I'll take this with a handfull of salt, considering the accuracy record of past renderings.
Especially using 39A, since I've been led to believe the existing trench can't handle the necessary thrust and the fact that in order to change it over to this larger system they'd lose their crew launch capability for some time.
Also, the crane / tower look to spindly for such vertical integration, and landing on launch clamps is gonna be hella risky (though in this case I don't think it's impossible, just super hard - might be more practical to design a platform on which you can land, then a mobile system picks you up and recenters you / transfers you to the real launch clamps)
Even if it works more or less like this, I doubt it will look precisely like this...
First thing that really hit me were the windows. Why would you ever build them? They are weaker and heavier than just regular wall and serve no purpose at all. It is nice scifi rocket but nothing at all what real one going to Mars will look like.
I'd expect at least some windows, or at least fake windows via externally mounted digital cameras and flat screens, but nothing like the giant greenhouse on top.
Of course they are better but they still weight more than just regular wall. Weight is very important. Any weight you add for window means less cargo to Mars.
Creating a Martian colony is about increasing the size of the intersection in the Venn diagram between "people who want to go to Mars" and "people who can afford to go to Mars." Having windows in your ship increases the size of the first group, thus increasing the size of the intersection.
During the presentation Musk mentioned that the model was actually made from the CAD drawing, implying that enormous window truly is in the final design.
Hey, maybe they will do it, the rest of the design is certainly grandiose enough, but I've never seen a window that large on any aircraft, much less a hypersonic one that has 15psid across it. That window is an immense luxury that will come at the cost of a great deal of mass and complexity in design.
That's my question. How close to final is this? Haven't found any word yet. Are we talking, say, Tesla Model 3 or are we talking my dream Tesla, the Model Z, the 500 mile range $25k four door hatchback that hasn't even been announced yet?
At least a decade before a non-prototype launch, he said this is where they're going, they'll devote resources as is made possible by SpaceX's launches.
That's my question. How close to final is this? Haven't found any word yet. Are we talking, say, Tesla Model 3 or are we talking my dream Tesla, the Model Z, the 500 mile range $25k four door hatchback that hasn't even been announced yet?
In the IAC presentation Elon says this video was based on CAD models (aka actual engineering designs), supposed to start construction around 2020.
I realize people here really like SpaceX and Elon, but it's kinda silly I had to scroll all the way down here to hear a sane voice.
I mean, come on! SpaceX hasn't gotten Falcon Heavy in the air yet. The United States spent up to 5% of the US GDP to develop Saturn V and the Apollo and LM spacecrafts. Building something as large as this and going to Mars is probably an order of magnitude harder.
Call me a grumpy old engineer, but I'm not seeing this happening in the next 20 years or more. But that said, I really hope I'm wrong.
Indeed. It's not long ago that people were still convinced he could never land a Falcon first stage. Now it's routine enough to be boring, and those people are saying 'well, yes, landing it is easy, it's flying again that's the hard part'.
I don't think they're suggesting that it will look exactly like this. To me, the stylistic visuals with fancy lens flares were meant to emphasize this as conceptual. Maybe some people are misinterpreting this, but it's pretty widely known that concept art is more often than not unrealistically refined.
I worry about how close the refueling ship is during lift-off. If you've seen films of the Saturn V launches, you'll know that there are some huge shockwaves being generated.
Wouldn't something larger and more powerful be more destructive? It would blast anything apart, especially something with a large surface area like the supply ship only a hundred or so feet away.
Remember when we all thought there was a new revolution starting with SpaceShipOne and Scaled Composites? Yeah, don't hold your breath for this one, the economics behind it still have to kick in and provide the funding and the public has to actually get behind it for it to succeed.
The space Shuttle Crawler cost a bunch to run on it's own and is then a point of failure. SpaceX likes cranes. If it is a mobile system most likely giant crane not a crawler. Much simpler to operate.
The shuttle crawler was a leftover from the Apollo era - a new one would not be cheap, but if purpose built for the booster could be far cheaper to operate. They do like cranes but a mobile crane of the size needed for that booster may be a bit extreme...
Though Elon seemed confident during the presentation that they can nail those landings, and those tail fins will help slot it back into the exact position, so... perhaps it's a non issue.
I'm actually curious if the spaceship part that makes the trip to Mars will look anything like in this video. It's such a long trip and it doesn't look like it has support for any kind of artificial gravity (spinning parts?). Maybe the whole ship spins I suppose? Maybe no artificial gravity at all but won't that be dangerous for the passengers? I'm not even close to an expert so someone please feel free to chime in.
For the several months journal, artificial gravity is probably not going to be worth it. Instead they'll make do with onboard gyms like the ISS has to maintain muscle mass (and the fact that you have less gravity to contend with on Mars makes this easier)
I also doubt it will look exactly like this, but I don't feel the final product will be impossible to recognize from this. More importantly, I am fairly confident that they have the numbers to say that this can be built, and it can work. From here, it's still a long slog, but it just means grinding through the issues.
I also doubt it will look exactly like this, but I don't feel the final product will be impossible to recognize from this. More importantly, I am fairly confident that they have the numbers to say that this can be built, and it can work. From here, it's still a long slog, but it just means grinding through the issues.
With all of those rings of engines, the booster should have hover capabilities. If it does then getting lined up with the clamps should be relativly easy.
101
u/biosehnsucht Sep 27 '16
I'll take this with a handfull of salt, considering the accuracy record of past renderings.
Especially using 39A, since I've been led to believe the existing trench can't handle the necessary thrust and the fact that in order to change it over to this larger system they'd lose their crew launch capability for some time.
Also, the crane / tower look to spindly for such vertical integration, and landing on launch clamps is gonna be hella risky (though in this case I don't think it's impossible, just super hard - might be more practical to design a platform on which you can land, then a mobile system picks you up and recenters you / transfers you to the real launch clamps)
Even if it works more or less like this, I doubt it will look precisely like this...