Elon Musk Scales Up His Ambitions, Considering Going 'Well Beyond' Mars (arstechnica.com) 289
An anonymous reader writes: For most of its 14-year existence, SpaceX has focused on designing and developing the hardware that will lead to its ultimate goal: colonizing Mars. These plans have remained largely secret from the general public, as company founder Elon Musk has dropped only the barest of hints. But that is expected to change on Sept. 27, during a session at the International Astronautical Congress, when Musk details some of these plans for the first time in a public forum. However, on the eve of the meeting, Musk dropped a surprise on Twitter. The workhorse spacecraft that will carry approximately 100 tons of cargo or 100 people to the surface of Mars, which until now has been popularly known as the Mars Colonial Transporter, can't be called that, Musk said. "Turns out MCT can go well beyond Mars, so will need a new name..." he tweeted on Friday evening. By Saturday evening he had a new name dubbing the spacecraft the "Interplanetary Transport System," or ITS. Mars, it turns out, isn't the solar system's only marginally habitable world for would-be new world colonists. The Moon, Venus, the asteroid Ceres, and outer Solar System moons Titan and Callisto all have some advantages that could allow for colonies to subsist. However, Mars has generally been the preferred destination -- due to its relative proximity to Earth, a thin atmosphere, and sources of water ice. Musk now seems to be suggesting that some of these more distant destinations, especially moons around Jupiter and Saturn, might be reachable with the Interplanetary Transport System.
New name... (Score:5, Funny)
Wacky? Maybe, but at least he's got vision. (Score:4, Interesting)
And he delivers real stuff that (mostly) works.
This is the kind of person we need as POTUS, not a choice between a couple of cynical, under-performing outrageous liars.
Re: (Score:2)
Enough vision not to get mired down in DC Wrestle-mania with ED (erectile dysfunction). .....blue pills, orange face.
Re: (Score:2)
Howard Hughes also had vision.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong birth certificate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't want him for president. He is far more useful where he is. As president he will need to deal with Congress and the Supreme court. The role of the US government is to be cautious and slow, those mistakes he did that he uses as an opportunity to learn and try to advance knowledge, be become a fool hearty waste of Taxpayers money into a something that doesn't work and isn't expected to immediately fix any of our problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But true to some extend. As a whole, there is a lot more flamebait, trolling, and "Look at what I dare to say!" (but anonymously) -posts coming from Anonymous Cowards than from people under a regular nickname.
I know, I know. In principle, it's the arguments that count, and not who says it. And it's a fine principle. Only, there is no real reason not to say it under your regular nick, if you're convinced enough to say it in the first place. The fact one doesn't, can have several reasons, but all of them don'
Re:Wacky? Maybe, but at least he's got vision. (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot denizens hate successful people.
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of different kinds of Slashdot denizens, and each kind tends to hate on a different kind of successful people, for different reasons. Some of those reasons are at least internally logically consistent, however you feel about the groups involved.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wacky? Maybe, but at least he's got vision. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, what he's doing here is deflection and damage control.
He's realizing that he won't be going to Mars, so he wants a new name that opens up for other uses. And he's successfully selling it, as the unwashed masses gobbles up the spin without a critical thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think that having two African-American presidents in a row wouldn't be very good from a diversity perspective?
Dude, the whole reason for Trump being a contender today is because having ONE African-American president was too much diversity for some folks. That's the reality behind all the sophistries these folks pull out of their good'ol' collective bald-eagle say-merry-xmas-or-i-kill-you poop shoots.
Too much ambition, too fast? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too much ambition, too fast? (Score:4, Informative)
You act like this discussion comes out of the blue, like it's something Musk just came up with after AMOS-6. Discussion of MCT (now ITS) was something Musk was scheduled to unveil already, long in advance of the AMOS-6 accident.
I agree that AMOS-6 has taken a lot of the focus away from such "lofty" goals, but let's not act like this wasn't something that was already planned.
(I of course am a lot more interested in hearing the results of their AMOS-6 investigation right now than about their ITS plans... as are I think most people)
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is that he thought he could bring humans to Mars, and now faces the reality that he won't, so he's changing the name.
Note that the new name does neither promise Mars or beyond, nor does it imply humans. It allows for limiting the scope, while spinning it as progress. And people buy it, because it's Howard Hughes, I mean Elon Musk!
Re: (Score:2)
No he is not doing anything regarding global warming, too few of those expensive well-to-do people's cars exist to make a gnat's fart of difference in global co2 levels. Your religious awe of the man is laughable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Too much ambition, too fast? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that a private business doesn't have to involve manufacturers in every state and most every congressional district in order to build the thing, like Shuttle had to in order to get Congress to pay for it.
Overpriced and underwhelming. That's what happens when Congress gets involved. Every single time.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
solved problem (Score:2)
What exactly does 'solving global warming' mean?
NAZI space mirrors [dailymail.co.uk] to block out the Sun
Mr Burns is philanthropist. You little people are just too stupid to understand his genius.
Where is the funding for the trip? (Score:4, Interesting)
While I'm totally on board with trying to visit other parts of our solar system, here's the bit I don't quite get. Who exactly is going to pay for these trips to Mars or wherever else? Despite their general success I don't see SpaceX being able to fund it themselves any time soon and there is no obvious economic return from such a trip given that at this point it is purely exploratory in nature. The only institution with enough money and no need for a profit is the government so how does he propose to get the government to pay for it OR where is the ROI on the trip for any would be private investors?
I don't ask this question to be snarky but it's a pretty important question and I think it's being glossed over at this point. I don't have any problem with tax dollars being used for this kind of exploration but some parts of our congress are pretty against raising the taxes that would be necessary to pay for a trip like this. NASA doesn't have the budget at this point nor do they have a congressional mandate to support what Mr. Musk is proposing. And I just don't see private sponsors with deep enough pockets to fund the trip stepping up to the plate.
Re:Where is the funding for the trip? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually that is indeed the plan. As far as Red Dragon goes, it's not much harder to get to Mars than it is to GEO. And Dragon has been designed all along to do automated powered landings, which are necessary on Mars - even though the design purpose was for landings on Earth. The reentry heating is higher, but that's largely just a matter of a thicker ablative coating.
Now, MCT/ITS is much further in the future, and much harder. But again, that is indeed Musk's goal, to self-fund it. It's actually caused some turf wars with some at NASA, who've argued that Mars is their turf and that SpaceX should stay focused on Earth while they go beyond. Rather silly, IMHO.
Obviously, every time there's an incident with the Falcon 9, that sets SpaceX's plans back. Not just for the length of the downtime for the investigation repairs, but also for the time to cover the huge launch backlog that accumulates while they're down. A lot of the reason for Falcon Heavy's delay was the backlog after the CRS-7 accident. Now we've got this new one. Who knows at this point what the cause is and how long it will take to remedy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: [newscientist.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They get quotes from many different experts - an engineer working on NASA's Mars 2020 rover, a Mars researcher at NASA Ames Research Center, a former chief technologist of NASA, the head of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and a space policy expert at George Washington University. All have little doubt that SpaceX can do it, although they feel the timeline is too ambitious.
But clearly "Sir 110010001000 The Sarcastic" knows more than puny "experts". Dumb experts! We should listen to Slashdot t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: energy to transfer: [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:3)
If you think the delta-V figures are wrong, cite a counter-reference. I'll be sitting here holding my breath. Really. No sarcasm here, nope.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, quick, no time for sarcasm! I'm turning blue! Hurry, hurry!
Re: (Score:2)
Re, aerocapture: actually backwards - for non-manned missions aerocapture is generally lower [google.is] velocity at Mars (~6km/s) than simple Earth entry (7,8km/s); it's only higher for manned missions to Mars (~8-10km/s), which generally take faster trajectories.
Hmm, anything else that hasn't been covered? Comms, SpaceX has a no cost [spaceflightnow.com] deal to use the DSN in exchange for landing data. Anything else?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, everyone has projects that fail; even more people have dreams that they never even start work on.
But you can see here why Musk is a successful and important tech entrepreneur. He didn't set out to make an electric car because it made economic or technical sense; he set out to do that because he wanted one.
Pure engineers and MBA types don't advance the state of technology. Most engineers by temperament are conservative; give them a choice of a clearly feasible and doubtful project and they'll go with
Advancing technology is a team sport (Score:2)
But you can see here why Musk is a successful and important tech entrepreneur. He didn't set out to make an electric car because it made economic or technical sense; he set out to do that because he wanted one.
Which is to some degree a load of crap. Yes I know he has claimed that and for the most part I think that claim is largely nonsense. People set out to do all sorts of things but they don't actually happen unless there is an actual path to success. You'll notice that Elon Musk has yet to start a company that is truly clean sheet. People built financial software before he did. People built rockets before he did. People built electric cars before he did. He was in a position to improve on what had come
Re: (Score:2)
You're attacking a strawman; I never said Musk did it alone, mad scientist style.
Re: (Score:2)
You're attacking a strawman; I never said Musk did it alone, mad scientist style.
People only start corporations because they think they can make them work. Most of the people in charge of very large amounts of money don't commit it without having some kind of knowledge that suggests they can do something with it. That doesn't mean they're right, but it does still mean they're standing on someone's shoulders.
Re: (Score:2)
Again I never said entrepreneurs do it on their own. I don't know where you get that.
Most startups fail. Most survivors are mediocre. Having some vision beyond beating normal profit is a powerful asset, although like anything else in excess it is a liability.
Re: (Score:2)
What he didn't know was whether he could build a viable electric car business. If all he wanted was an electric car he could have done that in his garage in his spare time.
This is one of the biggest bollocks posts since decades.
I'm sitting on my 13" Mac Book Air, 2 years old.
Imagine it would not exist and I was asked to make a single one. Like your example of making your own electric car in the garage.
Where would we start? The chassis is made from aluminium, perhaps an aluminium magnesium alloy, no idea. So
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what his plans are. But here's what I'd do. I'd open it up to all the stable governments of the world. If there's going to be a human colony on mars, many countries are going to want one of their people to be in it. So several countries each pay to put a man on Mars. And as a bonus, they get a nice diverse DNA collection for the colony.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking, the government should turn a (small) profit. The alternative is the mountain of debt the U.S. has built up over the years. A well-functioning government of a well-functioning society should be slightly in the black. However, the American people somehow think that someone else should pay and fail to pay their income taxes to the tune of about the yearly deficit. Added to legislators treating the government laws, rules, and regs like a candy story for companies and their own re-election, t
Re: (Score:2)
Money does not work that way.
First of all most debts the government has, it has towards its own citizens. Debts towards foreign countries can always be nulled by manipulating the world market or the exchange value of the currency.
Of course the latter influences the value of the rich citizens money hold in foreign banks ...
If you are a government, simply imagine it like a computer game: you can set exchange rates arbitrarily (e.g. see China which has fixed its currency by law to the US dollar).
The only probl
Re: (Score:2)
Who exactly is going to pay for these trips to Mars or wherever else?
Private companies might pay for some space exploration, assuming it's cheap enough and there's enough of a financial reward to make it worthwhile. One of the possibilities people have put out there is that, if space travel were cheap/easy enough, we might be able to mine asteroids for various materials that are relatively rare here on earth's surface.
Perfect is the enemy of good (Score:3)
THE REAL issue is where is the cure for cancer? Where is the FUSION POWER? Where is clean energy production? How do we care and feed for 7 billion people?
That argument is completely moronic. There are endless numbers of problems yet to be solved. You solve the ones that you have the means and ability to solve and hope others work on the rest. You don't have to pick one and all the others can bugger off. The notion that we shouldn't try to go to space because we haven't solved every conceivable problem on Earth is idiotic and short sighted. Trying to go to space HAS solved a lot of terrestrial problems. The value of satellites alone justifies everything
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, lets get all our rocket scientists to put their knowledge of fluid dynamics and high temperature chemistry to use curing cancer! It should only take them 15-30 years to build up the knowledge that all the doctors already working on cures already have. Random notes: NIH's budget is $32B/year. The National cancer institue's budget is $5B/year. NASA's is $18B/year. And to poke the nest, the military's budget is $580B/year. The US food infrastructure results in about 1/3 of all of our edible food being th
Re: (Score:2)
They are over 7 billion people around the world. We can focus on multiple things.
We have Cured some cancers, we haven't cured others, not all Cancer is the same. Cancer is a name gave back in the olden days as the tumors had a crab like appearance to them. So it is an ailment that gives similar looking results.
Fusion Power. We can generate fusion power but it ends up melting our equiptment too much energy produced. Once we can figure that out we are good, but still physics gets in the way.
Clean Energy Pr
Re: (Score:2)
One step at a time maybe ? (Score:2)
First, Mars, then Proxima Centauri (I heard the weather is nice there, at this time of year) ...or wherever.
Somewhere in between, if time allows, I'm sure a lot of people are interested to see a working Hyperloop.
By the way. How comes it's "March" for the month, but "Mars" for the planet and the god ?
Got plenty on the plate already... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tweets = "scaling up his ambitions"? (Score:2, Informative)
The entire basis of this article is a few tweets, I wouldn't equate a few random comments, even from the head of a number of related companies as a full fledged ambition. Though even if the MCT/ITS is primarily intended for Mars transit (assuming its ever built) its nice to think that they're considering other destinations as well in the planning stages. One of the larger problems historically in the space industry is that too many craft/satellites/rockets are designed for a very narrow, often single use,
Re:Tweets = "scaling up his ambitions"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. As a Venus fan, I would think it a travesty if one designed such a craft to only suit Mars, when delta-V for a Venus transfer orbit is almost identical to that of Mars, transit times are shorter, power more abundant, and aerocapture easier. By any standard any craft good for transport to Mars should also be good for transport to Venus. However, if not planned for that upfront (for example, taking into account thermal management due to the higher solar constant) it might inadvertently be rendered Mars-only.
It's good that they're thinking beyond just Mars.
Re:Tweets = "scaling up his ambitions"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do note that you're responding to a troll; he's a regular in these threads, just ignore him ;)
As for Venus: you want to check out Landis's work for the basics (although the concept has been developed since then). No, not on the surface - in the middle cloud layer, ideally somewhere around 53-56km, ideally in the higher latitudes. It's the most earthlike environment in the solar system outside of Earth - gravity, temperature, pressure, sunlight, etc, plus the overhead radiation shielding equivalent of about 5 meters of water. And normal earth air is a lifting gas.
There's also been work on the HAVOC proposal, but IMHO it's not as interesting as Landis's work.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. First off, sulfuric acid is a major resource. It's 70-85% concentration, so first off through heating you get 15-30% of its mass back in H2O, then more when you decompose the H2SO4 to H2O + SO3. Further heating in the presence of a catalyst converts SO3 to SO2 + O2. So right there that's your two most important resources. And Venus's acid mists and anhydrous acidic compounds are highly hygroscopic, and thus about as easy to collect as gases / mists can get. Indeed, we have plenty of experien
Re: (Score:2)
Just to support your comments Rei: I'd like to point out that sulfuric acid is the most [blr.com] widely manufactured industrial chemicals on the planet.
From the Wikipedia page (for those too lazy to find it themselves):
Sulfuric acid is a very important commodity chemical, and indeed, a nation's sulfuric acid production is a good indicator of its industrial strength.[27] World production in 2004 was about 180 million tonnes, with the following geographic distribution: Asia 35%, North America (including Mexico) 24%, A
Ummm... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the teens?
It's an active topic of research. Magnetic shielding and advanced shielding materials have both been research, but the results haven't turned out as good as was hoped. Right about now, it looks like there's just two main options:
1) Go big (lots of water and other mass = lots of shielding)
2) Go fast (shorter time in space = less radiation hazard)
AFAIK MCT/ITS was always designed to be big, although just how big hasn't been disclosed yet. Who knows how fast it's supposed to reach Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If radiation isn't a problem for Mars it's not a problem for any of the other choices, surely?
I also understand it's an "increased risk of cancer" thing, not a face-melting thing? Surviving long enough to die of cancer is going to be enough of a problem that the reduced lief expectancy is a side issue.
Aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves... (Score:2)
We've yet to even land a human being on Mars, and Musk is talking about how his spacecraft will take people well beyond Mars -- to where, one of Jupiter's moons? That's nearly a two-year journey, and we haven't even figured out how to return people to Earth from Mars... so basically it's a suicide mission.
Let's take one step at a time, especially considering that one of Musk's rockets just reminded us that space travel is hard.
Re: (Score:2)
The method for reaching the surface of Mars wouldn't be the same as the one for getting on/off Jupiter's moons. Difference in gravity plus presence/absence of an atmosphere are two of the factors involved. The length of the journey presents one set of challenges. What they do when they get to their destination is an entirely different question.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere. The moon, Venus and asteroids are all easier targets than Mars. Some of the moons of Jupiter may well be easier targets too. Mars is hard because it's big, with a thin atmosphere, so you need heavy equipment to land and take off. For Venus you just stay in orbit. For smaller moons with no atmospheres you need a lot less mass in fuel and heat shielding to land and take off again. You can use that space for more life support and radiation shielding.
Re: (Score:2)
With a ll due respect.
Look on a damn map.
The asteroids are far behind Mars.
The only thing that *might* make them an easier target is: landing. And then what? On an Asteroid you have nothing, on Mars you have half a world.
Re: (Score:2)
We've yet to even return a human being on the Moon! What is with Mars? Yes it is interesting geological place but why live there? I don't see a huge land rush to settle the Gobi Desert even though it is a thousand times easier to settle there than Mars. Reason of no land rush is because it is a barren inhospitable place because it is obvious there is no good reason to live there. We only romanticize about Mars because it is so far away.
And then there is the phrase, "once you're in orbit, you're halfway to
Plan for preventing the Belter/Earth war? (Score:4, Funny)
I hope he's developing some parallel plans. First, how to head off the Belter/Earth war? The Belter fringe made a real mess dropping some rocks into Earth's gravity well.
What's his plan for spin-stabilizing Ceres?
Ceres (Score:5, Interesting)
Ceres is large enough to have marginal gravity, but more importantly, it's a giant ball of ice. Since it only has marginal gravity, less than that of the Moon even, makes it very easy to get on and off of it with hardly any fuel. In fact, even though it's past the orbit of Mars, the fuel budget to do a manned trip (and safe return) is only 20% more than that of a moon mission. Mainly due to the tiny tiny gravity well.
Re: (Score:2)
And the fact that it takes quite a bit longer to get there. People do not live on science alone, they require food, water, entertainment, exercise, and quite a bit of shielding from those nice, energetic cosmic rays. Sunglasses are optional.
Re: (Score:2)
People do not require entertainment. That is a modern myth based on the need to pacify the masses.
Food, yes, a requirement. Water, shelter, yes. Entertainment? No. Not a requirement for life.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention a great places to build ships to send further into the solar system or out of the solar system, I would think.
Slashdots readers (Score:2, Troll)
People who never accomplish anything, but sit around throw insults at people trying to...
Universe is a Simulation (Score:2)
For Musk, this isn't just a *theory*: it's fairly obvious he's using the cheat system. ;)
Mixed feelings (Score:2)
I love the fact that he's at least thinking big, about using his $billions for big, long term stuff that sure, might make him piles of cash but would also seriously advance humanity.
OTOH, I'm just sort of afraid he's either not totally serious or tons of people are going to die going along with his ideas....not because of THEM (if they volunteer, that's their choice) but because it would then set such projects back so far they'll never happen.
His vision is spot on. His timeframe is off (Score:2)
We will one day live on every large rocky surface in the solar system... ... just not in Elon Musk's lifetime.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:5, Insightful)
Elon Musk is a complete idiot.
A complete idiot who has made the first practical rocket with a recoverable first stage which is likely going to shortly go into use, has made successful electric cars which have pushed other companies into making similar autos. He may be overly ambitious here (and I suspect he is), but whatever his failings, he isn't an idiot.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:4, Interesting)
He may be overly ambitious here (and I suspect he is), but whatever his failings, he isn't an idiot.
I think he's more of an idiot savant - gifted in some ways, a little wacky in others. Like that whole "pretty sure the universe is a computer simulation" thing. He has lots of money, some good ideas, and a knack for hiring smart people. Keep in mind that *they're* really the ones who build the rockets and cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Serious discussion != credible ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument that there's a high probability we live in a simulation has been seriously discussed by philosophers such as Nick Bostrom.
Just because some people have "seriously discussed" an idea doesn't make the idea a credible one. The whole "we are in a simulation" is just a modern repackaging of philosophical questions that have been discussed in some cases literally for centuries.
I disagree with the argument but it isn't by itself a wacky idea or one we should dismiss out of hand.
Oh it's a pretty wacky idea but to date the evidence to support it is for all practical purposes nonexistent. Find a way to make the concept falsifiable and then it will become worth discussing. As it stands it is as much a waste of time as wondering if god exists.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:3)
"as a model it may actually be useful for us to adopt this view at least for the next few hundred years"
Not really.
The negative aspect of embracing this idea is that ramifications of bad decisions suddenly no longer matter.
Wipe out half the world's biodiversity due to AGW? Doesn't matter, those animals were just simulated... etc...
Alternatively, why be risk-averse with your investment choices? It doesn't matter don't you know, we live in a simulation!
Why do you think a *bank* made that announcement?
Re: (Score:2)
He has lots of money, some good ideas, and a knack for hiring smart people. Keep in mind that *they're* really the ones who build the rockets and cars.
Gifted engineers are pumped out of top schools all the time. Nobody is pumping out entrepreneurs to attract them and harness their talents for far fetched ideas like Mars rockets, or even reusable orbital rockets. There is more than one kind of smarts.
Re:HAHAHAHA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
A major part of SpaceX's goals is to *reduce* the cost of space travel.
Worth mentioning they've succeeded......costs of launching a satellite have dropped by an order of magnitude or two.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Despite the tech advancement this moron can't make his cars not catch fire...
In case you hadn't noticed, every other type of vehicle on the planet is powered with a liquid of such explosive force that merely igniting the fumes inside a vessel can be enough to blow steel apart. In other words, there's not a single auto manufacturer on this planet who can make a fire-proof/explosive-proof vehicle.
Tesla modified their design to include a titanium plate to prevent a rupture of fuel cells after a single incident. That's a far cry from pretty much every other manufacturer who likes to l
Re: (Score:2)
You're a fucking moron. Gas-powered cars catch on fire all the time; they just don't make the news because it's so common. What have you done that's so noteworthy, anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, how is it that a single private business can't achieve what it took one of the richest countries on the planet a nationwide effort on a larger scale than the Manhattan Project, and cost over $110B, inflation adjusted, with every single player in aerospace engineering working on different aspects of it?
What a moron!
Re: (Score:2)
1) Concerning the crash in China, it's not even known if autopilot was on. Most of these "Autopilot did it!" stories have turned out to be people just trying to find someone/something else to blame for their accidents.
2) Musk did not "blame a possible UFO", that was part of the media's silly season about the disaster. He simply tweeted that they're not ruling anything out in the investigation, and reporters put two and two together and got negative six hundred twenty three. On the same note, Musk did not
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have to: NASA lost two space shuttles with the loss of 14 lives.
Beyond Space X ? (Score:3)
Space Y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:40 years in a box (Score:5, Insightful)
The Martian atmosphere has 1/200 the pressure of Earth's: in other words, it's barely even there, and really not enough to be useful for much.
Mars is an interesting place geologically, but it's also a 6-18 month journey from Earth IIRC, which is far, far beyond anything we've ever attempted with manned missions. It's not a trip you can just go on, drive around in some rovers, take photos, and come back home; you need to establish a permanent settlement there of some kind. We've never done that anywhere offworld. The logical course of action is to build a base on the Moon first, so we can get some experience with building settlements on other worlds. The Moon is only 3 days away, and we've been there before with 50-year-old technology, so it's entirely feasible to do a lot more there now. There's still plenty of scientific work to do there, including looking for useful mineral deposits and other natural resources, to see if an economic case can be made for a more permanent human presence there.
Jumping straight to Mars (or worse, Titan) is putting the cart before the horse.
Re: (Score:2)
You can craft fuel, methane and oxygen from water and the Mars atmosphere. Obviously oxygen, too.
Just because it is low pressure does not mean, it is not here.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you have read the article.
Apparently you haven't, not that it's necessary though considering his entire statement on Twitter was in the summary.
Musk knows how to get to mars with colonists.
That's not what he said. He said the spacecraft being designed is technically capable of going farther than Mars, which is why it needs a different name. That shouldn't be a massive surprise to anyone, that a spacecraft which is able to travel from Earth to Mars could also go to places other than Mars.
Re: (Score:3)
Luxembourg is a forward-looking country. They invested in communications satellites in the 1980's, and now operate the largest commercial constellation of satellites. Recently, they started investing in asteroid mining, and they are also a SpaceX customer. I don't think Musk is so dumb he didn't know a big rocket could go other places than Mars. I think what's happened is he has a customer who is *interested* in going other places than Mars. And he needs lots of commercial customers to help pay for the
Re: (Score:2)
However the moon is close enough to get back if something goes wrong.
A moon base although not great for colonization can make a good rest stop for deep space travel. A good place to build the next generation spaceship without having to launch it with less fuel, which you can use for greater speed.
A moon base would be good for a set of rotating crew over a few months. Where they are actually doing the hard work, and being the main support for deep space missions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they aren't, read about Howard Hughes [wikipedia.org] some time, or if you don't like reading, watch the film starring Di Caprio, it wasn't too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
The largest payload so far delivered, ~500kg. It hit the ground at 50+ kph.
The Curiosity rover weighed 899kg and was delivered via a soft landing, the delivery vehicle was basically hovering 25ft over the surface while it lowered the rover, waited 2 seconds to verify that the wheels were supporting weight, then severed the cables from the rover and flew 650m away to crash.