Elon Musk says he will put millions of people on Mars

I'm such an Elon Musk fanboy. If he can do even 20% of what he's claiming to be able to do, the human race will be so much further along that we are now - and I might get to go to space. Rock on, Elon.

Factual error: Falcon Heavy is <i>not</i> the biggest rocket to fly since the Saturn V -- that category includes both the US Space Transportation System (Space Shuttle) and the Soviet Energiya/Polyus and Energiya/Buran stacks.<p>Falcon Heavy's payload exceeds those carried within the Space Shuttle (or Buran) payload bays, but if you include the orbiter vehicle itself in the payload either shuttle had a bigger payload into LEO. And Energiya in launch vehicle configuration (as when it was used to launch Polyus) carried nearly the same payload as the Saturn V.<p>(I hate these overblown claims. Why not just stick at saying "Falcon Heavy has the biggest payload of any commercial launch vehicle, ever" and leave it at that?)

Even if Elon Musk is totally wrong, it is the vision that is important. The vision of creating a thriving Mars colony where millions of humans can live and work will drive incredible improvements in our technology, by inspiring thousands or even millions of people all over the world to study science and engineering.<p>Mr. Musk, thank you for being brave enough to give the world a vision of a brighter future.

Musk seems to be ignoring the fact that getting there is the easy part. You then have to survive on a frigid alien planet with almost no atmosphere, no food in the environment, essentially no available water and no human infrastructure. Are there really millions of people who would sign up for the world's most expensive method of committing suicide?

For anyone interested in the idea of humans colonizing Mars, I can thoroughly recommend Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars Trilogy (starting with Red Mars).<p>It's a great future history of how we might end up there and what it would take for us to ferry millions over (essentially, that we find enough minerals for it to be in bigcos interest to do so).

The book "The Case for Mars" makes a similar argument (that getting to Mars using mostly Apollo-era technology has always been possible, we just lack the political will).<p>More importantly it makes a compelling argument that we <i>must</i> do this, because civilization requires a frontier.

The problem is not getting there, it's that <i>there's no reason to be there</i>. Even the least hospitable places on Earth are far, far more hospitable than Mars. Combine that with the fact that there's no economic potential on Mars, and it just doesn't make sense.<p>Look, you won't find many bigger proponents of space colonization than me, but it has to make sense. By all means, colonize the moon and use its helium for fusion energy. Build foundries in space and start melting down asteroids. But don't try and stick a million people in a place that very explicitly does not want people just because we <i>can</i>.

The lack of a decent magnetosphere on mars is probably the biggest issue we have to tackle if we are going to send people there. It would require some pretty significant infrastructure on mars to shield us and all of our life resources. We would never really live ON mars. We would live inside of containers that happen to be somewhere on/in mars.<p><a href="http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast31jan_1/" rel="nofollow">http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/as...</a><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Magnetic_field_and_solar_radiation" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Magnetic_f...</a>

Who has studied the effects of low gravity on a growing child? That's of course a rethorical question: nobody has.<p>So I can see people spending some years in Mars, similar to those who work in oil rigs. Hell, I would have done it myself! But a full-blown colony? Rising a child on half the gravity with unpredictable effects is a different animal.

This is just a blog post quoting a NewScientist article which needs a login (!!!) to read it. Anybody got a cached version?<p><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228433.000-ill-put-millions-of-people-on-mars-says-elon-musk.html?full=true" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228433.000-ill-put-m...</a>

What a damn fine time to be alive.

Great guy. I know he can do it. Millions of people on Mars is the right goal. Along with melting the poles, establishing a CO2 atmosphere, using plants to convert CO2 to O2 and thereby terraforming the planet. Mars, here we come.

Time for some name-dropping. My father operated on his mother-in-law. Yeh, that's right. Connected ;)<p>On a serious note I have heard just how unbelievably driven this guy is. He picks absolutely enormous challenges and just goes for it.<p>A truly great hacker.

Mark your calendars for SpaceXs next launch (to the space station) on feb 7.

This is awesome. Not because he will put people on Mars in 10 years for $5B (because he won't - it's way harder than that) - but because he can say that, and people <i>listen</i> (and discuss on HN).

All I ask is that one Dragon serving the ISS has the Pan-Am logo on it and is designated the Pan-Am Space Clipper.<p>Whould be immensely cool.

Given th current state of the Space program and the outlook for the next 30 years or so....<p>It pains me to say that Elon Musk will not be able to put Millions of people on Mars in his lifetime.<p>Barring some game changing discovery, Millions o human beings (unmodifed Genetically identical to humans in 2011) will not get "put" on Mars by the millions in the next 30-40 years.

i think is not my idea but why not first send self-replicating machines on mars wich will mine for materials. and then send human when it is all prepared. or another stage of self replicating machines?

Lets start with congress

Anyone else find it strange that halfway through the video one of the lyrics is "We should not be afraid to die"?<p>&#62;_&#62;

Yes, but when will he put people on Uranus?

I watched the second video. When I saw the launch rocket flip around and use its propulsion to come to a graceful, upright landing, my jaw dropped. That's simply not what rockets do in my lifetime of casual observation. Is it really possible to store enough propellant to boost the upper stages into space, and still provide a cushioned landing? Is that really doable?

Humanity is already a blight on the face of the Earth. Maybe we should be restricted to fucking up just one planet?

Populating a new world needs many women, not so many men. (If you want to populate somewhere, I'm your man.) I'm not going unless there is a ratio enforced. Which would pretty much that mean very little competition in terms of seduction. That enforcement seems unlikely.