This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Does SpaceX Have The Right Stuff For Mars? Does NASA?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 27, 2016
Filed under
Does SpaceX Have The Right Stuff For Mars? Does NASA?

Elon Musk has a lot to prove at today’s Mars colonization announcement, The Verge
“This isn’t a phone, or a new app, or new headphones – it’s not a consumer product at all. Rockets are far too expensive; space colonies are more expensive still. If Musk doesn’t announce financial backing, it means the presentation is meant to convince someone – probably NASA – to fund him. But this is an extraordinarily awkward time to try to win over money, since one of his rockets blew up earlier this month.”
Get Ready, Elon Musk Is About to Outline His Plan to Colonize Mars, Popular Mechanics
“The new Mars shuttle and BFR are only design ideas that have been teased by SpaceX, so it remains to be seen whether a concrete plan to develop one or both of these new spaceflight systems – or something completely unknown to the public at this point – will be revealed during Musk’s speech.”
Elon Musk to discuss his vision for how he plans to colonize Mars, Washington Post
“Then in 2020, SpaceX would fly multiple Falcon Heavy rockets, he said in an interview with The Post earlier this year. The goal of those missions would be to perfect the difficult art of landing large objects on the Mars surface. If everything goes according to plan, SpaceX would launch a new, more powerful rocket in 2022, and then with crews in 2024.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

9 responses to “Does SpaceX Have The Right Stuff For Mars? Does NASA?”

  1. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    That’s typical Musk, always reaching for the next big thing. To his credit, he’s done a lot and definitely contributed to space engineering.

    I personally don’t think he’s going to be able to do this without NASA giving him a ton of money, unless he gets truly radical cost reductions in per-kilogram launch expenses. But it’s nice to see him try.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I suspect he’d need to get money from someone, but not necessary NASA. Five or ten billion a year (the relevant fraction of NASA’s budget) isn’t all that much by the standards of private companies or their major shareholders. It’s conceivable he could get a sufficient number of very rich people to underwrite the venture just as a hobby. If he could convince them it is a viable idea and not a fantasy. (Which he’s been accused of and where Dragon got its name.) We’ll see in a couple hours.

      • Salvador Nogueira says:
        0
        0

        He is on the verge of reusing rockets, and this could make his future launches very profitable (because he could ask for much more than it would cost to launch, since no one else can beat his current price). That, plus him getting more contracts with the AF and getting a larger share of the commercial market, plus renewals of cargo and crew to the station, could make him enough money to pursue his Mars aspirations beyond the point NASA’s Journey to Mars will reach his nowhere target. And then NASA could happily join Elon in going to Mars. I don’t think he will need sponsors well beyond the point SpaceX’s aspirations will have proven out, and then it will be easy to get space agencies and private investors aboard. Musk is transforming the market by betting in the impossible. And has consistently proven the impossible to be possible, making everyone else chasing SpaceX in reusability and low-cost. My bet is on him pulling this off. Not in 2025, of course. But in the 2030s.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Perhaps the venture is self-financed from profits on rocket launches?

      Knowing nothing bout the net available on F9 or any other rocket in the barn, here are some silly and very ‘stretchy’ numbers:

      $1B spread over 50 launches would require a profit of $20M per launch.A guess but probably not far from reality. At 20 launches per year (!) they would require 2.5 years to generate the $$$.

      Not enough.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      A fully reusable TSTO ought to be able to deliver “truly radical cost reductions in per-kilogram launch expenses” when compared to fully expendable launch vehicles (e.g. SLS).

  2. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    You assuming it will cost a NASA price to build and develop. I suspect it won’t, that done the Elon Musk way it will cost a fraction to build. So financing won’t be an issue when the time comes to build it 🙂

  3. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    After last night’s horrific performance by Donald Trump at the debate with Hillary, all I can say is we cannot get to Mars too soon…
    Hurry, Elon… the fate of mankind may depend on you. Just be sure you advertise a $ 1 million bonus for the engineer who solves the problem of exponentially oscillating harmonic vibrations from 56 clustered Raptor engines roaring all at once…

  4. Neal Aldin says:
    0
    0

    Assuming no new technical breakthroughs are required, I am of the opinion that costs are not necessarily based on size or difficulty. There is a definite relationship between cost and complexity. Only government and government contractors determine costs and price by size. I believe there is the potential to do really big things for relatively small costs. I believe Mr. Musk and his lean organization can do this. NASA-just the opposite-anything they try to do will be organizationally far more complicated than required, cost many times more and takes several times as long. Good example right now is Orion. Recent example is/was ISS.

  5. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    There are too many problems with this article to list them all. It’s late and I’m tired. I’ll try and summarize.
    1–Again, SpaceX is not in competition with NASA. NASA puts up with their growing pains because they are further along in NASA’s long-term plans than anyone else…including NASA.
    2–Congress is in competition with NewSpace (for the sake of their pet contractors), but the momentum of the advancements have caught so much public attention that they seem to have declared a ciesefire. Nevertheless, there will be no manned NASA mission for a SpaceX super-rocket as long as SLS remains on the books and Congress has a say. So any hopes along those lines are pipe dreams.
    3–Many have already predicted that NASA will not get to Mars on NASA’s current procurement paradigm and at their current funding level. One or the other has to change. NASA has only one customer, Congress, and all Congress wants to do pay people to build a rocket. I’m not all that sure they care if it flies. So whatever (admittedly correct) observations we want to make about SpaceX’s lack of crewed Mars funding applies double to NASA. Neither of them will fly people to Mars without more money than they have now. The difference is that SpaceX has more customers than NASA does, and a lower-cost development system.
    4–The SpaceX fan base is growing tired of the launch mishaps. Musk needs about 20 launches a year to keep growing his market footprint at its current rate and still have room for his expanded tech plans. Now he might not grow his launch cadence above 13 for three years straight. BTW, I’d not like SpaceX much today at all of this latest mishap had caused the loss or postponement of OSIRIS-REX. I realize that SpaceX is a complex organization, with different folks focused on different things, but if they lose a third rocket anytime on the next two years their momentum could falter and end all of these grand plans. They really need to fix the root of these problems with their 2nd stage because now their survival might hinge on it.