
Elon Musk says he will put millions of people on Mars - mjfern
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/elon-musk-says-he-will-put-millions-of.html
======
Mizza
I'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
Seconded. 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
"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
Still, 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
"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.

~~~
herval
Many great geniouses DID compare themselves with others a lot (they pick a
single "nemesis" and spend a great deal of energy trying to prove themselves
better). E.g. Newton and liebniz.

Plus, you don't have to frame yourself as "completely" anything, when
comparing to others. You can focus on being a better mathematician, or a
better business person, or simply a better human being, without automatically
implying the other is "completely inferior"

------
cstross
Factual 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
Edit: 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
You 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.

~~~
johno215
Forgot about the Energiya. To bad it only flew successfully once. Had the
Soviet Union not crumbled around the same time things may have been different.

~~~
cstross
Energia flew twice -- once with a Polyus military payload aboard, and once
with an unmanned Buran test flight.

The Polyus mission failed because after it separated from the Energia stack it
rotated through 360 degrees rather than the intended 180 degrees and instead
of inserting itself into orbit it executed a de-orbit burn. _Very_ expensive
software error!

The Buran flight -- the Buran shuttle was carried as a payload slung on the
side of the Energia launcher, without engines of its own -- was a complete
success.

Alas, Energia cost a ton to fly and when the USSR ran out of money it was the
first program to be cancelled. However, part of it (the strap-on boosters)
remain in service as the Zenit launcher.

There were plans for an extended Energia ("Vulkan") with a 200 ton payload to
LEO, presumably for lunar and translunar manned exploration missions. I
suspect it would have worked, if the USSR had the money and the motive to
build it, given that it was a modular design based on an existing flying
stack. More here:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia>

<http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm>

[http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/launchers/vehicle_ener...](http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/launchers/vehicle_energia.html)

------
jcarreiro
Even 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
The 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
The difference between Elon Musk and Aubrey de Grey could not be larger.

~~~
mvzink
That'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.

------
chc
Musk 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?

~~~
Mizza
This 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

      > 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
Where 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.

~~~
chc
Actually, most of the water we drink does come from relatively nearby
(particularly relative to hauling ice from the poles). There's a reason the
Sahara is not densely populated. Likewise for our food.

Most of Mars' water is at its south pole, which is so cold that much of the
water ice is actually buried under a layer of "dry ice" — frozen carbon
dioxide.

Basically, anywhere you are on Earth, you're closer to nutrition and fuel than
you would be anywhere on Mars. And the reason why can have diets that don't
involve foraging is because we've grown so numerous. That's also something
that isn't true on Mars.

~~~
InclinedPlane
My point is that the norm for folks living in the developed world on Earth is
for their food, water, and housing to be obtained via a very technologically
advanced and typically world spanning industrial supply chain. The amount of
effort and technology that goes into something as simple as buying a single
hammer at the hardware store or turning on the faucet and getting fresh
drinking water is stunning. The difference between what's required to support
a Martian civilization and an Earth civilization is not so much a difference
in fundamentals as it is merely a difference in degree. And possibly it's less
of a difference between, say, living in New York city today and living on Mars
in 2030 than NYC today vs. NYC in 1800.

As far as water, the largest deposits of H2O on Mars are near the poles but it
exists in enormous quantities at nearly every location on Mars a few meters
below the surface.

------
alinajaf
For 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
Wholeheartedly second that recommendation! Red Mars was a really fun Hard
SciFi read!

------
jeffreymcmanus
The 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
> 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
> 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>.

------
redthrowaway
The 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_.

------
digitalchaos
The 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/as...](http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
nasa/2001/ast31jan_1/)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Magnetic_f...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Magnetic_field_and_solar_radiation)

~~~
CamperBob
How important is the magnetosphere, really? Earth's magnetic field is rather
fickle.

------
narag
Who 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
> 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
> 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
My guess is that it's too messy and too time/resource consuming to do cleanly.

~~~
narag
Also the ISS is in microgravity. IIRC Mars has something like half the
Earth's. Moon would be a better testbed.

~~~
ceejayoz
Mice 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.

------
Mizza
This 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-m...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228433.000-ill-put-millions-
of-people-on-mars-says-elon-musk.html?full=true)

~~~
jschuur
[http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/announcements/illputmi...](http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/announcements/illputmillionsofpeopleonmarssayselonmusk)

------
UrLicht
What a damn fine time to be alive.

------
droithomme
Great 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.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Hmm. 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.

------
richardburton
Time 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.

------
pbreit
Mark your calendars for SpaceXs next launch (to the space station) on feb 7.

------
damoncali
This 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).

------
rbanffy
All 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.

------
suprgeek
Given 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
He is not relying on the Space program...

------
majmun
i 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
I 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
yea 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.

------
nikcub
Lets start with congress

------
laserDinosaur
Anyone else find it strange that halfway through the video one of the lyrics
is "We should not be afraid to die"?

>_>

------
johnny99
Yes, but when will he put people on Uranus?

------
georgieporgie
I 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
It's what the Lunar Lander did, though it's a bit easier to do on the Moon.

------
RexRollman
Humanity is already a blight on the face of the Earth. Maybe we should be
restricted to fucking up just one planet?

------
aj700
Populating 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
Oh, dear. Can we send you to Mercury, with no women, men, animals, or indeed
any sort of multicellular organism?

