Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX Disappointed In Lack of NASA Mars Funding; Starts Looking For Landing Sites For Its Own Mars Missions

frank249 writes: Elon Musk says that the new NASA authorization legislation "changes almost nothing about what NASA is doing. Existing programs stay in place and there is no added funding for Mars." From a report via Ars Technica: "Musk is absolutely correct on two counts. First, an 'authorization' bill does not provide funding. That comes from appropriations committees. Secondly, while Congress has been interested in building rockets and spacecraft, it is far less interested in investing in the kinds of technology and research that would actually enable a full-fledged Mars exploration program." In other news, SpaceNews reports that "SpaceX has been working with NASA to identify potential landing sites on Mars for both its Red Dragon spacecraft (starting in 2020) and future human missions." From the report: "Paul Wooster of SpaceX said the company, working with scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and elsewhere, had identified several potential landing sites, including one that looks particularly promising -- Arcadia Planitia. Those landing sites are of particular interest, he said, for SpaceX's long-term vision of establishing a human settlement on Mars, but he said the company wouldn't rule out sending Red Dragon spacecraft elsewhere on the planet to serve other customers. 'We're quite open to making use of this platform to take various payloads to other locations as well,' he said. 'We're really looking to turn this into a steady cadence, where we're sending Dragons to Mars on basically every opportunity.' The Red Dragon spacecraft, he said, could carry about one ton of useful payload to Mars, with options for those payloads to remain in the capsule after landing or be deployed on the surface. 'SpaceX is a transportation company,' he said. 'We transport cargo to the space station, we deliver payloads to orbit, so we're very happy to deliver payloads to Mars.'" Fans of the book/movie "The Martian" would be happy if SpaceX does select Arcadia Planitia for their first landing site as that was the landing site of the Ares 3.

6 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. The actual real problem with Mars... by DrYak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is that it has no immediate practical military applications.

    Whereas :
    - ...landing a team of human on the moon (the things brought out of Earth low orbit, capsule+landing module etc = 25 tons)
    - ...landing a very small probe on mars
    - ...launching a huge communication satellite into earth orbit.

    All require a big rocket powerful enough to lift 25ton into orbit.
    A rocket with very practical military application :
    - ...it is strong enough to put a big spy satellite (the classified cousins of Hubble telescope) in low orbit.
    - ...it is strong enough to launch the biggest nuclear warhead ever (see Tsar bomba) and reach any point on the globe.

    So government is sure to throw a lot of money into it. Both sides of the iron curtain did it during the cold war.
    The race to space / to the moon, wasn't as much a race to reach space as a covert way to show off "I can nuke any point of the globe".

    In the meantime, being able to launch a human-carrying capsule all the way to Mars needs a much more powerful rocket (heavier mass to launch than a probe / or further to launch than to the moon), which doesn't make any sense from a military point of view : you're not going to pack several Tsar-bomba-class nukes to the same destination.

    Alternatives are using several normal launchers to slowly build step by step an interplanetary vehicle in Earth orbit and use that to shuttle people around to/from Mars.
    That's the thing which makes the most sense in a civilian point of view (re-use existing proven launcher technology, and tons of further scientific discoveries and potential applications of developing an "orbital shipyard / construction site" capability).
    But again no concrete immediate advantage for the military (what's the point of having a huge space borne platform ? dropping rods from space ? When you can already simply nuke any point on earth ?)

    So you can't easily get government money for that.
    So the NASA, SpaceX, and co will need a way to finance these kind of "for Science !" projects privately.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:The actual real problem with Mars... by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Musk isn't going to Mars, nor does he care about any military applications of the technology. This is just an excuse for him to get more government contracts for promises he knows he will never have to actually fulfill.

      Donald Trump knows the same thing, that we're not actually going to Mars. Like every President for the last several decades, he merely makes a promise of getting there that's so far out that everyone will have long forgotten said promise by the time the deadline arrives. Any President promising to do anything more than 8 years out is basically saying that it isn't going to happen. The next President will make the same "In 20/30/40 years we're going to Mars" promise. If you want to know the truth of the matter, just try holding your breath waiting for any of them to actually increase funding to NASA enough to make it actually happen.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:The actual real problem with Mars... by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's the problem with SpaceX getting government launch contracts? No, seriously. They're charging less than ULA and thus saving the government a ton of money. What's your huge problem with saving money and having the money that is spent go to a company that's focused on great things rather than some conglomerate of huge military-industrial giants?

      I've never understood this animosity.

      --
      Aeris Died For Your Sins.
    3. Re:The actual real problem with Mars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I have no problem with Musk creating the FedEx/UPS of space and hauling shit into orbit cheaply for the real engineers and scientists. It's a good idea and he deserves to get rich for it (assuming he can ever make it profitable), just like Paypal was.

      What I *do* have a problem with is him parlaying this success into a full blown cult of personality and playing up the role of tech visionary to the point that idiots think he's a real history-making scientist/inventor and every news site in the world runs an article when he regurgitates some physics idea he read in Nature or pretends he (or any private person or company that isn't Microsoft/Exxon/Walmart-tier) has the resources to plan and fund a trip to goddamned Mars.

    4. Re:The actual real problem with Mars... by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The profit (a minority of their profit, it should be added) is coming from saving taxpayers money. What the heck is your problem with that?

      If they were making some amount of launches cheaper - sure - but that's not the case.

      Yes, it is the case; they cost vastly less than ULA.

      --
      Aeris Died For Your Sins.
  2. Re:Is it creepy to anyone else... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the future of interplanetary travel is capitalist in nature... thoughts?

    Damn, but that would be almost as bad as going to the New World hoping to find a cheaper route for the spice trade, wouldn't it?

    Luckily for us that never happened, eh?

    What/s that? Columbus was trying to find a way to the Far East when he conned Isabella out of her jewels to finance the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria??? Say it ain't so!

    Seriously, who cares whether the first men on Mars are paid for by the government of private industry? As long as there ARE First Men on Mars, it's a win for humanity....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"