Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Mars Government NASA Space The Almighty Buck

SpaceX Disappointed In Lack of NASA Mars Funding; Starts Looking For Landing Sites For Its Own Mars Missions 103

frank249 writes: Elon Musk says that the new NASA authorization legislation "changes almost nothing about what NASA is doing. Existing programs stay in place and there is no added funding for Mars." From a report via Ars Technica: "Musk is absolutely correct on two counts. First, an 'authorization' bill does not provide funding. That comes from appropriations committees. Secondly, while Congress has been interested in building rockets and spacecraft, it is far less interested in investing in the kinds of technology and research that would actually enable a full-fledged Mars exploration program." In other news, SpaceNews reports that "SpaceX has been working with NASA to identify potential landing sites on Mars for both its Red Dragon spacecraft (starting in 2020) and future human missions." From the report: "Paul Wooster of SpaceX said the company, working with scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and elsewhere, had identified several potential landing sites, including one that looks particularly promising -- Arcadia Planitia. Those landing sites are of particular interest, he said, for SpaceX's long-term vision of establishing a human settlement on Mars, but he said the company wouldn't rule out sending Red Dragon spacecraft elsewhere on the planet to serve other customers. 'We're quite open to making use of this platform to take various payloads to other locations as well,' he said. 'We're really looking to turn this into a steady cadence, where we're sending Dragons to Mars on basically every opportunity.' The Red Dragon spacecraft, he said, could carry about one ton of useful payload to Mars, with options for those payloads to remain in the capsule after landing or be deployed on the surface. 'SpaceX is a transportation company,' he said. 'We transport cargo to the space station, we deliver payloads to orbit, so we're very happy to deliver payloads to Mars.'" Fans of the book/movie "The Martian" would be happy if SpaceX does select Arcadia Planitia for their first landing site as that was the landing site of the Ares 3.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX Disappointed In Lack of NASA Mars Funding; Starts Looking For Landing Sites For Its Own Mars Missions

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Is that it ain't the kinda place to raise your kids. In fact, it's cold as hell. And there's no one there to raise them if you did.

    • by DrYak ( 748999 ) on Thursday March 23, 2017 @06:19AM (#54094255) Homepage

      Is that it has no immediate practical military applications.

      Whereas :
      - ...landing a team of human on the moon (the things brought out of Earth low orbit, capsule+landing module etc = 25 tons)
      - ...landing a very small probe on mars
      - ...launching a huge communication satellite into earth orbit.

      All require a big rocket powerful enough to lift 25ton into orbit.
      A rocket with very practical military application :
      - ...it is strong enough to put a big spy satellite (the classified cousins of Hubble telescope) in low orbit.
      - ...it is strong enough to launch the biggest nuclear warhead ever (see Tsar bomba) and reach any point on the globe.

      So government is sure to throw a lot of money into it. Both sides of the iron curtain did it during the cold war.
      The race to space / to the moon, wasn't as much a race to reach space as a covert way to show off "I can nuke any point of the globe".

      In the meantime, being able to launch a human-carrying capsule all the way to Mars needs a much more powerful rocket (heavier mass to launch than a probe / or further to launch than to the moon), which doesn't make any sense from a military point of view : you're not going to pack several Tsar-bomba-class nukes to the same destination.

      Alternatives are using several normal launchers to slowly build step by step an interplanetary vehicle in Earth orbit and use that to shuttle people around to/from Mars.
      That's the thing which makes the most sense in a civilian point of view (re-use existing proven launcher technology, and tons of further scientific discoveries and potential applications of developing an "orbital shipyard / construction site" capability).
      But again no concrete immediate advantage for the military (what's the point of having a huge space borne platform ? dropping rods from space ? When you can already simply nuke any point on earth ?)

      So you can't easily get government money for that.
      So the NASA, SpaceX, and co will need a way to finance these kind of "for Science !" projects privately.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by elrous0 ( 869638 )

        Musk isn't going to Mars, nor does he care about any military applications of the technology. This is just an excuse for him to get more government contracts for promises he knows he will never have to actually fulfill.

        Donald Trump knows the same thing, that we're not actually going to Mars. Like every President for the last several decades, he merely makes a promise of getting there that's so far out that everyone will have long forgotten said promise by the time the deadline arrives. Any President promisi

        • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Thursday March 23, 2017 @07:05AM (#54094357) Homepage

          What's the problem with SpaceX getting government launch contracts? No, seriously. They're charging less than ULA and thus saving the government a ton of money. What's your huge problem with saving money and having the money that is spent go to a company that's focused on great things rather than some conglomerate of huge military-industrial giants?

          I've never understood this animosity.

          • by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Thursday March 23, 2017 @07:16AM (#54094403)

            I've never understood this animosity.

            That's because you've used logic. You can't begin to understand it until you ditch logic.

          • It's a big problem if you are not the ULA.

            For years, decades really, the internet, especially on armchair science and engineering websites, have echoed such pieces of wisdom such as space is so expensive because it is, it's so expensive that only governments could do it and no non government body would ever do anything in space because reasons. Disproving any or all of these would mean that a couple of generations wasted their chance to see a lot based not on science, but ideology.

            • No, Nixon wasted two generations of space-going by defunding NASA. Put the blame where it belongs.

            • by Anonymous Coward

              SpaceX spends less per launch than NASA, but not orders of magnitude less. The Curiosity mission cost $2.5 billion and that was a one-way trip for a robot. Manned trips are on another level, and since they'd be the first to do it they get to pay for all the R&D themselves. And considering the whole thing would be utterly unprofitable and a literal money-flush, there'd be no reason for anyone to invest in it. So either Musk magically adds a zero or two to his bank balance so he can (maybe) afford to

              • by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Thursday March 23, 2017 @09:38AM (#54095127)

                The Curiosity mission cost $2.5 billion and that was a one-way trip for a robot.

                A significant part of that cost was because of the inability to deliver large payloads to Mars cost-efficiently. It seems that Red Dragon is poised to offer a standardized transportation system that could land something like twice the mass of the MSL rover for half the money, and that could not only save you transportation costs (which included not just spending $200M on a top Atlas V configuration launch but also having to develop a "one-off" custom lander), but it could also remove some of the design constraints so that an equivalent mobile robot could be built cheaper, even if it weighed a little bit more in the end because of less money spent on shedding weight.

                • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

                  Yes. The problem is that we keep launching one-offs and patting ourselves on the back for our successes. Then we move on to the next one-off.

                  I think the rovers are great projects and great science, but unless they turn into something repeatable, their actual value is limited. They need the ability to push forward to repeatable and frequent flights where we incrementally test the bounds.

                  The government can be really good at it, but only if the stars align and they're fighting a Cold War. Otherwise, it get

          • by Agripa ( 139780 )

            What's the problem with SpaceX getting government launch contracts? No, seriously. They're charging less than ULA and thus saving the government a ton of money. What's your huge problem with saving money and having the money that is spent go to a company that's focused on great things rather than some conglomerate of huge military-industrial giants?

            Why would the government want to save this money? It is other people's money and they get to spend it for benefits to themselves. What is not for the government to like?

            Actually despite my cynicism, there are some national security reasons to spend the money but I wish they would use them as justification instead of a phantom Mars or Moon objective. But the Shuttle was still a stupid idea.

      • by Nutria ( 679911 )

        This is just so wrong.

        We were already building big rockets. Using a few from excess industrial capacity to send probes to Mars was "gravy".

        • Since all launchers to date have been custom built for specific launches, where is the excess industrial capacity that is being used to launch Mars missions...? Which launch company is suddenly going "awww shucks, we have a spare rocket, anyone want to launch a Mars mission" or "we arent building anything next tuesday, anyone want a rocket for Mars"?

          • by Nutria ( 679911 )

            All Mars launchers have been (in the early days) customized ICBMs or (now) customized variants of launch families that were based on ICBMs, and are still built in the same factories.

            They're not one-off rockets.

            • I never said they were one off rockets, I said they were custom built for specific launches, and that is correct - no launcher company has a stock from which they pull a rocket the week before a launch, the launch requirement comes well before the launch vehicle exists in any capable form, including the ICBM-conversions.

              • by Nutria ( 679911 )

                no launcher company has a stock from which they pull a rocket

                Back in the 1960s, that's exactly what we did. (We and the Sovs made a lot of ICBMs, all of which were dual-use.)

                NASA would go to Convair and say that they needed an Atlas for a specific mission. Convair would then go pick one out of inventory (they were taken out of ICBM service by 1965) or on the production line and tag it for use on a certain mission, then test to see that it still worked.

                Nowadays, "customization" is on the order of "how many standard-design SRBs do you want strapped to the first stage

      • ...So the NASA, SpaceX, and co will need a way to finance these kind of "for Science !" projects privately.

        Yes, because heaven forbid we actually try and justify exploring space without having to tie pointless warmongering to it.

        As if there's some kind of damn point to feeding the bigger-dick syndrome that gave us "Tsar-bomba" class weapons. Haven't lit off a nuke in warfare since 1945, and yet that sure as shit didn't stop anyone from building ones thousands of times stronger, and stockpiling way more than anyone would ever need to "win" a nuclear war.

        Fucking humans. After thousands of years, you idiots never

      • Good points, but I encourage you to take a slightly broader view. As you correctly imply, conflict is the engine that drives innovation; every technological advance our species has achieved can be traced to the need to acquire more resources and defend existing resources against competing cultures. But you are underestimating our ability to create conflict! Space means more opportunities for conflict, not less. As soon as Musk demonstrates the economic feasibility of exploiting off-planet resources (the
  • . . . .about a private Mars Mission being, you know, PRIVATE ??

    • by Anonymous Coward

      SpaceX's business model is to get companies and governments to pay to launch stuff, but rather than just pocket the profits they use it to further develop their vehicles. The PUBLIC money is used to fulfil the contract, leaving the PRIVATE profit, with which they want to eventually to launch PRIVATE Mars missions.

      The US keeps announcing these grand mission statements, but never following through on them with funding... if you've ever had a client who keeps talking to you about a big project that never gets

      • by Rei ( 128717 )

        Most of SpaceX's launches are for private companies. And their real profit plan is satellite internet; these random couple dozen launches per year for the government and private companies is nothing compared to the value of being able to provide cheap high speed internet access everywhere on Earth without having to lay wires. But that requires thousands of satellites to be launched.

        Interestingly enough, this also appears to be Blue Origin's profit plan, via their work with OneWeb.

      • Hey, that's IBM's business model also. They get even more money from NASA than spacex.
    • Maybe you're missing the part where it would be a waste if some planetary scientists, such as those at NASA, didn't include some instruments in the mission payload? I mean, surely science enthusiasts at SpaceX will come up with some basic experiments of their own, but the idea is that NASA's planetary scientists have better ideas as to what to look for and there's some empty space available that would otherwise cost a few hundred million dollars with traditional launch providers.
    • (in the future)
      "SpaceX landed humans on mars."
      Me: AWESOME!
      "Yeah, but they USED GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO DO IT! They were supposed to use PRIVATE FUNDING!"
      Me: Sorry, couldn't hear your boring blather about boring money sources, too busy thinking about how awesome it was that we landed on mars!
      "Well see, taxes-"
      Me: BLAH BLAH BLAH MARS BLAH BLAH BLAH MARS!!!
  • With Teslas and hookers. Ah, screw going to Mars.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Spacex plans to build a ship refueling depot on mars... A gas station that will probably have a repair station next to it... Anything that could be remotely called a shipyard on utopia planita is going to make star trek fans very happy...

    Really there probably are no wrong choices here for making people happy.

    • Anything that could be remotely called a shipyard on utopia planita is going to make star trek fans very happy

      As long as nobody is jumping into warp coils...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Mars has not turned up any useful reasons to go there. We are going there simply because of some mystique about Mars and its about the furthest planet we have technology to actually reach. For once NASA has more practical goals that amount to more for humans than achieving a Mars mission. Of course the other conspiracy fear is NASA is afraid of what we will find on Mars about our own history and evolution that may change humans forever. Frankly, I don't think Musk has the money to ever go to the Moon let al

    • by Lyrael ( 1196443 )
      Yep, no reason to go to Mars. It's not like there's resources to make rocket fuel and water there [inverse.com], making it the next logical step for space exploration or anything.
      • Why would you go down a gravity well to make fuel when you have an asteroid belt with much ice right next to it?

        • by Lyrael ( 1196443 )
          You think mining asteroids is a better idea?...

          I am intrigued; please elaborate.
          • If your talking about making fuel. Absolutely, grab an icy earth crossing asteroid. Closer and the fuel is where you need it, not down another well.

            • by Lyrael ( 1196443 )
              Wait, what?

              /earth/ crossing??

              I think you have sorely misunderstood the problems facing further space exploration. We do NOT need the fuel on earth. This is not where we need it. We have the ability to make fuel here already. We need a permanent place to make fuel (and acquire water) OFF of earth because those are the two heaviest things we take up into space and the biggest limitors to our exploring further in it.

              Not to mention that asteroids are not exactly easy to get to? I mean good luck doing t
              • We primarily need fuel in earth orbit. Nobody is going anyplace past Mars and stopping at Mars on the way. Orbits don't work like that.

  • Elon talks a lot with Trump and spends time with him....
    Elon now wants to fast track getting to mars.....

    I think he saw the monster up close and wants to get off world as soon as he can.

  • by Soft ( 266615 ) on Thursday March 23, 2017 @07:48AM (#54094519)

    Fans of the book/movie "The Martian" would be happy if SpaceX does select Arcadia Planitia for their first landing site as that was the landing site of the Ares 3.

    No, that would be Acidalia Planitia [wikipedia.org], not Arcadia Planitia [wikipedia.org]. Completely different location.

  • Hmm -- I wonder if Musk was promised more Mars funding from the toddler-in-chief in exchange for him staying on the advisors' group even in the face of all the tech world's outrage? I didn't blame him at the time -- you gotta eat -- but it looks like he found out like many have before, that our current fearless leader isn't the most trustworthy man around.

  • by BlueCoder ( 223005 ) on Thursday March 23, 2017 @08:38AM (#54094775)

    Seriously. Launch payloads of fuel, food and water into practical long term orbits. Fund it with stocks/bonds that people can publicly invest in such that they own a portion of that material in space. They can sell their stock openly.

    And learn to maximize payload efficiency by taking up more supplies with every launch.

    Then have drones that can ferry materials around in orbit. Refueling satellite thrusters and atomic cells on demand before they run out of fuel and burn up.

  • Is it creepy to anyone else that they're referred to as customers?
    Since the government isn't funding any of this stuff, it looks like corporations will already be holding those going to Mars hostage and the future of interplanetary travel is capitalist in nature... thoughts?

    • by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Thursday March 23, 2017 @08:58AM (#54094897)

      the future of interplanetary travel is capitalist in nature... thoughts?

      Damn, but that would be almost as bad as going to the New World hoping to find a cheaper route for the spice trade, wouldn't it?

      Luckily for us that never happened, eh?

      What/s that? Columbus was trying to find a way to the Far East when he conned Isabella out of her jewels to finance the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria??? Say it ain't so!

      Seriously, who cares whether the first men on Mars are paid for by the government of private industry? As long as there ARE First Men on Mars, it's a win for humanity....

      • by e r ( 2847683 )
        Furthermore, shouldn't we doubt whether the government would ever find it in their interests to establish a base on Mars?

        It's too far away to be useful as a military base and there's no constituents on Mars to satisfy.

        Science doesn't really need meat bags on the surface to explore and measure the planet. Scientists may want to go very badly, but pretty pictures only gets you money up to a point and human missions are very expensive.

        Isn't capitalism-- the hope that there's resources on Mars to make a b
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • by e r ( 2847683 )

            Personally, it's the thrill of exploration and the unknown.

            I understand. And I agree. I would absolutely love to get to Mars and explore (I'm on the third book of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy [wikipedia.org]).

            But isn't it unrealistic to expect others to pay to satisfy my personal thrill seeking and adventure?
            Not everyone can make the trip to Mars. Not everyone even considers such a trip worthwhile.

  • by k6mfw ( 1182893 ) on Thursday March 23, 2017 @09:08AM (#54094937)

    here we go again... both Musk and NASA are doomed to keep a single course to Mars.

    (borrowing a few sentences from Tom Matula on NASAwatch): I blame most of the destination argument on the creation of the Mars underground in the 1980's. Prior to that NASA was focused on using the Shuttle for industrialization in LEO with projects like demonstrating the repair and return of satellites, building structural items in orbit, tethers, etc., all logical starting points for building a Cislunar industrial capability that would have given us the Solar System. NASA didn't even have plans to send robots to Mars. By advocating that we needed to skip the Moon and go rushing off to Mars they started this entire useless destination debate that has paralyzed space policy ever since.

  • Breaking!
    Company states sadness that the Federal Government is not paying more of their bills. Decides to use it own money to do things and make a profit.
    Sad day for the country.
  • Fans of the book/movie "The Martian" would be happy if SpaceX does select Arcadia Planitia for their first landing site as that was the landing site of the Ares 3.

    Since SpaceX is so in favor of reuse, I'm sure they wouldn't mind reusing the sound stage. Unlike those throwaway moon sound stages.

  • This ridiculous item [slashdot.org] was posted to Slashdot with a headline falsely asserting the opposite.

  • While the GOP continue to waste money on the SLS/Orion debacle, they are also continuing funding for new space, though it was left open.
    If money is spent on multiple private space stations, along with sending us to the moon VIA NEW SPACE, then it will allow for the infrastructure to be put in place and the price for launches, space operations, etc to drop. And a once a month launch of the BFR to the moon/space would help him far more than direct cash will.

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson

Working...