12 ms·

Sure, they could beat Musk to Mars if they succeed in lobbying congress to enact laws forcing SpaceX' accidents to be investigated by the FAA. ULA is railing ov

Sure, they could beat Musk to Mars if they succeed in lobbying congress to enact laws forcing SpaceX' accidents to be investigated by the FAA. ULA is railing over losing their exclusive USAF launch contracts and shouting down SpaceX whenever they can, it seems. How about they put their (considerable, federal) money where their mouth is and get us to Mars.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>How about they put their (considerable, federal) money where their mouth is and get us to Mars. You're aware that SpaceX runs on a lot of corporate welfare, with SpaceX only existing because of NASA's COTS and Tesla only existing because of generous federal subsidies on electric cars and other handouts to the tune of $5b[1] and an undisclosed amount from NY state[2]. Both companies are alike and fairly dependent on the federal government, Boeing less so considering their large aircraft market. The wonderful thing about capitalism is you don't have to arbitrarily pick the "good" from the "bad." You have them compete and ideally good things come from competition. Frankly, I'm thrilled to have Boeing keeping Elon honest, and vice versa. This is the system working here. On a more personal note, I think the CTS-100 is a beautiful spacecraft and would love to see it fly in 2018. Boeing can impress if they want to. I also love the fact that my kid is going to grow up in a world with many manned spacecraft by various organizations with various goals, not just the LEO-only shuttle I grew up with. I was just telling my wife about I'd love our son to see a manned rocket launch and realized that this 'sometime in the future' trip to Cape Canaveral is only a year or two away. Same with the first SLS test launch. 2018 is going to be an incredible year for manned space programs. It blows my mind how much grousing there is on the internet regarding the US's position in space. A few years without a manned program is such a tiny price to pay for all this change and innovation. This is an incredible time to be alive for space fans. I think we're going to look back at this period with a certain level of amazement the same way my parent's generation must have seen the initial space race. [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-2015... [2] http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/23/my-love-hate-relationship-with-space-xs-elon-musk/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/23/my-love-hate-relationshi...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- codeisawesome 10y ago
  That last bit - is a beautiful way to look at it.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>Frankly, I'm thrilled to have Boeing keeping Elon honest, and vice versa. This is the system working here. He isn't though. He's just posturing for PR purposes. I mean, do we have any evidence that Boeing has a serious Mars program? How many launches have they done so far, and what were the results?[1] As far as I'm concerned, this is the same thing as traditional car companies "vowing" to beat Tesla: it's just PR, backed by perhaps showing off concept cars in car shows. [1]I meant launches that are specifically aiming for Mars.
  - 6d6b73 10y ago
    >How many launches have they done so far, and what were the results? You do know you're talking about Boeing here, right? They had somewhere around 300 launches with close to perfect success rate.
  - valarauca1 10y ago
    How many launches have they done so far, and what were the results? Seriously? Well not counting their ICBM program. S-1C Program (Saturn V Rocket First Stage): 12 successful launches, 0 failures. IUS Program (Booster for interplanetary probes from Space Shuttle): 24 launches, 3 failures (2 Boeing's fault, 1 the space shuttle exploded). Delta II: 153 Launches, 2 Failures. Delta III: 3 Launches, 2 Failures. Delta IV: 33 Launches, 1 Failure. I mean, do we have any evidence that Boeing has a serious Mars program? No. The new ULA Vulkan launch system doesn't have it's first test flight scheduled until 2019. What about re-usable? Boeing (or really ULA) is developing the Vulkan Rocket. Which is partially recoverable, not fully. [1] The first launch of this vehicle is 2019. The entry level offering is quoted at ~$100mil per rocket (vs ~$164mil for a Delta IV) [2]. While a Falcon9 is $62mil [3]. I see why ULA lost their contract, Musk cut their knee caps off. [1] https://spaceflightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/recovery-768x479.jpg https://spaceflightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/recove... [2] https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/13/ula-unveils-its-future-with-the-vulcan-rocket-family/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/13/ula-unveils-its-future... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9
Alupis 10y ago
What I'm interested to know, is what's in it for both companies - besides notoriety? It's going to cost billions to reach Mars, and more billions to develop things to a "good enough" point to actually make the round trip feasible - and so far, at least to my knowledge, we've found nothing of enough value to make trips there economically viable for a for-profit corporation. Sure, they'll get government contracts, but that doesn't pay for the first trip there (which appears will be entirely on their own/investors dime). There aren't massive gold or platinum deposits we've found - and even if there were, surely it would be difficult to extract and recover due to mass. I firmly believe Musk is totally willing to bankrupt his company (and himself) to achieve his goal of landing on Mars, but are his investors? What about Boeing and Lockheed Martin (ULA)? At least with a government landing on Mars, you can expect science to be conducted. What does a for-profit company do there, when there's not much to make a profit from? What's the end-game here? We land and say "we did it!"... then what?
- ak2196 10y ago
  I think this is as good an explanation today as it was in 1970. You are the nun in this story. http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html
  - Alupis 10y ago
    Not exactly. This question was posed to NASA, not a private, investor-funded for-profit corporation. NASA is a government scientific research entity, and has no obligation to turn a profit. SpaceX and ULA do.
- undersuit 10y ago
  After they have conclusively proven the success of their large launcher with countless launches to get all the equipment and supplies in orbit and the SpaceX mission leaves for Mars what is SpaceX going to do? Sit on it's laurels and wait for the mission to reach Mars? Or maybe allow anyone to launch massive payloads into space on a very well proven platform. If SpaceX can show they are have a very capable platform for heavy lifting before anyone else they can retain that position for a long time. Moon bases, Hubble replacements, long term space stations all need heavy launch capabilities. SpaceX wants to sell them their premier service.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

>How about they put their (considerable, federal) money where their mouth is and get us to Mars. You're aware that SpaceX runs on a lot of corporate welfare, with SpaceX only existing because of NASA's COTS and Tesla only existing because of generous federal subsidies on electric cars and other handouts to the tune of $5b[1] and an undisclosed amount from NY state[2]. Both companies are alike and fairly dependent on the federal government, Boeing less so considering their large aircraft market. The wonderful thing about capitalism is you don't have to arbitrarily pick the "good" from the "bad." You have them compete and ideally good things come from competition. Frankly, I'm thrilled to have Boeing keeping Elon honest, and vice versa. This is the system working here. On a more personal note, I think the CTS-100 is a beautiful spacecraft and would love to see it fly in 2018. Boeing can impress if they want to. I also love the fact that my kid is going to grow up in a world with many manned spacecraft by various organizations with various goals, not just the LEO-only shuttle I grew up with. I was just telling my wife about I'd love our son to see a manned rocket launch and realized that this 'sometime in the future' trip to Cape Canaveral is only a year or two away. Same with the first SLS test launch. 2018 is going to be an incredible year for manned space programs. It blows my mind how much grousing there is on the internet regarding the US's position in space. A few years without a manned program is such a tiny price to pay for all this change and innovation. This is an incredible time to be alive for space fans. I think we're going to look back at this period with a certain level of amazement the same way my parent's generation must have seen the initial space race. [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-2015... [2] http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/23/my-love-hate-relationship-with-space-xs-elon-musk/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/23/my-love-hate-relationshi...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
codeisawesome 10y ago
That last bit - is a beautiful way to look at it.
enraged_camel 10y ago
>>Frankly, I'm thrilled to have Boeing keeping Elon honest, and vice versa. This is the system working here. He isn't though. He's just posturing for PR purposes. I mean, do we have any evidence that Boeing has a serious Mars program? How many launches have they done so far, and what were the results?[1] As far as I'm concerned, this is the same thing as traditional car companies "vowing" to beat Tesla: it's just PR, backed by perhaps showing off concept cars in car shows. [1]I meant launches that are specifically aiming for Mars.
- 6d6b73 10y ago
  >How many launches have they done so far, and what were the results? You do know you're talking about Boeing here, right? They had somewhere around 300 launches with close to perfect success rate.
- valarauca1 10y ago
  How many launches have they done so far, and what were the results? Seriously? Well not counting their ICBM program. S-1C Program (Saturn V Rocket First Stage): 12 successful launches, 0 failures. IUS Program (Booster for interplanetary probes from Space Shuttle): 24 launches, 3 failures (2 Boeing's fault, 1 the space shuttle exploded). Delta II: 153 Launches, 2 Failures. Delta III: 3 Launches, 2 Failures. Delta IV: 33 Launches, 1 Failure. I mean, do we have any evidence that Boeing has a serious Mars program? No. The new ULA Vulkan launch system doesn't have it's first test flight scheduled until 2019. What about re-usable? Boeing (or really ULA) is developing the Vulkan Rocket. Which is partially recoverable, not fully. [1] The first launch of this vehicle is 2019. The entry level offering is quoted at ~$100mil per rocket (vs ~$164mil for a Delta IV) [2]. While a Falcon9 is $62mil [3]. I see why ULA lost their contract, Musk cut their knee caps off. [1] https://spaceflightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/recovery-768x479.jpg https://spaceflightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/recove... [2] https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/13/ula-unveils-its-future-with-the-vulcan-rocket-family/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/13/ula-unveils-its-future... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

Alupis 10y ago

What I'm interested to know, is what's in it for both companies - besides notoriety? It's going to cost billions to reach Mars, and more billions to develop things to a "good enough" point to actually make the round trip feasible - and so far, at least to my knowledge, we've found nothing of enough value to make trips there economically viable for a for-profit corporation. Sure, they'll get government contracts, but that doesn't pay for the first trip there (which appears will be entirely on their own/investors dime). There aren't massive gold or platinum deposits we've found - and even if there were, surely it would be difficult to extract and recover due to mass. I firmly believe Musk is totally willing to bankrupt his company (and himself) to achieve his goal of landing on Mars, but are his investors? What about Boeing and Lockheed Martin (ULA)? At least with a government landing on Mars, you can expect science to be conducted. What does a for-profit company do there, when there's not much to make a profit from? What's the end-game here? We land and say "we did it!"... then what?

ak2196 10y ago
I think this is as good an explanation today as it was in 1970. You are the nun in this story. http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html
- Alupis 10y ago
  Not exactly. This question was posed to NASA, not a private, investor-funded for-profit corporation. NASA is a government scientific research entity, and has no obligation to turn a profit. SpaceX and ULA do.
undersuit 10y ago
After they have conclusively proven the success of their large launcher with countless launches to get all the equipment and supplies in orbit and the SpaceX mission leaves for Mars what is SpaceX going to do? Sit on it's laurels and wait for the mission to reach Mars? Or maybe allow anyone to launch massive payloads into space on a very well proven platform. If SpaceX can show they are have a very capable platform for heavy lifting before anyone else they can retain that position for a long time. Moon bases, Hubble replacements, long term space stations all need heavy launch capabilities. SpaceX wants to sell them their premier service.