4 ms·

>Your figures are absurd FUD. Space travel is nowhere near that expensive. This is what I hate about space enthusiasts. You do a back-of-the-envelop calculati

by tsotha 14y ago

>Your figures are absurd FUD. Space travel is nowhere near that expensive. This is what I hate about space enthusiasts. You do a back-of-the-envelop calculation ignoring all the political wrangling, the on-again, off-again political support, the inevitable development setbacks, etc. In other words, you ignore the cost drivers of every single other space program in history and come up with a number that's an order of magnitude (at least) too low. If you actually got political approval for such a thing taxpayers would (justly) feel hoodwinked as program costs spiral upwards. It would be lucky to survive to completion. Based on other big government projects (like the F-22, for instance), the $1T figure is probably a little on the low side. The idea you could send people to Mars and bring them back for $50Bn, less than it costs to build a HSR line from LA to San Francisco, is sheer stupidity.

cryptoz 14y ago
The mission we're talking about does not require political support. All of your arguments stem from big government waste, taxpayer indecision, etc. And you'd be right, if we were talking about NASA. But we're not. Why are you comparing daring space missions to rail or airplanes?! How about comparing to other space missions? Take the Apollo program. The entire program, with six moon landings, cost about $100 billion in 2010 dollars, and it was done half a century ago. We have momentum, private industry that is not tied to taxpayer whims, and a half a century of technology and advancement. Yes, Mars is tougher than the Moon - but not that much tougher. Space travel just isn't as expensive as you think it is. Not anymore.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  When you look at the itemized breakdown of the Apollo program costs, and realize that much of the work is already done were we to attempt it again, the picture looks even better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost The launch vehicles that SpaceX would/will be using will be already completed and tested, as will most required facilities. The DSN is pretty mature these days, and could probably handle a manned mission to Mars without much overhauling. As a stupidly simplified analysis, assuming that the 125million estimated cost of a Falcon Heavy remains the same wherever you point it, 1 trillion USD will get you 8 thousand launches. Assuming you use one thousand Falcon 9 launches for the initial setup and manned mission to get there, which is absurd, you would still have enough money left over to do more than 10 support flights a month for the next 50 years. (I think it is fair to say that if you need that many support flights, you shouldn't be on Mars anyway. The ISS needs a fraction of that.) Again, stupidly simplified, 8000 Falcon Heavy flights would get you 112,000,000 kg into trans-Mars orbit. That is something like one and a half RMS Queen Mary's or almost two and a half Titanics. Of course the R&D/materials for the manned spacecraft itself, the continuous mission support, the R&D/materials of any habitat, etc are all going to be very expensive. But that expensive? I don't think so.
- tsotha 14y ago
  >We have momentum, private industry that is not tied to taxpayer whims, and a half a century of technology and advancement. That's a pipe dream. For private industry to do this there has to be a profit motive, and in this case there isn't. There's no way you can make money going to Mars, and getting sponsored by Red Bull isn't going to defray the costs much. When Elon Musk says Mars is the goal, he means he's intent on providing a capability the rest of us will be expected to pay for. >Yes, Mars is tougher than the Moon - but not that much tougher. Space travel just isn't as expensive as you think it is. Not anymore. There's a hell of a lot more to a Mars mission than getting everything to Mars. We couldn't do it today even if the rocket was free. And it won't be. Even beyond the obvious engineering problems there are still a lot of things we just don't know how to do in the constraints of the vessel. We have no practical way of protecting the crew from the radiation they'll be exposed to, for example. We don't know how to build an environmental system that guaranteed (more or less) to work for five years. We don't know how to keep astronauts in good physical and mental condition over those kinds of time frames. The list is endless. Mars is like Apollo in the same way an Everest ascent is like camping in your back yard. You are grossly underestimating the difficulty of what you're proposing, which is why you find your tiny cost estimate credible.
  - cryptoz 14y ago
    > That's a pipe dream. For private industry to do this there has to be a profit motive, and in this case there isn't. A ridiculous proposition. Anyone who can not think of a potential profit motive for going to Mars isn't thinking very big or very long. Making a list is left as an exercise to the reader. > When Elon Musk says Mars is the goal, he means he's intent on providing a capability the rest of us will be expected to pay for. For colonization, yes. But that's fair - and it ties to a profit motive ("Live on Mars, for the price of a middle-class home!" the ad campaigns may go). But for the initial trip, whereby he proves his company and technology? Surely not. > Even beyond the obvious engineering problems there are still a lot of things we just don't know how to do in the constraints of the vessel. We have no practical way of protecting the crew from the radiation they'll be exposed to, for example. We don't know how to build an environmental system that guaranteed (more or less) to work for five years. We don't know how to keep astronauts in good physical and mental condition over those kinds of time frames. The list is endless. That's what the $50 billion and more-than-a-decade is for. > Mars is like Apollo in the same way an Everest ascent is like camping in your back yard. I'm not going to even answer that. So absurd. > You are grossly underestimating the difficulty of what you're proposing, which is why you find your tiny cost estimate credible. You are the only one on the planet who I have heard of who suggests the cost would approach anything near $1T. It is you who is way off the mark when compared to professional estimates.

by tsotha 14y ago

cryptoz 14y ago

The mission we're talking about does not require political support. All of your arguments stem from big government waste, taxpayer indecision, etc. And you'd be right, if we were talking about NASA. But we're not. Why are you comparing daring space missions to rail or airplanes?! How about comparing to other space missions? Take the Apollo program. The entire program, with six moon landings, cost about $100 billion in 2010 dollars, and it was done half a century ago. We have momentum, private industry that is not tied to taxpayer whims, and a half a century of technology and advancement. Yes, Mars is tougher than the Moon - but not that much tougher. Space travel just isn't as expensive as you think it is. Not anymore.

jlgreco 14y ago
When you look at the itemized breakdown of the Apollo program costs, and realize that much of the work is already done were we to attempt it again, the picture looks even better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost The launch vehicles that SpaceX would/will be using will be already completed and tested, as will most required facilities. The DSN is pretty mature these days, and could probably handle a manned mission to Mars without much overhauling. As a stupidly simplified analysis, assuming that the 125million estimated cost of a Falcon Heavy remains the same wherever you point it, 1 trillion USD will get you 8 thousand launches. Assuming you use one thousand Falcon 9 launches for the initial setup and manned mission to get there, which is absurd, you would still have enough money left over to do more than 10 support flights a month for the next 50 years. (I think it is fair to say that if you need that many support flights, you shouldn't be on Mars anyway. The ISS needs a fraction of that.) Again, stupidly simplified, 8000 Falcon Heavy flights would get you 112,000,000 kg into trans-Mars orbit. That is something like one and a half RMS Queen Mary's or almost two and a half Titanics. Of course the R&D/materials for the manned spacecraft itself, the continuous mission support, the R&D/materials of any habitat, etc are all going to be very expensive. But that expensive? I don't think so.
tsotha 14y ago
>We have momentum, private industry that is not tied to taxpayer whims, and a half a century of technology and advancement. That's a pipe dream. For private industry to do this there has to be a profit motive, and in this case there isn't. There's no way you can make money going to Mars, and getting sponsored by Red Bull isn't going to defray the costs much. When Elon Musk says Mars is the goal, he means he's intent on providing a capability the rest of us will be expected to pay for. >Yes, Mars is tougher than the Moon - but not that much tougher. Space travel just isn't as expensive as you think it is. Not anymore. There's a hell of a lot more to a Mars mission than getting everything to Mars. We couldn't do it today even if the rocket was free. And it won't be. Even beyond the obvious engineering problems there are still a lot of things we just don't know how to do in the constraints of the vessel. We have no practical way of protecting the crew from the radiation they'll be exposed to, for example. We don't know how to build an environmental system that guaranteed (more or less) to work for five years. We don't know how to keep astronauts in good physical and mental condition over those kinds of time frames. The list is endless. Mars is like Apollo in the same way an Everest ascent is like camping in your back yard. You are grossly underestimating the difficulty of what you're proposing, which is why you find your tiny cost estimate credible.
- cryptoz 14y ago
  > That's a pipe dream. For private industry to do this there has to be a profit motive, and in this case there isn't. A ridiculous proposition. Anyone who can not think of a potential profit motive for going to Mars isn't thinking very big or very long. Making a list is left as an exercise to the reader. > When Elon Musk says Mars is the goal, he means he's intent on providing a capability the rest of us will be expected to pay for. For colonization, yes. But that's fair - and it ties to a profit motive ("Live on Mars, for the price of a middle-class home!" the ad campaigns may go). But for the initial trip, whereby he proves his company and technology? Surely not. > Even beyond the obvious engineering problems there are still a lot of things we just don't know how to do in the constraints of the vessel. We have no practical way of protecting the crew from the radiation they'll be exposed to, for example. We don't know how to build an environmental system that guaranteed (more or less) to work for five years. We don't know how to keep astronauts in good physical and mental condition over those kinds of time frames. The list is endless. That's what the $50 billion and more-than-a-decade is for. > Mars is like Apollo in the same way an Everest ascent is like camping in your back yard. I'm not going to even answer that. So absurd. > You are grossly underestimating the difficulty of what you're proposing, which is why you find your tiny cost estimate credible. You are the only one on the planet who I have heard of who suggests the cost would approach anything near $1T. It is you who is way off the mark when compared to professional estimates.