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.
Exploration

Update On That SpaceX Mars Meeting In Colorado (Revised)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 7, 2018
Filed under ,
Update On That SpaceX Mars Meeting In Colorado (Revised)

Keith’s update: There is a meeting about Mars exploration underway at the University of Colorado in Boulder sponsored by SpaceX. Contrary to some initial descriptions the meeting is not “secret”. But its not exactly “open” either. Rather, it is invitation-only. The purpose of the meeting according to sources is for SpaceX to ping Mars exploration experts outside their company about the technology needed to implement the Mars exploration plans that have been described by Elon Musk. It is likely that SpaceX will do more of these external events in the future.
While NASA has yet to confirm that any of the 50-60 attendees are from the agency, sources report that the following institutions are represented: Colorado School of Mines, University of Colorado, Boulder; NASA HQ, ASI, JPL/Caltech; SpaceX, Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona; ASURE, MIT, Bechtel Corporation; Schlumberger; University of Florida; Freestyle Analytical & Quantitative Services, LLC; Ball Aerospace; Arizona State University; Brown University; NASA Ames; NASA Marshall, NASA KSC, EchoStar; NASA Glenn; JAXA; SpaceX/Tesla; BAERI; ESA; University of Central Florida; University of Western Ontario; Caterpillar Inc; NASA JSC; Aerospace Corporation; Maxar Technologies; MBRSC – UAE; Planetary Science Institute; LASP / University of Colorado, Boulder; and Honeybee Robotics.
The big question is whether NASA is considering participating in the SpaceX Mars plans – plans which would send humans to Mars a decade or more before NASA does. While NASA human spaceflight people at HEOMD were invited to this event none of them apparently attended. Only Mars science types showed up. That’s rather odd for a meeting where the prime focus is humans to Mars in giant rockets and building permanent human bases.
Keith’s further update: I spoke with NASA Science Mission Directorate AA Thomas Zurbuchen about this meeting. He said that that some of his program staff were invited to give presentations of what NASA was doing (and planning to do) on Mars but that they really had no input into the meeting structure itself. One of the topics that interests Zurbuchen is how SpaceX might be able to work collaboratively with NASA on sample return. Zurbuchen says that he has encouraged discussions about commercial, public/private partnerships on this and other topics sich as smallsats. But as for participation in human exploration, Zurbuchen said that no policy positions should be implied by NASA SMD’s participation in this meeting about SpaceX’s human Mars plans and that to the best of his knowledge no one at NASA has really been authorized to have such a policy discussion.

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

39 responses to “Update On That SpaceX Mars Meeting In Colorado (Revised)”

  1. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

    While interesting, a much more important event is Space X launching a Block 5 for the second time. I hope NASA Watch continues to cover or at least mention Space X launches.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Possibly more interesting than yet another Space X launch and another reflight, is that fact that they turned around the first stage in under three months. That’s just the second time they’ve done so, and the first time was a Block 4 they didn’t attempt to recover. Fast and reliable turn-around is the part of reusability SpaceX hasn’t demonstrated yet. (Well, that and many cycles before major maintenance.)

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Yes, it will be very interesting to see how close they get to their goal of 24 hour turnaround. It will also be a major step forward in developing rapid turnaround for the BFR.

        • Andrew Goetsch says:
          0
          0

          It kinda makes you wonder why they plan on building 50 Block Vs.

          • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
            0
            0

            9 falcon heavies and 23 falcon 9? Their internet service requires quite a few lauches so spreading out the booster assets between their three launch sites (west, gulf, east coasts) seems reasonable given barge takes what two days to return to port you still need a rocket being integrated with payload, one on pad for static test and launch and one coming back into port plus two on landing pads from previous launch.

          • Hauerg says:
            0
            0

            Last time I checked it was 30ish.
            Also they need a few dedicated cores for the Heavy.
            And they plan to have
            a few hundred flights
            Maybe lose a core or two
            Be prepared if BFS is a little late for service.

            And if you have too many left when BFr takes over, you can fly a few nice interplanetary FH missions (transmars).

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I don’t think a 24 hour turn around for the Falcon 9 makes sense. They are talking about ten cycles without major maintenance and perhaps a hundred overall. Assuming they had the customers to support that rate, they would be going something like one first stage every two years. (Based on a guess at ten flights in two weeks followed by two or three months down for major maintenance.) Thier current plan is to build up a stockpile of Falcon 9’s then switch production to BFR. The stockpile is supposed to last long enough for BFR to get into service. With a 24 hour turn around, they would run out of first stages fairly soon, and probably run out of second stages even sooner. I can only see 24 hour cycles for Falcon 9 as a sort of operational readiness test for how they will use BFR.

          • John Thomas says:
            0
            0

            Musk has said that they hoped to do a 24 hour turn around next year as a demonstration, but not anything sustained.

          • DJE51 says:
            0
            0

            I don’t think they intend to fly the same booster every 24 hours for sure, but it will be a good operational test of their methods and procedures. Once that test is successful, they can basically plan on being able to fly a used booster any time after 24 hours. They can only fly as many missions as they have ready customers / payloads for. And don’t forget, they will still be pumping out second stages for all those missions, which should keep their Hawthorne factory busy enough, even if they do perfect fairing recovery. Of course there is also the need to manufacture Dragon 2, which will be at Hawthorne as well. Meanwhile, their R&D effort will transition to the BFR, and their production will also ramp up for the BFR. Exciting times indeed.

          • Bill Housley says:
            0
            0

            Again, like everything else SpaceX does, quick turnarounds need to be viewed through the lense of their Mars logistics building goals. Any rocket that requires refurbishment on Mars before relaunch back to Earth orbit is a non-starter. Seamless turnaround is a Mars technology and needs to be developed and tested here for that reason…whatever excuse is given up-front.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          It would be even less that 24 hours because I believe he tweeted launch twice in one day.

  2. Steven Rappolee says:
    0
    0

    You would think there would be some synergy between SpaceX and Tesla for pressurized and unpressurized planetary rovers

    https://yellowdragonblog.co

  3. Steven Rappolee says:
    0
    0

    Also MEPAG/Decadel survey has a vast website of Mars landing studys for all the past missions and future missions. You would think spaceX has made use of this public data base

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      SpaceX has very different goals and objectives. All the studies in the planetary science Decadal Surveys, and other studies MEPAG would focus on, are focused on science and landing safety. SpaceX specifically wants sites near extractable, in situ resources. In addition, I doubt this meeting is all about site selection. Payload and planetary protection are also relevant topics.

      • Steven Rappolee says:
        0
        0

        Unless NASA does become a customer in future and you ned to consider extration and resource utilization with violating NASA planetary protection
        BOTH of the above do inform landing site choices

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          SpaceX is going with or without NASA. That is something NASA needs to recognize. And I don’t think Elon Musk is going to let NASA call the shots as they did with Commercial Crew. Elon Musk learned his lesson there which is why he is moving on beyond Dragon2 and NASA.

          That said I wonder how many of the Mars scientists and astronauts at NASA will jump ship when it’s clear SpaceX is going to Mars. It should be interesting to watch.

  4. redpill2010 says:
    0
    0

    Official line for NASA is still that SLS is taking them to Mars. It will require BFR coming online and demonstrating it’s capabilities for there to be a shift in that position.

  5. Doc H. Chen says:
    0
    0

    Good news for the new world space exploration.

    The powerful US industry leads the development of the village
    or city with the government and international partners to share the benefit of the future new world.

    Congratulations to the great new start for the new world and the best is yet to come for the more space jobs

  6. RocketScientist327 says:
    0
    0

    So in other words… We (SpaceX) want to know your real requirements to make it to Mars so we can make sure our service will work for you.

    And in other words… I hope we are invited. We actually want to fly our stuff and SLS is not a faith based program.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I think this would be about a two-way exchange of ideas. SpaceX (or Mr. Musk) is planning to go to Mars, with or without NASA. But NASA and the planetary science community know quite a bit about Mars. Talking to them would definitely be beneficial to SpaceX. Even in the absence of any expectations of NASA being a customer. That’s a benefit of this sort of meeting, above and beyond the one you describe.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        SpaceX can go only if it can find customers and meet thier price. As the cost is much lower for robotic missions, my guess is that even for BFR, despite a design that currently includes a human crew, most of the initial market, as with the Falcon, will be unmanned. For Mars this is even more likely as the first human landing may introduce terrestrial micro-organisms and end the search for life. On Mars the BFR could place multiple orbiters, rovers, subsurface drilling probes and sample return vehicles with a single launch. Perhaps Tesla could supply autonomous rover vehicles. With a multivehicle fleet more risk could be accepted and there would be less pressure to limit mobility to a few meters a day.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Wrong. You need to move beyond the old government contracting model thinking where the Old Space contractors only work on things the government wants to fund. A new space age is emerging where NASA is no longer the only game in town

          Elon Musk has enough money to fund his own Mars exploration program. Indeed, the reason he founded SpaceX was because he couldn’t buy an affordable launch to send a greenhouse to Mars. At $20 million or so a launch Elon Musk has the money to send dozens of missions to Mars. If NASA doesn’t want to tag along I am sure there are hundreds of small colleges and high schools long squeezed out of the NASA peer reviewed science programs because they aren’t seen as “qualified” that will jump at the opportunity to go. At a price of a $100 lb or so to the surface they will have no trouble raising funding from Alumni, donors, carwashed or by GoFundMe sites. And yes, I am sure a new industry will emerge to sell them “turn key” rovers just as now exists selling drones that NASA would have been hard press to build with multi-million dollar contracts a generation ago.

          Its just like the American West. Before the transcontinental railroads were built if you wanted to do science you had to be appointed to a government survey expedition. Afterward you just had to buy a train ticket. Yes, numerous Professors and their students were then free to explore the West for fossils, minerals, birds, insects, etc. as simply another class at school. Imagine the near future where instead of just reading about Mars on the NASA website high school students are exploring it using their school’s Mars rover. ?

  7. Richard Brezinski says:
    0
    0

    After watching NASA lose its way and stagnate-or worse-over the last 15 years I am really hopeful that Mr. Musk will take us places. I am very convinced that NASA will be taking the US no where. Maybe they can simply use their commercial approach in procuring services and give up on trying to design, build or fly anything.

    • Nick K says:
      0
      0

      Used to be, 50 years ago, then with Shuttle and right up into the early station era pre-ISS, NASA took great pride in designing and developing spacecraft and spacecraft systems. Nowadays NASA seems just as happy to let their international partners do all the design and development and NASA chooses a handful of astronauts who hitch rides on whoever’s vehicle is available. Maybe one of the reason for Trump’s space force is to restart an actual space DDT&E effort elsewhere?

      • Richard Brezinski says:
        0
        0

        For the last 15-20 years all we heard from JSC was that they were the “operations” organization. Their only focus was on Shuttle ops. They filled their ranks of managers with astronauts and flight directors none of whom had any legitimate engineering design or development experience. About the only other place their management has come from is space station, and the station was designed in the 1980s and built by contractors in the 1990s. Today’s ISS people, managers or regular personnel, have essentially no real systems development experience. I doubt anyone in NASA would know how to design, build or test anything any longer.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          I doubt anyone in NASA would know how to design, build or test anything any longer.

          It’s easy enough to prove this wrong. What about the Mars missions that have come out of JPL such as MSL/Curiosity or the landers Morpheus and Mighty Eagle? I’m sure there are others. Robotic Refueling Mission, Restore-L.

  8. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Meanwhile it looks like another member of Congress, Senator Cruz, is recognizing that SLS won’t get NASA to Mars…

    https://arstechnica.com/sci

    NASA doesn’t have the funds to get to Mars alone, Ted Cruz says
    Eric Berger – 8/7/2018, 4:26 PM

    “Asked about SpaceX’s plans to build the large Big Falcon Rocket designed expressly to send humans to Mars and the company’s plans to launch it from South Texas, Cruz said that is the type of innovation NASA must leverage if it is to succeed in getting to the Red Planet.”

    and

    ‘”The innovation that we’re seeing from SpaceX and from private companies across the board is much of the reason for the optimism we see concerning space,” Cruz said. “We need competition and entrepreneurs inventing and innovating. You know, just a few years ago the concept of reusable rockets, rockets that could land and be used again, would have seemed like science fiction. Now we’re seeing that done. That’s the kind of innovation it’s going to take to get to Mars and beyond, and it is only through robust competition in the private sector that we’ll see that happen.”‘

    • mfwright says:
      0
      0

      I posted:
      I don’t think anyone is getting this right, humans on Mars will always be 20 years into the future. Besides Krafft Arnold Ehricke wrote, “If God wanted man to become a spacefaring species, He would have given man a Moon.”

      Got nothing but down votes, oh well.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Of course what is so great about the BFR is that it also works on the Moon. In fact that will probably be it’s first test hop. It’s what makes the BFR such a game changer, it works almost any where in the Solar System (other than Venus and the Gas Giants) like a true Spaceship should, just like the old Polaris. And if Elon Musk hits his price point of $10 million a launch private parties and foreign nations as well as NASA will be able to afford to fund missions to where ever they want to go.

        Imagine being able to send a 150 tons of equipment to Europa, Titan or Triton and really start exploring them for life? Imagine sending one to scout Mercury or land an army of rovers on the moons of Neptune or on Pluto?

        In terms of the ISS it will be able to return the modules to Earth, or reassemble them at the EM L1 or whatever NASA wants as its cargo bay is 4 times the size of the Shuttle and its able to return twice as much mass to Earth than the Shuttle was even able to launch.

        Really, the Moon and Mars will just be the first steps for it. What the BFR gives humanity is not just Mars, but the entire Solar System, something folks are just waking up to. NASA is going to need a Deep Space System am order of magnitude larger to make full use of it. And a much better funded SMD. ?

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          That’s a little bit of an exaggeration. The whole BFR concept relies pretty heavily on both refueling at the destination and some degree of aerocapture or aerobraking at both the destination and on return to Earth. I’m also concerned that atmospheric entry from orbital velocities will turn out to be harder than SpaceX expects. It will definitely be harder than recovering a Falcon 9 first stage (which reenters at a much slower, suborbital velocity.) Anyway, I decided to play with some numbers, given what little we know about BFR.

          The 150 ton to Mars number requires refueling before leaving Earth orbit orbit. That’s going to be four to eight tanker flights, depending on how quick you want the trip to be. Being very optimistic about stopping at Mars (i.e. assuming the can use atmospheric drag for almost all of the work), and no refueling, BFR could barely manage a round trip with almost no cargo. “Just” five tons or so (which is still quite a bit, but not 150 tons.) It would probably take a few one-way trips set up fuel processing facilities.

          For the Moon, where it’s all propulsive and no potential for refueling, full tanks from LEO would land about 125 tons and let you get the vehicle back to Earth (either direct landing or aerobraking back to LEO.)

          For outer solar system destinations, BFR actually can’t get itself directly to the surface of Europa. That 85 tons of spacecraft mass is more than its 1100 tons of fuel and oxidizer can get there. Of course, there are games which can be played using flybys of the Galilean satellites. With that, I’m sure you land BFR plus something far larger than the currently planned Europa lander. But it’s not going to be 150 tons. Alternately, you could have BFR transport a smaller spacecraft to the Jovian system, but not land itself. But most of these options wouldn’t let you recover the BFR. There is no source of methane in the Jovian system (other than Jupiter itself, which isn’t really an option.)

          For that reason, Titan works quite well. It does have enough of an atmosphere to stop the spacecraft, and plenty of methane and water ice for refueling. If i did the numbers correctly, landing 65 tons would be possible. That was for a minimum energy trajectory, with a five and a half year flight time.

          It does feel a little funny to be saying things like “only five tons.” But it is thirty times less than the 150 ton numbers people seem to be throwing around.

          • Zed_WEASEL says:
            0
            0

            Getting to Europa with the BFS is doable with staging the mission from a Jupiter trojan base with fuel depot. Such a base could be a few BFT (tanker) docked together.

            Quite sure a BFS with 1100 tonnes of propellant can go to Europa from a Jupiter trojan base and get back to the trojan base.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I said BFR’s second stage (which isn’t actually BFS until SpaceX itself starts using that name) could not “get itself directly to the surface of Europa.” I didn’t say it couldn’t get there with help (and I specifically mentioned using gravity assists with the Galilean moons as a potential form of help.)

            There are other ways to do it, but tanking at one of the Jovian trojan points isn’t one. BFR can’t get there either. Specifically, stopping at or near the the orbit of Jupiter is much more difficult than stopping at Jupiter. If you do the maneuver as close to Jupiter as possible greatly decreases the delta v (this is a variant on an Oberth maneuver. Specifically, from a Earth-Jupiter (or Jupiter orbit) it takes 5.6 km/s to stop if you do not go near Jupiter. If you dive in to a 1.05 jovian radii perijove and want to get on a minimum capture orbit (effectively stopping at Jupiter’s orbit but close to Jupiter) it only takes 0.27 km/s. (If you only go in as far as Europa’s orbit, which is a safer idea, it’s 0.82 km/s.) Combined with the 6.3 km/s it takes to get from Earth orbit onto the transfer orbit, the Jovian trojans are out for BFR. (Again without help.)

            Your comment about tanking did make the think of another possibility. You could launch one Europa spacecraft and five or six tankers from Earth, together and onto a transfer orbit to Jupiter. On the way, they transfer fuel. The Europa spacecraft then has enough for a direct landing on Europa with almost a full payload. The tankers do a Jupiter flyby to put them on a return trajectory to Earth. That would be a five and a half year trip for the tankers, but otherwise it ought to work.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            Only a week late:

            Re: Sending tankers to Jupiter.

            Have you modelled refuelling the mission-BFS in HEO/cis-Lunar orbit, not LEO? Then it drops into a close Oberth burn around Earth, gaining 10+km/s from the inflight before the actual burn. Saves sending multiple tankers on a 5+ year trip.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I didn’t look at that possibility for a BFR going to Europa. I have for a generic Mars mission (it actually helps much with more reducing trip time than increasing payload to the surface.) For BFR, I just looked at a few options involving the minimum amount of extra infrastructure or complexity.

            But I just did a quick check, and your idea would just about get a BFR second stage (without payload, i.e. the spacecraft’s 85 tons of dry mass) directly to the surface of Europa. There are lots of ways to improve on that (insertion to jovian orbit close to the planet, initial insertion into a minimum capture orbit, and an orbital tour with multiple gravity assists from the Galilean satellites come to mind.)

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      Bridenstine’s remarks as quoted in your link still miss the true cause of the cost decrease. It has still not been proven that refurbishing an F9 is cost-effective, and the price difference between the F9 and the Atlas was a thing before SpaceX was successfully landing and reusing rockets anyway.
      ULA is not a true commercial entity…it is an extension of the military industrial establishment into the private sector and brings that pricing structure with it. It is the removal of military contractors from the equation that brings most of the cost savings and it also stimulates innovations like reusablilty. Those price reductions and innovation boosts are the real Mars and Moon enablers.

  9. 0
    0

    I guess it’s not Nasa’s fault entirely. They need funding/leaders that changes every 4 years but they do NOT hire the best, they hire PHD’s etc. that have never and will never do anything of value. A piece of paper that says your an expert means, well, nothing. That’s the one thing about silicon valley, they hire the makers not the talkers.

  10. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    As a NASA partner, SpaceX has access to NASA’s data stuff and expertise. SpaceX has enjoyed many advances stemming from that access, and NASA as a customer, for years.
    This workshop might be an indicator that that relationship is beginning to fray…at least so far as Mars is concerned. Think about it, they are putting NASA people at the same snack table as their future customers. Unofficial, back-end elbow rubbing is the first step to moving NASA expertise from NASA to the private sector through career change.