Hey I just got my FOIA request for the EMU Hardware Data Book, everything you ever wanted to know about the EMU and much more, I posted a link here: space.stackexchange.com/questions/23658

I just realized that I was missing what might actually be the most expensive part of a Mars mission.

The cargo itself that is carried to Mars.

@MarkOmo I might have to start sending FOIA requests for some unanswered questions. Hmmm...

@PearsonArtPhoto don't steal my plan, that's how I got all my Rep ;)

Foia requests are easy

will somebody check my math on this helicopter thing?

10m diameter blades * pi * 500rpm is roughly... 10 m/sec? Or about 40kph?

oh nope, off by a factor of 60

Okay, so what kind of gear actually needs to be brought to Mars

to visit or to build a permanent base?

Any visit will be a long term visit, so...

SpaceX viewpoint.

I would assume the first guys will go back home, but they might leave things in place for the future.

I mean, obviously solar panels, science experiments, rovers, ISRU, engineering experiments, food, water.

Less obvious is things like hab structures, farming structures, etc.

it's still hard to quantify, i think. one needs to propose what the objectives of the mission are, how many people will go, what set of missions this mission is part of. frankly, the whole idea of sending people at all is already treading on delicate ground. So, you're sending people. How are they going to search for life, when they are carrying a whole bunch o' life with them?

Yeah, and that isn't clear.

Huh. This is really interesting... I'm sure there must be some estimate inside SpaceX, but...

oooh, i don't know about that...

this returns to what we talked about yesterday.

I mean, they know they want 2 cargo missions, followed by 2 cargo missions/ 2 human missions.

okay sure, but that's awfully easy to say.

I think we could assume that they are only counting on 1 of the initial cargo missions being required, but...

Sure.

They must have something in mind...

The cost estimation for SpaceX's plan is complex, to say the least.

Still, I'll do the best I can.

@PearsonArtPhoto i'm really, really not sure about that, because there are obviously a bunch of problems with the idea right from the get-go.

not just the planetary protection aspect, but the whole idea of getting launch licenses for a private mission to another planet.

my feeling is that they wouldn't put very much resources into planning for missions they honestly have no reason to believe will actually fly, because the government will stop them.

it would be very interesting to look more closely at such plans, but if spacex actually has them, it would be a bad idea for them to say so.

Hmmm...

i might be being a bit of a wet blanket here. the main thing is, i wouldn't spend much time looking around spacex for details.

I don't think it would be a bad idea to say they have plans, but...

Yeah, I'm mostly using the BFR from Wikipedia as a source.

you know what video i'd like to see? and i'm going to be a bit mischievous here, but it's true...

Why SpaceX's plan doesn't make sense?

Or something along those lines?

i'd like to see the video about all the political fallout if spacex actually had several bfr's they were actually preparing to launch to mars and there was actually reason to believe they were actually about to successfully settle the red planet.

Politics... I'll stay away from that.

Not the least of which is there just isn't much to go on.

i suppose the excessive use of actually indicates my level of doubt.

The FAA has to approve the launch, FCC the frequency allocations, but beyond those two...

@PearsonArtPhoto yep. i made the exact same choice.

beyond those two giant things...

If I thought there was something that could actually be intelligently discussed, I'd do it, but...

see, the thing is to me, is that because people are letting that whole things slide, we are getting excited about plans that i very much think would be quashed if they were clearly possible.

the honest question is what NASA would do if BFRs were a vehicle they could use for mission design.

I can't imagine that the US government would completely squash such a mission if they thought it was actually possible and safe.

yeah, thus i added the NASA thing just before you posted that.

if this is possible, NASA will step in and say 'we'll take it from here, boys'

and i am very okay with that

SpaceX has said they will give NASA the first chance at tickets on the first missions.

heheheheheheheheheh

And why wouldn't they?

I mean, NASA would likely pay $200 million or more per ticket to Mars. I doubt many outside of NASA would.

And the first missions will be much more expensive then the $200K that Elon has talked about.

it's just another thing that's easy to say. you don't offer the government tickets. the government takes as many tickets as they want, and decides if they are going to let you offer any to anyone else.

Sure you offer the government the tickets.

What happens if they refuse the tickets and refuse to let you launch, well...

It is 3 different branches of the government that would be involved. And I think the FAA would allow it.

All SpaceX has to do is get either NASA or FAA on board.

but you see what i'm saying, right? saying NASA gets first shot leaves the illusion you can do something outside of government oversight. I absolutely don't think NASA would ever be comfortable with leaving a mission as complex and delicate as sending people to Mars in the hands of a private company.

I will do a video on challenges to getting to Mars, and how SpaceX is meeting or failing them.

NASA does not have to approve the mission. The FAA has to approve it.

SpaceX would rather have NASA be okay with it, but...

and they won't

You really think that NASA wouldn't send 12 astronauts to Mars for $4 billion for the first mission, and $2 billion for each mission after?

Or less?

Assuming, of course, that they can prove it is safe.

I mean, NASA gave tacit approval for Red Dragon.

@kimholder Would someone, try to stop them? FAA? State Department? Federal marshalls??

They were involved, and were going to use DSN to help with it.

what i meant there is that the FAA will not approve a private mission like that. they won't grant launch licenses.

Red Dragon was at least preliminarily approved.

By NASA.

NASA would certainly pay for a bargain like that, but if so, it's because they are going, and nobody else.

@PearsonArtPhoto I disagree. They could find a million reasons to call it 'unsafe' as their excuse.

I don't think government approval will be an issue.

Safe is key, of course.

and they will design the mission according to their vision, not the vision of spacex.

@PearsonArtPhoto yep, and it totally isn't, by a country mile.

SpaceX won't care, I don't think.

Safe is relative, of course.

NASA's human rating standards are clearly unfair and crap. After all SLS on flight #2 can carry people. SpaceX needs 7 flights. Atlas, no requirement to see the new upper stage flown multiple times.

If by 2022 they have launched a dozen or more BFR launches, it shouldn't be an issue to declare it safe.

There are different ways to man rate a rocket.

@geoffc yeah, and that is the system that is going to design any mission to mars.

I think 13 with minimal oversight, 7 with some, and 1 if the government is involved in the whole process. Or something like that.

I think everyone knows there will be risk to going to Mars.

A 90% reliability should be sufficient for the first mission to Mars, or so I would hope.

there are three main things here.

1. any mission that goes and that involves spacex will be completely designed by NASA, not by spacex, according to NASA's priorities

That won't hapen.

Well, it might if SpaceX provides the vehicle, and NASA everything else.

2. NASA will not send a human mission unless the matter of life on mars has already been settled by robotic missions.

3. the whole world will not allow a private mission to another planet, much less one that has any hope of creating a permanent settlement, without the whole question of a legal framework for such a thing having been agreed upon.

I'm not sure about #2, and really not sure about #3.

i don't think the issue has come up very much because it is still so far in the future.

Or is perceived to be so far in the future.

I mean, no one is going to believe that BFR will actually make it to Mars until they have at least an orbital test done.

it's really easy to decide to delay things a little longer to keep your allies happy and to take a few extra steps to decide if it's safe enough. that's government MO

there is no time pressure here. the whole thing is completely optional.

The 2022 missions are suppose to include power, mining, and producing "life support" (Water/ Oxygen most likely)

Second mission will develop propellant production.

now, that i can get behind.

except the 2022, of course.

I don't think anyone will believe the 2022 will happen unless they are regularly launching LEO missions by early 2021.

And they should do at least one lunar flyby too, just to do a bit more of a stress test. In theory it shouldn't cost much, so... They need to exercise the refueling, however.

wait, but are these robotic missions? i'm okay with robotic missions that look at all that.

The first two will be robotic.

The next one will have 2 cargo, 2 manned. It might be that only one of the 2 is actually manned, but...