. Rocket fabrication is expensive, fuel is cheap.

>>9796573
The first jet to land vertically was developed in the 80s.

The first rocket to land vertically was developed in the 60s (moon lander) and 90s on earth (Delta Clipper).

Calculating how long you have to burn your engine to kill all velocity and do it accordingly isn't hard. I mean, obviously you need to have a good amount of precision but you need that for rocketry, anyways. At the end of the day, making a rocket fly is way harder than making it land.

>>9796556
complete bullshit, they get less subsidies than all their competitors

>>9796591
>That what Muskfags believe

>>9796591
no use arguing, they think that contracts = subsidies for some reason

The development of the SABRE engine is gaining momentum, they co-operated with DARPA last year and now Boeing is financing them, too.

The SABRE engine could really change the playing field. It would basically be the first real breakthrough since 50 years. Really looking forward to it.

>>9796600
SpaceX got around 500 million of seed money from the NASA in 2006, know-how worth billions, severall hundred millions in direct subsidies since then, and billions in overpriced cargo missions.

BO, on the other hand, got 0$ government dollars in any shape or form.

>>9796589
>The first jet to land vertically was developed in the 80s.
The Hawker Siddeley Harrier was introduced on 1 April 1969, and was heavily based of the P.1127 experimental plane which was also VTOL capable and first flew November 1960. And thats just vectored thrust, if you want to include tilt-jet and other forms of VTOL jets, there are even earlier ones.
Jesus don't you get sick of being wrong?
>At the end of the day, making a rocket fly is way harder than making it land.
It really isn't. It takes every calculation and bit of design that it takes to launch a rocket in the first place and then more. This is just axiomatically untrue. The "more" doesn't even need to be really difficult, it just needs to be more. What a dumb thing to say.
The more is really difficult though.
>>9796614
If we can inexpensively recover stages, is there even a need for SSTO though? Isn't it always going to deliver less payload? Legitimate questions. Idk much about it, just that people have been "looking forward" to SABRE and expecting it "just around the corner" for a long time.

>>9796620
yep, you think that contracts = subsidies for some reason.

>>9796623
The SABRE never got major financing though.

Well, the plane would descent like any other plane to 30km altitude. This means stresses and tear and wear on the plane and the engines should be not bigger than on any other plane. In that height and from those speeds, the stresses from switching to rocket mode should also be considerably smaller. It would still have to re-entry though. All in all having a jet engine that can reach Mach 5,5 and 30km of altitude would be the first true breakthrough in 50 years.

>>9796626
SpaceX got more than 3 billion in subsidies for Dragon 2 alone. That is not contract money, but direct subsidies.

>>9796638
you think that contracts = subsidies for some reason.

the 3.1 billion total for CCDev1, CCDev2, CPC, CCiCap, and CCtCap are contracts with milestone-based payments. Not all of the 3.1 has been paid out, even. Boeing "got" 4.8 billion (again not all of the milestones have been achieved but that's the potential total).
Why am I even bothering to tell you this? You're still going to shitpost/troll. Oh well

>>9796649
Well, one thing is sure, when fanboys compare launch prices, they will conveniently ignore all the NASA-financed research, while of course they will not for any other rocket.

>>9792222
>super herion

jet packs packed with jet.

>>9788433
He's just setting the stage for space travel to be proven impossible.This is his way of distancing himself from responsibility when people start asking why the mars project was abandoned.

>>9796638
>>9796556
>>SpaceX
>>cheap
>They get subsidies like crazy.
Paying a fixed price for launch services is not a subsidy. Paying a contractor to develop a needed capability is not a subsidy.
SpaceX right now is eating the world's commercial launch industry.
>>9796660
Let's compare. I have a commsat that needs to be placed in a GEO slot. My choices are an Atlas 5 from ULA at minimum of maybe $175 million plus insurance or a Falcon 9 at around $60 million including insurance. Choice isn't hard and SpaceX's manifest shows it. They've also made flight preparation and planning much more streamlined with things like including range and launch insurance.

>>9796877
>being that delusional

>>9788463
This

>>9796877
>goverment pays several times more the commercial price

Makes me wonder

>>9796877
Well, the Falcon 9 can't do GSOs, so ULA can take >100 million profits on 2-3 launches a year they make because they are the only american launch company that offers them.

Meanwhile SpaceX has to make dozens of launches and makes still less profit than ULA with 2-3.

Also, as already mentioned, SpaceX got billion in "research help" or whatever, e.g. subsidies. Im not talking about overpriced government mission, but direct NASA money to fund SpaceX R&D.

Arianespace also still has more private customers, than SpaceX.

>>9797068
>Well, the Falcon 9 can't do GSOs, so
This is wrong. They've launched GEO satellites before. Why would you tell so obvious a lie?
>Meanwhile SpaceX has to make dozens of launches and makes still less profit than ULA with 2-3.
Citation needed or this is just wrong. Every projection and based on their own reports compared to their previous launch schedules, they make comparable profits per launch when SpaceX launches expendably.
>Arianespace also still has more private customers, than SpaceX.
Not current ones. It only has more customers if you include its entire ~38 year history and SpaceX already takes that title when you include already customers that have bought, but not yet flown, missions.
>Also, as already mentioned, SpaceX got billion in "research help" or whatever, e.g. subsidies. Im not talking about overpriced government mission, but direct NASA money to fund SpaceX R&D.
Do you really think Arianespace and ULA aren't also heavily government subsidized? ULA receives literally billions to keep the Delta family around even when they're launching jack all. Not to mention they only fly rockets that they were paid to develop through EELV.
I swear the only thing worse than SpaceX fanboys are Anti-SpaceX shills. At least the former seems to do some basic fucking googling.

>>9797604
google searches take time, and they're paid by the post
lack of facts usually gets replies, which earns them a bonus

The entire American space industry is subsidied. It's not a free market.

>>9797604
>This is wrong. They've launched GEO satellites before. Why would you tell so obvious a lie?

You can literally go on the SpaceX homepage and see what kind of orbits they offer for Falcon 9 launches. GSOs are not among them.

>>9788433
I don't understand why they can make these huge scientific programs that use rare minerals and chemicals to explode aircraft into space, and have all sorts of buildings and forts and bases for that aim, but we can't get the same level of sophisticated organization for most cities/companies.

>>9798172
Not the anon you're replying to but Geostationary Orbits (GEO) are a type of Geosynchronous Orbit (GSO), and Falcon 9 has launched Geostationary Satellites like IS-35e.

It's also launched DSCOVR to a Lagrange point but the website doesn't list that. It's a website for Muskrats and journalists to use for quick reference not for actual customers.

>>9790014
The analogy is suited because that cretin anons claim was "Mars colonisation will never happen.". Which is just utterly retarded to say because the human drive to explore cant be suppressed. Someone at some time will stand on mars and similarly they will colonize, this is a certainty so long as our species hasnt gone extinct.

>>9790400
Good luck trying to convince anons that government budgets are finite on this peruvian semi pro patty cake forum.

>>9798172
You have literally no idea what you are talking about, GEOs ARE GSOs. What kind of animal forms conclusions with no information and then tries to engage in discourse.

>>9798317
You are so retarded it hurts. Falcon 9 uses RP-1 which would freeze during GSO transfer. You are literally a fanboy who has no clue what he is talking about, something that is very prominent with SpaceX fanboys. And even if it wouldnt freeze the payload capability of the second stage would be so low you wouldnt do it. Because of this, the Falcon 9 can only carry one satellite at a time, while the Ariane 5 can carry two.

>>9798359
It. Has. Launched. Satellites. To. GSO.
You fucking moron.

>>9788433
Let's start a little smaller, and a little closer to home. Just while we figure out the gravity issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmLWxptFFYc

>>9798381
Only if those satellites had their own engines, you idiot. Falcon 9 can bring things to GTO, for everything beyond the payload needs its own engine which not every payload can fullfill.

>>979838
These fanboys, imagine being this retarded. You probably watch every single SpaceX launch, and you never noticed that payload deployment never took longer than 10 minutes? Or you did, but since you are completely illiterate in the subject you probably dont know that reaching a GSO takes hours.

I'm just looking forward to the virgin x getting btfo by the chad origin

Musk and his fanboys are such pathetic pieces of shit falling for 90s toy marketing schemes. SUPERcharger. HYPERloop. spaceX. BIG FUCKING ROCKET XDDDD.

>>9788433
>mars colony

Jellos babies!

>>9798569
Not him but can you explain why you'd even want to have the rocket do the GTO to GSO injection instead of having the satellite do it itself? Doesn't having the satellite do it provide another opportunity for staging, not needing to push excess weight to GSO and thus getting more mass to GSO.
I know almost all GSO satellites do do it with their own engines, but you're holding up doing the other way as some game changing capability. So what's the advantage, and if it doesn't apply to most launches why is it so important?
t. obviously-not-a-rocket-scientist that wants to learn

>>9798825
Not every GSO is reachable that way. ULA just shortly won a contract from Airforce over SpaceX because they want a satellite in a specific GSO that they can't reach with the Falcon 9.

>>9788652
Goddamn, imagine living in that shithole

resupply? are you sick? do you want visit doctor? what supplies you need on mars?

>>9798612
>shilling for bezos
>shilling for a company which hasn't even gotten to orbit yet and is kept afloat entirely by Amazon money

>>9799873

>>9798359
>>9798569
>Payload
>freezing
>Multi launch
>GTO only
Yup these posts are right, the F9 can do GTO launches but can't do GSO itself. That said the Falcon Heavy is meant to address all those points. They specifically talk about it being able to launch to GSO not just GTO like they do with F9 and testing capabilities to move into that arena was a part of the first test launch they did.
Its not so much a true incapability of RP-1 as it is not worth adding the weight it'd take to engineer around the problem. F9 just doesn't have the payload capacity for a theoretical GSO transfer to justify it.
>>9798825
>why GSO vs GTO.
You're right, most launches don't bother with direct injection, but there is a time and place for it - when you have volume limitations, or want reduced payload complexity (nav, thermal systems etc) and just want proven capability of the system rather than a new one with each satellite type. Its almost exclusively for DOD requirements though, commercial launchers prefer GTO because as you identify it IS cheaper.
SpaceX is cheaper and works for most uses, but for the time being ULA still has a very important niche. If FH pans out as they expect, or they nail reuse so well that it drives the cost down to where the benefits outweigh the malefits, maybe that will change.
>pic unrelated

why not colonize Venus instead

>>9800618
>Colonize
Well to colonize anywhere you need to be able to use ISRU for the majority of your needs. Importing is far too expensive to rely on it for things like structures, water, air, heavy machinery etc.
And on Venus, anything that you can't pull out of the atmosphere you're not getting in a cost effective manner because the surface is just so hostile.

>>9800627
This. At least with mars we can do conventional mining without having to have everything be highly acid resistant and able to withstand massive pressure.

Although the risks of mars are quite bad, extreme temperature swings and exposure to cosmic radiation could seriously effect electronics if they aren't sufficiently hardened but that is easier to deal with than your equipment melting away slightly every time it rains.

>>9795268
Bezos is the Jerry to Elon's Kramer