3 ms·
Not crewed. > a spacecraft to house a suite of scientific instruments Second sentence of the article.
by andrewflnr 4mo ago
Not crewed.
> a spacecraft to house a suite of scientific instruments
Second sentence of the article.
- 1970-01-01 4mo agoLink doesn't fit but the argument stands. No billionaire-funded misison to Mars has ever succeeded. Not even SpaceX. You need at minimum an entire space program. Here's a better link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One
- andrewflnr 4mo agoYou didn't make an argument. You still haven't. Every new thing goes through a long stage where it hasn't happened yet. You haven't even begun to argue, with evidence, that this thing can't happen. Even your line about "an entire space program" is incoherent in this context because the rocket in question is literally being used as a component in "an entire space program".
- 1970-01-01 4mo agoI fully disagree. Is that good enough to discuss? Name a private company that has landed on private devices on another planet. Here's the picture of where the argument stands: Venus Rocket Lab / MIT: Venus Life Finder: Late (Missed original 2023/2025 windows; now targeted for late 2026/2028) Mars One: Conceptual Failure Inspiration Mars Foundation: Cancelled SpaceX: very, very, very late (timeline pushed to 2028+) Relativity Space: Aeolus <-- you are here
- andrewflnr 4mo agoThere's still nothing here worth debunking. But as long as we're trying to extrapolate from history and vibes, I'll just point out that your timeline is at least as plausibly interpretable as the early stages of a progression that eventually leads to a privately built rocket going to mars.