Accelerating the SpaceX Long Term Goal

[go4mars]

If SpaceX had 30 Gigadollars arrive today mandated to augment and accelerate their baseline plans (large-scale colonization of Mars), what would be the best areas to focus on? 

rocket tech in sub scale demonstrators?
BFR/MCT version 1.0?
ISRU
3D printing/manufacturing/designing technologies?
Food production, chemical cycles, life support?
Other?

I'm starting to feel concerned about pace of progress toward Mars colonization; specifically wondering about the impact of money constraints. 

[RocketGoBoom]

Figuring out how to create a planetary magnetic field ....

[Jim_LAX]

Make "The Case for Mars" required reading for every high school student.  And it wouldn't even cost that much to implement.

[Elmar Moelzer]

First, invest into advanced energy (fusion, advanced fission) and propulsion concepts as well as material science.
Energy (or lack thereof) is the biggest problem here in earth, in space and on future colonies.

[Joffan]

It depends to some extent whether you believe that SpaceX just wants to be a transportation company - enabling Mars colonization by providing the means to get bulk to the planet - or whether they want to build the colony.

But only to some extent - because either way the transportation is needed and while colony-build undoubtedly has some long-lead items, the transportation issue stlil needs solving before anything else is much use.

30 G$ is a large but not endless pot of money. It would be fascinating to hear Elon Musk's ideas about what he would undertake with that.

 - The BFR for sure, I'd say.
 - I'd love to see Elon adopt and push the magnetoshell technology
 - Perhaps set up an orbital assembly platform, "SpaceFab".
 - Trial of cargo deployment on the Moon (sorry Elon, it's too good to waste)
      - perhaps to make the case - deploy a lunar comms station for deep-space control.

And more prosaic stuff, no doubt, but those are enough exciting tickets to be working on.

[guckyfan]

It depends to some extent whether you believe that SpaceX just wants to be a transportation company - enabling Mars colonization by providing the means to get bulk to the planet - or whether they want to build the colony.

No doubt he wants to be the transportation company and others do the colony building. But I get the impression he comes around to the thought that there will be no one doing it unless he at least starts the colony building and that he now is aiming at doing that.

What would he do with the 30 Billion $ ?

Doing precursor missions like launching communication infrastructure instead of relying on the already burdenend NASA DSN.

Like sending landers for searching water at possible sites.

Develop and build a ISRU plant for water, fuel, air for breathing.

Develop concepts for producing food on Mars with an acceptable quality and taste. Unlike the ISS where astronauts can keep up with lack of taste, colonists need reasonable food.

Deploy that technology and start the core of a future colony, hoping to attract more funding because 30 billion $ will go only so far. Maybe he can get to a few hundred people for a decade with that amount.

[RocketGoBoom]

Deploy that technology and start the core of a future colony, hoping to attract more funding because 30 billion $ will go only so far. Maybe he can get to a few hundred people for a decade with that amount.

$30 billion would likely get the technology and hardware built for a handful of visits similar to the moon landings. We are talking about short visits measured in weeks, then a return before Mars & Earth orbits are too far apart. Not long term colony building at all.

Surviving for 2 years until the planets are close again would require a major habitation unit already be there waiting for the people when they arrive. The logistics of landing that much delicate hardware on Mars is ....... challenging.

[Mongo62]

The long pole in the tent is Raptor, in my opinion. You cannot build BFR without it, at least as currently planned. And developing a major new engine that pushes the limits of rocket technology to the extent that Raptor is intended to do, will take a long time.

The other key transportation technologies, such as reusability, appear to be well in hand and should be well-understood long before Raptor is ready.

The other possible long pole would be Mars-colony ECLSS. The Martian surface is months away from Earth support, and the Martian surface and atmosphere (dust in particular) seems likely to present some serious issues. Maintaining a habitable living volume for thousands of people, without any disruptions, could be surprisingly difficult.

[guckyfan]

Surviving for 2 years until the planets are close again would require a major habitation unit already be there waiting for the people when they arrive. The logistics of landing that much delicate hardware on Mars is ....... challenging.

Developing MCT is challenging. Once MCT is available, sending habitats, greenhouses and people is really doable. And I believe he mentioned that MCT itself can be the habitat for the first crew. It is big enough because it is designed for 100 and there won't be more than ~12 at that first trip. My guess is that after the first crew lands there will be a permanent presence of people. They will leave only when the next crew has landed or some of them will leave, some may stay.

[Roy_H]

First, invest into advanced energy (fusion, advanced fission) and propulsion concepts as well as material science.
Energy (or lack thereof) is the biggest problem here in earth, in space and on future colonies.

I believe the best energy source, both here on earth and in space is the LFTR. Simple, natural load following (no control rods), cheap and plentiful thorium power, inherently safe (requires artificial gravity in space, so spinning version), no long term radio-active disposal problems. http://energyfromthorium.com/

[butters]

The first thing SpaceX should do in this hypothetical is give a big chunk of the money (maybe 1/3) to Bigelow. Deep space and Mars surface ECLSS is the long pole. Longer than Raptor/MCT. And ECLSS is a prerequisite for Mars flyby precursor missions, whereas ISRU is only applicable to later surface missions.

[Elmar Moelzer]

First, invest into advanced energy (fusion, advanced fission) and propulsion concepts as well as material science.
Energy (or lack thereof) is the biggest problem here in earth, in space and on future colonies.

I believe the best energy source, both here on earth and in space is the LFTR. Simple, natural load following (no control rods), cheap and plentiful thorium power, inherently safe (requires artificial gravity in space, so spinning version), no long term radio-active disposal problems. http://energyfromthorium.com/

Yeah, I am familiar with those. I did not want to go into details here, sine it would be drifting too far away from the topic, I think.

[AncientU]

Development Tasks:
1. Raptor, with optimized BFR as soon as engine performance known
2. Big cargo lander
3. Meth/LOX depots in LEO and EML-2
4. EML-2 outpost (with Bigelow)
5. MCT
6. Martian depot(s) in HMO
7. More launch and downrange landing sites

Sequence:
1,2,3 in parallel development
4,5,6 when bandwidth permits
7 as needed throughout to optimize tonnage delivered/people embarked

Let others figure out how to build Martian surface infrastructure and deploy on Mars end.

[AncientU]

First, invest into advanced energy (fusion, advanced fission) and propulsion concepts as well as material science.
Energy (or lack thereof) is the biggest problem here in earth, in space and on future colonies.

Only problem with this approach is that the $30B will be gone and you'll still be flying EELV-class rockets. To LEO.
There is no 'energy problem,' just political/social/NIMBY problems.

[pagheca]

If SpaceX had 30 Gigadollars arrive today mandated to augment and accelerate their baseline plans (large-scale colonization of Mars), what would be the best areas to focus on? 

I wondered about that many many time. You can see this in a more general way.

I have not such a deep expertise to even try to answer this question, but I guess there must be lots of management studies about the relation between quality, delivery time and budget (sort of project management triangle). I guess, but I'm not sure, there is an upper limit where an increase in the budget not necessarily improve the quality and the delivery time of a project. What if 100 times more money were fed into the ITER project? Would fusion energy be promptly available today?

There are certainly some conjuntural issues playing their roles here, but for example one may ask as well: would the Apollo or the Manhattan projects be delivered earlier if their budget was twice? And what if it was one half? Would the US have been able to put a man on the Moon by the '60 as for the original plan if that was the case?

I have no clear idea about that, just some guesses, but would be extremely curious to know about that and I'm sure a lot of people worked on these questions.

[Elmar Moelzer]

What if 100 times more money were fed into the ITER project? Would fusion energy be promptly available today?

No. Tokamaks are complex and it is not certain that they will ever make economic reactors.

[Sean Lynch]

First, invest into advanced energy (fusion, advanced fission) and propulsion concepts as well as material science.
Energy (or lack thereof) is the biggest problem here in earth, in space and on future colonies.

I believe the best energy source, both here on earth and in space is the LFTR. Simple, natural load following (no control rods), cheap and plentiful thorium power, inherently safe (requires artificial gravity in space, so spinning version), no long term radio-active disposal problems. http://energyfromthorium.com/

Absolutely agree with Elmar and Roy, energy is the first consideration for a Mars mission (or moon).
Nuclear is the practical watt/kg payload choice but boiling water reactors aren't practical.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors don't require heavy pressure or containment vessels and operate at extremely high temperatures perfect for ISRU recovery and use.
Energy is the limiting factor for ISRU and environmental control, next priority would be robust, redundant repairable ECLSS systems.
As others have noted, it will take a lot more than 30b.

[Robert Thompson]

Of that class of people who could afford to go to Mars one way, as is the stated business model, I doubt very many at all want to go to Mars one way. But they might remotely be persuaded to contemplate a non permanent stay, if and only if an assured return capability was demonstrated. From the business side this would necessarily paid for in advance, with the same import as paying the outbound trip. A launch pad to landing pad service, with one synodic cycle's provisions, as the very minimal baseline, before considering the options of staying on additional cycles. I predict return capability from Mars to be indispensable to responsible (and therefore credible) private business plans of Mars colonies. I predict discussion of Mars colonization won't get above forum level and news item until that capability is offered. It doesn't have to be offered to all - it has to be offered to enough to close the case.

The affiliated rabble of Mars-One does not give any data on the number of multi-millionaires willing to do anything like a permanent one-way trip, i.e., investing their considerably valuable lives in such a thin promise of continued cargo. If you can demonstrate Mars surface return, then the eyes, ears, and imagination open up to a class of investor entirely separate from Mars-One. If you can demonstrate Mars surface return, you are pushing on propulsion technologies that affect everything done to get there in the first place.

Does the new dragon capsule offer single stage to orbit from Mars? I did not think it did, even with methane isru.

Humbly, my $0.02.

[butters]

Does the new dragon capsule offer single stage to orbit from Mars? I did not think it did, even with methane isru.

No, not Dragon V2, but Musk has strongly implied that MCT will take off from Mars and land on Earth on a single prop load. MCT will not be just a scaled-up methalox Dragon. It will need a considerably higher propellant mass ratio, more like an upper stage with an integrated crew cabin (although we can only speculate about its layout and configuration).

[ThereIWas3]

I would prefer PB11-fueled Polywell fusion, but if doesn't pan out in time, liquid thorium would be next bet.

If it was me going, I would not insist on a guaranteed return;  I would insist on proven ISRU for all the essentials.

[HMXHMX]

Figuring out how to create a planetary magnetic field ....

I'd add, figuring out how to raise the G level to 1.

[Manabu]

Figuring out how to create a planetary magnetic field ....

I'd add, figuring out how to raise the G level to 1.

That is easy, just make a centrifuge!

[savuporo]

...what would be the best areas to focus on? 

rocket tech in sub scale demonstrators?
BFR/MCT version 1.0?
ISRU
3D printing/manufacturing/designing technologies?
Food production, chemical cycles, life support?
Other?

All of the above, and then some. They would do well by starting with top #10 priorities from here
www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/home/roadmaps/

Getting to Mars is not about propulsion, life support, radiation or BFRs. It's more about having a large organization full of people competent in all the necessary areas, especially areas that are new and risky.

[sugmullun]

It all hinges on leaving Earth.
So...without much thought given...
Invest in medium and high risk technologies with the goal of getting the cost to orbit down as far as possible.
Throw the money at it, with some form of moderating influence to keep it rational.
Metallurgy, structural research and dev., manufacturing technologies., exotic propellants, launch site developments, even a technical school to turn out launch support professionals...
Leave the trans-lunar part to whatever task group Musk is currently planning and the low risk, short term ROI stuff to the sissies at ULA 

[guckyfan]

It all hinges on leaving Earth.
So...without much thought given...
Invest in medium and high risk technologies with the goal of getting the cost to orbit down as far as possible.
Throw the money at it, with some form of moderating influence to keep it rational.
Metallurgy, structural research and dev., manufacturing technologies., exotic propellants, launch site developments, even a technical school to turn out launch support professionals...
Leave the trans-lunar part to whatever task group Musk is currently planning and the low risk, short term ROI stuff to the sissies at ULA 

They are building a Mars transport vehicle right now, beginning with the engines. They certainly have at least well thought out concepts for the full vehicle. I very strongly doubt that 30 Billion $ would cause them to significantly change their development stragegy. It would help to assure success though.

They also would not change their strategy to build commercially successful vehicles. It helps a lot with keeping concentrated on success and not getting on a tangent of pure engineering.

[Dave G]

Energy is the limiting factor for ISRU and environmental control, next priority would be robust, redundant repairable ECLSS systems.

Right.

Also, a colony would require food production, which means a plant-based life support system.  When you run the numbers, a greenhouse is probably not practical.  The amount of pressurized volume per person would be excessive.  So to save space, you would need strong artificial light running all the time.  Also, instead of growing plants in soil, hydroponics can be used to accelerate plant growth.  All of this requires significant amounts of energy.

So developing a lightweight nuclear power source would seem like a key requirement.

[Burninate]

30 gigadollars?  In the US in 2014?  You want the highest payoff strategy?

Start a PAC that uses a bunch of imagery involving our future in the stars, and spend $1B/year purchasing politicians through reelection campaigns, with a public stated purpose of increasing NASA spending by 10x to ensure we get to play our part in The Future.

We exposed the levers of government, and while SpaceX has the potential to disrupt existing arrangements, so would an increase in spending;  Its engineering capabilities do not exceed the mechanical advantage provided by these levers.  30 gigadollars of unilateral spending can do some great things, but the task here is enormous.  Creating a sustained commitment to public space spending through now-legal overt bribery outweighs any technical innovation that is practical inside the corporation.

[Jim]

I'm starting to feel concerned about pace of progress toward Mars colonization; specifically wondering about the impact of money constraints. 

Finally seeing what reality is.

[LouScheffer]

30 gigadollars?  In the US in 2014?  You want the highest payoff strategy?

Start a PAC that uses a bunch of imagery involving our future in the stars, and spend $1B/year purchasing politicians through reelection campaigns, with a public stated purpose of increasing NASA spending by 10x to ensure we get to play our part in The Future.

We exposed the levers of government, and while SpaceX has the potential to disrupt existing arrangements, so would an increase in spending;  Its engineering capabilities do not exceed the mechanical advantage provided by these levers.  30 gigadollars of unilateral spending can do some great things, but the task here is enormous.  Creating a sustained commitment to public space spending through now-legal overt bribery outweighs any technical innovation that is practical inside the corporation.

Agree completely.  $30G could perhaps fund solutions to several technical problems, but not all of them.  So you need to raise interest, and funding, if you want to accomplish Mars quickly.

[JasonAW3]

I'm starting to feel concerned about pace of progress toward Mars colonization; specifically wondering about the impact of money constraints. 

Finally seeing what reality is.

"No bucks, No Buck Rogers...". Don't remember who first said this.

[pagheca]

Maybe, but I'm not at all so negative.

There are a lot of new things happening in the last few years. SpaceX and the commercial development stuff is just one. One thing that may went underlooked is the role of competition with the new emerging space powers like China and India. Whatever you say, I see an increased interest in space missions. Sometime I talk to students and people and I see some growing interst after a completely flat period. People may be triggered by pictures seen on the internet or by stupid comedies (e.g. "The Big Bang", that used at least one real cosmologist from CalTech to understand how "nerds" move and react), but develop later a genuine interest in science...

Maybe that Governments are slow to react, but things are evolving faster today and I guess that since something is starting to actually get some visibility - see, again, SpaceX new business model - someone will pick up the opportunity to exploit it politically, exactly like JFK did.

p.s. I would like to ask Chris if he saw some trend in the number of visitors to this website in the last few years or not.

[Aussie_Space_Nut]

First you mount a massive media campaign to make sure no one votes for either a Republican or a Democrat but rather promotes that local passionate independent politician who has actually achieved something with their life, who is able to bring genuine vision, wisdom & leadership into the government. After the landslide victory by real people, NASA will then be able to actually do its job without having its hands tied behind its back by pork barrel politicians.

Second, well now everything just works, simple really.

  All that money wont help if there are knucklehead pollies in the way.

  But all that money in an ethical media campaign may just be able to put America back on track if the right people were to get into office.

[Burninate]

First you mount a massive media campaign to make sure no one votes for either a Republican or a Democrat but rather promotes that local passionate independent politician who has actually achieved something with their life, who is able to bring genuine vision, wisdom & leadership into the government. After the landslide victory by real people, NASA will then be able to actually do its job without having its hands tied behind its back by pork barrel politicians.

Second, well now everything just works, simple really.

  All that money wont help if there are knucklehead pollies in the way.

  But all that money in an ethical media campaign may just be able to put America back on track if the right people were to get into office.

Independent parties in the US are not a thing.  We have structural elements of our political system that only permit two real parties - if a third were to come in, it would be a transformative change, one of the first two would wither on the vine.  As it is, "independent" candidates are fringe candidates who never expect to succeed, and in the few cases where all the planets align and they end up as influential-enough figures in some local election, they end up being de facto Democrats or Republicans, because they select one of those two to caucus with.

Lawrence Lessig is fond of the concept that fixing essentially anything that's wrong with the US requires campaign finance reform, because right now, campaign finance is how any private interested party with lots of money can redirect the politicians at will.

So...  rather than attempting to completely change/reform the United States Government, simply exploiting its known flaws to get a reasonable amount of space funding, is probably the most productive use of $30B.  There is a long list of technologies I would like to see developed, and $1T in government money over the next 10 years, purchased with $30B in campaign bribes, would be a hell of a lot more useful than my clever selection of which technologies are going to succeed.

[Joffan]

If this thread gets political, it will quickly be locked. In any case, as illustrated by Burninate above, the political arguments are largely a matter of turning a certain amount of money into a larger amount.

So I strongly suggest that, instead, we all discuss the technical innovations that 30 G$ applied adventurously could bring.

Some broad topic areas
 - Basic technology development
   o Launch capability
   o In-space technology
   o ISRU (including energy)
   o robotics
 - Infrastructure development
   o on Earth
   o in-space near Earth (orbit/L-point)
   o on Moon
   o remote
 - Human factors
   o Health
   o Psychology
 
... probably lots more areas too

[Burninate]

I concur.


"From February 1998 to 2007, NIAC received a total of 1,309 proposals and awarded 126 Phase I grants and 42 Phase II contracts for a total value of $27.3 million.[2]"

I suggest the first $100M/year goes into restructured NIAC grants - $10k-$100k for anything remotely promising (Phase I), $100k-$1M for tech development when phase I grants encounter success (Phase II), and $1M-$10M to develop smallsat mission demonstrators in the short term (Phase III).

Right now, we're barely compensating these people at all.


Next $2B goes into a fleet of ships (2-4) to serve as landing pads for F9 and FH first stages.


Vertical assembly / payload integration *seems to be* a near-term requirement for some portion of EELV program payloads, if Falcon 9 ever gets to compete on even footing with the Atlas V & Delta IV.  We're also short some launchpads, and ground-based landing pads.

$5B on infrastructure

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I'm starting to feel concerned about pace of progress toward Mars colonization; specifically wondering about the impact of money constraints. 

Finally seeing what reality is.

"No bucks, No Buck Rogers...". Don't remember who first said this.

1983 film The Right Stuff.  Attributed to an unnamed NASA recruiter in talk with potential Mercury astronouts.

[sugmullun]

It all hinges on leaving Earth.
So...without much thought given...
Invest in medium and high risk technologies with the goal of getting the cost to orbit down as far as possible.
Throw the money at it, with some form of moderating influence to keep it rational.
Metallurgy, structural research and dev., manufacturing technologies., exotic propellants, launch site developments, even a technical school to turn out launch support professionals...
Leave the trans-lunar part to whatever task group Musk is currently planning and the low risk, short term ROI stuff to the sissies at ULA 

They are building a Mars transport vehicle right now, beginning with the engines. They certainly have at least well thought out concepts for the full vehicle. I very strongly doubt that 30 Billion $ would cause them to significantly change their development stragegy. It would help to assure success though.

They also would not change their strategy to build commercially successful vehicles. It helps a lot with keeping concentrated on success and not getting on a tangent of pure engineering.

  SpaceX is working at things like there'll never be any contribution from the outside for it's Mars plans; it's stated purpose for existence.  Money for all it wants to do can't even be in the books as a likely resource yet.  I'll bet a major a major motive for the lawsuit is needed cash flow.
  Get costs to orbit down and market grows...more money.
  I think that there's a tipping point which isn't even close yet. (and might not happen)
They've done and are doing, IMO, amazing things with the money that they've spent. I don't think any established aerospace group has done more with less (or even substantially more) money in a long time. That's why I'm a (fanboi?)
  The "cheap" access to space has to happen or nothing else worth getting excited about will. That's why my (sorta) list is all about that. Then the other startups will have a resource, the established aerospace "sissies" will become heroes again, seeing something worth heroic efforts.
  If SpaceX were to accomplish, or even enable that, then it'd leave it's mark on history. Even  if it fails financially.
 That's why I would have them spend their $30G on the big lift.

[Will]

Here's my list:

Reusable tug
Orbital cryogenic propellant depot
Asteroid Redirect Mission
Deep Space Habitat
Demonstrate ISRU from a C-type asteroid
Centrifuge Module
500 kw Solar Electric Propulsion

[cro-magnon gramps]

I'd be inclined to start with where we are and expand on that...

Build up the Brownsville, Tx site, pad and BFR/MCT factory and design facility
Invest / Collaborate in Google Internet Satellite Constellation
Collaborate with Bigelow on Internal Environment Controls for Space Station, and MCT v1, for commonality
Get 2 minimum Bigelow Space Stations up in LEO and 1 at L2, ASAP after IEC is working
Invest in power units for the MCT v1, Moon and Mars Surface Bases, again with Bigelow...
Establish a Inner Planet Communications Web,
Invest in 3D printing technology for experimenting with Lunar and In Space Robotic Factories...
begin work on establishing more launch sites for BFR/MCT v2

Not necessarily in that order... more than likely concurrently...

[gospacex]

First, invest into advanced energy (fusion, advanced fission) and propulsion concepts as well as material science.
Energy (or lack thereof) is the biggest problem here in earth, in space and on future colonies.

I believe the best energy source, both here on earth and in space is the LFTR. Simple, natural load following (no control rods), cheap and plentiful thorium power, inherently safe (requires artificial gravity in space, so spinning version), no long term radio-active disposal problems. http://energyfromthorium.com/

Thorium trolls start to be really annoying.

You do realize that not all claims from thorium crowd are true? That they aren't immune for pushing agenda?
For example, it is not really cheap. It may end up marginally cheaper than uranium reactors - AFTER many years and billions spent on R&D. Not today.

As for Mars colony application, just imagine how much effort it would be for Mars colony to mine its own thorium!!! There *are* energy sources which can be made self-sustaining much easier than that.

[sanman]

Thorium is available in the surface Martian regolith. So you could in principle scoop it up from the topsoil, and refine/smelt it.

[docmordrid]

First, invest into advanced energy (fusion, advanced fission) and propulsion concepts as well as material science.
Energy (or lack thereof) is the biggest problem here in earth, in space and on future colonies.

I believe the best energy source, both here on earth and in space is the LFTR. Simple, natural load following (no control rods), cheap and plentiful thorium power, inherently safe (requires artificial gravity in space, so spinning version), no long term radio-active disposal problems. http://energyfromthorium.com/

Thorium trolls start to be really annoying.

You do realize that not all claims from thorium crowd are true? That they aren't immune for pushing agenda?

For example, it is not really cheap. It may end up marginally cheaper than uranium reactors - AFTER many years and billions spent on R&D. Not today.

China's pilot LFTR starts ops in 2015, based on a recent acceleration of their program, and if it goes well they plan to produce them like sausages within 10 years. Are you saying a small one  for base use couldn't be done sooner?

As for Mars colony application, just imagine how much effort it would be for Mars colony to mine its own thorium!!! There *are* energy sources which can be made self-sustaining much easier than that.

A small LFTR needs 2 things; a few tons of thorium fuel (tops) and a small amount of U233 to seed the reaction. Plus the salt.

Are you saying <10 tonnes of startup consumables couldn't be shipped from Earth on a BFR? That a small load of re-fueling  thorium couldn't be packed in to cover the periodic recharge until extraction techs and machinery were built? Remembering that thorium is a common waste product from the mining of other materials.

[gospacex]

Thorium is available in the surface Martian regolith. So you could in principle scoop it up from the topsoil, and refine/smelt it.

How many tons do you need to process to get 1 gram of thorium? How many reagents and steps this process requires?

[gospacex]

Are you saying <10 tonnes of startup consumables couldn't be shipped from Earth on a BFR?

I'd rather ship 10 tons of solar panels. Or better yet, a ten-ton small scale solar cell fab!

[docmordrid]

Are you saying <10 tonnes of startup consumables couldn't be shipped from Earth on a BFR?

I'd rather ship 10 tons of solar panels. Or better yet, a ten-ton small scale solar cell fab!

Output is lower with solar,  you cover a huge area which makes a meteorite hit more likely, and do we know the heavy metals and rare earths needed for local production are in Mars? And what about solar during  those long dust storms? We know thorium and uranium are there, and nuclear doesn't give a rip about dust storms..

[zodiacchris]

An intense sense of déjà vu as this thread goes off-topic and back to the power source discussion, which is another thread. So please, reign in your horses...

30bn:
Fly Dragon V2 manned in 2015
Build Brownsville ASAP
A SpaceX  Bigelow habitat to test Life support and related technology
Accelerate Raptor and BFR

[inventodoc]

Think about this - if that $900B 'stimulus' from 2009 had gone into human spaceflight - where would we be now, or in 5 years?

[AncientU]

Think about this - if that $900B 'stimulus' from 2009 had gone into human spaceflight - where would we be now, or in 5 years?

In court, trying to get Boeing/LockMart to compete?

[GregA]

I didn't think the OP meant $30B. I assumed using "Giga" he meant "huge unlimited money", maybe that's a US english thing. So for $30B?

As a first brainstorm… I would simply have SpaceX setup a sponsorship division. Groups can apply to have their cargo subsidised - so SpaceX can guarantee several full MCTs for initial missions. Anybody setting up long term Mars solutions of any type gets the leg up.

I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX already hopes to charge the cheaper "ongoing/frequent launch cost" from the beginning to build interest, but whether they're in a financial position to do that will depend on investment and vision of others.

[ChrisWilson68]

Make "The Case for Mars" required reading for every high school student.  And it wouldn't even cost that much to implement.

Making something required reading is something money can't buy.  The question is what SpaceX would do with $30 billion.

[ChrisWilson68]

The best thing SpaceX could do with $30 billion to further their long-term goals is drastically cut launch prices today.  Change the price of F9 to $2 million and the price of Falcon Heavy to $4 million.  Use the $30 billion to cover the losses.  That would trigger a huge increase in demand in a few years, and give them time to get reusability worked out and cheap, first for the first stage then for the upper stage.  Eventually, their costs would go down below the low prices and the business would become sustainable.

That would push us over the energy barrier to low-cost, high volume access to space.  Get over that and everything else follows naturally.

[ey]

The best thing SpaceX could do with $30 billion to further their long-term goals is drastically cut launch prices today.  Change the price of F9 to $2 million and the price of Falcon Heavy to $4 million.  Use the $30 billion to cover the losses.  That would trigger a huge increase in demand in a few years, and give them time to get reusability worked out and cheap, first for the first stage then for the upper stage.  Eventually, their costs would go down below the low prices and the business would become sustainable.

That would push us over the energy barrier to low-cost, high volume access to space.  Get over that and everything else follows naturally.

Subsidizing every flight would be leaving money on the table, and I don't think it would help further SpaceX's goals.

They already have a long list of customers at the current ~$60M price. Instead, they could do what they've already been doing; giving a discount for more "experimental" hardware, like the 80% discount to CASSIOPE for the first Falcon 9 v1.1. Or they could launch smaller, cheaper payload (like cubesats) on a full F9 and use the extra performance for first and second stage RTLS testing.

They could also use the money to expand their factory by 50 to 100% so they have spare cores for FH testing. For $1B of this hypothetical $30B, they could then launch a few FHs with a highly discounted payload. It'd be like a really expensive version of the Falcon 1 ... with enough money, they could afford a few failures on the test run.

Or they could throw $30B into R&D. Build a dozen F9R-devs. If one breaks because they pushed it too hard, too fast -- go build another one. Build a prototype BFR. Launch a rocket to the moon for fame, glory, and data.

[ChrisWilson68]

Subsidizing every flight would be leaving money on the table, and I don't think it would help further SpaceX's goals.

They already have a long list of customers at the current ~$60M price.

Not long enough to really justify reusable rockets.

What they really need is to get to thousands of launches a year.  Seriously.  But it's a chicken-and-egg problem.  Nobody wants to lower prices enough to attract that much volume until there is that much volume, and nobody will form the businesses that will use so many launches until prices are very low.

Lowering the prices vastly today will let the new businesses form.  It's not enough to say that maybe eventually low prices are coming.  SpaceX needs to say, "These are the low prices today and they will stay low, so go ahead and build a business based on these prices."  It will then take several years for the businesses that can use those prices to get going.  By the time the demand actually reaches thousands of launches a year, maybe SpaceX can be ready to serve it.

[WindyCity]

SpaceX is advancing rapidly in rocket R&D aimed at one day launching settlers to Mars. Rockets alone, however, won’t secure that future. Space flight to destinations beyond the moon will also require other advanced technologies, including critical Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS). Such hardware will have to be far more robust and reliable than what is required for relatively short trips to the moon or for the ISS. While the life support systems on the ISS work well,  should they fail catastrophically, astronauts can board a spacecraft and return quickly to Earth. For people stuck in a small vehicle on a six-month transfer orbit immediate rescue wouldn’t be an option.

To develop and flight-test advanced ECLSS, including the means to maintain or repair them, will take many years and large sums of capital. Is SpaceX devoting a sufficient effort to this task? Also, what about artificial gravity or an advanced nuclear power source? Before the BFRs roar into space bound for Mars, which Elon Musk has projected will take take place in 12-15 years, R&D for these ancillary but indispensable technologies must keep pace with rocketry.

[sanman]

Spend $30B on lobbyists - works for everybody else 

Or, just spend that $30B on hiring extra staff to get the certifications and validations and man-ratings out of the way ASAP, so that the launch vehicles and crew capsules can start transporting people ASAP. Right now the main constraint on SpaceX timelines seems to be their available manpower.

[macpacheco]

First, invest into advanced energy (fusion, advanced fission) and propulsion concepts as well as material science.
Energy (or lack thereof) is the biggest problem here in earth, in space and on future colonies.

I believe the best energy source, both here on earth and in space is the LFTR. Simple, natural load following (no control rods), cheap and plentiful thorium power, inherently safe (requires artificial gravity in space, so spinning version), no long term radio-active disposal problems. http://energyfromthorium.com/

The main North American proponents of Thorium / Molten Salt / Integral Reprocessing (aka LFTR) reactors claim it would take a billion to get the first built and certified plus another billion to start up a mass production line capable of replacing all coal/natural gas and existing nuclear reactors in the world in 50 years. I'm more of a fan of LFTR than I am of SpaceX. If it's just 2 billion to solve the Mars colony energy problem and provide an extremely effective solution both to gets us off coal and reduce existing nuclear spent fuel problems, it would be a very cheap solution. Actually US$ 2 billion would be too good to be true...

[Vultur]

I think they need to get a working Raptor engine before throwing massive money at it will really speed things up, assuming they can develop Raptor "on their own".

Now, once they get to seriously developing/building MCT and BFR, then that will be expensive. I'm not sure what they really plan for how to fund MCT/BFR development and test flights.

ECLSS, yes, definitely.

I'm not sure if MCT will necessarily use artificial gravity.... do we have a quote from Musk on that?

It strikes me as a needless complication. Exercise is good enough for 8 months... people have done much longer on Mir with exercise equipment that isn't as good as what we have on ISS now... especially since we're talking about colonizing Mars, which is only 38% gravity. (Those who do return to Earth may need a lot of time to re-build their strength, but return to Earth isn't necessarily part of this at least for most people.)  And Musk is talking about getting the trip down to more like 3 months.

So... I really don't think artificial gravity makes sense for Mars colonization, at least unless it gets to "mass market" levels where they're taking regular members of the public, and maybe not then.

[Mongo62]

Recent mammal experiments indicate that induced hibernation in non-hibernating mammals appears not to result in muscle degradation, even after months in hibernation. Testing has not reached the human stage yet, but it's quite possible that passengers on a MCT might end up staying in hibernation for almost the entire trip, without suffering degradation in muscle tone (plus a lot lower strain on ECLSS and consumables, a lot lower living volume needed, and no boredom during the trip).

[TomH]

I didn't think the OP meant $30B. I assumed using "Giga" he meant "huge unlimited money", maybe that's a US english thing.

The prefix giga means billion when applied to metric measurements and to bits of computer code. Technically however, there is no such thing as gigadollars. If one assumes a literal construct, it would indicate one billion dollars, but if used as metaphorical hyperbole, it could imply an unlimited amount. Only the OP himself can clarify the meaning.

Regardless of the amount, the sensible thing would be to accelerate the existing plan, not go off onto esoteric tangents. Raptor does have the potential to take Musk to Mars. Spending an octillion dollars on wormhole research holds no known promise at all. Simply accelerate what you already know will work.

[TomH]

The best thing SpaceX could do with $30 billion to further their long-term goals is drastically cut launch prices today.

Likely illegal. It's like Chinese dumping products at below production costs. Predatory pricing. Everyone else would be in court filing lawsuits by the end of the day.

[Vultur]

Recent mammal experiments indicate that induced hibernation in non-hibernating mammals appears not to result in muscle degradation, even after months in hibernation. Testing has not reached the human stage yet, but it's quite possible that passengers on a MCT might end up staying in hibernation for almost the entire trip, without suffering degradation in muscle tone (plus a lot lower strain on ECLSS and consumables, a lot lower living volume needed, and no boredom during the trip).

Maybe.

But this isn't something SpaceX should be pursuing, IMO.

If it comes along in time to help out, great! But it can be done without it, and SpaceX should stick to the things actually needed, which will be expensive and complex enough.

EDIT: Plus biomedical research is totally distant from their fields of expertise.

[guckyfan]

The OP used Giga$ but he also used 30 so I have the clear impression that he meant 30 Billion $. He may still clarify that.

Many of the posts were something like a personal wishlist for things people want to get done. Many very commendable items but not really related to Elon Musks goals as the OP asked for.

I believe the bulk would be spent on actually getting people and equipment to Mars. He must have some roadmap to funding the development or he would not have initiated it.

Some may be spent for ensuring success of MCT development. Not really speeding up the process but make sure expensive things like the factory, engine test stand, structural test stand, launch pad are ready when needed.

Some for habitat, ECLSS, probably a biological ECLSS with food production.

[gospacex]

I am not sure what's the point of this thread.
It's clear a gift of a few billions would speed up things at SpaceX a lot.

But in all likelihood, it is not happening, right? In this case, thinking about it is little more than mental masturbation...

[Borklund]

I am not sure what's the point of this thread.

This sentiment can be applied to a lot of other threads in the SpaceX subforums...

[go4mars]

I didn't think the OP meant $30B. I assumed using "Giga" he meant "huge unlimited money", maybe that's a US english thing.

The prefix giga means billion when applied to metric measurements

Yes.  To clarify, just as kilo means 10^3 (as in kilogram or kilovolt or kilometer), and Mega means 10^6, Giga is a prefix that means 10^9. 

1 Gigadollar is 1 billion dollars. 

Why 30 Gigabucks?  It's arbitrary but large enough to potentially be very useful (maybe?) while small enough to conceivably be obtained by one or a combination of relatively unlikely circumstances within a year or so (like if Elon cashed out of other ventures, or Larry and friends wrote cheques, big oversubscribed IPO, got a raptor contract from ULA, contract for Google's 180 satellites, etc).  I'm not advocating those as a good ideas or ascribing likelyhood; rather I'm just floating what I see as within the realm of 'on the radar of possible outcomes'.

[go4mars]

It's clear a gift of a few billions would speed up things at SpaceX a lot.

Would it though?
If you paid a surgeon double, or hired 2 brain surgeons, how much faster would the operation go?
By analogy, even with plenty of money in 2002, I don't think SpaceX could have built a relatively potent, highway transportable stage that lands on the ocean after orbital missions much quicker than it actually did.  Lessons learned and such.  Looking forward to Mars colonization, I suspect money isn't the only answer, but it's relative importance is much less clear to me than it is to you.  Hence this thread.

How limited is SpaceX by money versus critical path, and what critical path items are most prone to acceleration?

The thread's bobbed and weaved a bit, but it's spurred some thoughts about carts in front of horses, etc.  For example, an incredibly inexpensive, incredibly large rocket must happen before a large self-sufficient colony.  And a big potent, efficient, methane engine before the rocket.  But where do Red Dragon ISRU experiments fit in for example (one of dozens of example questions that could be asked).

[guckyfan]

Why 30 Gigabucks?  It's arbitrary but large enough to potentially be very useful (maybe?) while small enough to conceivably be obtained by one or a combination of relatively unlikely circumstances within a year or so (like if Elon cashed out of other ventures, or Larry and friends wrote cheques, big oversubscribed IPO, got a raptor contract from ULA, contract for Google's 180 satellites, etc).

One of those super rich guys recently mentioned the possibility he leaves his fortune to Elon Musk in his will. Sorry for poor memory, don't know who it was but it was discussed on this forum. So it is not completely impossible that such an amound could suddenly become available.

[RocketGoBoom]

Why 30 Gigabucks?  It's arbitrary but large enough to potentially be very useful (maybe?) while small enough to conceivably be obtained by one or a combination of relatively unlikely circumstances within a year or so (like if Elon cashed out of other ventures, or Larry and friends wrote cheques, big oversubscribed IPO, got a raptor contract from ULA, contract for Google's 180 satellites, etc).

One of those super rich guys recently mentioned the possibility he leaves his fortune to Elon Musk in his will. Sorry for poor memory, don't know who it was but it was discussed on this forum. So it is not completely impossible that such an amound could suddenly become available.

Larry Page, CEO and cofounder of Google. Said he would rather leave his money to Elon Musk than charity. He used it as an example of how there are better uses for money than charity. Investing in certain companies, like SpaceX, can lead to amazing things that are just as admirable as charitable causes.

[Celebrimbor]

If SpaceX had 30 Gigadollars arrive today mandated to augment and accelerate their baseline plans (large-scale colonization of Mars), what would be the best areas to focus on? 

IMHO nothing could be more damaging to SpaceX than to give it a huge injection of cash...

It would bloat out of control and waste money - thus it would lose the good publicity that it currently enjoys, people would ask "Why did we just give $30bn to these guys?".  "More with less" is not just something to say in times of austerity, it applies all the time.

I'm starting to feel concerned about pace of progress toward Mars colonization; specifically wondering about the impact of money constraints. 

Mars colonization has been impacted by money contraints since its inception.  What's changed to make you wonder about this now?

[ChrisWilson68]

The best thing SpaceX could do with $30 billion to further their long-term goals is drastically cut launch prices today.

Likely illegal. It's like Chinese dumping products at below production costs. Predatory pricing. Everyone else would be in court filing lawsuits by the end of the day.

The courts would have to decide if any laws were broken.  It's not pricing below costs per se that has legal implications, it's whether it's intended to drive competitors out of business and then raise prices.

It's common for companies to start off selling a product below production cost as they are ramping up production and working to lower production costs.  For example, Boeing reportedly loses money on every 787 sold today, because it hasn't fully optimized its production.  The 787 is priced to give Boeing profits eventually when the production costs reach their goals.  The chip company I used to work for worked the same way -- every new chip we had initially was sold below cost while we did one or more revisions to the chip to get the costs down.  If SpaceX can convince the courts it has a plan to make its costs eventually come down, through reuse, below the prices it has set, then it will win the court case.

[JamesH]

If SpaceX had 30 Gigadollars arrive today mandated to augment and accelerate their baseline plans (large-scale colonization of Mars), what would be the best areas to focus on? 

IMHO nothing could be more damaging to SpaceX than to give it a huge injection of cash...

It would bloat out of control and waste money - thus it would lose the good publicity that it currently enjoys, people would ask "Why did we just give $30bn to these guys?".  "More with less" is not just something to say in times of austerity, it applies all the time.

I'm starting to feel concerned about pace of progress toward Mars colonization; specifically wondering about the impact of money constraints. 

Mars colonization has been impacted by money contraints since its inception.  What's changed to make you wonder about this now?

Would they really be that dumb? They seem to have been pretty careful with tehir cash so far - why would injecting money mean that they suddenly stop being careful.

Musk is not stupid.

[Celebrimbor]

If SpaceX had 30 Gigadollars arrive today mandated to augment and accelerate their baseline plans (large-scale colonization of Mars), what would be the best areas to focus on? 

IMHO nothing could be more damaging to SpaceX than to give it a huge injection of cash...

It would bloat out of control and waste money - thus it would lose the good publicity that it currently enjoys, people would ask "Why did we just give $30bn to these guys?".  "More with less" is not just something to say in times of austerity, it applies all the time.

Would they really be that dumb? They seem to have been pretty careful with tehir cash so far - why would injecting money mean that they suddenly stop being careful.

Musk is not stupid.

There's only one way to find out: try it

Seriously though, Musk has been careful because he's had to be - and it's his money.

But you don't just give away (even a fictional) $30bn dollars.  You gather experts (hey Elon can be one of them), build a roadmap, set requirements and tender for procurements.  Spend the money bit by bit, never letting any of your suppliers get too comfortable.  This... is what NASA should be doing...

[ChrisWilson68]

But you don't just give away (even a fictional) $30bn dollars.  You gather experts (hey Elon can be one of them), build a roadmap, set requirements and tender for procurements.  Spend the money bit by bit, never letting any of your suppliers get too comfortable.  This... is what NASA should be doing...

It's not at all clear that that's the best way to spend a large amount of money.  That might be good for getting incremental improvements, but perhaps $30 billion would be better spent by giving it all to one brilliant person with the confidence to invest in his or her vision for a radical, expensive step in a new direction.  Get out of the trap of the local maximum.

[majormajor42]

Seems like a huge cash injection could turn SpaceX into a sort of Apollo program, even though $30B in today's money is far less than what was spent on Apollo.

Apollo sort of began with Kennedy laying out the goal. Well, not really, plenty of engineering already taking place but Kennedy greenlit the whole thing and made it what it became. But that goal lacked sustainability of what would come next (were they even thinking about it? Braun was I guess). It was accomplished and basically ended. Well, I don't need to tell this audience what happened.

So what is the big speech that kicks off this cash injection? And what is the approach that takes into account that when the money runs out, the gravy train is over, you got what you've got.

With this in mind, and having rewatched Greason's Island Hopping Gas Station speech recently, I think a worthy $30B goal could be my sig. An ISRU goal. I don't agree that SpaceX just gets $30B to spend on whatever. It may even be better if the money was available to those other than SpaceX. But the main idea is that $30B is seed money or incentive to take that next step toward sustainability.

 Maybe give it to Bigelow. $30 Billion worth of paying commercial space station customers. That and a Lagrangian point station.


*It occurs to me though that this $30B thought experiment could be quite plausible if SpaceX IPO'd. Shotwell says it may happen once they are fulfilling their launch manifest. This may be actually happen in a couple more years.

[ChrisWilson68]

An ISRU goal.

That's the classic mistake of elevating a sub-goal to the status of *the* goal.

There's an old story about a nail factory in Soviet Russia.  The authorities want to get the most out of the factory, so they declare that the management will be rewarded or punished based on the total weight of all nails the factory produces.  So the factory switches over to producing only very big nails.  Seeing the problem, the authorities come up with a new goal: maximize the total number of nails produced.  The factory switches over to producing only very small nails.

Really, what they should have been asking for was to maximize the value of the nail factory to the economy as a whole.  In a market system, profits, more or less, tell you that, so by maximizing for profit, the nail factory can maximize its value to the economy as a whole.

As our presence in space grows, there will first be a period when all resources are brought from Earth.  Then, as the scale grows, at some point it will start making sense to get some of those resources in space.  That point will come at different times for different resources.

It's foolish to declare that right now is the time to start using ISRU for any particular resource without knowing all the technical details of how a particular ISRU plan would work.  Timing is everything.  Too soon and we're just wasting resources that would best be used to scale up in other ways.

If the goal is to extend our presence in space, the funds should go directly to extending our presence in space, and let the market decide which resources to bring up from Earth's surface and which to get off-world at any particular point in that expansion.

[majormajor42]

An ISRU goal.

That's the classic mistake of elevating a sub-goal to the status of *the* goal.

...

If the goal is to extend our presence in space, the funds should go directly to extending our presence in space, and let the market decide which resources to bring up from Earth's surface and which to get off-world at any particular point in that expansion.

nice snip of my post. My own thoughts were evolving as I wrote it. Your argument against Greason's gas stations is valid. what is the metric of payment? fine.

I think my final point of $30B being in the hands of folks like Bigelow and other potential SpaceX customers may be what is really best for SpaceX and sustainability as a whole. And like you say, let ISRU develop naturally as a way to make it cheaper to get certain resources into the hands (and fuel tanks) of people and craft in space.

But, you don't think ISRU will initially need some seed money to get started? It will most likely not be cost effective the first time it is done, and may require some extra incentive that isn't quite market driven.

So your analogy of ISRU and nail factories falls apart because nail factories exist and nails are a common product on the market. The Soviets (do we really need to use communism as an example of how not to do things?) were trying to increase production at an existing factory apparently? There are no ISRU factories. If it is determined to be part of the space sustainability puzzle, it may eventually need to be incentivized, not that that is SpaceX's job, and going off topic but worthy of discussion elsewhere.

[Go4TLI]

But you don't just give away (even a fictional) $30bn dollars.  You gather experts (hey Elon can be one of them), build a roadmap, set requirements and tender for procurements.  Spend the money bit by bit, never letting any of your suppliers get too comfortable.  This... is what NASA should be doing...

It is.  You have just outlined essentially how all business works. 

[AncientU]

An ISRU goal.

That's the classic mistake of elevating a sub-goal to the status of *the* goal.

...

If the goal is to extend our presence in space, the funds should go directly to extending our presence in space, and let the market decide which resources to bring up from Earth's surface and which to get off-world at any particular point in that expansion.

nice snip of my post. My own thoughts were evolving as I wrote it. Your argument against Greason's gas stations is valid. what is the metric of payment? fine.

A fuel distribution network in cis-lunar space and then in Martian space would be $30B well spent.  ULAs ACES and similar competitive concepts (including Meth/LOX, of course), developed cmpetitively with a set initial operability date would be as much of a stimulant as giving the cash to SpaceX directly (IMO).  Fuel deliveries would initially be from Earth, but would diversify as demand rose.  ISRU from where ever it made sense...

Note: ULA estimated $40B for developing and deploying a system and had IOC six years after start.  With competition, this price could be significantly reduced...
http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Exploration/DepotBasedTransportationArchitecture2010.pdf

Edit: added note

[Celebrimbor]

But you don't just give away (even a fictional) $30bn dollars.  You gather experts (hey Elon can be one of them), build a roadmap, set requirements and tender for procurements.  Spend the money bit by bit, never letting any of your suppliers get too comfortable.  This... is what NASA should be doing...

It's not at all clear that that's the best way to spend a large amount of money.  That might be good for getting incremental improvements, but perhaps $30 billion would be better spent by giving it all to one brilliant person with the confidence to invest in his or her vision for a radical, expensive step in a new direction.  Get out of the trap of the local maximum.

I agree, the best way to spend money is not at all clear - ever.  I'm not sure I would have what it takes to take one big gamble though.  I certainly don't play with my own money in this way.  Incremental improvements are more certain to turn up some kind of positive change that you can evaluate in objective terms.  Changing direction is easier and so you are more likely to move towards a critical point where something revolutionary can take off (like a self-sustaining off-earth economy).

But I suppose I'm not playing along with the spirit of the thread, which is to speculate what SpaceX would get up if money were no object.  I think they would do some cool stuff, and I'd find it entertaining, but that's because I frequent this site...  But I suspect the activities would be open to attack as wasteful.  Particularly if what we get is an "Apollo to Mars".

[go4mars]

I'm starting to feel concerned about pace of progress toward Mars colonization; specifically wondering about the impact of money constraints. 

What's changed to make you wonder about this now?

Diminished financial transparency, and  a launch tempo that is slower than I'd hoped to see by now (doesn't seem to balance against G&A). 

[Jim]

Diminished financial transparency, and  a launch tempo that is slower than I'd hoped to see by now (doesn't seem to balance against G&A). 

How is more money going to fix those things?

[Lar]

I'd spend the new funds on finding and removing bottlenecks.
- More pads.. build Boca Chica as fast as possible commensurate with quality work
- More parallelism at each pad (something off with one payload? work on the next one in line at the same time)
- Tweak manufacturing processes where they make the most good
- Improve and extend McGregor testing facilities.

None of that will use up the whole 30B, I bet all of it together would use less than 1B.

Once the launch cadence is smoking, use some of the rest to invest in increasing the pace of Raptor and BFR and MCT development, and on developing a reusable self ferrying tanker stage (ACES is awesome but beat ULA to the punch.. license IVF if you have to or do a version yourself)  Almost any conops for a Mars mission you can imagine (except ineffective throwaway ones) can make good use of a tanker.

[go4mars]

launch tempo that is slower than I'd hoped to see by now (doesn't seem to balance against G&A). 

How is more money going to fix those things?

I think you're guiding to the heart of the issue: I'm not suggesting that more money will fix the current launch tempo, but a better launch tempo could increase money and experience toward the next generations of hardware and ops.   

We've seen some exciting necessary steps to de-risk elements of the architecture: return 1st stage from orbit to watering on the ocean (can that be called landing?).  We've enjoyed grasshopper and we've seen announcement of the Dragonfly program and unveiling of the saddled Dragon.  I'm not too worried about those programs getting paid for.  They will be and they'll probably ramp up production.  FH too.  And I suspect that can be done from revenue (I'm still assuming launch tempo can increase).  But that stuff is all "basically" Earth orbit or cislunar hardware. 

I suspect that the other stuff needs significant money to get going.  Raptor, autogenous crossfeeding BFR factory, MCT, ISRU, life support, pads and GSE that can handle BFR's, Mars cars, rocket-launched high altitude VTVL electric supersonic semi-ballistic aircraft, etc. etc.            I'm not sure how much those things are constrained by money versus experience from various milestones.  What of the really expensive stuff could reasonably be fast-tracked?

No bucks, no Duck Dodgers

[Jim]

1.  - More parallelism at each pad (something off with one payload? work on the next one in line at the same time)

2.  (ACES is awesome but beat ULA to the punch.. license IVF if you have to or do a version yourself)

1.  There is nothing preventing the next spacecraft from shipping.  Astrotech is available .  Spacecraft don't want to ship unless their ride is going to be ready

2.  Only works with a LH2 vehicle

[Jim]

I think you're guiding to the heart of the issue: I'm not suggesting that more money will fix the current launch tempo, but a better launch tempo could increase money and experience toward the next generations of hardware and ops.   

What if it doesn't get better, because rocket science is hard.

[ChrisWilson68]

I think you're guiding to the heart of the issue: I'm not suggesting that more money will fix the current launch tempo, but a better launch tempo could increase money and experience toward the next generations of hardware and ops.   

What if it doesn't get better, because rocket science is hard.

Semiconductor manufacturing is hard too.  Tens of billions of dollars in an intensely competitive market have been making amazing improvements in that industry year after year for decades.

That doesn't necessarily mean so much money in a competitive market would have the same improvements in space launch, but it does mean that we should at least consider the possibility.  Something being hard isn't sufficient reason to conclude huge amounts of money in a competitive market can't do it.

[beancounter]

I think you're guiding to the heart of the issue: I'm not suggesting that more money will fix the current launch tempo, but a better launch tempo could increase money and experience toward the next generations of hardware and ops.   

What if it doesn't get better, because rocket science is hard.

P'raps that's why they want more pads.  Just in case!  Not that I think that's the reason but it's always prudent to have a fall-back plan.
Cheers

[Lar]

1.  - More parallelism at each pad (something off with one payload? work on the next one in line at the same time)

2.  (ACES is awesome but beat ULA to the punch.. license IVF if you have to or do a version yourself)

1.  There is nothing preventing the next spacecraft from shipping.  Astrotech is available .  Spacecraft don't want to ship unless their ride is going to be ready

2.  Only works with a LH2 vehicle

1. They cannot have multiple vehicles in their current staging facility, you told us that yourself, it's not about just shipping to Astrotech. I predict that if they want to increase cadence there will need to be fewer steps for the vehicle and payload. And more parallel facilities. Maybe even leaving Astrotech out someday. Remember this is a what-if exercise.

2. Ok. Then something similar to ACES but that works for Methalox, perhaps. I can't believe that wouldn't work, methane is a cryo fuel too... Musk has already said they want to get away from separate gasses and use only the primary fuel and oxidizer for everything.

[RanulfC]

No doubt he wants to be the transportation company and others do the colony building. But I get the impression he comes around to the thought that there will be no one doing it unless he at least starts the colony building and that he now is aiming at doing that.

Where do you get this impression from? So far I haven't seen anything that looks like he's moving towards colony building with SpaceX assets. I'm curious if I've missed something?

Randy

[Jim]

1. They cannot have multiple vehicles in their current staging facility, you told us that yourself, it's not about just shipping to Astrotech. I predict that if they want to increase cadence there will need to be fewer steps for the vehicle and payload. And more parallel facilities. Maybe even leaving Astrotech out someday. Remember this is a what-if exercise.

They aren't using Astrotech, that is the issue.

[baldusi]

2.  (ACES is awesome but beat ULA to the punch.. license IVF if you have to or do a version yourself)

2.  Only works with a LH2 vehicle

Or CH4/LOX. And using a dedicated APU that burns the main propellants was done in the N-1. Self pressurization is done as a matter of course on some vehicles, so nothing new there. Main issue might be RCS where CH4/LOX combo is really hard to ignite wrt H2.

[guckyfan]

Main issue might be RCS where CH4/LOX combo is really hard to ignite wrt H2.

The moon lander testbed Morpheus demonstrates it can be done with its methane/LOX main engine and RCS.

[aero]

Main issue might be RCS where CH4/LOX combo is really hard to ignite wrt H2.

The moon lander testbed Morpheus demonstrates it can be done with its methane/LOX main engine and RCS.

No - Morpheus didn't ignite while in flight - unless I missed a test flight.

[Lar]

1. They cannot have multiple vehicles in their current staging facility, you told us that yourself, it's not about just shipping to Astrotech. I predict that if they want to increase cadence there will need to be fewer steps for the vehicle and payload. And more parallel facilities. Maybe even leaving Astrotech out someday. Remember this is a what-if exercise.

They aren't using Astrotech, that is the issue.

Presumably due to cost? or control of their own destiny? Had you heard either of those reasons?  So, as I say, more facilities of their own might help accelerate things. If I was allocating a windfall for investment I'd look at that. Maybe there is never any way to ever make any process better ever. But if one does not look? If you were looking for process and cost improvements to get to 24 launches what would you do, Jim?

[guckyfan]

Main issue might be RCS where CH4/LOX combo is really hard to ignite wrt H2.

The moon lander testbed Morpheus demonstrates it can be done with its methane/LOX main engine and RCS.

No - Morpheus didn't ignite while in flight - unless I missed a test flight.

I am talking about the RCS-thrusters. They fire short bursts all the time, as RCS thrusters do. They use LOX-methane like the main engine. And also as this is a moon lander testbed it is safe to assume the main engine can be air/vacuum started too.

[KelvinZero]

An ISRU goal.

That's the classic mistake of elevating a sub-goal to the status of *the* goal.

...

If the goal is to extend our presence in space, the funds should go directly to extending our presence in space, and let the market decide which resources to bring up from Earth's surface and which to get off-world at any particular point in that expansion.

Im probably slightly misinterpreting you just so I can insert one of my favorite points, but...

IMO it is important to understand that ISRU is the goal, not getting to Mars. From the point of view of space settlement the only reason we obsess about Mars is because we perceive it is rich in resources we can utilize to allow us to become self sufficient there.

This does point out an amusing contradiction with lunar propellant though, especially for Mars. If you could produce enough volatiles on the moon per person to merely lift them off it again every six months, let alone send them further to Mars, then you are probably acquiring multiple times the mass in CHON elements that they would consume each year in food before you even factor in recycling. By producing enough propellant to go somewhere else you have just proven you don't need to go anywhere else.. if your goal is settlement, start settling!

[Jim]

Presumably due to cost? or control of their own destiny? Had you heard either of those reasons?  So, as I say, more facilities of their own might help accelerate things. If I was allocating a windfall for investment I'd look at that. Maybe there is never any way to ever make any process better ever. But if one does not look? If you were looking for process and cost improvements to get to 24 launches what would you do, Jim?

Vs the cost of delaying?  The spacecraft would control its own destiny at Astrotech and would not be impacted by pad ops or other launch ops.

[aero]

Presumably due to cost? or control of their own destiny? Had you heard either of those reasons?  So, as I say, more facilities of their own might help accelerate things. If I was allocating a windfall for investment I'd look at that. Maybe there is never any way to ever make any process better ever. But if one does not look? If you were looking for process and cost improvements to get to 24 launches what would you do, Jim?

Vs the cost of delaying?  The spacecraft would control its own destiny at Astrotech and would not be impacted by pad ops or other launch ops.

Do you mean this Astrotech?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/lockheed-martin-to-acquire-satellite-firm-astrotech-space-operations-for-61-million/2014/05/29/97bc63ca-e733-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

So are you proposing that SpaceX pay Lockheed-Martin to process their payloads?

[baldusi]

Presumably due to cost? or control of their own destiny? Had you heard either of those reasons?  So, as I say, more facilities of their own might help accelerate things. If I was allocating a windfall for investment I'd look at that. Maybe there is never any way to ever make any process better ever. But if one does not look? If you were looking for process and cost improvements to get to 24 launches what would you do, Jim?

Vs the cost of delaying?  The spacecraft would control its own destiny at Astrotech and would not be impacted by pad ops or other launch ops.

Do you mean this Astrotech?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/lockheed-martin-to-acquire-satellite-firm-astrotech-space-operations-for-61-million/2014/05/29/97bc63ca-e733-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

So are you proposing that SpaceX pay Lockheed-Martin to process their payloads?

Payload's owner pays for processing facilities, as I understand it.

[Jim]

So are you proposing that SpaceX pay Lockheed-Martin to process their payloads?

Astrotech does not process payloads, it provides facilities for the spacecraft contractors to process their payloads.

Anyways, the sale is not finalized.