SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
Einion Yrth said:
He will or he won't.
He's not planning on doing this with only his own money. SpaceX has spent very little on the mars project as yet.If he wants investors to help he needs something remotely realistic to tempt them with, we all know space takes longer and costs more than what you initially think but this is beyond absurd for costs.
I had a quick look at what some aircraft cost after you put that up 
I'm not too sure what to think of it really. You'd naturally assume that a spacecraft would cost significantly/multiple times more than an equivalent aircraft, but I guess depending on how it is intended to be used it isn't the case. A quick eyeball about (using some very reliable Google/wikipedia numbers
) if you include the vehicle cost (which obviously isn't really representative) it seems it'd be cheaper to get 100 tonnes of cargo into space with 2 falcon heavys than buying a 777 and flying 100 tonnes to America.
Should a vehicle capable of carrying 100 people to Mars be more or less expensive than a plane able to carry 400 people several thousand miles?
It's an interesting comparison actually!
I'm not too sure what to think of it really. You'd naturally assume that a spacecraft would cost significantly/multiple times more than an equivalent aircraft, but I guess depending on how it is intended to be used it isn't the case. A quick eyeball about (using some very reliable Google/wikipedia numbers
) if you include the vehicle cost (which obviously isn't really representative) it seems it'd be cheaper to get 100 tonnes of cargo into space with 2 falcon heavys than buying a 777 and flying 100 tonnes to America.Should a vehicle capable of carrying 100 people to Mars be more or less expensive than a plane able to carry 400 people several thousand miles?
It's an interesting comparison actually!
RobDickinson said:
Einion Yrth said:
He will or he won't.
He's not planning on doing this with only his own money. SpaceX has spent very little on the mars project as yet.If he wants investors to help he needs something remotely realistic to tempt them with, we all know space takes longer and costs more than what you initially think but this is beyond absurd for costs.
Ian974 said:
Should a vehicle capable of carrying 100 people to Mars be more or less expensive than a plane able to carry 400 people several thousand miles?
It's an interesting comparison actually!
Well the plane doesnt need the same life support systems, doesnt have to cope with vacuum (just low pressure, far easier), doesnt need solar to generate power, doesnt have to recycle waste for 80+ days. The spaceship will have several more engines but it looks like that might even out (merlin engines look to be about $2mil a piece, the RR engines for the 777 are 24mil). Heat shields long term food storage etc etcIt's an interesting comparison actually!
It just seems to me that you need everything a long haul jet has plus a whole lot more. To be able to make that in a far lower volume than Boeing make 777's for less money....
Einion Yrth said:
He's put money into Raptor, hard to know how much, trade secrets and all; that's not going to be cheap: FFSC Metholox? Don't think it's been done before...
I dont think it has either. Elon said they had spent 10's of millions on the BFR project so far, I assume that includes basic overall design/spec, that huge fuel tank etc.The Raptor is partially funded by the US military they have a contract to provide a methalox engine for a 2nd stage, at the moment its effectively a spin-off from f9 second stage development
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/01/18/spacex-air-...
A Raptor powered f9 second stage would give it the endurance for direct GEO injection and other fun space stuff, and simplify the consumables from 5 down to 2.
To be fair, most engineers would probably regard 1psi as neither here nor there, pressure wise. When you think about 10,000 psi hydrogen tanks for example.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of the cost of a 777 is not designing, developing or building the thing. It's getting it certified (and keeping it certified, e.g. supply chain) through the ossified bureaucracy which until recently required aircraft to carry a navigation instrument for non-precision landings which is primarily only of use in locating the nearest thunderstorm and which no sensible pilot would rely on unless their ILS, GPS, VOR, DME were all totally dead and they absolutely could not divert visually. i.e. never.
I don't actually know how deep spacecraft certification is, but my gut feeling would be that it's such a small sector there has not been the opportunity for the same level of bureaucracy to build up.
So it's quite possible that the figure quoted for the spacecraft was build cost only.
You think certification for manned space flight is going to be easier or cheaper than for a plane?
Thats why USA has zero capability for manned space flight right now and 2-3 companies working hard over years to achieve it...
AFIk the usual rule of thumb is to add a zero for space flight and 2 zero's for manned...
Thats why USA has zero capability for manned space flight right now and 2-3 companies working hard over years to achieve it...
AFIk the usual rule of thumb is to add a zero for space flight and 2 zero's for manned...
I'm just throwing some thoughts around a little, mainly as I never realised quite how expensive some aircraft are!
I suppose one other way to look at it is I'm finding the launch cost of the crew dragon is proposed as 160 million (this is the only number I can find easily but appears to be a couple years old anyway). I've no idea what the cost of the dragon craft itself is but basing it off a falcon heavy launch being 90 million then a very rough estimate of an additional 70 million for a crew dragon?
A Mars ship will obviously need significantly more equipment on board and I'm not suggesting it is going to be simple, but once it is out of orbit, I'd guess a lot of the technology developed for the ISS and dragon could be carried over and scaled up (life support systems etc). Would scaling it up for a cost of say 4-5 times dragon sound realistic or silly?
Having the whole rocket and ship built for the equivalent cost of say an A380 does sound ridiculous, but I'm interested in how far it is from want is to be achieved with dragon.
In fairness where I have found anything referenced on costs for the mars / interplanetary ship, these do refer to fabrication/ launch and do not appear to include qualification etc which is obviously going to be a significant cost.
I suppose one other way to look at it is I'm finding the launch cost of the crew dragon is proposed as 160 million (this is the only number I can find easily but appears to be a couple years old anyway). I've no idea what the cost of the dragon craft itself is but basing it off a falcon heavy launch being 90 million then a very rough estimate of an additional 70 million for a crew dragon?
A Mars ship will obviously need significantly more equipment on board and I'm not suggesting it is going to be simple, but once it is out of orbit, I'd guess a lot of the technology developed for the ISS and dragon could be carried over and scaled up (life support systems etc). Would scaling it up for a cost of say 4-5 times dragon sound realistic or silly?
Having the whole rocket and ship built for the equivalent cost of say an A380 does sound ridiculous, but I'm interested in how far it is from want is to be achieved with dragon.
In fairness where I have found anything referenced on costs for the mars / interplanetary ship, these do refer to fabrication/ launch and do not appear to include qualification etc which is obviously going to be a significant cost.
Current Spacex ISS resupply missions are priced around $135-150million.
With a basic f9 launch cost of about $65mil (no one pays that low though) the difference is 80-90mil, not all of that will go towards the cost of the dragon capsule (which is unmanned).
AFIk its $80 mil per person for the russians to send people to ISS and that price is going up rapidly for late orders.. Thats using a very old tech cheap 'mass produced' soyuz and booster
Dragon II is supposed to be reusable so that would be built into the costs I guess - $2.6bn for up to 6 launches.
With a basic f9 launch cost of about $65mil (no one pays that low though) the difference is 80-90mil, not all of that will go towards the cost of the dragon capsule (which is unmanned).
AFIk its $80 mil per person for the russians to send people to ISS and that price is going up rapidly for late orders.. Thats using a very old tech cheap 'mass produced' soyuz and booster
Dragon II is supposed to be reusable so that would be built into the costs I guess - $2.6bn for up to 6 launches.
Sylvaforever said:
RobDickinson said:
He's not planning on doing this with only his own money.
You sure? Are you REALLY sure that's correct? I would suggest 're listening to his plans again.
"Musk indicated in September 2016 that the full build-out of the Mars colonialization plans will likely be funded by both private and public funds."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Trans...
Toaster said:
Nope I am saying there is a distinct lack of realism, wooohooo we are off to colonise Mars. But there is a lot not explained by the current plan to colonise Mars and a distinct lack of detail.
With my cynical head on its like the buildings in a wild west film.
Lets build a space ship to send 100's to Mars:
Where is the Oxygen coming from
How are the people being protected from radiation
What is the long term effects on the human body of 1/3 gravity
What about supplies until the garden of eden can be grown
does the radiation affect the plant seeds? and the food that is eaten
What are the energy sources to be used?
How much water is needed
What is the long term Psychological impact on human health
Who is going to pay for all of this? the list goes on and on and there needs to be practical answers and discussions
You may have guessed, this isn't Star Trek, there is no warp speed or teleporting
Of all of those, I think it's the psychological effects which will be the key as to whether it all succeeds or fails. The rest are all solvable engineering problems, given enough time and money IMO.With my cynical head on its like the buildings in a wild west film.
Lets build a space ship to send 100's to Mars:
Where is the Oxygen coming from
How are the people being protected from radiation
What is the long term effects on the human body of 1/3 gravity
What about supplies until the garden of eden can be grown
does the radiation affect the plant seeds? and the food that is eaten
What are the energy sources to be used?
How much water is needed
What is the long term Psychological impact on human health
Who is going to pay for all of this? the list goes on and on and there needs to be practical answers and discussions
You may have guessed, this isn't Star Trek, there is no warp speed or teleporting
RobDickinson said:
You think certification for manned space flight is going to be easier or cheaper than for a plane?
Thats why USA has zero capability for manned space flight right now and 2-3 companies working hard over years to achieve it...
AFIk the usual rule of thumb is to add a zero for space flight and 2 zero's for manned...
Possibly, yes, I do think it may be cheaper. Not easier, but with less politics involved (perhaps). If you poke around you'll find lots of examples of the aviation authorities making life miserable. The Robinson R66 helicopter's hydraulic valve for example.Thats why USA has zero capability for manned space flight right now and 2-3 companies working hard over years to achieve it...
AFIk the usual rule of thumb is to add a zero for space flight and 2 zero's for manned...
There hasn't been a private spaceflight industry before, so has there been time for regulations to become rigid? Or is the certification process primarily concerned with the development side of things and thus once you have certified the vehicle the actual production is straightforward? For example, UK Permit Aircraft go through a rigourous engineering assessment including stress tests and calculations etc. but come out at 1/4 the cost (or less) of a certified aircraft. Labour can't account for the difference ...
I have a hard time believing anything to do with space has lower certification requirements than aviation. Thats not how I understand it, its not how its talked about.
Even if it is you are still talking about a machine at least an order of magnitude more complicated being built and built as either a one off or incredibly limited number. Boeing have made 1500ish 777's already.
In other news Dennis Muilenburg (CEO of Boeing) has said the first man on Mars will be taken there by a boeing rocket. huge lolz.
Even if it is you are still talking about a machine at least an order of magnitude more complicated being built and built as either a one off or incredibly limited number. Boeing have made 1500ish 777's already.
In other news Dennis Muilenburg (CEO of Boeing) has said the first man on Mars will be taken there by a boeing rocket. huge lolz.
RobDickinson said:
I have a hard time believing anything to do with space has lower certification requirements than aviation. Thats not how I understand it, its not how its talked about.
Even if it is you are still talking about a machine at least an order of magnitude more complicated being built and built as either a one off or incredibly limited number. Boeing have made 1500ish 777's already.
In other news Dennis Muilenburg (CEO of Boeing) has said the first man on Mars will be taken there by a boeing rocket. huge lolz.
I am trying to be optimistic about more sensible regulation, if it is anything like aviation we may as well give up now.Even if it is you are still talking about a machine at least an order of magnitude more complicated being built and built as either a one off or incredibly limited number. Boeing have made 1500ish 777's already.
In other news Dennis Muilenburg (CEO of Boeing) has said the first man on Mars will be taken there by a boeing rocket. huge lolz.
The Boeing Boss may be right. He didn't say anything about the man being alive, or being returned did he? Cremate someone, compress their ashes down to diamond form, use them on the drill for a probe launched by a Delta IV ... job done
Well boeing dont run their own missions.. They just build stuff for NASA.
SLS might be the rocket, but orion certainly isnt the spacecraft. Do they have something else on the drawing board? Note the guy didnt explicitly talk about SLS/Orion at all.
NASA has already pushed Mars back to 2035, and we have 19 years between now and then for other delays!
SLS might be the rocket, but orion certainly isnt the spacecraft. Do they have something else on the drawing board? Note the guy didnt explicitly talk about SLS/Orion at all.
NASA has already pushed Mars back to 2035, and we have 19 years between now and then for other delays!
To be fair Ariane 5 had a few failures early on, and Arian 4 ha a few too.
Though F9 is supposed to be man rated now? And the US military are somewhat worried I guess too after rating it also.
This pre launch full burn test is something spacex do that others dont, not sure how it really helps though
Though F9 is supposed to be man rated now? And the US military are somewhat worried I guess too after rating it also.
This pre launch full burn test is something spacex do that others dont, not sure how it really helps though
Oh and if you are interested in how you get your spacecraft human rated check out this...
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Interna...
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Interna...
They're all terrified of their tame cashcow being hauled away by the knackers' lorry.RobDickinson said:
Oh and if you are interested in how you get your spacecraft human rated check out this...
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Interna...
And here's the Aviation one: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=&SID=&...http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Interna...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff