
Musk revises Mars ambitions - BerislavLopac
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/musk-revises-his-mars-ambitions-and-they-seem-a-little-bit-more-real/
======
benjaminl
I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as
unrealistic.

They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an orbital
class rocket, the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion and the first
private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). Given that, it
seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they
are going to do something.

~~~
Nokinside
It's the colonizing Mars part

Getting into Mars is solvable technological problem. Colonizing Mars is more
economical and sociological problem than technological problem.

Everyday living in high-tech place where everything is safety critical (like
in a nuclear submarine or ISS) is extremely expensive. Productivity would have
to be beyond everything that has ever existed for that becoming possibility.

If Elon Musk can crack Mars colonization economy, he has also invented
something that can be used to drop F-35 fighter, nuclear submarine and
aircraft carrier maintenance costs to level where they are negligible.

There is always counterarguments that are based on post-scarcity economy. I
accept that argument. But we get faster into Mars if we first develop post-
scarcity economy here on earth first. Then those who want to leave just move
there. Those who want to go Mars now are thinking it wrong.

\--- EDIT:

In case I didn't make myself clear, I believe that Musk can get into Mars in
his lifetime. There can be small research station and we can explore little.

But it will be a money sink. We will do some research and then leave and
probably it takes another 50 years until someone visits in person again.

All the science fiction thing humans have achieved, microchips, computers,
mobile phones, commercial air travel increase productivity and there is
massive demand for them. Combined R&D over decades can be trillions and it's
profitable. Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is
no profit motive. Getting into orbit is profitable business and that's what
SpaceX is doing.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
> Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is no profit
> motive.

This is so very true. We can do it for Science, and for fun, but not much
else.

~~~
reilly3000
What happens when earth goes to actual shit and rich people want out?

~~~
neaden
Worst case scenario Earth still has 1g of gravity, a breathable atmosphere, a
magnetic field keeping most radiation out, and a temperature that you can live
in without dying in most places. It'll still be way more livable than Mars.

------
kbenson
_Last year, it was the Interplanetary Transport System, but now Musk has
regressed to using the original, cheeky "code name" BFR, in which the B stands
for big, the R stands for rocket, and the F stands for fun. (Not really)._

I'm always astounded that apparently we still can't say _fuck_ lest some
bogeyman (real or imaginary) jump out and make you regret it.

It's a fucking word. For fuck's sake. I mean, at the point where it's used
more often as garnish in it's various adverb and noun forms than it's original
verb form, you know, _to fuck_ , how bad can it really be and why do we need
to penalize the usage so?

Now watch this get auto-depressed by HN's incendiary comment detection
filters.

Edit: If you see this reach the top, please downvote or unvote. I'm interested
in this topic, but it doesn't deserve to overshadow real discussion about the
submission.

~~~
ericjang
Is this an American cultural thing, or are other cultures just as averse to
public swearing?

~~~
saalweachter
It's not particularly more professional to cheekily use an obvious substitute
in place of 'fucking', either. If you are saying "big ... fun ... rocket" or
"big freakin' rocket" anyone over the age of 6 will know what you are doing
and, if they are inclined to feel uncomfortable or offended, will still be so.

So for the most part I would say "either swear or don't", but if you are going
to play that game, you need to be better at it, and call it something like "a
big functional rocket" or "a big futuristic rocket", which is plausible, _and
then remain completely straight-faced, forever, never admitting in public or
private there could be any other meaning for the acronym, ever_. Leave
historians a hundred years from now guessing.

"Wink wink, I'm not cussing!!!" is just another version of "I'm not touching
you!!!".

~~~
YaxelPerez
Big Falcon Rocket?

------
electriclove
The article does not do his talk justice. It is definitely worth watching the
whole thing: [https://youtu.be/S5V7R_se1Xc](https://youtu.be/S5V7R_se1Xc)

~~~
jwilliams
Agree. I don't entirely agree that he's "revised" so much as got more
specific.

~~~
apendleton
I think "revised" is fair. This vehicle differs significantly in technical
specifics than the one proposed last year. Different size, engine
configuration, stage/payload configuration, engine count, max thrust, even to
some extent purpose. It's not just that there are more details; the details
have changed.

------
ChrisBland
As a little kid at Space Camp in the late 80s/90s we would 'dream' about what
a moon base or a mars base would look like. I grew up thinking that it would
be something my grandchildren would see. To even have this as a possibility
now is something I think few fathom how important it is. Amazon & Google may
not matter in 100 years, (go back 100 years and look up who the biggest
companies were and how long they lasted) but getting to another planet and
colonizing is a step that will forever be in the books as one of the crowning
achievements of humanity. I applaud Musk and all he is doing, if my skill set
ever fit what SpaceX needed, I would join in a heartbeat.

~~~
gervase
If SpaceX is able to realize its ambitions, I think it could certainly be a
modern-day East India Company [0,1], if not more influential.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company)

[1]: Some sources have estimated that, adjusted for inflation, the East India
Company would have had an equivalent market cap of $7.6 trillion.

------
r00fus
I'm absolutely ecstatic that Musk is talking about the Moon. Mars is great,
but Luna is near & here, and honestly, it's a strategic location (not just
militarily) as the it's at the top of Earth's gravity well with a minimal well
of it's own - great basecamp for interplanetary missions.

If we can't occupy the Moon, why should we shoot for colonizing Mars?

~~~
mkempe
Another interesting aspect of a moon base -- would it be easier and/or cheaper
to produce propellants there instead of sending four rockets up to fuel each
Mars-bound ship?

~~~
pacificmint
On Mars you can use the Sabatier reaction to make Methane, and you can make
Oxygen from Water or from CO2.

What would you use on the Moon to make the Methane?

~~~
mkempe
Heat up regolith?

------
danblick
Sending humans to Mars seems less attractive to me than sending robots to
Ceres. Is there an argument for Mars that doesn't include the phrase "multi-
planet species"?

~~~
dbingham
Do we really need more of an argument than "multi-planet species"?

And in the case that "multi-planet species" is the goal, is there a better
target? I'm not aware of one.

~~~
gkya
> Do we really need more of an argument than "multi-planet species"?

Yes. I don't see what concrete benefits we gain becoming such a species, and I
doubt it's possible to send live humans to Mars, or suspend life there. This
is the new alchemy.

~~~
adventured
> and I doubt it's possible to send live humans to Mars ... This is the new
> alchemy.

By the actual definition of alchemy, sending living people to Mars can't
qualify as such: we know for a scientific _fact_ that it's possible. It's not
even particularly challenging to successfully send (and land) living people
there, it's extremely dangerous and risky to their well-being to do so. The
idea is to not kill a lot of people in the process of attempting it.

------
georgeecollins
Who cares if Musk's predictions are realistic? He is doing us all a tremendous
service by keeping Mars in the public conversation.

~~~
jasonmaydie
I still don't see why we should spend $$$ on mars when we have a perfectly
good one here millions of light years in any direction. Maybe we should stop
treating the only planet that supports life like shit and cherish it.

~~~
baq
We should but some people don't care. A wise man hedges his bets.

~~~
jasonmaydie
a nuked earth will probably still be better than Mars after the dust has
settled.

------
godelski
> ...then why not go to other places on Earth as well?

I'm addressing this because I know someone will ask. Honestly my first
reaction was to laugh, then I made sense of it.

Economically this does not make sense. Price points do not make sense for
this, even from the most ambitious startups. You'd want to use a space plane.

BUT I still think it is a good idea. The reason being is that this is a quick
way to get his technology to TRL 8/9 [1]. TRL 7-9 is the hardest progression
in this scale. So I'm going to guess that Musk is going to make a loss on
these flights because SpaceX needs to prove that the vehicle and related
technology is flight ready. What better way then doing a bunch of flights
close to home, where you can easily repair and monitor the vehicle? NASA is
going to be extremely strict on them sending people to Mars. Earth and Moon
are the way to go to show proof (even NASA is planning Moon mission before
Mars).

Or I could be off base and this isn't what Musk is planning. But it is my
hunch.

[1]
[https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/trl.png](https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/trl.png)

~~~
iamcreasy
Here is what Elon said on instrgram, "Fly to most places on Earth in under 30
mins and anywhere in under 60. Cost per seat should be about the same as full
fare economy in an aircraft. Forgot to mention that."

Source : [https://www.instagram.com/p/BZnVfWxgdLe/?hl=en&taken-
by=elon...](https://www.instagram.com/p/BZnVfWxgdLe/?hl=en&taken-by=elonmusk)

~~~
godelski
Which gives evidence to my guess. Because there is no way you can do a rocket
for anywhere near that price. I mean, let's do some quick math. We'll even
give him buffer room. Let's say you can get 50 passengers at $5k per ticket.
That's $250k/flight. I just can't see how that would cover the flight (fuel),
let alone things like: maintenance, licensing, insurance, and the staff to
operate the facilities. Let alone doing it on $50k ($1k/ticket). I'm EXTREMELY
skeptical. Elon's a pretty smart guy, and may see things that I'm not, but my
best guess is that this isn't for the money. The money is just to lessen the
losses.

~~~
ajnin
He mentions in his presentation that the BFR will have more pressurized cargo
space than an A380, which can carry 853 passengers in an all-economy
configuration. Let's say the BFR would carry a bit more that that, and prices
would be a bit less than $1k, that would bring the flight budget in the order
of $500k to $1M very roughly.

Let's try to estimate fuel costs, according to Wikipedia
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Syste...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_System))
propellant costs $168 per tonne, and the spaceship can hold 1950t of it, so
assuming one full tank per trip, that's $328k for fuel.

The actual cost of the rocket is around $200M, assuming a service life of 1000
flights, that's a $200k amortized cost per flight.

Add a few hundred k for launchpad, personnel, administrative costs of various
kinds, and you get in the $500k to $1M ballpark.

So on the back of the envelope it looks about break-even. Maybe there's a
sufficient market of people willing to pay a premium for very fast travel to
make this profitable.

~~~
godelski
I didn't realize he said 853 passengers. In the article it mentions 40 cabins.
So I rounded to 50. We still don't get enough for fuel. And 1000 flights is
pretty optimistic. Especially at this stage. Their rockets already aren't
fully reusable (only just having tested reuse) and they have to replace parts.
10 flights is optimistic, let alone 1k. I'm sure we'll get there at some
point, but I see no evidence of that technology currently.

I'm just saying that there are a lot of red flags and that one should be
really skeptical.

------
Someone
I don’t see them building their launch ports closer to cities than airports
now are, nor do I see them (certainly initially) build launch ports next to
each major city. So, for most civilian flights, those earth-to-earth trips
would not be that much faster, if at all.

Also, those flights would have to be extremely safe to get in the same
ballpark as current commercial flights. I think that is needed to make this a
‘normal’ thing.

I would guess those earth-to-earth trips could make more sense for the
military than for civilians. Yes, there is the problem of refueling your
rocket near a war zone, and a risk of your rocket getting shot down, but the
ability to very rapidly deploy specialized troops and/or materials may
eventually be worth that, and the military might fund it even if they aren’t
convinced the advantages will pan out.

------
ravirajx7
Musk is truly an inspiration for each one of us. He is the one who dreams big
and works even harder. Musk's idea of connecting different parts of Earth
using rockets is truly astounding and it would be great if all the government
and private agencies come together and try to remove border barriers. It is
inevitable that the days of flying cars and jetpack will come very soon and
there may be drastic effects if border tension arises.
[https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/26/16362868/boeing-go-fly-
pr...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/26/16362868/boeing-go-fly-prize-
jetpack-competition)

~~~
rothbardrand
The funny thing is, there's nothing really new with the idea of suborbital
planetary transport-- this was widely expected in the 60s and 70s. The problem
was NASA was given a monopoly on space access, and many companies would never
get permission to fly, or do any projects, without NASA approval, and NASA
would never approve anything competitive with its own ambitions. (Always using
"safety" as an excuse, but if you can't fly you can't prove safety.)

It was the X Prize and Scaled Composits that broke the logjam with their "we
can launch from anywhere with a runway" system, which combined with the
failure of the shuttle system and lack of funding for NASA has forced them out
of a stranglehold position to the point where they basically funded much of
SpaceX's early work.

But don't under estimate the effect of the X Prize-- because Virgin Galactic
can launch from anywhere, NASA and the politicians had to decide if they were
going to lose access to the space tourism business.

They still were kinda silly-- at one point Richard Branson who funded Virgin
Galactic was blocked from seeing the designs for the Virgin Galactic ship due
to the fact that he is a "foreign national" and the work was considered a
"national security" issue.

------
louithethrid
I honestly do not get the whole concept of a solar storm shelter room on a
space object that is shaped like a tower. Just turn the tower with gyroscopes
into the solar wind... last room is perfectly sheltered (from solar
radiation)- not from space radiation.

Also.. wouldnt a sun-shade providing drone with a water-ice container as ray
shield always be superior?

~~~
avar
Because if you were to magically turn off the sun and were placed somewhere in
the solar system wearing a space suit you'd still be in a dangerous radiation
environment from interstellar radiation. The Sun is not the only source of
dangerous radiation when making interplanetary trips.

This NASA page has more info on that subject:
[https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-
pr...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-
astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars)

------
zaroth
Consolidating all their effort behind a single vehicle makes sense, but is
there a large risk of the same thing that happened to the A380? Could the BFR
end up being too big for servicing the existing market? Or does the existing
market end up as 1/1000 the new market opened up by having the BFR?

~~~
Robotbeat
"Too big" isn't a thing. "Too expensive per flight" is.

In aircraft, cost per flight is roughly proportional to aircraft size, so "too
big" can be indirectly a problem.

With rockets, the difference between fully/rapidly reusable and expendable (or
even partially reusable) is so vast that "too big" is basically irrelevant.

In his presentation, Musk showed the expected per-flight costs. BFR would be
cheaper /per flight/ than Falcon1. ...and if you dig into last year's
presentation, the projected per-flight costs are lower even than Rocketlab's
Electron. PER FLIGHT.

------
walrus1066
Any idea how they will deal with radiation exposure? Outside the earth's
magnetic field the astronauts would be exposed to lethal cosmic rays & solar
flares for many months.

------
Perfect_Pitch
It still seems rather ambitious to me. 2022 is coming up pretty quick. If I
were a betting man I'd bet they will push back to 2025-2027.

~~~
mikeash
He outright said that the 2022 timeline was "aspirational." That's basically
an "if everything goes perfectly" date. We know everything won't go perfectly,
and so does he, but he still likes to start with that.

------
curtis
I think the new, smaller BFR is still too big. It seems to me like a rocket
about the size of the New Glenn [1] would more sense.

But then I'm not a rocket scientist.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn)

~~~
castis
In defense of the idea, it's not called the Moderately Sized Rocket.

~~~
curtis
Ha! But in that vein, I suggest we start referring to New Glenn as the
"Moderately Sized Rocket", or "MSR" for short.

