[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 67 KB, 1200x799, SpaceX-orbital-Starship-prototype.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Do you think Starship will make it to Mars? Anonymous Wed Sep 11 11:11:39 2019 No.10964056 [Reply] [Original]

I'm incredibly excited for future flights of SS/SH, but I'm still incredibly cautious. We've seen five flights of a prototype which, aside from the engine, have almost nothing in common with the final vehicle. The two orbital prototypes aren't much better.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 11:13:57 2019 No.10964058 >>10964056 absolutely

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 11:14:26 2019 No.10964059

>>10964056
Unless SpaceX goes bankrupt or gets nationalized in the meantime, some version of Starship will make it to Mars. The basic technology, motivation, and funds are already there. Just give them some time, they're figuring stuff out with their designs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 11:20:28 2019 No.10964074 >>10964056 If they do 20 km sub orbital this year, then they're almost halfway there. So it would be >50% chance there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 11:23:03 2019 No.10964080 Fuck yea. Wish they'd do a gofundme or something so i could throw money at them.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 11:26:51 2019 No.10964086

>>10964056
OP Here. I did some math and I found that, even if SpaceX uses expendable launches (No reuse of SS/SH), it would cost something like $5 Billion - Very doable.

$400 million per vehicle.

2 Starships (One for predeployment)
10 Tankers (Five each).

Wow.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 13:10:26 2019 No.10964338 Lol, once climate change starts kicking in for real you'll be lucky if you can afford to drive a car to work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 13:55:51 2019 No.10964463 >>10964056 That's not a starship anon, that's a rocket.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 13:59:26 2019 No.10964468 >>10964463 It's a starship propelled by a rocket.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 15:38:33 2019 No.10964717 >>10964056 No. I think it will be renamed again before that happens.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 15:41:25 2019 No.10964728 >>10964074 I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am curious as to how you arrived at that figure. I'm not sure that a suborbital launch = half way there for a flight to Mars. But I'm open to you're being right.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 15:42:28 2019 No.10964735 >>10964468 If that WERE "Starship," then no, it is not going to go to Mars.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 15:43:29 2019 No.10964736 >>10964717 I hope you are right. That name is just like nails on a chalkboard, somehow.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 15:56:52 2019 No.10964782

>>10964728
Its more of a saying than any hard estimate. The main hurdle will be flying up to space and landing back on earth(and possibly refueling tests). Once that's taken care of with their 20km suborbital test, then its only a matter of refinement.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 15:59:27 2019 No.10964792 Going to Mars is such a fucking stupid waste of money. If they made a launching station at a Lagrange point and built a space elevator they could send a shuttle to Mars every weekend for 5 years for the same price one trip would take now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 16:02:55 2019 No.10964806 >>10964792 >space elevator It's easier to go to Mars using today's technology rather than try to make a space elevator for Earth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 16:38:08 2019 No.10964936 >>10964736 I miss the BFR name

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 16:39:49 2019 No.10964942 >>10964936 Did SpaceX drop it? I thought BFR still referred to the SS+SH stack?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 16:41:31 2019 No.10964948 >>10964792 >space elevator Not viable for either Earth or Mars and will never be.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 16:50:03 2019 No.10964969 >>10964942 SS+SH stack is the BFR. People are just confused.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 18:03:46 2019 No.10965232 >>10964782 So was Alan Shepard's flight in Friendship 7 halfway to a Mars flight?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 18:04:48 2019 No.10965238 >>10964948 Maybe for Mars, I'd say.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 18:11:54 2019 No.10965251 >>10964056 >>10964463 >using rockets to get off world like a barbarian Hail to the Orbital Elevator master race! The future is 20+hour luxurious rides to the heavens baby. Spaceplane, Orbital Elevator or bust. Never flying a rocket.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 18:47:11 2019 No.10965352 >>10965251 >Hail to the Orbital Elevator master race* >* Once we get our Unobtainium(tm) with the ultra extreme properties needed for orbital elevators to even be a possibility rather than laughed off immediately

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 19:02:20 2019 No.10965382 Launch loops are the most likely candidate. Each single advance in rocketry or materials will only make launch loops even better option for large scale launches.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 19:03:47 2019 No.10965383 >>10964056 What are the chances that everyone travelling to Mars dies off Cancer?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 19:20:05 2019 No.10965432 >>10965352 >Ignoring the developments of carbon nanotubes and graphene ribbons You are the reason space development has stalled for so long.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 19:27:46 2019 No.10965455 >>10965383 100%. There are no mars rocket today. So sending anyone to mars today will kill them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:03:15 2019 No.10965586 >>10965432 He has a point, though. We will see an intercontinental graphene bridge before the space elevator.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:15:22 2019 No.10965621 File: 5 KB, 250x174, cringe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10965586 >building international bridges

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:17:25 2019 No.10965627

>>10965232
Friendship 7 didn't have the dV to get to Mars. Starship with Superheavy does. I disagree with the other anon though, I think the critical "oh shit we can do this now" technology for SpaceX is orbital refueling. If they can demonstrate a Starship refueled in space, that's the moment the paradigm completely shifts. Suddenly you can yeet 100 tons anywhere in the solar system.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:18:19 2019 No.10965629 >>10965586 and why exactly should such a thing be built, you paint huffing retard be specific

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:20:40 2019 No.10965635 >>10965432 Martian colony ships can be built with the technology of the 1970s. Graphene is still in early development. It's promising, sure, but it's not required for space colonization. You can build a space elevator on the Moon with kevlar.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:21:50 2019 No.10965637 >>10965629 Elon Musk's idea. Ask him.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:23:07 2019 No.10965641 >>10965637 >>10965629 To vastly reduce shipping costs and time. The only argument against it is autistic screeching about muh globohomo (and the fact we can't actually build anything longer than a centimeter from nanotubes yet).

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:30:00 2019 No.10965667

>>10965637
>>10965641
do you not know how fucking long a intercontinental bridge would take to drive across, and how much of a pain in the ass it would be to maintain
countries can't even fucking manage to maintain the roads in their capital cities, and you expect them to maintain a bridge in the middle of the fucking ocean?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:31:28 2019 No.10965672 >>10965667 >drive If you spent the absurd amount of money on an Intercontinental bridge, you'd be running bullet trains on it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:35:00 2019 No.10965686 File: 200 KB, 356x256, 1444840240613.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10965672 >have fuck ass massive bridge >put bullet train on it >hurricane slides right down it and give the ole spicy shake and bake

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:40:27 2019 No.10965695 >>10964059 this. can't wait to see this

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:42:38 2019 No.10965701 >>10964792 >space elevator you got to be on drugs

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:44:41 2019 No.10965706 >>10965621 based isolationist & wallpilled

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:20:38 2019 No.10965797 >>10965686 A graphene bridge is going to be more resiliant than diamond.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:25:39 2019 No.10965811 >>10965238 It can't due mostly to the 2 moons, but material physics are not going to jump by the leaps and bounds needed to allow for a space elevator. Those are simply sci-fi pipe dreams.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:27:05 2019 No.10965814 >>10965797 >graphene Moron.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:28:07 2019 No.10965816 >>10965797 Graphene is only good for grant farming.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 09:37:57 2019 No.10966999 >>10964080 I agree with this. I'd actually gladly throw some money at them just to help things along with nothing back, or to have my name included on some physical object to be left on Mars or something.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 09:40:20 2019 No.10967003 >>10965797 But diamond is the strongest metal.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 09:46:26 2019 No.10967017 File: 217 KB, 1080x1346, 1565593546727.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10966999 >my name included on some physical object to be left on Mars or something Why don't you just, uh, go there when the price is under $250K

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 10:03:55 2019 No.10967036 >>10964056 >Do you think Starship will make it to Mars? There is no known technical showstopper. There is also more than enough funding assuming SpaceX gets some access to bottomless NASA budget while maintaining their efficiency. It is gonna happen.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:01:43 2019 No.10967344 >>10964056 I think it should, but there's no way anyone serious would put humans in there because lawsuits risks.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:17:09 2019 No.10967380 >>10964086 That lands you a metal cylinder on Mars. Assuming nothing goes wrong. That doesn't get you any equipment, any people, any ISRU, any communication equipment, or get you back again.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:31:19 2019 No.10967413 >>10967380 It lands you 2 Starships and 200-300 tons of cargo on Mars.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:18:19 2019 No.10967546 >>10965455 But not of cancer.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:21:30 2019 No.10967557

>>10965432
There are reasons to assume that sufficiently long carbon tubules cannot be manufactured in bulk at sufficient purity under any circumstances.

IF that turns out to be true, THAT would be the reason, not the people who understand the problem.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:23:14 2019 No.10967562 >>10965641 >and the fact we can't actually build anything longer than a centimeter from nanotubes yet Or possibly ever. That would seem sufficient argument against it, without autistic screeching being necessary.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:24:51 2019 No.10967563 >>10967003 So what would happen if a bullet train made of diamond collided with an inter-continental bridge made of diamond?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:25:53 2019 No.10967564 >>10967003 Diamond is among the hardest, if not THE hardest, metal known to man!

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:31:52 2019 No.10967587 >>10967564 true but not a metal

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:36:52 2019 No.10967607 >>10967546 Not with that attitude

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:43:15 2019 No.10967633 >>10967587 hownew.ru

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:44:25 2019 No.10967638 >>10964056 No

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]