back to article Elon Musk: Just watch me – I'll put HUMAN BOOTS on Mars by 2026

Electrocar and rocket tycoon Elon Musk says he'll put the first human beings on Mars well before the 2020s are finished – and also promised to float his SpaceX firm on Earth stock exchanges once the interplanetary mission gets underway. "I'm hopeful that the first people could be taken to Mars in 10 to 12 years, I think it's …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Mitoo Bobsworth

    Off topic

    "a battery that can be built for less than $5,000"

    That's fine for those who can afford the expense that goes with the deal. For my financial reality, I can buy a decent second hand VW golf tdi for a few grand more, and get better value & mileage in the bargain. Just sayin'.

    1. Steven Raith

      Re: Off topic

      Yes and no.

      Yes for now - my car cost me £600 and it runs fine, if a little rusty. The cost savings in fuel alone would keep me going for many years, include insurance and day to day running costs and two years on it's still not cost me that much.

      However, with the patent sharing and (presumably) economies of scale from mass production of Tesla spec batteries, if you could get the cost down to, say, £500-£1000 for a battery, you're talking about the equivalent of replacing the fuel tank, fuel lines, high and low pressure fuel pumps, injectors and airflow sensors.

      Which is a more comparable cost on any modern car with relatively sophisticated fuel injection (IE anything from the late 90s onwards) - to do all that by yourself would probably cost close to a grand when you figure your own time into it.

      So for now, no. In ten years time? Quite possibly.

      Steven R

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Off topic

      Given how cheap the charges are, that £5k battery is the equivalent of your fuel bill, not your car bill. So at £1.30 a litre, £5k gets you 3,850 L of fuel. Or 874 gallons. Or 35,000 miles at 40 mpg.

      35,000 miles is 2-3 years fuel for a lot of people. So if the battery lasts 5-10 years, I guess that means you're quids in. Not that I'm a massive supporter of electric cars - but you may as well analyse things properly.

      It's only supposed to be 10p-20p to charge one of these things up, so that's only £70 for a year's charges, and I'm ignoring it from my back-of-envelope calculations.

      1. Steven Raith

        Re: Off topic

        The problem isn't that it's £5k for a battery or that it costs more of less than petrol per mile, etc.

        The problem comes when the car is six years old and needs a £5k battery pack - when the car itself will be worth around that (or not, if people take the battery pack costs into account - which just compounds the problem as new car buyers will be very wary of buying an ultra-high-depreciating asset).

        If it were £1-2k, and you could get five years of 'no petrol costs', that would be much less of a problem and something I suspect most people who can afford to run a 30mpg car would think carefully over (as the costs of a small bank loan would probably still be less than the petrol on, say, a Fiesta).

        So I don't disagree with you per se, but down here in the sub-£2k/month pay bracket, things work on a slightly different level ;-)

        Steven R

        1. Mitoo Bobsworth

          Re: Off topic

          @ Steven Raith

          That was my point - guess I wasn't clear on that, thanks for the additional thought. Depreciation + a (currently) major component replacement within 5 years still renders the electric solution unrealistic for a lot of people. Add the fact of increasing energy prices and beefing up any national grid to cope with the increased electricity demand, and it all adds up.

          I'm just looking at the bigger picture, y'kow?

          1. ian 22

            Re: Off topic

            Where does the 5-year datum come from? All electrocars I've read of guarantee the battery for 8 years. At the end of the battery's life there is still some value in it, so not a total loss.

            A holistic accounting of any electric car must include the satisfaction in knowing the petroleum-pushers and their horrible tin pot dictator employees have taken a small kick in the cods. Not to mention the avoided costs from ever rising prices of petrol.

            1. Steven Raith

              Re: Off topic

              Ian, I think the lack of reliable data is part of the problem.

              IE, if I win the lottery tomorrow and buy a Tesla Roadster, what are the power cell replacement options - does it have to be brand new at a hypothetical £5k cost, or can Tesla refurbish it, at a £2.5k cost? Could their patent-openings allow a third party to refurb/part-ex it against a new one for £2.5k?

              And yes, the 5 year figure is a bit 'pulled out of the air' but it's an easy number to work with. Eight years is probably more realistic in terms of depreciation though, have a look at the prices of 2006 cars of normal standard (your Focus, Fiesta, BMW 3 series, etc type cars) and see where a £3k+ bill would cause a problem - the car itself costs around that.

              If the cost of a battery financed over a few years costs about the same as the petrol would, it's a complete waste of time.

              After all, if you buy the Focus, and it gets written off after six months, you then have a hypothetical two and a half years of finance left to pay on the battery. Will the insurance cover the cost of hte battery? If not, you're screwed. Cars are not a stable enough asset to put a huge amount of finance (for the average Joe) into so the battery would *need* to be low enough price to make it less of a risk.

              As I say, from down here closer to the breadline, this stuff matters. I'm happy to admit the numbers are all about loose and vague, but for examples sake, they are fine. Costs are too high and timescales too long at this rate. Costs need to be lower, timescales could be longer, although really anything over five years is probably fine.

              Anyway, it's a fun problem to wrap your mind around if you're used to running sub £2k cars - at what point will a sub £2k electric car be worth it from an all round point of view? Look at the number of RX8s on Auto Trader - £800 Xenon self levellers and £1000+ rebuilds mean there are a glut of them. Electric cars could go the same way if the battery requirements aren't sorted out.

              Steven "Really wishes he could justify an RX8 for that 10,000rpm rev limiter" Raith

              1. A K Stiles

                Re: Off topic

                Upvote for that sweet, sweet (9.7K) rev limit. It freaks your passengers out when you do 65 mph in second!

            2. Mitoo Bobsworth

              Re: Off topic

              @ ian 22

              I get your point about fuel price hikes, they bug me too. However you do know electricity charges are subject to cost increases also, and that a significant portion of electricity is still generated with fossil fuels & their derivatives?

              1. ian 22

                Re: Off topic

                @Mitoo Bobsworth

                I agree, everything you say is true- to a point. Yes, electricity can easily become more expensive, but it is starting at a lower price than petrol, so for now it is the better choice.

                Electricity generated by burning fossil fuels? Depends on your location. Recently, renewables provided Germany with 74% of its power. Granted it was temporary, but it points the way.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Off topic

            If you're looking at the bigger picture then consider many people choose their cars like expensive toys. There's no reason why an electric car can't be bought as an expensive toy. The near silent ride and instant chunk of torque is a new and exhilarating experience as it is.

            Also in 7 years, my own vehicle has been through 2 turbos, MAF and MAP sensors, EGR valve, 2 crankshaft oil seals (it still leaks). 2 Cambelts, 2 water pumps. A battery. I change the oil and filters myself, at a bit under recommended mileage. Give me a 5 year battery worry over all of the above any day.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Off topic

              Yikes, I'll bet you won't be buying that brand again!

            2. Mitoo Bobsworth

              Re: Off topic

              Sorry to hear about you maintenance woes - perhaps choose more carefully next time you buy?

            3. HippyFreetard

              Re: Off topic

              Totally agree.

              Really efficient petrol cars exist now, and yet people still buy Lambos and Porsches.

              Electric cars are at that stage. It's new, it's cool in it's own way, so there's no reason why they won't sell enough for a small niche market.

              They also look good. It shouldn't be important, perhaps, but it is, and Musk has done a good job of making a car you wouldn't be embarrassed to drive.

              Formula E starts in a week or so, so that will probably boost the "cool" of electric cars a little. Because at this stage in the market, it isn't really about efficiency or cost. That will come later, when the technology matures.

              Actually, maybe we should just forget total reliance on battery, and build our cities into a giant Scalextric set, with a little metal strip running down the centre of every road. Or big poles like bumper cars...

              1. Steven Raith

                Re: Off topic

                AK Stiles - I can do 65 in second, too, it's just at 6500rpm and it sounds like a fucking BDA engined rally car from the inside - intake manifold tuning for the win! Really must drill the airbox. I do like the idea of the RX8 though, I just can't justify the fuel costs, especially not as I'm looking at moving to working in an area with 80 miles a day commute - 25mpg would hurt, quickly.

                HippyFreetard - it should be noted that cars, in terms of air pollution, are an issue in built up areas. Cars, in terms of hydrocarbon usage, are a drop in the ocean. Everyone in the UK could buy a Diablo GT and within a few years there'd be a marginal increase in oil usage (compared to air flight, industrial use, etc), and a marked drop in air quality in built up areas.

                Buying sports cars is not just about getting one up on the Jones' either - sports cars are almost always safer (better brakes, suspension, more responsive handling) and for the performance, more repsonsive engines, and quite often the tech they use - five valve heads, variable valve timing, variable geometry turbochargers etc - trickle down to cars like the Fiesta Ecotec, which you can tweek for 100hp and 50mpg with a good torque curve.

                The reason I drive a Puma rather than it's under-the-skin-brother the Fiesta is because it is a Fiesta - with more predictable, responsive handling, more absolute grip with a chassis set up to allow progressive breakaway at the front and rear, and the power curve of the engine and gear ratios means that overtaking is safer (and sounds better). It also has a better boot than a Fiesta thanks to having no real back seats ;-)

                That said, I'd take the electric equivalent of a Lambo/Ferrari any day - all that torque, all the time. Anyone fancy making an electric Caterham with 100bhp and sub-700kg? That would be a fucking riot!

                I'm well up for electric sports cars - just give me 0-60 in under 8 seconds, 100mph being easily attainable and cruisable (for where it's legal, natch) and a range of 200 or more miles on a moderately spirited run, and I'll be happy with that, as long as it still handles like a good hot hatch/GT/sports car does today.

                Steven R

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  @Steven Raith

                  I'm well up for electric sports cars - just give me 0-60 in under 8 seconds, 100mph being easily attainable and cruisable (for where it's legal, natch) and a range of 200 or more miles on a moderately spirited run, and I'll be happy with that, as long as it still handles like a good hot hatch/GT/sports car does today.

                  ..

                  I agree. I'd want a sub 6 0-60, but acceleration is easy for an electric so that's not a problem. Cruising at 100 mph isn't particularly difficult, either. It is that 200 mile range of spirited driving that will be a huge problem. I think there are exactly zero electrics that would qualify today. Most can only manage their advertised range under specific circumstances - i.e. highway cruising, and at lower than normal speeds for the US.

                  I'd settle for 60 miles of spirited running and 120 miles of "real" driving (everything from stop and start around town, to 75-80 mph freeway cruising) but even that is not easy today.

        2. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Off topic

          It could be considerably longer than 6 years before a refurbished and much less expensive battery pack replacement is required. Prices per kilowatt hour of battery are dropping. The packs being used in electric cars are very modular and individual underperforming cells can be swapped out by a refurbisher. Just as it's possible to find a larger capacity battery for a laptop or digital camera, by the time the battery in your electric car needs replacing, it might be possible to get a better version that gives even more range.

          The Prius batteries (NiMh, btw) that everybody was saying would have to be replaced every couple of years for thousands of dollars are holding up even better than Toyota predicted. There are some taxis in NYC that have gone for 600k miles on their original battery. Many early owners are posting in forums that even at 150k miles, they are getting reasonable range. Pretty encouraging.

          I'm looking at a new job (I really need it too) that would be 20miles each way. The place provides charging for electric cars at not cost. I'm looking into a used Nissan Leaf for a good price. My cost to commute to work and run errands around town would cost me zero each month if I do all of my charging at work. The leaf gets about 80 miles or so of range. More than enough to commute a couple of days without charging. If the company suddenly decides to rip out all of the charging (they're not, but let's pretend) I would wind up paying less than $2/day to charge up the car. That equates to a petrol/diesel car that gets 80mpg. The VW Polo isn't available in the US.

          The current Tesla Model S and the announced Model X are both so expensive that I could buy and fuel a used Hummer for less over 6-7 years. I'm sorry, why is Tesla so great?

    3. Ben Rose
      Megaphone

      Re: Off topic

      I've always quite appreciated Richard Branson, but a lot of people moaned that he was a bit of an attention seeking a-hole who was constantly in the media due to press releases about non-events, publicity stunts etc.

      Now I understand what they mean. Will Musk ever shut up?

      1. James Hughes 1

        Re: Off topic

        I guess when people stop asking him questions, he will stop answering. It's not as if he goes out of his way to attract attention, unlike, well, most celebs.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Off topic

          The 5K upfront cost for a battery would be quickly remedied by companies leasing batteries and their maintenance/replacement to electric car owners.

          It would require some sort of automotive battery standard, but that's gotta happen anyway for electric cars to gain much market penetration.

          And to the guy listing all the costs made irrelevant by a battery, don't forget the exhaust system, including muffler and pollution control. That latter is a pricey item if it needs replacement.

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Off topic

            Renault has a plan in some countries/areas where you buy a Zoe and lease the battery. If the battery dies or the capacity drops below a certain level, they install a new one. Renault also has a plan with the Zoe that gives buyers a certain number of coupons for free car rentals each year. That way you can get a petrol car for that long trip to grandma's house that everybody claims they must do and can't because there isn't enough range in the electric.

        2. Euripides Pants

          Re: Off topic

          " It's not as if he goes out of his way to attract attention, unlike, well, most celebs."

          But he did have a cameo in "Machete Kills"...

  2. Robert Heffernan
    Thumb Down

    Float? More like Sink!

    For a company like SpaceX, floating on the public exchange would sink the company.

    Commercial Rocketry is a long-game, you cannot run that kind of business in a manner compatible with publicly held companies. They require CEO's with drive and vision and the ability to run a business over the long term. Elon Musk has such drive and vision.

    SpaceX's bottom like will be looking very good over the long term (much longer terms than wall street investors look at) and unless you are turning over huge sums of cash every quarter then your a bad investment, I can well imagine SpaceX having quarters full of red ink due to the expenditure of capital on valuable R&D which then gets topped up when launch contracts are fulfilled. Because of this red ink, SpaceX will suffer as a public company.

    1. Kharkov
      Happy

      Re: Float? More like Sink!

      Actually, (and remember that Elon's talking about going public AFTER the R&D is done) once the R&D is done - something investors hate spending money on unless there's a guaranteed return (something rare with R & D) - then SpaceX will have...

      A light-to-medium-payload rocket (Falcon 9) which already undercuts the market by a significant degree, not to mention the probably significant cost reduction of getting your first stage back along with possibly getting your 2nd stage back.

      A medium-to-heavy-payload rocket (Falcon Heavy) which will lift a lot more payload than any other rocket currently operating for a lower $ per Kg. Note: Since the 1st stages will return and FH has 3 of them, then that 128 million dollar price tag will probably come down to less than the current price of a F9.

      A heavy-to-super-heavy-payload rocket (MCT) which will, if it works (not guaranteed, but IMHO, I think it will work) be taking humanity to Mars, and probably for a LOT less than the only alternative, SLS.

      So, a dominant tech position, much, much lower prices, and an almost-certain dominant market position (does anyone think ULA will still be operating 10 years from now?).

      So SpaceX will suffer as a public company... Yeah, I see how you got there.

      1. Steve Knox

        Re: Float? More like Sink!

        Actually, Kharkov, you explained exactly why SpaceX will suffer as a public company.

        First off, there's the concept that R&D will at some point be "done." R&D is by its very nature never complete. The concept of R&D being done is a misconception on the part of management once it reaches a stage where some results can be profitably exploited. But one exploitable result is not the point of R&D, nor is two. The purpose of R&D is a continuous stream of exploitable results. This is also known as "progress."

        You then go on to describe the results which will be profitably exploited, and the environment which will allow them to be profitably exploited.

        Then the decisions come in. What to do with the profits? Risk them on more long-term R&D? Invest in marketing and production efficiencies? Return to shareholders?

        A board elected by public shareholders will almost always favor the latter two options, as they are much less risky.

        So a public SpaceX will sit on it achievements, and milk them for what it can, until another private startup develops a better solution. That will take longer than it would if SpaceX continued to invest in R&D, as some elements will have to be relearned/redesigned by the new startup to avoid infringing on SpaceX's IP.

        Yes, SpaceX may succeed financially as a public company, for a short term, but its original vision will suffer and so will progress.

        1. Kharkov
          Holmes

          Re: Float? More like Sink!

          Oh, R&D will never be 'done', I agree, but once they have the big, difficult-to-do stuff (like getting off this planet at a low cost while taking as much mass as possible with you) out of the way, everything else that they're likely to do (like a Mars-orbit-to-surface-&-then-back-to-orbit craft) is much, much simpler.

          Given that there'll likely be people living on Mars in the (probably) late 2020's, they, or their backers/supporters back on Earth will likely pay SpaceX to do Mars-related stuff like that.

          A publically-owned (read: mostly owned by corporations who WANT a dividend each year) SpaceX is bound to be a more conservative, charge-as-much-as-we-can-for-as-many-launches-as-we-can-do-per-year beast, true but they're not likely to charge so much that they won't fill their roster so they'll STILL be putting a lot of stuff into orbit.

          And a new company trying to outdo SpaceX? I wouldn't mind an even-cheaper company arising, and to be honest, I don't think Elon Musk would either. Just look at what he's done with Tesla.

          Come to think of it, what are the odds that SpaceX's proprietary technology gets 'outed' in some manner prior to the IPO...

          1. Dani Eder

            Other Difficult Stuff

            > once they have the big, difficult-to-do stuff (like getting off this planet at a low cost while taking as much mass as possible with you)

            Launch costs are important, but not the only important thing needed to colonize the Solar System. Even with cheap rockets you can't afford to haul an entire city's worth of habitats and equipment with you. Thus you need to mine and produce most of what you need locally. Ideally what you want to send is a core set of starter machines, and use them to build out the rest of what you need.

            The technology for that is much less developed than rocketry, which is why I have started working on it now: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Seed_Factories By the time it's needed in a decade or two we hope to be ready.

          2. uncle sjohie

            Re: Float? More like Sink!

            Would you mind an even-cheaper company entering the market, if you were one of the SpaceX shareholders?

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Float? More like Sink!

      Might I point out here that Amazon has barely made a profit for its entire existence. It doesn't make profits, even though it runs profitable business units. Because it plows its profits back into new investments. And has consistently done so - and yet the shareholders seem perfectly happy, and the shares keep on going up.

      How many billions did they spend on cloud servers and infrastructure when they had no market, no customers and definitely no profits to speak of? I don't remember hearing a peep out of Wall Street.

      1. auburnman

        Re: Float? More like Sink!

        Excuse me for going off on a massive tangent to the space stuff, but that's just struck a note with me: If Amazon genuinely barely make a profit, why do they bother with the whole double Irish Dutch sandwich half hitch shave and a haircut stuff?

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: Float? More like Sink!

          auburnman,

          There are several reasons I suspect. They like to pay as little VAT as they can. Hence the CD/DVD bit of the company was in Jersey. Also, I think that a wholly-owned subsidiary has to pay tax on profits it passes back to the parent company. But the parent company doesn't make more than a few tens of millions a year profit. As the rest keeps being spent on R&D or expanding the company.

    3. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Float? More like Sink!

      Robert Hefferman, you are right about the launcher business. From the rumors I get coming from the aerospace industry and knowing a bunch of people that SpaceX has burned out, they can't go public right now. They have been given a s**t pile of deposits on launches and that money has been spent and they still need to put those satellites in space. It's not too hard to keep some secrets when you are a private company. Once you go public, your financial statements go public too.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Float? More like Sink!

      > For a company like SpaceX, floating on the public exchange would sink the company.

      Musk said, during a similar interview a day or two ago, that he's not planning to take SpaceX public precisely for the reason you mention. He said that might be reconsidered once the Mars thing is underway, but unlike this article suggests, the plan for now is not to go public.

    5. Martin Budden Silver badge

      Re: Float? More like Sink!

      Big Pharma companies have huge R&D budgets and very long concept-to-market times, and they work just fine as public companies. So there's no reason to think it won't work for a space company too.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The only way mankind is getting off this planet

    is by some James Bond villain-esque big-check-writing. And even then it's only a handful.

    You're the man for the job, Mr. Musk.

    [SPOILER: it ends with a whimper]

  4. AndrewG
    FAIL

    That about wraps it up for SpaceX

    The thing that everybody needs and SpaceX was doing nicely was drving down cost-to-orbit.

    As Clarke always used to say, if you can get to orbit your half-way to anywhere becasue the delta-V profile is so different.

    However letting SpaceX get sidetracked from doing the useful (and profitable) work is just going to sink the compmany with the same old "we go to mars becasue it'll sound good" rubbish that NASA's infected with (at least NASA has the excuse of trying to get congress interested).

    All we ever seem to see from Musk is marketing hype that sounds good, SpaceX lucked out, mainly becase if Launch Alliance/NASA incestuous relationship was so toxic.

    1. Kharkov
      Pirate

      Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

      Ok, first: Getting to orbit & you're (Yes, I'm a grammar nazi) halfway to anywhere? I agree.

      Now, SpaceX is currently charging way, way less than anyone else in the launch business. Gwynne Shotwell, of SpaceX, has stated that, starting next year (I think that's what she said), they plan to ramp up production and start getting 10 to 20 (or more) birds away EACH YEAR - that's 2 per month, almost.

      Why are you assuming that SpaceX prices will go up? They're already lower than anyone else and they're likely to come down even more as the flight rate goes up and reusability kicks in. SpaceX will likely dominate the market up to the early 2020's.

      SIDENOTE: I think Skylon will be serious competition but that's a rant for another time.

      SpaceX will send, probably, a small amount of stuff to Mars on a Falcon-Heavy-launched mission and later, an MCT-launched mission but that's just to demonstrate that it can be done.

      Post-Mars-Mission-1, Elon will probably have a press conference saying, "We put X kilograms on the surface of Mars for Y dollars per kilogram and we can do Z missions to Mars a year. Now who wants to go to Mars or send stuff there?"

      And, having built it, they will come... paying money. And SpaceX will likely get even richer...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX (grammar)

        > Ok, first: Getting to orbit & you're (Yes, I'm a grammar nazi) halfway to anywhere? I agree.

        As a self proclaimed "grammar nazi" you need to be re-educated and likely eradicated.

        Let's start with an inappropriate use of the ampersand...

        1. deadlockvictim

          Grammar Nazi

          I have to admit that I'm not happy with the phrase 'Grammar Nazi'.

          It conjures up the metaphor of someone collecting together double negatives and split infinitives and then gassing them alive until they are no more.

          It reduces the horror of what the Nazis did by making the term commonplace for something relatively petty.

          The word 'pedant' is defined at dictionary.com as:

          1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.

          2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.

          3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.

          And this seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

          1. Bassey

            Re: Grammar Nazi

            But then, dictionary.com spell overemphasizes with a "z" so why would we pay any attention to them? Plus, point two uses a relative comparison with no base factor rendering it meaningless. Your overemphasis is the pedants appropriate oversight.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Grammar Nazi

              > But then, dictionary.com spell overemphasizes with a "z" so why would we pay any attention to them?

              For example, because the "z" spelling is also perfectly correct, if no longer widely used, in British English?

              Personallz, I trz to refrain from using what nowadazs is considered Americanised spelling. Amongst manz other reasons because it can be problematic if one happens to be confronted with a German kezboard.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX (grammar)

          > Let's start with an inappropriate use of the ampersand...

          His use of an ampersand is perfectly correct.

          The ampersand is a stylised form (what typographers call a ligature) of the Latin coordinating conjunction "et" which, as you remember from your Latin lessons, means "and" per se.¹

          ¹ That last bit was a pun, a bad one but a pun. Those who have done English studies will get it, hopefully.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

      I suspect that the reason Mr. Musk got involved with electric automobiles is that he wanted a way to power his planetary rovers. There are no planets other than Earth inside our solar system with substantial quantities of oxygen in their atmospheres. Internal combustion engines simply will not work as a power source for a planetary rover, largely because you cannot build a system large enough to carry the amount of oxygen an internal combustion engine requires.

      On the other hand, if you could create a battery, or something battery-like that would produce a similar amount of power, then you would have a workable solution to your problems caused by the remarkable lack of free oxygen in the solar system. Methane-Oxygen fuel cells might prove to be workable, but I don't know how far along that research has gotten. There is some 13 calories per gram of energy in methane.

      1. Kharkov
        Boffin

        Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

        Read Bob Zubrin's The Case For Mars. He talks about making methane from a small amount of hydrogen feedstock, brought from Earth initially until a supply (water) is found on Mars, and Carbon Dioxide, from Mars' atmosphere, plus oxygen to fuel any Mars rovers.

    3. Don Jefe

      Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

      I would argue there's a lot more long term commercial viability with Mars as the focus rather than as short haul teamsters. If SpaceX does manage to make money with satellite deliveries and ISS supply missions you're going to see scads of new companies spring up and quickly cut the bottom out of any real business opportunity.

      That's always the case with new industries, the first movers get the biggest financial benefits and the best partnership deals, but their cost structures are also always the highest. Nobody actually knows if there really is any significant money in private space ventures, but if it turns out there is money to be had then you're dealing with business fundamentals that are universal, regardless of the industry.

      You'll see 'advancement' and 'innovation' redefined to mean clever ways of cutting costs, increasing efficiencies, disingenuous contract semantics and leveraged financial shenanigans. That's all normal and an unavoidable part of business. The kids come to play in the pool after somebody else has built it.

      However, once you get past short term things like IP litigation and traps created by lobbyists the first mover has no choice but to look toward bigger things and get there before anyone else. That's the little discussed downside to being a first mover, you don't get to play with your own toys for very long. But like I said, the money is huge and will roll in for as long as you can keep moving forward.

      My point, is that SpaceX will see much larger returns by pressing ahead instead of instead of lazing about in NEO and getting the shit kicked out of them by the legions of companies that are going to warp to parity with SpaceX the moment (if) the financials are validated.

      1. Dani Eder

        Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

        > Nobody actually knows if there really is any significant money in private space ventures

        On the contrary, space industry is $300 billion a year worldwide, and about 2/3 of that is commercial. Satellites deliver TV, music, internet, navigation, and other services. Satellites are expensive and are discarded when they break or run out of fuel, so the next growth area will likely be refueling and maintenance. Robotics and remote control have gotten to where that is feasible, and ion thrusters can get you there efficiently.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

          Satellites is my hope. Maybe once repair of satellites is possible, they'll be designed for in-orbit repair. In which case great, that's what'll be done. But there's a huge fleet currently up there, which are all basically custom designed. You'd need to custom design the repair robot. Which is hideously expensive, and would need lots of research and testing. So it may well be cheaper to bung a few mechanics into orbit with a refuelling and repair tug plus small space garage.

          If you can do minor repairs on, and refuel, 2 satellites per month (24 per year), at an average of $200 million cost each - giving them say another 30% lifespan - that's $1.6 billion worth of new satellites people don't need to build. Give 30% back to the customer, so it's worth it, and that gives you $1.1 billion to play with.

          Say it takes 4 Falcon 9 launches a year for crew rotation and new parts deliveries, at $100m a pop, that gives you $600 million per year income to cover the debt costs of the station and space tugs, plus $100 million per year in non-rocket costs, satellite spare parts manufacture, and salaries.

          Back-of-a-fag-packet I know, but that looks like a viable business model to me. $600m a year over 10 years ought to buy you a decent little space station.

        2. auburnman

          Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

          Indeed, a repair / refueling company might even manage to get someone to pay them to start deorbiting some of the hazardous debris we've been leaving up there over the past few decades.

        3. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

          Dani, $300 billion… yes and no. A large proportion of that figure is going to be wrapped up in the satellites, not the launcher. Another big eater of budgets is insurance and an army of weenies with their grubby little hands out. I'll have to see if I can find some figures on what percentage of the $300 billion is hardware.

          Right now budgets are formulated to include throwing the satellite away after a certain lifetime. You really have to take some classes in orbital dynamics to get a grasp on how big even something as small as earth orbit is. When you start calculating the required deltaV to maneuver a robot around to refuel and maintain a satellite, you quickly see how little if any return on investment you can get.

          Xenon Ion drives are efficient, but the isp (thrust) is so tiny that it's useless for what would be needed on your servicing robot. A combination of an ion drive and classic MMH thrusters would work, but you would have to refuel the refueling robot a bunch somewhere.

          Look up some articles on "propellent depots" (orbiting rocket refueling stations). There have been some good papers published in the last few years.

      2. auburnman

        Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

        I think you're massively underestimating the barrier to entry for other new companies. For once, it IS rocket science. Any new entrant would have to do all the development, building and testing that SpaceX has already got out of the way, sort out their own launch facilities and hire a shitload of scientists and engineers just to get to a position significantly behind Musk. They'd still need a compelling reason for send-stuff-to-space customers to switch from a proven company, and SpaceX would still have lucrative NASA contracts until they run out.

        It took a visionary billionaire to get his company to where it is today, to get another SpaceX you'd need another Musk and they're few and far between.

        1. Don Jefe

          Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

          That $300 billion figure includes the monies that go to companies like mine that make tools and other assorted 'stuff' to support aerospace companies and the various government space agencies around the world. There's good money there, without a doubt. But as far as the actual space part of the equation? Nope. Nobody knows if there's real money there. Every single launch facility and every single bit of every post launch operational support infrastructure is wholly dependent on government subsidies to make any of the actual space stuff profitable. We'll just have to wait and see if SpaceX can change that equation.

          The barriers to entry aren't nearly as significant as you think. The costs aren't even that high, the risks are incredibly high though, and that's what keeps people out. If those risks can be mitigated and money can be made you'll see a crowded field in a quick fast hurry. This is absolutely no different than aircraft manufacturing, computer processor fabrication, or precision machining at the highest levels. There are zillions of ways to get the job done, but there only has to be one proven way, and everybody hops onboard.

          What you aren't recognizing is that SpaceX has no exclusivity on the technology they are proving. None of this technology is new, it's all probably older than you actually, it was just passed over in the 1960's because the needs were radically different. Recovering and reusing launch vehicle components was seen as fairly superfluous since those parts would just be vaporized when the Commies returned fire. The very idea that 'The West' would be in a space station partnership with the Russians was simply unthinkable.

          That's not taking anything away from SpaceX. What they're doing is great! But you've got to realize that they are simply picking up the field trials where they left off half a century ago. If they prove that technology can be used profitably then there's absolutely nothing standing in the way of anyone else who wants to get in on the action.

          I've got a fair amount of confidence that SpaceX will prove the financials and that SpaceY and SpaceZ are waiting for that to occur. I've got enough confidence in that happening in the next decade or so that when we were designing our new mirror production expansion we did so with the growth of our aerospace wing in mind. I could have saved a shitload of money by tacking the mirror fab onto the end of our building, but that would have meant buying and building around a second gantry crane when the time came to make things for those new players waiting to enter the market as soon as SpaceX validates it. I haven't made a career out of being wrong about that sort of thing.

          1. Richard 12 Silver badge

            Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

            Rocket science is easy.

            It's rocket engineering that's difficult, and right now the only people doing it are SpaceX, the ESA (Ariane) and the Russians (Soyuz and ULA).

            If the engineering was that easy, why are the ULA buying their engines from Russia?

            Nobody else is making the size of rocket engine needed to put tonnes into orbit.

            1. Don Jefe

              Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

              I went over this a while back, but the ULA deal was made solely to improve diplomatic relations between the US, EU and Russia. It's all publicly available information, and if you care to go have a look, the details of the arrangement, and the vendor contracts that more than doubled the actual overall cost of the motors was happily accepted by all parties.

              The US and UK subsidized NASA and ESA projects by giving the vendors to those projects enormous guaranteed contracts for products and services that were already 'catalog' parts requiring no R&D. It has all been great for me. Because we're the sole provider for more than a little of the tooling, QA and test equipment those vendors use, I've been able to structure raw materials purchases and adjust our capacity forecasts enough to save several million dollars over the lifetimes of those contracts.

              I'm in no way saying that the technical aspects of space projects are 'easy', but the technical side of all of it is not the most challenging aspect. There are far more difficult things to manage through if you want to be in the business. Politics being the thorniest of those issues. Like I said, all this is public information, start looking into it and I expect you'll discover even more things you didn't know. The world is far more complex than you know.

              1. MachDiamond Silver badge

                Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

                "There are far more difficult things to manage through if you want to be in the business. Politics being the thorniest of those issues."

                If I prod you with a stick labeled ITAR, will you vent steam?

                1. Don Jefe

                  Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

                  Nah. If you poke me with a stick I vent money. I make my money no matter who has their name on the side of the rocket. It's pretty cool being the company that enables the aerospace industry to do a lot of what they do.

                  We're not a huge company, but our client list is vast and there are very few high tech firms on Earth that we don't do work for, none of which are in 'The West'. Because of that I've got a fair amount of insight into what's really involved in making things go as well as who, and how, things are being done.

                  As I said earlier, SpaceX doesn't have any exclusivity on any of the underlying tech they are working with. The details of how certain things are accomplished have been improved on by SpaceX, in a way that's inline with their financial structure, but there are several thousand ways to skin a cat and all are just as valid from an engineering perspective.

                  In the US alone there is intellectual, manufacturing and finance surplus available to duplicate everything SpaceX is doing, in 75%+ less time, if the money pans out in doing this privately. Europe has most of what is needed as well, and the missing manufacturing capacity could be sorted in a reasonably short period and be a nice economic boost to that entire region. The need for a well funded, adventurous leader disappears completely once they have proven the concepts underlying it all. After that it's just regular business, no different than any other. But SpaceX will have the first mover advantage and the partnerships that will let them leap forward again and go to Mars, or whatever. Which is what started this dialogue.

                  The space around near Earth space is going to get, comparatively, crowded very fast if SpaceX makes any money. Elon Musk is not the only person with vast amounts of money or access to cutting edge technologies. Those people are just waiting to see what happens. Watch and see.

            2. MachDiamond Silver badge

              Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

              "It's rocket engineering that's difficult, and right now the only people doing it are SpaceX, the ESA (Ariane) and the Russians (Soyuz and ULA).

              If the engineering was that easy, why are the ULA buying their engines from Russia?

              Nobody else is making the size of rocket engine needed to put tonnes into orbit."

              There are lots of people doing rocket engineering. Orbital is often overlooked, but they are also resupplying the ISS. Blue Origin is developing rockets. Virgin Galactic, Xcor. Up Aerospace, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Space Dev, Firestar, Ventions and a bunch more.

              Any question that has the string "why are the(y)" or "why aren't they" can usually be answered with one word, money.

              It had been much cheaper for ULA to buy RD-180 engines off the shelf than to spend millions of dollars in tooling to build a copy. I think I read that ULA has a license to build the engines in the US if they want, but at this point it looks like they have an RFQ out to find somebody that will build them a replacement rather than just a copy. It was in the AIAA Daily Launch newsletter sometime in the past week.

              There are rocket engines of many sizes that can be made again if there is a market demand for them. Even the hunks of crap they used to stick under the Shuttle. Hell, the plans for the F1 still exist and some of the tooling might be rusting away in a company yard somewhere.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

              > It's rocket engineering that's difficult

              Richard, you wouldn't happen to be an engineer, would you? ;-)

      3. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

        Don Jefe, I disagree. SpaceX had a pretty phat target to shoot at to get into the market. The old guard, working on cost+ contracts, has grown fat and lazy. To this day they seem to be trying to play politics to keep SpaceX out of the military launching business instead of reworking themselves to be more efficient and compete on a level playing field.

        The barrier to entry is still very high. An even higher barrier is finding the right group of experienced engineers to turn the business plan into real hardware. There aren't that many out there to fill very specialized disciplines like navigation and guidance. Youth and energy are one thing, but I have worked with interns pursuing an aerospace engineering degree that didn't know what standard screw sizes are in their 3rd year. That's going to cost a company a bunch of time and money while that person learns about real hardware IF there are some seasoned engineers around to help them out.

        The 45th space wing at Cape Canaveral has to be very convinced about quality before they will allow a company to put a rocket on a launch pad and send it off. A new company has a tough battle to get to that point. I've got the T-shirt, I know.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

      Another idiot Republican or Republican wanna be who thinks that countries or companies are incapable of multitasking.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: That about wraps it up for SpaceX

      AndrewG,

      First off, your spelling is atrocious. Please do something about it, out of respect to your audience.

      Secondly, allow me to quote SpaceX's mission statement since you couldn't be arsed to look it up yourself:

      « SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2002 to revolutionize space technology, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets. » (my emphasis)

      It hardly looks like getting sidetracked to me.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What Mister Musk needs...

    ...is a batter with about the same energy density as gasoline, excuse me, petrol. Petrol comes in at ten calories per gram. Trinitrotoulol, or TNT, has about 0.65 calories per gram. The battery in your computer weighs in at 0.1 calories per gram. Hydrogen gas fuel cells come in at 26 calories per gram. Natural gas, or methane, comes in at 13 calories per gram. Chocolate chip cookies, have five calories per gram. That's right, half the energy density of petrol.

    If we could produce a battery with as high an energy denisty as the chocolate chip cookie we'd really have something and it would not matter what it cost, because it could then replace petrol as a power source.

    1. Kharkov
      Angel

      Re: What Mister Musk needs...

      An upvote, sir, for the delightful image of...

      Chocolate-cookie-fueled cars!

      Yes, one day I'll be telling my wife, "No, no, these are for the car, I promise!"

      1. Simon Harris

        Re: What Mister Musk needs...

        "A batter with about the same energy density..."

        I thought he was going to be feeding cars with Yorkshire pudding!

      2. Tom_

        Re: What Mister Musk needs...

        That's getting very close to an oats-and-the-odd-apple fueled car.

        Also known as a horse and cart.

        1. Richard Taylor 2
          Unhappy

          Re: What Mister Musk needs...

          Unfortunately I don't like oats and prefer cookies to apples (well some time)

          1. Simon Harris
            Happy

            Re: What Mister Musk needs... @Richard Taylor 2

            Oatmeal cookies might be a good compromise...

            Nomnomnom...

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: What Mister Musk needs...

      There is the small problem of oxidation rates between petrol and chocolate chip cookies. My waistline provides some evidence of that.

  6. Chairo
    Happy

    ... "He paid tribute to NASA, saying that without that agency's pioneering work, SpaceX couldn't have got as far as it has."

    Am I the only one to read this as "Thanks NASA - now move over, I'll take it from here." ?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    10-12 years

    NASA thinks it takes 6 months only. Musk's ship must be travelling real slow to take that long.

    Assume that's what he means :-P

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: 10-12 years

      6 months to get from Earth to Mars. 10-12 years to build some hardware to do it.

  8. attoman

    Lost Science or the Register has lost the meaning of the category

    Science means science not business with Musk, or pseudo-sex with Lohan. No laughs, no reasons, and no apologies (yet).

    1. Grikath

      Re: Lost Science or the Register has lost the meaning of the category

      Umm.. last time I checked Elon Musk has made electric cars more-or-less practical/feasible, and managed to build space-going vessels. Or rather, made sure some pretty clever people got the opportunity to do so. And continues to do so. Because, you know, It Can Be Done.

      It may not be Science, but it is some damned good applied science and solid Engineering that's behind all this, and as such fits quite well where Vulture Central placed it.

      1. FutureShock999

        Re: Lost Science or the Register has lost the meaning of the category

        Given Elon's track record...and I've been watching this space for half a century...what he does is NOT SCIENCE.

        It is magic, by Arthur C. Clark's definition.

        His latest capsule has "3D metal printed rocket engines". And flys with touchscreens, not banks and banks of switches and knobs. No, really. What he is producing is nearly a generation ahead of competitors...in short, magic.

  9. Roj Blake Silver badge

    Prediction

    In the year 2024 Elon Musk will be claiming that he'll be able to put a human on Mars in another 10-12 years.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: Prediction

      Possibly. But he might just be saying it from his orbital space headquarters where he lives with a harem of 500, selected for their genetic purity / diversity (or the quality of their norks?). Ready to either colonise Mars and die of over-exertion in his father-of-the-colony role, or to destroy all life from Earth, with no Roger Moore around to stop him.

    2. Richard the Head

      Re: Prediction

      In the last year Mr. Musk has:

      - Sent his in house designed space ship to the ISS, twice;

      - Announced plans for a gigafactory for Li batteries;

      - Completed a trans continent charging infrastructure for his electric cars (which isfree to use);

      - Soft landed, for the first time a first stage rocket booster;

      - Unveiled a reusable, crewed, powered landing space craft;

      - Announced plans for the worlds largest solar panel factory.

      So if he thinks they can land people on mars in 10-12 years it would be a fool who would bet against it.

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Prediction

        - Sent his in house designed space ship to the ISS, twice;

        Against how many Soyuz flights? Orbital is sending up supplies on their rockets too.

        - Announced plans for a gigafactory for Li batteries;

        Yeah well, let's see if it happens. Hasn't Panasonic backed out?

        - Completed a trans continent charging infrastructure for his electric cars (which isfree to use);

        Free to use if you own a Tesla. It's a strange route too.

        - Soft landed, for the first time a first stage rocket booster;

        It's still left to see if it will be worth the effort.

        - Unveiled a reusable, crewed, powered landing space craft;

        Crewed? Not actually even designed for a crew yet and others have been there already.

        - Announced plans for the worlds largest solar panel factory.

        Please hold your applause until the final act….. building it and shipping product.

        So if he thinks they can land people on mars in 10-12 years it would be a fool who would bet against it.

        If I casino in Las Vegas wants to make book on that prediction, I'll happily bet against Elon.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Prediction

          Whoops, I erred.

          --- Unveiled a reusable, crewed, powered landing space craft;

          Crewed? Not actually even designed for a crew yet and others have been there already--

          I was thinking of Grasshopper and not the capsule mock up.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Prediction

          MachDiamond, is that a chip on your shoulder? :-)

          > If I casino in Las Vegas wants to make book on that prediction, I'll happily bet against Elon.

          Two or three years ago I bet for him on the stock market. A 700% gain latter...

          But it's not about the money, I don't know your background, but I don't think any of us are in a position to criticise here. Never mind what he's saying he can/will do--look at what he's already achieved in just over a decade. If you have ever built a business you surely know how fucking hard that is to even get off the ground, never mind achieve great things.

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Prediction

            Yes, I have built a business from the ground up. Got clobbered by the Chinese on cost of manufacture.

            I've worked in the aerospace business on some pretty wild projects. I know many people that work for and have worked for SpaceX. This is why I would never take a job with them. I am privy to some exceptionally damning information on Elon that I will not repeat.

            Elon is very good at blowing smoke up people's, ahh well, you know. There is so much work left to be done to send a crewed mission to Mars that even a guess at when it could happen is premature. I will qualify that by defining a successful manned mission as one where the crew arrives living and either returns to Earth alive and in good health or are able to live a full life on Mars. At present there isn't a commercially viable argument to go to Mars, so any mission will have to be by a government or funded by a group of wealthy individuals. Mr. Musk, according to some, has far fewer liquid assets than many assume. Just a few years ago he was said to have to borrow money from friends to meet his monthly bills. Banks prefer cash for mortgage payments and not stock options. Strangely enough, so does the electric company.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Prediction

      > In the year 2024 ....

      Roj, you might think you're being witty and all that while in reality you just sound pathetic. The thing is the man can credibly say "I'll send someone up there", and clearly he's got the means and the track record to get a good shot at it. If he fails, he fails, but that doesn't detract one bit from the attempt. Not many people can realistically set themselves goals as ambitious as colonising another planet.

      Now tell me, Roj, what is the most ambitious goal you could possibly set for yourself while still being taken seriously by your peers? Please let us know so we can take the discussion from there.

  10. This post has been deleted by its author

  11. Mick Russom

    Tesla Bonds in Junk Status

    Tesla company bond were recently downgraded to JUNK status. This guy has a big mouth a good rolodex to get at other people's money. a

    1. James Hughes 1

      Re: Tesla Bonds in Junk Status

      Tesla shares currently at $230ish.

      S&P downgraded Tesla bond debt to junk. Info here...http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/11/tesla-and-solarcity-similar-green-credentials-very.aspx

      Questionable whether that a problem or not.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Tesla Bonds in Junk Status

      Mick Russom, would you care to explain what you think that means and what you think the implications are? Perhaps you would also care to tell us how the stock has fared since S&P's press release, and what you think that says about S&P's credibility these days? Thank you.

  12. TRT Silver badge
    Joke

    "I'll put HUMANS on MARS by 2026"

    Half of Glasgow already lives on Mars.

    1. Shrimpling
      Coat

      Be careful with comments like that or next time you go to Glasgow you will be Battered.

      1. AbelSoul

        ... or next time you go to Glasgow you will be Battered...

        ... deep fried and served with chips, all wrapped up in yesterday's newspaper.

      2. Richard Taylor 2
        Joke

        battered

        to be fair they will deep fry you afterwards

    2. AbelSoul
      Trollface

      Re. Half of Glasgow already lives on Mars.

      That we do and usually coated with, "A batter with about the same energy density..."

  13. IglooDude
    Thumb Up

    Selling shares in a venture about to launch into space? Elon Musk is taking another page from DD Harriman's playbook.

  14. xperroni
    Mushroom

    Can you even doublespeak?

    That's not to say Musk sees himself competing with the space agency. He paid tribute to NASA, saying that without that agency's pioneering work, SpaceX couldn't have got as far as it has.

    Translation: "move over have-beens, we'll take it up from here". Some tribute...

  15. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
    Joke

    But

    Has he got a white Persian cat?

    Kudos to Elon, though, he has the balls, and business mind to do stuff I dreamed of as a kid watching the Apollo programme unfold. I got my kids very excited when I pointed to Mars in the sky, and told them two robot cars made on earth were trundling around there. I do hope at some point I can point there and say there are people on that red dot in the sky.

  16. MachDiamond Silver badge

    Mars? Pah!

    The "public" is all excited about going to Mars. It makes great sound bites for politicians when they campaign in tech heavy regions. Engineers and physiologists shake their heads and moan.

    With the relatively recents success of MER, Phoenix, and Curiosity, the tally is up to a 50%ish success rate of getting to Mars. Many of the failures have made their "mark" on the surface of the Red Planet. That's pretty dismal. There will be plenty of people that will sign up to go, but a 50/50 chance of crashing at the end of the first leg isn't good enough odds to spend the billions of dollars it will require.

    On the hardware side, there is a lot of work to be done on just recycling human waste. For a vehicle to have a mass that can be sent, there will need to be a very high reuse rate of water. I don't think there is anybody on the planet that could go 6 months without bathing while confined in a small space that wouldn't drive their own nose into revolt.

    It won't be just one rocket taking the crew and all of their stuff. There will need to be many launches to deliver the tools and supplies before the crew is sent. All of the gear will need systems to check that it has arrived in good condition. If anything is damaged or destroyed, replacements will need to be sent the next time the planets line up again for a Hohmann transfer orbit. Around 2 years, and then that delivery has to be verified. A F9H launcher to push enough mass all the way to Mars is only the first step. The mass that it's pushing also needs engineering.

    Secondly and most importantly will be the health of the crew. To have a mission that is any use, the crew need to arrive healthy and sane. They may have to spring into action to resolve a critical issue right away. Radiation during the journey from solar flares could have some serious implications. There have never been any studies on how the human body reacts to fractional G. We know about how our bodies react on Earth (1G) and also in freefall (0G), but nothing in between. The visits to the moon were not long enough to get any data. Will the crew be fit enough to survive a return trip and adjust to living in Earth's gravitational field again or will their health be so deteriorated as to make coming home fruitless?

    "Initial results from a study of Chris Hadfield and other astronauts who spent months aboard the International Space Station have turned up changes like those seen in someone developing Type 2 diabetes on Earth." -www.theglobeandmail.com

    We won't even get into issues of sex and pregnancy beyond that trials with mice and rats in 0G were not pretty.

    Being physically healthy has to be balanced with good mental health. Being locked up in a cramped high stress environment with other people pushes some people over the edge. The Russians have had a couple of issues during their programs on space stations. There are reports of some problems encountered with US astronauts as well. Gomez and Morticia might be at each others throats locked in a walk-in closet for months on end.

    If you aren't an avid reader of science fiction, you are missing out on some great thought experiments into just the issues that will need to be addressed to make a trip to Mars successful. Read the first book in the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, Red Mars. The second 2 volumes and the tail end of the fist one delve almost exclusively into societal and political issues. If you have seen videos and read books by Robert Zubrin, you can see his thinking in the storyline. There are some Mars lectures by Robert Zubrin on YouTube. Time for The Stars by Robert Heinlein and Variable Star by Robert Heinlein and Spider Robinson describe some aspects of living on a starship.

    Many of my friends work for NASA, JPL, AFRL (Air Force Research Labs), ULA, SpaceX and other aerospace firms and when we get together we invariably talk about space stuff. Except for one dreamer, the rest of us see returning to the moon and establishing a base there as a needed step in any long term goal of sending people to Mars. While there are challenges in building a lunar base that won't exist on Mars, there are many technologies that can be tested in a real off-Earth environment. The most important item to test is the human body. Some long term data on how the human body reacts in a reduced gravity environment will be of major importance. The benefit of a lunar base might be more valuable than any other endeavor to date. He3 might be a minor factor. A facility that can work on genetic engineering or nasty viruses like ebola would be as safe as one could get. Just don't connect it with anything else. If the worst happens the facility could be opened up to vacuum and raw sunlight or sealed, never to be accessed again. The nearness of luna means that emergency supplies could be sent quickly and evacuating a crew can be accomplished anytime it's needed. Two things that aren't possible with Mars.

    I would like to see Jackass Flats reactivated and work restarted on nuclear thermal rocket engines. We could use chemical rockets to get into Earth orbit and a NTR for the trip to Mars. If there were issues, using a propellent depot to top up the chemical (liquid stage) of the rocket for the initial push before starting up a NTR at a further point away from Earth could be a possibility. The objective would be a system that could get a crew to Mars in the least amount of time. We would have to find the best way to collect Hydrogen on Mars to refuel the main propulsion stack (left in orbit) for the trip back.

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: Mars? Pah!

      Like anything else, exotic engineering isn't the answer to anything. I tell our clients all the time, maybe some of whom are your friends, the drive and resolution are the hard parts. If you've got that we can engineer the rest. You start with a technology and all you've got in the end is the solution to a problem that may or may not be significant enough to be meaningful.

      But you start with an idea and the resolve to see it through and technical limitations become operational, secondary issues that can be resolved in nearly limitless ways. Tell me what you want to accomplish and that's what will happen. Tell me how to accomplish it and you've got no need for me.

  17. HippyFreetard

    M'arse

    I like Musk, he's a forward-looking person. He's like the capitalist reading of Ghandi's "be the change you want to see" ethos. Love his work so far. Electric cars, spaceships - cool stuff.

    Not too sure about Mars though.

    (TL,DR: I want rotating spaceships first)

    It seems a little too far off. I mean, we have no knowledge of what the reduced gravity would do to us over the long-term. Would we want to adapt, and visit Earth in wheelchairs, or would we want to go around in elastic suits and heavy robes to counteract the effects while on Mars? I was watching one of those fun-fair rides with the spinning chairs on chains, and I thought maybe you could have cabins hung from a huge tower that could top up your gravity a little in the evening.

    Personally, I'd put that money into a rotating permanent space station. Maybe Musk knows that Bigelow Aerospace looks like they'll acheive that, so he's thinking further. I think that's the way to go. Just one, capable of housing a few construction workers comfortably, and you've got a space revolution. It will be easier to mine asteroids and comets and build stations with AG in Lagrange points and orbits all round the solar system. A city on Mars will be a much more acheivable goal from there.

    The reasons NASA aren't concentrating on this are quite logical. They want to run zero-G experiments, and gauge the effects of zero-G on station inhabitants. Sure, they want to go to Mars, but they don't want to go until they know whether it's possible without bothering with AG. That's why private enterprise is so important here. Asteroid and comet mining could actually be profitable for companies down on Earth, so we'll need the equivalent of an oil rig or something. Somewhere where you can sit down and forget you're at work, even if your work is in space.

    We have Musk already working on his spaceship. Branson's got his own in the pipeline, and there's also a lot of talk about the Skylon spaceplane. With Bigelow making inflatable space stations, as well as a few other weirder contenders (like JPAerospace!) developing their own stuff. Even Copenhagen Suborbitals are acheiving their goals.

    1. Kharkov
      Boffin

      Re: M'arse

      Quote: The reasons NASA aren't concentrating on this are quite logical. They want to run zero-G experiments, and gauge the effects of zero-G on station inhabitants. Unquote

      Bob Zubrin tells a story about way back when high-performance piston-engine (propellers) aircraft were reaching high altitude and the pilots were blacking out due to oxygen deprivation and bad things happened after that. Naturally the brass wanted this to stop - planes are expensive after all and it takes a while to train new pilots - so they turned to medical scientists who wanted to study they effects of oxygen deprivation so while they did get data, planes continued to be lost until the brass lost patience and turned to aviation engineers who just added a bottle of compressed oxygen, masks and a tube to connect the two.

      Voila! No more lost planes.

      Zubrin goes on to compare this to NASA's current approach to zero-g issues. Some G is better than zero-G so why not make some? Because NASA scientists are busy getting data on zero-G issues. In effect, reducing expensively trained human beings to lab rats so the medical scientists can study bone demineralisation, muscle atrophy etc.

      Far better, says Zubrin, to give them some G (Tethers seem to be Zubrin's favourite method) and so significantly reduce the harmful effects. Personally, I'd rather take the engineering approach than the medical approach, especially if I was going to spend a year in space - six months going, six months coming back - plus almost two years (or more) in Mars' .32g environment.

      Large rotating space stations? Nice but they'll be a bugger to build, and really, really, ree-ally expensive until we get some kind of mining, refining, smelting & shaping going on in space so stuff doesn't have to be lifted from Earth.

      Building a station in Mars orbit and then going down? Check the energy figures, it's cheaper to go to Mars and land and build your industrial infrastructure there and then go up than it is to build in orbit and then go down.

      Finally, Bigelow ISN'T making space stations. He has some tech that might, one day, be used to make cheap stations but, as far as I know, he isn't scheduled to put a Bigelow station up any time within the next six years - yes, I've heard about the Bigelow module for ISS, I said Bigelow station.

      Oh, and Branson doesn't have a spaceship, he has a sub-orbital plaything that will, if he ever gets it going, give people a few minutes of zero-G.

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: M'arse

        Kharkov, the supplemental oxygen story works to illustrate your point only so far. We had data on people living at altitude and a quick trip up a mountain for some medical tests might point to how much oxygen would need to be supplied to the pilots. To figure out the least amount of spin that would be needed for a long journey spacecraft, we need at least one more datum. The moon looks like the best place to do that.

        I'm pretty sure the two inflatable test habitats that Bigelow has launched are still up there. It's been a while since I have seen any mention of them. I should have seen something if they have been deorbited or destroyed.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re. Re: M'arse

    Wonder if Musk has looked into Mg-ion as a cheaper alternative to Li-ion?

    Now the technology has improved the lower terminal voltage and weird charging curves are more than offset by 1/4 cost.

    Did I mention that Mg is present in abundance on Mars, along with carbonates and other needed chemicals?

  19. Unlicensed Dremel

    Problem with this (why it won't happen as planned / alleged), is that the resources required are enormous - many time what Musk has or will every have, and so the world is certainly not going to throw the requisite amount of resources at this unless and until worldwide tragedy strikes, crystallizing the need. Global pandemic, massive post-peak-oil war, moderate but not species-annihilating asteroid collision, supervolcano eruption, etc. Something that wipes out at least 1/4 the earth's population. When we recover from that, a few decades to a couple hundred years later, it *MIGHT* happen.

    1. Kharkov
      Go

      If you build it, they will come...

      @ Unlicensed Dremal

      Nice point. Elon/SpaceX can't do it all, true... but...

      He can do a few FH launches taking a stockpile of food & water, a store of liquid hydrogen, a powerplant (probably nuclear or nuclear-type), a methane production box (turning small amounts of hydrogen, adding large amounts of Carbon Dioxide to get a lot of methane & oxygen) & a methane-fueled rover & probably a habitat module and, of course, an Earth-Return vehicle, all of this ala Mars Direct.

      Then he can follow this with a crew (4 people?) in a zero-g habitat/lander. They can live in the already-arrived habitat and stay on Mars for 2 years or so.

      Will that be a colony? No.

      It will get an awful lot of attention and will start a lot of people working on getting to Mars, dreaming about Mars, hoping to one day go to Mars. The money is likely to follow thereafter.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like