SpaceX: No One Laughs Anymore When We Talk About Colonizing Mars
57 replies, posted
[QUOTE]When Elon Musk founded SpaceX, way back in 2002, the plan was to colonize Mars. The company is now profitable, America’s number one choice for flying astronauts to the International Space Station, and thinking about building a satellite-based internet to connect the world. But all of those are stepping stones for the Mars plan, which is very much still the focus of the company.
“We’re not shy about talking about Mars, which would be an extraordinary step for humans, to actually have a settlement there,” SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said Tuesday at the Satellite conference in Washington, DC. “The whole company is geared up on that, everybody’s eye is on the Red Planet.”
Mars One, a long shot, crowdsourced plan to colonize Mars, ​is apparently in shambles, so, even on the non-SpaceX front, there’s not much in the way of a concrete plan to get to Mars. We know that SpaceX is developing a methane-based rocket engine known as Raptor to get to Mars, but beyond that, much of it is speculative. That said, the company is still deadly serious about getting there, eventually.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]And a new rocket
SpaceX is doing a reboot of its Falcon 9 rocket this summer, when it plans to start using what it’s calling the “Full Performance Falcon 9,” or version 1.2 of the Falcon 9. The new Falcon 9 will boost the rocket’s performance by about 30 percent over the one that’s being flown now. Shotwell said the reworked rocket will let the company land the rocket for reuse a little easier.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://motherboard.vice.com/read/spacex-no-one-laughs-anymore-when-we-talk-about-colonizing-mars?utm_source=mbfb[/url]
Falcon 9 1.2!
[QUOTE]Mars One, a long shot, crowdsourced plan to colonize Mars, ​is apparently in shambles, so, even on the non-SpaceX front, there’s not much in the way of a concrete plan to get to Mars.[/QUOTE]
I never took Mars One as a serious project - the concept was just completely ridiculous. SpaceX was the only one who could manage it from the start.
I haven't stopped laughing at Mars One yet.
I'd really like to hear what changes they're making to the Falcon 9 to get 30% more performance. With gains like that, I'm guessing it's substantial - maybe they redesigned the engines as staged-combustion rockets instead of gas-generator cycle? Or a switch to LOX+Methane instead of LOX+RP1? It's gotta be more than just incremental improvements, they were already basically the best rocket in its class.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;47344336]I'd really like to hear what changes they're making to the Falcon 9 to get 30% more performance. With gains like that, I'm guessing it's substantial - maybe they redesigned the engines as staged-combustion rockets instead of gas-generator cycle? Or a switch to LOX+Methane instead of LOX+RP1? It's gotta be more than just incremental improvements, they were already basically the best rocket in its class.[/QUOTE]
SpaceX currently does not have hardware to test methalox engines at their test site, so it's not that.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;47344336]I'd really like to hear what changes they're making to the Falcon 9 to get 30% more performance. With gains like that, I'm guessing it's substantial - maybe they redesigned the engines as staged-combustion rockets instead of gas-generator cycle? Or a switch to LOX+Methane instead of LOX+RP1? It's gotta be more than just incremental improvements, they were already basically the best rocket in its class.[/QUOTE]
Fuckin' science that's what.
It's ok, all the deadbeats who think space travel/exploration is useless and not our future can stay on this planet while we're off exploring the wonders of the universe in the future #wishfulthinking. If i could get a guarantee that sometime before i die in the future i could actually see the stars from the other side of the earth's atmosphere then i'd gladly donate 80% of my tax for the rest of my life to Space Research.
as much of a mess as MarsOne was, it got more public interest in colonizing mars
SpaceX is great, but I still think the actual establishment of a permanent colony on Mars is many many decades away from now.
I still don't think we should send people to Mars without a way to get them back. The people who would be qualified for such an undertaking are the last people we want to send 225 million kilometres away and never bring them back
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47344582]I still don't think we should send people to Mars without a way to get them back. The people who would be qualified for such an undertaking are the last people we want to send 225 million kilometres away and never bring them back[/QUOTE]
Had you actually read the article, you would have been told that SpaceX is not considering one-way missions.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47344582]I still don't think we should send people to Mars without a way to get them back. The people who would be qualified for such an undertaking are the last people we want to send 225 million kilometres away and never bring them back[/QUOTE]
" They can come back if they like, if they don't like it, of course. You get a free return ticket. There's sometimes a debate about going to Mars one-way and whether that makes things easier, and I think for the initial flights perhaps, but long term, to get the cost down, you need the spacecraft back. Whether the people come back is irrelevant, but you must have the ship back because those things are expensive. So anyone who wants to return can just jump on." - Elon Musk
[url]http://shitelonsays.com[/url]
i do wonder though, when space-x [I]does[/I] have the capacity to do mars launches, will musk and his backers create a launch company that contracts space-x or will it be undertaken by space-x themselves
[editline]17th March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=gman003-main;47344336]I'd really like to hear what changes they're making to the Falcon 9 to get 30% more performance. With gains like that, I'm guessing it's substantial - maybe they redesigned the engines as staged-combustion rockets instead of gas-generator cycle? Or a switch to LOX+Methane instead of LOX+RP1? It's gotta be more than just incremental improvements, they were already basically the best rocket in its class.[/QUOTE]
i thought the merlin was staged combustion instead of open-cycle gas generator, anyways i think they boosted capacity by improving the upper stage by optimizing it for vacuum operation, previously its engine was identical to the bottom stages
[QUOTE=Sableye;47344645]i do wonder though, when space-x [I]does[/I] have the capacity to do mars launches, will musk and his backers create a launch company that contracts space-x or will it be undertaken by space-x themselves
[editline]17th March 2015[/editline]
i thought the merlin was staged combustion instead of open-cycle gas generator[/QUOTE]
SpaceX is a manufacturer and launch provider. They already accept commercial and government payloads, Mars will be no different. There's no need for them to make a subsidiary. They'll provide launch service for governments and companies wanting to go to Mars.
Either way commercial or state, we'll get to mars sooner or later. To be honest I think US, Russia or China are going to get there before SpaceX ever does.
With SpaceX rockets being reusable, we might see companies buying rockets and launching/servicing the rocket themselves similar to how airlines buy planes from Boeing, but that remains uncertain.
[QUOTE=OvB;47344679]SpaceX is a manufacturer and launch provider. They already accept commercial and government payloads, Mars will be no different. There's no need for them to make a subsidiary. They'll provide launch service for governments and companies wanting to go to Mars.[/QUOTE]
no what i'm saying is will musk create say a mars-charter company to buy the hardware and manage the missions, because like you said, space-x is a launch vehicle manufacturer, they shouldn't tie their resources up in running such a long term mission like a mars colony/expedition would be. space-x is OK to run the dragon missions for the couple hours it takes to transit to and from the space station, but they're not a dedicated mission control
They might make a different branch, but it would still probably be named under SpaceX like their new satellite venture. Since SpaceX literally stands for Space Exploration Technologies.
[QUOTE=Sableye;47344645]i thought the merlin was staged combustion instead of open-cycle gas generator, anyways i think they boosted capacity by improving the upper stage by optimizing it for vacuum operation, previously its engine was identical to the bottom stages[/QUOTE]
Merlin is open-cycle. It's the most efficient open-cycle ever made, both in terms of specific impulse and in thrust-to-weight ratio, but it's still open-cycle. Raptor is supposed to be staged combustion though.
The second stage uses a variant Merlin engine designed for better efficiency in vacuum. Maybe they did redo the second stage, but they're already fairly decent there, and for them it makes economic sense to have most parts interchangeable so they can't have done too much to the second-stage engines.
I dunno, we're all laughing pretty hard today.
The idea that NASA is going to do it is largely a joke. According to NASA, Mars has been 20 years away for almost 50 years. Their plans never seem to make it through presidential administrations intact. Frankly, nobody else has the money to make it happen. I'm worried that the Falcon Heavy will end up being a launch vehicle without a market. Commercial sats are only so big...and nobody is stepping up to spend real money on manned spaceflight. NASA is going to pour gigantic amounts of money into Boeing's corporate welfare with Orion and SLS, but IMO will only fly a few missions at best.
SLS and Falcon Heavy are both launch vehicles without a mission...and that is a seriously bad thing.
[QUOTE=OvB;47344637]" They can come back if they like, if they don't like it, of course. You get a free return ticket. There's sometimes a debate about going to Mars one-way and whether that makes things easier, and I think for the initial flights perhaps, but long term, to get the cost down, you need the spacecraft back. Whether the people come back is irrelevant, but you must have the ship back because those things are expensive. So anyone who wants to return can just jump on." - Elon Musk
[url]http://shitelonsays.com[/url][/QUOTE]
That's months of extra supplies that it kind of sounds like aren't planned to be on the ship.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47344734]I dunno, we're all laughing pretty hard today.
The idea that NASA is going to do it is largely a joke. According to NASA, Mars has been 20 years away for almost 50 years. Their plans never seem to make it through presidential administrations intact. Frankly, nobody else has the money to make it happen. I'm worried that the Falcon Heavy will end up being a launch vehicle without a market. Commercial sats are only so big...and nobody is stepping up to spend real money on manned spaceflight. NASA is going to pour gigantic amounts of money into Boeing's corporate welfare with Orion and SLS, but IMO will only fly a few missions at best.
SLS and Falcon Heavy are both launch vehicles without a mission...and that is a seriously bad thing.[/QUOTE]
Falcon Heavy already has a manifest though. It's not intended for Mars. They're going to build a super heavy methane rocket for mars.
[editline]17th March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47344756]That's months of extra supplies that it kind of sounds like aren't planned to be on the ship.[/QUOTE]
The rockets will be re-supplied on Mars with fuel and food. A mars colony that cant make supplies is a mars colony that won't survive. The first steps in a colony will be making it self sufficient.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47344734]SLS and Falcon Heavy are both launch vehicles without a mission...and that is a seriously bad thing.[/QUOTE]
Falcon Heavy already has two actual payloads lined up (communications satellites), plus a demonstrator test for the DoD (on top of their own proof-it-actually-flies launch). They won't be hurting for missions.
Also, Falcon Heavy and SLS are in VASTLY different categories. Falcon Heavy is ~50Mg to orbit (or 20Mg to GTO), about twice what a Proton can do and about 60% more than a Delta IV Heavy. SLS is 130Mg to orbit - bigger than a Saturn V.
[QUOTE=OvB;47344766]Falcon Heavy already has a manifest though. It's not intended for Mars. They're going to build a super heavy methane rocket for mars.[/QUOTE]
And this will come out of Musk's own pocket?
SpaceX only exists by the grace of NASA spending and their commercial contracts. Without that, they're done. Who is going to hire them to land on Mars? Where is (conservatively) a hundred billion dollars going to come from?
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47344794]And this will come out of Musk's own pocket?
SpaceX only exists by the grace of NASA spending and their commercial contracts. Without that, they're done. Who is going to hire them to land on Mars? Where is (conservatively) a hundred billion dollars going to come from?[/QUOTE]
Well they're going to do the satellite thing which should be worth something. Elon Musk has never said they can do Mars themselves, but they'll be able to get anyone that wants to go there. It will have to be an effort with many billion-dollar companies and governments.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47344794]And this will come out of Musk's own pocket?
SpaceX only exists by the grace of NASA spending and their commercial contracts. Without that, they're done. Who is going to hire them to land on Mars? Where is (conservatively) a hundred billion dollars going to come from?[/QUOTE]
Seven of the 16 Falcon 9 flights so far have been commercial. Five were NASA CRS missions, one was a multi-department government thing, and the first three were test missions (one to SpaceX parameters, two with NASA demo payloads). Either way, it's been about 50:50 so far.
There are ten Falcon 9 launches scheduled for this year, and only four are NASA (three CRS missions and one NOAA joint satellite). The rest are all commercial, except for one contract from the Turkmenistan National Space Agency.
SpaceX would be in trouble if NASA stopped using them, but NASA would be hurt even worse if SpaceX were to stop selling to NASA. CRS is crucial to them, and the only other CRS provider had their last rocket explode.
don't forget that they're now on the very short list of possible suppliers for at least 30 new military launch contracts
[QUOTE=OvB;47344840]Well they're going to do the satellite thing which should be worth something. Elon Musk has never said they can do Mars themselves, but they'll be able to get anyone that wants to go there.[B] It will have to be an effort with many billion-dollar companies and governments.[/B][/QUOTE]
Why?
It's a fiscal black hole. There is probably nothing to be learned by putting people on Mars that will return enough of a profit for any corporation to justify the expense. Advertising and a reality show sure as hell isn't going to pay the bill.
As for governments...people don't care anymore, especially in the US. We have one party in Congress that wants to tear the entire government down and watch it burn, and the other party misplaced their testicles somewhere around the time Jimmy Carter was kicked out of office. We can't even agree to a modest tax increase to keep bridges collapsing, let alone raise enough money to put people on Mars. There's just no political will to spend the money anymore; we're too obsessed with cutting taxes.
I personally think it's worth doing, but people in general aren't gonna put up the money. And without money, nothing goes anywhere.
I don't think a trip to Mars is going to happen in our lifetimes, because for that to happen, access to orbit needs to drop to about 1% of it's present cost.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47344934]Why?
It's a fiscal black hole. There is probably nothing to be learned by putting people on Mars that will return enough of a profit for any corporation to justify the expense. Advertising and a reality show sure as hell isn't going to pay the bill.
As for governments...people don't care anymore, especially in the US. We have one party in Congress that wants to tear the entire government down and watch it burn, and the other party misplaced their testicles somewhere around the time Jimmy Carter was kicked out of office. We can't even agree to a modest tax increase to keep bridges collapsing, let alone raise enough money to put people on Mars. There's just no political will to spend the money anymore; we're too obsessed with cutting taxes.
I personally think it's worth doing, but people in general aren't gonna put up the money. And without money, nothing goes anywhere.
I don't think a trip to Mars is going to happen in our lifetimes, because for that to happen, access to orbit needs to drop to about 1% of it's present cost.[/QUOTE]
well honestly there's no law forbidding space-x to sell returned mars rocks to world governments for billions on the kilo, though i don't think that will be a long term profitable model, but in the short term providing bulk returned samples would provide a big enough financial benefit, followed by medium term refueling and space services, but really once they actually do it once, the US government will definitely have to rethink how it spends money on space-ventures
[editline]17th March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47344934]Why?
It's a fiscal black hole. There is probably nothing to be learned by putting people on Mars that will return enough of a profit for any corporation to justify the expense. Advertising and a reality show sure as hell isn't going to pay the bill.
As for governments...people don't care anymore, especially in the US. We have one party in Congress that wants to tear the entire government down and watch it burn, and the other party misplaced their testicles somewhere around the time Jimmy Carter was kicked out of office. We can't even agree to a modest tax increase to keep bridges collapsing, let alone raise enough money to put people on Mars. There's just no political will to spend the money anymore; we're too obsessed with cutting taxes.
I personally think it's worth doing, but people in general aren't gonna put up the money. And without money, nothing goes anywhere.
I don't think a trip to Mars is going to happen in our lifetimes, because for that to happen, access to orbit needs to drop to about 1% of it's present cost.[/QUOTE]
na, musk has said something like 100$/kilo is enough, which the falcon heavy can do. plus once space-x has an actual chain of refurbished boosters, the real cost savings will start to kick in because once you use a rocket more than once, its paid for, the rest is incredibly cheap
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47344934]Why?
It's a fiscal black hole. There is probably nothing to be learned by putting people on Mars that will return enough of a profit for any corporation to justify the expense. Advertising and a reality show sure as hell isn't going to pay the bill.
As for governments...people don't care anymore, especially in the US. We have one party in Congress that wants to tear the entire government down and watch it burn, and the other party misplaced their testicles somewhere around the time Jimmy Carter was kicked out of office. We can't even agree to a modest tax increase to keep bridges collapsing, let alone raise enough money to put people on Mars. There's just no political will to spend the money anymore; we're too obsessed with cutting taxes.
I personally think it's worth doing, but people in general aren't gonna put up the money. And without money, nothing goes anywhere.
I don't think a trip to Mars is going to happen in our lifetimes, because for that to happen, access to orbit needs to drop to about 1% of it's present cost.[/QUOTE]
The biggest thing keeping us from Mars is an economic reason to go. The colonization of the Americas had an economic benefit. Mars will need an economic benefit. Taking rocks from Mars, putting them in orbit, then sending them to earth, and taking them out of orbit would not be worth it for even the rarest metals. The asteroid belt holds real potential for space mining however, and maybe Mars could serve as a manned outpost for those missions which would give Mars an economic reason to go, in which case "if you build it, they will come" would fall into place, with everyone wanting the the first of their thing on Mars. First restaurant on mars, first hotel on mars, etc, etc, and that would require more people there. Either that, or someone or a group of people absorb a huge upfront cost so that the "if you build it they will come" effect happens as a result, and the colony exists because it exists. Either way, we need a reason to go, and I guess SpaceX just isn't going to wait for that reason and wants to develop the architecture to get there soon.
[editline]17th March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=gman003-main;47344861]Seven of the 16 Falcon 9 flights so far have been commercial. Five were NASA CRS missions, one was a multi-department government thing, and the first three were test missions (one to SpaceX parameters, two with NASA demo payloads). Either way, it's been about 50:50 so far.
There are ten Falcon 9 launches scheduled for this year, and only four are NASA (three CRS missions and one NOAA joint satellite). The rest are all commercial, except for one contract from the Turkmenistan National Space Agency.
SpaceX would be in trouble if NASA stopped using them, but NASA would be hurt even worse if SpaceX were to stop selling to NASA. CRS is crucial to them, and the only other CRS provider had their last rocket explode.[/QUOTE]
However true this is now, SpaceX could not have existed without the NASA contract which they developed the Falcon 9 with. The Falcon 1 would not have supported the company on its own, and they just barely made it with that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.