6 ms·

SpaceX is building a shuttle to get people to orbit and back -- Orion is meant to get people to Mars. I think the scale is different.

shmerl 12y ago
Aren't SpaceX also working on the Mars mission long term? How are they addressing the interplanetary flight?
- guardian5x 12y ago
  Maybe in the very longterm. SpaceX is at the moment in orbit where NASA was in the 60s. Going to the moon is a much greater distance than most people imagine. Not even speaking of Mars.
  - DavidSJ 12y ago
    > SpaceX is at the moment in orbit Not for long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory
  - sriram_sun 12y ago
    True. NASA is now where NASA would have been in the 70s or 80s if the initial momentum of going to the moon was maintained.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - TkTech 12y ago
    All of the planets in our solar system, including the gas giants, fit between the earth and the moon with a little bit of room to spare. http://i.imgur.com/CLqdeKf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/CLqdeKf.jpg People severely underestimate the distance to the moon!
    - Lambdanaut 12y ago
      For some more perspective. The layman should know that actually getting into Low Earth Orbit is BY FAR the most fuel-consuming burn of any rocket mission. Even on a mission to Mars, the most predominantly fuel-consuming burn will be to LEO. Getting to the moon from LEO takes less than half the delta-v that it takes to get to LEO, and WAY less fuel (because by this time you've dropped so much weight getting to LEO) So the real problem will always be the stupidly inefficient method by which we conduct space flight. We send all of our supplies out of an enormous gravity well with a thick atmosphere. Imagine what we could build if we already had everything in space for us already. The only way we'll be able to become truly space-fairing is if we either become an astroid-mining civilization, or if we build something that lets us virtually ignore Earth's gravity well, like a space elevator.
      - CodeGenie 12y ago
        I ask you this question because you seem to know what you're talking about, whereas I simply don't. Watching the launch today, I couldn't help wonder why they don't use standard jets to get the vehicle to a height where a rocket could take over. The highest a jet has flown is about 37km and LEO is considered to start at about 160km. That 37km though in my mind would be the toughest and most fuel costly to ascend. Would it not save both weight and money to use jets and fixed wings up through the low altitudes before turning to rockets for the higher altitude ascent?
        drgath 12y ago
        That's pretty much the approach of Virgin Galactic. Reasons why it works for them, but not for NASA would have to be explained by someone more qualified. I do know that VG barely gets into LEO, whereas NASA's requirements are much higher. In any case, I presume the scientists at NASA (and SpaceX & co) have considered just about every alternative, and the current approach still remains the most efficient for their needs.
        teraflop 12y ago
  - iamcreasy 12y ago
    Not really. Planetary Robotics Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University is building a lunar rover named Andy and they have already purchased a launch slot from SpaceX to send their rover to the moon. The projected launch date is October 2015. This team are also competiting for Google Lunar X Prize.
  - melling 12y ago
    How much of NASA's $20 billion budget is spent on spent flight? It's budget is quite small. Apple made $100 billion in fiscal 2014. Now can you imagine what a SpaceX with that kind of revenue could do? A self-sustaining business model is the better way to develop space technologies.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      > A self-sustaining business model is the better way to develop space technologies. It's a good way to improve space technologies. SpaceX builds on a lot of the research and development NASA did with taxpayer dollars, just as Apple benefited from government subsidy and investment in things like early computers and the Internet.
    - valarauca1 12y ago
      I strongly disagree. While for profit sounds great, and does work amazingly well at a large number of US, EU, and multi-national corporations. It also doesn't. Complex scientific programs can have developmental studies measured in decades. Which even very healthy multi-nations can't stomach. Selling a 50+ year ROI R&D program is really hard, and will likely get you laughed out of the boardroom. But this is ultimately something that happens in academia. Due to largely public funding. Because as an charitable entity profit doesn't necessarily interfere with development and/or research of new ideas. Your goal is literally to piss away money experimenting on things. While business and innovation to go hand in hand very happily. Business by definition don't transcend profitability. It is their goal. So while they do join hands for the short term, this is a short fling, not a life long love affair. :.:.: Also SpaceX does seem impressive. But everything they've currently done was done in the 1960's, without modern computing, or even integrated circuits. I like SpaceX but they are literally riding NASA's coat tails. A structural analysis of a rocket engine can be done in a CAD simulation. Instead of by 5 guys with slide rules, and an IBM batch processing computer barely performing 100 KFLOPS.
      - trhway 12y ago
        >But everything they've currently done was done in the 1960's, without modern computing, or even integrated circuits. I like SpaceX but they are literally riding NASA's coat tails. has been for now. Significant differences though start to appear - 1. their rockets are modular from the start (even Russia has trouble to get similar system - Angara - off the ground) 2. GrassHoper - self-explanatory 3. "Raptor" full flow staged combustion engine - once they get that one, they will become way ahead of any previous development.
- smackfu 12y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter
  - shmerl 12y ago
    Thanks. SapceX never made it a secret that their whole goal is flying to other planets. So the claim above about different scale sounded quite off.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I think it's worth noting that the working name for the rocket to launch this thing is the BFR. It stands for Big Rocket, and I'll let you figure out what the F stands for.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
Actually SpaceX is also building a system to get people to Mars and back. It is focused on the current money making opportunities however. I've not heard whether or not SpaceX has done the on-pad abort test they were planning for last month.
- yock 12y ago
  There hasn't been any official word, as far as I know, but the rumor has been that the pad abort originally intended for November might happen in January sometime.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
cdash 12y ago
This is not really true either. Orion can in no way shape or form get anyone to Mars. Maybe a modified Orion will be used as part of a plan to take humans to Mars but it is not capable of that on its own.
- mmanfrin 12y ago
  "Orion, which could one day take astronauts to Mars..." [1] "NASA just tested Orion — a spacecraft that might someday carry people to Mars" [2] "NASA and its commercial partners are designing Orion to take astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid in the 2020s, and to Mars and its moons in the 2030s" [3] "Orion will facilitate human exploration of the Moon, asteroids, and Mars." [4] "This time, the rocket was unnamed, but the craft is designed eventually to carry humans to Mars" [5] [1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/05/368652770/a-succesful-launch-for-nasas-orion-spacecraft http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/05/368652770/a-s... [2] http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7322909/orion-test-flight http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7322909/orion-test-flight [3] http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/splashdown-orion-spaceship-aces-first-flight-test-n262146 http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/splashdown-orion-spaces... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29 [5] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/05/nasa-launches-orion-spacecraft-in-boost-for-mars-mission http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/05/nasa-launches...
  - danielweber 12y ago
    You are repeating news sources that are repeating press releases. The Orion has less than 214 square feet of room. This isn't enough for 4 people to live in for 6 months. NASA says it's for Mars because it gets people excited. But Congress has not instructed them to do a mission to Mars, and Congress is in charge, for better or for worse. There is no mission to Mars.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      I would expect a Mars mission to be coupled to a living space during transit. Bigelow's inflatable modules might be a good fit, and they're testing one soon on the ISS.
InclinedPlane 12y ago
SpaceX is also working on a vehicle to transport humans and cargo (at incredible scale) to Mars routinely using reusable vehicles. And to be 100% clear, Orion is not capable of making the journey to Mars. Orion is envisioned as potentially being a key component of a larger system that could be used for Mars exploration, but by itself it is perhaps only maybe 10-20% or so of what would be needed for such a trip.
kevin_thibedeau 12y ago
Any practical Mars mission is going to require a staging area in LEO or a Lagrange point to assemble a larger interplanetary craft. Dragon will be up to that task.

shmerl 12y ago

Aren't SpaceX also working on the Mars mission long term? How are they addressing the interplanetary flight?

guardian5x 12y ago
Maybe in the very longterm. SpaceX is at the moment in orbit where NASA was in the 60s. Going to the moon is a much greater distance than most people imagine. Not even speaking of Mars.
- DavidSJ 12y ago
  > SpaceX is at the moment in orbit Not for long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory
- sriram_sun 12y ago
  True. NASA is now where NASA would have been in the 70s or 80s if the initial momentum of going to the moon was maintained.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- TkTech 12y ago
  All of the planets in our solar system, including the gas giants, fit between the earth and the moon with a little bit of room to spare. http://i.imgur.com/CLqdeKf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/CLqdeKf.jpg People severely underestimate the distance to the moon!
  - Lambdanaut 12y ago
    For some more perspective. The layman should know that actually getting into Low Earth Orbit is BY FAR the most fuel-consuming burn of any rocket mission. Even on a mission to Mars, the most predominantly fuel-consuming burn will be to LEO. Getting to the moon from LEO takes less than half the delta-v that it takes to get to LEO, and WAY less fuel (because by this time you've dropped so much weight getting to LEO) So the real problem will always be the stupidly inefficient method by which we conduct space flight. We send all of our supplies out of an enormous gravity well with a thick atmosphere. Imagine what we could build if we already had everything in space for us already. The only way we'll be able to become truly space-fairing is if we either become an astroid-mining civilization, or if we build something that lets us virtually ignore Earth's gravity well, like a space elevator.
    - CodeGenie 12y ago
      I ask you this question because you seem to know what you're talking about, whereas I simply don't. Watching the launch today, I couldn't help wonder why they don't use standard jets to get the vehicle to a height where a rocket could take over. The highest a jet has flown is about 37km and LEO is considered to start at about 160km. That 37km though in my mind would be the toughest and most fuel costly to ascend. Would it not save both weight and money to use jets and fixed wings up through the low altitudes before turning to rockets for the higher altitude ascent?
      - drgath 12y ago
        That's pretty much the approach of Virgin Galactic. Reasons why it works for them, but not for NASA would have to be explained by someone more qualified. I do know that VG barely gets into LEO, whereas NASA's requirements are much higher. In any case, I presume the scientists at NASA (and SpaceX & co) have considered just about every alternative, and the current approach still remains the most efficient for their needs.
        teraflop 12y ago
- iamcreasy 12y ago
  Not really. Planetary Robotics Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University is building a lunar rover named Andy and they have already purchased a launch slot from SpaceX to send their rover to the moon. The projected launch date is October 2015. This team are also competiting for Google Lunar X Prize.
- melling 12y ago
  How much of NASA's $20 billion budget is spent on spent flight? It's budget is quite small. Apple made $100 billion in fiscal 2014. Now can you imagine what a SpaceX with that kind of revenue could do? A self-sustaining business model is the better way to develop space technologies.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    > A self-sustaining business model is the better way to develop space technologies. It's a good way to improve space technologies. SpaceX builds on a lot of the research and development NASA did with taxpayer dollars, just as Apple benefited from government subsidy and investment in things like early computers and the Internet.
  - valarauca1 12y ago
    I strongly disagree. While for profit sounds great, and does work amazingly well at a large number of US, EU, and multi-national corporations. It also doesn't. Complex scientific programs can have developmental studies measured in decades. Which even very healthy multi-nations can't stomach. Selling a 50+ year ROI R&D program is really hard, and will likely get you laughed out of the boardroom. But this is ultimately something that happens in academia. Due to largely public funding. Because as an charitable entity profit doesn't necessarily interfere with development and/or research of new ideas. Your goal is literally to piss away money experimenting on things. While business and innovation to go hand in hand very happily. Business by definition don't transcend profitability. It is their goal. So while they do join hands for the short term, this is a short fling, not a life long love affair. :.:.: Also SpaceX does seem impressive. But everything they've currently done was done in the 1960's, without modern computing, or even integrated circuits. I like SpaceX but they are literally riding NASA's coat tails. A structural analysis of a rocket engine can be done in a CAD simulation. Instead of by 5 guys with slide rules, and an IBM batch processing computer barely performing 100 KFLOPS.
    - trhway 12y ago
      >But everything they've currently done was done in the 1960's, without modern computing, or even integrated circuits. I like SpaceX but they are literally riding NASA's coat tails. has been for now. Significant differences though start to appear - 1. their rockets are modular from the start (even Russia has trouble to get similar system - Angara - off the ground) 2. GrassHoper - self-explanatory 3. "Raptor" full flow staged combustion engine - once they get that one, they will become way ahead of any previous development.
smackfu 12y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter
- shmerl 12y ago
  Thanks. SapceX never made it a secret that their whole goal is flying to other planets. So the claim above about different scale sounded quite off.
- mikeash 12y ago
  I think it's worth noting that the working name for the rocket to launch this thing is the BFR. It stands for Big Rocket, and I'll let you figure out what the F stands for.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

Actually SpaceX is also building a system to get people to Mars and back. It is focused on the current money making opportunities however. I've not heard whether or not SpaceX has done the on-pad abort test they were planning for last month.

yock 12y ago
There hasn't been any official word, as far as I know, but the rumor has been that the pad abort originally intended for November might happen in January sometime.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

cdash 12y ago

This is not really true either. Orion can in no way shape or form get anyone to Mars. Maybe a modified Orion will be used as part of a plan to take humans to Mars but it is not capable of that on its own.

mmanfrin 12y ago
"Orion, which could one day take astronauts to Mars..." [1] "NASA just tested Orion — a spacecraft that might someday carry people to Mars" [2] "NASA and its commercial partners are designing Orion to take astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid in the 2020s, and to Mars and its moons in the 2030s" [3] "Orion will facilitate human exploration of the Moon, asteroids, and Mars." [4] "This time, the rocket was unnamed, but the craft is designed eventually to carry humans to Mars" [5] [1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/05/368652770/a-succesful-launch-for-nasas-orion-spacecraft http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/05/368652770/a-s... [2] http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7322909/orion-test-flight http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7322909/orion-test-flight [3] http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/splashdown-orion-spaceship-aces-first-flight-test-n262146 http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/splashdown-orion-spaces... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29 [5] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/05/nasa-launches-orion-spacecraft-in-boost-for-mars-mission http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/05/nasa-launches...
- danielweber 12y ago
  You are repeating news sources that are repeating press releases. The Orion has less than 214 square feet of room. This isn't enough for 4 people to live in for 6 months. NASA says it's for Mars because it gets people excited. But Congress has not instructed them to do a mission to Mars, and Congress is in charge, for better or for worse. There is no mission to Mars.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    I would expect a Mars mission to be coupled to a living space during transit. Bigelow's inflatable modules might be a good fit, and they're testing one soon on the ISS.

InclinedPlane 12y ago

SpaceX is also working on a vehicle to transport humans and cargo (at incredible scale) to Mars routinely using reusable vehicles. And to be 100% clear, Orion is not capable of making the journey to Mars. Orion is envisioned as potentially being a key component of a larger system that could be used for Mars exploration, but by itself it is perhaps only maybe 10-20% or so of what would be needed for such a trip.

kevin_thibedeau 12y ago

Any practical Mars mission is going to require a staging area in LEO or a Lagrange point to assemble a larger interplanetary craft. Dragon will be up to that task.