9 ms·
Elon Musk says he will put millions of people on Mars
- richardburton 15y agoTime for some name-dropping. My father operated on his mother-in-law. Yeh, that's right. Connected ;) On a serious note I have heard just how unbelievably driven this guy is. He picks absolutely enormous challenges and just goes for it. A truly great hacker.
- jcarreiro 15y agoEven if Elon Musk is totally wrong, it is the vision that is important. The vision of creating a thriving Mars colony where millions of humans can live and work will drive incredible improvements in our technology, by inspiring thousands or even millions of people all over the world to study science and engineering. Mr. Musk, thank you for being brave enough to give the world a vision of a brighter future.
- MikeCapone 15y agoThe ability to think big is indeed rarer than it might first seem, and the ability to actually try to accomplish those big dreams is even rarer. We need people like Musk and Aubrey de Grey who dare to try to change the world for the better. The worse that can happen is that we make some progress but the ultimate goal is still out of reach for a while... Sounds better to me than not even trying.
- jacquesm 15y agoThe difference between Elon Musk and Aubrey de Grey could not be larger.
- mvzink 15y agoThat's unfair. You may be right, but they are similar in the way MikeCapone mentioned: they are both pushing the limits of science and technology in pursuit of a grand, incredible vision. Perhaps one of them is doing it completely wrong, but like MikeCapone said: better than not even trying.
- MikeCapone 15y agoPlease elaborate with specifics. Thanks. There are many ways I can read what you wrote.
- ThaddeusQuay2 15y agoThe number of dead people whose ashes have been lost by Elon Musk? 208. http://nytimes.com/2008/08/03/science/space/03launchweb.html http://nytimes.com/2008/08/03/science/space/03launchweb.html That same statistic for Aubrey de Grey? 0. Based solely on this information, I vote for Aubrey to take us to Mars. If he can't or won't, then I vote for UP Aerospace, the people who previously lost, and recovered, Scotty's ashes. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/05/18/4351626-scottys-ashes-recovered http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/05/18/4351626-scot... On a serious note, I find it disturbing that Musk doesn't show any real sense of responsibility. From the second article: "We certainly felt a huge responsibility for getting this [the ashes] back to the customers. She [Wende Doohan] trusted us to fly it into space, which we did successfully, and she trusted us to find it." No such effort or statement was made by SpaceX. This lack of responsibility goes further, in a more general manner. I can't trust SpaceX to put millions of people on Mars when they can't even be bothered to do a small test on the moon. I understand that the environments are different, so the techniques and technologies used for a moon settlement may not easily transfer to Mars, but there is no real reason not to make an effort, even if it's just a year-long experiment to see if ten people could survive. Even if the moon isn't an important strategic goal, and I'm not sure that it isn't, at least it makes for a good testing ground. Bypassing the moon for Mars smacks more of unbridled grandiosity than it does of responsible reality.
- lightcatcher 15y agoFrom my perspective, its telling people about your big dreams so that they (and you) can hold yourself to them. But yes, people with massive ambitions such as Musk are needed to push things forward. If Musk achieves a tenth of his goal of colonizing Mars and just manages to land a person on Mars, he has still accomplished something no one else has.
- aj700 15y agoPopulating a new world needs many women, not so many men. (If you want to populate somewhere, I'm your man.) I'm not going unless there is a ratio enforced. Which would pretty much that mean very little competition in terms of seduction. That enforcement seems unlikely.
- rsynnott 15y agoOh, dear. Can we send you to Mercury, with no women, men, animals, or indeed any sort of multicellular organism?
- redthrowaway 15y agoThe problem is not getting there, it's that there's no reason to be there. Even the least hospitable places on Earth are far, far more hospitable than Mars. Combine that with the fact that there's no economic potential on Mars, and it just doesn't make sense. Look, you won't find many bigger proponents of space colonization than me, but it has to make sense. By all means, colonize the moon and use its helium for fusion energy. Build foundries in space and start melting down asteroids. But don't try and stick a million people in a place that very explicitly does not want people just because we can.
- chc 15y agoMusk seems to be ignoring the fact that getting there is the easy part. You then have to survive on a frigid alien planet with almost no atmosphere, no food in the environment, essentially no available water and no human infrastructure. Are there really millions of people who would sign up for the world's most expensive method of committing suicide?
- king_magic 15y agoEh, those are just "implementation details" ;)
- Mizza 15y agoThis is a great point, but it doesn't mean that the problems you mentioned are insoluble. Earth is actually quite an inhospitable planet as well. We survive on it because of our technology - Mars may be no different. I think there are thousands on this planet who would be willing to give it a shot if they thought there was even just a slim possibility of success.
- generalk 15y ago> Earth is actually quite an inhospitable planet as well. Perhaps in some light this may be true, but compared to Mars, Earth has a natural atmosphere that we can breathe, water we can drink, and produces plant life that we can eat. I'd call that downright hospitable.
- InclinedPlane 15y agoWhere do you get your water and food? Do you subsist on a foraging diet and drink water only from nearby streams. Technically speaking, the carrying capacity of the Earth under such conditions is low. Prior to the advent of agriculture and modern sanitation the human population was naturally limited. First by the availability of food, then by the problems of disease inherent in city living. The technology to live the way humans do today is only about a century old. Our food and water typically are the products of industry and technology. Mars would up the ante a bit but in essence would be little different. The norm on Earth is not free roaming foragers living naked out of doors.
- Mizza 15y agoI'm such an Elon Musk fanboy. If he can do even 20% of what he's claiming to be able to do, the human race will be so much further along that we are now - and I might get to go to space. Rock on, Elon.
- alinajaf 15y agoSeconded. They based Tony Stark in the new Iron Man movies on this guy. I think I'm doing important work, then I read his wikipedia entry and weep at my insignificance.
- Delmania 15y ago"Goodbye," said the fox. "And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." "What is essential is invisible to the eye," the little prince repeated, so that he would be sure to remember. "It is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important." "It is the time I have wasted for my rose--" said the little prince, so that he would be sure to remember. "Men have forgotten this truth," said the fox. "But you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed. You are responsible for your rose . . ."
- alinajaf 15y agoStill, I don't think it's wrong to be inspired by and compare yourself to people with epic achievements. Newton had his three laws figured out by my age, Alexander had conquered most of the known world and Zuckerberg was a multi-billionaire. I'm content with my lot (as far as humans go I'm doing OK), but it doesn't mean I'm not inspired to do more.
- Delmania 15y ago"Still, I don't think it's wrong to be inspired by and compare yourself to people with epic achievements" You're half right. Being inspired and challenged by the works of others is a great thing. But you should avoid comparing yourself to others since you'll frame it in such a way that you are either completely superior or completely inferior to the other person.
- Mizza 15y agoThis is just a blog post quoting a NewScientist article which needs a login (!!!) to read it. Anybody got a cached version? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228433.000-ill-put-millions-of-people-on-mars-says-elon-musk.html?full=true http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228433.000-ill-put-m...
- jschuur 15y agohttp://www.marssociety.org/home/press/announcements/illputmillionsofpeopleonmarssayselonmusk http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/announcements/illputmi...
- drcube 15y agoA great tool I use for these kinds of annoyances is bugmenot.com. Type in newscientist.com and find "bmn@mailinator.com", password "bugmenot". 4 days left to read the article!
- cstross 15y agoFactual error: Falcon Heavy is not the biggest rocket to fly since the Saturn V -- that category includes both the US Space Transportation System (Space Shuttle) and the Soviet Energiya/Polyus and Energiya/Buran stacks. Falcon Heavy's payload exceeds those carried within the Space Shuttle (or Buran) payload bays, but if you include the orbiter vehicle itself in the payload either shuttle had a bigger payload into LEO. And Energiya in launch vehicle configuration (as when it was used to launch Polyus) carried nearly the same payload as the Saturn V. (I hate these overblown claims. Why not just stick at saying "Falcon Heavy has the biggest payload of any commercial launch vehicle, ever" and leave it at that?)
- johno215 15y agoEdit: Never mind. wolf550e and cstross are right. If Falcon Heavy flies it will be the 3rd largest rocket (in terms of payload) that has ever flown behind the Saturn V and the Energia. ---- I think you're being a little nit-picky. "Largest" is not exactly a precise term but would generally apply to length and width; not exactly the best way to classify launch vehicles. Payload capability is the important attribute of a launch vehicle and is generally how vehicles are ranked. Using the word "large" for payload capability may not be precise but it is not factually incorrect. Payload capabilities: Ares V: 160 metric tons (cancelled) SLS (Smaller Ares V): 130 metric tons (in development) Saturn V: 125 metric tons (retired) Energia: 100 metric tons (retired - one successful flight) Falcon Heavy: 54 metric tons (in development) Space Shuttle: 24 metric tons (retired) Delta IV Heavy: 22 metric tons (in operation) Proton Rocket: 21 metric tons (in operation) The Falcon Heavy may end up being the most capable launch vehicle in operations if the re-incarnated Ares V vehicle (SLS) NASA is developing gets canceled again. (added Energia)
- cstross 15y agoYou missed: Energiya: 100 metric tons (retired) Ariane V ES: 21 metric tons (in operation) Ariane V EAP: 27 metric tons (in development) ... And I'm not sure what the Chinese have got, but it's certainly man-rated and they're planning a manned space station mission early next year, so it's unlikely to be less than 10 metric tons to LEO and could well be a lot more.
- alinajaf 15y agoFor anyone interested in the idea of humans colonizing Mars, I can thoroughly recommend Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars Trilogy (starting with Red Mars). It's a great future history of how we might end up there and what it would take for us to ferry millions over (essentially, that we find enough minerals for it to be in bigcos interest to do so).
- quickpost 15y agoWholeheartedly second that recommendation! Red Mars was a really fun Hard SciFi read!
- suprgeek 15y agoGiven th current state of the Space program and the outlook for the next 30 years or so.... It pains me to say that Elon Musk will not be able to put Millions of people on Mars in his lifetime. Barring some game changing discovery, Millions o human beings (unmodifed Genetically identical to humans in 2011) will not get "put" on Mars by the millions in the next 30-40 years.
- tlammens 15y agoHe is not relying on the Space program...
- narag 15y agoWho has studied the effects of low gravity on a growing child? That's of course a rethorical question: nobody has. So I can see people spending some years in Mars, similar to those who work in oil rigs. Hell, I would have done it myself! But a full-blown colony? Rising a child on half the gravity with unpredictable effects is a different animal.
- ceejayoz 15y ago> Who has studied the effects of low gravity on a growing child? That's of course a rethorical question: nobody has. There's a first time for everything. We should be able to answer a lot of questions by raising small mammals on the ISS.
- sylvinus 15y ago> We should be able to answer a lot of questions by raising small mammals on the ISS. I'm very curious on why this has not been done yet (or has it?)
- georgieporgie 15y agoMy guess is that it's too messy and too time/resource consuming to do cleanly.
- narag 15y agoAlso the ISS is in microgravity. IIRC Mars has something like half the Earth's. Moon would be a better testbed.
- ceejayoz 15y agoMice are small enough that you could probably simulate Martian gravity with a smallish centrifuge. Plus, if they don't have any developmental problems growing up in zero gravity, you can probably safely assume that 1/3 Earth gravity is going to be OK.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y agoThe book "The Case for Mars" makes a similar argument (that getting to Mars using mostly Apollo-era technology has always been possible, we just lack the political will). More importantly it makes a compelling argument that we must do this, because civilization requires a frontier.
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago> getting to Mars using mostly Apollo-era technology has always been possible It's not (yet) possible to shield astronauts from enough space radiation to keep them alive during the 9-month trip to Mars.
- jcarreiro 15y ago> It's not (yet) possible to shield astronauts from enough space radiation to keep them alive during the 9-month trip to Mars. I'm sorry, but this is not true. See for example http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-general-03w.html http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-general-03w.html.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y agoIncorrect. Shielding humans from radiation has been a solved problem for decades. The fact that Skylab didn't need to do it does not mean that traveling to Mars is impossible.
- danec 15y agohttp://www.heinleinprize.com/?p=800 http://www.heinleinprize.com/?p=800 Video of the awards ceremony,including Mr. Musk's acceptance speech: http://www.youtube.com/user/HeinleinPrizeTrust/videos http://www.youtube.com/user/HeinleinPrizeTrust/videos
- UrLicht 15y agoWhat a damn fine time to be alive.
- laserDinosaur 15y agoAnyone else find it strange that halfway through the video one of the lyrics is "We should not be afraid to die"? >_>
- damoncali 15y agoThis is awesome. Not because he will put people on Mars in 10 years for $5B (because he won't - it's way harder than that) - but because he can say that, and people listen (and discuss on HN).
- pbreit 15y agoMark your calendars for SpaceXs next launch (to the space station) on feb 7.
- digitalchaos 15y agoThe lack of a decent magnetosphere on mars is probably the biggest issue we have to tackle if we are going to send people there. It would require some pretty significant infrastructure on mars to shield us and all of our life resources. We would never really live ON mars. We would live inside of containers that happen to be somewhere on/in mars. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast31jan_1/ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/as... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Magnetic_field_and_solar_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Magnetic_f...
- CamperBob 15y agoHow important is the magnetosphere, really? Earth's magnetic field is rather fickle.
- georgieporgie 15y agoI watched the second video. When I saw the launch rocket flip around and use its propulsion to come to a graceful, upright landing, my jaw dropped. That's simply not what rockets do in my lifetime of casual observation. Is it really possible to store enough propellant to boost the upper stages into space, and still provide a cushioned landing? Is that really doable?
- fragsworth 15y agoIt's what the Lunar Lander did, though it's a bit easier to do on the Moon.
- RexRollman 15y agoHumanity is already a blight on the face of the Earth. Maybe we should be restricted to fucking up just one planet?
- nikcub 15y agoLets start with congress
- johnny99 15y agoYes, but when will he put people on Uranus?
- majmun 15y agoi think is not my idea but why not first send self-replicating machines on mars wich will mine for materials. and then send human when it is all prepared. or another stage of self replicating machines?
- amcintyre 15y agoI guess the problem is that we don't have self-replicating mining machines, as far as I know. We do have ~7 billion self-replicating machines, though, many thousands of which would sign a giant pile of waivers just for the chance to live on Mars.
- majmun 15y agoyea but humans are not very predictable so if humans are sent we can't predict very well what will happen to them, and mission to colonize mars. in case of machines this would all be computed even before it started.
- rsynnott 15y ago> i think is not my idea but why not first send self-replicating machines on mars wich will mine for materials Well, we've got lots of people, but a significant shortage of Von Neumann machines.
- droithomme 15y agoGreat guy. I know he can do it. Millions of people on Mars is the right goal. Along with melting the poles, establishing a CO2 atmosphere, using plants to convert CO2 to O2 and thereby terraforming the planet. Mars, here we come.
- alinajaf 15y agoI tend to agree. If we're screwing up the atmospheric conditions on this planet as bad as we are _by accident_, there's no telling what we can do when we get to Mars and actually put our minds to it :P
- EREFUNDO 15y agoYes! Global warming is exactly what Mars needs, and I'm not being facetious......This will prove once and for all that humans can warm a planet.
- thaumaturgy 15y agoHmm. A bunch of people commenting here don't seem to realize that the reason that Mars has such a miserably thin atmosphere is because it has a terribly weak magnetosphere which is insufficient to prevent solar radiation from stripping away the atmosphere. So, you can generate as much atmosphere on Mars as you care to imagine, but gradually it will all dissipate away into space, unless you construct networks of structures to contain it. The most common theory I've read on this is that a massive impact on the Martian planet a few billion years ago not only ejected a lot of its material but also changed the magnetizing dynamo effect of its core (or halted it altogether, not sure). The sun then gradually blew the atmosphere off of the planet. I'm a huge fan of efforts to colonize Mars; this is just one of the challenges of doing it that I know of. Terraforming in the sense that most people imagine is unfortunately not possible.
- chadmalik 15y agoHuman colonization seems more of an ego driven activity to me. If we really want to get serious about learning about our universe we'll start sending many more robot probes. I for one don't see why anybody rational would want to live on Mars. All in all Earth is pretty sweet for humans. A martian colony I guess might make sense for mining but frankly you'd have to be pretty hard up economically to agree to go work there...
- rbanffy 15y agoAll I ask is that one Dragon serving the ISS has the Pan-Am logo on it and is designated the Pan-Am Space Clipper. Whould be immensely cool.