"I hope SpaceX can take you to the moon and Mars and ultimately beyond." On Jun. 12, the day SpaceX listed on Nasdaq, Elon Musk said. Since he founded the company in 2002, he has set a goal of sending humanity to other planets. SpaceX raised $85.7 billion in the largest initial public offering (IPO) in U.S. stock market history.
I have always wondered. While AI automation shakes human labor and identity on one side, and data centers devour overwhelming amounts of water and electricity and encroach upon human habitats on the other, what kind of bill will we be handed in the near future? Even as big tech and semiconductor corporations assure investment and earnings, we tremble at the uncertainty of the future as volatility and liquidity ride an extreme roller coaster.
So in this fog where it is impossible to predict or verify which civilization will settle in which market, why were investors willing to open their wallets for Musk's reckless dream of "building a city of 1 million people on Mars in the near future"? Once you write "space," why do the boundary lines between "dream" and "cash grab" disappear, and immeasurable generosity convert into a blank check?
As big tech corporations rushed first into the ownerless virtual realm inside computers, planted flags on empty ground and claimed territories, the entrepreneur who had been expanding his domain with electric vehicles now aims to become a 21st-century Alexander by building spacecraft and satellites to preempt low Earth orbit, the moon, Mars and asteroids. If so, let's examine this. Is outer space really as livable as he advertises?
The place we adored as the spiritual pillar of philosophy and art. Is the celestial universe suitable not as a "starry" night sky but as a "primary residence" with walls and a roof, a "breeding place" for bodies to be fruitful and multiply? For a fact check, isn't it only right to make an on-site inspection of this cosmic real estate? Especially when a down payment of as much as 114 trillion won has already been burned.
The report "If We Built a City on Mars," written after four years of reconnaissance in space ecology, law, psychology and international politics and diplomacy by U.S. space geeks and researcher couple Zach and Kelly Weinersmith, is the most reliable guide for this "cosmic real estate inspection." They assert flatly.
"For space to be a better option than Earth, a single catastrophe is nowhere near enough. Even if Earth were hit by climate change, nuclear war, zombies and werewolves, it would still be a much better place to live than Mars."
Where and what kind of homes can be built and lived in, who will own land and which laws will resolve disputes, whether air, water and food can be secured, whether pregnancy, childbirth and surgery are possible under low gravity and radiation... Let's listen carefully to what this researcher couple has to say.
Zach Weinersmith is America's top science cartoonist who has captivated 70 million oddballs, and his wife, Kelly Weiner Smith, is a professor in the life sciences department at Rice University in Texas. The ultimate practical space guide "If We Built a City on Mars," which pairs scientific rigor with quirky, playful drawings, won the Hugo Award for nonfiction and the Royal Society Trivedi Science Book Prize, the most prestigious science book award.
-You argued that saying Earth is too harsh to live on so we should go to Mars is "like moving out of a messy room to live in a landfill." -Minus 60 degrees, no air, toxic dust storms... I too misunderstood harsh Mars as a livable place after watching the movie "The Martian."
"Of course, the movie "The Martian" somewhat underestimates the difficulty of living on Mars. For example, the soil on the Martian surface contains a toxic chemical (perchlorate), so the potatoes Matt Damon grows and eats would actually be too toxic to consume.
But given the protagonist suffers immensely throughout the movie, it's hard to say Mars is portrayed as a particularly good place to live. Science fiction writers have used the harsh environment of space to pose questions about culture and society. As with Kim Stanley Robinson's "Mars Trilogy" or Ray Bradbury's "The Martian Chronicles."
The problem lies with remarks by influential big tech business figures like Elon Musk. Musk has repeatedly claimed that within the next 20 to 30 years we can build a self-sufficient settlement of 1 million people on the Martian surface. To us, this sounds like an obvious fiction at the level of a sci-fi novel, but since the world's richest person is pouring astronomical sums into rockets, saying he will ferry people to Mars within 10 years, it's not unreasonable for the public to believe."
-As you know, SpaceX was a black hole that sucked up 114 trillion won in its early days on the stock market. Do people truly think the "Mars migration project" is possible?
"Well. That's probably because SpaceX has previously proven something the public considered "impossible." The concept of a low-cost reusable rocket has existed since the 1950s, but the old space shuttles were too expensive and dangerous. SpaceX's Falcon 9 not only succeeded, but over the past decade no country or corporations have dared match what it has achieved.
SpaceX's future value is consolidation with several forward-looking ideas. But we are quite skeptical of some concepts, like space-based data centers. In any case, because SpaceX once broke the barrier of the impossible, investors seem to be hoping for another miracle."
-Whether the moon or Mars, even a brief look at the checklist you presented made it immediately clear to a science layperson like me that "building a city on Mars" is a reckless idea. Then why are smart and influential experts staying silent? Because they don't want to spoil the party mood?
"How could we possibly know their innermost thoughts? But space enthusiasts generally differ from us on a few points. First, the trap of optimism. Engineers tend to get excited when told something will be "hard," but get annoyed when told it seems "impossible." It's a good trait, but that doesn't mean they're always right.
Second, illusions about resources. There's a crowd that believes going to space will bring immense wealth and that those who dissent are obstacles blocking human progress. But from our perspective, the moon or Mars does not hide vast riches. War experts also do not agree with the claim that space "real estate" and abundant resources will prevent wars on Earth.
Third, escape-from-Earth theory. Many believe human civilization is in decline and that new frontiers as space settlements will reinvigorate humanity. No problem we face on Earth will be solved just by going to space."
-Bezos' Blue Origin regularly carries people up to an altitude of 100 kilometers, and SpaceX has signed contracts to send tourists into lunar orbit. As space geeks and space skeptics, do you see any problem with managers of private corporations like Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk rushing into space, a commons, waging price wars and seizing satellites?
"If you look only at tourism and satellites, they are actually quite well constrained. They sometimes shoot off bold talk like space cowboys, but in the end they comply with international law, request launch approvals from government agencies and follow their own set of rules.
Of course, the incident in which Musk personally intervened in the Russia-Ukraine war by controlling access to Starlink is worrisome, but it is not a clear violation of international law. If Musk were to set out to establish a country on Mars not bound by Earth's laws, that's when things would become truly serious."
-Have you seen director Bong Joon-ho's film "Mickey 17"? I felt heavy-hearted watching the foolish, greedy dictator and the space poor laborers.
"Unfortunately, I haven't seen that film yet. But it's clear that everyone would be absolutely dependent on life-support technology. That means a small group holding access to air, water and food (private corporations) would wield enormous power.
Conversely, given the expense of sending people to Mars is astronomical, the value of each individual who arrives there would inevitably be immense. If so, isn't a scenario also quite plausible where they exercise significant bargaining power against those in authority?"
-You quoted former NASA flight surgeon-in-chief James Logan as saying "if humans live on the moon, they must live underground like ants, earthworms and moles." Does that mean a fine residence or a good view is out of the question?
"Earth has a thick atmosphere and a powerful magnetic field encasing the entire planet. Together they block most cosmic radiation from reaching the surface. The moon and Mars lack such shields, and glass is not a good material for stopping radiation. The likelihood of living in beautiful glass domes often seen in illustrations of space settlements is close to zero.
Every serious proposal we've seen for near-future settlements on the moon and Mars involves burying the residence under thick layers of regolith, hiding it in lava tubes or placing it in Martian caves. Even some space architects are frustrated that the glass-dome image keeps spreading. Such structures would bake residents and gardens in intense sunlight and at the same time expose them directly to cosmic radiation."
-Is space that harsh?
"Space, in its entirety, is an environment intent on harming humans. When a star explodes, the area around it becomes a firing range with innumerable cosmic bullets flying. Extreme temperatures and toxic soils stretch to the horizon, with sharp, charged glass dust. Even if you survive in underground Martian caves that at least have carbon, oxygen and water, for now microgravity weakens bones, body fluids reverse course and sperm and eggs are continuously exposed to radiation."
-Even so, when a reality show proposed selecting Mars settlers, thousands of applicants rushed to leave their families despite it being a one-way ticket. You also evaluated the odds of striking it rich through resource mining, right?
"Yes. To start, there is no mineral that would still yield a profit after being mined and refined on the moon and shipped to Earth. No matter how low space logistics expense gets, there's no resource that simultaneously meets all three conditions of "high value, low mass and low mining difficulty." Helium-3, often mentioned, can be produced without going to the moon.
Mining raw materials from asteroids is also not economical at present. In the distant future, if we build settlements in space, we could use asteroid raw materials as construction materials."
-Let's assess real estate value, too. What makes the moon, hotter than a desert, colder than Antarctica and lacking money-making minerals, the top space location over Mars?
"First, location. Transportation is good. It's close to Earth. You can get there in about three days one way and depart pretty much anytime. Mars, by contrast, takes about six to nine months, and even then launch windows come only once every two years. This leads to several practical differences. On the moon, you can speak almost in real time with engineers (and family) on Earth, but between Mars and Earth even a one-way conversation is delayed by at least three minutes.
Also, if something goes wrong en route to or after arrival on the moon, there's at least some chance of aborting and returning to Earth, as the Apollo 13 astronauts experienced firsthand. On Mars, if trouble arises, there is no quick way back. The moon also has low gravity and almost no atmosphere. Bad for human health, but it makes rocket launches much easier. So if we can one day manufacture directly on the moon, launch expense could even become cheaper than on Earth.
But if Mars were as easy to reach as the moon, we would choose Mars anytime. Mars has far richer basic resources necessary for human survival. For instance, Mars has much more water than the moon. The moon, by contrast, is extremely deficient in carbon, a basic element composing all life on Earth."
-I confess, as an embodied being, the description that in space "a human is a liquid column about 2 meters tall" hit me the hardest. Eating, defecating, getting pregnant and raising children in the hostile zero-gravity environment... Blood might not reach the brain and organs might float around inside the body—yikes!
"Trauma medicine attempted in cases of bleeding or respiratory distress has never been performed in space. The same goes for actual surgery on a trauma patient. In microgravity, organs and intestines float upward, making surgery extremely complicated.
Moreover, on Earth blood flows downward, but in space blood beads into domes or small spheres at the wound and floats in midair. Things could improve a bit upon arrival on Mars because Martian gravity is about 40% of Earth's."
-Let's talk about daily life. If we do settle in space, is self-sufficiency possible? What about food, water and toilets?
"Mars has abundant water and it is possible to grow food, but it is very hard. The culprit is perchlorate in the coarse soil covering the Martian surface. Perchlorate is a toxic chemical that disrupts the action of our thyroid hormones. Even so, because taste is dulled in space, people crave spicier food.
Toilets are also a conundrum. Astronauts used to call floating poop fragments "brown trout" when the waste suction system failed. Settlements must develop systems to recycle waste. In the long run, true self-sufficiency means even microchips and industrial equipment must be manufactured locally.
But as you know, making state-of-the-art computer chips is not something a single nation can do alone. The most advanced chips are made only through a global economic system entangling engineers from the United States, Korea, the Netherlands and Taiwan. Making such things on Mars is not only technically difficult but also practically uneconomical.
-What were the results of "Biosphere 2," the largest closed greenhouse experiment on Earth?
"Biosphere 2 was an experiment conducted in Arizona in the early 1990s. Eight people were sealed inside a massive greenhouse to test whether they could survive for two years by growing their own food, purifying water and producing air. In short, they survived but split into two groups of four who intensely disliked each other, and they failed to grow sufficient food, losing 10% to 18% of their body weight."
-While reading the book, I also worried that space conflicts might become ground wars. You said there isn't even agreement on how to resolve territorial disputes in space?
"It was a part that surprised us too when we looked into it. In reality, after a raft of international space laws were enacted in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there has been almost no change for decades. The core treaty, the Outer Space Treaty, prohibits claims of sovereignty in space. No one can land on the moon and declare, "This land is mine."
But ambiguity abounds regarding resource extraction. Recent international interpretation leans toward "you cannot claim ownership of land, but you can mine and sell resources." Also, under NASA's Artemis Accords, signatories can set "safety zones" around their activities and restrict others' entry. Since rocket landings can eject debris that could strike life-support systems, it is a necessary safety measure.
The problem is this could ultimately become a pathway for someone to grab prime spots, monopolize resource extraction and block others' access. In a first-come, first-served structure like this, if a real estate war erupts in space to secure good locations, it will heighten geopolitical tensions on Earth.
If this "first-come" scenario plays out, the moment the expense of access to space drops dramatically, nations' true intentions and conflicts may be laid bare. We also cannot ignore that many participating countries possess nuclear weapons."
-On space colonies or settlements, what stance are the United States and China taking now? Who is the new power aiming for the gap?
"Given enough time, the next heavyweight player may be India. Historically, countries sent humans into space not for science but to proclaim to the world that they are "superpowers" with massive economic might and formidable militaries. A country that can put a person into orbit is one with capital, organizational capability and a military able to strike precisely with large missiles.
In the 1960s, when decolonization created numerous new states weighing which side of the Cold War blocs to join, the U.S.-Soviet space race was fierce. In the short term now, it will be a "United States versus China" dynamic, with India rapidly in pursuit. But we hope such a competitive framework does not arise. Sending humans into space is as much politics as it is science, so we hope all nations on Earth cooperate as much as possible."
-Are existing space treaties and legal provisions being followed well?
"So far the law has been respected, but we should soberly assess whether that's because countries sincerely honor the law, or because until now there has been no benefit to be gained by violating it."
-Has it improved with the Artemis Accords signed in 2020?
"Since many countries, including Korea, have signed, there seems to be a consensus that its provisions are useful. The accords were an attempt to internationalize the U.S. view that "mining and selling space resources can be permitted." Removing ambiguity is positive, but concerns remain.
The "safety zones" specified in the accords can function like "quasi-territorial claims," creating a curious geopolitical contradiction."
-Can the rules agreed upon for similar commons like Antarctica and the deep sea serve as successful models to prevent space conflicts?
"To some extent, yes. The deep-sea model, in particular, might be a good precedent for space. Unlike Antarctica, deep-sea law allows resource development.
And unlike space, the rules for how deep-sea mining should proceed are relatively well established."
-What do you think about the overview effect, the idea that humans become wiser when viewing Earth from space?
"It's an illusion. The "overview effect" is merely a psychological expectation. Humanity won't suddenly evolve into better beings just by seeing a nice view. In fact, many astronauts who went to space later engaged in morally bad behavior or struggled with all manner of personal issues. They went to space in human bodies with flaws, and they returned the same humans.
-The chorus of the Russian cosmonauts' song "The Grass by Our House" at the end of the book was striking. "We don't even dream of this icy blue space, what we dream of is the grass by our house, grass, green, green grass"... Even if we leave Earth and build a new civilization, what we will do is recreate the Earth we knew... Did the astronauts know that?
"It seems some of them surely did. One of the most popular activities in space is taking photos of Earth. Astronauts have always craved fresh foods that smell like home, like onions and oranges, and they brought hometown foods. Like Korea's Lee So-yeon bringing kimchi.
Isn't it memorable that International Space Station (ISS) crew members agreed to play the sound of rain on their individual laptops over the weekend? If someday we farm in space, we cautiously guess that tending plants and animals may become the most beloved jobs in space."
-Which sci-fi films or directors give you inspiration and solace?
"While writing the book, we deliberately kept away from sci-fi works so our thinking wouldn't be contaminated. That said, in terms of our usual tastes, we both really love the legendary Soviet sci-fi novelist Strugatsky brothers."
-In her final interview, the late Jane Goodall said she wanted to put "Musk, Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping and Netanyahu" on Musk's spacecraft and send them off. What if they became the first Martian citizens?
"We don't publicly wish misfortune on public figures, but if those individuals were to become the leaders building humanity's second home among the stars, the future of humanity would be a serious concern."
-How will the space industry unfold going forward? And finally, please give us some hard-hitting reflection we need at this moment.
"It appears unlikely that humanity will expand its residence into space in the short term. The biggest reason is, in the end, "because it doesn't make money." The satellite business generates enormous value for the world economy, but trips to the moon do not. For now, there is simply no sound economic reason to make the things in sci-fi movies a reality.
Building cities on other planets may only be possible in a distant future when human civilization is advanced enough to willingly pay tremendous expense purely for exploration, without regard to return on investment. If we rush into space before we find answers to whether the space environment is safe for the human body, especially pregnant people and children, we will face a horrific ethical disaster.
Aside from geopolitical face-saving, there is no reason to charge into space, so it would be better if humanity chose to move one another in ways far more productive and beneficial to the Earth community than space."