SpaceX

[beecee]

51 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Thank God I still had it.

Again, please keep your mythical nonsense out of this.

51 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

There is not a single Rocket in existence that can get any payload of any responsible kind to Mars.

You keep ignoring the fact that there is tomorrow, next year, next decade, next century etc etc. You seem stuck in some mythical stone age of your own chosing.

51 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

I just cited the dV problem.

 

There is no rocket on earth in existence today that can get anyone to Mars.

Read my previous comment.

51 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

It's not about MONEY.

So you have changed your mind? Good, we are getting somewhere at last.

51 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Beece. You mentally do not comprehend what I'm talking about. You clearly have NO Orbital mechanics understanding what-so-ever.

Correct, I am a lay person, but to my credit I am able to read, and comprehend reputable scientific accounts, by others far, far more reputable and obviously knowledgable then yourself.

51 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

How many times do I have to tell you we CANNOT budget for the dV required to go to Mars.

You just said costs does not matter or more correctly, it isn't about money. You seem confused?

51 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

That's where it ends.

No it doesn't. Science, technology are advancing all the time. Any person of reasonable knowledge and not weighed down by an agenda knows that. We do not as yet have the means/technology to land a man on Mars and return him safely, or to create a colony where a crew maybe reasonably safe and sheltered from obvious dangers, at this time. There was also a time when our science and technology was not sufficient to create a space station or a scientific apparatus like the LHC. We have them now. With the ISS, as so often you have ignored, it is an international effort, and even more astonishingly, has been under permanent occupation every day of every year for 21 years or there abouts now.

And just as obviously again, you keep ignoring the fact that I, personally am not putting any time frame on either returning to the Moon, creating a permanent colony, attempting a manned mars landing and colony, but am simply saying it will happen as we, as science, as technology progresses and allows us to achieve these goals safely.

And also of course the final aspect with regards to costs of achieving these worthwhile dreams, [an aspect you seemed confused about ] I believe they should be done with an International effort.

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by beecee

[IDNeon]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

You keep ignoring the fact that there is tomorrow, next year, next decade, next century etc etc. You seem stuck in some mythical stone age of your own chosing.

What technology will be invented to change the status quo?

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

So you have changed your mind? Good, we are getting somewhere at last.

Mars is not about cost because it's not physically possible. Moon is about cost. It costs about $30billion per moon-shot.

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Correct, I am a lay person, but to my credit I am able to read, and comprehend reputable scientific accounts, by others far, far more reputable and obviously knowledgable then yourself

Out of everyone here I'm the only one who has talked about the dV budget and cited the dV budget.

So what's that about "obviously more knowledgeable than myself."

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

You just said costs does not matter or more correctly, it isn't about money. You seem confused

You literally don't know what dV is ... do you? Look up the dV budget then continue. It'll make more sense what I'm talking about.

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

And just as obviously again, you keep ignoring the fact that I, personally am not putting any time frame on either returning to the Moon

Musk cannot possibly return to the Moon because Musk doesn't have $30billion to waste.

China or US etc are unlikely to do it. China might for prestige but US will unlikely go back to "keep up appearances".

[beecee]

As there appears to be an agenda afoot, particularly with the rather silly claims that Space-X and Musk have achiebed nothing, here are some real facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX

SpaceX's achievements include the first privately funded liquid-propellant rocket to reach orbit (Falcon 1 in 2008), the first private company to successfully launch, orbit, and recover a spacecraft (Dragon in 2010), the first private company to send a spacecraft to the International Space Station (Dragon in 2012), the first vertical take-off and vertical propulsive landing for an orbital rocket (Falcon 9 in 2015), the first reuse of an orbital rocket (Falcon 9 in 2017), and the first private company to send astronauts to orbit and to the International Space Station (SpaceX Crew Dragon Demo-2 and SpaceX Crew-1 missions in 2020). SpaceX has flown and reflown the Falcon 9 series of rockets over one hundred times.

SpaceX is developing a large internet satellite constellation named Starlink. In January 2020 the Starlink constellation became the largest satellite constellation in the world. SpaceX is also developing Starship, a privately funded super heavy-lift launch system for interplanetary spaceflight. Starship is intended to become the primary SpaceX orbital vehicle once operational, supplanting the existing Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and Dragon fleet. Starship will be fully reusable and will have the highest payload capacity of any orbital rocket ever on its debut, scheduled for the early 2020s.

https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/spacexs-greatest-achievements

 

[IDNeon]

What I'm trying to tell you is OF COURSE technology may change over time changing the status quo.

We have theoretical propulsion schemes to do this.

What I'm proving to you though is Musk'a Oxygen-PR1 rockets can't get to the moon.

They just can't.

And NO CHEMICAL rocket, even hydrogen and oxygen rockets can get a meaningful payload to Mars.

That is physical fact. It's a brick wall of reality. No way around it.

1 minute ago, beecee said:

SpaceX's achievements include the first privately funded liquid-propellant rocket to reach orbit (Falcon 1 in 2008),

What? 

Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, aren't privately funded?

They don't take telecom money to launch satellites? 

What a stupid claim.

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

the first private company to successfully launch, orbit, and recover a spacecraft (Dragon in 2010),

What? North American Aviation, Now North American Rockwell isn't a private corporation? 

Another stupid claim.

NASA operated both Apollo CSM and Dragon Capsule. Stupid claim that SpaceX is first. 

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

the first vertical take-off and vertical propulsive landing for an orbital rocket (Falcon 9 in 2015), the first reuse of an orbital rocket (Falcon 9 in 2017)

Other operators were smart enough to drop their rockets into the ocean.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

and the first private company to send astronauts to orbit and to the International Space Station (SpaceX Crew Dragon Demo-2 and SpaceX Crew-1 missions in 2020). SpaceX has flown and reflown the Falcon 9 series of rockets over one hundred times.

Wait what the literal fuck?

Rockwell International, builder of the space shuttle isn't a private company??

 

These accomplishments are literally shit.

None of them are new.

And SpaceX has been massively funded by governments for 10 years.

SpaceX is using OTHER people's technology. 

Nothing proprietary.

Thrust vectoring required to land a rocket like Falcon 9 or starship isn't anything new and wasnt invented by SpaceX.

So all SpaceX did was do what others did and claim they are the first to do it without government funding which isn't true.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, IDNeon said:

So you're going to convince people to spend trillions of dollars to dig an igloo on Mars?

A helicopter that weighs a couple pounds and cost 100million dollars to get there?

Thanks for proving my point

!

Moderator Note

You're going to need a WHOLE LOT MORE than your personal incredulity in order to continue making statements and assertions like this. This is a science discussion site, and we require EVIDENCE to support the things we assert.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, IDNeon said:

How many times can I say this?

Musk doesn't have the dV to get to the Moon.

It would mean something if you explained why, instead of just repeating it.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, IDNeon said:

Musk is a cult leader and that is no joke.

!

Moderator Note

I warned you about this kind of crap here. You need to stop attacking people personally. If you have evidence to support this kind of statement, then please provide it, otherwise you're just trolling, soapboxing, and being abusive. It needs to stop now.

 

[IDNeon]

Just now, swansont said:

It would mean something if you explained why, instead of just repeating it.

Because the Falcon Heavy has a certain payload it can put into GTO.

Therefore that is the MAXIMUM dV achievement per that payload.

That payload is half the weight of an Apollo CSM.

So let's assume you were flying to the Moon in a literal portable toilet, then you are only 1/4th the dV there. The difference of a GTO and Moon mission.

https://external-preview.redd.it/U5iH7huE5qKth7ZFvipXt8vzaFOO99qHFh9o9_SkLLk.png?auto=webp&s=d145ac9ae496abe35fae86fc11a584d62fe42592

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

What technology will be invented to change the status quo?

I'll leave that to the scientists and cosmologists as you should.

7 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Mars is not about cost because it's not physically possible. Moon is about cost. It costs about $30billion per moon-shot.

Nonsense. Or do you have any reputable scientific citation to support that?

9 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Out of everyone here I'm the only one who has talked about the dV budget and cited the dV budget.

So what? Are you saying you want a medal? budgets, costs will not nor will ever stop mankind's quest for scientific advancement and exploration.

11 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

So what's that about "obviously more knowledgeable than myself."

Just as I said...there are far more knowledgable people that disagree with you and see your claims as absurd [and probably driven by an agenda]  and without any reasonable foward thinking. Or are you claiming to know more then anyone else?

15 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

You literally don't know what dV is ... do you? Look up the dV budget then continue. It'll make more sense what I'm talking about.

Yes I do, and I also recognise you own lack of foresight and knowledge.

17 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Musk cannot possibly return to the Moon because Musk doesn't have $30billion to waste.

Yeah of course, 🤣 and he also will never create a reusable rocket!!😁

19 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

China or US etc are unlikely to do it. China might for prestige but US will unlikely go back to "keep up appearances".

All unsupported, obviously agenda laden rhetoric.

[IDNeon]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I warned you about this kind of crap here. You need to stop attacking people personally. If you have evidence to support this kind of statement, then please provide it, otherwise you're just trolling, soapboxing, and being abusive. It needs to stop now.

What do you call a person who has people believing he can do something he physically can't do? 

Just now, beecee said:

Nonsense. Or do you have any reputable scientific citation to support that?

You mean the evidence I literally cited in the original statement when I said we CANNOT shoot a meaningful payload to Mars?

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable.php

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yeah of course, 🤣 and he also will never create a reusable rocket!!

Reusable rockets like the ones NASA has been using for 40 years?

[Area54]

1 hour ago, IDNeon said:

Do you not understand how expensive getting to Mars is in dV. Forget about money. 

I am familiar with the deltaV requirements for many orbital changes within the solar system. However, I shall not forget about the money. You made a specific claim that it would cost trillions of dollars for manned exploration of Mars. I ask you again, present your evidence. If you are unable to support one of your claims, then there is no reason for us to take seriously any of your claims. In other words, put up, or shut up.

[IDNeon]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/last-year-reusable-rockets-entered-the-mainstream-and-theres-no-going-back/

4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

You made a specific claim that it would cost trillions of dollars for manned exploration of Mars

This extrapolation based on payload costs based on the 2^5th payload to fuel ratio increase means that over $1trillion to fly to Mars is extraordinarily reasonable. 

I already presented my evidence quite well mind you.

If fuel to get a lander to Mars costs approximately 10million dollars. What's 10million times 2^5th to get a payload ratio of 3:6 to Mars?

Congrats you've successfully sent a shovel into Mars orbit at that ratio of 320million dollars per kg.

Now do it for 60,000 kg.

Edited May 2, 2021 by IDNeon

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, IDNeon said:

What do you call a person who has people believing he can do something he physically can't do? 

!

Moderator Note

I believe you can try to persuade us with evidence, rather than forcing acceptance and ranting like some kind of cult leader. No need to respond, I'm not a participant in this thread, I'm moderating it for reported rules violations. 

 

[Area54]

2 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/last-year-reusable-rockets-entered-the-mainstream-and-theres-no-going-back/

This extrapolation based on payload costs based on the 2^5th payload to fuel ratio increase means that over $1trillion to fly to Mars is extraordinarily reasonable. 

Details please. Assume I am a complete idiot and need the details. Based on your earlier posts I don't think you will struggle with that assumption. Again, based on your earlier posts, I am not optimistic you will meet the first part of my request.

[IDNeon]

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

So what? Are you saying you want a medal? budgets, costs will not nor will ever stop mankind's quest for scientific advancement and exploration

Budgets have literally caused revolutions killing tens of millions. So yes. It has stopped advancement.

Lol.

[Area54]

22 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

And NO CHEMICAL rocket, even hydrogen and oxygen rockets can get a meaningful payload to Mars.

You don't consider any of the orbital laboratories or surface rovers to have been meaningful payloads? That would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

What do you call a person who has people believing he can do something he physically can't do? 

What do you call a person that keeps posting emotional unsupported crap?

 

6 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

You mean the evidence I literally cited in the original statement when I said we CANNOT shoot a meaningful payload to Mars?

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable.php

Not what I would call a reputable site...Curiosity weighed 2200 lbs, and I'm sure with scientific advancements and technology, we'll achieve much more including a manned landing.

2 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Budgets have literally caused revolutions killing tens of millions. So yes. It has stopped advancement.

Lol.

No it hasn't, not permanently. 

You keep making these unsupported claims, when all they really are, are personal emotionaly driven opinions.

[IDNeon]

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Details please. Assume I am a complete idiot and need the details. Based on your earlier posts I don't think you will struggle with that assumption. Again, based on your earlier posts, I am not optimistic you will meet the first part of my request.

What part have I not already met?

I've provided citations of the dV requirements and constraints.

I've cited the known costs for known weights.

You're lucky we are just assuming everything is linear-scalable and not influence by R&D, low unit volume costs, and any other setbacks.

The raw linear scaling for a mission to Mars at 60000kg payload with about 3.4:6.6 payload to fuel ratio at current prices is literally a doubling of cost for every halving from the current ratio of 1.6:98.4.

So to get from 1.6% to 34% that's 5 doubling.

But only for a payload of about 1000kg.

So gotta times it by 60.

Price to get perseverance to Mars.

2.7billion.

2.7x 32x 60x billion = 5.1trillion Dollars. 

 

There's your rough FLOOR of getting 60000kg to Mars.

Oh and dying there. 

7 minutes ago, Area54 said:

You don't consider any of the orbital laboratories or surface rovers to have been meaningful payloads

Would you call filling your 2000lbs sedan with 200,000 lbs of gasoline to be...meaningful?

The reason the dV budget is so crucial is with chemical rockets you HAVE to have a ratio of less than 1.6:98.4 payload:fuel to land on Mars one way.

So you see the problems? 

Either we are launching 3.75million kg spaceship to Mars one way or we are finding a new type of propulsion we don't have. 

That's just fuel to payload ratio. Should we get into fuel to weight ratio problems? 

SpaceX has tried to drastically lower THAT ratio but for something meaningful we'd have to build and fuel everything in orbit to have no atmosphere to build structure to withstand

[beecee]

Like I said, while problems and current limitations may exist, these problems are being worked on as we speak, by scientists, engineers, cosmologists etc.

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A34262

Entry Trajectory Options for High Ballistic Coefficient Vehicles at Mars

Abstract:

Future large-scale Mars surface exploration missions require landed masses beyond the capability of current entry, descent, and landing technology. Hypersonic trajectory options for large ballistic coefficient vehicles are explored to assess the potential for improved landed mass capability in the absence of landed accuracy requirements. Hypersonic trajectories appropriate for use with supersonic parachute and supersonic retropropulsion descent systems are studied. Optimal control techniques are used to determine hypersonic bank-angle control profiles that achieve favorable conditions at terminal descent initiation. Terminal descent initiation altitude-maximizing bank strategies for parachute descent systems are explored across vehicle and mission design parameters of interest. A tradeoff between altitude and flight-path angle at terminal descent initiation is identified. Hypersonic trajectories that minimize required propellant for propulsive descent are identified and studied parametrically. A hypersonic ballistic coefficient and lift-to-drag ratio are shown to have the largest effects on required propellant mass fraction; changes to the vehicle state at entry interface have a smaller effect. The space of reachable supersonic retropropulsion ignition states is presented over a range of vehicle and trajectory parameters. Overall, results indicate execution of an appropriate hypersonic bank profile can significantly increase the parachute deploy altitude for parachute descent systems or reduce the amount of propellant required when compared to full lift-up entry for supersonic retropropulsion descent systems operating at Mars.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-way-to-reach-mars-safely-anytime-and-on-the-cheap/

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Please stop trying to force down my throat and other reasonable  people that a Mars manned landing will never happen. Again for the umpteenth time, with a certain need for science, scientific exploration, and the simple reason of "because its there", in time, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years we will have mastered a manned Mars landing, we will have a colony by necessity, on both the Moon and Mars. The world is full and has always been full of people who have sniggered and claimed this will not ever be achieved, that will never come about etc. Man achieved the first powered flight in 1909, now just a little bit over a 100 years later, we have landed on the Moon six times and are preparing to return and go further afield. Reminds me of another wise great scientist, Lord Kelvin and a now infamous [and silly] comment he made that went like this.....https://www.xaprb.com/blog/flight-is-impossible/

I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.
— Lord Kelvin, 1896

 

[IDNeon]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Please stop trying to force down my throat and other reasonable  people that a Mars manned landing will never happen. Again for the umpteenth time, with a certain need for science, scientific exploration, and the simple reason of "because its there", in time, 10 years, 100 years, 1000

This is a fallacy. The question is will Musk get us to Mars.

Obviously not.

And unless we develop a propulsion system vastly different from what we have now. We never will.

What incentive do we have to invent a new propulsion system? 

The Moon at least made a little since in the ballistic missile race.

No one is winning any prestige by getting to Mars.

It's too anticlimactic. 

3 day trip to the Moon is epic.

How many people relive the tale of Vasco De Gama's many years Journey to China?

No one.

But at least IT MADE MONEY.

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

Future large-scale Mars surface exploration missions require landed masses beyond the capability of current entry, descent, and landing technology

Boom.

I've been saying this.

Not only have I been saying this but I have been demonstrating it

The ARC paper Is interesting. How ever the paper does not describe what savings in a descent fuel is achieved through use of bank angle. All of that is currently irrelevant until we Solve chemical propulsion Delta V requirements for getting significant payload into low martian orbit.

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

Like I said, while problems and current limitations may exist, these problems are being worked on as we speak, by scientists, engineers, cosmologists etc

 Of course they are these problems have been worked on for 60 years with no proper solution. This is why so much effort was put into discovering new propulsor techniques because The Martian transfer orbit problem is impossible with standard chemical propulsion. All nationalities involved gave up on this particularly with Orion project and they moved into low Earth orbit a missions in particular the orbiter and International space station.

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

Man achieved the first powered flight in 1909, now just a little bit over a 100 years later, we have landed on the Moon six times

The technological gap between the stone age and going to the Moon is smaller than from going from the Moon to Mars.

The dV budget is deceptive. It appears so close but yet it is basically impossibly far at current scales of economy.

Perhaps if the US were 2 or 3x more productive than it is now, the hundreds of billions it would cost to brute force the dV problem for the payload masses involved could be justified. 

Until then, a technological solution must be discovered to change the status quo.

 

[beecee]

25 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

This is a fallacy. The question is will Musk get us to Mars.

Obviously not.

No, the only fallacy appears to be you claiming we will never get to Mars. Whether Musk does or not is debatable, in the 2024 time frame, but I'm sure he'll have something to do with it.

28 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

And unless we develop a propulsion system vastly different from what we have now. We never will.

What incentive do we have to invent a new propulsion system? 

The Moon at least made a little since in the ballistic missile race.

No one is winning any prestige by getting to Mars.

It's too anticlimactic. 

3 day trip to the Moon is epic.

How many people relive the tale of Vasco De Gama's many years Journey to China?

No one.

But at least IT MADE MONEY.

Boom.

I've been saying this.

Not only have I been saying this but I have been demonstrating it

The ARC paper Is interesting. How ever the paper does not describe what savings in a descent fuel is achieved through use of bank angle. All of that is currently irrelevant until we Solve chemical propulsion Delta V requirements for getting significant payload into low martian orbit.

 Of course they are these problems have been worked on for 60 years with no proper solution. This is why so much effort was put into discovering new propulsor techniques because The Martian transfer orbit problem is impossible with standard chemical propulsion. All nationalities involved gave up on this particularly with Orion project and they moved into low Earth orbit a missions in particular the orbiter and International space station.

The technological gap between the stone age and going to the Moon is smaller than from going from the Moon to Mars.

The dV budget is deceptive. It appears so close but yet it is basically impossibly far at current scales of economy.

Perhaps if the US were 2 or 3x more productive than it is now, the hundreds of billions it would cost to brute force the dV problem for the payload masses involved could be justified. 

rhetorical rant.

30 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Until then, a technological solution must be discovered to change the status quo.

That's what I am telling you will happen. Or are you claiming we have reached the end of scientific knowledge and will never overcome? Let me reiterate again...science and tecnology will in time overcome the known difficulties of putting men on Mars and returning them safely....and in that same course of time, we will undertake  even more trips into the unknown and further afield. You chose the time frame.

[IDNeon]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

rhetorical rant

Nothing rhetorical about reality.

Since no known propulsion system solves dV for large payloads. Mars might as well be a galaxy away.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

That's what I am telling you will happen

Who says it will happen?

We don't have a realistic solution to the propulsion problem.

Not even a theoretical one.

So what makes you so certain it will EVER be solved and economically? 

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Whether Musk does or not is debatable, in the 2024 time frame, but I'm sure he'll have something to do with it.

Why credit Musk with anything. Haven't I already demonstrated that all his claims are propaganda? He's done nothing new. He's not the first. He's not the best.

His rockets are just beefed up North Korean Rockets.

That's not even a joke.

It's 1960s tech masquerading as modern. He's still using RP1 FOR F*** Sake.

[beecee]

36 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

 Of course they are these problems have been worked on for 60 years with no proper solution. This is why so much effort was put into discovering new propulsor techniques because The Martian transfer orbit problem is impossible with standard chemical propulsion. All nationalities involved gave up on this particularly with Orion project and they moved into low Earth orbit a missions in particular the orbiter and International space station.

May even be another 60 years, or are you claiming it is not ever going to happen.

38 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

The technological gap between the stone age and going to the Moon is smaller than from going from the Moon to Mars.

Personal fabricated nonsense.

44 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

The dV budget is deceptive. It appears so close but yet it is basically impossibly far at current scales of economy.

Economies change all the time...they are variable qualities. Like I said many times, perhaps an international effort is required...you know, like that achieved with the ISS, which has been occupied every day for 21 years.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Why credit Musk with anything. Haven't I already demonstrated that all his claims are propaganda?

I can’t help but laugh at your continued obsession with Musk. You come across a bit like he sexually assaulted your mother and you’re his bastard child.

Even if true, SFN isn’t the place nor is your ranting and raving in this thread the proper method to work through your trauma. Professional therapy would be better if this accurately describes your situation and motivation. 

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Nothing rhetorical about reality.

Since no known propulsion system solves dV for large payloads. Mars might as well be a galaxy away.

No rhetorical, just as your "Mars may as well be a galaxy away" is....

6 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Who says it will happen?.

History and science.

7 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

So what makes you so certain it will EVER be solved and economically? 

As I have demonstarted many times, economy is a variant.

8 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

 Why credit Musk with anything. Haven't I already demonstrated that all his claims are propaganda? He's done nothing new. He's not the first. He's not the best.

His rockets are just beefed up North Korean Rockets.

That's not even a joke.

It's 1960s tech masquerading as modern. He's still using RP1 FOR F*** Sake.

More unsupported agenda based rhetoric. You certainly have a problem with Musk don't you. Did he sack you for something? laziness? insubordination? Ignorance?