Team SpaceX or team NASA?

[FishInferno]

this is just a little poll that I made, because I am curious if people think SpaceX will get to Mars before NASA.

I personally think SpaceX will get s there first, mainly because they have the will, and NASA keeps getting bounced around by politics.

EDIT: I am talking about a manned mission here.

Edited May 7, 2015 by FishInferno

[crazyewok]

Neither.

To get to mars requires massive resources Space X currently don't have. I admire Elon Musk and what he has accomplished but even he does not have wealth to go for a manned mars mission, not without taking short cuts.

NASA? Again resources are spread thin. Though I would say if they really tried they could do it. Problem is NASA have no concrete set direction, there policy is pretty much directed by whatever monkeys in suites sit in congress and the white house to them NASA is one big pork barrel to bleed of money. When they are forced to concentrate on things like $500 million dollar testing towers that are obsolete I am skeptical of there budget handling.

Russia? Well seeing as there economy is tanking like a lead balloon I would not be surprised if in 10 years time they cant even send men into LEO.

[adsii1970]

this is just a little poll that I made, because I am curious if people think SpaceX will get to Mars before NASA.

I personally think SpaceX will get s there first, mainly because they have the will, and NASA keeps getting bounced around by politics.

I disagree. In all actuallity, I believe it will be a global partnership with corporate investment with international government oversight. There are several reasons I say this.

I think that if SpaceX gets too far ahead of NASA and where it looks like SpaceX is cost effective AND generates interest in commercial flights to Mars, the U.S. government (as we have people who are playing KSP that are not Americans) will begin to legislate to the point it is no longer appealing or financially feasible for private industry. I believe it will be the same thing with lunar development. As an historian and someone who does a lot of research into foreign and domestic policy, one of the things the U.S. is growing increasingly paranoid about is an exodus from the nation.

This is also true of the nations in western Europe, Russia, and China. For most of human history, humans have been able to migrate from one place to another with fairly little resistance. The modern "nation-state" since the middle of the 16th Century (C. E.) has limited man's ability until colonization of the Americas began. Even during that time, the European nation-states did their best to limit its citizenry that were able to immigrate to the New World; in the case of England/Great Britain, even limiting the ability of those possessing certain trades and skills from leaving their homeland. With the settlement of the American continents and the formation of new nation-states, there has been nowhere for migration to occur without developing into an international crisis. Space and space colonization would change that if it were economically feasible, which is what commercial space exploration would do.

If either Mars or the Moon were to become commercially developed with colonies, I will be willing to bet that the number of Americans wanting to emigrate would astound (I, for one, would leave in a heartbeat!). Even the United Nations has debated the "sovereignty" of exo-Earth settlement and has tried to state that any settlement on such bodies would fall under the direct guidance and governance of the U.N. Yeah, right - as how are you going to make that stick once a colony develops the abilities to become self-reliant? Is commercial space exploration possible - yes. Is it preferred - yes, as the more profitable it becomes, the more we will learn. However, I do not see any government allowing the commercial development of space to go beyond any government's ability to control.

Edited May 6, 2015 by adsii1970
Didn't answer the original question

[Reddragon]

SpaceX has a plan to 'kick start' a colony on Mars. They haven't really talked about when they intend to make bringing people back possible and I don't think anyone on Earth is up for the challenge to live and work in a very small camp on a desert planet, probably for the rest of their lives. Not even mentioning what the costs could be even for this 'simple' approach which SpaceX will have to fund (maybe completely) by themselves. I love SpaceX but they really should

[adsii1970]

SpaceX has a plan to 'kick start' a colony on Mars. They haven't really talked about when they intend to make bringing people back possible and I don't think anyone on Earth is up for the challenge to live and work in a very small camp on a desert planet, probably for the rest of their lives. Not even mentioning what the costs could be even for this 'simple' approach which SpaceX will have to fund (maybe completely) by themselves. I love SpaceX but they really should

I would do it in a heartbeat - leave Earth and not come back. I love the idea of a challenge much like what faced the pioneers and early settlers to the North American continent. For some of us the drive and the desire is there. I know the situations are not the same, as we are talking about a world that is essentially inhospitable to put it nicely (I still think it would be more hospitable than going to my ex-wife's family reunion ). However, given the right tools and training, I believe that a colony in space is very doable, quite possibly as early as the next fifteen years.

Edited May 6, 2015 by adsii1970

[Findthepin1]

mars one

[Karriz]

Both most likely. It makes the most sense to do it together, and also bring ESA and maybe other countries in to split the costs. Someone does the rovers, someone the habitat, SpaceX will handle the rockets etc.

[Frozen_Heart]

SpaceX. But it will take them a lot longer than they say it will. Probably 2040s or 50s.

NASA just plain doesn't have the resources to get to Mars. They won't manage it now or later.

[crazyewok]

mars one

Is a scam.

[Agent86]

Team Google.

[prophet_01]

Hard to tell. Atm it might go either way. From my point of view, NASA is tied so close to politics that it comes down to coming elections. They definetly are able to do it with some more time, development and the needed funding and political will.

SpaceX does need more than 'only' the capability to do it Ithink. I think it depends if theire efforts on reducing launch costs turn out to be succesful. Afterall they are a company and there needs to be some at least partly profitable buisiness behind it. Highly exclusive tourism might work for earth orbit, but mars? I doubt it. If they rly want get someone to mars, I would expect them to act as the provider of such a service. They might offer goverments the opportunity to be the first to set food on mars. If they are able to sell that idea and convince one nation they might easily find more customers that want to compete. Maybe a business could develop out of this. I wouldn't count on it, but it seems more reasonable than the idea of elon musc as the altruistic savior of human space flight.

Maybe NASA contracts SpaceX at some point to help them with even more tasks. The problem here is that the SLS is also an economic projekt and they might not be allowed to use a cheaper launcher by comercial provider. But they somehow managed to get comercial ISS flights running. So it might not be impossible

[FishInferno]

many people have said that SpaceX does not have the money to fund a Mars mission. But if they succeed in making rocket launched cheap via reusability, then they might be able to afford it, assuming that they have no other money making programs by then, like the internet constellation

[Linear]

Within 20 years SpaceX (and it's funding companies) will have more than enough money to pursue a Mars mission.

[FishInferno]

Within 20 years SpaceX (and it's funding companies) will have more than enough money to pursue a Mars mission.

Yes. as they make more progress investors will surely jump on board. I would not be surprised if Google helped them out, since they fund lots of innovative projects

[tater]

Why would anyone invest in Mars? Investment requires a return on investment. That seems unlikely.

NASA by its nature is, and has always been political. NASA does not build spacecraft, contractors build spacecraft (or parts of spacecraft). The selection of those contractors… is political. The current crop of porkbarrel contractors gets overpaid for everything, and due to "sunk cost fallacy," I think they will come up with something for SLS/Orion to do (which is what the pigs at the trough count on). Mars would require a commitment, and maybe NASA will stop pushing it off and do it at some point (which might well use different contractors for vehicles, it will be hard to argue with other contractors when they are vastly cheaper).

[Linear]

Why would anyone invest in Mars? Investment requires a return on investment. That seems unlikely.

NASA by its nature is, and has always been political. NASA does not build spacecraft, contractors build spacecraft (or parts of spacecraft). The selection of those contractors… is political. The current crop of porkbarrel contractors gets overpaid for everything, and due to "sunk cost fallacy," I think they will come up with something for SLS/Orion to do (which is what the pigs at the trough count on). Mars would require a commitment, and maybe NASA will stop pushing it off and do it at some point (which might well use different contractors for vehicles, it will be hard to argue with other contractors when they are vastly cheaper).

Being the first manned mission to Mars is pretty good for a company, i hear.

[Idrryl]

The sad thing is that the funding NASA had with Apollo is lost, and they ain't getting it back. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a Mars landing in my lifetime, but I don't think NASA alone will be able to do it. On the other hand, SpaceX is ambitious. But I think they won't be able to do this alone, not by a long shot. I think this mission would require NASA-ESA-SpaceX collaboration.

[Frybert]

The sad thing is that the funding NASA had with Apollo is lost, and they ain't getting it back. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a Mars landing in my lifetime, but I don't think NASA alone will be able to do it. On the other hand, SpaceX is ambitious. But I think they won't be able to do this alone, not by a long shot. I think this mission would require NASA-ESA-SpaceX collaboration.

I was thinking something similar. Obviously SpaceX would want it to be their ship, their lander, and probably their first person to set foot on mars. NASA and ESA (heck probably even the Russians and Chinese if it does turn out to be the first) would obviously want their equipment, personnel on board, and would provide some funding, as well as any surface modules.

To be honest, I really think the first manned Mars mission would be a lot closer in execution to the ISS. There's just not enough money floating around for a new space race. More of a space carpool.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Frybert

[HoloYolo]

NASA. SpaceX is a private company. It gets funding from NASA, so it already gets extremely low funding. But I wouldn't be surprised if NASA, ESA, and Mars One collaborated when the time came. But really NASA has a 1000x more chance of getting to Mars then SpaceX ever will have.

[PakledHostage]

Being the first manned mission to Mars is pretty good for a company, i hear.

Why? Please explain your rationale? Many people would quite reasonably consider it "wasting billions on a boondoggle" which is hardly good for any company. There has to be a return on investment. How do you anticipate that SpaceX would make money by sending people to Mars?

[tater]

Being the first manned mission to Mars is pretty good for a company, i hear.

Paklehostage says the same above, but yes, by all means be clear. Would it be good for a company to light the largest pile of money on fire, ever, and dance around the bonfire?

[grosser_Salat]

Well it will be led by NASA, but executed mostly by SpaceX - that's my guess so far.

SpaceX will be winning most of the going-to-Mars-assoiciated contracts.

[Louella]

How do you communicate with spacecraft around Mars ?

The existing Deep Space Networks are all government owned, aren't they ?

Is it realistic for private companies to construct their own deep space networks to communicate with their private space explorations ? Or are they just going to use one or more of the existing government ones ?

[HoloYolo]

How do you communicate with spacecraft around Mars ?

The existing Deep Space Networks are all government owned, aren't they ?

Is it realistic for private companies to construct their own deep space networks to communicate with their private space explorations ? Or are they just going to use one or more of the existing government ones ?

As NASA uses Soyuz as Private Companies use comm sats.

[grosser_Salat]

Actually Elon plans to construct a satellite network to broadcast internet - to earth and later beyond...

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/534361/why-the-time-seems-right-for-a-space-based-internet-service/

Edited May 6, 2015 by grosser_Salat
Added source