Elon Musk: We'll Have Humans on Mars by 2026

At which point, he plans to IPO SpaceX. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/0...d_on_mars_in_10_or_12_years_claims_elon_musk/ 2026 seems awfully soon without a big ass budget or self-replicating machines.

Seems odd that in the same interview, he says Mars in a decade but I still need three more years for a mass market car. I suppose Tesla is more cutting edge tech than SpaceX, but it still is an odd juxtaposition.

Getting to Mars in ten years would be easy, but I can't figure out how he pays for it.

Until they can build a battery plant which has the necessary capacity to produce the battery packs in volume, there's no point in making a mass market car. IIRC, they're supposed to pick the location this month for the plant and start construction.

That's where the self-replicating robots come into play. One of the goals of Planetary Resources is to send self-replicating robots to an asteroid to mine it to provide fuel, etc., needed for the trip to Mars. All Musk would have to pay for is the R&D on the robots, sending them to space, and then sending the astronauts up to dock with the gear that the robots have built.

I'll bet you $100 that self replicating robots don't build the first Mars vehicle in space. The technology is just too far away.

No way will there be people on Mars by 2026. Hope I'm wrong, but I don't see that happening.

How long has it been since you first heard about SpaceShip One? Are they doing tourist flights yet? A mission to Mars makes that seem like a trivial exercise.

I'm not sure either, but it certainly is nice to find someone with enough drive to believe in, and that's almost as important as actually getting the job done.

It seems overly optimistic to me as well. Musk has a habit of low-balling his estimates, IMHO. Take his estimate that he'll be able to put people into orbit for $500/lb. in a Dragon capsule. A Dragon holds 7 people, assuming that its reusable hardware and has paid for itself, so that you're only costs are fuel, food, and crew, you're talking about 5 paying passengers, a pilot and co-pilot. If each passenger weighs 200 lbs., that gives you a total payment for that flight of $500K. Out of that, you have to pay the wages of the crew, ground crew, food for the passengers, and fuel. Plus, turn a profit on the launch. Even if the ship is fully automated, and everybody's a passenger, that gives you an income of $700K for the launch. It cost $450 million to launch a shuttle. NASA pays $60 million a seat on a Soyuz, and tourists pay about $40 million a seat. I can't see Musk getting a launch below $40 million, let alone to below $700K.

I don't either.

An apples to baseballs comparison. SpaceX has already sent cargo into orbit, while Virgin Galactic has only done a few test flights, and hasn't gone suborbital in years. Branson swears they'll go suborbital this year. We'll see.

The problem is, though, that by making such promises, and then being unable to follow through on them (even if its no fault of his own), Musk risks damaging public support for his plans.

Fair point, but then again, maybe we can make great strides in 10 years? We work at our best when our backs are against the proverbial wall. I think we can do it here, too.

A Dutch group has $6 billion to send 24 people on a one-way trip to Mars: http://qz.com/345584/100-people-will-vie-for-the-24-spots-on-the-one-way-mission-to-mars/

When Musk says it, I believe it. That guy's drive is just incredible.

Also, had a look at Tesla cars and fell in love immediately. Unfortunately they are quite out of the price range I'm willing to spend on what's basically a car for the city. Yes, sure, 500 kilometer range. Still only half of what my car does but there are not many Tesla charging stations around here. One's close to my home but what if I want to drive somewhere with none around? Push the 80.000 euro car on my way back?

I said this a couple of years back about life on a one-way expedition to Mars...

As I've said before, anyone willing to go on a one-way trip to Mars should be automatically excluded from such a trip on psychological grounds.

^^^
I can imagine you'd watch a lot of movies, and spend a lot time online... albeit with a latency of about 20 minutes.

I've been hearing about going to Mars in the next 20 years for 40 years.

This will result in 24 dead Martians.

When you start seeing billions of dollars committed to doing it, it will be 10 years away.

I don't expect it will actually happen in our lifetimes.

As real as taxes, but a race of one...

Yeah, no. 2126 maybe, if our species doesn't just about entirely shit the bed. But 2026 is everybody-got-a-flying-car fantasyland.

I imagine it'll be much like how the workload on the ISS is described, where every minute is scheduled, and any free time you have is what you can squeeze out by getting your assigned tasks done early.

Isn't that what Musk is doing?

Did you miss the "$6 billion" part?

The estimates NASA has for what it would cost them to build a lunar base are $100 billion. Now, let's say that NASA's wildly over-estimating the cost of what it would take Musk to build a lunar base, and he could get it done for $1 billion. A lunar base comes with a couple of benefits that a Martian base doesn't have:
1. Its closer, so the fuel costs are lower.
2. The launch window to send things to the Moon (either regular resupply missions or emergency spares), is at least a couple of times a month.
3. We know more about the Moon than we do Mars, we've spent more time there, sent more probes there, and can observe what happens on the Moon easily.
4. We can talk to the lunar base at any time, with only a 3 second lag time.

If you're going to send people to Mars, you have to do the following things:
1. They have to be entirely self-sufficient. The optimum launch window to send things to Mars is 30 days, once every two years. Resupplying the base is pretty much impractical, outside of that window, so they have to be able to fully fend for themselves during the entire time. That means spare parts, full medical facilities, full manufacturing capabilities, ample food, the works.
2. Without expanding the Deep Space Network, communications between Earth and Mars are limited to about a 40 minute window once a day, this is on top of the lag time it takes for light to get from Earth to Mars and back again.
3. When Mars is on the opposite side of the sun from Earth, no communication is possible for over a month. Zero, zip, nada. This is acceptable when you've got robots running around on the surface, but when you have humans there, its not going to work.
4. Musk has estimated that he'll eventually be able to get the costs of sending a human to Mars down to $500K per person. That's assuming he can do 1000 launches a year (destination of those launches is unimportant, provided they're going to orbit). To understand some of the costs, read this article. Its a bit dated, but its clearly where Musk has gotten the idea of doing 1K launches a year from. Musk also has admitted that he'll need to be able to reuse the first stages if he's going to hit that $500K per person per launch costs.

No matter how you slice it, $6 billion is not enough money to accomplish the task. Its enough for some of the R&D involved, maybe even all of it, depending upon how you handle the accounting (for example, a rocket capable of sending humans to the Moon can send an automated supply ship to Mars, so some of the costs associated with a manned Mars mission can be absorbed by a manned mission to the Moon paid for by NASA), but a full-on Mars colony for 100 people which has to contend with the possibility that once they get there, they may never get help from Earth again? Nope. At best, its 10% of the costs involved.

The Dutch group? I don't think that can be taken seriously.

Depends on how you look at it. He's certainly developing a great rocket that could be used for a Mars mission, but that's a loooong way from actually planning a Mars mission.

I LOVE the idea of going to Mars, as it's my favorite planet, but a lunar base would make far more sense. Plus, establish a lunar base, and it would be a terrific jumping off point for a Mars mission.

Fixed your quote then.

Here's a fantastic article on the Mars One project. It's very long so I'll just post the link.

https://medium.com/matter/all-dressed-up-for-mars-and-nowhere-to-go-7e76df527ca0

Lovely article and investigative reporting. Thanks for posting that!

You're welcome!

The fact that some high-profile astronauts are questioning the whole Mars One venture should be the first clue that perhaps it's just a pipe dream. Chris Hadfield (who is definitely a supporter of going to Mars) rather eloquently demolishes the idea of Mars One.

Dragon pad abort test coming up soon.