Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/03/15/elon_musk_wants_spacex_to_help_establish_a_colony_on_mars_.html

by edw519 • 14 years ago

95 109 14 years ago

I love the last line:

“I would definitely like to go to Mars. I think it would be cool to be born on Earth and die on Mars,” he said as the night wrapped. “Hopefully, not at the point of impact.”

Shivetya• 14 years ago

I will take his grandest adventure line coupled with the part about, there will always be problems on Earth and waiting for a time there isn't will never come.

Far too many people criticize lavish dreams such as what Musk has but that is what separates the watchers from the doers.

jpdoctor2• 14 years ago

> lavish dreams such as what Musk has but that is what separates the watchers from the doers.

?? Not sure of your meaning: Dreams are usually the domain of the watchers, expertise and hard work are usually the domain of the doers. Musk has demonstrated expertise and hard work, but in a different area; here he is a dreamer. Is that what you meant?

paparoger2• 14 years ago

Mars, sounds great! I am still amazed that the Rovers are still operational.

jpdoctor2• 14 years ago

> I am still amazed that the Rovers are still operational.

A lot of people are. I had the pleasure of chatting with the NASA program manager in charge of one of the rovers. She was a bit hilarious: When it came time to set the height of one of the mission cameras, someone whipped out a ruler and measured the distance from the floor to her eyes -- and then wrote it in the spec.

Her comment on the first manned mission: Inevitably it leads to a discussion about one-way missions to mars. The next discussion is "who would volunteer", next followed by "who would you volunteer?"

[btw, she said NASA will not officially consider one-way missions as a matter of principle.]

paparoger2• 14 years ago

Ha, now that's comical!

lolilives• 14 years ago

I am convinced that Mars colonization should be seriously considered as a part of space exploration policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_to_Stay

rbanffy8• 14 years ago

Mars is a very harsh environment - and it's very far from Earth (6 months best case with current propulsion technology). I'd suggest a permanent base on the Moon as a useful first step - it has some water, abundant energy, plenty of Aluminum, Magnesium, Titanium and a lack of atmosphere that makes metallurgy easy. Radiation is worse than Mars, but, in both cases, buried housing structures make sense and the Moon's low gravity would make construction easier and cheaper. With some infrastructure development, it would even be a nice launching point for Mars-bound spacecraft - think of a maglev train that reaches escape speed.

It's also close, so, even if someone screws up very badly, a rescue mission would be less than a week away. If someone on Mars manages to, say, contaminate the colony's water supply, all we can do is record farewell messages for loved ones and deal with the bad publicity for decades. I wouldn't like that.

A second step could be an Aldrin cycler space station - this way you could ride a small spacecraft to the cycler, live there for a couple months and depart to Mars when it passes by. Plus, you'd get some prime moving real-estate - one that goes between Earth and Mars without spending fuel.

ceejayoz6• 14 years ago

> If someone on Mars manages to, say, contaminate the colony's water supply, all we can do is record farewell messages for loved ones and deal with the bad publicity for decades. I wouldn't like that.

The same is true for a major disaster at the South Pole in winter, though. There's a several month period in which vehicles cannot reach the pole due to the temperatures and weather involved. We still go there.

JoeAltmaier7• 14 years ago

Or in an African village. It doesn't take distance to maroon someone with no means.

schwabacher• 14 years ago

I hadn't heard of an Aldrin cycler. Very very cool! Here is an animation of how one could work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCVfUlFZQ4U

arethuza• 14 years ago

If you compare it with 19th century polar expeditions, a trip to Mars doesn't look that bad. They sometimes took multiple years, with men trapped in iced up ships, usually with no chance of rescue or even communication - at least we know how to prevent scurvy now!

Have a read of the book "Barrow's Boys: A Stirring Story of Daring, Fortitude, and Outright Lunacy":

http://www.amazon.com/Barrows-Boys-Stirring-Fortitude-Outrig...

NB Having read too much Kim Stanley Robinson and Zubrin, I'd jump at the chance to go to Mars.

rbanffy8• 14 years ago

An expedition to Mars would cost a lot more, with a much smaller expected ROI. I too would love the idea of going to Mars, but, in order to build a sustainable colony, you'd need to put in place a whole lot of infrastructure to make interplanetary travel cheaper. And, right now, it's not even feasible.

troymc2• 14 years ago

The Aldrin cycler requires fuel to keep it going around the sun (with periodic flybys of Earth and Mars).

In principle, each Earth flyby is used to rotate the orbit so that it goes to Mars, but the problem with the Aldrin cycler is that the required flyby distance is too close to Earth: it's smaller than Earth's radius! As a result, rocket fuel is required to give it the required extra kick.

But there are other Earth-Mars cycler trajectories! One of my projects in grad school was to investigate them, and there are some that really can keep going without spending fuel (except for minor adjustments). In particular, the so-called "Ballistic S1L1" cycler is very promising. Here's a paper about it:

McConaghy, T. Troy, Landau, Damon F., Yam, Chit Hong, and Longuski, James, M., “Notable Two-Synodic-Period Earth-Mars Cycler,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 43, No. 2, March–April 2006, pp. 456–465.

rbanffy8• 14 years ago

Thanks! I never did the math on the Aldrin cycler. Can you give more details for the journal-challenged?

Dn_Ab• 14 years ago

I agree and as a kid I always wanted to visit both the Moon and Mars. But for any of this to happen we need a breakthrough that applies Moore's law to $/kg for space travel to become economical. We need cost effective nuclear fusion to increase our energy budget. Or material science has to advance to the point that space elevators or launch loops and similar become feasible. Does anyone know the timeline on those?

samstave• 14 years ago

We need to develop remotely operated building machines first. Test them on the moon and succeed in building a sound, sealed, safe environ for humans to enter before we try to get to mars.

If I were Elon, I would focus on the building of the delivery system to get materials and equipment to the moon - then have an X-prize for people to develop the robots to build stuff.

Get a heavy payload like that to the moon, assemble some stuff and test it. Then make money off moon tourism Parlay this to mars research, funding and experience.

justncase802• 14 years ago

If you can make a 'makerbot' that can make a makerbot I think you're 95% of the way there :)

cpeterso• 14 years ago

The moon may have fewer natural resources than Mars, but it seems strange to not practice building habitats in the Earth's backyard. "Lunarcrete" is one way to build bunkers (using materials already on the moon) that keep out gamma rays and extreme surface temperatures.

The moon is also close enough that I could imagine a private company like Virgin Galactic building lunar resorts in a couple decades. :D

philwelch15• 14 years ago

If you're going from Earth to Mars, you waste a lot of delta-V going to the Moon first.

gammarator5• 14 years ago

The answer Musk gave at a Q&A I was at was, "We won't go to the Moon because the Moon sucks."

His point was that the Moon can never be made habitable for humans, and the low gravity makes it hard to work.

The analogy he made was the Arctic--sure, it's a lot closer to Europe and Asia, but Columbus et al. went to the Americas instead. Farther away, but more habitable.

Cushman3• 14 years ago

I'm with Carl Sagan.

Visit? Yes. Settle? Not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to go to Mars as a hobby, as a tourist-- if that's how you want to spend your billions, fine. But I worry that too many impatient sci-fi lovers see space travel as some way to escape from the problems of Earth, which it will never be. If we can't figure out how to live sustainably on Earth, humanity will perish long before we have any realistic possibility of emigrating.

JoeAltmaier7• 14 years ago

You say that with authority. Care to share your reasoning? Folks went as far (in terms of travel time) to desolate places to make a future before. You are likely descended from some of them.

rbanffy8• 14 years ago

None of them had to take their own air.

Cushman3• 14 years ago

No human being has ever settled in a place which was not previously the habitat of a billion years of successful organic life-- and we have failed to settle in a number of places which are.

To think of Mars as just the new New World is a romantic idea, but there is no basis for the comparison. Populating another world will be the most significant undertaking of humanity by orders of magnitude; to assume it can be done while it remains to be seen whether we can survive as a species on a planet with an atmosphere which is exactly what we breathe, which is made of as much water as we are, of the same phase ours is, where food grows in the ground all by itself and we are nearly completely protected from debris large and small, and with a legacy of billions of years to prove it can be done-- well, I'd ask to know your reasoning.

ceejayoz6• 14 years ago

Right now, an asteroid could wipe out humanity with pretty minimal warning. There's something major to be said for at least a small self-sustaining colony somewhere else.

greeneggs3• 14 years ago

Except we can defend the earth from an asteroid for probably five orders of magnitude less money than establishing a self-sustaining colony somewhere else. And if self sustaining is all you need, setting up a self-sustaining colony a mile underground is also five or six orders of magnitude cheaper.

I can't think of any risk to humanity where going to the moon or Mars makes sense as insurance.

ars7• 14 years ago

> Right now, an asteroid could wipe out humanity with pretty minimal warning

That isn't true. There are no asteroids big enough to do that, that we haven't seen. The asteroid risk is a regional one, not a global one.

troymc2• 14 years ago

I'm with Tsiolkovsky:

"A planet is the cradle of mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever."

usually cited as "Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in a cradle forever."

pjscott2• 14 years ago

Is that just a fancy rhetorical flourish, or do you actually expect "living unsustainably" to potentially cause our extinction? If so, I would be interested in hearing a mechanism.

philwelch15• 14 years ago

By definition, if you cannot live sustainably, you cannot sustainably live. Though sustainability, more or less, is about sustaining current populations and quality of life; most failures of sustainability won't extinct the human race, they'll just kill a lot of people off and deprive us of the massive amounts of energy needed to maintain our present quality of life.

gammarator5• 14 years ago

Musk said in a Q&A that he views it as cheap insurance.

stevear• 14 years ago

A good leader sets a goal that is outside of our comfort zone and little by little works towards achieving those goals. Along the way, as steady progress is made, that once lofty goal starts to become more reasonable and others start to buy in. This seems to be the approach Elon has taken with Tesla and SpaceX. From personal experience I can tell you that simply making these lofty goals has attracted a lot of young, idealistic folk that are willing to put in a lot of sweat to show that this kind of stuff is within our reach.

maeon3• 14 years ago

The future of space travel is mining the asteroid belt and war preparation, anything else is just farting around, without the unobtanium or the fear of death to drive us, there is no reason to leave earth for more than a quick trip.

If Elon Musk wants a base on mars, have him start putting missile silos up there, there will be a McDonalds up there in 30 years instead of some decrepit shack with a few science projects going on.

InclinedPlane4• 14 years ago

Space is just a place. All that it takes is people who want to go there and the technology to do so being within their grasp. As technology advances and people grow wealthier colonization of space will become possible, and then it will happen. And once there are people living in space then the entire equation changes again, because once there is an economy in space there will be more reasons to go than just adventure.

Edit: In terms of technology/wealth, imagine a future in, say, 2100 when we have mastered things like automation, 3D printing, etc. When we can fill out a form on a web app, upload a few files and not just have, say, a fully reusable rocket ship pop out the end of a factory but actually a rocket ship producing factory pop out. Such things are technologically possible, and within our grasp. What happens when we have such power? Do we sit at home?

joering2• 14 years ago

2100?? having those things in 2100 would mean we humans all are incredibly lazy. You already have 3D printers. Automation too. Why you need to wait 88 more years?

Given what happened in last 30 years, I would rather say in 2100 you will be able to scan yourself into a readable file and shoot it across the solar system all the way to the Mars, and print yourself out anew (printing algorithm would catch and get a rid of all cancers you caught and aging too).

zerostar072• 14 years ago

This is remarkable, but is going to Mars really our most challenging goal, our raison d'etre as humanity? Given the choice between being either the First human on mars or the First machine-augmented-human what would you choose?

ars7• 14 years ago

Is there some reason these are mutually exclusive?

zerostar072• 14 years ago

I find it interesting that people find these equally challenging. For the record, we know way too much about Mars and too little about the machine that makes us want to go (and go) to mars, the brain. If we can master our intelligence we could do so much more than going to a desolate planet. TBH i believe the first mission to mars will leave us disappointed (we won't have learned anything - and we don't really need mars for our future).

JoeAltmaier7• 14 years ago

Let's not choose between artificial dilemmas. Do them all.

_gd3l• 14 years ago

Why don't we focus on the shit here first?

I'm sorry, but I just get frustrate with all these wondrous predictions that always seem to be about 30-50 years in the future. Short enough away to be enticing, but long enough away where no one making these predictions will really he held accountable for their ridiculousness.

It just seems that every single generation a) has some "new threat" for "how the world will end" and b) has some technological vision that ends up being way overestimated.

pjscott2• 14 years ago

We can do both. Hell, even Elon Musk can do both; he also runs Tesla Motors, which makes electric cars on Earth.

Also, I notice that people are much more likely to condemn space development as frivolous than they are to criticize, say, football or whittling. Does that seem like a double standard to you, too?

philwelch15• 14 years ago

Football and whittling are sustainably self-funding.

philwelch15• 14 years ago

> In January, Newt Gingrich’s space ambitions were mocked by many experts as well as the public, particularly his vow that a moon colony would be established by the conclusion of his “second term.” Musk isn’t committing to a timeline nearly so ambitious; when pushed by Wright, he suggested that this could be a reality within the next 30 years.

Gingrich's moon base by 2020 is probably less ambitious than Musk's Martian colony by 2042. The moon is orders of magnitude closer, doesn't involve leaving Earth orbit, doesn't involve the radiation hazards, and we've actually been to the moon before. I don't want to get into a political argument, but going back to the moon and staying there is not an especially difficult or onerous goal for the next eight years.

meric3• 14 years ago

You're forgetting the economy and number of technological achievements grows exponentially.

At 4% per annum growth the world economy will be triple the current size in 30 years. (assuming no technological singularity event).

An economy triple the current size doesn't seem like it can easily afford a colony on Mars either but I think Elon Musk thinks my assumption is wrong.

philwelch15• 14 years ago

The economy is irrelevant. Technology just takes time to develop sometimes; nine women can't have a baby in one month.

zobzu• 14 years ago

What makes things go right? What makes wake up and work your best every day?

Well, such inspiring, exciting stuff, as colonizing other planets. Doing that also improves all other areas. Transportation of course. Electronics. Software. Radio. Medicine. You name it.

That is why such projects not a "childish idea" but actually a great plan.

There's only 2 reasons for humans to work hard, and work good:

- fear of death (war)

- f* exciting stuff (and no, software idea 923839 is not nearly exciting enough, and money isn't either)

petegrif• 14 years ago

How is he going to get there and back without his bones disintegrating? I don't believe the science is there yet.

justncase802• 14 years ago

In the book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein, which is a fantastic science fiction book about colonizing Luna and the politics of an anarchistic government, he mentions the creation of a Rocket Sled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_sled_launch) which seems to never get mentioned when people talk about earth side technology for improving our ability to leave earth.

Does anyone know if there is some reason why this technology seems to get ignored? According to wikipedia it seems like a big win. Why aren't we doing this right now?

Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself

Related Stories