NASA Announcement for the Moon

[bxr140]

...the vision of Elon/SpaceX is definitely not a “plant the flag” Mars mission. It is a “build a self-sustaining human colony on Mars” vision. And putting resources into establishing a base on the Moon is an unnecessary diversion from that mission.

I admire Elon's ability to create and implement a vision. I find his first principals approach to technology not just refreshing, but imperative.

Where I draw the line--based on a litany of embarrassing past performance moments--is believing everything he says. In context, what I don't believe is the assertion that the moon is a waste of resources for a mars mission, and nothing Elon/SpaceX has said thus far suggests they actually know otherwise. Again, there's so much that can be learned so much quickly by going to the moon about a mars mission that its VERY hard to imagine the moon being anything but a huge net positive for Mars. Like @mongo basically said, you could do a ton of Moon missions in the time it takes just to wait for a Mars launch opportunity to roll around.

Going straight to Mars while dismissing the huge interim opportunities presented by the moon is analogous to SpaceX starting right off with Starship, or Tesla starting off with the Model 3. As we know, reality has been a series of [mostly] well conceived and implemented building blocks for both companies, each leading to bigger and better things. True first principals.

To dismiss those opportunities--especially without water-holding logic to the contrary--suggests (to me anyway) that there's a strong dose of hubris and ego in the Mars concept that are dictatorially governing and bounding their first principals approach. Or, flag planting.


And that's not where it ends. It gets even better for SpaceX financially if they open up the moon--there are so many people that want to go there (hell, the Israelis recently launched a lander off a commercial GEO satellite!) and there's so many financial opportunities beyond the 'small stuff' that people currently want to do. There's no shortage of deep pockets ready to fill the 'resources' hole created by the 'diversion' of the moon.

 

[ecarfan]

Where I draw the line--based on a litany of embarrassing past performance moments--is believing everything he says.

No one capable of critical thinking should automatically believe everything anyone says, including Elon. I think all of us in this discussion know that Elon’s timelines are almost always unrealistic. And anyone familiar with his record knows that he is capable of changing his mind based on new evidence.

Going straight to Mars while dismissing the huge interim opportunities presented by the moon is analogous to SpaceX starting right off with Starship, or Tesla starting off with the Model 3.

Except that we already know how to transport humans to the Moon, and even stay there for a few days. It is not that much of a stretch — with modern technology — to extend our stay to weeks and or months. Yes, years is harder, but given the relative ease of sending payloads to the Moon on a regular basis, not tremendously more difficult.

To dismiss those opportunities--especially without water-holding logic to the contrary--suggests (to me anyway) that there's a strong dose of hubris and ego in the Mars concept that are dictatorially governing and bounding their first principals approach.

I advise going back to first principals, which in the case of SpaceX’s mission to establish a self-sustaining human colony on Mars, is that human civilization on Earth is facing multiple near-term (within a century) existential threats: nuclear war, biological war, uncontrolled general AI, catastrophic climate changes, collapsing ecosystems triggered by rapid climate change, agricultural production systems disrupted by climate change, pandemics accelerated by dense urban environments and global transportation systems...I could go on.

I do not consider myself an alarmist, nor am I a “prepper” who wants to retreat from civilization. It’s difficult for most people to truly grasp the magnitude of the near-term challenges that humanity is currently facing, challenges which as recently as my grandparents generation simply did not exist. In the 19th century the threats I listed were inconceivable. Now we are either currently living with some of those very real threats or they will be upon us in the lifetime of today’s teenagers.

Establishing a self-sustaining human colony on Mars is critical to ensuring the future of humanity. It is going to take at least a century, and more likely several. We cannot afford any delays. We are on the cusp of having the necessary technology (not just lower cost rockets for transport, but all the necessary technologies) if we focus on what needs to be done it is possible (though far from certain) that we can accomplish it.

Spending a decade or two establishing a lunar base is in my opinion wasted time for SpaceX.

And that's not where it ends. It gets even better for SpaceX financially if they open up the moon--there are so many people that want to go there (hell, the Israelis recently launched a lander off a commercial GEO satellite!) and there's so many financial opportunities beyond the 'small stuff' that people currently want to do.

I find such “financial opportunities” highly speculative, tiny Israeli unmanned lunar lander not withstanding.

 

[mongo]

Spending a decade or two establishing a lunar base is in my opinion wasted time for SpaceX.

I find such “financial opportunities” highly speculative, tiny Israeli unmanned lunar lander not withstanding.

There is big range between decades of only building a moon base and using the moon as a test bed while focusing on getting to Mars.

 

[Eno Deb]

I advise going back to first principals, which in the case of SpaceX’s mission to establish a self-sustaining human colony on Mars, is that human civilization on Earth is facing multiple near-term (within a century) existential threats: nuclear war, biological war, uncontrolled general AI, catastrophic climate changes, collapsing ecosystems triggered by rapid climate change, agricultural production systems disrupted by climate change, pandemics accelerated by dense urban environments and global transportation systems...I could go on.

Mars is not the only (and according to e.g. Jeff Bezos) maybe not even the best option to establish off-world human habitats. Given the distance and general unfriendliness of Mars (temperature, atmosphere, low gravity) it may never be an option. So I'm not sure if that's a proper way to apply "first principles".

Spending a decade or two establishing a lunar base is in my opinion wasted time for SpaceX.

If you only view it as a testbed and training ground, perhaps. But it could also be a source of raw materials for building ships and structures in space, with a much shallower gravity well than Earth ...

 

[bxr140]

Spending a decade or two establishing a lunar base is in my opinion wasted time for SpaceX.

Thanks for sharing this thought, because it pinpoints the disconnect in our discussion. As @mongo notes, the moon and mars aren't mutually exclusive; there's no reason why we can't parallel both. Realistically, inserting the moon into SpaceX's picture would delay a mars attempt by one, maybe two cycles. And in those cycles so much would be learned that there would be no net time lost on the mars program. And lets face it, if SpaceX really wanted to, they could go to the moon and still stay on schedule for Mars.

Mars is not the only (and according to e.g. Jeff Bezos) maybe not even the best option to establish off-world human habitats.

That's exactly right! It we want to make sure human civilization has an off-world opportunity in the future, we must explore those opportunities. It is only with extreme hubris and ego to assume that Mars is the definitive answer. We're simply not smart enough to know the right answer today.


The good news is that nobody (at least, anyone here, I think) disagrees with the notion that humanity must go to mars, ASAP.

 

[ecarfan]

Mars is not the only (and according to e.g. Jeff Bezos) maybe not even the best option to establish off-world human habitats.

I admire Jeff’s vision but disagree with him that the space habitats he proposes (and which many sci-fi authors in my lifetime have written about) are even remotely possible in the next few centuries.

My concern is that human civilization will self-destruct long before we are able to build the first usable O’Neil cylinder.

Thanks for sharing this thought, because it pinpoints the disconnect in our discussion. As @mongo notes, the moon and mars aren't mutually exclusive; there's no reason why we can't parallel both. Realistically, inserting the moon into SpaceX's picture would delay a mars attempt by one, maybe two cycles. And in those cycles so much would be learned that there would be no net time lost on the mars program. And lets face it, if SpaceX really wanted to, they could go to the moon and still stay on schedule for Mars.

I do not agree. SpaceX lacks the resources to do both. Right now SpaceX likely doesn’t even have the resources to build more than a couple of Super Heavy/Starships. Elon has stated that SpaceX needs partners. So far, I’m not aware of any that have come forward beyond one Japanese billionaire who has contributed part of the cost of building a Starship.

Starlink may or may not pan out as a significant revenue source for SpaceX. I sure hope it does, but it is going to take more than that to achieve SpaceX’s goal.

That's exactly right! It we want to make sure human civilization has an off-world opportunity in the future, we must explore those opportunities. It is only with extreme hubris and ego to assume that Mars is the definitive answer. We're simply not smart enough to know the right answer today.

I’m saying that SpaceX should stay focused on its stated mission. I’m not saying that Blue Origin or any other company should stop what they are doing and devote all their energies towards getting to Mars. The more companies driving space exploration the better.

We need to establish sustainable human civilization off Earth to improve the odds of a better future. A base on a small rocky body with no atmosphere and radical temperature cycles does not seem like a good plan to me. O’Neil cylinders are a fantasy, in my opinion. We need a planet that we can have some hope of eventually making somewhat like Earth.

 

[Eno Deb]

I admire Jeff’s vision but disagree with him that the space habitats he proposes (and which many sci-fi authors in my lifetime have written about) are even remotely possible in the next few centuries.

My concern is that human civilization will self-destruct long before we are able to build the first usable O’Neil cylinder.

I have a hard time imagining how a permanent settlement on Mars would work. Remember that this is a planet were the atmospheric pressure is so low that body fluids boil, there is very little protection from cosmic radiation, and the low gravity will lead to all kinds of health problems. It's also barely withing the solar system's habitable zone. And terraforming, if it is at all possible, would take much longer than building O'Neil cylinders (or Arthur C. Clarke's Rama spaceship ).

 

[ecarfan]

ve a hard time imagining how a permanent settlement on Mars would work. Remember that this is a planet were the atmospheric pressure is so low that body fluids boil, there is very little protection from cosmic radiation, and the low gravity will lead to all kinds of health problems

And the Moon is worse in regards to all of those issues.

terraforming, if it is at all possible, would take much longer than building O'Neil cylinders (or Arthur C. Clarke's Rama spaceship

It is true that terraforming Mars will take centuries. But a permanent human colony on Mars could be possible in a matter of decades if SpaceX can find the partners and resources necessary. The terraforming can start later, it’s not required to create a self-sustaining colony in my opinion.

I had a one-on-one conversation with Arthur C. Clarke in the mid-90’s in Singapore. Really. He was wheelchair bound at that point, but his mind was sharp, and I had the privilege of wheeling him around for a bit when he was a keynote speaker at a dive conference there. It was truly one of the high points of my life. But we didn’t talk about Rama or O’Neil cylinders, we talked about his novels Childhood’s End and The Deep Range.

 

[Eno Deb]

And the Moon is worse in regards to all of those issues.

Nobody has proposed a permanent settlement on the moon. I'd rather imagine stations and perhaps mining operations with rotating personel.

It is true that terraforming Mars will take centuries. But a permanent human colony on Mars could be possible in a matter of decades if SpaceX can find the partners and resources necessary. The terraforming can start later, it’s not required to create a self-sustaining colony in my opinion.

But that colony wouldn't provide insurance against a catastrophic event on Earth. It would also not be a place worth living, IMO.

 

[ecarfan]

But that colony wouldn't provide insurance against a catastrophic event on Earth. It would also not be a place worth living, IMO.

The main point of establishing a self-sustaining human colony on Mars is to keep human civilization alive in case of a catastrophic event on Earth.

Don’t take my word for it. Read what Elon wrote: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/space.2017.29009.emu?journalCode=space

 

[Eno Deb]

The main point of establishing a self-sustaining human colony on Mars is to keep human civilization alive in case of a catastrophic event on Earth.

Don’t take my word for it. Read what Elon wrote: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/space.2017.29009.emu?journalCode=space

I know what Musk said, but I doubt that a bunch of people living in pressurized containers on a barren planet with a hostile environment, with no external supplies, would ensure long-term survival of humanity in case Earth becomes uninhabitable.

 

[EVCollies]

I know what Musk said, but I doubt that a bunch of people living in pressurized containers on a barren planet with a hostile environment, with no external supplies, would ensure long-term survival of humanity in case Earth becomes uninhabitable.

I hope Mars will be the first but not the only extraterrestrial home for homo sapiens. I also hope it will take less time to find the next location.

 

[bxr140]

I’m saying that SpaceX should stay focused on its stated mission.

As they should, like any good company. Its just that the vision governing SpaceX's mission is built around SpaceX being the first to Mars. There's zero wrong with that approach. It just happens to be the Spade we're talking about.

While nobody would imply that the humanity element to SpaceX's mission is some disingenuous cover story, it is an impossibility that 'saving humanity' is more important than flag planting, because there are so many unknown or unexplored elements to both the causes and solution of that destruction from which we're ostensibly being saved. Any person or entity that is truly putting humanity above their own interests would not immediately jump to a singular solution like "We must create a colony on Mars".

And so I'm not misunderstood, I actually think we should create a colony on Mars. But...for centuries to come the most important product of that exercise will be the increase in global knowledge required to make it happen in the first place. From a 'saving humanity' perspective, the Knowledge Journey is more important than the Mars Base destination, as it were.

As a bit of a crass final note, **** DeVos and the moron who appointed her. Knowledge--the product of education--is the foundation upon which the solutions for humanity's problems will be built. Not the vision of one megalomaniac billionaire.

 

[ecarfan]

It just happens to be the Spade we're talking about.

”Spade”? I’m unclear on the meaning of that word in this context. Autocorrect strikes again?

While nobody would imply that the humanity element to SpaceX's mission is some disingenuous cover story, it is an impossibility that 'saving humanity' is more important than flag planting, because there are so many unknown or unexplored elements to both the causes and solution of that destruction from which we're ostensibly being saved.

I really do not follow your line of reasoning here. I do not see how it is “impossible” that creating a possible “Plan B” for humanity if human civilization succumbs to an existential threat is “more important than flag planting”.

Yes, it is possible that none of the existential threats I listed upthread will occur, and it is possible that if one or more of them does occur there may be solutions other than creating a self-sustaining human colony on Mars. But that in no way negates the mission of SpaceX.

And so I'm not misunderstood, I actually think we should create a colony on Mars. But...for centuries to come the most important product of that exercise will be the increase in global knowledge required to make it happen in the first place. From a 'saving humanity' perspective, the Knowledge Journey is more important than the Mars Base destination, as it were.

Your argument seems self-referential. Of course establishing such a colony will require learning many new things, inventing new things, innovating to a level that has never been attempted before.

But if we learn all that is necessary to establish such a colony, but don’t actually do accomplish the goal, we will have wasted our knowledge.

 

[bxr140]

”Spade”? I’m unclear on the meaning of that word in this context. Autocorrect strikes again?

It was a reference to: 'Call a spade a spade'.

I really do not follow your line of reasoning here.

What this really boils down to is a to what degree one believes what Elon says, and specifically that one's determined acceptance of Elon's direct-to-Mars-then-colonize vision as the only viable solution necessarily dismisses any other vision as inferior.

So as to not mince words, I believe Elon is very interested in saving humanity. But to reiterate, if Elon was most interested in saving humanity, his vision would be something other than direct-to-mars, and would specifically include some steps along the way to Mars--like the moon. That's the only point. That's where the flag-planting comment originated from. His primary motivation is to be first to Mars, his secondary motivation is to make progress toward saving humanity.

There's simply no evidence or logic that closes to support his direct-to-mars vision, and there's essentially an entire human history of technological/knowledge advancement to suggest that a more staged and diversified concept is a superior approach--including his own approach to his car company, his rocket business, and his satellite business.

Again, we can learn a very significant percentage of the knowledge to be gained from establishing a mars colony by establishing a moon colony instead, and we can do it faster and cheaper [with the right management], AND that knowledge would directly inform and improve the eventual mars colony such that the end result is a moon base and a better mars colony that together more effectively progress toward the goal of 'saving humanity'.

To recap, we all believe saving humanity is a good idea. Some of us are just looking at the problem with a broader lens.

But if we learn all that is necessary to establish such a colony, but don’t actually do accomplish the goal, we will have wasted our knowledge.

Never have I suggested we not establish a Mars colony. It is an obvious branch to explore on the ever growing tree of progress.

Regardless....wasted knowledge? Far from it. Nobody would suggest the M/G/A missions would have been a waste of knowledge had we not actually made it to the moon.

 

[Nikxice]

It seems clear that Elon has been fostering a lean for Luna for at least a year now, perhaps longer. The tweets and video evidence are out there. I can think of a number of factors that could be influencing him, specifically the moon might offer benefits that outweigh the consequences of just bypassing to Mars. The moon is more similar to Mars than it is to Earth. I won't argue that the moon and Mars are two celestial bodies that will require substantial differences training. However there's plenty of overlap, plus the moon's proximity to Earth make it an efficient place to test. Take one infrequently discussed topic, the environmental systems required for spacesuits and spacecraft. Apollo astronaut John Young put lunar regolith at the top of his list of what needs attention for future lunar exploration. (Coincidentally, when I googled for Young's long forgotten quote about "the dirt", this recent WIRED article popped up.)
Moondust Could Cloud Our Lunar Ambitions
Martian soil is also some nasty stuff.
Martian soil - Wikipedia
More reason for supporting a SpaceX moon.... Following the $$$. NASA is definitely going back there before Mars. Highlight the muscle of the FH and at some point Starship might also become a player. The taxpayers will actually catch a break if SpaceX is on board. Hopefully any lunar participation from SpaceX will eventually help to push Congress over the edge, forcing the non-reusable SLS into extinction sooner.

 

[ecarfan]

His primary motivation is to be first to Mars, his secondary motivation is to make progress toward saving humanity.

Your argument would be more convincing if you did not claim to be able to read minds.

There is no way to know for sure what Elon’s “primary” or “secondary” motivation is, but his publicly stated motivation, repeatedly, is not “I want to be first to Mars”.

More reason for supporting a SpaceX moon.... Following the $$$. NASA is definitely going back there before Mars.

Based on the fact that as of now NASA has no where near enough funding to go to either destination, and that the history of NASA funding over the past three decades is that NASA’s goals change with every change in the Executive Branch such that none of the stated goals are ever achieved or even adequately funded, and based on the current almost unprecedented level of animosity between the people in charge in the House of Representatives (who control the Federal budget) and the person at the head of the Executive Branch, I would advise caution before making such definitive statements.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Based on the fact that as of now NASA has no where near enough funding to go to either destination, and that the history of NASA funding over the past three decades is that NASA’s goals change with every change in the Executive Branch such that none of the stated goals are ever achieved or even adequately funded, and based on the current almost unprecedented level of animosity between the people in charge in the House of Representatives (who control the Federal budget) and the person at the head of the Executive Branch, I would advise caution before making such definitive statements.

NASA has plenty of funding to go to Mars and/or the Moon. But they are forced to focus on silly things, like the LOP-G, and they are forced to pay for pork in SLS states and all sorts of other institutional issues.

What would it take to land and return people from the moon? In Zubrins moon direct scenario, three Falcon Heavy and two Falcon 9. Plus a cargo lander, a human rated lander, a Crew Dragon, and some habitation modules and other equipment. This allows for repeat return missions to the moon at the cost of a single Falcon 9 with Crew Dragon. Moon Direct

The cost of this could come in under $2 billion.

Mars is harder, but it's still doable with a few Falcon Heavy.

 

[Yggdrasill]

There's simply no evidence or logic that closes to support his direct-to-mars vision, and there's essentially an entire human history of technological/knowledge advancement to suggest that a more staged and diversified concept is a superior approach--including his own approach to his car company, his rocket business, and his satellite business.

Again, we can learn a very significant percentage of the knowledge to be gained from establishing a mars colony by establishing a moon colony instead, and we can do it faster and cheaper [with the right management], AND that knowledge would directly inform and improve the eventual mars colony such that the end result is a moon base and a better mars colony that together more effectively progress toward the goal of 'saving humanity'.

What exactly can we learn on the moon that is both:

1. Applicable to mars?
2. Not doable in LEO (or on earth), which is even cheaper and faster?

I can't think of much. ISRU on the moon and mars is quite different. Environmental systems are currently done on the ISS. If we want to assess the impacts of low gravity, this is better done with artificial gravity in LEO. That allows for testing various levels of gravity, instead of just one.

 

[Nikxice]

I'll try an analogy. The moon and Mars are akin to hostile countries seeking to destroy their potential invaders. Methodically taking down our closest neighbor first might result in fewer human casualties and also possibly shorten any timeline to occupy Mars.

Thought of that awkward 2002 quote from Donald Rumsfeld concerning WMD's (World's of Mass Destruction?) "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know."