SpaceX Intends To Send a Red Dragon To Mars As Early As 2018 (blastingnews.com)

Reader MarkWhittington writes: SpaceX has announced that it intends to send a version of its Dragon spacecraft, called "Red Dragon," to Mars as early as 2018. The mission, to be launched on top of a Falcon Heavy rocket, would be the first to another planet conducted by a commercial enterprise. The flight of the Red Dragon would be the beginning of SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's long-term dream of building a settlement on Mars.Ars Technica reports: According to the company, these initial test missions will help demonstrate the technologies needed to land large payloads propulsively on Mars. This series of missions, to be launched on the company's not-yet-completed Falcon Heavy rocket, will provide key data for SpaceX as the company develops an overall plan to send humans to the Red Planet to colonize Mars. One of the biggest challenges in landing on Mars is the fact that its atmosphere is so thin it provides little braking capacity. To land the 900kg Curiosity rover on Mars, NASA had to devise the complicated sky crane system that led to its "Seven Minutes of Terror." A Dragon would weigh much more, perhaps about 6,000kg. To solve this problem, SpaceX plans to use an upgraded spacecraft, a Dragon2 powered by eight SuperDraco engines, to land using propulsion.

Comments

as early as, but not before

[rdelsambuco]

So they're pretty much guaranteed to meet their goal.

Re:as early as, but not before

[Anonymous Coward]

They've got a much better shot of meeting their Mars colony goal than my rocket company and interplanetary relocation service does, even if I make a bunch of tautological statements.

Anonymous Coward's Mars Expeditions (ACME) - Kaboom!

Re:as early as, but not before

[Anonymous Coward]

SpaceX probably just said "in 2018" but the writer couldn't stick to facts and had to inject her opinion that 2018 is surprisingly early.

Re:as early as, but not before

[Anonymous Coward]

The wikipedia article on Red Dragon said 2022.

Re:as early as, but not before

[NotDrWho]

I don't know what you're complaining about, the statement made it crystal clear that it would launch at some point between 2018 and never. How much more specific do you need??

Re:as early as, but not before

[Anonymous Coward]

A year estimate would have been nice. The complaint wasn't about the clarity of the statement but about the statement itself. If a headline said "Prince died at age 3 or older", then the statement would have been crystal clear about what it says, but it would still be retarded.

Re:as early as, but not before

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh?

Oh crap..

[Anonymous Coward]

..the Martians are going to be cannibals.

Re: Oh crap..

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we can go there safely because we're not Martians.

Red Dragon

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it will be called "Red Dragon" since it will be built in China?

Re:Red Dragon

[Mr D from 63]

Red Dragon rhymes with Dead Wagon

Re:Red Dragon

[Anonymous Coward]

It also rhymes with Bread Flagon.

Barkeep! More sandwiches and another pitcher of ale here!

Re:Red Dragon

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it will be called "Red Dragon" since it will be built in China?

When I saw the headline, my impression is that they were being contracted to launch a Chinese payload.

These names

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely nerd-named via d20

Re:These names

[Anonymous Coward]

What else would you call a "dragon" you sent to the "red planet"

Re:These names

[Rockoon]

What else would you call a "dragon" you sent to the "red planet"

Up Goer.

Re: These names

[Anonymous Coward]

Down goer 2?

Re: These names

[Anonymous Coward]

How the monied man LOOKS?

intentions = hype

[sittingnut]

forget delays, forget budget overruns, forget subsidies, forget failures, forget others, just focus on hype and dreams!

at this rate musk will land on mars using hype alone. and fanboys will take that for the real thing.

Re:intentions = hype

[Anonymous Coward]

Decades ago, aerospace research was all private, then the government started buying in because it realised the benefit to the miliatary.

FTFY

Re:intentions = hype

[religionofpeas]

but the missions themselves were managed centrally - the most efficient and effective approach (by definition).

Only if the management is done right.

Re:intentions = hype

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. (When I say "red" I mean "red as viewed by someone who isn't colorblind".)

For top level organisation, the free market is a great first approximation, but that's all. One moves away from it, not toward it.

Re:intentions = hype

[religionofpeas]

For top level organisation, the free market is a great first approximation, but that's all. One moves away from it, not toward it.

The best idea is to keep moving to the best solution, without useless dogma.

Re:intentions = hype

[ColdWetDog]

Decades ago, aerospace research was all private, then the government started buying in because it realised the benefit to the miliatary.

FTFY

I guess WWI was 'a few decades' but governments have been heavily involved in aerospace for quite some time. Remember, Jules Verne and Robert Heinlein never actually built anything.

Re:intentions = hype

[k6mfw]

and fanboys will take that for the real thing.

also note if you post something critical of SpaceX, they will flame your butt. One person who continually posted critical remarks (or negative as some saw it) about the New Space crowd in many space forums and was banned from all of them except one (comments in Spudis lunar blog). He had reasons, whether people agreed or not but he did raise some interesting points such as if going beyond earth orbit need LH2/LOX and also raised caution of Ayd Rand policies for space programs.

Re:intentions = hype

[Anonymous Coward]

Those dreams and hype managed to get some fancy electric cars and a rocket that could land on a barge.

Re:intentions = hype

[cavreader]

The government has been involved in developing aerospace technology since WW1. The government doesn't actually research or build anything. They pay the private sector to research and build things. The private companies supply the US military with aerospace technology but they are also in the business of building commercial aircraft.

Re:intentions = hype

[khallow]

Decades ago, aerospace research was all private, then the government started buying in because it realised the benefit to society. For a while, the government managed aerospace research, and for a while, the US accelerated at a magnificent pace. Then neoliberalism came along, and for no reason at all we're contracting management back out to private industry. SpaceX has the best marketing machine in aerospace.

Sorry, but this is rather stupid historical revisionism. NASA didn't stop "accelerating" because some market enthusiasts or whatnot (the so-called "neoliberals"). They stopped accelerating because their political masters never cared where NASA was going. Once JFK's commitment was fulfilled by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1969, that was it for "acceleration". The entire life of NASA (from birth in 1957) has been theater with a few big photo ops for the involved politicians to exploit.

N.B. This isn't a post against involvement of private industry: one should always choose the best specialist, and they're often found in the private sector. This is what NASA used to do, but the missions themselves were managed centrally - the most efficient and effective approach (by definition).

Sure, any political vote buying scheme, whether it be Social Security or NASA, works best if the politician can show a direct connection from their actions to the largess of the scheme.

But if you want to do something other than buying votes rather inefficiently for yourself, then maybe central planning (which is not the most efficient and effective approach in general nor in definition) is not for you.

You also apparently wrote further down the tree:

For top level organisation, the free market is a great first approximation, but that's all. One moves away from it, not toward it.

Depends what the organization is. SpaceX isn't managed by the market, for example, even though it does have a lot of interactions with markets. Free markets are great for societies, for example. And it is remarkable how a lot of the criticism of free markets comes actually from the breaking of the markets rather than the functioning of the markets. Where else can you be criticized for the things we prevented you from doing?

With space development, the key obstruction has been high cost of access to space. That cost has warped everything that is done in space. The end result is that the costs of objects put in space tends to be between five and ten times the cost of the launch with extremely low cost objects being test launches on a new, risky rocket design and the most expensive launches tending to be high end military and research projects.

SpaceX has the potential to drop those costs by a factor of ten or more (depending where you start). That means you could put around ten times as much mass in space to do something without the hardcore mass shaving, reliability, and other optimizations common to current space projects.

Re:intentions = hype

[khallow]

such as if going beyond earth orbit need LH2/LOX and also raised caution of Ayd Rand policies for space programs.

Sounds like there was a good justification for the flaming. I've run into people who care about the danger that there might be libertarians or objectivists in space. These people are to a man dumb.

Why should we worry more about libertarians in space than progressives in space? Well, aside from the former being more likely to be in space? Har har har.

Also, a lot of the criticism of New Space, SpaceX, and similar topics is rather dumb (you might see a theme here). I don't admire the ability to ignore 60 years of wreckage from the ways that supposedly work better, but never seem to get us anywhere. They don't have that problem, of course. There's always some Emmanuel Goldstein holding us back.

Re:intentions = hype

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw, Market is All but we know it is imperfect. Only... we analyze it as a transcendental entity, but it all seems a succession of market periods / centralized decision making is what makes the thing tick perfectly. Lets see what will happen with IoT and total computing accountability...

Professor, I'll have the paper ready as early as..

[Anonymous Coward]

... the due date.

bonus points for the church organ version

[Thud457]

Is it going to play a 13-minute version of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida after successfully landing?

Re:Wow, sure

[rdelsambuco]

I wish I hadn't commented on this story so I could up-vote you.

Contemporary culture is turning into mass hallucination - we're becoming our own cargo cult.

They've got an uphill battle

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm having a hard time believing its going to happen anytime soon, but not due to technological hurtles and not even necessarily due to financial ones either. Any US company/individual interested in traveling out into the solar system on their own is going to face a gauntlet of red tape. "Environmental" groups that see any human advancement as an affront to the "natural order". Entrenched business interests that see it as a threat to their profit margins. And politicians who have spent years touting the "difficulty" of space travel and necessity of vast expenditures in money/resources to their states/districts. Against that SpaceX is going to have one heck of an uphill battle, though they did face a similar one just getting into the launch industry so while it might take a while they could very well succeed.

Re:They've got an uphill battle

[Anonymous Coward]

"Environmental" groups that see any human advancement as an affront to the "natural order"

A bunch of bullshit. You might find one or two kooks, but the vast majority don't have a problem with it.

politicians who have spent years touting the "difficulty" of space travel and necessity of vast expenditures in money/resources to their states/districts

So SpaceX will find space travel hard because politicians and the aeronautics industry will make it hard? What if space travel is simply a challenging field?

Your views are ignorant and misinformed---and some of them are not not particularly falsifiable. Brilliant thinking. (sarcasm there)

Re:They've got an uphill battle

[ColdWetDog]

I'm having a hard time believing its going to happen anytime soon, but not due to technological hurtles and not even necessarily due to financial ones either. Any US company/individual interested in traveling out into the solar system on their own is going to face a gauntlet of red tape. "Environmental" groups that see any human advancement as an affront to the "natural order". Entrenched business interests that see it as a threat to their profit margins. And politicians who have spent years touting the "difficulty" of space travel and necessity of vast expenditures in money/resources to their states/districts. Against that SpaceX is going to have one heck of an uphill battle, though they did face a similar one just getting into the launch industry so while it might take a while they could very well succeed.

What, PETA has found 'Mars Hamsters' or something? Greenpeace has the "Vacuum Warrior"?

The Sierra Club is going to stand on "Of Course I'll Still Love You" and try to block a launch?

When was the last time you past the Turing Test?

Re:They've got an uphill battle

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been several attempts to designate large swaths of the moon as "Parks". A while back I believe there was even a push in the UN (I believe) to get all of space designated as a wildlife preserve to "protect it from human desecration". While these efforts are few and far between at the moment that is only because of the perception that nothing major is going to happen in space for the immediate future. With the talk of colonies on the Mars and a "Moon village" you can bet that they'll begin coming out of the woodwork when spacecraft are actually being constructed.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/space-environmentalism/
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120305-is-it-now-time-to-save-the-moon
http://www.australianscience.com.au/space/the-whole-earth-side-of-the-moon-should-be-protected-forever-2/
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2855/1

A good start

[deadwill69]

I think he is off to a good start. Don't know about the time table. He has successfully shown that he can perform this type of lift and landing. He's not demonstrated reliability just yet, but he has been successful and this looks to be the beginning of a pattern. He has shown that he can perform second stage upper orbit capabilities so this one should just require the larger rocket. It's a little behind schedule, but barring any major setbacks, he and his crew should be able to perform a limited landing in the near future. Less than two years? Hopeful but not optimistic.

Re:A good start

[DerekLyons]

I think he is off to a good start. Don't know about the time table. He has successfully shown that he can perform this type of lift and landing.

o.0 Huh?
 
The Falcon Heavy hasn't flown, he's never been beyond LEO (the difference in thermal environment is of particular concern here), and no Dragon of any kind has ever landed propulsively. (Though there have been some short test hops IIRC.) Or, to put it another way, pretty much none of the precursors to this mission have been demonstrated, let alone successfully.

Seriously, are Musk fanboys just completely clueless when it come to space technology, or are their blinders that thick?

Re:A good start

[TemporalBeing]

I think he is off to a good start. Don't know about the time table. He has successfully shown that he can perform this type of lift and landing.

o.0 Huh? The Falcon Heavy hasn't flown, he's never been beyond LEO (the difference in thermal environment is of particular concern here), and no Dragon of any kind has ever landed propulsively. (Though there have been some short test hops IIRC.) Or, to put it another way, pretty much none of the precursors to this mission have been demonstrated, let alone successfully.

Seriously, are Musk fanboys just completely clueless when it come to space technology, or are their blinders that thick?

I guess you missed SpaceX landing the Stage 1 boosters on land (Florida) and at sea recently after accomplishing their missions, in both cases using propulsion. Expanding that for the additional stages should actually be an *easier* task than what they've already done.

Re:A good start

[Kjella]

The Falcon Heavy hasn't flown, he's never been beyond LEO

Who is "he"? As far as I know Musk hasn't been in space at all, I don't know if Dragon has ever been outside LEO but SpaceX have delivered several satellites to GEO and one to L1, so certainly the rockets can reach Mars. And he hasn't landed a Dragon propulsively, but a huge shell of a rocket with wind or waves to deal with actually seems harder than Mars, except you don't get a paved landing pad. Isn't that more similar to what NASA did in the 60s than what SpaceX did just recently? That said I do expect a few impact craters on Mars before they get it right....

Re:A good start

[thinkwaitfast]

Landing the second stage will be the most difficult because it will be traveling at orbital speed.

Re:A good start

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there were some environment which could slow it down over time before attempting a landing, like an upper atmosphere or something.

Re:A good start

[DerekLyons]

The Falcon Heavy hasn't flown, he's never been beyond LEO

Who is "he"? As far as I know Musk hasn't been in space at all, I don't know if Dragon has ever been outside LEO but SpaceX have delivered several satellites to GEO and one to L1, so certainly the rockets can reach Mars.

Since the question wasn't whether or not they can reach Mars, how are the payloads delivered even remotely relevant?
 

And he hasn't landed a Dragon propulsively, but a huge shell of a rocket with wind or waves to deal with actually seems harder than Mars, except you don't get a paved landing pad.

It doesn't occur to you that using an entirely different propulsion system and an entirely different landing mode might make just a litte bit of a difference?
 

Isn't that more similar to what NASA did in the 60s than what SpaceX did just recently?

Huh? NASA didn't land on Mars in the 60's. It's broadly similar to what NASA did in the 70's, but with entirely different hardware.

Re:A good start

[DerekLyons]

I guess you missed SpaceX landing the Stage 1 boosters on land (Florida) and at sea recently after accomplishing their missions, in both cases using propulsion.

You're the second clueless fuckwit with the reading comprehension of used bubble gum that doesn't seem to grasp that a Dragon isn't a Falcon, and Mars isn't Earth.

Re:A good start

[cbhacking]

Landing Dragon should be *WAY* easier than landing a Falcon 9 first stage. You're coming in from higher and faster, but you have a heat shield, parachutes, redundant engines designed to operate at the scale of a landing craft (rather than a first-stage booster), far more structural integrity than a booster with depressurized tanks, no bending moment to speak of, engines places around your center of mass rather than at a single point below it, throttle capability sufficient to hover at least in Earth gravity (when nearly empty, a Falcon 9 cannot throttle even a single engine down to 1:1 TWR, so it can't hover), and a better RCS (thruster) system (although admittedly no grid fins).

Landing propulsively on Mars should also be much easier than landing propulsively on Earth, assuming you've got the fuel; less aerobraking (boosters can't make much use of that, although capsules can and do on Earth), but also very little wind (less buffeting, less shear) and a stable (though probably not smooth) landing zone less dynamic than a barge and bigger than a landing pad (much less a barge). Less gravity is almost certainly an advantage here too; even if it means Dragon can't hover (which I'm not sure it does), it also means Dragon doesn't need to use nearly as much fuel fighting gravity as it slows for hover or landing.

While I admire the creativity of your insults, you might have been better off by spending more time thinking about the problem than about how to insult people. You have no idea how knowledgeable your insultees are on the relevant subjects.

Also, saying "none of the precursors to this mission have been demonstrated, let alone successfully" is some serious goalpost-moving. Considering SpaceX alone, they have demonstrated Dragon 2's maximum thrust (and parachutes) and also its fine control (including hover). They haven't actually landed one propulsively yet, but I see little reason to expect that they can't do it. Falcon Heavy not launching yet is a valid point, but Falcon 9 has flown many times (as many times as single-core Delta IV rockets, at least) and its only failure was due to an extremely rare failure in a third-party component (since addressed). SpaceX has demonstrated propulsive landings knowledge, has demonstrated working long-duration space capsules, has demonstrated successful recovery of orbital capsules, and has demonstrated successful launchers. Those are all precursors to this mission, but I notice you didn't mention them...

As for going beyond LEO, while Dragon hasn't done that (and I'm not sure if Falcon 9 second stage has or not, though I expect it has), NASA and many private satellite manufacturers have; it's not exactly a problem we don't know how to address. Of course, until Curiosity, nobody had even demonstrated a multi-stage landing ending with a rocket-propelled skycrane (on Mars or otherwise), but NASA managed it anyhow.

Re:A good start

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, landing on Mars will be much easier than on Earth. We should take that into account.

Re:A good start

[Anonymous Coward]

(idea, why not send fuel pads first? Then rockets arrive and are fuel fed much the way helicopters on air are? Some drone concoction or hosing would do. I am not sure here, but then engines can be designed with a fuel boost at the landing moment they do not have to carry from the start)

Re:A good start

[TemporalBeing]

I guess you missed SpaceX landing the Stage 1 boosters on land (Florida) and at sea recently after accomplishing their missions, in both cases using propulsion.

You're the second clueless fuckwit with the reading comprehension of used bubble gum that doesn't seem to grasp that a Dragon isn't a Falcon, and Mars isn't Earth.

As cbhacking kindly pointed out, those are not as big an issue. SpaceX has already demonstrated hovering capabilities (see videos for the Falcon9 for their testing - with propulsive take-off and subsequent landing on Earth). Yes, they may not be slowing down from orbital velocity, but that's not a huge issue - a far bigger issue is what to do when you slow down enough and get close enough to the ground that you have to deal with both (a) slow movement and (b) time to impact - SpaceX has demonstrated knowledge and ability for both; slowing down - while requiring resources and fuel - is not a huge issue.

Honestly, the Falcon9 first stage landing is a far more difficult problem than landing on another planet since it is operating a high velocity with limited resources - far fewer resources than would be available for a propulsive landing from orbital velocity on a craft designed for and carrying equipment and resources dedicated for such tasks.

Re:A good start

[TemporalBeing]

Landing the second stage will be the most difficult because it will be traveling at orbital speed.

Not really that big of an issue compared to what comes after the slow down.

Re:Wow, sure

[Anonymous Coward]

2) Mars is a dead rock. You can't "settle" a radiation-blasted Hell.

I dwarf to differ.

I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[fustakrakich]

It's much warmer there, and with all that energy and thick atmosphere, there is a lot more to work with. It is comparatively alive compared to Mars.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and a million is comparatively a trillion compared to a million billion.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

It's also far more hostile to equipment, and there's zero chance of a manned mission there in any foreseeable future. Mars has potential for human habitation. Venus does not.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[npslider]

The only problem is that out of control capitalism and the Venusian Oil Cartel has led to a runaway global warming on Venus, the locals there screwed the planet up before we could get to it. They should have used Solar Power, I hear it was quite efficient there. ;)

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[fustakrakich]

That hostility has to be exploited, not avoided. It's free energy. And all those chemicals, what couldn't DuPont and Monsanto do with them? Fertilizers and catalysts galore! A hot tasty primordial soup just waiting to be served. I believe the Genesis Project has a much better chance on Venus, and would ultimately require much less human effort.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[Shadow99_1]

Actually the upper bounds of the atmosphere on Venus is relatively habitable. The catch is you need a floating structure that can maintain a certain height from the ground for long periods of time (potentially decades or more). It's the lower levels of Venus which would require serious effort to manage do to pressure, temperature, and atmospheric content. This by the way is why you can google Aerostats.

Btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[TFlan91]

Oh god, that is literally the entire plot to the first 2/3 of The Expanse series.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[fustakrakich]

Sorry, I wouldn't know. Last thing I remember watching was "Lost in Space".

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[religionofpeas]

Actually the upper bounds of the atmosphere on Venus is relatively habitable

It also gets very boring quickly.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't even have electronics that can survive there (for long). All that energy is of very little use unless you can find a differential to utilize it across.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[fustakrakich]

I take that back, obviously I saw the Star Trek movies. I had to look up "The Expanse"

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[Anonymous Coward]

True enough, Venus does have some decent aspects about it. But it also has some rather significant drawbacks. Your en situ resource harvesting is going to be restricted to what you can pull out of the atmosphere, unless you can develop some rover/probe that can survive the surface which we have yet to do even once (well and last very long). Also there is the safety aspect of being perpetually suspended kilometers above the surface above an environment completely hostile to most human life and technology. Fall and you will quite completely be crushed, burned, boiled and your ashes scattered into 300 kph mile winds. Mars has its drawbacks as well but it has a lot of resources, a nice stable surface and at least a few less ways of horribly killing you.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Try designing a refrigerator that can keep its interior at 20*C when it, its power source, and its radiator, are all in an oven set at maximum broil.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[fustakrakich]

Sounds like regular cryogenics to me. And the metals we use for gas turbines already can handle higher temperatures than found on Venus. It appears very difficult now, but the moon landing appeared even more so in the 1800s.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[thinkwaitfast]

what you can pull out of the atmosphere

We can mine Venus for CO2 and bring it back to Earth.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it has a lot of CO2, which with a few other elements can be turned into rocket fuel or Oxygen. Nitrogen in the atmosphere could also be used to fill floating habitats, water vapor could (possibly) be extracted for drinking water, etc.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[TFlan91]

The books are much better than the TV series, but the TV series is still interesting.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes,l of course Mars is hardly a bathtub full of thrills either, owing to not being able go outside for any length of time (radiation). Hope Elon and his guys can remember a lots of card games.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Acid rain every day, could just as well stayed in Britain.

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why don't we have the 10 hour workweek and universal basic income and healthcare?

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the growth rate of a man's beard decreases dramatically upon the onset of death... DUUUH!

Re:I really wish we'd go to Venus instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, EVERYBODY has to have the SAME PROJECT SIMULTANEOUSLY? Instead of allowing so many Indians and lookalikes being born again, why not use those resources to start all these projects SIMULTANEOUSLY??? I want to go to Titan. (Titan?) The moon with pools of hydrocarbons. THAT would make a few immediate changes around here for sure.

Re:Wow, sure

[Anonymous Coward]

I often wonder what is the point to visiting Mars, let alone settling it. There isn't any spot on Earth more inhospitable than Mars. And there's lots of places on Earth left to settle.

Red Dragon?

[Anonymous Coward]

But they're Chaotic Evil and very difficult to control. If we left one there for a couple of hundred years, it could enter the Great Wyrm stage and be very difficult to defeat for all but the highest level and best equipped party.

Hopefull

[npslider]

I really hope this is a success, this would demonstrate the viability of the private industry moving humanity into space. We as a race need to see this happen.

Re:Hopefull

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope this is a success, this would demonstrate the viability of the private industry moving humanity into space. We as a race need to see this happen.

Nah.

Granted, it might be entertaining and who doesn't like a new circus with their shrinking hunk of bread?

New impact craters

[jfdavis668]

I wonder how many impact craters he will create until he gets one right?

Re:New impact craters

[thinkwaitfast]

In engineering progress, if you're not breaking something, you're not pushing against the limits hard enough. This is kinda the opposite the mentality of 'failure is not an option'.

Re:Wow, sure

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a deep human desire to believe in something bigger than yourself. Now that we're slowly getting rid of old religions, we build new ones around rockets.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-holy-cosmos-the-new-religion-of-space-exploration/255136/

But most tech geeks lack the introspection and maturity to question their worldview and beliefs, especially when it concerns sci-fi, Star Trek, and the belief of endless progress, and that human ingenuity can abolish all limits (but why don't we have the Concorde anymore?)

Re:Wow, sure

[religionofpeas]

I don't think they can settle on Mars either, but I still applaud his efforts, because a) he's investing his own money in his dream, and b) something useful will come out of this, even if the primary mission fails.

Re:Wow, sure

[ColdWetDog]

I bet neither of you get invited to many parties.

Re:Wow, sure

[EndlessNameless]

1. Prior performance is not a guarantee, but it can be a good indicator. Tesla, in particular, is a suitable benchmark since both firms deal primarily with engineering challenges, supply logistics, and government regulatory bodies.

2. Not exactly a suitable comparison. The European conquerors couldn't bring their own air or constitute fuel and food from basic compounds. We can. I question why we should bother, but we certainly can adapt to less favorable terrain better than they could.

3. The Pyramids are a huge tourist destination (in spite of intermittent regional political issues), and they demonstrate a degree of achievement which was astounding given the tools of the day.

I'm not sure there's much value in establishing a Martian colony in this decade, but we will need to get ourselves off this rock. Especially given our concerted efforts to ignore the fact that we are destabilizing the climate and ecology.

All of the same fundamental engineering challenges will be there whether we do it now or later, so we might as well start working on them now.

NOTHING has gone to Mars yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/nasa-faked-mars-mission-why-i-am-not.html

The atmosphere is too thin (0.004 BAR or 4/1000 that of Earth at the surface) for a parachute to work - it would have to be GIGANTIC, and it wasn't. Just read the article.

Re:NOTHING has gone to Mars yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

So can you explain why Spacelab's orbit decayed?

I mean, since thin air has no effect, right?

Re:NOTHING has gone to Mars yet...

[crunchygranola]

So can you explain why Spacelab's orbit decayed?

I mean, since thin air has no effect, right?

Difficult to explain since "Spacelab" never existed.

Re:NOTHING has gone to Mars yet...

[crunchygranola]

Correction - there was a "Spacelab" that was carried up in the Shuttle and back down to Earth in the Shuttle. It had no independent orbit, and did not decay.

Re:NOTHING has gone to Mars yet...

[thinkwaitfast]

It was gigantic. And it was also going very fast.

A decent system for sending more

[WindBourne]

Seriously, once the first one goes, it should be possible to land 2-4 tonnes on Mars. And with it being enclosed, it should be easy to control the HVAC for various instruments. The real problem is, how to get things out of there. Probes. Landers. Etc.
Regardless, if SpaceX is successful, which I would be shocked if they are not, then it will dramatically change how we study Mars.
Best of all, this will costs a fraction of what the other missions have costs. Heck, we should be able to send a red dragon AND 1-2 sats using a $100 M falcon heavy.

Re:A decent system for sending more

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, we should be able to send a red dragon AND 1-2 sats using a $100 M falcon heavy

Heck we should be able to send supplies to the ISS using Falcon light for $133M.

BTW, aren't you that moron that claimed Tesla(by extension SpaceX) engineers are so incompetent that they replaced Tesla S drive units willy nilly, at a cost of $15,000 just because customers complained that they "MIGHT" have heard noises?

https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5539843&cid=47683327

Re:Wow, sure

[Anonymous Coward]

I presume that's what Koresh said to peer-pressure his followers into letting their daughters sleep with him.

But who will fill the potholes on my road?

[bill_mcgonigle]

if not NASA? (n/t)

Re:Wow, sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it people are so hung up about the Concorde? It's not that we can't, it's that nobody will pay that much to shave a few hours off a flight anymore. And they still weren't paying enough either: The Concorde, even at a staggering $10000/seat (inflation adjusted, it remained about constant), was never anything but a red item in the budget of operators.

It's like complaining that companies don't have pneumatic tubes for distributing mail anymore.

Re:Wow, sure

[Anonymous Coward]

He wasn't talking to you, dickhead.

Re:Wow, sure

[Anonymous Coward]

There isn't any spot on Earth more inhospitable than Mars.

Challenge accepted.

Start sending support resources into space.

[BlueCoder]

One thing good about the dragon heavy is the capacity. The best thing they could do is maximize every launch by taking more raw resources into space and leaving them up there in storage. Imagine if they created storage depots both in front of and behind space stations. That would minimize risk to manned space stations due to space garbage.

We seriously need to build fuel storage depots up there along with junkyards where metal can be recycled so we can start building in space.

So...

[DrXym]

Are we privy to a great becoming?

Re: So...

[Anonymous Coward]

You owe me awe

Re: So...

[Anonymous Coward]

THAT is not MY statement, mind you. And I do have a name and USE it. Sorry.

Paid for by?

[Steve1952]

The missing ingredient here is a sponsor. Having said that, this could be a pretty cheap mission as these things go. NASA would be nice, but the cost would be low enough for various private industry or research groups to be involved. Perhaps several could band together and split the costs.

Re:Wow, sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, equating religious drivel of virgin births, talking snakes, and humans made from dirt and/or ribs is the same as accepting the fact that the life on earth is a temporary thing.

Shouldn't use a Red Dragon

[sconeu]

Since Red Dragons are Chaotic Evil, it seems that they might lose control of it. They should send a Gold Dragon instead, since they're Lawful Good.

Re:Shouldn't use a Red Dragon

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I would actually suggest either Bronze or Copper...probably a Copper Dragon, since they like deserts and dry, rocky mountains. Their Chaotic Good, which is better as a pioneering adventurer than Lawful Good.

beaten to the punch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most interesting man in the world ad

SpaceX will be first, and then...

[GPS Pilot]

SpaceX will be the first entity to place humans on Mars.

And even after that upset is in the history books, there will still be some people who cling to the fantasy that government does things more efficiently than private enterprise.

Dragon to the moon?

[Michael Woodhams]

I've speculated before on /. about how much effort/cost it would be for SpaceX to do a manned moon mission.

If they can do this Mars mission (landing on Mars but not returning), exactly the same hardware can do a lunar landing and return. From here we see for Mars mission:
Delta-v LEO to Mars transfer typical value 4.3 km/s
Transfer orbit to Mars capture orbit 0.9 km/s
Capture orbit to low orbit 1.4 km/s
Low orbit to surface 4.1 km/s
Total delta-v from LEO: 10.7 km/s

Lunar mission:
LEO to low lunar orbit: 1.3 km/s
Low lunar orbit to surface: 1.9 km/s
Surface to LLO: 1.9 km/s
LLO to Earth intercept: 1.3km/s (then you can aerobrake and re-enter)
Total delta-v from LEO: 6.4 km/s

Dragon 2 will have life support, and carry people. Red Dragon presumably won't. So to make it a manned mission they would need to reduce Red Dragon's delta-v capability by about 4-5km/s and use the saved weight to put in Dragon 2's manned capabilities (possibly for fewer people than Dragon 2.) Possibly (probably?) Dragon 2's life support requires a service module, and we haven't budgeted for that, so maybe it is a bit more complicated.

An unmanned Red Dragon to the moon seems a sensible step before Mars - you get to find out about mistakes in a few days, instead of nearly 2 years.

Re:Dragon to the moon?

[Michael Woodhams]

Oops, some 'less than' signs got eaten by HTML.
LLO to Earth intercept: < 1.3km/s (then you can aerobrake and re-enter)
Total delta-v from LEO: < 6.4 km/s

Magnetosphere

[JBMcB]

The problem with Venus, as with Mars, is the lack of a decent magnetosphere. Earth's magnetosphere is it's "Secret Sauce." It's difficult to get a decent biome going when every medium-sized gamma burst from the sun bombards the planet's surface. You could build lead-lined underground bunkers and grow everything using redirected light from sonotubes, but then you might as well just colonize the moon.

Re:Magnetosphere

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, the moon should be first choice anyway as a base camp for building, testing and launching the long distance stuff. I don't understand the lack of interest in that phase. Along with the food and water, you just gotta get or build a smelter up there and mechanize the process as much as possible. Easy, right? A lot easier than doing it on Mars, that's for sure. You don't need extra lead for the radiation, a thick layer of moon dirt is sufficient.

SpaceX ownership

[Michael Woodhams]

This mission seems very hard to justify from a commercial view point.

Wikipedia says
"As of May 2012, SpaceX had operated on total funding of approximately $1 billion in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M."

So (as of four years ago) Musk only owns about 50% of SpaceX, so it isn't his plaything to do with as he wishes. How is this squared with the other investors?

Re:SpaceX ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

This mission seems very hard to justify from a commercial view point.

Wikipedia says
"As of May 2012, SpaceX had operated on total funding of approximately $1 billion in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M."

So (as of four years ago) Musk only owns about 50% of SpaceX, so it isn't his plaything to do with as he wishes. How is this squared with the other investors?

I don't know the exact percentage of share ownership in SpaceX, but my understanding is that Musk owns a lot more than 50% of it and can pretty much call the shots. Just because the investors put in the same amount of money doesn't mean they got the same amount of equity as he did.

Musk has been quoted more than once saying how much harder it would be to run a company where he was answerable to shareholders.

In any case, he has been open about his goal of getting to Mars even since before he started SpaceX, so any investors would have known about that.

We'll See ...

[tmjva]

We'll see when they start paying their bills on time.

Suppliers may start putting them on a short leash with their credit limit.

It has wings, ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not fly this space ride.

Serial Killer

[Anonymous Coward]

I support sending the Red Dragon to Mars. Serial Killers don't deserve to live on Earth. On the other hand maybe criminals can tame the Red Planet much as criminals tamed Australia, so there's potential for redemption there.