
Elon Musk’s Mission to Mars - sravfeyn
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/10/ff-elon-musk-qa/all/
======
catch23
There's one interesting quote in the article:

 _Musk: I can’t tell you much. We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our
primary long-term competition is in China—if we published patents, it would be
farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book._

If your process/ideas are sufficiently complex, it reduces competition if you
don't file a patent.

~~~
ballooney
Lots of industries do this. Patents are useful when it's obvious what your
idea is, and where it's easy for people/competitors to have have a poke
inside. Like a vacuum cleaner or a non-reflective mobile-phone screen coating,
or one-click or something like that.

But for industries where that's not the case, like rockets (my current) or to
pick another example from a previous job, magnetic bearings for sub-sea tubo-
machinery installations like natural gas compressors[1], it makes no sense to
file a patent. It's much easier to keep it a secret, because it's not like
your competitors are going to scuba-dive down to the compressor control
cabinet, whip out a JTAG and see how you've implemented your control loop on
an FPGA.

Likewise, if you do patent it, it's very difficult to prove an infringement
for the same reasons.

So essentially, in industries where it's not the case that your competitors
can see what you've done, secrets over patents is the norm, in my experience,
and has been for while.

[1] Mag bearings use electromagnetic stators and magnetic collars on the shaft
to levitate the shaft inside a bit of spinning equipment. This means it's
entirely non-contact, dramatically reducing wear, especially useful on
difficult-to-service installations like sub-sea.

~~~
greedo
The problem then shifts from competitors using your patents to competitors
actively engaging in industrial espionage. Considering how easily the JSF
program was penetrated by the Chinese, I hope that SpaceX has well guarded
data.

~~~
davedx
Indeed. A friend just sent me this:

"china can't compete because all their aerospace students are spies (joke from
my chums in the physics department)"

------
mbrubeck
I was at the University of Washington science and engineering career fair last
month, recruiting for Mozilla. Our booth was reasonably busy, but the SpaceX
booth had a _gigantic mob_ surrounding it at all times. People are seriously
excited about space.

~~~
zacharycohn
Did you come to my Hacker News meetup last month? Chris Lewicki from Planetary
Resources spoke, which was pretty awesome.

~~~
swohns
The Explorer's Club in New York had Space Exploration as a theme in 2010, it
was amazing how excited people got, and entrepreneurs have really taken hold
of space travel. People should also check out Richard Garriott's work in the
area, he spoke at the dinner and is another awesome space entrepreneur:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yiWoY36Ukc>

------
flatline
> The problem is that at a lot of big companies, process becomes a substitute
> for thinking. You’re encouraged to behave like a little gear in a complex
> machine. Frankly, it allows you to keep people who aren’t that smart, who
> aren’t that creative.

Sounds like so many complaints about the enterprise software landscape, and
has certainly proved to be true in my own experience. Codified processes
usually start with the guise of open communications and education, either
because someone wasn't thinking or because of a pressing need to get a few
people on the same page. They are soon adopted and enforced as dogma by
natural-born bureaucrats who crawl out of the woodwork from seemingly nowhere.
It must be an incredible challenge to fight in any large organization, looking
at it from the top down.

So far, Musk appears to be doing an admirable job. These things tend to last
only as long as a real visionary is at the helm. He is young so hopefully can
keep at it for a while longer still, hopefully even long enough to get us to
Mars. From this article, he didn't actually say to much about such plans. I
wonder if it's just a judicious amount of prudence on his part or if even he
fears it may not be feasible in his lifetime.

~~~
minikites
This is something I've been struggling with. I see the two paths to success
being mutually exclusive; throw out process and go big or channel process into
success.

See this link and the ensuing discussion:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4727045>

This view is to cultivate habits and work consistently and methodically every
day.

Elon's view is to toss out process and dream big.

What is the best way to reconcile these two opinions? Is it a matter of scale
(i.e. personal process but enterprise chutzpah?)

~~~
saraid216
> What is the best way to reconcile these two opinions? Is it a matter of
> scale (i.e. personal process but enterprise chutzpah?)

It's a matter of experience. Process is defined by the boundary at which
things start to fray. You can only find that boundary by running into it a few
times and recognizing where it is. It gets much, much more complex as you grow
in size because the fraying can happen as part of how two individuals
interact. The more individuals you have, the riskier it is to assume the
boundary is farther out, and thus the safer it is to constrict using process;
there are interpersonal boundaries on top of your personal comfort zones.

If you don't need the habits and consistency, then you don't need them. Don't
do that. Go big until you fail. Figure out why you failed. Account for it next
time. That accounting is process. And probe your process occasionally to make
sure it's still valid, too.

------
startupfounder
If you have't already seen it, Kevin Rose interviews Elon Musk:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-s_3b5fRd8>

Also, Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about if there was a space race with China the
US would be on Mars in 18 months:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cVg-
snQdrms)

It would be truly amazing if a private company was the first to set foot on
another planet.

~~~
simba-hiiipower
very cool; thanks for the links.

and that would be absolutely amazing; though in some ways (and not to discount
musk’s undertaking at all) i feel it speaks more so to a failure of
governments (generally speaking) in investing to drive technological advance.

it should be the public sector that leads in these types of endeavors. one of
the most important functions of a state is its ability and willingness to
invest in projects that would be otherwise unprofitable or far too long-term
for any rational player in the private sector to take-on. these investments,
while maybe unprofitable to a single entity, are what lay the foundation for
significant productivity and standard of living gains down-the-line (which,
in-turn, spur many future profitable companies). it’s how everything from
highways spanning a continent and parks in the middle of crowded cities to the
internet and atomic energy get developed; and it's so crucial to society..

it’s really quite sad to see this important economic function of government
neglected, particularly in the us where its proven so successful in generating
wealth and societal good time-and-time again.. i mean would we have microsoft
and apple around if it wasn’t for the development of the internet? (and google
certainly wouldn’t exist).

it’s also sad that the great focus that the nation apparently (long before i
came to be) had in driving technological advance has stalled, and such
investments have become issues of budgets and ‘big government’ (which i am not
a fan of at all by the way). if governments are going to run ridiculous budget
deficits anyways (even in years of economic growth) then there should at least
be something to show for it at some point; that doesn’t seem to be the case
these days..

fortunately there are irrational players in the private sector, like elon
musk, who are able to fill the voids. unfortunately though, if (and most
likely when) such endeavors prove unprofitable in the long-run, little may
show for it.. you’d think more people would be interested (and economically
incentivized) to have a government that covers the expensive research and
development costs associated with spearheading technologies which they can
one-day build-off of (and in incredibly profitable ways), but i guess economic
self-preservation (and therefore political pressure) prevail over advance.

with all that said, i really do hope he succeeds.

(also, off topic, but i really wish i could afford a model s right now!)

~~~
greedo
Can't say I agree that funding this type of endeavor is "one of the most
important functions of a state is its ability and willingness to invest in
projects that would be otherwise unprofitable or far too long-term for any
rational player in the private sector to take-on." Government does many things
marginally better than the private sector, and many things poorly.

For example, the Pyramids are a stunning achievement that couldn't have been
completed without using government. However, I don't see them as being
particularly helpful today.

Governments don't need to have "economic functions" other than protecting
property rights, and maintaining a sound currency.

~~~
simba-hiiipower
not wanting to get into a philosophical debate here, but even as someone who
generally argues for smaller government, i disagree..

people generally discount the significant economic advantages (to all in an
economy) that government investments provide; in most cases, investments in
transformative projects which otherwise would not have occurred were it up to
the private-sector alone.

take development of the us interstate system as an example.. the costs
involved in building-out the network are estimated to have been in excess of
$425 billion [1] and the original phase took over 35 years to complete as
planned; no rational, profit-seeking, company would ever undertake such a
project. the economics just don’t make much sense. and even if the private
sector was able to come-up with a similarly adequate solution (potentially
networks of small/regional players monetizing usage through tolls), the cost
to society both in actual usage charges (sufficient to generate profits for
the firms) and in lack of a consistent, expandable, and reliable network that
so many people and businesses depend on would likely be far in excess of the
$425 billion cost.

the fact that the us built-up solid infrastructure (both physical and in terms
of networks and connectivity systems) early on (relative to many other
nations) provided domestic companies a major competitive advantage over
less/later-developed countries; its freed-up physical ($) and intellectual
capital towards other endeavors and was a key part of why, collectively, more
significant commercialized innovations over the past few decades (by private
companies) have come from the us.

and beyond the economic savings from the outcome of the investment itself
(i.e. a system facilitating a reliable, consistent, and relatively inexpensive
means of transportation), the actual exercise in carrying it through also
yields a lot of ancillary economic benefits. new construction methods may be
developed, equipment manufacturers may grow in scale or scope, and a lot of
people (and companies) are employed (and contracted) in carrying-it through
(gaining new skills/experience).

beyond that, there is all the subsequent innovation and opportunity to develop
profitable businesses that are created once a major transformational
technology is introduced. think of the advantages ups (and later fedex) would
have in utilizing the interstate system to grow in scale relative to
competitors in countries that lacked similar systems (now lookup who are the
leaders in that industry). the benefits are even clearer when you look at all
the technology and defense companies that have benefited from foundations
laid-out by, or innovations developed during, large government-funded projects
such as the internet or during the space race..

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System>

~~~
greedo
Just because government can do big projects doesn't mean it should.

And Fedex's success depended far more on aviation advances than on the
Interstate Highway System. Aviation that was pushed by private industry (while
also enjoying support from the militaries of the world).

In the US, the major "infrastructure" type projects that were government
driven are often listed as the Erie Canal, the Hoover Dam, and the IHS. Some
will throw in the TVS as well, though I consider that more of a state-
cooperative effort. Yet we still seemed to have a great deal of scientific
progress that in turn led to economic progress before these huge programs were
enacted.

The steam engine, the locomotive, the airplane, wireless radio, etc. etc.
Goddard didn't have much government support in his initial efforts yet was a
pioneer.

I'm not discounting that governments can have a disproportionate impact on
some programs. But do we really want to have a government that picks winners
and losers as we currently do with alternative energy? I guess we'll find out
on Tuesday.

~~~
simba-hiiipower
..never said i'm in favour of ‘trying to pick winners and losers' nor do i
think the current approach to alternative energy (essentially doing just that)
is the right way to go by any means.

rather, i'd like to a concerted effort by the government to find a solution
itself (i.e. _let’s get a man on the moon in ten years_ ... _let’s have all
new vehicles running on a clean and sustainable fuel source within the next 20
years_ ). that type of approach is fundamentally different than _let’s invest
in this particular company’s particular solution_ or _let’s give a loan to
these guys_.. it’s more analogous to the projects you described in which the
government funded research/planning, developed particular approaches, and then
contracted-out the development of potential solutions/implementations, and
where it all fit together towards achieving a tangible goal. that’s very
different than what’s going on today.

and i'd say ‘alternative energy’ is a poster-child for a project in which the
cost of development and commercialization is fairly significant, but the
economic and societal benefit of an adequate solution being realized far
outweighs it; to me, that makes for an ideal case (and one of few) where
increased government involvement can play a good role. _especially so, given
the government has already distorted the market by subsidizing ‘traditional
energy’ sources for so long._

as to what happens tomorrow, i doubt we’ll find-out how it impact this issue
in any meaningful way. as i see it, it’s a choice between continuing to pick
winners and losers or just giving up entirely; neither is ideal as far as i'm
concerned..

~~~
greedo
Jerry Pournelle has been a huge advocate of X-prizes for advancing technology.
These were very valuable at the dawn of the aviation era, and races like the
Schneider cup helped push boundaries. The cost is zero if the
company/organization fails to reach the defined threshold. Too bad so much
govt. spending is associated with buying votes instead of advancing
technology.

~~~
simba-hiiipower
now there's something we can agree on.

happy election day good sir.

------
tjmc
I'm an Elon fan, but his comment about the old Russian engines his competitors
are using deserves some scrutiny. He's talking about the NK-33 which has a
thrust to weight ratio of 137. That's better than any current SpaceX engines
though the Merlin 1D under development is apparently aiming for a ratio of
150.

As for the engines being in a warehouse in Siberia since the 60s - that part
is basically true. There was an Equinox (UK) documentary called "the engines
that came in from the cold" about it. When the cold war was over the Americans
finally found out about these engines that were left over from the space race,
20 years old (at the time) and better than anything they'd developed since.
Now they're over 40 years old and _still_ the most efficient!

So credit where it's due eh Elon? The NK-33 was and still is a masterpiece.

~~~
mbell
> The NK-33 was and still is a masterpiece.

Its a bit aggressive to label this engine a masterpiece when it has never
actually launched successfully. I don't even think there has been an attempted
launch with the NK-33, just ground tests for the N-1F rocket which was
cancelled. Interesting note - the second attempted launch of the N-1 rocket,
which used the original version of the NK-33 (NK-15) resulted in the largest
non-nuclear explosion of all time.

There is more to an engine than power to weight ratio, such as actually
successfully putting a rocket in space.

~~~
mkl
Here is more on the N-1 and the explosion:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)#Launch_history>

------
Osmium
Apologies for being somewhat off-topic, but does anybody know if there are
citizenship requirements for working at a place like SpaceX?

I have a solid background in materials science and metallurgy from a world-
class university, and find what Musk is doing very inspirational. After I
finish my PhD, I'd love to be a part of it, but I'm British and I know with
some companies in the industry there're citizenship requirements for security
reasons. As he mentions in the interview, they wouldn't want China stealing
their ideas, for example. And I know a lot of the job postings on SpaceX list
"US citizen or permanent resident" as a requirement, but I didn't know if this
was a hard and fast rule, or whether exceptions are possible.

~~~
jlgreco
I think the limitation is actually put in place by the US government because
rocket technology is basically weapons technology. I may be wrong about that
though.

~~~
46Bit
It very much is a government thing, yes. I've looked into this in the past
when looking at internship opportunities.

------
bengl3rt
"It’s like something out of a movie or my old Tintin books. It’s the way space
was supposed to be."

Yes! Finally someone gets it!

Motherfucking space! Is aspirational!

We go to space not because it is easy, but because it is hard AND AWESOME.

------
jamesrcole
What I find amazing about this is how they could make such big technical
advances leading to such big cost reductions by essentially being unencumbered
by bureaucracy and bad incentive structures. (And that's of course not to deny
their hard work and smarts - I'm really impressed by what they've done).

I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise, but it's still hard to avoid naively
thinking that surely there had been technical challenges holding up the
technological progress in those areas for so long.

------
6ren

      Indeed, psychological investigations have found that entrepreneurs aren’t more risk-
      tolerant than non-entrepreneurs.  They just have an extraordinary ability to believe
      in their own visions, so much so that they think what they’re embarking on isn’t
      really that risky. They’re wrong, of course...
    

If you are determined (you keep trying) _is_ it actually that risky? For
example, if there's a 1 in 10 chance of success, and you try 10 times, it
becomes a 65% chance (1-.9^10). Plus, of course, you will learn a tremendous
amount from each attempt; gather more resources; ask others; change your
approach; even modify your goal (perhaps to something more audacious).

I think what stops people is aversion to the unfamiliar (whereas some people
like it), and the _pain_ of each failure. People like Edison fail a thousand
times, and keep going (even if you hate him, you have to admit that takes a
certain courage).

After 3 rocket failures, Musk said something similar
<http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/musk_qa> (at the end):

    
    
      Optimism, pessimism, fuck that; we're going to make it happen.
      As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work. 
    

If you don't give up, success is inevitable.

~~~
Someone
Tip: do not start a career in Russian Roulette. Let's say you can 'win' by
playing it 100 times. Then, if enough people do not give up, success is
inevitable. However, there is no guarantee that you will be the one that is
successful.

------
libraryatnight
I was telling my dad the other day this is a guy I could see my kids or
grandkids using as a subject for a school report. Such an interesting person.

------
thinkingthings
Elon Musk is a leader of our generation, with vision that most of us can only
dream of.

~~~
sho_hn
Lots of folks have a vision of a mission to mars. What counts is the
execution.

~~~
indiecore
To be fair to those folks most of them aren't billionaires.

~~~
InclinedPlane
To be fair to Musk, some of them are billionaires (think about folks like
George Lucas who have made billions through sci fi movies etc.)

~~~
indiecore
Extremely true

------
rnernento
Great read, makes me want to quit my job and start building a rocketship...

I love that this brilliant guy is talking about interplanetary space travel as
the obvious future.

------
pwniekins
"Musk: The problem is that at a lot of big companies, process becomes a
substitute for thinking. You’re encouraged to behave like a little gear in a
complex machine. Frankly, it allows you to keep people who aren’t that smart,
who aren’t that creative."

I nearly cried. This is my company, and it is so very disappointing.

------
easy_rider
Thans it, i'm making a shrine for Elon. He's close to a demi-god as you can
get. Officially my new hero. Just think about the shear amount of time he puts
into Tesla motors alone. And Elon just says fuck it. Lets go to Mars. Humanity
doen't want to live up to their potential? So I will.. god speed Leon.

------
knes
Elon Musk is such an inspiration. for him, nothing is impossible and that is
what I admire the most in him.

------
nikunjk
Elon Musk is boss. He puts every other visionary out there to shame. What a
guy!

------
jpxxx
The complexity of getting to Mars is nothing compared to the complexity of
creating a social unit that can survive and thrive on another planet.

Specifically, an Antarctic planet covered in chlorinated brominated rusty dust
with essentially no air pressure or atmospheric water, a dim sun, rotten
weather, two ugly little moons, and 57,600,000 millisecond ping times.

No chance to ever feel fresh air on your face, no chance to go swimming, never
meeting a stranger until they're suddenly your neighbors for life, no chance
to ever get away and start anew, and no chance to go back to Earth.

In a box, on a dead planet, for life.

~~~
marvin
Seriously, are dismissive and pessimistic remarks like this the top-voted
comment on _every single_ Hacker News post these days?

Elon Musk has built a fucking space rocket company and is defeating Boeing,
Lockheed Martin and MDD in a business they've dominated for the last 40 years.
I think this is an incredibly impressive accomplishment, and SpaceX's
ambitions to make it possible to do manned missions to Mars is exactly what we
need to bring humanity forward. Just from the science side alone, having
actual people on Mars would be of tremendous value. If you think of what we
know about Mars, think about how much more we would know if we were able to do
more complex experiments there. Whether you personally think it's a good idea
to settle down on Mars or not isn't very relevant.

You're pointing at some very relevant issues, but why not phrase it in a more
constructive tone? I'm sorry for the negativity, but it pisses me off when
grand ideas and accomplishments are dismissed so offhandedly. Getting to Mars
is not nearly "nothing", even compared to _anything_ that humans have ever
done.

~~~
jpxxx
Sure. Elon Musk is a heroic man. His car company is a marvel, and his space
program is spectacular. His unfettered ability to speak without a mouth full
of funder's cock or a PR minder sitting in the room is refreshing. His visions
are grounded in technical and physical reality, his powers of observation are
keen, and he has the personality and resources it takes to organize people in
service of great accomplishments.

Sanely priced two-way trips to Mars will change the course of humanity by
enabling us to colonize the solar system and perhaps ensure a longer story for
all mankind. This is the most interesting thing I've read all day, and he
deserves every bit of attention.

Now back to your regularly scheduled pessimism:

Humanity has a long way to go, and a change of scenery isn't going to do all
that much for her. The United States of America with her vast resources and
impeccable pedigree in advancing Enlightenment is operating a torture camp for
political prisoners in a subtropical shithole.

What exactly happens when we send a thousand of our best and brightest and
edgiest and most ambitious to live in what is essentially an submarine
entombed underground for a decade? Do they live up to the Star Trek ideal? Or
do they do what people in confined spaces tend to do?

Can we provide a reasonable quality of life for colonists? Beyond maintaining
air pressure and food, can we provide for them spiritually and emotionally?
Can we provide a -life-? Geology only gets you so far. Even on Earth it's kind
of an obscure trade, and geology is about _all_ there is to -do- on Mars.

What does a day to day life look like there? Do the children go to school? How
is conflict handled? Who participates in what activities? What if there is too
much to do? What if there isn't enough to do? How do you settle transplanetary
custody battles when it means mommy or daddy taking the kid on a potentially
lethal trip to another planet? How do you handle disease when everyone's in a
thousand foot wide sphere? How do you bury people on an igneous planet? What
does suicide mean for a Martian civilization?

There are a billion things to consider, and Elon has the first five thousand
handled. I am delighted that we get to think about the rest now.

~~~
guylhem
First, a reply to your original post :

> In a box, on a dead planet, for life.

Sign me up, right now!!!

> Can we provide a reasonable quality of life for colonists?

I don't care. I would need a) air+water b) food c) a place to sleep d) tools
to colonize the planet - like create more living space. For quality of life,
if I can get e) book or movies or even f) internet access, great! If I can't
that's not a dealbreaker.

So, sign me up!!

~~~
aardvark179
I do admire this sort of enthusiasm, but I also wonder if it can survive such
a mission. However we don't need to send a mission to Mars to find out, and if
anybody truly wants to send people to Mars on anything other than short term
suicide mission then we really need to do a lot more research in this area.
Build enclosed isolated environments with limited space, resources and comms,
and see how teams get on over long time periods if they believe there is no
way out.

I'm not convinced that our future as flesh and blood humans is in space, or
even on any of the other planets in our solar system, but if we're going to
try then we cannot focus solely on the hard technical challenges.

~~~
guylhem
I'm totally motivated and committed to Mars. Would that commitment survive in
a mission? IMHO, totally because I'd even say yes to a one-way trip with a
time limit (ie your "life support system will stop working in 3 years")

But the idea of an enclosed isolated test environment just doesn't raise the
same kind of enthusiasm in me.

Unless there are side benefits (like freedom - ie build a new country from
scratch in the middle of say Antarctica!!) I don't know why, but I really
don't feel like taking part in the experience.

I guess it's all about selfishness - being on Mars matches my selfish motives.
Doing a 10 years test somewhere in a controlled bunker on earth, a sacrifice
for the next team who might do the same on real Mars??? I'll pass the
opportunity.

That makes me wonder if it would be a good thing to run such an experiment,
considering the volunteers would certainly be different (in their reason and
personalities) from the ones who would volunteer for a real Mars mission.

------
Finster
I've read rumors that the reason Jeff Bezos started Amazon was to fund his
dreams of space exploration.

~~~
analogj
Your talking about Blue Origin <http://www.blueorigin.com/>

[http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Amazon_Founder_Recruiting_...](http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Amazon_Founder_Recruiting_For_Private_Space_Program_999.html)

------
elmusk
I'm open to any additional questions you guys might have; well for another
hour or two at least.

------
cowo8
very interesting. he also made a clever move on the patents.

------
themstheones
He reminds me so much of Clive Sinclair.

------
srlake
Imagine the world when the 10 next Elon Musk's lurking HN see their own
successes.

