Here it is, the grand plan for the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS) as presented yesterday at the the International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Guadalajara, Mexico:
On Tuesday (Sept. 27), Musk unveiled SpaceX's planned Interplanetary Transport System (ITS), a rocket-spaceship combo that the billionaire entrepreneur hopes will allow humanity to establish a permanent, self-sustaining, million-person settlement on the Red Planet. Mars is the first planned stop for ITS, but it may not be the last. "This system really gives you freedom to go anywhere you want in the greater solar system," Musk said Tuesday at the International Astronautical Congress meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico. With the aid of strategically placed refueling depots, "you could actually travel out to the Kuiper Belt [and] the Oort Cloud," Musk added. The Kuiper Belt is Pluto's neck of the woods, while the Oort Cloud, the realm of comets, is even more distant; it begins about 2,000 astronomical units (AU) from the sun.
[...] The ITS booster will be the most powerful rocket ever built, capable of lofting 300 tons to low-Earth orbit (LEO) in its reusable version and 550 tons in its expendable variant, Musk said. This rocket will blast the spaceship, which will carry at least 100 people, to LEO, where further launches will fuel the smaller vehicle. When the time is right — Earth and Mars align favorably for interplanetary missions just once every 26 months — a fleet of these spaceships will depart from LEO, arriving at the Red Planet in as little as 80 days, Musk said. The ITS — both the rocket and spaceship — will be powered by SpaceX's Raptor engines, which run on a combination of methane and oxygen. Both of these ingredients can be manufactured on Mars and other places in the solar system, Musk said, meaning that the spaceship can and will be refueled far from Earth.
[...] The ITS spaceship could therefore go very far afield, provided it could access refueling stations along the way. "By establishing a propellant depot in the asteroid belt or one of the moons of Jupiter, you can make flights from Mars to Jupiter no problem," Musk said. "It'd be really great to do a mission to Europa, particularly," he added, referring to the ocean-harboring Jovian moon, which many astrobiologists regard as one of the solar system's best bets to host alien life. Building additional depots farther from the sun — perhaps on Saturn's moon Titan and Pluto, for example — could theoretically extend the ITS spaceship's reach all the way out to the Oort Cloud, Musk said. "This basic system, provided we have filling stations along the way, means full access to the entire greater solar system," he said.
The first Mars ferry will be named "Heart of Gold". Unfortunately, these bold settlers will have to be kept away from potential microbial life.
Additional Coverage:
Making Humans an Interplanetary Species - Video of Musk Presentation at IAC [1h4m46s]
Same, but with Q&A session [1h58m22s]
Making Humans an Interplanetary Species - Slides of Presentation at IAC (pdf)
SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System - Video mockup presented at IAC [4m21s]
SpaceX - Mars
Musk’s Mars moment: Audacity, madness, brilliance—or maybe all three story at Ars Technica
Elon Musk envisions 'fun' but dangerous trips to Mars (Update 4) at phys.org
Previous coverage:
SpaceX's Mars Colonial Transporter Becomes the "Interplanetary Transport System"
Related Stories
Stephen Hawking wants humanity to pursue a Mars mission in the mid-2020s rather than the mid-2030s:
Prof Stephen Hawking has called for leading nations to send astronauts to the Moon by 2020. They should also aim to build a lunar base in 30 years' time and send people to Mars by 2025. Prof Hawking said that the goal would re-ignite the space programme, forge new alliances and give humanity a sense of purpose.
He was speaking at the Starmus Festival celebrating science and the arts, which is being held in Trondheim, Norway. "Spreading out into space will completely change the future of humanity," he said. "I hope it would unite competitive nations in a single goal, to face the common challenge for us all. "A new and ambitious space programme would excite (young people), and stimulate interest in other areas, such as astrophysics and cosmology".
Prof. Hawking also talked about interstellar travel:
[We'll] never know how hospitable Proxima b is unless we can get there. At current speeds, using chemical propulsion, it would take 3 million years to reach the exoplanet, Hawking said. Thus, space colonization requires a radical departure in our travel technology. "To go faster would require a much higher exhaust speed than chemical rockets can provide — that of light itself," Hawking said. "A powerful beam of light from the rear could drive the spaceship forward. Nuclear fusion could provide 1 percent of the spaceship's mass energy, which would accelerate it to a tenth of the speed of light."
NASA usually talks about planning for "Mars 2035". Who is trying to get there by 2025?
A Mars mission architecture SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk will unveil in September will call for a series of missions starting in 2018 leading up to the first crewed mission to the planet in 2024, Musk said June 1.
Related: Elon Musk's Plans for Mars and Beyond Revealed
Elon Musk Publishes Mars Colonization Plan
SpaceX's CEO Elon Musk has been talking about the Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT) since around 2012, and has said that SpaceX will not hold an initial public offering until the MCT is flying regularly. The MCT was said to be able to deliver 100 tons of cargo to the surface of Mars, fly using upgraded "Raptor" rocket engines fueled by liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid methane, and achieve full reusability on all stages.
Now, ahead of a session at the International Astronautical Congress on Sept. 27th, Musk has decided to change the name of the Mars Colonial Transporter to reflect broader and more ambitious planned capabilities:
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.
Also at TechCrunch.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @08:50PM
This site's turn to comment on why it'll never work! Moar Musky! Moar! It's a stupid idea! You can't fly to Mars! We need to solve all the problems down here first! All you space nutters are delusional Musky! You space nutters are stooopid, hawhaw.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:02PM
Once Congress pulls its head out of its ass. Might have better luck getting support from the India and China, I'm sure they would like to start exporting people ASAP!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:25PM
Is the ship equipped with the infinite probability drive?
But be warned: The president may steal it!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:37PM
Like some strange sci-fi horror comedy foreshadowing a Trump win.
(Score: 3, Informative) by SrLnclt on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:13PM
I believe you mean the infinite improbability drive...
(Score: 4, Funny) by maxwell demon on Thursday September 29 2016, @06:17AM
Err … I actually wrote that, but then an infinite number of monkeys appeared, and after they finished writing the works of Shakespeare, they decided they could also rewrite my post, omitting the "im".
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:40PM
That boy must have read a lot of old sci-fi growing up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:30PM
I reject your definition of OLD.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by martyb on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:49PM
I can't wait to see how this pans out! I grew up watching the Apollo launches and the first steps upon the Moon back in the 60's. What a tremendous time to be alive!!! It seemed like anything was possible. It was just a matter of ingenuity, hard work, and persistence and the sky was no longer the limit. Science was big. people dreamed of being an astronaut 'when they grew up'.
Maybe that was unsustainable. The recession in the early 1980s caused a major pull-back on space funding.
Like Elon Musk, I grew up reading science fiction, watching Star Trek (and Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, and others). It was in large part what motivated me to get into computers back when they only existed as hugely expensive, refrigerator-sized systems. In the mid 1980's I was involved in testing an OS for IBM's biggest, fastest mainframe at the time -- a $multi-million dollar, water-cooled beast of a machine. And now people carry much more computing power than that in their cellphone!
I've witnessed huge advances in computer technology. We've made huge advances in chemistry and biology and so many of the sciences, but we are still stuck on this rock.
I admire Elon Musk's awareness of humanity's vulnerability so long as we stay stuck on planet Earth. It is only a matter of time before something happens that puts humanity at risk, be it global thermonuclear war, asteroid impact, or a super-caldera eruption. As long as we keep all of our eggs (heh!) in ONE basket, there is a risk, however small, that humanity would end.
Besides all that, this rocket is absolutely amazing!! it boggles my mind to imagine a rocket, 15m wide and 120m tall, carrying 100 people at once on a journey to Mars. I mean, this thing is HUGE! It has the capacity to launch the current ISS into orbit from Earth, in a single launch!
There will be difficulties, unforseen problems, and yes, probably some deaths, too. That didn't stop the early explorers and settlers. IIRC, one of the earliest Arctic/Antarctic expeditions was manned by an advertisement that basically promised horrible conditions and likely death. I applaud those who rose to the challenge, who were willing to push the boundaries, to explore this planet. And I equally applaud those who may make the ultimate sacrifice to establish a beachhead of civilization on another planet. I doubt they'd trake me, but if there were a posting for volunteers for that first trip? You can bet I'd put my name in.
I'll close with quote [twainquotes.com] from Mark Twain who put it far more eloquently than I ever could, and which inspired me to study Computer Science:
May we never lose that sense of awe and wonder, of seeking, trying, and exploring. So long as that burns in the heart of mankind, I still have hope for the future.
Wit is intellect, dancing. I'm too old to act my age. Life is too important to take myself seriously.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:28PM
Honestly, how can you look at live on !Earth and maintain this attitude of a glorious infinite Universe full of possibility? What the fuck do you want to go there for? Let's just give you the "how" for free - since that is basically all you are going ga-ga about. Congrats - Mr. Enron Mush Jr III in the year 2056 has made it possible for free and you get a blow job on the journey. Why the FUCK would you want to go there and live in a plastic bag? You earthlings are so weird.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:47PM
That sounds familiar, I believe the tea sipping english POMs said a similar thing to those waiting for the next sail to the new continent, why for the love of her majesty's tits would you want to go to a place where you get your scalp handed to you by red savages?
(Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:57PM
Because when they got there, there was sun, chocolate, spices, and girls!
Oh, and they could get out of the tin can and breathe.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by martyb on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:30AM
I may be feeding a troll, but I'll bite.
Answer me this: Why do people still climb Mount Everest [wikipedia.org] — it was first summited way back on May 29, 1953! Yet, several hundred people make the attempt annually. In 2012, alone, there were 12 fatalities. People die each year making the attempt to get to the very place that many other people have already been!
Now, to go to Mars? To be the very first person, ever who has seen what you are seeing? To tread on land that nobody ever has before? To explore and seek and search and learn! (Now, would be a good time to reread that Mark Twain quote above.) To face a challenge. To advance the technology so that humanity may not only survive, but eventually thrive on another planet... that is the dream, the motivation, the aspiration. To be more than just the sum total of my life's experiences.
There are far better qualified people than I who would volunteer to go. But if, by some stroke of luck it were possible for me to go to Mars on the first ITS, you can bet I'd agree to go in a heartbeat. And if disaster should come and I die along the way, or upon Mars... what of it? At least I LIVED! I'd rather risk my life living — I'm going to die anyway!
Wit is intellect, dancing. I'm too old to act my age. Life is too important to take myself seriously.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:11PM
And yet people are committing suicide on this rock.
(Score: 1) by jelizondo on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:05PM
Very well put.
I watched the presentation and while technical details were sketchy, it did not sound to me utterly impossible. Yes, there willl be problems and even deaths, but the dream seems in reach.
Unfortunately, I'm too old to even think about going but perhaps not too old to see the first manned trip to mars!
Cheers!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:42AM
The recession in the early 1980s caused a major pull-back on space funding.
It was long before that. Even before we put feet on the moon NASA's budget started getting shredded. Their reward for winning the space race was to lose the vast majority of their funding. Their peak was in 1966 where for every dollar of tax 4.4 cents went to NASA. By 1970 that was 1.92 cents. By 1975 it was less than a cent. Today it's one half of one cent having had their tax share cut by more than 16% under Obama.
The only thing that concerns me here is that Musk is based on the US. Rockets are considered advanced weapons technology here which puts them under a tremendous bureaucratic and "everything is national security" layer that may interfere with international support for his program. One solution would be to start electing politicians who aren't still living in the cold war and red scare era, but I think that's easier said than done. Another part of Obama's foreign policy was to completely ban NASA from working with China or Chinese companies, which is why there's no Chinese astronauts on the ISS.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @11:09AM
I grew up watching the Apollo launches and the first steps upon the Moon
You watched a sham, all smoke and mirrors. You were probably a sweet kid, and they fooled you, the same way they tried to fool everybody and mostly succeeded.
You are observant, and you will soon discover that there is no escaping the following facts: you can demonstrate that there is no curvature on the Earth, at least none consistent with that of a convex sphere 6397 km in radius;
You can demonstrate that there is no spinning of the Earth, something easily proven with a gyroscope.
To quote Mark Twain (a known "flat-Earther"), "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:55PM
When the man asks for a volunteer to step forward.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @09:59PM
Better than that, he wants hundreds of people to die horrible radiation deaths, not just one.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Absolutely.Geek on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:18PM
I like the idea; seems like it is possible to do this within a few years. There is no impossible or outright improbable tech being pushed here.
But why start with Mars? Why not build a better ISS? A big rotating can (maybe inflatable) in the sky; big enough to create gravity, farm crops etc... then expand to two, setup orbital manufacturing. I am thinking along the lines of the glitter band in Alastair Reynolds novels. When we can have humans living in orbital colonies for 20+ years with no ill effects then we should look at moving on. If you created a habitat 50m in diameter (internal) and 50m long the internal volume would be 98,174m^3 with an internal surface area of 7854m^2 or nearly 2 acres (this is ignoring internal "floors" also). That is not a particularly big object to launch.
But by that point what is the point of dropping into a gravity well? Just like cruise liners the orbital habitats will get bigger and better with each passing year dropping down to a planet seems like going backwards. The "gravity" of the habitats will be tunable; there would be an advantage to athletes that train in slowly ramping gravity...would that be considered doping? Manufacturing in micro or extra gravity as required.
Obviously getting a significant number of people to high Earth orbit is energetically cheaper then all the way to Mars (not that much though); and you are much closer to Earth should something go wrong.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by forkazoo on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:36PM
Living with some gravity, with some atmosphere, further from solar radiation, with ready access to resources to build with, is both easier in many way and also a longer term investment. A jumbo ISS is never going to be permanently self sustaining, or capable of handling a growing population. As soon as one mechanical problem means you spring a leak, a space station has permanently lost mass and needs resupply. Pop a leak in your Mars habitat? Well, mine some ice and crack it to get some more Oxygen from the environment around you. Or walk on foot to a neighbor habitat if it's a bad leak.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:16AM
Do you and the people who modded you up even know what you're talking about?
1) "Some gravity". And where is the scientific evidence showing that Mars gravity is enough? We have near _zero_ scientific data on this (even for mice). We've got data for "zero" and data for around 1G (and maybe above 1G), but very little in between. Somehow NASA etc have money to talk about Mars but no money for boring stuff like this module: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module [wikipedia.org]
The fact is if Mars gravity isn't enough it's far far harder to adjust it there than to adjust the acceleration in a suitable space station (which can be built - you don't need a huge one - just tethers and counterweight(s) ).
2) "Some atmosphere" Do you realize how thin Mars atmosphere is? It's 0.6% the pressure of the Earth. You will still need spacesuits to go "outside" since it is below the Armstrong limit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_limit [wikipedia.org]
You can't just walk about wearing a face mask with oxygen.
So on Mars you, your livestock and plants will all effectively be living in a "jumbo space station" too. So it's not going to be much cheaper than a space station in space. If you want to talk about resources, water and O2, many asteroids have similar resources to Mars with the benefit of lower G so it is far less expensive to get on and off them.
Lots of people are biased by their experience on Earth or by the bullshit spouted by NASA and Musk so they assume a planet like Mars has got to be more suitable than a spacestation in space. But that's not true based on actual scientific evidence. The atmosphere is wrong, the gravity is wrong, and in many areas on Mars there is a night so you don't get solar energy, and it's a gravity well. All for what real benefit? Lots of land that you can't use without covering with "space station stuff"?
Seems to me Musk and NASA are in the business of getting suckers to fund them to play with their toys.
(Score: 2) by Absolutely.Geek on Sunday October 02 2016, @08:38PM
A jumbo ISS is never going to be permanently self sustaining, or capable of handling a growing population
Why not? Asteroid capture would bring in all the raw materials for orbital manufacturing and repair of existing facilities.
I don't think this would happen in the short term; for the first decade or two the new habitats would be very reliant on resupply from Earth.
However as we got better and better at 0g manufacturing; the habitats would become self sustaining and even self multiplying. Once you start manufacturing habs in orbit; the only limit is mechanical strength; 200m diameter, 1km, 100km???? Redesign your hab to also be a ship; 6 x 200m diameter x 100m length (4 floors takes this to over 1km^2 or 2500 acres) counter rotating habs on a central axis with extra radiation shielding and attach whatever the most advanced propulsion system of the day is and start touring the solar system; population 10,000 + crops and life support.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by theluggage on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:06PM
But why start with Mars? Why not build a better ISS? A big rotating can (maybe inflatable) in the sky; big enough to create gravity, farm crops etc... then expand to two, setup orbital manufacturing.
This.
Build the infrastructure for exploiting the resources of the solar system - so the raw materials needed to keep humans alive in space don't have to be dragged out of a gravity well - before trying manned Hail Mary passes to the planets.
What I don't understand about the Musk plans is the idea of re-using the Earth-Mars ship: which means having to refuel it on Mars, launch it from Mars, fly it back to Earth and, what, build it to withstand re-entry and landing on Earth for re-fitting? if you're going to land it on Mars, isn't it more valuable as the centrepiece of your semi-permanent Mars colony? If you want to re-use it, isn't it better to leave it in orbit and go down to mars in a much smaller ascent/descent vehicle?
I think I prefer the set-up in The Martian with a non-landing Earth-Mars ferry, and the ascent vehicle and hab safely delivered to Mars before you even leave Earth (especially on a Mars without unfeasibly violent plot-device sandstorms).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:33PM
Luna is the best of both worlds. Shallow gravity well and lack of atmosphere make for cheap launches. You can dig in for radiation shielding. You can mine air, water, fuel, and materials, and there's plenty of sun for energy. On top of that you're close enough to Earth for supplies and emergency help.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Interesting) by el_oscuro on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:18AM
Doing either would benefit mankind immensely. Just one example: sustainable food production. On earth, our current food production methods are horribly inefficient from an environmental, energy, and carbon perspective. Any colonies would have to be much better, and everything they do could be used to benefit life on Earth.
In fact, the knowledge we gain from a sustainable colony could dwarf both the Apollo missions and the development of the Internet.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:07PM
Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to improve food production on Earth?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:55AM
It is more like the worst of both worlds.
On the moon you have:
* No atmosphere. On Mars, while you would still need a spacesuit, it could be more like a pilot's pressure suit than a full spacesuit needed in hard vacuum. This means much easier working conditions outside.
* A day/night cycle which no Earth plant is adapted for, making crops impossible to grow under natural lighting. Mars has a day/night cycle almost the same as Earth.
* Very low gravity. While there is no proof that Martian gravity is enough to prevent health issues, it has been shown that it is enough to prevent the extreme clumsiness experienced by astronauts on the Moon.
* High radiation. Mars has at least a little bit of atmosphere to help protect from radiation. It is likely that you would need a shielded or underground habitat on either location, but either way it is no advantage to the Moon.
* Incredibly difficult dust. Dust on the Moon is like billions of tiny saw blades. On Mars, while the dust is finer than is found on Earth, it has experienced billions of years of erosion and is much more manageable. Even the famous Martian dust storms are quite manageable compared to the destructive lunar dust.
* No likely usable minerals. The Moon has never had geological or hydrological activity. There is therefore no process which could have produced the concentrations of minerals which are practical to extract on Earth. While Mars has no active geology now, it once did, and is likely to have some concentrated minerals - and untouched by thousands of years of human mining.
* Very little water, and what there is, is concentrated at the poles. Mars has water all over the place.
* No moons. The Martian moons are perfect natural space stations, small enough to have almost no gravity of their own (you could probably jump off of Deimos and go into orbit around Mars) yet large enough to be suitable for construction. And they are conveniently located, too, with Phobos in a very low orbit, easy to access from the surface, and Deimos in a high one, suitable for launching missions to the asteroids.
* Although actually fairly close to the asteroid belt in energy terms, the Moon is much more distant in terms of travel time. Asteroids could only be mined remotely with the mining equipment returning periodically for servicing; from Mars, humans could reasonably fly there (although they might not want to stay unless artificial gravity is provided).
* Much harsher temperatures. Temperatures on the Moon go from really-freaking-cold to surprisingly very hot, with a 500 degree F variation at the equator. While the temperature on Mars is colder than Earth, it is relatively stable, with temperatures at the equator varying over approximately Antarctic levels.
* Buzz Aldrin, who has actually been to the Moon, thinks Mars is a better place to live. That's not proof, but it counts for something.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:48PM
With the combination of this and your other post (you sound like the same AC), you seem to be saying that every off-Earth place to live sucks.
* No moons. The Martian moons are perfect natural space stations, small enough to have almost no gravity of their own (you could probably jump off of Deimos and go into orbit around Mars) yet large enough to be suitable for construction. And they are conveniently located, too, with Phobos in a very low orbit, easy to access from the surface, and Deimos in a high one, suitable for launching missions to the asteroids.
How are the moons of Mars appreciably different than our own?
So living on Mars would suck, living on the moon would suck, and many of the reasons living on the moon would suck also would seem to apply to living on a space station.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @05:32AM
No, the other AC isn't me. I think Mars is a fine place to colonize. I don't like the Moon, though, because the only thing it has going for it is that it's close. And I actually think that is a drawback, since it encourages "test pilot thinking," in which you treat a moon base like a more difficult version of the ISS, rather than "settler thinking," in which you treat it like a place that's actually going to be a home.
Phobos and Deimos are almost nothing like the Moon. They are more like asteroids. They probably actually are asteroids, although there are dissenting astronomers on that point. They are small enough to be easy places to build (with virtually no gravity, it's easy to build underground, because you hardly need any structure to prevent a cave-in). Building underground protects you from radiation. But they are also great places to stop and refuel or repair or, eventually, do manufacturing from all the asteroid-based resources you're probably bringing back. But they're massive enough that you could attach a skyhook-style launch system to them. And doing all this construction and base-building is great practice for asteroid mining. Even with building underground to protect against radiation, you wouldn't want to live there for more than a few months because of the microgravity, but they're a great place to visit.
The Earth's moon on the other hand is more like a small planet. A planet without much in the way of resources.
(Score: 5, Funny) by isostatic on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:40PM
As I understand it Musk wants to retire on mars, hence he's going to Mars.
You will retire in your moms basement saying "mars is rubbish you should listen to me instead"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:28AM
Why not build a better ISS?
What could SpaceX do with that that their customers won't do better? Visiting Mars has the virtue of doing something that can't be done by people on or near Earth (like I can't visit Paris, if I never leave my front lawn).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:30AM
i can!
google streetview ftw
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:41PM
His front lawn isn't covered by the WLAN in his basement. Therefore he has to leave the front lawn to visit Paris.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:46PM
I found the part of the presentation [youtube.com] about in situ propellant production to be really interesting. I wonder what a company with spaceships and propellant production plants sitting in a comparatively shallow gravity well would be thinking about exporting. Could SpaceX be planning on becoming an energy company?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:15AM
Sorry, ITS was already taken --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatible_Timesharing_System [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday September 30 2016, @09:02AM
You don't possibly mean Internationalization Tag Set? [wikipedia.org] Or Intelligent tutoring system? [wikipedia.org] Or International Transportation Service? [wikipedia.org]
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:46AM
I'm on board with the in orbit refueling. Building a fueling station is Kerbal Space Exploration 101, and really opens up the rest of the solar system. And I rarely crash the refueling ships, unlike my prototype vehicles.
Like all space exploration, KSP provides sufficient simulation.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 29 2016, @09:56AM
This rocket will blast the spaceship, which will carry at least 100 people, to LEO, where further launches will fuel the smaller vehicle.
You can't do this, because nothing can ever be done for the first time [youtube.com].
More seriously, there are a raft of issues (I didn't watch the presentation, so perhaps some of them were addressed) that must be resolved before this could be viable.
Having the ability to lift large cargoes into LEO in a cost-effective manner would be a good thing™. However, that's just the start. You need to be able to:
1. Create and perfect pretty bulletproof life-support (water, waste extraction/recycling, air filtration) systems
2. Address the issues surrounding long-term weightlessness (centrifugal force generating gravity-equivalent? Something else?)
3. Address the issues surrounding solar and cosmic radiation exposure during the trip
4. Create a pretty bulletproof closed food production ecosystem (cf. Biosphere 2 [wikipedia.org])
5. Invent, engineer and manufacture appropriate tools, machines and devices to harvest and utilize the resources available on Mars.
I'm sure there are *many* more issues which are not addressed by off-the-shelf systems. Some are engineering issues and others will require new science.
All that said, I'd love to see this in my lifetime and, like martyb [soylentnews.org], I'd (if they'd actually let me) love to be on that ship. In fact, even if I knew it was a one-way trip, I'd be all over it.
Despite the lack of intellectual curiosity, fear and lack of imagination among some people, it's nice to see that there are those who still believe "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" [wikiquote.org]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:17PM
Gotta love our Musky meme.
Your "bulletproof points" are interesting. I suppose these habitats have to be secure and redundant enough to stop one suicidal/homicidal maniac from killing the other 99 settlers.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:46PM
Gotta love our Musky meme.
Just a friendly reminder to keep your distance when he's in rut! [wikipedia.org]
Your "bulletproof points" are interesting. I suppose these habitats have to be secure and redundant enough to stop one suicidal/homicidal maniac from killing the other 99 settlers.
I'm going to be deliberately obtuse and assume you're not attempting humor.
Bulletproof (adj): [dictionary.com]
Then again, only a moron would go anywhere without their P90 [wikipedia.org]. Especially when an expended round could decompress the craft (or the habitat on Mars) and kill everyone. Cold, dead hands, friend. Cold, dead hands.
Because you never know when some illegal immigrant* is going to jump out and try to rob you and rape your wife/girlfriend.
*Or in this case, some heathen microbial life that thinks that just because his kind has been living there for billions of years, that it's actually their planet. Manifest Destiny [wikipedia.org], FTW!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:20PM
Well, just think about this:
If you construct space/lunar/martian habitats that are only as durable as the ISS, they will probably fail at the hands of a drunkard or suicidal/homicidal maniac. Sending a few physically and mentally screened NASA astronauts is one thing, but having hundreds of settlers on Mars will eventually lead to Earthly problems creeping in. Somebody alive today may be the first person to commit murder on Mars. That person's inevitable Wikipedia page awaits.
Maybe you really want your bulletproof life-support systems to be bulletproof. That could also translate to "resistant to micrometeor impacts" or "maniac doing his damndest to cause destruction with sharp instruments and heavy tools". That might be achievable in specific circumstances: an underground habitat for example. You also want enough redundancy in the life support systems to prevent damage in one area from causing complete loss of life in the habitat. That might be achievable in an underground lunar/martian habitat, but might be much more difficult and expensive in an ISS-scale space station. That's not to say that today's space stations don't already have some built-in safety features, or that a sufficiently determined individual could not destroy a habitat on the ground (by making a bomb with the available chemicals, for example).
And here's a terrifying thought: Musky rides along with dozens of settlers and becomes the first man to set foot on Mars, but then renames his colony Jonestown M2 and kills everybody with the press of a button.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:58PM
Maybe you really want your bulletproof life-support systems to be bulletproof. That could also translate to "resistant to micrometeor impacts" or "maniac doing his damndest to cause destruction with sharp instruments and heavy tools". That might be achievable in specific circumstances: an underground habitat for example. You also want enough redundancy in the life support systems to prevent damage in one area from causing complete loss of life in the habitat. That might be achievable in an underground lunar/martian habitat, but might be much more difficult and expensive in an ISS-scale space station. That's not to say that today's space stations don't already have some built-in safety features, or that a sufficiently determined individual could not destroy a habitat on the ground (by making a bomb with the available chemicals, for example).
I suppose that's true. It would be important to address how to deal with any sort of impact (whether internal or external) that might compromise the integrity of the air or water supplies. Automated pressure doors come to mind. Adequate shielding against micrometeorites wouldn't be a bad idea either.
In addition to pressure doors and shielding, it might be useful to use "glueballs" as is described in this story [unz.org]. Perhaps we'd also need to create something akin to a Phased Plasma Gun (PPG) [wikia.com] (or, more likely, something like this [wikipedia.org]) to avoid inadvertent hull breaches.
What's more, I suspect that with appropriate screening, we might not have an issue with murder, mass or otherwise. I say that since the global intentional murder rate [wikipedia.org] is about 7.6/100,000 people. Since there would be 100 people, the rate (without any screening) should be somewhere around .0076/100. With psychological screening, that could probably be cut down significantly.
As I mentioned, there are quite a few issues which must be resolved in order to give any long-range (i.e., not into low earth orbit or to the moon) manned space expedition a decent chance of delivering humans to Mars, Europa or other "local" destinations and returning them home safely.
Regardless, even without crazed colonists butchering their compatriots, this will be a risky and dangerous proposition. Exciting, isn't it?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:30PM
You know that question of if you had your life to live over again, what would you change?
Well, since I'm middle aged, grossly obese, ex smoker who has had heart bypass surgery, I'm pretty sure I'll never be able to go to the Moon, let alone Mars. But I'd answer that question to say I'dve made the necessary changes in my life to have tried to become an Astronaut candidate.
I'd like to have been Mark Watney, thanks. (Or better still, Martinez.)