

Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself - edw519
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/03/15/elon_musk_wants_spacex_to_help_establish_a_colony_on_mars_.html

======
rbanffy
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.

~~~
arethuza
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...](http://www.amazon.com/Barrows-Boys-Stirring-Fortitude-
Outright/dp/B006J45Q4G)

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

~~~
rbanffy
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.

~~~
ramidarigaz
Insurance for humanity against disaster is a small ROI? Not trying to offend,
but how do you define ROI of a colony on Mars?

~~~
chc
As far as I can see, there are very, very few disasters that would render
Earth _less_ inhabitable than Mars but not also destroy Mars in the process.
Even if Earth were reduced to a cold, lifeless rock with almost no atmosphere
or water, high radiation levels and almost all sources of energy gone
(including geothermal and wind energy and things as simple as burning wood),
that would just put it in the same ballpark as Mars.

Basically, if you have the technology to support human life on Mars, you have
the technology to disaster-proof Earth.

~~~
didgeoridoo
The scenario that comes to mind is a massive asteroid impact, but your final
sentence sums up the objection nicely: identifying and redirecting a space
rock seems at least an order of magnitude less difficult & technologically
distant than building a self-sustaining colony on Mars.

~~~
ars
Even the worst asteroid impact would not render the planet uninhabitable. It
might kill lots of people, but it wouldn't kill all of them.

~~~
rbanffy
And yet, again, a Moon colony would be handy to counter an asteroid too. The
far side could host very powerful telescopes that could map NEOs with
unprecedented efficiency and clarity. On Earth, you have a couple hours of
sensor exposure. On the Moon, you have two weeks to trace stuff. And most of
the heavy parts could be manufactured in situ, be lighter and higher quality
(made in a high grade vacuum).

And that's to say nothing about the ability to launch spacecraft from a lower
gravity and/or using a magnetic rail. One could even turn the asteroid into
dust (which is less dangerous than a ferrous mountain falling from the sky)
with a kinetic impactor packing enough energy.

------
nathanbarry
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
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.

~~~
jpdoctor
> _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?

~~~
gammarator
Musk is demonstrating hard work in this area, too: they're building rockets
and launching them. Far more affordably than their competitors, too.

------
lolilives
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>

------
Cushman
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.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
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.

~~~
Cushman
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.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
We're smart. We live almost entirely in structures and cities that are very
remote from the idyllic world you describe. When was the last time you saw
your food grow?

There are technological hurdles to living on Mars, but not much we already
don't know how to handle. Food, water, air - that's the minimum, and thats not
all that hard given raw materials and energy, which is abundant on Mars.

~~~
Cushman
...really? How many cities run on recycled air produced from rocks? On
recycled water from melted permafrost? With 100% solar power? Eating entirely
food grown using the same? With the risk that if any ine of those things
fails, everyone living there will certainly die?

To this you compare the fact that I eat cows fed grass from a hundred miles
away, brought to me using energy we literally just _dug out of the ground_?
That I drink water piped from a giant lake all of halfway across the county?

If anything, you support my point: what passes for "remote" and "inhospitable"
on Earth is unbelievably luxurious by the standard of anywhere else. Even
Death Valley gets rain. Even Antarctica has _oxygen_. Talk to me about your
plans for a self-sustaining colony in one of those places, and then we can
talk about how many times -- how many _orders of magnitude_ \-- harder and
more expensive it will be to do the same thing on Mars.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I'll just answer with this: nobody who goes will be thinking like that. Sure
there are problems, but really, all of them are solvable - we're not 16th-
century folks grappling with science, we're 3rd-millenium folks with centuries
of science behind us.

Graphene filters to purify sublimated water-ice. Solar cells manufactured from
sand and plastic. Oxygen siezed from rocks, lots at first but then just
recycled thru green growing things.

Plenty of folks starved in the New World when their support systems ran out,
doesn't matter whether it was oxygen or food, dead just the same. The point
is, they were willing to take the risk with a whole continent to win.

Now its a whole planet! With different challenges, different storms and
temperatures. Without challenges like locusts, floods, communication issues,
pesky natives to deal with.

------
stevear
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.

------
philwelch
> 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.

~~~
meric
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.

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

~~~
meric
It's not irrelevant. If our economy one thousandth the current size, even a
trip to the moon would be difficult. It just wouldn't be producing enough
fuel, metal, ceramics and quality human capital necessary for a trip to the
moon. It is a lot easier to takes these things from a much larger economy than
a small one.

Larger economy can speed up technological advancements too, but I guess that
_is_ irrelevant here.

~~~
philwelch
The economy already isn't the limiting factor on establishing a Mars colony;
technology is. So it's irrelevant.

~~~
meric
It'll be much more difficult to convince citizens to set up a Mars colony at a
cost of $1,000,000 per citizen as opposed to only $1,000 per citizen.
Therefore, I'd argue it is relevant. If you were talking about setting up a
privately owned colony - a larger economy means there is more chance of a
company large enough to take on this task. (In large economies capital is more
concentrated, at least that's what I'm observing from history. It would be
difficult to have a company the size of Apple in an impoverished country whose
GDP per year is less than Apple's quarterly income, for example.)

~~~
philwelch
So every citizen spends $1000 and suddenly you have a Mars colony? No, you
have to develop the technology, and that takes time no matter how much money
you throw at it. And when you look at the year 2042 and imagine having a Mars
colony by then, having an order of magnitude more money rolling around by say
2022 or 2032 won't help if it takes longer than 10-20 years to develop the
needed technology.

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

~~~
jpdoctor
> _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.]

~~~
paparoger
Ha, now that's comical!

------
justncase80
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?

------
zobzu
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)

------
ggwicz
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.

~~~
pjscott
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?

~~~
philwelch
Football and whittling are sustainably self-funding.

~~~
ericd
Football isn't a productive enterprise, regardless of how much money it can
extract from the wider economy. Going to mars will most likely result in a
large array of new tech which will find unrelated uses on Earth. Think of it
like a way to buy a big burst of creativity.

~~~
philwelch
OK, I'll bite. Define "productive enterprise".

~~~
ericd
You're not left with anything new at the end of a football game.

~~~
philwelch
You have recordings and accounts of the game that can be published or resold,
and potentially fond memories of an enjoyable experience. The same criticism
could be made of live theatre or concerts. Is the presence of _physical
artfacts_ after the fact your criteria for a "productive enterprise"? How do
you reconcile this value judgment with the fact that experiences, rather than
possessions, tend to be a bigger factor in human happiness?

It's very hard to justify that something is "frivolous" or "non-productive"
when it contributes materially to the happiness of a lot of people. People can
deeply enjoy football, it can strengthen family and community bonds or just
make for a fun evening. We don't live in a bleak dystopian society where we do
nothing all day but provide for each other's physical needs. Football is no
more frivolous or non-productive than easily most of the economy.

~~~
ericd
Yeah, I get all that, and I'm a fan of movies, theatre, and even the
occasional football game. But I think that entertainment in general is less
worthy than anything that moves knowledge and understanding forward. To your
original comment, it's a bad idea to try to derive something's true worth from
its profitability, especially in the short term.

~~~
philwelch
I wasn't trying to derive anything's "true worth"--I was just saying that
football is self-sustaining.

And actually, movies and professional sports have advanced our understanding
and technology a great deal, be it by advancing camera and computer imaging
technologies or by advancing our medical knowledge by giving us more
experience dealing with certain types of injuries. The competitive nature of
professional sports also gives us insights into the most effective ways to
train, condition, and give nutrition to the human body.

~~~
ericd
OK, you just seemed to be saying that those things were better because they
could support themselves financially.

I don't think they're on the same order of magnitude in terms of knowledge
gained - those are mature industries, space travel isn't anywhere near, so the
gains should be much more dramatic and broadly applicable.

~~~
philwelch
No, the main thing is that self-sustaining enterprises aren't up for public
debate, so there's no reason anyone _would_ criticize them as frivolous.
Whereas anything that needs public funding, like space travel historically
has, is automatically subject to a debate about its worthiness.

~~~
ericd
Sure there is - I know people who would call those things frivolous. Football
consumes a serious outlay of energy for comparatively little lasting benefit.
It's not scrutinized as often as things that are funded with taxes, but that
doesn't save it from frivolity. Anyway, we're probably arguing past each
other. I see taxpayer funded science of all sorts as being more worthy than
most things, because I view scientific discovery as the foundation of the
country's economic competitiveness. Most things seem frivolous by comparison.

~~~
philwelch
But doesn't most economic production and most scientific discovery ultimately
serve frivolous ends anyway?

~~~
ericd
Maybe, but some of it helps ensure the continued survival of the species,
which is about the least frivolous thing possible.

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

------
zerostar07
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?

~~~
ars
Is there some reason these are mutually exclusive?

~~~
zerostar07
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).

------
maeon3
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.

~~~
InclinedPlane
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
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).

~~~
InclinedPlane
Indeed, I was trying to be conservative with my assumptions.

