6 ms·

They are as likely to go to Mars as Elon musk so at least they are in rare company

Robotbeat 9y ago
I will be willing to bet that by 2040 SpaceX significantly helps send people to Mars, either by launching the people to orbit, launching a lot of the supplies (at least 40% by mass), building the Mars lander that lands people there, or even the whole-hog BFR/ITS architecture as Musk presented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R_yYFA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R_yYFA Willing to bet a $beverage? SpaceX has the largest (by payload) current launch vehicle in the world, and pioneered supersonic retropropulsion for landing (a critical technology for human-scale Mars landers) which they use to reduce the cost of space launch with most flights. They're the only US company that does regular orbital capsule flights (including reentry and recovery), and they're one of two US companies that will be flying people to orbit within about a year. Their Falcon 9, also one of the largest rockets in the world, launched more often to orbit than any other rocket (of any size) in the world last year. They're also currently building a reusable upper stage (which is also a human-scale Mars lander) for an even larger launch vehicle. If anybody is going to be landing people on Mars within the next couple decades, they'll most likely be at least substantially helped by SpaceX.
- vannevar 9y ago
  SpaceX is certainly in the best position of any private organization I know of to get to Mars, from the infrastructure perspective. But in terms of financing, the parent comment is right, Musk may not be a whole lot better off than Mars One in the big picture. A single manned mission to Mars could cost north of $100B, and the entire value of SpaceX is only about $20B. SpaceX is private, but estimates are that if it's profitable on an operating basis at all, it's only marginally so. Throw in Tesla's likely cash needs for the foreseeable future, and Musk may have some tough times coming. Money is going to decide the outcome here, not technology. Unless SpaceX finds some hugely profitable business to start generating cash (maybe their planned satellite constellation?), Mars is speculation.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    I'm always kind of mystified by comments like this, which I see a lot of. SpaceX has a cost target, and if they can't meet it, they aren't going to send humans to Mars. And that target's a lot less than $10B; most of the BFR engineering is not about Mars but about a fully-reusable launcher, which is useful for launching anything, not just going to Mars.
    - vannevar 9y ago
      Don't fool yourself, there is a lot more to landing humans on Mars than building a big launch vehicle. The only data point we have is the Apollo project, and Mars is an order of magnitude more difficult. Apollo was around $150B in today's dollars, so if anything, the $100B estimate for Mars is low. Which at this point puts SpaceX closer to Mars One than it is to Mars itself.
      - Robotbeat 9y ago
        The situation is wildly different. A half century of progress has been made, and SpaceX is taking a much more affordable approach to the whole thing. We used expendable rockets for Apollo. And there were at least 6 different stages, depending on how you count (3 stages for the Saturn V, plus the command module which had a propulsion section and a reentry module plus the lunar module which had descent and ascent stages), all of which were expended. There were at least 3 different propellant combinations with even more engine types. All of these components were basically dedicated to the Apollo program and had to be paid out of that budget. Each mission requires the expenditure of all those stages. The BFR for SpaceX, on the other hand, is just two stages. The two stages are very similar, using the same propellant type and basically the same engines. BFR will be used for satellite launches initially, so its development can be paid for separately. The advantage of BFR is that it is fully reusable, so you literally can use the same rocket to send stuff to Mars as is used for satellites. The biggest part, the booster, never needs to leave a few hundred kilometers from the launch site, and can be reused for satellite launches. SpaceX is able to get by with just two stages because they simply refuel the landable upper stage again and again instead of dropping stages. They're leveraging reuse not just to lower launch costs, but to dramatically simplify their mission architecture (and thus reduce development costs). The reusable upper stage also serves as the lander, once refueled. And it is designed to be refueled by an essentially identical vehicle. And the lander itself can also be reused for the next Mars window. So in a single Mars mission, NOTHING needs to be expended, and at most you're just tying up a single stage during the duration of the mission; the rest of the architecture elements can earn their keep launching satellites while astronauts are on Mars. Before SpaceX, launch costs for the US were around $20,000 per kilogram to LEO. SpaceX's F9 and Falcon Heavy have brought the cost down to around $1000-2000/kg. BFR, since it's fully reusable, could bring the costs down to $100/kg or even $10/kg. SpaceX designed an architecture that could reduce the cost to Mars by orders of magnitude and whose primary components can be developed and paid for the same way Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon are paid for (i.e. by delivering cargo for paying customers).
decacorn 9y ago
did you not see spacex send a tesla roadster soaring past Mars about a month ago? Comparing Mars One to SpaceX is basically like comparing a hobbyist rocketry forum to an actual rocket manufacturer.
theothermkn 9y ago
> They are as likely to go to Mars as Elon musk so at least they are in rare company While I've left your comment unvoted-upon, the downvotes are justified, in my view. That said, I think Musk's optimism about Mars is pretty unjustified, but for reasons unrelated to launch vehicle technology, reasons that are shared by Mars One. The main reason is that we simply do not know how to sustain human life, in the long term, in less than 1 Earth gravity without deleterious effects, including the possible cessation of reproduction. This is to say nothing of the lower light levels on Mars, the rigors of designing CELSSs, the psychology of performing while never being able to go outside again (or possibly even never being able to return to Earth due to bone loss), and so on. Musk has even said that the trip to Mars will be "fun" because you'll get to throw a ball around and play games in zero-g. He betrays a lack of serious engagement with the challenges of human spaceflight, to say nothing of the ongoing challenges of living on Mars. He understands the romance of gritting your teeth and eking out a living in a space Western, but not the realities of it. Mars One seems to share similar problems of vision. Eventually, I think that, among other possibilities, either grown-ups will step in with regulation, or the grown-ups will stay away in droves from either project.
- UncleEntity 9y ago
  > Eventually, I think that, among other possibilities, either grown-ups will step in with regulation, or the grown-ups will stay away in droves from either project. ...or Mars will be a place where there's only a few people living there for relatively short durations to do scientific research -- like Antarctica.
- gizmo686 9y ago
  >The main reason is that we simply do not know how to sustain human life, in the long term, in less than 1 Earth gravity without deleterious effects, including the possible cessation of reproduction. We do not know when the difficulty starts. Given our current knowledge, it is entirely possible that Martian gravity is sufficient for human health. We also know that even 0G is not acutely lethal (although the short term effects of returning to normal gravity are less then encouraging if we expect the people to be able to work as soon as they land on Mars). This is just to say, we do not know how much of a problem Martian gravity is. There are still all of the difficulties we do know about. It will probably be a long time (if ever) before we get a sustained "colony" on Mars, but humans setting foot on Mars is reasonably possible in the relatively near term. If we really wanted to, we could even make a "colony" simmilar to the ISS, where we have a permanantly staffed base, with a crew that stays for "short" (~year) time on Mars, combined with a year or two of total spaceflight. I'm not remotely convinced this is worth doing. But it seems possible if we really wanted to do it.

I will be willing to bet that by 2040 SpaceX significantly helps send people to Mars, either by launching the people to orbit, launching a lot of the supplies (at least 40% by mass), building the Mars lander that lands people there, or even the whole-hog BFR/ITS architecture as Musk presented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R_yYFA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R_yYFA Willing to bet a $beverage? SpaceX has the largest (by payload) current launch vehicle in the world, and pioneered supersonic retropropulsion for landing (a critical technology for human-scale Mars landers) which they use to reduce the cost of space launch with most flights. They're the only US company that does regular orbital capsule flights (including reentry and recovery), and they're one of two US companies that will be flying people to orbit within about a year. Their Falcon 9, also one of the largest rockets in the world, launched more often to orbit than any other rocket (of any size) in the world last year. They're also currently building a reusable upper stage (which is also a human-scale Mars lander) for an even larger launch vehicle. If anybody is going to be landing people on Mars within the next couple decades, they'll most likely be at least substantially helped by SpaceX.

vannevar 9y ago
SpaceX is certainly in the best position of any private organization I know of to get to Mars, from the infrastructure perspective. But in terms of financing, the parent comment is right, Musk may not be a whole lot better off than Mars One in the big picture. A single manned mission to Mars could cost north of $100B, and the entire value of SpaceX is only about $20B. SpaceX is private, but estimates are that if it's profitable on an operating basis at all, it's only marginally so. Throw in Tesla's likely cash needs for the foreseeable future, and Musk may have some tough times coming. Money is going to decide the outcome here, not technology. Unless SpaceX finds some hugely profitable business to start generating cash (maybe their planned satellite constellation?), Mars is speculation.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  I'm always kind of mystified by comments like this, which I see a lot of. SpaceX has a cost target, and if they can't meet it, they aren't going to send humans to Mars. And that target's a lot less than $10B; most of the BFR engineering is not about Mars but about a fully-reusable launcher, which is useful for launching anything, not just going to Mars.
  - vannevar 9y ago
    Don't fool yourself, there is a lot more to landing humans on Mars than building a big launch vehicle. The only data point we have is the Apollo project, and Mars is an order of magnitude more difficult. Apollo was around $150B in today's dollars, so if anything, the $100B estimate for Mars is low. Which at this point puts SpaceX closer to Mars One than it is to Mars itself.
    - Robotbeat 9y ago
      The situation is wildly different. A half century of progress has been made, and SpaceX is taking a much more affordable approach to the whole thing. We used expendable rockets for Apollo. And there were at least 6 different stages, depending on how you count (3 stages for the Saturn V, plus the command module which had a propulsion section and a reentry module plus the lunar module which had descent and ascent stages), all of which were expended. There were at least 3 different propellant combinations with even more engine types. All of these components were basically dedicated to the Apollo program and had to be paid out of that budget. Each mission requires the expenditure of all those stages. The BFR for SpaceX, on the other hand, is just two stages. The two stages are very similar, using the same propellant type and basically the same engines. BFR will be used for satellite launches initially, so its development can be paid for separately. The advantage of BFR is that it is fully reusable, so you literally can use the same rocket to send stuff to Mars as is used for satellites. The biggest part, the booster, never needs to leave a few hundred kilometers from the launch site, and can be reused for satellite launches. SpaceX is able to get by with just two stages because they simply refuel the landable upper stage again and again instead of dropping stages. They're leveraging reuse not just to lower launch costs, but to dramatically simplify their mission architecture (and thus reduce development costs). The reusable upper stage also serves as the lander, once refueled. And it is designed to be refueled by an essentially identical vehicle. And the lander itself can also be reused for the next Mars window. So in a single Mars mission, NOTHING needs to be expended, and at most you're just tying up a single stage during the duration of the mission; the rest of the architecture elements can earn their keep launching satellites while astronauts are on Mars. Before SpaceX, launch costs for the US were around $20,000 per kilogram to LEO. SpaceX's F9 and Falcon Heavy have brought the cost down to around $1000-2000/kg. BFR, since it's fully reusable, could bring the costs down to $100/kg or even $10/kg. SpaceX designed an architecture that could reduce the cost to Mars by orders of magnitude and whose primary components can be developed and paid for the same way Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon are paid for (i.e. by delivering cargo for paying customers).

decacorn 9y ago

did you not see spacex send a tesla roadster soaring past Mars about a month ago? Comparing Mars One to SpaceX is basically like comparing a hobbyist rocketry forum to an actual rocket manufacturer.

theothermkn 9y ago

> They are as likely to go to Mars as Elon musk so at least they are in rare company While I've left your comment unvoted-upon, the downvotes are justified, in my view. That said, I think Musk's optimism about Mars is pretty unjustified, but for reasons unrelated to launch vehicle technology, reasons that are shared by Mars One. The main reason is that we simply do not know how to sustain human life, in the long term, in less than 1 Earth gravity without deleterious effects, including the possible cessation of reproduction. This is to say nothing of the lower light levels on Mars, the rigors of designing CELSSs, the psychology of performing while never being able to go outside again (or possibly even never being able to return to Earth due to bone loss), and so on. Musk has even said that the trip to Mars will be "fun" because you'll get to throw a ball around and play games in zero-g. He betrays a lack of serious engagement with the challenges of human spaceflight, to say nothing of the ongoing challenges of living on Mars. He understands the romance of gritting your teeth and eking out a living in a space Western, but not the realities of it. Mars One seems to share similar problems of vision. Eventually, I think that, among other possibilities, either grown-ups will step in with regulation, or the grown-ups will stay away in droves from either project.

UncleEntity 9y ago
> Eventually, I think that, among other possibilities, either grown-ups will step in with regulation, or the grown-ups will stay away in droves from either project. ...or Mars will be a place where there's only a few people living there for relatively short durations to do scientific research -- like Antarctica.
gizmo686 9y ago
>The main reason is that we simply do not know how to sustain human life, in the long term, in less than 1 Earth gravity without deleterious effects, including the possible cessation of reproduction. We do not know when the difficulty starts. Given our current knowledge, it is entirely possible that Martian gravity is sufficient for human health. We also know that even 0G is not acutely lethal (although the short term effects of returning to normal gravity are less then encouraging if we expect the people to be able to work as soon as they land on Mars). This is just to say, we do not know how much of a problem Martian gravity is. There are still all of the difficulties we do know about. It will probably be a long time (if ever) before we get a sustained "colony" on Mars, but humans setting foot on Mars is reasonably possible in the relatively near term. If we really wanted to, we could even make a "colony" simmilar to the ISS, where we have a permanantly staffed base, with a crew that stays for "short" (~year) time on Mars, combined with a year or two of total spaceflight. I'm not remotely convinced this is worth doing. But it seems possible if we really wanted to do it.