News
NASA and SpaceX probably can’t terraform Mars but that doesn’t matter
In recent weeks, a great deal of exaggerative noise has been spread wide about the supposed impossibility of making the planet Mars more Earth-like and hospitable, a concept known as terraforming. The reality is quite a bit different, especially within the context of any SpaceX or NASA-driven human outposts or colonization attempts.
Triggered by comparatively reasonable research just published by two experienced planetary scientists, much of the hyperbolic media coverage that followed failed to properly frame the true challenges of terraforming the Red Planet.
Keeping the cart behind the horse
Before anything else, it’s critical to take a step back from the idea of terraforming and consider the simpler facts of any human presence on Mars. First, the rationale for a permanent human presence on Mars is largely independent of the environmental conditions on the planet – it’s a huge help to have basic resources available in situ (on site), but the difficulty of surviving in a given non-Earth environment is immaterial to the human desire to both explore and survive.
Assuming we humans really do want to ensure that a subset of ourselves can independently survive any truly global catastrophe on Earth, be it natural or artificial, we will find a way to do so in even the harshest of environments. Living on Mars would be downright luxurious compared to life aboard the International Space Station, thanks largely to ~1/3rd Earth gravity, accessible natural resources to replenish consumables, an Earthlike day and night cycle, considerably more forgiving temperature extremes, and much more.
-
- The ISS orbits just a few hundred miles above the surface of the Earth and hosts an average of six crewmembers at any given moment. (NASA)
-
- The massive BFR spaceship docked to the International Space Station. (SpaceX)
Despite the inhospitable conditions, human presence aboard the ISS has been uninterrupted for nearly 20 years, even though the average stay per crewmember sits around six months. The ISS also has the luxury of a 90 minute day/night cycle, 100% unfiltered sunlight for peak solar panel efficiency, regular resupply missions from Earth, and an escape route in the event of a catastrophic failure. That escape method (Soyuz capsules docked to the station) has not once been used, aside from a handful of instances where crew boarded their escape vehicles as a cautionary measure during unusually risky space debris events, an absolute non-issue on Mars’ surface.
Put simply: if humans can live in orbit for long periods, they can also survive on Mars with at least the same level of difficulty.
Getting there is the hardest part
By taking natural resources available on Mars (namely water and carbon dioxide) and using them to repopulate the planet’s withered atmosphere, it has long been hoped that the Martian surface might be brought much closer to that of Earth, with a thicker atmosphere translating into familiar air pressure and a far warmer climate. In its current state, humans would always need to wear pressure suits and carry oxygen when traveling beyond their Martian habitats, as Mars’ 0.06 bar atmosphere would be approximately as forgiving as the naked vacuum of space and only moderately warmer.
https://twitter.com/_TheSeaning/status/1026194288886071296
Terraforming could potentially alleviate those significant points against the Red Planet, although updated research published this year (2018) appears to indicate otherwise. In reality, Jakosky and Edwards’ study simply emphasizes and adds on to what should already have been wildly apparent – making desolate planets Earthlike is almost invariably going to be an unfathomably difficult (but by no means impossible) challenge, and is most likely beyond the reach of present-day humanity.
-
- Effectively unreleased, an updated Mars colonization video shown in 2018 replaces 2016’s ITS with the newer BFR design. (SpaceX)
-
- Artist David Romax’s jaw-dropping rendition of a BFR burning to Mars orbit. The craft’s various curves and hull complexities will likely rely on cutting-edge composite joining tech to function. (Gravitation Innovation)
-
- A Crew BFS (Big F____ Spaceship) pictured landing on Mars. (SpaceX)
It also happens to be the case that terraforming as a concept is utterly irrelevant without the means to get to and – more importantly – transport respectable amounts of cargo to the bodies one hopes to one day transform. SpaceX’s BFR transportation system is one such acknowledgment of that problem – the issue with Mars colonization or really any basic human presence at all is not surviving after arrival, but instead actually getting there in the first place and doing so without taking decades or bankrupting entire nations.
Extremely affordable transport to, from, and between orbits happen to be the most unequivocal requirement for both a permanent human presence on other planets and have any hope at all of terraforming them, but it just so happens that the latter is 100% irrelevant and impossible without the former. Let’s seriously worry and argue about terraforming Mars once we can do so from the surface of the Red Planet and focus first on getting there.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet (including fairing catcher Mr Steven) check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Tesla engineers deflected calls from Apple on a daily basis while the tech giant was developing its now-defunct electric vehicle program, which was known as “Project Titan.”
Back in 2022 and 2023, Apple was developing an EV in a top-secret internal fashion, hoping to launch it by 2028 with a fully autonomous driving suite.
However, Apple bailed on the project in early 2024, as Project Titan abandoned the project in an email to over 2,000 employees. The company had backtracked its expectations for the vehicle on several occasions, initially hoping to launch it with no human driving controls and only with an autonomous driving suite.
Apple canceling its EV has drawn a wide array of reactions across tech
It then planned for a 2028 launch with “limited autonomous driving.” But it seemed to be a bit of a concession at that point; Apple was not prepared to take on industry giants like Tesla.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives noted in a communication to investors that, “The writing was on the wall for Apple with a much different EV landscape forming that would have made this an uphill battle. Most of these Project Titan engineers are now all focused on AI at Apple, which is the right move.”
Apple did all it could to develop a competitive EV that would attract car buyers, including attempting to poach top talent from Tesla.
In a new podcast interview with Tesla CEO Elon Musk, it was revealed that Apple had been calling Tesla engineers nonstop during its development of the now-defunct project. Musk said the engineers “just unplugged their phones.”
Musk said in full:
“They were carpet bombing Tesla with recruiting calls. Engineers just unplugged their phones. Their opening offer without any interview would be double the compensation at Tesla.”
Interestingly, Apple had acquired some ex-Tesla employees for its project, like Senior Director of Engineering Dr. Michael Schwekutsch, who eventually left for Archer Aviation.
Tesla took no legal action against Apple for attempting to poach its employees, as it has with other companies. It came after EV rival Rivian in mid-2020, after stating an “alarming pattern” of poaching employees was noticed.
There are a lot of Tesla bulls out there who have astronomical expectations for the company, especially as its arm of reach has gone well past automotive and energy and entered artificial intelligence and robotics.
However, some of the most bullish Tesla investors believe the company could become worth $100 trillion, and CEO Elon Musk does not believe that number is completely out of the question, even if it sounds almost ridiculous.
To put that number into perspective, the top ten most valuable companies in the world — NVIDIA, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, TSMC, Meta, Saudi Aramco, Broadcom, and Tesla — are worth roughly $26 trillion.
Will Tesla join the fold? Predicting a triple merger with SpaceX and xAI
Cathie Wood of ARK Invest believes the number is reasonable considering Tesla’s long-reaching industry ambitions:
“…in the world of AI, what do you have to have to win? You have to have proprietary data, and think about all the proprietary data he has, different kinds of proprietary data. Tesla, the language of the road; Neuralink, multiomics data; nobody else has that data. X, nobody else has that data either. I could see $100 trillion. I think it’s going to happen because of convergence. I think Tesla is the leading candidate [for $100 trillion] for the reason I just said.”
Musk said late last year that all of his companies seem to be “heading toward convergence,” and it’s started to come to fruition. Tesla invested in xAI, as revealed in its Q4 Earnings Shareholder Deck, and SpaceX recently acquired xAI, marking the first step in the potential for a massive umbrella of companies under Musk’s watch.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
Now that it is happening, it seems Musk is even more enthusiastic about a massive valuation that would swell to nearly four-times the value of the top ten most valuable companies in the world currently, as he said on X, the idea of a $100 trillion valuation is “not impossible.”
It’s not impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 6, 2026
Tesla is not just a car company. With its many projects, including the launch of Robotaxi, the progress of the Optimus robot, and its AI ambitions, it has the potential to continue gaining value at an accelerating rate.
Musk’s comments show his confidence in Tesla’s numerous projects, especially as some begin to mature and some head toward their initial stages.
Elon Musk
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
Seven years later, the question is no longer “What if this works?” It’s “How far does this go?”
When Falcon Heavy lifted off in February 2018 with Elon Musk’s personal Tesla Roadster as its payload, SpaceX was at a much different place. So was Tesla. It was unclear whether Falcon Heavy was feasible at all, and Tesla was in the depths of Model 3 production hell.
At the time, Tesla’s market capitalization hovered around $55–60 billion, an amount critics argued was already grossly overvalued. SpaceX, on the other hand, was an aggressive private launch provider known for taking risks that traditional aerospace companies avoided.
The Roadster launch was bold by design. Falcon Heavy’s maiden mission carried no paying payload, no government satellite, just a car drifting past Earth with David Bowie playing in the background. To many, it looked like a stunt. For Elon Musk and the SpaceX team, it was a bold statement: there should be some things in the world that simply inspire people.
Inspire it did, and seven years later, SpaceX and Tesla’s results speak for themselves.
Today, Tesla is the world’s most valuable automaker, with a market capitalization of roughly $1.54 trillion. The Model Y has become the best-selling car in the world by volume for three consecutive years, a scenario that would have sounded insane in 2018. Tesla has also pushed autonomy to a point where its vehicles can navigate complex real-world environments using vision alone.
And then there is Optimus. What began as a literal man in a suit has evolved into a humanoid robot program that Musk now describes as potential Von Neumann machines: systems capable of building civilizations beyond Earth. Whether that vision takes decades or less, one thing is evident: Tesla is no longer just a car company. It is positioning itself at the intersection of AI, robotics, and manufacturing.
SpaceX’s trajectory has been just as dramatic.
The Falcon 9 has become the undisputed workhorse of the global launch industry, having completed more than 600 missions to date. Of those, SpaceX has successfully landed a Falcon booster more than 560 times. The Falcon 9 flies more often than all other active launch vehicles combined, routinely lifting off multiple times per week.
Falcon 9 has ferried astronauts to and from the International Space Station via Crew Dragon, restored U.S. human spaceflight capability, and even stepped in to safely return NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams when circumstances demanded it.
Starlink, once a controversial idea, now dominates the satellite communications industry, providing broadband connectivity across the globe and reshaping how space-based networks are deployed. SpaceX itself, following its merger with xAI, is now valued at roughly $1.25 trillion and is widely expected to pursue what could become the largest IPO in history.
And then there is Starship, Elon Musk’s fully reusable launch system designed not just to reach orbit, but to make humans multiplanetary. In 2018, the idea was still aspirational. Today, it is under active development, flight-tested in public view, and central to NASA’s future lunar plans.
In hindsight, Falcon Heavy’s maiden flight with Elon Musk’s personal Tesla Roadster was never really about a car in space. It was a signal that SpaceX and Tesla were willing to think bigger, move faster, and accept risks others wouldn’t.
The Roadster is still out there, orbiting the Sun. Seven years later, the question is no longer “What if this works?” It’s “How far does this go?”
Tesla engineers deflected calls from this tech giant’s now-defunct EV project
Tesla to a $100T market cap? Elon Musk’s response may shock you
