17 ms·

I don’t feel connected to this like I did to NASA ventures. To me it’s like going to watch the launch of a billionaire’s mega yacht. Why would I want to see tha

I don’t feel connected to this like I did to NASA ventures. To me it’s like going to watch the launch of a billionaire’s mega yacht. Why would I want to see that? This isn’t about exploration. It’s about profit. And there’s not an easy way to shine that.

noizejoy 3y ago
Just curious: Have you ever visited a castle or a gothic cathedral or the pyramids or a Frank Lloyd Wright building?
- philwelch 3y ago
  To be fair, castles and the pyramids were also government projects.
  - grotorea 3y ago
    On the other hand, those things predate the distinction between the state and the leader, so in a way they were also the whim of some wealthy elite.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      The ancient Egyptians had a fairly sophisticated state with a permanent bureaucracy. That’s how they had the capacity to organize the construction of the pyramids in the first place.
      - grotorea 3y ago
        Yes but if the Pharaoh decided he wanted a golden chariot made out of the state treasury, would someone complain that's the state's gold, not the Pharaoh's gold?
jjallen 3y ago
How is launching a rocket with the hopes that we can go to Mars not exploration? If he doesn't do it who is going to do that? Surely NASA has has fifty years to do something like this (excepting the ISS which is). > "billionaire’s mega yacht" Billionaire hatred is a real thing. He will not be riding on this thing and likely never will be, so I'm not sure this is a great analogy.
- falcor84 3y ago
  >He will not be riding on this thing and likely never will be What makes you say that? Musk has made it known he has a dream to "... die on Mars. Hopefully not at the point of impact."
dsco 3y ago
To me it’s the opposite, one mans dream to initiate and achieve space travel is much more romantic than a government space programs which is more about nation building.
- marmakoide 3y ago
  That's not one man dream, it's a team of engineers and managers funded by a rich guy who likes what they can do. Some serious backing from the US government is part of it with research work, contracts and grants. The dream is collective
  - mcv 3y ago
    He loves to pretend it's one man's dream, though.
    - xedeon 3y ago
      Video and audio evidence says otherwise. Unless you can produce sources where Elon claims sole credit for SpaceX milestones. I've been following SpaceX's progress since 2005 on Kimbal's blogspot (yes that blogspot) updates [1]. Elon has always credited his team of engineers, ops and support staff. [1] https://kwajrockets.blogspot.com https://kwajrockets.blogspot.com
      - mcv 3y ago
        But also himself. He suggests he taught himself rocket science and that he's personally involved in designing these rockets and cars. I have some doubts about that, although his influence on Starship and the Cybertruck seems to be larger than on previous models.
        xedeon 3y ago
        > He suggests he taught himself rocket science and that he's personally involved in designing these rockets and cars. I have some doubts about that. You can doubt all you want. This is easily verified. 1. https://twitter.com/lrocket/status/1512919230689148929 https://twitter.com/lrocket/status/1512919230689148929 2.https://twitter.com/lrocket/status/1099411086711746560 https://twitter.com/lrocket/status/1099411086711746560 3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller 4. https://youtu.be/aGOV5R7M1Js?t=1748 https://youtu.be/aGOV5R7M1Js?t=1748 As expected, you can't produce sources to support your claims.
upwardbound 3y ago
Making space-based human habitation profitable is the only way we will ever reach the scale of millions of people living & working in space. It's ludicrous to imagine that we would ever send more than a few explorers to space if each person's time there is unprofitable, meaning literally losing money.
- upwardbound 3y ago
  If you're interested in exciting hard sci-fi about mining the asteroids and the moon, check out Daniel Suarez's compelling novel Delta-V and its recent sequel Critical Mass. Another profitable industry besides mining could be setting up nursing homes on the moon, where wealthy elderly folks could live fuller lives due to the reduced gravity. Yes, the idea of this only being available to the super-rich (at first) is nauseating to me too, but if it provides the source of funding to establish sustainable moon bases, that would be incredible, and other industries could follow afterwards, including e.g. new sports leagues such as low-gravity basketball and soccer. Eventually, enough people would be living on the moon as helpers for the wealthy folks and athletes that eventually there would be so many working-class people on the moon that secondary and tertiary industries would spring up to provide products and services for the working-class people. Soon enough it would become profitable to farm crops on the moon (for lunar consumption), build products on the moon (for lunar consumption), and more. We'd eventually get to the point where a lunar nation could have positive GDP and be economically self-sustaining. It would be a trade partner with the terrestrial nations, and be the first new nation to step beyond Earth. Generations of people will get married and be born there, and humanity would be a step closer to settling the cosmos.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    I don't think people realize the scale of what Starship stands to achieve here. This is not an incremental leap forward, this is revolutionary. Sending a 16oz bottle of water up to space on the Space Shuttle cost around $25,000. [1] Falcon Heavy brought that down to $700. Starship stands to bring that price down to as low as $5! That's what makes this all so stupefyingly difficult to even begin to try to predict what will happen. We're not going through the usual window of exclusivity. We're going from [nobody can afford this, except governments - and even then only for toy missions] to ['everybody' can afford this for anything], instantly. So there's no reason that e.g. a nursing home, or anything else, on the Moon would be restricted to the super wealthy, besides demand. Obviously these industries will be being built from the ground up, and demand will likely dramatically outpace supply for the foreseeable future. But that cost imbalance would not be because of fundamental costs. Also you left out the most fun. Who isn't going to want to go have sex in space? Either with a partner or catching some Moon Poon at a brothel? That's going to be an industry that'll have people coming by the millions, and shouldn't really require that much to get the initial infrastructure erected. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition#2010-2020s:_Competition_and_pricing_pressure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitio...
Dig1t 3y ago
This is the most advanced rocket ever built, far superior to anything any government has ever created. It’s a technological marvel and represents progress for the entire species. You’re depriving yourself of the opportunity to appreciate a once in a lifetime event because some news outlet told you you should dislike the guy who built it.
- camillomiller 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - junofan 3y ago
    Isn’t SpaceX where a lot of his billions came from?
  - concordDance 3y ago
    "Violent"?
    - camillomiller 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - concordDance 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - Dig1t 3y ago
        "anything I disagree with is hateful violence" Come on, you are doing more harm than good by watering down what those words mean. saying words != violence firing someone != violence retweeting something != violence
  - johnthewise 3y ago
    Tesla is making the world a better place by pushing EV adoption around the world. Have you done anything better for the world today, yet alone for its future? Starlink is pretty neat as well, he could fail going to Mars and all that and he still would be remembered for what he has done for the world today.
somenameforme 3y ago
If SpaceX wanted profit, all they need to do is team up with Lockheed/Boeing, jack their prices up 100x fold and start waiting for that sweet taxpayer dollar to come rolling in. Getting prices as low as Starship is going to achieve is not a straight forward path to profit. It's like taking an industry dominated by Geo Metros being sold for high end sportscar prices, and then introducing a car that runs like a high end sports car and selling it for Geo Metro prices. The only way they start making meaningful profit from what they're doing is basically if the exact opposite scenario of what you're implying comes to pass - that space becomes so completely accessible and utilized that they win by scale. And that's the exact opposite of 'mega yachts.' This is explicitly about exploration, colonization, mining, and more. This is about actually opening space to the human race, beyond relying on multi billion dollar toy expeditions, for the first time ever.
- Dig1t 3y ago
  lol I don’t know if anyone knows what a Geo Metro is anymore, but I agree with your analogy :) Maybe a Corolla would be more relatable nowadays.
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    Hat tip to Geo Metro! A real pile of junk from the 1990s. My auntie drove a Renault Le Car in the late 1980s. I remember riding in it as a kid thinking it was a "fun junker".
- ishjoh 3y ago
  Geo Metro was my first car, I still have fond memories of the freedom it afforded me.
dev_tty01 3y ago
Perhaps because this is the creation from the hard work of thousands of gifted and committed people. When SpaceX started I can assure you there was no billionaire involved. Just a guy with a few million he was willing to invest to make space travel a reality for many more people. Secondly, if you don't think NASA was about profit, you don't understand NASA. Who do you think built all the Apollo rockets? Private contractors working for profit. Besides, what is wrong with profit? Profit is what makes things sustainable and allows reinvestment to continually improve. The tech here is way beyond what governments have been able to do so far. It promises to be quite a show. Might blow up again, but they'll learn and build another one. For the record, I find Musk to be a menace, but the team he put together at SpaceX is phenomenal.
jimrandomh 3y ago
Starship is funded by NASA and built by a for-profit corporation, like SLS is and like the Space Shuttle was. The difference between SpaceX and the contractors that built the Shuttle and SLS is that those contractors kept their CEOs' names out of the news, and gouged like crazy.
- bbojan 3y ago
  That's not true. Starship was funded and started independently of NASA. NASA is just the first customer that is paying to develop a Moon-landing version of Starship that will be used for its Moon landing mission.
- mlindner 3y ago
  Starship has partial funding from NASA, but its only "after delivery" funding. SpaceX has explicitly talked about how they've needed to raise additional private funding to support Starship development because they're developing it simultaneously with Starlink. I'll also note that NASA's funding for Starship was for a lunar lander, not a launch vehicle, and SpaceX was the cheapest of all the competitors despite developing a launch vehicle as well while the competitors were only developing a lander and planned to use an existing launch vehicle.
ETH_start 3y ago
This is not comparable to a mega yacht, because it will offer space cargo services to the public.
camillomiller 3y ago
[flagged]
- jaapbadlands 3y ago
  We are thinking critically, about how asinine that comment is.
hoseja 3y ago
This is much more about exploration than whatever technologically obsolete moribund project NASA is able to push through porkbarrelling process at the expense of a dozen more worthy ones.
xedeon 3y ago
Incumbents like Lockheed, Boeing, and ULA often face problems such as fraud, waste, and fund misappropriation. Additionally, NASA's progress is hindered by bureaucracy and red tape. Given these circumstances, depending solely on NASA for space advancement or asteroid deflection may not be the most effective strategy. Those acquainted with federal programs can confirm these issues. Thus, your comment appears uninformed and overlooks the wider impact on American taxpayers. It’s hard to believe you’re being objective if you think the SLS, costing over $2 billion per launch, is superior and not profit-driven, compared to Starship's estimated $40 million launch cost.
jowea 3y ago
I appreciate the cynicism but I feel that ultimately this is how a capitalist civilization does most things.
rockemsockem 3y ago
Going to Mars isn't exploration enough for you huh? What kind of stupid take is this.
- Ographer 3y ago
  There are many valid reasons why sending humans to Mars (at this time) would be bad for science, bad for Mars, and bad for space exploration. https://idlewords.com/2023/1/why_not_mars.htm https://idlewords.com/2023/1/why_not_mars.htm
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    “The technology program required to close this gap would be remarkably circular, with no benefits outside the field of applied zero gravity zookeeping. The web of Rube Goldberg devices that recycles floating animal waste on the space station has already cost twice its weight in gold[49] and there is little appetite for it here on Earth, where plants do a better job for free.” Ha. This rambling is entertaining but has little depth or vision. These are not ‘valid reasons’ these are ‘arguably valid reasons made by cynical ramblers’ :)
  - _Tev 3y ago
    That's a terrible rant, not really a good argument about Mars exploration by humans. It's sad such poor articles are liked by HN, shows how poor understanding of spaceflight is common here. Just look at the first footnote, the guy does not understand what is relevant comparison nowadays or how the programs he talks about work/ed.
    - Ographer 3y ago
      I'm curious to hear the counter perspective because I used to be extremely pro-Mars and recently some discussions by that article's author on HN have convinced me otherwise. What benefits are there to sending humans to Mars? What do we hope to accomplish that couldn't be done better by a barrage of super advanced robots? Even NASA can't articulate a good reason. It is estimated to cost $1-1.5 trillion to send 9 people on Mars, and upwards of $2 trillion for a minimally staffed base on an uninhabitable planet. That's just for keeping humans alive there, not even for doing serious science. NASA's budget is $25-33 billion per year. We'd be blowing the next 50 years of space dollars to get cool videos instead of sending countless probes to every planet in the solar system. My main point is, wouldn't it be better to focus that amount of money and effort on developing technologies that allow humans to live on Earth sustainably? Where is the cult-like public support for spending unlimited amounts of money on preventing mass extinction on Earth, the only habitable planet in our solar system? https://youtu.be/6TqhcZsxrPA?si=oa3yw8ONxKgtWDru https://youtu.be/6TqhcZsxrPA?si=oa3yw8ONxKgtWDru Maybe after we accomplish that we could think about making Mars a sustainable and habitable planet too?
mlindner 3y ago
How is it not about exploration? And how is it about profit? Who do you think benefits most from having cheaper access to space? Society as a whole benefits way more than old musky. A billionaire's mega yacht is for his exclusive use. Starship is definitely not that. Starship's purpose has nothing to do with any personal transportation plans for Musk himself.
electrondood 3y ago
> It's about profit. Falcon 9 launch is $62m. NASA SLS launch is $1b. That's 6% of the cost. It's about lowering the barrier to launches by dramatically decreasing the cost.

noizejoy 3y ago

Just curious: Have you ever visited a castle or a gothic cathedral or the pyramids or a Frank Lloyd Wright building?

philwelch 3y ago
To be fair, castles and the pyramids were also government projects.
- grotorea 3y ago
  On the other hand, those things predate the distinction between the state and the leader, so in a way they were also the whim of some wealthy elite.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    The ancient Egyptians had a fairly sophisticated state with a permanent bureaucracy. That’s how they had the capacity to organize the construction of the pyramids in the first place.
    - grotorea 3y ago
      Yes but if the Pharaoh decided he wanted a golden chariot made out of the state treasury, would someone complain that's the state's gold, not the Pharaoh's gold?

jjallen 3y ago

How is launching a rocket with the hopes that we can go to Mars not exploration? If he doesn't do it who is going to do that? Surely NASA has has fifty years to do something like this (excepting the ISS which is). > "billionaire’s mega yacht" Billionaire hatred is a real thing. He will not be riding on this thing and likely never will be, so I'm not sure this is a great analogy.

falcor84 3y ago
>He will not be riding on this thing and likely never will be What makes you say that? Musk has made it known he has a dream to "... die on Mars. Hopefully not at the point of impact."

dsco 3y ago

To me it’s the opposite, one mans dream to initiate and achieve space travel is much more romantic than a government space programs which is more about nation building.

marmakoide 3y ago
That's not one man dream, it's a team of engineers and managers funded by a rich guy who likes what they can do. Some serious backing from the US government is part of it with research work, contracts and grants. The dream is collective
- mcv 3y ago
  He loves to pretend it's one man's dream, though.
  - xedeon 3y ago
    Video and audio evidence says otherwise. Unless you can produce sources where Elon claims sole credit for SpaceX milestones. I've been following SpaceX's progress since 2005 on Kimbal's blogspot (yes that blogspot) updates [1]. Elon has always credited his team of engineers, ops and support staff. [1] https://kwajrockets.blogspot.com https://kwajrockets.blogspot.com
    - mcv 3y ago
      But also himself. He suggests he taught himself rocket science and that he's personally involved in designing these rockets and cars. I have some doubts about that, although his influence on Starship and the Cybertruck seems to be larger than on previous models.
      - xedeon 3y ago
        > He suggests he taught himself rocket science and that he's personally involved in designing these rockets and cars. I have some doubts about that. You can doubt all you want. This is easily verified. 1. https://twitter.com/lrocket/status/1512919230689148929 https://twitter.com/lrocket/status/1512919230689148929 2.https://twitter.com/lrocket/status/1099411086711746560 https://twitter.com/lrocket/status/1099411086711746560 3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Mueller 4. https://youtu.be/aGOV5R7M1Js?t=1748 https://youtu.be/aGOV5R7M1Js?t=1748 As expected, you can't produce sources to support your claims.

upwardbound 3y ago

Making space-based human habitation profitable is the only way we will ever reach the scale of millions of people living & working in space. It's ludicrous to imagine that we would ever send more than a few explorers to space if each person's time there is unprofitable, meaning literally losing money.

upwardbound 3y ago
If you're interested in exciting hard sci-fi about mining the asteroids and the moon, check out Daniel Suarez's compelling novel Delta-V and its recent sequel Critical Mass. Another profitable industry besides mining could be setting up nursing homes on the moon, where wealthy elderly folks could live fuller lives due to the reduced gravity. Yes, the idea of this only being available to the super-rich (at first) is nauseating to me too, but if it provides the source of funding to establish sustainable moon bases, that would be incredible, and other industries could follow afterwards, including e.g. new sports leagues such as low-gravity basketball and soccer. Eventually, enough people would be living on the moon as helpers for the wealthy folks and athletes that eventually there would be so many working-class people on the moon that secondary and tertiary industries would spring up to provide products and services for the working-class people. Soon enough it would become profitable to farm crops on the moon (for lunar consumption), build products on the moon (for lunar consumption), and more. We'd eventually get to the point where a lunar nation could have positive GDP and be economically self-sustaining. It would be a trade partner with the terrestrial nations, and be the first new nation to step beyond Earth. Generations of people will get married and be born there, and humanity would be a step closer to settling the cosmos.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  I don't think people realize the scale of what Starship stands to achieve here. This is not an incremental leap forward, this is revolutionary. Sending a 16oz bottle of water up to space on the Space Shuttle cost around $25,000. [1] Falcon Heavy brought that down to $700. Starship stands to bring that price down to as low as $5! That's what makes this all so stupefyingly difficult to even begin to try to predict what will happen. We're not going through the usual window of exclusivity. We're going from [nobody can afford this, except governments - and even then only for toy missions] to ['everybody' can afford this for anything], instantly. So there's no reason that e.g. a nursing home, or anything else, on the Moon would be restricted to the super wealthy, besides demand. Obviously these industries will be being built from the ground up, and demand will likely dramatically outpace supply for the foreseeable future. But that cost imbalance would not be because of fundamental costs. Also you left out the most fun. Who isn't going to want to go have sex in space? Either with a partner or catching some Moon Poon at a brothel? That's going to be an industry that'll have people coming by the millions, and shouldn't really require that much to get the initial infrastructure erected. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition#2010-2020s:_Competition_and_pricing_pressure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitio...

Dig1t 3y ago

This is the most advanced rocket ever built, far superior to anything any government has ever created. It’s a technological marvel and represents progress for the entire species. You’re depriving yourself of the opportunity to appreciate a once in a lifetime event because some news outlet told you you should dislike the guy who built it.

camillomiller 3y ago
[flagged]
- junofan 3y ago
  Isn’t SpaceX where a lot of his billions came from?
- concordDance 3y ago
  "Violent"?
  - camillomiller 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - concordDance 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - Dig1t 3y ago
      "anything I disagree with is hateful violence" Come on, you are doing more harm than good by watering down what those words mean. saying words != violence firing someone != violence retweeting something != violence
- johnthewise 3y ago
  Tesla is making the world a better place by pushing EV adoption around the world. Have you done anything better for the world today, yet alone for its future? Starlink is pretty neat as well, he could fail going to Mars and all that and he still would be remembered for what he has done for the world today.

somenameforme 3y ago

If SpaceX wanted profit, all they need to do is team up with Lockheed/Boeing, jack their prices up 100x fold and start waiting for that sweet taxpayer dollar to come rolling in. Getting prices as low as Starship is going to achieve is not a straight forward path to profit. It's like taking an industry dominated by Geo Metros being sold for high end sportscar prices, and then introducing a car that runs like a high end sports car and selling it for Geo Metro prices. The only way they start making meaningful profit from what they're doing is basically if the exact opposite scenario of what you're implying comes to pass - that space becomes so completely accessible and utilized that they win by scale. And that's the exact opposite of 'mega yachts.' This is explicitly about exploration, colonization, mining, and more. This is about actually opening space to the human race, beyond relying on multi billion dollar toy expeditions, for the first time ever.

Dig1t 3y ago
lol I don’t know if anyone knows what a Geo Metro is anymore, but I agree with your analogy :) Maybe a Corolla would be more relatable nowadays.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  Hat tip to Geo Metro! A real pile of junk from the 1990s. My auntie drove a Renault Le Car in the late 1980s. I remember riding in it as a kid thinking it was a "fun junker".
ishjoh 3y ago
Geo Metro was my first car, I still have fond memories of the freedom it afforded me.

dev_tty01 3y ago

Perhaps because this is the creation from the hard work of thousands of gifted and committed people. When SpaceX started I can assure you there was no billionaire involved. Just a guy with a few million he was willing to invest to make space travel a reality for many more people. Secondly, if you don't think NASA was about profit, you don't understand NASA. Who do you think built all the Apollo rockets? Private contractors working for profit. Besides, what is wrong with profit? Profit is what makes things sustainable and allows reinvestment to continually improve. The tech here is way beyond what governments have been able to do so far. It promises to be quite a show. Might blow up again, but they'll learn and build another one. For the record, I find Musk to be a menace, but the team he put together at SpaceX is phenomenal.

jimrandomh 3y ago

Starship is funded by NASA and built by a for-profit corporation, like SLS is and like the Space Shuttle was. The difference between SpaceX and the contractors that built the Shuttle and SLS is that those contractors kept their CEOs' names out of the news, and gouged like crazy.

bbojan 3y ago
That's not true. Starship was funded and started independently of NASA. NASA is just the first customer that is paying to develop a Moon-landing version of Starship that will be used for its Moon landing mission.
mlindner 3y ago
Starship has partial funding from NASA, but its only "after delivery" funding. SpaceX has explicitly talked about how they've needed to raise additional private funding to support Starship development because they're developing it simultaneously with Starlink. I'll also note that NASA's funding for Starship was for a lunar lander, not a launch vehicle, and SpaceX was the cheapest of all the competitors despite developing a launch vehicle as well while the competitors were only developing a lander and planned to use an existing launch vehicle.

ETH_start 3y ago

This is not comparable to a mega yacht, because it will offer space cargo services to the public.

camillomiller 3y ago

[flagged]

jaapbadlands 3y ago
We are thinking critically, about how asinine that comment is.

hoseja 3y ago

This is much more about exploration than whatever technologically obsolete moribund project NASA is able to push through porkbarrelling process at the expense of a dozen more worthy ones.

xedeon 3y ago

Incumbents like Lockheed, Boeing, and ULA often face problems such as fraud, waste, and fund misappropriation. Additionally, NASA's progress is hindered by bureaucracy and red tape. Given these circumstances, depending solely on NASA for space advancement or asteroid deflection may not be the most effective strategy. Those acquainted with federal programs can confirm these issues. Thus, your comment appears uninformed and overlooks the wider impact on American taxpayers. It’s hard to believe you’re being objective if you think the SLS, costing over $2 billion per launch, is superior and not profit-driven, compared to Starship's estimated $40 million launch cost.

jowea 3y ago

I appreciate the cynicism but I feel that ultimately this is how a capitalist civilization does most things.

rockemsockem 3y ago

Going to Mars isn't exploration enough for you huh? What kind of stupid take is this.

Ographer 3y ago
There are many valid reasons why sending humans to Mars (at this time) would be bad for science, bad for Mars, and bad for space exploration. https://idlewords.com/2023/1/why_not_mars.htm https://idlewords.com/2023/1/why_not_mars.htm
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  “The technology program required to close this gap would be remarkably circular, with no benefits outside the field of applied zero gravity zookeeping. The web of Rube Goldberg devices that recycles floating animal waste on the space station has already cost twice its weight in gold[49] and there is little appetite for it here on Earth, where plants do a better job for free.” Ha. This rambling is entertaining but has little depth or vision. These are not ‘valid reasons’ these are ‘arguably valid reasons made by cynical ramblers’ :)
- _Tev 3y ago
  That's a terrible rant, not really a good argument about Mars exploration by humans. It's sad such poor articles are liked by HN, shows how poor understanding of spaceflight is common here. Just look at the first footnote, the guy does not understand what is relevant comparison nowadays or how the programs he talks about work/ed.
  - Ographer 3y ago
    I'm curious to hear the counter perspective because I used to be extremely pro-Mars and recently some discussions by that article's author on HN have convinced me otherwise. What benefits are there to sending humans to Mars? What do we hope to accomplish that couldn't be done better by a barrage of super advanced robots? Even NASA can't articulate a good reason. It is estimated to cost $1-1.5 trillion to send 9 people on Mars, and upwards of $2 trillion for a minimally staffed base on an uninhabitable planet. That's just for keeping humans alive there, not even for doing serious science. NASA's budget is $25-33 billion per year. We'd be blowing the next 50 years of space dollars to get cool videos instead of sending countless probes to every planet in the solar system. My main point is, wouldn't it be better to focus that amount of money and effort on developing technologies that allow humans to live on Earth sustainably? Where is the cult-like public support for spending unlimited amounts of money on preventing mass extinction on Earth, the only habitable planet in our solar system? https://youtu.be/6TqhcZsxrPA?si=oa3yw8ONxKgtWDru https://youtu.be/6TqhcZsxrPA?si=oa3yw8ONxKgtWDru Maybe after we accomplish that we could think about making Mars a sustainable and habitable planet too?

mlindner 3y ago

How is it not about exploration? And how is it about profit? Who do you think benefits most from having cheaper access to space? Society as a whole benefits way more than old musky. A billionaire's mega yacht is for his exclusive use. Starship is definitely not that. Starship's purpose has nothing to do with any personal transportation plans for Musk himself.

electrondood 3y ago

> It's about profit. Falcon 9 launch is $62m. NASA SLS launch is $1b. That's 6% of the cost. It's about lowering the barrier to launches by dramatically decreasing the cost.