Elon Musk: Starships Launch for Mars in 2026. Crewed Flights Possible By 2028 (nextbigfuture.com) 210
"The first Starships to Mars will launch in 2 years," Elon Musk posted on X.com this weekend.
Musk said the launches will happen when the next Earth-Mars transfer window opens, which the science blog NextBigFuture identifies as "about November through December 2026." Musk noted that the 2026 missions "will be uncrewed to test the reliability of landing intact on Mars," but "If those landings go well, then the first crewed flights to Mars will be in 4 years."
"Flight rate will grow exponentially from there, with the goal of building a self-sustaining city in about 20 years. Being multiplanetary will vastly increase the probable lifespan of consciousness, as we will no longer have all our eggs, literally and metabolically, on one planet."
Musk said the launches will happen when the next Earth-Mars transfer window opens, which the science blog NextBigFuture identifies as "about November through December 2026." Musk noted that the 2026 missions "will be uncrewed to test the reliability of landing intact on Mars," but "If those landings go well, then the first crewed flights to Mars will be in 4 years."
"Flight rate will grow exponentially from there, with the goal of building a self-sustaining city in about 20 years. Being multiplanetary will vastly increase the probable lifespan of consciousness, as we will no longer have all our eggs, literally and metabolically, on one planet."
Accuracy of early announcements.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Full self driving (not autopilot!) is already there, working great and has very little issues (/far/ safer than humans). Not sure what you're going on about...
Re: (Score:3)
Full self driving *Supervised* is there, but still requires human drivers to intervene semi-regularly, thus is classed as Level 2+, not even Level 3 limited autonomy. Still waiting for independent confirmation of actual safety, but Tesla hasn't allowed access to the data and Musk's claims aren't the most reliable.
The closest Tesla has to real self driving (with no human in the driver seat) is basically restricted to US car parks, and the human is still legally responsible for any faulty actions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ignore Musk. There are hundreds of full videos of it (12.5+), it's full self driving at this point, regardless of a third party verification. Saying it doesn't exist is dishonest. Saying you wouldn't trust it (yet or otherwise) is fair - but - for all of Musk's faults, being cautious for something like that shouldn't be one of them.
Re:Accuracy of early announcements.. (Score:5, Informative)
it's full self driving at this point, regardless of a third party verification. Saying it doesn't exist is dishonest.
I'm saying that full self driving - as defined by the SAE [sae.org], not the marketing term - does not exist outside of a car park, because the car requires a human driver. Tesla themselves state that the vehicle is not autonomous. The robotaxis promised years ago to earn money while you slept are nowhere to be found.
Maybe you feel that (as of 12.5) it could drive itself without a human in the driver seat - and for basic driving in common circumstances, I'd probably agree. A number of self-driving systems can do that much (see the self-driving Cannonball Run [yahoo.com], currently led by a Prius with comma.ai's system with a 98.4% run). But the world is full of uncommon circumstances, and it has to cope with all those too, which has yet to be demonstrated . Other companies have received commercial licences for autonomous self-driving cars, and have completed tens of thousands of trips without a driver, but Tesla has yet to apply [nbcnews.com].
It's just not autonomous yet. Maybe "Actually Self Driving" will be announced in October, but I'm not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla "full self driving" is very, very far from being safe and reliable, or able to drive itself in all conditions (level 5 autonomy, first predicted by Musk for 2016). It still has issues with trains crossings, with disconnecting milliseconds before a crash, phantom braking, being unable to make certain turns (especially on multi-lane roads), and much more.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore Musk. There are hundreds of full videos of it (12.5+), it's full self driving at this point, regardless of a third party verification.
Fuck off. Third party verification is the only way you ever know if stuff like this really works! Of course Tesla and Musk will tell you it works, they want you to buy it! And of course Tesla buyers will tell you it works, they paid good money for it and the sunk cost fallacy exists. So if they're the only people you can find telling me it works then I'm assuming it's bullshit.
Re: Accuracy of early announcements.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Accuracy of early announcements.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference here is SpaceX can launch a big enough rocket to get to Mars. Whether they can manage a tail landing successfully is questionable - the atmosphere and gravity being different, and the landing area being unprepared. It's not like they can just do a dozen rapid iterations to improve, they need to get it right the first time, on full auto the whole way.
And I doubt they'll be doing ISRU and refueling on Mars for a return trip.
The planned Chinese mission is currently more interesting since we have no idea if they can do it but also no reason to believe they can't.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese already have a rover on Mars. They have demonstrated the ability to soft land, and to return samples from the Moon.
Assuming they just want to take a sample from where they land, they have already landed significant mass and can replace the rover with a sample collecting lander and rocket to get it back into Mars orbit. The rest is just a case of sending enough mass to Mars orbit for the return journey, i.e. fuel.
Re:Accuracy of early announcements.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a 'just', though. Sample return from Mars is a huge step beyond landing on it due to the fuel requirements alone.
It's like going from sub-orbital trips to achieving orbit.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like the US went from sub-orbital to orbital manned trip in less than a year?
The real question is if the Chinese have the capability of putting that much mass in orbit. They do, even today, but will likely use Long March 10 which is due to take its first flight in the next year or two. They are a bit ahead of schedule.
Today they have the Long March 5B, which can put 25t in LEO. That's enough for a Mars sample return mission. Their lunar ascender was around 700kg, Mars one will be larger. Getting fr
Re: (Score:3)
Timetable subject to change if Musk pitches a fit and fires the entire Mars team. Ask anyone with a Chevy EV how they're liking that Supercharger access that they were promised back in Spring. /s
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The supposed advantage of SpaceX was that they could build rockets better than the traditional rocket companies. Trouble is, if you look at Starship, they've been developing it for 12 years already. Even if Musk's prediction is correct and, let's face it, he's made this prediction before with various dates that have already passed, that pushes it to 14 years. The Saturn V development process started in 1961. By 1967 they had a successful unmanned flight. So that's six years to get to approximately the point
Re:Accuracy of early announcements.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The supposed advantage of SpaceX was that they could build rockets better than the traditional rocket companies
Well they kinda have done, the Falcon 9 is far and away the most successful rocket ever built, by pretty much any metric. It's also the only orbital rocket with any practical reuse (the shuttle did more but with hugely greater cost and time).
Starship is difficult to compare to other rockets, as it's unique in so many ways, from its assembly-line stainless steel construction, full-flow staged combustion engines, unique landing approach, and massive payloads, to its focus on rapid reuse of both first and second stages. Development time is longer than the Saturn rockets (if you don't count their Jupiter missile predecessors), but it's quicker than SLS (not counting its Constellation predecessor), for a vastly more ambitious design (and much lower costs). If and when they get that working, it will change the game again.
But Mars? Yeah, I don't think anybody's taking Musk's Mars timelines seriously :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the Falcon is great, but I was mostly focused on the development time for Starship. I suppose I might be being overly critical of the time it's taken specifically because of Musk's crazy timeline claims. He has been claiming just a few years until SpaceX lands people on Mars for quite a long time now. Although sometimes he's a little more reasonable and projects out to about 2029 or so. The point was mostly that Musk's announcements about dates for just about anything are generally completely worthles
Re: (Score:3)
Trouble is, if you look at Starship, they've been developing it for 12 years already.
The Saturn V development process started in 1961.
By your own standards, you're being hypocritical here. Test firings of the F-1 engine used on Saturn V started in 1957. Test firings of Raptor 1 started in 2016. By what logic do you justify the "the start of Saturn V's development process" POST-dating its own engine's test firing by 4 years but the Starship's one PRE-dating the first test firing by 4 years?
Re: (Score:2)
The F1 was an attempt to fulfill an air force contract for a super-heavy rocket engine. The original intended purpose is unclear, but it predates the Saturn V program. Also, it was the E1, not the F1. The F1 didn't fire until years later. When they built the Saturn V, they essentially picked an "off the shelf" engine to continue development on and include in the rocket. The story on Starship is quite different. Starship was originally going to have Merlin 2 engines, which would have been a scaled up version
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it was the E1, not the F1. The F1 didn't fire until years later.
I was talking about the F-1 though, not the E-1, since that's what Saturn V used.
When they built the Saturn V, they essentially picked an "off the shelf" engine
...and there it is. You can't compare the two timelines if one of them contains things the other one doesn't. Especially if you consider that Raptor has *already* undergone two major redesigns since 2016. In light of the fact that engines like F-1, RS-25 received *zero* major redesigns (RS-25 in decades, in fact), it's pretty hard to argue that SpaceX's timelines for development aren't vastly shorter than their competitors'.
So, I'm still pretty convinced that SpaceX has no magic sauce that lets them do things faster than traditional rocket companies.
I h
Congrats! (Score:2)
I can't wait to read about the first automated landing on Mars in 2033. (you have to adjust for elon time inflation)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait to read about the first automated landing on Mars in 2033. (you have to adjust for elon time inflation)
I was thinking with where Starship is now in development, and the FAA's glacial pace in approving new launches, we'll definitely be waiting until the 2030s before we see a full Starship trip from Earth to Mars. Probably 2040s before humans are involved. And probably 150 years before there's a self-sustaining city there.
Yawn (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
He said Falcon 9 would be reusable, and it is. How predictions regarding space have been accurate but the Tesla FSD stuff seems lagged .. but it is improving. If each version wasn't an improvement on the previous you'd have a point, but they keep iterating and making it better. Anyway why are we talking about Tesla? SpaceX has been delivering on its promises. That's undeniable.
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Interesting)
SpaceX has been delivering on its promises.
Really? Hmm, in 2018 Elon/Space X took a down payment from Yusaku Maezawa to take him around the Moon by end of 2023. Elon's exact words about the down payment: “It’s a non-trivial amount. It has a material impact on the BFR program. It makes a difference.”.
https://spacenews.com/spacex-s... [spacenews.com]
I encourage you to research yourself how Space X delivered on this Elon announcement. It was similar as this announcement of flights to Mars, except back then he actually got some billionaire to plunk down a sizable deposit on Elon's (or Space X's) aspirations, not so much this time (or did I miss someone pre-paying for a trip to Mars by 2028?).
Anyway why are we talking about Tesla?
We are talking Elon's aspirations which include both Tesla and Space X (and Boring Company, Neuralink, and his other ventures). Elon under-delivers and uses fine print (sometimes added after the fact) to excuse it. Not just FSD. I bought a P85D in 2015 when Elon advertised it as a 700hp car. Tesla side said "691hp motor power". Took a couple of years and a lawsuit to get Tesla to admit that there was a fuse in the battery which prevented it from delivering even 500hp, the actual best case number P85D could produce was 463hp when all the planets aligned just right. Elon's official response was he didn't lie, the motors were technically capable of 691hp, just not in the car he sold them in. My car would have required a 50% power boost to reach the number Elon and Tesla advertised. Similarly for another Model S I got in 2016, which was supposed to be FSD capable, well, officially it's mostly capable - the seats are FSD ready, floor mats too, windshield, etc. Except that car will never drive itself and make its owner money driving people for the Tesla Ridesharing Network Elon advertised in 2016, but people like you will say "well, he got close, 90% of those cars' components are FSD capable". LOL
Elon used to talk big but had great achievements to come with the talk. Tesla was actually one of them, despite the less than 100% delivery. Unfortunately last few years he's mostly talk and no results (great under city tunnels autonomously carrying people and their cars, FSD, humanoid robots, ground-to-ground rocket trips from L.A. to London in less than an hour, etc ). He is also saying anything he can to get in the news cycle. When is the cage fight with Zuck happening exactly?
Re: (Score:3)
He said Falcon 9 would be reusable, and it is.
He said the Falcon 9 would be fully reusable, and it's not. He said that in 2005 they'd be relaunching in 2010. Instead, as with everything Elon says, it is a partially reusable (first stage only) vehicle that didn't get partially reused until 2018.
His companies deliver amazing achievements. But his predictions are always a combination of false, late, or both. The Falcon is an excellent example of something identical to his FSD predictions. He delivered FSD many years late, and in the end it isn't "fully se
Re: Yawn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another Elon prediction to get some media attention. Any Elon timeline past end of the day is a pipe dream.
We've successfully landed multipler rovers on Mars.
If the plan is to send a starship and see if it can land - that sounds like it's a realistic goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk predicted Starship taking 12 people around the Moon in 2023. That was a climb-down after missing his first "humans around the Moon" prediction of 2018.
He said humans would be on Mars by 2024 too.
My favourite recent one was when he claimed that the Cybertruck could be used as a boat, able to cross small seas. When it finally released the manual said not to take it in the carwash because that could destroy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds implausible.
Let's see... here's the manual
https://www.tesla.com/ownersma... [tesla.com]
OK, what it says is you should use a touchless car wash, and you must put it in car wash mode before going through.
I'm still waiting for his last promise. (Score:2)
The eggs will still be in one basket (Score:5, Insightful)
"Being multiplanetary will vastly increase the probable lifespan of consciousness, as we will no longer have all our eggs, literally and metabolically, on one planet."
The above quote will only become true when not only are people living on Mars, but those people are 100% self-sufficient and can survive indefinitely and reproduce there without any assistance from Earth. Otherwise, the eggs are effectively still in one basket -- if Earth dies, any surviving humans on Mars also die, just a few months/years later.
I'd estimate the time frame for Martian self-sufficiency to be somewhere between 100 years from now and never. Replicating enough of Earth's biology, ecology, and industry on Mars will be much harder than simply landing some humans and equipment there.
Which is not to say they shouldn't try, but as usual with Musk, his mouth is writing checks that his technology can't cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Replicating enough of Earth's biology, ecology, and industry on Mars will be much harder than simply landing some humans and equipment there.
There's some scientists that claim terraforming Venus is a lot easier than Mars.
So yeah, we're still a long way away from being a multi-planet species. That said, we've also never in human history be closer.
Re: The eggs will still be in one basket (Score:2)
Re: The eggs will still be in one basket (Score:5, Funny)
He's giving us the means to move significant cargo to Mars, everybody on earth should take advantage of that.
This reminds me of when my wife wanted us to build a shed so that we could move a bunch of junk out of our basement. So we did and our basement was clean for less than a year. Now we have just as much junk in there as we did before. If we give her Mars, she can have it full in maybe 5 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Musk is one hundred percent correct on this, it should be our number one priority as a species.
I don't know about that -- I'd say keeping Earth habitable ought to be our number one priority. If the goal is to preserve humanity, preserving humanity's home seems like a better bet than trying to terraform a new one from scratch. Not that we couldn't do both, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure we'll have a Mars colony within one millionth of Earth's age.
You mean Leon Musk ... (Score:3)
Elon Musk: Starships Launch for Mars in 2026. Crewed Flights Possible By 2028
Unfortunately, Trump Mistakenly Calls Elon Musk by Wrong Name at Rally [thedailybeast.com] Saturday night, so under the rules of MAGA, Elon has to change his name to Leon ... :-)
“But, ehh Boeing had a little hard time, so they are going to save — Leon is going to send them a rocket,” Trump added, referring to a plan from Musk’s SpaceX to rescue the two Boeing astronauts who are stranded aboard the International Space Station ...
Re: (Score:2)
Err.. there is no plan by Leon Musk, or even Elon Musk, to send a rescue rocket to the ISS. There's no indication he was even part of the talks.
The plan is for the scheduled, NASA funded, crew 9 mission to bring them back.
Metabolically? (Score:2)
Did he really say that, or is it a typo? Not sure what eggs being in a basket has to do with metabolism. Now metaphor, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
It's right there in his Tweet: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/... [x.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's right there in his Tweet: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/... [x.com]
He's definitely been drinking the covfefe.
literally and metaphorically (Score:2)
He probably started to write "literally and metaphorically", then tried some late-breaking wordplay
He fumbled it. In this context, "metabolically" means the same as "literally".
He probably writes his own tweets, like 'Kofefe' Trump
Goalposts (Score:2)
Alwats moving the goalposts, tahts Musk for you.
We were supposed to be on Mars before now.
Besides, Musk is just a faker, he'll just not do anything like this, complain that it's all somehow the fault of social media and move the goalposts agian. He is a genius at convincing people to give him money, nothing more.
Before or after FSD ships? (Score:2)
I mean at this point does anyone take anything Elon Musk says his companies will do seriously? He's missed literally every target he's ever set.
Sure he gets there eventually. I look forward to flying to Mars in 2037.
Re: Before or after FSD ships? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Sure he gets there eventually.
I predict SpaceX will *never* do better than crash land on Mars, unless they give up on a propulsive landing (and any chance of returning home), or perhaps switch to a small light lander rather than attempting to land the whole Starship.
Let's face it, Mars doesn't have nice flat concrete landing pads, or towers with catching arms ... Why does SpaceX need those on earth (with our nice thick atmosphere to slow landing rockets down), but think it can land on Mars' uneven surf
Crazy! (Score:2)
That would be just as stupid as thinking you could beat all the huge established automakers to ... oh wait.
Ah ha ha ha ha (Score:2)
Tesla Taxis (Score:2)
Gwynne Shotwell (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Radiation (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk is a buffoon, but this argument is ridiculous. The levels of radiation are well understood and they are perfectly survivable with mild precautions. The same is true for other well-known surface hazards such as the near-vacuum atmosphere, etc. Believe it or not, astronauts going to Mars will wear space suits and live in pressurized, climate-controlled environments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just not how space colonization works. There's also no reason whatsoever for self-sustainability to be mutually exclusive with living in a protected habitat. Your argument makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice and all but this plan calls for a "self-sustaining city in about 20 years". The whole needing to wear space suits because we're in a near-vacuum atmosphere doesn't sound very self-sustainable.
Like most else of what Musk does, I think the timeline here is wildly optimistic (at best) but the above is just intellectually lazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Does he understand that radiation encountered en route and on the surface of Mars will likely kill the astronauts?
While "likely kill" is nonsense I'm sure all starships will come equipped with electrostatic shielding.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Elon Musk has done more for the planet and humanity than you could do in a thousand lifetimes. A little gratitude and humility would become you.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you're going on about... Don't get me wrong, I personally think the cybertrucks are ugly and don't understand why someone would get them, but, they are selling faster than they can make them and are quite popular.
SpaceX has an insane track record, is making money hands over fist and Starlink is providing massive amounts of funding and is a game changer overall. I highly doubt Elon would give up control by going public.
Lots of reasons to hate on the man personally, but, don't be lazy and lie, e
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He saw Musk and his mind immediately jumped to "Cybertruck". Yeah, it's subjectively an eyesore and not very good at doing typical truck things, but it's nowhere close to being Musk's biggest folly - that'd be Twitter. Which also ironically is where Musk is trying
his damndest to flush all positive perception of his various brands straight down the toilet.
At this point I'm kind of embarrassed to say I've even test driven a Tesla. It's very hard to get excited about anything associated with Musk these days
Re:More pump and dump? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meh, regardless of how people feel about Musk or anyone "controversial" in general, the way I look at it is:
Most people in life that are major figures (historical or current) have varying levels of negative character attributes or negative things they do in their lives. Name any major historical figures and you'll find that regardless of the positives they had, they all had negative things (many times extremely negative things) that they did or were associated with them as well.
The bad things don't erase the good things (and likewise), you just take the good things and don't use/ignore the "bad" things. If it's a trade-off (example, giving money to someone who will use that to do bad things), then evaluate if you're morally OK with that and proceed accordingly.
My 2c.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More pump and dump? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Musk would just shut the fuck up for a while he really would be making the world a better place.
Sadly, he has such a bad case of "LOOK AT MEEEEE syndrome" that it's impossible to separate the Tony-Stark-wannabee from the loud insufferable prick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: More pump and dump? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Och, another Russia Russia Russia dimwit.
I see you seem to be allergic to the news.
Tell us some more about how you don't know shit about shit but post anyway
You need better data (Score:2)
There's also this:
Tesla can’t deliver enough Cybertrucks to meet demand. And the pickup is close to catching the market-leading Ford F-150 Lightning.
Despite $100,000 Price Tag, Tesla Cybertruck Gains Traction--For Now [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All your Elon Musk predictions have failed, which makes you super useful for the rest of us that want to know what will happen. We just wait for you to make some rant and then we copy and paste what you wrote into chatgpt and ask it to spit out the inverse.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla's only real competition is from BYD, but BYD is banned from the USA and likely will be banned from the EU too.
Hyundai's EVs aren't too shabby. Chevy is also supposed to be bringing the Bolt back, which serves a market segment Tesla is presently completely ignoring. Yeah, I'm also slightly biased in favor of the Bolt because we've got two of them in my household and they're great cars.
Tesla certainly has a heck of a first mover advantage, and their Supercharger network is still a major selling point, but Tesla's limited selection of models ends up meaning that they don't necessarily offer an EV for everyone. Far
Re: By all means best all your money in Tesla stoc (Score:2)
Re: More pump and dump? (Score:2)
For those who haven't figured it out the cybertruck was a pump and dumb scam. Trucks are incredibly profitable and if Tesla had been able to create a competitive electric truck it would have turned the fortunes of the company around completely.
https://cleantechnica.com/2024... [cleantechnica.com]
Musk knew that he didn't have the tech to compete with a large diesel truck but that didn't stop him from lying. The result is a $100,000 boondoggle that's going to be clogging up junk yards in 10 years.
What the hell are you even babbling about?
But that's not the point, the point was he was supposed to get his pay package until that lawsuit through a monkey wrench in it. The pay package would have been in stock which you would have dumped at the then boosted price.
He's probably going to get it anyways. The deal he made was either the stock value increases ten fold in five years and he gets 1% of the outstanding shares, or he gets nothing. No paycheck, nada. People like you were going around saying this was impossible, would never happen, etc. And then it happened. Increase the share price 1000% in exchange for 1% of the equity seems like a fair deal to me if I was an investor. This is probably why the shareholders overwhelmingly voted in favor of it.
The cybertruck turned out to be a bust as musk no doubt already knew but that lawsuit completely blew up the timing where he was planning to dump stock.
Except it wasn't a bust, it's doing well for them.
I don't think Tesla looking recover. They make $8,000 per car with a 7500 government subsidy that's going to go away soon. A $500 profit margin isn't enough to sustain a car company.
Your math is even more broken than your head: Tesla doesn't receive any of that subsidy. They never did. You're the same moron who keeps claiming that Tesla is a compliance car, demonstrating that you have no idea what any of this shit even means.
So it looks like he's going to pump his space company in preparation for their IPO instead.
SpaceX isn't going to IPO any time soon, if ever. Maybe after there are people on Mars, but certainly not before. The whole reason an IPO is unwanted is because wall street would put a ton of pressure on it to abandon its mission.
There could be a Starlink IPO before then, but only if some kind of big cash infusion was needed, but SpaceX is already very profitable and likely won't need anymore.
If this was anyone else the SEC wouldn't allow it but rules don't apply to people with that much money and power. If I tried something similar with a smaller company my ass would be locked up for 10 years after a bunch of investors lost money
No they'd just do that because you haven't the slightest idea how to change a tire, let alone run a lemonade stand. The only way you'd get investor money is if you somehow fooled them into thinking you had anything resembling a business model, which is fraud, and that lands you in jail. Though I don't think you're capable of even making it that far.
Re: (Score:2)
Then there's no problem with the rest of the Solar system, as by all appearances it's dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Unpopular but rational opinion: Human life is a threat to all other life.
If the Martians have a problem, they can file a formal protest.
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX acknowledges all the peoples of this Martian planet, from Utopia Planitia to the Great Stone Face, and their historic presence across all lands drained by the Martian Canals.
But we ain't giving it back, losers.
Careful, your nihilism is showing (Score:2)
New hotness: less oversimplification.
Re:He also liked a post on X (Score:5, Interesting)
It is difficult to be compassionate with someone who has so much power to cause harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He also liked a post on X (Score:5, Informative)
Money is power.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: He also liked a post on X (Score:4, Interesting)
If we saw the sitting government of any other country repeatedly attacking the opposition candidate with the court system you would just assume their government is corrupt.
Maybe you would. Others of us would look at the allegations, and supporting evidence. And then we would exercise some critical think - are the allegations supported by the given evidence? Is the given evidence credible? What other facts surround the allegations, such as unanimous grand jury indictments, unanimous trial jury convictions, etc.
Apparently you aren't interested in supporting evidence, facts, or critical thinking.
Re:He also liked a post on X (Score:4, Interesting)
To be fair, there's at least a few good things you can say about Hitler. Such as, he's dead. I'll let you know if I think of anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He also liked a post on X (Score:5, Informative)
I am not disputing the idea that Hitler also implemented some good policies, but some listed behind that link are questionable at best and some are outright wrong.
- The Autobahn was a project already started during the Weimar Republic and the first public motorway under that project was completed before the Nazi takeover.
- "He saved Germany from unemployment and financial ruin" - the Nazis implemented massive deficit spending and were not far from a complete economical collapse by the time they attacked Poland. The switch to a war economy and extensive plunder of the conquered nations kept the war going but there was no financial miracle.
- Unemployment numbers came crashing down, but this was again not because of a recovering economy. Women and Jews were dismissed from work in large numbes and no longer counted as unemployed, because women belong in the home (so much for the women's rights claims). Unemployed Jews were not just counted in the statistics anymore. Unemployed men were conscripted (not hired) into the National Labour Service and put to work on what was essentially forced labour - this was the secret of the accelerated Autobahm build speed. More were conscripted into the military. But this was not a case of the civilian economy recovering and being able to hire people again.
- "He Promoted of architecture,music and the arts" - only the right kind of arts. Surely you have heard of the multitude of filmmakers and other artists that fled Germany in fear of being arrested due to not producing the right kind of art? Very similar to the USSR in this regard.
- "Hitler had sparing the 338,000 British and French troops at Dunkirk in 1940". This is a myth, the Germans stopped to let infantry catch up to the tanks and then when they attacked towards Dunkirk, they were stopped by the French army, who had positioned themselves around the town exactly to buy time for an evacuation.
- "Reunited all German speaking langues into Großdeutsches Reich" - that's a very flattering way of saying they started WW2, remember the official casus belli for attacking Poland in 1939 was to regain Danzig.
There are also claims like Nazi Germany had "nuclear weapons" (really?), "first helicopters" (nope, these were earlier), "first tv programs" (nope, both in the US and UK they had tv broadcasts before Nazi Germany existed), "first rifles" (ok now he is just trolling)...
There is also a separate post claiming "He probably also lowered the rates of mental and physical disability in the country for quite some time after the war." .. unless this is some veiled celebration of eugenics, I don't know what reality that guy lives in. Mental and physical disabilities skyrocket during a war.
Re: (Score:3)
On the "first rifles" thing. Assuming that it was something of a typo, the Germans did deploy the first sub-machine guns/assault rifle analogs. A specific kind of rifle, not rifles themselves.
First law protecting animals - Hard to do, New York did that back in 1828. Before that, 1641, Massachusetts.
Wait, maybe they're talking about Germany? Well, Hitler and the Nazis did pass a comprehensive animal welfare law in 1933, but first?
1838, Kingdom of Saxony enacts the first law against animal cruelty in Germ
Re: (Score:2)
On the "first rifles" thing. Assuming that it was something of a typo, the Germans did deploy the first sub-machine guns/assault rifle analogs. A specific kind of rifle, not rifles themselves.
Assault rifle, yes. Submachinegun, not so much--largely German in origin, but (depending on what, specifically, you want to call a submachinegun) somewhere between the 1890s and WW1, not post-1933.
Re: (Score:3)
No amount of "good" things justifies the absolute evil that these people did. And what horrible acts were performed in order to get those "good" outcomes?
When your government is capable of making the amoral decision to exterminate people for having different genetic traits or religious / moral beliefs, what guarantee do you have that any "good" outcome will be the result of good and moral action? None, because the government has already proven that they aren't interested in being "good" or "moral" - they
Re: (Score:2)
I'd actually argue our Apollo program was a greater advance of technology & science and *we didn't need to cook people in ovens to get there*.
That's a particularly bad example [wikipedia.org] to use to make your point.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, there's at least a few good things you can say about Hitler. Such as, he's dead. I'll let you know if I think of anything else.
I understand his paintings made good kindling.
Re: (Score:2)
He did co-develop what became the Volkswagen Beetle with Ferdinand Porsche, so not everything he did was evil.
Sure, MOST of what he did was evil, but like any fascist dictator he did occasionally come up with a good idea.
Re:He also liked a post on X (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair, there's at least a few good things you can say about Hitler. Such as, he's dead. I'll let you know if I think of anything else.
The guy also KILLED HITLER, so that's another feather in his cap.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if anyone in all of the land of Slashdot believes him on these dates. We have some big Musk fans here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: He also liked a post on X (Score:2)
Re: He also liked a post on X (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't bet my money on the specific dates, but Musk has pretty good track record on delivering things that others considered impossible, quite often few years late, but also only a few years late. I didn't believe his predictions about (fully automatic) self driving cars, but for the unmanned Mars mission, I don't see any reason why he couldn't do it, but wouldn't be shocked if it is delayed by 2 years.
At first I thought that manned Mars mission date is way too optimistic, but then I noticed that he is
Re: (Score:2)