[Nevermark]

I don't understand this thinking at all.

I share all the disillusionment and cynicism about Musk, shared here by others.

But he has also done amazing things. When someone declares they are going to create a Martian colony, something literally "out of this world", and against all odds makes unbelievable progress for years, including re-usable rockets that return and land vertically, more efficient powerful engines, and fast operational turnarounds, while making orbital travel mundane, hanging a criticism of schedules on the weak hook of "yet" is myopic.

[bruce511]

There will never be a colony on Mars. Not in the way we think about "colonies".

For starters it's too cold, too dry, atmosphere is too thin, and there's no reasonably sustainable power source.

But all of that is irrelevant because there's no magnetic field. So radiation. So unlivable.

There's also no point in a colony there. If life ends on earth it ends on Mars. There are no materials there we want. It offers exactly nothing we can't do better here, for much less money.

Will we land on Mars? Sure. There's always the goal of being first. But live there? No. Unsupported by earth? Very much no.

[bentcorner]

I personally believe that the legacy we send to the stars will be silicon.

Robots have landed on Mars. Maybe they will even figure out how to use minerals on Mars to build more of themselves. It is plausible to me that as far as space exploration is concerned that it will be autonomous within a few hundred years.

[Nevermark]

I would think autonomous by the end of the century at the latest. More like 2055 or 2060.

The rush to the Moon and then Mars is going to push robotics along the learning curve toward an explosion in off-world activity.

Asteroids will be where resource extraction goes off the charts.

[red-iron-pine]

earth's global ecosystem better not collapse before then -- and we're on track to make that happen

[aeternum]

'..it might be assumed that the flying machine which will really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years- provided, of course, we can meanwhile eliminate such little drawbacks and embarrassments as the existing relation between weight and strength in inorganic materials. No doubt the problem has attractions for those it interests, but to the ordinary man it would seem as if effort might be employed more profitably.' Oct 9 1903

[somenameforme]

I think many may not understand your quote, especially given the nature of the language and the apparent non sequitur: https://archive.is/F3nnP

That's an archive of the article it's originally from, from the NYTimes - "Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly", October 1903. The Wright Bros first successful flight would come in December 1903. The NYTimes also similarly published about the impossibility of spaceflight relatively shortly before it happened.

I anxiously await the day for the NYTimes to dismiss colonizing Mars as impossible, as it means we are most certainly on the cusp of achieving exactly that.

[bruce511]

The value of flight is incalculable. Especially if we see it as a precursor to satellites. A lot of people invested a lot in getting g it to work. Many people died making it better and better. The cost in treasure and lives was substantial, but the return is worth it.

Contrast to the moon. The prestige was great, the investment enormous. The return was more-or-less zero. There was a reason Apollo 18 was canceled, and we stopped going.

(Current efforts are in no rush, and are mostly about prestige.)

The value of a colony on Mars is precisely zero. We might visit a couple times. But colonize? Nope.

[aeternum]

The value of the first Mars colony may be zero depending on how you value it just as the value of the first Wright flier was 'precisely zero' or even negative. It didn't carry cargo and it killed or injured many of those that dared to fly on it.

Assigning zero long term value however to another entire planet worth of resources just seems like a failure of imagination.

You can't get to the 777 without the Wright Flyer.

[somenameforme]

I'd add to this that Mars also isn't the end, but rather the beginning. The moment the first human steps on Mars, we will already be thinking ever more outward to ever more exotic targets, perhaps Europa being next. The bigger picture is starting the process of putting humans into the cosmos - and so it's not just another planet full of resources, land, and unknown discoveries awaiting us - but an entire solar system, and on a longer time frame - an entire galaxy.

And I think once we start iterating on these concepts, the timelines might not be as long as might otherwise be expected. Forget the 777 - it's completely stupefying that we went from the Wright Flier to the SR-71 Blackbird [1] in 61 years. That beast is another product of the magic of the 60s - long-term sustained flight at Mach 3.2 - 2450+mph. London to New York in less than 2 hours. There really was something in the water in the US in the 60s.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird

[somenameforme]

You're right there's a reason Apollo 18 was cancelled, but I'm not sure what you'd reference this. The main issue is that Nixon was increasingly paranoid that there was going to be a catastrophic failure in the Apollo program, and that it would affect his political career. He tried to hard to the cancel the program immediately after the first successful landing. NASA had already drawn up plans for not only getting to Mars, but for a complete human settlement of outer space with large space stations and more. This was all cancelled.

So I think the comparison with flight is perfect. Imagine after the Wright Bros. flight, which countless people had died in the process of seeking to achieve, we had one uninvolved entity able to say 'yeah, I'm responsible for all this' and then canceled everything in a simple self-motivated political calculation to try to 'go out on top' so to speak.

The Moon was never the goal, anymore than the Wright Flyer was the goal. It was one small step on a very lengthy journey - a major milestone for sure, but nowhere near the end of the road. And that's where we remain in space, but thanks to the fact that so much expertise was lost in the ~60 year do-nothing era, we're now having to essentially start over. On the bright side, this time the driver's going to be private industry, just like with airplanes - and there will be no myopic politician to cancel it.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

Ok so let's talk about more terrestrial promises.

How are robotaxis coming along, versus the promises?

How are Optimus robots coming along, versus the promises?

How is the 2nd edition Roadster coming along, versus the promises?

You need to stop thinking of Musk in terms of a person who has "done amazing things" and letting that lead you to a belief that he has some kind of special ability in this space.

He's the money guy. He's occasionally managed to acquire talent that has done amazing things. This does not give him an innate "make amazing things happen" ability. He can throw money at bad ideas and ineffectual people. He can make something happen given the size of his wealth, but whether that actually achieves any of the stated goals is largely independent of his own actions.

[Nevermark]

Lots of late deliveries. This seems to be important to you.

On the one hand, we have major advance, after major advance. But on the other hand, we have crossed out dates on a calendar! Cool things that were mentioned but haven't happen yet! Sad calendar! It's a real toss up!

Puzzle question: is aspirational calendar-target overoptimism good or bad if you get things done late, but sooner than you would have, or at least, more things than you would have, than if you had set more "realistic" targets. Like decades. And then been late for that.

I suggest instead complaining, you your time and Elon's tardiness to beat him to the punch! Lemonade punch.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are late at things, but without the contrast of famous wins, nobody complains. It is so unfair!

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

It's not really about "late" at this point. It's failure to deliver.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...

[threethirtytwo]

People don’t look at the complexity of a human character. They take the easiest extreme and run with it. I was on another HN thread where practically everyone was calling Elon a psychopath.

If you think objectively Elon is not a psychopath.

[sumeno]

He has a higher body count than any serial killer who has ever lived with DOGE alone. He may or may not be clinically diagnosable, but he's a monster either way

[ben_w]

While I share your opinion on his character, the first part of what you say is also true for almost everyone who wielded the kinds and scales power that was given to him via DOGE: Every battleship is a hospital not built, etc.

[sumeno]

There's a big difference between leaders making carefully considered decisions that have life and death consequences and what doge did.

[ben_w]

Sure, this is why I opened the way I did. I agree Musk's a wrong 'un.

[aeternum]

> Every battleship is a hospital not built

It's sad that this is believed when it's most often the opposite. Especially in this case we have a literal historical example. You'll never guess what Henry Kaiser built before creating Kaiser, the largest set of hospitals in CA.

[ben_w]

I can't imagine why you think that's a good example.

The money spent on the ships* could not be double-spent on hospitals. The workers whose manual labour was dedicated to those later ships could not be simultaneously dedicated to more hospitals. The crew of a battleship cannot be simultaneously working in a hospital, the maintenance teams repairing it cannot be simultaneously repairing a hospital.

Every resource-management game demonstrates this principle, even if they're all gross simplifications.

* Wikipedia says Kaiser's ships were cargo and transport, not battleships, which means they had the potential to be a net positive on the economy. This is better than a battleship, because domestic military gear can't be a net positive: the point is to keep matériel and personnel around to deter enemies, and only use them for training and when enemies aren't deterred.

[aeternum]

This could be true if labor were ever the bottleneck in construction projects.

It almost never is.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

This is a false equivalency, and it minimizes the carelessness and maliciousness of how DOGE operated.

[Angostura]

You’re right. Sociopath is probably a better fit.