Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

louis · 2015-12-17 04:55:10

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … lanet.html

"But Musk said he was preparing to announce detailed plans of a mission to colonise Mars early next year, known as the Mars Colonisation Transport programme."

Sadly I don't think they mean he's going colonise Mars early in 2016! - just poor grammar.

However, just hearing in detail about his plans should make 2016 an interesting year.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-12-17 14:39:47

louis wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … lanet.html
"But Musk said he was preparing to announce detailed plans of a mission to colonise Mars early next year, known as the Mars Colonisation Transport programme."
Sadly I don't think they mean he's going colonise Mars early in 2016! - just poor grammar.
However, just hearing in detail about his plans should make 2016 an interesting year.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 … ars-spacex
The vehicles don't exist for colonizing Mars in 2016, you think he would work with Trump?

louis · 2015-12-17 20:14:01

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

louis wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … lanet.html
"But Musk said he was preparing to announce detailed plans of a mission to colonise Mars early next year, known as the Mars Colonisation Transport programme."
Sadly I don't think they mean he's going colonise Mars early in 2016! - just poor grammar.
However, just hearing in detail about his plans should make 2016 an interesting year.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 … ars-spacex
The vehicles don't exist for colonizing Mars in 2016, you think he would work with Trump?

I never thought they were - but we all know he is working on them as hard as he can, revenue allowing.

Trump is not for me a serious thinker. Nothing like Musk. If Trump thought he could simultaneously get Americans on Mars and get people to like his hair, he would go for it.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-12-18 12:19:59

louis wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
louis wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … lanet.html
"But Musk said he was preparing to announce detailed plans of a mission to colonise Mars early next year, known as the Mars Colonisation Transport programme."
Sadly I don't think they mean he's going colonise Mars early in 2016! - just poor grammar.
However, just hearing in detail about his plans should make 2016 an interesting year.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 … ars-spacex
The vehicles don't exist for colonizing Mars in 2016, you think he would work with Trump?
I never thought they were - but we all know he is working on them as hard as he can, revenue allowing.
Trump is not for me a serious thinker. Nothing like Musk. If Trump thought he could simultaneously get Americans on Mars and get people to like his hair, he would go for it.

They are both billionaires however, part of the same class of people. The thing about Trump is there is nothing motivating him other than his ego and reputation, he wants his name in the history books, no one has "invested" in his presidency other than himself and he needs to pay no one back with special favors from the government if he gets elected, and other than one or two terms as President, Trump will probably not be running for any sort of political office after that, the other people who are running, with the possible exception of Ben Carson, are career politicians, politics is how they butter their bread, and they are always looking for campaign donors and having to make bargains with them to get their support, not so with Trump, this means, he needs to make no one richer. Any space program he has will be a frugal one, if there are two ways of doing one thing, he will pick the cheaper one, rather than the more expensive one to pay back an old friend who supported him in the campaign.

I think Musk can benefit from a Trump Presidency, if he is a low cost provider of space launches as he promises to be. Trump has made it clear that he proposes no manned Mars missions on the government dime, but if Musk can find a profitable way to do it, he won't have to compete with the government if Trump is in office.

SpaceNut · 2015-12-18 17:37:20

net worth
http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/

4 times declaring bankruptcy
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/31/news/co … index.html

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/ … antic-city

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-12-19 08:55:19

SpaceNut wrote:

net worth
http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/
4 times declaring bankruptcy
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/31/news/co … index.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/ … antic-city

How many times has he made his fortune after declaring bankruptcy? Can you do that? Trump is also older than Musk, he has more experience.

GW Johnson · 2015-12-19 14:05:40

Donald Trump, like ALL the rest of us, is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own "facts". Fact is an objective item, has nothing to do with politics or any other artificial criteria.

I DO NOT want that man's finger on the nuclear button! His callous disregard for fact completely disqualifies him, in my opinion. Wealth is no qualification for anything, as history teaches.

As for experience, the ONLY qualification in the US constitution is: age 35. Age confers life experience, simple as that.

The job is unique, there is NO experience to be had elsewhere that qualifies as experience toward being president. The founding fathers knew that, and Tom is IS NOT entitled to his own "facts" otherwise.

The natural-born US citizen thing is "grayer": George Washington was ORIGINALLY a British citizen, as were all Americans before the revolution. That did not disqualify him, as he was born in the American colonies. Just something to think about.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-12-20 13:12:53

GW Johnson wrote:

Donald Trump, like ALL the rest of us, is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own "facts". Fact is an objective item, has nothing to do with politics or any other artificial criteria.
I DO NOT want that man's finger on the nuclear button! His callous disregard for fact completely disqualifies him, in my opinion. Wealth is no qualification for anything, as history teaches.

And here are you making up the fact that Trump is a hot head eager to start a nuclear war! He is a businessman who builds hotels and resorts, why would he want a nuclear war, also Putin likes him! I don't think Trump is likely to start a war with Russia.

GW Johnson wrote:

As for experience, the ONLY qualification in the US constitution is: age 35. Age confers life experience, simple as that.

Well if being a billionaire is easy, why aren't you one? It is much easier to be Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was in the right place at the right time and married the right person to make her First Lady, everything else that happened after that had to do with her connections to Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party, if Hillary wasn't Bill's wife, she would not be the front runner in the Democratic Primary right now.

GW Johnson wrote:

The job is unique, there is NO experience to be had elsewhere that qualifies as experience toward being president. The founding fathers knew that, and Tom is IS NOT entitled to his own "facts" otherwise.

I don't disagree with you about that, but I must point out that Trump had a more responsible position that Hillary, he didn't have to marry anybody to become rich, he made that himself, the riches came first and then the Politics, for Hillary it was the opposite, the politics came first and through that she became rich.

GW Johnson wrote:

The natural-born US citizen thing is "grayer": George Washington was ORIGINALLY a British citizen, as were all Americans before the revolution. That did not disqualify him, as he was born in the American colonies. Just something to think about.
GW

Both Hillary and Trump are natural born citizens, and Trump was a New Yorker for a lot longer that Hillary was, so I think he better represents that state.

GW Johnson · 2015-12-20 16:33:56

"And here are you making up the fact that Trump is a hot head eager to start a nuclear war!" is NOT what I wrote, Tom. You do need to learn how to read.

Beyond saying that he is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own "facts", I refuse to any respond further to Tom, who insists on injecting politics into everything.

Back to the original thread topic: what Musk thinks about Mars. I also saw the a version of the news article that Louis started this thread with.

The "Mars Colonization Transporter" is the "Mars Colonial Transport" we have discussed in the forums elsewhere. It is dream concept right now, the next big rocket from Spacex after Falcon-Heavy. My understanding of the concept is that the MCT is to be comparable to NASA's SLS, although numbers are uncertain since it is just a concept. Spacex has their hands full getting Falcon-9 flying again, getting Falcon-Heavy flying for the first time, and getting caught up on their contractual commitments.

Quite frankly, I suspect it will be a while yet before they can devote much effort toward MCT. Although, their big LOX-methane engine (Raptor?) is supposed to power it. I'm not sure Raptor(?) is a real design yet, either. If they do build it, I'd bet real money the per launch price is a small fraction of what NASA will charge for an SLS launch. I've compared prices elsewhere for launches with commercial versus government vehicles. That trend is quite clear.

I also suspect the delay in being able to do these things bothers Musk, and for exactly the reasons in the article Louis found. I feel the same way. War and terrorist problems could very easily sop up the undivided attention and all the resources of the entire human race for a long time to come. One mis-step by anybody, and it all goes south, if not back to the stone age.

The world has gotten to be a very dangerous place, and seems to be getting worse every day. As far as government missions go, I think the window to go to Mars may already have closed.

GW

SpaceNut · 2015-12-20 19:50:24

Tom you can believe what you wish of Trump's wanting to invest in outer space but the reality is Trump loves NASA, but backs privatization of outer space

“You know in the old days, it was great,” Trump said about the space program. “Right now we have bigger problems, you understand that. We got to fix our potholes. You know we don’t exactly have a lot of money.”

From Amazon owner: Send Donald Trump to outer space

Bezo’s tweeted he’s reserving a seat for Trump on a rocket from his space exploration company, Blue Origin. This comes after a series of tweets from Trump accusing him of running a tax scam through his ownership of the Washiington Post.
One of Trump’s tweets reading, “If Amazon ever had to pay fair taxes, its stock would crash and it would crumble like a paper bag. The Washington Post scam is saving it!”

Nice bit of sarcasm

As we have tried to point out politics has not place in this or other topics but are to be kept in the political ones please.

The reference to what could slow or default the space race are those things that would take the funds away from the progess to get man once more going beyond LEO. Which does be default include the changing opinions of the man at the top and those that write laws as well as those that interpret them.

This is how topics of politics are spoken of with no names, finger pointing or name calling.....

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-02-20 14:48:49

Too many or two few? The launch industry’s conundrum

https://thespacereview.com/article/4531/1

Elon Musk claims it's 'highly likely' humans will go to Mars in the next decade

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-new … 181884.amp

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-02-20 14:49:41)

GW Johnson · 2023-02-21 10:22:26

What you are seeing with the higher failure rate among smaller launch vehicle flights is the same thing that nearly killed SpaceX at its outset flying Falcon-1 and getting started with Falcon-9. It is hard enough to develop a reliable rocket engine. The problem of developing a supersonic staging vehicle to be powered by it is even harder, plus the problem of automated guidance and control for it. SpaceX and its Falcons got into serious trouble until they learned the hard way how to achieve reliable stage separation against the drafting effect that sucks the just-separated stage back into a collision.

There’s all sorts of “gotchas” like that, associated with the successful flight and guidance of orbit-capable rocket vehicles. Those are things that all these startups are having to learn the hard way, with failures. Because that nitty-gritty stuff usually is not written down anywhere. What upper management wants to pay for is success stories only. Not a word about any sorts of failures. And yet the failures are where you learn how to really do that kind of work. They tell you what not to do!

Musk himself said SpaceX was one failure away from going under when they finally got Falcon-1 flying right. They turned that into the Falcon-9/-Heavy stable of vehicles, achieving great success, and an astonishingly low price per launch that put real pressure on the likes of ULA and the rest of “old space”. I did predict that outcome back in 2015, as one of the earlier posts here shows.

Musk had (and still has) the right people working for him at SpaceX. They are the real geniuses behind that success, not Musk himself. I notice that they make better progress when he is off attending to other businesses like Tesla, because Musk has too big a mouth and gets them into trouble with government regulators, and that’s been the big holdup at Boca Chica.

Musk’s Tesla business has been successful in the sense that they built a breakthrough electric car (Tesla model 3) that is both crashworthy and performs competitively with conventional cars. They have some other good vehicles on the road or in the works, too. The problem, which has gotten Tesla into real trouble with government regulators, is the self-driving software, which is so very clearly “not ready for prime time”. Insisting on fielding unready software has cost lives and damaged the company reputation. Self-driving software is a far bigger problem than self-guiding software for a launch vehicle. I do not think he realized that, or yet believes it.

Musk’s best contributions have been setting the right overall goal that inspires, and finding the means with which to get started. It is the people he hires to actually lead the job that are the real miracle workers. They’ve done a good job for him at SpaceX, despite the high turnover rates among frontline workers , traceable to poor labor practices.

GW

kbd512 · 2023-02-21 11:13:17

Elon Musk's "genius" is in finding and hiring the correct people to solve the problems he's trying to solve. No other rocket company has achieved so much, in the realm of cost reduction and manufacturing process improvement, in so little time. Radical changes have been made to both operating concepts and the hardware itself.

SpaceX is also a "learning organization", which is not afraid of failure (failures are not punished, so long as they're not repeated) and not afraid of trying new things with at least some reasonable chance of success. They make lots of mistakes and they make big mistakes, they simply don't repeat them endlessly the way so many other companies do. There's no "status quo" that management finds acceptable. The moment something works well enough, there's a drive to make it work better, or to come up with a new concept that turns the industry on its head- like fully and rapidly reusable launch vehicles.

I agree 100% that AI software is not ready for prime time. We don't actually know what we're doing with this AI-enabled software, so why would the software itself know what we're trying to do? If we did know, then someone could write the software to solve problems like self-driving.

I think the ultimate answer is that you need a computer with at least as much sophistication as a human brain, in terms of both computing power and sensor input and assimilation of learned tasks and context-based pattern recognition (most of what the brain actually does). The brain will always be slower than an integrated circuit at a specific task, but the brain's raw power is estimated at 1 exaFLOP per second, its raw processing power around 100 teraFLOPS per second, and it uses about 15 Watts of energy to do that.

That is so wildly beyond what a silicon chip-based computer using 15 Watts of power can achieve that it's comical. Our Frontier supercomputer, which surpasses human compute brain capabilities, with 1.102exaFLOPS of compute capability per second, uses 21,000,000 Watts of power, or as much as 1,400,000 human brains (which would have a combined 1.4yottaFLOPS of computer capability. If you combine all of our brain power, then we have alottaFLOPS of compute capability.

Obviously, our human brain's compute precision and speed-to-usable-output leaves something to be desired. If you could combine human brain compute capacity with computer-like precision, then you'd really have something worth crowing about, but then we might also need tinfoil hats to carry away all that excess heat.

Oldfart1939 · 2023-02-21 21:46:08

Re: your comment about Elon Musk and SpaceX not repeating mistakes. I'm sure Elon knows the Einstein definition of insanity, which is to keep repeating a failed experiment over and over, each time hoping for a different result.
In my laboratory years ago, if we didn't get the desired result, we first analyzed the entire experiment and looked for possible errors in conducting it. Then we possibly repeated it once, and if the same result obtained as before, we looked for a different solution to the problem at hand.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2023-02-25 10:48:53)

GW Johnson · 2023-02-22 10:46:43

Hi Oldfart1939! Hope you are doing OK

Speaking of SpaceX, they just test-fired something really big at McGregor. It really shook my hose. Would break windows and storm doors if it was any stronger. The audible noise isn't that loud, but the low-frequency pressure waves are very strong indeed.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2023-02-22 11:35:26

For GW Johnson re #15

Thanks ** very ** much for this report from the "literal" frontier of SpaceX activities ....

It may not be possible for anyone not at the test site to know the answer to this, but my question is:

Could this test have been a lot of small engines performing together (as in 33, for example)?

Or from the feel of it, would you guess it was a single engine?

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2015-12-17 04:55:10

Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#2 2015-12-17 14:39:47

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#3 2015-12-17 20:14:01

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#4 2015-12-18 12:19:59

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#5 2015-12-18 17:37:20

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#6 2015-12-19 08:55:19

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#7 2015-12-19 14:05:40

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#8 2015-12-20 13:12:53

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#9 2015-12-20 16:33:56

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#10 2015-12-20 19:50:24

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#11 2023-02-20 14:48:49

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#12 2023-02-21 10:22:26

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#13 2023-02-21 11:13:17

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#14 2023-02-21 21:46:08

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#15 2023-02-22 10:46:43

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

#16 2023-02-22 11:35:26

Re: Latest Thoughts of Chairman Musk!

Board footer