Starship Orbital Test Flight - 4/20 Launch

[JBee]

financially it's expensive to return, so the trip is one way.

Sort of defeats the whole reason of making Starship an affordable Mars transport though right?

Getting a Starship back, after it's already paid for and built, only costs extra fuel, and seeing it holds enough fuel for a return flight, means a one way trip for financial reasons is incorrect. It's fully reusable too, which lowers cost again.

Maybe you should read up on how much of a game changer Starship is going to be, in making space affordable. There's calculations around for Starship costing $100 per kg to LEO, which means a ticket to space costs $10k per person, not tens of millions like it is now.

 

[Crissa]

Sort of defeats the whole reason of making Starship an affordable Mars transport though right?

Getting a Starship back, after it's already paid for and built, only costs extra fuel, and seeing it holds enough fuel for a return flight, means a one way trip for financial reasons is incorrect. It's fully reusable too, which lowers cost again.

Maybe you should read up on how much of a game changer Starship is going to be, in making space affordable. There's calculations around for Starship costing $100 per kg to LEO, which means a ticket to space costs $10k per person, not tens of millions like it is now.

Sending it back with people is different than sending it back with rocks.

-Crissa

 

[charliemagpie]

There are no immediate economic returns. Everything is a cost.

Bit like when the first ships arrived in the Americas. Maybe Asteroid mining, low/no gravity manufacturing will be the next big thing.

 

[hridge2020]

financially it's expensive to return, so the trip is one way.

Ohhh noooo

But there are still hero's righttt ???

Chad will save the Mars Colony....

 

[JBee]

Sending it back with people is different than sending it back with rocks.

-Crissa

I didn't say it was, but returning even just one person alive is worth considerably more than an asteroid load of rocks? Apart from water (from which oxygen can be derived) and food there is nigh no additional material cost compared to returning rocks with Starship, seeing that a Starship was required to get them there in the first place and had all the functions and features onboard already for life support. Also, it's highly likely that the people signing up for a "one-way trip" are also compromised in their ability to achieve the task, with that fate looming over their heads.

I also don't think there will be any, or many rock return flights with Starship. If anything they'd send a complete lab along with the required technicians for analysis in-situ on Mars, seeing that would fit on Starship and would produce faster, more accurate results than loading and waiting months for analysis back on earth. All the current return "planned" probes don't have the payload capability for people or the equipment to do tests, so they will try to send it back instead. Starship allows the opposite.

 

[jerhenderson]

Sort of defeats the whole reason of making Starship an affordable Mars transport though right?

Getting a Starship back, after it's already paid for and built, only costs extra fuel, and seeing it holds enough fuel for a return flight, means a one way trip for financial reasons is incorrect. It's fully reusable too, which lowers cost again.

Maybe you should read up on how much of a game changer Starship is going to be, in making space affordable. There's calculations around for Starship costing $100 per kg to LEO, which means a ticket to space costs $10k per person, not tens of millions like it is now.

starship is to colonize Mars... not to ferry tourists there and back again

 

[jerhenderson]

Sending it back with people is different than sending it back with rocks.

-Crissa

rocks don't eat and breathe or need heat.

 

[JBee]

starship is to colonize Mars... not to ferry tourists there and back again

Colonists might just do a 2-5 year stint, then return to earth afterwards. With enough cycle capacity you end up with both enough people on Mars to make it sustainable and everyone can return to earth for a "normal" life as well. If things come to the worst on earth, then those on Mars can continue on, likewise if Mars doesn't work out, then consciousness can continue on earth.

The main point of Mars is not to replace Earth, it is to create a redundancy for survival.

Manned trips are most definitely going to be two way, otherwise explain why they need fuel production for Starships at all on Mars??

 

[charliemagpie]

Colonists might just do a 2-5 year stint, then return to earth afterwards. With enough cycle capacity you end up with both enough people on Mars to make it sustainable and everyone can return to earth for a "normal" life as well. If things come to the worst on earth, then those on Mars can continue on, likewise if Mars doesn't work out, then consciousness can continue on earth.

The main point of Mars is not to replace Earth, it is to create a redundancy for survival.

Manned trips are most definitely going to be two way, otherwise explain why they need fuel production for Starships at all on Mars??

In just a couple of years, it has changed from volunteer one-way martyrs to volunteers with a return ticket.

Progress is fast.

 

[jerhenderson]

Colonists might just do a 2-5 year stint, then return to earth afterwards. With enough cycle capacity you end up with both enough people on Mars to make it sustainable and everyone can return to earth for a "normal" life as well. If things come to the worst on earth, then those on Mars can continue on, likewise if Mars doesn't work out, then consciousness can continue on earth.

The main point of Mars is not to replace Earth, it is to create a redundancy for survival.

Manned trips are most definitely going to be two way, otherwise explain why they need fuel production for Starships at all on Mars??

for local industry and transport.

 

[CyberGus]

Starships will be shuttling to Mars and back many, many times to set up a colony. The cost of returning a colonist to Earth lies not in the transport, but in the replacement cost: each person will need to receive extensive training and testing to qualify, at considerable time and expense.

The project will have a tough time recruiting top people unless each is given a "rip cord" to bail out. The penalty of returning someone to Earth is far less than forcing someone to stay that is no longer willing or able to contribute.

Of course, the cheapest solution is to dispose of the undesirables via the airlock, but this will make subsequent recruitment challenging.

 

[JBee]

Exactly.

But in the process there will be a huge increase of astronauts, and returning Martians to train future astronauts too. Becoming multi planetary will also come with a general boost in human capability.

As I said the point is to have two habitable planets, not one. Our chances of survival are significantly increased because of it.

Funnily enough my Starlink agreement already has Martian terms. I kid not, look it up, I have two.

 

[CyberGus]

.Funnily enough my Starlink agreement already has Martian terms. I kid not, look it up, I have two.

Elon has put all kinds of Martian wording into various terms-and-agreements, all illegal. Fortunately, code enforcement is rather lax in outer space.

 

[hridge2020]

Elon has put all kinds of Martian wording into various terms-and-agreements, all illegal. Fortunately, code enforcement is rather lax in outer space.

One another thing, isn't it a sort of a rule first one there (Mars Example) can make claim to all the land? (Planet) by staking a claim?? Homestead Act.

 

[CyberGus]

One another thing, isn't it a sort of a rule first one there (Mars Example) can make claim to all the land? (Planet) by staking a claim??

"Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate