6 ms·

I thought at first the fact that reuseablity is not mentioned as one of their goals was a big problem with their business plan. If the Falcon 9 Block 5 really b

I thought at first the fact that reuseablity is not mentioned as one of their goals was a big problem with their business plan. If the Falcon 9 Block 5 really becomes highly reusable, according to Elon Musk's criteria, SpaceX will be able to scale up launch rates and scale down prices that, by the time this rocket is available (2021 stated, delays likely), it won't be able to compete on price. I was thinking, "The more people working on different rockets the better. Hope it works out for them in that niche." But going to their website[1] this launch market does not seem to be the company's main focus. They want to develop the technology to build currently very complicated objects with two orders of magnitude lower parts count. This is desired so that the products can be more easily built on Mars. I can see that as a long term profitable outcome with applications on Earth along the way. From their mission statement[2]: In the early days of settlement, there will be few people living on Mars. Intelligent automation and lightweight, compact 3D printing are fundamental technologies needed to quickly build a new society with scarce resources - and the most scalable means to get back home. An ambitious goal (with an incongruous phrase tacked on the end??). [1]https://www.relativityspace.com/home https://www.relativityspace.com/home [2]https://www.relativityspace.com/mission/ https://www.relativityspace.com/mission/

gnode 9y ago
With relatively cheap transport to Mars (due to reusable launch), I don't see why building rockets there would make more sense than bringing them from Earth, i.e. returning them to Earth. Furthermore, to develop rockets on Mars you'd also need a substantial supporting industry (metallurgy, testing, etc.).
- njarboe 9y ago
  I would guess the goal is a self-sustaining civilization on Mars, a la Musk. People there will want to build as many things locally as they can. Ground transportation, energy sources, habitats, rockets, etc. Most of the parameters of Mars can be simulated on Earth but there is a big one that can't be simulated: 1/3 gravity. Iterating development on Mars for Mars will have large advantages over building things on Earth for Mars, long shipment to Mars, testing on Mars, build next version on Earth, ship to Mars, etc. Plus simulated Mars environments will not be perfect. With this tech they are hoping to drop the need for supporting industry for making stuff substantially.
  - Retric 9y ago
    With current tech we might get a self sustaining Mars population at ~100 million people. But, at that point you don't need rockets so it's not solving any real issues. It's getting to that 100 million population with supporting infrastructure to build things like CPU's that's the problem. Not simply building rocket engines which would be relatively easy and relatively cheap to ship.
    - Ancalagon 9y ago
      Where the heck did you get 100 million? By all accounts I've seen it should be far less than that.
      - Robotbeat 9y ago
        We don't know the real number. Might be 100,000, might be 100 million. Honestly, both estimates are valid, IMO. I think 1 million could be doable, especially with some technology development. A country like the US is not even self-sufficient, although we could be. The consequence would be a reduction in productivity and quality of life. Now, Mars also has much higher living costs, although the costs are definitely prone to economies of scale. So a smaller population would have to work more and have a lower quality of life to allow life on Mars. At some point, you just can't keep up with the life support and maintenance required to live on Mars, so the population below some point cannot be self-sustaining (even if you have all the tools). You want as many people as possible to allow economies of scale and productivity improvements from specialization to take hold.
        gnode 9y ago
        > A country like the US is not even self-sufficient, although we could be. The consequence would be a reduction in productivity and quality of life. For this reason, I think Mars isn't going to prioritise self-dependence. A civilisation which could thrive if the Earth stopped existing is a romantic ideal, but like most places, the people will prioritise their prosperity. Producing CPUs on Mars will likely be very low down the list; they're light enough to cheaply bring from Earth, and have a huge supply chain. Elon Musk likes to joke about pizzerias on Mars, but I think they'd be much higher up the list, if people want to eat anything other than canned food.
MPSimmons 9y ago
In my opinion, a Mars colony won't truly be independent of Earth until they can manufacture their own orbital-class rockets.
- tpurves 9y ago
  I think the definition of self sustainability is that you don’t need any orbital-class rockets. Afterall, earth humans got by for a long time without any orbital class rockets. It’s really the sustainable supply machines needed to make air to breath and to grow food to eat that’s the main thing. You can’t eat or breath orbital class rockets. Rather, it’s the opposite test. As soon as Martians don’t technically have to care if they have any rockets, must mean they are fully independent.

gnode 9y ago

With relatively cheap transport to Mars (due to reusable launch), I don't see why building rockets there would make more sense than bringing them from Earth, i.e. returning them to Earth. Furthermore, to develop rockets on Mars you'd also need a substantial supporting industry (metallurgy, testing, etc.).

njarboe 9y ago
I would guess the goal is a self-sustaining civilization on Mars, a la Musk. People there will want to build as many things locally as they can. Ground transportation, energy sources, habitats, rockets, etc. Most of the parameters of Mars can be simulated on Earth but there is a big one that can't be simulated: 1/3 gravity. Iterating development on Mars for Mars will have large advantages over building things on Earth for Mars, long shipment to Mars, testing on Mars, build next version on Earth, ship to Mars, etc. Plus simulated Mars environments will not be perfect. With this tech they are hoping to drop the need for supporting industry for making stuff substantially.
- Retric 9y ago
  With current tech we might get a self sustaining Mars population at ~100 million people. But, at that point you don't need rockets so it's not solving any real issues. It's getting to that 100 million population with supporting infrastructure to build things like CPU's that's the problem. Not simply building rocket engines which would be relatively easy and relatively cheap to ship.
  - Ancalagon 9y ago
    Where the heck did you get 100 million? By all accounts I've seen it should be far less than that.
    - Robotbeat 9y ago
      We don't know the real number. Might be 100,000, might be 100 million. Honestly, both estimates are valid, IMO. I think 1 million could be doable, especially with some technology development. A country like the US is not even self-sufficient, although we could be. The consequence would be a reduction in productivity and quality of life. Now, Mars also has much higher living costs, although the costs are definitely prone to economies of scale. So a smaller population would have to work more and have a lower quality of life to allow life on Mars. At some point, you just can't keep up with the life support and maintenance required to live on Mars, so the population below some point cannot be self-sustaining (even if you have all the tools). You want as many people as possible to allow economies of scale and productivity improvements from specialization to take hold.
      - gnode 9y ago
        > A country like the US is not even self-sufficient, although we could be. The consequence would be a reduction in productivity and quality of life. For this reason, I think Mars isn't going to prioritise self-dependence. A civilisation which could thrive if the Earth stopped existing is a romantic ideal, but like most places, the people will prioritise their prosperity. Producing CPUs on Mars will likely be very low down the list; they're light enough to cheaply bring from Earth, and have a huge supply chain. Elon Musk likes to joke about pizzerias on Mars, but I think they'd be much higher up the list, if people want to eat anything other than canned food.

MPSimmons 9y ago

In my opinion, a Mars colony won't truly be independent of Earth until they can manufacture their own orbital-class rockets.

tpurves 9y ago
I think the definition of self sustainability is that you don’t need any orbital-class rockets. Afterall, earth humans got by for a long time without any orbital class rockets. It’s really the sustainable supply machines needed to make air to breath and to grow food to eat that’s the main thing. You can’t eat or breath orbital class rockets. Rather, it’s the opposite test. As soon as Martians don’t technically have to care if they have any rockets, must mean they are fully independent.