8 ms·

I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an o

I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). Given that, it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do something.

agumonkey 9y ago
Me too. Especially after the beginning of the talk, when he mentioned 1) he became spaceX lead because no serious engineer would join beside the team he assembled 2) falcon1 failed 3 times, 4th attempt was their last one before folding I'm not fond of everything Musk, but he achieved something deep and qualitative. Also, even if the end smelled like fund-me marketing, the first half was genuinely simple and factual (of course considering it's hindsight).
- mikeash 9y ago
  He didn't mention this in the talk, but the story of how SpaceX came to be in the first place is pretty amazing too. He wanted to land a greenhouse on Mars basically as a stunt, to get people interested in Mars again. He wanted to buy surplus Russian ICBMs as a cheap way to launch the thing. After tough negotiations, the Russians basically gave him the middle finger. He basically said, "Fine, I'll build my own rocket, with blackjack, and hookers!" And thus SpaceX was born.
  - agumonkey 9y ago
    Oh yeah I read that elsewhere too. Think about how SpaceX would be different if the Russian deal went through..
    - mikeash 9y ago
      This Esquire article gets into a lot of detail if anyone is interested in reading more: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a16681/elon-musk-interview-1212/ http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a16681/elon-musk-interv...
kyberias 9y ago
I don't understand why any of that is a huge proof that they can go to Mars.
- varjag 9y ago
  There are no true proofs outside of realm of math at all. SpaceX odds for going to Mars are, however, better than anyone else's.
  - jawbone3 9y ago
    Hey, that’s a big unsourced claim to make about an organisation that has no experience of manned spaceflight.
    - varjag 9y ago
      Before that, it was a big claim about an organization that never achieved reusability/reached GEO/made a space flight at all.. So far SpaceX delivers, and unlike every other player out there, going to Mars is their core mission. So yes they odds are much better than anyone else's, even if by the virtue of none remotely competent pursuing it at all.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      Usually when people ask for a source for someone'e statement it's a good thing, but in this case... you're really asking for a source here? Really? I mean... really?
  - mkempe 9y ago
    Wouldn't flying to and landing on Mars be a true proof? what other kind of proof can there be?
    - varjag 9y ago
      Thought the GP solicited the proof now, without the advantage of hindsight from 2026 or whatever it takes.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Hypx 9y ago
Just want to point out some misconceptions here: Arguably, the Space Shuttle was the first launch system to reuse the first stage, and the first to prove retro-propulsion landing was the Delta Clipper (on Earth anyways, supersonic retro-propulsion was used on other planetary bodies earlier). First private company to refly a spacecraft was probably SpaceShipOne, although this was suborbital not orbital. Not saying what SpaceX achieved isn't impressive, it just needs some context.
- vkou 9y ago
  The difference between a suborbital and an orbital flight is the difference between dropping a basketball, and scoring a three point shot from the other side of the field. Attaining orbit required 20 times the energy that spaceship one's flight did - it's why landing airplanes is trivial, and landing rockets is so hard.
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  Let's look at the claims from the parent: * re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, I think the shuttle argument has some merit, it was certainly designed to be re-usable. However the first stage was a blend of the SSME's and the SRB's. While the SRB's were "refurbed" it really was re-manufactured. The shuttle and its SSMEs were closer to what F9 does today. * the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion Here the key is supersonic retro-propulsion. They really were the first people to light up a rocket engine facing the 'wrong' way of a supersonic spacecraft. NASA's interplanetary systems have all used parachutes to get into the sub-sonic regime before firing retro-rockets. Neither retro-propulsion in orbit (nominally a vacuum) or on the Moon count as supersonic. * and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). If you add 'orbital' spacecraft then it does work (private company, orbital craft). If you consider suborbital flights like Spaceship One then all of the sounding rockets that are fired doing ionosphere research probably count too. With luck, next month they will be the first company ever to launch and recover a rocket with 27 engines in the first stage. They are also the first company to launch two rockets into orbit in a single weekend. So at what point would SpaceX's achievements become "impressive" for you without having to add context?
ChuckMcM 9y ago
> I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. I expect that part may be an attempt to not get their hopes up. One of the things I learned as a child was that if someone told you something that you really wanted to be true, and you believed it, then when it turned out to not be true you felt really really horrible. So instead you disbelieve it, and when it turns out to not be true you feel satisfied that you knew it wasn't true. If it turns out to be true after all, then you are surprised (in a good way) and excited because its a great thing. Of the choices, disbelieving gives a better future emotional outcome. That said, the older version of me has come to appreciate people who are sincere even if they aren't able to deliver on their promises. Elon is pushing the edge of space travel at a rate that is much more exciting than NASA and other governments were. As a result I can cheer him on in the hopes he will be successful without becoming so invested in that success that it would crush me if it didn't come to pass. As a kid I really believed NASA when they said we'd have a lunar colony in 2001 after the lunar landing in 1969, and their inability to come close to delivering was really painful[1]. The launch of Falcon Heavy is going to be a significant milestone for SpaceX. If they can pull it off, they will have proven they can tame the complexity of adding rockets in parallel to tune their mass fraction to space. No one has done that yet. And if they can recover a second stage, and do so in a way that they can re-use its engines at least, it will demonstrate that the economics of such an effort can be managed as well. High hopes, realistic expectations. [1] Yes, I know that if they had kept their funding they would have made better strides, and yes I know that isn't there fault. But neither reality mitigated the impact of NASA essentially "giving up" on the moon.
- Xeoncross 9y ago
  > Of the choices, disbelieving gives a better future emotional outcome. However, emotions aside, disbelief slows actions and hinders cooperation. I would rather my feelings be hurt then face the actual barriers disbelief provides.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    The skepticism of someone on the net is in no way going to hinder Musk from getting to Mars. It might, however, prevent them from wasting their time on another failed promise, and there are many of those. My default reaction is disbelief (I'd prefer skepticism) especially when someone is trying to sell something because that's their whole goal, they are selling you something. Not to mention, if you are a US citizen you're already supporting him whether you want to or not through government funding.
elorant 9y ago
It's unrealistic because it requires a ridiculous amount of money to go there and establish a colony. The kind of money only states can spend, and probably for an endeavor like this it will require a multinational collaboration. No private company can amass that kind of money because shareholders and investors can't see the ROI in this thing.
- extrapickles 9y ago
  SpaceX at the moment just wants to get people to Mars, building the colony beyond a landing pad and propellant depot is left as an exercise for the passengers. When they land the first two BFRs on Mars, I think we will see enough people willing and have the means to build a colony. Until then, it would be hard to get people to commit the needed capital.
- wahern 9y ago
  As of 2017, world wide financial assets (stocks, bonds, and notes; _excluding_ real estate and capital assets) amount to nearly $300 trillion. (Trillion, not billion.) Only about 20% of that is public debt. Private industry sits on a tremendous amount liquid wealth. And because of income inequality, it's actually principally controlled by a relatively small number of people. In other words, not only is private industry capable of financing a Mars mission, the reality is that private financing may be the _only_ realistic option. For any skeptic wondering how Musk is able to "sucker" so many investors, this is why--there's just a god-awful amount of private money looking for even the most meager gains. Note that the Federal Reserve's QE2 amounted to only $2 trillion, less than 1% of global financial assets. If you think quantitative easing has led to an asset bubble, think again. Or rather, think bigger. Whatever you think, just realize that we're living in a brave new word with wealth beyond what anybody can scarcely imagine even today. Few people, if any, understand either the possibilities or systemic risks. The magnitude of things, and the speed with which it evolved, is mind boggling.
jsonne 9y ago
I think it's just general cynicism. Most people, despite us being in the startup space, tend to put down or dismiss those with huge ambitions.
mkempe 9y ago
Remember the fate of Prometheus, who brought fire to mankind. Opposition to creators and innovators is not a new thing.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
kilroy123 9y ago
It is because it will be extremely expensive to do this. Plus there are a ton of issues to be worked out before this is possible. Here is just a small list: - What food will people eat on Mars? - What space suits will they all use? - Who will train all the astronauts to go there? - Who will build the habitats? - Who is building the equipment to make fuel on mars? How much will this cost? This is far from a fully researched plan. Look, I really hope it happens and I'm seriously rooting for SpaceX, but there is much more to figure out and plan to make this a reality.
- nwah1 9y ago
  They already designed the space suits. https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/23/16188658/elon-musk-reveals-first-official-photo-spacex-spacesuit https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/23/16188658/elon-musk-reveal...
  - kilroy123 9y ago
    > the SpaceX suits are meant to be worn by astronauts when riding inside the company’s Dragon Capsule That is not a Mars rated space suit for living and working on Mars. Not even NASA has one ready yet. (They are working on it though)
- Malice 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars
- Hextinium 9y ago
  Musks idea for this is "build it and they will come" that being said all he has to do is create a market and someone else will fill the void of who will make the spacesuits and grow the food and do all the things that will make a colony. That being said you would have to bootstrap something to get to that point but step one we have to get to Mars before we can even think about those things. That is what musk is trying to do even though it is nearsighted if you think about the long term.
Nokinside 9y ago
It's the colonizing Mars part Getting into Mars is solvable technological problem. Colonizing Mars is more economical and sociological problem than technological problem. Everyday living in high-tech place where everything is safety critical (like in a nuclear submarine or ISS) is extremely expensive. Productivity would have to be beyond everything that has ever existed for that becoming possibility. If Elon Musk can crack Mars colonization economy, he has also invented something that can be used to drop F-35 fighter, nuclear submarine and aircraft carrier maintenance costs to level where they are negligible. There is always counterarguments that are based on post-scarcity economy. I accept that argument. But we get faster into Mars if we first develop post-scarcity economy here on earth first. Then those who want to leave just move there. Those who want to go Mars now are thinking it wrong. --- EDIT: In case I didn't make myself clear, I believe that Musk can get into Mars in his lifetime. There can be small research station and we can explore little. But it will be a money sink. We will do some research and then leave and probably it takes another 50 years until someone visits in person again. All the science fiction thing humans have achieved, microchips, computers, mobile phones, commercial air travel increase productivity and there is massive demand for them. Combined R&D over decades can be trillions and it's profitable. Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is no profit motive. Getting into orbit is profitable business and that's what SpaceX is doing.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  But we get faster into Mars if we first develop post-scarcity economy here on earth first. Name that fallacy?
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  > Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is no profit motive. This is so very true. We can do it for Science, and for fun, but not much else.
  - reilly3000 9y ago
    What happens when earth goes to actual shit and rich people want out?
gozur88 9y ago
Might have something to do with the fact that SpaceX's ambitions seem to undergo major revisions on a monthly basis. The things they've accomplished to date have been pretty impressive, but they're not even in the same league as a jaunt to Mars. Besides, everything SpaceX has done is sustainable in the sense that it helps them make money, either commercially or through a government contract. There's no commercial market for Mars, and a government contract would have to be so large large enough I doubt there would be enough political support.
godelski 9y ago
> Given [their success], it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do something. There is a saying "Nullius in verba" (On the word of no one). Take nobody's word, take their proof. It is a founding principle in science and engineering. It isn't that we should give them the benefit of the doubt, we should give NO ONE the benefit of the doubt. > I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. We're taught to be extremely skeptical in the scientific community, and I'd say that the rocket community is more skeptical than the general engineering community. Another factor, is that their prices are not as low as they advertise. And then there is the amount of re-usability they expect. I'm not saying it is impossible, it is just ambitious. So the community is more in a "we'll wait and see. But we are watching very closely".
0xbear 9y ago
They’re also mostly doing the kind of work that government aerospace agencies have utterly nailed in the 60s. In fact in some aspects (transporting humans to and fro) they aren’t quite there yet. Reusability just wasn’t a concern when budgets were bottomless. There are Soviet designs where boosters would land much like planes do, wings and all, but those remained on the drawing board.
aerovistae 9y ago
I think he'll accomplish everything he described Friday and fail to colonize Mars anyway. It really doesn't matter how brilliant he is or how successful he is with SpaceX's plans. No amount of human brilliance can circumvent the fact that mars has 38% of Earth's gravity. I fear that this will prove an insurmountable barrier. If living in that environment renders you unable to survive in Earth gravity due to the strain on your heart, and it will take hundreds of years to make Mars be like Earth, who is going to want to live in that land of barren nothing for centuries, unable to visit the lush homeworld?
- brians 9y ago
  I'll take that deal personally. No, seriously: you solve the "live... for centuries" part and you see how many volunteers show up.
- neaden 9y ago
  I think the lack of a magnetic field is an equally large problem. Anyone living on Mars is going to be getting pretty huge doses of radiation on a yearly basis.

agumonkey 9y ago

Me too. Especially after the beginning of the talk, when he mentioned 1) he became spaceX lead because no serious engineer would join beside the team he assembled 2) falcon1 failed 3 times, 4th attempt was their last one before folding I'm not fond of everything Musk, but he achieved something deep and qualitative. Also, even if the end smelled like fund-me marketing, the first half was genuinely simple and factual (of course considering it's hindsight).

mikeash 9y ago
He didn't mention this in the talk, but the story of how SpaceX came to be in the first place is pretty amazing too. He wanted to land a greenhouse on Mars basically as a stunt, to get people interested in Mars again. He wanted to buy surplus Russian ICBMs as a cheap way to launch the thing. After tough negotiations, the Russians basically gave him the middle finger. He basically said, "Fine, I'll build my own rocket, with blackjack, and hookers!" And thus SpaceX was born.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  Oh yeah I read that elsewhere too. Think about how SpaceX would be different if the Russian deal went through..
  - mikeash 9y ago
    This Esquire article gets into a lot of detail if anyone is interested in reading more: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a16681/elon-musk-interview-1212/ http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a16681/elon-musk-interv...

kyberias 9y ago

I don't understand why any of that is a huge proof that they can go to Mars.

varjag 9y ago
There are no true proofs outside of realm of math at all. SpaceX odds for going to Mars are, however, better than anyone else's.
- jawbone3 9y ago
  Hey, that’s a big unsourced claim to make about an organisation that has no experience of manned spaceflight.
  - varjag 9y ago
    Before that, it was a big claim about an organization that never achieved reusability/reached GEO/made a space flight at all.. So far SpaceX delivers, and unlike every other player out there, going to Mars is their core mission. So yes they odds are much better than anyone else's, even if by the virtue of none remotely competent pursuing it at all.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    Usually when people ask for a source for someone'e statement it's a good thing, but in this case... you're really asking for a source here? Really? I mean... really?
- mkempe 9y ago
  Wouldn't flying to and landing on Mars be a true proof? what other kind of proof can there be?
  - varjag 9y ago
    Thought the GP solicited the proof now, without the advantage of hindsight from 2026 or whatever it takes.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Hypx 9y ago

Just want to point out some misconceptions here: Arguably, the Space Shuttle was the first launch system to reuse the first stage, and the first to prove retro-propulsion landing was the Delta Clipper (on Earth anyways, supersonic retro-propulsion was used on other planetary bodies earlier). First private company to refly a spacecraft was probably SpaceShipOne, although this was suborbital not orbital. Not saying what SpaceX achieved isn't impressive, it just needs some context.

vkou 9y ago
The difference between a suborbital and an orbital flight is the difference between dropping a basketball, and scoring a three point shot from the other side of the field. Attaining orbit required 20 times the energy that spaceship one's flight did - it's why landing airplanes is trivial, and landing rockets is so hard.
ChuckMcM 9y ago
Let's look at the claims from the parent: * re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, I think the shuttle argument has some merit, it was certainly designed to be re-usable. However the first stage was a blend of the SSME's and the SRB's. While the SRB's were "refurbed" it really was re-manufactured. The shuttle and its SSMEs were closer to what F9 does today. * the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion Here the key is supersonic retro-propulsion. They really were the first people to light up a rocket engine facing the 'wrong' way of a supersonic spacecraft. NASA's interplanetary systems have all used parachutes to get into the sub-sonic regime before firing retro-rockets. Neither retro-propulsion in orbit (nominally a vacuum) or on the Moon count as supersonic. * and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). If you add 'orbital' spacecraft then it does work (private company, orbital craft). If you consider suborbital flights like Spaceship One then all of the sounding rockets that are fired doing ionosphere research probably count too. With luck, next month they will be the first company ever to launch and recover a rocket with 27 engines in the first stage. They are also the first company to launch two rockets into orbit in a single weekend. So at what point would SpaceX's achievements become "impressive" for you without having to add context?

ChuckMcM 9y ago

> I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. I expect that part may be an attempt to not get their hopes up. One of the things I learned as a child was that if someone told you something that you really wanted to be true, and you believed it, then when it turned out to not be true you felt really really horrible. So instead you disbelieve it, and when it turns out to not be true you feel satisfied that you knew it wasn't true. If it turns out to be true after all, then you are surprised (in a good way) and excited because its a great thing. Of the choices, disbelieving gives a better future emotional outcome. That said, the older version of me has come to appreciate people who are sincere even if they aren't able to deliver on their promises. Elon is pushing the edge of space travel at a rate that is much more exciting than NASA and other governments were. As a result I can cheer him on in the hopes he will be successful without becoming so invested in that success that it would crush me if it didn't come to pass. As a kid I really believed NASA when they said we'd have a lunar colony in 2001 after the lunar landing in 1969, and their inability to come close to delivering was really painful[1]. The launch of Falcon Heavy is going to be a significant milestone for SpaceX. If they can pull it off, they will have proven they can tame the complexity of adding rockets in parallel to tune their mass fraction to space. No one has done that yet. And if they can recover a second stage, and do so in a way that they can re-use its engines at least, it will demonstrate that the economics of such an effort can be managed as well. High hopes, realistic expectations. [1] Yes, I know that if they had kept their funding they would have made better strides, and yes I know that isn't there fault. But neither reality mitigated the impact of NASA essentially "giving up" on the moon.

Xeoncross 9y ago
> Of the choices, disbelieving gives a better future emotional outcome. However, emotions aside, disbelief slows actions and hinders cooperation. I would rather my feelings be hurt then face the actual barriers disbelief provides.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  The skepticism of someone on the net is in no way going to hinder Musk from getting to Mars. It might, however, prevent them from wasting their time on another failed promise, and there are many of those. My default reaction is disbelief (I'd prefer skepticism) especially when someone is trying to sell something because that's their whole goal, they are selling you something. Not to mention, if you are a US citizen you're already supporting him whether you want to or not through government funding.

elorant 9y ago

It's unrealistic because it requires a ridiculous amount of money to go there and establish a colony. The kind of money only states can spend, and probably for an endeavor like this it will require a multinational collaboration. No private company can amass that kind of money because shareholders and investors can't see the ROI in this thing.

extrapickles 9y ago
SpaceX at the moment just wants to get people to Mars, building the colony beyond a landing pad and propellant depot is left as an exercise for the passengers. When they land the first two BFRs on Mars, I think we will see enough people willing and have the means to build a colony. Until then, it would be hard to get people to commit the needed capital.
wahern 9y ago
As of 2017, world wide financial assets (stocks, bonds, and notes; _excluding_ real estate and capital assets) amount to nearly $300 trillion. (Trillion, not billion.) Only about 20% of that is public debt. Private industry sits on a tremendous amount liquid wealth. And because of income inequality, it's actually principally controlled by a relatively small number of people. In other words, not only is private industry capable of financing a Mars mission, the reality is that private financing may be the _only_ realistic option. For any skeptic wondering how Musk is able to "sucker" so many investors, this is why--there's just a god-awful amount of private money looking for even the most meager gains. Note that the Federal Reserve's QE2 amounted to only $2 trillion, less than 1% of global financial assets. If you think quantitative easing has led to an asset bubble, think again. Or rather, think bigger. Whatever you think, just realize that we're living in a brave new word with wealth beyond what anybody can scarcely imagine even today. Few people, if any, understand either the possibilities or systemic risks. The magnitude of things, and the speed with which it evolved, is mind boggling.

jsonne 9y ago

I think it's just general cynicism. Most people, despite us being in the startup space, tend to put down or dismiss those with huge ambitions.

mkempe 9y ago

Remember the fate of Prometheus, who brought fire to mankind. Opposition to creators and innovators is not a new thing.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

kilroy123 9y ago

It is because it will be extremely expensive to do this. Plus there are a ton of issues to be worked out before this is possible. Here is just a small list: - What food will people eat on Mars? - What space suits will they all use? - Who will train all the astronauts to go there? - Who will build the habitats? - Who is building the equipment to make fuel on mars? How much will this cost? This is far from a fully researched plan. Look, I really hope it happens and I'm seriously rooting for SpaceX, but there is much more to figure out and plan to make this a reality.

nwah1 9y ago
They already designed the space suits. https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/23/16188658/elon-musk-reveals-first-official-photo-spacex-spacesuit https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/23/16188658/elon-musk-reveal...
- kilroy123 9y ago
  > the SpaceX suits are meant to be worn by astronauts when riding inside the company’s Dragon Capsule That is not a Mars rated space suit for living and working on Mars. Not even NASA has one ready yet. (They are working on it though)
Malice 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars
Hextinium 9y ago
Musks idea for this is "build it and they will come" that being said all he has to do is create a market and someone else will fill the void of who will make the spacesuits and grow the food and do all the things that will make a colony. That being said you would have to bootstrap something to get to that point but step one we have to get to Mars before we can even think about those things. That is what musk is trying to do even though it is nearsighted if you think about the long term.

Nokinside 9y ago

It's the colonizing Mars part Getting into Mars is solvable technological problem. Colonizing Mars is more economical and sociological problem than technological problem. Everyday living in high-tech place where everything is safety critical (like in a nuclear submarine or ISS) is extremely expensive. Productivity would have to be beyond everything that has ever existed for that becoming possibility. If Elon Musk can crack Mars colonization economy, he has also invented something that can be used to drop F-35 fighter, nuclear submarine and aircraft carrier maintenance costs to level where they are negligible. There is always counterarguments that are based on post-scarcity economy. I accept that argument. But we get faster into Mars if we first develop post-scarcity economy here on earth first. Then those who want to leave just move there. Those who want to go Mars now are thinking it wrong. --- EDIT: In case I didn't make myself clear, I believe that Musk can get into Mars in his lifetime. There can be small research station and we can explore little. But it will be a money sink. We will do some research and then leave and probably it takes another 50 years until someone visits in person again. All the science fiction thing humans have achieved, microchips, computers, mobile phones, commercial air travel increase productivity and there is massive demand for them. Combined R&D over decades can be trillions and it's profitable. Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is no profit motive. Getting into orbit is profitable business and that's what SpaceX is doing.

stcredzero 9y ago
But we get faster into Mars if we first develop post-scarcity economy here on earth first. Name that fallacy?
semi-extrinsic 9y ago
> Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is no profit motive. This is so very true. We can do it for Science, and for fun, but not much else.
- reilly3000 9y ago
  What happens when earth goes to actual shit and rich people want out?

gozur88 9y ago

Might have something to do with the fact that SpaceX's ambitions seem to undergo major revisions on a monthly basis. The things they've accomplished to date have been pretty impressive, but they're not even in the same league as a jaunt to Mars. Besides, everything SpaceX has done is sustainable in the sense that it helps them make money, either commercially or through a government contract. There's no commercial market for Mars, and a government contract would have to be so large large enough I doubt there would be enough political support.

godelski 9y ago

> Given [their success], it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do something. There is a saying "Nullius in verba" (On the word of no one). Take nobody's word, take their proof. It is a founding principle in science and engineering. It isn't that we should give them the benefit of the doubt, we should give NO ONE the benefit of the doubt. > I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. We're taught to be extremely skeptical in the scientific community, and I'd say that the rocket community is more skeptical than the general engineering community. Another factor, is that their prices are not as low as they advertise. And then there is the amount of re-usability they expect. I'm not saying it is impossible, it is just ambitious. So the community is more in a "we'll wait and see. But we are watching very closely".

0xbear 9y ago

They’re also mostly doing the kind of work that government aerospace agencies have utterly nailed in the 60s. In fact in some aspects (transporting humans to and fro) they aren’t quite there yet. Reusability just wasn’t a concern when budgets were bottomless. There are Soviet designs where boosters would land much like planes do, wings and all, but those remained on the drawing board.

aerovistae 9y ago

I think he'll accomplish everything he described Friday and fail to colonize Mars anyway. It really doesn't matter how brilliant he is or how successful he is with SpaceX's plans. No amount of human brilliance can circumvent the fact that mars has 38% of Earth's gravity. I fear that this will prove an insurmountable barrier. If living in that environment renders you unable to survive in Earth gravity due to the strain on your heart, and it will take hundreds of years to make Mars be like Earth, who is going to want to live in that land of barren nothing for centuries, unable to visit the lush homeworld?

brians 9y ago
I'll take that deal personally. No, seriously: you solve the "live... for centuries" part and you see how many volunteers show up.
neaden 9y ago
I think the lack of a magnetic field is an equally large problem. Anyone living on Mars is going to be getting pretty huge doses of radiation on a yearly basis.