SpaceX's Grasshopper VTVL takes a 40 meter hop

_Tombstone_

No damage on the Engine apparently, been ready to go since Dec31, so a week to turn them around, quicker when they get good at it.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacexphotos


Elon Musk says SpaceX's first reusable Falcon 9 rocket is 'ready to fire again'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on6pzefo4t8

_Tombstone_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cos2CBkg8kY

_Tombstone_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ6tZtGrShg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGMPUClJ7pE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3PVG-7Sv4U

I thought Hydrogen was gonna be the next big thing Time Index 10.20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo

Toyota on hydrogen fuel cell technology: “Simply a better battery”

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

I thought Hydrogen was gonna be the next big thing Time Index 10.20

If you look into the problems, producing, storing and transporting Hydrogen, its clear that fool cells are a bad idea

Capt'n Midnight

nokia69 wrote: »

If you look into the problems, producing, storing and transporting Hydrogen, its clear that fool cells are a bad idea

The first internal combustion hydrogen powered car had electric ignition. Back in 1813


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Rivaz_engine same date as the first practical ( walking speed ) steam locomotive Puffing Billy

_Tombstone_

New Hyperloop video shows off a bunch of tubes lying in the desert

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14Hs0r5RUww

nokia69

_Tombstone_

Nice one! I'd just checked the other day for a better one.

_Tombstone_

TAKE TWO!!

So, at the moment weather is 100% go for launch WITH landing on Sunday(Monday is good for launch aswell), landing out on the Barge this time due to not having permission for a land landing (they have no pad at vandenberg) and it's cheaper depending on what you're firing and where it needs to go apparently - this one will come down at wicked speed so Water landing safer for now as 5000mph could drop it on who knows what.

Sunday at 6.42GMT (I think, converted that from 1.42ET time)


Test firing of the landed rocket has thrown up problems with an engine.

Lots more Info

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-startups-idUSKCN0UT2D5
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-15/why-spacex-needs-to-land-a-rocket-on-a-floating-drone
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/15/10775522/spacex-falcon-9-launch-livestream-second-rocket-landing-january-17
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/noaa-s-jason-3-spacecraft-ready-for-launch-0

_Tombstone_

They're not using the newer Falcon, they're using the version that blew last year.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacexphotos/with/23778325594/

nokia69

The Jason-3 launch looks OK so far

But the drone ship landing failed, possible broken leg because of a hard landing

Knifey Spoony

https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688816554306191360

Sounds like the first actually manage to land but one of the legs didn't lock so it fell over. Will be interesting to see the landing attempt video later.

Wibbs

Looks great and all and a fantastic effort, but IMH FWIW(not a lot), the use of rocket fuel to have a controlled landing is pretty wasteful and more about the "show". The same type vehicle using aerodynamically "free" parachutes to slow down and land, maybe with a last minute rocket assist a la the Russian crew module landings to bleed off the last bit of energy, makes far more sense on all sorts of levels. THe K.I.S.S. principle.

Maximus Alexander

I'd argue that it's keeping it much simpler to use engines that are already on the craft than to add extra complexity and mass in the form of parachutes.

In terms of cost savings, which is what SpaceX is all about, powered landing makes lots of sense.

josip

Wibbs wrote: »

Looks great and all and a fantastic effort, but IMH FWIW(not a lot), the use of rocket fuel to have a controlled landing is pretty wasteful and more about the "show". The same type vehicle using aerodynamically "free" parachutes to slow down and land, maybe with a last minute rocket assist a la the Russian crew module landings to bleed off the last bit of energy, makes far more sense on all sorts of levels. THe K.I.S.S. principle.

My understanding (worth less) is that if they want to have a controlled landing at a known safe site/ocean barge, they have to be controlling the downward trajectory from the very start of the descent.
This is especially the case for high speed insertions where significant re-orientation of the rocket is required at turn around rather than just letting gravity do its bit.
If they went the parachute route, they'd be at the mercy of different winds at multiple altitudes on the way back down and it would be both impossible to predict a landing site.
There would probably also be a lot of lateral velocity which isn't great for a rocket as tall as the Falcon.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I'd argue that it's keeping it much simpler to use engines that are already on the craft than to add extra complexity and mass in the form of parachutes.

In terms of cost savings, which is what SpaceX is all about, powered landing makes lots of sense.

It's a valid point, but I still think that the use of the engines is primarily about the level of control it gives them rather than saving on complexity and mass.
They have had to add steering vanes at the stop of the rocket that deploy to stabilise the descent.
While their mass is probably less than parachutes I'd be surprised if their complexity was any less than the well tested parachute design

Maximus Alexander

An additional and, I thought, convincing explanation, is that SpaceX rockets will ultimately need to be able land on the Moon / Mars where parachutes are less useful / no use at all. If you can perform a precise powered landing on Earth, it ought to be a piece of cake on other bodies.

nokia69

Wibbs wrote: »

Looks great and all and a fantastic effort, but IMH FWIW(not a lot), the use of rocket fuel to have a controlled landing is pretty wasteful and more about the "show". The same type vehicle using aerodynamically "free" parachutes to slow down and land, maybe with a last minute rocket assist a la the Russian crew module landings to bleed off the last bit of energy, makes far more sense on all sorts of levels. THe K.I.S.S. principle.

They tried parachutes already and it didn't work, the current method works and it looks like it would have worked yesterday if not for one bad leg

They will get the drone ship landing right soon enough, its only a matter of time

Wibbs

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

An additional and, I thought, convincing explanation, is that SpaceX rockets will ultimately need to be able land on the Moon / Mars where parachutes are less useful / no use at all. If you can perform a precise powered landing on Earth, it ought to be a piece of cake on other bodies.

Well we've already landed kit on Mars and Titan using parachutes(and a mix of chutes and retro rockets) even Venera managed it on Venus and pretty accurately considering. Precise powered landings on other planets have already gone off pretty well back in the 60's and 70's with Viking and of course Apollo. The latter was of course manned, but hampered by guidance and computer tech available at the time, but even so required remarkably little human interaction save for the last minute of final descent(program 66). Today's tech could replace that easily enough.

Plus as far as landing a Space X rocket on say the moon in anything like that configuration would be beyond wasteful, complex and expensive. It was one of the early ideas mooted for Apollo, the 1950's Hollywood idea of a moon rocket, but the size of the vehicle would have been huge. The compartmentalised idea was the better bet.

nokia69 wrote: »

They tried parachutes already and it didn't work,

As I say parachutes do work and work pretty well and the tech hasn't been updated that much since the 70's, so there is likely room for improvement. It's what they trust for manned return landings. With last second retro fire on the Russian system.

the current method works and it looks like it would have worked yesterday if not for one bad leg

They will get the drone ship landing right soon enough, its only a matter of time

Which is great, but it is expensive in fuel and in the complexity of crap that can go wrong. The latter is the biggie with rocketry and that won't go away with time. It'll get better sure, but the complexity remains. The K.I.S.S. principle is both generally cheaper and safer/more reliable. Time and time again NASA has learned that to their cost.

I do like Musk's approach in general though. The aim to making the crafts more like a production design rather than hand built one offs.

nokia69

Wibbs wrote: »

Well we've already landed kit on Mars and Titan using parachutes(and a mix of chutes and retro rockets) even Venera managed it on Venus and pretty accurately considering. Precise powered landings on other planets have already gone off pretty well back in the 60's and 70's with Viking and of course Apollo. The latter was of course manned, but hampered by guidance and computer tech available at the time, but even so required remarkably little human interaction save for the last minute of final descent(program 66). Today's tech could replace that easily enough.

But Musk's plans call for being able to land 100 tons of cargo on the surface of Mars which is far beyond anything that has been done so far, I doubt they will use parachutes, but who knows

Wibbs wrote: »

Plus as far as landing a Space X rocket on say the moon in anything like that configuration would be beyond wasteful, complex and expensive. It was one of the early ideas mooted for Apollo, the 1950's Hollywood idea of a moon rocket, but the size of the vehicle would have been huge. The compartmentalised idea was the better bet.

SpaceX will be landing rockets far larger than the Falcon9 on Mars, the Falcon9 is just a small model of what they will be doing about ten years from now, think of a rocket at least ten times the size

Wibbs wrote: »

As I say parachutes do work and work pretty well and the tech hasn't been updated that much since the 70's, so there is likely room for improvement. It's what they trust for manned return landings. With last second retro fire on the Russian system. Which is great, but it is expensive in fuel and in the complexity of crap that can go wrong. The latter is the biggie with rocketry and that won't go away with time. It'll get better sure, but the complexity remains. The K.I.S.S. principle is both generally cheaper and safer/more reliable. Time and time again NASA has learned that to their cost.

I think spaceX do like to KISS, they don't follow an idea just because they like it, they are 100% pragmatic and will drop an idea that is not working for whatever reason, you should take a look at ULA's plans for reuse, you might like it, they plan to use parachutes

Maximus Alexander

Wibbs wrote: »

Well we've already landed kit on Mars and Titan using parachutes(and a mix of chutes and retro rockets) even Venera managed it on Venus and pretty accurately considering. Precise powered landings on other planets have already gone off pretty well back in the 60's and 70's with Viking and of course Apollo. The latter was of course manned, but hampered by guidance and computer tech available at the time, but even so required remarkably little human interaction save for the last minute of final descent(program 66). Today's tech could replace that easily enough.

As far as I'm aware, the heaviest thing that's been landed on Mars to date was the Curiosity Rover, which massed under a ton, and even that required a powered landing. The Falcon 9 first stage is about 25 tons empty, and the Falcon Heavy... I'm not sure chutes would cut it to be honest. A suicide burn to land an almost empty rocket doesn't require much fuel. If you can refuel on the surface (which is the intention), then I don't really see how it's wasteful.

Firefox11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecLdz1p-_Rw

I like the way they turned off the volume just before the explosion.

Maximus Alexander

Firefox11 wrote: »

<Landing Vid>

Oh man, that's super annoying.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

Looks great and all and a fantastic effort, but IMH FWIW(not a lot), the use of rocket fuel to have a controlled landing is pretty wasteful and more about the "show". The same type vehicle using aerodynamically "free" parachutes to slow down and land, maybe with a last minute rocket assist a la the Russian crew module landings to bleed off the last bit of energy, makes far more sense on all sorts of levels. THe K.I.S.S. principle.

KISS means you don't add extra complexity and it's not easy to steer a parachute.

Using rockets means you already have all the bits you need, apart from updates to the software and legs which you'd need anyway as a splashdown would mean lots of refurb work.

Extra fuel is cheap, and you have the option of keeping going if you have to shutdown an engine. That happened on several Saturn V launches.

Firefox11

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Oh man, that's super annoying.

I know. Looked like a good landing and almost made it only for the leg getting damaged on touchdown. They will do this in time!

josip

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

KISS means you don't add extra complexity and it's not easy to steer a parachute.

Using rockets means you already have all the bits you need, apart from updates to the software and legs which you'd need anyway as a splashdown would mean lots of refurb work.

Extra fuel is cheap, and you have the option of keeping going if you have to shutdown an engine. That happened on several Saturn V launches.

I agree completely but I think when Wibbs said that the extra fuel was expensive, I don't think he/she was referring to the actual cost of the fuel, but the cost of carrying that fuel all the way in order to burn it on the way back down?

Capt'n Midnight

josip wrote: »

I agree completely but I think when Wibbs said that the extra fuel was expensive, I don't think he/she was referring to the actual cost of the fuel, but the cost of carrying that fuel all the way in order to burn it on the way back down?

I used to worry about fuel used to test the engines in the few seconds before lift off. But tanks are light. The end plates and engines and pumps are heavy and already there, all you have to do is provide the extra stretch in the cylinder.

It just means more gravity drag at the start because of more dead weight. But you can make stage one bigger to compensate for the slight loss in efficiency.

_Tombstone_

Wibbs wrote: »

Looks great and all and a fantastic effort, but IMH FWIW(not a lot), the use of rocket fuel to have a controlled landing is pretty wasteful and more about the "show". The same type vehicle using aerodynamically "free" parachutes to slow down and land, maybe with a last minute rocket assist a la the Russian crew module landings to bleed off the last bit of energy, makes far more sense on all sorts of levels. THe K.I.S.S. principle.

Why would SpaceX not use parachutes for the final descent of the first stage?

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/7718/why-would-spacex-not-use-parachutes-for-the-final-descent-of-the-first-stage


Covers alot of why no chutes^^^ but missing the biggie much talked about this Week of landing, refueling and relaunching from the moon using resources from the poles up there.

_Tombstone_

3 Barge landings blowing side by side, Ice blamed as probable cause for leg malfunction - fog/condensation at launch site.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA7RzJckvQ4

postitnote

Sorry if this has been asked before:

How are these hull losses budgeted for?

Is the assumption made that the rocket won't be reusable and this is factored into the cost of the launch?

They really did get pretty close with that last landing. It reminded me of a game of jenga. That split second when you think you've nailed it and then carnage as it falls over, ruining a perfectly good scotch you left sitting on the table.

postitnote

Sorry if this has been asked before:

How are these hull losses budgeted for?

Is the assumption made that the rocket won't be reusable and this is factored into the cost of the launch?

They really did get pretty close with that last landing. It reminded me of a game of jenga. That split second when you think you've nailed it and then carnage as it falls over, ruining a perfectly good scotch you left sitting on the table.

nokia69

postitnote wrote: »

Sorry if this has been asked before:

How are these hull losses budgeted for?

Is the assumption made that the rocket won't be reusable and this is factored into the cost of the launch?

They really did get pretty close with that last landing. It reminded me of a game of jenga. That split second when you think you've nailed it and then carnage as it falls over, ruining a perfectly good scotch you left sitting on the table.

Its just a normal launch they got paid as usual, it cost something like 60million for a Falcon 9, if they can reuse it they may be able to get launch costs under 10million

nokia69

Wibbs

Nice test. The licking flames worried me a bit… Just checked out their launch escape system for the same capsule. Well at least there were parachutes involved there. Man does it shift though. You'd be fairly wrecked if you were in it I'd imagine. Alive though.

It's a well tried idea. The Soviets had/have similar and it saved lives. As did Apollo, but they never had to use it in anger(luckily. The Saturn V was something like a half kiloton atom bomb in potential banginess). Here's their similar system from way back in the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqeJzItldSQ

Amalgam

Wibbs, I was under the impression the Russians still use an, 'explosive nudge' towards the ground, with the parachute descent of a Soyuz capsule, to dampen the last few feet, is that not the case?

Anyone else love the blunted edges and fairings on the Dragon 2, lovely.

Are there any SpaceX models.. (goes off to Google)

Wibbs

Yeah the Soyuz fires retro rockets at the very last instant before it hits the ground alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyvIw_yO60w

They've had plenty of time to work out the tech since they went for ground rather than sea landings from the get go(though the very first cosmonauts got out and parachuted separately from their capsules).

AMKC

http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/23/blue-origin-launches-and-lands-recovered-rocket/

Blue Origin done it again a little higher this time but the also used the same rocket twice. Good to see progress being made even if its only small.

Capt'n Midnight

AMKC wrote: »

Blue Origin done it again a little higher this time but the also used the same rocket twice. Good to see progress being made even if its only small.

It's a side show. As it doesn't need to go to orbit it doesn't need to be as light and they could save a lot of cost by engineering to aircraft specs rather than spacecraft ones and just using more fuel to offset the extra weight.

Remember the V2 could get as high. And it used separate and low energy alcohol fuel and then that had 20% water added and had drag inducing vanes in the exhaust.

Anyone remember the Delta Clipper ?
Rocket that could do all sort of fancy tricks like tilt sideways and still manage to land. Even at the time people were dismissing it as cheap tricks which offered nothing new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm

nokia69

Musk has said he will reveal details of his BFR and MCT plans in September, first flights to Mars in 2025

_Tombstone_

SpaceX Successfully Tests Crew Dragon Landing Parachutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PG438XSarg

_Tombstone_

nokia69 wrote: »

Musk has said he will reveal details of his BFR and MCT plans in September, first flights to Mars in 2025

Who will go and whats it gonna cost to get them to go is nearly most interesting part.

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Who will go and whats it gonna cost to get them to go is nearly most interesting part.

A team of NASA astronauts would be my guess since I suspect they will be paying part of the cost

_Tombstone_

nokia69 wrote: »

A team of NASA astronauts would be my guess since I suspect they will be paying part of the cost

Will they want to go? It's years away on a desert prison (kinda) with bad food, crap conditions, very real possibility you won't come back (something go wrong).

Most a $65,000 a year Astronaut expects to do on sign up is maybe a little trip up to the ISS, Christ I'd do this myself.

I know they've studies going - 6 people in a simulated Mars for a year looking to see what kind of personality could do it - similar studies have failed for lots of reasons - mostly they hated been around each other.

I on phone so no links.

I must look and see what else is going on in how to choose people.

I don't think the attributes they've been looking for in current Astronauts will cut it.

nokia69

I don't see any problem finding people willing to go, I agree that they need to be careful in what type of person they select, but there will be no shortage of applicants

_Tombstone_

nokia69 wrote: »

Musk has said he will reveal details of his BFR and MCT plans in September, first flights to Mars in 2025

Elon Musk set to unveil Mars spacecraft later this year




I see NASA is looking for "anyone" with a reusable rocket to sign up here so that they can start sending up Stuff and landing it to see what effect it has.

Not gonna get to many responses.

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Elon Musk set to unveil Mars spacecraft later this year




I see NASA is looking for "anyone" with a reusable rocket to sign up here so that they can start sending up Stuff and landing it to see what effect it has.

Not gonna get to many responses.

Reduced gravity with space environment - Requirement is to rapidly ascend from 0 km AGL to high altitude (typically 100km above ground level [AGL] or greater) and expose the payload to the low temperature and near vacuum of space while simultaneously exposing the payload to very low values of gravity under stable gravitational conditions. This is typically accomplished by use of a sounding rocket or spacecraft.

That sounds perfect for Blue Origin, who knows if they have any interest of course, its looks like they have other plans

_Tombstone_

nokia69 wrote: »

Musk has said he will reveal details of his BFR and MCT plans in September, first flights to Mars in 2025

Can you see it happen in 9 years? His Rocket will/should be ready but that's just his part.

Still a helluva lot of work to be done by NASA/Universities/everyone else.

It's curious where the push to take this on is coming from aswell...

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Can you see it happen in 9 years? His Rocket will/should be ready but that's just his part.

I think 9 or 10 years is enough, work on the engine has started and thats the hardest part, the rest is easy enough

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Still a helluva lot of work to be done by NASA/Universities/everyone else.

Not really most of the tech needed already exists and the bigger the BFR is, the easier everything else is

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

It's curious where the push to take this on is coming from aswell...

Its coming from Musk and everyone at SpaceX, their goal is to put people on Mars and it looks like they will have the rocket and the money to do it

Wibbs

nokia69 wrote: »

I think 9 or 10 years is enough, work on the engine has started and thats the hardest part, the rest is easy enough.

It's really not. As John Young noted when the Chinese first got into orbit and mentioned moon ambitions, getting into earth orbit is "easy enough"(especially when they basically did what China does best and copied the Soviet tech) getting to the moon and back is a magnitude greater task. He wished them well, but... Getting to Mars and back multiplies that task by many times.

The Apollo programme got to the moon and back by building the largest most complex flying machine built so far and what actually made it to the moon was about the size of a couple of SUVs and what came back was down to one. And they did it by the skin of their teeth. And that was with the full financial clout of the US of A at its peak, with the equivalent of a small country working on the project 24/7, 364 days of the year for nearly a decade. Could an independent operation get to the moon? Land a probe yes, that would be relatively "easy", but a manned mission? A mission to Mars? Sure technology has moved on, mostly in IT, but in manufacturing and materials too, but the heavy iron lifting stuff can't be ignored or easily overcome even with all the subsequent advances.

So far the independents have demonstrated launches and landings, some failed, some worked well. No manned flights so far. No docking in space, no heavy lifting, no assembly in space, no test firing of big arse engines needed for a trans lunar injection, never mind a Martian one. I think folks are getting excited, especially by Musk's personal reality distortion field. I think of him as the (far)nicer Steve Jobs of tech. I love that he's thinking big and I'd love for it to be true, but I'll believe it when I see it TBH.

nokia69

Wibbs wrote: »

It's really not. As John Young noted when the Chinese first got into orbit and mentioned moon ambitions, getting into earth orbit is "easy enough"(especially when they basically did what China does best and copied the Soviet tech) getting to the moon and back is a magnitude greater task. He wished them well, but... Getting to Mars and back multiplies that task by many times.

The Apollo programme got to the moon and back by building the largest most complex flying machine built so far and what actually made it to the moon was about the size of a couple of SUVs and what came back was down to one. And they did it by the skin of their teeth. And that was with the full financial clout of the US of A at its peak, with the equivalent of a small country working on the project 24/7, 364 days of the year for nearly a decade. Could an independent operation get to the moon? Land a probe yes, that would be relatively "easy", but a manned mission? A mission to Mars? Sure technology has moved on, mostly in IT, but in manufacturing and materials too, but the heavy iron lifting stuff can't be ignored or easily overcome even with all the subsequent advances.

So far the independents have demonstrated launches and landings, some failed, some worked well. No manned flights so far. No docking in space, no heavy lifting, no assembly in space, no test firing of big arse engines needed for a trans lunar injection, never mind a Martian one. I think folks are getting excited, especially by Musk's personal reality distortion field. I think of him as the (far)nicer Steve Jobs of tech. I love that he's thinking big and I'd love for it to be true, but I'll believe it when I see it TBH.

Manned flights in about two years, they could do a manned flight in the Dragon now if they really wanted, all the other stuff is being worked on and its not that far away

They are working on the big engine now, I don't really see why it would take any longer to develop than the Merlin engine took

I don't really see how Musk has a reality distortion field, he generally delivers and does what he said he would, true things do get delayed but he gets there in the end

Wibbs

nokia69 wrote: »

Manned flights in about two years, they could do a manned flight in the Dragon now if they really wanted, all the other stuff is being worked on and its not that far away

Manned flight to low earth orbit. We've been doing that for nearly sixty years. We know the engineering of it all pretty well at this stage. He(and others) are aiming to make the process cheaper and more repeatable and more power to his elbow, but he ain't reinventing the wheel here.

They are working on the big engine now, I don't really see why it would take any longer to develop than the Merlin engine took

Quite simply bigger is more difficult, it's not a case of doubling the size of the plans on the printer. Look at the differences between earth orbit Mercury and Gemini missions and the Lunar Apollo stuff. There was a huge gulf between them(which makes it all the more remarkable).

"Not that far away"? That's before the suite of engineering and practical space skill sets required for a Mars mission. Many of which will not be a case of polishing up old tech and expertise it will require completely new thinking and engineering and practices. He, they will be working on completely new ground. Consider that the big boys have lost nigh on half their missions to Mars and the fantastic successes were one way trips for machines no bigger than an old style Mini car. And that stuff is fantastic because of the real scary level difficulties of doing it.

Essentially and very basically what SpaceX have done so far is to launch a yacht into Dublin bay and got it back to the harbour. And they did it in the equivalent of a shed, so fair play and cool beans. Back in the 60's the Americans got from Dublin bay to Cardiff in Wales and back in a much bigger yacht with engines and sails(and hookers and blackjack). Going to Mars is like building an ocean going vessel and getting to Newfoundland, bringing your own house with you, staying there and then getting back.

I don't really see how Musk has a reality distortion field, he generally delivers and does what he said he would, true things do get delayed but he gets there in the end

The claim for landing on Mars by 2025. That right there is a reality distortion field. I will bet you now, It Will Not Happen. I'll further bet they won't get humans to Mars by 2040(and back of course. That's the trick). Certainly not on their own. I could get into other areas of Musk's biz and point out the old time razzamatazz flimflam, but that's for another day in another place.

Don't get me wrong I do admire the chap and I fully endorse his idea that we need to get the fcuk off this rock and in numbers, because even one colony increases our chances exponentially. Indeed relevant to this very topic; the language of the only men to walk on the moon was English. Not because the English themselves did it, but because they and others had colonies apart from home base in bigger places with wider fields of vision and endeavour and more resources.

Don't get me wrong Part Two; I also admire the daftness of "youthful" thinking. Ah sure we can do it, we just need to apply ourselves. That thinking will get us out there, to Mars and beyond. Sooner or later, though in the case of Musk et al and Mars I'm seeing later, likely much later. I want to be proven wrong.