Quote from: meekGee on 07/05/2014 07:54 pmI think this convincing will reach critical mass when SpaceX lands the first payload on Mars. Which I hope will be 2016, since both FH and DV2 will be ready by then.As far as I know, Red Dragon is projected for a 2022 launch (two years after the NASA 2020 sample collecting rover). Of course, a Dragon to Mars could in theory be launched in 2016 as you said (and could also serve as a precursor to the 2020 Red Dragon, perhaps with a sample-collection drill or small rover on board, to collect samples for a quite large onboard analysis suite).
I think this convincing will reach critical mass when SpaceX lands the first payload on Mars. Which I hope will be 2016, since both FH and DV2 will be ready by then.
I'll make some wild guesses as to what the economic models might be; #1, land/stakehold. #2, filling the needs of Lunar, GEO, and LEO resupply. <snip> So, if you need, say, water, at a station in LEO or at Lagrange 2, it's cheaper in Delta/v to ship it from Mars than from earth (a lot cheaper to L2). #3 Tourism. #4 paid research (including government missions). #5, amortize the development and operational cost of the earth launch system (BFR) by using it for commercial launches in cislunar space.
Quote from: CJ on 07/05/2014 10:35 pmI'll make some wild guesses as to what the economic models might be; #1, land/stakehold. #2, filling the needs of Lunar, GEO, and LEO resupply. <snip> So, if you need, say, water, at a station in LEO or at Lagrange 2, it's cheaper in Delta/v to ship it from Mars than from earth (a lot cheaper to L2). #3 Tourism. #4 paid research (including government missions). #5, amortize the development and operational cost of the earth launch system (BFR) by using it for commercial launches in cislunar space. Earlier the land/stakehold was suggested as a way of funding the startup of Mars. Here you're suggesting it might be an ongoing economic model.Both economic models important. Expensive initial settlement vs cheaper ongoing settlement funding, and EM clearly wants to enable the cheaper ($500k/person) settlement possibility which does have other requirements. I think the ongoing economics are important but there have been many threads about it. Perhaps it'd be interesting to have a thread to guess at EM's vision of the ongoing economics, because I don't think that's been made at all clear (too far out, and I think he believes it'll become self evident over time).But this thread question was about funding that startup of Mars, if we don't stick to the question it'll become just another thread. How does he finance the initial settlement (which might be $5billion?, $40billion? $100billion?).
Quote from: meekGee on 07/05/2014 07:54 pmI think this convincing will reach critical mass when SpaceX lands the first payload on Mars. Which I hope will be 2016, since both FH and DV2 will be ready by then.I believe that point will be reached when the launcher lifts a stage with more than 100t payload to LEO, refuels and returns the second stage to earth after dropping the payload in some lunar orbit. At that point it will be very hard to ignore.
Musk has no cash at all, he has millions in debt. see:http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-borrows-150-million-to-buy-tesla-2013-5
He will start a new company (MarsX ? ), with the goal to "create a sustainable industrial base on mars". He will get a consortium together of chemical companies, mining companies, and probably some company able to supply nuclear reactors (like the ones used on subs and aircraft carriers). This company will design and build the hardware they need on Mars.
Welcome to the forums, Cruncher. A very nice speculative theory on how things unfold. It'd be great if you were right. One nit, I'm not as concerned about his current debt as you are...
Quote from: Lar on 07/06/2014 03:01 amWelcome to the forums, Cruncher. A very nice speculative theory on how things unfold. It'd be great if you were right. One nit, I'm not as concerned about his current debt as you are...Actually EM's ability to fund it might be intimately tied to his ability to get others to pitch in.If he can show Tesla growing and achieving, and a risky $5billion battery factory growing and achieving, plus Solar City redefining electricity usage, and new rockets doing great things... not only will his wealth be growing fast, but the willingness and enthusiasm from others to try something much bigger will be there.
Involving governments brings red tape, strings, and bureaucrats. I think that Musk will prefer to seek funding directly from the public since few corporations will be willing to invest when the ROI isn't possible for decades.Instead, consider this list of names. Collis Porter Huntington, Mark Hopkins, Charles Crocker, Leland Stanford. Stanford, born to a farmer, organized this group to create the Central Pacific Railroad. Look up the Pacific Railroad Acts, passed by congress to help promote and fund the development of the railways by granting land to the railroad companies. So you made a billion at Facebook, congrats. Want to be immortalized? Have a spaceport named after you. The first Mars city. The passenger gateway at L2. Or, you can take the cash to your grave and hope that someone writes a nice obit.
Quote from: AJW on 07/06/2014 04:48 amInvolving governments brings red tape, strings, and bureaucrats. I think that Musk will prefer to seek funding directly from the public since few corporations will be willing to invest when the ROI isn't possible for decades.Instead, consider this list of names. Collis Porter Huntington, Mark Hopkins, Charles Crocker, Leland Stanford. Stanford, born to a farmer, organized this group to create the Central Pacific Railroad. Look up the Pacific Railroad Acts, passed by congress to help promote and fund the development of the railways by granting land to the railroad companies. So you made a billion at Facebook, congrats. Want to be immortalized? Have a spaceport named after you. The first Mars city. The passenger gateway at L2. Or, you can take the cash to your grave and hope that someone writes a nice obit.Land rights are a huge deal.What does it take to make a claim? Who recognizes claims? Governments indulge in red tape when they have nothing better to do. But when it becomes as urgent as this, they can move too fast sometimes.
One method to rely on "People on Mars in 10-12 years" and work backwards.
If they launch a scout mission in 2016 with the sole purpose of starting to get a clue on Mars EDL, long-duration flight, solar navigation, etc, then they can plan to do a first round of meaningful payloads in 2018(...)
I'd say it's unlikely that anything will be launched by SpaceX towards Mars in 2016. But given the right odds, I'd take the other side of the bet... (they'd have to be long odds) Because we don't know what exactly is being worked on at present.
Quote from: meekGee on 07/05/2014 07:54 pmI think this convincing will reach critical mass when SpaceX lands the first payload on Mars. Which I hope will be 2016, since both FH and DV2 will be ready by then.I can bet serious money he will NOT launch anything towards Mars in 2016. Any speculations that assumes that is just detached from reality.Quote from: meekGee on 07/05/2014 11:27 pmOne method to rely on "People on Mars in 10-12 years" and work backwards.10-12 years to manned mission to Mars is pure fantasy, probably based on "everything on schedule works perfectly". For that I have only two words: "Orbcomm OG2". If they can't launch one measly satellite to LEO on time, they are multiple decades away from manned mission to Mars. It is as simple as that.Quote from: meekGee on 07/05/2014 11:27 pmIf they launch a scout mission in 2016 with the sole purpose of starting to get a clue on Mars EDL, long-duration flight, solar navigation, etc, then they can plan to do a first round of meaningful payloads in 2018(...)You seem to ignore fact that space-graded things/rockets/spacecrafts/satellites/etc tends to have multi-year (at least) leading time. Not two-year.
Involving governments brings red tape, strings, and bureaucrats.
Quote from: AJW on 07/06/2014 04:48 amInvolving governments brings red tape, strings, and bureaucrats. You think involving corporations doesn't? I've worked in both, and found that bureaucracy is an equal-opportunity curse. It's an organizational phenomenon, not a strictly government.And anyone who tells you different is selling something.