SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
On Thursday night, SpaceX founder Elon Musk shared photos of Raptor rocket engines that recently left the company's factory in Hawthorne, Calif., headed out to be tested at its facility near McGregor, Texas. "Preparing to fire the Starship Raptor engine," he said by way of a caption on Twitter.
The photos were interesting, but Musk had additional comments about the engine that revealed much about how the company is proceeding with overall design of the vehicle it will power. SpaceX's approach seems focused on keeping costs down and moving as quickly as possible towards a launch of the Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket in the early 2020s.
For example, Musk said, "Initially making one 200 metric ton thrust engine common across ship & booster to reach the Moon as fast as possible. Next versions will split to vacuum-optimized (380+ sec Isp) & sea-level thrust optimized (~250 ton)."
This comment is notable for a couple of reasons. First of all, the company appears to have decided to streamline the Raptor engine to a single design that will power both the rocket at liftoff, and the spaceship in the upper atmosphere and outer space. It will take less time to develop, test, and qualify a single engine. It will also cost less money.
Additionally, Musk notes that the goal is "to reach the Moon as fast as possible." The company still appears to be focused on lunar orbital flights, such as the #dearMoon project for Japanese businessman Yusaku Maezawa, as the first missions for Starship.
There is an added benefit to this approach: for the next two decades, NASA appears likely to be highly interested in developing infrastructure near and on the Moon. By flying Starship on early test flights to the same destination, SpaceX has a far greater chance to win government contracts for the delivery of cargo, and potentially astronauts, to the Moon. Heretofore, neither NASA nor the US military has shown much if any interest in SpaceX's ambitious rocket and spacecraft.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 03 2019, @01:15AM (11 children)
Just Musk's PR, as usual. He has to keep talking, otherwise people will forget him.
Even the Moon is out of our technological reach; a couple days to travel, but no water, no energy, no atmosphere to protect solar panels... better to stay in space. Mars is richer in usables, but 6-12 months of travel are out of question, and the costs are unbearable by the entire planet.
The goals of NASA are uncertain at least because their rocket is not ready yet. The goals will be largely defined by what the rocket can do, and the ultimate goal, besides science, us again to remain relevant. Do not forget that there is a network of old rocket boys behind this project, and they expect to be paid.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Sunday February 03 2019, @01:36AM (8 children)
NASA doesn't actually need a specific rocket (SLS) to send payloads to the Moon [soylentnews.org]. We should see an Israeli company send a lunar lander using a Falcon 9 this month, for example.
Going back to the Moon "as a stepping stone to Mars" has been on the agenda [space.com] since the Bush administration. Obama took the Moon off the table, and Trump has refocused on the Moon. With cheaper rockets from SpaceX, Blue Origin, and ULA, and capable small payloads from other companies, the Moon is probably back on the table for good. The Moon has plenty of water ice under the surface and in shadowed craters. The solar panels aren't a huge problem, just build lots of them if you are worried about micrometeorites, but NASA is working on nuclear power [soylentnews.org] that could be used on the Moon too.
One-way travel time to Mars can be as low as 1-3 months. The costs of getting astronauts there are only unbearably high if we want them to be.
If you want to diss Elong, read up on what you're talking about.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday February 03 2019, @02:07AM (5 children)
Tell me, Mars -- I'd love to be actually sending humans. Guys and gals getting there during my first term. What if we give NASA all the money they could ever need. What if we send NASA's budget through the roof, but focused entirely on that instead of whatever else they're doing now? First we send the building materials. Those can go on the slow boat. Then we send the builders, on a much faster ship. Very fast, very comfortable. Luxury the likes of which they've never known, they're gonna be very happy in that one. Could it work then?
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 03 2019, @02:33AM (3 children)
I think you should worry more about your second term, and to make that happen you have to kick out the Mexicans and H1-B stinkies, and fast. If this means roadside immigration-status checkpoints in big cities, then so be it. The REAL Americans offer their full support on that one. Then you can worry about your Mars base during your second term.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 03 2019, @05:34AM (2 children)
I disagree with the road side checks. I give them hell every time I have to go through one. If on a fast bike*, I don't bother to stop. Fuck 'em.
Definition of a "fast bike" - it cruises at 150 mph, and can flirt with 200 mph, if not actually reach it. I left the house one evening, and decided to pass two trucks that were moving along at the speed limit, 55. State cop clocked me at 72, and came after me. When he approached me on foot, he said, "I thought you were going to rabbit!" I just laughed, he asked what I was laughing about. Told him, "This bike tops out at 100 mph - only an idiot could think he could outrun a police car on it!" He says, "If you were on a different bike?" I says, "Maybe!"
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday February 03 2019, @06:37AM (1 child)
“... mentally ill homeless man to a soup kitchen at one hundred forty miles per hour?”
“I like to drive.”
— King City CHP Officer W. Godfrey, Badge Number 19523
I puzzled over his badge number a moment then said “March nineteen fifty two” while envisioning those heady days of yore.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 03 2019, @09:05AM
"Because only the mentally ill who have nothing to lose will ride with me."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday February 03 2019, @02:33AM
Give SpaceX $20 billion, win a second term.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 03 2019, @05:28AM (1 child)
What does "plenty of water ice" mean? Sure, there is ice there. How much? I've read nothing to suggest that it's abundant. Will it support a million people indefinitely? Will it support a few thousand, for some limited time? Who has been able to quantify this water?
Seriously, I suspect that if we ever have a significant moon population, they'll be importing a lot of water from the asteroids.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Sunday February 03 2019, @05:52AM
Moon Wetter Than Previously Thought [soylentnews.org]
NASA Finds Ice on the Surface of the Moon [soylentnews.org]
ESA Plans to Send Mining Equipment to the Moon [soylentnews.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water [wikipedia.org]
How Much Water Is on the Moon? [airspacemag.com]
Putting your base near the poles can also allow you to place solar panels where they will be in nearly permanent sunlight year-round.
There could also be large quantities of water deep underground.
We don't really need to think about supporting millions of people on the Moon right now. We can start by supporting tens or hundreds [soylentnews.org] of researchers, many of them being geologists, and those people will probably be finding more water/ice deposits during their stay.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday February 03 2019, @06:31AM
Strong solenoid always magnets will afford quite a lot of protection, as will leaded glass
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday February 06 2019, @05:59PM
A permanent moon outpost is well within our technical reach, and has the potential to be very valuable as a source of industrial raw materials as we start seriously expanding beyond out planet.
Where we are likely to encounter difficulties is trying to develop a self-sufficient colony there. Mars is a far more attractive target for that, with nigh-unlimited water and CO2 being easily accessible anywhere on the planet - in addition to glaciers and ground ice, the atmosphere is generally close to 100% humidity so that dehumidifiers are a feasible option for a simple, steady (if limited) flow of fresh water. Travel time to Mars is is a bitch, no denying that, but 6 months is readily achievable, and shouldn't kill anyone with some basic precautions (And a substantial drop in life expectancy is to be expected for early colonists, even without the radiation. Price of being a pioneer - don't sign up if you're not willing to pay). And Musk at least claims that 2-3 months is eventually achievable - and while he tends to be overoptimistic about his timelines, he's got a good track record when it comes to technical feasibility. Mars is unlikely to become a tourist destination, but colonizing anywhere has generally been a one-way trip. And shipping supplies to Mars on slower, high-efficiency trajectories is only marginally more expensive than shipping them to the Moon.
However, the moon is still rich in resources - as I recall the moon is estimated to be about 60% oxygen by mass (as compared to the Earth's 46%), so all you need is energy, the right equipment, and a source of hydrogen to produce water, and there is actually a fair bit of hydrogen that's been deposited by the solar wind over the last few billion years, some of which was incorporated into the surface minerals rather than floating away. There may also be more substantial hydrogen and water deposits deeper underground - we won't know that until we start digging.
No energy? The moon gets just as much solar energy as the Earth - actually about 40% more than Earth at the surface, thanks to the lack of atmosphere. The 2-week-long nights are admittedly a bit of a problem, but there are lots of ways to store energy (stacking large blocks with an electric crane is perhaps one of the easiest and best suited), and there's also the possibility of orbital mirrors providing sunlight at night. An acre of "space blanket" weighs only about 250 lbs, and would reflect up to 5.6 MW of solar power to the surface, depending on angle - though there is the challenge of making the mirror flat enough to keep that power focused onto only one acre (or even a few) on the surface.
There's also fission - NASA has already developed and built compact 1k-10W fission reactors for use in space, and particularly the moon, and while you'd periodically have to ship up fuel (or new reactors) in the short term, in the long term fissionable fuel should be about as common on the Moon as on Earth. (And if we get thorium reactors working it should be downright easy to acquire)
No atmosphere to protect solar panels... from what? There's nothing hitting the moon that isn't already hitting everything else in Earth orbit.