Science Musk clips his Mars settlement ambition, aims for the moon instead


Musk clips his Mars settlement ambition, aims for the moon instead​

By
Jackie WattlesJackie Wattles
,
John Liu
Updated 10 hr ago





Screenshot_3024.png
Elon Musk attends the US-Saudi Investment Forum in Washington, on November 19, 2025.
(Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)


Elon Musk’s ambition to one day settle Mars appears to have taken a back seat for a rather nearer and more achievable goal – sending humans to live on the Moon.
In statement on X on Sunday, the billionaire said his company SpaceX has now shifted its priorities to building “a self-growing city on the Moon,” arguing that it could be achieved in less than a decade, compared with more than 20 years for a similar plan on Mars.
“The overriding priority is securing the future of civilization and the Moon is faster,” he said on X Sunday. “It is only possible to travel to Mars when the planets align every 26 months (six month trip time), whereas we can launch to the Moon every 10 days (2 day trip time).”
It is not immediately clear what Musk meant by a “self-growing city” or whether his plans are in line with a similar lunar plan NASA proposes. CNN has reached out to SpaceX for comment.
Musk said the company remains committed to building a Mars city, and will begin doing so in about five to seven years. As recently as last May, Musk had said SpaceX was working to land its first uncrewed Starship on Mars as soon as late 2026.
Musk’s trimming of his previous space travel predictions came after SpaceX acquired XAI last week, in a move that will merge two of his most ambitious companies into the most valuable private firm in the world.
For more than a decade, Musk has made it a point to advertise his laser-focus on establishing a settlement on Mars, saying it has been SpaceX’s guiding goal since the company was founded in 2002.
In speeches delivered at aerospace conferences and events for SpaceX employees, he has detailed ambitious — albeit dubiously feasible — plans for establishing a permanent human presence on the Red Planet, saying such a step is necessary for ensuring a colony of humans can survive a potential apocalypse.
NASA, in contrast, has focused on its lunar ambitions, particularly since President Donald Trump’s first term, when then-Vice President Mike Pence abruptly declared that the US would return its astronauts to the moon by 2024.
The bold plan did not pan out, and NASA is currently working to return astronauts to the lunar surface by 2028 — the timeframe the agency had been working toward in the Obama era. That return will mark the first time humans have set foot on the moon since the Apollo program ended in 1972.
Musk has criticized the efforts in the past, alluding to NASA’s moon program, named Artemis, as a “distraction” on X early last year.
“No, we’re going straight to Mars,” he wrote at the time. “The Moon is a distraction.”
Musk’s apparent pivot to focusing on the moon comes as the tech billionaire – whose companies receive huge government contracts – has taken a far more vocal stance on politics than in years past. He poured $290 million into the US presidential election, backing Trump and receiving a White House job only to have an abrupt falling out with the president. He returned to his good graces this past fall.

Lunar controversy​

While NASA has built the rocket and spacecraft designed to launch astronauts off Earth and to the lunar vicinity, SpaceX has a nearly $3 billion contract to build their lunar lander, or the vehicle that will ferry the crew from their spacecraft down to the moon’s surface.
SpaceX plans to use its Starship system for the task — the largest spacecraft and rocket system ever built, and the vehicle that Musk says is purpose-made for taking people to Mars.
Starship, however, is still in the early stages of development and has often exploded during testing. It has never traveled to orbit or conducted an operational flight, and SpaceX is expected to debut a new line of Starship prototypes as soon as early March.
Starship is extremely ambitious, and its role in NASA’s moon program has also been a point of controversy.
Sean Duffy, Trump’s secretary of transportation who also served a brief stint as acting NASA administrator last year, called out SpaceX last year — warning the company did not appear to be on track to have its lunar lander ready in time for NASA’s moon landing mission as the space agency races to beat China’s lunar exploration program.
Duffy notably threatened to sideline SpaceX from the moon landing mission, called Artemis III, and said he would evaluate whether SpaceX’s chief competitor, Blue Origin, could get the job done faster.



A crane, marked by the SpaceX logo, sits near the Starbase launch site in Cameron County, Texas, on February 6, 2026.
(Reginald Mathalone/NurPhoto/Getty Images)
Blue Origin, the space exploration company founded by Jeff Bezos, also holds a multibillion NASA contract to develop a vehicle capable of ferrying astronauts from deep space to the lunar surface. It announced last month that it is halting trips on its suborbital space tourism rocket — which previously carried Bezos, Katy Perry and William Shatner to space — in order to focus on lunar lander development.
NASA officials have not openly revisited the Artemis III lunar lander contract since the agency’s newly installed administrator, billionaire tech CEO Jared Isaacman, was confirmed for the top job in December. Issacman is considered an ally of Musk as he’s twice paid to fly on SpaceX capsules to Earth orbit.
Musk’s assertion that SpaceX will now focus on lunar exploration comes as NASA is gearing up to launch its first crewed mission of the Artemis program, called Artemis II.
That mission is slated to launch four astronauts on a trip that will circumnavigate the moon but will not land on it, serving as a pathfinder for the more complex Artemis III landing mission. Artemis II is scheduled to launch as soon as March.
 
As much as I want to laugh at MovieBob I kinda feel for him on this. Every chance humanity could have for a space future pushed back further and further the longer we've been on this planet, especially within the past 50 years, whether it be budget cuts or "what about those poor staving people in africa". Actual competent people with talent was side lined to live through delay after delay and died before we could have a moon base or a mars landing. And all we are left with Elon Musk who will find a way to put his own shitty branded twist on it.
 
As much as I want to laugh at MovieBob I kinda feel for him on this. Every chance humanity could have for a space future pushed back further and further the longer we've been on this planet, especially within the past 50 years, whether it be budget cuts or "what about those poor staving people in africa". Actual competent people with talent was side lined to live through delay after delay and died before we could have a moon base or a mars landing. And all we are left with Elon Musk who will find a way to put his own shitty branded twist on it.
But you needed to spend literally over two trillion dollars not taking over Afghanistan.
 
Easier to set up a mass accelerator on the moon than it is on Earth, and that could actually help the Mars mission.
You don't need a mass accelerator on the moon to make sending anything to Mars easier. We've sent a lot of things to Mars already and no one doubts that if you sent enough rockets to LEO for refueling they could then go on to Mars with greater payloads so the feasibility is not in doubt. The problem is Mars has about the worst atmosphere you could hope for, for landing. Energy = energy. Be that chemical or otherwise.

Mars: It is a thin atmosphere, so it provides insufficient drag so an object hurtling towards it, is hurtling towards a body with significant gravity and has to use amazing amounts of fuel to slow it down so it doesn't impact it at 15 Miles per second. On Earth we have an atmosphere we can use drag. The moon has such shitty gravity a decent rocket is easy, Mars is the goldilocks of horseshit meaning a rocket landing has to use LOTS of fuel to slow itself down.

Think of the problem in reverse...you have to have a fairly good rocket ship land on Mars, and you have to have a big rocket ship to take off from Mars. That means you need a big fucking rocket with lots of fuel to land on Mars that can also take off from Mars.

You perhaps remember the lander we sent there how it had a decent rocket carrier? Imagine something 100 times larger that is trying to drop a rocket onto Mars with fuel so it can take off, get into Mars LEO, refuel and then head home. And before you say "We can use the materials on Mars" Not exactly, you have to use many carriers to carry the equipment there to produce the fuel and the rocket itself will still weigh a vast amount.

No one who understands the problem will tell you a Mars trip is impossible, it is not. But those who think taking things there for an outpost casually dismiss the "Tyranny of the rocket equation" energy requirements. It is about the sheer amount of energy required. And it is fantastic.

I'd roughly guess for each pound of "x" you want to land on Mars, starting from the surface of Earth, factoring in the refuels, equipment, LEOs of Mars and Earth, travel etc. etc. tha the equation equals about 2000:1. To land things on Mars that do not need to take off, consider 1000:1.

So if the rocket that needs to be on Mars surface to bring our boys home weighs a mere 100 Tons, you'll need to use 200,000 tons of fuel to pull it off. That's about 40-45 Starships launches from Earth.

Not impossible, just costly - for a quick 7 day trip. For an outpost for 3 people, you can increase this fuel requirement (before considering the cost of the actual equipment) to about 100X, so 400-500 starship launches with re-supply and new equipment of about 100-200 tons needing to happen every 26 months requiring another 50 starship launches for re-supply. Minimum.

We have the technology now. Today. Have had it for decades. We do not have the will to burden taxpayers with a gigantic bill that is for just glory and no actual return of investment.

Even if they found a pile of 10,000 tons of Alien gold ingots on Mars, the cost to take them off the surface and back here would barely make it worth it.
 
We have the technology now. Today. Have had it for decades. We do not have the will to burden taxpayers with a gigantic bill that is for just glory and no actual return of investment.

Even if they found a pile of 10,000 tons of Alien gold ingots on Mars, the cost to take them off the surface and back here would barely make it worth it.
Just sounds like Europa is the best candidate for this kind of fantastical idea, then. That said, I want my Straylight station, where the fuck is it? Let's use Lagrange point 5.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo