mars

STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Musk and Bezos on Conquering the Final Frontier of Space
By Daily Bell Staff - June 03, 2016

Musk: We intend to launch people to Mars in 2024  … Elon Musk will send a mission to Mars without people on it — on the Flying Dragon version 2 rocket — starting in 2018 and launch a rocket headed there every 26 months.  –  CNBC

Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos believe that the final frontier of space will soon be penetrated.

Musk (see excerpt above) intends to send people to Mars in eight years’ time. Bezos wants to zone space for industry.

Musk’s plan:

“[Our rocket] is intended to carry astronauts to the International Space Station,” said Musk at the Code Conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif. on Wednesday night. “But we are going to send one to Mars in 2018.”

Bezos:

Onstage at the Code Conference on Tuesday, the Amazon founder and CEO said that we have to start bringing parts of the industrial economy to space in order “to save Earth.”

“Let me assure you, this is the best planet. We need to protect it, and the way we will is by going out into space,” he told Recode Editor at large Walt Mossberg.

Bezos’s idea is that space is ideal for “gigantic chip factories.” And that the entire earth should be zoned “residential” or “light industry.”

Heavy industry should be reserved for space, along with solar power, which would be much more effective when solar power “is available 24/7.”

Bezos’s fortune-telling is fairly run-of-the-mill. His timeline is in the “hundreds” of years and he doesn’t provide much in the way of detail.

Musk is an entirely different matter. Almost everything Musk does ends up being funded by the government, from his cars to his ambitious battery factor and Space X itself.

Perhaps this is where the confidence to suggest outlandish schemes comes from.

On 23 December 2008, NASA awarded a $1.6 billion Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract to SpaceX, with contract options that could potentially increase the maximum contract value to $3.1 billion. The contract called for 12 flights to the ISS, with a minimum of 20,000 kg (44,000 lb) of cargo carried to the ISS. (-Wikipedia)

Musk plans to launch a rocket “carrying human cargo” by 2024. This would be quite an accomplishment given that NASA hasn’t even been back to the moon yet. Nonetheless, NASA is happy to throw $3 billion in his direction.

For critics, the deadly radiation of the Van Allen radiation belt, billions of tiny meteors and unimaginable heat all make human space travel improbable if not impossible.

These individuals may believe the great feats of space acrobatics are actually performed in gigantic swimming pools on earth. And the fabulous scenarios taking place on the moon and Mars are actually filmed on earth as well.

And for some, such achievements are undercut by images of what seems to be a squirrel (or rat) crouching between rocks on “Mars.”

Yes, there is room for skepticism.

Every part of the space program from its Nazi origins, to the bizarre press conference after the first moon landing, to Stanley Kubrick’s confessional clues in The Shining about filming the “moon hoax,” to recent questions about the provenance of the lunar rover itself, provide fodder for unbelievers.

Skepticism is our preferred approach in this mad, modern era. Increasingly, we are more comfortable with questions than answers.

Technology breeds mystery.  How many nuclear weapons are really deployed? How did men go to the moon and then back again and again without ever knowing what to anticipate?

Should we believe the Pentagon, the CIA and the administration of the day just because they issue their pronouncements in tones of great authority?

The most famous false flag increasingly seems to be the vaccine hoax. This past decade has proven vaccines generally are likely less effective than they are made out to be and in some cases quite dangerous.

If the “establishment” can create one global hoax, can’t it create others? Global warming comes to mind.

We’ve done our best to point out that nuclear weapons and space travel were generated in a 30-year period in the mid-20th century. These scant decades have to constitute the single most fantastic and febrile time period in the history of humankind.

In fact, we’ve become almost pathologically skeptical of historical events that allow statists to speak in grave tones of the awesomeness of public power.

Whether it is Obama grieving about nuclear bombs at Hiroshima, Al Gore bloviating about the never-arriving horrors of global warming or the fakery of Janet Yellen attempting to justify central banking, we can point to a variety of reasons why even the most well-advertised elite memes are questionable.

We don’t believe the authorities are planning to zone space for heavy industry as Bezos suggests. We certainly don’t believe that Musk will send a rocket to Mars in two years’ time.

But the idea is to use these two “entrepreneurs” to reinforce the mythology of the Age. Again and again successful individuals are raised up to strengthen modern memes. Bill Gates’s endless endorsement of vaccines provides another example.

Conclusion: Believe Gates if you wish. We’ll continue to try to look beneath the surface and ask pertinent questions as they arise. You too.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Praetor

    Rodin’s statute, the thinker. If people would just do some thinking. Maybe all this would not be such a mystery.

    And if one more politician says, we need more transparency. I say take him to the deepest part of the ocean and throw him overboard.

  • Blank Reg

    Actually, yes, the lift capacity of the Falcon Heavy would be able to send a small payload to Mars without much fuss. We’ve been doing it with smaller rockets for over 5 decades now. And he could have that on the pad in 2 year’s time. He has a track record, now, of achievement in this regard. The real question is whether he could send himself and a few dozen other people to Mars starting in 2024. The last time we tried for another celestial body in less than a decade, the agency tasked with that had pretty much a blank check. Not so for Musk.

  • eyesofgod

    Yes, the Mars expedition is exciting, and to establish a colony there, even more. It’s positive, it’s ambitious, and expensive—BUT, better money there than in war and munitions. And here’s another angle we don’t often hear about: morality! We see sci-fi movie plots projected hundreds of years into the future, with amazing technology, BUT…they’re still fighting and killing each other. What is this “final frontier” idea worth if we haven’t conquered even being peaceful within our own Earth family? Seems to me outlawing war is a “frontier” we’d be well to manage first.

  • r2bzjudge

    “For critics, the deadly radiation of the Van Allen radiation belt, billions of tiny meteors and unimaginable heat all make human space travel improbable if not impossible.

    These individuals may believe the great feats of space acrobatics are
    actually performed in gigantic swimming pools on earth. And the
    fabulous scenarios taking place on the moon and Mars are actually filmed
    on earth as well.”

    Man actually went to the Moon.

    The Discovery show Mythbusters tore apart a number of the claims of skeptics.

    Just looking at the color photographs and movies, it is obvious they were taken on the lunar surface- by the astronauts.

    Natural light cannot be duplicated in a studio or a night location shoot, in order to present a black sky. Artificial light rapidly falls off with distance. The Moon photography is in natural light.

    • Questions persist …

      In the following video clip a NASA engineer working on the Orion project explains the challenge of bringing a ship and crew into space well above low earth orbit, and beyond the radiation belts. Speaking about their effort he remarks, “we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space,” implying that this question had not already been solved by the research and accomplishments of Apollo.

      http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/03/20/if-the-moon-landings-were-real-then-why-is-nasa-stumped-by-this/

      • r2bzjudge

        “Evidence to the support the idea that the video is indeed an elaborate forgery includes anomalies such as the appearance of multiple sources of light in the footage, the flag planted by Armstrong seems to be waving in an environment with no wind, there does not appear to be an impact crater from the lunar landing module, unexplainable objects appear in reflection on helmet visors, the unusual slow-motion effect of the astronauts walking on the lunar surface, the lack of visible stars in the background, and more.”

        The lack of stars is an easy one. F stop setting on the cameras would have been for bright sunlight. Dim stars would not have shown up under that condition.

        Mythbusters put a Moon Flag in a vacuum chamber and the flag moved in similar fashion as the Apollo footage. Mythbusters was only able to reproduce the slow motion effect by flying in a vomit comet, decending at a rate to produce the equivalent of Moon gravity. Mythbusters also took on the claim of multiple light sources, due to differing angles of certain shadows. With a miniature Moonscape, they demonstrated that a single light source can produce shadows that appear to be at at different angles.

        There is no question at all that the Zapruder film was recorded under single source sunlight, yet there is a claim that the Zapruder film is fake due to differing shadow angles.

        “we must solve these challenges…” The challenge of heat on reentry was first dealt with on the Mercury spacecraft. The challenge of heat was probably different on Apollo, due to increased speed and the Space Shuttle, due to its different air frame, creating different heat stresses. Orion will have its own specific heat challenges.

        The host in the video is speaking in present tense when referring to Orion radiation shielding. He is also referring to Orion when he is saying we have to solve this problem, just as he was referring to Orion when he was talking about heat. One has to read in the implication that his comment meant man could not have gone to the Moon due of the Van Allen belt, because he was talking of the need to solve this problem for the Orion ship.

    • wrusssr

      Thanks for clearing that up, judge.

      Jet fuel cannot melt steel.

      Fire has never caused a steel-framed building to fall, not even after burning overnight.

      Two skyscrapers don’t free-fall exactly on their own footprints in under 11 seconds, nor does a 40-something story building do the same in 8 seconds.

      The owner of WTC-7 is on vid saying he told the people to go ahead and “. . .pull it.”

      The technology wasn’t in place for the Penn “. . . let’s roll air-to-ground calls. . .”

      . . . and the first local tv crews on site couldn’t find the customary wreckage–body parts, seats, luggage. Just a black hole/trench in the ground.

      You couldn’t fit a tail section in the hole in the pentagon, much less a wing span. Meanwhile, lines of pentagon workers “policed” the light scraps of metal off the pentagon grass. No one mentioned how they picked up and carted off a couple 747 engines.

      If you’re serious about the truth surrounding 9/11, read Dr. David Ray Griffin’s books.

  • Dimitri Ledkovsky

    To counter this elitist meme I have appreciated the video currently going around about what the world would look like and become if “people were no longer around”.

    https://youtu.be/Wy7Q6wazD_E

    • Fred

      I watched this the other day. Having thought about it, I wonder how much Earth would miss any other species? The dinosaurs, mammoths, lions, tigers bears, etc. I think the answer is not at all. And, think about it, humans may be the first species to design their replacement. Just a thought.

      • Fred

        And, ironically enough, I don’t think the rising robot species is going to care about “Mother Nature” at all. They will be interested in obtaining the raw materials they are made of and required energy sources. There will be no kinship to nature as there is with mankind.

  • r2bzjudge

    “Every part of the space program from its Nazi origins, to the bizarre press conference after the first moon landing, to Stanley Kubrick’s confessional clues in The Shining about filming the “moon hoax,” to recent questions about the provenance of the lunar rover itself, provide fodder for unbelievers.”

    There will always be unbelievers or those who pretend to be. There are some who claim that no planes flew into the World Trade Center towers.

    There is a book that makes claims of numerous fakery in the Zapruder film.
    However, the camera original exists, which rules out most of the claims, by that fact alone.

    “Yes, there is room for skepticism.”

    There is room for rational skepticism. Irrational skepticism is a different matter.
    Kubrik was a film maker. He produced 2001: A Space Odyssey. One of the scenes was set on the Moon. Compare the look of his movie footage to the look of the Apollo films and photographs. Night and day difference between the two. 2001 was the only Kubrick production.

    When JFK made his speech announcing a plan to land a man on the Moon by 1970, it seemed like a great leap to accomplish that within the specified time frame.
    Whether Musk can send a human to Mars by 2024, remains to be seen. There is reason to be skeptical.

    • Re “there will always be unbelievers or those who pretend to be. There are
      some who claim that no planes flew into the World Trade Center towers”, I must say that I have seen many videos of the two planes flying into the towers. It is not the problem. You can fly 10 planes into the tops of towers and nothing will happen to the intact bottoms of the towers. The problem is that in a real world no structure can globally collapse from top down, i.e. the weak top crushes the strong bottom keeping the top in place – http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm . We are really living in a strange world.

  • John

    Well, he will be in for a big surprise when he hits the dome. ItsHisStory.com/globe

    • dauden

      John, your web site is interesting but a little short of biblical truth. Check out this sight to get the whole truth. Good work on real science.
      http://graceambassadors.com/what-is-mid-acts-pauline-dispensational-right-division

      • John

        Well dauden I am surprised to hear you say you have the “whole truth” and have judged me as being short of it. However since you are not addressing anything specific, I cannot respond to this or even determine if this is the case. And I don’t really care to as I can already see by your attitude that you believe that you are infallible and therefore it would be pointless.

    • alaska3636

      This link was less wacky than I thought it was going to be.

      The reason for much of the author’s confusion is regarding the difference in relative velocity of spin of the earth in a vacuum (centripetal force) versus the velocity of objects moving in the Earth’s atmosphere (centrifugal force). That’s why if you drop a ball on a train it drops straight at your feet: you share the same relative velocity.

      As to the centrifugal force question, again it requires a bit of understanding of the concepts of relative velocity and force. This was a concept that I did not understand in my high school physics class but here is an okay article that differentiates centrifugal and centripetal force:
      http://www.diffen.com/difference/Centrifugal_Force_vs_Centripetal_Force

      To be convinced further, the general arguments against a Flat Earth must be convincingly confronted. One aspect of the gravitational model that I don’t find particularly compelling, however, is the relative lack of influence (in the Gravitational model) of the electromagnetic force which is orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Then, of course, there are the strong and weak forces which have never really been made clear to my mind…

  • Dimatteo

    Spot on and a brilliant article.

loading