4 ms·

Depends. Over the next 2 years, I expect SpaceX to send a lot of probes out. First, mass to orbit is super cheap now. Second, part of the whole R&D for Mars

by b112 2y ago

Depends. Over the next 2 years, I expect SpaceX to send a lot of probes out. First, mass to orbit is super cheap now. Second, part of the whole R&D for Mars will be to try a variety of long range engine types and configs, and they love to iterate fast and play. So I expect probes sent in Mars' direction, but also elsewhere to explore. And I cannot stress this enough, they are clearly capable engineers, but these probes don't need 10 years of development and hyper engineering, because cost to orbit is meaningless. A probe fails? Who cares! You sent 5 different designs, and can just send more anyhow. NASA was concerned about cost to orbit, but also perception. A lost probe would be a "waste to taxpayers", and just getting launch windows was a chore. I remember some probes had to wait years for space on the shuttle, so constrained was lift frequency. But SpaceX is OK with blowing stuff up during tests, with learning as they go. So I imagine 2 years max, they'll be spewing satellites all over the place, without a concern if they fail early, or even make it. Yet some will. Many will. And you can bet some will head to asteroids. Note: at this point someone usually chimes in with how hostile space is, and cheap probes won't work, and yada yada. I didn't say cheap. Cheap implies skimping out on part quality or construction. You don't need to do that, as the parts are not remotely expensive compared to R&D, dev time and custom build work. In fact if one removes R&D, part cost isn't noticeable. This means that scale is cheap. Building 1000 probes is almost the same cost as 1. And launch is now super cheap. Access to Space is on the verge of when airplanes became unremarkable. And it's coming faster than we think.

elihu 2y ago
I hope SpaceX does as you say and starts sending a lot of probes, but a lot really depends on the whims of Elon. There isn't really a strong business case for scattering probes around the solar system. Starlink makes money. Selling launch capabilities to NASA makes money. Doing basic science? Establishing a Mars colony? Those sound more like the kind of thing that isn't going to happen unless Elon insists they do it, and it seems like maybe he's not as interested in space exploration these days as he is in trying to get Donald Trump elected to another term.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  > but a lot really depends on the whims of Elon. It will depend on the level of competition in the launch market. If there's another reusable launcher (Blue Origin, say) then SpaceX will be constrained to not mark up the price too much and prices will be closer to costs, and anyone will be able to benefit from the cost reduction that allows large projects like this.
- randallsquared 2y ago
  > maybe he's not as interested in space exploration these days as he is in trying to get Donald Trump elected to another term. I think he's been pretty transparent that his recent interest in politics is downstream of his belief that Tesla and SpaceX will (continue to) be constrained by political action by one side more than the other.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    And by transphobia.
  - idiotsecant 2y ago
    I think its entirely possible that he's an old man settling into a 'shakes fist at clouds' mindset and justifying supporting it by telling himself its the right business move. In reality I think he's a narcissist who is getting addicted to the limelight and this is just another stunt to get people to talk about him. I don't think its a business decision.
- foobarian 2y ago
  What happened to asteroid mining? I wonder if positive ID of a solid gold/platinum rock would spur more missions that way. The issue is it's not easy to get that material back down.
  - BirAdam 2y ago
    Even silver, palladium, or cobalt in significant quantities could be sufficient motivation if the craft to harness the rock is cheap enough to make, launch, and operate. SpaceX is just the kind of company that would be able to do such a thing were anyone to do it. I bring up these other metals just to point out that while Gold or Platinum is what we always think of, industrial metals would also work to motivate.
sandworm101 2y ago
SpaceX rockets are not optimized for probes, for the higher speeds needed to toss stuff at interplanetary speeds. Sure, they can haul more to orbit and a customer could stack an additional stage, but that is very expensive compared to rockets with established cryogenic/efficient/faster upper stages. SpaceX is optimized for what it is doing (LEO/GEO) and, despite the presentations, shows little engineering interest in exploration beyond the moon.
- fragmede 2y ago
  You have to get a lot of stuff into LEO in order to get to the Moon and beyond. Crawl, walk, run.
- b112 2y ago
  To get to the moon SpaceX needs to go beyond LEO. You cannot say in one breath that non-leo isn't their wheelhouse, then in another say it is. Further, my post mentions new propulsion designs. You're also 1980s thinking launches are expensive. They're cheap, and mass to orbit is cheap, and going to get much cheaper. We all need to understand the change that is coming. Getting to space is being removed as a barrier. Think about projects where mass to orbit cost is unimportant, or think of projects where many launches is not a concern. Think of 1000 super light, highly disposable attempts to make tiny sensor platforms which can endure distance, environment, and time. Keep in mind losing 1/2 of them, even all is just fine, if you gleam valuable data to iterate and move down a path of low cost, tiny workable design. It's not 1980. Cost to space is cheap. We now need to work on cost to planets, and even other solar systems. We need to test engine designs, new methods of hardening platforms, all with low cost, simple designs. And to others, yes, space is hostile. So? That's why we're iterating on a fix.
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    >> Keep in mind losing 1/2 of them, even all is just fine, The cost difference between a spacecraft with a 50% failure rate and one with a 1% failure rate is basically not a thing. If you are at 50% success then you are already doing 99% of the job correctly. It is comparable to professional sports. If your NFL team wins a game or two during a season, you must be doing 99% of things right. >> It's not 1980. Cost to space is cheap. The cost for an interplanetary shot hasn't changed all that much recently. The SpaceX stuff is efficient to LEO/GEO and the moon... at a stretch. (Even the moon would require a variety of new refueling techs.)
m4rtink 2y ago
You can already see this with all the various lunar landers - quite a crash fest so far, but thenlatest iteration already performs better than the previous one. Can't really imagone similar progress with modern it-must-work-first-time NASA. :)
fpoling 2y ago
The problem with this is that presently it takes years for a probe to reach the destination. So one cannot do a quick try-observe-tinker loop. Granted with cheaper access to orbit the time can be reduced by using more fuel, but still space is huge.

by b112 2y ago

elihu 2y ago

I hope SpaceX does as you say and starts sending a lot of probes, but a lot really depends on the whims of Elon. There isn't really a strong business case for scattering probes around the solar system. Starlink makes money. Selling launch capabilities to NASA makes money. Doing basic science? Establishing a Mars colony? Those sound more like the kind of thing that isn't going to happen unless Elon insists they do it, and it seems like maybe he's not as interested in space exploration these days as he is in trying to get Donald Trump elected to another term.

pfdietz 2y ago
> but a lot really depends on the whims of Elon. It will depend on the level of competition in the launch market. If there's another reusable launcher (Blue Origin, say) then SpaceX will be constrained to not mark up the price too much and prices will be closer to costs, and anyone will be able to benefit from the cost reduction that allows large projects like this.
randallsquared 2y ago
> maybe he's not as interested in space exploration these days as he is in trying to get Donald Trump elected to another term. I think he's been pretty transparent that his recent interest in politics is downstream of his belief that Tesla and SpaceX will (continue to) be constrained by political action by one side more than the other.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  And by transphobia.
- idiotsecant 2y ago
  I think its entirely possible that he's an old man settling into a 'shakes fist at clouds' mindset and justifying supporting it by telling himself its the right business move. In reality I think he's a narcissist who is getting addicted to the limelight and this is just another stunt to get people to talk about him. I don't think its a business decision.
foobarian 2y ago
What happened to asteroid mining? I wonder if positive ID of a solid gold/platinum rock would spur more missions that way. The issue is it's not easy to get that material back down.
- BirAdam 2y ago
  Even silver, palladium, or cobalt in significant quantities could be sufficient motivation if the craft to harness the rock is cheap enough to make, launch, and operate. SpaceX is just the kind of company that would be able to do such a thing were anyone to do it. I bring up these other metals just to point out that while Gold or Platinum is what we always think of, industrial metals would also work to motivate.

sandworm101 2y ago

SpaceX rockets are not optimized for probes, for the higher speeds needed to toss stuff at interplanetary speeds. Sure, they can haul more to orbit and a customer could stack an additional stage, but that is very expensive compared to rockets with established cryogenic/efficient/faster upper stages. SpaceX is optimized for what it is doing (LEO/GEO) and, despite the presentations, shows little engineering interest in exploration beyond the moon.

fragmede 2y ago
You have to get a lot of stuff into LEO in order to get to the Moon and beyond. Crawl, walk, run.
b112 2y ago
To get to the moon SpaceX needs to go beyond LEO. You cannot say in one breath that non-leo isn't their wheelhouse, then in another say it is. Further, my post mentions new propulsion designs. You're also 1980s thinking launches are expensive. They're cheap, and mass to orbit is cheap, and going to get much cheaper. We all need to understand the change that is coming. Getting to space is being removed as a barrier. Think about projects where mass to orbit cost is unimportant, or think of projects where many launches is not a concern. Think of 1000 super light, highly disposable attempts to make tiny sensor platforms which can endure distance, environment, and time. Keep in mind losing 1/2 of them, even all is just fine, if you gleam valuable data to iterate and move down a path of low cost, tiny workable design. It's not 1980. Cost to space is cheap. We now need to work on cost to planets, and even other solar systems. We need to test engine designs, new methods of hardening platforms, all with low cost, simple designs. And to others, yes, space is hostile. So? That's why we're iterating on a fix.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  >> Keep in mind losing 1/2 of them, even all is just fine, The cost difference between a spacecraft with a 50% failure rate and one with a 1% failure rate is basically not a thing. If you are at 50% success then you are already doing 99% of the job correctly. It is comparable to professional sports. If your NFL team wins a game or two during a season, you must be doing 99% of things right. >> It's not 1980. Cost to space is cheap. The cost for an interplanetary shot hasn't changed all that much recently. The SpaceX stuff is efficient to LEO/GEO and the moon... at a stretch. (Even the moon would require a variety of new refueling techs.)

m4rtink 2y ago

You can already see this with all the various lunar landers - quite a crash fest so far, but thenlatest iteration already performs better than the previous one. Can't really imagone similar progress with modern it-must-work-first-time NASA. :)

fpoling 2y ago

The problem with this is that presently it takes years for a probe to reach the destination. So one cannot do a quick try-observe-tinker loop. Granted with cheaper access to orbit the time can be reduced by using more fuel, but still space is huge.