Red Dragon confirmed!!

[Rakaydos]

SOP is Standard Operationg Procedure. The default option, one that doesnt need mentioning because it's right there in the manual.

[tater]

 

[CatastrophicFailure]

So I just came across this article, that apparently Musk wants to send people to Mars in 2024! Now, unapologetic SpaceX fanboy that I am, I think that might be just a tiny bit... optimistic. 

Unless, as THIS article from the comments half-heartedly speculates, the person Elon will send to Mars in 2024 is... himself!

It's interesting scenario to think on, if nothing else...

[Andem]

1 minute ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

So I just came across this article, that apparently Musk wants to send people to Mars in 2024! Now, unapologetic SpaceX fanboy that I am, I think that might be just a tiny bit... optimistic. 

Unless, as THIS article from the comments half-heartedly speculates, the person Elon will send to Mars in 2024 is... himself!

It's interesting scenario to think on, if nothing else...

Well, he has the right to optimism if he's the test subject I guess, but I would hope for any date before 2029!

 Terminator jokes aside, I think that the soonest it'll launch is 2030 or later, this takes a lot more planning than his estimates seem to acknowledge.

[Rakaydos]

IF it's just a long range test of the BFS's life support systems (enough to keep 100 people alive, but only actually flying a skeleton crew of 5 or so, with the other 95 person masses filled with canned air and extra scrubbers in case the test fails) with no actual mars landing... why NOT send it past mars, if you're confident it will survive the journy even if systems do fail.

[fredinno]

15 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

So I just came across this article, that apparently Musk wants to send people to Mars in 2024! Now, unapologetic SpaceX fanboy that I am, I think that might be just a tiny bit... optimistic. 

Unless, as THIS article from the comments half-heartedly speculates, the person Elon will send to Mars in 2024 is... himself!

It's interesting scenario to think on, if nothing else...

2024? Are they sure they didn't confuse it with Red Dragon? Because that would be a conservative launch date for that spacecraft.

Realistically, Mars will happen when SpaceX actually has the money and hardware. Meaning I would be surprised if it was before 2035 that we get a manned Mars flyby. And that would require a number of F9H launches (6?), staged at an elliptical earth orbit (since FH can't actually carry 50T to LEO due to its tiny payload fairing- SLS would do the same thing for Mars due to its low TWR 2nd stage).

If it was NASA doing this, there would be a lot more prep missions in cislunar space before going out to a Mars flyby. But SpaceX isn't like that (deaths are bad, but not as devastating to funding).

 

However, a Mars Flyby is far from a Mars Orbit or landing. Those need a true HLV.  

14 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

IF it's just a long range test of the BFS's life support systems (enough to keep 100 people alive, but only actually flying a skeleton crew of 5 or so, with the other 95 person masses filled with canned air and extra scrubbers in case the test fails) with no actual mars landing... why NOT send it past mars, if you're confident it will survive the journy even if systems do fail.

Because your supplies only last so long.

[Rakaydos]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

2024? Are they sure they didn't confuse it with Red Dragon? Because that would be a conservative launch date for that spacecraft.

Realistically, Mars will happen when SpaceX actually has the money and hardware. Meaning I would be surprised if it was before 2035 that we get a manned Mars flyby. And that would require a number of F9H launches (6?), staged at an elliptical earth orbit (since FH can't actually carry 50T to LEO due to its tiny payload fairing- SLS would do the same thing for Mars due to its low TWR 2nd stage).

If it was NASA doing this, there would be a lot more prep missions in cislunar space before going out to a Mars flyby. But SpaceX isn't like that (deaths are bad, but not as devastating to funding).

 

However, a Mars Flyby is far from a Mars Orbit or landing. Those need a true HLV.  

Because your supplies only last so long.

If the life support fails completey that early that they're on 20 times their body mass of canned supplies and run low before they get back to earth, that failing life support system needs a serious redesign.

[fredinno]

26 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

If the life support fails completey that early that they're on 20 times their body mass of canned supplies and run low before they get back to earth, that failing life support system needs a serious redesign.

We also have no clue how to make a 4 man crew alive for 1 year without resupply. Granted, a Mars mission may also use a Venus Flyby for a short-stay mission, meaning 450 days in heliocentric orbit.

Technically, you might be able to go to Ceres or Mercury in that time and back in a flyby, but the problem is the high Delta V needs, and high radiation levels at mercury.

In practice, one would only ever do a flyby of Mars and Venus, before moving on to orbital and landing missions.

[B787_300]

actually if you have the fuel to burn you can get to mars much faster than 6 months.  Already SpaceX is talking 3 month transfers which take a LOT more energy and if you have the fuel at mars you can just slingshot and come right back.  But ECLSS is by far the most limiting factor on long duration space missions with humans.

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, B787_300 said:

actually if you have the fuel to burn you can get to mars much faster than 6 months.  Already SpaceX is talking 3 month transfers which take a LOT more energy and if you have the fuel at mars you can just slingshot and come right back.  But ECLSS is by far the most limiting factor on long duration space missions with humans.

"Fuel to burn".

Have you ever actually played KSP?

And SpaceX is talking 3 month transfers? I highly doubt it, that'd be a serious waste of fuel, when there is no fast way to get to Mars anyways (launch windows open every ~2 years, the longest for any planetary launch window :P)
Source?

Edited June 4, 2016 by fredinno

[kujuman]

8 hours ago, fredinno said:

"Fuel to burn".

Have you ever actually played KSP?

And SpaceX is talking 3 month transfers? I highly doubt it, that'd be a serious waste of fuel, when there is no fast way to get to Mars anyways (launch windows open every ~2 years, the longest for any planetary launch window :P)
Source?

fuel to burn is a perfectly good phrase--why wouldn't it be?

a three month transfer isn't necessarily a waste of fuel--reduce radiation exposure, reduce consumption of consumables/extend time @ mars. Time is money, and propellant is money--it's just a trade-off of what you want to save more of.

[B787_300]

9 hours ago, fredinno said:

"Fuel to burn".

Have you ever actually played KSP?

And SpaceX is talking 3 month transfers? I highly doubt it, that'd be a serious waste of fuel, when there is no fast way to get to Mars anyways (launch windows open every ~2 years, the longest for any planetary launch window :P)
Source?

As a matter of fact I have both played KSP (and done almost everything possible in the game)  and gotten a degree in aerospace engineering where my senior design project was a mission to mars.  

It is all about the energy you want to put into a mission.  It is Theoretically possible to do a 3 week (and faster) Mars Transfers.  Now the fuel costs on them are astronomical and you need a TON of fuel to slow back down but it is entirely possible with current chemical engines (not even talking about things like NERVA, EM drive, etc).  Also fuel is just expensive in space because the only place to get it is down on the surface.  If SpaceX get reusability down then the price of fuel will go down and thus you have fuel to burn.   and yes while ideal windows only open every ~26 months, if you want to spend the fuel you can launch whenever you want (look at a porkchop plot all they are is a date matrix with fuel costs) 

As for sources try https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373665main_NASA-SP-2009-566.pdf  or http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4181.pdf or http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3223/why-not-travel-to-mars-in-2-months

Seriously though it all boils down the the fuel costs and how much fuel you want to carry with you.  if you dont mind launching a lot of fuel you can get your mission times down. However because launches and fuel are expensive it is better to minimize delta V and propulsive costs and that is why we only launch mars missions during the ideal windows about every 26 months.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

Edit: just for the heck of it I used NASA's Trajectory Browser to look at all sub 180 day One way trips to Mars and found 21 of them 

http://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php?NEAs=on&NECs=on&chk_maxMag=on&maxMag=25&chk_maxOCC=on&maxOCC=4&chk_target_list=on&target_list=Mars&mission_class=oneway&mission_type=rendezvous&LD1=2017&LD2=2025&maxDT=180&DTunit=days&maxDV=20&min=DV&wdw_width=-1&submit=Search#a_load_results

 

then i ran it for sub 90 day trajecotries and it found one of them.  There are a LOT more they just weren't shown because the online system has a max delta V of 20 km/s.

http://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php?NEAs=on&NECs=on&chk_maxMag=on&maxMag=25&chk_maxOCC=on&maxOCC=4&chk_target_list=on&target_list=Mars&mission_class=oneway&mission_type=rendezvous&LD1=2017&LD2=2025&maxDT=90&DTunit=days&maxDV=20&min=DT&wdw_width=-1&submit=Search#a_load_results

This just goes to show that it is possible if you want to use the fuel to do it. A c3 of 30 or 50 is absolutely crazy at current prices of fuel and for launches. 

Edited June 4, 2016 by B787_300

[PB666]

Nevermind Fredinno, he acts like he is the expert on space flight from time to time. I Think spacex could load LEO orbit with fuel for their own projects given they are accumulation stress cores that musk says can refly but doesn't want to. Simply one more flight, remove the langing flip downs and the vanes. burn all the fuel and use the rocket on last time to get as much feul into orbit as possible. The only thing they loose is a much cheaper 2nd stage and the fuel for first stage,mwhich everyone agrees is a trivial part of the rockets cost. They might even have second stage come along that they cannot use for the original purpose. 

[fredinno]

10 hours ago, kujuman said:

fuel to burn is a perfectly good phrase--why wouldn't it be?

a three month transfer isn't necessarily a waste of fuel--reduce radiation exposure, reduce consumption of consumables/extend time @ mars. Time is money, and propellant is money--it's just a trade-off of what you want to save more of.

3 month transfer is very far from minimal Mars transfer time, or 8 months.

Zubrin did analysis on a Mars Transfer time and determined the optimal was around 6 months transfer, balancing fuel and propellant costs. Granted, he was limited by the size of his Shuttle-derived rocket, and 3-month transfer is definitely possible for a rocket the size of BFR, but I was assuming we were talking about a FH-launched Mars flyby- in which case, you have no propellant to spare- and the entire rocket is launched expendable to maximize payload (either that, or 2x the launches, or a 4-booster core F9 variant), so there are no cost savings in reuse. You are very mass limited in this scenario, and thus, we are faced with a similar situation to Zubrin's problem with Mars Direct.

10 hours ago, B787_300 said:

As a matter of fact I have both played KSP (and done almost everything possible in the game)  and gotten a degree in aerospace engineering where my senior design project was a mission to mars.  

It is all about the energy you want to put into a mission.  It is Theoretically possible to do a 3 week (and faster) Mars Transfers.  Now the fuel costs on them are astronomical and you need a TON of fuel to slow back down but it is entirely possible with current chemical engines (not even talking about things like NERVA, EM drive, etc).  Also fuel is just expensive in space because the only place to get it is down on the surface.  If SpaceX get reusability down then the price of fuel will go down and thus you have fuel to burn.   and yes while ideal windows only open every ~26 months, if you want to spend the fuel you can launch whenever you want (look at a porkchop plot all they are is a date matrix with fuel costs) 

As for sources try https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373665main_NASA-SP-2009-566.pdf  or http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4181.pdf or http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3223/why-not-travel-to-mars-in-2-months

Seriously though it all boils down the the fuel costs and how much fuel you want to carry with you.  if you dont mind launching a lot of fuel you can get your mission times down. However because launches and fuel are expensive it is better to minimize delta V and propulsive costs and that is why we only launch mars missions during the ideal windows about every 26 months.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

Edit: just for the heck of it I used NASA's Trajectory Browser to look at all sub 180 day One way trips to Mars and found 21 of them 

http://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php?NEAs=on&NECs=on&chk_maxMag=on&maxMag=25&chk_maxOCC=on&maxOCC=4&chk_target_list=on&target_list=Mars&mission_class=oneway&mission_type=rendezvous&LD1=2017&LD2=2025&maxDT=180&DTunit=days&maxDV=20&min=DV&wdw_width=-1&submit=Search#a_load_results

 

then i ran it for sub 90 day trajecotries and it found one of them.  There are a LOT more they just weren't shown because the online system has a max delta V of 20 km/s.

http://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php?NEAs=on&NECs=on&chk_maxMag=on&maxMag=25&chk_maxOCC=on&maxOCC=4&chk_target_list=on&target_list=Mars&mission_class=oneway&mission_type=rendezvous&LD1=2017&LD2=2025&maxDT=90&DTunit=days&maxDV=20&min=DT&wdw_width=-1&submit=Search#a_load_results

This just goes to show that it is possible if you want to use the fuel to do it. A c3 of 30 or 50 is absolutely crazy at current prices of fuel and for launches. 

Well, of course you can do that. I was talking about using an expendable FH to launch Mars Flyby Missions.

Also, we run back into the reuse situation- reuse is only expected to save 30% costs tops- Fuel is still very expensive, and the more launches you need, the more complexity you have, increasing cost.

In a MCT scenario, it's not as big of a deal to save fuel, when your rocket rivals the size of Sea Dragon.

 

Sorry for any confusion.

Edited June 5, 2016 by fredinno

[B787_300]

But still you are treating it as a Mass limited system driven by amount of Fuel and launch costs and that launch and fuel are both super expensive. If SpaceX does what they are proposing to do (which is drastically drop prices to orbit) the ENTIRE math and solutions change because now there is no reason to use the ideal (6 mo) transfers. and Fuel is cheap (a falcon 9 uses something like $600 in fuel IIRC) the rocket is expensive...

 

and expendable FH could launch ~8000 kg on a mars flyby using the upper stage for the TMI (during the ideal windows). if you use the upper stage and the payload to provide the TMI burn you can drop the transfer time (granted you wont be able to carry enough fuel to propulsively capture on Mars so i hope you are going straight in). But like I said they wont use FH for the Manned missions directly. maybe use them to launch components if needed but not where it would matter.

[Wjolcz]

Do you guys think the Dragon capsule will have some cargo on board? Maybe an ISRU unit? Maybe Mr. Zubrim could provide one? It would be kind of pointless to land it there without any payload. Not like someone will space to live in there, or anything.

[Rakaydos]

5 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Do you guys think the Dragon capsule will have some cargo on board? Maybe an ISRU unit? Maybe Mr. Zubrim could provide one? It would be kind of pointless to land it there without any payload. Not like someone will space to live in there, or anything.

NASA gave SpaceX a science wishlist, but SpaceX hasnt finalized a cargo yet. the mission itsolf is an engineering proving mission- even if it crashes, as long as they get good pictures of what goes wrong it's a complete success.

[fredinno]

On 2016-06-04 at 8:19 PM, B787_300 said:

But still you are treating it as a Mass limited system driven by amount of Fuel and launch costs and that launch and fuel are both super expensive. If SpaceX does what they are proposing to do (which is drastically drop prices to orbit) the ENTIRE math and solutions change because now there is no reason to use the ideal (6 mo) transfers. and Fuel is cheap (a falcon 9 uses something like $600 in fuel IIRC) the rocket is expensive...

 

and expendable FH could launch ~8000 kg on a mars flyby using the upper stage for the TMI (during the ideal windows). if you use the upper stage and the payload to provide the TMI burn you can drop the transfer time (granted you wont be able to carry enough fuel to propulsively capture on Mars so i hope you are going straight in). But like I said they wont use FH for the Manned missions directly. maybe use them to launch components if needed but not where it would matter.

Quote

But still you are treating it as a Mass limited system driven by amount of Fuel and launch costs and that launch and fuel are both super expensive. If SpaceX does what they are proposing to do (which is drastically drop prices to orbit) the ENTIRE math and solutions change because now there is no reason to use the ideal (6 mo) transfers. and Fuel is cheap (a falcon 9 uses something like $600 in fuel IIRC) the rocket is expensive...

Hey, how does that SpaceX kool-aid taste? What's its flavor? Cherry?

Ok, on a serious note, BFR would launch maybe 1x every 2 years for at least the first decade, while the initial scouting is done, meaning its costs would be INSANE. Look at how high the launch costs got after Pegasus was forced to launch from 3x a year to 1x a year, on a good year.

Even a Mars base would only need 1x every 2 years due to the extremely high payload capacity of BFR.

And in any case, how do we suddenly get $10 million per F9H-R? Any ideas? SpaceX is already known to be running at or near the leanest it can get...

Quote

and expendable FH could launch ~8000 kg on a mars flyby using the upper stage for the TMI (during the ideal windows). if you use the upper stage and the payload to provide the TMI burn you can drop the transfer time (granted you wont be able to carry enough fuel to propulsively capture on Mars so i hope you are going straight in). But like I said they wont use FH for the Manned missions directly. maybe use them to launch components if needed but not where it would matter.

What are you talking about? The 2nd stage of FH is the only way to do a TMI burn. Unless you're talking about a hypothetical 3rd stage...

And I never said FH would be used to launch a Manned Mars mission directly- just to launch components and refuel the space tugs...did you even read my posts fully?

6 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Do you guys think the Dragon capsule will have some cargo on board? Maybe an ISRU unit? Maybe Mr. Zubrim could provide one? It would be kind of pointless to land it there without any payload. Not like someone will space to live in there, or anything.

Probably not, especially not energy-intensive ISRU, since Dragon V2 lacks a regenerative power source when it is landed... And Zubrin is at Mars One right now. I guess he's just that desperate to see a Mars mission.

[KSK]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

Hey, how does that SpaceX kool-aid taste? What's its flavor? Cherry?

Is there any particular reason for starting your reply with an insult? Or did you think it would make a good first impression?

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

Ok, on a serious note, BFR would launch maybe 1x every 2 years for at least the first decade, while the initial scouting is done, meaning its costs would be INSANE. Look at how high the launch costs got after Pegasus was forced to launch from 3x a year to 1x a year, on a good year.

Even a Mars base would only need 1x every 2 years due to the extremely high payload capacity of BFR.

To use a word that you're very fond of - source? Or is this just handwaving?

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

What are you talking about? The 2nd stage of FH is the only way to do a TMI burn. Unless you're talking about a hypothetical 3rd stage...

Or the payload has it's own engines?

[Hannu2]

10 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Do you guys think the Dragon capsule will have some cargo on board? Maybe an ISRU unit? Maybe Mr. Zubrim could provide one? It would be kind of pointless to land it there without any payload. Not like someone will space to live in there, or anything.

It is technical test flight and marketing display of company's capabilities. Surely there will be some scientific instruments, but it will not be the highest priority of mission. If they succeed they can begin to sell transport services for space agencies interested in exploration on Mars. Standard transport capsule would certainly decrease development costs of current insane sky crane mechanisms and deliver rovers easily. It is so large that return stage of the sample return mission may also be possible payload.

I think that all current talk about manned operations is just daydreaming but if they manage to develop Falcon Heavy and Dragon to be reliable and economic way to deliver scientific payloads to Mars (and maybe some other celestial bodies too), it will boost solar system exploration significantly.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

Is there any particular reason for starting your reply with an insult? Or did you think it would make a good first impression?

To use a word that you're very fond of - source? Or is this just handwaving?

Or the payload has it's own engines?

1. Sarcasm. It was a joke, most people here drink the Kool aid. On the other hand, I probably should have put a wink there...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter

Also, http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/pegasus-xl/

and http://innerspace.net/current-launch-vehicles/pegasus-launch-cost-soars-to-55-million/

3. Yeah, let's keep talking about things we don't know.

1 hour ago, Hannu2 said:

It is technical test flight and marketing display of company's capabilities. Surely there will be some scientific instruments, but it will not be the highest priority of mission. If they succeed they can begin to sell transport services for space agencies interested in exploration on Mars. Standard transport capsule would certainly decrease development costs of current insane sky crane mechanisms and deliver rovers easily. It is so large that return stage of the sample return mission may also be possible payload.

I think that all current talk about manned operations is just daydreaming but if they manage to develop Falcon Heavy and Dragon to be reliable and economic way to deliver scientific payloads to Mars (and maybe some other celestial bodies too), it will boost solar system exploration significantly.

1. Adding experiments would almost certainly make the launch date slip... possibly into 2022-4.

2. Sky Crane is not insane anymore, we've already done it once. Also, the Dragon capsule is very tall and not flat. VERY bad situation for a Mars robotic spacecraft, since 90% of the volume will remain unused (you need multiple floors otherwise)

We also have a standard system for payloads to Mars landing. It's called the Pheonix/Insight system. It comes with a fully fledged lander too! (experiments not included)

3. F9H or F9 tend not to be in favor of the eyes of NASA's planetary exploration team due to the fact that SpaceX is prone to constant launch delays- and when the next launch window opens in 2 years, its generally less risky to go with ULA, guarantee a successful launch, and shell out the extra $30 Million.

What? You spent $500 Million to build that probe in the first place. Another $30 Million isn't that huge of a deal when you look at it that way.

[KSK]

33 minutes ago, fredinno said:

1. Sarcasm. It was a joke, most people here drink the Kool aid. On the other hand, I probably should have put a wink there...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter

Also, http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/pegasus-xl/

and http://innerspace.net/current-launch-vehicles/pegasus-launch-cost-soars-to-55-million/

3. Yeah, let's keep talking about things we don't know.

Or leave it out completely. References to Kool aid are generally used in the same vein as references to fanboys and adding a wink at the end doesn't help turn either of them into a joke.

I've read the MCT Wikipedia page. It's almost entirely based on speculation, as acknowledged in the third paragraph:

"As of early 2016, SpaceX has not publicly released details of the space mission architecture nor all the system components of the MCT, nor a timeline for earliest MCT missions to Mars."

So if that's the best source we have to work with, then I think we can disregard comments on costs, launch rates, payload capacity or indeed pretty much anything else about MCT as being speculative at best and certainly not something to take seriously as a counterargument to anything.

33 minutes ago, fredinno said:

3. F9H or F9 tend not to be in favor of the eyes of NASA's planetary exploration team due to the fact that SpaceX is prone to constant launch delays- and when the next launch window opens in 2 years, its generally less risky to go with ULA, guarantee a successful launch, and shell out the extra $30 Million.

You may be right. Or it could just be that there's a long lead time on planetary exploration missions, which doesn't work too well with a launch vehicle that's been under constant development since its inception and for which the first iteration at least, would only have been capable of launching very modest interplanetary payloads.

Besides, it's not as if ULA is immune to launch delays. They may be comparatively short compared to some SpaceX delays (you would hope so given the combined launch experience of ULA) but 'guaranteeing a successful launch' seems to be overselling things a little.

Edited June 6, 2016 by KSK

[Hannu2]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

1. Adding experiments would almost certainly make the launch date slip... possibly into 2022-4.

2. Sky Crane is not insane anymore, we've already done it once. Also, the Dragon capsule is very tall and not flat. VERY bad situation for a Mars robotic spacecraft, since 90% of the volume will remain unused (you need multiple floors otherwise)

We also have a standard system for payloads to Mars landing. It's called the Pheonix/Insight system. It comes with a fully fledged lander too! (experiments not included)

3. F9H or F9 tend not to be in favor of the eyes of NASA's planetary exploration team due to the fact that SpaceX is prone to constant launch delays- and when the next launch window opens in 2 years, its generally less risky to go with ULA, guarantee a successful launch, and shell out the extra $30 Million.

What? You spent $500 Million to build that probe in the first place. Another $30 Million isn't that huge of a deal when you look at it that way.

1. I am sure that 2018 is in any case overoptimistic estimate, like most Musk's suggestions are. But in my opinion it would be great if SpaceX could do Mars mission in 2020 or 2022 windows.

2. Do you also think that it is not insane to ride Niagara falls in barrel, because few crazy individuals have done it? Of course this is just my unprofessional opinion, but I would like to see a little bit longer succession statistics before I would land my billion € spacecraft on Mars with a Skycrane. But on the other hand, space exploration is pioneering work, in which there are no development without brave attempts to do things by new insane ways. In my opinion Skycrane is insane in positive and ingenious way. It is just what space exploration needs. Just as landing of used stages on barges on ocean.

3. This is true but it is exactly why SpaceX probably have to display its capabilities to achieve trust. It can not be done with Musk's overoptimistic promises and fancy videos. They have to make some engineering test missions showing that they can do it reliably and in time before anyone buy even cheap planetary transports. I fear that Musk's daydream level marketing talk about Mars colonies and other unrealistic stuff make this worse instead of increase trust among potential customers.

[Wjolcz]

8 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

If they succeed they can begin to sell transport services for space agencies interested in exploration on Mars. Standard transport capsule would certainly decrease development costs of current insane sky crane mechanisms and deliver rovers easily. It is so large that return stage of the sample return mission may also be possible payload.

That's exactly what I was thinking. If Dragon V2 is successful it could become the 747 of space travel.

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

That's exactly what I was thinking. If Dragon V2 is successful it could become the 747 of space travel.

More like the DC-3.