[MisterSandman]

And I hate to say it, but in this context, Musk would’ve been at least a little useful in having around. I’m aware he’s not the best person to make reliable predictions, but he does run SpaceX.

With both the cuts to NASA and Musk leaving the core inner circle of Trump, space exploration is going to be set back. Mars ain’t happening in our lifetimes, IMO.

I hope I’m wrong.

[AngryData]

I don't see how Musk could help in any way. He isn't an engineer, and the problems with space exploration are still pure engineering problems. You might as well be asking the CEO of Ford to come to your house and help you replace your cam bearings on a Nissan.

[SJC_Hacker]

> the problems with space exploration are still pure engineering problems

The problems are engineering at a cost which is politically acceptable.

If we wanted to, we could really go to Mars. It would just be really expensive - e.g. not a cost the public is current willing to bear.

[notahacker]

He isn't an engineer but does have considerably more willingness to listen to and understand engineers than the rest of the administration.

If nothing else, he's aware that there's a bit more involved in getting humans to Mars on any timeline than just rockets, and slashing the budget of the only entity working on those problems might not speed up getting there...

If course, he also knows enough to know nobody's sending manned missions to Mars in the next launch window regardless of whose in charge, and he's been quite fond of breaking stuff recently so I'm not sure we want Elon in charge either.

[myvoiceismypass]

Elon Musk? The guy who said we would have unmanned missions to mars by 2026 and manned missions by 2030? He's just as insane and full of dookie as the rest of em.

[giantg2]

Eh, the Moon landing was extremely agreessive and faced huge challenges yet was still achieved using technology and knowledge way behind what we have today. If we really wanted to put someone on Mars in the same aggressive manner as we had with the Moon, we could launch that mission by 2030 (travel time would take longer and there would be no return). The only real obstacle is the lack of will and money.

[nradov]

Nah. No amount of will and money could launch a Mars landing mission by 2030 with a reasonable chance of success. Some of the critical components don't exist yet and development can't be significantly accelerated. This is the real world, not a Michael Bay movie.

[oceanplexian]

I don't see why it couldn't be done in a crunch if we had to for some reason. SpaceX isn't pursuing such a thing because it would be a dumb idea rather than wait for the Starship program.

Falcon 9 regularly sends 17 Tons to LEO 2-3 times per week and is human rated. We could probably build a Mars shuttle in orbit, similar to how the ISS was constructed. We've already landed an SUV-sized robot on Mars. There are some open questions like orbital propellent transfer but it doesn't seem like it would be impossible to me.

[giantg2]

I believe they already have the propellant transfer worked out. There was a paper a few years back looking into Musk's general plan. They already had some mechanism for refueling. If I remember correctly, the biggest questions were around lifesupport systems with their efficiency and heat shields. Which were technically still solvable with current technologies and slightly different approaches.

From my perspective, the thing they're mostly waiting for is additional tech to make everything easier and lower risk, or for an aggressive administration that can push it and fund it.

[giantg2]

"Some of the critical components don't exist yet and development can't be significantly accelerated."

Such as?