SpaceX

[IDNeon]

Oh God Starship uses Methane. Not even RP1.

Cheap.

But HEAVY.

What discussion would you like about the Methane versus H2 propellant?

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

the Space=X achievements are nothing short of outstanding...the first reusable vertical standing return rocket not being the least of those

How is this outstanding?

Everyone else just drops their boosters into the ocean for retrieval. 

Why do we need THIS?

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

You shouldn’t do things just because they’re different. They need to be better

What has he done better? Seriously?

The Chinese are flying Hydrogen. 

Do you want to discuss why that is SO IMPORTANT?

The technology to use Liquid Hydrogen is a crucial technology and China now is using it and the US is now losing it.

[beecee]

With the "proven" aspects of Space-X already listed, and the benefits of a forward lokking Elon Musk shown, the next question would be, If any International efforts does take place, would/should China be a part of it?...should they? obviously yes....would they? debatable. At present China seems somewhat preoccupied with showing their military prowess and playing bullying tactics with neighboring nations, including Australia, with aggressive over the top trade sanctions, as payback because Australia has stood up to that aggressiveness in no uncertain terms.

Sure they should be a party to any international effort! but will they ever be seen to be acting [in their eyes] subserviant to any other nation. A shame they are so paranoid at this time about such matters. They would of course be beneficial to any international efforts to put man on Mars. I would also bet my short n curlies, they would love to be technically advanced enough, to do it by themselves!

[IDNeon]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

With the "proven" aspects of Space-X already listed, and the benefits of a forward lokking Elon Musk shown, the next question would be, If any International efforts does take place, would/should China be a part of it?

Why would China want to go BACKWARDS in technology?

China wants to be the tip of the spear.

Elon Musk is flying methane rockets. No one wants to use them because they have crap thrust to weight ratios. To achieve the high specific impulses of Hydrogen you MUST master Liquid H2 metallurgy.

So Musk takes the US backward while China leaps forward. 

Is he a Manchurian candidate? 

[beecee]

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

Ignoring the troll, and unsupported rhetorical nonsense, and going back to the OP and the vote of whether Musk can get to the Mars by 2024...my vote would probably be no. With the proviso that I most certainly hope I am wrong. 2024 does seem slightly beyond our dreams at this time, even allowing for obvious ongoing  improvements in technology and science.

My own outlook on what will happen, is that firstly we will return to the Moon and create a colony, probably by the late 2020,s. Harware from there will be sent to Mars, along with hardware in Earth orbit for living capsules etc, in preparation for a manned landing, which by necessity will probably need a stay of around 18 months. Of course this may be shortened or changed depending on technological and scientific advancements made in that time.

An international effort is the best way to go, and I'm hopeful enough to believe that such an international effort is not beyond reason. 

During the same time period, I also envisage some attempts at asteroid mining. Robotics will play a major roll in all of this.

Probably the greatest advancement needed, would be protection of the astronauts during any CME's or similar above solar radiation events.

Human nature, the need for scientific advancement, the need for exploration, the need for adventure and the human spirit, will see those goals achieved in the course of time, in as safe a manner as possible. Once the basics has been achieved, I see it then advancing in leaps and bounds, and our children, and our children's children, will be witnessed to some incredible progress.

Obviously adding to that factual list is the benefits of Musk and Space-X's achievments, with regards to usable vertically returning rockets......

https://www.dnv.com/to2030/technology/reusable-rockets-revolutionizing-access-to-outer-space.html

Reusable rockets: revolutionizing access to outer space:

 

"On a crisp December night in 2015 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, an explosion eats up the darkness. A roar of burning liquid oxygen fills the air, reaches deafening point then begins to settle as the last flames gutter down and the Falcon 9 reusable rocket makes its first successful return. A hundred or so SpaceX engineers and technicians cry, laugh and jump into hugs. Two years and a couple of months later, the first re-flight of a landed first-stage booster takes place.

And so began the revolutionizing of journeys to outer space, and of the CO2 footprint of rocket launches. Since then, recovering of Falcon 9 boosters has become routine and in June this year SpaceX succeeded in recovering the expensive fairing rocket part, also known as the rocket’s nose cone. This was done with Ms.Tree, a modified offshore supply vessel equipped with a giant net. For their next-generation launch rocket, Big Falcon Rocket (BFR), SpaceX aims for 100% reusability. BFR is planned to be available around the mid 2020s, with potential for a variety of applications such as launching satellites, and carrying cargo and crew to space stations, the Moon and Mars. Elon Musk has even suggested that the BFR could be used for high-speed travel between earth destinations, carrying out any long-distance flights in less than 1 hour at a speed of 27000km/h".    

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

[IDNeon]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Reusable rockets: revolutionizing access to outer space:

I'm confused. 

We had this already. For 40 years actually.

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

SpaceX aims for 100% reusability. BFR is planned to be available around the mid 2020s

What a specious claim.

How do they intend to accomplish this without reentry shields?

[beecee]

1 minute ago, IDNeon said:

I'm confused. 

We had this already. For 40 years actually.

Yes, you are confused and wrong. Unless you are simply trolling and being obtuse?

Anyway, your continued rhetorical, religious like nonsense is rather tiring and I have things to do. 

[IDNeon]

Just now, beecee said:

Yes, you are confused and wrong. Unless you are simply trolling and being obtuse?

You mean you literally don't know that all of the Orbiters rocket engines were reusable?

Please tell me. How is Musk doing reusable rockets something new? 

I want to know. How is Musk doing something we already have been doing for 40 years "new"

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Please tell me. How is Musk doing reusable rockets something new? 

[1] They land verticle. [2] They are not just booster rockets, but rockets and nose cones. You really have a problem with Musk, don't you? 

I'm off anyway, feeding trolls is wrong. Things to do, places to see. Have fun!

[IDNeon]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

[1] They land verticle. [2] They are not just booster rockets, but rockets and nose cones. You really have a problem with Musk, don't you? 

1) who cares that they land vertical? The Orbiter landed at airports. Way cooler. 

2) All of the Orbiter's rockets, engines, nose cones? Etc were reusable. Only the Hydrogen tank was not.

I'm not trolling. 

Musk just is leading America backwards. 

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

I'm not trolling. 

Available evidence contradicts your claim. 

[IDNeon]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Available evidence contradicts your claim

Baseless assertion considering I have literally supported my claims. 

So is Musk the first to reuse a rocket or is Rockwell's Orbiter?

See it's confusing to say that SpaceX did something first when someone else did it 40 years ago

[beecee]

49 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

1) who cares that they land vertical?  

Anyone not hindered by some hidden agenda?

50 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

 The Orbiter landed at airports. Way cooler. 

No airports on Mars.

50 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

2) All of the Orbiter's rockets, engines, nose cones? Etc were reusable. Only the Hydrogen tank was not.

And of course only being able to parachute down and land in the Ocean, with chances of not finding or sinking, makes it far less reliable then a controlled verticle landing on land[an airport, at sea on a barge, or on Mars. 

Why don't you come clean and tell us what agenda you have and why you are so obviously[to anyone]  have this beef with Musk? Especially since NASA has chosen him above all others? Please straight answers, no personal opinions and rhetorical nonsense, based on rumour or inuendo.  

[IDNeon]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

No airports on Mars.

But we already have retro-rocket landings on other planets.

Did the LM not exist? 

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Anyone not hindered by some hidden agenda

We already accomplished this with the LM. Why do it on Earth other than stupid wasteful gimmickery?

Edited May 3, 2021 by IDNeon

[beecee]

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/spacex-launch-astronauts-iss-recycled-rocket-capsule/story?id=77192131

SpaceX launches 4 astronauts to ISS on recycled rocket and capsule:

It will  hold up to 7 Astronauts if I remember correctly?

 

[IDNeon]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

with chances of not finding or sinking

I mean...we launch space craft across the solar system. You'd think we can keep track of some water landings. 

Just now, beecee said:

SpaceX launches 4 astronauts to ISS on recycled rocket and capsule

You mean the Orbiter? Each of those flew dozens of missions.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Why don't you come clean and tell us what agenda you have and why you are so obviously[to anyone]  have this beef with Musk?

Because Musk has done NOTHING but convince you he has done something. 

It's pathetic. 

He's done nothing new. Nothing that has progressed space flight. 

China's Long March 5B is a superior rocket to Falcon Heavy and...

 

Most critically...

It uses Hydrogen.

I can't stress enough how important mastering Hydrogen is for future space flight. 

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Baseless assertion considering I have literally supported my claims. 

How does one literally support their claim that they are not trolling? Genuinely curious, because it appears you’re now merely arguing in bad faith and attempting to twist the meaning of my actual comment… the one you even quoted. 

Edited May 3, 2021 by iNow

[IDNeon]

The other problem is capsules are relatively easy. We've been doing them for 60 years. 

What's difficult is a reusable mission capable spacecraft that can both carry payload and work with payload.

The Orbiter was the pinnacle of space flight and so far Musk isn't close to achieving anything like that.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

How does one literally support their claim that they are not trolling? Genuinely curious, because it appears you’re now merely arguing in bad faith and attempting to twist the meaning of my actual comment… the one you even quoted

Because I claim Musk has done nothing new. Then prove it.

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

See it's confusing to say that SpaceX did something first when someone else did it 40 years ago

I really couldn’t care less. I never said this, so it’s moot. 

[IDNeon]

Just now, iNow said:

I really couldn’t care less. I never said this, so it’s moot. 

Not all my responses are to you. In fact almost none of them are.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, IDNeon said:

I mean...we launch space craft across the solar system. You'd think we can keep track of some water landings. 

Doesn't compare with the Space-X controlled landings vertically, on land, or at sea on a barge and you know this.

Again, I'll leave you to your agenda, because it doesn't, nor will it affect ever the reality of what NASA and Space-X, and Roscomos, and the ESA and the Chinese are working towards...not to mention other nations like India for example.

Perhaps I need to put them all in contact with you for your advice? 😁 or better still, perhaps you need to come down to Earth and not hide behind that agenda?

[iNow]

1 minute ago, IDNeon said:

Not all my responses are to you. In fact almost none of them are.

Then don’t quote me before responding with text that suggests the response is directed at me. This isn’t exactly rocket science. Lol

Edited May 3, 2021 by iNow

[IDNeon]

Just now, beecee said:

Doesn't compare with the Space-X controlled landings vertically, on land, or at sea on a barge and you know this.

Other way around. 

Ocean drops are better. Less expensive, leaves out unnecessary complication of already complicated systems.

SpaceX is destined to blow-up astronauts and be sued into oblivion. Mark my words. 

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Because I claim Musk has done nothing new. Then prove it.

Proved it? 

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

How does one literally support their claim that they are not trolling? Genuinely curious

Still pending your actual answer and not an evasion 

[IDNeon]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Again, I'll leave you to your agenda, because it doesn't, nor will it affect ever the reality of what NASA and Space-X, and Roscomos, and the ESA and the Chinese are working towards...not to mention other nations like India for example

I haven't said anything about what China or NASA or ESA have accomplished.

Rather just what SpaceX hasn't accomplished.