Anybody here actually believes this guy is going to deliver?

>>8624317

>actually believing the marketing

spacex will make lots of money when the ISS is deorbited and England, Canada, Australia, France, Germany etc want their own space stations and probes. Mars isn't a goal for at least fifty years.

bump for interest

>>8624317
Your rambling post says very little and contains numerous factual errors about transit time and radiation levels. Please go read up on what is actually planned instead of spreading falsehoods.

>>8624580

Can you prove it?

>>8624584
The stated transit time to mars of the its is around 80-150 days, not 180 days. The amount of radiation isnt that high, and can easily be reduced using water shielding or hydrogenated boron nitride nanotubes.

You can find information on this on spacex's website and in nasa lierature on space radiation and shielding

Yes I'm sure that they & everyone else just overlooked the existance of radiation
And we certainly have never sent out probes to discover what the radiation is like

>>8624317
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

File: spacex.webm (306KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 640x360px

>>8624317
I think he's being overly optimistic, but this is just a marketing gimmick. No one's going to be interested if he says he'll do Mars in 50 years. Most of us will be infirm or dead by then. 10-20 years though, then people start listening.

Simply put, to make it viable he needs to make his rockets 100%, absolutely bulletproof, and there's not right now. They could be in the near future. A sterling record of FH launches would give SpaceX a lot of street cred. The ULA is bloated as all fuck, and SpaceX can easily undercut them. But they have 100% success rate of launches, and SpaceX does not. If people think the ship is going to tear apart or fail in some way in transit to Mars, then no one is going to want to go.

Getting astronauts there, and setting up the nascent base will go a long way towards garnering interest. Everything else in the meantime is a means of raising capital and perfecting the rockets.

>>8624741

Why do you think Elon Musk is there today at the meeting with Trump
Expect to see Trump do the "MAN ON MARS BY 2025" speech soon

File: 1454903928110.png (160KB, 331x352px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 331x352px

>>8624317

>hired to be the US's private alternative to Russian launches to the ISS
>years later, not a single astronaut launched on one of his rockets
>now he wants to build a colony on Mars

>>8624770
Not his fault that NASA are a buncha retards that drag things out for years

>>8624741
>to make it viable he needs to make his rockets 100%, absolutely bulletproof
That's bullshit, nobody has a 100% success rate, and Falcon 9 is a very ambitious development project.

Ariane 5 had 4 failures.
Atlas V and Delta IV each had one failure, plus irregularities.
Proton has had quite a few failures.
Falcon 9 has had only one true launch failure. (the recent incident was a failure during a test, which didn't require the payload to be onboard -- the purpose of the test was to catch such issues before they fail during an actual launch)

Falcon 9 is meant to be a very high volume launch vehicle. These early incidents will be forgotten after they do hundreds of launches. Anyway, there's been nothing that would have caused loss of life on Crew Dragon, with its escape system.

ITS, a fully reusable vehicle, is meant to be even more economical to fly, so it should also build up a long flight record. Failures during development are to be expected.

They're not doing bad and they can survive more failures.

File: 1452706867508.png (662KB, 628x617px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 628x617px

>>8624317
Yes. I don't have any great logical reason for believing it though. I doubted him and mocked him every step and he's smothered egg in my face. So far he has hit all the goals he has laid out. Not perfectly and smoothly but he's got there.

He'll get to Mars at some point

>>8624317
I saw Musk in a YouTube video once and can confirm: will deliver

File: SpaceNeedleTopClose.jpg (9KB, 220x206px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 220x206px

>>8624317
>Anybody here actually believes this guy is going to deliver?
idk, he has already delivered a lot though, his rockets are already cheaper than the shit Russia and China offer. When he actually starts reusing the rockets it will go down by even more (something I personally give him 80% odds at doing)

>humanity does not have the technology to take on a project of this magnitude.

Now that is total horseshit. All your problems I don't really believe in but even if worst case cane true its something we could solve by throwing more money at at. We have sent humans to zero g for more than a year at a time without having huge problems. I think mars gravity will have orders of magnitude less problems than micro gravity. But even if it is an issue we know how to build spinning buildings.

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

>>8624317
Radiation on mars will increase cancer less than smoking on earth would. And that's assuming the linear no threshold model hasn't been proven to be total shit (pro tip it has elevated background radeation to a level actually reduces cancer)

Also there are communities in India with higher radeation levels than mars has, and they get it in dust in there lungs and food from thorium containing sand and dust, and they have survived for thousands of years.

>>8624856
>starts reusing the rockets it will go down by even more

He just announced plans to relaunch a previously used rocket


>>8624894
>mars will increase cancer less than smoking on earth would

Sounds easy peasy then. I've been smoking 12 years and i've not gotten cancer. People seem to overestimate the cancer risk, only a solar flare is an actual concern