Space X - Mars Travel

[Anonymous No.8375387]

Elon Musk just did a live conference about Mars travel, space ship and technology.

You can see it here:
http://www.spacex.com/mars

Basically they plan to start sending 2 ton unmanned cargo(I belive the heaviest anyone sent on Mars so far was 700 kg) by 2023 and soon after start sending humans. They predict travel to Mars could be as fast as 90/80 days.

[Anonymous No.8375410]

>>8375387

How did they solve the radiation problem

[Anonymous No.8375432]

They plan to use CH4/O2 for fuel.

Send about 100 people in a voyage.

[Anonymous No.8375436]

>>8375387
You clearly weren't listening very closely - he said they would send Dragons within two years (2018) and then continually send craft to Mars every 2 years thereafter (2020, 2022, etc)

[Anonymous No.8375462]

>>8375410

so they haven't actually done anything specific because apparently there are others researching it, but it seems like it's not high on their list of priorities

Currently it seems like they're just going to have a water shield around a specific area for use during a solar storm

[Anonymous No.8375493]

>>8375410
It was actually one of the questions to him, I can't really pin point it because conference is still going.

Musk stated that he isn't really afraid of cosmic radiation. They suspect that there will be higher chance of cancer while going but the travel would be short enough that it would be negligable. While on Mars there might be several ways of stoping radiation. Some protection would be gained from Mars own weak electromagnetic shield. Some could be made by burrowing or making artificial electromagnetic shield.

But the point he wanted to make is:
>we aim to provide method of transportation. What would happen there, is entirely different question.

[Anonymous No.8375522]

>>8375493
>They suspect that there will be higher chance of cancer while going but the travel would be short enough that it would be negligable

no

[Anonymous No.8375525]

>>8375493
The railroad analogy was a good one.

He's just providing the transport, what people do when they get there is up to them

>Wild West When

[Anonymous No.8375533]

>Interplanetary Transport System details revealed
FULLY ERECT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R_yYFA

[Anonymous No.8375535]

>>8375436
and when will they send astronauts?

[Anonymous No.8375537]

>>8375436
Yea, I'm guilty of that, frankly I thought there would be thread for it already and this is just my imperfect try to communicate basics. I suspected I heard him say 2018 as well, but it seems so fast and ubelivable that I checked pic-related and only glanced at "mars flights" and assumed I heard wrong without looking closely at "red dragon mission".

[Anonymous No.8375550]

>>8375410
He says it's a non problem unless there is high solar activity.

[Anonymous No.8375558]

Is Mars going to be a dusty waterless shitstorm?

[Anonymous No.8375563]

>>8375535
By timeline that I posted in a previous post we could expect manned mission as soon as 23.

>>8375522
Well, I am only relaying what he said. I as well as you was anticipating this subject and belive that he has much more knowledge than I have, could you provide something to point on the contrary?

[Anonymous No.8375564]

>>8375493
>What would happen there, is entirely different question.
I understand that he basically just wants to be the taxi system, but he should seriously think about about the logistics of mars as well.
It's not unimportant.

[Anonymous No.8375570]

>>8375537
>Flacon heavy
>2016-2017
He better hurries or he'll be behind schedule already.

I can see humans on mars by 2029. If Nasa doesn't beat him to it.

[Anonymous No.8375576]

>>8375563
>we could expect manned mission as soon as 23.
Probably not. That's when he wants to send his first MCT, not likely that it'll be manned.

[Anonymous No.8375577]

>that indian chick asking if he wanted a good luck kiss
master ruse or spaghetti as fuck?

[Anonymous No.8375583]

>WhatAreYouDoingThereOrbitinAllByYourself.png

>>8375564
I suspects that he belives they already take a lot upon themselves and someone else could do heavy lifting in the habitat department, after all they are "commercial firm"

>>8375570
>If Nasa doesn't beat him to it.
Well, NASA is big part of HIS funding. So it's like he is their "strongman". I belive NASA won't go anywhere, anytine soon.

[Anonymous No.8375588]

>>8375583
Fuck I'm retarded, forgot pic.

[Anonymous No.8375590]

>come outside and see my bus

[Anonymous No.8375594]

You think he skipped the last one on purpose? 90% of the people in the q&a were cringy as fuck. Absolute despicable. Did they think this was some kind of weird celeb convention?

[Anonymous No.8375603]

>>8375594
They are millennials, the only kinds of conventions they attend are Comic-Cons.

[Anonymous No.8375606]

>>8375387
just an enormous waste of sorceresses

[Anonymous No.8375609]

>>8375537
>launch window to Mars

I hate that. It is "optimal" launch window to Mars. You can get to Mars at any time, if you have enough fuel and thrust to do it.

[Anonymous No.8375614]

>>8375594
>"W-would astronauts by allowed to hold hands during launch?"

Jesus Christ, really?

[Anonymous No.8375617]

>>8375410

he said they could artificial magnetic fields on mars

[Anonymous No.8375624]

>>8375558
didn't you read The Martian? On Mars, shit is a vital resource for making soil!

>every turd is sacred
>every turd is great
>if a turd is wasted
>Musk gets quite irate

[Anonymous No.8375634]

>>8375624
Lawl. But actually at the point of "The Martian" author was wrong in assuming that martian soil has little water to it. Thanks to curiosity we know that there is much more water than the author predicted.

[Anonymous No.8375639]

>>8375564
He doesn't have to.
Logistics will eventually figure out to so-and-so kg per passenger per year, a figure which will start high but get ever-lower as Mars starts producing its own materials.
Since Spacex plans to launch swarms of ships anyway, even large changes in the colony's planned logistical footprint would be a matter of launching a bit more ships or a bit less people, unlike a single-ship mission where you might end up with a ship that can't carry a crew and everything it needs.
When they start showing results on the way to a manned Mars mission, people and respectable organizations will be beating a path to the door asking to book flights or participate in the payload design.

[Anonymous No.8375648]

>>8375624
kek

[Anonymous No.8375675]

These questions were fucking atrocious

What about asking if this will be used to launch satellites, payloads to orbit, space stations, etc?

[Anonymous No.8375681]

>>8375606
>Waste of resources
>If successful mission unlocks more resources than any previous venture in human history.

[Anonymous No.8375684]

>>8375675
That won't get me real life upboats, let me ask about my cat or my beaner company instead

[Anonymous No.8375694]

>>8375624

[Anonymous No.8375706]

>>8375576
So, would that just be a "test of systems"-trip? Just to Mars and back/land and test shit?

[Anonymous No.8375712]

>>8375624
Hence why Indians would be the perfect choice for first settlers.
>Poo In space-loo

[Anonymous No.8375714]

>>8375706
No 2023 would be the first payload sent on an unmanned vehicle
Probably the machinery needed for producing methane & liquid oxygen there.

[Anonymous No.8375716]

>>8375714
Makes sense, really. Use the first trip to test shit out without risking lives, dump a load of supplies and set of camp.

[Anonymous No.8375720]

>>8375387
i feel bad for all these young engineers that were memed into SpaceX™

[Anonymous No.8375726]

>>8375387
I have the 200k$ ready. I'm fit, trilingual, 30 years old.

I would definitely want to travel with 2nd or 3rd ship. Maybe even with the first.

Question is - how do I reserve my spot? Surely there will be more people able to pay the ticket price and wanting to go than those that can be taken on the ship? How does one reserve his place? Why can't some billionaire just buy all his children a ticket and then establish new dynasty on Mars?

[Anonymous No.8375728]

>>8375720
Literally why

The workload is supposed to be brutal, but they're building something genuinely fucking cool

[Anonymous No.8375733]

>>8375728
This

[Anonymous No.8375734]

>>8375726
No whites allowed.

[Anonymous No.8375735]

>>8375726
That's so ridiculous question, I don't even. First people on Mars will be colonizators. They would need to have specific qualifications ranging from enginering, biology, chemistry, geology, robotics to build, manitain manned mission. Many of them will die, maybe even all first batch will just die. Also we don't even know how pregnacy would develop in lessen gravity and lessen electromagnetic shield of Mars, so there is a possibility that before we figure it out there will be no Martian children so no dynasties.

If you would like to go, maybe reach out to spacex, show them your resume and wait for them to respond.

[Anonymous No.8375741]

>>8375712

>Be Pajeet in 2044
>Develop pressurized closed chamber space suit technology to be able to defecate in the open martian soil
>Give it to the other hundreds of Indians already on mars
>Terraform mars in decades.

[Anonymous No.8375768]

Sending humans is such a mistake, it is too early. They could accomplish so much more with robots.

[Anonymous No.8375773]

>>8375741

[Anonymous No.8375775]

>>8375728
>but they're building something genuinely fucking cool

Rockets that don't work?

[Anonymous No.8375777]

rofl Musk intended the technical stuff to come out in the Q/A

Boy was he disappointed

[Anonymous No.8375781]

>>8375768
he brings it up how they're concerned with transporting weight, and that a human is much more capable than any 80kg robot

[Anonymous No.8375786]

>>8375432
So, we already know it will explode on the launch pad. Will this thing destroy Florida?

[Anonymous No.8375807]

>>8375387

[Anonymous No.8375808]

What do you all think some science payloads would look like for IPT?

Imagine fuck huge landers on Galilean or Jovian satellites.

Or imagine having a normal sized pay load be able to do something like orbit Eris in a REALLY short amount of time.

Or a very small interstellar payload that gets accelerated as much as possible on launch then deploys solar sails or something of the like

[Anonymous No.8375895]

>>8375808
No point to do anything interstellar any time soon.

Without better Isp engines & space nuclear reactors, I don't think going to outer solar system is worthwhile either.

[Anonymous No.8375968]

>>8375609
Well i guess wasting 200% or even 300% more food and water in the travel isnt irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.8375982]

>>8375808
just launch it on new glenn

easier, cheaper and sooner

it could send a Cassini sized orbiter to Pluto

[Anonymous No.8375994]

>Delusion: The thread.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8375997]

>>8375594

Musk is a clebrity not a scientist. He's a fucking joke and so this idea. Just look at the Hyperloop. He's a reddit icon who's "company" pisses away a shit ton of public money.

[Anonymous No.8376007]

>>8375493
>550 ton leo payload
holy shit

[Anonymous No.8376009]

>>8376007
It just gets more ridiculous. It's sad that bright folk such as yourself are sucked into this bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8376013]

Daily reminder that humans sent outside of the magnetosphere will have too much brain damage to be useful by the time they get anywhere, including Mars.

We're not going anywhere for a long time. Sorry. At best we can send machines to build a colony, then get some brain damaged humans down there, and hope in their demented state they reproduce and don't make too many errors.

[Anonymous No.8376014]

>>8376009
the thing is, even if they can send 550 tons to leo, its literally impossible to reuse a rocket that large and heavy (the first stage I mean), those grid fins would have to be impossibly strong

[Anonymous No.8376018]

>>8376014

As determined by computations you've literally pulled out of your ass I presume.

[Anonymous No.8376025]

>>8376014
>what is carbon fiber

The tank that's going to hold the fuel has to be more robust than the fins and they have successfully built the goddamn tank already. Why do you think he's showing the fueltank off? Do you think millenials are interested in a black sphere?

[Anonymous No.8376050]

>>8376025
Wow they built a fucking fuel tank, I'm convinced now.

[Anonymous No.8376051]

>>8376025
what about the hinges

[Anonymous No.8376053]

>>8375997
Pretty much.

This presentation was nothing more than hot air. Musk is a conman, end of story.

[Anonymous No.8376055]

>>8376014
?
why? The empty vessel will weigh like 200 tons or something, nothing insane.

[Anonymous No.8376057]

>>8375997
He has a physics degree and is a grad student.

[Anonymous No.8376058]

>>8376050
>so he said he was going to mars, and he built a fucking tank the absolute madman

[Anonymous No.8376060]

>>8376057
Having "a physics degree" really doesn't make you a scientist, not by a long shot.

[Anonymous No.8376070]

>>8376051
there may be a truss system going on, unsure what their plan is for the rest.

[Anonymous No.8376072]

>>8376055
Uh huh and where is he going to get the fuel to decelerate this?

[Anonymous No.8376074]

>>8376072
Think about this for a second. What will the face friction of air for this vehicle?

[Anonymous No.8376075]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo

[Anonymous No.8376089]

>>8376072
uh he said in the presentation, 7% of the fuel load is used to return to launch site.
Which is a big improvement over like 20% that the falcon 9 needs.

[Anonymous No.8376094]

>>8375387
I am Elon-neutral, belonging neither to the fanboy or the "Musk BTFO" clans, and frankly that presentation was pretty underwhelming. What he released : a mission architecture, some nice CGI, and very minimal hardware. So he is really at the same point as NASA and their "Journey to Mars" meme graphic. He refused to give a definitive timeline which is imho a very bad sign, since he is notorious for being very late on even much closer-to-reality projects (see the falcon heavy, which is little more than three existing rockets strapped together, and this is already years behind schedule), he admitted that a very small budget is allocated to Mars colonization and that very little people work on it, and that will be so until all the other issues (CCdev, etc) are dealt with, which is itself close to forever. And do not get me started on the real issue, economics, how he (or taxpayers) will pay for it.

Not excited, sorry

[Anonymous No.8376098]

>>8376094
He showed you that the engine is mostly ready
He showed you that the building big all composite tanks is mostly ready

I think he expected some technical questions rather than shitty meme stuff, so he could elaborate on the specifics, but he only had a limited time & he's shit at speaking anyways.

[Anonymous No.8376125]

>>8376098
Yes that was part of the useful things we learnt but when you think about it it doesn't mean much either. Unless I'm wrong, building composite tanks is not something industry ever had trouble with in the past decades, so even if I'm sure that his tank is designed to endure the specific conditions he wants him to endure, I really can't see this as any kind of big obstacle that was just solved. As for the engine, it is a pretty low-power one by rocket standards (solid boosters can go well beyond 10MN), and so he needs 42 of them (iirc) at lift-off, so then again I can't really think that as another great step forward. One engine like that isn't the problem. Making 42 of them work is, and given the really high pressure chamber, the slightest abnormality can quickly have catastrophic consequences. And frankly, despite all they achieved, they still havn't completley mastered the "basics" of rocketry (see their recent failiures). Going the N1 route didn't really work well the last time we tried.

Being the devil's advocate here I know

[Anonymous No.8376158]

>>8376125
(cont.)
Imagine if soviet russia in the 60's just announced that they will go to the moon and all they have to show for it is a NK-33 engine and a tank. Would you take them seriously?

I see a lot of people comparing the BFR to Saturn5 but for me, the BFR is a lot more similar to the N1 rocket. The Raptor engine is also a slightly more powerful and more efficient version of the NK-33 if you look at the stats (I'm also waiting to see if they will live up to the adverstised stats). Also, what utlimately killed the N1 was, in fine, poor quality control, which seems to be something SpaceX is also struggling with. Management of labor at SpaceX seems pretty goulag-y as well. But maybe i'm going too far. Still, the parallels are interesting

[Anonymous No.8376159]

>>8376125
N1 wasn't able to test fire any of their engines, unable to do static fires, and was developing/testing the vehicle by trying to launch it.

Bit of a different story.

Building an all/mostly composite launch vehicle is very much a totally new advancing-state-of-the-art thing, same with cryogenic carbon composite tanks.

It is designed to be able to reach orbit despite engine failures, and I expect designed to be able to land with an engine failure as well.
So thats where the large number of engines comes from, he also tweeted that this engine size is where the thrust/weight ratio was optimized.

Both their falcon 9 failures involved the helium pressurization system(might have also been sabotage/deliberate destruction of the vehicle), and this new vehicle won't have that. So hopefully it'll all work out well.

[Anonymous No.8376173]

>>8376125
>Being the devil's advocate here I know
You are at least presenting some decent questions/arguments about the project, which is more than most people on /sci/ does. Its become an echo-chamber where "lol meme" and "btfo" is thrown around at anything that resembles an argument.

[Anonymous No.8376175]

I want to know what the living quarters are going to be like. How many people will the BFR hold? Will it have artificial gravity by spinning?

Does anyone know?

[Anonymous No.8376179]

>>8376159
>Both their falcon 9 failures involved the helium pressurization system(might have also been sabotage/deliberate destruction of the vehicle), and this new vehicle won't have that. So hopefully it'll all work out well.
I've read that methane-tanks wont be needing pressurization, but does that also go for LOX?

[Anonymous No.8376181]

>>8375982
They haven't even gotten anything into an actual orbit yet

[Anonymous No.8376187]

>>8375558
While I'll admit that the dust is a big issue there is actually quite a bit of water ice trapped in the regolith. About 2% by weight up to 60%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_soil

Big thing is the dust. Magnetic, abrasive, slightly toxic and occasionally blocking out the sun. Really hope their solar panels have a nuclear back up.

[Anonymous No.8376192]

>>8376159
>Building an all/mostly composite launch vehicle is very much a totally new advancing-state-of-the-art thing
Vega is all-composite and has been flying since 2012

>It is designed to be able to reach orbit despite engine failures, and I expect designed to be able to land with an engine failure as well.
One engine shutting down, sure, but quitely shutting down sadly isn't the only failure mode of a rocket engine. As I said I'm more concerned about quality control. They are operating very close to what material can withstand (close to failure, as do all lightweight structures, but it's even more critical here) A tiny manufacturing defect and boom

>Both their falcon 9 failures involved the helium pressurization system(might have also been sabotage/deliberate destruction of the vehicle), and this new vehicle won't have that. So hopefully it'll all work out well.
Helium isn't an evil molecule per se. And they have experience with Helium, but next-to-none with methane. I try to look at the big picture rather than specifics. And for me (own opinion) this big picture is not inspiring confidence.

>(might have also been sabotage/deliberate destruction of the vehicle
Cmon now that's just ridiculous

[Anonymous No.8376195]

>>8375614
L...Lewd

[Anonymous No.8376200]

>>8376094
Ahem NASA has built and tested the SSME engines the SRBs, the fuel tanks and even the Orion capsule. What has Musk got to show? I giant beach ball.
>>8376158
>>8376159
Yeah and SpaceX has a bigger budget than the Soviet Union in it's heyday right?

[Anonymous No.8376201]

>>8375726
Who would do something like that?

[Anonymous No.8376202]

>>8376175
the presentation had a quick 3d flight through the inside, obviously its a little early to finalize that design, and he commented that they could be making it bigger for more people.

>>8376192
>Vega is all-composite and has been flying since 2012

Vega is solid, solid, and non-cryogenic liquid

>but quitely shutting down sadly isn't the only failure mode of a rocket engine.
Go look at the video of the one time they had an engine failure, it didn't quietly shutting down. They do some armoring around the engines.

[Anonymous No.8376219]

>>8376175
Microgravity, no spin
100+ people is the target
Protection from geomagnetic storms happens by pointing the ship's ass toward the Sun
There's supposed to be a big observation deck with windows on the front where people can play zero-g sports and shit because the journey needs to be "fun" according to Musk

[Anonymous No.8376250]

Then Musk showed up and said
"NIGGA WE GOIN TO MARS LMAO"

Questions were a fucking disgrace. More than half of the time used to answer them was wasted.

[Anonymous No.8376251]

>>8376192
Mentioning Vega means you don't really understand the tech here.... This is tankage for cryogenic propellants, not solids or hypergols. Low temperatures and composites traditionally go together very very badly. Look at the issues experienced trying to develop the X-33 hydrogen tank

[Anonymous No.8376259]

>>8375525
Would it be easier to send mechanical spiders piece-by-piece from Earth or just build them on site?

[Anonymous No.8376275]

>>8376013
sounds like we just need to send Russians

[Anonymous No.8376279]

>>8376192
>quitely shutting down sadly isn't the only failure mode of a rocket engine
Falcon 9 1.0 had an engine blow up and carried on to space without a problem.

[Anonymous No.8376285]

>>8375387
How is this any different from NASA's interplanetary concepts from decades ago, except NASA have actually put people in space and on the moon and this guy is just going straight to mars?

[Anonymous No.8376292]

>>8376285
probably because nasa aint tryna do shit and Musk man is enough of a madman to try. Sometimes you gotta just follow the madman.

[Anonymous No.8376294]

>>8375720
I'm sure they're getting paid well.

[Anonymous No.8376296]

Does anyone know or have an estimate of the length of the spacecraft? I'm especially interested in how it compares in size to other manned spacecraft.

[Anonymous No.8376301]

>>8375410
I really doubt that radiation will ever be a "non-issue." The good news is that the rocket can lift enough to carry a fuckton of shielding.

[Anonymous No.8376302]

>>8376250
That's because his head isn't in the game anymore
Now he's just a way for rich people to either laundry money or get a tax rideoff

[Anonymous No.8376303]

>>8376294
not really. you work there for the hype of being on some cutting edge "might blow up if you are a baddie" kind of stuff.

[Anonymous No.8376305]

>>8376296
the pictures are in the thread..

[Anonymous No.8376312]

>>8376305
You're right.
>tfw you dont read the thread

[Anonymous No.8376326]

>>8376187
Highly doubt musk would get the okay from any government for a nuclear reactor for mars much less be able to ship something useful there.


I doubt dust would be too much of an issue with the amount of water they could refine to wash down suits

[Anonymous No.8376332]

>>8376200
>Yeah and SpaceX has a bigger budget than the Soviet Union in it's heyday right?
Don't laugh too hard at that idea. The Soviets were poor as fuck. Shortages all over the place. Their rockets were basically done by volunteers and slave labor. They didn't have the means to recruit effort by offering material rewards, or to relieve their devoted servants of the inconveniences of poverty. Slaves do lousy work, and there are only so many volunteers.

SpaceX attracts the best talent (and can support it at the level of material comfort to which it is accustomed), and can buy the best tools from around the world.

They may have a larger effective budget to spend on actual work than, for instance, the shuttle program or SLS/Orion, because they're in no way organized as a means of funnelling money. They're not sending money to a contractor because that's part of the deal in which they receive the money, they're only sending money to a contractor when it's the best deal for getting the job done.

In a business where corruption is the norm, they're spending money honestly. There's really nothing to compare that to.

[Anonymous No.8376338]

>>8376303
Right...
>http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Spacex/Hourly_Rate
>http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Spacex/Salary

[Anonymous No.8376355]

>>8375982
SpaceX is further along on their next rocket than the New Glenn

[Anonymous No.8376361]

So the spacecraft is 33% longer than the space shuttle but the space shuttle is wider (wingspan) than it. That's alot smaller than I figured it would be.

[Anonymous No.8376362]

>>8376355
No.

[Anonymous No.8376370]

>>8376362
show me blue origins fancy CGI of how it works then...
show me a video of its engine firing
show me a constructed large diameter tank

I'll wait!

[Anonymous No.8376375]

>>8376094
>do not get me started on the real issue, economics, how he (or taxpayers) will pay for it.
It's only $10 billion, spread over nearly a decade, in combined investments and launch profits. SpaceX got a NASA contract for $2.6 billion just for a half-dozen rides to the ISS, and a couple billion for more. Didn't Google kick in a billion or so toward the SpaceX satellite business?

[Anonymous No.8376377]

>>8376361
m8 its got 2,000 tons of fuel + 300 tons of payload in it
It's not small

[Anonymous No.8376381]

>>8376377
I thought it could do an effective payload of 450 when fueled with 550 as max

[Anonymous No.8376387]

>>8375410
musk basically said "what are you a bunch of pussies? it's just a little cancer"

[Anonymous No.8376388]

>>8376370
They're testing full scale engines within a few months (not sub scale meme demonstrators)

They're building the factory and pad facilities right now

It doesn't require some extreme new tech like carbon fiber tanks before it can be built

Bezos said first flight "before 2020"

New Glenn won't require extensive modifications to be used for unmanned missions to high energy outer solar system orbits

[Anonymous No.8376402]

>>8376387
He more or less said that there would be an increased risk which is known, but with the engines pointed to the sun and a potential water shield unless a massive solar storm they should be fine.

[Anonymous No.8376408]

Reskimmed the conference earlier. Did I miss it or did musk not really detail how long people going to mars would have to travel inside before they landed on mars

[Anonymous No.8376412]

>>8376381
I believe they include the dry weight of the 2nd stage for that 550t expendable number.

So you have 300 tons payload + 150 drymass, gives you 450 tons in orbit.

Then they also have 450 tons maximum payload in one ship, which would involve a later launch transfering more payload over + a full load of fuel.

>>8376408
image

[Anonymous No.8376419]

>>8376402
I was worried about what Musk said until he said he will use widely accepted mitigation techniques anyway.

The real concern is what happens when people actually get there. Did I miss something or did Musk not have any plan for the colonists? Beyond ISRU for propellant back to Earth, there doesn't seem to be any infrastructure or civilization planned for them. That's pretty alarming. Mars is extremely inhospitable.

[Anonymous No.8376423]

>>8375533
Can they actually get it to land back on the pad with such precision like that back onto the launch mount? wont that need mm precision?

[Anonymous No.8376430]

>>8376419
He said some techniques would be used as well as mars own atmosphere and what not. He also briefly mentioned burrowing or covering some things with dirt for shielding during bad storms.

First few shuttles should also be just empty supply ships as well IIRC

[Anonymous No.8376431]

>>8375734
Colony failure incoming.

[Anonymous No.8376436]

>>8376388
Can you point to a single source claiming that the recent Raptor test was anything but full-scale?

[Anonymous No.8376437]

>>8376430
>empty
*unmanned my bad

[Anonymous No.8376447]

>>8376431
The Mayans and Thais didn't need you you piece of shit

[Anonymous No.8376451]

>>8376436
Nevermind, found it myself

[Anonymous No.8376456]

>>8376447
And they were conquered and died out.

[Anonymous No.8376459]

>>8376423

With a big vehicle like this, they can achieve a below 1 thrust to weight for landing.
Couldn't do that with the Falcon 9.
So you can do slow graceful landings.

Obviously the launch pad would be designed to be landed on.

Though you gotta remember how different things looked from their Falcon 9 CGI's vs reality, expect the same shit here.

[Anonymous No.8376495]

>>8376423
>>8376459
the "fins" on the bottom of the Mars Booster are actually to make sure it lands snugly back in the pad.

[Anonymous No.8376498]

>>8376179
Yes, he even mentioned that during the presentation actually.

Also they both do need pressurisation, but are capable of doing it themselves by reinjecting part of the heated gas back into the tank, which is why no helium is needed.

[Anonymous No.8376521]

>>8376419
>Did I miss something or did Musk not have any plan for the colonists? Beyond ISRU for propellant back to Earth, there doesn't seem to be any infrastructure or civilization planned for them. That's pretty alarming. Mars is extremely inhospitable.
I think the idea is, they're pretty much just focused on providing the transportation, and they figure the rest is solvable and will be dealt with by other people who pay for rides to Mars.

At Mars, due to their transportation-related needs, they'll have to develop and prove practical ways to shelter and sustain staff (albeit with moderate use of supplies from Earth), generate energy, mine and purify water, produce hydrogen and water, collect CO2, make and liquefy methane, and transport people and goods over the surface. So they'll likely share these capabilities and sell their surplus.

[Anonymous No.8376529]

>>8376521
Well Musk has a solar power, battery, and autonomous electric car company
He has a low pressure high speed train thing
He has a satellite branch
Obviously building pressurized habitats that manage in space is pretty similar to pressurized habitats for mars.
He's talked about how food is an easy thing to do on mars, relatively.

If its a critical aspect of the mars colonization, they'll be doing it themselves

[Anonymous No.8376531]

>>8376521
Kind of like the towns that sprouted at railway stops, but instead of a railway, it will be a spaceport.

[Anonymous No.8376533]

>>8375387
>elon musk expects people to pay $200k per person to die in outer space

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/27/technology/spacex-elon-musk-mars-colonization/index.html

[Anonymous No.8376537]

>be richfag
>start a cult
>head to mars with said cult
>establish first mars empire

[Anonymous No.8376544]

>>8376219
I swear to god he's just desperately trying to make the Mars trilogy into reality

[Anonymous No.8376548]

>>8375786
Hopefully

[Anonymous No.8376553]

>>8376533

Elon Musk expects people to pay $200,000 to die on another planet. If they decide it's not for them, the ship still goes back to Earth after two years.

[Anonymous No.8376559]

>>8376537

[Anonymous No.8376560]

>>8376553
goes back to earth immediately

[Anonymous No.8376563]

>>8376560
>goes back to earth immediately

Wholly dictated by their fueling infrastructure and the frequency of trips. Two years is a plausible worst case scenario that doesn't involve "never".

[Anonymous No.8376581]

>>8375781
Did he forget the weight of the life support equipment those bags of meat need that the robots don't?

[Anonymous No.8376585]

>>8376581
>Did he forget the weight of the life support equipment those bags of meat need that the robots don't?

Wow, I'm sure they hadn't thought of that one. You should call up SpaceX right away.

[Anonymous No.8376590]

What happens if the second stage can't start? Are they fucked?

[Anonymous No.8376595]

>>8376451
>"When asked if the nozzle diameter for such version was 14 ft (4.3 m), he stated that it was pretty close to that dimension. He also disclosed that it used multi-stage turbopumps.On the 27th he clarified that 150 expansion ratio was for the development version, that the production vacuum version would have have an expansion ratio of 200"

>https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/780608204833165316

Sounds pretty much close to full scale for me

[Anonymous No.8376603]

>>8375997

so he wont go to mars?

[Anonymous No.8376613]

>>8376060
>Having "a physics degree" really doesn't make you a scientist, not by a long shot.

You seem upset. Would you like to talk about it?

[Anonymous No.8376621]

>>8375781
When did he say that? Second, Elon want's us to be a multiplanet species now, no matter how many people die in the process, so he's a bit biased in this regard.

>> human is much more capable than any 80kg robot
But not for much longer.

[Anonymous No.8376623]

so you can only send to mars every 2 years, when is the next 2 year mark

[Anonymous No.8376625]

>>8376623
March 2018

[Anonymous No.8376630]

>>8376603
He has stated previously that he wants to go to LEO/ISS first, and then retire on Mars. So he will probably go there in like 20 years.

[Anonymous No.8376631]

>>8376013
>brain damage
if we send enough humans, we'll eventually find some with mutations capable of surviving space travel. It'll be just like what happened with the polynesians. Those who survived the long boat ride were selected for.

[Anonymous No.8376644]

>>8376623
See the images in >>8375537 and >>8376412

[Anonymous No.8376660]

>>8375624

[Anonymous No.8376663]

>be in mars
>no internet
>scarce food is always in a container
>no oxygen, no water, no health care, etc.
>sandstorm happens almost everyday
>no atmosphere so radiation kills you every second

Yeah, it's so good to be a guinea pig by SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.8376664]

How long before self sustaining mars tells earth to fuck off after they find alien tech from when humans migrated from mars to earth?

[Anonymous No.8376680]

>>8376408
Depends how far mars is away, and how fast they want to get there

>>8376581
robots are very useful, we can trust them to operate on their own
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MSZvKHNlgw

>>8376621
pretty sure it's a 5 second aside, I'm not rewatching all 90 minutes to find it

>>8376663
>quantum entanglement instant messaging with earth
>plenty of water and carbon dioxide
>quarantined environment so not much to get sick from
>live in shielded structures, accept a shorter life because threat of cancer

[Anonymous No.8376681]

>>8376663
Well Musk did say lots of people will die.

[Anonymous No.8376726]

>>8375594
I like Elon, not his fans who glorify him.

[Anonymous No.8376727]

>>8376663
>no internet
Yeah because Musk is sending people to mars to fap and browse image boards
>scarce food is always in a container
Predetermined supply drops already a thing, not to mention a hydroponics lab is more than likely. Water is already been confirmed and can be made with resources on mars. Healthcare will be a somewhat a problem, but it isn't like doctors won't be there to do the best they can.
>sandstorm happens almost everyday
not 100% true
>no atmosphere so radiation kills you every second
Again not 100% true

No one ever said there weren't big risk or that it would be safe, but you are pathing the first big step in humanities future as a species.

[Anonymous No.8376742]

>>8375387
Send robots, not people. send those robots from Boston dynamic to walk the entire planet. They'll finally be useful.

[Anonymous No.8376743]

Wait a sec, where are the radiators?

[Anonymous No.8376748]

>>8376743
Why bother showing them?

[Anonymous No.8376753]

>>8376748
Because it's supposed to be a technical presentation.

[Anonymous No.8376754]

>>8376753
>sandy shitty desert

[Anonymous No.8376757]

>>8376553
>not sending robots to freak out the ayy lmaos during first encounter.

[Anonymous No.8376758]

>>8376754
I heard there was a media-only Q&A but I haven't seen or read about it.

[Anonymous No.8376764]

>>8376753
>>8376743
Why do you think radiators would be prominently visible?

[Anonymous No.8376782]

>>8376757
not sending the first ship back and having people in ayy lmao costumes come out when it lands on earth. after making the whole trip with "video feed problems".

[Anonymous No.8376786]

>>8376764
So they can release the heat into space.

[Anonymous No.8376795]

>>8375726
>Why can't some billionaire just buy all his children a ticket and then establish new dynasty on Mars?

Now where would anyone get a crazy idea like that...

[Anonymous No.8376802]

From the media-only Q&A.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/54t9c4/rspacex_postpresentation_media_press_conference/

[Anonymous No.8376837]

>>8376338
>http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Spacex/Salary

That's.... actually not that good. Especially considering where it is.

In fact, I looked that up and that's exactly what Orbital pays, and Orbital isn't in fucking cali

[Anonymous No.8376872]

>>8375387
I wonder how They'll finance this shit.
I'd be surprised if this whole operation will cost less then 100 Billion dollars.
If he wants to sell tickets for 200K he's gonna need to convince half a million people to go.

[Anonymous No.8376873]

>>8375410
>good luck suing me on Mars bitches.

[Anonymous No.8376874]

>>8375726
The first few ships are gonna be more expensive.
Better start saving up some more.

[Anonymous No.8376878]

>>8376388
Has blue origins gotten anything into space yet?

[Anonymous No.8376883]

>>8376878
well, they've crossed 100 km(i think), not that it matters much in practical terms

[Anonymous No.8376884]

>>8376743
Radiators and solar panels are combined.

[Anonymous No.8376885]

>>8376786
I'm sure SpaceX can add up numbers adequately and figure out what radiators is needed(if at all).

>>8376883
I don't accept 100 km altitude as space.

[Anonymous No.8376905]

>>8375387
>Y..you're not only sending white people right Elon?
>Elon, you're not starting a whole new planet just to get away from darkies right?
>Elon?

[Anonymous No.8376908]

>>8376905
He's south african. He knows what darkies are like, of course he's doing it.

[Anonymous No.8376917]

I admire the dude for putting ideas out there for the sake of generating discussion, but this is pretty pie in the sky stuff.

Something tells me that lifting heavy objects like that off the ground isn't the same as the stuff we're currently capable of lifting into space. I seriously doubt the landing technique as well.

Why not just have all the people in their own small hotel rooms and each room just detaches from the big ship while in orbit of Mars, and lands roughly near each other, where a centralized camp is set up nearby? Then the big mothership in space just turns around and goes back to earth to be refueled by the fuel payloads in orbit? Why does the enormous craft have to ever land?

[Anonymous No.8376923]

>>8376917
Why don't you spend a few hours reading about orbital mechanics and physics and all of that shit

It's all fucking self-explanatory with a basic understanding of physics.

[Anonymous No.8376925]

>>8375493
Fucking hell.

Can you imagine seeing this thing launch?

Pretty sure I'd take a dump in my pants and start laughing uncontrollably like I've lost my mind.

It's like watching the Empire State building take off.

[Anonymous No.8376929]

See I told you guys women couldn't care less about muh Mars.

Mars will be a sausage fest.
The only women that are gonna go will be dykes and ugly women want to raise their sexual market value as they wont have any competition.

[Anonymous No.8376932]

>>8376925
I've never seen a rocket launch in real life. But I'd buy a ticket to America just to see this.

[Anonymous No.8376941]

>>8376837
I've posted this numerous times before, and truthfully it's getting a bit tedious, but those numbers don't really paint an accurate picture of pay scale here. Intro pay tends to start off at or slightly below industry average, especially considering the hours expected, but then ramps up pretty quickly once you reach the 2-3 year mark. In my experience by year 5 most engineers here are at or slightly above industry average, of course seeing as we have fairly high turnover many don't stay long enough to see that.

On the hourly tech side I would say we're actually better than most competitors since we have tons of opportunity for OT which pays really well.

Of course it should be said that no one in aerospace is making a killing in coastal California due to COL. But hey, for some it's still better than having to work at Orbital.

[Anonymous No.8376942]

>>8376925
>Can you imagine seeing this thing launch

Yeah, it'd be a hell of a sound and a bright flash as the rocket ascends. Then an even more hellish sound and brighter flash as it explodes 4 seconds after launch, killing the entire crew.

[Anonymous No.8376944]

>>8376923
How about the stress to a metal structure that large upon liftoff and eventual aerobraking maneuvers? It seems like it would tear itself apart.

How about the legs show in the video meant to calmly land that enormous building on the ground? It's hard to believe they would be able to handle the load even on Mars.

It would be pretty shit if this building of a ship manages to get all the way there, does an aerobatic twist with 200 people on board, comes in for the slow landing, and the building leans over and crashes into the ground, killing 200 people on board.

[Anonymous No.8376945]

To ensure survivability they need to launch a few of those landing modules that are purely cargo craft, contract with CAT/JCB and other heavy industry companies to develop electric versions of their construction equipment.

I know as much as /sci/ would love them too it'd probably be beneficial if at least a quarter of the original crew are civil engineers of some sort with construction experience.

[Anonymous No.8376954]

>>8376929
im colorblind, can you please fix?

[Anonymous No.8376973]

>>8376929
So long as we get a universal world porn archive sent along with us.

[Anonymous No.8376979]

>Many of you will die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

[Anonymous No.8376991]

>>8376944
It's not metal. It's carbon fibre

[Anonymous No.8377010]

>>8376929
Well. They do say men are from mars.

[Anonymous No.8377028]

>>8376094

This sums up my thoughts as well. I ain't got nothing against SpaceX, but besides the lack of a *precise* timelines (FAIs, that sort of wank engineers like myself want) there's no reason for SpaceX to send humans to Mars as it wouldn't be profitable. And, besides the Falcon Heavy delays, a 300-to-LEO rocket (a reusable rocket, even) in under ten years seems like a huge stretch. A 100-seat ship is a huge stretch as well.

That said, ten years from now the situation will be different. NASA will be back on the Moon with Orion/SLS (and some sort of lander) while SpaceX resupplies the new ISS and potentially privately owned space stations. SpaceX would naturally evolve into manned Moon missions while NASA gets serious about a manned Mars mission.

[Anonymous No.8377036]

>>8376332

Please, the USSR had one major factor: work or die. And the Soviets themselves demanded rockets for ICBMs as a hedge against America. Especially in the 1950s the Soviets had a HUGE advantage over Americans who had to vet contractors and deal with red tape. It only became an issue once the rocket needed to be scaled up, and this is when the QC issues became a real problem.

Your argument is essentially the same argument libertarians make, that corporations are perfectly efficient and don't waste money unlike the government. However, (a) this does not guarantee success and (b) companies have to blow money on employee retention, as employees are all free agents and can work anywhere.

>In a business where corruption is the norm, they're spending money honestly. There's really nothing to compare that to.

It's not "corruption" if the goal is to make a product that works and that preserves competition. Many of the irrational decisions the USAF makes vis-a-vis procurement is done to ensure that everyone gets an equal amount of contracts, and no single company can create a monopoly. Only three companies in the US are capable of making Buy America complaint fighter jets, for example.

SpaceX doesn't even get it bad, their entire raison d'etre is that the feds WANT more competition. Congress stripped ULA of their monopoly so that SpaceX could become a serious competitor and result in a higher space-vehicle standard across the board. Congress is often moody but they doing what's in their best interest, making federal money work as efficiently as possible.

[Anonymous No.8377044]

>>8376917

A better idea would be to ship over explosives earthmoving equipment, to dig a base out underground. However, this limits the amount of available places to build bases, as they'd have to be in solid bedrock (which does not need internal supports if built right).

Or, better yet, just build a steel mill on Mars. It could probably be run entirely from a manned space station, or from a small skeleton crew.

[Anonymous No.8377059]

>>8375432
Can someone point out the pressurized section for the crew or is it a separate vehicle inside the top of the fairing?

[Anonymous No.8377098]

>>8377059
There's no fairing. That is the vehicle.

[Anonymous No.8377106]

>This madman expects his booster to last a 1000 launches

[Anonymous No.8377108]

>>8377059

Here's crew section

[Anonymous No.8377116]

>>8377098
>>8377108
Damn, is there anything SpaceX can't do?

[Anonymous No.8377134]

>>8377116
At this point Nasa is just a shadow government agency to redirect funds to spaceX.

[Anonymous No.8377152]

>>8376681
Humans do tend to die in general though, not necessarily in space.

[Anonymous No.8377172]

>>8376942
I would pay top dollar to see this with me own eyes

[Anonymous No.8377175]

What are people gonna do on Mars though? Walk around, collect dirt, admire the incredibly vast nothing and be bored as hell?

[Anonymous No.8377187]

>>8377175
Catch up on that vidya backlog
Or catch up with leukemia

[Anonymous No.8377199]

>>8376436
Its full scale apart from nozzle lenght

[Anonymous No.8377234]

>>8377175
Sex. Lots of martian sex. I would.

[Anonymous No.8377235]

>>8377116
Pretty accurate.

[Anonymous No.8377251]

>>8376630
But he was asked if he was going to be the fist human to walk on Mars and he didnt say no. I mean it's very tempting... all the work and money hes spending amd he is gonna let other person become the most important human being so far in our history? You must be a massive cuck to do that.

[Anonymous No.8377255]

>>8377175

Begin the first steps of colonization and basic infastructure so that one day we can attempt to terraform the rock and start a whole new Earth

[Anonymous No.8377296]

>>8377116
Actually make the artwork and the CGI real.

[Anonymous No.8377410]

>>8376929
It will be like California all over again.

>railways reach cali
>goldrush is on
>penises, penises everywhere
>men so desperate that women are kidnapped and smuggled into cali by the boatload

[Anonymous No.8377432]

>>8377175
>What are people gonna do on Mars though?
There's a real problem here. There won't be many people at first, and most of them that do go will be well off. Mars will be a case of too many chiefs and not enough indians as there won't be any poor/middle class workers on Mars for a long time. Mars will have to rely on robots and strong cooperation or else.

[Anonymous No.8377482]

>>8376929

Boys go to mars:

Boys go to mars
because they applied to degrees in the stem fields
A few less girls went to mars because not as many applied to the stem fields
But the ones that did also didn't have to show that they were as well educated or trained as the boys
that doesn't mean they weren't, just that they didn't have to show it
because women have a two to one chance of being accepted in scientific jobs because feminists demand that more women be represented in stem fields
But guess who's not going to mars:
the women who applied for gender studies instead of stem.

[Anonymous No.8377555]

>>8377251
he wants to be sure his companies can go on without him if something happens to him.

[Anonymous No.8377570]

>>8377028
I hate to be pessimistic but I agree, I don't see this happening for at least a decade.

Making the composite tanks compatible with a sub-cooled cryogenic oxidizing agent (with no fluoropolymer/metalic liner!) is going to be a major challenge. 'I got 10 graduates to build a prototype and it seemed OK when we filled it up' is very unconvincing, particularly if you want to reuse the booster as well. You'll need to know how the material responds to thermal cycling, repeated loading, ect.

Further, getting 42 large 300bar chamber pressure motors to work together is improbable and possible a poor design choice. The acoustics will be insane and the vehicle will do its best to tear itself apart, see also: N1.

If I was Elon I'd be working on a 'Version 2' Falcon 9 that uses Raptor, composite monocoque and methalox to work through these technologies at a smaller scale first while adding capability to your commercial launch product. If he goes straight to the BFR I'd bet good money it will explode on at least the first 4 flights.

[Anonymous No.8377573]

>>8376925
it's even bigger than the saturn v, the first launch of which made an entire building full of grown men lose their shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uoVfZpx5dY

[Anonymous No.8377580]

I don't understand the hype. Is it just because he announced something that he will do in 20 years?

Also do we really need to spend that kind of money on flying to deserted shit rock?
Imbalance in this world makes me angry every time.

[Anonymous No.8377593]

>>8376929
I'm a trap and I want to go, does that count?

[Anonymous No.8377598]

>>8375493
A magnetic shield doesn't protect from UV and X/gamma rays.

[Anonymous No.8377599]

>>8377580
>Imbalance in this world makes me angry every time.
>We can't improve on X because Y is still shit!!!
We'd still be cavemen with his mentality.

If you want to wait until we've achieved world piece it'd be after we all go extinct.

[Anonymous No.8377623]

>>8377580
Can you libtards just fuck off back to /r/politics already? Literally the most retarded post I have read all day

[Anonymous No.8377632]

Musk has one more thing to start up.

[Anonymous No.8377641]

Do we have an estimate of how much it will cost to get the first people there? And how he plans to fund it?

[Anonymous No.8377643]

>>8377641
10 billion dollars per person for the first mission.

[Anonymous No.8377644]

>>8377580
every fucking time
What do you propose then? Should rocket scientists instead of working on their field of expertise try their luck on diplomacy to make the world le peaceful?

Or maybe we should send even more money to Africa so we could stop hunger... for a few months?

[Anonymous No.8377647]

>>8377643
how many people? Or are you saying that's a marginal cost? So 1 person = 10bn, 2 people = 20bn etc?

[Anonymous No.8377661]

>>8377647

[Anonymous No.8377674]

>>8377661
Those costs are so cheap. We're going to be launching alot more than just Mars colony missions on those things. We're talking about absolutely massive science platforms. Shit that could produce quality images of exoplanets. Not to mention launching all kinds of other hardware like huge space stations.

[Anonymous No.8377684]

>>8377623
>>8377644
have fun exploring space while muslims blow up the rocket in the name of god hahaha or feminists as astronauts lmao

If you think that few intelligent people will do shit in space before whole planet gets on that level you are even crazier that sciencefags that think you will ever get off this planet

>interstelar travel
best meme to date

[Anonymous No.8377689]

>>8377647

So 62M per actual trip.
Ship capacity is ~100 people. So it's actually 620k per person. Far above the 200K he wants to charge for a ticket.
Now this *just* the cost per trip assuming his vehicles actually reach their expected "Lifetime launches".

He still has the development cost to pay off, which wont be insignificant.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_System#Cost

[Anonymous No.8377691]

>>8377684
>>interstelar travel
>best meme to date
Who said anything about interstellar travel.

[Anonymous No.8377694]

>>8377684
there is no contradiction between funding SpaceX and solving the western cuckoldry problem

Even so there are no incentive for SJW to go to Mars, you can't get upboats in space

[Anonymous No.8377700]

>>8377694
>Even so there are no incentive for SJW to go to Mars
There is
>>8376929
>dykes and ugly women want to raise their sexual market value

[Anonymous No.8377702]

>>8377700
>>dykes and ugly women want to raise their sexual market value
yes but with minimal effort, there is no fucking way they would risk their life to end in a dusty shithole

[Anonymous No.8377704]

>>8375594
>Did they think this was some kind of weird celeb convention?
But that's exactly what it was. If he wanted the world to know about technical details of his plans he could've held a press conference or release a press statement. Instead it was organized as an event with him on a stage.

[Anonymous No.8377717]

>>8375726
>Why can't some billionaire just buy all his children a ticket and then establish new dynasty on Mars?
And the brothers and sisters make love to each other to keep the dynasty pure?

[Anonymous No.8377729]

>>8376664
>YWN literally live the plot of Red Faction Guerrila

[Anonymous No.8377737]

>>8377717
Where do I sign up for that?

[Anonymous No.8377740]

>>8375436
What happens when that gets costly? Is everyone on Mars just fucked?

[Anonymous No.8377749]

>>8377740
well presumably they'll be sending over the supplies to construct hydroponic farms, mining equipment, equipment to produce small factories, and they'll be on their way to self sufficiency

[Anonymous No.8377809]

>>8376954
No problem

[Anonymous No.8377815]

>>8376944
If you design it to be able to handle a known G-load, then the stresses will be easily handled.

It'll be like 600 or a bit more tons landed on mars.
38% of that is like 250 tons, you honestly believe 250 tons is an impossible weight for 3 thick metal tubes to hold up?

And the reason you don't just "go into orbit" is because there is such a thing as delta-v, which you have a very finite amount of.

[Anonymous No.8377839]

>>8376929
I don't think they will allow people go by genders that would make colonisation impossible.

Fit, useful people of different bloods, nationalities and genders shall be selected for maximum efficiency in repopulation / colonisation efforts.

If they sent 100 males only it would make absolutely no sense.

You need to make babbys on Mars for it to work.

[Anonymous No.8377840]

>>8377809
Who is the genius that made "yes" and "no" indistinguishable?

[Anonymous No.8377844]

>>8377840
82% were males and voted yes
9% were females and voted yes
8% were males and voted no
1.33% were females and voted no

You just had to read the %

[Anonymous No.8377866]

>>8377689

100 people is not "capacity", thats just some ballpark minimum figure. He's said it could be bigger with more people.

Those numbers are obviously just preliminary, Isn't the propellant substantially below that price?

And ofc, if the IS doesn't take that much maintenance, plus is doing other stuff between windows to "amortize" the purchase price, then you would see the cost dropping.

[Anonymous No.8377892]

The Rothschilds won't allow a white-gentile settlement on Mars

Expect this rocket to blow up

[Anonymous No.8377914]

>>8377737
>Where do I sign up for that?
What, fucking your sibling? I dunno, the Middle-east or Alabama, maybe?

[Anonymous No.8377926]

>>8377689
so from now to get the very first people on Mars, they are estimating a cost of roughly 650m? Am I reading this correctly?

[Anonymous No.8377929]

>>8377926
thats the incremental construction costs of the vehicles

[Anonymous No.8377981]

>>8376979
>>Many of you will die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
top kek

[Anonymous No.8377990]

>>8377981
I'm totally ok with that. It is a sacrifice worth making.

[Anonymous No.8378004]

Oh and this is a very special time for humanity. We may be the among the last people to ever know humanity as a single planetary species. The concept will be unimaginably alien to all of the generations of humans that follow us.

[Anonymous No.8378029]

>>8378004
>2250
>yfw fags from 2000 didn't have robots to do all the menial tasks like free food and energy production
>they were stuck on Earth
>they didn't even have android catgirl waifus
I would have killed myself desu.

[Anonymous No.8378105]

This is hilarious, incredibly inefficient, super risky and a waste of time.

Look up the ARV Fluxliner. It uses zero-point anti-gravity technology and it can reach mars in a few seconds.

The government has reversed-alien engineered tech that is light years ahead of this pathetic spacex trash.

The first arrivals on mars are going to be incredibly BTFO when they see the Swastika flags.

Fucking rockets, LMAO!

[Anonymous No.8378116]

>>8377036
>Please, the USSR had one major factor: work or die.
I covered that when I mentioned slave labor. Slaves are inefficient workers. They resent their situation and prefer not to advance their master's cause. Attempts to punish them for low productivity provoke higher resentment, and are likely to often hit the people making an honest effort, reinforcing the belief among slaves that their efforts don't matter, causing them to become even more deceptive.

People work much better when they believe they're pursuing a worthy collective goal *and* receiving suitable personal rewards for it.

[Anonymous No.8378117]

>tfw you might live to get the spiders from mars

[Anonymous No.8378124]

>>8376332
Soviet space industry was beautiful place to work for soviets. Dosh that commoners can not dream for, interesting fulfilling work. Of course that level of consumption was small for West but soviets didn't know that best.

[Anonymous No.8378126]

>>8377570
>You'll need to know how the material responds to thermal cycling
Is there going to be any thermal cycling of the tank materials?

My understanding is that once operation starts, the tanks will never be empty, they'll always have subcooled propellant in them. They're built for long-term propellant storage, but not for total emptying.

[Anonymous No.8378132]

>>8378126
hm? I think those smaller tanks inside the space ships big tanks are the place they will be doing long term storage of fuel.

Obviously all of these such things can be tested on earth, and no doubt they will.

[Anonymous No.8378142]

>>8377175
>What are people gonna do on Mars though? Walk around, collect dirt, admire the incredibly vast nothing and be bored as hell?
Build a world.

[Anonymous No.8378155]

>>8378132
>I think those smaller tanks inside the space ships big tanks are the place they will be doing long term storage of fuel.
If they can't do long-term storage of full tanks of fuel, then they can't gradually fuel up a bunch in orbit between launch windows.

[Anonymous No.8378169]

>>8378155
It would also be very inconvenient on Mars to need separate fuel tanks.

[Anonymous No.8378202]

Why don't they stomp NASA and give all the funding do Elon?

[Anonymous No.8378214]

Holy shit.

You could launch, with bigelow modules, a space station with TWELVE FUCKING TIMES THE VOLUME OF THE ISS

FOR LESS THAN 1% OF THE COST OF THE ISS

IN ONE LAUNCH OF THE BFR

[Anonymous No.8378218]

Also, the 1st stage could loose one engine to a failure every 45 seconds and still make it to orbit, I believe

[Anonymous No.8378220]

>>8378105
>Using an old piece of junk like the ARV fluxliner

What kind of poorfag are you? I got a Unicorn in my garage that can travel through dimensions, I could get to Mars yesterday if I wanted to.

[Anonymous No.8378225]

>>8378214
The diameter makes Bigelow modules pretty pointless. The whole point of Bigelow modules is to fit in a small, standard-diameter fairing. The biggest proposed Bigelow module is 12.6m diameter.

With ICT (and a suitable upper stage variant for deploying large, unpressurized payloads), they can just send up a rigid one nearly that size, with everything in place.

[Anonymous No.8378265]

>>8378225
Would still be more efficient to seqeeze 5-6 BA2100 modules in one launch

But yes, all in one wet workshop launches would be great

[Anonymous No.8378271]

>>8378265
Not "wet workshop". That has all sorts of disadvantages, and was only proposed to take advantage of the mass that would otherwise be wasted in the expendable upper stage.

>Would still be more efficient to seqeeze 5-6 BA2100 modules in one launch
Do you want 5-6 empty BA2100s, or one BA2100-size module with 200 tons of supplies, equipment, and furnishings in it?

Bearing in mind that it only costs a couple million dollars to launch another load.

[Anonymous No.8378275]

>>8378271
I guess that makes sense

Man, if this rocket becomes a reality, I'd imagine that the whole launch industry would go topsy turvy

You could launch the entire iridium fleet in one launch! With lots left over!

[Anonymous No.8378279]

>>8375387
The CGI video they published is beautiful.

The reality of it actually happening as described? Slim to none.

[Anonymous No.8378325]

>>8375387
what requirements would you plebs put on the applicants

>run 100m within 11 sec
>lift atleast 2x bw if male, 1.5x female
>have some kind of skill or trade
>be european or eastern asian (genetically)
>no criminal record
>no deadweights (journalists and other meme areas)

[Anonymous No.8378445]

>>8378325
is neet shitposter with 10 years experience the sorta person they want?

[Anonymous No.8378731]

>>8377598

Less than a millimeter of aluminum foil blocks 100% of UV light. Gamma rays are not common enough to be an issue.

[Anonymous No.8378769]

>>8375387

pleb tier conference

[Anonymous No.8378798]

>>8377689

>Ship capacity is ~100 people

pic related is the minimum amount of space just to hold 100 people with economy seating, notice how it's huge (slightly bigger than the space shuttle). Then factor in life support (air, water, food) for a 1-2 year trip (assuming supplies are shipped to Mars in advance or are made locally).

Also, let's not forget the irony here: 50 years ago NASA concepted a "passenger" space shuttle that could seat 100 people as well, like a DC-9.

In seriousness, I'm far more interested in seeing a 300 ton-to-LEO *cargo* vehicle than a passenger vehicle. The former could actually be useful in the near term, as it could ferry a huge amount of construction equipment and supplies which could be operated remotely (either on earth, or from a Martian space station).

[Anonymous No.8378821]

>>8375558

>people don't get the reference

[Anonymous No.8378837]

>>8378798
The vehicle we are seeing is not the one meant to carry 100 people I believe
That'll be larger with more pressurized area, carrying less cargo
Still, this thing is pretty damn big, and its 0 g so every speck of area can be used.

[Anonymous No.8378841]

Why don't we build launch pads on mt. everest to lessen the distance the rockets will have to fly?

[Anonymous No.8378853]

>>8378841

not tall enough, at that point you're better off launching from higher altitude balloons

[Anonymous No.8378859]

>>8378841
If there was a convenient mountain near the cape of florida, they probably would use it, maybe.

[Anonymous No.8378861]

>>8375997
The only bad thing about him is the "I fucking love science" crowd. The guy is literally spearheading the multi planetary movement and all you can do is slam him on some chan board.

People like you make me sick.

[Anonymous No.8378871]

>>8375997

Hyperloop works better on Mars.

Musk is going to suck up all the cash he can on earth. So he can set up the ultimate in white flight. Galt's Gulch? Try Musk's Mars.

[Anonymous No.8378872]

>>8378798

Notice that the ship Elon showed is 12 meters in diameter, not 3 meters like a DC-9 fuselage. Assuming a roughly spherical shape, you're looking at a total internal volume of around 7200 cubic meters. Let's be pessimistic and assume that of that pressurized volume, half of it is taken up by several thousand cubic meters of supplies, life support equipment, and miscellaneous walls and partitions. That still leaves 3600 cubic meters. Let's cut that in half again and say 1800 cubic meters are taken up by the big common area in the front of the ship. That leaves 18 cubic meters per person, assuming a 100 person capacity. Private quarters could be around 2.5 cubic meters per person and still feel spacious, since in zero G up and down don't exist, and every wall can be the ceiling. With the big common area and 2.5 meter cubed personal cabins for each person, that still leaves 15.5 cubic meters of space per person outside of their personal rooms, and excluding the big room at the top of the spacecraft. Would it be crowded? Yeah, in the sense that a small cruise ship is crowded. Would it be submarine or airplane level crowded? Hardly.

[Anonymous No.8378875]

>>8378872

My point is not so much passenger comfort as it is just getting it into orbit and sustaining everyone on board for a two-year round trip. Passengers can hang vertically from the ceiling for all I care, the larger problem is sustaining the air, water and food requirements for 100 people across two years.

[Anonymous No.8378882]

>>8378841

Height does basically nothing to help a rocket. The reason it's hard to get to orbit is because you have to accelerate the payload to about 7.8 kilometers per second sideways, in order to avoid falling back to the Earth.


Starting a couple kilometers higher up, when you'd still have to climb over 200 km higher and accelerate up to over 17 thousand miles per hour, would maybe save you a hundred kilograms of fuel, if that. Compare that to the total fuel mass of a medium sized rocket, which is something like several hundred tons at least

[Anonymous No.8378885]

>>8378882
a rocket the size of a utility pole(telephone pole to plebs) could put a human up to orbital height. you just won't stay in orbit.

[Anonymous No.8378898]

>>8378872
Look at the ship he showed, that pressurized area is more for like an early 10-20 person launch. Rather than later 100 person trips.

The inhabited area is not a cylinder either.
So you have 12 meters diameter, maybe 15 meter long pressurized area, that tapers off to the front. So its more like 1200 cubic meters, estimated?

[Anonymous No.8378900]

>>8378798
>pic related is the minimum amount of space just to hold 100 people with economy seating, notice how it's huge
About 75 square meters of floor area, roughly the same as one cross-section of internal space in ITS. Everyone could sit on one deck of ITS (though I think they're designing it so as many people as possible can look out the windows). There's at least five decks (though a couple at the top are narrower).

[Anonymous No.8378912]

>>8376014
The entire rocket is impossible to reuse. (THE ENTIRE FUCKING ROCKET), you can still make new parts and replace

[Anonymous No.8378916]

>>8378900

Yes, and what are those people going to do once they get to Mars? Mars will need things such as water pumps, greenhouses, bulldozers, cranes, and trucks just to support them once they land. A passenger vehicle is absolutely useless if it has no destination. In which case, a cargo variant is much more interesting an idea.

[Anonymous No.8378922]

>>8378875

Hence the 200 kilowatt solar panel array, which would power all the life support machinery on board.

Water is pretty much infinitely recyclable, some metabolic processes use it up and others produce it. As long as there is a store of water on the ship, and a machine that can recover clean water from humidity and waste, the people on board would not run out of water.

Oxygen can be recovered by electrolysis of carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen gas, or it can be pyrolysed into elemental carbon and oxygen gas, which recovers more oxygen but slowly builds up a solid carbon deposit that would need to be cleaned out of the chamber, not good for zero G. However, even by splitting CO2 into CO and oxygen, and simply dumping the CO overboard, the crew would not have to worry about running out of oxygen, as an excess of water could be brought from Earth and split by electrolysis to replenish the total oxygen level in the loop.

Food production on the ship is unlikely, there's not enough room. Luckily, plenty of stored food can be packed into both the pressurized volume of the ship and the un-pressurized cargo hold. The ship is obviously going to have airlocks and access to the cargo hold, so as long as people aren't pigging out every day there should be plenty of food stored on the ship to last at least two years. It's also important to note that the first manned missions with this thing aren't going to have 100 people, they're probably going to only have maybe a dozen or so. During these flights a simple base on Mars could be constructed, with sheds for storing un-pressurized machinery and other cargo, and pressurized spaces that could be used to grow food, as extra habitation, and so forth. Once this base was up and running, the number of people on each ship could be increased, because once they get to Mars there'd be food and other supplies already there waiting for them, living space to move in to, and so forth.

[Anonymous No.8378948]

>>8378898

Definitely more than that, at the very least you could deform that shape into a 10m diameter sphere, which would give 4188 cubic meters of space. Still lots of room to move around in, just a reduction in the last number I figured, so much less than 15 cubic meters per person in the common area.

Also, that spaceship is in fact the one Elon thinks will eventually have 100 to 200 person flights with. The Early flights will have far fewer people because they need to bring everything with them to Mars to start building stuff and doing in-situ resource utilization. The later flights will be landing at those facilities, with life support and food and power, and so they will need to bring less with them in terms of machinery and stuff, and can afford to bring mostly food mass for the flight alone.

Elon has said that for every one manned ship, about ten unmanned ships stuffed with cargo will need to make the trip to support the one landed crew on Mars. That's at the beginning, but once the Mars settlement starts growing in capacity, fewer cargo craft will be needed per manned ship, and the number of people on each manned ship can increase. The long term goal is to eventually have between 100 and 200 people per flight, but things are going to start off much more slowly.

[Anonymous No.8378953]

>>8378885

Right, height means nothing when it comes to staying in space. It's all about tangential velocity. The only reason we go up so high at all is because the atmosphere would slow down anything going that fast very quickly, so you have to get above it before you can remain at orbital velocity and hence stay in orbit.

[Anonymous No.8378955]

>>8378948
you are mixing up diameter with radius

[Anonymous No.8378962]

>>8378882
>Height does basically nothing to help a rocket. The reason it's hard to get to orbit is because you have to accelerate the payload to about 7.8 kilometers per second sideways, in order to avoid falling back to the Earth.
...and yet, it take more like 10 km/s of delta-v to get to orbit. In fact, getting out of the atmosphere is what most of the rocket is for.

Launching from high altitudes is a significant advantage, mostly because the air is thinner, which doesn't matter so much for the drag (the rocket gains altitude quickly while it gets up to speed), but it makes the engines more efficient for lift-off, due to reduced back-pressure on the nozzle mouth (a rocket would produce no thrust if its nozzle pressure was equal to ambient pressure, and produces ideal thrust in a vacuum, and there's a curve from zero efficiency to maximum efficiency in between).

Being on a high mountain would be a big advantage, but getting up onto a high mountain is more trouble than it's worth, and having a high mountain in the right place is difficult to arrange.

[Anonymous No.8378970]

>>8378916

The ship has a massive unpressurized cargo hold between the fuel tanks and the pressurized passenger compartment, which would hold several hundred tons of cargo such as machinery, solar panels, building materials, etc. Furthermore, the Ship itself acts as the main habitat module once they land, providing life support and food and water supplies, as well as living space and entertainment, while the colonists work day after day egressing the cargo onto the Martian surface, setting up in-situ propellant manufacturing, and beginning work on a colony facility, using martian materials and resources to create building materials to use to make habitats and storage sheds and hydroponic farms and so forth. Once it's time to leave they put everything away in their new Mars warehouses and depart for Earth, leaving the facility for a second ship to touch down nearby with more supplies and machinery and people to continue building. Eventually the facility will be capable of supporting a constant human presence, beyond that it will eventually have the ability to grow itself faster than the ships can bring more people. At that point the ships would beign bringing more and more people per flight and less and less consumable resources, as the Mars colony would be producing most of its own stuff.

[Anonymous No.8378973]

>>8378955

Whoopsie daisy

[Anonymous No.8378981]

>>8375726
If this is a serious post, you're fucking retarded. Unless you have a skill that will be needed and you're at the top of your field AND you're in peak physical and mental condition, the closest you're getting is watching the launch live and in person.

[Anonymous No.8378989]

>>8378916
>Mars will need things such as water pumps, greenhouses, bulldozers, cranes, and trucks just to support them once they land. A passenger vehicle is absolutely useless if it has no destination. In which case, a cargo variant is much more interesting an idea.
They're doing the cargo version first. They've said they expect to do 9 out of 10 launches to Mars as cargo missions, until self-sufficiency is achieved.

[Anonymous No.8379015]

>>8378962

The reason going to orbit take 10km/s of deltaV instead of 7.8km/s is due to gravity losses. Having to fight the Earth's gravity as you accelerate upwards means that although the rocket may be producing enough thrust to accelrate the rocket at 2G, it only speeds up at 9.8 m/s per second, because Earth is making the rocket accelerate backwards by one G. That's why rockets do a gravity turn the way they do; it minimizes gravity losses by turning the rocket's thrust vector away from the force of gravity as soon as possible, thus transferring as much momentum to the rocket as possible. At during launch, a Falcon 9 lifts off the pad at about 1.15G, only 0.15G of which is actually upwards acceleration, the rest is just cancelling gravity. Now get rid of the Earth's gravity for a moment, and start the engines. The rocket is still accelerating at the exact same G, but now instead of only speeding up by 1.47 m/s per second, it actually speeds up by 11.27 m/s per second.

This is why it takes an extra ~2.5 km/s of deltaV to launch a rocket into orbit; that acceleration is simply cancelled by gravity during the launch phase. Almost all of that dV by the way comes out of the first stage booster, by the time the second stage has separated and fired it should be pointing more or less at the horizon, and no longer have the Earth's gravity cancelling out any of its acceleration.

As for the atmosphere, it does limit the Isp of an engine, but it thins out so quickly that very little dV is lost, even considering that a sea level optimized nozzle is not well optimized for vacuum propulsion and loses out on some efficiency once above the atmosphere. This amounts to a total of a couple percent of the dV budget of a rocket. Compare that to the nearly 1/4 of the total deltaV of a rocket being wasted on fighting gravity.

[Anonymous No.8379052]

>>8378970
this initial setup will be done remotely/autonomously. This buildup of people on mars is gonna happen fast once it starts.

>>8379015
If they had a convenient mountain in just the proper place, with a nice top able to be built on, possibly they would use it.

[Anonymous No.8379072]

>>8379015
>As for the atmosphere, it does limit the Isp of an engine, but it thins out so quickly that very little dV is lost
Stop blustering and bullshitting. Gravity losses are a function of acceleration, which is determined by thrust-to-weight, and max-Q, which depends on structural mass compared to drag. The atmospheric pressure also reduces the thrust of the engines (that's how Isp is reduced: you pump the same propellant in, and you get less thrust), which means you need more dry mass.

Anyway, if you had enough altitude to start, you'd never have to bother accelerating straight upward. You could accept some loss of altitude and still get to orbit. Not an option when you're starting at ground level.

Air launch is a significant advantage.

[Anonymous No.8379075]

>>8378970

Please, any serious Mars construction effort requires at least 300 tons of just payload. For example, a single Caterpillar 375 (excavator/crane) is 89 tons. A single mile of railroad track (ie bulk steel rails) is 114 tons. A 1 MW solar power plant is about 137 tons. Now factor in the costs of copper cable and transformers. Suffice it to say, the only way Mars colonization (or even just ground-level bases) gets done is through dedicated, high-capacity cargo vehicles.

This is far more important than building a 100-seater craft to Mars. What matters is building a place people want to go to.

[Anonymous No.8379098]

>>8378989

>They've said they expect to do 9 out of 10 launches to Mars as cargo missions, until self-sufficiency is achieved.

They're full of shit then, as 10 launches is only 3,000 tons of cargo, or the weight of an average-sized Tunnel Boring Machine. A permanent settlement needs something more along the order of 30,000 tons of cargo, to start. That's not to say it's impossible, but the amount of materials required is *huge*. Think of everything required to service your house with utilities, boxed up and put on a container ship, most of which have a deadweight of about 100,000 tons.

And, most importantly, this would all be done at cost. There is no profit on Mars, everything sent there might as well be dumped in the ocean for as much the bank is concerned. So any sort of Mars program would require massive taxpayer subsidy, which while likely is not guaranteed.

[Anonymous No.8379130]

>>8379075
>>8379098
Obviously anything shipped to mars is going to be reduced in mass as much as possible. Lot of the bulk steel/materials will be constructed there.

>There is no profit on Mars
Thats a bold claim to make, before you have any idea of whats availible on mars, or what would be in demand if shipped back to earth.
eg. rich people paying 100,000 dollars for mars rock counter tops or some such thing.

[Anonymous No.8379150]

>>8379130

There is no profit to be found on Mars. Yes, there will be a market for high-end luxury goods but ultimately that market itself won't exist without immense subsidy from the American government. And more people on Mars -> more mouths to feed. That's not to say it's not worthwhile, but it's not going to be cost competitive.

Also it's hard to reduce the weight of transformers or copper cable. The initial setup (ie a power plant, ore mine, steel mill and assembly plant all with power, telco and rail connections) will require at least ten if not more launches just to setup. Again, not impossible, but expensive with a $0 profit unless the government steps in.

[Anonymous No.8379156]

SpaceX isn't building a base? They are just building enough to get people there and back. If anyone is spending money on a base then it is the people going there (which may include government agencies like NASA).

[Anonymous No.8379193]

>>8375577
How'd you know she was Indian? She sounded Filipino to me.

[Anonymous No.8379336]

>>8379098
>And, most importantly, this would all be done at cost. There is no profit on Mars

Ensuring humanity against extinction sounds like a good profit to me.

[Anonymous No.8379366]

>>8376590
hmmm, yes? No time for a rescue mission, unless they manage to burn enough thrust to get a decent orbit around earth.

[Anonymous No.8379461]

>>8377570
I was taken aback by how he mentioned it was the same size as Merlin.

That pretty much confirms they're working on a Falcon 9 successor.

Even if this never happens, Raptor is more likely to show up sooner. They need to get experience with methalox engines

[Anonymous No.8379478]

>>8379150
Dumping cash into Mars infrastructure could be a massive asset that will exceed its development costs in value... only if Mars becomes a thing.

The reality is the only reason we went to the Moon is because we said we wanted to and we were competing with the USSR.

In our increasingly fragmented public consciousness, it could prove immensely difficult to drum up support for a Mars mission. Nationalism is dead and with it, any goals not driven by profit motive.

[Anonymous No.8379484]

I understand that space x is about the transportation from earth to mars, but are there any companies researching the problem of actually establishing life on mars? There seems to be a lot more problems regarding low gravity and radiation which space X obviously isn't going to focus on.

[Anonymous No.8379536]

>>8376929
This has actually always been a problem with colonization in that most people who want to go are men. The French had to practically force women to go to their Canadian colonies in the 1600s because men complained that they were lonely

[Anonymous No.8379599]

>>8378922
>Hence the 200 kilowatt solar panel array, which would power all the life support machinery on board.
At least 100 kilowatt would go to power cryogenic fuel liquefier.

[Anonymous No.8379956]

What's to stop some company basically buying up all the seats and sending up a crew to take over mars? They get there and suddenly everyone else who came along are now slaves to that company.

[Anonymous No.8379970]

>>8379956
Literally nothing at all, until the next shipment of neckbeards of course.

[Anonymous No.8379988]

Do you guys think some universities will sponsor some students to go to mars for a certain period of time to do research?

[Miniature Spacecraft No.8379992]

>>8375594
you have to seduce the normies and they have no knowledge about sciences.

It's sad but it's ok.

[Anonymous No.8380020]

>>8379461
>That pretty much confirms they're working on a Falcon 9 successor.
Or it pretty much confirms that they'll be able to use some of the same tooling, processes, and skills they've optimized for Merlin, saving a huge amount of money.

I suspect that they're going to fly the "spaceship" as an orbital vehicle before they finish the booster.

It looks like their propellant transfer system is in the right place to use for crossfeed if they launch it with parallel staging like Falcon Heavy, with two additional "spaceships" on either side (or even just a pair).

Then they can go to orbit with a light payload and full reusability.

They may return to a remote area of the ocean, as they used for Falcon 1, for their test program, this time with a floating launchpad based on what they're working on for returning downrange-landed boosters to land.

[Anonymous No.8380082]

>>8379988
Do they sponsor students to go to the space station to do research now?

[Anonymous No.8380086]

>>8380082
you can fit a lot more people on Mars than on the space station.

[Anonymous No.8380106]

>>8380086
it also takes a lot longer to get to Mars than the ISS

[Anonymous No.8380125]

>>8380106
A 3-year journey would fit into most serious courses of study, and there's no reason you couldn't continue to study while in transit.

[Anonymous No.8380489]

>>8380086
Depends on how many buildings, and the size of said buildings, you construct on Mars. The living space restrictions could be very similar.

[Anonymous No.8380498]

>>8380489
Are lava tubes still looking promising?

[Anonymous No.8380529]

>>8380082
In twenty years or so, it could be over 100 times cheaper to go to Mars than it is now to go to the ISS.