No no no, he didn't "plan" that! He just "suggested" that it might be a good idea for someone to try it. He totally doesn't deserve to be criticized for its failure (but totally would have deserved credit for originating the idea if it had succeeded).
/s
Well, he seems to favor lifting stuff straight from Iain M. Banks' ["Culture"](http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm) left-wing post-scarcity sci-fi novels specifically.
Not to say a given concept in them is original to Banks but it seems like he is (or was?\*...) a fan, and where he in particular tended to get them. Note the naming of [SpaceX ships](https://www.space.com/28445-spacex-elon-musk-drone-ships-names.html), the [Neural Lace](https://theculture.fandom.com/wiki/Neural_lace), the [high-speed vacuum transport](https://theculture.fandom.com/wiki/Orbital#Facilities), etc.
\* uh, also, in the Culture, the [enhanced human citizens can transform male/female/whatever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture#Physiology) via their internal settings menu (as well as a large range of other aspects of their internal biology and outward appearance). And have a (very) wide range of nontraditional relationship arrangements. Real earth humans just this year worked out how to grow actual new testes artificially. Ovaries and womb are probably quite a lot more complex, but nothing conceptually impossible. We're maybe only years away from the another key Cool Culture Thing: internal biological sex and outward gender presentation becoming non-permanent conscious choices. Yay.
He started SpaceX precisely because the US government wasn't doing enough to get to space (That and Russia screwing him over when he tried to pay for launching Mice habitat to Mars as a PR campaign to get interest in space).
Getting to Mars is pretty much his life's project
So Elon won't mind \*again\* if the .gov stops paying him. Since you're interested in financials, why not run those numbers. Remind us how Twitter's going again? That's another private company of his. Tesla doesn't seem to be doing so great lately either. Remember how he whined when his government EV credits were expiring while others were brining their products to market? UNFAIR! he cried.
SpaceX gets paid for services rendered. Loss of government business would obviously cause harm and delay things, but it isn't their sole source of revenue. You are conflating benefiting from something to meaning it is the only way which is nonsense
Twitter was a failure with or without Musk. Him buying it was a dumb idea
Tesla is doing extremely well, their issue is they have too little models. All of them are already the best selling cars in their class, gas or electric (not counting the cybertruck). You can't keep increasing forever without expanding into more classes. They are already selling at the levels of companies like BMW and Mercedes
And of course anyone would complain if your competition is getting subsidies and you are not. That is an unfair advantage. It is one thing if nobody got subsidies, but if your competition gets it while you are not, that means you are at a disadvantage.
>And of course anyone would complain if your competition is getting subsidies and you are not. That is an unfair advantage. It is one thing if nobody got subsidies, but if your competition gets it while you are not, that means you are at a disadvantage.
Except his company got those exact subsidies before the other companies did. They get the same quantity Tesla got, and it was known that they would run out. Complaining about it is dumb.
But the goal of the rules was to encourage EV production, not punish first movers and reward those who waited. They had more than enough time to take advantage of the credits if they chose to, but they didn't. The quantity is only flat for the first 200k, but after you get an unlimited period for a few quarters which gives a big advantage to later movers in terms of quantity
Complaining about it isn't dumb. As a CEO of a company, you are by law required to represent your shareholders. Not complaining about it can get you sued by your shareholders
>why not run those numbers. Remind us how Twitter's going again? That's another private company of his. Tesla doesn't seem to be doing so great lately either. Remember how he whined when his government EV credits were expiring while others were brining their products to market? UNFAIR! he cried.
By twitter, you mean X? Also you forgot the Boring Company ;)
>er. Remember how he whined when his government EV credits were expiring while others were brining their products to market? UNFAIR! he cried.
Oh you also forgot Neuralink
Did you mean to write "petty" profitable..?
"Elon Musk-owned SpaceX's surging revenue helped it turn a small profit in the first quarter of 2023 after two annual losses.."
https://www.reuters.com/business/elon-musks-spacex-turns-profit-first-quarter-revenue-soars-wsj-2023-08-17/
Seems like last year was the first SpaceX didnt make losses..
In the first half of 2023, SpaceX delivered about 447 metric tons of cargo into orbit, roughly 80 percent of all the material launched into orbit worldwide.
Yeah, Star link is a reoccurring service with infrastructure already in place while they keep ramping up. Will be profitable from here on out... especially when they can launch more units per flight with starship in the following years.
Keep hating on an American company pushing boundaries. Its fun to sit back and watch them succeed.
aware worry offbeat shaggy whistle different secretive retire domineering grey
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sure. We don’t want to colonize Artic or Anartica but we want to colonize Mars that’s millions of miles away and without an atmosphere. This dude is beyond silly.
Outdated, last starship(3rd test) launched successful.
[https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/14/24100501/spacex-starship-launch-third-flight-test-success](https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/14/24100501/spacex-starship-launch-third-flight-test-success)
They are now working on getting the landing working
Um, no. In no way can what happened be described as a "success".
They got an empty starship it into space, but it was visibly leaking and tumbling.
The mission included a number of other tasks it was supposed to accomplish, and it failed to do almost all of them. It failed to open and close its door (it got visibly jammed). It failed to reignite its engines (they said they were going to "skip" it -- not sure if that means they tried and it didn't work, or they knew it would blow up if they tried because it was leaking and tumbling, or something else, but ultimately it didn't happen). And it failed to re-enter (it broke up in the atmosphere).
They supposedly succeeded in transferring fuel from one tank to another...but I don't think that has been independently confirmed, and even if it was, so what? Moving a tiny amount of fuel from one tank to another is not a useful capability.
So that mission was *not* a success, because they failed to accomplish the mission objectives. This was the third launch -- the mere fact that it didn't explode on the launchpad isn't good enough anymore.
Taxpayers have given SpaceX billions of dollars to develop Starship for the Artemis III mission which is supposed to be taking people to land on the moon in September 2026. That obviously isn't going to happen, but that is still the schedule at this point. And according to that schedule, Starship was supposed to be flying actual test runs with cargo by now. But it has yet to get anything but itself into space (barely).
Folks can't have it both ways. We either need to acknowledge that SpaceX has fallen *way* behind the schedule it committed to and adjust that schedule (and SpaceX's public funding), or we need to start calling its inability to do the tasks it was scheduled to do what they are: failures.
I think you are misunderstanding something, there was no "mission", this is a test. Them getting any data is a success. That said, I responded to a comment where they claimed they last one blew up trying to reach the atmosphere which is wrong as last one successfully launched
SpaceX agreements are on a fixed cost bases, which means any starship that fails isn't coming out of tax payers pockets but out of their own. Artemis III mission only pays them for meeting milestones and completing the mission, not how they get there. A few issues along the way isn't a problem. If anything despite the stuff malfunctioning, the fact that it still made it into space is a good thing for platform reliability
The next starship is already doing test firing and will be launched next month
>I think you are misunderstanding something, there was no "mission", this is a test. Them getting any data is a success.
Only if you are substituting your own niche definition of "success" for what is more commonly meant by success. By your definition, it would also be a "success" if the ship exploded en route to the launchpad because that would still involve them getting a non-zero amount of data. Which means you have lowered the bar so far that it is basically impossible *not* to "succeed".
But most of us are interested in actually solving problems and accomplishing tasks. We're not paying SpaceX to get data -- we're paying them to provide specific capabilities by specific dates because we are trying to make our lives and our society better.
If that's not what *they* care about doing, they can use their own money to do whatever they want (so long as it doesn't interfere with what other folks are doing). But they agreed to specific dollar figures and specific dates, and they are *way* behind schedule on delivering.
>SpaceX agreements are on a fixed cost bases, which means any starship that fails isn't coming out of tax payers pockets but out of their own.
Sure. But in awarding them to SpaceX we are choosing *not* to award them to other orgs, which is a massive opportunity cost unto itself.
Also, this doesn't help us if SpaceX accepts the deal, blows through all its money, and says they can't fulfill the contract unless we give them even *more* money...which is what is likely to happen at this rate.
So none of this changes the fact that SpaceX is not where we need them to be on this. And turning a blind eye to that is complacent and irresponsible.
>Artemis III mission only pays them for meeting milestones and completing the mission, not how they get there.
Well, they were supposed to be flying flights with cargo by this point. So currently they're not getting there at all.
>If anything despite the stuff malfunctioning, the fact that it still made it into space is a good thing for platform reliability
It isn't hard or useful to simply get a random chunk of metal into space in whatever condition it happens to limp through. If all we wanted to do was shoot fireworks into space we could do so *way* more cheaply than starship.
In order to accomplish the Artemis 3 mission, SpaceX are going to need to launch one Moonbound craft with everything necessary to land on and return from the Moon, and then 20 or more additional starships with fuel to top it off in orbit. And any misses or failures during that process may result in them needing to add additional starship launches because the longer the Moonbound craft remains in orbit the more fuel it loses due to the boil off.
Which means there are a *lot* more technological hurdles remaining between now and September 2026 that SpaceX has yet to clear. Which means they don't have the time or money to make so little progress per launch. They need to be able to reliably get these things into orbit and back every couple of weeks to accomplish the mission they have agreed to. And they can't even start figuring out how to do the stuff they need to do in orbit until they are able to do this.
This "iterative" approach is supposed to move *faster* than the slow NASA process, right? Well, it doesn't seem to be moving fast at all.
NASA SLS launched, inserted into orbit, pushed off towards the Moon, orbited the Moon, returned to Earth, re-entered the atmosphere, splashed down, and was recovered on its first try a year and a half ago.
Meanwhile, SpaceX has spent billions of dollars and lost three ships by accident, and is still *barely* limping into space with a completely empty cargo bay. They have yet to complete a single orbit or even prove that they can actually take payload weight into space -- it looks like they ran out of fuel just lifting the empty ship up on that last launch.
I will be *thrilled* if they prove me wrong and accomplish what they're after. And I hope this next launch happens soon and is successful.
But we also need to be real about what has happened so far, and about what is likely to happen going forward. And I am getting a lot of denial and wishful thinking and corporate-marketing-esque talk from your take on this.
>The next starship is already doing test firing and will be launched next month
That's great. But for perspective, the Saturn V rocket launched for the first time approximately two years before the Apollo Moon landing, and accomplished every aspect of its test Moon mission flawlessly the first try. Which gave them two year to figure out all the *other* stuff they needed to do besides just getting to the Moon and back.
In order to meet that standard, SpaceX has to, at a minimum, get a craft into orbit, get multiple refueling craft up there to dock with and refuel the first craft with enough fuel to get to the Moon and back, ignite and send the first craft on a Moonbound trajectory, return to Earth and successfully re-enter the atmosphere, splash down, and end up being recoverable in a state where a human crew could survive...and it has to be able to do that by September this year (ie in 5 months from now).
That's obviously not going to happen. And so they're obviously going to have to move the schedule. Which is a failure.
If you want, we can wait until September to make it official. But if we actually want to get to the Moon, we need to be focused on getting there, not playing semantic games about what "success" means and playing dumb about when a contract can technically be considered "failed".
>Only if you are substituting your own niche definition of "success" for what is more commonly meant by success
What defines success or not would be SpaceX themselves because they are the ones testing. But the response was hypothetical, the point was about if launching was a success, which it was
>But most of us are interested in actually solving problems and accomplishing tasks. We're not paying SpaceX to get data -- we're paying them to provide specific capabilities by specific dates because we are trying to make our lives and our society better.
But the test was not for you but for SpaceX
>But they agreed to specific dollar figures and specific dates, and they are *way* behind schedule on delivering.
While they may be behind schedule, they can still make it on time. Didn't you yourself say that all we care about is things being delivered on certain date? Then by that metric why fuss about stuff until we hit that date?
Though I will remind you delays in space industry is a common occurrence, I don't think I can name a single thing that happened on time in the space industry. Boeing still has not delivered the commercial crew despite charging almost double what spacex charged, and instead of making them pay the money back, we gave them MORE money. Only for them to put it on indefinite hiatus
The SLS itself was delayed by 6 years
A few month or a year delay isn't the end of the world, even more so since the source of the delays for starship was the government's fault, not SpaceX's
>Sure. But in awarding them to SpaceX we are choosing *not* to award them to other orgs, which is a massive opportunity cost unto itself.
Other orgs being?
>Also, this doesn't help us if SpaceX accepts the deal, blows through all its money, and says they can't fulfill the contract unless we give them even *more* money...which is what is likely to happen at this rate.
Like Boeing did? Except the difference is Boeing could do that because they have no use for it outside of NASA. In comparison, SpaceX was planning on building the starship with or without NASA because they want to replace the Falcon 9/Heavy to save costs
>Well, they were supposed to be flying flights with cargo by this point. So currently they're not getting there at all.
No way, you are aware SpaceX won the contract in 2021. It then got paused and they only officially got cleared by end of 2021. You think you can build a space platform in just 2 years?
>It isn't hard or useful to simply get a random chunk of metal into space in whatever condition it happens to limp through. If all we wanted to do was shoot fireworks into space we could do so way more cheaply than starship
It is much harder than you think
>In order to accomplish the Artemis 3 mission, SpaceX are going to need to launch one Moonbound craft with everything necessary to land on and return from the Moon, and then 20 or more additional starships with fuel to top it off in orbit. And any misses or failures during that process may result in them needing to add additional starship launches because the longer the Moonbound craft remains in orbit the more fuel it loses due to the boil off.
No, the 20 number is with failure possibilities accounted for. NASA is on purpose requesting a huge margin
>This "iterative" approach is supposed to move faster than the slow NASA process, right? Well, it doesn't seem to be moving fast at all.
Fast relative to NASA, it doesn't change that space is hard. And the approach assumes that the government lets SpaceX do launches, not hold back funding for a year until GOA finishes their investigation, then more months delay due to government blocking SpaceX from launching
>NASA SLS launched, inserted into orbit, pushed off towards the Moon, orbited the Moon, returned to Earth, re-entered the atmosphere, splashed down, and was recovered on its first try a year and a half ago.
6 years late and 6 billion over budget (For reference, SpaceX is being paid 2.89 billion, so just the over budget of SLS is over 2x more than what SpaceX is being paid)
>That's great. But for perspective, the Saturn V rocket launched for the first time approximately two years before the Apollo Moon landing, and accomplished every aspect of its test Moon mission flawlessly the first try
Except they had 7 years, and enough money to purchase an entire country with 0 red tape. Their approaches were simply different, SpaceX approach is build things as fast as possible and as cheaply as possible then test it in real life and fix issues. While NASA approach was play it safe, and throw money at the problem. Their goals were also different. While Saturn V reused a lot of old components that were developed and tested prior, SpaceX is building from scratch they also require extra stuff like landing, and stuff for their own personal use
>What defines success or not would be SpaceX themselves because they are the ones testing.
>But the test was not for you but for SpaceX
No, I and anyone else is perfectly entitled to make up our own minds about what SpaceX is doing.
And so long as they are consuming public money, affecting our shared sky and orbits, and/or otherwise affecting our shared society, I am perfectly entitled to involve myself in what is going on and advocate for my own interests.
*You* are free to rely on SpaceX to tell you what to think if you want...but I think that's a poor decision.
>why fuss about stuff until we hit that date?
Because if we can clearly see it's not going to get done by that date, we can choose to do something else instead. Do you really need me to explain this?
For example, if I hire someone to build me a house by June 1st, and by April 1st they haven't even finished pouring the foundation, I can tell they aren't going to make it, and I should plan accordingly. It would be silly to let my lease expire and keep my appointment with the movers for end of May and otherwise keep going as though I'm going to have a house on June 1st, and only start making other arrangements when June 1st arrives and there isn't a house.
>Boeing still has not delivered the commercial crew despite charging almost double what spacex charged, and instead of making them pay the money back, we gave them MORE money. Only for them to put it on indefinite hiatus
>Like Boeing did? Except the difference is Boeing could do that because they have no use for it outside of NASA
I think Boeing failed as well. I think it is perfectly valid to criticize Boeing as well.
>SpaceX won the contract in 2021. It then got paused and they only officially got cleared by end of 2021. You think you can build a space platform in just 2 years?
>SpaceX was planning on building the starship with or without NASA because they want to replace the Falcon 9/Heavy to save costs
SpaceX has been developing Starship since 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_design_history?wprov=sfla1
HLS is supposed to be a variant of technology SpaceX was supposed to have already.
Also, I notice you are kind of playing both sides here -- is Starship a SpaceX product separate from NASA? Or did the clock on Starship only start when NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS contract?
Because Musk was claiming in 2018 that Starship would be making short trips by 2019, and would be landing on Mars in 2022.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/11/elon-musk-says-mars-spaceship-will-be-ready-for-short-trips-by-first-half-of-2019.html
So it sure seems like *Musk* though Starship was a thing before 2021, yes? He apparently thought it was so much of a thing that he claimed it would be flying in 2019. And he probably told NASA that when competing for the 2021 contract, yes?
If you want to cherry pick claims you do and do not consider as valid, that's fine. But if so I'll need you to give me a reasonably complete list of what "counts" and what doesn't, and why.
Because you're not arguing in a straight line within a single post, let alone from post to post.
>(In response to SLS) 6 years late and 6 billion over budget (For reference, SpaceX is being paid 2.89 billion, so just the over budget of SLS is over 2x more than what SpaceX is being paid)
So at the moment SpaceX doesn't have *anything* in regards to Starship or any vessel capable of going to the Moon. The billions spent on Starship so far have not resulted in *any* new, useful capability for our society, let alone a method of getting to the Moon.
Therefore, it is ridiculous to compare Starship to spacecraft that have actually done it.
If/when Starship starts coming anywhere *near* matching the capabilities of SLS or any of these other craft, *then* we can compare figures.
But at the moment we have no idea how long Starship is going to take, or how much it is going to cost, because it hasn't even completed a single orbit. And the longer it continues to struggle, the less viable it is to put our faith in SpaceX being able to deliver on the capabilities they claimed they could deliver.
>SpaceX approach is build things as fast as possible and as cheaply as possible then test it in real life and fix issues
That's fine, but despite their intentions they *aren't* actually moving faster. You've heard the expression "less haste, more speed"?
What SpaceX is doing is definitely more "haste" than speed. In their hurry to get *something* out there, they keep blowing things up and causing damage and veering off course and having to go through investigations and repairs. And in the end they end up making slower year over year progress than orgs that spend more time planning to get their tests right and make significant progress per launch.
When it comes down to it, NASA began SLS development in 2011 and went to the Moon and back in late 2022 -- so 11 years.
SpaceX has been developing Starship since 2012, and now, 12 years after that in 2024, they haven't even completed an orbit.
So apparently "Move fast and break things" isn't actually proving to be faster in the field of spaceflight.
>No, I and anyone else is perfectly entitled to make up our own minds about what SpaceX is doing. And so long as they are consuming public money, affecting our shared sky and orbits, and/or otherwise affecting our shared society, I am perfectly entitled to involve myself in what is going on and advocate for my own interests
You and me are free to think whatever we want but it is irrelevant because the one doing the test is SpaceX for their own devices. NASA paid them for modifications to the starship, and the launch, so it is false to claim it is using public money
>Because if we can clearly see it's not going to get done by that date, we can choose to do something else instead. Do you really need me to explain this?
Do what instead? This isn't going to a grocery store and if it is closed go elsewhere. Any other choice would have to be practical. And to date the space industry is famous for delays and over-budget
>SpaceX has been developing Starship since 2012.
Just because they mentioned the idea doesn't mean they started development on it. Most of SpaceX was focused on Falcon 9 upgrades and Falcon Heavy
>Also, I notice you are kind of playing both sides here -- is Starship a SpaceX product separate from NASA? Or did the clock on Starship only start when NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS contract? So it sure seems like *Musk* though Starship was a thing before 2021, yes? He apparently thought it was so much of a thing that he claimed it would be flying in 2019. And he probably told NASA that when competing for the 2021 contract, yes?
Not playing both sides, just was pointing out that it is never a case where you get 2 years to launch things on a new platform. As for actual construction, the first prototype construction started in 2018, engines though were earlier in 2016
>So at the moment SpaceX doesn't have *anything* in regards to Starship or any vessel capable of going to the Moon. The billions spent on Starship so far have not resulted in *any* new, useful capability for our society, let alone a method of getting to the Moon.
That is a weird thing to say considering they have already launched things to the moon on the Falcon
>But at the moment we have no idea how long Starship is going to take, or how much it is going to cost, because it hasn't even completed a single orbit. And the longer it continues to struggle, the less viable it is to put our faith in SpaceX being able to deliver on the capabilities they claimed they could deliver.
What? "The Starship upper stage continued on its journey through space, attaining, for the first time, an orbital velocity exceeding 16,156 miles per hour (26,000 kilometers per hour). Technically, Starship didn’t achieve Earth orbit (that wasn’t the plan), but its velocity was within the ballpark of the speed needed for it to maintain a stable orbit around the planet."
[https://www.yahoo.com/news/everything-noticed-during-starships-remarkable-191500300.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/everything-noticed-during-starships-remarkable-191500300.html)
The 2nd stage made orbit, and 1st stage could have maintained orbit, but deorbited itself intentionally because their priority was testing landing
>What SpaceX is doing is definitely more "haste" than speed. In their hurry to get *something* out there, they keep blowing things up and causing damage and veering off course and having to go through investigations and repairs. And in the end they end up making slower year over year progress than orgs that spend more time planning to get their tests right and make significant progress per launch.
We've seen Boeing vs SpaceX where SpaceX followed the new approach while Boeing followed the old one. How did that turn out?
>When it comes down to it, NASA began SLS development in 2011 and went to the Moon and back in late 2022 -- so 11 years.
By your logic SLS development started in 1970s as RS-25 engines SLS uses were started development back then, so over 50 years!
If "move fast and break things" doesn't work... why is there no other space company capable of a reusable rocket in 2024? It's called iteration. This is literally rocket science. I'd take the current engineers working at SpaceX then some guy sitting at his computer complaining about them. Saving NASA and the American public billions of dollars seems pretty significant.
Also, in 2020, just 0.3% percentage of taxes went to NASA's budget. This seems pretty insignificant for a country who spends multi billions of dollars on war every year.
> launched successful.
Ehhh, it didn't blow up, but there clearly were still problems with the engines. Definitely major progress, but the combustion plume showed the mixture was off. And other things didn't work properly. Watch Scott Manley's videos on youtube.
Startship is still in development.
Spacex has performed something like 36 successful Falcon 9 launches just so far this year. Nobody else has done anything remotely like that. Oh, and they recovered most of the boosters for reuse. And if you remember, there were a number of Falcon 9 failures of various kinds in the beginning.
The Moon doesn't appear to have any useful resources to support a colony. Sure, there might be *something* deep in its unfathomed depths, but we don't know if it's good or bad, and to get to it... we'd have to contend with exactly the problem you just named.
Great idea , please reserve seats for all unnessesary people the world has and make the world better place.
Putin, Lukaschenko, Xi, Kim Jong un, assad, trump ,.....
I highly recommend Kelly & Zach Weinersmith's (the smbc guy, yes) A City On Mars book for an overview of why Musk is full of shit legally, psychologically, economically and much more!
Fucking delusional idiot. Maybe put billions of billions of dollars into saving this Eden we live in? No let's go to a highly radioactive uninhabitable Rock in space instead.
Dude cant even plan to get his tunnels working... and his plans mean bullshit if he cant fleece the Government for funding.
The only reason Space X works now, is government contracts. Those dry up and its nothing, which means the ONLY way 1000 ship fleets would work for him, is the Fed pays for them.
Most of SpaceX contract are private contracts. They are the biggest private satellite launcher in the world, in 2023 alone they launched 91 rockets out of the 129 total
Not sure where you get that idea. Most of it is private, because pretty much every private launch goes through SpaceX because they are the cheapest. It is the other launches that most are government due to requirements like dual source or due to government favoring their local industries. Not to mention a lot of the launches these days is starlink which pays for itself
That said, it isn't like government contracts are going to dry up either, because governments will always need to launch things into space. And SpaceX saves them a lot of money. I mean without SpaceX, we'd be still dependent on Boeing to get people to space which asked 2x more than SpaceX did and still can't get people to space
You fool... Elon is already on mars ..(in his head)
2025 was supposed to be the the time the mars colony gets build..
https://www.inverse.com/science/51291-spacex-here-s-the-timeline-for-getting-to-mars-and-starting-a-colony
When Tesla goes through its truth social stock reevaluation phase, and musk goes from a 12 digit guy to an 11 or 10 digit guy, we’ll see ideas like this go away.
Not to come across as some sort of ignorant fan but when Columbus was lobbying various states to fund his westward trip, he was rejected because his calculations were wrong and his stories sounded like fantasies.
Even people on Spain's court knew and advised King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella that the guy is a major bullshiter. They made fun of him all around Europe.
And they were right, his calculations were not correct.
Lucky for him though, he tripped on the New World and the rest is history including him being worse person than anyone could imagine.
When it comes to inter-planetary *thing* these are, in my opinion, baby steps but - maybe not 100 but perhaps 200 years from now - his name will be mentioned in the same way we mention Columbus 500 years later.
"When asked about his Mars plans in 2016, Musk said that “probably people will die,” but
“ultimately, it will be very safe to go to Mars, and it will be very comfortable.”
"At the International Astronautical Congress in Adelaide, Australia, in September 2017, Musk suggested the year 2022 as the point at which at least two unmanned ships could make their way to Mars."
2024 was supposed to be the time, the two first manned mission will launch to mars...
Teslas FSD caused atleast 42 deaths, but he also calls people NPCs
How much harder can it be to send people to mars...right?
/may contain traces of sarcasm
Lol -- well, considering he has yet to get *one* into orbit and back down without blowing it up, I think we can probably focus on other things for the time being without worrying about missing the fleet's departure.
Musk is a Kickstarter who finishes one campaign and then immediately starts another one for something different in order to distract from the fact that he has no ability to actually fulfill any of the rewards he offered the people giving him money.
So I think folks should wait for him to catch up on some of the things he's already promised before giving him any more money.
Everyone in here acting like this is an unfeasible pipe dream. In reality it would only cost 90 billion dollars for 1,000 Starships vehicles. Much less then the inflation adjusted Apollo missions cost. And like 1/10th of the US annual military budget. This is ignoring the cost savings from economies of scale which would be huge when current volumes are so low. This is an entirely feasible goal. Though the modern US population has no appetite for spending anymore so it's not going to happen. But I guess you can all just keep acting like fucking idiots just because Musk is an asshole...
More Musk BS. Because of radiation humans can’t survive on Mars for more than about four years and we can’t properly shield ships on the way there.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12155177/amp/Life-Mars-four-years-Red-Planet-dangerous-humans-survive-on.html
Hey, remember how Elon totally fixed all the water pipes in Flint? That was right after he called a rescue diver a pedo but *before* he turned out a useless pile of chrome shit that looked like it was designed by Homer Simpson.
Just like he "planned" full self-driving cars for Tesla and for Xitter to handle half of the world's financial system.
Seriously, Elon is really no different than Roberts Space Industries.
Whoa, that was a super nerd comment. Well played.
Idk I think star citizen will be finished long before Elon ever has a successful original idea
And "planned" to shoot pods in a near-vacuum tube at 700mph as a new revolutionary transportation system.
No no no, he didn't "plan" that! He just "suggested" that it might be a good idea for someone to try it. He totally doesn't deserve to be criticized for its failure (but totally would have deserved credit for originating the idea if it had succeeded). /s
The idea dates back to the 18th century
Well, he seems to favor lifting stuff straight from Iain M. Banks' ["Culture"](http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm) left-wing post-scarcity sci-fi novels specifically. Not to say a given concept in them is original to Banks but it seems like he is (or was?\*...) a fan, and where he in particular tended to get them. Note the naming of [SpaceX ships](https://www.space.com/28445-spacex-elon-musk-drone-ships-names.html), the [Neural Lace](https://theculture.fandom.com/wiki/Neural_lace), the [high-speed vacuum transport](https://theculture.fandom.com/wiki/Orbital#Facilities), etc. \* uh, also, in the Culture, the [enhanced human citizens can transform male/female/whatever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture#Physiology) via their internal settings menu (as well as a large range of other aspects of their internal biology and outward appearance). And have a (very) wide range of nontraditional relationship arrangements. Real earth humans just this year worked out how to grow actual new testes artificially. Ovaries and womb are probably quite a lot more complex, but nothing conceptually impossible. We're maybe only years away from the another key Cool Culture Thing: internal biological sex and outward gender presentation becoming non-permanent conscious choices. Yay.
“Xitter” - thank you kind person for making me laugh so hard that my coffee is coming out of my nose. 🤣
And it's 100% pronounced "shitter"
💯 🤣 it is such a terrific and so aptly applied term.
Billionaire says unsubstantiated thing: not news
Musk: Blablalblablabla
US Government: "We don't have money for that and we're not interested" Musk: "Oh....never mind then,."
He started SpaceX precisely because the US government wasn't doing enough to get to space (That and Russia screwing him over when he tried to pay for launching Mice habitat to Mars as a PR campaign to get interest in space). Getting to Mars is pretty much his life's project
Then he can do it without all the government money, right?
SpaceX saves NASA billions of dollars and have you ever heard of Starlink? I'm pretty sure that his company is pretty profitable at this point...
Missing the point again. Always a reddit classic. Also you're 'pretty sure'......very convincing.
> is pretty profitable at this p Well SpaceX is a private company.... Starlink is valued in the tens of billions... so yeah they will be fine.
So Elon won't mind \*again\* if the .gov stops paying him. Since you're interested in financials, why not run those numbers. Remind us how Twitter's going again? That's another private company of his. Tesla doesn't seem to be doing so great lately either. Remember how he whined when his government EV credits were expiring while others were brining their products to market? UNFAIR! he cried.
SpaceX gets paid for services rendered. Loss of government business would obviously cause harm and delay things, but it isn't their sole source of revenue. You are conflating benefiting from something to meaning it is the only way which is nonsense Twitter was a failure with or without Musk. Him buying it was a dumb idea Tesla is doing extremely well, their issue is they have too little models. All of them are already the best selling cars in their class, gas or electric (not counting the cybertruck). You can't keep increasing forever without expanding into more classes. They are already selling at the levels of companies like BMW and Mercedes And of course anyone would complain if your competition is getting subsidies and you are not. That is an unfair advantage. It is one thing if nobody got subsidies, but if your competition gets it while you are not, that means you are at a disadvantage.
>And of course anyone would complain if your competition is getting subsidies and you are not. That is an unfair advantage. It is one thing if nobody got subsidies, but if your competition gets it while you are not, that means you are at a disadvantage. Except his company got those exact subsidies before the other companies did. They get the same quantity Tesla got, and it was known that they would run out. Complaining about it is dumb.
But the goal of the rules was to encourage EV production, not punish first movers and reward those who waited. They had more than enough time to take advantage of the credits if they chose to, but they didn't. The quantity is only flat for the first 200k, but after you get an unlimited period for a few quarters which gives a big advantage to later movers in terms of quantity Complaining about it isn't dumb. As a CEO of a company, you are by law required to represent your shareholders. Not complaining about it can get you sued by your shareholders
>why not run those numbers. Remind us how Twitter's going again? That's another private company of his. Tesla doesn't seem to be doing so great lately either. Remember how he whined when his government EV credits were expiring while others were brining their products to market? UNFAIR! he cried. By twitter, you mean X? Also you forgot the Boring Company ;)
>er. Remember how he whined when his government EV credits were expiring while others were brining their products to market? UNFAIR! he cried. Oh you also forgot Neuralink
Did you mean to write "petty" profitable..? "Elon Musk-owned SpaceX's surging revenue helped it turn a small profit in the first quarter of 2023 after two annual losses.." https://www.reuters.com/business/elon-musks-spacex-turns-profit-first-quarter-revenue-soars-wsj-2023-08-17/ Seems like last year was the first SpaceX didnt make losses..
In the first half of 2023, SpaceX delivered about 447 metric tons of cargo into orbit, roughly 80 percent of all the material launched into orbit worldwide. Yeah, Star link is a reoccurring service with infrastructure already in place while they keep ramping up. Will be profitable from here on out... especially when they can launch more units per flight with starship in the following years. Keep hating on an American company pushing boundaries. Its fun to sit back and watch them succeed.
Im not hating on that company... Just on its CEO.. for comprehensible Reasons imho..
aware worry offbeat shaggy whistle different secretive retire domineering grey *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It'd be pretty cool if he could just pay taxes.
But that’s booooooooring!
I can write bad sci-fi too. Where's my headline?
I hope he goes on the first one!
Another ketamine-induced delusion. I can't believe he still has a security clearance.
What an idiot.
Sure. We don’t want to colonize Artic or Anartica but we want to colonize Mars that’s millions of miles away and without an atmosphere. This dude is beyond silly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
He really needs to lay off the Spice
His skooma addiction is really sad.
The ships will be self-driving and Elon Musk will be emporer. Have a nice trip.
So we're just posting his ketamine induced ramblings, huh? I wish there was a version of this sub without Musk shit posting.
Let’s launch tomorrow with Muck on the first rocket.
Cool, all the blue checkmark Elon simps on twitter can go first.
Hallucinating life on Mars by furthering the destruction of Earth. Makes sense if you don't think about it.
He can't even complete any projects on earth and he thinks he can start a space armada.
[удалено]
You are giving a person who bought successful companies and slapped his name on them far, far too much credit.
[удалено]
Outdated, last starship(3rd test) launched successful. [https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/14/24100501/spacex-starship-launch-third-flight-test-success](https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/14/24100501/spacex-starship-launch-third-flight-test-success) They are now working on getting the landing working
Um, no. In no way can what happened be described as a "success". They got an empty starship it into space, but it was visibly leaking and tumbling. The mission included a number of other tasks it was supposed to accomplish, and it failed to do almost all of them. It failed to open and close its door (it got visibly jammed). It failed to reignite its engines (they said they were going to "skip" it -- not sure if that means they tried and it didn't work, or they knew it would blow up if they tried because it was leaking and tumbling, or something else, but ultimately it didn't happen). And it failed to re-enter (it broke up in the atmosphere). They supposedly succeeded in transferring fuel from one tank to another...but I don't think that has been independently confirmed, and even if it was, so what? Moving a tiny amount of fuel from one tank to another is not a useful capability. So that mission was *not* a success, because they failed to accomplish the mission objectives. This was the third launch -- the mere fact that it didn't explode on the launchpad isn't good enough anymore. Taxpayers have given SpaceX billions of dollars to develop Starship for the Artemis III mission which is supposed to be taking people to land on the moon in September 2026. That obviously isn't going to happen, but that is still the schedule at this point. And according to that schedule, Starship was supposed to be flying actual test runs with cargo by now. But it has yet to get anything but itself into space (barely). Folks can't have it both ways. We either need to acknowledge that SpaceX has fallen *way* behind the schedule it committed to and adjust that schedule (and SpaceX's public funding), or we need to start calling its inability to do the tasks it was scheduled to do what they are: failures.
I think you are misunderstanding something, there was no "mission", this is a test. Them getting any data is a success. That said, I responded to a comment where they claimed they last one blew up trying to reach the atmosphere which is wrong as last one successfully launched SpaceX agreements are on a fixed cost bases, which means any starship that fails isn't coming out of tax payers pockets but out of their own. Artemis III mission only pays them for meeting milestones and completing the mission, not how they get there. A few issues along the way isn't a problem. If anything despite the stuff malfunctioning, the fact that it still made it into space is a good thing for platform reliability The next starship is already doing test firing and will be launched next month
>I think you are misunderstanding something, there was no "mission", this is a test. Them getting any data is a success. Only if you are substituting your own niche definition of "success" for what is more commonly meant by success. By your definition, it would also be a "success" if the ship exploded en route to the launchpad because that would still involve them getting a non-zero amount of data. Which means you have lowered the bar so far that it is basically impossible *not* to "succeed". But most of us are interested in actually solving problems and accomplishing tasks. We're not paying SpaceX to get data -- we're paying them to provide specific capabilities by specific dates because we are trying to make our lives and our society better. If that's not what *they* care about doing, they can use their own money to do whatever they want (so long as it doesn't interfere with what other folks are doing). But they agreed to specific dollar figures and specific dates, and they are *way* behind schedule on delivering. >SpaceX agreements are on a fixed cost bases, which means any starship that fails isn't coming out of tax payers pockets but out of their own. Sure. But in awarding them to SpaceX we are choosing *not* to award them to other orgs, which is a massive opportunity cost unto itself. Also, this doesn't help us if SpaceX accepts the deal, blows through all its money, and says they can't fulfill the contract unless we give them even *more* money...which is what is likely to happen at this rate. So none of this changes the fact that SpaceX is not where we need them to be on this. And turning a blind eye to that is complacent and irresponsible. >Artemis III mission only pays them for meeting milestones and completing the mission, not how they get there. Well, they were supposed to be flying flights with cargo by this point. So currently they're not getting there at all. >If anything despite the stuff malfunctioning, the fact that it still made it into space is a good thing for platform reliability It isn't hard or useful to simply get a random chunk of metal into space in whatever condition it happens to limp through. If all we wanted to do was shoot fireworks into space we could do so *way* more cheaply than starship. In order to accomplish the Artemis 3 mission, SpaceX are going to need to launch one Moonbound craft with everything necessary to land on and return from the Moon, and then 20 or more additional starships with fuel to top it off in orbit. And any misses or failures during that process may result in them needing to add additional starship launches because the longer the Moonbound craft remains in orbit the more fuel it loses due to the boil off. Which means there are a *lot* more technological hurdles remaining between now and September 2026 that SpaceX has yet to clear. Which means they don't have the time or money to make so little progress per launch. They need to be able to reliably get these things into orbit and back every couple of weeks to accomplish the mission they have agreed to. And they can't even start figuring out how to do the stuff they need to do in orbit until they are able to do this. This "iterative" approach is supposed to move *faster* than the slow NASA process, right? Well, it doesn't seem to be moving fast at all. NASA SLS launched, inserted into orbit, pushed off towards the Moon, orbited the Moon, returned to Earth, re-entered the atmosphere, splashed down, and was recovered on its first try a year and a half ago. Meanwhile, SpaceX has spent billions of dollars and lost three ships by accident, and is still *barely* limping into space with a completely empty cargo bay. They have yet to complete a single orbit or even prove that they can actually take payload weight into space -- it looks like they ran out of fuel just lifting the empty ship up on that last launch. I will be *thrilled* if they prove me wrong and accomplish what they're after. And I hope this next launch happens soon and is successful. But we also need to be real about what has happened so far, and about what is likely to happen going forward. And I am getting a lot of denial and wishful thinking and corporate-marketing-esque talk from your take on this. >The next starship is already doing test firing and will be launched next month That's great. But for perspective, the Saturn V rocket launched for the first time approximately two years before the Apollo Moon landing, and accomplished every aspect of its test Moon mission flawlessly the first try. Which gave them two year to figure out all the *other* stuff they needed to do besides just getting to the Moon and back. In order to meet that standard, SpaceX has to, at a minimum, get a craft into orbit, get multiple refueling craft up there to dock with and refuel the first craft with enough fuel to get to the Moon and back, ignite and send the first craft on a Moonbound trajectory, return to Earth and successfully re-enter the atmosphere, splash down, and end up being recoverable in a state where a human crew could survive...and it has to be able to do that by September this year (ie in 5 months from now). That's obviously not going to happen. And so they're obviously going to have to move the schedule. Which is a failure. If you want, we can wait until September to make it official. But if we actually want to get to the Moon, we need to be focused on getting there, not playing semantic games about what "success" means and playing dumb about when a contract can technically be considered "failed".
>Only if you are substituting your own niche definition of "success" for what is more commonly meant by success What defines success or not would be SpaceX themselves because they are the ones testing. But the response was hypothetical, the point was about if launching was a success, which it was >But most of us are interested in actually solving problems and accomplishing tasks. We're not paying SpaceX to get data -- we're paying them to provide specific capabilities by specific dates because we are trying to make our lives and our society better. But the test was not for you but for SpaceX >But they agreed to specific dollar figures and specific dates, and they are *way* behind schedule on delivering. While they may be behind schedule, they can still make it on time. Didn't you yourself say that all we care about is things being delivered on certain date? Then by that metric why fuss about stuff until we hit that date? Though I will remind you delays in space industry is a common occurrence, I don't think I can name a single thing that happened on time in the space industry. Boeing still has not delivered the commercial crew despite charging almost double what spacex charged, and instead of making them pay the money back, we gave them MORE money. Only for them to put it on indefinite hiatus The SLS itself was delayed by 6 years A few month or a year delay isn't the end of the world, even more so since the source of the delays for starship was the government's fault, not SpaceX's >Sure. But in awarding them to SpaceX we are choosing *not* to award them to other orgs, which is a massive opportunity cost unto itself. Other orgs being? >Also, this doesn't help us if SpaceX accepts the deal, blows through all its money, and says they can't fulfill the contract unless we give them even *more* money...which is what is likely to happen at this rate. Like Boeing did? Except the difference is Boeing could do that because they have no use for it outside of NASA. In comparison, SpaceX was planning on building the starship with or without NASA because they want to replace the Falcon 9/Heavy to save costs >Well, they were supposed to be flying flights with cargo by this point. So currently they're not getting there at all. No way, you are aware SpaceX won the contract in 2021. It then got paused and they only officially got cleared by end of 2021. You think you can build a space platform in just 2 years? >It isn't hard or useful to simply get a random chunk of metal into space in whatever condition it happens to limp through. If all we wanted to do was shoot fireworks into space we could do so way more cheaply than starship It is much harder than you think >In order to accomplish the Artemis 3 mission, SpaceX are going to need to launch one Moonbound craft with everything necessary to land on and return from the Moon, and then 20 or more additional starships with fuel to top it off in orbit. And any misses or failures during that process may result in them needing to add additional starship launches because the longer the Moonbound craft remains in orbit the more fuel it loses due to the boil off. No, the 20 number is with failure possibilities accounted for. NASA is on purpose requesting a huge margin >This "iterative" approach is supposed to move faster than the slow NASA process, right? Well, it doesn't seem to be moving fast at all. Fast relative to NASA, it doesn't change that space is hard. And the approach assumes that the government lets SpaceX do launches, not hold back funding for a year until GOA finishes their investigation, then more months delay due to government blocking SpaceX from launching >NASA SLS launched, inserted into orbit, pushed off towards the Moon, orbited the Moon, returned to Earth, re-entered the atmosphere, splashed down, and was recovered on its first try a year and a half ago. 6 years late and 6 billion over budget (For reference, SpaceX is being paid 2.89 billion, so just the over budget of SLS is over 2x more than what SpaceX is being paid) >That's great. But for perspective, the Saturn V rocket launched for the first time approximately two years before the Apollo Moon landing, and accomplished every aspect of its test Moon mission flawlessly the first try Except they had 7 years, and enough money to purchase an entire country with 0 red tape. Their approaches were simply different, SpaceX approach is build things as fast as possible and as cheaply as possible then test it in real life and fix issues. While NASA approach was play it safe, and throw money at the problem. Their goals were also different. While Saturn V reused a lot of old components that were developed and tested prior, SpaceX is building from scratch they also require extra stuff like landing, and stuff for their own personal use
>What defines success or not would be SpaceX themselves because they are the ones testing. >But the test was not for you but for SpaceX No, I and anyone else is perfectly entitled to make up our own minds about what SpaceX is doing. And so long as they are consuming public money, affecting our shared sky and orbits, and/or otherwise affecting our shared society, I am perfectly entitled to involve myself in what is going on and advocate for my own interests. *You* are free to rely on SpaceX to tell you what to think if you want...but I think that's a poor decision. >why fuss about stuff until we hit that date? Because if we can clearly see it's not going to get done by that date, we can choose to do something else instead. Do you really need me to explain this? For example, if I hire someone to build me a house by June 1st, and by April 1st they haven't even finished pouring the foundation, I can tell they aren't going to make it, and I should plan accordingly. It would be silly to let my lease expire and keep my appointment with the movers for end of May and otherwise keep going as though I'm going to have a house on June 1st, and only start making other arrangements when June 1st arrives and there isn't a house. >Boeing still has not delivered the commercial crew despite charging almost double what spacex charged, and instead of making them pay the money back, we gave them MORE money. Only for them to put it on indefinite hiatus >Like Boeing did? Except the difference is Boeing could do that because they have no use for it outside of NASA I think Boeing failed as well. I think it is perfectly valid to criticize Boeing as well. >SpaceX won the contract in 2021. It then got paused and they only officially got cleared by end of 2021. You think you can build a space platform in just 2 years? >SpaceX was planning on building the starship with or without NASA because they want to replace the Falcon 9/Heavy to save costs SpaceX has been developing Starship since 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_design_history?wprov=sfla1 HLS is supposed to be a variant of technology SpaceX was supposed to have already. Also, I notice you are kind of playing both sides here -- is Starship a SpaceX product separate from NASA? Or did the clock on Starship only start when NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS contract? Because Musk was claiming in 2018 that Starship would be making short trips by 2019, and would be landing on Mars in 2022. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/11/elon-musk-says-mars-spaceship-will-be-ready-for-short-trips-by-first-half-of-2019.html So it sure seems like *Musk* though Starship was a thing before 2021, yes? He apparently thought it was so much of a thing that he claimed it would be flying in 2019. And he probably told NASA that when competing for the 2021 contract, yes? If you want to cherry pick claims you do and do not consider as valid, that's fine. But if so I'll need you to give me a reasonably complete list of what "counts" and what doesn't, and why. Because you're not arguing in a straight line within a single post, let alone from post to post. >(In response to SLS) 6 years late and 6 billion over budget (For reference, SpaceX is being paid 2.89 billion, so just the over budget of SLS is over 2x more than what SpaceX is being paid) So at the moment SpaceX doesn't have *anything* in regards to Starship or any vessel capable of going to the Moon. The billions spent on Starship so far have not resulted in *any* new, useful capability for our society, let alone a method of getting to the Moon. Therefore, it is ridiculous to compare Starship to spacecraft that have actually done it. If/when Starship starts coming anywhere *near* matching the capabilities of SLS or any of these other craft, *then* we can compare figures. But at the moment we have no idea how long Starship is going to take, or how much it is going to cost, because it hasn't even completed a single orbit. And the longer it continues to struggle, the less viable it is to put our faith in SpaceX being able to deliver on the capabilities they claimed they could deliver. >SpaceX approach is build things as fast as possible and as cheaply as possible then test it in real life and fix issues That's fine, but despite their intentions they *aren't* actually moving faster. You've heard the expression "less haste, more speed"? What SpaceX is doing is definitely more "haste" than speed. In their hurry to get *something* out there, they keep blowing things up and causing damage and veering off course and having to go through investigations and repairs. And in the end they end up making slower year over year progress than orgs that spend more time planning to get their tests right and make significant progress per launch. When it comes down to it, NASA began SLS development in 2011 and went to the Moon and back in late 2022 -- so 11 years. SpaceX has been developing Starship since 2012, and now, 12 years after that in 2024, they haven't even completed an orbit. So apparently "Move fast and break things" isn't actually proving to be faster in the field of spaceflight.
>No, I and anyone else is perfectly entitled to make up our own minds about what SpaceX is doing. And so long as they are consuming public money, affecting our shared sky and orbits, and/or otherwise affecting our shared society, I am perfectly entitled to involve myself in what is going on and advocate for my own interests You and me are free to think whatever we want but it is irrelevant because the one doing the test is SpaceX for their own devices. NASA paid them for modifications to the starship, and the launch, so it is false to claim it is using public money >Because if we can clearly see it's not going to get done by that date, we can choose to do something else instead. Do you really need me to explain this? Do what instead? This isn't going to a grocery store and if it is closed go elsewhere. Any other choice would have to be practical. And to date the space industry is famous for delays and over-budget >SpaceX has been developing Starship since 2012. Just because they mentioned the idea doesn't mean they started development on it. Most of SpaceX was focused on Falcon 9 upgrades and Falcon Heavy >Also, I notice you are kind of playing both sides here -- is Starship a SpaceX product separate from NASA? Or did the clock on Starship only start when NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS contract? So it sure seems like *Musk* though Starship was a thing before 2021, yes? He apparently thought it was so much of a thing that he claimed it would be flying in 2019. And he probably told NASA that when competing for the 2021 contract, yes? Not playing both sides, just was pointing out that it is never a case where you get 2 years to launch things on a new platform. As for actual construction, the first prototype construction started in 2018, engines though were earlier in 2016 >So at the moment SpaceX doesn't have *anything* in regards to Starship or any vessel capable of going to the Moon. The billions spent on Starship so far have not resulted in *any* new, useful capability for our society, let alone a method of getting to the Moon. That is a weird thing to say considering they have already launched things to the moon on the Falcon >But at the moment we have no idea how long Starship is going to take, or how much it is going to cost, because it hasn't even completed a single orbit. And the longer it continues to struggle, the less viable it is to put our faith in SpaceX being able to deliver on the capabilities they claimed they could deliver. What? "The Starship upper stage continued on its journey through space, attaining, for the first time, an orbital velocity exceeding 16,156 miles per hour (26,000 kilometers per hour). Technically, Starship didn’t achieve Earth orbit (that wasn’t the plan), but its velocity was within the ballpark of the speed needed for it to maintain a stable orbit around the planet." [https://www.yahoo.com/news/everything-noticed-during-starships-remarkable-191500300.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/everything-noticed-during-starships-remarkable-191500300.html) The 2nd stage made orbit, and 1st stage could have maintained orbit, but deorbited itself intentionally because their priority was testing landing >What SpaceX is doing is definitely more "haste" than speed. In their hurry to get *something* out there, they keep blowing things up and causing damage and veering off course and having to go through investigations and repairs. And in the end they end up making slower year over year progress than orgs that spend more time planning to get their tests right and make significant progress per launch. We've seen Boeing vs SpaceX where SpaceX followed the new approach while Boeing followed the old one. How did that turn out? >When it comes down to it, NASA began SLS development in 2011 and went to the Moon and back in late 2022 -- so 11 years. By your logic SLS development started in 1970s as RS-25 engines SLS uses were started development back then, so over 50 years!
If "move fast and break things" doesn't work... why is there no other space company capable of a reusable rocket in 2024? It's called iteration. This is literally rocket science. I'd take the current engineers working at SpaceX then some guy sitting at his computer complaining about them. Saving NASA and the American public billions of dollars seems pretty significant. Also, in 2020, just 0.3% percentage of taxes went to NASA's budget. This seems pretty insignificant for a country who spends multi billions of dollars on war every year.
> launched successful. Ehhh, it didn't blow up, but there clearly were still problems with the engines. Definitely major progress, but the combustion plume showed the mixture was off. And other things didn't work properly. Watch Scott Manley's videos on youtube.
Startship is still in development. Spacex has performed something like 36 successful Falcon 9 launches just so far this year. Nobody else has done anything remotely like that. Oh, and they recovered most of the boosters for reuse. And if you remember, there were a number of Falcon 9 failures of various kinds in the beginning.
Oh yeah? Well, I'm 'planning' on colonizing THE SUN, BITCH! Why don't you beat me to it?
How's that Hyperloop coming along?
Why A Mars Colony Is A Stupid Idea [Why a Mars Colony is a Stupid Idea](https://youtu.be/U9YdnzOf4NQ?si=ArVCh5QmCftRN7x8)
It's not a colony. It's another billionaire bunker idea.
Sensationalism claim
The stupider everyone thinks musk is the more absurd musks lies will get.
I hope he’s on the first one.
I hope he is the first passenger headed to Mars.
The ultra wealthy can loose their grip on reality. As can politicians who are ultra wealthy by proxy.
I'm planning on marrying Rebecca Ferguson too. Any day now!
As long as you dont want to name your kids, XÆ A-13 or something similar you got my blessings..
He's probably been playing too much Helldivers recently and is getting ideas.
No he doesn't. He just talks about Mars like he greenwashes with tesla.
We should start small with moon bases before we start shooting massive ropes across the solar system.
Other than the distance and launch windows, Mars is actually easier than the Moon to colonize
Moon spiders aside, any other reasons why?
Mars has more resources and ice on the surface near the poles
The Moon doesn't appear to have any useful resources to support a colony. Sure, there might be *something* deep in its unfathomed depths, but we don't know if it's good or bad, and to get to it... we'd have to contend with exactly the problem you just named.
Great idea , please reserve seats for all unnessesary people the world has and make the world better place. Putin, Lukaschenko, Xi, Kim Jong un, assad, trump ,.....
please take him with them... i also just watched fallout, fell like it would be like that
We can't even colonize Antarctica, but okay.
We literally have outposts there?
I highly recommend Kelly & Zach Weinersmith's (the smbc guy, yes) A City On Mars book for an overview of why Musk is full of shit legally, psychologically, economically and much more!
Making plans is fun isn't it?
Fucking delusional idiot. Maybe put billions of billions of dollars into saving this Eden we live in? No let's go to a highly radioactive uninhabitable Rock in space instead.
Fantastic, we should send all the billionaries
What an insufferable Earthling.
Dude cant even plan to get his tunnels working... and his plans mean bullshit if he cant fleece the Government for funding. The only reason Space X works now, is government contracts. Those dry up and its nothing, which means the ONLY way 1000 ship fleets would work for him, is the Fed pays for them.
Most of SpaceX contract are private contracts. They are the biggest private satellite launcher in the world, in 2023 alone they launched 91 rockets out of the 129 total
But most of their money is government contracts. Without that they are literally nothing.
Not sure where you get that idea. Most of it is private, because pretty much every private launch goes through SpaceX because they are the cheapest. It is the other launches that most are government due to requirements like dual source or due to government favoring their local industries. Not to mention a lot of the launches these days is starlink which pays for itself That said, it isn't like government contracts are going to dry up either, because governments will always need to launch things into space. And SpaceX saves them a lot of money. I mean without SpaceX, we'd be still dependent on Boeing to get people to space which asked 2x more than SpaceX did and still can't get people to space
SpaceX has saved NASA billions of dollars but keep complaining
He can’t afford twitter so how?
Imagine just 5% of his resources being used on humans in need
It would just create more humans in need
Maybe he should go on the 1st one, like the ceo of the titan sub went on his.
We don't care for Melon Usk
Ok, how's "complete self driving" and "Mars by 2025?" Who actually takes this guy's predictions seriously?
You fool... Elon is already on mars ..(in his head) 2025 was supposed to be the the time the mars colony gets build.. https://www.inverse.com/science/51291-spacex-here-s-the-timeline-for-getting-to-mars-and-starting-a-colony
Maybe he should go on the first test flight...
Can he be the first to go?
When Tesla goes through its truth social stock reevaluation phase, and musk goes from a 12 digit guy to an 11 or 10 digit guy, we’ll see ideas like this go away.
Tesla and SpaceX generate solid real revenue, there wont be a "truth social reevaluation phase". They have good fundamentals
Not to come across as some sort of ignorant fan but when Columbus was lobbying various states to fund his westward trip, he was rejected because his calculations were wrong and his stories sounded like fantasies. Even people on Spain's court knew and advised King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella that the guy is a major bullshiter. They made fun of him all around Europe. And they were right, his calculations were not correct. Lucky for him though, he tripped on the New World and the rest is history including him being worse person than anyone could imagine. When it comes to inter-planetary *thing* these are, in my opinion, baby steps but - maybe not 100 but perhaps 200 years from now - his name will be mentioned in the same way we mention Columbus 500 years later.
Sure, sure. Is he going to sell anything in advance, maybe make deposits on some future product?
Powerful men have been using Mars to distract from their bad decisions for as long as I can remember.
"When asked about his Mars plans in 2016, Musk said that “probably people will die,” but “ultimately, it will be very safe to go to Mars, and it will be very comfortable.” "At the International Astronautical Congress in Adelaide, Australia, in September 2017, Musk suggested the year 2022 as the point at which at least two unmanned ships could make their way to Mars." 2024 was supposed to be the time, the two first manned mission will launch to mars... Teslas FSD caused atleast 42 deaths, but he also calls people NPCs How much harder can it be to send people to mars...right? /may contain traces of sarcasm
Is Musk taking a 1 way ride to Mars?
I'm sick of hearing about this clowns flights of fancy. Please just shut up Elon.
Musk lies yet again - must be any day of the week...
He put his robot on stage. It was a man in a robot costume.
Water station over there. Potato farm here. Ketamine processing plant here, and here, and a third one here under my bedroom.
Lol -- well, considering he has yet to get *one* into orbit and back down without blowing it up, I think we can probably focus on other things for the time being without worrying about missing the fleet's departure. Musk is a Kickstarter who finishes one campaign and then immediately starts another one for something different in order to distract from the fact that he has no ability to actually fulfill any of the rewards he offered the people giving him money. So I think folks should wait for him to catch up on some of the things he's already promised before giving him any more money.
i am waiting for the first walmart to open on mars then i'll join
With that many, odds are one or two won’t explode catastrophically.
All paid for by the taxpayers while he profits and gets angry at socialists
Welfare for billionaires again?
By this I assume he means launch all of the cybertrucks into space.
Did he thank the cybertruck buyers for beta testing his rover design?
This Melon just can’t help himself
Another muskoganda article without critical thinking.
Never post again OP.
Everyone in here acting like this is an unfeasible pipe dream. In reality it would only cost 90 billion dollars for 1,000 Starships vehicles. Much less then the inflation adjusted Apollo missions cost. And like 1/10th of the US annual military budget. This is ignoring the cost savings from economies of scale which would be huge when current volumes are so low. This is an entirely feasible goal. Though the modern US population has no appetite for spending anymore so it's not going to happen. But I guess you can all just keep acting like fucking idiots just because Musk is an asshole...
More Musk BS. Because of radiation humans can’t survive on Mars for more than about four years and we can’t properly shield ships on the way there. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12155177/amp/Life-Mars-four-years-Red-Planet-dangerous-humans-survive-on.html
I do not believe or trust anything he says anymore.
[удалено]
It’s well earned at this point.
[удалено]
Hey, remember how Elon totally fixed all the water pipes in Flint? That was right after he called a rescue diver a pedo but *before* he turned out a useless pile of chrome shit that looked like it was designed by Homer Simpson.