musk is changing the space game so rapidly, he is a remarkable man and these are exciting times for space.

Yes - Earth is not enough. Let's start polluting another planet before we even set foot on it.
D U M B.
Hydrogen/oxygen, or nothing Elon.

re; ugosugo
This is not a vacation trip it is akin to the pioneers taking a covered wagon across the American great plains back when it was called the Great American Desert you had to cash out your life and buy the necessary equipment for the journey and making a new life on the frontier. A middle aged person of the middle class Should be able to put together half a million dollars in a few years if he is willing to leave no property behind and forgo immediate gratifications that so much of our money gets spent on. The people unable to do this would not make a good homesteader anyway.
re; solutions4circuits
Assuming that you are talking about Mars the atmosphere is about 95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and traces of free oxygen, carbon monoxide, water and methane, among other gases, for a mean molar mass of 43.34 g/mol. And the methane manufactured on Mars gets its carbon from the atmosphere. So what pollutant are you thinking of? On earth by the time you have generated the hydrogen and liquified it you will have generated more C02 than launching with methane. Liquid hydrogen is lousy fuel.
Just as an aside. If you use methane as your fuel it would be easy to convert the fuel tank into living space.

Can't wait until he reveals his design for the Mars spaceship. I will be eagerly awaiting his future artist renderings of that big beautiful beast.

From the Isp point of view Methane is not a very good propellant. However from the in situ resource usage point of view it's irreplaceable. Another option would be to burn magnesium or aluminum in CO2 which is not a very bright idea.
As of not being cryogenic - normally it is cryogenic, but it's critical point is: Critical temperature : -82.7 °C Critical pressure : 45.96 bar So from this perspective one can play a little with temperatures (ranging ~68 degrees downwards `til it is cryogenic) and with a pressures in order to find a sweet spot.

Put a station on a mars moon and tether to the atmosphere. Parachute to the ground. No rocket landing required.

I'm a huge fan and eager supporter of current robotic missions and their amazing quests and findings. I'm even tolerant of near-earth/orbital manned missions. That's real, practical science worth societal investment.
And as long as it's just multimillionaires' & billionaires' assets (and lives) being risked on incredibly ignorant flights of fancy, I'll watch in amusement in the same manner that the world watched, gasped and laughed at early unscientific attempts to fly.
However, if they feast on the ignorance of naive adventurer-wannabees or dare to hawk their snake-oil in order to raid taxpayer assets to subsidize this silliness, watch out!

re; Kaido Tiigisoon
Listen to the video again. it almost as good as hydrogen with far fewer disadvantages.

If usable, expand methane for use in Space, why not. Or use some Biofuel for space use.

Everyone bashing on methane should pay attention to the stuff they use in some rockets and missiles.
It could be potassium perchlorate and kerosene or one of the other toxic brews that have been used. Methane (which can be manufactured out of the air, on Earth or Mars) can be compared to biofuel in that you could manufacture biofuel at your camp to return (if you were patient enough, and have a few basic requirements) after a long safari where you only took enough diesel for the outbound leg.
This could well be a big thing for earth-based space as well, very interesting.
P.S. Stewart Mitchell should direct a horror film, on his Mars, NOBODY LEAVES! ;)