8 ms·

What is the evidence of that, aside from “stuff Musk says” of course? Everything they do seems geared to commercial launches, which make sense, and stands to op

What is the evidence of that, aside from “stuff Musk says” of course? Everything they do seems geared to commercial launches, which make sense, and stands to open up LEO enormously. I’m not seeing a realistic path to Mars outside of verbiage, while there is clearly amazing progress made in less expensive commercial launches.

mikeash 8y ago
They’re pouring almost all of their R&D effort into a massive rocket that only really makes sense if you want to go to Mars. BFR is absurd overkill for anything related to commercial LEO. My statement also has another meaning: SpaceX was founded after Musk tried and failed to purchase a Russian rocket to land a greenhouse on Mars as a stunt.
- GW150914 8y ago
  Are you kidding? It’s expected to replace the Falcon Heavy for LEO launches and further bring down the $/kg for launches. To say it only makes sense for Mars goes against both common sense, and SpaceX’s own claims. From Wikipedia: BFR is planned to execute five diverse flight use cases:[75][5] legacy Earth-orbit satellite delivery market long-duration spaceflights in the cislunar region Mars transportation, both as cargo ships as well as passenger-carrying transport long-duration flights to the outer planets, for cargo and astronauts[76] commercial passenger travel on Earth, competing with long-range aircraft[77] Musk and Shotwell have touted the ability of BFR to carry passengers on suborbital flights between any two points on Earth in under one hour.[62][78] Launching sattelites and ferrying people are things they can actually do alone, while the rest is very much a pipe dream requiring massive hpthird party investment. Again, putting aside “stuff Musk says” you’re left with strong commercial applications for BFR that have nothing to do with Mars. While it could be used for Mars, SpaceX has no plans to make that happen and acknowledged the vast amount of third party effort required. See: In July 2017, Musk indicated that the architecture had "evolved quite a bit" since the 2016 articulation of the Mars architecture. A key driver of the updated architecture was to be making the system useful for substantial Earth-orbit and cislunar launches so that the system might pay for itself, in part, through economic spaceflight activities in the near-Earth space zone.[49] BFR is planned to execute five diverse flight use cases:[75][5] legacy Earth-orbit satellite delivery market long-duration spaceflights in the cislunar region Mars transportation, both as cargo ships as well as passenger-carrying transport long-duration flights to the outer planets, for cargo and astronauts[76] commercial passenger travel on Earth, competing with long-range aircraft[77] Musk and Shotwell have touted the ability of BFR to carry passengers on suborbital flights between any two points on Earth in under one hour.[62][78] Finally SpaceX have indicated that they only intend to create the transport system to Mars, and that other aspects of colonization (habitats, mining, etc.) will need to be contributed by third parties.[28] A successful colonization would ultimately involve many more economic actors—whether individuals, companies, or governments—to facilitate the growth of the human presence on Mars over many decades.[29][30][31][5][32] Work contributed by others will allow colonization to progress far beyond what SpaceX projects to build alone.[24]
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Everything here is completely consistent with what Musk has been saying from day one - he wants to open up Mars to humanity, not to colonize it by himself. As for BFR, so sure, they found some extra uses after reviewing newest design. They have to earn the money for the Mars mission. But the story has been completely transparent from day one - SpaceX is means to an end, to get people to Mars. All their developments - from reusable launches to BFR - are directly in line with this goal. If Musk was in for the money, there are many easier ways for a person with his resources to multiply their wealth. When you see a group of people that claim to pursue a particular goal, and then spend a decade doing exactly that, you should consider giving them the benefit of the doubt and assume they might be actually honest about it.
    - GW150914 8y ago
      It depends on how wealthy you want to be. If you want a few billion, no doubt. I’d you want Bezos money... much harder. If you want to be the first trillionaire, the equivalent of temple railroad barons for space? No, this is pretty much it. He already hit the first mark, and I think he’s aiming for the third with the second along the way. I also think he likes rocketry and being seen as a visionary and a hero, and PayPal money wasn’t going to get him any of that. He’s clearly very into risky endeavors and relentless self-promotion; his cult of personality didn’t build itself. He also clearly likes to make money, and win against the odds. I think if you look for the intersection of all of his more obvious needs and desires SpaceX makes sense in the commercial sense.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I was thinking of various replies to this, but then I realized I don’t really want to have a conversation with someone who starts their comment with “Are you kidding?” Suffice to say that if you wanted to build a rocket to launch satellites as cheaply as possible, the result wouldn’t be an A380-sized spaceship with enough living space for a hundred people.
- walrus01 8y ago
  BFR is not overkill if you want to launch huge numbers of satellites into LEO. Look at their recent falcon9 multi-satellite per rocket launches for iridium. Now scale that up to 30-40 sats per launch and the second stage is fully resused. Or if you want to launch really gargantuan things into geostationary transfer orbit. Right now the largest satellite that's ever been put in geostationary orbit is about 7000 kilograms. Imagine the transponder capability, and solar panel power generation ability if you were able to launch a 18000 kg satellite into GTO.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    It doesn’t matter how many satellites you’re launching, BFS has a lot of stuff on it that you don’t need for satellites. It can get away with that because reusability means it’s still cheap, but if satellite launches were your goal you’d skip the solar panels and living quarters and in-orbit refueling and a bunch of other stuff.
    - walrus01 8y ago
      They have announced that there is going to be a cargo-carrying version of the BFR. As I understand it right now there will be: a) tanker b) cargo variant c) passenger variant all of which share a common first stage. with (b) and (c) capable of refueling in LEO from the tanker, for the required delta-V for earth escape / transfer orbit to mars.
    - liftbigweights 8y ago
      What does that have to do with "why spacex was founded"? The only person who would know why spacex was founded was the guy would founded it. Elon Musk. The guy said why he founded spacex. What more is there? If you have issues with the progress of achieving the goal. Fine. But that has nothing to do with the founding of the company.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        The conversation here is not just about why they were founded, but their current purpose as a company. Why they were founded is, of course, a major driver of that. The BFR's design confirms that this purpose continues.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  > BFR is absurd overkill for anything related to commercial LEO. They thought the 747 was absurd overkill, too. Until it started making huge profits for Boeing for decades.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Boeing made the 747 because Pan Am asked them for an airplane that could carry 400 people. https://www.investors.com/news/management/leaders-and-success/juan-trippe-founded-pan-am-airways/ https://www.investors.com/news/management/leaders-and-succes...
    - WalterBright 8y ago
      Pan Am provided much of the money, too. "The Great Gamble: The Boeing 747" by Laurence Kuter
liftbigweights 8y ago
> What is the evidence of that, aside from “stuff Musk says” of course? Shouldn't a statement from the founder of spacex be enough? The guy who founded spacex said he founded spacex to get to mars. What more evidence do you need as to why spacex was founded? What other answer can he give other than what the founder said?
- mikeash 8y ago
  The story about how he went to Moscow to try to buy an ICBM to land a greenhouse on Mars, couldn’t work out a deal, and basically said “I’ll build my own rockets, with blackjack, and hookers” is corroborates by the people who went with him, too. This is a really bizarre conversation all around.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    I just want to say, as an outside observer, that your comments throughout this thread have been awful. You consistently miss other peoples’ point, pick fights, shift the goalposts, and rely on logical fallacies. The people responding to you, while flawed, generally have done so with good faith reasoning and citations. You seem really out of touch with both the space industry and the social dynamics of this conversation.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      Can you elaborate? I honestly don’t see where I’ve done any of that.

mikeash 8y ago

They’re pouring almost all of their R&D effort into a massive rocket that only really makes sense if you want to go to Mars. BFR is absurd overkill for anything related to commercial LEO. My statement also has another meaning: SpaceX was founded after Musk tried and failed to purchase a Russian rocket to land a greenhouse on Mars as a stunt.

GW150914 8y ago
Are you kidding? It’s expected to replace the Falcon Heavy for LEO launches and further bring down the $/kg for launches. To say it only makes sense for Mars goes against both common sense, and SpaceX’s own claims. From Wikipedia: BFR is planned to execute five diverse flight use cases:[75][5] legacy Earth-orbit satellite delivery market long-duration spaceflights in the cislunar region Mars transportation, both as cargo ships as well as passenger-carrying transport long-duration flights to the outer planets, for cargo and astronauts[76] commercial passenger travel on Earth, competing with long-range aircraft[77] Musk and Shotwell have touted the ability of BFR to carry passengers on suborbital flights between any two points on Earth in under one hour.[62][78] Launching sattelites and ferrying people are things they can actually do alone, while the rest is very much a pipe dream requiring massive hpthird party investment. Again, putting aside “stuff Musk says” you’re left with strong commercial applications for BFR that have nothing to do with Mars. While it could be used for Mars, SpaceX has no plans to make that happen and acknowledged the vast amount of third party effort required. See: In July 2017, Musk indicated that the architecture had "evolved quite a bit" since the 2016 articulation of the Mars architecture. A key driver of the updated architecture was to be making the system useful for substantial Earth-orbit and cislunar launches so that the system might pay for itself, in part, through economic spaceflight activities in the near-Earth space zone.[49] BFR is planned to execute five diverse flight use cases:[75][5] legacy Earth-orbit satellite delivery market long-duration spaceflights in the cislunar region Mars transportation, both as cargo ships as well as passenger-carrying transport long-duration flights to the outer planets, for cargo and astronauts[76] commercial passenger travel on Earth, competing with long-range aircraft[77] Musk and Shotwell have touted the ability of BFR to carry passengers on suborbital flights between any two points on Earth in under one hour.[62][78] Finally SpaceX have indicated that they only intend to create the transport system to Mars, and that other aspects of colonization (habitats, mining, etc.) will need to be contributed by third parties.[28] A successful colonization would ultimately involve many more economic actors—whether individuals, companies, or governments—to facilitate the growth of the human presence on Mars over many decades.[29][30][31][5][32] Work contributed by others will allow colonization to progress far beyond what SpaceX projects to build alone.[24]
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Everything here is completely consistent with what Musk has been saying from day one - he wants to open up Mars to humanity, not to colonize it by himself. As for BFR, so sure, they found some extra uses after reviewing newest design. They have to earn the money for the Mars mission. But the story has been completely transparent from day one - SpaceX is means to an end, to get people to Mars. All their developments - from reusable launches to BFR - are directly in line with this goal. If Musk was in for the money, there are many easier ways for a person with his resources to multiply their wealth. When you see a group of people that claim to pursue a particular goal, and then spend a decade doing exactly that, you should consider giving them the benefit of the doubt and assume they might be actually honest about it.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    It depends on how wealthy you want to be. If you want a few billion, no doubt. I’d you want Bezos money... much harder. If you want to be the first trillionaire, the equivalent of temple railroad barons for space? No, this is pretty much it. He already hit the first mark, and I think he’s aiming for the third with the second along the way. I also think he likes rocketry and being seen as a visionary and a hero, and PayPal money wasn’t going to get him any of that. He’s clearly very into risky endeavors and relentless self-promotion; his cult of personality didn’t build itself. He also clearly likes to make money, and win against the odds. I think if you look for the intersection of all of his more obvious needs and desires SpaceX makes sense in the commercial sense.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- mikeash 8y ago
  I was thinking of various replies to this, but then I realized I don’t really want to have a conversation with someone who starts their comment with “Are you kidding?” Suffice to say that if you wanted to build a rocket to launch satellites as cheaply as possible, the result wouldn’t be an A380-sized spaceship with enough living space for a hundred people.
walrus01 8y ago
BFR is not overkill if you want to launch huge numbers of satellites into LEO. Look at their recent falcon9 multi-satellite per rocket launches for iridium. Now scale that up to 30-40 sats per launch and the second stage is fully resused. Or if you want to launch really gargantuan things into geostationary transfer orbit. Right now the largest satellite that's ever been put in geostationary orbit is about 7000 kilograms. Imagine the transponder capability, and solar panel power generation ability if you were able to launch a 18000 kg satellite into GTO.
- mikeash 8y ago
  It doesn’t matter how many satellites you’re launching, BFS has a lot of stuff on it that you don’t need for satellites. It can get away with that because reusability means it’s still cheap, but if satellite launches were your goal you’d skip the solar panels and living quarters and in-orbit refueling and a bunch of other stuff.
  - walrus01 8y ago
    They have announced that there is going to be a cargo-carrying version of the BFR. As I understand it right now there will be: a) tanker b) cargo variant c) passenger variant all of which share a common first stage. with (b) and (c) capable of refueling in LEO from the tanker, for the required delta-V for earth escape / transfer orbit to mars.
  - liftbigweights 8y ago
    What does that have to do with "why spacex was founded"? The only person who would know why spacex was founded was the guy would founded it. Elon Musk. The guy said why he founded spacex. What more is there? If you have issues with the progress of achieving the goal. Fine. But that has nothing to do with the founding of the company.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      The conversation here is not just about why they were founded, but their current purpose as a company. Why they were founded is, of course, a major driver of that. The BFR's design confirms that this purpose continues.
WalterBright 8y ago
> BFR is absurd overkill for anything related to commercial LEO. They thought the 747 was absurd overkill, too. Until it started making huge profits for Boeing for decades.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Boeing made the 747 because Pan Am asked them for an airplane that could carry 400 people. https://www.investors.com/news/management/leaders-and-success/juan-trippe-founded-pan-am-airways/ https://www.investors.com/news/management/leaders-and-succes...
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    Pan Am provided much of the money, too. "The Great Gamble: The Boeing 747" by Laurence Kuter

liftbigweights 8y ago

> What is the evidence of that, aside from “stuff Musk says” of course? Shouldn't a statement from the founder of spacex be enough? The guy who founded spacex said he founded spacex to get to mars. What more evidence do you need as to why spacex was founded? What other answer can he give other than what the founder said?

mikeash 8y ago
The story about how he went to Moscow to try to buy an ICBM to land a greenhouse on Mars, couldn’t work out a deal, and basically said “I’ll build my own rockets, with blackjack, and hookers” is corroborates by the people who went with him, too. This is a really bizarre conversation all around.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  I just want to say, as an outside observer, that your comments throughout this thread have been awful. You consistently miss other peoples’ point, pick fights, shift the goalposts, and rely on logical fallacies. The people responding to you, while flawed, generally have done so with good faith reasoning and citations. You seem really out of touch with both the space industry and the social dynamics of this conversation.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Can you elaborate? I honestly don’t see where I’ve done any of that.