The space race has risen from its ashes and carries implications bigger than ever before. Half a century ago, the United States and the Soviet Union were in a mad dash to be the forefront of space exploration. Ultimately, the United States put the final nail in the Soviet coffin by landing two men on the moon. The space race of the 60’s resulted in one of mankind’s greatest achievements and a renewed sense of American Nationalism. Since then, however, five decades have passed and relatively little advancement in the aerospace field has followed our first great leap. Elon Musk, entrepreneur and CEO of SpaceX argues that, “there is no real physical frontier on Earth anymore, but space is that frontier,” (as quoted in Easto’s book page 104). This may not be the case for much longer though, as the private enterprise SpaceX has set its eyes on reaching Mars, now meaning that NASA has coemption for the first time for the red planet in over five decades. The inception of the new space race has resulted in an increased rate of innovation for both agencies. This has led to firsts in the aerospace field from landing boosters to hosting space tourists. That being said, more is at stake than just improved technology. With Mars comes colonization, and ultimately the next chapter of human existence. Like any other competition, only one of these two powers will be able to claim the title of first to Mars. Although NASA has been an accomplished aerospace agency in the past, SpaceX will be the first agency to reach and colonize Mars because of their more progressive timetable, more practical financial model, and superior aerospace technology. This will lead to increased private aerospace investment, faster technological advancement, and a more unified global perspective unlike any time period we have seen before. 

NASA’s actions towards manned Mars missions have been reactionary at best to SpaceX’s vision to be the first to the red planet. In the decades previous, there was very little concrete talk of NASA attempting a manned mission to Mars. This had been the case for a while, and even SpaceX CEO Elon Musk highlighted that, “NASA had no plans to send people to Mars or even really back to the moon,” (As Quoted in Easto’s book page 85). Here Musk makes it clear that Mars simply wasn’t a priority for NASA in the past. Musk went on to establish SpaceX as the prominent aerospace company in the field since then, and make tangible strides towards reaching Mars in the near future. While SpaceX was doing all this, NASA released a tentative timeline for getting men on Mars. However, it isn’t much to look at. When the Planetary Society, the world’s leading independent astronautical society, did an analysis of NASA’s capabilities to reach the planet, they found that it will likely take over two decades to do so. The Planetary Society’s findings were that, “NASA could get astronauts to Mars orbit by 2033 and onto the Red Planet's surface by 2039,” (Cofield 2015). While NASA does now have a timeline in place, how long the agency is planning on taking to get there isn’t ideal. This timeline also is very susceptible to governmental change, and could easily be pushed back even farther than the 2039 deadline. These sources show that NASA simply isn’t in a rush to reach Mars. This lackadaisical approach to Mars has opened the door for other agencies to reach the red planet before NASA. SpaceX is hoping to do exactly that in the not so near future.

SpaceX’s overarching goal has always been to establish a manned colony on Mars. Musk made this abundantly clear from his except in Jessica Easto’s “Rocket Man” where he says, “The goal of SpaceX is to revolutionize space travel. The long-term goal is to establish Mars as a self-sustaining civilization,” (as quoted on page 87). Easto establishes SpaceX’s purpose with the inclusion of this quote. Since Musk said this, SpaceX has become confident enough in this goal to establish a timeline far ahead of NASA. At the International Astronautical Conference last year, Musk revealed that SpaceX had made significant strides towards making a manned Mars mission within the decade. Space.com senior writer Mike Wall echoes Easto’s assertions through summarizing the main points of Musk’s presentation listing, “2024: The year in which ITS (Interplanetary Transport System) could begin crewed flights to Mars, if everything goes perfectly. But SpaceX's first Red Planet mission should come sooner; the company aims to launch one of its uncrewed Dragon capsules toward Mars in 2018,” (2016). The contrast Wall paints between the timeframes both NASA and SpaceX have presented for the future of their Mars missions suggests that SpaceX simply is more invested in trying to reach Mars than NASA is under their current leadership. As Easto said, SpaceX’s primary objective as a corporation is to reach and colonize Mars, while NASA simply is spread too thin across other special obligations. This is apparent from Wall’s findings that the two agencies estimate their time of arrival on the Mars to be over fifteen years apart even though both NASA and SpaceX stand to gain from the inception of a Martian colony. With this, SpaceX has done the unprecedented and given the international astronautical community someone anyone can root for. Regardless of nationality, SpaceX making it to Mars would be a victory for all of mankind, not just the United States as when NASA landed on the moon in decades previous. However, with this fifteen-year difference in planning also comes many questions about whether or not SpaceX really has the tools available to make it to Mars. One main concern has to do with the fact that getting there is going to require tens of billions of dollars.

Musk still faces many critics on the financial feasibility of undergoing a manned Mars mission. For private enterprises like SpaceX, funding missions isn’t as easy as reaching into the taxpayer cookie jar. In fact, much of the funding for an undertaking as grand as Mars would have to come from private benefactors. Critics like Lisa Grossman, a contributor for New Scientist, believe that this financial model isn’t practical. In her article, Grossman asks, “who will found this brave new world? The rich. Musk hopes to get the cost of a ticket to Mars down to around $200,000… But life on the red planet will be much less cushy: ‘Mars will have a labor shortage for a long time so jobs will not be in short supply,’ he said. So, you spend your life savings on a one-way Musk cruise, followed by a lifetime of physical labor on a cold, airless desert? Sign me up,” (Grossman 2016). Here Grossman argues that the difficulties of space travel simply are not marketable to those rich enough to afford it. However, science columnist Kenneth Chang of The New York Times refutes this point, saying that SpaceX is already drawing the attention of exactly the type of benefactors a Mars mission would need. Chang emphasizes that, “(Musk) said two private individuals approached the company to see if SpaceX would be willing to send them on a weeklong cruise, which would fly past the surface of the moon,” (Chang 2017). To add to this, the cost of this moon vacation should be significantly higher than Musk’s asking price for a ticket to Mars. While Musk declined to give a specific figure, Chang expands on Musk’s comment, explaining that it would cost, “’a little bit more than the cost of a crewed mission to the space station would be,’ he said. The Falcon Heavy itself has a list price of $90 million,” (Chang 2017). Through Chang’s analysis of SpaceX’s moon tourist announcement, it is evident that Grossman’s concerns about the financial feasibility of a SpaceX Mars mission should not be a hindrance in the company’s race to the red planet. In fact, SpaceX’s corporate model has proven to be the cheapest way to produce new aerospace research and technology over the past decade.

SpaceX has proven that they are able to develop and manufacture next-gen aerospace technology at a fraction of the cost that NASA can. Over the past decade, SpaceX has built the Falcon 9, a new rocket built from scratch far more advanced that the rockets that NASA has been employing for decades. Undertakings such as this one are undoubtedly financially burdensome, but Scientific American contributor John Matson highlights how much more efficient SpaceX’s private enterprise model is than NASA’s government agency model. Matson specifically underscores that, “NASA would have needed $4 billion to build the Falcon 9, more than twice as much as a NAFCOM (NASA/Air Force Cost Model)-derived estimate for SpaceX,” (2011). Matson exemplifies the inefficiencies prevalent in dated program models like NASA’s, and attributes much of said waste to red tape that simply isn’t present in a private enterprise. This same issue is echoed by Musk in response to NASA’s attempt to incorporate SpaceX-style landing technology though the ULA rocket patent. Musk criticized that, “The ULA rockets are about four times more expensive than ours, so this contract is costing the US taxpayers billions of dollars for no reason,” (As quoted in Easto’s book page 101). Here Easto agrees with Matson that  financial efficiency in space travel is a huge factor for who will be the first to Mars, and SpaceX is substantially more effective at utilizing their capital than NASA is. NASA is operating on an ever-shrinking fiscal budget and burning money at least twice the rate of SpaceX. Doing so over time will ultimately leave NASA broke and with nothing to show for it. These financial discrepancies between the agencies will ultimately result in an increase in private aerospace investment. Benefactors who wish to advance the field can clearly see that SpaceX and other private companies like them will deliver the more innovative technology at significantly lower costs. Despite all this, there are critics that still believe that SpaceX does not have the technology to make it to Mars.

Many critics of SpaceX believe that the company does not have the technology to safely reach and sustain a Martian colony. When Musk was presenting at the International Astronautical Conference this previous year, many people present had questions about how Musk planned to get past some of the basic problems any planetary colony would face. Specifically, Loren Grush of The Verge addresses how Musk did not speak on how SpaceX expects to provide food, water, and breathable air for its astronauts. Grush says when addressing this issue that, “very few details about human safety were laid out, and some of the engineering claims made by Musk seemed incredibly optimistic and even unattainable,” (2016). Here Grush argues that Musk left these details out of his presentation because the company does not have a workable model for these essential systems. However, Stephen Petranek did a TED talk explaining that we already have developed the necessary technology for growing, collecting, and extracting all the food, water, and breathable air a Martian colony would need. Petranek explains a dehumidifier-type device that, “can extract all the water that humans will need simply from the atmosphere on Mars,” (2016). He also covers how we will feed the first few colonists saying that, “we'll use hydroponics to grow food, but we're not going to be able to grow more than 15 to 20 percent of our food there… In the meantime, most of our food will arrive from Earth, and it will be dried,” (2016). Petranek even explained that we have created rovers that, “suck in the Martian atmosphere and pump out oxygen,” (2016). Through Petranek’s analysis of the necessary life support systems a Martian colony would need, it is clear that Grush’s critique of SpaceX’s plans for Mars are not an issue for a future colony. Furthermore, as SpaceX continues to innovate and develop more technology for Mars colonization, it is likely that the issues still not worked out today will be solved or at least more practically addressed before the Falcon 9 goes on its maiden voyage. After all, SpaceX has an impressive track record of delivering on new technologies essential to a mission to Mars.

SpaceX’s current aerospace technological state is far superior to that of NASA. For years, a rocket would be launched using a large thruster that would detach before orbit and crash back into the ocean: shattering into pieces. This meant that for every launch a new thruster had to be built; the spaceship equivalent of getting a new car every time your tank runs out of gas. SpaceX saw this as another example of waste in the launch process status quo. Easto voices Musk’s opinions on this saying, “A fully and rapidly reusable rocket… is the pivotal break-through needed to substantially reduce the cost of space access,” (as quoted on page 98). Easto’s inclusion of this quote underscores the point that without the waste of financial capital technological innovation becomes exponentially more feasible. Naturally, Musk decided the company will develop the technology to land these thrusters back on the ground in one piece. The Verge contributor Loren Grush summarizes the company’s most recent successful attempt at landing a rocket saying, “SpaceX pulled off another successful rocket landing this morning… The success means that the company now has eight landed Falcon 9s in its possession,” (Grush 2016). Grush’s synopsis of this SpaceX revolution proves Easto’s point that developing reusable rockets can usher in a much faster rate of aerospace innovation. Grush’s commentary on this success highlights the contrast in technological know-how between SpaceX and NASA. The difference in thruster landing procedures for both agencies show that SpaceX is a clear-cut front runner in technological development. This technological advantage is allowing the company to allocate resources for other development projects necessary for reaching Mars, and ultimately putting them even farther ahead of NASA in the new space race. 

When SpaceX first emerged into the aerospace scene only a decade ago, the idea that a private company could make it to Mars seemed out of the realm of science fiction. Now, established agencies like NASA are scrambling to try and keep up with the company. SpaceX has served as a catalyst in the new age space race, bringing the competition back from the ashes it smoldered into over half a century ago. Throughout my research I have found overwhelming evidence that NASA, the once mighty space-faring agency, will likely soon be handing the reigns of interplanetary travel over to private enterprises like SpaceX. Their more progressive timeline, more practical financial model, and superior aerospace technology will get the company to Mars almost a full decade before NASA will be able to. For society, this has huge implications as what was once seen as a sign of national strength will now be something all of humanity can take pride in. Galvanized by a multinational corporation, our civilization will be inclined to think globally rather than nationally now that man will soon inhabit more than just Earth. This success in the private sector has the potential to incentivize aerospace investment, and ultimately result in new technologies in the field being developed at a rate faster than ever before. And while many may feel conflicted about NASA no longer being involved in the future of Mars and interplanetary colonization, it is likely that there will be collaboration between SpaceX and NASA in the future both with Mars and other endeavors beyond. Within the decade, we are going to bear witness to a monumental shift in the history of mankind: with companies like SpaceX leading the way, the final frontier just became a lot more open.
