Team SpaceX or team NASA?

[Kryten]

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 ?

DSN is actually available for commercial use; ISRO paid for coverage during MOM orbit insertion. It would probably need some major upgrading to handle the amount of data associated with this kind of mission, and the relay hardware at Mars certainly would.

[Voyager275]

SpaceX all the way

[Leszek]

Neither.

Why choose? Multiple players keep things from stagnating and that is the #1 concern. Do you think ULA would have a new rocket now if not for SpaceX? I root for whomever is pushing innovation at the current moment. Right now that is SpaceX, note that it does not matter if their F9 Heavy will ever be fully reusable or meet all its hype. Other companies are obliged to keep up just in case they can.

[FishInferno]

Neither.

Why choose? Multiple players keep things from stagnating and that is the #1 concern. Do you think ULA would have a new rocket now if not for SpaceX? I root for whomever is pushing innovation at the current moment. Right now that is SpaceX, note that it does not matter if their F9 Heavy will ever be fully reusable or meet all its hype. Other companies are obliged to keep up just in case they can.

and even then, the Vulcan is a little late to the party:wink:

[Albert VDS]

How can you attend a party if you haven't even been born yet?

[Superfluous J]

I vote NASA. They already went there.

Oh you mean MANNED? Who knows? Let's figure out getting people out of LEO for more a joyride on the Moon and then we'll talk Mars.

Next up: Which tree do you think will develop speech first, Elms or Redwoods?

Edited May 7, 2015 by 5thHorseman

[regex]

Tovarisch, we all know who will make it to Mars first: China.

[Albert VDS]

Elms? Redwood? Really? It's gotta be Pine, it gets dressed every year and has parties with people indoors.

It's gotta pick up some words.

I hope SpaceX, that would mean that cheaper and commercial space travel is the way to go.

But most likely it will be a combination of SpaceX and NASA.

[xenomorph555]

Personally I believe that SpaceX while being great at what they do (LEO operations) cannot run a complex manned Mars program due to being merely a company, and a limited one at that. Doing stuff like Mars missions would be destructive to themselves economically.

As for Nasa, I am perfectly sure they will have the capabilities to do a Mars mission soon however they won't so for whatever reason. They are not the type to just go out there and do it, something always gets in the way.

As for other country's, their all pre-occupied with other stuff currently.

So my vote is no-one.

- - - Updated - - -

Tovarisch, we all know who will make it to Mars first: China.

As much as I love them, I very much doubt they will. They're currently busy will LEO stations and the moon.

[billbobjebkirk]

Why is there so much faith thrown onto SpaceX and so much cynicism at NASA? Has SpaceX really demonstrated that it is so much more competent that it can get to Mars before NASA? As for other nations, there's not a chance.

[FishInferno]

I kind of agree with other posts saying it will be spaceX and NASA together, but I do not think it will be a 50/50 deal. I think that once SpaceX starts getting serious and people realize that they can do it then NASA will ditch the SLS and help with the Mars mission but SpaceX will spearhead the operation.

[Albert VDS]

Why is there so much faith thrown onto SpaceX and so much cynicism at NASA? Has SpaceX really demonstrated that it is so much more competent that it can get to Mars before NASA?

To me the problem seems to boil down to this:

SpaceX is a efficient machine, NASA isn't. Also not enough funding.

[RunAwayItzJack]

The problem with NASA is that it requires politicians to continue existing. There's something like 10 different NASA run facilities in different states, making it too politically valuable to cut in congress. That's a recipe for inefficiency, but it's also the price that must be paid in order to receive funding from politicians that suffer from severe short sightedness.

[mjl1966]

all i know is that between the two of them, we don't have a manned space program. we can't even put a dog in orbit right now. great sadness. :\

[Frybert]

all i know is that between the two of them, we don't have a manned space program. we can't even put a dog in orbit right now. great sadness. :\

From 1975 until 1981 (about six years) we (the US) didn't have an active manned flight program. From 2011 until 2017(tentatively, also about 6 years) we didn't either. As long as either SpaceX or Boeing has a craft ready to go sometime before 2019, we're closer to the next US manned space flight than we are to the last shuttle launch.

[The_8th_Bit]

I think NASA will use private contractors like SpaceX and ULA to launch their manned mars missions. NASA will design the overall mission and they will rely on contractors to supply hardware and launch services. I don't see SLS flying much more than the currently scheduled flights.

Spacex will likely not go to mars by themselves because there is no profit to be made.

[ComradeWolfe]

[TLDR: Neither, but both will help.]

Private industries are going to compete for launch contracts both private and governmental. Overall costs of launches will decrease by an order of magnitude.

NASA / ESA / other government bodies will then do research expeditions to the moon which are not actually cost effective (like we do now with the ISS) and develop the technologies needed for Mars along the way.

Once those technologies are developed enough to make a Mars mission feasible some private foundation will develop the mission in a manner more ambitious than any gov't body is willing to risk. Launch costs will be low enough for a private foundation to do the mission so long as they aren't out to make a profit (sort of like amateur experiments on cube sats where they expect little science and no profit, but do it because it's neat and within the upper edges of affordability).

[Kibble]

SpaceX and NASA both say they want to send a human being to Mars, and they both aren't actually planning or developeing anything. The difference is that NASA's funding comes from the government, and SpaceX's funding (mostly) comes from NASA's funding. The other, more important difference is that SpaceX has absolutely no experience designing spacecraft rated for BEO travel.

[Wanderfound]

Manned Mars missions are not going to happen any time in the forseeable future. There's just no sensible reason to do it apart from "it's cool".

Robotic explorers, yes, boots and flags, no. Worth the read as a reality check: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html

[RainDreamer]

Hmm...how about both? NASA will commission SpaceX to go to mars, pooling resources from both organizations.

[Wallygator]

Ummm, excuse me for being pedantic for a moment as the OP does not specifically indicate the modality (manned or unmanned) of the mission - but NASA already made it to Mars - Several times. They have this tele-robotic rover thingy, remember? (snark?)

Seriously though, making it to Mars is something which requires national technical means. Undoubtedly, many private companies will be involved supplying major components, systems and capabilities.

In the end, it will most likely be achieved by an National Consortium (multiple nations and multiple suppliers) OR it will be one nation which exhibits the necessary will and authoritarian control to make it happen (If the latter, then must also admit that China is a very strong contender as their current level of authoritarian control has now exceeded the U.S and Russia and their technical capability is increasing rapidly).

[Streetwind]

Pssst... SpaceX is a member of Team NASA.

All of the Mars-related knowledge and expertise that SpaceX has access to comes directly from NASA. All initial SpaceX missions to Mars will be unmanned science and demonstrator missions, on which NASA will provide part of the science payloads. All initial manned SpaceX missions will be science and demonstrator missions as well, on which NASA is likely to provide part of the crew.

You could ask which rockets will take us to Mars - SpaceX or SLS - but in regards to teams, SpaceX and NASA will go together. They both need and compliment each other. Without SpaceX, NASA won't be going anytime soon; without NASA, SpaceX can't go anytime soon.

[ChrisSpace]

This is pretty much the exact topic of my first blog post, it is quite detailed and I think it should be looked at

My top 7 options for the first landing:

1. SpaceX - they have enough money to go there, they have the technology to go there, and they really want to go there.

2. China - they certainly have enough money to go there, and they have many reasons to go there

3. India - like china but a bit less

4. An International Effort - way less likely than people seem to think, especially with all the political tensions and rivalry between the space-capable nations of the world

5. NASA/Russia - only possible if they get a long string of presidents wanting this to happen

6. Mars One - while not a scam, the plan is so underthought, and funding so little, that this is going below even NASA and Russia

7. A private company that does not exist yet

Edited May 7, 2015 by ChrisSpace

[KSK]

Pssst... SpaceX is a member of Team NASA.

All of the Mars-related knowledge and expertise that SpaceX has access to comes directly from NASA. All initial SpaceX missions to Mars will be unmanned science and demonstrator missions, on which NASA will provide part of the science payloads. All initial manned SpaceX missions will be science and demonstrator missions as well, on which NASA is likely to provide part of the crew.

You could ask which rockets will take us to Mars - SpaceX or SLS - but in regards to teams, SpaceX and NASA will go together. They both need and compliment each other. Without SpaceX, NASA won't be going anytime soon; without NASA, SpaceX can't go anytime soon.

I'm not sure about needing each other but I agree that would be a sensible scenario that pools the expertise of both sides. NASA doesn't need SpaceX (although it may be well advised to use them) since it could use SLS. Likewise, SpaceX is building it's own body of know-how and experience - for example, I recall that NASA were very interested in their hypersonic retropropulsion technique for booster recovery, since that would be applicable to Mars landings. I don't think either have any practical experience of designing and building Mars capable crewed spacecraft.

The issue for both is funding. NASA seems unlikely to garner the sustained funding and political will for a Mars-shot. SpaceX certainly has the will but without NASA funding (see above) they're going to need to launch an awful lot of satellites to pay for a Mars mission. Hopefully their strategy will pay off and they manage to lower their launch costs to the point where overall demand for launches starts to increase and we start to see some kind of upward spiral in spaceflight development.

[Hannu]

NASA (taxpayers in USA) pays the bill and SpaceX and other contractors develop and make hardware. NASA gets honor like in Apollo project, but most of Apollo hardware came also from private companies.

Or maybe China will do it first with same way, state pays and companies make stuff. I do not believe manned Mars mission before political situation changes and leaders of superstates begin to compete again with their space achievements. Significant commercial utilization of resources in farther space than geosynchronous orbit take probably several generations (50-100 years) and it will be asteroid mining and not exploration of planets. It is also very difficult project to companies which live in quarter year time scale. Nobody invest money to project who maybe gives revenue after 50 years in spite of that revenue would revolutionize the most part of world's industry.