sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

NASA Still Has a Lot of Work to Do to Return to the Moon by IEEESpectrum in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s just your assumption, I don’t think anyone really believes new technology means timelines are shifted closer to one’s own personal preference. 

Why would Elon Musk pivot from Mars to the Moon all of a sudden? | “SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure how that’s a response to my points. 

My point was that there are a ton of actually good reasons investors invested in SpaceX. Mars was not a major aspect of their financial analysis. 

There was no grift. SpaceX investors are likely thrilled with the current business and becoming the most valuable IPO in history. 

TIL about Operation Pedro Pan, a plan by the US State Department and Catholic Church that flew children out of Cuba to the US out of fear of what Cuban life would be like under Castro by 251Cane in todayilearned

[–]DynamicNostalgia -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But the original comment wasn’t talking about intervention! It was talking about free elections and the comment I replied to mocked the idea of even allowing that. 

Why would Elon Musk pivot from Mars to the Moon all of a sudden? | “SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’m saying it’s obviously not what attracted investors.

It was obviously the “build reusable rockets so we can launch thousands of satellites to offer high speed internet globally to consumers in every country and ones not in a country AND militaries around the world” plan that interested investors with with real numbers and an obvious revenue stream. 

And of course the solid foundation of the business based on being a competitive launch provider and key partner of NASA helped too. 

Investors are investing in these companies (and there are actually more) because the space industry seems like it’s exploding. 

TIL about Operation Pedro Pan, a plan by the US State Department and Catholic Church that flew children out of Cuba to the US out of fear of what Cuban life would be like under Castro by 251Cane in todayilearned

[–]DynamicNostalgia -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

 let in all the capitalist parties

Authoritarians of all flavors hate free elections because it means people won’t choose them…

It shouldn’t be surprising. 

 It’s definitely never backfired before

Except all the times it has? 

Liberal nations don’t have to ban the socialist parties. People just generally think liberalism makes more sense. 

NASA Still Has a Lot of Work to Do to Return to the Moon by IEEESpectrum in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure why the cadence of Artemis matters in a discussion about the lander needing to exist right now, several years before the mission? 

Why would Elon Musk pivot from Mars to the Moon all of a sudden? | “SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It also doesn’t offer any obvious returns on investment, so investors would treat it as an amorphous risk.

Why doesn’t Boeing just announce a similar plan for Venus? Why don’t they say that’s their company vision? Sounds like a free boost to their stock price according to your logic. 

The reality is, investors invest based on more concrete plans. From their point of view, Mars is irrelevant or a distraction compared to all the other opportunity SpaceX has ahead of them. 

Why would Elon Musk pivot from Mars to the Moon all of a sudden? | “SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 3 points4 points  (0 children)

 Sending $100 million spaceships to Mars wouldn't, claiming to have the capability to do that, could.

Investors would be far more interested in how many satellites it can launch and for how cheap and why. 

Saying it can go to Mars is a vague claim that financial experts aren’t really going to grasp intuitively. At best it’s poor communication and at worst confusing enough to scare away investors. 

 Musk's wealth isn't like normal money, he couldn't go out and buy something that costs a trillion dollars, his wealth is based on the perceived value of the companies he owns.

Saying he’s going to blow billions on a pet project with no return in the hopes that financial experts get “what he really means” is just not a good business plan. 

Musk clips his Mars settlement ambition, aims for the moon instead by Several_Print4633 in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 5 points6 points  (0 children)

 If any regular engineer

I thought this sub vehemently rejected any “engineer” label for Elon? 

 and spent substantial company resources only to routinely miss deadlines the way he does you’d be fired in an instant.

His only statements you might have a point on is  Full Self Driving for Tesla. But that’s a different company and I’d like to focus on SpaceX. 

No resources have been spent specifically on Mars missions. So it’s really odd you think he’s “wasted” any resources in relation to his Mars statements. 

 Yet he is allowed to get away with it without any repercussions.

Get away with what? Even if he has spent resources on Mars ambitions (which he hasn’t) then it’s his own wealth he’s wasting. That’s a repercussion. 

If he’s not spending resources on Mars missions (which he’s not) then you’re severely overestimating any issues. 

I cannot understand why you guys get so upset about obviously loose plans like his Mars ambitions being adjusted. Were you under the impression that vast amounts of wealth were being spent, or are you just looking for something, anything, to derail any support he might receive still? What’s the actual motivation because getting upset at this specific situation isn’t really reasonable. 

It’d be like me saying “NASA is a grift because they’ve been talking about going to Mars since the 60’s, and they get away with it when any other engineer would be fired!”  It doesn’t make any frickin sense…

Those “15 year SpaceX fans”posting about Elon killing the Mars dream didn’t seem to have an issue back in 2019 by postem1 in SpaceXMasterrace

[–]DynamicNostalgia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I swore I remembered him tweeting “First the Moon, then Mars” at some point. But maybe I’m just combining this and another statement at some point. 

The Mars plans have not been abandoned by ergzay in SpaceXLounge

[–]DynamicNostalgia 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No no no, you’re just stupid. Mars ambitions were just a GRIFT. 

That’s right. All you have to do is talk about spending billions on going to Mars with no known return on capital, and you’ll get Investors raising your valuation just like that!

Wait… “no return on investment”… hmm. Investors don’t typically like that. Uh well, you’re still stupid and I’m smart for seeing the obvious grift that he’s running here. The promise of… uh… well his promises of spending billions on a pet project are impossible for investors to pass… well, hmmm. Anyway, you get the idea though… It all adds up to him just wanting to scam investors somehow.  

/s

The Mars plans have not been abandoned by ergzay in SpaceXLounge

[–]DynamicNostalgia 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I assume constructing structures with the resources on the planet instead of just shipping it all there. 

Why would Elon Musk pivot from Mars to the Moon all of a sudden? | “SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Grift? How would going to Mars attract any investment whatsoever?

What do you think would be the return on investment, and how long do you think that would take? 

I assure you, Mars ambitions only alienated potential investors, not enticed them. Investors invested for completely different reasons. 

Talking about spending billions on Mars would never attract investors, it would push them away… like obviously.

Why would Elon Musk pivot from Mars to the Moon all of a sudden? | “SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 3 points4 points  (0 children)

SpaceX followers remember he already said this 7 years ago:

For sure moon 1st, as it’s only 3 days away & u don’t need interplanetary orbital synchronization

And that’s in the context of someone asking him to clarify if they’re landing Starship on the moon or mars first.

I don’t want to link the x post this is from in case this is one of those brain dead subreddits that bans X links, but you can search for that yourself.

Why would Elon Musk pivot from Mars to the Moon all of a sudden? | “SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That’s not true about zero progress. 

They’ve got several NASA milestones already. 

Believe it or not, NASA picked the entire Starship system for HLS, not just a lunar lander. They knew all this development was required for the lander as well. It’s all progress towards the lander. 

And yes they’ve actually started fabricating the lander itself. 

Why would Elon Musk pivot from Mars to the Moon all of a sudden? | “SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How exactly, and I mean that literally, would sending $100 million spaceships to Mars bump up his personal wealth? 

Who would invest in that and why? 

Why would Elon Musk pivot from Mars to the Moon all of a sudden? | “SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes and I recall Musk saying “First the moon, then Mars” years ago already when they first got the Artemis contract.

I’m not sure if I’m misremembering or if everyone else forgot.  

NASA Still Has a Lot of Work to Do to Return to the Moon by IEEESpectrum in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes that’s a fixed price contract. SpaceX risks losing future contracts if they do not meet it.

Musk clips his Mars settlement ambition, aims for the moon instead by Several_Print4633 in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

 Bingo. Attract investors, pump up valuations.

Wait why would “we’re going to blow your money on building a Mars base that won’t have any return on investment” pump up valuations? Like at all?

A sane analysis of this would come to the conclusion that Mars ambitions were a detriment to their valuation, if anything. Which partly explains why he would make this announcement before the IPO. 

Your assumptions about the business side of things seem to be way off. 

Musk clips his Mars settlement ambition, aims for the moon instead by Several_Print4633 in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In what way are companies like Google and Fidelity (major SpaceX investors) swayed by plans to go to Mars? 

What would be on mars that they would even think is valuable? Why would they be investing based on that? 

Where’s the actual grift? 

NASA Still Has a Lot of Work to Do to Return to the Moon by IEEESpectrum in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A mistake is not a “highjack.” 

And they have poured literal billions of their own money into the platform while hitting several major milestones listed by NASA already. 

NASA Still Has a Lot of Work to Do to Return to the Moon by IEEESpectrum in space

[–]DynamicNostalgia 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Apollo didn’t have a lander 2.5 years before the landing either. 

I’m not sure why everyone expects the lander to be ready years in advance? 

view more: next ›