What do you see as the most important venture in space exploration right now?I like that there's a desire to want to send people to Mars. I have my scepticism about how and when that will happen, but I will not stand in their way because somebody's got to dream like that. You can live in a country where everything is stable, but if it's a place where no-one dreams about a different future, then I don't know that it's where I would want to live. I admire the people who have the tenacity to send others to Mars.What makes you sceptical?The money. To go to Mars because you want to, my reading of history says that doesn't work. We didn't go to the Moon because we wanted to. We may remember it that way, because it serves a certain self-image – we're Americans, we're explorers, it's in our DNA, so we went to the Moon. That's just assuming it's a thing you do, without asking what's driving this, what's allocating the money for this? When you do that, you find that war and economics are the big drivers of major expenditures. I think there are many drivers for sending people into space – touristic, militaristic; these are very potent drivers of human conduct and the expenditure of financial capital. I imagine tourism, mining of asteroids as a frontier space activity. I'm sure the world's first trillionaire is the person who learns how to mine asteroids.
My God.I find myself actually agreeing with NDT for, like, the first time ever.He's right. Unless the government has a pressing cause (such as wartime), why would they put a lot of money into a Mars adventure at this stage? That's not to say it can't happen, but there'd have to be a very strong justification to compel most of Congress to do so.
His main issue is that he has "only government can do this" blinders on. NdGT doesn't see why there's money in it because he has a "research is the only reason" mindset. I find him less and less credible about anything to do with NASA, or anything to do with government, really. Musk's response: Hold my beer, watch this.(not really, Musk is working with NASA and will leverage assets, share data, etc... but if NASA wasn't there any more and it was only commercial from here on out? I think he'd still be trying to find ways to do it)NdGT is right about a Mars mission if it's purely government/SLS ... never happen.
By heck I actually agree with you
as he seems to be speaking as if there aren't people like Mr Musk, who yes will take government help in the way you describe, but the actual money will come from private industry. In this case I think it's going to be the private sector that makes this happen not the government and that's what he seems to completely miss.
Title of this thread is misleading. "scepticism about how and when that will happen" is very different from "doubts humans will ever walk on Mars." While the second one represents a terrible attitude that something can't and won't be done, even 100 or 500 years from now, the first is much more reasonable. His skepticism is based on money, and NASA's current plans are too expensive to ever be effective. Musk is lowering the price, and while I think ITS will work out, it is a crazy plan and Musk realizes that too. Since the main way there will be enough funding for it is if their satellite constellation is a great success, people who doubt if on funding have a good point today, just look at the funding slide from the ITS announcement.When he talks about expanding into space, he mentions tourism and economic motivating factors. I think his forward vision is more similar to Bezos' which doesn't involve Mars in the near term at all.
My God.I find myself actually agreeing with NDT for, like, the first time ever.
His main issue is that he has "only government can do this" blinders on.
His argument is predicated on the assumption that a manned Mars mission would exceed the current NASA HSF budget by a wide margin,
Quote from: Star One on 05/02/2017 02:23 pmBy heck I actually agree with youIKR !!! !!!Quote as he seems to be speaking as if there aren't people like Mr Musk, who yes will take government help in the way you describe, but the actual money will come from private industry. In this case I think it's going to be the private sector that makes this happen not the government and that's what he seems to completely miss.This is a persistent and consistent blind spot with him, not just about Mars but about commercial space in general. I otherwise like him, think he's doing good things for STEM and raising science awareness in general but this? It's enough that I semi-automatically discount anything he says about what's possible in space. ... I think my amazing peopleism is tempered by reality, it could all fail, but there's some hope.
QuoteWhat do you see as the most important venture in space exploration right now?I like that there's a desire to want to send people to Mars. I have my scepticism about how and when that will happen, but I will not stand in their way because somebody's got to dream like that. You can live in a country where everything is stable, but if it's a place where no-one dreams about a different future, then I don't know that it's where I would want to live. I admire the people who have the tenacity to send others to Mars.What makes you sceptical?I think there are many drivers for sending people into space – touristic, militaristic; I imagine tourism, mining of asteroids as a frontier space activity. I'm sure the world's first trillionaire is the person who learns how to mine asteroids.http://www.wired.co.uk/article/neil-degrasse-tyson-welcome-to-the-universe
What do you see as the most important venture in space exploration right now?I like that there's a desire to want to send people to Mars. I have my scepticism about how and when that will happen, but I will not stand in their way because somebody's got to dream like that. You can live in a country where everything is stable, but if it's a place where no-one dreams about a different future, then I don't know that it's where I would want to live. I admire the people who have the tenacity to send others to Mars.What makes you sceptical?I think there are many drivers for sending people into space – touristic, militaristic; I imagine tourism, mining of asteroids as a frontier space activity. I'm sure the world's first trillionaire is the person who learns how to mine asteroids.
Maybe as a college undergrad I'm young and naive because I want a job, and because I haven't watched cancellations and budget cuts for forty- but I see no reason to believe SpaceX or another similarly motivated company won't take is to Mars eventually. It may not immediately be the grandiose 100+ people colonization ships that Musk likes to talk about, and it may not be as soon as he likes to say (see Falcon Heavy)- but he has given us no reason to doubt the Mars plans yet.
Of course, the big issue is money. Neil is probably right about government. What he doesn't understand is the space enthusiast billionaire. If SpaceX can generate enough income, Elon is sending ships to Mars. If SpaceX cannot generate enough income, Elon needs to sweet talk his buddy Jeff Bezos. As the fifth richest man in the world, Mr. Bezos has enough wealth to send ships to Mars as a hobby.
Quote from: RonM on 05/02/2017 03:18 pmOf course, the big issue is money. Neil is probably right about government. What he doesn't understand is the space enthusiast billionaire. If SpaceX can generate enough income, Elon is sending ships to Mars. If SpaceX cannot generate enough income, Elon needs to sweet talk his buddy Jeff Bezos. As the fifth richest man in the world, Mr. Bezos has enough wealth to send ships to Mars as a hobby.I think it was second richest at last count, Amazon has apparently been having a good year.
Quote from: meberbs on 05/02/2017 03:58 pmQuote from: RonM on 05/02/2017 03:18 pmOf course, the big issue is money. Neil is probably right about government. What he doesn't understand is the space enthusiast billionaire. If SpaceX can generate enough income, Elon is sending ships to Mars. If SpaceX cannot generate enough income, Elon needs to sweet talk his buddy Jeff Bezos. As the fifth richest man in the world, Mr. Bezos has enough wealth to send ships to Mars as a hobby.I think it was second richest at last count, Amazon has apparently been having a good year.Not to go too far OT but so has Tesla according to all the press reports.
I am sceptical too. There doesn't seem to be any funding for a lander. ...
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/02/2017 02:07 pmI am sceptical too. There doesn't seem to be any funding for a lander. ...That's why the "the second stage IS the transfer module IS the lander IS the return module" of ITS is the only thing that makes sense.You will never get a half dozen elements funded "the NASA way". Or if it is funded it will take eternity plus 30 years.
Can I ask overall were people surprised at this kind of response from him, as I've indicated up thread already I know I was?
What were the last estimates of what ITS development and initial production costs?One thing I don't like about the whole "SpaceX is going to privately fund Mars easy-peasy" narrative is that it seems to be based on the assumption that they are going to make huge sums of money with their Sat constellation. Unfortunately that assumption has some big holes in it, particularly that's it's usually not as easy to do rent seeking under competition and there is plenty of competition in the communications market and sat comm isn't a singular solution.So do the likes of Bezos have enough money left over to fund this? And please don't just use the value of Bezos' Amazon stock, he won't completely sell out for this and if he did Amazon would all of a sudden be worth only a fraction of what it's worth now so the maximum we might talk about is something like 10% his net worth or so.
Quote from: pippin on 05/03/2017 01:28 amWhat were the last estimates of what ITS development and initial production costs?One thing I don't like about the whole "SpaceX is going to privately fund Mars easy-peasy" narrative is that it seems to be based on the assumption that they are going to make huge sums of money with their Sat constellation. Unfortunately that assumption has some big holes in it, particularly that's it's usually not as easy to do rent seeking under competition and there is plenty of competition in the communications market and sat comm isn't a singular solution.So do the likes of Bezos have enough money left over to fund this? And please don't just use the value of Bezos' Amazon stock, he won't completely sell out for this and if he did Amazon would all of a sudden be worth only a fraction of what it's worth now so the maximum we might talk about is something like 10% his net worth or so.I think you're missing that Musk is going to lever up. Same as Tyson, you're looking at the expenditure as an all at once thing. We're already starting to see rates and reuses and finesse increasing, and the capabilities of the corporate entity increase in a virtuous cycle. Thinking about it from a conventional project funding perspective might just be the wrong way to look at it.
I find it odd he doubts it'll ever happen.The technology to do crewed mission to Mars has been around since the 1970s but it's finally becoming cheap enough plus there are more players than just the NASA now.The real question is who will send a crew to Mars first the US,the Russians,the Chinese, or a private entity?
Quote from: Lar on 05/03/2017 01:32 amI think you're missing that Musk is going to lever up. Same as Tyson, you're looking at the expenditure as an all at once thing. We're already starting to see rates and reuses and finesse increasing, and the capabilities of the corporate entity increase in a virtuous cycle. Thinking about it from a conventional project funding perspective might just be the wrong way to look at it.No, im not, neither is Tyson.Actually that's where his other point comes up: if you want to add leverage or any form of capital market investment you need a solid business case.I don't think there is one, which was Tyson's point, too.
I think you're missing that Musk is going to lever up. Same as Tyson, you're looking at the expenditure as an all at once thing. We're already starting to see rates and reuses and finesse increasing, and the capabilities of the corporate entity increase in a virtuous cycle. Thinking about it from a conventional project funding perspective might just be the wrong way to look at it.
Quote from: su27k on 05/02/2017 01:49 pmHis argument is predicated on the assumption that a manned Mars mission would exceed the current NASA HSF budget by a wide margin, Where did he say that?
Again: how much does it cost?Everyone keeps claiming it finally became cheap enough. What's "cheap enough"? Where are the funds and the cost estimates?
Cost: $10B per Musk IAC speechFunds: 2/3 from NASA budget, using the funding opened up after Commercial Crew is finished. 1/3 from SpaceX, using the engineering resources opened up after F9/FH/Dragon 2 is finished.
Ah, so primarily government funding again.
And the 10bn are for what? Development? Building the first vehicle? First flight? 100 flights?
Given that Musk said they spent 1bn to go from F9 to FH alone, 10bn for more than a prototype sounds like quite a stretch.
Quote from: su27k on 05/03/2017 03:09 amCost: $10B per Musk IAC speechFunds: 2/3 from NASA budget, using the funding opened up after Commercial Crew is finished. 1/3 from SpaceX, using the engineering resources opened up after F9/FH/Dragon 2 is finished.If 2/3 from NASA budget means NASA buying a bunch of launches, or payloads delivered to Mars, sure[1]. But if you mean NASA put up the development money? That much? No. That's not the plan.
So, funding. We've thought about funding sources.And so it's steal underpants, launch satellites, send cargo to space station, Kickstarter of course followed by profit. So obviously it's going to be a challenge to fund this whole endeavor.We do expect to generate pretty decent net cash flow from launching lots of satellites and servicing the space station for NASA, transferring cargo to and from the space station, and then I know that there's a lot of people in the private sector who are interested in helping fund a base on Mars. And then perhaps they'll be interest on the government sector side to also do that.Ultimately this is going to be a huge public-private partnership, and I think that's how the United States established, and many other countries around the world is a public-private partnership. So I think that's probably what occurs, and right now we're just trying to make as much progress as we can with the resources that we have available, and just sort of keep moving both forward, and hopefully I think, as we show that this is possible, that this dream is real, not just a dream it's something that can be made real I think the support will snowball over time.And I should say also that the main reason I'm personally accumulating assets is in order to fund this. So I really don't have any other motivation for personally accumulating assets, except to be able to make the biggest contribution I can to making life multiplanetary.
And I should say also that the main reason I'm personally accumulating assets is in order to fund this.
Musk:QuoteAnd I should say also that the main reason I'm personally accumulating assets is in order to fund this."this" is colonization. The whole shebang. Not the initial transport. That's just a small part of the puzzle. I'm in the camp that believes as SpaceX ratchets up, as each flight grows their capability and fixed plant/assets and people, and bank account, that they'll do ITS itself almost wholly internally. The upper stage raptor money might possibly be the only government money invested. At all. And that is at 2:1, SpaceX puts up twice as much.
Quote from: Lar on 05/03/2017 04:09 amMusk:QuoteAnd I should say also that the main reason I'm personally accumulating assets is in order to fund this."this" is colonization. The whole shebang. Not the initial transport. That's just a small part of the puzzle. I'm in the camp that believes as SpaceX ratchets up, as each flight grows their capability and fixed plant/assets and people, and bank account, that they'll do ITS itself almost wholly internally. The upper stage raptor money might possibly be the only government money invested. At all. And that is at 2:1, SpaceX puts up twice as much.I don't think there is the slightest evidence that SpaceX will be able to do this internally. It's just wishful thinking.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 05/03/2017 05:10 amQuote from: Lar on 05/03/2017 04:09 amMusk:QuoteAnd I should say also that the main reason I'm personally accumulating assets is in order to fund this."this" is colonization. The whole shebang. Not the initial transport. That's just a small part of the puzzle. I'm in the camp that believes as SpaceX ratchets up, as each flight grows their capability and fixed plant/assets and people, and bank account, that they'll do ITS itself almost wholly internally. The upper stage raptor money might possibly be the only government money invested. At all. And that is at 2:1, SpaceX puts up twice as much.I don't think there is the slightest evidence that SpaceX will be able to do this internally. It's just wishful thinking.Plus, as seen above, it's obviously not what Musk says himself.
Quote from: pippin on 05/03/2017 05:39 amQuote from: Dalhousie on 05/03/2017 05:10 amQuote from: Lar on 05/03/2017 04:09 amMusk:QuoteAnd I should say also that the main reason I'm personally accumulating assets is in order to fund this."this" is colonization. The whole shebang. Not the initial transport. That's just a small part of the puzzle. I'm in the camp that believes as SpaceX ratchets up, as each flight grows their capability and fixed plant/assets and people, and bank account, that they'll do ITS itself almost wholly internally. The upper stage raptor money might possibly be the only government money invested. At all. And that is at 2:1, SpaceX puts up twice as much.I don't think there is the slightest evidence that SpaceX will be able to do this internally. It's just wishful thinking.Plus, as seen above, it's obviously not what Musk says himself.No argument from me. Although is does play somewhat disingenuously on this issue depending on the crowd. Unfortunately quite a lot of the amazing people and fangirrls do think that SpaceX will be able to go to Mars internally..
Do you think the plan is finalized and carved in stone? Because I never got the impression they worked out all the details yet.
(fan boy hat) You guys are wrong. As long as you are just wrong but stay out of the way and let Musk fail (as you know he will) you'll get no further argument.
(mod hat) Use "fanboi" (that particular spelling) again where I see it? == Deleted post. If you don't understand why, use Google to search for it.(fan boy hat) You guys are wrong. As long as you are just wrong but stay out of the way and let Musk fail (as you know he will) you'll get no further argument. But if you keep the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). pushing that rocket to nowhere, I'll argue against you strenuously.
Quote from: Lar on 05/03/2017 12:46 pm(mod hat) Use "fanboi" (that particular spelling) again where I see it? == Deleted post. If you don't understand why, use Google to search for it.(fan boy hat) You guys are wrong. As long as you are just wrong but stay out of the way and let Musk fail (as you know he will) you'll get no further argument. But if you keep the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). pushing that rocket to nowhere, I'll argue against you strenuously.You have lost your objectivity here Lar. I am not going to "get out of the way". Firstly I am not "in the way". Secondly, I work daily in Mars research, so I am not going to stop just because tell me to. if you you can't except constructive criticism of the SpaceX cult then the problem is yours, not mine. Fifthly, here is a useful description of "fanboi" A fanboi is someone who is unusually attracted or devoted to a particular technology or tech company.. See https://www.techopedia.com/definition/28754/fanboi. Lastly, I have reported your post.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 05/04/2017 02:09 amQuote from: Lar on 05/03/2017 12:46 pm(mod hat) Use "fanboi" (that particular spelling) again where I see it? == Deleted post. If you don't understand why, use Google to search for it.(fan boy hat) You guys are wrong. As long as you are just wrong but stay out of the way and let Musk fail (as you know he will) you'll get no further argument. But if you keep the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). pushing that rocket to nowhere, I'll argue against you strenuously.You have lost your objectivity here Lar. I am not going to "get out of the way". Firstly I am not "in the way". Secondly, I work daily in Mars research, so I am not going to stop just because tell me to. if you you can't except constructive criticism of the SpaceX cult then the problem is yours, not mine. Fifthly, here is a useful description of "fanboi" A fanboi is someone who is unusually attracted or devoted to a particular technology or tech company.. See https://www.techopedia.com/definition/28754/fanboi. Lastly, I have reported your post.I have no objection to the term amazing people, and the connotation it carries. Nor do I have any issue with criticism, constructive or otherwise. I think you didn't take my point, I apologise if I wasn't clear... criticise all you want. But what Tyson is doing isn't helpful. Your criticism is founded in understanding of SpaceX. His isn't.
What do you see as the most important venture in space exploration right now?I like that there's a desire to want to send people to Mars. I have my scepticism about how and when that will happen, but I will not stand in their way because somebody's got to dream like that....The money. To go to Mars because you want to, my reading of history says that doesn't work. We didn't go to the Moon because we wanted to.... war and economics are the big drivers of major expenditures.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 05/02/2017 03:02 pmQuote from: su27k on 05/02/2017 01:49 pmHis argument is predicated on the assumption that a manned Mars mission would exceed the current NASA HSF budget by a wide margin, Where did he say that?How else do you interpret "The money. To go to Mars because you want to, my reading of history says that doesn't work. We didn't go to the Moon because we wanted to. We may remember it that way, because it serves a certain self-image – we're Americans, we're explorers, it's in our DNA, so we went to the Moon. That's just assuming it's a thing you do, without asking what's driving this, what's allocating the money for this?"?
Quote from: su27k on 05/03/2017 03:09 amQuote from: Lee Jay on 05/02/2017 03:02 pmQuote from: su27k on 05/02/2017 01:49 pmHis argument is predicated on the assumption that a manned Mars mission would exceed the current NASA HSF budget by a wide margin, Where did he say that?How else do you interpret "The money. To go to Mars because you want to, my reading of history says that doesn't work. We didn't go to the Moon because we wanted to. We may remember it that way, because it serves a certain self-image – we're Americans, we're explorers, it's in our DNA, so we went to the Moon. That's just assuming it's a thing you do, without asking what's driving this, what's allocating the money for this?"?He didn't say it had to be government money. He's asking what motivation is there to go to Mars that would justify the cost. In the past, very large expenditures like this have had to be government money because there's no profit in doing it privately. There's plenty of private money available for ventures of this size, but there has to be a sound, usually economic reason for those expenditures to be made. I don't see it here, and neither does Neil. How many ultra-wealthy people will pay millions of dollars for a very high-risk trip to a place where there's absolutely nothing when they could spend thousands of dollars and go to any one of hundreds of spectacular places on Earth with drastically lower risk? A few super-dedicated explorer types perhaps, but I doubt that is even a beginning business model, much less a sustainable one.
Neil deGrasse Tyson doubts humans will ever walk on Mars
QuoteNeil deGrasse Tyson doubts humans will ever walk on MarsThis is quite a bold assumption. Ever/Never is a very long period of time. Ever in his forseeable lifetime? Possible, but unlikely (unlikely that it is not happening). And walking? Walking is quite doable. After the first testflight + powered landing, we could put a human into a dragon2 capsule and send it to Mars. That person will eventually walk on mars, but will not come back to earth (essentially, that person would just give proof that person can walk on Mars). So having a human walking on Mars is easily achievable and yet pointless (We know that it works at 1G, we know that it works at 1/6th G (okay, it's more like hopping around), so what would lead to the assumpution that walking doesn't work at 1/3 G).Yet, the broader meaning is (in my opinion) have humans living on Mars, at best from birth to death. Yet I'm not convinced that Mars is the best place to go. It's possible to go there, it's possible to set up a colony there, it's just not the ideal place to go. The ideal place to go seems to me is a rotating station around an asteroid of sufficient size (Ceres). But if the term "ever walk on Mars" gets expanded to "ever live and thrive on another world" Tyson is just wrong. He is even wrong at the close meaning, that a person has to walk on the surface of Mars ever. Because even if we chose to live on rotating space station, there'll be that urge to just go to Mars and other locations in the solar system and beyond. Even if there are just flag and foodprint missions.
Quote from: Hotblack Desiato on 05/04/2017 11:30 pmQuoteNeil deGrasse Tyson doubts humans will ever walk on MarsThis is quite a bold assumption. Ever/Never is a very long period of time. ...This isn't something Tyson ever said. If you read the article, you'll see that he questions how long it will take and when it will happen. He never said that he doubts humans would ever walk on Mars.That part about "ever" is just a horribly-inaccurate headline put on the article by an editor at Wired. And, for some reason, this thread title followed that inaccurate headline.Can we fix the thread title? It really slanders Tyson.
QuoteNeil deGrasse Tyson doubts humans will ever walk on MarsThis is quite a bold assumption. Ever/Never is a very long period of time. ...
Aliquam feugiat enim eget neque cursus viverra. Maecenas nec quam pretium, feugiat nisi sed, finibus justo. Aliquam erat volutpat. Duis a molestie leo, ut volutpat nisl. Aenean sed tristique magna, maximus convallis elit. Pellentesque vel tellus arcu. Nulla tincidunt aliquet dolor. Cras fringilla arcu enim, a ornare dui accumsan a. Nam iaculis cursus magna, in tincidunt diam convallis id. Duis vitae elementum mauris, id feugiat nulla.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/04/2017 11:39 pmQuote from: Hotblack Desiato on 05/04/2017 11:30 pmQuoteNeil deGrasse Tyson doubts humans will ever walk on MarsThis is quite a bold assumption. Ever/Never is a very long period of time. ...This isn't something Tyson ever said. If you read the article, you'll see that he questions how long it will take and when it will happen. He never said that he doubts humans would ever walk on Mars.That part about "ever" is just a horribly-inaccurate headline put on the article by an editor at Wired. And, for some reason, this thread title followed that inaccurate headline.Can we fix the thread title? It really slanders Tyson.Study: 70% of Facebook users only read the headline of science stories before commentingQuoteAliquam feugiat enim eget neque cursus viverra. Maecenas nec quam pretium, feugiat nisi sed, finibus justo. Aliquam erat volutpat. Duis a molestie leo, ut volutpat nisl. Aenean sed tristique magna, maximus convallis elit. Pellentesque vel tellus arcu. Nulla tincidunt aliquet dolor. Cras fringilla arcu enim, a ornare dui accumsan a. Nam iaculis cursus magna, in tincidunt diam convallis id. Duis vitae elementum mauris, id feugiat nulla.
Fair.He's missing that this is not going to be driven by the old factors.. .instead, it's going to be driven by... manifest destiny, for want of a better word. These billionaires are gambling that they will be a forcing function that forces the economics to happen. If they're right, if it works... it's going to be spectacular. They're betting on the New World, writ large.If it fails it will be a spectacular crater.
Quotehttp://www.wired.co.uk/article/neil-degrasse-tyson-welcome-to-the-universeI take from this the following:1) He applauds the desire to go.2) He is sceptical about the ways and timelines proposed.3) He doesn't think the drivers of national strategy ("war") and commerce ("economics") are sufficient.Point 1) shows he supports the general; idea. Point 2) is that he is sceptical of some of the ways and time lines, which is reasonable. Most of us are sceptical of at least some of the ways and timelines proposed to date! Point 3 is that he is sceptical that the two big drivers of large scale space endeavours past and present are sufficient. Based on what we currently know he has a point regarding settling Mars, though perhaps not with respect to exploration and science.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/neil-degrasse-tyson-welcome-to-the-universe
More money doesn't help. They've wasted $43 billion on SLS and Orion, that's half a mission to Mars budget. Politics, corruption and incompetence prevents NASA from sending astronauts to Mars, or to the Moon for that part, regardless of what budget they have.