Total Members Voted: 55
Voting closed: 08/20/2018 03:29 pm
If NASA, or more importantly, NASA-like practices get involved, you've already lost.If you can get stuff to Mars for $150/kg, and your rover looks anything like curiosity cost-wise, you've lost.(or at least wasted wholly the opportunity)Curiosity cost a couple of billion dollars.For a couple of billion dollars, you can send 500 lightly modified tesla model 3s, as well as a crew to teleoperate them from orbit.(assuming throwaway BFS, if ISRU was working, it's 5000)Curiosity teaches us almost precisely nothing about what is desired for a rover that costs under $100K.It is not repairable, the wheels are fragile little beautiful flowers that shatter on impact, ...In many ways, if the choice is to send such a Rover, over sending 150 tons of water, I'd rather send the water.
I note Elon’s recent estimate that Falcon 9 will launch maybe 300 more missions in its lifetime, before being replaced by BFR. I also note his statement that a reused F9 launch sells for around $50m, giving us a ballpark total revenue of maybe $15 billion from the remainder of F9’s planned useful life.This $15 billion total is what will have to fund BFR development, construction and the mission costs up to the landing of the first pair of BFS ships on Mars.Revenue from Starlink can likely be ignored in the interim, given that Starlink itself will require around $10 billion of investment to become operational. So net contributions from Starlink is likely a longer term goal, after initial investment has been recouped.Furthermore, much of the $15 billion F9 revenue will go into sustaining existing SpaceX costs, with profits being the more relevant number that can go into supporting Mars plans. So reinvested profits plus normal R&D budget gives you maybe $5-7 billion out of the $15 billion that can support the Mars plans until 2022. That is barely enough to design and build BFR.My point with the above being that SpaceX don’t have the funds to finance rovers, power generation, ISRU, and all the other developments needed for Mars colonization. They no doubt have conceptual plans for what is required, but they clearly mean it when they say others will have to come to the party to realize these plans.Building the rocket and successfully landing it on Mars is the big leap forward that is meant to inspire others to jump on the bandwagon.
Quote from: speedevil on 05/13/2018 10:09 amIf NASA, or more importantly, NASA-like practices get involved, you've already lost.If you can get stuff to Mars for $150/kg, and your rover looks anything like curiosity cost-wise, you've lost.(or at least wasted wholly the opportunity)Curiosity cost a couple of billion dollars.For a couple of billion dollars, you can send 500 lightly modified tesla model 3s, as well as a crew to teleoperate them from orbit.(assuming throwaway BFS, if ISRU was working, it's 5000)Curiosity teaches us almost precisely nothing about what is desired for a rover that costs under $100K.It is not repairable, the wheels are fragile little beautiful flowers that shatter on impact, ...In many ways, if the choice is to send such a Rover, over sending 150 tons of water, I'd rather send the water.Agreed.What most people are mistaking is that it's not really valid to compare the Lunar Rover or the previous Mars rovers with anything that SpaceX will put on Mars. The previous vehicles were both mass-limited and volume-limited, so they had to be super light and fold up like complex mechanical origami puzzles to make the transit and and survive landing.If BFR performs as expected, it removes a massive amount of complexity and cost to designing things like rovers and solar panels for Mars. You still want to optimize both mass and volume, but the problem is an order of magnitude simpler when your mass budget is massively increased.
Quote from: robert_d on 05/13/2018 12:14 pmIf they don't start designing and building stuff soon, even 2024 might come and go with a BFR available without a payload.2022 is some time away.Recently, it was stated the ambition is to get F9 down to $6M/launch incremental costs.Even without BFS, 30 tons to Mars injection or so, with refilling of S2 in orbit would be plausible at under $100M/mission, for SpaceX, perhaps entirely without BFS.
If they don't start designing and building stuff soon, even 2024 might come and go with a BFR available without a payload.
I suspect SpaceX simply doesn't have the time or money right now to build rovers when the rocket hasn't been built yet.There are two things that are well-proven on Mars:1) roversand2) solar powerScale is different, speed is different. But there's a real engineering experience base with now literally decades of elapsed mission time. We know what materials work, and what don't. We know that putting a solar array on top of a hill means it'll get cleaned regularly. We know not to use super thin aluminum wheels. We even know (from Phoenix) about digging in icy soil.So honestly, if you're going to pick something to wait until the last minute on, it might be those two.
Poll: Does SpaceX have an EXECUTABLE plan (both financial and human resources) for the 2017 MarsI have no idea what this poll is asking
Rovers don’t.
The centrally important question is this: Given a product X here on Earth, what should be modified on it to allow Martian use?Thermal is the No 1 issue. Then, lubrication, I guess. Dust, esp. with electric contacts.So, is it possible to develop the universal rover chassis form an existing Tesla product? With robotized recharging. Cranes? Earth movers?The surface Powerpack comes obviously from Tesla Powerpack via redesigning the thermal control.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/13/2018 04:04 pmRovers don’t. Considering the flip-side - automated self-drive automobiles do.
I just hope SpaceX finds the right balance regarding work force management. BFR/S and Mars is a marathon, not a sprint. On the one hand they cannot overwork and burn out their trusted work force which by now has gained unprallelled experience with the Falcons.On the other hand it won't be economically feasible for SpaceX if the project turns into a rudderless slow-moving money pit. Governments can sustain that, not private companies.I think Human Resources will be the key for this endeavour. SpaceX will have to ensure sustainable work force management. They can't just wing it.
Cash flow for all those items is perfectly on topic. The only reason SpaceX can afford this stuff (particularly well before full Starlink is making a lot of money) is by finding dual uses. BFR has dual use. Rovers don’t. That’s why we have heard a lot more about BFR than rovers. If you start a thread asking why we haven’t heard more about “the rest of the story,” then be prepared for people to answer you.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/13/2018 04:04 pmCash flow for all those items is perfectly on topic. The only reason SpaceX can afford this stuff (particularly well before full Starlink is making a lot of money) is by finding dual uses. BFR has dual use. Rovers don’t. That’s why we have heard a lot more about BFR than rovers. If you start a thread asking why we haven’t heard more about “the rest of the story,” then be prepared for people to answer you.Please reread the last line of my last post. Am I missing something?