Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The use of gas in war has been sparse since treaties were enacted.

Turkey, Syria, Iraq... all on their own people.  Rhodesian war saw use and Nicaragua saw similar use, though not aerosolized so much but instead sewn into soil otherwise intended for agriculture. Rhodesia's bane was anthrax,  which is a strange substance straddling chemical and biological when it has been weaponized- as its encapsulated in a protective cell where it can "live" a long, long time or until its disturbed or wetted.  In central America the govt and the rebels destroyed fertile soil in effort to deny food from one vantage, and economic asset to the other.  I don’t recall what they used if I ever knew, but it was something that takes generations to neutralize. 

An aside- the Vuelta bajo in Cuba is the tobacco growing region.  Cuba has a govt appointed "master blender" for their cigar manufacturing.  They had a introduction of new labels event way back in the early 2ks, and this master blender was asked "who is growing the best crop right now?" And he answered "the padron plantation"... it was a bit shocking because the padron's are in Nicaragua. Turns out what we believed was Cuban puros cigars are blends with variants from other nations. Thats significant because it shows how they are getting their feet back under themselves from the destruction of wars... that master blender went on to say "when Nicaragua and Honduras recovers, their soil is better for growing than our own"..... to better understand that, though, this was post hurricane Andrew which really jacked them (cuba) up badly- destroying that industry infrastructure and with heavy infusion of runoff, and whatever comes along with it, into the soil.

NASA, if interested in colonizing Mars, should pay attention to how those guys make and then keep their soil fertile. 

This impresses me.  I would be interested in understanding how much technical guidance Musk offered beyond some broad concepts.

This is highly sophisticated stuff.

This impresses me.  I would be interested in understanding how much technical guidance Musk offered beyond some broad concepts.

This is highly sophisticated stuff.

I have read articles (written well before some of his current political forays) that he's heavily involved.  It's claimed that he was the one who was relentless on prices, reusability, pushing the technical envelope.  They say he's fired people who he didn't think worked hard enough.  

I don't know, it seems improbable to me that he would not be one of the main scientific and engineering forces behind the company.  It's just can't all be "cracking the whip".  

I'd guess Elon hired a bunch of folks from NASA - but I'm just guessing

He did, eventually.  If you've ever read the history of Space X, their first rocket was called a Falcon 5 (5 engines).  They made three launch attempts with a shoe string budget and failed all three times. It was basically Elon and a bunch of barely graduated college kids with a few veterans sprinkled in.  On the 4th try they got to orbit.  There are some old magazine articles floating around where "old space" is mocking them because they were so ambitious.  Elon had set his sights on re-use from day one.  They claimed you could never make re-use work with a real rocket (launches and lands vertically) because of the mass penalty.  Essentially, every ounce of mass not needed for orbit is less payload.  Indeed, they fly an "expendable" version of Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy that will throw a much larger payload into space.  

They managed to snag a NASA contract (along with several other now defunct companies like Helium and Armadilo Aerospace) to resupply the ISS which saved the company.  Elon immediately realized that the Falcon 5 would never be big enough to be competitive and it only successfully flew one time, they evolved to the Falcon 9 and by 2020 they were (and still are ) the only company approved the fly astronauts into space to the ISS.  Boeing's ship (called Starliner) has been an abject disaster. Over schedule, failed 2x, first crew had to come home on Space X ship because Boeing ship was junk.  And, Boeing got $4 billion, Space X got half.  

An object in orbit is still falling, constantly, but it's also "going" outwardly, sufficient that it falls in an infinite (almost) arc around the planet.  It's 17,000 mph for low Earth orbit.  Geostationary orbites are much higher (and slower).  Once you hit 25,000 mph, you are leaving Earth's gravity well, which is necessary to get to the Moon (and beyond).

That also means when you return from the Moon you're going to come back around 25,000 mph.

We have faster means of propulsion than a Warp Core Reactor? 

One of us is not saying what the other thinks we're saying, just not sure which one of us it is. 

We have faster means of propulsion than current tech.  Obviously we're not going warp speed anytime soon.  

Generally speaking, it takes about 6 months to get to Mars.  But there is tech that is technically viable to get there way faster, more like a month.