Quote from: Jim on 06/11/2012 05:25 pmQuote from: meekGee on 06/11/2012 04:43 pm1. Look at how many rich folks are willing to put funds into developing their own launch technology. 2. Supporting a Mars mission with an existing rocket and vehicle is a) cheaper, b) less risky, c) quicker, and d) more gratifying. Of course they'll fund it.1. Not an applicable analogy.2. Meaningless. There is no return for investors.Of course, they won't fund it.It wasn't an analogy, and the two parts of the paragraphs are not stand-alone sentences. The first is an observation, and the second compares the proposition at hand to it, which makes it both applicable and meaningful.As for ROI, none of these people are in it for a 5-year ROI. They do it because they've got more money than they can spend, so they LIKE to do it.
Quote from: meekGee on 06/11/2012 04:43 pm1. Look at how many rich folks are willing to put funds into developing their own launch technology. 2. Supporting a Mars mission with an existing rocket and vehicle is a) cheaper, b) less risky, c) quicker, and d) more gratifying. Of course they'll fund it.1. Not an applicable analogy.2. Meaningless. There is no return for investors.Of course, they won't fund it.
1. Look at how many rich folks are willing to put funds into developing their own launch technology. 2. Supporting a Mars mission with an existing rocket and vehicle is a) cheaper, b) less risky, c) quicker, and d) more gratifying. Of course they'll fund it.
There's no ROI in buying a luxury yacht either, but obviously people do. It's just that some people find things like funding a Mars mission more gratifying than a yacht. (or they already have one)
Quote from: meekGee on 06/11/2012 05:48 pmThere's no ROI in buying a luxury yacht either, but obviously people do. It's just that some people find things like funding a Mars mission more gratifying than a yacht. (or they already have one)Unsubstantiated. No one has unfunded a Mars mission, hence, no gratification, therefore your comparison is meaningless.
Quote from: Jim on 06/11/2012 06:30 pmQuote from: meekGee on 06/11/2012 05:48 pmThere's no ROI in buying a luxury yacht either, but obviously people do. It's just that some people find things like funding a Mars mission more gratifying than a yacht. (or they already have one)Unsubstantiated. No one has unfunded a Mars mission, hence, no gratification, therefore your comparison is meaningless.So again, you're saying that won't fund it because they haven't funded it yet.
Quote from: meekGee on 06/11/2012 06:34 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/11/2012 06:30 pmQuote from: meekGee on 06/11/2012 05:48 pmThere's no ROI in buying a luxury yacht either, but obviously people do. It's just that some people find things like funding a Mars mission more gratifying than a yacht. (or they already have one)Unsubstantiated. No one has unfunded a Mars mission, hence, no gratification, therefore your comparison is meaningless.So again, you're saying that won't fund it because they haven't funded it yet.No, I never said that once, much less again. Just pointing out all the flaws in your logic, such as somebody finding gratification in funding a Mars mission when no one has done it yet.
Remember the reason Elon Musk said was the main one for he ending in the launch business?He wanted to send a mission to Mars on his own money, but it was too expensive.You can take that as proof that no one's going to try because there's not money to make, or you can take it as proof that someone is going to do it as soon as it is affordable for billionaires.Choose you favorite.
No value in validating subsystems, hardware and software?
As I know the story, it was too expensive to go to Mars on existing launchers,
I think the best Mars financial model is dependent on continued commercial success, and winning part of commercial crew. At that point they will have the credibility to sell a NASA science mission.
The question is whether you want to emphasize doing it sooner, sending off a "minimally modified" Dragon, or you whether you want to wait untill you built a purpose-built, somewhat Dragon derived, Mars vehicle.Clearly, the purpose-built lander will be a better vehicle... The only thing we're talking about here is whether the value of sending off the minimally modified Dragon is worth the expense, and how they'll fund it.Since it's SpaceX's vehicle and rockets, my estimate is "yes" even if it's on their own $, but that with some creative thinking they can even get some or all of the $ from interested parties.How minimal is "Minimal" depends on the mission they'll decide to do.a) one-way tripb) two-way tripc) landingEach of these has different amounts of value in the categories we discussed above. In case of EDL there is value even if there's only partial success.
The question of whether a Red Dragon style mission should use a near-stock Dragon or a Dragon-derived Mars lander probably comes down to cost vs benefit.
Quote from: DaveH62 on 06/11/2012 07:42 pmI think the best Mars financial model is dependent on continued commercial success, and winning part of commercial crew. At that point they will have the credibility to sell a NASA science mission.That still doesn't mean the vehicle can perform the mission.
but can only happen in 6 years, whereas a minimally-modified one can be launched in 2.