Elon Musk Wants Space Colonists, Not Just Tourists

An anonymous reader writes "Elon Musk, founder of PayPal and CEO of SpaceX, is not all that excited about space tourism: he wants to colonize Mars. 'I don't think it's a tragedy that people can't have fun in space. People should be able to go if they want to, but it's no great tragedy if they can't. But I do think it is a great tragedy if humanity can't establish itself on another planet. It's the single most important thing we can do to continue the human race.' SpaceX will launch Falcon I in mid to late January 2005."

Comments

Not another planet - Space itself

[WhiplashII]

I don't think we should colonize another planet. Why waste all that energy getting out of this gravity well only to stick ourselves in another one? I think the future of humanity is to create and live in structures in solar orbit. All the problems can be solved through engineering, just like the Mars problems would have to be. And once we have figured it out, there are no limits on expansion, etc!

Anybody with me?

Homestead Mars!

[Dr. Bent]

We need a Homestead Act for Mars. It would probably have to be an international treaty (although with the current White House that's not a strict requirement). Carve out a section of Mars and say: If you live here for X number of years, you own it.

If you REALLY want to colonize Mars, allow corporations to do this as well as individuals. That's probably the fastest way. Whether or not it's the best way is up for debate...

Quote from B5 on Importance of Colonizing Space

[software_trainer]

From the Babylon 5 television series, Capt. John Sheridan:

"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars." (Infection, season 1, ep. 4)

why choose?

[Doc Ruby]

People colonize other places because of what they need to do there, not for what they can send back here. Space tourists will be something in space that "locals" will be needed to take care of. Tourism is a lot less risky and expensive to get started than energy/matter mining, so it's a good reason to start colonies, that tourists can visit.

All recent colonization (past few thousand years) has been an effort to connect with other people already living in remote locations, and prior "aboriginal" colonization was apparently due to exhausting resources (or social conflict) in the original location. While planting colonies among alien "people" seems an attractive option, it's unlikely. While waiting until the Earth is used up, or too hostile to stay, is a much less likely way to ensure our species' survival.

Re:why choose?

[cephyn]

People colonize other places because of what they need to do there, not for what they can send back here

Hmm that's not how the colonists in North America saw it -- the Colonies were pretty angry that everything they made had to be sold back to England, and that their economy was being crushed by English taxes. People didn't go to the new world for tourism, they went because of business opportunity -- and when the unfair trading practices made those opportunities poor, they revolted.

The colonization of North America was NOT about connecting with people -- once they figured out it was a continent, they gave up the quick way to India idea (some sooner than others) and settled in. They weren't overly interested with "connecting" with the Native Americans. They were savages! What's to connect with? That's the way most of them saw it. And of course don't forget many colonists were also religious refugees fleeing England -- so they had nothing to do with connecting with people, economics, or tourism -- they were true colonists.

Depends where the resources are

[Engineer-Poet]

Mars has all the elements required for life, including (if we can trust the evidence) water. It's difficult to get off Mars but you can do it with single-stage rockets. I don't know if you're going to be able to find an asteroid which yields everything you need for building materials, atmosphere, and the rest. Having to do a lot of scooting around to get those things from different rocks may increase your trouble and risk more than putting down on a little planet like Mars.

Re:Depends where the resources are

[WhiplashII]

I am thinking more long term. There are problems to be solved on Mars (cold, sand storms, low energy availability, etc.), and (probably somewhat harder) problems to be solved in space (near perfect recycling of air and water, safety, artificial gravity that doesn't make you sick, etc.). My point is that if you solve the problems on Mars, you have less than doubled the space available for humans (or probability of our species survival, if you prefer). Mars colonization doesn't lead anywhere but Mars.

Once we have gone to space, our possibilities are limitless. For example, once completely self contained space platforms are common, one of them will almost certainly get fed up with everyone in the sol system - and take off for another star. It won't matter how far you are going, because the journey (or arrival) would not really change your life style any.

In addition, it will be possible to get with a group of like-minded people and build your own society. This could be an end of terrorism, maybe even an end of some of the other unlpeasant things that happen on Earth. (Not that this will change human nature, it will just reduce the struggle for resources.)

like-minded people and build your own society.

[dpilot]

So the Libertarian Arcology is out in the asteroids, and the Sunni Muslim Arcology is orbiting Mars, and the Shiites are near Venus, while the Baptists are at L5. Maybe the best thing about space is that it's BIG, and these different groups of like-minded people could stay separated.

But somehow I have this feeling that they would feel compelled to park all of their Arcologies in geosynchronous orbit over the Jerusalem/Mecca vicinity, and duke it out.

Re:Who would be best to colonize another planet?

[WhiplashII]

Odd that you were marked as troll and flamebait. In general you are correct, except that (free will) colonists are normally middle class (because they can afford the ticket). They typically are trying to go from a situation they have no control over to a situation they have more control over. Quakers came to America for freedom of religion. Some Irish came over to avoid a famin. People talk about leaving the US to avoid Republican government, etc.

The real motivator I feel will be 2 fold. First, the threat of terrorism / poverty will drive people to leave Earth (which probably improves life for those left behind as well). Second, people will leave Earth to escape the mass of rules that all governments create. As any government ages, it comes up with lots of little rules of behaviour for every situation (for example, whenever someone dies or a shuttle blows up there is a new law created). These rules don't bother most people, but to some they troublesome. Those people will leave as well.

Just remember, the way to get rich during a colonist movement is to be a landowner, a shopkeeper, or a transportation system owner.