Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mars One Is a “Money Grab” Where Everyone Loses

inverse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Mars One Is a “Money Grab” Where Everyone Loses

#21

Post by UncleEntity »

theothermkn wrote: post #19
saas_co_de wrote: post #6

They are as likely to go to Mars as Elon musk so at least they are in rare company

> They are as likely to go to Mars as Elon musk so at least they are in rare company While I've left your comment unvoted-upon, the downvotes are justified, in my view. That said, I think Musk's optimism about Mars is pretty unjustified, but for reasons unrelated to launch vehicle technology, reasons that are shared by Mars One. The main reason is that we simply do not know how to sustain human life, in the long term…

> Eventually, I think that, among other possibilities, either grown-ups will step in with regulation, or the grown-ups will stay away in droves from either project.

...or Mars will be a place where there's only a few people living there for relatively short durations to do scientific research -- like Antarctica.

Re: Mars One Is a “Money Grab” Where Everyone Loses

#22

Post by gizmo686 »

theothermkn wrote: post #19
saas_co_de wrote: post #6

They are as likely to go to Mars as Elon musk so at least they are in rare company

> They are as likely to go to Mars as Elon musk so at least they are in rare company While I've left your comment unvoted-upon, the downvotes are justified, in my view. That said, I think Musk's optimism about Mars is pretty unjustified, but for reasons unrelated to launch vehicle technology, reasons that are shared by Mars One. The main reason is that we simply do not know how to sustain human life, in the long term…

>The main reason is that we simply do not know how to sustain human life, in the long term, in less than 1 Earth gravity without deleterious effects, including the possible cessation of reproduction.

We do not know when the difficulty starts. Given our current knowledge, it is entirely possible that Martian gravity is sufficient for human health. We also know that even 0G is not acutely lethal (although the short term effects of returning to normal gravity are less then encouraging if we expect the people to be able to work as soon as they land on Mars).

This is just to say, we do not know how much of a problem Martian gravity is. There are still all of the difficulties we do know about.

It will probably be a long time (if ever) before we get a sustained "colony" on Mars, but humans setting foot on Mars is reasonably possible in the relatively near term. If we really wanted to, we could even make a "colony" simmilar to the ISS, where we have a permanantly staffed base, with a crew that stays for "short" (~year) time on Mars, combined with a year or two of total spaceflight.

I'm not remotely convinced this is worth doing. But it seems possible if we really wanted to do it.

Re: Mars One Is a “Money Grab” Where Everyone Loses

#23

Post by vannevar »

Robotbeat wrote: post #10
saas_co_de wrote: post #6

They are as likely to go to Mars as Elon musk so at least they are in rare company

I will be willing to bet that by 2040 SpaceX significantly helps send people to Mars, either by launching the people to orbit, launching a lot of the supplies (at least 40% by mass), building the Mars lander that lands people there, or even the whole-hog BFR/ITS architecture as Musk presented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R_yYFA Willing to bet a $beverage? SpaceX has the largest (by payload) current laun…

SpaceX is certainly in the best position of any private organization I know of to get to Mars, from the infrastructure perspective. But in terms of financing, the parent comment is right, Musk may not be a whole lot better off than Mars One in the big picture. A single manned mission to Mars could cost north of $100B, and the entire value of SpaceX is only about $20B. SpaceX is private, but estimates are that if it's profitable on an operating basis at all, it's only marginally so. Throw in Tesla's likely cash needs for the foreseeable future, and Musk may have some tough times coming. Money is going to decide the outcome here, not technology. Unless SpaceX finds some hugely profitable business to start generating cash (maybe their planned satellite constellation?), Mars is speculation.

Re: Mars One Is a “Money Grab” Where Everyone Loses

#24

Post by greglindahl »

vannevar wrote: post #23
Robotbeat wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will be willing to bet that by 2040 SpaceX significantly helps send people to Mars, either by launching the people to orbit, launching a lot of the supplies (at least 40% by mass), building the Mars lander that lands people there, or even the whole-hog BFR/ITS architecture as Musk presented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R_yYFA Willing to bet a $beverage? SpaceX has the largest (by payload) current laun…

SpaceX is certainly in the best position of any private organization I know of to get to Mars, from the infrastructure perspective. But in terms of financing, the parent comment is right, Musk may not be a whole lot better off than Mars One in the big picture. A single manned mission to Mars could cost north of $100B, and the entire value of SpaceX is only about $20B. SpaceX is private, but estimates are that if it's…

I'm always kind of mystified by comments like this, which I see a lot of. SpaceX has a cost target, and if they can't meet it, they aren't going to send humans to Mars. And that target's a lot less than $10B; most of the BFR engineering is not about Mars but about a fully-reusable launcher, which is useful for launching anything, not just going to Mars.

Re: Mars One Is a “Money Grab” Where Everyone Loses

#26

Post by novalis78 »

hinkley wrote: post #11
novalis78 wrote: post #8

MarsOne definitely introduced the concept of colonizing Mars to a wider audience. For that, I think, they get far less credit than they deserve.

No, no it didn’t. For one, this is the first time I’ve heard of it. And more importantly, I think you are forgetting Robert Zubrin and Mars Direct: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin

I have not forgotten about Zubrin of whom I am a big fan personally. The PR machinery that MarsOne kickstarted for a couple of years brought a ton of discussion about colonizing Mars that was very well worth it. It also galvanized a lot of support and brought people around the globe together that believed in humanity’s ‘next big step’

Re: Mars One Is a “Money Grab” Where Everyone Loses

#27

Post by Robotbeat »

vannevar wrote: post #23
Robotbeat wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will be willing to bet that by 2040 SpaceX significantly helps send people to Mars, either by launching the people to orbit, launching a lot of the supplies (at least 40% by mass), building the Mars lander that lands people there, or even the whole-hog BFR/ITS architecture as Musk presented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R_yYFA Willing to bet a $beverage? SpaceX has the largest (by payload) current laun…

SpaceX is certainly in the best position of any private organization I know of to get to Mars, from the infrastructure perspective. But in terms of financing, the parent comment is right, Musk may not be a whole lot better off than Mars One in the big picture. A single manned mission to Mars could cost north of $100B, and the entire value of SpaceX is only about $20B. SpaceX is private, but estimates are that if it's…

I think you dramatically underestimate just how strong SpaceX's position is (especially relative to Tesla). SpaceX launched more than anyone else in the industry and doubled their nearest domestic competitor and arch-rival ULA last year (which has been bleeding people, by the way, and needs to retool for a totally new launch vehicle while supporting the safe shutdown and launch-out of 3 other launch vehicles). And not only is SpaceX out-launching them, but they've demonstrated practical reuse which builds a high moat around their launch business.

It's understandable if you haven't been following this very closely, as the situation has flipped dramatically in just about 2 or 3 years, even in spite of the failures during that time.

To give an example of Tesla:

Imagine Tesla was outproducing GM and Toyota combined, globally, and had also demonstrated level 5 self-driving Model 3s and Semis for the last couple years while readying to flip the switch on 300GW worth of solar to power their global supercharger network (powering tens of millions of cars) and power several medium-sized countries. That might be comparable to the situation SpaceX finds themselves in right now.

Re: Mars One Is a “Money Grab” Where Everyone Loses

#29

Post by vannevar »

Robotbeat wrote: post #27
vannevar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX is certainly in the best position of any private organization I know of to get to Mars, from the infrastructure perspective. But in terms of financing, the parent comment is right, Musk may not be a whole lot better off than Mars One in the big picture. A single manned mission to Mars could cost north of $100B, and the entire value of SpaceX is only about $20B. SpaceX is private, but estimates are that if it's…

I think you dramatically underestimate just how strong SpaceX's position is (especially relative to Tesla). SpaceX launched more than anyone else in the industry and doubled their nearest domestic competitor and arch-rival ULA last year (which has been bleeding people, by the way, and needs to retool for a totally new launch vehicle while supporting the safe shutdown and launch-out of 3 other launch vehicles). And no…

SpaceX is great, but having the highest launch rate in the industry does no good if they lose money on every one. Any more than Tesla would succeed if it outproduced GM and Toyota but lost money on every car.

Re: Mars One Is a “Money Grab” Where Everyone Loses

#30

Post by vannevar »

greglindahl wrote: post #24
vannevar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX is certainly in the best position of any private organization I know of to get to Mars, from the infrastructure perspective. But in terms of financing, the parent comment is right, Musk may not be a whole lot better off than Mars One in the big picture. A single manned mission to Mars could cost north of $100B, and the entire value of SpaceX is only about $20B. SpaceX is private, but estimates are that if it's…

I'm always kind of mystified by comments like this, which I see a lot of. SpaceX has a cost target, and if they can't meet it, they aren't going to send humans to Mars. And that target's a lot less than $10B; most of the BFR engineering is not about Mars but about a fully-reusable launcher, which is useful for launching anything, not just going to Mars.

Don't fool yourself, there is a lot more to landing humans on Mars than building a big launch vehicle. The only data point we have is the Apollo project, and Mars is an order of magnitude more difficult. Apollo was around $150B in today's dollars, so if anything, the $100B estimate for Mars is low. Which at this point puts SpaceX closer to Mars One than it is to Mars itself.
Post reply on HN