Musk: I can’t tell you much. We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China—if we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book.
If your process/ideas are sufficiently complex, it reduces competition if you don't file a patent.
Lots of industries do this. Patents are useful when it's obvious what your idea is, and where it's easy for people/competitors to have have a poke inside. Like a vacuum cleaner or a non-reflective mobile-phone screen coating, or one-click or something like that.
But for industries where that's not the case, like rockets (my current) or to pick another example from a previous job, magnetic bearings for sub-sea tubo-machinery installations like natural gas compressors[1], it makes no sense to file a patent. It's much easier to keep it a secret, because it's not like your competitors are going to scuba-dive down to the compressor control cabinet, whip out a JTAG and see how you've implemented your control loop on an FPGA.
Likewise, if you do patent it, it's very difficult to prove an infringement for the same reasons.
So essentially, in industries where it's not the case that your competitors can see what you've done, secrets over patents is the norm, in my experience, and has been for while.
[1] Mag bearings use electromagnetic stators and magnetic collars on the shaft to levitate the shaft inside a bit of spinning equipment. This means it's entirely non-contact, dramatically reducing wear, especially useful on difficult-to-service installations like sub-sea.
Note that this has a double meaning. He's not just talking about "the Chinese" and their well known cavalier attitude toward intellectual property, he's specifically talking about the government of China, which is ultimately the operator of the Long March launch vehicles. Suing sovereign governments for patent infringement has historically not been a winning proposition.
It's actually worse than that. Tech companies routinely use a combination of patents, trade secrets and copyright to make the shared knowledge (patents) basically useless but an exceptionally good defensive and offensive weapon. I recall this came up with Intel and other companies reverse-engineering the Netburst bus.
EDIT: removed point about first-to-file as prior art would largely invalidate such attempts beyond a very narrow time frame.
Patents aren't my area of expertise. That said absurdity in the patent system isn't limited to the software world. This is second-hand info from someone who's had to file these patents, but I've heard you can get patents on metal alloys providing that you can state the exact reason why that specific alloy composition gives the property you desire. If a competitor then proves that the property is a consequence of some other effect, your patent is invalidated. So there's not much incentive to patent these things if keeping it a trade secret is a more viable alternative.
It's frustrating when you're working on a problem you're 90% sure a better funded industry player has already solved. Maybe they solved it through trial and error, without needing or wanting to understand the fundamental science behind it, but you then have to re-discover their results before you can even make progress in the understanding. But it's that understanding that's essential for developing completely new materials for the future. It's not all that bad, but it's certainly sub-optimal.
My father runs a company which has been in our family for 250 years. It weaves silk fabrics for luxurious furnitures for mansions and alikes (Versailles comes to mind).
He's always told me that he'll never try to register its designs to any authority since the company's main competitors are the chinese, and that they do not care for forgein laws and registrations. Well, obviously.
Surely, this is not suitable to every businesses, but I couldn't think at the time that this would apply to the space industry as well.
A lot of companies choose to keep their intellectual property as "trade secrets" instead. (Like the Coke recipe, etc.) Just like SpaceX, it can often be better for the company than a patent.
One of the supposed points of patents is that the inventor shares knowledge with the world in exchange for temporary monopoly. If the patent is not enforced (such as in China), then there is no incentive to file. It might be smarter, from a business standpoint, to just keep the knowledge to yourself.
I was at the University of Washington science and engineering career fair last month, recruiting for Mozilla. Our booth was reasonably busy, but the SpaceX booth had a gigantic mob surrounding it at all times. People are seriously excited about space.
> The problem is that at a lot of big companies, process becomes a substitute for thinking. You’re encouraged to behave like a little gear in a complex machine. Frankly, it allows you to keep people who aren’t that smart, who aren’t that creative.
Sounds like so many complaints about the enterprise software landscape, and has certainly proved to be true in my own experience. Codified processes usually start with the guise of open communications and education, either because someone wasn't thinking or because of a pressing need to get a few people on the same page. They are soon adopted and enforced as dogma by natural-born bureaucrats who crawl out of the woodwork from seemingly nowhere. It must be an incredible challenge to fight in any large organization, looking at it from the top down.
So far, Musk appears to be doing an admirable job. These things tend to last only as long as a real visionary is at the helm. He is young so hopefully can keep at it for a while longer still, hopefully even long enough to get us to Mars. From this article, he didn't actually say to much about such plans. I wonder if it's just a judicious amount of prudence on his part or if even he fears it may not be feasible in his lifetime.
This is something I've been struggling with. I see the two paths to success being mutually exclusive; throw out process and go big or channel process into success.
His company is geared towards a clear mission which is very motivational to the engineers and managers in team. When a company drives towards a goal with a fanatical zeal, nothing else matters than achieving the milestones. Motivation towards achieving breakthrough achievements will mask the tendency which creates underperformance.
It would be wrong to compare it with any other traditional big company. The structures built around traditional big business work because of some reasons.
Once they achieve the goals of easier space flight and mission to mars and when it become easier or less motivational, probably they will face similar issues like most companies. But i don't this Musk cares a damn about that ... and he shouldn't
This observation goes well beyond enterprise software - this is preferred modus operandi of "legacy" companies, and in my mind the primary reason anyone that prefers autonomy has a hard time working for these companies. When you are the size of Walmart, unless you are strategist working for Walmart corporate, you want your employees to behave like soldiers in the military. This is not surprising given that the modern multi-national corporation, was built on the top down hierarchical model shaped after the military industrial complex. Whats further true is that, this was arguably the best way to organize a large group of people towards a common objective (increasingly share holder value in the case of the better run organizations, or executive compensation in the case of the worst type of these organizations) until very recently. However this model has run its course, and will have a very hard time defending itself against smaller, but very scalable and nimble organizations. Just as the US military realized post 9/11 that it was equipped to fight 20th century wars, but not 21st century wars, which look much more like insurgencies and are way more distributed in nature, large MNC's will have to realize that their top down, process first organization structure is doomed to fail! All we need now is more entrepreneurs to look away from social media a bit and follow Musk's lead in creating real, but more scalable and nimble companies.
Processes are a bit like abstractions in software engineering. They allow you to build on top of it to avoid having to think about everything, but if you don't understand your abstractions, in the long run, you're not going to do anything great.
When (not if) we set foot on Mars, the achievement will be one of humanity. Private company, government, US, China, it doesn't matter. We'll be on Mars, a multi-planetary race. How the accomplishment was funded and by who will not matter (to me, anyway).
Well, we'd have to wait 2 years for a launch window, but I agree that the US will stop dicking around with zero-g studies when we get scared that China might beat us there.
NASA is probably too risk-averse with human life, and China is too risk-accepting. They once wiped out an entire peasant village in a rocket failure (and tried to cover it up).
EDIT: I had to watch that video to the very end to get to the 18 month mark. Geeze.
and that would be absolutely amazing; though in some ways (and not to discount musk’s undertaking at all) i feel it speaks more so to a failure of governments (generally speaking) in investing to drive technological advance.
it should be the public sector that leads in these types of endeavors. one of the most important functions of a state is its ability and willingness to invest in projects that would be otherwise unprofitable or far too long-term for any rational player in the private sector to take-on. these investments, while maybe unprofitable to a single entity, are what lay the foundation for significant productivity and standard of living gains down-the-line (which, in-turn, spur many future profitable companies). it’s how everything from highways spanning a continent and parks in the middle of crowded cities to the internet and atomic energy get developed; and it's so crucial to society..
it’s really quite sad to see this important economic function of government neglected, particularly in the us where its proven so successful in generating wealth and societal good time-and-time again.. i mean would we have microsoft and apple around if it wasn’t for the development of the internet? (and google certainly wouldn’t exist).
it’s also sad that the great focus that the nation apparently (long before i came to be) had in driving technological advance has stalled, and such investments have become issues of budgets and ‘big government’ (which i am not a fan of at all by the way). if governments are going to run ridiculous budget deficits anyways (even in years of economic growth) then there should at least be something to show for it at some point; that doesn’t seem to be the case these days..
fortunately there are irrational players in the private sector, like elon musk, who are able to fill the voids. unfortunately though, if (and most likely when) such endeavors prove unprofitable in the long-run, little may show for it.. you’d think more people would be interested (and economically incentivized) to have a government that covers the expensive research and development costs associated with spearheading technologies which they can one-day build-off of (and in incredibly profitable ways), but i guess economic self-preservation (and therefore political pressure) prevail over advance.
with all that said, i really do hope he succeeds.
(also, off topic, but i really wish i could afford a model s right now!)
The Rose interview was really interesting. It seemed like Rose derailed Musk whenever he was on a roll, but a lot of interesting things were said regardless.
> It would be truly amazing if a private company was the first to set foot on another planet.
"When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks."
I'm an Elon fan, but his comment about the old Russian engines his competitors are using deserves some scrutiny. He's talking about the NK-33 which has a thrust to weight ratio of 137. That's better than any current SpaceX engines though the Merlin 1D under development is apparently aiming for a ratio of 150.
As for the engines being in a warehouse in Siberia since the 60s - that part is basically true. There was an Equinox (UK) documentary called "the engines that came in from the cold" about it. When the cold war was over the Americans finally found out about these engines that were left over from the space race, 20 years old (at the time) and better than anything they'd developed since. Now they're over 40 years old and still the most efficient!
So credit where it's due eh Elon? The NK-33 was and still is a masterpiece.
Its a bit aggressive to label this engine a masterpiece when it has never actually launched successfully. I don't even think there has been an attempted launch with the NK-33, just ground tests for the N-1F rocket which was cancelled. Interesting note - the second attempted launch of the N-1 rocket, which used the original version of the NK-33 (NK-15) resulted in the largest non-nuclear explosion of all time.
There is more to an engine than power to weight ratio, such as actually successfully putting a rocket in space.
Apologies for being somewhat off-topic, but does anybody know if there are citizenship requirements for working at a place like SpaceX?
I have a solid background in materials science and metallurgy from a world-class university, and find what Musk is doing very inspirational. After I finish my PhD, I'd love to be a part of it, but I'm British and I know with some companies in the industry there're citizenship requirements for security reasons. As he mentions in the interview, they wouldn't want China stealing their ideas, for example. And I know a lot of the job postings on SpaceX list "US citizen or permanent resident" as a requirement, but I didn't know if this was a hard and fast rule, or whether exceptions are possible.
What I find amazing about this is how they could make such big technical advances leading to such big cost reductions by essentially being unencumbered by bureaucracy and bad incentive structures. (And that's of course not to deny their hard work and smarts - I'm really impressed by what they've done).
I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise, but it's still hard to avoid naively thinking that surely there had been technical challenges holding up the technological progress in those areas for so long.
Indeed, psychological investigations have found that entrepreneurs aren’t more risk-
tolerant than non-entrepreneurs. They just have an extraordinary ability to believe
in their own visions, so much so that they think what they’re embarking on isn’t
really that risky. They’re wrong, of course...
If you are determined (you keep trying) is it actually that risky? For example, if there's a 1 in 10 chance of success, and you try 10 times, it becomes a 65% chance (1-.9^10). Plus, of course, you will learn a tremendous amount from each attempt; gather more resources; ask others; change your approach; even modify your goal (perhaps to something more audacious).
I think what stops people is aversion to the unfamiliar (whereas some people like it), and the pain of each failure. People like Edison fail a thousand times, and keep going (even if you hate him, you have to admit that takes a certain courage).
Tip: do not start a career in Russian Roulette. Let's say you can 'win' by playing it 100 times. Then, if enough people do not give up, success is inevitable. However, there is no guarantee that you will be the one that is successful.
"Musk: The problem is that at a lot of big companies, process becomes a substitute for thinking. You’re encouraged to behave like a little gear in a complex machine. Frankly, it allows you to keep people who aren’t that smart, who aren’t that creative."
I nearly cried. This is my company, and it is so very disappointing.
Thans it, i'm making a shrine for Elon. He's close to a demi-god as you can get. Officially my new hero. Just think about the shear amount of time he puts into Tesla motors alone. And Elon just says fuck it. Lets go to Mars. Humanity doen't want to live up to their potential? So I will.. god speed Leon.
The complexity of getting to Mars is nothing compared to the complexity of creating a social unit that can survive and thrive on another planet.
Specifically, an Antarctic planet covered in chlorinated brominated rusty dust with essentially no air pressure or atmospheric water, a dim sun, rotten weather, two ugly little moons, and 57,600,000 millisecond ping times.
No chance to ever feel fresh air on your face, no chance to go swimming, never meeting a stranger until they're suddenly your neighbors for life, no chance to ever get away and start anew, and no chance to go back to Earth.
Seriously, are dismissive and pessimistic remarks like this the top-voted comment on _every single_ Hacker News post these days?
Elon Musk has built a fucking space rocket company and is defeating Boeing, Lockheed Martin and MDD in a business they've dominated for the last 40 years. I think this is an incredibly impressive accomplishment, and SpaceX's ambitions to make it possible to do manned missions to Mars is exactly what we need to bring humanity forward. Just from the science side alone, having actual people on Mars would be of tremendous value. If you think of what we know about Mars, think about how much more we would know if we were able to do more complex experiments there. Whether you personally think it's a good idea to settle down on Mars or not isn't very relevant.
You're pointing at some very relevant issues, but why not phrase it in a more constructive tone? I'm sorry for the negativity, but it pisses me off when grand ideas and accomplishments are dismissed so offhandedly. Getting to Mars is not nearly "nothing", even compared to _anything_ that humans have ever done.
Why "for life"? Even if a permanent base is established, what would stop people from traveling there to work for a year or so and then returning home? I know health concerns related to radiation and gravity may impose some constraints, but would a round-trip journey be out of the question? Musk's explicit goal is to make and use fully-reusable rockets, so obviously he intends them to travel both directions.
If you're talking about an eventual permanent colony, it will definitely need some brave souls willing to make a one-way trip -- but so have many colonies in Earth history. And the colonists needn't be as cut off as you say if they could have visitors from Earth coming and going regularly. The round-trip radio delay between Mars and Earth is anywhere from 7 minutes to 45 minutes (I think your "ping time" was off by an order of magnitute or two), which is far shorter than the delay for, say, European colonists in 18th-century America or Africa to write to their friends back home.
By the time we are thinking about raising children on another planet, we might even be able to build them an indoor swimming pool. :)
"Men wanted for a hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold. Long months of complete darkness. Constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success."
More than 5000 applications followed. Not everybody is made for adventure though.
Or you're a space explorer, at the very edge of civilization and technology, pushing the human race forward and signing your name in history for the next thousand years.
I think you are just imagining a worst case scenario.
Why is any point of this true:
No chance to ever feel fresh air on your face, no chance to go swimming, never meeting a stranger until they're suddenly your neighbors for life, no chance to ever get away and start anew, and no chance to go back to Earth.
The fresh air one maybe, but there's no particular reason the chemical and physical make-up of Earth air can't be recreated.
Swimming can happen in a swimming pool and fake/indoor beaches exist.
You can move with people you already know; anyway, isn't "never meeting a stranger until you're living next to them" the standard procedure for moving house on Earth?
There's no reason that one can't move around, even back to Earth. They did get to Mars/other planet in the first place.
[+] [-] catch23|13 years ago|reply
Musk: I can’t tell you much. We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China—if we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book.
If your process/ideas are sufficiently complex, it reduces competition if you don't file a patent.
[+] [-] ballooney|13 years ago|reply
But for industries where that's not the case, like rockets (my current) or to pick another example from a previous job, magnetic bearings for sub-sea tubo-machinery installations like natural gas compressors[1], it makes no sense to file a patent. It's much easier to keep it a secret, because it's not like your competitors are going to scuba-dive down to the compressor control cabinet, whip out a JTAG and see how you've implemented your control loop on an FPGA.
Likewise, if you do patent it, it's very difficult to prove an infringement for the same reasons.
So essentially, in industries where it's not the case that your competitors can see what you've done, secrets over patents is the norm, in my experience, and has been for while.
[1] Mag bearings use electromagnetic stators and magnetic collars on the shaft to levitate the shaft inside a bit of spinning equipment. This means it's entirely non-contact, dramatically reducing wear, especially useful on difficult-to-service installations like sub-sea.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cletus|13 years ago|reply
EDIT: removed point about first-to-file as prior art would largely invalidate such attempts beyond a very narrow time frame.
[+] [-] Osmium|13 years ago|reply
It's frustrating when you're working on a problem you're 90% sure a better funded industry player has already solved. Maybe they solved it through trial and error, without needing or wanting to understand the fundamental science behind it, but you then have to re-discover their results before you can even make progress in the understanding. But it's that understanding that's essential for developing completely new materials for the future. It's not all that bad, but it's certainly sub-optimal.
[+] [-] jvzr|13 years ago|reply
He's always told me that he'll never try to register its designs to any authority since the company's main competitors are the chinese, and that they do not care for forgein laws and registrations. Well, obviously.
Surely, this is not suitable to every businesses, but I couldn't think at the time that this would apply to the space industry as well.
[+] [-] jedc|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret
[+] [-] cobrausn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netcan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbrubeck|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] genystartup|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zacharycohn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flatline|13 years ago|reply
Sounds like so many complaints about the enterprise software landscape, and has certainly proved to be true in my own experience. Codified processes usually start with the guise of open communications and education, either because someone wasn't thinking or because of a pressing need to get a few people on the same page. They are soon adopted and enforced as dogma by natural-born bureaucrats who crawl out of the woodwork from seemingly nowhere. It must be an incredible challenge to fight in any large organization, looking at it from the top down.
So far, Musk appears to be doing an admirable job. These things tend to last only as long as a real visionary is at the helm. He is young so hopefully can keep at it for a while longer still, hopefully even long enough to get us to Mars. From this article, he didn't actually say to much about such plans. I wonder if it's just a judicious amount of prudence on his part or if even he fears it may not be feasible in his lifetime.
[+] [-] minikites|13 years ago|reply
See this link and the ensuing discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4727045
This view is to cultivate habits and work consistently and methodically every day.
Elon's view is to toss out process and dream big.
What is the best way to reconcile these two opinions? Is it a matter of scale (i.e. personal process but enterprise chutzpah?)
[+] [-] sandee|13 years ago|reply
It would be wrong to compare it with any other traditional big company. The structures built around traditional big business work because of some reasons.
Once they achieve the goals of easier space flight and mission to mars and when it become easier or less motivational, probably they will face similar issues like most companies. But i don't this Musk cares a damn about that ... and he shouldn't
[+] [-] sahilz79|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cdavid|13 years ago|reply
To paraphrase Bezos, the problem is not process, but the mindless application of them (see this interview: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/bezos_pr.html).
[+] [-] hi|13 years ago|reply
Also, Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about if there was a space race with China the US would be on Mars in 18 months: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c...
It would be truly amazing if a private company was the first to set foot on another planet.
[+] [-] TwistedWeasel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielweber|13 years ago|reply
Well, we'd have to wait 2 years for a launch window, but I agree that the US will stop dicking around with zero-g studies when we get scared that China might beat us there.
NASA is probably too risk-averse with human life, and China is too risk-accepting. They once wiped out an entire peasant village in a rocket failure (and tried to cover it up).
EDIT: I had to watch that video to the very end to get to the 18 month mark. Geeze.
[+] [-] simba-hiiipower|13 years ago|reply
and that would be absolutely amazing; though in some ways (and not to discount musk’s undertaking at all) i feel it speaks more so to a failure of governments (generally speaking) in investing to drive technological advance.
it should be the public sector that leads in these types of endeavors. one of the most important functions of a state is its ability and willingness to invest in projects that would be otherwise unprofitable or far too long-term for any rational player in the private sector to take-on. these investments, while maybe unprofitable to a single entity, are what lay the foundation for significant productivity and standard of living gains down-the-line (which, in-turn, spur many future profitable companies). it’s how everything from highways spanning a continent and parks in the middle of crowded cities to the internet and atomic energy get developed; and it's so crucial to society..
it’s really quite sad to see this important economic function of government neglected, particularly in the us where its proven so successful in generating wealth and societal good time-and-time again.. i mean would we have microsoft and apple around if it wasn’t for the development of the internet? (and google certainly wouldn’t exist).
it’s also sad that the great focus that the nation apparently (long before i came to be) had in driving technological advance has stalled, and such investments have become issues of budgets and ‘big government’ (which i am not a fan of at all by the way). if governments are going to run ridiculous budget deficits anyways (even in years of economic growth) then there should at least be something to show for it at some point; that doesn’t seem to be the case these days..
fortunately there are irrational players in the private sector, like elon musk, who are able to fill the voids. unfortunately though, if (and most likely when) such endeavors prove unprofitable in the long-run, little may show for it.. you’d think more people would be interested (and economically incentivized) to have a government that covers the expensive research and development costs associated with spearheading technologies which they can one-day build-off of (and in incredibly profitable ways), but i guess economic self-preservation (and therefore political pressure) prevail over advance.
with all that said, i really do hope he succeeds.
(also, off topic, but i really wish i could afford a model s right now!)
[+] [-] marvin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rfergie|13 years ago|reply
"When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks."
[+] [-] tjmc|13 years ago|reply
As for the engines being in a warehouse in Siberia since the 60s - that part is basically true. There was an Equinox (UK) documentary called "the engines that came in from the cold" about it. When the cold war was over the Americans finally found out about these engines that were left over from the space race, 20 years old (at the time) and better than anything they'd developed since. Now they're over 40 years old and still the most efficient!
So credit where it's due eh Elon? The NK-33 was and still is a masterpiece.
[+] [-] mbell|13 years ago|reply
Its a bit aggressive to label this engine a masterpiece when it has never actually launched successfully. I don't even think there has been an attempted launch with the NK-33, just ground tests for the N-1F rocket which was cancelled. Interesting note - the second attempted launch of the N-1 rocket, which used the original version of the NK-33 (NK-15) resulted in the largest non-nuclear explosion of all time.
There is more to an engine than power to weight ratio, such as actually successfully putting a rocket in space.
[+] [-] Osmium|13 years ago|reply
I have a solid background in materials science and metallurgy from a world-class university, and find what Musk is doing very inspirational. After I finish my PhD, I'd love to be a part of it, but I'm British and I know with some companies in the industry there're citizenship requirements for security reasons. As he mentions in the interview, they wouldn't want China stealing their ideas, for example. And I know a lot of the job postings on SpaceX list "US citizen or permanent resident" as a requirement, but I didn't know if this was a hard and fast rule, or whether exceptions are possible.
[+] [-] bengl3rt|13 years ago|reply
Yes! Finally someone gets it!
Motherfucking space! Is aspirational!
We go to space not because it is easy, but because it is hard AND AWESOME.
[+] [-] jamesrcole|13 years ago|reply
I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise, but it's still hard to avoid naively thinking that surely there had been technical challenges holding up the technological progress in those areas for so long.
[+] [-] 6ren|13 years ago|reply
I think what stops people is aversion to the unfamiliar (whereas some people like it), and the pain of each failure. People like Edison fail a thousand times, and keep going (even if you hate him, you have to admit that takes a certain courage).
After 3 rocket failures, Musk said something similar http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/musk_qa (at the end):
If you don't give up, success is inevitable.[+] [-] Someone|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] libraryatnight|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkingthings|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rnernento|13 years ago|reply
I love that this brilliant guy is talking about interplanetary space travel as the obvious future.
[+] [-] pwniekins|13 years ago|reply
I nearly cried. This is my company, and it is so very disappointing.
[+] [-] easy_rider|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knes|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikunjk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpxxx|13 years ago|reply
Specifically, an Antarctic planet covered in chlorinated brominated rusty dust with essentially no air pressure or atmospheric water, a dim sun, rotten weather, two ugly little moons, and 57,600,000 millisecond ping times.
No chance to ever feel fresh air on your face, no chance to go swimming, never meeting a stranger until they're suddenly your neighbors for life, no chance to ever get away and start anew, and no chance to go back to Earth.
In a box, on a dead planet, for life.
[+] [-] marvin|13 years ago|reply
Elon Musk has built a fucking space rocket company and is defeating Boeing, Lockheed Martin and MDD in a business they've dominated for the last 40 years. I think this is an incredibly impressive accomplishment, and SpaceX's ambitions to make it possible to do manned missions to Mars is exactly what we need to bring humanity forward. Just from the science side alone, having actual people on Mars would be of tremendous value. If you think of what we know about Mars, think about how much more we would know if we were able to do more complex experiments there. Whether you personally think it's a good idea to settle down on Mars or not isn't very relevant.
You're pointing at some very relevant issues, but why not phrase it in a more constructive tone? I'm sorry for the negativity, but it pisses me off when grand ideas and accomplishments are dismissed so offhandedly. Getting to Mars is not nearly "nothing", even compared to _anything_ that humans have ever done.
[+] [-] mbrubeck|13 years ago|reply
If you're talking about an eventual permanent colony, it will definitely need some brave souls willing to make a one-way trip -- but so have many colonies in Earth history. And the colonists needn't be as cut off as you say if they could have visitors from Earth coming and going regularly. The round-trip radio delay between Mars and Earth is anywhere from 7 minutes to 45 minutes (I think your "ping time" was off by an order of magnitute or two), which is far shorter than the delay for, say, European colonists in 18th-century America or Africa to write to their friends back home.
By the time we are thinking about raising children on another planet, we might even be able to build them an indoor swimming pool. :)
[+] [-] forgottenpaswrd|13 years ago|reply
More than 5000 applications followed. Not everybody is made for adventure though.
[+] [-] ricardobeat|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbaupp|13 years ago|reply
Why is any point of this true:
No chance to ever feel fresh air on your face, no chance to go swimming, never meeting a stranger until they're suddenly your neighbors for life, no chance to ever get away and start anew, and no chance to go back to Earth.
The fresh air one maybe, but there's no particular reason the chemical and physical make-up of Earth air can't be recreated.
Swimming can happen in a swimming pool and fake/indoor beaches exist.
You can move with people you already know; anyway, isn't "never meeting a stranger until you're living next to them" the standard procedure for moving house on Earth?
There's no reason that one can't move around, even back to Earth. They did get to Mars/other planet in the first place.
[+] [-] zacharycohn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eru|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tjic|13 years ago|reply
What's so complicated about "a family" ?
[+] [-] Finster|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elmusk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cowo8|13 years ago|reply