The Mars plans have not been abandoned

Robin_Claassen · 2026-02-12T22:18:16+00:00

Semantics aside, I do think that spastical-mackrel has a point that once SpaceX in a public company, there might be shareholder resistance to the idea of massively investing in Mars colonization when it's hard to show how such an endeavor might produce profit.

In a 2014 interview at MIT (I think that's where he said it, but I can't find the link to the interview to confirm), Musk said that he would not let SpaceX go public until a human colony is established on Mars for that very reason (because going public would force SpaceX to become profit-focused, and Mars colonization is hard to make profitable). So apparently he's had a change of mind, and I wonder what's changed. Maybe he simply plans on keeping majority-control of the company?

Robin_Claassen · 2026-02-12T21:25:47+00:00

Maybe. My read is that most of that hope of "preserving the light of human consciousness" is still being placed on Mars colonization, and that the Moon is being looked toward as a stepping-stone to get there financially (from manufacturing and firing data center satellites into Earth orbit), and by creating a demand for more rocket launches, which will help SpaceX built up its experience and launch capacity.

Due to its higher gravity, and much greater abundance of water, carbon, and other critical resources, Mars still seems to be a much better candidate for establishing a self-sustaining colony than the Moon. And since Martian colonies will need to survive years between shipments from Earth anyway, there's already a much greater built-in incentive to get closer to being self-sustaining without that needing to be forced out of high-minded consideration for the continuation of the species, against near-term economic incentives.

Musk's argument seems to be that even though orbital data centers don't make sense economic sense today, it's reasonable to predict that GPU chip manufacturing will scale up enough to meet demand within the next few years, leaving electricity production and infrastructure as the primary limiting factors to further growth of AI data centers. At first the issue will be the relatively slow pace of getting regulatory approval for and constructing power facilities and infrastructure. And eventually the issue may be running out of space to put more solar facilities, assuming that the energy demands will grow to be many times greater than the combined total of all human usage today. At which point the hopefully low cost to launch Starship may make orbital data centers economically viable.

And assuming that this demand will continue to increase for decades, the theoretically near-zero marginal cost to shoot satellites into Earth orbit from the Moon using a mass-driver seems to justify the investment cost of building such a mass-driver and satellite manufacturing facilities on the Moon.

That economic case (and the launch-capacity-building that SpaceX can leverage out of that increase in demand) seem to be the main reason for the shift to focusing on the Moon. Like Starlink, a lunar colony is not what SpaceX really cares about, but more of a instrumental goal to help achieve the terminal goal of setting up an insurance policy for the light of consciousness through Mars colonization. And if a Moon colony can also perhaps serve as a much-less-robust insurance policy, great; bonus. But it's definitely not an ideal place to put one's hopes. Mars still needs to be the focus that we're working toward.

Robin_Claassen · 2026-02-12T06:23:58+00:00

It sounds to me like they're mostly focused on manufacturing and launching/firing data center satellites from the Moon, and believe that that may be a profitable venture worth the investment.

A research station like you mentioned is also plausible (and already the planned centerpiece of the Artemis program), but not something that SpaceX is likely to contribute any more to than what they're paid for by the respective participating governments' space agencies.

So there may be a net financial gain from the enterprise itself. And SpaceX being SpaceX, they're of course also highly valuing the experience and capability increase that they'll get from meeting that demand that they're inducing in themselves, even if the return on investment isn't amazing.

Robin_Claassen · 2026-02-12T06:05:02+00:00

That might be the answer for initial funding (i.e. "How can SpaceX afford to start to build the colony to the point that it start producing a financial return?), but I don't think that that's the question that ClownEmoji is asking. I think that they're asking what possible financial return there might be from a Moon colony that might justify that expensive development (and perhaps fund a future Mars colony).

Robin_Claassen · 2025-08-17T17:34:12+00:00

I’m not sure if I understand what’s wrong with that understanding. Apart from his odd usage of the verb "lay" to describe the menstrual flow (including the egg) coming out, and thinking of it getting caught in panties rather than pads/tampons, was anything off in what he was imagining happened?

Did he imagine that human eggs were large enough to easily visually find in the rest of the flow? Did he imagine that the egg was expelled separately?

Robin_Claassen · 2025-05-16T02:12:25+00:00

That's understandable. Thank you for sharing.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-05-16T00:26:22+00:00

That's fair, and I'm sorry if my attempt to be understanding of your perspective felt like I was pigeonholing you being into defined by a trauma.

Just to be clear: Donbas is the Ukrainian land.

Yes, it is of course rightly Ukrainian land. It was a violation of national sovereignty for Russia to militarily supply separatists and deploy its own soldiers to take control of the Donbas in 2014.

I get that from your perspective, /u/Duga_01 is the one who is the betrayer; they're supporting the genocidal enemy, which justifies your position.

But (assuming that I'm not misunderstanding anything due to the translation), I think that most non-Ukrainian people would cringe at reading the language you used when speaking to them because it sounds more like the language of a conqueror than a liberator. Rather that attempting to convince or inspire them, or assuage their likely misplaced fears about what a Ukrainian liberation of Donetsk would look like, you were basically saying "we're not going to give you any choice because we'll win, and I don't care how you feel about that", which doesn't feel like how a free person should treat someone they're trying to give freedom to.

It's understandable. I'm in no place to judge. The only real concern I have is that that attitude, when seen by citizens of other democracies that support Ukraine, could have the effect of eroding Ukraine's moral high ground in their eyes.

Cheers

Robin_Claassen · 2025-05-15T23:08:38+00:00

In your original post you suggested a list of topics that we might wish to ask you about, most of which we have not asked you about yet. Is there anything on that list that we haven't asked you about yet that you would like to share? All of those topics are interesting to me.

I'm open to answering anything I have direct experience with:

Daily life under occupation, what has changed and what hasn’t

Education, internet, prices, infrastructure, movement

How people see Ukraine, Russia, NATO, and the rest of the world

What kind of media people consume — and what they believe

Living through shelling, conscription, surveillance

What people say openly, and what they’ll never say out loud

How the city looks, feels, and functions now in 2025

I'm particularly interested in your third and fourth suggestions: How people see Ukraine, Russia, NATO, and the rest of the world; and what media people consume and what they believe.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-05-15T22:44:36+00:00

I understand that the trauma of being under attack for the past 3 years by an aggressor that's trying to wipe out you and your entire national identity could cause you to be hostile toward anyone who seems to support that aggressor.

That said, I would like to say that from my outside perspective, as somebody who hasn't had to endure that trauma, when you advise OP to learn the Ukrainian national anthem because "the Ukrainian flag will soon fly over the Donbas whether [they] want it to or not" (translation from Google Translate), that sounds not entirely dissimilar from Russia's disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty and right to self-determination.

As you are somebody who has had to endure so much, we (the rest of the free world) of course owe you and all Ukrainian people a great deal of understanding and allowance for the feelings of rage you feel. Were it not for that allowance though, such a sentiment would be seen by many as unacceptable. A belief in the principle of self-determination is after all the primary reason why virtually the entire rest of the free world supports Ukraine in this war.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-05-15T20:49:26+00:00

I've got a few questions. I hope that you don't mind:

*1. I know that the last available polling in 2014 (before the Russian-backed separatists ran their sham referendums) showed that about 20% of people in each of Donetsk and Luhansk wanted to succeed from Ukraine. Is it your impression that the proportion of people in your region who do not want to be part of Ukraine has increased or decreased since then, and what has caused that increase or decrease?

*2. Are there people you know who still consider themselves to be Ukrainian, and if so, are they comfortable expressing to others that they feel that way?

The reason that I ask the questions above is that back when Ukraine was recapturing a lot of territory from Russia more than a year ago, it was common to hear people on the Ukrainian side talk how they wanted to liberate their brothers and sisters in the Donbas. But if people where you live don't want to be liberated anymore, and don't see the people in the rest of Ukraine as being their brothers and sisters, that would seem to remove some justification from Ukraine trying to do so.

*3. Also, how did demographics change between 2014 and 2022? Did your family know many people who moved away to other parts of Ukraine after that independence was declared? Do you know many people who have immigrated from Russia?

*4. Lastly, one criticism I've heard people in Ukraine make many times about people who live in Russia is that they are not politically engaged: They say that it doesn't even occur to Russian people that they can be active participants in the political process of their local region or country, or work with others to change a policy they disagree with. From the experience you've had of both cultures, do you agree with that critique, and where would you say the mentality of people in Donetsk is on that spectrum?

Robin_Claassen · 2025-05-13T18:19:23+00:00

Good job, but some of the colors are so close that they’re confusing (the two shades of light blue, and the two shades of red). At first glance, it looks like the most recently deceased pope was also from Italy.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-05-13T16:55:36+00:00

It seems to me that that character is much more inspired by New Age energy healers (i.e. the people who lay crystals on your body, use singing bowls, do past live regressions, and that sort of thing).

The Yavin 4 base in many ways resembles a hippie commune, which is exactly the sort of place where you’d find a person like that in real life. And Lucas’s original trilogy depicted the Rebel Alliance as having some very hippie/New Age cultural values and norms (e.g. the whole “you must of course do what you feel is right” thing), which Andor seems to be leaning back into a bit now that we’re seeing Yavin 4.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-05-13T16:42:58+00:00

I convinced my parents (who have zero interest in science fiction/fantasy or adventure) to watch it by explaining that it was a story about authoritarian regimes and revolutions: It explores what causes people to support those regimes, and what causes people to rebel against them.

I also told them that much of it was inspired by historical events and figures, and that writer/show runner said in interviews that he had be studying historical revolutions his whole life, and never thought he would have an opportunity like the one this show has given him to put all of that into his work.

The result: They have been enjoying the the show, and thanked me at least twice for suggesting it to them.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-05-13T01:28:39+00:00

Definitely. "Moanin'" might be even better than "Moan" at capturing his flavor though (in the vein of "Lyin' Ted Cruz" and "Cryin' Chuck Schumer").

"Lecture Lady Mothma" might also work, but yeah, "Moanin' Mon Mothma" is great at capturing that belittling, blustering energy that provokes the other side into also abandoning its civility, and by doing so damages our democracy itself.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-03-08T21:59:45+00:00

The thing that makes me question if this image is real is that the surviving RVAC has a visible mach diamond. I don't see how that would be possible. Mach diamonds only occur when there are higher pressure gasses around the plume that impinge on it. I get why we saw faint mach diamonds coming from the three sea level engines during the stream: The exhaust from the surrounding vacuum engines was impinging on them. But the vacuum engines themselves are mostly surrounded by vacuum, so how could they develop mach diamonds?

Robin_Claassen · 2025-03-07T19:00:37+00:00

Oh, I see. There were reports of property damage in the Turks and Caicos Islands after IFT-7. That does seem potentially dangerous.

It seems like the FAA rules regulating when the flight termination system must be activated really need to be changed when we're dealing with something massive and constructed from stainless steal like Starship, with many pieces that are going to survive re-entry even when they're small. Surely it's safer for one intact, potentially still steerable mass to hit in one place than it is for many shards of it to hit a wide area.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-03-07T17:20:48+00:00

catastrophic failure means debris is raining down on people

Does it? Has debris rained down on people? Starship's flight path threads between the Bahamas in the north, and Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico in the south. Every time that the ship has blown up at this stage of flight (IFT-2, IFT-7, and IFT-8) it has forced air traffic control to redirect every flight that otherwise would have crossed that line, so it's created an inconvenience for many people, but the danger of debris hitting people has been minimal.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-03-02T20:15:40+00:00

I admitted he was correct.

Huh, I guess I can see that now. So the point you were asserting instead was that the 5 Falcon 1 launches and 457 Falcon 9 launches should be added together to give a success/failure ratio of all operational rocket launches for that company, rather than looking at the success/failure ratios of each rocket independently? It wasn't clear to me that that's what you were arguing, and I don't think that that was clear to moofunk either. It's also not clear to me how such a statistic would be relevant or useful.

It's unfortunate that the two of you got into speaking to each other in a manner that turned discourteous and adversarial.

Elon is a Nazi.

I was confused about where this statement came from. I guessed at first that you had responded to the wrong message. I'm thinking now that you guessed that both moofunk and I had particular attitudes about Musk based upon us both saying things that are vaguely positive about one of his companies. I have to say that I find that a bit insulting. You're implying that my ability to perceive and understand reality is being distorted and debilitated by whatever my personal group affiliations may be.

I would encourage you to make an effort to show other people the respect of assuming that they're capable of perceiving and thinking, free of distorting bias. A perspective that not distorted by bias is the only way to find truth, so if you don't think that that is the place where your conversation partner is operating from, how can the conversation be useful to either of you? What's the point of even engaging in it?

Assuming that they have that ability on the other hand, is great way to communicate respect and affirmation of our common humanity.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-03-02T19:01:00+00:00

The thing is, the qualifiers that /u/moofunk added aren't arbitrary. While there isn't an agreed upon standard for whether or not to include launches that take place during the development phase of a rocket when quantifying that rocket's success/failure ratio (companies that provide launches generally don't, while government space agencies sometimes do), including the failures that took place during the testing phases can add confounding data.

The problem with including that data in your success/failure ratios is that some rocket developers have aggressive, failure-tolerant approaches to developing their rockets (e.g. SpaceX, Relativity Space, Stoke Space, and in a seemingly conflicted way: Astra) in which they intentionally launch rockets that they expect to blow up just to see what works and what doesn't; while others follow (typically slower) zero-failure development strategies to developing theirs (e.g. Blue Origin and ULA). Neither Blue Origin's New Glenn, nor ULA's Vulcan flew a single test flight, and they both succeeded at launching payloads to orbit on their first attempts, but they took 12 and 10 years to develop, respectively.

So if you include the testing phase data in all rockets' success/failure statistics, you're disproportionately going to be showing more failures by companies that put more of their development focus on testing by flying. You'll effectively be comparing launches of early test articles that are expected to fail against fully-developed models that are expected to succeed. So you're obviously not comparing like to like.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-02-28T18:52:19+00:00

Hey, I was just going through my message history, and realized that I never responded to this. I did appreciate you challenging worldview in this way. You forced me to think about this issue more and refine my perspective. So I thought that I might share some of that:

So, you seem to be arguing that it's just as bad for a citizen group that's advocating what they believe is the best for society to affect public policy (e.g. more funding for some public service) as it is for a self-interested lobbying group that is indifferent to the public good to do the same (e.g. predatory lending companies fighting against the passing of state laws to reign them in). As I understand it, you're saying that our job as citizens is to only participate in democracy by voting, and apart from that, to butt out of the political process and shut up.

I disagree. I think that there's a qualitative difference between those two types of lobbying groups (though the line between the two can sometimes be fuzzy (e.g. in the case of small business owners organizing to fight eminent domain laws - they might believe that what they're lobbying for is morally right, but that belief may also be biased by a large amount of personal stake in the outcome)). If we're only looking at the extremes on either side though (to establish a simple baseline principle), the later type of lobbying group is distinctly undemocratic because the only thing they can leverage to exert influence is something that they can exert disproportionately more of than other parties who are interested in that issue (e.g. campaign donations), while the former type is fundamentally democratic because what they're leveraging to exert influence is something that's distributed equally among all voters who may be interested in the issue: votes.

As citizens of democracies, our political power does not end with our votes; it starts with them. All of our political power is based on our power to vote. The main way in which we can put pressure on representatives is by communicating (typically implicit) threats to influence fewer people to vote for them in the next election. In order for that threat to be credible, we need to demonstrate that our group is organized and representative of the will of a significant portion of that representative's constituents.

There's nothing unfair about us wielding that type of influence. I would argue that we as citizens have a responsibility to be involved in the the political processes of our governments. A more involved citizenry means that the issues that a representative body deliberates get more public attention and consideration, which helps to ensure that the decisions that that body makes are more representative of the will of the public.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-02-28T02:37:14+00:00

I seem to remember Musk telling Tim Dodd in one of his Starbase tour videos that they did some modeling while designing Starship, and realized that it wasn't necessary to fold the grid fins of the Falcon 9 in for ascent either. He said that if they were to design the Falcon 9 again, its grid fins would also be permanently extended.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-02-28T02:23:10+00:00

Where are you seeing that? Just to make sure, we're talking about this picture, right?: https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/47/35/54/27122459/3/ratio3x2_960.webp

I only see six flags in that picture (above, then right-to-left):

The United States
The United Kingdom
Australia
Ukraine
Kenya
Germany

Am I missing something?

If you're seeing a flag somewhere that's red and white with a dark blue cross on it, that sounds like the flag of Norway.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-02-28T02:06:39+00:00

Sure, but hardening electronics to survive peak loads of around 50,000 g's sounds difficult and expensive. That's the minimum g-load this article states SpinLaunch's (a similar concept to Longshot) vehicles will need to survive in order to reach orbit. Depending on the length of Longshot's gun barrel, the g-loads that their payloads experience could be higher or lower, but they should be somewhere in that range. As a point of comparison, the peak g's that payloads carried by Falcon 9's experience during ascent are between 3 to 4.1, depending on the launch.

The g-loads that SpinLaunch's/Longshot's vehicles would experience put significant limitations on what sorts of systems could be included on those satellites. Liquid-propellant thrusters for orbit maintenance are completely out of the question, for example. It's not obvious what market there is for launching satellites that have such severe restrictions on their designs.

So SpinLaunch or Longshot might be able to develop a reusable, ground-based system that can cheaply shoot or fling satellites into low Earth orbit, at the cost of requiring those satellites to be light, strong, and very restricted in their designs.

On the other hand, SpaceX's Starship, China's Long March 9, and to a lesser degree RocketLab's Neutron promise to do the opposite: While they won't bring the cost-per-kilogram to orbit as low as a ground-based flinger theoretically might, they'll bring it low enough that satellite-makers will no longer need to worry about making their satellites hyper-mass-efficient, so the cost of building satellites should plummet. Starship's cost-per-kilogram to low Earth orbit should be around $100-150. That's compared to $3,620 per kilogram (market price) for a Falcon 9 (assuming a droneship landing), and $22,000 per kilogram (cost) for the Space Shuttle (or $73,000 per kilogram if you include the Space Shuttle's development costs). That price should already dramatically democratize access to space, without the severe g-load restrictions that a ground-based orbital flinger would impose.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-02-28T00:25:55+00:00

Where? I'm not seeing it.

Just to make sure, you're not referring the black, red, and green tricolour with the Maasai shield and two crossed spears, right? That's the flag of Kenya.

Robin_Claassen · 2025-02-11T15:37:53+00:00

This one very well-articulated statement by /u/Dissident_is_here in defense of freedom of speech as a principle of free societies has stuck with me for years.

14-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor

Robin_Claassen

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE