3 ms·

Not just a dozen. Current estimates say closer to 20. It makes the notion of ss cans supporting Mars colonization a bad joke. The cans might be just barely ade

Not just a dozen. Current estimates say closer to 20. It makes the notion of ss cans supporting Mars colonization a bad joke. The cans might be just barely adequate to support a Lunar outpost. The "gateway" concept is another bad joke. It is in plans solely because that is the closest to the moon that SLS can get to. It isn't legitimately a gateway to anything: stopping there makes getting where you really want to go substantially harder. The only legitimate place for a gateway would be in high Earth orbit, because it wouldn't require extra fuel to stop at it and then get moving again.

panick21_ 3y ago
Mars landing is actually less energy intensive the moon landing. SpaceX is already launching 100 times a year. Starship is supposed to have even faster turn around, launching multiple 100 times per year doesn't seem crazy, specially as current launches require complex iteration, unlike pure fuel launches. Its likely closer to 16 then 20. And optimizing the process and efficiency it will be less then that. You end up landing around 100 tons. So you can potentially do 1000+ tons a year, and that is before you even go to having many ocean launch pads. Ok not enough for colonization, but its a damn good start.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  Not even enough for a Mars outpost, never mind colonization. The story about ferrying 100 people to Mars in a can is 100% lying; they might fit a dozen. And there is literally nothing on Mars worth refining and exporting home, not even the engines on the cans that got them there; so those would pile up. The "Mars colonization" story is purely to pump up stock price, just like the "full self driving" that was supposed to enable you to farm out your car during the day for taxi service. Musk hyped that one hard.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    > Not even enough for a Mars outpost Landing a single Starship on Mars literally is already an output if we want to be exact about it. The idea that the Starship architecture isn't enough to have a small base on Mars is just nonsense. > The story about ferrying 100 people to Mars in a can is 100% lying; they might fit a dozen. As with everything 100 was an inspirational goal, once you have good infrastructure on both sides and everything optimized for mass transport. And yes you might be right, 100 is to optimistic. He didn't sign any contracts based on those numbers, he promised nobody that number. Its literally an inspirational goal with a low chance of success. > they might fit a dozen Damn, a dozen is amazing. > And there is literally nothing on Mars worth refining and exporting home Nobody claimed their was ... but you are really good a fighting straw man. > "Mars colonization" story is purely to pump up stock price That just proves that you don't have the first clue what you are talking about. Musk literally admits that Mars colonization isn't gone make money. The reason they want Starlink is because they think that can actually make money and support large rockets so they can use it for Mars. Musk things he will spend his private money on Mars colonization. Pushing Mars is literally the opposite of stock price pumping.
    - angiosperm 3y ago
      "Inspirational goal" is a lot of syllables for "lie". Make no mistake, nobody who understands ever thought they could take 100 people in there without freezing them. Musk said it because he thought it sounded good, fully aware it is impossible. He also knows there can be no colony. So, every falsehood promoting it is a lie.
      - panick21_ 3y ago
        Re-usability was once a 'lie' Starlink was also 'lie'. Their high launch rate was also consider a 'lie'. 100 people would mean about 10m3 per person. That sounds like more then some prisoners have had in isolation cells. Of course wouldn't be comfortable necessary, and in practice you likely wouldn't do that way. Of course this talks about a situation where there is lots of infrastructure on both sides. No need to bring extra food or equipment. A pure crew ship. Near perfect system of water reuse and so on.It also presupposes some understanding of solar radiation or much better cancer treatment. In addition you can think of a number of ways to expand volume.You can potentially stretch the ship, or widen the ship. You could have inflatable hubs to temporary create extra volume. The earlier version of the ship when that 100 number was first talked about was also much bigger then the current one, the ship designed has changed because they realized lower cost per stack and higher re-usability made more sense. Maybe it would require medically induce sleep (bear style). 100 is of course inspirational and might be off by a factor of 2-4x but to act like this statements are some unforgivable lie is ridiculous. Specially because there is are no contracts signed or promises made, its literally just 'this is our long term goal'. Complaining because a ship can 'only' transport 12 people to FUCKING MARS is just insane to me. And in the end the cost per person is what actually matters, and that is what they are trying to reduce systematically. If you actually listen to Elon that's what he talks about most and what has always been the main driving goal. He talks far more about that in the interviews about this, the actual number he threw out are just estimation, and he makes that very clear. He even makes it clear that they don't know how to get there yet, they literally just working towards it as best as they can. 100 per ship is just one of many estimated numbers. A million people to self sufficiency. 1000 ships operational. Many others. All those numbers might be very wrong and Elon would admit as much. Its not the 'gatcha' you think it is. And notice how you didn't defend your ridiculous 'pump-and-dump' nonsense.

panick21_ 3y ago

Mars landing is actually less energy intensive the moon landing. SpaceX is already launching 100 times a year. Starship is supposed to have even faster turn around, launching multiple 100 times per year doesn't seem crazy, specially as current launches require complex iteration, unlike pure fuel launches. Its likely closer to 16 then 20. And optimizing the process and efficiency it will be less then that. You end up landing around 100 tons. So you can potentially do 1000+ tons a year, and that is before you even go to having many ocean launch pads. Ok not enough for colonization, but its a damn good start.

angiosperm 3y ago
Not even enough for a Mars outpost, never mind colonization. The story about ferrying 100 people to Mars in a can is 100% lying; they might fit a dozen. And there is literally nothing on Mars worth refining and exporting home, not even the engines on the cans that got them there; so those would pile up. The "Mars colonization" story is purely to pump up stock price, just like the "full self driving" that was supposed to enable you to farm out your car during the day for taxi service. Musk hyped that one hard.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > Not even enough for a Mars outpost Landing a single Starship on Mars literally is already an output if we want to be exact about it. The idea that the Starship architecture isn't enough to have a small base on Mars is just nonsense. > The story about ferrying 100 people to Mars in a can is 100% lying; they might fit a dozen. As with everything 100 was an inspirational goal, once you have good infrastructure on both sides and everything optimized for mass transport. And yes you might be right, 100 is to optimistic. He didn't sign any contracts based on those numbers, he promised nobody that number. Its literally an inspirational goal with a low chance of success. > they might fit a dozen Damn, a dozen is amazing. > And there is literally nothing on Mars worth refining and exporting home Nobody claimed their was ... but you are really good a fighting straw man. > "Mars colonization" story is purely to pump up stock price That just proves that you don't have the first clue what you are talking about. Musk literally admits that Mars colonization isn't gone make money. The reason they want Starlink is because they think that can actually make money and support large rockets so they can use it for Mars. Musk things he will spend his private money on Mars colonization. Pushing Mars is literally the opposite of stock price pumping.
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    "Inspirational goal" is a lot of syllables for "lie". Make no mistake, nobody who understands ever thought they could take 100 people in there without freezing them. Musk said it because he thought it sounded good, fully aware it is impossible. He also knows there can be no colony. So, every falsehood promoting it is a lie.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      Re-usability was once a 'lie' Starlink was also 'lie'. Their high launch rate was also consider a 'lie'. 100 people would mean about 10m3 per person. That sounds like more then some prisoners have had in isolation cells. Of course wouldn't be comfortable necessary, and in practice you likely wouldn't do that way. Of course this talks about a situation where there is lots of infrastructure on both sides. No need to bring extra food or equipment. A pure crew ship. Near perfect system of water reuse and so on.It also presupposes some understanding of solar radiation or much better cancer treatment. In addition you can think of a number of ways to expand volume.You can potentially stretch the ship, or widen the ship. You could have inflatable hubs to temporary create extra volume. The earlier version of the ship when that 100 number was first talked about was also much bigger then the current one, the ship designed has changed because they realized lower cost per stack and higher re-usability made more sense. Maybe it would require medically induce sleep (bear style). 100 is of course inspirational and might be off by a factor of 2-4x but to act like this statements are some unforgivable lie is ridiculous. Specially because there is are no contracts signed or promises made, its literally just 'this is our long term goal'. Complaining because a ship can 'only' transport 12 people to FUCKING MARS is just insane to me. And in the end the cost per person is what actually matters, and that is what they are trying to reduce systematically. If you actually listen to Elon that's what he talks about most and what has always been the main driving goal. He talks far more about that in the interviews about this, the actual number he threw out are just estimation, and he makes that very clear. He even makes it clear that they don't know how to get there yet, they literally just working towards it as best as they can. 100 per ship is just one of many estimated numbers. A million people to self sufficiency. 1000 ships operational. Many others. All those numbers might be very wrong and Elon would admit as much. Its not the 'gatcha' you think it is. And notice how you didn't defend your ridiculous 'pump-and-dump' nonsense.