[Aqueous]

The only reason we have a shot at affordable commercial spaceflight, as well as an eventual affordable journey to Mars, is because of that vanity project. If it was left up to the public sector alone, I don't think we'll be able to go to Mars in 20 or 30 years.

But this hasn't really changed. Even in NASA's hey day space missions weren't government-only projects - The space capsules and Saturn V were built by contracted private firms like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, North American Aviation. Nothing really has changed in that regard - NASA is still contracting private companies, only now we have an American company, SpaceX, that can not only build a rocket, but design and launch one as well.

Ultimately having innovators like SpaceX who can contract out to more than just the American government will drive the cost of spaceflight down. This can only be a good thing, in my book.

Musk is doing the same thing with electric cars. As far as I can tell the only way we're going to get highly reliable, affordable, mainstream electric vehicle in the next ten years is because of his vanity project, Tesla.

I mean, I'm as skeptical as anyone about pinning the future hopes of humanity on a few extremely rich people. But it's also comforting that incredibly wealthy people like Elon Musk are preoccupied with how to benefit humanity, and not just themselves.

[kiba]

They are engineering projects, rather than something that discovers something new, per se. Even so, extending our capability to explore space allow us to do more scientific research, rather than less of it. With the advent of electric vechicle, the money that went to buying gas and doing maintenance can be better spent on something else.

[_delirium]

Yeah, I think SpaceX's main win is that they're taking tech that has existed in various forms for decades, and updating/optimizing it. That's not quite the same as aerospace research, but it's useful. Of course, the research is also needed, or there would be no existing designs and prototypes to update/optimize, which is a big part of why they can do their work more cheaply.

[WalterBright]

Lots of research projects in the past were underwritten by rich people for the lulz, or by newspapers in exchange for exclusive stories to sell.

I've often wondered why big corporations, as marketing, don't finance something like launching another Hubble space telescope. The corporate logo would go on the side, the corporation could host a conference to collect and analyze the results, it would be fantastic PR (instead of those silly commercials and celebrity endorsements they spend so much money on).

[HarryHirsch]

I've often wondered why big corporations, as marketing, don't finance something like launching another Hubble space telescope.

It's because flagship spacecraft and things like the LHC are projects that require a budget of several billions and a 25-year commitment. This kind of budget is within reach only of a wealthy nation with stable finances and a stable political system.

I think the budget explanation also explains the pharmco crisis. It takes about a billion and a decade to bring a drug to market, and that's why you see statins, antidepressants and antidiabetics in the pipeline. Meanwhile, antibiotic resistances are going to be a public health crisis, and Chagas disease, sleeping sickness and malaria are major killers in the developing world. A new model is needed here; we don't need to try coroprate sponsorship in space when it's already failing on Earth.

[WalterBright]

> This kind of budget is within reach only of a wealthy nation with stable finances and a stable political system.

The LHC, yes, various probes, no. I read that the beachball Mars lander was $250m. Another Hubble could be built for far less than the original, because it is a known design.

These are well within the abilities of many billionaires and their corporations.

[HarryHirsch]

The beachball lander? That must be Mars Pathfinder. Pathfinder was just a technology demonstrator for the Spirit and Opportunity rovers, and the science return was rather thin - about a dozen spectrographic analyses of rocks, half a year's worth of weather data, and a few hundred pretty pictures.

The real mission was Spirit and Opportunity, and those two are a giant success. With USD 900 million the price tag is four times higher, and this is getting out of reach of even the ultrawealthy.

[WalterBright]

900m is well within the reach of even a decabillionaire. Especially one who wants to be famous.

Consider also the billions thrown around for acquisitions.

And consider that the rovers were on the national news for months. What's that kind of PR worth?

[mempko]

Really? Public money got us to the moon in 10 years but couldn't get us to mars in 30? I think it is more about a lack of will than a lack of resources. Driving down costs isn't an issue. Imagine if we had the will to go to mars and spent the one trillion dollars we spent to go to Iraq on a mars project instead.

Driving down costs isn't the issue...

[tsotha]

Getting to Mars is an order of magnitude more difficult than a quick jaunt to the moon, so it's really shouldn't be surprising we haven't gone. Not least because there isn't any reason to go. Hell, there isn't any reason to go to the moon, which is why we haven't bothered to return for forty years.

In fact, I would argue the moon landings were a mistake, in that we spent a whole lot of money building a system that did one useless but amazing thing instead of spending less money figuring out how to give ourselves the capability to do lots of useful and amazing things at a reasonable cost.

If Elon Musk wants to pay for a Mars trip I'll cheer him on, but nobody's ever been able to articulate a compelling reason for it. A trillion dollars is a lot of money, and I'd rather see it go toward tax cuts or paying down the national debt.

Driving down costs is not only an issue, it's the primary issue. If we have to pay $10k per kg to get stuff into LEO none of the activities that would support a permanent presence in space are worth doing.

[Aqueous]

Well yes, if we stopped doing stupid things than we might be able to bear the cost of the trip. If we stopped doing stupid things...

But it's also a lack of will because we don't have a rival as formidable as Russia threatening to beat us to the punch. Well, at least not at the moment. Russia looks more and more like it has the desire to play the role again - the desire, but probably not the ability. And if that's true, there's always China. In fact I wouldn't be totally surprised if China's increasing interest in space were the thing that finally got Americans to Mars.

But failing that, what's going to get us to commit the resources to a risky mission like travelling to Mars? A trip whose only reward is first saying we've been there, and only down the road a few decades the ability to colonize it and mine its natural resources?

The only thing more powerful in the nation's mind than projecting military power is money...and maybe that will be enough to get us there....

[clef]

Public money got Stanley Kubrick super wealthy apparently :)

http://realitysandwich.com/23226/kubrick_apollo/

[tsotha]

>The only reason we have a shot at affordable commercial spaceflight, as well as an eventual affordable journey to Mars, is because of that vanity project.

I'm not sure why you're calling SpaceX a vanity project. The company is already profitable, and if things play out like Musk is planning the company stands to make a lot of money. That's not a vanity project; that's a business.

Now, a Mars shot would be a vanity project if it were self-financed. But I doubt it will happen if taxpayers aren't willing to pay for it.

[Aqueous]

The parent called it a vanity project.

[tsotha]

So he did. My apologies.

[maxerickson]

I wonder about this. Is Tesla driving battery technology much (which is really sort of the key for EVs), or are they just putting themselves in a good position for when they get good enough?

I realize that they are creating demand for millions and millions of cells, but cell phones, tablets and laptops have been doing that for a decade now.

[Aqueous]

I think that they are trying to find the lowest possible cost for current technology. Part of this is building their own factory, which is supposed to cut costs by, I've read, 30%. Chipping off a percent here, and a percent there, and making the process as efficient as possible could make things quite affordable quite quickly.