This speculative SpaceX timeline reveals roughly when, where, and how Elon Musk plans to colonise Mars

[beecee]

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/elon-musk-spacex-mars-plan-timeline-2018-10?r=US&IR=T

Elon Musk is hell-bent on colonizing Mars.

That’s the spirit with which he founded SpaceX, his rocket company, in 2002. Musk was frustrated that NASA wasn’t doing more to get people to the red planet – and concerned a backup plan for humanity wasn’t being developed (for when Earth becomes an uninhabitablewasteland).

Since then, SpaceX has developed several impressive aerospace systems: Falcon 1, SpaceX’s first orbital rocket; Grasshopper, a small self-landing test rocket; Falcon 9, a reusable orbital-class launcher; Dragona, a spaceship for cargo and soon NASA astronauts; and Falcon Heavy, a super-heavy-lift launcher.

But Mars is a cold, unforgiving, and almost airless rock located some 140 million miles from Earth. Astounding ingenuity is required to land even a small spacecraft there today, let alone a giant spaceship full of people and cargo in the future. 

That’s why SpaceX is taking the lessons the company has learned over the past 16 years – and an increasing amount of money and staff – and using them to build a space vehicle called the Big Falcon Rocket, or BFR.

more at link........

A scale diagram of SpaceX’s Big Falcon Rocket showing its booster and spaceship.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Elon surprised us with his reusable rocket.....Will he surprise us again? Or is he totally bonkers? 

I actually applaud his efforts and zeal and enthusiasm, while not agreeing with the criticism of NASA which afterall is tied to the whims and wills of the government of the day and budget requirements 

But again, I say wouldn't it be wonderful for an International effort...private or government run. And then we also have MARS ON. A one-way trip for those interested. Although news from that quarter  has been scarce of late. What are the thoughts of others? 

[Endy0816]

I honestly feel he's hyping things.

We don't know what we don't know about the radiation and we don't have a good solution for dealing with it yet.

Of secondary concern is making sure equipment will work as expected. Beyond accidental oversights we also see phenomenon out there that we don't see on Earth. Levitating moon dust for instance. Might be okay. Might clog or disable something important.

The various levels of gravity encountered will likewise pose immediate and longterm problrms. Maybe a well followed regimen and various machines could help but nobody really knows.

[mistermack]

I applaud any attempt to get permanently into space. But I don't think Mars is the way to go. Not initially anyway. It's far too difficult and expensive, landing and taking off from Mars.

I would like to see progress in space stations, including artificial gravity and manufacturing capability. The Moon is the most viable source of raw material in space so we should be working on going back there and developing industrial techniques.

[NicholaiRen]

13 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I would like to see progress in space stations, including artificial gravity and manufacturing capability. The Moon is the most viable source of raw material in space so we should be working on going back there and developing industrial techniques.

Going to the moon would be just as expensive as going to mars in most cases, however, there is a lot less opportunity on the Moon.

The gravity isn't anywhere near enough to support long-term human habitation, and while Mar's gravity isn't that good either, it's a lot better.

Additionally, in terms of potentially terraforming somewhere, the moon has zero opportunities, while Mar's may actually have the ability to be terraformed through global warming.

What's far more important, however, is access to electricity. A day on the moon is 29 earth days. That means 14.5 straight days of darkness. While this doesn't seem like much, it means you'll have to store about 15 days worth of electricity to power your station. You won't be able to rely on solar panels, which could be a problem because the solar panels might not be able to charge up the power supply in 15 days enough to last 15 days without having massive fields of them. You get the idea.

Additionally, temperature. The Moon ranges from a boiling 260 degrees Fahrenheit(127 C) to -280 degrees Fahrenheit(-173 C). As for Mars, it's got a moderate 70 degrees Fahrenheit(20 C) high, and a comparably warm -100 degrees Fahrenheit(-73 C) low.

On Mars, you deal with the cold. On the Moon, you deal with the boiling temperatures and the even colder temperatures.

Any expansion on the Moon would require 50 times as much space for solar panels unless you're dragging fuel up there to heat your place, which is ill-advised(Explosive stuff in space = typically bad idea unless needed).

Expansion on Mars would require solar panels, but nowhere near as much. 

Edited October 16, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[mistermack]

21 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

Going to the moon would be just as expensive as going to mars in most cases,

It's not the going  that is expensive, it's the landing. Landing on the Moon is a piece of cake. Landing (and taking off again) on Mars is a nightmare. The difference is down to the greater gravity of Mars, and the much higher speeds needed to get there in a reasonable time. 

When you get to Mars, you need a huge amount of rocket fuel to slow the craft, and then a lot more to fight the acceleration due to the planet's gravity. And taking off is almost as difficult as leaving Earth. 

The success rate of landing on Mars at the moment is less than fifty percent, I believe. And that's for tiny craft, compared to what you would need for a human landing. 

[NicholaiRen]

34 minutes ago, mistermack said:

When you get to Mars, you need a huge amount of rocket fuel to slow the craft, and then a lot more to fight the acceleration due to the planet's gravity.

There is enough atmosphere on Mars to do something known as an aerobrake, where you use the atmosphere to slow yourself down.

[Prometheus]

Isn't there more of an economic case for going to the moon?

Resources would be easier (i.e. cheaper) to mine and transport back to Earth. Especially if helium-3 for fusion fuel actually becomes a thing. Also in terms of safety the moon is just a few days away, Mars requires far more self-sufficience.  

 

2 hours ago, NicholaiRen said:

Going to the moon would be just as expensive as going to mars in most cases

How do you calculate this? I just had a quick google and the ball park figures i was getting were about $1 billion for 4 people to the moon, $6 billion for the same to Mars.

[DrP]

On ‎15‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 6:37 AM, beecee said:

BFR

Sorry - but  LOVE that it called a BF Rocket!  lol. I recon that came up with the Falcon part just so they could call it a BF Rocket, lol.

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, NicholaiRen said:

There is enough atmosphere on Mars to do something known as an aerobrake, where you use the atmosphere to slow yourself down.

There is, but it's very thin. They made use of it in Curiosity, but a manned mission would have to be on a totally different scale. Curiosity was a real triumph of technology, but it only weighted about a ton, and they were not risking human lives so it was in a different league to any manned mission. It proved it could be done, on a small scale, but it cost 2.5 billion. I would say that a manned mission would have to be at least a hundred times that. 

The other thing that makes a permanent Mars colony impossible is that nobody knows what the consequences will be, of low gravity on an unborn baby, or on their development. You can't call it a bolthole for the human race, if you can't reproduce in a healthy way. Space stations, on the other hand, can produce artificial gravity of 1g by spinning, so they are the way to go, for long-term living away from the Earth.

[NicholaiRen]

3 hours ago, Prometheus said:

How do you calculate this? I just had a quick google and the ball park figures i was getting were about $1 billion for 4 people to the moon, $6 billion for the same to Mars.

I'm assuming you've used the Mars 1 Mission Budget.

However, using that, you have to be aware they're accounting for things like Communications satellites($425M), Unmanned exploration Rovers($900M), and essentially things like Mission organization, Astronaut training, and Scientific Research Equipment($1.8B).

As for the cost of the rocket, that was placed at $3.5 Billion.

 

Looking at that, you can compare it to the BFR Program(THe one being talked about) which is estimated at $8 Billion.

Mind you, this rocket will be able to go to Mars and the Moon, with the only difference being the amount of time to go between them and the planning.

The biggest cost for going to the Moon or Mars in that scenario would be the rocket, which would be already be developed, etc, at a price tag of $8 Billion(if the estimates are correct).

So from there, the price of going to the Moon/Mars would only differ in planning costs, etc, which will drastically decrease over time eventually resulting in both missions being approximately the same on a per/month basis(because Mars takes 6-9 months, it'll be more expensive overall, but about the same in terms of month/cost)

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

The other thing that makes a permanent Mars colony impossible is that nobody knows what the consequences will be, of low gravity on an unborn baby, or on their development.

That doesn't make it impossible, it makes it unknown. Additionally, most of these long-term problems are currently being worked on by NASA and other agencies, with solutions like medication(https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/9-12/features/F_Space_Medicine.html) and other simple solutions like that.

3 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Resources would be easier (i.e. cheaper) to mine and transport back to Earth.

This is where I question the feasibility.

I highly doubt any resources we mine on the moon would be worth transporting back to Earth due to the cost, hazards, etc. 

The real value would be in what it can be used for in space, and if that's what you're going off of then Mars has a lot more resources, as well as a larger variety(Like water).

3 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Especially if helium-3 for fusion fuel actually becomes a thing.

This would be an exception to what I said above.

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I would say that a manned mission would have to be at least a hundred times that. 

The BFR is currently being planned at 8 Billion, which is just above 4 times that.

Even if it went three times higher then it's budget, it'd still only be 24 Billion, well below 100 times that.

Additionally, SpaceX has done extremely well in terms of keeping things within budget, however, they've done a terrible job with keeping things on time. That's just how Capitalism worked in this case. They can't afford to just throw together a rocket that has everything and gets thrown away. So they made a rocket that can land. And they've continually made it far more powerful as well. I rather like where they're going with it, and I suspect the BFR will be a success..... albeit a decade later then predicted.

Edited October 16, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[mistermack]

8 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

The real value would be in what it can be used for in space, and if that's what you're going off of then Mars has a lot more resources, as well as a larger variety(Like water).

But it would cost far more to lift resources off Mars than off the Moon. A launch off from Mars would cost far more than an Earth Launch, because you would have to launch the vehicle off Earth to start with. How many centuries will it be, before they could completely build a rocket on Mars? 

[NicholaiRen]

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

But it would cost far more to lift resources off Mars than off the Moon. A launch off from Mars would cost far more than an Earth Launch, because you would have to launch the vehicle off Earth to start with. How many centuries will it be, before they could completely build a rocket on Mars? 

The BFR is designed to fly from Earth to Mars and from Mars to Earth repeatedly so I'm not seeing the issue.

Additionally, so would the moon mission. They'd be required to do the same.

 

However, once again the value of the resources is not what you can transport back to Earth, but how you can use it there.

On Mars you have lots of ground, sunlight, metals, gases, fuel, and even water. I think this alone makes it compelling to go to Mars because in the long term, a lot more of what you need will be on hand. With the progress of 3D printers, even ones that can use metal, I suspect it won't be long before you can turn even raw minerals into complex machinery with relative simplicity.

3 hours ago, DrP said:

Sorry - but  LOVE that it called a BF Rocket!  lol. I recon that came up with the Falcon part just so they could call it a BF Rocket, lol.

The first rocket was the Falcon 1, the second was the Falcon 9, and the next was the Falcon Heavy. 

"F**king One Rocket." "F**king Nine Rockets!". "F**king Heavy Rocket!" "Big F**king Rocket.

Seems to only make sense at the last one, so that means they would have had to plan this the entire time. Could be a conspiracy.

[beecee]

On 10/15/2018 at 4:37 PM, beecee said:

But again, I say wouldn't it be wonderful for an International effort...private or government run. And then we also have MARS ON. A one-way trip for those interested. Although news from that quarter  has been scarce of late. What are the thoughts of others? 

Again I stipulate an International effort...two, three, even four or more heads are always better than one. Personally, I'm with NASA in that a return to the Moon first would be a requirement. Obviously the most difficult aspect of getting to Mars is the long term effects of radiation, so efforts in that regard are paramount in any future mission.

 

So how about a joint venture with Elon and Bas for starters? https://www.mars-one.com/news/press-releases

 

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by beecee

[Ken Fabian]

Musk is dreaming. Along with most of the people posting here IMO. As thought experiments Mars colonies can be fun, but expectations of making them real are greatly exaggerated. The reality is likely to be life and death serious without so much fun - living in a bunker with the planet outside trying to kill them. Absolutely reliant on equipment and supplies that come from another planet.

I think the whole enterprise is based around excessive and unrealistic hype, which is itself based on taking science fiction fantasies much more seriously than they deserve - fiction which routinely understates the difficulties and overstate the opportunities. There is no opportunity on either Mars or the Moon that is worth this effort. The difficulties remain enormous. The safety margins for every bit of engineering have to be better than here on Earth, not something shorted on. There is no prospect for tradeable commodities but the ongoing need for high value equipment and supplies will remain great. No clear business plan exists beyond charging people to participate - and "entrepreneurial opportunities" will be very difficult to create. There is no independent space economy or in-space market - if it doesn't work and pay it's way as part of the greater Earth economy it doesn't work.

Mars or Moon colonies will be far more at risk of extinction events than Earth, even if they are sufficiently large to have a working, advanced industrialised economy - and that is, I think, the minimum threshold for self-reliance. They won't be a safe haven for preserving humanity until their risks of being wiped out have been reduced near to those of Earth's; I just don't see the backup humanity motivation for underwriting Mars missions as anything but misleading - way too far off in needed capabilities, in time, in space to be meaningful. Earth will need to backup Mars for a long, long time and, whilst the media exposure means we might make much greater efforts to help if (when) things go badly awry than we would for any of the tens of millions on Earth in desperate circumstances, that kind of generosity of spirit has limits, especially for people who knowingly undertake high risk activities. The tech advances  to make it more viable will not be local Mars ones - only large wealthy economies can support R&D at that level.

Reliable energy supply has not been adequately addressed. Can't run a Mars base off solar alone - dust storms last for weeks and months. Nuclear, maybe, if it can be done with radiative cooling rather than water or air cooled. Not something a stranded colony is likely to be able to do much to make or even fix if it goes wrong. More than one nuclear plant, for redundancy and parts for another? A team of nuclear technicians and engineers - and an extraordinarily well equipped workshop?  Perhaps on the Moon linked solar farms circling the poles could provide reliable supply - but that's a major engineering enterprise, something that will come when colonies are already successful at large scale. Cart before horse?

And who is paying for all this? What are the real economics? What expectations of repaying the investment the enterprise costs could Mars or Moon colonists have? Tritium mining is pure fantasy - most of the few kilograms of annual demand for the stuff is for nuclear weapons; we are yet to get a working Deuterium based fusion reactor and those based on Tritium are much harder. Cheaper - like pretty much everything else - to make Tritium on Earth. The only income streams for such colonies look like the media broadcast rights - but if a colony is reliant on being a popular form of reality TV show it is already in trouble. Quite frankly I think the whole exercise is far more TV fantasy based than soundly based on realistic objectives.

Dreaming I says.

[Prometheus]

42 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

There is no opportunity on either Mars or the Moon that is worth this effort.

That's a value judgement. If Musk thinks it's worth the effort just because he can't think of anything better to do then it's worth the effort for him.

Some people climb mountains just to say they've been to the top, or because they enjoy the journey. More power to them.

[beecee]

47 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Musk is dreaming. Along with most of the people posting here IMO.

Dreaming I says.

Yeah I also remember "smart" people saying he was dreaming when he was talking about reusable/returnable rockets.

Quote

As thought experiments Mars colonies can be fun, but expectations of making them real are greatly exaggerated. The reality is likely to be life and death serious without so much fun - living in a bunker with the planet outside trying to kill them. Absolutely reliant on equipment and supplies that come from another planet.

Irrespective, in the course of time, we will have an outpost on the Moon and probably Mars also.

Quote

I think the whole enterprise is based around excessive and unrealistic hype, which is itself based on taking science fiction fantasies much more seriously than they deserve - fiction which routinely understates the difficulties and overstate the opportunities. There is no opportunity on either Mars or the Moon that is worth this effort. The difficulties remain enormous.

Yep, going to the Moon was also science fiction. And of course if such hype as you would have us believe were true, we would forever be stagnating on planet Earth, which by the way does have a use by date that we [humans] seem to be diminishing through the course of time.

In essesnce I certainly prefer the dreams and optimism of the likes of Musk and Handsorp then pessimism.

[Ken Fabian]

3 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

That's a value judgement. If Musk thinks it's worth the effort just because he can't think of anything better to do then it's worth the effort for him.

Some people climb mountains just to say they've been to the top, or because they enjoy the journey. More power to them.

No, I think it is an ethical, economic and financial judgement. Economic and financial because it makes no economic or financial sense. Ethical for promoting it when it makes no economic sense. Someone wants a science base, it is funded on that basis - not on the basis that it's going to be a backup for Earth or can be financially self-supporting or great entrepreneurial opportunities await the colonists.

[beecee]

11 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

No, I think it is an ethical, economic and financial judgement. Economic and financial because it makes no economic or financial sense. Ethical for promoting it when it makes no economic sense. Someone wants a science base, it is funded on that basis - not on the basis that it's going to be a backup for Earth or can be financially self-supporting or great entrepreneurial opportunities await the colonists.

Economic and Financial considerations are always changeable....And again, the reason why I am in favour of an International effort. The thing is all these things will happen in the course of time, and as technology allows. We cannot halt nor should we try and halt progress. I would love these things to be done in my lifetime, but  I also know that they can only be achieved when all the risks are minimised and at an acceptable standard, particularly the radiation problem. Isn't that one of the prime reasons that the conspiracy nutters claim we never went to the Moon?

[Prometheus]

9 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

No, I think it is an ethical, economic and financial judgement. Economic and financial because it makes no economic or financial sense. Ethical for promoting it when it makes no economic sense. Someone wants a science base, it is funded on that basis - not on the basis that it's going to be a backup for Earth or can be financially self-supporting or great entrepreneurial opportunities await the colonists.

If it's got an ethical component it is by definition a value judgement.

This is Musk's personal money together with a bunch of investors. Is there any public money in this project at all? 

Also it might be hard to quantify just how much value speculative science has contributed to the global economy, but given how much of it relies on technology i would speculate one hell of a lot. 

14 hours ago, NicholaiRen said:

The real value would be in what it can be used for in space, and if that's what you're going off of then Mars has a lot more resources, as well as a larger variety(Like water).

If we're going solely on resource acquisition wouldn't near Earth asteroid mining be the optimal choice?

I still wonder about the journey difference: a six month journey every two years versus a three day journey. You'd need far more redundancy and/or luck going to Mars. The moon seems safer.

I also wonder whether there would be more political support for the moon just because politicians would be able to predict the feel good factor, and bump in the polls, from any large space mission. Does SpaceX get any public money?

[DrP]

14 hours ago, NicholaiRen said:

The first rocket was the Falcon 1, the second was the Falcon 9, and the next was the Falcon Heavy. 

"F**king One Rocket." "F**king Nine Rockets!". "F**king Heavy Rocket!" "Big F**king Rocket.

Seems to only make sense at the last one, so that means they would have had to plan this the entire time. Could be a conspiracy.

OK - that's a shame - I liked the idea of the BFR as a chosen name... but it is clearly just a logical progressional evolution of names.

[mistermack]

On 10/16/2018 at 1:44 PM, NicholaiRen said:

What's far more important, however, is access to electricity. A day on the moon is 29 earth days. That means 14.5 straight days of darkness. While this doesn't seem like much, it means you'll have to store about 15 days worth of electricity to power your station. You won't be able to rely on solar panels, which could be a problem because the solar panels might not be able to charge up the power supply in 15 days enough to last 15 days without having massive fields of them. You get the idea.

I forgot to mention earlier, that there are places on the Moon, at one of the poles, that have eternal light. You also have the possibility of putting a giant reflector in orbit around the Moon, to reflect sunlight onto your station during the days of darkness. Or a number of them, if a stationary Moon orbit was too far away to be practical. It wouldn't be particularly costly, the materials could be extremely thin and light.

[NicholaiRen]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I forgot to mention earlier, that there are places on the Moon, at one of the poles, that have eternal light. You also have the possibility of putting a giant reflector in orbit around the Moon, to reflect sunlight onto your station during the days of darkness. Or a number of them, if a stationary Moon orbit was too far away to be practical. It wouldn't be particularly costly, the materials could be extremely thin and light.

The problem with the poles however are that it's constantly boiling hot there because of the sunlight, unless I'm mistaken?

[mistermack]

14 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

The problem with the poles however are that it's constantly boiling hot there because of the sunlight, unless I'm mistaken?

Not a problem. In fact it's a bonus if it were true. It's hot in the Sunlight, and freezing cold in the shade. In craters at the poles, temperatures of around minus 240 are maintained because they don't see the Sun overhead. So if heat was a problem, you just erect a reflective screen, and you immediately have extreme cold. The two extremes would be great for running a turbine, if you wanted to generate electricity that way. 

 

[NicholaiRen]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Not a problem. In fact it's a bonus if it were true. It's hot in the Sunlight, and freezing cold in the shade. In craters at the poles, temperatures of around minus 240 are maintained because they don't see the Sun overhead. So if heat was a problem, you just erect a reflective screen, and you immediately have extreme cold. The two extremes would be great for running a turbine, if you wanted to generate electricity that way. 

3

Hmm. Perhaps that is an option.

[Ken Fabian]

On 17/10/2018 at 10:10 AM, beecee said:

Yep, going to the Moon was also science fiction. And of course if such hype as you would have us believe were true, we would forever be stagnating on planet Earth, which by the way does have a use by date that we [humans] seem to be diminishing through the course of time.

We are still 'stagnating on planet Earth' and this project will not change that. Landing on the Moon did not change that. Missions to the Moon showed us that it's a desolate wasteland, without exploitable resources or opportunities. It wasn't lack of enthusiastic optimism that stopped a Moonrush in it's (nonexistent) tracks - reality, not value judgements did that. Mars is no better.

Rather than criticise my lack of enthusiastic optimism - honestly, I don't think this project deserves it - perhaps people can explain how this can possibly deliver any kind of viable colony. I don't think it has any reasonable prospect for anything but shortest of short term survival. And I don't see any compelling, achievable reason to do it.

So -

There isn't a BFR yet. A BFR that can put 100 tons into LEO will deliver a lot less than than to Mars. Less again if they are expected to have sufficient fuel to lift off again and get back to Earth for another trip. Or more trips to put in place the supplies to lift off again.

Still no clear way to protect against radiation, either during the trip or on Mars - building underground is not going to be a simple matter. Perhaps ice or ice bonded gravel, but these still need equipment, materials, energy and labour.

Utilisation of local resources is going to problematic - equipment, imported material, energy and labour.

No clear plans for reliable energy supply - which will not be able to rely on solar alone due to periodic, long duration dust storms. A Mars rated nuclear plant, like so much else, does not exist.

How does the colony pay for the repeated resupply it's medium term survival will depend on? What are the economic underpinnings?

I think the lower gravity will hinder as much as help; it provides traction.

Working in space suits will hinder and slow every normal activity; physical work will be a lot less productive than Earth equivalent. Reliance on robotics and remote devices add a level of complexity, not reduce it.

No, the problems are not primarily any lack of enthusiasm  by people like me - the problems are real and substantial. I am not stopping Mr Musk - I think reality will stop him.

On 17/10/2018 at 8:16 PM, Prometheus said:

If it's got an ethical component it is by definition a value judgement.

This is Musk's personal money together with a bunch of investors.

I suppose the ethics of promoting something that isn't going to work requires disclaimers. I would presume there are intentions for use of BFR's that do have genuine commercial prospects - although like a lot of 'commercial' aerospace activities, those rely heavily on government contracts, ie taxpayers ultimately footing the bill. Increased militarisation of near Earth space looks possible. A new, bigger space station perhaps. Asteroid mining presents a whole lot of other difficulties so probably not. Some kind of unique, high value, only in zero gravity products might move space stations beyond subsidy to profitability? But we haven't seen any so far.

It isn't optimistic enthusiasm that is lacking, it is evidence of actual, near term economic opportunities - and Mars doesn't have them.