Mars SpaceX NASA and politics

[Slarty1080]

If all goes well at SpaceX over the next five years or so, it’s not unreasonable to suppose that:
Starlink deployment is well underway and starting to earn an income
Starship / Superheavy are operational
DearMoon has been flown or is imminent.
Musk is firming up his plans for Mars with the first two robot Starships.

Question how does this play out politically with the US Gov and NASA?

Firstly assuming Musk can afford the Mars missions (Starlink is rapidly generating ever large returns)
Does NASA approach Musk cap in hand – please sir can we fly an astronaut on your rocket?
Does NASA just ignore SpaceX and carry on building SLS as if nothing had happened?
Does the US Government wade in with arguments about planetary protection?
Does Musk do the right thing and come to a gracious arrangement with NASA?

Secondly assuming Musk can’t quite afford it (Starlink is not growing fast enough, too many costs in ECLSS and Starship development debits)

Does Musk approach NASA cap in hand – please sir can you help pay for my Mars missions?
Does Musk just wait until he can afford it?
Is there any chance that an arrangement could be struck between Blue Origin and SpaceX?

[Lar]

This is space policy. Moved.

[FinalFrontier]

Big IFs.

But IF all that happened, NASA will ignore SpaceX and continue SLS so long as Congress continues directing it to do so.

Conversely, and more likely, a future Congress will have already cancelled SLS and eviscerated the rest of the NASA budget in favor of  "spending the money on people here and now on earth" as is so often repeated by certain people. SpaceX or others will ask Congress for support for Mars, Congress will respond with "we should spend the money on people here and now on earth, what are you anti humanist?" And the rest of us will only be able to laugh at the irony.

Do not look to Congress or NASA by extension for future space exploration, it will not be there. It is unlikely at this rate that NASA as an agency will survive SLS and the end of ISS in 2030.

[QuantumG]

I think you missed the most likely option:

* Elon changes the conversation and NASA becomes their Mars partner.

With all that entails - most importantly, a slow-down so the usual suspects can "compete".

[Rocket Science]

They would need to survive the "Spanish Inquisition" known as ASAP...

[freddo411]

If all goes well at SpaceX over the next five years or so,...

Question how does this play out politically with the US Gov and NASA?

Let me ask a clarifying question.   Can you think of a situation where NASA was involved in a space mission where is was not the organization in charge?   ISS, sort of, maybe?    Is that a good model? (I don't think so, mostly).

I see the value in SpaceX participating with NASA in its current contracts.   NASA is a wealthy customer, and they also contribute a lot of valuable historical experience.   On the other hand, we've seen the negatives as well; there are clearly forces that are impeding SpaceX's forward progress on commercial crew.   Powered landing was nixed.  The test flight is clearly being delayed.   At some point, the negatives outweigh the positives.

If the BFR is flying, and #dearMoon is a success, then it would seem to me that SpaceX should fly the its first flight to Mars on it's own.

In someways, SpaceX has already demonstrated that it can do it on it's own terms.   FH threw a tesla past Mars.

[Semmel]

Big IFs.

But IF all that happened, NASA will ignore SpaceX and continue SLS so long as Congress continues directing it to do so.

Conversely, and more likely, a future Congress will have already cancelled SLS and eviscerated the rest of the NASA budget in favor of  "spending the money on people here and now on earth" as is so often repeated by certain people. SpaceX or others will ask Congress for support for Mars, Congress will respond with "we should spend the money on people here and now on earth, what are you anti humanist?" And the rest of us will only be able to laugh at the irony.

Do not look to Congress or NASA by extension for future space exploration, it will not be there. It is unlikely at this rate that NASA as an agency will survive SLS and the end of ISS in 2030.

Come on, dont be ridiculous. NASA will continue, maybe scale back its human space flight by a lot but the robotic missions, telescopes, landers, etc. will continue. The money IS spend here and now on humans here on earth after all.

What might happen in the scenario that is painted here might be that NASA becomes a customer to put habs, science experiments and people on the surface of the Moon in the same way they contract launch operators to launch their stuff already. I expect the stuff to be developed by NASA and contracted out. I dont see SpaceX to fund fundamental science for the Moon or Mars and I dont see NASA to fund a city on Mars or the Moon. There is a lot of synergy between the two goals and they can greatly support each other as long as they leave each other alone. No NASA designed and controlled or 'insight and oversight' of living space and no SpaceX involvement in science experiments and trips outside the need for basic living and fuel. And all indications are that SpaceX knows that.
My guess would be that NASA doesnt trust the living habs of SpaceX and will develop their own for 10 times the price and 1/10th the risk of failure, but also 1/100th the scalability. Money will flow to the usual suspects.

[guckyfan]

Secondly assuming Musk can’t quite afford it (Starlink is not growing fast enough, too many costs in ECLSS and Starship development debits)

Does Musk approach NASA cap in hand – please sir can you help pay for my Mars missions?
Does Musk just wait until he can afford it?

Waiting until he can afford it is by far the fastest option.

Is there any chance that an arrangement could be struck between Blue Origin and SpaceX?

My best guess, exactly Zero chance.

[RonM]

Do not look to Congress or NASA by extension for future space exploration, it will not be there. It is unlikely at this rate that NASA as an agency will survive SLS and the end of ISS in 2030.

NASA does a lot more than human spaceflight. Even if NASA's entire human spaceflight program was cancelled, there's still robotic space exploration, Earth science, space and aeronautics R&D, etc.

[alang]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46364179

Bill Anders reported as saying sending crews to Mars "almost stupid"

[speedevil]

Waiting until he can afford it is by far the fastest option.

BFR is way too big for a NASA mars mission without ridiculous upheavals.

Almost every single NASA mission in history has cost more than the mooted (2016) cost of BFS to Mars (expending the BFS).
How on earth would they produce 150 tons of hardware to go to Mars?

[Lar]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46364179

Bill Anders reported as saying sending crews to Mars "almost stupid"

Referring to NASA doing it, he's not wrong.  However NASA is not the only alternative. And certainly not the cheapest one.  Apollo era astronauts have had demonstrable issues with understanding how SpaceX (and private enterprise in general vs. government programs) changes everything.

We still appreciate his efforts, but we can disregard this viewpoint.

[cppetrie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46364179

Bill Anders reported as saying sending crews to Mars "almost stupid"

Referring to NASA doing it, he's not wrong.  However NASA is not the only alternative. And certainly not the cheapest one.  Apollo era astronauts have had demonstrable issues with understanding how SpaceX (and private enterprise in general vs. government programs) changes everything.

We still appreciate his efforts, but we can disregard this viewpoint.

Maybe ‘disagree with’ rather than ‘disregard’?

Bill makes a few valid points if your conception of going to Mars is that of what we did with the moon - flags and footprints. In that case I’m inclined to agree with him. But Musk and Bezos aren’t talking flags and footprints in their conception of humans in space and on Mars. They are talking about a very different conception where humans in space isn’t limited to a few but rather is as common as people being anywhere else. And that conception seems pretty crazy from where we are today and certainly from the Apollo perspective that Bill comes from. But it’s gotta start somewhere, and I think it’s reasonable to think we’re on the precipice of that new conception becoming reality.

[Hauerg]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46364179

Bill Anders reported as saying sending crews to Mars "almost stupid"

Bill complains about NASA being „ossified“ and does not get it, that he is as well. At least compared to Frank Borman who sees the need for robust exploration of the solar system, man included.