Next steps in commercial space flight

[rcoppola]

Every once in a while, something significant happens. And while it may be recognized for being so, only through the passage of time is it revealed to what extent it changed....well, everything.

Of course, I'm referring to the SpaceX announcement of Red Dragon in 2018. However what intrigues me the most is, "What happens next?" Not with regards to mission planning but from a more general science, culture, business, politics and even international relations perspective.

The context: For the first time in history a privately owned and operated company has the will and the means to land a sizable spacecraft on another celestial body. Plans and capabilities untethered to the mood of the country, or that of its' President and elected Representatives. What are the implications of such an endeavor and those that follow, not being within the purview of Congressional control through funding and direct oversight? What new rules of engagement will manifest? New lines will be drawn, new alliances forged, old power structures defended yet inevitably breached. Or not?

For instance, how far will members of Congress, their largest current benefactors, and yes, some NASA employees go in maneuvering to counter this changing landscape? How far can they go? This outlier from Rep. Lamborn questioning how Musk finances his companies may be an overreach, but it won't be the last. What about the legions of Commercial and Government SpaceFlight Think-Tanks, Groups, Lobbyists? And how will other major Space Agencies from around the world view, respond to this?  How will this impact other spaceflight/craft/launch companies? How will they respond? Will they need to?

We here at NSF are an informed lot and I believe we share some responsibility to help inform others and when possible, direct the conversation in a meaningful and thoughtful way. So please keep things civil and help me and many others wrap our heads around, "What happens next?"

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

This is just a prediction. I'm certain reality will be far from the case.

A general, gradual, diversification as to how governmental space organisations approach planetary science missions. It'll be slow, it may take over multiple decades, but if this sets a precedent I can see all unmanned space science missions slowly moved into competitive commercial contract work. NASA/ESA/whoever, decides on the mission's capabilities, decides where they want it sent, and pays for the delivery of that payload. JPL will do less of the development side of R&D and will take on a more advisory, liaison role. Slowly governmentally manufactured spacecraft will go the way of serf based agriculture - replaced by cheaper, quicker evolving alternatives. Agencies will pay companies to do much of the work for them whilst in return the agencies collect all the data they wanted. Eventually the only directly government operated spacecraft will be related to national security.

That's just the unmanned side of the coin.

[nadreck]

If cost of Red Dragon is an interim baseline on what can be afforded for say roughly $100M ($50,000/kg) when you send 2t to Mars (or the moon).

This is a very new paradigm. This makes the potential to at least survey for resources on Mars or the Moon for significantly less than than the costs of a communications satellite until recently.  This doesn't make exploitation affordable yet, but at least some resource companies with vision (say like BHP Billiton who in the 90's poured $1.5B into setting up a diamond mine a degree or so south of the arctic circle in Canada's Northwest Territories) would probably risk a quarter of a billion to stake out Lunar resources at the poles, or some other project just in case they could take advantage of it a decade later when there was at least a chance of an order of magnitude drop in the costs.

Some prestigious universities could suddenly afford their own interplanetary probes. People like Spaceflight Industries who have been doing well with subdividing payload capacity for micro and nano satellites might do the same for instruments and/or rovers to different locations on the Moon or Mars. Their clients might be academia, multinational corporations, governments and even NGOs.

[Oli]

I don't get the hype.

First of all, most of the cost estimates here are absolutely ridiculous. Second, Red Dragon will test certain technologies for NASA and SpaceX, but it's still an order of magnitude smaller than what is needed for human missions. Whether Red Dragon will be picked over other reentry concepts like MSL, InSight for science missions is also questionable.

It's obviously great that SpaceX pushes for those technologies and I think it can make a real impact in terms of what it will cost for NASA to do manned missions. But screaming "revolution!" every time SpaceX announces some new plans is ridiculous.

[Space Ghost 1962]

I don't get the hype.

First of all, most of the cost estimates here are absolutely ridiculous. Second, Red Dragon will test certain technologies for NASA and SpaceX, but it's still an order of magnitude smaller than what is needed for human missions.

Dragon 2 is soon to fly with crew aboard. Dragon has been flying for years. Booster recovery already impacts launch pricing even though one is within a year of being reflown.

Yeah, you could do missions with the components, because missions are being done with the components. And they appear to work and are priced economically.

So you can consider a platform for a Mars program out of it. Robert Zubrin's “Mars Semi-Direct” concept would make use of three Falcon Heavy launches every two years, as an example.

Whether Red Dragon will be picked over other reentry concepts like MSL, InSight for science missions is also questionable.

The EDL for MSL is planned to be reused for several missions, and Phoenix's will be reused for InSight.

Neither of these comes from volume reused components like Dragon, which has flown more times.

It is unlikely that Atlas/Ariane will reuse the same boosters for a Mars mission. This does not seem to be a big jump, or "hype" to me.

[QuantumG]

Announce two years in advance, add more years of slippage, and anything seems ho hum. Things must seem a lot more revolutionary to people who aren't paying attention. There's people out there who hear about CRS-8 docking to the ISS and are like "OMG that's revolutionary!!" SpaceX should be commended for making their achievements seem routine.

[Oli]

So you can consider a platform for a Mars program out of it. Robert Zubrin's “Mars Semi-Direct” concept would make use of three Falcon Heavy launches every two years, as an example.

A manned program? No way.

Neither of these comes from volume reused components like Dragon, which has flown more times.

And I would argue that a heavily customized version of a LEO crew vehicle is not going to be cheaper than or better suited for robotic science missions.

[Zed_Noir]

I don't get the hype.

First of all, most of the cost estimates here are absolutely ridiculous. Second, Red Dragon will test certain technologies for NASA and SpaceX, but it's still an order of magnitude smaller than what is needed for human missions. Whether Red Dragon will be picked over other reentry concepts like MSL, InSight for science missions is also questionable.

The Red Dragon have a payload capacity of 2 to 4 metric tons to Mars surface depending on orbital mechanics. Even if the Red Dragon is triple the cost of the regular Dragon 2.That is still cheaper then the MSL platform that can lands only a few hundred kilograms of payload on Mars.

Since the Dragon is in mass production. You can actually have a whole flotilla of landers descending on Mars during each launch window with payloads not optimized for low mass.

[MattMason]

I don't get the hype.

First of all, most of the cost estimates here are absolutely ridiculous. Second, Red Dragon will test certain technologies for NASA and SpaceX, but it's still an order of magnitude smaller than what is needed for human missions. Whether Red Dragon will be picked over other reentry concepts like MSL, InSight for science missions is also questionable.

It's obviously great that SpaceX pushes for those technologies and I think it can make a real impact in terms of what it will cost for NASA to do manned missions. But screaming "revolution!" every time SpaceX announces some new plans is ridiculous.

I'd say that a totally-privately created American launch vehicle and spacecraft, not led by JPL, which is sending a human-capable spacecraft to Mars is a pretty momentous deal.

[Oli]

The Red Dragon have a payload capacity of 2 to 4 metric tons to Mars surface depending on orbital mechanics.

From the docs I've red its ~2t useful payload.

Even if the Red Dragon is triple the cost of the regular Dragon 2.That is still cheaper then the MSL platform that can lands only a few hundred kilograms of payload on Mars.

Why? How much does the MSL entry system cost? How much does Dragon 2 cost? The MSL platform can land a 1t rover the size of Curiosity, something Dragon certainly cannot.

Since the Dragon is in mass production.

Red Dragon won't be in "mass production".

I'd say that a totally-privately created American launch vehicle and spacecraft, not led by JPL, which is sending a human-capable spacecraft to Mars is a pretty momentous deal.

Privately created, under financing and advisement from NASA. Certainly not human-capable. I'm sure it will be stripped of anything that makes it LEO human-capable.

[sanman]

Announce two years in advance, add more years of slippage, and anything seems ho hum. Things must seem a lot more revolutionary to people who aren't paying attention. There's people out there who hear about CRS-8 docking to the ISS and are like "OMG that's revolutionary!!" SpaceX should be commended for making their achievements seem routine.

Still, I can't help but notice that the SpaceX announcement is coming on the heels of China's announcement that it will send a lander to Mars in 2021.

I imagine that SpaceX wants to take the lead in Mars exploration, and be second to none. This is in spite of Musk saying that he feels a manned mission to Mars would require a multi-national multi-govt collaborative effort. The power of the mass-market, when fully tapped, can easily dwarf that of mere state agencies.

Once you get into a large multi-state collaboration, then all sorts of politics will intervene, and slowdowns from any party will push back the entire effort. It seems like Musk doesn't want to be hostage to all that. Isn't something similar within the United States responsible for the comparatively slow progress of the US space program?

But how will the interaction between different private players play out? What kind of strategic collaborations  and transactions will occur between private companies to accelerate the progress of space exploration? Even if Musk is taking the lead on Mars, there's still the Moon and asteroids which others might be inclined to put their prime focus on.

[meekGee]

I don't get the hype.

First of all, most of the cost estimates here are absolutely ridiculous. Second, Red Dragon will test certain technologies for NASA and SpaceX, but it's still an order of magnitude smaller than what is needed for human missions. Whether Red Dragon will be picked over other reentry concepts like MSL, InSight for science missions is also questionable.

It's obviously great that SpaceX pushes for those technologies and I think it can make a real impact in terms of what it will cost for NASA to do manned missions. But screaming "revolution!" every time SpaceX announces some new plans is ridiculous.

Nah, we only yelled "revolution" once...  Now it's just fun watching it play out.

[Robotbeat]

Stuff like this happening might drive a bubble in space investment (and there sort of is one already in the microlaunch market). Lots of crazy ideas may seem a lot less crazy and get some actual investment. Which definitely doesn't guarantee any kind of success. But there's a lot of money sloshing around the US right now like $13 trillion in investment capital looking for somewhere to rest.

It really changes the whole game. If you can send 2-4 tons to Mars for $200 million or so, that's only a bit more expensive than resupplying ISS. And that's not a minimum, I think SpaceX (and others) could lower it even further.

This makes a near-term Mars base much more realistic and sustainable. Still need an ascent vehicle, but if SpaceX succeeds in all this and, despite all odds, actually fields BFR/BFS (or even a miniature version), then that isn't a problem. And every step of success raises their odds.

This is a risky mission. About even odds it will fail (less if they do supersonic retropropulsion with Dragon at Earth first). But if they succeed, I'm going to have to do some Bayesian updating of the odds of Mars settlement (not just a mission) in my lifetime.


...if SpaceX launches another 30 times between now and then, however, they have a pretty good chance (50:50) of having another failure. That would slow everything down again and probably push this off to the next window. Stuff can happen, I'm not going to treat this as a sure thing. But it certainly may happen, and it would be a big deal. You'll have a ~6 ton lander on Mars. The largest anything has been gently set on Mars is 900kg, nearly an order of magnitude smaller, and at MUCH larger cost.


...I think SpaceX doing this on Mars, and other possible steps like regular reuse, crew to ISS, Falcon Heavy full reuse, perhaps fielding Raptor, will likely increase the rate of private and public space exploration/utilization. More money will enter the industry. Bezos will do something. DoD and NASA will be more willing to try private space companies (because the political power of the old players will wane and the well-bred skeptics at NASA will be increasingly satisfied).

...but there will be bumps along the way.

[Zed_Noir]

If you can land a 6 ton lander on Mars surface. You probably can use the same lander design to deliver some kind of rover on Venus surface. 

[Robotbeat]

If you can land a 6 ton lander on Mars surface. You probably can use the same lander design to deliver some kind of rover on Venus surface. 

That's tough. It's like being inside an autoclave. Supercritical CO2 atmosphere with 450 Celsius temperature if you're /lucky/. Can be done, but you're going to need either super simple high temperature electronics or really aggressive active cooling, dumping heat into a furnace. You'll need a very powerful RTG/ASRG for that.

...but it can be done.

[sanman]

If you can land a 6 ton lander on Mars surface. You probably can use the same lander design to deliver some kind of rover on Venus surface. 

That's tough. It's like being inside an autoclave. Supercritical CO2 atmosphere with 450 Celsius temperature if you're /lucky/. Can be done, but you're going to need either super simple high temperature electronics or really aggressive active cooling, dumping heat into a furnace. You'll need a very powerful RTG/ASRG for that.

...but it can be done.

I thought Silicon Carbide electronics is being considered for potential Venus use. Doesn't Russia make significant use of diamond-based electronics in its space program? Maybe that might be suitable for Venus, too.

[Robotbeat]

If you can land a 6 ton lander on Mars surface. You probably can use the same lander design to deliver some kind of rover on Venus surface. 

That's tough. It's like being inside an autoclave. Supercritical CO2 atmosphere with 450 Celsius temperature if you're /lucky/. Can be done, but you're going to need either super simple high temperature electronics or really aggressive active cooling, dumping heat into a furnace. You'll need a very powerful RTG/ASRG for that.

...but it can be done.

I thought Silicon Carbide electronics is being considered for potential Venus use. Doesn't Russia make significant use of diamond-based electronics in its space program? Maybe that might be suitable for Venus, too.

Right, which is why I said super simple high temperature electronics. Making memory is the hard part. It'd be like going back to the 60s/70s for the digital circuitry. Again, not impossible, but it'd make the sort of autonomy we expect from planetary rovers very difficult. May have to off-load a lot of the intelligence to a relay orbiter.

[Coastal Ron]

We know that Musk's plans for humans will wait until they have the BFR/MCT, so Red Dragon really just represents an opportunity for robotic missions.

But oh what it can do for robotic missions!

In order to significantly lower the cost of something it needs to be commoditized in some way.  We're seeing that currently with the Mars 2020 robotic mission, which uses the same basic design as the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), however so far that's only a quantity of two.

The Red Dragon is based on commoditized hardware, which is the Dragon Crew vehicle, and that should be in production for a number of years for ISS support.  And it offers the ability to land far heavier payloads than NASA has been able to up to this point.  More for less?  Yes please!

The real question is whether other countries besides the U.S. will take advantage, and companies other than SpaceX?

If they do then this capability will play a significant role in preparing humanity to expand out into space.  If no one else takes advantage, then it just ends up being a revolutionary precursor to whatever comes next.

I hope it's the former and not the later...

[sanman]

The real question is whether other countries besides the U.S. will take advantage, and companies other than SpaceX?

If they do then this capability will play a significant role in preparing humanity to expand out into space.  If no one else takes advantage, then it just ends up being a revolutionary precursor to whatever comes next.

I hope it's the former and not the later...

Hmm, so you're hoping that other countries or corporations will similarly try to make use of Dragon's capabilities, along with NASA? Well, maybe Musk should enlist well known corporate entities and invite them to slap their logos onto the Dragon, NASCAR-style, so that their companies can proudly claim to have sponsored opening up Mars. I'm not sure that's really Musk's style, but it could help to defray the costs of this mission - or at least pay for a SuperBowl commercial, or something.

But since SpaceX doesn't seem to be into courting customers heavily through salesmanship, maybe this is where a Golden Spike or someone similar could play the role that you want, to generate more missions.

[vaporcobra]

The Red Dragon have a payload capacity of 2 to 4 metric tons to Mars surface depending on orbital mechanics.

From the docs I've red its ~2t useful payload.

Even if the Red Dragon is triple the cost of the regular Dragon 2.That is still cheaper then the MSL platform that can lands only a few hundred kilograms of payload on Mars.

Why? How much does the MSL entry system cost? How much does Dragon 2 cost? The MSL platform can land a 1t rover the size of Curiosity, something Dragon certainly cannot.

Since the Dragon is in mass production.

Red Dragon won't be in "mass production".

I'd say that a totally-privately created American launch vehicle and spacecraft, not led by JPL, which is sending a human-capable spacecraft to Mars is a pretty momentous deal.

Privately created, under financing and advisement from NASA. Certainly not human-capable. I'm sure it will be stripped of anything that makes it LEO human-capable.

You're honestly trying a little too hard to see the negative aspects of this, which certainly exist but do not make it any less of a stunning accomplishment (if/when it occurs).

As for your question about cost, MSL cost $2.5b (conservatively). It is a stunningly beautiful feat of engineering with finely-prepared instrumentation and an intensely complex and bespoke/tailor-made landing system that would be difficult and expensive to apply to anything other than Curiosity itself. My estimate for Red Dragon would probably max out at $300m. Actual costs for the spacecraft and launch vehicle are likely around $200m (no clue as to the actual cost of Dragon V2), and then add on approximately $100m for R&D/NASA collaboration. Literally an order of magnitude cheaper for 2x the payload with what is arguably an off-the-shelf solution (given Musk's very recent AMA on Twitter in which he explained that Dragon V2 was in part literally designed with the idea of propulsive landings on Mars in mind). It can't travel miles like Curiosity, but one can certainly imagine previously unconsidered options for local exploration around the landing site.

[b0objunior]

The Red Dragon have a payload capacity of 2 to 4 metric tons to Mars surface depending on orbital mechanics.

From the docs I've red its ~2t useful payload.

Even if the Red Dragon is triple the cost of the regular Dragon 2.That is still cheaper then the MSL platform that can lands only a few hundred kilograms of payload on Mars.

Why? How much does the MSL entry system cost? How much does Dragon 2 cost? The MSL platform can land a 1t rover the size of Curiosity, something Dragon certainly cannot.

Since the Dragon is in mass production.

Red Dragon won't be in "mass production".

I'd say that a totally-privately created American launch vehicle and spacecraft, not led by JPL, which is sending a human-capable spacecraft to Mars is a pretty momentous deal.

Privately created, under financing and advisement from NASA. Certainly not human-capable. I'm sure it will be stripped of anything that makes it LEO human-capable.

You're honestly trying a little too hard to see the negative aspects of this, which certainly exist but do not make it any less of a stunning accomplishment (if/when it occurs).

As for your question about cost, MSL cost $2.5b (conservatively). It is a stunningly beautiful feat of engineering with finely-prepared instrumentation and an intensely complex and bespoke/tailor-made landing system that would be difficult and expensive to apply to anything other than Curiosity itself. My estimate for Red Dragon would probably max out at $300m. Actual costs for the spacecraft and launch vehicle are likely around $200m (no clue as to the actual cost of Dragon V2), and then add on approximately $100m for R&D/NASA collaboration. Literally an order of magnitude cheaper for 2x the payload with what is arguably an off-the-shelf solution (given Musk's very recent AMA on Twitter in which he explained that Dragon V2 was in part literally designed with the idea of propulsive landings on Mars in mind). It can't travel miles like Curiosity, but one can certainly imagine previously unconsidered options for local exploration around the landing site.

Your cost comparison is muddy. Comparing a static lander with a rover is not fair for both.

[ciscosdad]

Spacex is merely the first of a string of companies that will do business in space. (Arguably the most important as it will be an enabler). Planetary resources and the others are preparing. We are seeing the first non government move off planet, and in due course it will become a trickle then eventually a flood.

We can't see the forest for the trees. We have become accustomed to the achievements of Spacex, without seeing the bigger picture. The OP was correct in identifying the significance of what is coming, and this mission, even if its delayed or unsuccessful.

[redliox]

What happens next is we'll see if a commercial lander can do better than 40 years of NASA engineering, at least 30 of which has been limited by budget cuts *coughMarsPolarLandercough*.

Standardization could allow for a lander at every launch window, chiefly Mars but this is a capsule that could hypothetically reach either Venus or Jupiter/Europa as well; result being more probes in generally, say perhaps one every year in contrast to a handful a decade, so long as there's an entity paying (university, NASA, ESA, Mars Society, Coca Cola, ect).  There could be a nice bloom of unmanned spaceflight...

If I had to give a specific "what happens next" involving Red Dragon and Mars exploration, three words: Mars Sample Return.  Caltech is going to grit its teeth...eh Blackstar? 

The biggest change may be in NASA's attitude.  The timing of NASA cutting the LDSD funding with the team-up with SpaceX seems far too coincidental, as if acknowledging "Ok Elon, we admit your idea is better than ours."  They won't kill SLS, but we'll see a realignment of programs that may curiously complement the SpaceX way of getting to Mars.  In Constellation terms, NASA is acknowledging there will never be a Mars version of Altair because its hands are tied, so it's turning to Red Dragon to fill a need.  There will be a NASA mothership carrying a red dragon alongside.

I don't think it'd be wise to guess too far ahead, after all we need to see if SpaceX proves itself.  If Red Dragon lands, it will change the game for Mars just as it did for LEO.  Boeing, Lockheed, and even JPL may want to step up their game.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Privately created, under financing and advisement from NASA. Certainly not human-capable. I'm sure it will be stripped of anything that makes it LEO human-capable.

You're missing the point, Oli. The dragon platform is completely adaptable as a Mars lander. It also breaks ground on how we land on Mars.

The cost isn't ridiculous since much of the technology presently exists. For this to be a lander which hasn't been run through JPL is a wonder in of itself.

Privately created, yes, but also privately motivated. You have a right to be skeptical of their ability to perform the mission, but claiming it isn't revolutionary is ignoring the state of play and calling it information.

I don't think it'd be wise to guess too far ahead, after all we need to see if SpaceX proves itself.  If Red Dragon lands, it will change the game for Mars just as it did for LEO.  Boeing, Lockheed, and even JPL may want to step up their game.

Boeing and Lockheed probably need a change in approach, but they'll adapt, it's what they're good at. JPL probably needs its role redefined - it'd be good if one day JPL is only designing/defining payloads, not the lander/spacecraft/probe itself. None of that expertise and proud tradition of service needs go to waste, it'll just be refocused by the years.

[redliox]

Boeing and Lockheed probably need a change in approach, but they'll adapt, it's what they're good at. JPL probably needs its role redefined - it'd be good if one day JPL is only designing/defining payloads, not the lander/spacecraft/probe itself. None of that expertise and proud tradition of service needs go to waste, it'll just be refocused by the years.

All 3 in their own ways have been used to having "monopolies" in their fields.  More universities beyond Caltech have gotten involved with probes since the 1990s, but they continue to have the loudest voice and biggest influence, yet even they can't figure a straightforward Mars sample return scheme.  And neither Starliner or Orion have legs to land on.  SpaceX is going to embarrass them all.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

All 3 in their own ways have been used to having "monopolies" in their fields.  More universities beyond Caltech have gotten involved with probes since the 1990s, but they continue to have the loudest voice and biggest influence, yet even they can't figure a straightforward Mars sample return scheme.  And neither Starliner or Orion have legs to land on.  SpaceX is going to embarrass them all.

Right, but they'll up their game in an attempt to keep those positions. They won't just let them slide out from under them.

[rayleighscatter]

Stuff like this happening might drive a bubble in space investment (and there sort of is one already in the microlaunch market).

We're already in a bubble of space investment, especially in launchers of any size, but also satellites, unmanned, suborbital, habs, etc.

It may now be less of how much money will be pumped in, but rather when and how big the pull back will be when the bubble bursts.

[Oli]

You're missing the point, Oli. The dragon platform is completely adaptable as a Mars lander. It also breaks ground on how we land on Mars.

It's another one of those "build it and they'll come" arguments. The question is whether NASA actually has the need for a static 2t lander. Mars Sample Return is a planned NASA mission, current concepts are based on the sky crane system with a landing platform and a fetch rover. The entry and descent stage come at a cost of $220m, the cruise stage an additional $90m (both without reserves), given a total mission cost of $2.5bn that's not going to break the bank ($2.5bn is without orbiter or the Mars Returned Sample Handling facility). Maybe Dragon could be used for that, but I guess it would have be modified for a rover.

Other than that, maybe drilling would be interesting, or landing at higher altitudes, but NASA doesn't have any concrete plans for those.

[sanman]

You're missing the point, Oli. The dragon platform is completely adaptable as a Mars lander. It also breaks ground on how we land on Mars.

It's another one of those "build it and they'll come" arguments. The question is whether NASA actually has the need for a static 2t lander. Mars Sample Return is a planned NASA mission, current concepts are based on the sky crane system with a landing platform and a fetch rover. The entry and descent stage come at a cost of $220m, the cruise stage an additional $90m (both without reserves), given a total mission cost of $2.5bn that's not going to break the bank ($2.5bn is without orbiter or the Mars Returned Sample Handling facility). Maybe Dragon could be used for that, but I guess it would have be modified for a rover.

Other than that, maybe drilling would be interesting, or landing at higher altitudes, but NASA doesn't have any concrete plans for those.

NASA has a need to save $$$, so by Red Dragon meeting their needs for less $$$, then why would NASA pass that over to do another SkyCrane more expensively? As for Mars missions which exceed Dragon's capabilities, what would those immediately be? By the time NASA puts together such a bigger mission, MCT would probably be ready.

[Oli]

NASA has a need to save $$$, so by Red Dragon meeting their needs for less $$$, then why would NASA pass that over to do another SkyCrane more expensively?

Whether Dragon could provide the same capability for less $$$ is pure speculation, as this entire thread.

[Lee Jay]

I jut woke up to this thread, and I feel like I've happened on a SpaceX fan club party, at which most people have been drinking.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

We're already in a bubble of space investment, especially in launchers of any size, but also satellites, unmanned, suborbital, habs, etc.

It may now be less of how much money will be pumped in, but rather when and how big the pull back will be when the bubble bursts.

We don't yet know if the investment is disproportional over a long  term to the ability to make a return.

I jut woke up to this thread, and I feel like I've happened on a SpaceX fan club party, at which most people have been drinking.

Don't worry, the non-alcoholic beverages are on the table to the right. 

[Coastal Ron]

The real question is whether other countries besides the U.S. will take advantage, and companies other than SpaceX?

If they do then this capability will play a significant role in preparing humanity to expand out into space.  If no one else takes advantage, then it just ends up being a revolutionary precursor to whatever comes next.

I hope it's the former and not the later...

Hmm, so you're hoping that other countries or corporations will similarly try to make use of Dragon's capabilities, along with NASA?

Yes.

Well, maybe Musk should enlist well known corporate entities and invite them to slap their logos onto the Dragon, NASCAR-style, so that their companies can proudly claim to have sponsored opening up Mars.

Sure, why not?  Company logos are plastered on the sides of payload fairing already.

I'm not sure that's really Musk's style, but it could help to defray the costs of this mission - or at least pay for a SuperBowl commercial, or something.

If a country or company came to SpaceX and offered to pay for a trip to Mars, what do you think SpaceX would do?  I think they would take the money and say "When do you want to go?"

But since SpaceX doesn't seem to be into courting customers heavily through salesmanship, maybe this is where a Golden Spike or someone similar could play the role that you want, to generate more missions.

Don't be so sure that Musk is not courting potential customers already.  This Red Dragon mission has been in the works for two years now, and now that it's plastered across the web and looking like it could be a reality I think Musk's efforts will be able to be ramped up in his private conversations with people.

I'd be surprised if someone else offered to partner with SpaceX on a second mission before the first one succeeds, but once the first one succeeds then I would expect to hear about other partnerships for missions to Mars.

[TomH]

Back to the OP:

how far will members of Congress, their largest current benefactors, and yes, some NASA employees go in maneuvering to counter this changing landscape? How far can they go? This outlier from Rep. Lamborn questioning how Musk finances his companies may be an overreach, but it won't be the last. What about the legions of Commercial and Government SpaceFlight Think-Tanks, Groups, Lobbyists? And how will other major Space Agencies from around the world view, respond to this?  How will this impact other spaceflight/craft/launch companies? How will they respond?

I will not be surprised to see a bunch of whining and frivolous lawsuits-like Bezos' claiming only he had the right to land a rocket at sea. I remember when USPS demanded there be a tax on every email, of which the funds would be given to them.....to compensate for the loss of snail mail letters. As if written communication was a purview-domain owned solely by themselves. I don't doubt that all kinds of superfluous grenades will be lobbed into courtrooms and congress alike, solely to protect economic fiefdoms. Hopefully these anti-competive manouvers will all be tossed out.

[sanman]

Whether Dragon could provide the same capability for less $$$ is pure speculation, as this entire thread.

Alright, but given SpaceX's track record so far of low-balling on other launch offerings, and given how their whole operation is always pushing the envelope on cost and capability, and on getting the most bang-for-buck, it seems like a private enterprise like theirs has earned a lot confidence that they'll do more for less.

Sure, why not?  Company logos are plastered on the sides of payload fairing already.

Well, SpaceX's own logo is one thing, but could Coca-Cola, McDonalds, DuPont, Apple, etc be convinced to sponsor particular flights? It would certainly be great, and it would be a civic-minded statement by big businesses of their forward-looking vision for humanity.

Actually, I dunno if the big X-logo on the barge landing pad has to be repainted each time due to the exhaust flames, but they should offer that space up for a new corporate bidder to place their logo on for each new flight.

"And today's landing is sponsored by Crest toothpaste! Crest - Of Course I Still Love You!"

If a country or company came to SpaceX and offered to pay for a trip to Mars, what do you think SpaceX would do?  I think they would take the money and say "When do you want to go?"

That's the thing - who's just got all this cash lying around to throw at SpaceX to buy a trip to Mars? I thought countries do these things to show off their own accomplishments for national prestige. How are you going to summon up national pride just for having written a big fat cheque, as opposed to having done it yourself? That's like hiring athletes from other countries to represent you at the Olympics. What bragging rights do you get?

Don't be so sure that Musk is not courting potential customers already.  This Red Dragon mission has been in the works for two years now, and now that it's plastered across the web and looking like it could be a reality I think Musk's efforts will be able to be ramped up in his private conversations with people.

I'd be surprised if someone else offered to partner with SpaceX on a second mission before the first one succeeds, but once the first one succeeds then I would expect to hear about other partnerships for missions to Mars.

I think it would be cool if Google were to sponsor a mission to Mars. They keep touting their own forward-looking vision for the world, and they've sponsored stuff like X-Prize, etc. Amazon is already sponsoring Blue Origin, in a sense. If Google goes with SpaceX, then Apple will be under pressure to pair up with someone - Orbital ATK? Heh, and Microsoft can eventually join the party by tying with Stratolaunch.

[ncb1397]

Every once in a while, something significant happens. And while it may be recognized for being so, only through the passage of time is it revealed to what extent it changed....well, everything.

Of course, I'm referring to the SpaceX announcement of Red Dragon in 2018. However what intrigues me the most is, "What happens next?" Not with regards to mission planning but from a more general science, culture, business, politics and even international relations perspective.

The context: For the first time in history a privately owned and operated company has the will and the means to land a sizable spacecraft on another celestial body. Plans and capabilities untethered to the mood of the country, or that of its' President and elected Representatives. What are the implications of such an endeavor and those that follow, not being within the purview of Congressional control through funding and direct oversight? What new rules of engagement will manifest? New lines will be drawn, new alliances forged, old power structures defended yet inevitably breached. Or not?

For instance, how far will members of Congress, their largest current benefactors, and yes, some NASA employees go in maneuvering to counter this changing landscape? How far can they go? This outlier from Rep. Lamborn questioning how Musk finances his companies may be an overreach, but it won't be the last. What about the legions of Commercial and Government SpaceFlight Think-Tanks, Groups, Lobbyists? And how will other major Space Agencies from around the world view, respond to this?  How will this impact other spaceflight/craft/launch companies? How will they respond? Will they need to?

We here at NSF are an informed lot and I believe we share some responsibility to help inform others and when possible, direct the conversation in a meaningful and thoughtful way. So please keep things civil and help me and many others wrap our heads around, "What happens next?"

How is it untethered to government control? If the government cancels commercial crew, doesn't allow free access to the DSN and stops being SpaceX's number 1 customer, Red Dragon is probably not happening. If the ISS market doesn't support dragon production for cargo and crew launches, then the capability of SpaceX to support the continuation of the product line, including the Red Dragon variant, is questionable at best.

[vaporcobra]

Your cost comparison is muddy. Comparing a static lander with a rover is not fair for both.
[/quote]

I'd say maybe it is imperfect, but far from muddy. A static lander can't achieve the breadth of science that a rover can, but both can accomplish meaningful (albeit somewhat different) scientific goals. A solid example can be especially found with the Mars 2020 rover, which is intended to store samples (albeit without any concrete plan whatsoever to return those samples). It might end up being $1.5b on the low end. For the same price, you could utilize something like 5 Red Dragons, all of which would be able to expediently return samples. While the issues of cross contamination are very real and worrisome, the ability to simply transport samples back to Earth almost makes the rover unnecessary, as it is essentially a necessarily-compromised roving science laboratory.

I personal am enamored with the concept of a beautifully complex machine roving about on Mars, but the utility of movement can be vastly outweighed by the ability to utilize the scientific capabilities present on Earth. A probe dedicated solely to photography would be vastly different and the combination of several Red Dragon sample returns and a dedicated imaging rover (possibly small enough to be delivered by Red Dragon) would accomplish far more than rovers for the same cost or less. Of course my speculation runs rampant in the cost estimates, but I think they are fair, particularly if SpaceX plays a major role in the non-instrumentation engineering.

[eric_astro]

Red Dragon is noteworthy because it will test martian EDL for something that could be manned. Musk/SpaceX is interested in human spaceflight to Mars- IMO they will find a way.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

If the 2018 Red Dragon is successful, since it is a capabilities demonstrator, the next flight or flights in 2020 would be for paying customers like everything else SpaceX has done in the past. By teaming with someone like Spaceflight Industries a Red Dragon with 75 experiments at a average price per flight for each of $2M would probably have a waiting list such that in 2022 they could launch a Red Dragon flight every 2 weeks over a period of nearly three months.

If NASA wants or someone else wants a MSR that would use nearly all the landing payload of the RD (2mt for MAV). So for a MSR those would be dedicated designs like a CC version of D2 would be vs a Cargo D2.

Also do not forget that a GLX rover would easily fit in a RD and would not need a large opening. I am sure that Astobotics would be happy to include one of their rovers on the RD. It may prove even easier getting to the surface of Mars than trying to get one to the surface of the Moon on their own. A Mars Rover X prize?

[meberbs]

How is it untethered to government control? If the government cancels commercial crew, doesn't allow free access to the DSN and stops being SpaceX's number 1 customer, Red Dragon is probably not happening. If the ISS market doesn't support dragon production for cargo and crew launches, then the capability of SpaceX to support the continuation of the product line, including the Red Dragon variant, is questionable at best.

If the government cancels commercial crew, SpaceX will make Dragon 2 anyway, because it is part of their path to Mars, and it can be used for transport to future commercial space stations (Bigelow). Dragon lab is still on the manifest as well. Reduced demand for Dragons would probably up the per unit cost, but SpaceX still could fund occasional Dragon missions from its own profit.

Without free access to the DSN, SpaceX would pay for access, or build their own relays depending on how the cost works out.

SpaceX doesn't need NASA or the government in general as an anchor customer at this point. Take a look at the manifest for the rest of the year, out of 14 planned flights, there are 2 Dragon missions, the falcon heavy demo, 2 foreign government missions, and 9 commercial. The government is NOT SpaceX's number one customer anymore. (this doesn't mean that government contracts aren't lucrative, since gov't pays more to impose special requirements, which in turn means more profit, plus gov't will partially support development)

I am not saying that SpaceX losing all of its NASA support and government missions wouldn't slow down SpaceX's plans, but they would still be making plenty of profit which they would then reinvest into the Mars missions. (SpaceX's balance sheet has always been effectively 0, since they redirect any profit directly into R&D and capital, that plus being a private company makes it hard to tell how much they really net on a single launch, but they clearly get enough based on the amount of side projects they have)

[Robotbeat]

I jut woke up to this thread, and I feel like I've happened on a SpaceX fan club party, at which most people have been drinking.

And here's the soundtrack
http://raptorcommandmusic.com/elon-champion-for-humanity-single-released/

[Lar]

You're missing the point, Oli. The dragon platform is completely adaptable as a Mars lander. It also breaks ground on how we land on Mars.

It's another one of those "build it and they'll come" arguments. The question is whether NASA actually has the need for a static 2t lander. Mars Sample Return is a planned NASA mission, current concepts are based on the sky crane system with a landing platform and a fetch rover. The entry and descent stage come at a cost of $220m, the cruise stage an additional $90m (both without reserves), given a total mission cost of $2.5bn that's not going to break the bank ($2.5bn is without orbiter or the Mars Returned Sample Handling facility). Maybe Dragon could be used for that, but I guess it would have be modified for a rover.

Other than that, maybe drilling would be interesting, or landing at higher altitudes, but NASA doesn't have any concrete plans for those.

I just have to quote this again... Oli do you realise what you're saying? You're defending a mission that costs 2.5B while tearing down one that costs at most .5B (and most estimates are lower than that) for more landed payload mass. This is a game changer if it works. People will focus on payloads. As they should. Dragon certainly could be modified to carry rover(s) 5 rovers for the price of one.

[Space Ghost 1962]

So you can consider a platform for a Mars program out of it. Robert Zubrin's “Mars Semi-Direct” concept would make use of three Falcon Heavy launches every two years, as an example.

A manned program? No way.

Expect Zubrin to update his proposal soon - that one is a few years old. It's the proposal that has the most chance of being funded of any on earth right now. Suggest that as RD reality improves, so will Zubrin's proposal in lockstep.

And this is the most unrealistic of all of the FH proposals ...

Neither of these comes from volume reused components like Dragon, which has flown more times.

And I would argue that a heavily customized version of a LEO crew vehicle is not going to be cheaper than or better suited for robotic science missions.

You clearly don't know/understand/have visited SX. The point is to not heavily customize anything. If anything, Musk is trying to reduce down configurations to the fewest. The downside of that is you can't "tweak" a mission as much as before - you run up against the "hard stops" fast. The other part of this is Musk has to be bought into what you are doing, to even get a chance to "play with the toys" - unlike other SC/LV providers in the extreme.

Many "traditional space" engineers find this awkward in the extreme. The first guy to work on RD for NASA didn't care for this at all, with everything changing every few months (years ago).

If the 2018 Red Dragon is successful, since it is a capabilities demonstrator, the next flight or flights in 2020 would be for paying customers like everything else SpaceX has done in the past. By teaming with someone like Spaceflight Industries a Red Dragon with 75 experiments at a average price per flight for each of $2M would probably have a waiting list such that in 2022 they could launch a Red Dragon flight every 2 weeks over a period of nearly three months.

Aggregating instruments for launch to build a mission is a time honored practice that might work here, but the key to it is a PI at an credible institution for a lander. The funding for about half of the mission would have to be in place, likely from a private sponsor/benefactor, where the remaining NASA/NSF/ESA/DLR/JAXA funded experiments would "piggyback" on the remainder. Since these missions cost 10x and fly every 2-6 years,  hedging launch/landing failures by even just reflying existing instruments 2-3 times on a fraction of the budget of the original missions would likely get your aggregation strategy to work.

If NASA wants or someone else wants a MSR that would use nearly all the landing payload of the RD (2mt for MAV). So for a MSR those would be dedicated designs like a CC version of D2 would be vs a Cargo D2.

Again, the traditional space vision of MSR is a long, risky, and costly mission. Hedging it with a dissimilar Dragon alternative would decrease program risk substantially.

If initial RD EDL works, it will move into the "acceptable" category alongside skycrane (~$350M+). Might even be able to use it for "hard" spots that skycrane can't do (landing in open lava tubes, Hellas Basin, Valles Marineris, ...).

"Anything you can do, I can do better! I can do anything better than you! "

You're missing the point, Oli. The dragon platform is completely adaptable as a Mars lander. It also breaks ground on how we land on Mars.

It's another one of those "build it and they'll come" arguments. The question is whether NASA actually has the need for a static 2t lander. Mars Sample Return is a planned NASA mission, current concepts are based on the sky crane system with a landing platform and a fetch rover. The entry and descent stage come at a cost of $220m, the cruise stage an additional $90m (both without reserves), given a total mission cost of $2.5bn that's not going to break the bank ($2.5bn is without orbiter or the Mars Returned Sample Handling facility). Maybe Dragon could be used for that, but I guess it would have be modified for a rover.

Other than that, maybe drilling would be interesting, or landing at higher altitudes, but NASA doesn't have any concrete plans for those.

I just have to quote this again... Oli do you realise what you're saying? You're defending a mission that costs 2.5B while tearing down one that costs at most .5B (and most estimates are lower than that) for more landed payload mass. This is a game changer if it works. People will focus on payloads. As they should. Dragon certainly could be modified to carry rover(s) 5 rovers for the price of one.

I don't know if it's a "game changer" ... only find that out after the fact.

But I do know where scientists want to go, and what they want to put there to find things, and what they want to look for.

And they can fill dozens of Dragons directed to different places to get experiments long desired to the surface to prove many questions dating back to the Viking landing.

I *expect* that someone will start a "Mars Science" fund to bootstrap this into existence, to allow for private/public fund matching to fill this need before RD launches.

[sanman]

If initial RD EDL works, it will move into the "acceptable" category alongside skycrane (~$350M+). Might even be able to use it for "hard" spots that skycrane can't do (landing in open lava tubes, Hellas Basin, Valles Marineris, ...).

SkyCrane always seemed like a bit of a Rube Goldberg contraption to me - is its particular approach really justified? Wouldn't a Red Dragon landing be much simpler and more straightforward? Even if SkyCrane's development costs are already done, wouldn't a proven Red Dragon end up being the method of choice, because its more conventional approach seems likely to be more reliable (will have to wait for actual landing to know for sure).

But in what scenarios would you want to use SkyCrane instead of Red Dragon?

[b0objunior]

If initial RD EDL works, it will move into the "acceptable" category alongside skycrane (~$350M+). Might even be able to use it for "hard" spots that skycrane can't do (landing in open lava tubes, Hellas Basin, Valles Marineris, ...).

SkyCrane always seemed like a bit of a Rube Goldberg contraption to me - is its particular approach really justified? Wouldn't a Red Dragon landing be much simpler and more straightforward? Even if SkyCrane's development costs are already done, wouldn't a proven Red Dragon end up being the method of choice, because its more conventional approach seems likely to be more reliable (will have to wait for actual landing to know for sure).

But in what scenarios would you want to use SkyCrane instead of Red Dragon?

Yes, it is justified, because it delivered a one ton rover on the surface.

[redliox]

So you can consider a platform for a Mars program out of it. Robert Zubrin's “Mars Semi-Direct” concept would make use of three Falcon Heavy launches every two years, as an example.

A manned program? No way.

Expect Zubrin to update his proposal soon - that one is a few years old. It's the proposal that has the most chance of being funded of any on earth right now. Suggest that as RD reality improves, so will Zubrin's proposal in lockstep.

And this is the most unrealistic of all of the FH proposals ...

I agree on that.  RD can deliver something to the surface of Mars, but it wouldn't be able to comfortably handle the 6-9 months beforehand with humans.  For a crew mission it will need to to paired with a transfer vehicle, and in Zubrin's Mars Semi-Direct that was the ERV.  Be it NASA or Mars Society, my guess is an orbiter/transfer vehicle will need to play a part basically for human logistics.

You're missing the point, Oli. The dragon platform is completely adaptable as a Mars lander. It also breaks ground on how we land on Mars.

It's another one of those "build it and they'll come" arguments. The question is whether NASA actually has the need for a static 2t lander. Mars Sample Return is a planned NASA mission, current concepts are based on the sky crane system with a landing platform and a fetch rover. The entry and descent stage come at a cost of $220m, the cruise stage an additional $90m (both without reserves), given a total mission cost of $2.5bn that's not going to break the bank ($2.5bn is without orbiter or the Mars Returned Sample Handling facility). Maybe Dragon could be used for that, but I guess it would have be modified for a rover.

Other than that, maybe drilling would be interesting, or landing at higher altitudes, but NASA doesn't have any concrete plans for those.

I just have to quote this again... Oli do you realise what you're saying? You're defending a mission that costs 2.5B while tearing down one that costs at most .5B (and most estimates are lower than that) for more landed payload mass. This is a game changer if it works. People will focus on payloads. As they should. Dragon certainly could be modified to carry rover(s) 5 rovers for the price of one.

I don't know if it's a "game changer" ... only find that out after the fact.

But I do know where scientists want to go, and what they want to put there to find things, and what they want to look for.

And they can fill dozens of Dragons directed to different places to get experiments long desired to the surface to prove many questions dating back to the Viking landing.

I *expect* that someone will start a "Mars Science" fund to bootstrap this into existence, to allow for private/public fund matching to fill this need before RD launches.

Hopefully it changes the game, but naturally premature to be absolutely sure until 2018 arrives.

[redliox]

If initial RD EDL works, it will move into the "acceptable" category alongside skycrane (~$350M+). Might even be able to use it for "hard" spots that skycrane can't do (landing in open lava tubes, Hellas Basin, Valles Marineris, ...).

SkyCrane always seemed like a bit of a Rube Goldberg contraption to me - is its particular approach really justified? Wouldn't a Red Dragon landing be much simpler and more straightforward? Even if SkyCrane's development costs are already done, wouldn't a proven Red Dragon end up being the method of choice, because its more conventional approach seems likely to be more reliable (will have to wait for actual landing to know for sure).

But in what scenarios would you want to use SkyCrane instead of Red Dragon?

Slightly smaller budget with a bulkier payload would be my guess.  Or when you're not as worried about contaminating the site with rocket fire, which was why the Skycrane doesn't touchdown at the same spot as the rover.

[Lumina]

Between now and 2018, first stage booster landings will become a more reliable affair. By 2018, the Falcon Heavy will also have started flying, and all the F9 landing know-how accumulated by then should feed straight into landing the Falcon Heavy booster stages. Timescales are tight but it's not impossible to imagine that RD could fly on a reused FH, making it a relatively inexpensive demonstration of SRP and propulsive landing technologies leading up to BFR/MCT.

At the same time, a successful RD mission will compellingly demonstrate to space agencies and governments around the world that low-cost access to anywhere in the solar system is available here and now. The point being to generate demand for the Falcon Heavy / Dragon 2 combo and future income to fund BFR/MCT investment. Being the premier space logistics company of the 21st century is the core of SpaceX's business, after all.

So what happens next? If all goes well with RD, it will be a solid step forward both for the BFR/MCT development and for SpaceX developing new unmanned science mission business for their FH/D2 combo.

[sanman]

It'll be interesting to see the progression of the number of Mars missions per launch-window cycle.
(eg. 2018=1, 2020=2, 2022=4, 2025=8, etc)
I wonder how that will play out?

[Rocket Science]

To the naysayers on this thread I ask one simple question... What are the alternatives?

[RyanC]

This is a very new paradigm. This makes the potential to at least survey for resources on Mars or the Moon for significantly less than than the costs of a communications satellite until recently.  This doesn't make exploitation affordable yet, but at least some resource companies with vision (say like BHP Billiton who in the 90's poured $1.5B into setting up a diamond mine a degree or so south of the arctic circle in Canada's Northwest Territories) would probably risk a quarter of a billion to stake out Lunar resources at the poles

Doesn't have to be private investors. Could be a country deciding to have a space program by contracting a lot of things out to SpX, in much the same vein of starting a National Airline for prestige reasons.

[rayleighscatter]

To the naysayers on this thread I ask one simple question... What are the alternatives?

No government funding of space.

If NASA is just to be a pass through for federal money then this has to be accepted as a legitimate alternative.

[stoker5432]

Or when you're not as worried about contaminating the site with rocket fire, which was why the Skycrane doesn't touchdown at the same spot as the rover.

Source please. I've never seen this as a reason that the sky crane concept was used.

[Bob Shaw]

Or when you're not as worried about contaminating the site with rocket fire, which was why the Skycrane doesn't touchdown at the same spot as the rover.

Source please. I've never seen this as a reason that the sky crane concept was used.

There were certainly concerns about rocket exhaust in the days of Viking, but it was a life-detecting mission as opposed to geology-led. There hasn't been a biology mission since then, so the issue is somewhat moot.

It was my understanding that the *big* benefit of Skycrane was that there were no issues with getting a large rover off of the required rocketry and onto the surface. Compared to the unknowns involved in that operation, being lowered on bits of knotted string below a hovering jet-pack seemed somehow less risky. In fact, it all worked perfectly.

The sort of biology experiments which RD seems ideal for are those which involve drilling and quite large forms of assay equipment, and the obvious target for such would be near to a subsurface ice/ground interface, perhaps a couple of metres down. Looking at the plumes from the SuperDracos it wouldn't surprise me if the area around the Dragon was chewed up, but I doubt if the area directly below the spacecraft would be - and that's where the 'classic' RD proposal would have been drilling.

[Bob Shaw]

I don't know if it's a "game changer" ... only find that out after the fact.

Certainly, it may *not* be a game changer. It *could* all fizzle and die.

What we can say with absolute certainty, however, is that it is *intended* to be a game changer, and as such is certainly a game-changing gambit, proposal, project, plan or whatever. 'Game changer' is certainly the phrase which suits this particular plan!

Remember, too, that unlike all the visionary proposals for Mars flybys and colonies of recent times, in this case we're talking about basic hardware which is practically built, paid-for and delivered.  No other 'vision' has gone beyond CGI and handwaving - Dragon 2 exists and will soon go to the ISS, F9H is also about to fly, and SpaceX has already repeatedly demonstrated the ability to land vehicles under rocket power.

This is not PowerPoint, but cut metal - and is a dream so close to Elon Musk's heart that he will move mountains to bring it to fruition.

What's not to like?

[Rocket Science]

To the naysayers on this thread I ask one simple question... What are the alternatives?

No government funding of space.

If NASA is just to be a pass through for federal money then this has to be accepted as a legitimate alternative.

So then what is the alternative to the SpaceX way of doing things is the question? (My original question was pretty much a rhetorical one).

[Lar]

To the naysayers on this thread I ask one simple question... What are the alternatives?

No government funding of space.

If NASA is just to be a pass through for federal money then this has to be accepted as a legitimate alternative.

So then what is the alternative to the SpaceX way of doing things is the question? (My original question was pretty much a rhetorical one).

What we have now? Custom missions at great cost, humans perpetually 20 years out...

[nadreck]

This is a very new paradigm. This makes the potential to at least survey for resources on Mars or the Moon for significantly less than than the costs of a communications satellite until recently.  This doesn't make exploitation affordable yet, but at least some resource companies with vision (say like BHP Billiton who in the 90's poured $1.5B into setting up a diamond mine a degree or so south of the arctic circle in Canada's Northwest Territories) would probably risk a quarter of a billion to stake out Lunar resources at the poles

Doesn't have to be private investors. Could be a country deciding to have a space program by contracting a lot of things out to SpX, in much the same vein of starting a National Airline for prestige reasons.

In the same post I wrote: "Their clients might be academia, multinational corporations, governments and even NGOs."

[Oli]

What we have now? Custom missions at great cost, humans perpetually 20 years out...

Science missions will remain custom, since that is what scientists demand. InSight and Mars 2020 are expensive missions despite using proven landing and even rover platforms.

[Lar]

What we have now? Custom missions at great cost, humans perpetually 20 years out...

Science missions will remain custom, since that is what scientists demand. InSight and Mars 2020 are expensive missions despite using proven landing and even rover platforms.

This misses the point.  The missions themselves will remain custom but the delivery mechanism to get the science to where it can be carried out will become more off the shelf. Instead of just the launcher being used with a custom lander, it'll be launcher and lander with only the payload custom. The launcher and lander will be adapted rather than the lander being a bespoke design and build each time.

[Oli]

The launcher and lander will be adapted rather than the lander being a bespoke design and build each time.

Already being done as we speak.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Science missions will remain custom, since that is what scientists demand. InSight and Mars 2020 are expensive missions despite using proven landing and even rover platforms.

I agree customisation of the science payload and the landing site for the mission is vital. However, even that customisation process can be cheapened dramatically.

Imagine if rovers were assembled like commercial satellite busses.

Edit: Yes, to a -extremely limited- extent they already are, but the design and construction of the rovers themselves could be commercialised further. There's always room to reduce cost without sacrificing capability. If we don't find it, it's because we're not looking hard enough.

[nadreck]

What we have now? Custom missions at great cost, humans perpetually 20 years out...

Science missions will remain custom, since that is what scientists demand. InSight and Mars 2020 are expensive missions despite using proven landing and even rover platforms.

Actually science (for example planetology) requires fairly repeatable measurements/observations at different locations. Scientists have been satisfied constrained with being told that if you want X you have to work towards just X with today's technology for the next 5 to 10 years to have a chance of your measurements/observations taking place on Mars. Yes each mission has been pretty custom so far, but each 'team' of scientists only gets to upgrade the observation tech every few years to something they know will be 3 to 5 years obsolete by the time it is deployed.   Real science could take place hand in hand with developing an inventory of information useful to settlement and ISRU needs. We might actually begin to get a picture of the last billion or two years in the planetary history of Mars. Of coure the really interesting times are probably 4 billion years ago and that will take drilling to the bottom of glaciers and/or through thousands of meters of bed rock which will probably take until there are humans there.

[Space Ghost 1962]

To the naysayers on this thread I ask one simple question... What are the alternatives?

No government funding of space.

If NASA is just to be a pass through for federal money then this has to be accepted as a legitimate alternative.

So then what is the alternative to the SpaceX way of doing things is the question? (My original question was pretty much a rhetorical one).

What we have now? Custom missions at great cost, humans perpetually 20 years out...

Its not RD/FH/science/colony Musk is directly, immediately after. Its the above dilemma. Here's how your change things:

A. Shuttle was intended to lead to lower cost  to space, higher flight frequency - it didn't. So what if  private industry creates a means to do so, that doesn't go away, but instead constantly consumes global market share patiently. Doesn't have to do anything more than that. Now he's taken away BA/LMT's "small but essential" launch sliver of giant SC market that controls it.

B.  The biggest SC domestic revenue source is comm. Do a deal to grab 90% of future revenues of comm with the intended new owner of all comm through a constellation of sats that you refresh as the tech evolves and turns your way. Now he makes the most revenue off SC long term.

C. HSF and exploration side consume billions through few missions that occasionally fly. He positions vehicles/services to be the leader in EDL/delivery for those missions.  Now if you have a science/exploration budget, use of those services in some capacity becomes the way you suggest funding your mission first.

With these he's disintermediated traditional space from the "big toys first, science/exploration maybe later".

It becomes "science/exploration first". Traditional space plays more of a role in difficult "one offs", which is how they currently view all missions. This is as it should be.

"Pork" still flows but differently.  Please tell me "how". Does govt back away? Wouldn't they do so anyways?

And this is truly the immediate point of the exercise here. Musk is trying to change the "game".

[Lar]

Yes. Musk is trying to change the game. And might. But contrast this with Blackstar's view, that this is all stuff and nonsense and the current way of doing things is 100% right.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40188.msg1526901#msg1526901

even suggesting 1% attention to whatifs is amazing peopleism...

[nadreck]

If there were no other considerations except efficiently getting the results you want from space then if you consider that there is a 25% probability of the capabilities that SpaceX is promising and a 50% chance of a split between current capabilities and those advertised then it makes sense to put as much attention to it as you do to the current systems. Ie plan half the new endeavours on it for now and take advantage of the cost savings to make it a 33% increase in total new endeavours than if you didn't have this capability to plan for.

[joek]

If there were no other considerations except efficiently getting the results you want from space then if you consider that there is a 25% probability of the capabilities that SpaceX is promising and a 50% chance of a split between current capabilities and those advertised then it makes sense to put as much attention to it as you do to the current systems. Ie plan half the new endeavours on it for now and take advantage of the cost savings to make it a 33% increase in total new endeavours than if you didn't have this capability to plan for.

Assuming you have the budget and mission spread to place several bets.  NASA's Mars exploration plans do not fit that model.  Whether they should is another discussion--and certainly premature from the perspective of any existing and near-future programs until there is a credible capability.

[Rocket Science]

If there is a potential to reduce the cost of science with this new paradigm and it allows us to do "more" science... Great!

[Space Ghost 1962]

If there were no other considerations except efficiently getting the results you want from space then if you consider that there is a 25% probability of the capabilities that SpaceX is promising and a 50% chance of a split between current capabilities and those advertised then it makes sense to put as much attention to it as you do to the current systems. Ie plan half the new endeavours on it for now and take advantage of the cost savings to make it a 33% increase in total new endeavours than if you didn't have this capability to plan for.

Assuming you have the budget and mission spread to place several bets.  NASA's Mars exploration plans do not fit that model.  Whether they should is another discussion--and certainly premature from the perspective of any existing and near-future programs until there is a credible capability.

Suggest that there already is enough reason for "credible capability". Except for glacial govt synapse firing and decadal survey pessimism. Oh, and CYA budget padding. Or am I being a bit on the harsh side here?

There are tools. One is paid to examine all the tools and how they can be used. Perhaps they don't work the same, but it's likely that they work and are useful for said purpose. Not everything needs to be hyper customized optimized to function.

[joek]

Suggest that there already is enough reason for "credible capability". Except for glacial govt synapse firing and decadal survey pessimism. Oh, and CYA budget padding. Or am I being a bit on the harsh side here?

Don't see that... Imagine yourself in front of a Congressional Committee...
- We're betting on Elon Musk and SpaceX for the success of X% of our Mars missions...
- And your basis for making that bet?
- We just believe because he said...
Fat chance.

While there may be many in these forums who would make that statement (and have zero career investment in the outcome), I doubt there are few (if any) at NASA.  Nothing is going to change until well after SpaceX proves this capability.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The SAA places RD in the category of COTS Commercial Cargo ("Resupply Service") to Mars (CRSM). RD would become a cargo provider for standardized form and fit "experiment packages" for delivery to Mars surface in the same manner that the same is being done for delivery of "cargo" to the ISS. First comes CRSM then later Commercial Crew to Mars (CCM).

So is RD an attempt at creating a standardized cargo service to the surface of Mars? My answer to that is yes. Which means the next step is commercial crew to Mars.

NASA is fond of the multiple provider. So how would they get another provider to develop a similar capability to RD? And then to a Commercial Crew to Mars?

This begs that there would be a possible Mars Base and most likely also a Lunar base serviced by multiple CRSM/CCM and CRSL/CCL providers by as early as 2030. This is a very different picture than the current somewhere in the future for both a Lunar and Mars Base.

[nadreck]

If there were no other considerations except efficiently getting the results you want from space then if you consider that there is a 25% probability of the capabilities that SpaceX is promising and a 50% chance of a split between current capabilities and those advertised then it makes sense to put as much attention to it as you do to the current systems. Ie plan half the new endeavours on it for now and take advantage of the cost savings to make it a 33% increase in total new endeavours than if you didn't have this capability to plan for.

Assuming you have the budget and mission spread to place several bets.  NASA's Mars exploration plans do not fit that model.  Whether they should is another discussion--and certainly premature from the perspective of any existing and near-future programs until there is a credible capability.

If you tell me there are not going to be any new missions planned from here, then that budget and mission spread comment is correct, but presuming that there will be new missions planned then they can be planned with the potential in mind. If there were only the budget for a single mission of the old paradigm (ever) then maybe you have described how an organization weighed down by seriously conservative elements might decide, however what if there were only the budget for a single mission under the new paradigm?  Reality is that there will be several more missions planned BEO and some should be budgeted and planned using the newer, more economical capacity.

Thankfully SpaceX has pushed it a step forward and the 2018 mission has NASA instruments on a mission of opportunity that they were presented with.

[joek]

The SAA places RD in the category of COTS Commercial Cargo ("Resupply Service") to Mars (CRSM). RD would become a cargo provider for standardized form and fit "experiment packages" for delivery to Mars surface in the same manner that the same is being done for delivery of "cargo" to the ISS. First comes CRSM then later Commercial Crew to Mars (CCM).
...

Absolutely not.  This SAA in no way comes close to anything similar to COTS or CRS.  In a few years... maybe.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Suggest that there already is enough reason for "credible capability". Except for glacial govt synapse firing and decadal survey pessimism. Oh, and CYA budget padding. Or am I being a bit on the harsh side here?

Don't see that... Imagine yourself in front of a Congressional Committee...
- We're betting on Elon Musk and SpaceX for the success of X% of our Mars missions...
- And your basis for making that bet?
- We just believe because he said...
Fat chance.

Have been in front of members of Congress. Here's what I'd say:

We have enormous cost and program risk, but its the nature of this mission and it's at the top of our list for X good reasons that we've been telling you for years.

So to double our chances of bringing it off, we want a 15% budget increase to handle two unrelated means to do the same thing. One is ironclad but costly, the other is novel/less proven but economical. If we do one we'll always stay costly, if we do two we'll get a better deal long term, grow American technology base, and have two chances to get it right. Oh, and you have some public/private cost pairing too here.

So Congressman, how much do you want your NASA money to work for you? 1x, or 4x? All the same to me.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Don't see that... Imagine yourself in front of a Congressional Committee...
- We're betting on Elon Musk and SpaceX for the success of X% of our Mars missions...
- And your basis for making that bet?
- We just believe because he said...
Fat chance.

Same for SLS and ATK, etc. Worse actually because the SLS has not flown once.

[joek]

If you tell me there are not going to be any new missions planned from here, then that budget and mission spread comment is correct, ...

Look at the MEP plans and tell me which new missions may benefit?  I don't see much beyond MSR, which for the most part is baked.  Again, don't see this having much effect on any planned missions.

[joek]

Have been in front of members of Congress. Here's what I'd say:

We have enormous cost and program risk, but its the nature of this mission and it's at the top of our list for X good reasons that we've been telling you for years.

So to double our chances of bringing it off, we want a 15% budget increase to handle two unrelated means to do the same thing. One is ironclad but costly, the other is novel/less proven but economical. If we do one we'll always stay costly, if we do two we'll get a better deal long term, grow American technology base, and have two chances to get it right. Oh, and you have some public/private cost pairing too here.

So Congressman, how much do you want your NASA money to work for you? 1x, or 4x? All the same to me.

And the criticality of ensuring a Mars mission success is what, for whom?  I don't see Congress going for it.  If this were a National Defense issue, maybe; for science, no.  They're going to do what they have always done.

[nadreck]

If you tell me there are not going to be any new missions planned from here, then that budget and mission spread comment is correct, ...

Look at the MEP plans and tell me which new missions may benefit?  I don't see much beyond MSR, which for the most part is baked.  Again, don't see this having much effect on any planned missions.

You really don't think they will add new missions post the current ones? Then they really aren't serious about deep space. I would expect over the next 5 years that NASA will announce at least 5 new BEO robotic missions.

And the criticality of ensuring a Mars mission success is what, for whom?  I don't see Congress going for it.  If this were a National Defense issue, maybe; for science, no.  They're going to do what they have always done.

Then if it doesn't matter then go before congress and say hey we can give you our profound critical engineering assessment that going with the cheaper provider only adds a 25% risk of failure but a 75% chance that costs will be reduced by more than 25%.

[Bob Shaw]

Yes. Musk is trying to change the game. And might. But contrast this with Blackstar's view, that this is all stuff and nonsense and the current way of doing things is 100% right.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40188.msg1526901#msg1526901

even suggesting 1% attention to whatifs is amazing peopleism...

I have a lot of respect for Blackstar, but I think you're both missing the point. He's committed to the MEPAG route, which is tried, tested and very, very sane. Elon Musk's RD effort is bold, and very personal. There's actually no crossover, though I doubt if Musk would consider running roughshod over the planetary protection crew quite yet - he'll be a good player for a while...

[Space Ghost 1962]

Have been in front of members of Congress. Here's what I'd say:

We have enormous cost and program risk, but its the nature of this mission and it's at the top of our list for X good reasons that we've been telling you for years.

So to double our chances of bringing it off, we want a 15% budget increase to handle two unrelated means to do the same thing. One is ironclad but costly, the other is novel/less proven but economical. If we do one we'll always stay costly, if we do two we'll get a better deal long term, grow American technology base, and have two chances to get it right. Oh, and you have some public/private cost pairing too here.

So Congressman, how much do you want your NASA money to work for you? 1x, or 4x? All the same to me.

And the criticality of ensuring a Mars mission success is what, for whom?

That one's an easy softball. To prevent anohter JWST debacle, where it goes long in schedule/budget/cost, and you still *have to do it* because its the next thing on the agenda. Duh.

I don't see Congress going for it.  If this were a National Defense issue, maybe; for science, no.

Perhaps, but likely because its not in their district/state . That's a whole different matter. I trust you did not expect I'd have an entire presentation to congress in a single post?

They're going to do what they have always done.

Might. Now, look at it as answering my post with "1x". Then MSR goes overbudget, slips to another opposition, and someone has a painful time explaining why they didn't CYA on a fallback. Not going to do the matrix of possibilities here, don't have the time/patience/space and you know it anyways.

But grant me I did answer your challenge in the affirmative, correct?

[joek]

You really don't think they will add new missions post the current ones? Then they really aren't serious about deep space. I would expect over the next 5 years that NASA will announce at least 5 new BEO robotic missions.

Sure, more BEO robotic missions, but not 5 to Mars--which are the ones which would benefit from this SpaceX effort.  Or do you intend to expand the discussion to the entire solar system?

Then if it doesn't matter then go before congress and say hey we can give you our profound critical engineering assessment that going with the cheaper provider only adds a 25% risk of failure but a 75% chance that costs will be reduced by more than 25%.

You willing to do that today?  Or find anyone at NASA willing to do so?  Good luck.  And where do you get the "25% risk of failure but a 75% chance that costs will be reduced by 25%."

edit: remove snarky "pulling nunbers..."

[Bob Shaw]

Suggest that there already is enough reason for "credible capability". Except for glacial govt synapse firing and decadal survey pessimism. Oh, and CYA budget padding. Or am I being a bit on the harsh side here?

Don't see that... Imagine yourself in front of a Congressional Committee...
- We're betting on Elon Musk and SpaceX for the success of X% of our Mars missions...
- And your basis for making that bet?
- We just believe because he said...
Fat chance.

While there may be many in these forums who would make that statement (and have zero career investment in the outcome), I doubt there are few (if any) at NASA.  Nothing is going to change until well after SpaceX proves this capability.

They're already cutting metal that will fly. That's the difference - SLS is simply cutting metal to build the jigs.

[nadreck]

You really don't think they will add new missions post the current ones? Then they really aren't serious about deep space. I would expect over the next 5 years that NASA will announce at least 5 new BEO robotic missions.

Sure, more BEO robotic missions, but not 5 to Mars--which are the ones which would benefit from this SpaceX effort.  Or do you intend to expand the discussion to the entire solar system?

I am speaking beyond just Mars as what we are discussing here is a product that was just advertised in the same PR that announced the 2018 mission to Mars (and previously) as applying to any body in the Solar system.  The titled of this thread is in no way constrained to Mars, there were other threads for that. This thread is broad for all of commercial space flight and suggests the BEO missions can now be commercial.

Then if it doesn't matter then go before congress and say hey we can give you our profound critical engineering assessment that going with the cheaper provider only adds a 25% risk of failure but a 75% chance that costs will be reduced by more than 25%.

You willing to do that today?  Or find anyone at NASA willing to do so?  Good luck.  And where do you get the "25% risk of failure but a 75% chance that costs will be reduced by 25%."

PLEASE edit your post to remove the rhetoric I did not quote it is what doesn't belong here. Gracias

I don't have a ring so I do not have a qualified engineering assessment to offer. However NASA has many. NASA opinions and attitudes are not homogeneous. Given the ability for the media to quote a NASA person on record with almost any opinion about any topic I think it is likely that there are more people than you imagine at NASA willing to stake their futures on that sort of pronouncement.

I did not make those numbers up from some vague idea of what the engineering study might reveal, they were an example of an argument that, if it were backed up by engineering work, would be persuasive to Congress.

[Coastal Ron]

If a country or company came to SpaceX and offered to pay for a trip to Mars, what do you think SpaceX would do?  I think they would take the money and say "When do you want to go?"

That's the thing - who's just got all this cash lying around to throw at SpaceX to buy a trip to Mars? I thought countries do these things to show off their own accomplishments for national prestige. How are you going to summon up national pride just for having written a big fat cheque, as opposed to having done it yourself? That's like hiring athletes from other countries to represent you at the Olympics. What bragging rights do you get?

This is a good question, since it really does get to the heart of why we do anything in space.

Apollo was done for political reasons, not for human space exploration, and political reasons are valid.  But political reasons are likely not sustainable, and as of today there is no political reason to expand humanity out into space.

But Musk is going to Mars because he believes that humanity should be multi-planetary, and it's safe to say that a majority of the SpaceX employees agree with that goal.  But are they the only ones in the world that have that goal?

Of course the answer to that is no, but those who do support it likely are a minority of all of humanity.  Still, maybe it's enough to convince those that have plenty of money (rich individuals, companies, countries) that it is a goal worth supporting.  Why?  They may all have their own reasons, so I don't think there will be just one.

And since those that want to go don't really care how they get there, I don't think anyone would really care that SpaceX (a private company) is the transportation provider.  NASA doesn't seem to care about not being the lead for this Red Dragon mission.

I think it would be cool if Google were to sponsor a mission to Mars.

They already are, since they invested $900M in SpaceX last year.

Amazon is already sponsoring Blue Origin, in a sense.

I wouldn't characterize it that way, since Amazon shareholders get no benefit from the 100% Bezos-owned Blue Origin.

If Google goes with SpaceX, then Apple will be under pressure to pair up with someone - Orbital ATK? Heh, and Microsoft can eventually join the party by tying with Stratolaunch.

These are exciting times, and they only look to get more exciting, so who knows what will happen.  But personally I think in the not too distant future we will see others joining Musk in his Mars quest.  But I'm not saying what that timescale is...   

[Space Ghost 1962]

Suggest that you are listening to the terror of displeasing the stakeholders of planetary science missions in some fashion.

Just like the terror of displacing NSS stakeholders - no difference.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Wow, incredible.

This malaise of people grumbling at each other is only occuring on a fan site, with an even mix of professional industry insiders from just about everywhere and anywhere, spaceflight advocates, politicians, journalists, engineers, scientists, engineering students, a few gazillion dip-in fans and procrastinatory almost-millennials like myself. If Red Dragon has rocked the boat this hard on a forum, I can only imagine what it's done in-industry.

The fact that this event is this disruptive to the harmony of this forum makes me wonder what exactly Red Dragon is doing inside JPL. Extrapolate by several orders of magnitude.


One thing's for sure; this level of disruption is extremely healthy. Everyone is having their opinions challenged and is having to rush to substantiate them. Preconceived truths are being questioned.  Preconceived interests are being redefined.

Whilst the form of this particular disruption - the rise of commercial newspace - is unprecedented, disruption within spaceflight itself is not new. The need for long range artillery weapons in the 1940s and 1950s revolutionised spaceflight. The satellite race revolutionised spaceflight. Early manned missions, spacewalks and docking all revolutionised spaceflight. Planetary science missions and autonomous landers revolutionised spaceflight. The Moon landings revolutionised spaceflight. Apollo-Soyuz, space stations revolutionised spaceflight. Rovers revolutionised spaceflight. The Space Shuttle revolutionised space flight, even if it didn't provide the cost savings it was never optimised for. Space telescopes, ion thrusters, probes to the gas Giants, increasingly larger payloads and rovers landed on Mars, the climbing success rate of spaceflight in general, the ISS; one of the most audacious structures ever built by human kind, space tourists, Space Ship One and yes, SpaceX, Blue, Masten, Altius, Rocketlab, Reaction Engines Limited, SSC, Bigelow and the enormous series of others who are attempting to provide some kind of service in the spaceflight world that would have previously been the purview of many-decadal aerospace monopolies or governmental agencies. Space is always changing. Denying the fact that it changes is a denial of reality.

So whatever our respective views of the future are - we should accept they're all equally valid (with some deference to the insiders of course). It's likely not going to go exactly as we predict anyway! 

[joek]

... The fact that this event is this disruptive to the harmony of this forum makes me wonder what exactly Red Dragon is doing inside JPL. ...

Generally agree with your sentiments... but who says this is "inside JPL"?

[Space Ghost 1962]

Wow, incredible.

This malaise of people grumbling at each other is only occuring on a fan site, with an even mix of professional industry insiders from just about everywhere and anywhere, spaceflight advocates, politicians, journalists, engineers, scientists, engineering students, a few gazillion dip-in fans and procrastinatory almost-millennials like myself. If Red Dragon has rocked the boat this hard on a forum, I can only imagine what it's done in-industry.

It's an annoyance in industry, as well as all the other newbies on the field.

It scares the mission planners/middle managers because you don't know if it helps/hurts/curses your mission to bring it up in the first place. Many are used to getting shot at and have no stomach for it. While some have gotten that bullet and still trudge on.

The fact that this event is this disruptive to the harmony of this forum makes me wonder what exactly Red Dragon is doing inside JPL. Extrapolate by several orders of magnitude.

Note that RD work has long been done out of Ames, not JPL! Also, there's a lot of "inside baseball" between centers/providers/vendors we can't/don't talk about. So there's a lot of "bad mouthing" that passes for informed opinion that IMHO goes too far, and what's behind it is the fight for who gets what mission and keeps alive N grad students etc.

Never have the stakes been so low.

One thing's for sure; this level of disruption is extremely healthy. Everyone is having their opinions challenged and is having to rush to substantiate them. Preconceived truths are being questioned.  Preconceived interests are being redefined.

Which some might rightly fear, could pull the funding rug out from under various mooted missions. Do not discard that lightly, its very real.

For many here what does not change is the "zero sum game". If I'm funded then you're not.

[Lar]

For many here what does not change is the "zero sum game". If I'm funded then you're not.

It's sad that people can't see that if the alternative is low enough, both missions could get funded.  bigger pie is there if they want it.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Generally agree with your sentiments... but who says this is "inside JPL"?

I have no idea, thus making assumptions. JPL as far as I can tell has been highly supportive. However, mars landers is usually something JPL handles so it's somewhat trend bucking.

Edit: Nope, I'm being a wingnut. Ignore.

Note that RD work has long been done out of Ames, not JPL!

Edit edit: No, I'm not being a wingnut apparently. I'm referring to landed payloads not the process of landing payloads, although I can imagine it's impactful at Ames as well. This is impactful from a mission operations perspective along with an RD perspective, thus JPL's namedrop.

Edit edit edit: This has the obvious potential of impacting Mars orbiters as well, if SpaceX does end up producing their own supporting orbiters in the 2020s/adapts lessons learnt from their own sat program/goes ahead with dragon lab.

[Bob Shaw]

Guys, the world has changed with RD 2018; the prior lobbying groups are in the same space as buggy-whip manufacturers when Henry Ford introduced the Model T. OK, it isn't as simple as that - but, the old rules are no longer quite so important. Try to adapt to the new reality.

Oh, and guess what? Some of your academic competitors have *already* adapted, and are working toward getting their payloads onto the surface of Mars...

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Guys, the world has changed with RD 2018; the prior lobbying groups are in the same space as buggy-whip manufacturers when Henry Ford introduced the Model T. OK, it isn't as simple as that - but, the old rules are no longer quite so important. Try to adapt to the new reality.

I'm not sure if I agree with you although I can see where you're coming from. The old rules have not yet changed nor has it been proven yet that they will be replaced. There's a potential for transformation, but it hasn't occurred yet. 2018 Won't result in such a transformation either, it merely anticipates one.

The NASA way of doing things is indespensible. NASA is great at space operations, it's just about making the physical spacecraft cost less. SpaceX is a subcontractor after all.

[Cherokee43v6]

First off, for the naysayers, I'll admit that I am a SpaceX fan.  Why?  Because not only are they trying to do things differently, but so far they are succeeding at doing so.

Okay, so they have a problem with hitting the target dates they announce.  The important thing is that they keep plugging away until they do succeed at what they are attempting.

What interest me most about this is what proving the capability would enable.

1st, Red Dragon would not be reusable, thus a regular series of Red Dragon(RDs) launches would ensure continuance of Dragon2 production once initial market saturation is reached.  (If D2s are reusable for 10 flights, then initially they won't need more than 3 or 4 at most.)

2nd, Inexpensive (relative) flights to Mars enable more flights for the same buck.  This means that more science gets done in more areas.  This would lead to the identification of a base site for the stated colonization goal and the landing of multiple RDs at said site for proper resource characterization.

3rd, at 2 tons cargo to Mars surface, far more than just science packages can be carried.  2 tons moves into the realm of light construction equipment, which means that missions can then be tailored to site and base prep for Elon's colonization goal.  (BTW, How much does a Tesla Model X weigh? And then there is the Tesla Autopilot. Isn't Tesla working on a robotic recharging station?  Hmmm... And how about a self deploying set of Solar City Cells to charge the BatteryPack for said robotic station...  I'm seeing two RD flights here... and a massive marketing opportunity.)

4th, 2 tons is a significant volume of supplies that can be pre-positioned for a base camp.  While Falcon Heavy launched RDs may not be the choice for human travel to Mars, I can certainly see them serving in a significant 'sustainer role'.

[Space Ghost 1962]

For many here what does not change is the "zero sum game". If I'm funded then you're not.

It's sad that people can't see that if the alternative is low enough, both missions could get funded.  bigger pie is there if they want it.

What's sad is trying to secure enough budget for researchers to get their grad students and post docs through to be able to stay in the field and not here the siren song of doing an Internet start-up. Planetary science budgets have not been done much good by JWST and Insight launch delays and budget overruns. A healthy planetary science side is one with increasing missions on the manifest.

What RD means is to unlock some of the public funds, match them with private funds, and increase science missions. Which is why one needs to be critical of joek's remarks as they bespeak a certain narrowness that means to me graduate students flipping burgers and post docs waiting tables. He might not care but I sure do.

I *need* those scientists figuring out how planets work.

[sanman]

It's an annoyance in industry, as well as all the other newbies on the field.

It scares the mission planners/middle managers because you don't know if it helps/hurts/curses your mission to bring it up in the first place. Many are used to getting shot at and have no stomach for it. While some have gotten that bullet and still trudge on.

The fact that this event is this disruptive to the harmony of this forum makes me wonder what exactly Red Dragon is doing inside JPL. Extrapolate by several orders of magnitude.

Note that RD work has long been done out of Ames, not JPL! Also, there's a lot of "inside baseball" between centers/providers/vendors we can't/don't talk about. So there's a lot of "bad mouthing" that passes for informed opinion that IMHO goes too far, and what's behind it is the fight for who gets what mission and keeps alive N grad students etc.

Never have the stakes been so low.

Which some might rightly fear, could pull the funding rug out from under various mooted missions. Do not discard that lightly, its very real.

For many here what does not change is the "zero sum game". If I'm funded then you're not.

Hmm, so that's something interesting that I'd never considered before in regards to SpaceX and Red Dragon. NASA is not a monolithic entity, and there are different centers and different mission groups in contention with each other for funding and support to gain approval for their missions to go ahead.

So SpaceX comes along and can now tilt the balance on that playing field. Does your NASA center or mission have a "SpaceX strategy"? If you don't, you might fall behind in the contest, and get shut out.

Will all NASA centers and mission groups now each be trying to come up with a "SpaceX angle" to make their stuff happen? Could re-writing your mission proposal to take advantage of SpaceX capabilities now be the key to jumping ahead in the queue, or even holding your place in line?

Will more and more NASA development be done in connection with interoperating with SpaceX hardware?

It seems to me that the emergence of SpaceX capabilities on the scene is a great benefit to NASA program managers, because SpaceX is offering the opportunity of more-bang-for-buck, and the chance for them to fly when it might otherwise be denied.

[jtrame]

Suggest that there already is enough reason for "credible capability". Except for glacial govt synapse firing and decadal survey pessimism. Oh, and CYA budget padding. Or am I being a bit on the harsh side here?

Don't see that... Imagine yourself in front of a Congressional Committee...
- We're betting on Elon Musk and SpaceX for the success of X% of our Mars missions...
- And your basis for making that bet?
- We just believe because he said...
Fat chance.

While there may be many in these forums who would make that statement (and have zero career investment in the outcome), I doubt there are few (if any) at NASA.  Nothing is going to change until well after SpaceX proves this capability.

They're already cutting metal that will fly. That's the difference - SLS is simply cutting metal to build the jigs.

You may want to update your information.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/welding-wonder-completes-hardware-for-first-flight-of-SLS-rocket

Also, SRB segments for first flight being cast.  This is more than paper rockets and jigs at this point on the timeline.

[A_M_Swallow]

Hmm, so that's something interesting that I'd never considered before in regards to SpaceX and Red Dragon. NASA is not a monolithic entity, and there are different centers and different mission groups in contention with each other for funding and support to gain approval for their missions to go ahead.

So SpaceX comes along and can now tilt the balance on that playing field. Does your NASA center or mission have a "SpaceX strategy"? If you don't, you might fall behind in the contest, and get shut out.

Will all NASA centers and mission groups now each be trying to come up with a "SpaceX angle" to make their stuff happen? Could re-writing your mission proposal to take advantage of SpaceX capabilities now be the key to jumping ahead in the queue, or even holding your place in line?

Will more and more NASA development be done in connection with interoperating with SpaceX hardware?

It seems to me that the emergence of SpaceX capabilities on the scene is a great benefit to NASA program managers, because SpaceX is offering the opportunity of more-bang-for-buck, and the chance for them to fly when it might otherwise be denied.

It is not just SpaceX that requires a new strategy but the entire commercial crew and cargo industry. Not only does SpaceX have rivals but new companies selling new goods and services are being created. The centre can now buy things that previously it would have had to spend time developing itself.

The other strategy changer is tiny satellites like cubesats. Instead of having to procure a $70 million launch vehicle, which requires Congressional approval, the entire project can be built and launched for a couple of million dollars. 'Small' projects can be approved by NASA's Administrator. (He can negotiate a general budget with Congress.)

[JasonAW3]

I'll put it simply;

     We've all heard such terms as "game changer", "paradigm Shift" etc, bandied about with little regards for reality.

     Yes, what has been done is VERY exciting.  And yes, this does have the potential to significantly change the costs for both space flights and missions significantly and for the better.

      But what seems to escape everybody's attention is, that these incremental improvements that we are seeing,(and yes, they ARE incremental) could have and in fact SHOULD have been not only possible, but implemented DECADES ago.  Steps such as the Space Shuttle, the DC-X, and even the Plug Nozzle, (which was first tested nearly half a century ago) were tested and discarded when they failed to live up to the hype that had been placed upon them.

     I am NOT disregarding the facts that many technological and materials advancements were needed to get to this point, nor am I ignoring the fact that MANY more such advancements will be needed to further developed before the costs and procedures are brought down to a level of both economical and technical affordability, but had funds been locked in at a level of the same as percentage of the national budget as was available during the Apollo Program, then I have no doubt that not only would we have bases on the moon, colonies on Mars, and manned missions to asteroids and the comets, but we'd also have a robust economy from both Space as well as a series of mostly to fully reusable space craft of a wide variety of designs.

     While I applaud both Elon Musk and SpaceX, Blue Origin and all the other New Space companies that stand to create vast changes in how we get to space, I think that we should temper this with the realization that these advances are decades overdue, and were held back, not only by the lack of technology, but both the political and corporate interests that stood to lose their substantial economic wind fall they received for each 200+ million dollar rocket, that lofted between 2% to 5% of their total launch mass into space, while simply disposing of the other 80% to 90% their mass into the sea with no possibility of recovery.

     We've KNOWN reusable space craft were possible as far back as the X-15 space plane, yet this was a technology never pursued.

     Again, I'm glad to see this finally coming about, but I find myself infuriated that more progress wasn't made sooner, when we KNEW it was possible.  (Heck, there were even design concepts for reusable stages for the Saturn V rocket!)

     Sorry for the rant, but I think that this is something that has been a long time coming.  An entirely TOO long a time in coming!

[Oli]

I think that we should temper this with the realization that these advances are decades overdue, and were held back, not only by the lack of technology, but both the political and corporate interests that stood to lose their substantial economic wind fall

They "held back" because they did not think that they could grow the market. Revenue loss and job cuts are usually not the things companies are very keen to do. To date there's no indication that the launch market will grow.

We've KNOWN reusable space craft were possible as far back as the X-15 space plane, yet this was a technology never pursued.

So you just erased the Shuttle from the history books because it doesn't suit your agenda. Great.

[ncb1397]

How is it untethered to government control? If the government cancels commercial crew, doesn't allow free access to the DSN and stops being SpaceX's number 1 customer, Red Dragon is probably not happening. If the ISS market doesn't support dragon production for cargo and crew launches, then the capability of SpaceX to support the continuation of the product line, including the Red Dragon variant, is questionable at best.

If the government cancels commercial crew, SpaceX will make Dragon 2 anyway, because it is part of their path to Mars, and it can be used for transport to future commercial space stations (Bigelow). Dragon lab is still on the manifest as well. Reduced demand for Dragons would probably up the per unit cost, but SpaceX still could fund occasional Dragon missions from its own profit.

Without free access to the DSN, SpaceX would pay for access, or build their own relays depending on how the cost works out.

SpaceX doesn't need NASA or the government in general as an anchor customer at this point. Take a look at the manifest for the rest of the year, out of 14 planned flights, there are 2 Dragon missions, the falcon heavy demo, 2 foreign government missions, and 9 commercial. The government is NOT SpaceX's number one customer anymore. (this doesn't mean that government contracts aren't lucrative, since gov't pays more to impose special requirements, which in turn means more profit, plus gov't will partially support development)

I am not saying that SpaceX losing all of its NASA support and government missions wouldn't slow down SpaceX's plans, but they would still be making plenty of profit which they would then reinvest into the Mars missions. (SpaceX's balance sheet has always been effectively 0, since they redirect any profit directly into R&D and capital, that plus being a private company makes it hard to tell how much they really net on a single launch, but they clearly get enough based on the amount of side projects they have)

SpaceX's 2.6 billion Commercial Crew contract is worth the equivalent of about 43 Falcon 9 commercial launches. At 12 commrcial launches per year, that is about 3.5 years worth of commercial business. On the cargo side, 1.8 billion for CRS 1 and at least .9 billion for half the flights(minimum per provider) in CRS 2. In total, SpaceX's ISS business(past and future) is equivalent to 88 Commercial Falcon 9 launches. On their official manifest on their website, they only have 44 flights listed. The majority of the cost of Red Dragon is being footed by the government on Commercial Crew development milestones.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX is paying for Red Dragon itself using revenue it generated from its business, which includes NASA, DoD, and commercial missions. It is most certainly NOT being paid for by NASA. Dragon was developed using funding from both SpaceX and NASA (skin in the game), with the idea that there are other customers for the capability besides NASA. In this case, the other customer is SpaceX themselves.

It's a huge distortion to say that NASA paid for Red Dragon.

[Space Ghost 1962]

I think that we should temper this with the realization that these advances are decades overdue, and were held back, not only by the lack of technology, but both the political and corporate interests that stood to lose their substantial economic wind fall

They "held back" because they did not think that they could grow the market. Revenue loss and job cuts are usually not the things companies are very keen to do. To date there's no indication that the launch market will grow.

Musk isn't holding back. There's a "forcing function" applied to the market. Likely to increase.

Revenue loss and job cuts are happening. Look at ULA. Look at certain european "contractions".

Neither govt nor industry appears to be putting $1 into increasing payloads. In fact, when asked SSL/MDA's VP of Sales, he said they actually would shrink. Although SES says the opposite, that they are in and expecting significant growth. They can't wait to refly a first stage and accelerate a stream of comsats to fill the void.

The "forcing function" is satellite market disruption. If it continues, certain players of govt/military/telecom will drop to near zero payloads.

Destruction. Some might say "creative destruction" but I wouldn't.

Into this created void may come opportunists, who may supply whatever "need" appears present, but they won't do it like before, and they won't make as much per payload as before. These payloads will be "feeling out the market".

Traditional source/supply will occasionally pulse out a payload or two, through narrowly bid deals. That will be the true market size - a fraction of before. Which will shrink. Some of those payloads will be displaced by surviving opportunists.

The pressure on both traditional and opportunists alike to grow the market to survive will be where we find out (around 2021) it the market can even return to its former size. So it will under perform, but because of lower launch costs, entry spacecraft will be at a fraction of the cost and amount to 30-50% of market. The biggest discounts will be on potentially HSF entry LEO offerings.

Govt will need to support launch providers for own needs, but at the same time be compelled to traditional programs that will "rocket up" in cost. With the disparity between "need" and costing, ways to leverage entry SC/launch oversupply will be the means budgets are made to work. These will "migrate" "need" off traditional SC platforms, and traditional goes away.

Either payloads have greatly increased by this point, or the industry backwaters into consolidation finding a new norm for SC/launch pricing not altogether different than before. In the "no growth" case, operations cost may fall to 1/5-1/10th of before, but it will retain the advantage of being more nimble than before.

In the case it grows, the application portion of the SC (sensors, transponders, etc) will be where all the value is, while the bus and launch costs will be a mere fraction.

Those who are in bus and launch have the hardest row to hoe. And those are the ones most bitter about this progression. They think they lose in any outcome that changes the norm. Perhaps they are right.

[sanman]

So you just erased the Shuttle from the history books because it doesn't suit your agenda. Great.

To be fair, the US Space Shuttle seemed to require much more refurbishment than vehicles like F9R are supposed to.

[ncb1397]

SpaceX is paying for Red Dragon itself using revenue it generated from its business, which includes NASA, DoD, and commercial missions. It is most certainly NOT being paid for by NASA. Dragon was developed using funding from both SpaceX and NASA (skin in the game), with the idea that there are other customers for the capability besides NASA. In this case, the other customer is SpaceX themselves.

It's a huge distortion to say that NASA paid for Red Dragon.

There is no requirement in CCtCap milestones for cost sharing on development milestones. If they go over their bid costs, they pay some of the development cost. If they go under, there is no cost sharing unless cost sharing was part of their bid, but there is no information that that is the case. Basically, that would mean that SpaceX bid for CCtCap at below cost even though there was no requirement for them to do so.

and straight from NASA:

Question: Since commercial companies are required to contribute financially to develop and operate their own systems transportation system, how much are commercial partners expected to contribute in cost sharing with NASA?

Answer: NASA is not going to dictate the amount of industry investment that should be provided. Each proposal will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cc_forum_questions.html

The only money that I can see and that is documented is the money going from NASA to SpaceX. SpaceX's internal contributions to the cost of Dragon V2 development is not documented but is presumed by some to be there.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

To be fair, the US Space Shuttle seemed to require much more refurbishment than vehicles like F9R are supposed to.

* Seem to, if the refiring data is to be believed. We're likely to get a stage reuse this year too.

[JasonAW3]

We've KNOWN reusable space craft were possible as far back as the X-15 space plane, yet this was a technology never pursued.

So you just erased the Shuttle from the history books because it doesn't suit your agenda. Great.

Nope; But it didn't come into play until long after the X-15.  And as a reusable craft, it seems that it may have actually cost MORE per launch than conventional space craft.

     The compromises that were needed just to get it flying, within both the budget, and time frame required, meant that later upgrades to compensate or eliminate some of the more costly and mission critical failure items, like the tiles and the carbon leading edges, could not be retrofitted in any meaningful or economic way.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX is paying for Red Dragon itself using revenue it generated from its business, which includes NASA, DoD, and commercial missions. It is most certainly NOT being paid for by NASA. Dragon was developed using funding from both SpaceX and NASA (skin in the game), with the idea that there are other customers for the capability besides NASA. In this case, the other customer is SpaceX themselves.

It's a huge distortion to say that NASA paid for Red Dragon.

There is no requirement in CCtCap milestones for cost sharing on development milestones. If they go over their bid costs, they pay some of the development cost. If they go under, there is no cost sharing unless cost sharing was part of their bid, but there is no information that that is the case. Basically, that would mean that SpaceX bid for CCtCap at below cost even though there was no requirement for them to do so.

and straight from NASA:

Question: Since commercial companies are required to contribute financially to develop and operate their own systems transportation system, how much are commercial partners expected to contribute in cost sharing with NASA?

Answer: NASA is not going to dictate the amount of industry investment that should be provided. Each proposal will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cc_forum_questions.html

The only money that I can see and that is documented is the money going from NASA to SpaceX. SpaceX's internal contributions to the cost of Dragon V2 development is not documented but is presumed by some to be there.

I specifically said Dragon. You inexplicably think I said "CCtCap," which I did not. For earlier parts of its development (such as COTS), there most certainly were explicit "skin in the game" requirements, now they're more implicit (i.e. You may be judged better if you contribute more to the development cost).

Again, you are distorting the truth to say NASA paid for Red Dragon. That's straight up false.

[savuporo]

But in what scenarios would you want to use SkyCrane instead of Red Dragon?

When you need a straightforward way of dealing with egress - or more precisely, not deal with it. Package delivered without the packaging.

[ncb1397]

SpaceX is paying for Red Dragon itself using revenue it generated from its business, which includes NASA, DoD, and commercial missions. It is most certainly NOT being paid for by NASA. Dragon was developed using funding from both SpaceX and NASA (skin in the game), with the idea that there are other customers for the capability besides NASA. In this case, the other customer is SpaceX themselves.

It's a huge distortion to say that NASA paid for Red Dragon.

There is no requirement in CCtCap milestones for cost sharing on development milestones. If they go over their bid costs, they pay some of the development cost. If they go under, there is no cost sharing unless cost sharing was part of their bid, but there is no information that that is the case. Basically, that would mean that SpaceX bid for CCtCap at below cost even though there was no requirement for them to do so.

and straight from NASA:

Question: Since commercial companies are required to contribute financially to develop and operate their own systems transportation system, how much are commercial partners expected to contribute in cost sharing with NASA?

Answer: NASA is not going to dictate the amount of industry investment that should be provided. Each proposal will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cc_forum_questions.html

The only money that I can see and that is documented is the money going from NASA to SpaceX. SpaceX's internal contributions to the cost of Dragon V2 development is not documented but is presumed by some to be there.

I specifically said Dragon. You inexplicably think I said "CCtCap," which I did not. For earlier parts of its development (such as COTS), there most certainly were explicit "skin in the game" requirements, now they're more implicit (i.e. You may be judged better if you contribute more to the development cost).

Again, you are distorting the truth to say NASA paid for Red Dragon. That's straight up false.

If we are going to go back to COTS, why not go farther and talk about the development of PICA. Most of the money for space development, including Dragon, has come from government funding. I think the numbers for private space investment is clearing 1 or 2 billion plus per annum but that is a recent phenomenon. Those recent numbers dwarf previous years and it is still dwarfed by government investment.

[Coastal Ron]

I specifically said Dragon. You inexplicably think I said "CCtCap," which I did not. For earlier parts of its development (such as COTS), there most certainly were explicit "skin in the game" requirements, now they're more implicit (i.e. You may be judged better if you contribute more to the development cost).

Again, you are distorting the truth to say NASA paid for Red Dragon. That's straight up false.

If we are going to go back to COTS, why not go farther and talk about the development of PICA. Most of the money for space development, including Dragon, has come from government funding.

Making generalizations of an entire industry segment does not prove your specific point, since obviously there is a mix of government and private sector spending going on.

For instance, NASA did not tell SpaceX they had to use PICA as the basis for their heat shield, SpaceX chose it themselves and then paid for the improvements that turned it into "PICA-X".  So your generalizations would miss such private sector contributions.

The way I look at this whole "who paid for what", is that unless you can find a purchase order or contract from the government authorizing payment to SpaceX for a product or service, then SpaceX funded that product or service themselves.  End of discussion.

[ncb1397]

The way I look at this whole "who paid for what", is that unless you can find a purchase order or contract from the government authorizing payment to SpaceX for a product or service, then SpaceX funded that product or service themselves.  End of discussion.

Which contract do you want me to point to? CCtCAP, CCiCAP, CCDEV2, COTS phase 1, COTS phase 2? I believe COTS phase 1 was the only round that Dragon was involved with that required cost sharing.

[Space Ghost 1962]

A common rhetorical move is to sully an argument by inventing a dichotomy where there was none.

As to PICA, which I know about personally and from the team that originally did it, AFAIK it was developed, built, used and abandoned long before Musk did anything with it. To my knowledge no NASA efforts to take PICA forward at the time, or now.

SX went looking for a TPS, back tracked to PICA along the way, and involved human assets that knew about it. From the same people they came up with PICA-X, and good for them, that's how its supposed to work.

Otherwise it would be a loss for NASA and SX. Which would be dumb.

But assuming that SX intentionally "stole" a budgeted, developed technology is ... wrong. Nor is SX taking government developed budget for their own - again false, along with other rhetoric of the same.

Now, if SX does put effort into enhancing own tech derived from NASA ... how is that a negative?

NASA isn't necessarily a paid IPR source all the time. Nor is it "open source" per se. Some things don't have a definite developmental future, a huge number of them are space related. Lots of tech in the boneyard.

So after the fact making a reassessment of value, after someone has discovered value in something abandoned and then making such an argument, is very disingenuous at the least.

The counter argument is that SX made NASA's judgement of doing PICA originally valid by PICA-X, thus NASA's TPS developments may have been under appreciated by congressional apportions/appropriations staff, e.g. it was important to have been done in 20/20 hindsight.

[Coastal Ron]

The way I look at this whole "who paid for what", is that unless you can find a purchase order or contract from the government authorizing payment to SpaceX for a product or service, then SpaceX funded that product or service themselves.  End of discussion.

Which contract do you want me to point to?

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, other than both SpaceX and NASA have common goals and both have been spending their own money in a joint effort to meet those goals.  That is not a standard contractor relationship, so we should all be cheering.  However you seem to think there is something negative going on.

I believe COTS phase 1 was the only round that Dragon was involved with that required cost sharing.

Let's go back to your original supposition, which was that:

"The majority of the cost of Red Dragon is being footed by the government on Commercial Crew development milestones."

And of course the answer is "NO".  SpaceX is spending it's own money to use it's own assets (Falcon Heavy and Dragon 2) to perform the Red Dragon mission.

Your argument is, if I understand it correctly, that NASA paid for some part of the development of the Dragon 2 vehicle.  Which if so, then my response would be "So what?"  SpaceX finding a new use for something they own does not mean that NASA gets to lay claim to what they are doing.

It would be like me claiming I own the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier because my tax money obviously was used to build it.

The Commercial Cargo & Crew development contracts specifically say that NASA has a non-exclusive right, not an exclusive one.  To me that pretty much settles it.

[joek]

There is no requirement in CCtCap milestones for cost sharing on development milestones.

Nor can there be.  NB: "Each proposal will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis".  This is a FAR 12 firm-fixed price contract.  However, part of NASA's evaluation--or more precisely desire--was significant industry investment (i.e., cost sharing).  We don't know the details, but you can find clues in the NASA selection statements.

If they go over their bid costs, they pay some of the development cost.

They pay all the costs of any over-run.  It's a FAR 12 firm-fixed-price contract.  You committed to deliver X rolls of toilet paper for $Y; your loss if it costs you more; your gain if it costs you less.

If they go under, there is no cost sharing unless cost sharing was part of their bid, but there is no information that that is the case.

There is no "cost sharing" under the terms of a FAR 12 firm-fixed-price contract.  If you want that, then consider a cost+incentive contract.

Basically, that would mean that SpaceX bid for CCtCap at below cost even though there was no requirement for them to do so.

The requirement was that SpaceX (and everyone else) bid a firm-fixed-price.  No more and no less.  They will either: (a) eat any cost over-run; or (b) pocket any cost under-run.

[groundbound]

It would be like me claiming I own the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier because my tax money obviously was used to build it.

Or that I owe someone or another thousands of dollars for my Chrysler vehicle because the government once paid Chrysler tons of money to build army tanks.

[savuporo]

As to PICA, which I know about personally and from the team that originally did it, AFAIK it was developed, built, used and abandoned long before Musk did anything with it. To my knowledge no NASA efforts to take PICA forward at the time, or now.

Um no, that is wrong. PICA has been under continuous evaluation and development by NASA since it was launched on Stardust on 1999 and returned to a desert in Utah in 2006. You can find related contracts with Boeing, FMI etc going back through the last decade, under CEV or Orion ADP names.

EDIT: even more specifically. At least one Boeing/FMI contract ran let in 2006-2009, there was plenty of other downselection work invested in as well. PICA got other reasearch ( carbon nanotube thingamajig because that was hip ) under NASA funding during that time.

To say that 'NASA abandoned' it is just wrong. Quite the opposite, they set out with an explicit goal of revitalizing ablative TPS industrial base.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/pr530.pdf

EDIT2: And for reference, here is the SpaceX pica story:

http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=ablation

[joek]

Which contract do you want me to point to? CCtCAP, CCiCAP, CCDEV2, COTS phase 1, COTS phase 2? I believe COTS phase 1 was the only round that Dragon was involved with that required cost sharing.

There never were requirements for cost sharing for funded SAA's until relatively recent Congressional mandate (which prohibits NASA "exceeding the total amount provided by other parties", HR810 10-Feb-2015), which occurred after all of the CTP-related SAA's had been executed.  Until then, the degree of cost-sharing, and the evaluation of such in awarding SAA"s, was solely at NASA's discretion.

[Carl G]

Thread title given something descriptive.

[Space Ghost 1962]

As to PICA, which I know about personally and from the team that originally did it, AFAIK it was developed, built, used and abandoned long before Musk did anything with it. To my knowledge no NASA efforts to take PICA forward at the time, or now.

Um no, that is wrong. PICA has been under continuous evaluation and development by NASA since it was launched on Stardust on 1999 and returned to a desert in Utah in 2006. You can find related contracts with Boeing, FMI etc going back through the last decade, under CEV or Orion ADP names.

EDIT: even more specifically. At least one Boeing/FMI contract ran let in 2006-2009, there was plenty of other downselection work invested in as well. PICA got other reasearch ( carbon nanotube thingamajig because that was hip ) under NASA funding during that time.

When you evaluate for TPS you look at all candidates, mostly ones that will be "downselected" for various reasons for a particular application/vehicle. Focus on that. So the intent to use PICA for Orion or other recent HSF vehicles was not present as a specific candidate going forward. As you know that was Avcoat.

The others you list were unsuccessful derivates in different directions away from PICA, and not intended for active use in a HSF vehicle. For the purposes of my post, they're not PICA.

To say that 'NASA abandoned' it is just wrong. Quite the opposite, they set out with an explicit goal of revitalizing ablative TPS industrial base.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/pr530.pdf

EDIT2: And for reference, here is the SpaceX pica story:

http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=ablation

NASA has (and will continue to do) TPS research in the broad sense, and always has encouraged industry. My post had nothing  to say apart from that. Nor the other applications of TPS used in aerospace and other industries.

NASA has not driven research to develop PICA as a TPS for its HSF vehicles, but instead relied on industry for direction.

SX chose to take PICA further into PICA-X as its choice of industry direction. Which has been dove by others before.

So the argument being picked here is over the generalization of PICA as a research topic/direction for non specific vehicle research verses specific vehicle application by a vendor for a purpose. They all want own "secret sauce".

SX's version is just closer in heritage to NASA's invention.

You can fault my post for not being specific enough, but this is going far  afield of the refutation pertinent to the topic at hand.
 
NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL ISSUE

Which was the rhetorical nonsense of trying to besmirch a vendor ... with an untrue claim.

In the process, no one was impugning the developers of PICA. The point was SX wasn't gaining unfair advantage of a NASA technology. They were quite fair about it.

Now, as to  "goal of revitalizing ablative TPS industrial base"  there is some truth of that, as well as some inside baseball for the vendors. Vendors want to have a hold on an industry advantage they can charge for. This turns the above canard used on SX in a different direction.

It is not in the interests of industry to see PICA compete with, say, Avcoat.

And that is what the "tempest in a post" is likely about.  Have we done this well enough yet?

[savuporo]

NASA has not driven research to develop PICA as a TPS for its HSF vehicles, but instead relied on industry for direction.

This is wrong, NASA did drive it, even if they switched later.  And what does HSF have to do with any of this ? Just a random deflection, because Curiosity flew with PICA, thanks to the HSF related investment by NASA ? MSL was originally supposed to fly SLA-561V, but that didn't scale up and thanks to early investment by NASA for CEV TPS selection, they had the option to switch to PICA. And it'll fly again in 2020.

NASA is further investing in PICA with experiments like MEDLI and MEDLI2. Its not standing still, and neither is SpaceX version - they have switched their fabrication formula at least once.

It is not in the interests of industry to see PICA compete with, say, Avcoat.

Of course it is. The more varied solutions at high maturity level for different engineering constraints you have available, the better. NASA has had problems with Avcoat precisely because it had been long unused, requiring basically recreating the entire process and toolset from scratch.

You can fault my post for not being specific enough ... And that is what the "tempest in a post" is likely about.  Have we done this well enough yet?

Here is your specific, false claim:

As to PICA, which I know about personally and from the team that originally did it, AFAIK it was developed, built, used and abandoned long before Musk did anything with it. To my knowledge no NASA efforts to take PICA forward at the time, or now
...
Otherwise it would be a loss for NASA and SX. Which would be dumb.
...
So after the fact making a reassessment of value, after someone has discovered value in something abandoned and then making such an argument, is very disingenuous at the least.

They have been and keep taking it forward, it was never abandoned. There are even conformable and flexible versions in development.
SpaceX went and did their own innovation, which apparently is mostly in fabrication process,  which is all good.

Your portrayal of this as something that NASA tossed aside is wrong. And yes,  clearly in this case SpaceX got a significant boost from a technology that NASA was investing in shortly before and in parallel with their development - and IMO there is nothing wrong with that.

[Space Ghost 1962]

This topic is about the OP - towit:

Every once in a while, something significant happens. And while it may be recognized for being so, only through the passage of time is it revealed to what extent it changed....well, everything.

Of course, I'm referring to the SpaceX announcement of Red Dragon in 2018. However what intrigues me the most is, "What happens next?" Not with regards to mission planning but from a more general science, culture, business, politics and even international relations perspective.

The context: For the first time in history a privately owned and operated company has the will and the means to land a sizable spacecraft on another celestial body. Plans and capabilities untethered to the mood of the country, or that of its' President and elected Representatives. What are the implications of such an endeavor and those that follow, not being within the purview of Congressional control through funding and direct oversight? What new rules of engagement will manifest? New lines will be drawn, new alliances forged, old power structures defended yet inevitably breached. Or not?

For instance, how far will members of Congress, their largest current benefactors, and yes, some NASA employees go in maneuvering to counter this changing landscape? How far can they go? This outlier from Rep. Lamborn questioning how Musk finances his companies may be an overreach, but it won't be the last. What about the legions of Commercial and Government SpaceFlight Think-Tanks, Groups, Lobbyists? And how will other major Space Agencies from around the world view, respond to this?  How will this impact other spaceflight/craft/launch companies? How will they respond? Will they need to?

We here at NSF are an informed lot and I believe we share some responsibility to help inform others and when possible, direct the conversation in a meaningful and thoughtful way. So please keep things civil and help me and many others wrap our heads around, "What happens next?"

Red Dragon - deriving a lander from a HSF vehicle - Dragon - already in production. That's where HSF comes from. It's implicit in the thread. And that's what the post you're so upset about came from.

My claim is still valid, even if you can't understand it. Again, NASA is not pursuing PICA for HSF vehicles.

NASA is pursuing TPS materials. PICA is one, and there are derivatives of it. We haven't even begun to talk about some of the other developments in TPS either - because this isn't the place for such, as in the OP.

I can go twenty rounds. But it's rather boring to read. Feel free to interpret my words however you chose, that's your issue. Have already told you the meaning I meant by them.

Nor will I detour this thread further splitting hairs.

[Lar]

Tend to agree with the Ghost that going too far down the "did NASA fund this, how much" rathole is off topic. Doesn't really matter how we got to where we are except as it informs what happens next (the thread title). The OP (and some of the rest of us) see this announcement (and more importantly, the actual achievement, once it happens, if it happens) as signifying a phase change in how things can be done, in a very positive direction.

If you disagree, argue why not, but don't trot out the "SpaceX doesn't get the credit" stuff, because that's not the point.

[sanman]

Hmm, so that's something interesting that I'd never considered before in regards to SpaceX and Red Dragon. NASA is not a monolithic entity, and there are different centers and different mission groups in contention with each other for funding and support to gain approval for their missions to go ahead.

So SpaceX comes along and can now tilt the balance on that playing field. Does your NASA center or mission have a "SpaceX strategy"? If you don't, you might fall behind in the contest, and get shut out.

Will all NASA centers and mission groups now each be trying to come up with a "SpaceX angle" to make their stuff happen? Could re-writing your mission proposal to take advantage of SpaceX capabilities now be the key to jumping ahead in the queue, or even holding your place in line?

Will more and more NASA development be done in connection with interoperating with SpaceX hardware?

It seems to me that the emergence of SpaceX capabilities on the scene is a great benefit to NASA program managers, because SpaceX is offering the opportunity of more-bang-for-buck, and the chance for them to fly when it might otherwise be denied.

It is not just SpaceX that requires a new strategy but the entire commercial crew and cargo industry. Not only does SpaceX have rivals but new companies selling new goods and services are being created. The centre can now buy things that previously it would have had to spend time developing itself.

The other strategy changer is tiny satellites like cubesats. Instead of having to procure a $70 million launch vehicle, which requires Congressional approval, the entire project can be built and launched for a couple of million dollars. 'Small' projects can be approved by NASA's Administrator. (He can negotiate a general budget with Congress.)

But it will be harder for NASA people to adapt themselves to any old system from the broader New Space provider  pool, as contrasted with building familiarity with particular vendors like SpaceX and preferentially using their stuff.

As someone in IT, it's pretty common to see situations where managers will keep going back to the vendors and platforms they have the most experience with, rather than just trying any old new thing. You go with who/what you know - especially if you're job's on the line if it doesn't work out.

I've seen plenty of discussion on this forum where people will mention the heritage of a particular platform, which informs its reliability, and how new development is usually done off some previous heritage platform. So the same thing would likely be the case with NASA making use of 3rd-party hardware from New Space vendors.

If you've already used SpaceX hardware in doing your past 5 science missions, who're you going to go with for #6 - some new untried vendor, or SpaceX which has worked for you in the past?

That's where these other guys like Orbital ATK, etc better develop some specialty niches for their offerings, if they can't compete with SpaceX head-on on most mission types. Otherwise, SpaceX will clean up and sweep the field.

[Lar]

As someone in IT, it's pretty common to see situations where managers will keep going back to the vendors and platforms they have the most experience with, rather than just trying any old new thing. You go with who/what you know - especially if you're job's on the line if it doesn't work out.

Yes. Old saying in IT... "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" ... not as true as it used to be, we compete on merit like everyone else these days, but it's definitely something that people do, sticking with the safe supplier.

[A_M_Swallow]

But it will be harder for NASA people to adapt themselves to any old system from the broader New Space provider  pool, as contrasted with building familiarity with particular vendors like SpaceX and preferentially using their stuff.

As someone in IT, it's pretty common to see situations where managers will keep going back to the vendors and platforms they have the most experience with, rather than just trying any old new thing. You go with who/what you know - especially if you're job's on the line if it doesn't work out.

I've seen plenty of discussion on this forum where people will mention the heritage of a particular platform, which informs its reliability, and how new development is usually done off some previous heritage platform. So the same thing would likely be the case with NASA making use of 3rd-party hardware from New Space vendors.

If you've already used SpaceX hardware in doing your past 5 science missions, who're you going to go with for #6 - some new untried vendor, or SpaceX which has worked for you in the past?

That's where these other guys like Orbital ATK, etc better develop some specialty niches for their offerings, if they can't compete with SpaceX head-on on most mission types. Otherwise, SpaceX will clean up and sweep the field.

With cubesats it is more like new vendor or no mission. A manager/researcher may get a $2 million budget but not a $70 million one.

[sanman]

Yes. Old saying in IT... "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" ... not as true as it used to be, we compete on merit like everyone else these days, but it's definitely something that people do, sticking with the safe supplier.

Yeah, that's exactly the old saying I was thinking of - and like SpaceX , IBM were pioneers in the computer industry, and were known for their deep thinking and farsightedness (they still are), while employing the best and brightest.

But one can also imagine engine-makers like Blue Origin or Aerojet-Rocketdyne becoming similar to chipmakers like Intel or Motorola or DEC, since engines are the key component of rockets, just as processors are for computers.

I don't know if the engine-supply deal between Blue and ULA was an exclusive one - otherwise what's to prevent some other intrepid rocket-builder from approaching Bezos to acquire BlueEngines to base their own rocket on? After all, isn't Orbital Sciences in need of a good engine following their unfortunate mishap? Once Bezos has his own orbital launch vehicle, his relationship with ULA may change. I see that everyone says he'd become their competitor, but suppose he began selling BlueEngines to a wider set of customers?

At the very least, since Aerojet-Rocketdyne is more of a dedicated engine-maker than a launch company (OEM?), perhaps their future engine would be up for grabs if ULA isn't going to make use of it.

It's too bad that there aren't more deep-pocketed internet billionaires out there interested in becoming rocket engine-makers primarily, since engines are the key building blocks, just like computer processors. If you focused all your efforts purely on building better rocket engines, maybe the (New Space) world would beat a path to your door.

[Lar]

Interesting. Are rocket engines more like
- chips (which are mostly all fabbed now, IBM has shed chip fab for low end devices, and hardly anyone else was that vertically integrated ever)
- like jet aircraft engines (neither Boeing and Airbus make their own engines and neither has for a very long time, Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce and GE have the market, and buyers specify which engines they want)
-  automobile engines/locomotive engines (almost every manufacturer of automobiles makes their own engines, ditto railway locos, but there is SOME ferment, in that you can get a GE loco reengined with a CAT diesel if you wanted to, and in that some car makers have joint projects with others for engines, or sell them)

Or none of those? Currently rocket engines are not like LEGO elements at all, it takes massive engineering to change a vehicle's engines, to the point that it's a new vehicle.

[A_M_Swallow]

We are getting near the point at which payloads can be switched between different makes of launch vehicles. For instance the ISS can launch cubesats and it is not a launch vehicle.

The Vulcan upper stage can be Centaur or ACES - which have different engines (and propellant systems).

[abaddon]

It's too bad that there aren't more deep-pocketed internet billionaires out there interested in becoming rocket engine-makers primarily, since engines are the key building blocks, just like computer processors. If you focused all your efforts purely on building better rocket engines, maybe the (New Space) world would beat a path to your door.

The last thing we need is more rocket engines built for rockets that don't (or won't) exist.  Because chances are you'll end up with a fun technology demonstrator that goes nowhere but to storage.

Anyway it seems like there are plenty of new rocket engines being built using new fuels and processes and scales.  Aren't we covered there already?

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

It's too bad that there aren't more deep-pocketed internet billionaires out there interested in becoming rocket engine-makers primarily, since engines are the key building blocks, just like computer processors. If you focused all your efforts purely on building better rocket engines, maybe the (New Space) world would beat a path to your door.

The last thing we need is more rocket engines built for rockets that don't (or won't) exist.  Because chances are you'll end up with a fun technology demonstrator that goes nowhere but to storage.

Anyway it seems like there are plenty of new rocket engines being built using new fuels and processes and scales.  Aren't we covered there already?

Agreed. As a general rule, the existence of rockets, trumps the existence of a surplus of engines. The two need to be roughly equivalent to each other, or, at the very least, you manufacture an engine with the expectation that it might end up mated to an LV. Even tech demonstrators need some scent of an evolutionary of path to practical use.

After all, a rocket without a rocket is a rocket to nowhere. As for LVs, you have people like Jim who would argue that the market is oversaturated for LVs already, and people like the guys running Electron or Blue who believe the world will have a niche for more LVs. As to who is right - it's probably somewhere in the middle. One thing's for sure though, not every engine in development right now is necessarily going to fly (*cough* AR1 *cough cough*).

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX is paying for Red Dragon itself using revenue it generated from its business, which includes NASA, DoD, and commercial missions. It is most certainly NOT being paid for by NASA. Dragon was developed using funding from both SpaceX and NASA (skin in the game), with the idea that there are other customers for the capability besides NASA. In this case, the other customer is SpaceX themselves.

It's a huge distortion to say that NASA paid for Red Dragon.

There is no requirement in CCtCap milestones for cost sharing on development milestones. If they go over their bid costs, they pay some of the development cost. If they go under, there is no cost sharing unless cost sharing was part of their bid, but there is no information that that is the case. Basically, that would mean that SpaceX bid for CCtCap at below cost even though there was no requirement for them to do so.

and straight from NASA:

Question: Since commercial companies are required to contribute financially to develop and operate their own systems transportation system, how much are commercial partners expected to contribute in cost sharing with NASA?

Answer: NASA is not going to dictate the amount of industry investment that should be provided. Each proposal will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cc_forum_questions.html

The only money that I can see and that is documented is the money going from NASA to SpaceX. SpaceX's internal contributions to the cost of Dragon V2 development is not documented but is presumed by some to be there.

I specifically said Dragon. You inexplicably think I said "CCtCap," which I did not. For earlier parts of its development (such as COTS), there most certainly were explicit "skin in the game" requirements, now they're more implicit (i.e. You may be judged better if you contribute more to the development cost).

Again, you are distorting the truth to say NASA paid for Red Dragon. That's straight up false.

If we are going to go back to COTS, why not go farther and talk about the development of PICA. Most of the money for space development, including Dragon, has come from government funding. I think the numbers for private space investment is clearing 1 or 2 billion plus per annum but that is a recent phenomenon. Those recent numbers dwarf previous years and it is still dwarfed by government investment.

And?

This has no impact on this statement: "...you are distorting the truth to say NASA paid for Red Dragon. That's straight up false."

I'm not a Randian libertarian. Elon Musk didn't invent rocketry. But SpaceX is most certainly paying for Red Dragon.

[savuporo]

Tend to agree with the Ghost that going too far down the "did NASA fund this, how much" rathole is off topic.

I understand off topic and the downsides of threads getting sidetracked. However, the question i have is: how much of an echo chamber do you want around here ? Like in this instance, correcting an obviously false narrative with actual sourced historical background and facts is .. to be avoided ?

[wannamoonbase]

Agreed. As a general rule, the existence of rockets, trumps the existence of a surplus of engines. The two need to be roughly equivalent to each other, or, at the very least, you manufacture an engine with the expectation that it might end up mated to an LV. Even tech demonstrators need some scent of an evolutionary of path to practical use.

After all, a rocket without a rocket is a rocket to nowhere. As for LVs, you have people like Jim who would argue that the market is oversaturated for LVs already, and people like the guys running Electron or Blue who believe the world will have a niche for more LVs. As to who is right - it's probably somewhere in the middle. One thing's for sure though, not every engine in development right now is necessarily going to fly (*cough* AR1 *cough cough*).

I agree that it seems that the AR1 has an uphill climb.  But my initial gut feel when ULA announced they were looking at the BE-4 was that they were using that as a bait and switch for leverage with DOD and Aerojet.

[Robotbeat]

Agreed. As a general rule, the existence of rockets, trumps the existence of a surplus of engines. The two need to be roughly equivalent to each other, or, at the very least, you manufacture an engine with the expectation that it might end up mated to an LV. Even tech demonstrators need some scent of an evolutionary of path to practical use.

After all, a rocket without a rocket is a rocket to nowhere. As for LVs, you have people like Jim who would argue that the market is oversaturated for LVs already, and people like the guys running Electron or Blue who believe the world will have a niche for more LVs. As to who is right - it's probably somewhere in the middle. One thing's for sure though, not every engine in development right now is necessarily going to fly (*cough* AR1 *cough cough*).

I agree that it seems that the AR1 has an uphill climb.  But my initial gut feel when ULA announced they were looking at the BE-4 was that they were using that as a bait and switch for leverage with DOD and Aerojet.

I totally disagree. BE-4 is the one they actually want to use.

[jongoff]

I totally disagree. BE-4 is the one they actually want to use.

Yeah, BE-4 is going to be as good or better performance, more responsive to their needs, likely a lot more reusable, significantly less expensive, and something that will likely see continuing improvements in support of Blue Origin's RLV ambitions.

~Jon

[Kabloona]

I totally disagree. BE-4 is the one they actually want to use.

Yeah, BE-4 is going to be as good or better performance, more responsive to their needs, likely a lot more reusable, significantly less expensive, and something that will likely see continuing improvements in support of Blue Origin's RLV ambitions.

~Jon

Not to mention BE-4 is probably far ahead of AR1 on schedule, and Blue was willing to commit significant development funds where AJR was not. Clear winner all around.

[docmordrid]

Isn't part of the USAF Raptor upper stage contract that it'll be made available for use by others? If so, upper stage version only?

[Space Ghost 1962]

Tend to agree with the Ghost that going too far down the "did NASA fund this, how much" rathole is off topic.

Like in this instance, correcting an obviously false narrative with actual sourced historical background and facts is .. to be avoided ?

It's discussion in this thread was awkward and impossible to rectify because the premise was wrong, the "facts" skew to the thread, and the manner of "exactitude" required would irreparably damage this thread (back it all out, redo the means to bring it in, and change the discussion development to suite). Too much work, even this post alone.

Add to that: a) that it is in the wrong place (should be in "historical spaceflight"), b) it should start with weapons/sat reentry vehicles, and  c) you should have someone like Blackstar to actually dig up the references, because the origins of this cast a lot of light (or dark  ) on subsequent matters.

Did a little searching, found this post. It might be a good place for you to grab attention to "heat shield"/TPS developments that lead in to modern materials, and from that point then offer to create a thread to take that forward to the present. Then be careful at what you post, and what you discover.

Then you can reference that thread whenever you think something isn't to your liking.

No one wants to mislead on the past. But it might help to develop it in the right context with the right assistance.