[SpaceX] has won $75 million from the US space agency NASA to help its pursuit of developing a spacecraft...
I was wondering what possible economic rationale a "private" mission to Mars could have, given that there are a limited number of billionaire space tourists whose ultimate dream is to be locked in a space the size of a bus for six years.
Now I know. They're in the traditional, lucrative business of collecting government grants.
What I'm seeing here is a contractor. Big deal. Exactly what is the difference here between SpaceX and, say, Grumman Aircraft Engineering in 1962?
Grumman wasn't part of the government. It was a corporation.
The point of "private" space ventures is that they're supposed to have a different business model, not just a different approach to branding themselves. Thus far their big business-model innovation is to collect checks from NASA without ever using the words contractor or NASA.
Since I'm not a US tax payer I should be careful. Its true, SpaceX would not be where they are today without massive government support.
But consider the following.
First, they are a lot more cost efficient. The Falcon Heavy is supposed to be 6 times cheaper per ton to LEO than the Delta IV Heavy. This can save the US government as well as many companies around the world lots of money.
Second, the ability to jump in, just when the, expensive, shuttle program runs out seems to be very helpful for the USA as a - if not the - space nation. Without SpaceX the US would depend on Russia to send astronauts to the ISS and anywhere else in space for many, many years.
Also, I would be careful about dissing "space tourists". Many of the so called tourists have actually done scientific experiments in space. I believe most of them did not fly, so they can show the "I was there" pics at home. No, they wanted to be astronauts since they were little boys, more than anything else in the world! This is pure speculation, but if NASA would auction their astronaut positions to people who match the minimum requirements, they might be profitable tomorrow.
Same goes for Elon Musk and Mars. I've read many times, he is a betrayer and just wants make money at the SpaceX IPO. I know you didn't state this and maybe its actually true. But I don't believe it. I think he and others really want to have humans on Mars and if possible they want to fly by them self. I find it totally plausible that the first manned mission to Mars will be financed by the crew and their private supporters. Just consider how much people pay to be the XXXth person to be on Mount Everest. And thats arguable not less dangerous, let alone the hardship in the death zone.
How much would be the final prize on a auction that determines who will likely be the first human in history on a different planet?
Last but not least, whats wrong about Grunman and the Lunar Module? From the wikipedia article you cited:
"Though initially unpopular and plagued with several delays in its development, the LM eventually became the most reliable component of the Apollo/Saturn system, the only one never to suffer any failure that significantly impacted a mission,[1] and in at least one instance (LM-7 Aquarius) greatly exceeded its design requirements."
But keep in mind that SpaceX's lineup of launch vehicles will probably allow them to capture a rather substantial segment of worldwide launch contracts.
This is not a small market.
We're talking about many billions of dollars. And their vehicles are both more capable and dramatically cheaper than the competition. It seems highly likely that they will be rolling in billions of dollars of profit in a rather short period of time.
Take billions of dollars of excess revenue per year, roll it into more R&D. Take additional billions and an engineering base from a newly formed space tourism industry and add that. And then maybe it doesn't look so crazy if SpaceX is sending humans to Mars on their own dime, independent of any government funding.
I was wondering what possible economic rationale a "private" mission to Mars could have, given that there are a limited number of billionaire space tourists whose ultimate dream is to be locked in a space the size of a bus for six years.
Now I know. They're in the traditional, lucrative business of collecting government grants.
What I'm seeing here is a contractor. Big deal. Exactly what is the difference here between SpaceX and, say, Grumman Aircraft Engineering in 1962?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
Grumman wasn't part of the government. It was a corporation.
The point of "private" space ventures is that they're supposed to have a different business model, not just a different approach to branding themselves. Thus far their big business-model innovation is to collect checks from NASA without ever using the words contractor or NASA.