SpaceX CEO Elon Musk Predicts People On Mars In 9 Years (cnn.com)

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says his company should be able to land humans on Mars in nine years from now. "If things go according to plan, we should be able to -- we should be able to -- launch people in 2024, with arrival in 2025," Musk said. "That's the game plan," he added. CNN Money reports: Musk said he's planning to share an architectural plan for the colonization of Mars at a conference in September. The tech conference audience was enthralled by Musk's comments. He told interviewers Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg that plotting travel throughout the Solar System, and "ultimately other star systems," provides the kind of inspiration that makes life worth living.

Comments

Why the political ending?

[garcia]

From the article:

Much closer to home, Musk was also asked about the U.S. presidential election, a topic on which he was noticeably less animated.

Without saying anything about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton specifically, he said, "I don't think it's the finest moment in our democracy."

I wish there was more context given here. Does he feel this way because of their stance on space exploration/funding/etc or simply because he doesn't like their other political stances?

If it is indeed, the latter, if it's going to be included in an article, I really wish they had dug in deeper and published his response, rather than just including Hillary and Trump in the article for their SEO value.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Anonymous Coward]

Elon Musk, God Emperor of Mars, doesn't really see Earth politics as all that important.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Obfuscant]

or simply because he doesn't like their other political stances?

People don't make statements like that when they simply disagree with the candidates. They make such patently absurd statements when they have an emotional reaction to them.

Or they are trying to pander to those who have emotional reactions by pretending to feel the same way. Note carefully that by not saying which of the two he's talking about, both sides can assume he's talking about "the other nitwit" in the race and feel a sudden kinship or connection with him. It's playing politics for commercial success. "I feel better paying a huge amount of money for a Tesla because Elon Musk feels about X the same way I do..." He now has a tie to both Trump haters and Hillary haters.

And he's wrong. When the people act in electing someone, it is a good day for democracy. It's when the person who takes office is not the elected one that it's not the "finest moment in our democracy". And even on a bad democracy day, it's better than what many other people have to live with.

Re:Why the political ending?

[squiggleslash]

And he's wrong. When the people act in electing someone, it is a good day for democracy

The danger with these two is that the people will do nothing of the sort, with only a minority bothering to turn up to the polls.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Obfuscant]

The danger with these two is that the people will do nothing of the sort, with only a minority bothering to turn up to the polls.

There is always only a minority turning up at the polls. The numbers that are reported are always "percent of registered voters" and never "percentage of citizenry." From memory, the number of people who vote in the presidential elections is around 100 million (about 47 mil for each side, on average, plus a few mil for third parties.) There's 300+ million people in the US.

If you don't vote, you don't get to complain about how other people voted. Even if you do vote, remember that at least half of the people who voted will think you voted stupidly, and if you vote third party, make that at least 90% of them who will think you were stupid. Such arguments are useless and a waste of time.

Re:Why the political ending?

[squiggleslash]

I was responding to your comment implying Clinton and Trump were "good for democracy" because somehow people will vote for them, not making a general comment about how awful elections are in the US.

And yes, steps should be taken to improve turn out. Mandatory registration would help, but I don't see that flying when one of the two major parties is trying to actively prevent people in certain demographic groups from voting.

Re:Why the political ending?

[AmiMoJo]

He's saying that the choices are so bad, people will emigrate to Mars at the earliest opportunity. First person there gets to be king/queen.

Re:Why the political ending?

[mspohr]

Don't forget Trump's "university" fraud lawsuit.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably smart not to go into specifics. The way things are progressing publically disagreeing with Trump could be a one-way ticket to jail if he gets elected/

Re:Why the political ending?

[Obfuscant]

I was responding to your comment implying Clinton and Trump were "good for democracy" because somehow people will vote for them, not making a general comment about how awful elections are in the US.

I made no reference to Trump or Clinton when I said that when the people elect someone it is a good day for democracy, so there was no such implication. I spoke about the people.

And yes, steps should be taken to improve turn out.

Don't pretend you are agreeing with me on that, because I never said anything close to that. In fact, I don't think there should be anything done to "improve turn out". I think if you don't care enough to vote, that's just fine. I think there are already too many people who are lured into voting by emotional means ("hey, it's the first time you can vote, you should do it!") to get a meaningful result.

Oregon just implemented motor voter. I think that's a catastrophy. If you can't be bothered enough to register, then you shouldn't pollute the results by voting. If you think "money buys votes" because people with money can pay for advertising, then you have to understand that the votes they are buying are the votes of people who don't care enough to pay attention to the issues and vote based on name recognition or emotional appeals. Like people who voted for McGovern based on the girl pulling petals off a flower ad against Goldwater. Pure emotion, pure nonsense, but effective at buying votes.

but I don't see that flying when one of the two major parties is trying to actively prevent people in certain demographic groups from voting.

Baloney. Nobody is trying to prevent legal voters from voting.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Kierthos]

Motor voter laws don't mandate that you vote. They either offer the opportunity to register to vote when you apply for/renew your DL, or (in some states) automatically register people to vote. They don't require that you actually vote, and normal restrictions on voter registration still apply. (If you're too young, or have lost the right to vote.)

Re:Why the political ending?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is a civil action, thus jail is off the table.

But good job understanding the distinction.

Re:Why the political ending?

[MachineShedFred]

It would be quite interesting to see some exit polling data in November showing who pulled a lever with the intent to vote *for* a candidate, or who voted *against* the other candidate.

With this election, I have a feeling we're going to see a whole lot of the second option. Both candidates suck shit, and have record high unfavorable ratings. Even GWB is starting to look good compared to these two.

Re:Why the political ending?

[MachineShedFred]

They don't, but in Oregon every election is vote-by-mail. If you are registered, you get a ballot. It will be interesting to see if compulsory registration + vote by mail increases turnout, and also if it affects the very left leaning population areas at all (Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Marion, Linn, Lane, Lincoln counties)

Re:Why the political ending?

[CrimsonAvenger]

If you don't vote, you don't get to complain about how other people voted

First Amendment. Yes, in fact I DO get to complain about how other people voted. Just as I can complain right now about the candidates, in spite of being neither Rep nor Dem and so skipped the whole primary vote thing.

Re:Why the political ending?

[pr0fessor]

Perhaps that's why he is so adamant about colonizing mars he is tired of earth politics...

Re:Why the political ending?

[Archangel Michael]

Don't forget the legacy of Sanders' wife on that other university. But since that was pie in the sky progressive logic that failed there, we'll ignore it. Besides, Bernie had nothing to do with it (being his wife and all that). Of course, Bernie's wife, Hillary's Husband are off limits, but Trumps Wife is fair game.

No, I am not voting for Trump, just pointing out that hypocrisy abounds in this election cycle.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Archangel Michael]

1) I do vote, so my condemnation of the two major parties are fully justified on that alone
2) Even if I didn't vote, because I refuse to vote for lessor of two evils, doesn't mean I can't complain (1st Amendment)
3) Even if the first two don't apply, Liberty requires me being able to have my own mind, and be able to voice it. This is a HUMAN right.

Now, the people who say "You can't complain because of ________" are tyrants, pure and simple. They need to be confronted as such, in exactly those very terms. To the GP, "YOU ARE A TYRANT!". Just because they don't have power (yet) doesn't make it any less of a tyranny. Tyranny of one is still tyranny.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Archangel Michael]

Never vote "against" someone. Always vote for the person who closest matches your priorities. If the two party's can't represent you, find someone else. I highly recommend listening to the Libertarian Party (LP) candidate. Unless you're a committed statist that is.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Archangel Michael]

From experience, people generally move, and take their baggage with them. It is their own baggage they are fleeing, and yet they take it with them. We'll find that Mars ends up looking exactly like what they were fleeing here on earth, only with minor variances.

Or, you can watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt03... which touches on that very topic.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Archangel Michael]

Only to bring Earth's Politics to mars ;)

Re: Why the political ending?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not allowed to vote, you insensitive clod! (Pernanent Resident)

Re:Why the political ending?

[Obfuscant]

First Amendment.

I'm sorry, but the colloquial meaning of "you don't get to complain" is not countered by the First Amendment, it is a statement that your complaints are meaningless and irrelevant. The First Amendment changes nothing about that.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

Wow hi thanks. Thanks for greeting me. Happy hello to you too!

Re:Why the political ending?

[Obfuscant]

Now, the people who say "You can't complain because of ________" are tyrants, pure and simple.

No, they are the ones who understand colloquial English and don't think every statement needs to have three thousands words of qualification attached. "You don't get to complain ..." means, in three thousand word format, that your complaints are irrelevant because you have chosen not to participate in the process and therefore have no significant input to the result of that process. Not quite three thousand words, but you get the idea. I hope.

To the GP, "YOU ARE A TYRANT!".

Nonsense. You need to read English in conversational mode and not look for things to attack. Which means my hope that you understood the previous paragraph is waning fast.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Obfuscant]

It would be quite interesting to see some exit polling data in November

Exit polling data will be particularly bad this year, I predict. And for this specific question in particular. Will people be willing to admit they voted as a hate vote (anybody but X) instead of a fully-informed high-information vote?

Even GWB is starting to look good compared to these two.

I thought it was silly when a hatred for Bush appeared on bumper stickers in a year when he was constitutionally prohibited from running for re-election, it's even sillier to see that name pop up years later.

Re:Why the political ending?

[aaronb1138]

You have every right to complain about how people vote when there isn't a "no confidence in either candidate" option. Not voting is a growing sign of discontent which will hopefully result in violent revolution. We've proven consistently that grassroots and other forms of non-violent revolution make little long term change (e.g. the Tea Party) with minor exceptions for obvious, and frankly trivial from a legal standpoint social policy (suffrage, civil rights).

Real change to the movers and shakers, campaign contributions, cronyism, wealth distribution, general body of criminal, tax, budget, and welfare law are well beyond non-violent means.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Kierthos]

Please. He's clearly the Fabricator-General of the Adeptus Mechanicus.

Re:Why the political ending?

[nickersonm]

Exactly. This is what those preferring to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', instead of the 'good, but unelectable' always miss: you can't push the party closest to your preferences closer to your preferences by voting for someone that's moving the party away from your preferences, even if the opposition is worse. You must be willing to lose in the short term to gain in the long term, or you'll just keep repeatedly losing in the short term while complaining that your vote doesn't matter. (not referring to the parent poster specifically)

The Democrats, for example, have no reason to move further left if all Sanders supporters vote for Clinton - if that happens, then as they see it, Clinton satisfied everyone fine! Maybe the next candidate can be even further right to pick up some Republicans! Whereas if they lose the election because of Sanders, the next candidate will have to move further left to capture those people they lost the previous election. Note that my example is a bit simplified onto a single-axis system for the sake of simplicity; at least some Sanders supporters would prefer Trump to Clinton.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Gavagai80]

You have every right to complain about how people vote when there isn't a "no confidence in either candidate" option.

Do you really live somewhere that puts only two candidates on your ballot and has no write-in option? I'm not convinced that such a state exists in the USA.

For an extreme example, we have 34 candidates on the ballot for senator in California this year... and if you still can't find anyone you agree with, you can write yourself in.

Re: Why the political ending?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you're making the emotional "put up or shut up" argument. While it does appeal to me to some extent, there are two good counter-arguments IMHO:
1. Voting is actually only one of several methods of participation in the democratic process, and arguably a relatively minor one. Affecting the opinions of others by complaining, for instance, has a much greater potential effect. Someone who sees no real benefit to supporting either (or any) of the choices available at the voting booth may choose to skip participation in that aspect without having failed to "put up."

2. (The more fun argument). A decent case can be made that it is actually the person who _did_ vote who has no right to complain -- they bought into the whole group-decision-making process that is voting, including acceptance of the outcome. They have no right to complain about the results of that process. It's the person who did not accept that process, and refused to participate who gets to complain about being required to abide by its outcome.

Re: Why the political ending?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, there is no evidence of wrong doing by Hillary, just a large number of GOP lies and insinuations.

Re:Why the political ending?

[rtb61]

Reality is, we could easily do it, if we shifted from a war focus to a space focus. In fact making that shift military industrial complex to the space industrial complex happen is far more difficult than developing and applying the technology to get from the Earth to Mars. Even when that war focus is likely to kill us all.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Anonymous Coward]

He said it is not the finest. He didn't say it was horrible, just not the greatest.

Adjust your agenda.

Re:Why the political ending?

[werepants]

Now, the people who say "You can't complain because of ________" are tyrants, pure and simple. They need to be confronted as such, in exactly those very terms.

Jeebus. No they aren't. The meaning of "you can't complain" in this context has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with pointing out hypocrisy. A person who complains about politics but doesn't vote is akin to a person who complains about what's on the TV but won't push the button to change the channel. So, this should be better read as: if you can't be bothered to take an hour every couple of years to vote, clearly you aren't serious about politics and so I'm not going to take you seriously.

Re:Why the political ending?

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, I was referring to the legacy rather than an obviously unconstitutional campaign to re-elect.

Re:Why the political ending?

[Malachias]

In my state, 50% of the state budget funds education -- my county spends about a billion a year on education, the county next door about a 1.8 billion. In my region of the country, many elected officials are chosen during primaries -- uncontested in general election. Very view people vote in primaries (about 14% of active voters). About 75% of those voting have no school age children (55+). Hence, education is not really a priority of most of those elected to office and their views on education are largely shaped by the views of people that haven't been in a classroom for 30 or 40 years. Voting does in fact matter -- politicians win elections by catering to the concerns and aspirations of those that choose to vote (and people with children have vastly different concerns and aspirations than senior citizens). So sure people can complain all they want, but what does it mean when someone complains and takes no action to address the issue about which they complain? So I'm not particularly sympathetic to complaints from people who don't bother to vote. I do have school age children, so when thousands of other people with school age children don't bother to vote it has an adverse effect on me and my children. Should I be pissed at the politician that focuses on the vested interests of those that voted or the folks that stayed home? The politician is doing his job, even if I don't like what he or she is doing. So I think I will direct my ire at those that stayed home.

Re:Why the political ending?

[aaronb1138]

It's nigh impossible to get a write-in a majority over the 2 offered candidates. A real "no confidence" option would likely win a majority more than any write-in option.

The point is to have an EFFECTIVE alternate option, of which write-in is not.

You forgot...

[Anonymous Coward]

"In related news, Chile has so much solar energy it's giving it away for free."

Re: You forgot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Chili makes me fart

Re: You forgot...

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about solar power, not natural gas.

Re: You forgot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Chili contains legumes. Legumes make me fart.

Re: You forgot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Chili contains legumes.

Not all chili. Tradtionsl chili is meat and tomatoes. Legumes were added later as filler.

Martians

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they require green cards? Or will the be living there on H1Bs?

I thought the movie Interstellar was better than the Martian anyway until it got all effed up with that bookshelf crap in the black hole. Seriously... wtf was that!

Re:Martians

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Cause, effect, causality, preserving the timeline and the human race. How hard is that to understand?

Re:Martians

[Anonymous Coward]

Those things usually don't manifest themselves as a multidimensional bookshelf at the event horizon to a black hole, it would be a little like a person standing next to a nuke about to go off believing that the they would be whisked off a magical journey instead of simply being vaporized.

It's not implausible. It's actually very likely.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's implausible. This morning we learned that Apple has released the first preview of Swift 3.0. This is an important step in getting to Mars. After all, software will be crucial for any manned mission there, just like software was crucial to landing humans on the Moon. Swift is just the sort of language that's needed in order to write the complex and critical software needed for such a mission. So now that the software probably won't be an issue, it's just a matter of getting the rocketry and landing hardware figured out. If we could do it in the 1960s, we can do it again today.

I predict....

[CastrTroy]

If this is true, I predict we'll have dead bodies on Mars in 9 years and 6 months. I don't for a second doubt we could get people there in a decade, but getting them back is a whole different story. As is keeping them supplied with needed items if they plan to stay there. the ISS currently gets a resupply mission about once every 3 months. The longest it's ever gone has been 128 days without a resupply. To do the return flight, you basically have to wait three months for the planets to line up properly. So the people will have to be up there (in orbit or on the surface) for a significant period of time.

Also, there's no bail out plan. Once you are half way there, if something goes wrong, too bad. You basically have to carry out the mission. With a moon mission you can always skip the landing and return right away like they did with Apollo 13. But with Mars, you have to wait for the planets to be in the right spot so you that you can actually take a short path home. If the planets are in the wrong position, the trip could take a whole lot longer.

Re:I predict....

[Anonymous Coward]

The longest it's ever gone has been 128 days without a resupply. To do the return flight, you basically have to wait three months for the planets to line up properly.

Both of these historical truths are predicated on the notion that launch vehicles are expensive one-use items.

If launch vehicles are cheap and reusable, a back-of-the-envelope plan looks like this:

1) Launch supplies to Mars every 3 months.
2) Launch robotic fuel factory (undesigned/unbuilt, CO2 + H2O + sunlight or nukes = vodka!) to Mars surface and fire it up. You need just enough fuel to get to Mars orbit.
3) Launch smallish tank full of fuel to Mars orbit. Maybe two of 'em. Use one to land, one to refuel/return to Earth.
4) Launch crew module to LEO.
5) Launch big tank full of fuel to LEO. Yes, the rocket equation's a bitch, so at some point you hit diminishing returns, but unlike current missions, you don't have to cram everything into a one launch.

After enough #1s have landed intact, and #2 is up and running, dock #4 with one or two instances of #5 and send it on its way. At Mars, the crew module docks with #3, refuels, and lands. Picks up fuel from #2 to get back into orbit, tops up at the second #3 tank, and flies back to earth.

Re:I predict....

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Can't we just use warp speed, light speed or ludicrous speed?

Re:I predict....

[NotDrWho]

COULD we put a man on Mars in 10 years? Yes, if the U.S. Russia, China, et. al all got together and cooperated, the governments all threw a huge amount amount of money in to the program, all the contractors agreed to forgo their usual over-promise-then-delay-to-get-more-money schemes, the public completely got on board, etc.

WILL this ever happen? I would rate the chance of that at slightly lower than the odds of there ever being a decent Fantastic 4 movie.

Re:I predict....

[110010001000]

Even if all those things happened it wouldn't be possible to live there. You can't solve the problem of evolutionary biology.

Re:I predict....

[Kierthos]

So.... we should only send evangelical Christians?

Re:I predict....

[Robotbeat]

Nothing in what you just said suggests why you think the mission will certainly end in death. That's a bold prediction, and not one anyone can make.

For some stupid reason, many people seems to conflate "some risk of a bad thing happening" to "it's a certainty that the bad thing WILL happen and will happen to everyone every single time." It's how NASA's 3% cancer risk from space radiation from a Mars mission becomes "your organs will be boiled! and it's impossible because you'll die during the mission from space radiation." This is just dumb. Space radiation isn't even as bad as smoking, and except for well-characterized and easily mitigated problems with acute doses (the biggest risk is if you have electronics which can't withstand the radiation and so fail, but that's easily engineered away), you're not going to die during the mission at all.

The first Shuttle flight, for instance, had a, I don't know, 10% chance of failure. It worked, because if you have a 10% chance of something happening, that means that you also have a 90% chance of it not happening.

I predict that getting to the surface of Mars in 9 years is much more realistic technologically today than getting to the Moon in 1969 (just 7 years after JFK's 1962 Rice University moon speech) was.

And the first flight probably won't kill anyone.

Re:I predict....

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Preferably ALL of them.

Re:I predict....

[wbr1]

And how many dead bodies did we litter the bottom of the ocean with exploring it? Exploration is risky stuff. You mitigate what you can, but you are doomed to failure if you never start.

Re:I predict....

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes a lot more sense that any mission to Mars IS a one way mission. It's a lot less complicated to send people there than to bring them back. Anyone sent there should be prepared to live there for the foreseeable future. We need to send them what they need to survive long-term.

Yes, there probably is a large risk of negative outcome. So was there when people started colonizing the Americas. Still, there will be many people willing to take the risk despite the risk. It should be up to people willing to try for the betterment of mankind to go IF they want to.

/ I'm not going.

Re:I predict....

[Megane]

1) Launch supplies to Mars every 3 months.

Nice idea, except that orbital mechanics makes this more difficult than it sounds. Over a two year period, the low energy trajectory varies from 6 months to 18 months. (And when you get there, this flips the other way unless you stay on Mars for a year!) Not to mention, how do you deliver supplies "every 3 months" to a spacecraft that takes 6 months to get to Mars? I guess you could launch them ahead of time on trajectories where the crew module or Mars would catch up later.

The fuel factory is the basic principle of the Mars Direct plan. Launch a first unmanned mission, then let it manufacture fuel for a year. Unless it fails, launch a manned mission two years after the first with another fuel factory, then repeat every two years.

Re:I predict....

[michelcolman]

That's why they added Ludicrous Speed to the Model S. They are using the Model S drivers as beta testers for the Mars program!

Re:I predict....

[michelcolman]

Also, computer graphics should be good enough in 2024 to pretend that all the astronauts are still alive and well on Mars, so you can keep sending new ones who are unaware that their predecessors already died.

Re:I predict....

[Anonymous Coward]

thank god you're here to offer your armchair command. How should the man who runs a cutting edge rocket company ever be able to keep these challenges in mind otherwise?

Re:I predict....

[werepants]

The ISS hasn't gone an extended period without resupply because it wasn't designed to and there's no reason to. So that's an invalid datapoint with respect to what mission duration modern technology can achieve.

Admittedly, the astronauts will be more cut off from support or bailout options than on previous missions, but that can be remedied with a conservative mission profile. For instance, have a fully-fueled and checked out return vehicle (or better yet, multiple) and contingency supplies ready to go at Mars before the astronauts even leave Earth. This mission is far less dangerous than sailing voyages that were commonplace in the 1800's. We will never have a 100% guarantee of success, but if humans should never do anything risky, we should never do anything at all that involves leaving the house.

A reasonable estimate will show that the risk of death associated with a trip to Mars is about the same as or less than the risk from being a smoker. If we have no problem allowing people to make that choice with their lives, why can't we tolerate that same risk for a far more worthwhile cause?

Re:I predict....

[CrimsonAvenger]

Also, there's no bail out plan. Once you are half way there, if something goes wrong, too bad. You basically have to carry out the mission.

The phrase "Earth Return Trajectory" is probably what you were searching for. In the case of an Earth-Mars trip, you inject the spacecraft into a two year orbit that, left to itself, comes back to Earth. Requires more reaction mass than a Hohmann Transfer, but it has a (reasonably) fail-safe element.

Note that an Earth Return Trajectory uses more reaction mass to put itself into Mars orbit also, so it's definitely non-trivial. Severall km/s extra deltaV (in the vicinity of 2000 m/s between the Earth departure burn and the Mars arrival burn), which will require a lot of extra reaction mass....

Re:I predict....

[Anonymous Coward]

For some stupid reason, many people seems to conflate "some risk of a bad thing happening" to "it's a certainty that the bad thing WILL happen and will happen to everyone every single time."

Its called Murphy's Law.

The first Shuttle flight, for instance, had a, I don't know, 10% chance of failure. It worked, because if you have a 10% chance of something happening, that means that you also have a 90% chance of it not happening.

Sure. And later we lost two Space Shuttles after the risks should have gone way down due to experience. But more importantly, we don't even have Space Shuttles anymore. This alone is reason do doubt those that appeal the other stupid conclusion that people jump too -- that progress is inevitable.

Re:I predict....

[Beezlebub33]

the ISS currently gets a resupply mission about once every 3 months.

I did some googling and tried to figure out what was in those missions and how much the resupply (versus experiments) weighed, but I can't seem to find anything. Just how much 'stuff' is needed very 3 months? What if we had to make it a year? Or 3. Now assume that we spend a more time making things last indefinitely / renewable, a la recapture of O2, using waste to generate methane for fuel, growing some of the fresh vegetable / fruits. Now, spend 5 years worth of launches sending the inflatable base elements and supplies ahead of the people. Use robotics (huge assumption here) to set things up. You should be able to create a mostly sustainable Mars base of a couple of people, with periodic resupply every year or two.

Re:I predict....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, since when is evolutionary biology a PROBLEM when it comes to adaptation? You sound a bit like a creationist who adopted intelligent design so he could troll scientists.

Re:I predict....

[Anonymous Coward]

Death is part of the exploration and colonization process. These days, Western cultures tend to take a harsh view towards such deaths. But people need to have some perspective: 30,000 people or so per year die in car accidents in the US alone. Some deaths will occur in space travel, people should expect and accept it. Now of course they should try to learn from their mistakes, improve processes, and minimize such deaths.

Re:I predict....

[Gavagai80]

The real problem is that even if there's a 99% survival rate, the first death will delay the project for 5 years. For some reason we're willing to accept a 2% death rate for climbing Mount Everest and continue sending tourists there by the boat load, but we won't accept that kind of mortality rate for rocketing into space.

Re:I predict....

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting the supplies into orbit seems like the expensive problem -- the rest is actually pretty simple. Working out the launch schedule is cake; we know where the planets are going to be and when the dudes will be there. It's just a bit of planning. On the plus side the delivery vehicles don't have to be horribly sophisticated.

Re:I predict....

[cjameshuff]

We've dropped the Shuttles and are building launch systems capable of putting mass into orbit at a small fraction of the cost, along with spacecraft capable of going beyond Earth orbit. How is this not progress?

Re:I predict....

[DerekLyons]

The ISS hasn't gone an extended period without resupply because it wasn't designed to and there's no reason to. So that's an invalid datapoint with respect to what mission duration modern technology can achieve.

Yes.. and no. No, you can't determine anything from looking at the number and rate of flights in a simple minded fashion. Yes, you can learn a great deal from examining the detailed manifests and determining if spares are being shipped at a greater-than-expected rate (or less than, or not at all). Bog standard logistics analysis that dates back the better part of a century.
 

Admittedly, the astronauts will be more cut off from support or bailout options than on previous missions, but that can be remedied with a conservative mission profile. For instance, have a fully-fueled and checked out return vehicle (or better yet, multiple) and contingency supplies ready to go at Mars before the astronauts even leave Earth.

Actually, that doesn't decrease the risk - it actually increases the risk due to the greater number of launch and assembly operations, the increased number of burns, the requirement to rendezvous in Mars orbit (as opposed to staying with the same vehicle), and the requirement that the vehicle operate (and operate untended) for a much longer period than a simple out-and-back spacecraft. (Etc... etc...)
 

A reasonable estimate will show that the risk of death associated with a trip to Mars is about the same as or less than the risk from being a smoker.

A nice bit of circular logic - any estimate that disagrees with yours is simply unreasonable.

Re:I predict....

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the supplies sent up to the ISS are replacement equipment. Note, not replacement parts. They don't really repair anything when it can just be completely replaced at tremendous cost.

Re:I predict....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused why you think the fact that the departure schedule won't match up with the arrival schedule is a problem. You launch supplies and they arrive. Where's the problem?

Re:I predict....

[werepants]

Yes.. and no. No, you can't determine anything from looking at the number and rate of flights in a simple minded fashion. Yes, you can learn a great deal from examining the detailed manifests and determining if spares are being shipped at a greater-than-expected rate (or less than, or not at all). Bog standard logistics analysis that dates back the better part of a century.

I never claimed that ISS data doesn't usefully inform Mars mission planning - merely the maximum resupply interval observed on the ISS tells us nothing useful about the resupply interval we could achieve for Mars missions. The ISS isn't meant by design or operations to go as long as possible without resupply, and so it isn't a meaningful upper limit on the capability of mission length with current technology. The OP's cited resupply interval is basically an arbitrary number.

Actually, that doesn't decrease the risk - it actually increases the risk due to the greater number of launch and assembly operations, the increased number of burns, the requirement to rendezvous in Mars orbit (as opposed to staying with the same vehicle), and the requirement that the vehicle operate (and operate untended) for a much longer period than a simple out-and-back spacecraft. (Etc... etc...)

If the extra launches are providing contingency options, they decrease risk. This is how redundancy works - you have a larger risk of a failure happening somewhere, but now you can accrue one or more failure without an impact to mission success. The chance of failure increases linearly, (p+p) but the chance of all systems failing decreases in a multiplicative fashion (p*p)... so if your system has a 10% chance of failing, adding redundancy will give you a 20% chance of one of the systems failing, but a 1% chance of a failure actually hurting you. It's generally a worthwhile trade.

A nice bit of circular logic - any estimate that disagrees with yours is simply unreasonable.

That's not an example of circular logic. If it were a fallacy, it would more likely be a No True Scotsman. But for that, I would actually have to reject different risk estimates as unreasonable - care to offer one? At this point, you're assuming I'm using "reasonable" as an opportunity to weasel, but really what I meant was "neither very conservative nor very optimistic".

Re:I predict....

[Richard_at_work]

Life got expensive.

Things left unsaid

[Nidi62]

Notice Musk just said landing people on Mars. He never said anything about whether they would be livingwhen they got there.....

Re:Things left unsaid

[AK Marc]

I imagined someone sending a capsule of cremated remains. Fulfils the wording as given in TFS.

The "water on Mars" joke is getting old.

[alexhs]

Is he planning to ask Mars, Inc. to produce big chocolate bars, launching people with parachutes Dec. 31th 2024 23:59, arrival Jan. 1st 2025 a few minutes later ?

Dead or alive?

[turkeydance]

old TV show. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Dead or alive?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I prefer the videogames with the amazing boobs physics! Especially the swimsuit editions!

How does this help the people?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't. It takes money from food and starves people.

Re: How does this help the people?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our rulers care more about their toys than they do our children.

Re: How does this help the people?

[Anonymous Coward]

The rich hate us.

Re: How does this help the people?

[Anonymous Coward]

If we never performed the scientific research for building the massive food production plants we get most of we get most of our food from, as you desire to be the case, your plan would have killed over 90% of the entire worlds human population.

This is why no one ever listens to you, planet murderer.

Stupid predictions

[110010001000]

This is almost as dumb as Bill Gates predicting AI will take over. We are no closer to AI than we were 40 years ago, and no closer to putting people on Mars than we were 40 years ago either. It may not even be physically possible to create an AI or live on Mars.

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Musk should work on making Tesla profitable. This is something he has said would happen every quarter for several years now. While he is at that task, he can do the same for his two other ventures, SolarCity and SpaceX. Musk is a showman and we shouldn't believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

On the topic of AI, it will take over but it could be a few centuries before that happens. As I say to my friends, a bunch of if/else statements is not intelligence. We need actual machine learning which is nowhere to be found.

Re: Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not quite true. For anything that will eventually happen, we are 40 years closer to it now than we were 40 years ago.

Re: Stupid predictions

[110010001000]

Neither will "eventually happen" even though AI and Space nutters wish it so.

Re:Stupid predictions

[AmiMoJo]

We are no closer to AI than we were 40 years ago

I don't recall computers 40 years ago being able to beat grand masters at chess or dominate gameshows by answering natural language questions. Practical, useful AIs are available on demand to anyone with a phone these days. Sure, they aren't pure artificial brain types, but they are capable of viewing and understanding the world.

no closer to putting people on Mars than we were 40 years ago either

Except perhaps for all the practice we have had at living in space for long periods of time, developing lighter and more agile space suits, getting many more countries on-board, that sort of thing. Oh, and the small fact that we have explored Mars in much greater detail, from satellites and from rovers, which is a precursor to landing there just as exploring the moon was.

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the internet denizen who does nothing but sit on his pooter all day, versus Elon Musk who has actually built rockets and electric cars. Yeah, genius, I'm sure your opinion on this matter counts.

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ridiculous.

We're 40 years closer to AI than we were 40 years ago. We're 40 years closer to Mars than we were 40 years ago too.

AI has come a Looooongggg way and so has space technology. You might not know this but we've had a rover on Mars for a decade plus now.

Re:Stupid predictions

[110010001000]

AI hasn't come a long way. Chess and Go playing programs are not AI. Neither is Siri. Only people who know nothing about AI think AI is closer than it was in 1960.

Re:Stupid predictions

[110010001000]

AI is not chess playing programs or Go playing programs. Ridiculous.

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, profits are more important than scientific discovery and the possibility of settling an entire other planet.

Re:Stupid predictions

[110010001000]

How does knowledge of building rockets or cars equate to knowing about living on Mars? I once built a birdhouse. Does that make me an expert on building skyscrapers?

Re:Stupid predictions

[AmiMoJo]

In computer science, an ideal "intelligent" machine is a flexible rational agent that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of success at an arbitrary goal.

Modern examples of AI include computers that can beat professional players at Chess and Go, and self-driving
cars that navigate crowded city streets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, both of those things are indisputably AI. Perhaps you're thinking of strong AI in particular? In any case, you seem like an unpleasant and jaded person.

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

I predict we will send AI to Mars in 9 years

Re:Stupid predictions

[thinkwaitfast]

computers 40 years ago being able to...

Computers are turing machines and with little effort would run the same modern software that beat grand masters and game shows. It would just take a billion years and need millions of replacements as parts wore out.

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! For one thing, those programs aren't even Scottish!

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you're probably slightly more qualified than somebody who's never built anything of equal or greater size.

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they are.

They're very specialized AI that's useless for nearly everything outside of that domain, but still AI.

Will AI never exist because it stops being AI once we understand how it works? What does that mean for us when we understand enough of how our brains work?

Re: Stupid predictions

[pr0fessor]

I don't see us colonizing mars any time soon but we can put things on it including humans although it would be costly and hazardous.

Some of us are looking at this from a very different perspective, as a kid I saw space flights and watched the original star trek thinking wow that's amazing in world where the home computers and internet didn't exist and phones where still landlines. Today I look back and think that the technological world I live in now didn't even exist when I was that young kid or even a young adult and again I'm amazed.

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

AI is not chess playing programs or Go playing programs. Ridiculous.

If you would be so kind as to provide an example of a skill that demonstrates real intelligence better than these games, I'm sure many others will be happy to point out why researchers have either already succeeded or are not yet interested in attempting your task.

Re:Stupid predictions

[swillden]

AI is not chess playing programs or Go playing programs. Ridiculous.

So what is? Seriously, can you answer that question?

People have tried for a long time to define what artificial intelligence is/will be. Turing defined it as a chatbot, essentially. Whether or not the Turing test has been passed is a question for debate, but if it hasn't it will be pretty soon. For a long time many people used chess as the gold standard. When that was beaten, Go looked like a good tool to measure AI.

So far, the skeptical definition of AI seems to be "Whatever a human can do that a computer can't yet do".

Re:Stupid predictions

[pr0fessor]

If you think AI should look like something from I, robot or ex machina then you are correct. It's kind of like UFO it doesn't stand for aliens. I saw a UFO... "Do you think it was aliens?" Hell no I don't... I think I couldn't make out what the hell it was.

Re:Stupid predictions

[Zeromous]

You're pretty sure you're not a turing machine yourself.

Let's ask the computer what it thinks it is.

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't recall computers 40 years ago being able to beat grand masters at chess or dominate gameshows by answering natural language questions.

Because it is about computational power more than anything else. These programs are running through the possible moves and looking for the best outcome. However, these program are still a set of if/else statements and don't exhibit any intelligence.

Practical, useful AIs are available on demand to anyone with a phone these days.

I cannot understand how anybody that supposedly understands computer technology can make this statement.

Artificial intelligence doesn't exist. Machines have no reasoning skill, nor can they learn. Humans must still feed data and shape the rule set to accommodate the external information.

Re: Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

So any computer program is AI? I think you might technically be correct but really people mean something capable of solving problems it wasn't designed to solve.

Re:Stupid predictions

[quanminoan]

You could make an argument about beating chess not being AI, but that argument wouldn't hold for Go. With chess you don't have to program "intuition", it's evaluation of possible moves. With Go the possible number of boards is obscene : around 10^800 possible boards, where there are ~10^80 atoms in the universe. You can't just extrapolate and calculate possible moves, you have to program a deep neural net with a sort of AI "intuition". Very impressive feat, and the South Korean government immediately dumped billions into AI on hearing about the feat.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?Number...
http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, how about the computer gets tired of playing this one game and asks for a break, or a book, or a drink?

Kind enough for you?

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

People can have multiple specialties and knowledge across several domains....

We have this thing called the Internet now. You might have heard of it. It makes learning new skills and information a lot easier than most of the rest of human history. You might want to check it out sometime.

Re:Stupid predictions

[Rolgar]

The ability to identify a problem spontaneously (for instance, identifying and understanding that there is a problem in politics), having the necessary logic to look at the problem from multiple points of view, realizing things about a variety of issues (scarcity v private ownership, self interest v selflessness, freedom v the common good, etc.), realizing that maybe there is no 'right answer', but trying to do a better job than most media folks of identifying the issues, and articulating some ways that we could adjust our politics that would make things better.

But the computer must be intelligent enough to identify the problem (self directed instead of programmed) and come to it's own conclusions. An AI should be capable of working in the abstract, thinking philosophically, and understanding all sorts of things. Just because I can calculate doesn't mean that a device that calculates or simulates things is intelligent. It has no understanding, and therefore has no actual intelligence. Frankly, I don't think this is something computer science will ever overcome, and I'm OK with that.

Re:Stupid predictions

[werepants]

... trying to do a better job than most media folks of identifying the issues, and articulating some ways that we could adjust our politics that would make things better.

You've literally defined AI in such a way that most humans wouldn't even qualify. It sounds like you are expecting something out of a science fiction book. Be realistic, and you'll find that by almost any reasonable definition of the problem, we've made tremendous progress in the past 10 years.

Re:Stupid predictions

[david_thornley]

Some people do great in lots of fields. Some people do great in some fields and think they do great in others. I'll pay attention to Musk when he's talking about rockets and electric cars and things like that. When he talks about Mars missions or vaccinations or social dynamics, I'll be more skeptical.

Re:Stupid predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

However, these program are still a set of if/else statements and don't exhibit any intelligence.

Whereas humans use "special sauce" for these feats. "Special sauce" may be spirit-magic or parallel world quantum problem resolution done in our DNA, or any of a number of things, but it's just "special", ok!? It can't be replicated, or synthesized, or emulated, which is why AI will always fail. Because we're exceptionalists! Er, I mean... exceptional.

Re:And this is news how?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

And who cares what religious idiots say in 2016?

One way ticket?

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

That's what I foresee with the current technology.

Jokes aside, do we have to send human beings to Mars? What about sending robots first to build at least partially self-sustaining habitats? What about finding ways to protect people from the cosmic radiation during at least three years (x2) long journey to and from the planet? What about ways of bringing them back? What about the storage of supplies, more importantly food, for six years and the mass of a rocket? What about the loss of muscles and bones mass? Last time I checked currently we have no means of creating artificial gravity in space.

Dozens of very hard to resolve question and somehow Elon claims we'll have them resolved by 2024. Unbelievable.

Re:One way ticket?

[110010001000]

According the space nutters on Slashdot all you need to fix those issues it is some tinfoil and to watch more Star Trek. The idea of sending people to Mars is a joke. We aren't ever going to live anywhere else but the Earth. We evolved on Earth.

Re:One way ticket?

[turbidostato]

"We aren't ever going to live anywhere else but the Earth. We evolved on Earth."

We aren't ever going to live anywhere else but East Africa. We evolved on East Africa.

Re:One way ticket?

[110010001000]

I knew some fool would post this. Here is a hint: East Africa is a LOT like West Africa. Antartica is also a LOT LIKE East Africa compared to Mars.

Re: One way ticket?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, we know what it takes to get to the moon, and the moon would actually be quite useful for the purposes of learning how to live on Mars.

Re:One way ticket?

[Lab Rat Jason]

Um... not sure if I should point this out or not, but there are people living in Antarctica year round... so maybe I'm not getting your point? Or maybe I am! :)

Re:One way ticket?

[Kierthos]

Mars is inherently inimical to human life. We get it. However, it is not outside the realm of possibility that we could develop technologies that would allow us to live on Mars.

Is it going to happen in ten years? No, frankly, I think Musk is selling a bit of a bill of goods on this one. But assuming we don't kill ourselves off through war or climate change or whatever, I believe we will colonize Mars at some point.

Frankly, I think it would be better to set up a colony on the Moon first. While conditions are very different from Mars, it would be a good starting point, and it would be far easier to deal with, say, supply problems for a permanent moonbase.

Re:One way ticket?

[110010001000]

You are right. You aren't getting my point. Even Antartica is also a LOT LIKE East Africa compared to Mars. Antartica is paradise.

Re:One way ticket?

[110010001000]

No, it is outside the realm of possibility. You can try to block radiation, make water from the ice, etc, etc, etc but the differences in gravity will make living on Mars impossible. Of course some Space nutter will just say "well we will just invent a gravity machine" so it isn't worth arguing about.

Re:One way ticket?

[camperdave]

... and Mars is a lot like East Africa compared to Low Earth Orbit. However, we have had a continuous presence in LEO since November 2000: over 15 years. So, if we can do it there, we can do it on Mars.

Re:One way ticket?

[110010001000]

Uh no. LEO is very similar to East Africa compared to Mars. That is the problem with space nutters, they have no concept of the distances involved or even what Mars is like.

Re:One way ticket?

[Lab Rat Jason]

Then your point is lacking... because when something isn't routine, it's only a matter of time until it is, and the only way to make going to mars routine is to do it first in a non-routine condition, and do it so often that it becomes routine. People flying in airplanes used to not exist... then it was novel... then it was routine. Antarctica is a piece of cake compared to space, you realize that, right? And people have been successfully living in space for a while now.

Are there dangers on mars? Yes. Are people willing to face those dangers to achieve something important to them? Yes. There has always been two kinds of people in this world: Those who value discovery above human life, and those who value human life above discovery. You are obviously in the latter group. I'm also in the latter group... but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate someone who has the vision and huevos to try.

Re:One way ticket?

[Kierthos]

We don't know that yet. Yes, someone who stays on Mars for a substantial amount of time will have physiological changes in response to the lower gravity, similar to what the astronauts who are on the ISS go through in micro-gravity.

But those ISS personnel are up there for months at a stretch, and it didn't automatically kill them. (To note, Scott Kelly was up there for almost a full year, and he's been back on Earth since March 1st. We're still studying the effects on his health.

Are there physiological changes due to differences in gravity? Yes. Can they be ameliorated? To an extent. Can they be ignored. No. Are they automatically fatal? No.

Now, clearly, if someone lives on Mars (or the Moon) for years, well, they longer they live there, the less likely they're going to be able to return to Earth due to those changes.

No, it's not a solved set of problems yet. But that's a far cry from just flat out saying they're an unsolvable set of problems.

Re:One way ticket?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We aren't ever going to live anywhere else but the Earth. We evolved on Earth."

We aren't ever going to live anywhere else but East Africa. We evolved on East Africa.

Every species evolved from single-celled organisms. That is why in nine years we will have evolved an amoeba into a chimpanzee!
(That is about how useful and realistic your pithy words are.)

Re:One way ticket?

[thinkwaitfast]

If you send people first, they report back how much it sucks and kills the desire for those other things.

Re:One way ticket?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked currently we have no means of creating artificial gravity in space.

*cough* centrifugal force *cough*

Re:One way ticket?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked currently we have no means of creating artificial gravity in space.

You must have last checked a very long time ago. Creating artificial gravity in space is easy: just rotate the spacecraft. This has bee known for a long time.

Re:One way ticket?

[camperdave]

I think you better check your facts, mate. An environment with an atmosphere, even one as thin as Mars', is going to trump the vacuum of space when it comes to being similar to Earth.

Re:One way ticket?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the ultimate edition of "The Running Man".

Re:One way ticket?

[sysrammer]

Ok, let's try a little substitution and see it still rings true: ""We aren't ever going to live anywhere else but on land. We evolved on land."

Re:One way ticket?

[sysrammer]

nicely put

Re:One way ticket?

[sysrammer]

Ok, now you're trollin'. I'm sure it's just rhetoric, as even you know that no "space nutter" is going to claim that we'll create a gravity machine, that's just nonsense.

Everyone knows that we'll have to create an *anti*-gravity machine first.

Re:One way ticket?

[sysrammer]

Our binary friend is having a lot of fun today, isn't he?

Re:One way ticket?

[rasmusbr]

According the space nutters on Slashdot all you need to fix those issues it is some tinfoil and to watch more Star Trek. The idea of sending people to Mars is a joke. We aren't ever going to live anywhere else but the Earth. We evolved on Earth.

There is a lot of room between zero and approximately zero when we're talking about a population of billions. Your statement would still be approximately true even if the population of Mars would grow to a million.

I think it's likely there will be at least one small base with scientists and space tourists on Mars in the second half of this century.

It makes sense to send some geologists there to bark orders at the robots without the time lag between Earth and Mars. AI is going to get a lot better over time, but you'll still need people to make a lot of the science decisions for the foreseeable time.

The super-rich of our time have already shown that they will pay enormous amounts of money to go visit the scientists, even for a short time. As the world's wealth concentrates into ever fewer hands, interplanetary tourism is almost bound to happen. What else is there for the super rich to do with all that money?

Re:One way ticket?

[AK Marc]

Gravity will make it a one-way trip, but won't otherwise be a problem.

Re:One way ticket?

[Solandri]

What about finding ways to protect people from the cosmic radiation during at least three years (x2) long journey to and from the planet?

A Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars only takes 9 months. 3 years is the time it would take to launch from Earth and travel to Mars via a Hohmann transfer orbit, wait for Mars to be in position for a Hohmann transfer back to Earth, then launch and travel to Earth.

Re:One way ticket?

[AbRASiON]

The more he talks, the more I start to think of the Smug Alert, fart smelling episode of Southpark at this point.

Re:One way ticket?

[KeensMustard]

Well, that's no good.

Flying in aircraft is interesting. I still find it interesting, even after 25 years of doing it. When it takes 10 hours though, it's boring, and I want it to be over. Going to Mars, and being on Mars, is like a long flight, but with worse food, and mindless, repetitious work to do as you schlep through your 6-12 months. So when the novelty of it wears off and it becomes routine, who is going to go willing?

Mars is boring. Humans have evolved to roam about and forage for things. We like to roam. Mars is more like a cramped, dirty, underlit basement that you can't leave, and have to share with people you can barely stand. But never mind, tomorrow you can unblock the toilet again. But you won't be going outside and having adventures, or looking forward to a nice coffee, or meeting a nice girl, or seeing new sights and or experiencing new cultures, or making any new discoveries. But maybe you can occupy yourself with more digging in the ground like a worm - but don't damage your suit!

Re:One way ticket?

[Anonymous Coward]

... because when something isn't routine, it's only a matter of time until it is. . .

Wow. That is ridiculously false.

Re:One way ticket?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars is a paradise in comparison to LEO. We've had people living in LEO for thirty years.

Re:One way ticket?

[Gavagai80]

In fact we have almost no idea what Mars gravity will do to a person. The worst case is that it'd be ISS-like, but it's possible that there are no significant impacts from 1/3 gravity, or that the impacts will only be problematic if returning to Earth.

Re:One way ticket?

[Bruce Perens]

the differences in gravity will make living on Mars impossible.

ISS has recently had astronauts with bone mass gain during their time in microgravity, it just took the right exercise. The remaining unknown for a sustainable colony is implantation of a fertilized fetus and growth to term, which we really could figure out now on ISS using a small centrifuge to achieve 1/3G. It would just have to hold some mice. If we just can't get this to work at 1/3 gravity, we have the potential for people to live at 1G on the surface of Mars, although it would take a rather large centrifuge.

Re:One way ticket?

[quanminoan]

"The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision." - Randall Munroe (XKCD)

Re:One way ticket?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we haven't. For one, they're in a tin can within the Earth's atmosphere, and not one single person stayed there for 30 years. Nonsense.

Re:One way ticket?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://science.slashdot.org/c...

Re:One way ticket?

[turbidostato]

"I knew some fool would post this. Here is a hint: East Africa is a LOT like West Africa."

Of course yes. And West Africa is VERY different to living three years on a boat compared to East Africa. People even used to die of strange illnesses when they tried to do it (and you see, even LEO -which is VERY different to living on Mars, doesn't do that to us). Yet humankind managed to cope with it.

My point wasn't that we can live in Mars -I don't know it. My point is that "very different" is no argument at all when talking about the human species since our main specialization is basically "going beyond".

Re:One way ticket?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of us.

So you are not interested. That is you. It might be boring to you, but it has a lot of real estate to explore in the search for exobiology and experimentation to try adapting earth based organisms.

I could keep myself quite interested. As for being bored on the trip, you do realize that at one time it took two months to make it from Spain to the New World. That was with limited provisions and a much larger crew with far less entertainment options.

Making the trip is possible in 150 days. Preventing getting bored requires a mirror of Netflix, Hulu, Wikipedia and people that are no so prone to attention deficit as you. I work inside almost all the time from the same spot. I have for over a year and a half, only getting out occasionally. Would it be harder to do stuck in a can to Mars? Certainly, but no where near impossible and as horrible as you make it out.

We are not all so broken.

Re:One way ticket?

[KeensMustard]

So you are not interested. That is you. It might be boring to you, but it has a lot of real estate to explore in the search for exobiology and experimentation to try adapting earth based organisms.

It has about 4 sq metres of real estate to explore. More, if you are motivated to dig more. And slime and mould will grow find on Mars: mystery solved. Feel to watch that mould grow to you hearts content.

I could keep myself quite interested.

Sure. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. Recline the seat. Return the seat to the upright position. For six months. And then do the same on Mars.

No accounting for what it takes to amuse some people.

As for being bored on the trip, you do realize that at one time it took two months to make it from Spain to the New World. That was with limited provisions and a much larger crew with far less entertainment options.

What new world are you referring to?

Making the trip is possible in 150 days. Preventing getting bored requires a mirror of Netflix, Hulu, Wikipedia and people that are no so prone to attention deficit as you.

Right, so you plan is to watch Netflix for six months on the way to Mars, then watch Netflix for 6 months while you are there (plus the occasional digging and unblocking. And then, what? Watch Netflix for six months on the way back?

That's just great. Except from my perspective, we could achieve the same ends without you ever leaving your house. So the is NO WAY that we are going to pay for your little cheeto's fueled excursion. You want to commute to Mars and back watching Netflix for the duration? That's fine, but you can pay for it.

We are not all so broken.

You want spend six months nauseated in a tin can watching Netflix, then six months cowering underground watching Netflix, and then six months in the vomit can again, watching Netflix. Because to you, this represents an animated diversion from your ordinary life.

I have no conception of how boring and tedious your life must be.

Re:One way ticket?

[werepants]

What about sending robots first to build at least partially self-sustaining habitats? What about finding ways to protect people from the cosmic radiation during at least three years (x2) long journey to and from the planet? What about ways of bringing them back? What about the storage of supplies, more importantly food, for six years and the mass of a rocket? What about the loss of muscles and bones mass? Last time I checked currently we have no means of creating artificial gravity in space.

The safest, most efficient, and most low-tech mission profile would send a return vehicle to Mars (and many of the habitats and supplies) to be fueled and ready for return before astronauts even leave the Earth. So yes, robots will go first and have everything totally good to go.

Cosmic radiation is a solvable problem - the most efficient answer is to create a bunker within the ship that is surrounded by fuel, water, waste, and as much material as possible - this is stuff you have to carry anyway, so just designing the ship properly will address much of the risk.

And, are you kidding about the artificial gravity thing? It's called centrifugal force. Besides, loss of muscle and bone mass is one of the best studied problems we've got with human spaceflight, and we understand lots of ways to mitigate the problem.

Read up on Mars Direct sometime - it's a fast and easy mission profile compared to most, and almost certainly very similar to the plan Elon's got in mind. Especially since he's developing a massive new methane-fueled rocket which strongly suggests that he plans to synthesize fuel on Mars (methane is one of the easiest things to generate in-situ thanks to the Sabatier process).

Re:One way ticket?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no conception of how boring and tedious your life must be.

No kidding!

Plus, I live in the western US. Every picture I have seen of Mars looks like the Great Basin area, albeit the scale is "grander" on Mars. What you don't see around out there is, well, anyone. You'd think that all these wannabe explorers would want to exhaust their options here on Earth.

But I guess they wouldn't have an excuse to watch Netflix for 6 months straight. Plus the environment supports life, so they wouldn't have an excuse for spending all day watching even more Netflix.

Re:One way ticket?

[david_thornley]

People used to live in East Africa, probably at low altitudes. Then the species started expanding its range, and occupied greater and greater altitudes. First it was routine to live at low altitudes. Then it became routine to live at higher altitudes. People who live at high altitudes have physiological differences from people who live at low altitudes, whether by evolution or by being exposed to thin air all their lives.

However, nobody can survive on top of Mount Everest for long without some artificial way to breathe. Progress sometimes just ends.

Re:One way ticket?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, nobody can survive on top of Mount Everest for long without some artificial way to breathe. Progress sometimes just ends.

Yep, that's why no-one has ever made it to the top of Everest. Progress ended. Oh, no, wait... We developed artificial ways to breathe.

Re:One way ticket?

[david_thornley]

Which is why people live on the top of Mount Everest, and nobody feels pressured to leave the Zone of Death fast?

Maybe, but not likely to be NASA

[kheldan]

The way Congress appears to view NASA funding, it's more likely that private enterprise will be responsible for the first humans on Mars.

Re:Maybe, but not likely to be NASA

[aicrules]

Which is why Elon Musk is saying it. He plans on his company, SpaceX, being the one to send people to Mars, not NASA.

Re:Maybe, but not likely to be NASA

[kheldan]

It's a gigantic undertaking. Nine years from now, is he really going to have all the resources and funding necessary to pull it off, or would the attempt bankrupt him? It's about as far from being a trivial accomplishment as you can get.

Re:Maybe, but not likely to be NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

HIs entire business model is predicated on it, everything has been designed for that end.

They have weekly planning meetings for the Mars trip already and have basically since they started. Half of the Board of Directors time is spent discussing how to do the Mars plan and moving it forward.

As long as SpaceX is profitable with its Earth bound ventures, it is going to happen. I would not be surprised if it was not in it's articles of incorporation and corporate bylaws that the company purpose is to further human knowledge through accomplishing a Mars mission.

Should be easy to fund

[B.Stolk]

The funding should be a piece of cake.
Imagine what the TV rights would go for the reality-tv series of life updates from the Mars pioneers.
Bigger money than the Olympics Television rights!

Re:Should be easy to fund

[Thelasko]

I've actually suspected that Musk will sell his stake in Tesla around the year 2020. At that point, the Model 3 will be in high volume production and the share price should be very high. I suspect he will use those proceeds to finance the trip to Mars.

They guy plays a long game. Both technically and financially. I suspect Tesla and Solar City are just means to get himself to Mars, where he will retire.

Re:Should be easy to fund

[Anonymous Coward]

If we build a hyper loop to Mars, we can kill two birds with one stone.

Musk's bigger announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

It turns out the superduper Tesla Model 3 is going to cost its owners more money they what it appears on the surface.

I've said it here numerous times, as the Tesla becomes more accessible to the slobs on the street the free and fancy is going to die out.

Go beat that drum, fanboys.

Re:Musk's bigger announcement

[Lab Rat Jason]

That's some excellent entitlement you've got there... Because Tesla offered a car with free supercharging, that it follows that ALL cars made by Tesla will have free access to supercharging? I'm actually relieved to see that they won't offer it with the Model 3 because I always thought the math was misleading when they tell you the cost of the car includes the savings on not buying gas... It always sounded to me like you'd be "pre-paying" for your gas on a gas-free car. Plus Musk is dead right that the idea of gas stations is so ingrained in people's minds that they think they have to do that with their electric car. People need to get over their habits and think. Go beat that drum, anti-fanboy.

Re:Musk's bigger announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

No entitlement but I'm sure a lot of those who signed on for the car would have thought twice had they known this. He's essentially turned it into a one charge range car unless you're willing to shell out more than what most ICE drivers pay in a year. No more bragging about a free super charger network. Again, my point was made and you tried to project rubbish onto me. Sour grapes much?

As for being an anti-fanboy? You best believe it! Questioning and reassessing are signs of a thoughtful mind. If you have a problem with it then that's exactly what it is; your problem.

Re:Musk's bigger announcement

[pr0fessor]

In the early 1900s there where battery changing stations used mostly by businesses but there was a period when electric was preferred over gas people tend to forget that.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there are people willing to give their lives for exploration--as they have in our collective past--then so be it. If SpaceX came out and said, "This is a one-way trip. Who wants to go?" and there were volunteers, who cares?

Re:So?

[CastrTroy]

With the one-way trip across the Atlantic, there was always the chance that you'd find fertile land on the other side. With Mars, we know there is nothing but a desolate wasteland. Still, there are probably still people who'd be willing to go on a one way trip to Mars, but I feel like a lot of people would end up regretting it once they got there. You get to sit in a tin can for 6 months while you wait to get there. You land, radio back, confirm that it's a desolate wasteland with no liquid water and no signs of life, and wait a few months until the supplies run out and you starve/asphyxiate.

Re:So?

[bill_mcgonigle]

You land, radio back, confirm that it's a desolate wasteland with no liquid water and no signs of life, and wait a few months until the supplies run out and you starve/asphyxiate.

Somebody should let Musk know about this. It'll be terrible for marketing.

Re:So?

[thinkwaitfast]

and you starve/asphyxiate.

It's a small price to pay for the end of these stories. But what will people cling to next?

Re:So?

[michelcolman]

Not if you brought potatoes! That's the key.

Re:So?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

After sending people to Mars, I don't expect anything less than plans to colonize Jupiter and Saturn!

Re:So?

[CanadianMacFan]

And lots of shit.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using the 16th century mentality that you have to hunt and fish off of the land directly maybe. But with modern technology and methodologies its quite likely that humans could build a self sustaining habitat on Mars. There is an atmosphere, simply pump it into a greenhouse to an appropriate pressure and filter it to up the nitrogen content, then start growing food. Initially it would probably be pretty basic, inflatable greenhouses, buried "tin can" habitats, etc (much like early settlers in log cabins) but over time and with some imported compounds & materials from Earth it could become completely self sustaining. No doubt there will be pitfalls and difficulties, but that is far from uncommon in human endeavors.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the one-way trip across the Atlantic, there was always the chance that you'd find fertile land on the other side.

You know, those early trips had something like a 50% mortality rate for the passengers. The odds of survival for a Mars mission one way or another are probably better.

First Mars inhabitants

[drunkbot]

I'm nominating Trump as a first candidate for traveling to Mars.

Re:First Mars inhabitants

[NotInHere]

He can be the president of an ENTIRE planet.

Re:First Mars inhabitants

[drunkbot]

Well, the first trips are one-way.

Re:First Mars inhabitants

[NotInHere]

Yeah, I would never travel there, after all it would mean I would never be able to first post on slashdot again.

Re:First Mars inhabitants

[sconeu]

Darned speed of light delay!!!!!

Re:Uh!

[MobSwatter]

BS!

I absolutely agree, aerospace has been privatized and no one is working together, and the government has absolutely no interest in fast food and hookers on the moon let alone operating NASA to it's purpose or potential. There is a lot more to it but this is part of why I have offered OXCART, the program that was cancelled over my grandfather being ripped off and killed in north Tahoe in '63 to be continued under ROSCOSMOS. The best they have come up with here so far is a one way trip to Mars and that is just not advancement, it has to be a program with structured growth and advancement to be successful.

Re:And this is news how?

[Anonymous Coward]

You worship him more than anyone else.

Re:Uh!

[Anonymous Coward]

BS!

I don't think the article said live, intact people...

Re:Uh!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing really technically or even economically preventing it, we have manufactured large habitation/science modules for spacecraft (ISS/Bigelow) we have the craft for lofting heavy cargos (Delta 4/Falcon Heavy) and we have plenty of experience directing interplanetary spacecraft. The only thing preventing it is funds, direction and competence. We have plenty of funds, unfortunately direction/competence are in pretty short supply. With the funds already burnt to design Constellation/SLS for example we could loft over 60k tons of payload into orbit on commercial launchers, or something about the weight of a CRUISE SHIP, and that's even before you get into the economies of scale that would occur with such an uptick in launches.

Re: And this is news how?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know Moses want some crazy old drunk who liked to write stories? Maybe he was the JK Rowling of his time.

Quantum Apostrophe predicts

[Anonymous Coward]

Elon Musk under psychiatric care in 8 years.... The man's delusional.

Re:Uh!

[lgw]

There's nothing really technically or even economically preventing it,

The extended 0-G time and radiation exposure is a real hurdle. I don't see us setting foot within a decade unless those who go are just accepting lifelong disability as a consequence.

Other than that, though, it does seem to be a problem we could solve with a large enough budget. I doubt that budget will materialize, however, unless Gates and Buffet also take an interest in Mars.

Re:It's not implausible. It's actually very likely

[Austerity Empowers]

You got modded down for this, but this is actually the sort of visionary thinking that I have come to expect from top executives.

Re:Uh!

[Austerity Empowers]

live, intact people

This would make a better headline!

Mars to Be Overrun With Circumcised Zombies in 9 Years!

Very aggressive.

[pjv936]

I would like to see the project plan including the major milestones. I will start to take it serious when his company lands the first large lander safely on the planet.

Re:Uh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Extended 0G might be an issue, but it is a solvable one (rotating section spacecraft) if a bit costly. Radiation isn't nearly the issue that it is made out to be, give the overall craft some minimal radiation shielding, put the sleeping quarters in a water/food/waste envelope and bury the Martian habitat and you should easily be able to get the levels below NASAs 3% increased risk threshold. Once on the surface radiation levels with even minimal shielding are not an issue. A person could literally spend about 5 months out of an Earth year on the surface with a paper thin space suit and get no more radiation exposure than an X-ray technician.

I'd agree that the politically/financial will isn't really there though, and even if private concerns wanted to do it you can bet that the governments that have been spending billions of dollars and screeching about how "difficult" it is would throw all kinds of roadblocks in their way.

great

[downright]

Another tax haven for the %1. Google and Apple will probably be headquartered there. "That revenue isn't even ON your planet."

Musk timeline and planet Earth

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

No we have have finally have a theory to explain the conundrum. Musk is obviously a bright guy, visionary in fact, actually delivered incredible products that amazes people. Upends decades of conventional wisdom etc etc

At the same time almost all the deadlines he predicts are missed and he is hopeless in constructing timelines that approach reality. How can it be?

The theory is this, his mind is traveling at some relativistic speed and the time dilation sets in. It will only take 9 years in Elon's mind. But it will be a long time for people stuck on Earth going at a staid pace of about 900,000 kmph around the Sun.

Re:Uh!

[AK Marc]

Potatoes on Mars is the first major step to french fries on Mars.

Re:It's not implausible. It's actually very likely

[Anonymous Coward]

You got modded down for this, but this is actually the sort of bullshit that I have come to expect from top executives who can't deliver.

FTFY.

Well, contrary to other blowhards ...

[Qbertino]

... Elon Musk actually tends to deliver - to put it mildly - so I'm quite hesitant to blow this off as mere standard ceo/corporate drumming.

My 0.02 Euros.

Re: It's not implausible. It's actually very likel

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems you were born without a working joke lobe.

Re:Uh!

[balbeir]

Belgian fries, goddamnnit !

I Await Musk's September Plan But...

[crunchygranola]

Here is what we currently know about Musks's plans for going to Mars:

"He intends to send SpaceX's Dragon Version 2 spacecraft to Mars in 2018."

"It has the interior volume of a large SUV"

The trip takes six months.

There is no way to ever return.

Survival depends on a never-ending stream of resupply missions.

This is pretty grim stuff. It is Matt Damon all alone in a a container the size of an SUV, with no chance of ever returning to Earth, for the rest of his life.

But it won't be a very long life in all likelihood. No medical care, beyond what he has in his first aid kit. No back-up if he falls ill, gets injured, or needs help doing something. The first serious mechanical failure will be the end.

BTW, did you know that ISS station astronauts spend 80% of their waking time in orbit just doing maintenance on the ISS? One guy all alone, sooner or later he forgets some bit of maintenance...

Re:I Await Musk's September Plan But...

[werepants]

There is no chance that Musk is planning nothing more than a one-way Dragon V2 manned landing - otherwise he could do that in 2018, right? There is a new rocket coming, powered by giant methane-powered engines, which will dwarf the Falcon 9 (and every previous rocket that has flown, ever). THAT is what will send people to Mars, and it's going to have enough capacity to send 100 at a time. It's called the Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT).

Mars 2018

[Vrallis]

At this point I half expect the SpaceX 2018 Mars trip to end with video of Elon popping out after it lands.

The MIT study answers some of those questions

[Anonymous Coward]

I strongly suggest you read the MIT team's take down of Mars One feasibility. They tear down Mars One's plans pretty fast and spend the rest of the paper examining the logistics of such a mission, answering many of your questions on the way. They examine a few different scenarios and the possible outcomes under different assumptions. It gets technical at parts but its very well written and rather accessible, with a basic science background and some googling.

For some reason they end up concluding the people on Mars should survive on peanuts and lettuce, which doesn't make for the most attractive meal...

Re:The MIT study answers some of those questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the "paper" where one of the primary arguments against Mars Ones feasibility was that the base would lose nitrogen due to venting, quickly resulting in an unsafe atmosphere? A five minute internet search turned up several commercially available nitrogen filters (which didn't use consumables) that could collect most if not all of the nitrogen from the vented air, which rendered that argument mostly if not completely incorrect.

People can live where they want to live

[Bruce Perens]

I hate to break it to you, but people have already lived off of Earth for extended periods. They have also lived under water, despite the fact that they can't breathe water without technical assistance. They have brought what we need of Earth with them.

Yes, we are evolved to live on Earth. But it is no sure thing that Earth will continue to fit the conditions that we evolved for.

I'm quite happy for you to stay on Earth and for your genetic legacy to die off whenever Earth becomes uninhabitable. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, people are going to other planets. It is likely that however few live, they will be the Human Race.

Re:Uh!

[LifesABeach]

God speed Elon's Mars trip. So, what's on the itinerary?

Re:Uh!

[Anonymous Coward]

"to it's purpose"

An apostrophe has a purpose; that wasn't it. it's means it is.

Re:Uh!

[blindseer]

Freedom fries!!

Re:Uh!

[Austerity Empowers]

First, you gotta nip the tip

Re:And this is news how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen.

Re:Uh!

[Coren22]

Does it count if I am only missing my Appendix?

The Sims?

[surfcow]

Simulated people. On a simulated Mars. In 9 simulated years.

There.

Re:Uh!

[RockDoctor]

By the time you impact the surface at 1km / sec, not really.

Re:And this is news how?

[Anonymous Coward]

This arse hole is full of wind from his pie hole and short on delivering. His failures are far greater than his few successes and you idiots worship him as if he were the Christ.

lol

You're accusing him of being short on delivering! What have you achieved?

I bet Jesus is ashamed that you claim to be one of his followers,

.38

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. A. We don't know that the lower gravity will be a problem for humans. We have basically 0 data on extended living between 0 and 1 G. It seems pretty likely that the ~.38 G on Mars will be a lot less of a problem than 0 G. It may turn out that it's not a problem at all, or that people could just wear weights.

B. As for a "gravity machine", are you familiar with modern, advanced Carnie technology? For 3 or 4 Carnival tickets, you can go and get strapped in to a "gravity machine" right now. If you want less in the way of Coriolis forces, a train on an inclined track would work. Not that it's likely to be necessary.