[dmix]

SpaceX already shifted to focus on a Moon base and away from Mars.

The original plan was to send a few self-financed Starships to Mars as a first step which sounded reasonable as an experiment.

Nothing wrong with dreaming about solving hard problems like radiation and how to manage logistics at such a distance. Even if a human base ends up not making sense most of that stuff would still support a robotic base doing most of the exploration, with some temporary human visitors helping set things up.

[slumberlust]

You might enjoy A City On Mars by the Wienersmiths. There's a lot to consider that you are glossing over.

[inaros]

>> SpaceX already shifted to focus on a Moon base and away from Mars.

Oh boy….beyond Falcon 9 that is just a great but conventional rocket...SpaceX so called revolutionary Starship program is nothing more than a parade of explosions. Just in 2025 they had three upper stages exploding mid flight, one blew up on the launchpad during a static fire test in June, and a V3 booster crumpled during pressure testing in November. After 11 test flights... Starship has never once delivered a single gram of payload to orbit….Not one….Think about that for a minute.

Now NASA made Starship the sole critical path for returning the US to the Moon. The Artemis III lunar landing requires Starship HLS to work, which requires orbital refueling…

Something that has never been done with cryogenic propellants by anyone, ever... and requires roughly 12 to 14 tanker flights to fill a depot before each Moon mission. NASA own safety panel visited Starbase in 2025 and concluded Starship HLS could be years late.

The propellant transfer demo, originally scheduled for March 2025, has been delayed over a year. The critical design review keeps slipping. As a result, NASA just downgraded Artemis III from a Moon landing to a low Earth orbit docking test, pushing the actual landing to Artemis IV in 2028, and nobody seriously believes that date either...

And who is overseeing all this? Jared Isaacman that is Musk personal astronaut buddy, who flew twice on SpaceX missions, whose company Shift4 processes Starlink payments, whose deal with SpaceX exceeds $50 million... and who was literally recommended to Trump by Musk. Isaacman even publicly criticized NASA for giving Blue Origin a backup lander contract! meaning he wanted SpaceX to be the ONLY option...

As for the Moon pivot... what actually happened? In January 2025, Musk said: “No, we're going straight to Mars. The Moon is a distraction.” ….Twelve months later, after a year of Starship explosions and with an IPO approaching, suddenly it's “Moon first.” ...This is damage control. Any competent NASA plan would never have put a single unproven company, with a rocket that cannot reach orbit, on the sole critical path for a return to the Moon.

[b112]

More of this. Blathering on about Starship development phase, with its completely expected and normal failures. All concerned because there's "something that hasn't been done before" involved.

Falcon 9 did lots of things "never done before", but.. well, that's OK because with hindsight it's all sensible.

What I'm seeing here is, and now it appears to me in the prior post possibly, is that someone you don't like(Musk) is resulting in this negativity.

It is entirely possible to dislike someone's history, or personality, or politics, whilst at the same time not denigrating their successes. Or attempting to derail their technical work.

NASA has been losing delivery dates forever. Other private sector suppliers have as well. Making a big deal out of this specific instance, seems strange.

No, I'm not endorsing the current administration. But neither am I the prior. After all, everything was late with the prior admin too.

Sometimes? It's not about politics.