SQUEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/18/spacex_can_get_mankind_on_mars_in_10_or_12_years_claims_elon_musk/
Quote
SpaceX's Elon Musk: I'll put HUMANS on MARS by 2026
Plans to float rocket biz only once it's done
By Iain Thomson, 18 Jun 2014
Electric car and rocket tycoon Elon Musk expects to put the first humans on Mars in the next decade – and says he'll float his SpaceX company on Earth-bound stock exchanges once the interplanetary mission gets underway.
"I'm hopeful that the first people could be taken to Mars in 10 to 12 years, I think it's certainly possible for that to occur," he told CNBC. "But the thing that matters long term is to have a self-sustaining city on Mars, to make life multi-planetary."
Musk said that the SpaceX goal was essential to the future survival of humanity. Either mankind would slip the surly bonds of Earth and become an interplanetary species, or remain a single-planet culture and become extinct due to a man-made or natural catastrophe.
Musk's schedule puts him well ahead of NASA, which is only talking about getting man to Mars by the 2030s – and then only if it can get billions in public funding and build a rocket big enough for the job. Musk's Falcon Heavy booster is scheduled to fly within the next year, and will carry enough payload to make assembling a Mars spaceship possible.
That's not to say Musk sees himself competing with the space agency. He paid tribute to NASA, saying that without that agency's pioneering work, SpaceX couldn't have got as far as it has.
Musk said that SpaceX is happy to carry on working with NASA, delivering cargo up to the International Space Station, and hopes to win a contract to deliver crew in the company's updated Dragon capsule. But if it doesn't win more contracts, Musk said he was confident the firm could still make it to the Red Planet.
Part of the funding could come from a float of the privately-held company on the stock exchange. This would be difficult, he said, given that the financial markets are obsessed with quarterly and annual goals – but it should be possible once the technology has been perfected.
"We need to get where things are steady and predictable," Musk said. "Maybe we're close to developing the Mars vehicle, or ideally we've flown it a few times, then I think going public would make more sense."
Meanwhile, back on Earth, Musk said that he hoped his Tesla venture would have a mass-market car ready for public consumption within the next three years. The big challenge is getting a battery that can be built for less than $5,000, but he said that the company was in daily meetings with Panasonic trying to sort out the problems involved. ®
Thank God for this dude. This is one of the main jobs of humanity right now and I am glad somebody is taking it seriously.
Don't think I didn't see that edit Valmy. :yeahright:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2014, 10:38:41 AM
Don't think I didn't see that edit Valmy. :yeahright:
He is an American citizen but I remembered he had like a dozen or so citizenships so I thought I was just asking for a moronic discussion. So I took it out. It seems my efforts failed :P
:cool:
Hasn't he come out with fairly loony claims before? Anyway, I hope he's right on the Mars one.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/12/elon-musk-unveils-hyperloop-transport
Can we send Tim there now?
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2014, 11:17:38 AM
Can we send Tim there now?
Why would we want to send an outstanding citizen, a democrat, away and keep you?
I thought Tim was a Republican :hmm:
I mean not that it matters now that he has betrayed America for Korea.
He pretends that yes. I don't believe him. Just like I don't believe Garbon.
Actually SpaceX has done some impressive things. They might actually be able to do this. And Tim is a Republican for some unknown reason.
Well it's about time! How hard could this be anyway? We're just dragging our feet on space exploration and travel. We should at least by now be able to easily and routinely visit the planets in our own solar system, especially the closest ones. Sheesh...
The problem with manned space exploration is that, national pride aside, there is essentially no incentive to do it.
Elon Musk will put HUMANS on MARS by 2026 but their battery pack will be empty.
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2014, 01:13:52 PM
The problem with manned space exploration is that, national pride aside, there is essentially no incentive to do it.
national pride and to if it can be done is sufficient reason enough. Pushing outwards is wat this species does.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 18, 2014, 11:50:48 AM
He pretends that yes. I don't believe him. Just like I don't believe Garbon.
What is there to believe? I am registered as a Republican. There a little (R) near my name on voter rolls.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 18, 2014, 03:24:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2014, 01:13:52 PM
The problem with manned space exploration is that, national pride aside, there is essentially no incentive to do it.
national pride and to if it can be done is sufficient reason enough. Pushing outwards is wat this species does.
It was sufficient reason during the Cold War, to reach the moon. I am not convinced it is sufficient reason to keep doing it to put humans on other barren planets. "First to put a man on Pluto!" is not likely to be terribly motivating.
Our species certainly explores, but there is no need to send actual people to do the exploring - and less and less need, as our machines get better and better (and smaller and smaller). Simply put, there is nothing worth humans personally reaching in our solar system. It would certainly be cool, assuming one could stand the boredom of the journey, which is why this option seems to be the perview of, basically, vastly wealthy tourists.
Now, maybe people could be convinced to fund colonization of other systems at some point in the future - but again, there is simply no way for this to benefit any of the people expected to pay for it. People are not much for completely unrewarded acts.
During the Cold War national pride had positive externalities.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2014, 11:48:31 AM
I thought Tim was a Republican :hmm:
I mean not that it matters now that he has betrayed America for Korea.
I was but I have shifted allegience in the last four years to conservative Democrat.
I have not. :rolleyes:
He switched from New Frontier to NPAD.
To be fair, we all thought both SpaceX and Tesla sounded wacky when he first unveiled them. There's a chance Musk's full of it, but on the other hand, if there's anybody who actually stands a shot of being able to make this claim and have it pan out, it's Elon Musk.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 18, 2014, 09:47:28 PM
To be fair, we all thought both SpaceX and Tesla sounded wacky when he first unveiled them.
I don't recall having any thoughts. :scots:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 18, 2014, 09:47:28 PM
To be fair, we all thought both SpaceX and Tesla sounded wacky when he first unveiled them. There's a chance Musk's full of it, but on the other hand, if there's anybody who actually stands a shot of being able to make this claim and have it pan out, it's Elon Musk.
Isn't he the guy who wants to build a giant vacuum tube between LA and San Francisco?
Tyr: no you won't
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 18, 2014, 10:28:52 PM
Isn't he the guy who wants to build a giant vacuum tube between LA and San Francisco?
I'm not saying he hits grand slams every time; I'm just saying his batting average is better than normal.
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2014, 03:29:07 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 18, 2014, 11:50:48 AM
He pretends that yes. I don't believe him. Just like I don't believe Garbon.
What is there to believe? I am registered as a Republican. There a little (R) near my name on voter rolls.
You also pretended to be Indian. Somethings just don't make any sense.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 19, 2014, 08:57:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2014, 03:29:07 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 18, 2014, 11:50:48 AM
He pretends that yes. I don't believe him. Just like I don't believe Garbon.
What is there to believe? I am registered as a Republican. There a little (R) near my name on voter rolls.
You also pretended to be Indian. Somethings just don't make any sense.
The whole time I said I was Indian, I was also pointing out that I wasn't. Joke vs. not a joke.
Ugh.
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2014, 01:13:52 PM
The problem with manned space exploration is that, national pride aside, there is essentially no incentive to do it.
I'm pretty sure lots of people in European courts were arguing that in the 16th century. Heck, even by the 18th century, it was still argued at Versailles.
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2014, 03:40:50 PM
It was sufficient reason during the Cold War, to reach the moon. I am not convinced it is sufficient reason to keep doing it to put humans on other barren planets. "First to put a man on Pluto!" is not likely to be terribly motivating.
Well, we could put a prison there, with no guardians, sort of like Hell. A special level of Hell, a level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater.
Good luck escaping by helo!
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2014, 03:40:50 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 18, 2014, 03:24:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2014, 01:13:52 PM
The problem with manned space exploration is that, national pride aside, there is essentially no incentive to do it.
national pride and to if it can be done is sufficient reason enough. Pushing outwards is wat this species does.
It was sufficient reason during the Cold War, to reach the moon. I am not convinced it is sufficient reason to keep doing it to put humans on other barren planets. "First to put a man on Pluto!" is not likely to be terribly motivating.
Our species certainly explores, but there is no need to send actual people to do the exploring - and less and less need, as our machines get better and better (and smaller and smaller). Simply put, there is nothing worth humans personally reaching in our solar system. It would certainly be cool, assuming one could stand the boredom of the journey, which is why this option seems to be the perview of, basically, vastly wealthy tourists.
Now, maybe people could be convinced to fund colonization of other systems at some point in the future - but again, there is simply no way for this to benefit any of the people expected to pay for it. People are not much for completely unrewarded acts.
Seriously, 2026 is way too early, but I see that, eventually, man missionned, preceded by various probing of the grounds in search of valuable minerals could be done. Of course, spending your whole life in a dome might not be worthwhile, but eventually, who knows, mining colonies in our own system, refueling stations of some sort for inter solar explorations to find newly habitable planet. Might be a way to solve the the mideast crisis, mind you, deport all Jews&Arab over there, declare half the Planet New Jerusalem West, the other half New Jerusalm East and let them live there in peace (or most likely, eternal war).
Eventually, we'll have too many people for the Earth, so we kinda need some fall back place, some new colonies. There's also the possibility of a natural disaster where we need to evacuate Earth. If we never make the baby steps, we'll never be ready when the time comes.
Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2014, 02:58:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2014, 03:40:50 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 18, 2014, 03:24:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2014, 01:13:52 PM
The problem with manned space exploration is that, national pride aside, there is essentially no incentive to do it.
national pride and to if it can be done is sufficient reason enough. Pushing outwards is wat this species does.
It was sufficient reason during the Cold War, to reach the moon. I am not convinced it is sufficient reason to keep doing it to put humans on other barren planets. "First to put a man on Pluto!" is not likely to be terribly motivating.
Our species certainly explores, but there is no need to send actual people to do the exploring - and less and less need, as our machines get better and better (and smaller and smaller). Simply put, there is nothing worth humans personally reaching in our solar system. It would certainly be cool, assuming one could stand the boredom of the journey, which is why this option seems to be the perview of, basically, vastly wealthy tourists.
Now, maybe people could be convinced to fund colonization of other systems at some point in the future - but again, there is simply no way for this to benefit any of the people expected to pay for it. People are not much for completely unrewarded acts.
Seriously, 2026 is way too early, but I see that, eventually, man missionned, preceded by various probing of the grounds in search of valuable minerals could be done. Of course, spending your whole life in a dome might not be worthwhile, but eventually, who knows, mining colonies in our own system, refueling stations of some sort for inter solar explorations to find newly habitable planet. Might be a way to solve the the mideast crisis, mind you, deport all Jews&Arab over there, declare half the Planet New Jerusalem West, the other half New Jerusalm East and let them live there in peace (or most likely, eternal war).
Eventually, we'll have too many people for the Earth, so we kinda need some fall back place, some new colonies. There's also the possibility of a natural disaster where we need to evacuate Earth. If we never make the baby steps, we'll never be ready when the time comes.
There is no serious possibility of shipping excess population off-planet.
In reality, the best possible scenario would be to plant tiny colonies of humans off-planet somewhere. Such colonies would serve no economic function for Earthlings, as there is nothing in the universe that is valuable enough to justify spending the energy necessary to retrieve it to Earth.
Quote from: Malthus on June 19, 2014, 03:24:56 PM
In reality, the best possible scenario would be to plant tiny colonies of humans off-planet somewhere. Such colonies would serve no economic function for Earthlings, as there is nothing in the universe that is valuable enough to justify spending the energy necessary to retrieve it to Earth.
New France was a drag to France's finances. Lots of territory to defend and no valuable resources, except fur, wich wasn't that much in demand anymore in Europe. Yet, somehow, we formed a couple of provinces&states out of this piece of land wich happen to be productive today, compared to some of the old, safe world.
Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2014, 11:33:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 19, 2014, 03:24:56 PM
In reality, the best possible scenario would be to plant tiny colonies of humans off-planet somewhere. Such colonies would serve no economic function for Earthlings, as there is nothing in the universe that is valuable enough to justify spending the energy necessary to retrieve it to Earth.
New France was a drag to France's finances. Lots of territory to defend and no valuable resources, except fur, wich wasn't that much in demand anymore in Europe. Yet, somehow, we formed a couple of provinces&states out of this piece of land wich happen to be productive today, compared to some of the old, safe world.
Wind to power the sails to travel between the two was free.
Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2014, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2014, 01:13:52 PM
The problem with manned space exploration is that, national pride aside, there is essentially no incentive to do it.
I'm pretty sure lots of people in European courts were arguing that in the 16th century. Heck, even by the 18th century, it was still argued at Versailles.
There are no Space-Indies.
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2014, 12:50:15 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2014, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2014, 01:13:52 PM
The problem with manned space exploration is that, national pride aside, there is essentially no incentive to do it.
I'm pretty sure lots of people in European courts were arguing that in the 16th century. Heck, even by the 18th century, it was still argued at Versailles.
There are no Space-Indies.
Asteroid belt
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2014, 12:50:15 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2014, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2014, 01:13:52 PM
The problem with manned space exploration is that, national pride aside, there is essentially no incentive to do it.
I'm pretty sure lots of people in European courts were arguing that in the 16th century. Heck, even by the 18th century, it was still argued at Versailles.
There are no Space-Indies.
Sure there are.
Soon the East Andromeda Company will screw you over.
Where are we going to buy our slaves to toil on our asteroid plantations? :hmm:
If you ask the Universe, it will provide.
Quote from: Norgy on June 20, 2014, 09:02:54 AM
If you ask the Universe, it will provide.
I see you are trained in the ways of The Secret-fu.
Yes, Valmy-san, I grow ever stronger.
Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2014, 11:33:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 19, 2014, 03:24:56 PM
In reality, the best possible scenario would be to plant tiny colonies of humans off-planet somewhere. Such colonies would serve no economic function for Earthlings, as there is nothing in the universe that is valuable enough to justify spending the energy necessary to retrieve it to Earth.
New France was a drag to France's finances. Lots of territory to defend and no valuable resources, except fur, wich wasn't that much in demand anymore in Europe. Yet, somehow, we formed a couple of provinces&states out of this piece of land wich happen to be productive today, compared to some of the old, safe world.
Canada was important for fashion - the fashion for beaver hats. :Canuck:
When the fashion died out, France was left with a foothold on the continent - and made a serious effort to expand that into taking the whole ball of wax. That didn't work out, that whole seven years war thing, and France focused its efforts on the sugar islands.
Point is that at every stage there was either a gain, or the prospect of gain in the future.
You will note that despite actually being on this planet, aside from scientific stations no-one has "colonized" Antarctica. Why? Too expensive. No doubt there are oil and minerals to be found, but they are still cheaper to get at elsewhere.
There simply isn't a compelling economic case for colonizing the solar system with humans, and likely never will be. Even assuming there are valuable minerals in great abundance in (say) the asteroid belt, by the time we become interested in them, it will simply make more sense to send machines to do that work. Unless we discover some free energy source, taking minerals into and out of gravity wells is always going to be way more expensive than simply finding them on earth.
At any given time there are over 1000 human beings living in Antarctica, mostly for scientific research but also some tourism support. Obviously the costs of Mars are much higher but there are also unique scientific research options as well.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 20, 2014, 10:31:56 AM
At any given time there are over 1000 human beings living in Antarctica, mostly for scientific research but also some tourism support. Obviously the costs of Mars are much higher but there are also unique scientific research options as well.
Don't forget the unlimited potential of scary movies with new virae and stuff living beneath the ground. Could give Hollywood a second, maybe even third wind.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 20, 2014, 10:31:56 AM
At any given time there are over 1000 human beings living in Antarctica, mostly for scientific research but also some tourism support. Obviously the costs of Mars are much higher but there are also unique scientific research options as well.
As I said already, "aside from scientific stations".
There may be some limited potential for sending people to mars, mostly to study how sending people to mars affects them; and, as I said upthread, the "vastly wealthy tourist market" may exist for mars trips.
Other than that, it is hard to see what tasks a person could do in such inhospitable enviromnents, that a machine could not do safer, better, and considerably cheaper. Machines don't require, for example, a return trip. It is easier to fully sterilize machines so as to avoid contaminating sites with earthly life. Machines do not need constant supplies of various foods, air and water. Machines can go dormant for years and be re-activated. The list goes on.
Mostly, the longing for space colonies of actual humans is a longing for science fiction fantasies to be realized.
I don't remember if I've actually been to Mars.
Malthus appears to lack an imagination. <_<
Quote from: garbon on June 20, 2014, 11:49:11 AM
Malthus appears to lack an imagination. <_<
Garbon appears to lack an argument. :hmm:
Cave-Malthus didn't want to leave cave. Cave was fine.
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2014, 11:51:25 AM
Cave-Malthus didn't want to leave cave. Cave was fine.
Cave bear was friendly. Too friendly. Let Brain have cave.
Cave-Brain.
Quote from: Malthus on June 20, 2014, 11:50:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 20, 2014, 11:49:11 AM
Malthus appears to lack an imagination. <_<
Garbon appears to lack an argument. :hmm:
"Likely never will be" sounds like quite a stretch.
Quote from: Malthus on June 20, 2014, 10:50:14 AM
Mostly, the longing for space colonies of actual humans is a longing for science fiction fantasies to be realized.
What's your point Malthus? Is there a reason for sending robots or anything into Space besides this? Our robots looking at soil samples is going to do what for us down here all Terra-bound exactly?
Let's just wait until the first Tesla Moonraker catches fire halfway between here and Mars because of a "bad battery pack" before we say Elon Musk is wrong, shall we.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 19, 2014, 11:52:59 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2014, 11:33:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 19, 2014, 03:24:56 PM
In reality, the best possible scenario would be to plant tiny colonies of humans off-planet somewhere. Such colonies would serve no economic function for Earthlings, as there is nothing in the universe that is valuable enough to justify spending the energy necessary to retrieve it to Earth.
New France was a drag to France's finances. Lots of territory to defend and no valuable resources, except fur, wich wasn't that much in demand anymore in Europe. Yet, somehow, we formed a couple of provinces&states out of this piece of land wich happen to be productive today, compared to some of the old, safe world.
Wind to power the sails to travel between the two was free.
The boat wasn't free. The crew wasn't free. The canons and the munitions weren't free. The infrastructures in New France weren't free.
We gave back cod and furs, but not enough to justify the costs. Same goes for the US, it costed way more for UK to defend the territory than what it was getting back.
I want to bang space cats.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2014, 12:02:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 20, 2014, 10:50:14 AM
Mostly, the longing for space colonies of actual humans is a longing for science fiction fantasies to be realized.
What's your point Malthus? Is there a reason for sending robots or anything into Space besides this? Our robots looking at soil samples is going to do what for us down here all Terra-bound exactly?
Scientific discovery is its own point.
Quote from: viper37 on June 20, 2014, 12:52:41 PM
The boat wasn't free. The crew wasn't free. The canons and the munitions weren't free. The infrastructures in New France weren't free.
We gave back cod and furs, but not enough to justify the costs. Same goes for the US, it costed way more for UK to defend the territory than what it was getting back.
None of those costs are the one that would make interstellar trade prohibitively expensive.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 20, 2014, 01:26:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 20, 2014, 12:52:41 PM
The boat wasn't free. The crew wasn't free. The canons and the munitions weren't free. The infrastructures in New France weren't free.
We gave back cod and furs, but not enough to justify the costs. Same goes for the US, it costed way more for UK to defend the territory than what it was getting back.
None of those costs are the one that would make interstellar trade prohibitively expensive.
[battletech]The giant solar sail?[/battletech]