🧵 Using starship for a mars molony is unfesable
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 16:25:36 UTC No. 16200996
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41
>It has been shown that there are currently several gaps in the available technology to conduct a Mars mission as sketched by SpaceX, e.g. concerning ISRU capability, power supply and the performance of Starship itself is incapable to conduct the mission as proposed by SpaceX
>ToF limits published by SpaceX are found to be unrealistic and cannot be held with the current design
>Even with an unrealistic 100% recovery rate of consumables, the mission was not feasible for a 12 person crew per Starship, let alone for the SpaceX published 100 person crew
>Further technology development is required, to supplement this launch and transfer vehicle and enable Mars missions. This is affecting Starship itself, but also infrastructure elements needed for the SpaceX proposed mission
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 16:30:43 UTC No. 16201005
>>16200996
They don't even have on-orbit fuel transfer down yet, do they? I know it's never been done but do they even have a plan for it?
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 16:36:14 UTC No. 16201015
>>16200996
> the mission was not feasible for a 12 person crew per Starship, let alone for the SpaceX published 100 person crew
Don't these niggers understand that some ships (or majority of them) will be cargo-only?
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 16:40:13 UTC No. 16201020
>>16201005
On orbit fuel transfer has been done before, the Russians do it with Progress and the ISS, but they're only transferring about 800kg of storable hypergolic propellants not hundreds of tons of cryogenic fuel. And iirc SpaceX wants to implement a different method of fuel transfer.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 17:21:53 UTC No. 16201053
>>16201005
>I know it's never been done but do they even have a plan for it?
The only plan they have is to build Starship. Apparently everything else required will just fall into place lol
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 17:25:37 UTC No. 16201058
>>16200996
>Musk has no rigorous math to back up his long term plans
Well, that's a surprise.
bodhi at Thu, 30 May 2024 17:33:41 UTC No. 16201074
>>16200996
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeI
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 17:54:15 UTC No. 16201106
>>16201015
>To review the feasibility of Starship’s Mars mission as proposed by SpaceX, all relevant data for the spacecraft were compiled first.
>This data was obtained from publications by SpaceX (e.g.7,14, 15) or about SpaceX (e.g.9,10, 16) where the former were not available.
Maybe you should actually read the paper, I know there's no way you did in the 10 minutes withing OP posting the thread
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 18:22:29 UTC No. 16201146
>>16200996
>30 Mt of rad shielding needed
At that point why even send people? Just send robots, have them build everything and turn phobos into a fucking cycler. Rad shield plus mass per person is like 3025 kg, comparable to the mass of a cybertruck at 3104 kg.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 18:24:45 UTC No. 16201147
>>16200996
SpaceX isn't doing anything besides building the rocket. You're like my wife talking about the color of the bathroom tile backsplash before the foundation is even poured. Very feminine way of thinking about things.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 18:38:48 UTC No. 16201162
>>16201146
Because Phobos still masses in at [math]10^{60}[/math]kg
>>16201147
So why has Musk been publically talking about colonizing Mars for years
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 18:44:40 UTC No. 16201166
>Nature
Not a science magazine, much less a scientific journal. It's just more thunderf00t type ankle biting for attention and anger that they got their twitter propaganda tool taken away from them.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 18:45:12 UTC No. 16201167
>>16201162
>So why has Musk been publically talking about colonizing Mars for years
publicity stunt. He only cares about making money by sending satellites to low space orbit
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 18:47:08 UTC No. 16201170
>>16201166
U mad bro? If it's false then publish a rebuttal
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 18:49:29 UTC No. 16201175
>>16201166
>nature isn't a scientific journal
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 18:50:30 UTC No. 16201182
>>16201167
Anon you can't just say that about Musk, he's saving humanity! Or something.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 18:54:06 UTC No. 16201189
>>16201162
>So why has Musk been publically talking about colonizing Mars for years
Because he has spent all this time and money solving the first step, which is cheap mass to orbit. If you're spotting underdeveloped technologies beyond that then get to work, there's going to be quite a market that is currently unfulfilled
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 20:22:09 UTC No. 16201302
keep the infantile space travel scyence fiction fantasies in the infantile space travel scyence fiction fantasies containment thread
>>16199824
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 20:45:40 UTC No. 16201339
>>16201302
>scyence
Are we kotposting now?
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 20:49:24 UTC No. 16201345
>>16201162
this, Diemos weighs a lot less than Phobos and is the ideal cycler, it's farther out of Mars' gravity well too
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 20:51:53 UTC No. 16201353
>>16200996
Starship cant even get to orbit and you want to colonize mars with it? LMAO
And whos paying for this whole mars shit, elon? Because NASA is not planning any manned mission to mars , they already have enough problem with Artemis and its lunar lander (that is Starship btw).
And dont say spaceX is going to pay it, because I remember when they want to launch red dragon on a falcon heavy (way easier and cheaper than any starship mission) and they cancel it cus NASA didnt support them
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 20:54:42 UTC No. 16201359
>>16200996
Vaporware salesman sells vaporware. who would have thought !?
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:13:21 UTC No. 16201416
>>16201345
Deimos still masses in at 100 billion tons, even mars pathetic moonlets are still huge
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:24:22 UTC No. 16201441
>>16200996
Everything about a Mars colony is unfeasible. The raison d'etre of Starship is to launch BRILLIANT PEBBLES.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:25:52 UTC No. 16201445
>>16201162
>>So why has Musk been publically talking about colonizing Mars for years
Because it's plausible cover to explain why he's building the kind of rockets that are necessary to launch a BP constellation.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:57:01 UTC No. 16201604
>>16201353
The SpaceX subsidiary Starlink which makes $6.6bil/y is paying for it
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 22:58:03 UTC No. 16201607
>>16201359
>90% of the Earth's mass to orbit is vaporware
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 23:14:22 UTC No. 16201628
>>16201604
Even if Starlink's profits were more than marginal its not gonna be enough to bankroll mars colonization.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 23:42:40 UTC No. 16201651
>>16201604
>Nigga think you can do something in mars with 6 billions
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 23:54:21 UTC No. 16201666
>>16201651
Starlink revenue is increasing exponentially so that number will certainly be higher
>>16201628
They might get to the point where it's 50,000,000 for 150 tons to mars. You can do quite a lot with that. If the US gov sees strategic value in a permanent presence 3 months away from anything, that might help too. That price would also make a ticket there within the range of a silicon valley autist which would be even more money
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:11:30 UTC No. 16201679
>>16201668
brown
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:21:28 UTC No. 16201695
>>16200996
It's been obvious to most reasonable people that we aren't getting humans to mars until at least near the end of this century. Agencies like NASA and spacex will just keep saying "5 more years bro"
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:42:21 UTC No. 16201735
>>16201695
I wouldn't go as far as to say the end of the century, but certainly the latter half
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 00:52:01 UTC No. 16201748
>>16201679
The BLACK man is the epitome of male dominance and masculinity.
Let's start by looking at his body. His body is large. His domineering size makes his presence known without him even needing to point himself out. He is muscular, as a result of his high levels of testosterone. This gives him the appearance of health and strength. He is then covered by his dark skin. This dark skin reminds us of his ruggedness, a feature that developed due to being exposed to the scorching sun of africa, made to withstand such an extreme condition. It also has a psychological effect on the observer. The dark skin reminds us of our dark, deep desires that emerge from our primal subconscious past.
The BLACK man's demeanor is one of alphaness. He is dominant, assertive, and can be explosively aggressive. His behaviour strikes fear into the more timid, cowardly races of man(ʷʰ*ᵀᵉ dogs)
The summit of expression of his masculinity on his body is his penis. The BLACK penis is largest of all the races. As the penis is the penultimate symbol of manhood, this alone would suffice to make the BLACK man the most masculine of men. This large penis is able fulfill the desire of the neediest of women, being able to more than fill all the recesses of the vagina. Its length ensures that when it ejaculates, the potent african seed will immediately enter the womb of the woman the BLACK man impregnates.
In total, the BLACK man expresses this masculinity in a most exemplary manner in bed. When he fucks, he unleashes the entirety of his lusts and desires upon his partner without any restraint.
All this is the reason why the BLACK man is the epitome of masculinity
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 13:28:39 UTC No. 16202482
>>16201666
What actual strategic utility would be provided by a mars base?
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 22:36:12 UTC No. 16203130
>>16200996
>fraud fails to deliver on lofty proposal
HOLY SHIT IT CAN'T BE
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 22:37:53 UTC No. 16203134
>>16202482
These isn't any. There OBVIOUSLY isn't any.
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 22:45:04 UTC No. 16203153
>>16202482
For China, it would be a signal to the nations of Earth that the American empire has been eclipsed and is in decline. There would be immense geopolitical ramifications from that. For the US, especially if they make it an "international" mission, they get to extend the life of the empire a bit longer.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 07:19:37 UTC No. 16203758
>>16203153
> it would be a signal to the nations of Earth that the American empire has been eclipsed and is in decline
Wouldn't the intention be that America isn't declining? Not that building a huge space habitat would solve that e.g. Mir.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 08:13:22 UTC No. 16203802
>>16203758
>Mir
>huge
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 08:23:03 UTC No. 16203814
Will the Mars colony have laser swords?
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 09:25:52 UTC No. 16203880
>>16203758
Mir is just a space station for 6 people, but aside the obvious difference in scale it was made exactly for that reason, to give more status to the soviet union.
Military and scientifically all space stations are a waste of money.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:28:30 UTC No. 16204614
>>16200996
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40p
reminder, the ONLY reason Musk wants to send 100 people to mars in the largest ship he can possibly make, he thinks it'll give the greatest chance that at least 1 person will survive.
Musk has chosen the r-selection strategy and proven he sees other human beings with the same value as insects, rats, or bugs.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:10:10 UTC No. 16204967
Skimmed through it, mostly impotent seethe that it wouldn't work with existing boomer tech. No shit. SpaceX is filling in step 0 which is cheap upmass. No point working on the next 500 bullet points until you get the main issue solved since they don't have unlimited funds to throw around. Why don't these academic niggers pitch in instead of writing dozens of pages of seething.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:14:48 UTC No. 16204978
>>16204967
>seething
Nah that's you.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:17:49 UTC No. 16204983
>>16204978
Proof?
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:18:14 UTC No. 16204984
>>16204983
So you don't know?
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:21:35 UTC No. 16204993
>>16204984
Source?
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:22:46 UTC No. 16204995
>>16204993
A bit esoteric, no?
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:24:10 UTC No. 16204998
>>16204995
Peer reviews???
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:25:39 UTC No. 16205000
>>16204998
You tell me.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:26:12 UTC No. 16205001
>>16205000
I asked you first soijack
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:39:38 UTC No. 16205032
>Falcon Heavy will never work, it has too many engines
>First stage reuse will never be profitable
>You can't reuse a first stage more than 5 times
>Steel common dome will never work with methalox
What else?
Every time people make this kinds of predictions and every time they are proved wrong.
Just wait a few more years and we will see (again).
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:47:39 UTC No. 16205051
>>16203814
holy shit laser swords are awesome!!!
i hope they hoverbike races too!!!
and friendly talking robots!!!
science is so cool!!!
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:53:06 UTC No. 16205058
>>16205032
>...Anonymous
06/01/24(Sat)15:39:38No.16205032
>>Falcon Heavy will never work, it has too many engines
No one said this, the criticism of FH at the time is that it would be more difficult to get working than SpaceX made it out to be. Considering it didn't fly until 2018 that was an accurate assessment
>>First stage reuse will never be profitable8
None knows if this is true or not as SpaceX is private and doesn't make its ledgers public.
>>Steel common dome will never work with methalox
I only ever heard CSS make that argument, but you're right in that it was stupid that they did.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:54:21 UTC No. 16205061
>>16205001
nigger nigger nigger r
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:58:16 UTC No. 16205067
>>16205058
>None knows if this is true or not as SpaceX is private and doesn't make its ledgers public.
This is cope from 2016, take it back there, if it wasn't saving significant amounts of money then starlink launches wouldn't have bankrupted them bad despite investor money. Also given the turnaround times on the first stage its pretty obvious not much complex work is being done.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:26:08 UTC No. 16205116
>>16205001
You're never gonna make it in here with the wolves
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:29:24 UTC No. 16205123
>>16205116
Soijack thinks he is a wolf lmao
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:33:11 UTC No. 16205126
That was an interesting study. The 1MW of power a day needed to make fuel in 1200 days really sucks. I agree that pretty much makes it have to be nuclear powered. I previously thought it could be solar. You would need like 12 thousand 300 watt dollar solar panels.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:35:18 UTC No. 16205128
>>16200996
Starship will put tens of thousands of US satellites through low to high earth orbit, resulting in US space supremacy over the rest of humanity. The profits from these contracts can then fund something like a lunar base or Mars missions.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:40:54 UTC No. 16205137
>>16205128
But weren't they going to make Starlink into a publicly traded company? So the profits will go to shareholders not to some grand endeavor to colonize Mars.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:44:47 UTC No. 16205148
>>16205137
>Elon making anything public after the Tesla shitshow with half of world Jewry shorting his stock and paying the press to constantly attack him to this very day to make stock number go down
Yeah, no. Starlink is cashflow positive now anyway, why would they go public? What is the incentive? Costs will only decrease from here and subscribers increase.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:45:59 UTC No. 16205152
>>16205123
Who raped you?
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:46:25 UTC No. 16205153
>>16205148
The incentive is to sell shares to the public and make billions of dollars. Money. Makes even more sense now given Musk isn't likely to get his large Tesla share compensation package.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:49:45 UTC No. 16205155
>>16205153
They will make many more billions by not sharing revenue with investor jews and they know it, they have the satellite market by the balls and doing fucking cellphone coverage soon. They know what they have and are not going to sell for short term gain when they have no need for the cash upfront like Tesla did. By your logic SpaceX should have gone public with a valuation of like 100b or whatever.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:55:47 UTC No. 16205159
>>16205155
Well here is a quote from the CFO saying not this year, but they will. Just remember that money is all people care about. Better to have billions in a stock listing than millions over many years.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/capit
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:05:02 UTC No. 16205168
>>16205159
If you care to look at starlinks revenue take you will see that it is is measured in the billions, not millions. These people have more business acumen than you, I can't read your paywalled jew article but they occasionally say the same thing about SpaceX. It's a common business tactic to be vague about maybe a future IPO in case they do need to privately raise funds for whatever reason that they fool the rube VC investors into thinking they are getting in ahead of the plebs but then it never happens.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:08:41 UTC No. 16205170
>>16205168
I don't know what to tell you then. The CFO said it, not me. No Starlink is not making billions a year. They just turned profitable last year.
Here is a pic cause I hate the Jew pay walls as well. Funny thing is I picked this second link because it didn't have a pay wall for me. I guess it is regional or my ad block.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:12:25 UTC No. 16205174
>>16205170
>they just turned profitable last year
Yeah with a revenue of 6 and a half billion. Subscriber count is not even slowing down, it's growing more quickly and launch costs with starship will be massively slashed.
>It'll be more in the years to come
Like I said, business jew speak in case they need to lure in VC for any reason. If you read that as a commitment to IPO you are a fool.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:15:59 UTC No. 16205176
>>16205174
Revenue is not profit. A lot of established companies are lucky to have profit to revenue ratios of 1 to 10. They are likely higher.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:26:36 UTC No. 16205184
>>16205176
>Revenue is not profit
Thank you captain obvious. I'm pointing the scales they are working at and that for example if they doubled their subscriber base (absolutely happening within a few years if not less), their overheads basically remain the same as they are now. They are already launching satellites as fast as they can and need to which is far and away the largest overhead. Tell me what your net income is if you are in profit at 6 and a half billion revenue and you double that with a minimal increase in capex and overhead? That's what they are looking at. And again if it's about gotta get rich quick why have they not IPO SpaceX? It's 100b+ sitting on the table that they are just leaving there.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:34:47 UTC No. 16205194
>>16205184
You want to bullshit and say they make billions and then try to insult me when I correct your ignorance. That's fine. Just don't expect me to take anything you say as serious. I gave you a quote from the CFO and all you are giving me is your opinions and unreliable information.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:57:02 UTC No. 16205211
>>16205194
You're retarded.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 22:48:28 UTC No. 16205295
>>16205174
>launch costs with starship will be massively slashed
...And so the foundation for the pyramid scheme is laid.
Captcha:MKAYp
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 23:08:20 UTC No. 16205330
>>16200996
This is why Europeans don't invent anything anymore
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 00:39:53 UTC No. 16205494
>>16205126
You'd use beamed power obviously. One starship carries a solar farm for Mars orbit, another a receiving array for the ground
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 00:50:22 UTC No. 16205506
>>16205494
Nigger, beamed power is impractical as it stands for earth use, hence why it hasn't been done, its going to be even worse where the solar flux is only 590 [math] \frac{W}{m^{2}} [/math]
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 00:51:25 UTC No. 16205507
>>16204614
well to be fair it's obvious that many humans act like bugs and rats and use r selection too
Though it's pretty stupid since elon only hold relevance because of his wallet not his person, thus he is more like an insect on top of a tasty graham cracker.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 00:53:10 UTC No. 16205510
>>16205471
excuse me but why is russian in the european section? you know since russia isn't european
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 00:56:25 UTC No. 16205514
>>16205507
>hold relevance because of his wallet not his person
This comparison is even more apt since most of his wealth is tied up in solid assets, its why he needed a loan to buy twitter.
>>16205510
That's not even the biggest inaccuracy wr/t Russia, given that even the IMF had to do a 180 on their forecast
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 01:07:59 UTC No. 16205532
>>16205510
The part of Russia that actually has people in it is in the European continent
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 01:29:48 UTC No. 16205544
>>16205506
Impractical because of exorbitant launch costs which go away with starship
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 01:32:09 UTC No. 16205546
>>16200996
Good points. What are the authors doing to solve them?
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 01:42:07 UTC No. 16205554
>>16205544
The material costs alone for space based solar power would be in the 100s of billions, even ignoring launch costs it was impractically expensive when Rockwell took a look at it back in the 70s with their satellite power systems study and its impractically expensive now.
>>16205546
Not their problem.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 02:40:24 UTC No. 16205615
>>16205554
>impractically expensive when Rockwell took a look at it back in the 70s
Yes, because of launch costs. It's a completely different world now. Nothing like Starlink existed for example. In any case the scenario in question is the colonization of Mars. You're implicitly shipping hundreds of tons there in Starship, so why not take an entire orbital solar plant on one ship.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 02:43:12 UTC No. 16205616
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 03:08:59 UTC No. 16205652
>>16205554
>Not their problem.
Oh ok. Well what's your proposed solution?
You do have one right?
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 03:35:34 UTC No. 16205699
>>16205652
If had to design a plan to build a mars colony the first thing that I would do is acknowledge that it would need a massive industrial base in space, in which is why the real starting point is building rotating habitats and factories in LEO. This would also have the benefit of developing all the technology and procedures needed to build a colony close to Earth before having to do so months away around/on another planet.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 03:41:47 UTC No. 16205707
>>16202482
tax evasion
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 03:43:36 UTC No. 16205712
>>16202482
Illegal genetically engineered catgirls research.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 03:53:46 UTC No. 16205723
>>16205699
Good thing that starship is an optimised LEO bus primarily
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 03:55:41 UTC No. 16205728
>>16205723
I'd rather have a mission architecture that used a BDB as a launch vehicle.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 03:58:54 UTC No. 16205733
>>16205728
This whole "mission" mentality is an oldspace deadend
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 04:26:06 UTC No. 16205763
>>16200996
they used starship v1 numbers to calculate the delta v
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 04:37:40 UTC No. 16205771
>>16205733
>This whole "mission" mentality is an oldspace deadend
Silicon valley brainrot