Elon Musk to Make Us a Multiplanetary Species

When Elon Musk takes the stage of the 67th International Astronautical Congress in Guadalajara, Mexico on Sept. 27, it won’t be to rehash terrestrial concerns like a fatal Tesla autopilot crash or a poorly received merger proposal. Instead, the space and electric-car entrepreneur will be talking about realizing his boyhood dream: going to Mars.
Musk’s keynote address, entitled “Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species,” will tackle the technical challenges and “potential architectures for colonizing the Red Planet," according to organizers. Translation: huge rockets, big spacecraft. No one has been anticipating the event more eagerly than Musk, who founded Space Exploration Technologies Corp., his rocket-launch company, 14 years ago with the express goal of putting humans on other planets to live and work.

Elon Musk to Outline His Plans for Mars - Bloomberg

Musk is only one of many reaching for the stars with private enterprise as well as governments. While it seems that interest for these kind of ventures have different goals the end result will be an advancement of science. There even as been an agency created to make rules for interplanetary exploration.

While others have taken on this exploration our government is mired in politics rather than doing what it was created for. The latest is the international space station is falling out of the sky suffering from obsolescence and we as well as others are dependent on others to continue our limited engagement.

All this said, what do you think about working toward a goal of settling other planets. I would like real answers and do the fall back that it is a waster of money while ignoring the many advancements we enjoy resulting from the space program.

It took less than $40 billion, over 10 years, to fulfill JFK’s goal of putting a man on the moon. (About $270 billion in 2014 dollars). Today we are spending $17 billion a year to do Moslem outreach and buy rides from the Russians. The benefits of a space program renaissance are many:

  1. High tech jobs, high tech research with commercial impact.

  2. Potential energy sources. Helium-3 from the moon.

  3. National security. Space will be militarized; if we are not number one, someone else will be.

  4. Insurance of long term survival of the human race against an inevitable planetary disaster. A self sustaining permanent colonization of Mars could take centuries to accomplish.

We have to begin sometime. If not now, when? Wait until we fix all of our problems on earth? :rofl:

1 Like

Don’t forget long-in-the-tooth R&D on a rocket which we have vague missions for like “land on a asteroid & return”.

A rocket which totally won’t end up just like Constellation, and run billions over budget, while delivering sub-optimal hardware.

I mean, it’s not like we ever put Norman Augustine in charge of a commission that was outright predicting we wouldn’t have an on-going manned-program until the 2030s if we didn’t follow specific guidelines as to how to build our next rocket.

And even if he did, it’s not like we chose a “middle of the road” course that totally confused why he was making those recommendations in the first place.

And by the mid-2020s, we certainly won’t be asking ourselves why we spent billions on Rocket vaporware, when SpaceX has the very real, very functional Falcon Heavy, and a spaceport that can handle a mission to Mars.

Mars Direct was on the table and feasible in 1990; no big spaceport required.

According to Robert Zubrin, the architect and indefatigable champion of the proposal, “while Mars Direct might cost $30 to $50 billion if implemented by NASA, if done by a private outfit spending its own money, the out-of-pocket cost would probably be in the $5 billion range.”

We can never throw too much money at R&D. Even when it’s inefficient, we get major new technology that moves things forward.

Except, when it’s R&D the private sector is already doing, at a fraction of the cost.

There is no reason for the Orion to be built for near-earth missions. Either build it for long-range missions exclusively, or don’t build it at all.

And just as he explained, NASA would never sign onto it, as all of the Space Centers would have to be on board.

They’d never be on board, because many, if not most, of said centers would be left out, with nothing to contribute.

Considering that if one looks at Star trek one will see the future in true space going vehicles will not touch down while smaller vehicles will ferry crew and passengers up. This has been a theme even when I read science fiction as a boy. We were working on the shuttle until obama turned it into a muslim out reach program and global warming supporter.

Teleportation is also being worked on in present science.

U.S. Air Force Study On Teleportation

1 Like

Eh, not exactly; the Space Shuttle was slated for retirement long before Obama came into the picture. What he and Congress did was pull the trigger as to the specific year.

They then equally made the decision to build the our next rocket out of recycled Shuttle technology. Which was the wrong call. Upfront that decision costs less, but over the life-cycle of the vehicle it will end up costing us more, while delivering inferior performance compared to if we started over.

Ah yes your goggle knowledge makes you a master and wrong as usual.

1 Like