Mars is, if you have a low energy trajectory, like a minimum energy trajectory is about 6 months. I think that can be compressed down to about 3 months, and it gets exponentially harder as you go lower than that - 3 to 4. It's important to actually be at that level because then you can send your spaceship to Mars and then bring it back on the same orbital synchronization. Earth and Mars synch up every two years and then they're only kinda in synch for about 6 months. Then, ya know, they're really too far apart. So you've got to be able to go there and back in one go. That's important for making the cost of traveling to Mars an affordable amount.
Musk also ruled out SpaceX's Dragon capsule, which the company is developing to ferry astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit, as the spacecraft that would land colonists on the Red Planet. When asked by SPACE.com what vehicle would be used, he said, "I think you just land the entire thing." - See more at: http://www.space.com/18596-mars-colony-spacex-elon-musk.html#sthash.vKm0wxSG.dpuf
We can certainly improve on the chemical propulsion that has been done thus far, and I think probably a very high efficiency light hydrocarbon that uses predominantly methane is probably a good way to go, and I think that's something SpaceX will end up working on.
[Question on performance hit for attempting landing the first stage] We effectively lose, in terms of performance... It really depends on what we want to do with the stage if we were to do an ocean landing or a return to launch site landing. If we do an ocean landing, the performance hit is actually quite small at maybe in the order of 15%. If we do a return to launch site landing, it's probably double that, it's more like a 30% hit (i.e., 30% of payload lost).
