Elon Musk quote: The moon is a distraction -- discuss

[meekGee]

Nominally agree. Musk could and should have been more precise and tactful in his response.

Ha, when has Musk ever done that?

It's exactly when you don't pick your words carefully that you're at your most transparent.

[JayWee]

Another thought, SpaceX will have a limited flight rate for Starship and tankers.  If SpaceX needs those tanker flights to fuel a Starship to Mars to test EDL, then using those tankers for a Moon mission is a distraction.  Of course there's the 2 year window, so maybe the Moon is a useful destination in the off year.

Yes, exactly. SpaceX will have to develop the Depot system for Mars anyway. Once you have it, why not use it to sell trips to the Moon?
Elon has repeatedly said there should be a base on the moon during various talks. If someone (NASA/foreign govts) is willing to pay for Lunar missions, what's the reason SX wouldn't happily sell their services?
Will SpaceX pay for it on their own? No, their target is Mars.

The debate ultimately relates to a certain group of people who advocate, coming from a launch-mass constrained worldview, that we need to DEVELOP Moon in order to go to Mars. The same camp will try to tell you that NTR is essential for Mars missions. Both are, indeed, a distraction.

In an era with plentiful cheap launch capacity, just go to Mars and Moon at the same time, using Mars-focused tech.

[Oersted]

Musk has got Asperger's and owns the most potent social media platform. That is a somewhat combustible combination.

For those of us who remember the early days of SpaceX, Mars was always the goal, to the exclusion of all other objectives.

To me it looks like the Moon is to Mars what Falcon Heavy is to Starship. A bit of a detour on the path to the real target. I think that is how Elon sees it as well.

[InterestedEngineer]

In an era with plentiful cheap launch capacity, just go to Mars and Moon at the same time, using Mars-focused tech.

Indeed.  HLS's interior is the prototype for crews to Mars.

evet the external waist thrusters proposed (but not yet seen) might be needed for Mars.  I suspect digging a crater with a Raptor2 on the moon and having the ship keel over after landing as a result might be useful info for Mars as well.

Meanwhile NASA is paying for this tech.  win-win, except for the distraction part.

[Twark_Main]

EDIT from the FUTURE!!!
The reason I thought this quote is worthy of a thread is "It's exactly when you don't pick your words carefully that you're at your most transparent".

...Musk was replying to a comment about selling LOX mined from the moon for Mars transits. ...

The OP by Peter Hague is not about LOx. And the words as said, they're potent.  You can't be the key provider of Artemis III and then say that the moon is a distraction - and expect no weight to be given to that statement.

"It's exactly when you're most misinterpreted by me that you're at your most transparent."   

Read the full original tweet again. Cohberg is right.

There is a long running debate between the Mars people and the space Habitat people. Zubrin vs O’Neill, Musk vs Bezos. I have thought for some time now it’s essentially futile in the commercial age - because the two camps are no longer competing for a fixed pie of launch and hardware building resources. Supply can increase to meet demand, and all the competing approaches will do to each other is help by accelerating development of the markets both need.

And consider this - Starship needs about 6 tanker refills for each ship going to Mars. Its O/F ratio is about 4, which means 69% of all the mass SpaceX will send to orbit for their Mars missions is liquid oxygen. Lunar regolith is typically about 40% oxygen by mass.

The habitat builders have always struggled to time a market to drive their projects - maybe selling vast quantities of lox to SpaceX cheaper than they can launch it themselves is the proverbial “selling blue jeans to prospectors” that can close the O’Neillian case?

[Twark_Main]

Its O/F ratio is about 4, which means 69% of all the mass SpaceX will send to orbit for their Mars missions is liquid oxygen.

Incidentally, it should be noted that the exact number is probably just a meme. At a O:F ratio of 3.6:1 it's 78% oxygen by total propellant payload upmass, or about 72% when accounting for the fact that 1-out-of-12 launches is the actual payload and not propellant.

If you also count the vehicle dry masses as part of "all the mass SpaceX will send to orbit," it drops to ~50% LOX.

[meekGee]

EDIT from the FUTURE!!!
The reason I thought this quote is worthy of a thread is "It's exactly when you don't pick your words carefully that you're at your most transparent".

...Musk was replying to a comment about selling LOX mined from the moon for Mars transits. ...

The OP by Peter Hague is not about LOx. And the words as said, they're potent.  You can't be the key provider of Artemis III and then say that the moon is a distraction - and expect no weight to be given to that statement.

"It's exactly when you're most misinterpreted by me that you're at your most transparent."   

Read the full original tweet again. Cohberg is right.

There is a long running debate between the Mars people and the space Habitat people. Zubrin vs O’Neill, Musk vs Bezos. I have thought for some time now it’s essentially futile in the commercial age - because the two camps are no longer competing for a fixed pie of launch and hardware building resources. Supply can increase to meet demand, and all the competing approaches will do to each other is help by accelerating development of the markets both need.

And consider this - Starship needs about 6 tanker refills for each ship going to Mars. Its O/F ratio is about 4, which means 69% of all the mass SpaceX will send to orbit for their Mars missions is liquid oxygen. Lunar regolith is typically about 40% oxygen by mass.

The habitat builders have always struggled to time a market to drive their projects - maybe selling vast quantities of lox to SpaceX cheaper than they can launch it themselves is the proverbial “selling blue jeans to prospectors” that can close the O’Neillian case?

Yes, agreed, I read only the part that was quoted.

But I don't think it matters since I'm not taking Musk's words 1:1, just noting that that sentence is not something you say about something you care about.  Even in context.  And he's been careful to give the moon program equal screen time in the past two years.

[InterestedEngineer]

if you want LOX in LEO for cheaper than SpaceX can deliver it (at about $50/kg), I can think of two alternatives that have a remote (however remote) chance of being cheaper.

1. Skim it out of the atmosphere
2.  Maneuver a comet into LEO and mine it.   You only have to get some carbon to it and you have the methane too.

The moon version of LOX, which is about 3-6km/sec of deltaV away, is always going to be more expensive than  $50/kg.

[thespacecow]

Another thought, SpaceX will have a limited flight rate for Starship and tankers.  If SpaceX needs those tanker flights to fuel a Starship to Mars to test EDL, then using those tankers for a Moon mission is a distraction.  Of course there's the 2 year window, so maybe the Moon is a useful destination in the off year.

Yes, exactly. SpaceX will have to develop the Depot system for Mars anyway. Once you have it, why not use it to sell trips to the Moon?

Well because NASA funding to SpaceX is not infinite, it's going to be limited to $X per year, so if you are Elon and have the ability to control how NASA will require $X to be spent, which option would you choose:

Option 1: Divert $Y out of $X to lunar landings, a destination you deem worthless to your goal which is Mars. Spent $X - $Y on Mars.

Option 2: Spent every penny from $X on Mars.

?

This zero sum game is especially acute with SLS/Orion/Gateway around, since there's no funding wedge for Mars at all. Essentially we have $X = $Y = ~$700M (average HLS contract funding per year).

Of course this calculation changes if there're private companies/individuals who is willing to pay for a lunar landing, but I think the amount of funding private companies/individuals is willing to spend on lunar landing in the next 2-4 years is way too low to change the calculus at this moment. Maybe it'll change once SpaceX has a mature Mars Starship and launch cadence is high enough, so that they can just pull a Mars ship from production line and do some minor changes to do lunar landing. But as of right now, HLS and lunar landing is a distraction to their Mars goal.

[InterestedEngineer]

Well because NASA funding to SpaceX is not infinite, it's going to be limited to $X per year, so if you are Elon and have the ability to control how NASA will require $X to be spent, which option would you choose:

I don't think he will have that much power.  Over the bureaucracy, sure (because DOGE), but Senators and Reps from Alabama, Florida, California, and other military-space-industrial complexes will want to keep the spigot going.

What does *that* negotiation look like?  Specifically, what do the thousands of employees in Huntsville du if SLS is cancelled?

Do we distract them and their senators with the moon, or can we get them doing something on Mars?

[thespacecow]

Well because NASA funding to SpaceX is not infinite, it's going to be limited to $X per year, so if you are Elon and have the ability to control how NASA will require $X to be spent, which option would you choose:

I don't think he will have that much power.  Over the bureaucracy, sure (because DOGE), but Senators and Reps from Alabama, Florida, California, and other military-space-industrial complexes will want to keep the spigot going.

What does *that* negotiation look like?  Specifically, what do the thousands of employees in Huntsville du if SLS is cancelled?

Do we distract them and their senators with the moon, or can we get them doing something on Mars?

See my edit, this calculation does not depend on cancelling SLS or any of that stuff, it holds whether you cancel SLS or not. But the problem is especially severe if you don't cancel SLS.

The power assumed here is just for changing how the money SpaceX receives is used, it does not involve increasing the amount SpaceX receives, so Congress shouldn't care that much.

[InterestedEngineer]

Well because NASA funding to SpaceX is not infinite, it's going to be limited to $X per year, so if you are Elon and have the ability to control how NASA will require $X to be spent, which option would you choose:

I don't think he will have that much power.  Over the bureaucracy, sure (because DOGE), but Senators and Reps from Alabama, Florida, California, and other military-space-industrial complexes will want to keep the spigot going.

What does *that* negotiation look like?  Specifically, what do the thousands of employees in Huntsville du if SLS is cancelled?

Do we distract them and their senators with the moon, or can we get them doing something on Mars?

See my edit, this calculation does not depend on cancelling SLS or any of that stuff, it holds whether you cancel SLS or not. But the problem is especially severe if you don't cancel SLS.

The power assumed here is just for changing how the money SpaceX receives is used, it does not involve increasing the amount SpaceX receives, so Congress shouldn't care that much.

The only remaining mission for SLS is the moon.

At the same time, without SpaceX, you aren't going to the moon.

It's a tough spot for Elon.  The moon is both a political and a company focus distraction.

You cancel the moon, you cancel SLS.   But that means you cancel enough congresscritter votes you can't get a majority to pass a NASA budget.

I don't think that can happen unless you wave some other project in front of Alabama's senators and reps and say "do this" instead (e.g. develop Mars habitats, Sabatier fuel generators, etc).

That still leaves you with a thousand or so AL people who only know rockets, not habitats.  I have no idea what you do with those people, or the $100s of millions they bring into AL that motivates their reps and senators.

Now do same for JPL (CA), FL, and probably some other state I forgot (ignore TX, Elon probably already has that covered).  I note the FL Senate seat is available, as is one rep. seat.

EDIT:  Add in Missisippi (Stennis Space Center), and Louisiana (Michoud), both of which are in Republican hands of which they have very few votes to lose if they want to pass anything (because Dems mostly vote as a block).

The political calculus is interesting.  It's a conundrum. I can't wait to see what happens.

[Slarty1080]

if you want LOX in LEO for cheaper than SpaceX can deliver it (at about $50/kg), I can think of two alternatives that have a remote (however remote) chance of being cheaper.

1. Skim it out of the atmosphere
2.  Maneuver a comet into LEO and mine it.   You only have to get some carbon to it and you have the methane too.

The moon version of LOX, which is about 3-6km/sec of deltaV away, is always going to be more expensive than  $50/kg.

I'm no expert but I think remote is the right word. Skimming oxygen out of the atmosphere doesn't sound very practical due to drag and a comet doesn't sound like the sort of thing you would want in Earth Orbit due to debris (among other things). But I agree lunar LOX is somewhat hobbled by living in a gravity well. Perhaps revisit in 30 years and see where we are.

[Slarty1080]

Ultimately the Moon is a distraction for Musk, but it's a handy distraction in that it provides cash that helps the Starship development which is required for Mars anyway such as getting Starship operational, orbital refilling, prolonged storage of cryogenic propellants in space etc. It also presents the opportunity for some big publicity wins and photo ops for political grandstanding and chest beating which always goes down well with the critters, especially so with the new administration. So Musk can also gain political capital to help with his Mars plans.

I just hope that he can concentrate on getting humanity to Mars, rather than getting involved in too many distractions, ok the Moon is a relevant distraction, but I fear politics might be the wrong sort of distraction which I don't think he is suited to. For instance the recent bellicose tweets concerning historic sex scandals in the UK... Elon... srsly? What planet are you on.

[CraigLieb]

The reason Trump won’t cancel the Moon missions has nothing to do with Mars or funding battles. It will be  because of China. No president will want to be known as the one that ceded the high ground to Communism.

[thespacecow]

See my edit, this calculation does not depend on cancelling SLS or any of that stuff, it holds whether you cancel SLS or not. But the problem is especially severe if you don't cancel SLS.

The power assumed here is just for changing how the money SpaceX receives is used, it does not involve increasing the amount SpaceX receives, so Congress shouldn't care that much.

The only remaining mission for SLS is the moon.

At the same time, without SpaceX, you aren't going to the moon.

It's a tough spot for Elon.  The moon is both a political and a company focus distraction.

You cancel the moon, you cancel SLS.   But that means you cancel enough congresscritter votes you can't get a majority to pass a NASA budget.

Well not necessarily. Without SpaceX you can still go to the Moon since there's Blue Origin. You just need to wait for a while, I don't think Congress would mind though as long as the money flows. They can play with Gateway while they wait, which is what Congress originally planned for what SLS/Orion will do before Artemis.

Of course in reality there is going to be an attempt to cancel SLS/Orion/Gateway, that'll play out in parallel with potential Elon pivot from Moon to Mars, so it's going to be a complicated 4d chess.

I don't think that can happen unless you wave some other project in front of Alabama's senators and reps and say "do this" instead (e.g. develop Mars habitats, Sabatier fuel generators, etc).

That still leaves you with a thousand or so AL people who only know rockets, not habitats.  I have no idea what you do with those people, or the $100s of millions they bring into AL that motivates their reps and senators.

I don't think SpaceX will want Alabama on their Mars critical path, so no habitat or ISRU reactor for AL I'm afraid.

But Blue Origin has an engine factory there, so that'll count for something. NASA could also establish the Mars program office in MSFC, similar to how they put HLS program office there. This will be in addition to other possible compensations mentioned by Eric Berger.

Anyways, how to cancel SLS/Orion is kind of off topic for this thread, there's already enough threads on that elsewhere. The point is one shouldn't take Elon's reply at face value as just a statement about Lunar Oxygen ISRU, it may very well have broader implications for HLS and Artemis.

[Greg Hullender]

Something tells me that Trump is playing Elon here. He'll trade the threat to cancel Artemis for votes on something he actually cares about--like the debt ceiling limit.

[RedLineTrain]

This is the answer.  Musk is saying that they aren't going to complicate Mars by getting LOX from the moon

Agree, but would rephrase as Musk saying they aren't going to be dependent on lunar LOX (Artemis, or whatever) for their Mars ambitions.

Agree, but would rephrase as Musk saying there's no way in hell that SpaceX is going to allow anybody to set up a toll booth on the moon for SpaceX's Mars ambitions.

[wannamoonbase]

I agree with most of this video. 

However, I still think we can do both with cheap access to space.

[InterestedEngineer]

I agree with most of this video. 

However, I still think we can do both with cheap access to space.

It's amusing how many people think Mars is a higher deltaV destination than the Moon (as he states in the video)

I know aerobraking¹ is new, but I hear it is good.  So good, that Mars surface is lower rocket deltaV than Luna surface.

From LEO, using aerobraking when possible

Mars surface:  ~5.0 km/sec
Luna surface:  ~6.25 km/sec

This is not including the getting home part.  With the Moon, you have to take all your carbon and hydrogen with you.  On Mars, you do not.  Turns out plentiful carbon and water is essential for fuel (and human life for that matter).  Moon is not a "orbiting depot of materials", it's missing the most essential ingredients in rocket chemistry and biochemistry.

There were many other incorrect things in this short video, but this is the most trivially easy to debunk.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/aerobrake