3 ms·

> It really puts the frustration I have with Musk's constant "we're going to Mars" in context. This is just the latest version of The Music Man and Marge vs. t

by lapcat 2y ago

> It really puts the frustration I have with Musk's constant "we're going to Mars" in context. This is just the latest version of The Music Man and Marge vs. the Monorail. Musk is serious about getting rich but not about going to Mars. It's always been a ploy to trick naive tech nerds into sacrificing themselves for the goal of "saving the world". Tesla is a perfect example of this. A low-cost no-frills electric car would do a lot more for the environment than the vehicles produced by Tesla, which are luxury-priced and continue to (falsely) promise "Full Self Driving". The market is obvious: well-off tech nerds who are made to feel good about themselves that their luxury purchase, with cool technology, is "saving the Earth". (A similar strategy is used by Apple, by the way. Apple convinces people that buying a new iPhone every year or few years is "carbon neutral" and that it's somehow ok to eschew device repairability, upgradability, user battery replacement, etc.) We're told that the plan was to sell cheaper Teslas "later". It's always later. Yet other auto manufacturers have produced cheaper electric vehicles without the self-driving crap, and still for Tesla it's "later". So Musk has $44 billion to spend on Twitter but not on taking lower margins on Tesla vehicles? We're told now, by Musk, that the biggest barrier to the Mars project is not, say, the gravity on Mars, or the radiation, but rather "the woke mind virus". Uh huh. Con man. I'm not denying Musk's accomplishments, any more than I'm denying that Trump managed to get himself elected POTUS twice. But they're both con men, and their real goals—power, self-enrichment, self-aggrandizement—have never been the same as what they tell to their followers. They're surely among the best con men on the planet. It feels like all of the top con men are coming together now for the big heist, like Ocean's Eleven.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
For sure; as the article points out, a viable trip to Mars requires a ton of investments yet, but Musk is currently helping dismantle NASA and the ISS, probably with the intent of sending more high value contracts to SpaceX. Any stage in making a mars trip viable is a multi-billion dollar project. Actually arriving on or around mars has no value in itself other than the achievement and some science, but the runup will possibly make SpaceX the wealthiest company in the world. Or at least pull tens, hundreds of billions out of the US economy.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  What you're saying doesn't even make any logical sense. Musk is the primary contractor for ISS contracts and given the shit show that Boeing has turned into it's safe to call him the exclusive contractor for ISS contracts. And most of NASA's budget is not spent doing stuff, but on thinly veiled graft like the SLS which obviously will not be redirected to SpaceX because the goal isn't to achieve anything, but to spend money on interests tied to the people directing the spending.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > Musk is the primary contractor for ISS contracts and given the shit show that Boeing has turned into it's safe to call him the exclusive contractor for ISS contracts. From Musk's perspective, NASA is an unnecessary, inconvenient middleman. Eliminate the public middleman, and everything goes to private companies, in other words, to SpaceX. And it's not just about NASA; the current administration wants to privatize the entire government, including the US Postal Service, for example. > And most of NASA's budget is not spent doing stuff, but on thinly veiled graft like the SLS which obviously will not be redirected to SpaceX because the goal isn't to achieve anything, but to spend money on interests tied to the people directing the spending. Musk/DOGE currently controls all federal spending.
  - throw0101a 2y ago
    > Musk is the primary contractor for ISS contracts and given the shit show that Boeing has turned into it's safe to call him the exclusive contractor for ISS contracts. Just because they're doing fine now, doesn't mean we want to give SpaceX a monopoly in the future. Reminder: SpaceX was not a thing a few years ago, and NASA throwing money at them could have been considered 'wasteful' when there was a solution that worked already. We are where we are now because the government spread the money around a bit: some of those 'bets' worked out, some did not.
    - njarboe 2y ago
      Blue origin is doing pretty well. Got partly reusable rocket to orbit recently. NASA has no reusable rocket in development. This is fine, as the private market is doing it, but SLS needs to be retired soon. Maybe after the manned moon landings?
throw0101a 2y ago
> Tesla is a perfect example of this. A low-cost no-frills electric car would do a lot more for the environment than the vehicles produced by Tesla, which are luxury-priced and continue to (falsely) promise "Full Self Driving". Even getting all cars to be hybrids would be a huge win (either parallel or series / range-extended).`
njarboe 2y ago
Have you tried the latest version of FSD. I recently got a Tesla with it and it is about at the level of someone who has been driving for a few months. Has made one or two non-accident mistakes over the last few months but nothing serious. Sort of a dangerous uncanny valley I have to be careful of and not just forget I need to pay attention still (it tracks your eyes to make sure you look at the road most of the time but you can still zone out if you are not careful). The proof will be robotaxis in Austin this June. I hope to be able to send my Tesla out to be an Uber to earn money when I sleep sometime late this year or next. Time will tell but we do have re-usable first stages and Starlink already and it is pretty great. Maybe Musk has no interest in getting humans to Mars, but if this con man builds a rocket that gets cost to orbit in the $10/kg, con me some more please.
- enragedcacti 2y ago
  > but if this con man builds a rocket that gets cost to orbit in the $10/kg, con me some more please. Most cons would be great opportunities if they followed through, the problem is the "having no realistic path to following through" part
  - Robotbeat 2y ago
    I think a lot of people just approaching this topic from largely ignorance are unaware of how hardcore Falcon 9 has actually delivered on its promises, in spite of being mocked by its competitors. Starship is already well on its way to succeeding, in the big picture
    - njarboe 2y ago
      Falcon 9 proved the concept of reusability. Almost everyone does not understand what Starship will do for space travel. Like Musk says, imagine air travel where you throw away the plane after each flight. That is where space travel was at. Hope to go to a space station or the moon in my lifetime (dream about Mars).
mlboss 2y ago
I don't see any problem in companies making huge profit. We live in a free market there is always an opening for new competitor to offer something at low price point that can be repaired. Nobody is stopping anybody to start such a company. The reason nobody is able to compete because it takes lot of capital to bring new technology in market. If you cannot hire the best people you will not get the best technology. And no engineer wants to work at a company at pays less. More profit buffers company from random market events. We live in a capitalist society. Tesla/Apple are just a by product of the system. Also, whatever Elon says is should be taken with a grain of salt. He is a salesmen. Hyping stuff up so that people buy.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > I don't see any problem in companies making huge profit. I didn't say there was. But there is a problem in lying to people, claiming that your goal is to "save the US" or "save the Earth" or "colonize Mars" when it's really profit maximization. > Also, whatever Elon says is should be taken with a grain of salt. He is a salesmen. Hyping stuff up so that people buy. Exactly my point.

by lapcat 2y ago

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

For sure; as the article points out, a viable trip to Mars requires a ton of investments yet, but Musk is currently helping dismantle NASA and the ISS, probably with the intent of sending more high value contracts to SpaceX. Any stage in making a mars trip viable is a multi-billion dollar project. Actually arriving on or around mars has no value in itself other than the achievement and some science, but the runup will possibly make SpaceX the wealthiest company in the world. Or at least pull tens, hundreds of billions out of the US economy.

somenameforme 2y ago
What you're saying doesn't even make any logical sense. Musk is the primary contractor for ISS contracts and given the shit show that Boeing has turned into it's safe to call him the exclusive contractor for ISS contracts. And most of NASA's budget is not spent doing stuff, but on thinly veiled graft like the SLS which obviously will not be redirected to SpaceX because the goal isn't to achieve anything, but to spend money on interests tied to the people directing the spending.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > Musk is the primary contractor for ISS contracts and given the shit show that Boeing has turned into it's safe to call him the exclusive contractor for ISS contracts. From Musk's perspective, NASA is an unnecessary, inconvenient middleman. Eliminate the public middleman, and everything goes to private companies, in other words, to SpaceX. And it's not just about NASA; the current administration wants to privatize the entire government, including the US Postal Service, for example. > And most of NASA's budget is not spent doing stuff, but on thinly veiled graft like the SLS which obviously will not be redirected to SpaceX because the goal isn't to achieve anything, but to spend money on interests tied to the people directing the spending. Musk/DOGE currently controls all federal spending.
- throw0101a 2y ago
  > Musk is the primary contractor for ISS contracts and given the shit show that Boeing has turned into it's safe to call him the exclusive contractor for ISS contracts. Just because they're doing fine now, doesn't mean we want to give SpaceX a monopoly in the future. Reminder: SpaceX was not a thing a few years ago, and NASA throwing money at them could have been considered 'wasteful' when there was a solution that worked already. We are where we are now because the government spread the money around a bit: some of those 'bets' worked out, some did not.
  - njarboe 2y ago
    Blue origin is doing pretty well. Got partly reusable rocket to orbit recently. NASA has no reusable rocket in development. This is fine, as the private market is doing it, but SLS needs to be retired soon. Maybe after the manned moon landings?

throw0101a 2y ago

> Tesla is a perfect example of this. A low-cost no-frills electric car would do a lot more for the environment than the vehicles produced by Tesla, which are luxury-priced and continue to (falsely) promise "Full Self Driving". Even getting all cars to be hybrids would be a huge win (either parallel or series / range-extended).`

njarboe 2y ago

Have you tried the latest version of FSD. I recently got a Tesla with it and it is about at the level of someone who has been driving for a few months. Has made one or two non-accident mistakes over the last few months but nothing serious. Sort of a dangerous uncanny valley I have to be careful of and not just forget I need to pay attention still (it tracks your eyes to make sure you look at the road most of the time but you can still zone out if you are not careful). The proof will be robotaxis in Austin this June. I hope to be able to send my Tesla out to be an Uber to earn money when I sleep sometime late this year or next. Time will tell but we do have re-usable first stages and Starlink already and it is pretty great. Maybe Musk has no interest in getting humans to Mars, but if this con man builds a rocket that gets cost to orbit in the $10/kg, con me some more please.

enragedcacti 2y ago
> but if this con man builds a rocket that gets cost to orbit in the $10/kg, con me some more please. Most cons would be great opportunities if they followed through, the problem is the "having no realistic path to following through" part
- Robotbeat 2y ago
  I think a lot of people just approaching this topic from largely ignorance are unaware of how hardcore Falcon 9 has actually delivered on its promises, in spite of being mocked by its competitors. Starship is already well on its way to succeeding, in the big picture
  - njarboe 2y ago
    Falcon 9 proved the concept of reusability. Almost everyone does not understand what Starship will do for space travel. Like Musk says, imagine air travel where you throw away the plane after each flight. That is where space travel was at. Hope to go to a space station or the moon in my lifetime (dream about Mars).

mlboss 2y ago

I don't see any problem in companies making huge profit. We live in a free market there is always an opening for new competitor to offer something at low price point that can be repaired. Nobody is stopping anybody to start such a company. The reason nobody is able to compete because it takes lot of capital to bring new technology in market. If you cannot hire the best people you will not get the best technology. And no engineer wants to work at a company at pays less. More profit buffers company from random market events. We live in a capitalist society. Tesla/Apple are just a by product of the system. Also, whatever Elon says is should be taken with a grain of salt. He is a salesmen. Hyping stuff up so that people buy.

lapcat 2y ago
> I don't see any problem in companies making huge profit. I didn't say there was. But there is a problem in lying to people, claiming that your goal is to "save the US" or "save the Earth" or "colonize Mars" when it's really profit maximization. > Also, whatever Elon says is should be taken with a grain of salt. He is a salesmen. Hyping stuff up so that people buy. Exactly my point.