Team SpaceX or team NASA?

[Tex]

I honestly think political/government-controlled or funded space programs are on the way out. It was fairly necessary in the 1960s, when rocketry was still evolving (though I concede that it absolutely is still evolving!) and the costs and know-how required to do things were astronomical. Literally. Governments have tons of funding, or at least a certain red, white, and blue one DID have tons of funding in those days, but just like the Apollo program was eventually killed by budget cuts, other government-backed space programs are subject to the money flowing wherever the higher-ups deem the money goes.

So in that regard, private space companies now, with financial backing from wealthy sources who are 100% committed to studying and exploring space, are much more likely to accomplish what official programs cannot. Because they have a surefire source of funding, they can more reliably continue their research and put the things where they need to go simply because they want to go there rather than having the program be some sort of political statement.

So in short, yup, I believe that private companies, such as SpaceX, are much more likely to do things than government programs are.

[Voyager55]

International collaboration is most likely in my opinion. I'm only 15, so i'm fairly confident i'll see a Mars landing in my lifetime, but by the looks of things I'll be 45 by then.

[CptRichardson]

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?

Mars IS the return on Musk's investment. Mars is the sole reason that SpaceX was founded. All of his efforts are bent towards getting to Mars because Musk is the Space Core. No, wait, Mars Core.

[Kryten]

That's all well and good, but he's not exactly going to make any money doing so. Nor is he going to make enough cash to do it even if he manages to capture the entire commercial launch market.

[FishInferno]

People seem to assume that SpaceX wants to make a profit on Mars. They don't. They are going to use their profits to get to Mars.

[Kryten]

Space launch simply isn't that big an industry, and large portions of it aren't open to commercial demand. You aren't going to make enough money for a crewed Mars mission without a very big increase in demand.

[Linear]

Mars IS the return on Musk's investment. Mars is the sole reason that SpaceX was founded. All of his efforts are bent towards getting to Mars because Musk is the Space Core. No, wait, Mars Core.

Yeah, people are really missing the point. The entire reason he makes money is to go to Mars and colonize it.

[Albert VDS]

That's all well and good, but he's not exactly going to make any money doing so. Nor is he going to make enough cash to do it even if he manages to capture the entire commercial launch market.

As far as I know the plan is to charge $100.000 per seat to Mars, basically sell everything you got for a ticket to Mars.

Now they could make a profit if they can get the launch cost down.

[Temeter]

The SpaceX we currently know will never be able to do a mars mission on their own, not without some upheaval how spacefaring technology/business works.

It's even questionable if NASA could do a mission on their own, afair the current expectations are more along of a combined mission of NASA, ESA and Roskosmos.

[Albert VDS]

The only problem for NASA is funding. Either how to spend their current funding, which would take money other missions and puts it. Or get more funding to do every current/planned mission and Mars.

There's nothing about Mars that NASA couldn't do on it's own, they didn't ask anyone to help them get to the Moon*. I'm all for cooperation, exploring space together instead of against each other.

It's a lot like vacations. Sure you can go with friends, it can make it cheaper**, but once in a while you could have the urge to go alone. If have that urge then you need to make sure you spend your

money correctly to make it affordable.

* Yeah I know von Braun and the other German rocket scientists helped, but they are not an other country.

** Unless those friends charge $70,7 million per seat.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Albert VDS

[Temeter]

The only problem for NASA is funding.

Well, if that's the only problem...

[PakledHostage]

Mars IS the return on Musk's investment. Mars is the sole reason that SpaceX was founded. All of his efforts are bent towards getting to Mars because Musk is the Space Core. No, wait, Mars Core.

You seem to be describing a hobby. If, as you say, Musk intends to spend his fortune flying a handful of people on a one-way trip to Mars then I wish him luck. There isn't currently any money to be made doing it though so there isn't going to be any "return on Musk's investment". Selling seats for a one way trip isn't going to cover the cost because there aren't enough people who would want to go who could afford one. You can't get to orbit for $100k let alone to Mars. That isn't going to change any time soon.

[Mr Shifty]

As far as I know the plan is to charge $100.000 per seat to Mars, basically sell everything you got for a ticket to Mars.

Now they could make a profit if they can get the launch cost down.

The cost of the Apollo program (putting 12 people on the moon) was about $150 billion over 10 years. A Mars mission would probably be more by an order of magnitude or more, but even if you could do it for the same cost, you'd need to sell 1.5 million one-way tickets to cover the cost at $100k per. I suspect there won't be that many seats on the first few Mars missions.

Put it another way. SpaceX advertises its Falcon 9 launches at $61.2 million each. Even if every single one of those launches is 100% pure profit (which is... doubtful), it would take about 2500 launches to raise $150b, or about 200 years' worth at their current pace.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Mr Shifty

[Albert VDS]

Well, if that's the only problem...

Well it's a huge problem of course, but that's the only problem.

Of course you might get the "We need this and that before we go to Mars", but that's what the funding is for.

[Linear]

Well, if that's the only problem...

Could there be a larger problem?

[Bill Phil]

Neither. Team humanity.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Bill Phil
Auto correct

[_Augustus_]

SpaceX. They aren't limited by the ignorant men in monkey suits telling them what to do. Even if NASA does, SpaceX will be a huge contributor to their missions.

[WinkAllKerb'']

they already made it ( ; )

[RexProcer]

Fact of the matter is, no matter who it is, humans need to be able to colonize other planets in order for humanity to survive. This includes other solar systems/galaxies/universes(yes, universes). Even Hawking stated that humans need to get off the planet within 100 years. So no matter who does it, it needs to get done.

[tater]

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.

It's not short-sightedness, it's politics. NASA was founded as the world's largest porkbarrel. Apollo happened at a golden moment when economics, geopolitics, the national will, and an assassination happened (really gelling up the irreversible nature of the "before the decade is out" pledge, IMHO).

- - - Updated - - -

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.

NASA has no experience making BEO spacecraft, either, to be fair. NASA didn't design Apollo, they set some specs, and the contractors designed Apollo.

[crazyewok]

As far as I know the plan is to charge $100.000 per seat to Mars, basically sell everything you got for a ticket to Mars.

Now they could make a profit if they can get the launch cost down.

$100.000 per seat to Mars?

Were are these crazy figures coming from?

$100.000 per seat for sub orbital flights sure? LEO crazy! Mars INSANE!

No way with Rockets.

[problemecium]

I picked "Neither" but what I really wanted to pick was "both."

As mentioned, NASA contracts SpaceX to do stuff for them, and as a team they're able to do SpaceX stuff like develop reusable lift stages on a much better budget and do NASA stuff like maintain the ISS without having to spend all their time reinventing the Space Shuttle.

So, uh, in relation to OP, I'm sure that the two of them as a team will get someone to Mars, likely with a NASA astronaut aboard a ship half built by SpaceX.

[LABHOUSE]

Hoping for NASA to get more $, but SpaceX has a bigger chance, voting for SpaceX.

Edited May 7, 2015 by LABHOUSE
...Read the poll title, not just the thread title

[Albert VDS]

$100.000 per seat to Mars?

Were are these crazy figures coming from?

$100.000 per seat for sub orbital flights sure? LEO crazy! Mars INSANE!

No way with Rockets.

Didn't remember it correctly, it's $500.000 per seat.

http://www.space.com/18596-mars-colony-spacex-elon-musk.html

Elon Musk, the billionaire founder and CEO of the private spaceflight company SpaceX, wants to help establish a Mars colony of up to 80,000 people by ferrying explorers to the Red Planet for perhaps $500,000 a trip.

...

He also estimated that of the eight billion humans that will be living on Earth by the time the colony is possible, perhaps one in 100,000 would be prepared to go. That equates to potentially 80,000 migrants.

Musk figures the colony program  which he wants to be a collaboration between government and private enterprise  would end up costing about $36 billion. He arrived at that number by estimating that a colony that costs 0.25 percent or 0.5 percent of a nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) would be considered acceptable.

The United States' GDP in 2010 was $14.5 trillion; 0.25 percent of $14.5 trillion is $36 billion. If all 80,000 colonists paid $500,000 per seat for their Mars trip, $40 billion would be raised.

[Mr Shifty]

Didn't remember it correctly, it's $500.000 per seat.

http://www.space.com/18596-mars-colony-spacex-elon-musk.html

We'll see. Some facts to ponder:

- 80,000 people at 100kg each is 8000 metric tons of human flesh, or about 5x the mass of the ISS.

- To date, in over five decades of human spaceflight, a total of 536 people have ever been to space (above 100km), counting sub-orbital flights.