Thunderf00t has lost last of his marbles and remaining bits of credibility

[EEVblog]

Musk has overpromised and underdelivered on a moon landing.  By years.  So criticism is justified. 

Musk is only providing the HLS part of the Artemis contract, and technically that is not what's been holding up Artemis. NASA were stupid to select it as the HLS solution, as IMO it WILL hold up Artemis. But NASA is the correct one to blame here.

[Psi]

NASA awarded two contracts for the HLS so that any one being late wouldn't hold things up.
But, as it turned out.
 SpaceX isn't ready yet.
 Blue Origin isn't ready yet.
 NASA isn't ready yet.

So if you want to assign any blame on SpaceX then it's at most 33% blame, and at best 0% blame as SpaceX Starship does not block Artemis from happening if everyone else is ready.

[negativ3]

Vehicle-to-vehicle cryogenic propellant transfer has never previously been demonstrated in space.
I don't think Space-X are providing the only vehicles.
The technical challenges are far broader than just HLS.
Artemis III will be orbital and docking mechanism tests as far as I'm aware.

[PlainName]

Frankly, Musk has done good and bad stuff. The latest Starship didn't go perfectly to plan and had unintentional failures.

The mission last night was functionally 100% successful even with two engine failures. This is why they have multiples.

I didn't say it didn't work or wasn't functional. I said they had unintentional failures, which you just confirmed. I don't see anything derogatory about acknowledging that.

What is a problem is jumping on anyone that doesn't turn a blind eye to facts like that, and then assuming they are rabid TF fans (which must also means Musk denigrators).

[EEVblog]

Frankly, Musk has done good and bad stuff. The latest Starship didn't go perfectly to plan and had unintentional failures.

The mission last night was functionally 100% successful even with two engine failures. This is why they have multiples.

I didn't say it didn't work or wasn't functional. I said they had unintentional failures, which you just confirmed. I don't see anything derogatory about acknowledging that.
What is a problem is jumping on anyone that doesn't turn a blind eye to facts like that, and then assuming they are rabid TF fans (which must also means Musk denigrators).

 
When did I say or imply anything about being derogatory?

[Yrouel86]

Here's a couple of examples

What is wrong with the Moon part? Has it happenned? Did I miss it? 8 years after "by 2018" I am still waiting for my ticket to the Moon.

Selective reading much?
The wrong part is claiming that Starship can take zero cargo to orbit.

The rest is just the usual nonsense of "wah wah it's late waaahhh" which is something that applies to everyone in the industry.

But of course you know this, you just chose to overlook the bullshit to latch on the irrelevant part of the post instead.

[CatalinaWOW]

Musk has overpromised and underdelivered on a moon landing.  By years.  So criticism is justified. 

Musk is only providing the HLS part of the Artemis contract, and technically that is not what's been holding up Artemis. NASA were stupid to select it as the HLS solution, as IMO it WILL hold up Artemis. But NASA is the correct one to blame here.

Musk promised trips to the moon long before joining the Artemis program.  I love what he is doing, but anyone who places much credence in his schedules has lost his marbles.  Do you believe that SpaceX will send humans to Mars in 2028? 

[Yrouel86]

"WHAAA WHAAA IT'S LATE WHAAAA" is the weakest and lamest "argument" one can have.

[PlainName]

Do you believe that SpaceX will send humans to Mars in 2028?

Actually getting them there, not a chance. But would it count if they started the process then? Kind of like if you said you were going to have a road to someplace in 2028, but instead of being able to drive down it then you start shifting actual rubble as part of the (actually happening) process to get it made?

Edit: Perhaps 'not a chance' should read 'very unlikely but...'

[EEVblog]

Do you believe that SpaceX will send humans to Mars in 2028?

I've been saying publicly for years that SpaceX is not getting to mars, and I've been coping a lot of shit for it.
I've been calling out publicly all of Musk's timelines on FSD and other stuff for like a decade now and have been branded a Musk hater for it.

[CatalinaWOW]

Do you believe that SpaceX will send humans to Mars in 2028?

Actually getting them there, not a chance. But would it count if they started the process then? Kind of like if you said you were going to have a road to someplace in 2028, but instead of being able to drive down it then you start shifting actual rubble as part of the (actually happening) process to get it made?

Edit: Perhaps 'not a chance' should read 'very unlikely but...'

So you would be happy with the progress on California's high speed train?  They have a plan, and a bit of roadbed, and might actually lay some track this year.  Or maybe not.

The problem with Musk's mars plans is that there is a huge range of content and judging success is a bit tricky.  His original published goal of having a million people living on Mars in roughly 20 years.  Cargo flights starting 2028-2029.   Two wildly different goals.  Both extremely challenging.  I think it is fairly reasonable to expect cargo/instrument flights in the next decade.  A million people?   I don't even think technology is the limiting factor here.   

[Bud]

What is the point of sending cargo ships, what are they going to do, just dump the cargo on the planet?

[EEVblog]

What is the point of sending cargo ships, what are they going to do, just dump the cargo on the planet?

Yes actually, that's the standard Mars mission profile regardless of which Mars plan you are talking about.
Send several missions to land first, with cargo, habitat, fuel generating capability, and return vehicle. When you know that has worked you send the humans.

[PlainName]

Do you believe that SpaceX will send humans to Mars in 2028?

Actually getting them there, not a chance. But would it count if they started the process then? Kind of like if you said you were going to have a road to someplace in 2028, but instead of being able to drive down it then you start shifting actual rubble as part of the (actually happening) process to get it made?

Edit: Perhaps 'not a chance' should read 'very unlikely but...'

So you would be happy with the progress on California's high speed train?  They have a plan, and a bit of roadbed, and might actually lay some track this year.  Or maybe not.

There is a difference between being happy, and accepting! Of course, one would prefer a rapid completion (unless one is a protestor) but often these things happen a bit later than expected or desired. But if, in the California thing, they are working on making it happen then that's surely a hell of a lot better than not working on it, and they will get there.

The problem with Musk's mars plans is that there is a huge range of content and judging success is a bit tricky.  His original published goal of having a million people living on Mars in roughly 20 years.  Cargo flights starting 2028-2029.   Two wildly different goals.  Both extremely challenging.  I think it is fairly reasonable to expect cargo/instrument flights in the next decade.  A million people?   I don't even think technology is the limiting factor here.

His timescales do tend towards the optimistic
However, I think the bigger thing is that some things he is a bit wishy-washy about and more or less get dropped (like the tunnels and train), whereas others he is determined to complete and actually does do so, just not as soon as first intimated. The argument around Mars should probably not be around the precise date of lift-off but whether there will be lift-off at all.

[wraper]

Do you believe that SpaceX will send humans to Mars in 2028?

Actually getting them there, not a chance. But would it count if they started the process then? Kind of like if you said you were going to have a road to someplace in 2028, but instead of being able to drive down it then you start shifting actual rubble as part of the (actually happening) process to get it made?

Edit: Perhaps 'not a chance' should read 'very unlikely but...'

So you would be happy with the progress on California's high speed train?  They have a plan, and a bit of roadbed, and might actually lay some track this year.  Or maybe not.

There is a difference between being happy, and accepting! Of course, one would prefer a rapid completion (unless one is a protestor) but often these things happen a bit later than expected or desired. But if, in the California thing, they are working on making it happen then that's surely a hell of a lot better than not working on it, and they will get there.

The only thing they're worked on so far is squandering money. With this pace it will never be done because parts that were already built will be reclaimed by nature by the time they finish it. Not to say, calling it a "high speed rail" is a misnomer.

they are working on making it happen then that's surely a hell of a lot better than not working on it

Throwing good money after bad is not better than just to call it quits.

[Bud]

What is the point of sending cargo ships, what are they going to do, just dump the cargo on the planet?

Yes actually, that's the standard Mars mission profile regardless of which Mars plan you are talking about.
Send several missions to land first, with cargo, habitat, fuel generating capability, and return vehicle. When you know that has worked you send the humans.

That only makes sense when you are almost ready to send the humans. Not the case here.

[PlainName]

Do you believe that SpaceX will send humans to Mars in 2028?

Actually getting them there, not a chance. But would it count if they started the process then? Kind of like if you said you were going to have a road to someplace in 2028, but instead of being able to drive down it then you start shifting actual rubble as part of the (actually happening) process to get it made?

Edit: Perhaps 'not a chance' should read 'very unlikely but...'

So you would be happy with the progress on California's high speed train?  They have a plan, and a bit of roadbed, and might actually lay some track this year.  Or maybe not.

There is a difference between being happy, and accepting! Of course, one would prefer a rapid completion (unless one is a protestor) but often these things happen a bit later than expected or desired. But if, in the California thing, they are working on making it happen then that's surely a hell of a lot better than not working on it, and they will get there.

The only thing they're worked on so far is squandering money. With this pace it will never be done because parts that were already built will be reclaimed by nature by the time they finish it. Not to say, calling it a "high speed rail" is a misnomer.

Well done for skipping the context despite quoting it! I fear you missed the part highlighted, and note the "actually happening" phrase I added specifically to head of silly comments like yours.

[PlainName]

That only makes sense when you are almost ready to send the humans.

How long (approx!) would it take to get from where we are now to irreversibly be in the process of sending them? Obviously not actually in orbit about to fire the motors (a bit late then to arrange the luggage) but far enough along that there would be no going back.

Edit: just to head off the usual, I am asking out of interest regardless of who organises it all. It took just under a decade to get to the moon, which is a little bit closer but, OTOH, we've got a bit more experience now.

[EEVblog]

Edit: just to head off the usual, I am asking out of interest regardless of who organises it all. It took just under a decade to get to the moon, which is a little bit closer but, OTOH, we've got a bit more experience now.

The huge problem with Mars is that you can't easily just experiment with missions. With the moon it's literally a few days trip, with launch windows monthly at worse.
Mars is 9 months trip with windows every 2 years, it just sucks for "suck it and see" experimentation.

[Psi]

Edit: just to head off the usual, I am asking out of interest regardless of who organises it all. It took just under a decade to get to the moon, which is a little bit closer but, OTOH, we've got a bit more experience now.

The huge problem with Mars is that you can't easily just experiment with missions. With the moon it's literally a few days trip, with launch windows monthly at worse.
Mars is 9 months trip with windows every 2 years, it just sucks for "suck it and see" experimentation.

Yep, that's the main reason why i think the moon focus is a good idea, despite wanting humans on mars way more than the moon.

[EEVblog]

Yep, that's the main reason why i think the moon focus is a good idea, despite wanting humans on mars way more than the moon.

Yep. Let's be real here, if we can't get a small manned lunar base reliably working then there is zero chance Mars is going to work.

And let's not forget, Mars has zero financial or political/military benefit, unlike the moon.
Hypothetically, if China beat the US to landing humans on Mars, apart from the initial public embarrassment, no one is really going to care. It's too far away to care. It's too big to care.
If China beats the US to a lunar base however, all political and military hell will break loose.
Everyone can literally walk outside and SEE the surface of the moon. And there is actually quite limited room and locations to jostle for the best resources (water).

As much as I want to see humans on Mars, at this point it's essentially wasted effort that should be put towards a lunar base.

[negativ3]

Yep, that's the main reason why i think the moon focus is a good idea, despite wanting humans on mars way more than the moon.

Yep. Let's be real here, if we can't get a small manned lunar base reliably working then there is zero chance Mars is going to work.

And let's not forget, Mars has zero financial or political/military benefit, unlike the moon.
Hypothetically, if China beat the US to landing humans on Mars, apart from the initial public embarrassment, no one is really going to care. It's too far away to care. It's too big to care.
If China beats the US to a lunar base however, all political and military hell will break loose.
Everyone can literally walk outside and SEE the surface of the moon. And there is actually quite limited room and locations to jostle for the best resources (water).

As much as I want to see humans on Mars, at this point it's essentially wasted effort that should be put towards a lunar base.

While I agree with everything you said, you missed the reason to get to Mars. Because we can. Stretching us technologically is a really good motivation as it will reveal other tools useful to humanity. I'm still humbled by how the lander worked and that the helicopter did as much as it did. The journey, not the pay-off.

[EEVblog]

gree with everything you said, you missed the reason to get to Mars. Because we can. Stretching us technologically is a really good motivation as it will reveal other tools useful to humanity. I'm still humbled by how the lander worked and that the helicopter did as much as it did. The journey, not the pay-off.

Oh I'm not missing that at all. I'm just being a practical realist. Humans are most likely not getting to Mars "because we can", it will need a nationalist race like Apollo to get it done.
That being said, Elon is the only one who could potentially be in a position to do it "because we can", if Starship works and brings in the cash, and a Artemis works etc, he could be in position next decade to find a few sacrificial volunteers and just go for it.
I don't see NASA getting it done.

[nctnico]

gree with everything you said, you missed the reason to get to Mars. Because we can. Stretching us technologically is a really good motivation as it will reveal other tools useful to humanity. I'm still humbled by how the lander worked and that the helicopter did as much as it did. The journey, not the pay-off.

Oh I'm not missing that at all. I'm just being a practical realist. Humans are most likely not getting to Mars "because we can", it will need a nationalist race like Apollo to get it done.
That being said, Elon is the only one who could potentially be in a position to do it "because we can", if Starship works and brings in the cash, and a Artemis works etc, he could be in position next decade to find a few sacrificial volunteers and just go for it.

Recently I watched an episode of Dark Matter. A TV series which exploits the idea of parallel universes. In one episode they land in a universe where the moon landing didn't happen and there where no computers, no smartphones, no internet. That provokes some thought about how mad scientist projects like going to the moon or Mars could shape the future in terms of developing new technologies.

[Psi]

gree with everything you said, you missed the reason to get to Mars. Because we can. Stretching us technologically is a really good motivation as it will reveal other tools useful to humanity. I'm still humbled by how the lander worked and that the helicopter did as much as it did. The journey, not the pay-off.

Oh I'm not missing that at all. I'm just being a practical realist. Humans are most likely not getting to Mars "because we can", it will need a nationalist race like Apollo to get it done.
That being said, Elon is the only one who could potentially be in a position to do it "because we can", if Starship works and brings in the cash, and a Artemis works etc, he could be in position next decade to find a few sacrificial volunteers and just go for it.

Recently I watched an episode of Dark Matter. A TV series which exploits the idea of parallel universes. In one episode they land in a universe where the moon landing didn't happen and there where no computers, no smartphones, no internet. That provokes some thought about how mad scientist projects like going to the moon or Mars could shape the future in terms of developing new technologies.

So many technologies we have now came from the Apollo push and from NASA