Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks SpaceX is delusional about going to Mars

[fredinno]

Tyson said:

Quote

The delusion that relates to private spaceflight isn’t really what you’re describing. They’re big dreams, and I don’t have any problems with people dreaming. Mars One, let them dream. That’s not the delusion. The delusion is thinking that SpaceX is going to lead the space frontier. That’s just not going to happen, and it’s not going to happen for three really good reasons: One, it is very expensive. Two, it is very dangerous to do it first. Three, there is essentially no return on that investment that you’ve put in for having done it first. So if you’re going to bring in investors or venture capitalists and say, "Hey, I have an idea, I want to put the first humans on Mars." They’ll ask, "How much will it cost?" You say, "A lot." They’ll ask, "Is it dangerous?" You’ll say, "Yes, people will probably die." They’ll ask, "What’s the return on investment?" and you’ll say "Probably nothing, initially." It’s a five-minute meeting. Corporations need business models, and they need to satisfy shareholders, public or private.

A government has a much longer horizon over which it can make investments. This is how it’s always been. And the best example, I think, is Christopher Columbus. That was not a private mission. There were some private monies in the public monies that were used, but basically the mission statement was established by Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, and they said go plant the flag wherever you land. There’s hegemonistic motivation, and it wasn’t specifically military at the time, but Spain certainly had an armada to back up their land grabs. Only after that, only after Christopher Columbus comes back and says, "Here are the people that I found, here are the foods, and here are the trade winds," only then does the Dutch East India Trading Company come in and make a buck off of it. They didn’t have to make that first investment. The risks were quantified, the cost was well understood, and the return on investment was calculable. That is a recurring model in the history of our civilization, and I don’t see any reason why that would be any different from advancing a frontier such as that in space.

So what is SpaceX doing now? They’re bringing cargo back and forth to the space station, as should have been happening decades ago. You don’t need NASA to move cargo, you get NASA to do the things that have never been done before. And then when they do it enough and there’s a routine, then you farm it off to private enterprise, which can actually do it more efficiently than you can, and presumably make a buck for having done so.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39922.0

http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9792854/neil-degrasse-tyson-interview-delusions-of-space-enthusiasts

Here are a few posts from NASASpaceFlight:

Quote

HOwever, not investors. This is why the Tyson argument is solid: if Musk really wants to do this, either will go along the government for a flag-&-footprint mission, or will have to sell spaceX and perform the mission on its own finances as a form of extremely expensive hobby.

Quote

Dang.
Neil knows what he's talking about.
Compared to his billionaire friends it has taken Elon a long time to build a 12bn$ company and the reason is not that they are smarter but that they are operating in much easier markets (speak: bigger).
To build a 12bn$ company on new, heavily network effected Internet services of some kind is easy if you can make it to dominate your category. If your service is really good it will attract a significant part of world population. Say one quarter. Now to have a 12 bn company you only have to demonstrate you can earn like a single dollar per year on each of your users, i's soooo simple compared to making money in space.

No, I don't see where all the money should come from. Let's not forget this is not about rockets but payloads! And SpaceX so far didn't self-finance an awful lot of those.

I'm on the side of Tyson here, simply since Mars is so much higher in cost, and considering a basic Mars Direct plan was to cost $30 Billion (and Elon wants bigger)...

http://www.wired.com/2012/08/is-a-privately-funded-manned-mission-to-mars-possible/

(and the $5 Billion number doesn't count, Mars Direct was chastised for being too optimistic, and the $5 Billion number excludes extra private investment, which always happens with private-public space competitions.)

Edited April 4, 2016 by fredinno

[Mitchz95]

I just have no faith in the government doing what's needed to get to Mars in a reasonable time frame. Sure, NASA could probably do it better and safer, but they won't because the government won't let them. For that reason alone, I'm still betting that SpaceX will beat them to Mars.

SpaceX was created with the express purpose of sending people to Mars. They've never shied away from the fact that everything they do is to move them closer to achieving that goal, and it's something the shareholders were aware of going into it.

[fredinno]

17 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said:

I just have no faith in the government doing what's needed to get to Mars in a reasonable time frame. Sure, NASA could probably do it better and safer, but they won't because the government won't let them. For that reason alone, I'm still betting that SpaceX will beat them to Mars.

SpaceX was created with the express purpose of sending people to Mars. They've never shied away from the fact that everything they do is to move them closer to achieving that goal, and it's something the shareholders were aware of going into it.

The question is if either will get to Mars within the next century. The SpaceX Mars dream likely ends with Elon anyways.

[Hysterrics]

I've been a fan of of Neil before, but as of lately he's seeming more and more arrogant to me. He tweets various things that a lot of times end up on /r/iamverysmart.

I get that he's a smart guy, but he just comes off as a bit of a [REDACTED] on Twitter it seems.

Exhibit A: http://imgur.com/WZ6hsJ8

Exhibit B: http://i.imgur.com/ZrDnzQI.jpg

[HebaruSan]

Right now, his arguments are correct. No one is making money on Mars and no one knows how.

The point of what Musk is doing is to figure out how. No one can predict what money and time will or will not accomplish.

[Majorjim!]

2 hours ago, Sequinox said:

I've been a fan of of Neil before, but as of lately he's seeming more and more arrogant to me. He tweets various things that a lot of times end up on /r/iamverysmart.

I get that he's a smart guy, but he just comes off as a bit of a [REDACTED] on Twitter it seems.

Exhibit A: http://imgur.com/WZ6hsJ8

Exhibit B: http://i.imgur.com/ZrDnzQI.jpg

Agreed. He has contributed to the public awareness of science but has made no discoveries or made any worthwhile contribution to scientific knowledge. He has an ego the size of the sun and is not even compelling to watch. Take what he says with a pinch of salt. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Majorjim

[AngelLestat]

But spacex would not go to mars with their own money (at least not for the several 10 or 20 first missions)..  that is a DUUH..  
The thing here is that Spacex would develop a better rocket and better technology to realize the first mission to mars at 1/10 of NASA cost, so if they achieve that government will paid for spacex designs to make that achievement with spacex tech instead use their own tech.

That is what the common sense tells you when you read Elon Musk vs NASA.

Edited April 4, 2016 by AngelLestat

[tater]

A manned Mars mission would be more like 100 billion total cost I think, and even 1/10th of that is not "walking around money" for Musk, he's rich by regular people standards, but not really rich. Maybe Tesla will actually start making money and that will change. SpaceX can only do stuff that makes money. On top of this, you can't argue about the cost of A trip to Mars, Musk is talking about colonizing Mars, which is more like a trillion dollar endeavor (at least).

So you not only need to come up with some economic driver where none exists (or will exist), but it needs to generate huge revenues.

[Hysterrics]

If NASA ultimately cancels their current Mars project(which I hope they don't), they could help fund SpaceX. I could see NASA becoming more of a spacecraft developer rather than a launch vehicle developer in the future.

[Motokid600]

He is correct in the sense that Space X will not be the tip of the spear. Just like how Grumman wasn't for Apollo. Mars will ( and should ) be an international effort.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Motokid600

[PB666]

5 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

I just have no faith in the government doing what's needed to get to Mars in a reasonable time frame. Sure, NASA could probably do it better and safer, but they won't because the government won't let them. For that reason alone, I'm still betting that SpaceX will beat them to Mars.

SpaceX was created with the express purpose of sending people to Mars. They've never shied away from the fact that everything they do is to move them closer to achieving that goal, and it's something the shareholders were aware of going into it.

Whether you trust the government or not, I doubt SpaceX is going to build a significant scientific foundation for other government or industries to work off of. So even if they make it would be a bit of a wasted effort. The point about governments doing it, even if slow is to develope a resource base (knowledge) that other explorers can use.

[AngelLestat]

1 hour ago, tater said:

A manned Mars mission would be more like 100 billion total cost I think, and even 1/10th of that is not "walking around money" for Musk, he's rich by regular people standards, but not really rich. Maybe Tesla will actually start making money and that will change. SpaceX can only do stuff that makes money. On top of this, you can't argue about the cost of A trip to Mars, Musk is talking about colonizing Mars, which is more like a trillion dollar endeavor (at least).

So you not only need to come up with some economic driver where none exists (or will exist), but it needs to generate huge revenues.

You did not understood me, that 1/10 would be provided by the same government through NASA to spacex.
Why they would use their own things if they can launch the mission with 1/10 of the cost or less using spacex tech?

Edited April 4, 2016 by AngelLestat

[tater]

NASA never uses "their own things."

Who do you think built Apollo? North American Aviation built the CSM, Grumman the LEM, Boeing, North American, and Douglas built Saturn.

They ALWAYS buy stuff, and SpaceX doesn't magically make that cheaper. If they contracted with SpaceX for some Mars vehicle, they'd work WITH SpaceX as the very involved customers they are, and they'd keep tweaking it until it ended up costing a lot. Also, and this is critical if you're going to bother talking about US Federal spending, it would have to be "non-vertical" in terms of subcontracting, because if all that money ends up in one congressional district, it NEVER GETS FUNDED.

This was true when President Washington ordered the first 6 frigates of the US NAVY, and it has been so ever since, and will be so into the distant future. This is particularly true of an endeavor like Mars which has no possible return on investment. As such, it's a jobs program, plain and simple, it needs to spread the money around the US so that it at least has some usefulness.

Edited April 4, 2016 by tater

[AngelLestat]

you have a real big confusion with different post I guess, I am saying something very different and you keep misunderstanding my words.

For example:  NASA never uses "their own things."

I never said that, I said: Why they would use their own things if they can launch the mission with 1/10 of the cost or less using spacex tech?
Also about how was done before is not a prove that it will continue to be that way.
We know that things which are not cost effective in the world are being replaced for things more cost effective all the time.

Spacex is developing its MCT with ISRU and a possible mars manned lander can be included.  If it has much more sense that NASA plans, then NASA will provide the money for the development and leave the SLS for few other missions or like government alternative meanwhile.. Because everybody knows that SLS does not have long term future due its cost.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, AngelLestat said:

But spacex would not go to mars with their own money (at least not for the several 10 or 20 first missions)..  that is a DUUH..  
The thing here is that Spacex would develop a better rocket and better technology to realize the first mission to mars at 1/10 of NASA cost, so if they achieve that government will paid for spacex designs to make that achievement with spacex tech instead use their own tech.

That is what the common sense tells you when you read Elon Musk vs NASA.

Only NASA will almost certainly never fund SpaceX's Mars plans, they have their own.

1 hour ago, Sequinox said:

If NASA ultimately cancels their current Mars project(which I hope they don't), they could help fund SpaceX. I could see NASA becoming more of a spacecraft developer rather than a launch vehicle developer in the future.

If NASA cancels the Mars project (which is likely due to how little work  has been done, they will move to another destination, probably the moon. Because they need to keep the SLS launching.

18 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

You did not understood me, that 1/10 would be provided by the same government through NASA to spacex.
Why they would use their own things if they can launch the mission with 1/10 of the cost or less using spacex tech?

One thing to keep in mind SpaceX is not magically cheaper. SpaceX's CRS-2 contract was actually the highest in cost (more than SNC or OrbitalATK, "oldspace" corporations). A single source contract means SpaceX can take more advantage of it to make more profit.

 

[SgtSomeone]

I think SpaceX's MCT vision should be viewed like Tesla's vision to get transportation off of fossil fuels. When you look at them without context, it doesn't necessarily seem like a business would be interested. You can imagine the same 'corporate meeting' playing out during Tesla's initial phase: "How much will it cost [to get human transport off of fossil fuels]?" "A lot". "Will it be dangerous?" "less than spaceflight, but LiPo's explode, so probably". "ROI, considering the billions in capital car companies need?" Probz not a lot to start with". 

I get that going to Mars is orders of magnitude harder than transitioning transportation to clean energy, but Musk seems to see profit as a means to an end, or a convenient side effect of achieving his real goals. In each case there's an ultimate reason ("clean energy" and "backup of human race"), and each case he takes small steps that do make business sense that put his company closer to the ultimate goal (i.e make a Tesla Roadster proof of concept, land the contract for the ISS). 

My point is not that Mr Tyson is wrong, just that he's looking at this the wrong way. Is there a business case for this? Probably not. Is this bats**t crazy? Probably. But each step Musk has his company take, and each business case for an expansion his company undergoes is done for a reason in addition to profit. MCT is just the goal that guides every business decision and sub step that SpaceX takes, and I think that there's a good chance that those small steps will actually add up to something. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by SgtSomeone

[tater]

35 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

you have a real big confusion with different post I guess, I am saying something very different and you keep misunderstanding my words.

For example:  NASA never uses "their own things."

I never said that, I said: Why they would use their own things if they can launch the mission with 1/10 of the cost or less using spacex tech?

(the graphical editor on this forum is AWFUL, argh, it's impossible to break up quote reliably)

Read what you wrote. You are explicitly saying that NASA "has their own things" which is nonsense. They BUY THINGS from contractors to the specifications they set. 

You have not demonstrated that SpaceX can supply a Mars vehicle, and particularly one to NASA specs for 1/10th the cost. Where is this mythical spacecraft, and what's the sticker price?

 

Quote

Also about how was done before is not a prove that it will continue to be that way.
We know that things which are not cost effective in the world are being replaced for things more cost effective all the time.

We know that GOVERNMENT spending will without question continue to be done as it was before.

What SpaceX can do with their own money is utterly irrelevant to NASA. Really. NASA spends taxpayer money. Their spending is controlled by Congress. Congress will---rightly, I might add---demand that this money is not all put in one guy's pocket. There is a reason SpaceX and BO have facilities in TX, FL, and CA, for example. 3 large states (large states mean more congressmen). This instantly buys them some congressional support. SpaceX lower cost is predicated on their vertical integration model, which is exactly counter to the way things actually get funded. To buy the votes, they would need to put a plant in many other districts, or subcontractors. Apollo was more than the manufacturers I listed, they had many subcontractors as well, in many districts. Why do you think Grumman got the LEM? Partially they were all in for LOR, but it helped a LOT that they are in Bethpage, New York (another large pop state). NACA/NASA was, is, and will always be a jobs program. 

How many times does this need to be said? In your own country, perhaps all money liberated from the people is spent with the input of unicorns with accountants to guarantee cost-efficiency, but in the US, that's not how government spending works. We can all wish it was otherwise, but that won't change anything. Really.

Quote

Spacex is developing its MCT with ISRU and a possible mars manned lander can be included.  If it has much more sense that NASA plans, then NASA will provide the money for the development and leave the SLS for few other missions or like government alternative meanwhile.. Because everybody knows that SLS does not have long term future due its cost.

 

You just don't get it. I haven't the slightest clue how your government works, so I'd not presume to tell you how they might chose to spend money. What you are suggesting will never happen.

Edited April 5, 2016 by tater

[AngelLestat]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

Only NASA will almost certainly never fund SpaceX's Mars plans, they have their own.

Really? what they got?   They have something solid?    no..  they have almost nothing yet.  You even said it yourself in this next quote:

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

If NASA cancels the Mars project (which is likely due to how little work  has been done, they will move to another destination, probably the moon. Because they need to keep the SLS launching.

One thing to keep in mind SpaceX is not magically cheaper. SpaceX's CRS-2 contract was actually the highest in cost (more than SNC or OrbitalATK, "oldspace" corporations). A single source contract means SpaceX can take more advantage of it to make more profit.

NASA main objective will continue to be Mars, the last director they hired (the woman who was designing the skin suits for mars) said very clear that the main objective is mars, and she does not want to hear someone in NASA talking of something else.  This does not remove the possibility that they will have different missions before, like the moon, asteroids, or even venus.  But they are still searching solutions for each of the mars problems.

53 minutes ago, tater said:

(the graphical editor on this forum is AWFUL, argh, it's impossible to break up quote reliably)

Read what you wrote. You are explicitly saying that NASA "has their own things" which is nonsense. They BUY THINGS from contractors to the specifications they set. 

You have not demonstrated that SpaceX can supply a Mars vehicle, and particularly one to NASA specs for 1/10th the cost. Where is this mythical spacecraft, and what's the sticker price?

I said this:  Why they would use their own things if they can launch the mission with 1/10 of the cost or less using spacex tech?
Maybe I should use will instead would, my bad there, but still: Their own things can be understood as the things that already had or almost have (SLS, ORION, etc) or things that they still need to develop.
Contractors?  SLS,  ORION, spacesuits, heatshields, etc.  is 90% design and builded in nasa facilities, and even if there is a % that is not, is still ordered by NASA using mostly NASA designs or parameters.
If spacex show their designs and NASA discover that even including development for the spacex propositions (in which they will invest too) they will spend less than using SLS ORION and different planned tech, in that case is possible they choose the spacex design to travel to mars.   Why they would not?

Why I need to prove that spacex will supply a mars vehicle if I clearly said that as one possibility?   In any case, from all the things that I read, I know that ISRU is the main goal for the MCT design, because they not include the fuel for mars departure and they even said they want to use ISRU, so if they design the rocket, and they plan to use ISRU, is not crazy to think they will use a personal manned vehicle able to land on mars that it will work with methane.

In case you want to be sure, just wait few months, spacex will present their design eventually.

53 minutes ago, tater said:

We know that GOVERNMENT spending will without question continue to be done as it was before.

What SpaceX can do with their own money is utterly irrelevant to NASA. Really. NASA spends taxpayer money. Their spending is controlled by Congress. Congress will---rightly, I might add---demand that this money is not all put in one guy's pocket.

Why taxpayer money was used for the falcon9 development and the dragonv2?
 

53 minutes ago, tater said:

You just don't get it. I haven't the slightest clue how your government works, so I'd not presume to tell you how they might chose to spend money. What you are suggesting will never happen.

I agree with all you said, but congressman are also guided for votes, if the people knows that there is an option to go mars in the short term without using an incredible amount of money, it will be hard to prove for each congressman that the other case will be better.

Each time is harder to hide stuffs, take note the ULA case with the engines and the record confession. The Panama Papers, etc.
The pressure of the people to do something significative now and no 30 years later.  (the only time line that nasa can achieve).
Elon Musk that already accomplish many incredible thing had only 1 goal, reach mars wherever it takes..
So you can make your bets, I do mines..  NASA will reach Mars using spacex vehicles.

[tater]

5 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

I said this:  Why they would use their own things if they can launch the mission with 1/10 of the cost or less using spacex tech?
Maybe I should use will instead would, my bad there, but still: Their own things can be understood as the things that already had or almost have (SLS, ORION, etc) or things that they still need to develop.

They do not have their own things. They have things they buy. SpaceX is no different than any other possible contractor. If NASA demands a certain spec, then the design changes. If NASA nixes reuse as wasted effort, then that goes away, pretty soon FH looks like SLS. That's how it works. 

Quote

Why taxpayer money was used for the falcon9 development and the dragonv2?

Because NASA has a program for commercial crew and ISS resupply. It's a small budget, but without it SpaceX would not be as much of a thing as they are. I've not seen even an inkling of NASA spreading money around to private contractors to come up with variant Mars craft, have you? It will have to be a process that allows all the usual suspects to compete, as well. Note that the money that went to SpaceX also went to other contractors. The money was spread around (to different districts).

 

Quote

I agree with all you said, but congressman are also guided for votes, if the people knows that there is an option to go mars in the short term without using an incredible amount of money, it will be hard to prove for each congressman that the other case will be better.

LOL. One, people don't care even a little about the space program. This forum is a tiny subset of people. Two, they are for spending what money they spend---in their own district. They will vote for spending in someone else's district by horse-trading for some pork in their area. The congress-critters who are in the districts of competing contractors (and most defense contractors are very spread around on purpose) will vote against it regardless of cost in favor of their local companies. There is a reason large projects like Apollo are composites of multiple contractors. There is ZERO probability that a large taxpayer-funded Mars project uses a single contractor. Zero.

Did you say you were an engineer? Because your POV on this issue seems... younger than that. It would be nice to share your wishful thinking, but it's just not the way things work here in the real world.

[GluttonyReaper]

"It's not the same when you do it! You'll never be Carl Sagan!"

[Pipcard]

9 hours ago, tater said:

They do not have their own things. They have things they buy. SpaceX is no different than any other possible contractor. If NASA demands a certain spec, then the design changes. If NASA nixes reuse as wasted effort, then that goes away, pretty soon FH looks like SLS. That's how it works. 

Just because NASA abandoned reuse after the failure of the Space Shuttle to make reuse economical doesn't mean they will force SpaceX to do the same, especially if the latter's method actually works to reduce costs. And so far, SpaceX is only thinking of reducing prices for F9R. Even if the market isn't elastic enough (as some people here may think), there will still be cost savings.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Pipcard

[tater]

21 minutes ago, Pipcard said:

Just because NASA abandoned reuse after the failure of the Space Shuttle to make reuse economical doesn't mean they will force SpaceX to do the same, especially if the latter's method actually works to reduce costs. And so far, SpaceX is only thinking of reducing prices for F9R. Even if the market isn't elastic enough (as some people here may think), there will still be cost savings.

I didn't say they would, I used that as an example that the contractor has no control. Look at D2 and propulsive landing. They can do what they want, but they have to land with chutes, anyway.

Regardless, NASA is not spending many billions on a single-contractor Mars mission. Who is building SLS and Orion? Boeing, United Launch Alliance, Orbital ATK, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Lockheed Martine, and Airbus Defense and Space. That list would not get shorter for a Mars mission.

[sevenperforce]

15 hours ago, Majorjim said:

Agreed. He has contributed to the public awareness of science but has made no discoveries or made any worthwhile contribution to scientific knowledge. He has an ego the size of the sun and is not even compelling to watch. Take what he says with a pinch of salt. 

Yeah, he's a nice guy and all but I like Nye a bit better. Nye had the balls to take on Ham and his ilk, after all.

[todofwar]

I'm sure Lockheed or Boeing or some other giant in the industry is starting to look at their business model and how to usurp it anyway, so I actually don't give SpaceX long. But maybe I'm too much of a pessimist, I didn't think Tesla would survive entry of the big auto manufacterers but they're outselling the competition right now. 

And I still don't understand NASA's own funding model. There seems to be this inherent jump in cost when you go public sector, and try as I might I can never find the reason why. Maybe if Congress just gave carte blanche and said do what you want NASA could bring in some consultants and trim away all of the fat and start making real progress. But that is probably never going to happen.

[Nibb31]

16 minutes ago, todofwar said:

And I still don't understand NASA's own funding model. There seems to be this inherent jump in cost when you go public sector, and try as I might I can never find the reason why. Maybe if Congress just gave carte blanche and said do what you want NASA could bring in some consultants and trim away all of the fat and start making real progress. But that is probably never going to happen.

Because NASA's funding is controlled by Congress, they only get to spend money where Congress tells them to spend it. And for Congressmen, NASA's sole purpose is to spend government money in the districts where they are elected. Any other goal (exploration, science, propaganda...) is secondary.

NASA doesn't do cheap, because that's not what it is for. Anyone who thinks that NASA will always choose the single cheapest solution misunderstands NASA's purpose. If NASA wanted cheap, then any of the usual contractors (including Boeing or Lockheed) could do cheap. Cheap just isn't part of NASA's requirements.

I'm also with Tyson here, there is no commercial space program without someone footing the bill. Musk alone can't do it alone, he's not that rich, he only has billions. The effort would have to be paid for either by the government or private customers. The government can't and won't write a check to SpaceX, because that's not how it works (fortunately) and there are no private customers that fit any credible business model.

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Nibb31