If getting stuff to Mars becomes cheap enough, then the rest becomes pretty easy.

He's proposing a system for getting stuff to Mars cheaply enough.

Characterizing this as "emotional manipulation" is ridiculous. You want to see what emotional manipulation actually looks like, watch an Apple keynote. This is a guy risking his fortune on a crazy dream and presenting his efforts in a technical and factual manner.

Successful terraforming becomes easy once we can send alot of rockets to a destination? We are emperically terrible at sustainably making our own planet more hospitable to human life, how is Mars easier? I'm actually bewildered here; just baby me and spell out how the Mars colonization process works if the only significant requisite is being able to move things from point A to point B. Do not dodge by saying we've colonized land on Earth.

Remember, the talk was about a method of transportation, not colonization as the title suggested. Optimism is great; don't let it be a means of deception.

Terraforming isn't necessary. Growing food is probably a necessity, as even this cheap transport isn't that transport, but you can do that in greenhouses. Water is available. Energy is available in the form of either solar or nuclear. Getting the colony to be self-sustaining is hard, but it boils down to getting enough people and infrastructure there that they are able to build everything they need on site.

We have bases on Antarctica, and they're not self sustaining. Consider that Antarctica is far more liveable and closer than Mars.

Nobody has tried to make them self-sustaining. It's not as if people have tried and failed.

>Nobody has tried to make them self-sustaining. It's not as if people have tried and failed.

I'm certain folks have tried on Antarctica (we've had constant human presence there for decades).

However, we still failed even under a much more controlled and hospitable environment - Biosphere 2.

Biosphere 2[1] failed because of our lack of understanding of our own ecosystems on earth. A minute imbalance led to the entire ecosystem failing.

The issue with Mars isn't getting there (or back) - government's have been doing this for more than a decade.

The issue with Mars is getting people there, alive... and keeping them alive for the duration of the mission, and then returning them home alive.

We're only now starting to explore the effects of microgravity on the human body - and having not figured out how to mitigate some serious issues (such as your eyes losing shape, causing you to go blind[2]), we're not going to be able to seriously consider long duration space travel, let alone inhabit another planet.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2

[2] http://www.space.com/25392-manned-mars-mission-astronaut-vis...

Why are you certain folks have tried to make a self-sustaining Antarctic colony? I don't see why anyone would bother. You can get supplies from the outside. Activity on the continent transitioned directly from exploration to scientific outposts.

Biosphere 2 was in many ways more challenging than Mars. It was intended to be totally self-contained with all water and oxygen recycled. On Mars, water can be found outside, and oxygen can be made from the atmosphere industrially.

The transit time to Mars with this system is 3-4 months. Astronauts have already spent far more time in orbit than that. There are negative effects, yes, but blindness isn't one of them (and your link doesn't even list blindness as a potential consequence, just impaired vision).

It's possible that the reduced gravity on Mars would continue to cause harm, but I rather doubt that it would be so bad as to make the whole venture impossible. Maybe Martians have bad eyesight and shortened lives, but nobody's doing this for their health anyway.

> Why are you certain folks have tried to make a self-sustaining Antarctic colony? I don't see why anyone would bother. You can get supplies from the outside. Activity on the continent transitioned directly from exploration to scientific outposts.

Nobody said they _had_ to, but I'm sure someone has tried over the years out of a scientific interest. (Although I have no source for this, so it's unsubstantiated unless someone digs something up).

> The transit time to Mars with this system is 3-4 months

Travel time depends on trajectory, however safe estimates usually are around 6 months each way.[1]

> It's possible that the reduced gravity on Mars would continue to cause harm, but I rather doubt that it would be so bad as to make the whole venture impossible

Well, the effects we're observing now (for the first time!) are largely from Scott Kelly[2]'s year in microgravity. Going to mars and back takes around 1 year's time (6 months approximately each way), plus we assume they'll stay on the surface longer than a few hours... so these may prove to be serious complications. The scary thing is, few talk about these issues when dreaming about traveling to Mars (Musk included, apparently).

[1] http://www.universetoday.com/14841/how-long-does-it-take-to-...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kelly_(astronaut)

"Travel time depends on trajectory, however safe estimates usually are around 6 months each way."

The figure I stated comes from the presentation we're discussing, I didn't just pull it out of my nether regions. You can go faster if you're willing to use more fuel.

You're "sure" that someone has tried to set up a self-sustaining colony in Antarctica even though you have absolutely zero evidence for any such thing, yet you completely reject a figure I got straight from the source material we're supposedly discussing here? I can't carry on a conversation like that.

> The figure I stated comes from the presentation we're discussing, I didn't just pull it out of my nether regions

We have yet to see if these figures are sound. Hauling enough fuel up there for an oversized vehicle quickly becomes an issue - the more weight, the more fuel required, which adds to weight.

Regardless, 3-4 months each way is still a long time in microgravity. I don't see the point you're raising.

> You're "sure" that someone has tried to set up a self-sustaining colony in Antarctica even though you have absolutely zero evidence for any such thing, yet you completely reject a figure I got straight from the source material we're supposedly discussing here?

The grand point I raised was we've tried this on earth, and failed. We understand earth fairly well, comparatively... yet we've failed each time we try. We can't just waive hands and say this isn't an issue.

Right now my point is just that a discussion needs some foundation of shared understanding, and when you're insisting that there's some failed colony in Antarctica based on nothing, while simultaneously discounting believable numbers from the CEO of a successful rocket company because hauling more fuel is "an issue," then we don't have that.

I'm not talking about Mars anymore, because it would be fruitless.

> The grand point I raised was we've tried this on earth, and failed.

A grand point that you have failed to back up with anything other than a hunch, and are defending by rejecting numbers, that while are far from infallible, you didn't give any reason for rejecting.

> I'm sure someone has tried over the years out of a scientific interest.

Maybe as a hobby idea. But has anyone seriously tried, with an 8-9 figure budget, a team of engineers, etc.? Shipping in supplies is cheap. There is little financial motive to make a self-sustaining colony.

Biosphere 2 didn't succeed because it wasn't run by scientists.

Facilities for re-supply are so close and economical there is no incentive to make them self-sustaining. But it could be done.

If terraforming is not possible and the Mars colony requires sealed and pressurized buildings, why does it need to be on Mars? Just build it on earth. And if earth runs out of mineable resources, mine asteroids instead, and build your colonies inside those asteroids.

> why does it need to be on Mars? Just build it on earth

The point is to make humanity resilient to what would otherwise be an exctinction-level event, such as an engineered superplague, weaponized nanorobotics, or a massive asteroid impact.

I don't know if you actually stayed for the Q&A session after the video, but this question came up and he addressed it directly.

His viewpoint is that SpaceX is a transportation company, not a colonization or habitat company. He drew an analogy to the railroad companies that built the first railroads to California. Once they made California easily accessible, others came after them to settle down to and build the state.

Two-way transportation is the biggest obstacle in the way of Mars colonization. That's why SpaceX is focusing on it. But colonization is what gets people excited, and it is the long-term vision, so it has to be the central pitch.

Having a sustainable transport scheme is a necessity in moving to Mars. I don't think anyone is naive enough to think that in practice transport is the hardest problem. But it's psychologically important - without transport there is nowhere to go. Either we become multiplanetary or not - I don't know - but if we become multiplanetary then transport is a necessary step. Building the transport scheme from economically self sustaining processes is only for the better for the robustness of it.

The fact that something is marketed does not diminish the utility of a thing.

Well also, once the cost gets low enough, a lot of other space ventures suddenly go from impossible to practical.

Sending multiple tons of robotic drilling equipment to Europa to look for life under the ice for example...

> Human colonization, in this context, is a bait-and-switch

A switch with what, exactly? If he's just trying to make money, just space tourism alone would be more than enough, since he could charge the same as he'd charge for a Mars trip . Also, if your goal is to colonize Mars, a pretty critical step one is getting humans to Mars. It's not some nefarious plan.