Elon Musk: 'I'm planning to retire to Mars'

[Boris_Badenov]

Elon Musk: 'I'm planning to retire to Mars'

The fresh-faced 39-year-old man, in a dark T-shirt and jeans, is talking about travelling to Mars. Not now, but when he's older and ready to swap life on Earth for one on the red planet. "It would be a good place to retire," he says in all seriousness. Normally, this would be the time to make one's excuses and leave the company of a lunatic. Or to smile politely and humour a space nerd's unlikely fantasies. But this man needs to be taken seriously for one compelling reason: he already has his own spaceship.

[snip]

He wants to secure humanity's future by turning the human race into a space-faring people able to colonise other planets. It's the only way, Musk believes, that we can be saved, either from destroying ourselves or from some outside calamity. To put it mildly, Musk thinks big and takes the long view. "It's important that we attempt to extend life beyond Earth now," he says in an accent hinting at his childhood in South Africa. "It is the first time in the four billion-year history of Earth that it's been possible and that window could be open for a long time – hopefully it is – or it could be open for a short time. We should err on the side of caution and do something now."


[snip]

Musk's belief that this can be achieved in two decades is something that most experts would scoff at but Musk, characteristically, finds it frustratingly slow. "Twenty years seems like semi-infinity to me. That's a long time," he says, as if surprised that anyone could doubt his aims. It is certainly tempting to dismiss it as a flight of fancy. Except, behind him on SpaceX's factory floor, Musk's nascent fleet of working space rockets are already being built.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

There are two people in the private space business that I take seriously: Musk and Bigelow.

It’s one thing for us on these boards to go on a flight of fancy; it is entirely another thing for these two who are worth multi-Millions to do the same.

So yes, I wish them both the best and will do what I can (in my small way) to help them achieve their goals.

 

[SteveCNC]

I had to laugh when it said "two decades is something that most experts would scoff at ..." yeah 2 decades wouldn't be near enough for a government agency but for private venture I think it could be done . Who knows maybe I will see it in my lifetime if Elon Musk has anything to say about it .

Right now the biggest obsticle I see is creating breathable air from other stuff . For water it's easy but if you can't extract water on say the moon then the only other place for oxygen is in the regolith and no one has a method yet to do the conversion . The only way to make a base sustainable (which it really does need to be) is to be able to extract hydrogen and oxygen (perhaps some others as well) somehow from what's there , it cannot be shipped in from earth constantly . One other option is to set up extraction and retrieval from some other object in space but that bears a lot of risk to any colony depending on such a system .

 

[Valcan]

Great article. Shows alot of why he has done what he has. Hopefully i'll be able to retire there one day to.

BTW Everytime i look at that particular site the commenters seem to have lowered their IQ's.

I love all the "save the earth first!!!!", "nothing else matters", post.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Some of those comments illustrate the hopelessness of public blogs:

What is it with you loons? Were you all sex starved as adoloescents?

I'm surprised you're not drooling over Venus. After all, it's really hot and wet and it's a virgin to boot. Yes you too can boldly go where no man has gone before.

No wonder than that SpandeX man is pictured above with what looks like his manhood in his hands...

When logic fails, use ad hominem.

Apparentally anyone who invests money in technologically advanced endeavours is evil because that money could be used to feed the starving children in africa, or to help clean up the environment.

People really need to understand that we need to focus on more than just one issue at a time.

 

[Valcan]

Some of those comments illustrate the hopelessness of public blogs:

What is it with you loons? Were you all sex starved as adoloescents?

I'm surprised you're not drooling over Venus. After all, it's really hot and wet and it's a virgin to boot. Yes you too can boldly go where no man has gone before.

No wonder than that SpandeX man is pictured above with what looks like his manhood in his hands...

When logic fails, use ad hominem.

Apparentally anyone who invests money in technologically advanced endeavours is evil because that money could be used to feed the starving children in africa, or to help clean up the environment.

People really need to understand that we need to focus on more than just one issue at a time.

FAR to many people it seems now adays like to preach that we need to stop doing i dont know things like advancing humanity because you know we could invest everything in saving the planet. Granted these people ussually dress in tiedie and have pictures of plants on the fronts of their shirts :lol:

 

[SteveCNC]

yeah no kidding , if we waited till the planet was all perfect absolutely nothing would get done , like when I was married and we talked about having kids , if you wait till you can afford to have kids you'll never have them , so we had 2

 

[Gravity_Ray]

I remembered that I had heard Mr. Musk talking about Mars before. Had to look a bit, but I found this good conversation that he had about Tesla and SpaceX.

Its old, but it shows you that he has been thinking about Mars along time and this is not just some fanciful boast of his, but a long thought out process.

http://fora.tv/2009/04/07/Uber_Entrepre ... _Elon_Musk

Tesla conversation is first, then SpaceX at 50:00.

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

If Elon keeps chugging away like he has been, 20 years seems reasonable to me. But yeah, it would take way longer than that for the government to do that. Oh yeah, and I agree, Elon and Bigelow are the two giants in this market, by far.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Well I'm not so sure. It takes ages for the government to accomplish anything in space but right now the NASA mission to mars is planned for the 2030's. But it's entirely possible they'll delay even that further. That's why I'm glad private companies are there to push along with their own agenda instead of being constantly caught up in endless debates and delays.

 

[rcsplinters]

Musk is getting increasingly full of himself. I guess you get bolder and bolder when you are gambling with the money of the low and unwashed.

I still wonder as he endeavors to recreate Amtrak in orbit how he thinks that's going to get him to Mars. I guess I should not underestimate his lobbying skills.

I have nothing against commercial human space flight. I don't think the American public should accept the risk however. We already have a commercial option. The market and private investors should choose the place of Musk's retirement, NOT the US taxpayer.

 

[Valcan]

.

Ok RC here is what i dont get. Its OK to risk an waste TAXPAYER MONEY on a rocket we have spend 8 billion on over what 7 to 8 years and still have alot of problems with. AND that will cost around 1.5 billion per launch. AND wont be ready till 2016 or 2017. And which will NOT have anywhere near the safety feature of the Falcon series.

But we shouldnt invest a few billion over years for a rocket system which will carry the same load. Cost anywhere from 100 million to 140 million a launch and have the ability to get cheaper. Will require far fewer people to launcher. Be much safer. And be faster to turn around and launch.
"NOT the US taxpayer"
The US taxpayer will pay for a system that will do nothing but destroy Nasa and drain the his pockets.
So from this US taxpayer the Federal government. Stop work on Ares. Go with commercial.
I keep wanting to think your a libertarian......then i read your post and just become confused. Because a libertarian being against funding commercial space might make sense. I know some who seem to think the laws of reality work the way they do because the evil government. But then you support big governments pork barrel budget??????
I'm not angry or trying to be rude......just insanely confused.

Now if you'll excuse me this taxpayer who makes 8.50 a hr in his sweat and labor in 102 degree tempratures is going to go relax.

 

[rcsplinters]

.

Ok RC here is what i dont get. Its OK to risk an waste TAXPAYER MONEY on a rocket we have spend 8 billion on over what 7 to 8 years and still have alot of problems with. AND that will cost around 1.5 billion per launch. AND wont be ready till 2016 or 2017. And which will NOT have anywhere near the safety feature of the Falcon series.

But we shouldnt invest a few billion over years for a rocket system which will carry the same load. Cost anywhere from 100 million to 140 million a launch and have the ability to get cheaper. Will require far fewer people to launcher. Be much safer. And be faster to turn around and launch.
"NOT the US taxpayer"
The US taxpayer will pay for a system that will do nothing but destroy Nasa and drain the his pockets.
So from this US taxpayer the Federal government. Stop work on Ares. Go with commercial.
I keep wanting to think your a libertarian......then i read your post and just become confused. Because a libertarian being against funding commercial space might make sense. I know some who seem to think the laws of reality work the way they do because the evil government. But then you support big governments pork barrel budget??????
I'm not angry or trying to be rude......just insanely confused.

Now if you'll excuse me this taxpayer who makes 8.50 a hr in his sweat and labor in 102 degree tempratures is going to go relax.

My position here is largely apolitical, that’s why you are struggling to find the right bucket. There’s no market for a product beyond LEO and won’t be for decades. That’s exploration pure and simple. I view it much like a military campaign where industry may provide the machines, but they are built to specification and the campaign is run completely by the government. Musk is just bumping his gums and quite irresponsibly, I might add. Frankly, Captain Kirk makes more sense than he does in the diatribe which is the subject of this thread.

Humans in LEO is another matter, however. I think Musk may be able to produce a product there. Safer? Nobody knows. Carry the same load? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the rocket. Again, nothing but opinion and engineers don’t make decisions on opinion. When he’s got a product, I think we should consider it along with Soyuz and any other option to put human’s in LEO. He should come up with his own investment capital though. If he REALLY has a great business model, I assure you, he wouldn’t need your money to make it go. Clearly, though, he’s not able to raise funds from private investors.

Operations beyond LEO is going to ultimately cost 100’s of billions of dollars. It’s going to require an HLV and nobody in a decision making or engineering capacity seems to be debating that (including the president). It’s going to take a lot of development, and it may run 10 – 15 billion before it’s over. The taxpayer is going to have to cover the development for that effort. Then the taxpayer is going to have to cover the development of the craft and resources beyond LEO.
Why should they also have to cover the risk for this guy who claims to have a solid business plan? Why not spend that money on VaSIMR? We need that sort of capability. We need smaller and lighter nuclear reactors. Spend Musk’s pork on those items as that technology will help us accomplish the mission (not to mention be available for tech transfer).

One other comment, a little off topic. My support for the house bill is NOT related to ARES. Frankly, I would prefer Direct or SD HLV or something along those lines which is modular. My support for the house bill is the correct stance it takes on taxpayer funded handouts to private industry. I do not think we should help Musk in his zeal to bring us another AMTRAK. Let the market fund his product, NOT the taxpayer.

 

[mr_mark]

I just have to laugh at the responses to this article. What's funny is the lack of understanding saying we should solve the problems of mankind before going into space and that Musk should spend his money on the overcoming poverty. Well let's see, the United Nations reported last year that throwing money at world poverty is not working, enough said as far as I'm concerned. I don't understand the doubt and the critics. Are these people giving money to the poor? I doubt it. I don't see people picketing Boeing or Lockheed Martin with signs saying stop building rockets and I don't see people picketing Toyota for making cars. Elon Musk is an inspiration to me. I can only hope he continues his quest. The future looks brighter because of people like him.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

I just have to laugh at the responses to this article. What's funny is the lack of understanding saying we should solve the problems of mankind before going into space and that Musk should spend his money on the overcoming poverty. Well let's see, the United Nations reported last year that throwing money at world poverty is not working, enough said as far as I'm concerned. I don't understand the doubt and the critics. Are these people giving money to the poor? I doubt it. I don't see people picketing Boeing or Lockheed Martin with signs saying stop building rockets and I don't see people picketing Toyota for making cars. Elon Musk is an inspiration to me. I can only hope he continues his quest. The future looks brighter because of people like him.

Yeah, it shows how radical some people get when a major technological change is coming about. Giving money to the poor, hungry, and homeless, is a noble effort that should be supported. But should every single commercial endeavour be devoted to these problems? I don't see the same kind of response when somebody invests money in more coffee shops, theaters, etc. But when someone tries to do something like establish a private presence in space then they're the ones who are critisized for not helping poverty.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

rcsplinters

I only partially understand your stance. I get that you don’t want the government to support a private spacecraft business. But what I don’t understand is why?

If you’re saying the government shouldn’t support SpaceX then what you should say is the government shouldn’t support the space business period. Because even if the government cuts off SpaceX, NASA still has to pay private companies to launch people to LEO or BLEO, or horribly worst they will have to pay Russians. So the problem you have seems to be with SpaceX specifically.

But SpaceX is actually doing it cheaper than the current usual suspects with their cost plus contracts. Also there is historical data that shows the government should support private industry when it’s a game changing technology. The government supported the rail system last century. Although all rail system was private companies and those people made a lot of money from the government, the ultimate bonus was the country was opened for all. The USPS supported private airlines to move mail around the country, and again, although the air lines were private and those people made a lot of money from the government as well, the ultimate bonus was the countries air space opened for all.

So why not have the government support a private space company now with the idea that it will open up the space lanes for all? After all who better to receive monetary support from the government than a space enthusiast like Musk or Bigelow? You must admit that NASA has spent Billions of dollars with companies like ATK, LockMart, Boeing, NGST, and USA and what did that get us? A space shuttle that was built by a committee and is a rather white knuckle launch (every time). Or Constellation program which was 55% over budget and was going to cost over 90 Billion dollars and still doesn’t even have a working rocket.

Musk has put a lot of his own money into SpaceX and he is going to get to the Moon, or Mars on his own without NASA, the problem for me is that it will take twice as long so instead of 3 years it will take 6 to 8 years without NASA, and during that time it’s the TAX PAYER that will be paying the extra bucks to Russia or more cost plus contractors.

 

[mr_mark]

What this conversation is about really is class warfare. The American middle class cannot stand anyone who is successful at least in general terms. It's the poor and the rich who love a winner. The poor love a winner because, they seem to still believe in the American dream, that it is possible to work hard and get ahead and they hold out hope that can still happen for them. The rich love winners because they can exploit them and get something from them either in terms of attaching themselves to them in terms of fame or just making a buck off them. The middle class is filled with jealousy and are in general the biggest complainers. For most the system does not work for them and they look for easy targets to take their anger out on. Just witness, Obama, Palin, Rock Stars, Movie Stars ect. It doesn't matter anyone with fame or more money than them is an easy target.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

rcsplinters

I only partially understand your stance. I get that you don’t want the government to support a private spacecraft business. But what I don’t understand is why?

If you’re saying the government shouldn’t support SpaceX then what you should say is the government shouldn’t support the space business period. Because even if the government cuts off SpaceX, NASA still has to pay private companies to launch people to LEO or BLEO, or horribly worst they will have to pay Russians. So the problem you have seems to be with SpaceX specifically.

But SpaceX is actually doing it cheaper than the current usual suspects with their cost plus contracts. Also there is historical data that shows the government should support private industry when it’s a game changing technology. The government supported the rail system last century. Although all rail system was private companies and those people made a lot of money from the government, the ultimate bonus was the country was opened for all. The USPS supported private airlines to move mail around the country, and again, although the air lines were private and those people made a lot of money from the government as well, the ultimate bonus was the countries air space opened for all.

So why not have the government support a private space company now with the idea that it will open up the space lanes for all? After all who better to receive monetary support from the government than a space enthusiast like Musk or Bigelow? You must admit that NASA has spent Billions of dollars with companies like ATK, LockMart, Boeing, NGST, and USA and what did that get us? A space shuttle that was built by a committee and is a rather white knuckle launch (every time). Or Constellation program which was 55% over budget and was going to cost over 90 Billion dollars and still doesn’t even have a working rocket.

Musk has put a lot of his own money into SpaceX and he is going to get to the Moon, or Mars on his own without NASA, the problem for me is that it will take twice as long so instead of 3 years it will take 6 to 8 years without NASA, and during that time it’s the TAX PAYER that will be paying the extra bucks to Russia or more cost plus contractors.

Good point. NASA can't do everything on it's own and I'd rather them rely on american business such as SpaceX, which is cheaper and more reliable than the russians. Nothing against Roscocosmos but it costs 50 million to put an american on their Soyuz.

 

[Valcan]

What this conversation is about really is class warfare. The American middle class cannot stand anyone who is successful at least in general terms. It's the poor and the rich who love a winner. The poor love a winner because, they seem to still believe in the American dream, that it is possible to work hard and get ahead and they hold out hope that can still happen for them. The rich love winners because they can exploit them and get something from them either in terms of attaching themselves to them in terms of fame or just making a buck off them. The middle class is filled with jealousy and are in general the biggest complainers. For most the system does not work for them and they look for easy targets to take their anger out on. Just witness, Obama, Palin, Rock Stars, Movie Stars ect. It doesn't matter anyone with fame or more money than them is an easy target.

Its not so much class as ignorance. Most people simply dont see how space affects them.
Also the rich arent evil dude :lol: People like to make them out to be the enemy or the boogyman. Your own comment shows how you've been influenced by this indoctronation.
I have no problem with rich people. I have more respect for musk because he has risked his own fortune to do this.

 

[rcsplinters]

Ray, that's a fair enough question. Let me try to respond wihile being brief. The really short answer is that I'm basically a capitalist and I also don't buy the BS cost figures we see tossed about.

First, 90 Billion? At 5 billion a year, it would take 18 years to spend that much on development for ARES, SD HLV or whatever. That number falls into the same bucket as the 1 billion per launch ARES I. Furthermore, I don't buy the SPACE or other vendor numbers as been equivalent economic comparisons. I really wish the GAO or CBO would do a side by side comparison of these things taking into account range cost, recovery costs, training, etc etc. Frankly, I think the numbers we see casually thrown about are inflated and deflated based on the intents of the poster. Some are probably better than others, but I DO NOT buy 90 billion before the first ARES I, V, HD SLC, DIRECT or whatever is launched. Some estimates I've seen suggest that ARES I was within 6 - 9 billion of production.

Second, we're trying to compare hardware that are being designed for entirely different purposes. However, as with cost, one might get the idea that some think Dragon is rated for interstellar distances and that a short trip to Mars would be merely a trip around the block. Fact is that Dragon is designed for short missions to ISS. Orion was designed for for much more rigorous mission. Are we then surprised that it would cost more?

Third, regarding space X, they're just a vendor. Like you, I don't want the US to be dependant on Russia. However, with either the Senate or House bills, NASA will have a backup, albeit an overkill for ISS work. GIven that, the Soyez is just a lower cost option. If Space X wants to play, their competition is Russia, not NASA. The way I'd handle Musk is simply release an RFQ for 50 seats to the ISS over 5 years starting in 2014 or 2015. I'd even give him a 2 - 3 x cost preference over the Russians as the vendor of preference. Alternatively, I'd jointly invest with the US government holding all rights to any technology and/or patents created during the development phase with discount for seta for 5 years after the product was finally marketable.

Fourth, I know how companies cut costs. They cut people, corners, quality, etc. Ultimately Space X will have to compete with Soyuz. They are going to have to cut their overhead to the bone to do that. So much for innovation. Now this might not be true if they continue to nurse off the US taxpayer. We have experience with that sort of business. They're called AMTRAK. Essentially, if SpaceX can send crew to the ISS and they see profit in it, they need to produce and market a product. If they have a solid plan, they can get that funding from private investors (and they can, Musk wanna share).

Bottom line is I'm all for buying the product, when they have a product. That said, its a global market. We have a supplier. If Musk wants to take marketshare, he's gotta take risk just like any other business.

Lastly, I guess I know too many CEOs. That comes from being too old, I guess. I know they'll tell a potential investor almost anything to get the check. They'll hire the best storytellers to make the point. They are outstanding at sealing the deal. We saw that from Musk this past week. Some are desperate to believe him. I am not.

 

[space_tycoon]

Great article. Shows alot of why he has done what he has. Hopefully i'll be able to retire there one day to.

BTW Everytime i look at that particular site the commenters seem to have lowered their IQ's.

I love all the "save the earth first!!!!", "nothing else matters", post.

People don't seem to understand that by getting into space in a big way, we will also be solving a lot of these problems at the same time. Particularly the environment.

 

[robotical]

It's sad to see how many people are openly hostile to space exploration in any form. Quite a few people are outright misanthropes.