Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mars Moon Space

Elon Musk: 'We're Going Straight to Mars. The Moon is a Distraction.' (arstechnica.com) 266

Posted by EditorDavid from the Mars-needs-Elon dept.
"We're going straight to Mars. The Moon is a distraction," Elon Musk posted Thursday on X.com.

Ars Technica's senior space editor points out that "These are definitive statements that directly contradict NASA's plans to send a series of human missions to the lunar south pole later this decade and establish a sustainable base of operations there with the Artemis Program." And "It would be one thing if Musk was just expressing his opinion as a private citizen..." but Musk "has assumed an important advisory role for the incoming administration. He was also partly responsible for the expected nomination of private astronaut [and former SpaceX flight commander] Jared Isaacman to become the next administrator of NASA. Although Musk is not directing US space policy, he certainly has a meaningful say in what happens." So what does this mean for Artemis? The fate of Artemis is an important question not just for NASA but for the US commercial space industry, the European Space Agency, and other international partners who have aligned with the return of humans to the Moon. With Artemis, the United States is in competition with China to establish a meaningful presence on the surface of the Moon. Based upon conversations with people involved in developing space policy for the Trump administration, I can make some educated guesses about how to interpret Musk's comments. None of these people, for example, would disagree with Musk's assertion that "the Artemis architecture is extremely inefficient" and that some changes are warranted.

With that said, the Artemis Program is probably not going away. After all, it was the first Trump administration that created the program about five years ago. However, it may be less well-remembered that the first Trump White House pushed for more significant changes, including a "major course correction" at NASA... To a large extent, NASA resisted this change during the remainder of the Trump administration, keeping its core group of major contractors, such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin, in place. It had help from key US Senators, including Richard Shelby, the now-retired Republican from Alabama. But this time, the push for change is likely to be more concerted, especially with key elements of NASA's architecture, including the Space Launch System rocket, being bypassed by privately developed rockets such as SpaceX's Starship vehicle and Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket.

In all likelihood, NASA will adopt a new "Artemis" plan that involves initiatives to both the Moon and Mars. When Musk said "we're going straight to Mars," he may have meant that this will be the thrust of SpaceX, with support from NASA. That does not preclude a separate initiative, possibly led by Blue Origin with help from NASA, to develop lunar return plans.
One month ago in a post on X.com, incoming NASA administrator Isaacman described himself as "passionate about America leading the most incredible adventure in human history..."

And he also added that Americans "will walk on the Moon and Mars and in doing so, we will make life better here on Earth."

Elon Musk: 'We're Going Straight to Mars. The Moon is a Distraction.' More | Reply

Elon Musk: 'We're Going Straight to Mars. The Moon is a Distraction.'

Comments Filter:

  • Good. (Score:5, Funny)

    by newcastlejon ( 1483695 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @12:38PM (#65063933)
    Off you go then.

    • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @12:42PM (#65063941)
      Well the fact is the technical innovations by SpaceX have likely impacted what is the best course for the government to follow, even though it was not really a government choice. Like when powered flight was first accomplished and as it became increasingly capable, mostly due to innovation in private industry, some in the Army would have preferred to brush it aside and build better battleships. But the evolution of technology took that away from them as a good course of action. Seriously reconsidering Artemis is in order.

    • Re:Good. [riddence to stinky rubbish] (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shanen ( 462549 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @12:48PM (#65063955) Homepage Journal

      Mod parent Funny.

      I wish I had a funny follow up joke, but all I have is the complaint about listening to (and platforming?) every stupid thing any sufficiently rich fool says.

      I'll give him credit for winning a couple of lotteries. But someone had to win. Everyone else had to lose--and keep losing if the winners have their way.

      He's also lost some lotteries, but so far he's managed to pick more winners than losers.

      The problem is projecting from the lotteries to thinking he's some kind of moral authority. He is not. In moral terms, he's one of the vilest money grubbers on the planet. But if you win (or steal) enough money the moral (and legal) questions are supposed to become irrelevant?

      I didn't name the name so I have plausible deniability of the ad hominem attack. But you know who I'm talking about from the context, don't you?

      • Youre correct about winning the lottery .. the flip side of that is the common trait of all of the two powerful people being discussed , but applicable to pretty much every body at the top of the food chain is that they are gamblers. Academic brains loses to gamblers nearly always over time .. so that is how "it" works . Academics "know" what won't work. There are bets they wouldn't make, for logical reasons. Big dumb gamblers don't use logic. That gives them an edge in a non linear world.

        • Re: Good. [riddence to stinky rubbish] (Score:5, Informative)

          by dfghjk ( 711126 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @03:22PM (#65064445)

          "...but applicable to pretty much every body at the top of the food chain is that they are gamblers."

          And they are also sociopaths. And you don't hear about the sociopath losers, only the sociopath winners.

          The trait most needed to be successful in this context is to be the most vile cretin on the planet. And you need luck and timing too.

    • Re:Good. (Score:5, Funny)

      by ickleberry ( 864871 ) <web@pineapple.vg> on Sunday January 05, 2025 @12:54PM (#65063971) Homepage
      He'll probably blow himself on the launch pad

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 )

      According to Mr Musk's statements on numerous previous occasions, we first set foot on Mars last year (2024) with two crewed and two uncrewed Starships.

      I guess the media didn't bother reporting that because Elon wouldn't bullshite us would he?

      Oops, I'm running late... I have to catch the hyperloop to LA and pick up my brand new Tesla Roadster.

      Ah, Elon, integrity and honesty personified and, now that he's the defacto deputy President of the USA, I see great things ahead for that nation.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by quonset ( 4839537 )

        It's a good thing you said that on here because had you tried that on Twitter, your comment would have been buried. Twitter is now "deboosting" any critical comment about the government [bsky.app], Trump, or Musk. Even better, you get a social credit score, similar to what China does to its people, which rates/ranks your comments.

        Nice to know there is still one place we have free speech.

      • According to Mr Musk's statements on numerous previous occasions, we first set foot on Mars last year (2024) with two crewed and two uncrewed Starships.

        I guess the media didn't bother reporting that because Elon wouldn't bullshite us would he?

        Oops, I'm running late... I have to catch the hyperloop to LA and pick up my brand new Tesla Roadster.

        Ah, Elon, integrity and honesty personified and, now that he's the defacto deputy President of the USA, I see great things ahead for that nation.

        Yah, Musk has been promising self driving cars since 2014, he's given all kinds of time frames ranging from 'later this year' to two or three years, and he's been all over the place about what exaclty self driving actually means. His latest 2024 prediction is full autonomous unsupervised driving in Texas and California by next year. I'm not holding my breath.

      • Still waiting on my $30k bulletproof and seaworthy cybertruck.

  • What? Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @12:40PM (#65063939) Journal

    "Although Musk is not directing US space policy, he certainly has a meaningful say in what happens."

    Why does this unelected billionaire fucktard have ANY say in what happens with the US space policy or direction?

    • Re:What? Why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @12:52PM (#65063963)

      Because he spent a shit ton of money to have his rubber stamp "president" elected?

    • Ask your neighbors who voted for Trump.

    • Because he and Ramaswamy might be able to convince some powerful people to cut NASA's budget.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Because he owns the private company that managed to revolutionize access to space. All incumbents are between ten and a hundred times more expensive per launched weight than they are. Their price point enables usage of space that was simply impossible due to realities of scale and cost. So if you want to do heavy orbital lifting, which is a necessity for getting to Moon and Mars in any significant way you have to go through SpaceX.

      So if you want to conquer space, you can't just give your indigenous transgen

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by haruchai ( 17472 )

        Those fucktards in Congress opened the door by not funding NASA & instead allowing private companies to bilk the government for decades.

        • Re:What? Why? (Score:5, Informative)

          by gtall ( 79522 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @02:02PM (#65064163)

          It wasn't just Congress, the gravy train really only got rolling under Reagan who decide to "off-board" government functions to the Beltway Bandits. That and he allowed those contemptible amoral creatures, the Christian Conservatives, to belly up to the bar and there's now no getting rid of those perverts.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          I recommend listening to the likes of ArianeSpace bosses to cure you of those delusions of grandeur. It's not about NASA, or funding, or US government. It's about the fact that there was a consensus in orbital lift and aerospace industry that reusable rockets are impossible to make. And I think it was in fact ArianeSpace boss in an interview back in 2010s where he was asked "but what if Musk and SpaceX are right and reusable rockets can be made to work", he dismissively stated something among the lines of "

      • 1. NASA did the heavy lifting - Agreed and good work
        2. Government, politicians, bureaucrats and long-time space contractors (LMT, Boeing, GD, etc.) slowly build out a multi-decade huge industry with little competition - OK, but vulnerable to competition
        3. Private company uses NASA's work, physics, research and build their own at a much lower cost - OK and acceptable to use earlier research to build your own product in the USA
        4. Private company's product is a fraction of the cost of the NASA + old governmen

        • Adding that SpaceX and the private companies are more likely to recruit the best new engineer graduates when compared to NASA which is also a long-term problem for NASA

          https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.... [aiaa.org]
          Advice for NASA on solving its workforce shortage By Theresa Foley|October 2023

          - Recruiting and hiring skilled engineering workers has become a mission-critical challenge for NASA, an agency of 18,000 employees.
          - attributed the project’s one-year delay and cost increases partly to workforce shortages.
          - N

    • I guess you have no clue how politics in the US works (or how it works in many other countries).
    • Maybe because he actually has something meaningful to contribute to that? Unlike the many other things he is asked to weigh in on... or that he decides to meddle in. Such as his recent interest in European politics.
      Of course there's a massive conflict of interest if he actually does get involved in setting policy.

    • > Why does this unelected billionaire fucktard have ANY say in what happens with the US space policy or direction?

      Because he has more money than sense, and has found a kindred spirit in a yellow-haired clown.

  • Aim big (Score:5, Informative)

    by kencurry ( 471519 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @12:43PM (#65063943)
    This was essence of Kennedy's speech in the early 60's (where he said "we choose to go to the moon . . .) for you youngsters. ". . . Not because it is easy, but because it is hard."
    • Being old enough to have heard the speech, I have to point out that the whole go to the moon thing was a publicity stunt. The USSR had beaten the US in getting a man into orbit. The US had lost a lot of credibility about its technical superiority. So, they decided to do something spectacular that was probably not very useful and that they believed the USSR lacked the ability and resources to do. It is notable that the USSR did even try to compete and that once the initial missions were done, we have nev

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by thomst ( 1640045 )

        Retired Chemist opined:

        It is notable that the USSR did even try to compete and that once the initial missions were done, we have never gone back. Simply there is no reason to go there.

        We never went back to Luna because Nixon hated the manned space program. It was strongly associated with JFK (whom Nixon also hated), and Nixon's telephone call to the Eagle's crew while the world watched the original Moonwalk on live TV didn't change the public perception that the technological triumph of the 20th century was Kennedy's accomplishment, not his.

        Since the manned space program was important to the defense industry's bottom line (and their contributions to Republican lawm

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 )
      It's also why he banged a lot of hookers, not to mention Marilyn Munroe.

    • This was essence of Kennedy's speech in the early 60's (where he said "we choose to go to the moon . . .) for you youngsters. ". . . Not because it is easy, but because it is hard."

      Yes, this is very similar, but since this is Musk saying it, we must now run around in small circles with our hair on fire and act like it's the worst thing ever. Because reasons.

  • It doesn't seem like it need to be an either/or choice. Get on the moon, in a cave preferably, I think. Dig out the natural resources. The problem Musk has, it occurs to me, is that the rocket fuel for the StarShip is more easily obtained on Mars, and not the moon.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      So Elmo has to pack a shovel. I say we give a royal send off, ticker tape parade, various pols promoting him, etc.

  • An outpost on the moon, outside the Earth's gravity well, could be quite useful staging and resupplying a Mars mission.

    If the end game is human colonization, it makes great good sense... so maybe, they won't go that way at all.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by r1348 ( 2567295 )

      An outpost on the Moon is obviously not outside Earth's gravity well, the Moon orbits us for a reason.

    • An outpost on the moon, outside the Earth's gravity well, could be quite useful staging and resupplying a Mars mission.

      Not as useful as you might think. The Moon has its own gravity-well, albeit weaker than Earth's, but you still need to exert energy to enter and leave it safely.

      An outpost would make sense if you could build the rockets for a Mars mission there. As in, build them out of the Moon regolith somehow. You still need energy, of course, but later on you'd need far less of it to launch the finished rocket from the Moon's surface than from the Earth's.

      Better to launch from Earth, hang out as needed in Earth orbit or

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Megane ( 129182 )

        Not as useful as you might think. The Moon has its own gravity-well, albeit weaker than Earth's, but you still need to exert energy to enter and leave it safely.

        And also no atmosphere to help you land. Safely, that is. We saw that demonstrated the past few years with all the moon probes that crash landed and/or fell over when they landed. So that's even more dV that has to be expended. Just because the Moon has less of a gravity well than Earth doesn't mean you can get on and off of it for free.

        The only use the Moon has in getting to Mars is if you have factories there that can produce stuff as cheaply as on Earth. Only then can the slightly lower difficulty of ge

  • I can hardly wait to learn who he plans to take with him.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by haruchai ( 17472 )

      HE is not going, not ever, as least not while alive but he will take the credit for enabling " the long-term survival of consciousness"

    • H1-B's have to stay with their employer for three years anyway.

      I haven't seen explicit prohibitions on offworld indentured servitude.

  • I can certainly see where he'd be worried if the moon has an extradition treaty with the earth.

    But wouldn't he be just as happy in an ice cave in Antarctica? Oh, wait. "It's melting."

    "Surrender, Dorothy!"

  • Poisoned and blind on arrival (Score:5, Insightful)

    by buchner.johannes ( 1139593 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @12:59PM (#65063993) Homepage Journal

    So what is the plan to avoid astronauts going blind and dying of radiation poisoning?

    Currently, 2/3 ISS astronauts develop eye problems after only a few months in space, due to pressure changes in the body. A 18 month journey will leave them blind on arrival. https://www.sciencealert.com/w... [sciencealert.com]

    The current solution to radiation poisoning is either lots of lead (expensive to accelerate and decelerate) or going there fast (current NASA strategy).

    Living inside lava tubes below the moon's surface is, in comparison, feasible and emergencies can be dealt with -- but admittedly it is not as sexy as a dome under a clear Martian sky (with radiation from above and toxic soil below).

  • Musk is right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 )
    There are traffic jams on the moon nowadays. Every country with any ambition at all has a probe or rover up there and even fairly small companies have gotten close to landing stuff up there. NASA people were walking around up there over 50 years ago.

    On this issue, Musk is right, and NASA is wrong. NASA is awesome at scientific probes, but when it comes to humans in space, they’ve completely lost their spirit. And, for the people who say that humans shouldn’t be in space or that it’s to
  • Thus, a harsh mistress is a distraction.

  • ... does not translate to good decision making skills.

    Seeing the best launch pad we have for interplanetary missions as a "distraction" is on the level of deciding that carbon fibre which is well past its use by date is a great material for deep sea diving vessels. It may seem like a good idea in the very short term, but it will end up being exceedling costly, and lethal, in the long run.

    Bases on the Moon are not a colonization effort. That's not the point of having them. The Moon is not in itself very inte

    • Like being outside of the Earth gravity well.

      Please stop saying this - it is incorrect.
      Luna (the moon) orbits Earth, thus it is in Earth's gravitational sphere of influence. The moon creates it's own gravitational sphere of influence if you are close enough and moving slow enough, but the moon itself is still inside Earth's gravitational influence, and anything on the moon would also still be in Earth's gravitational influence. This is how the Apollo "free return trajectory" worked - they intentionally put the spacecraft on a ballistic trajectory th

      • The Sun is in Earth's gravitational sphere of influence. That doesn't mean anything in itself.

        The point is not requiring anywhere near the escape velocity which is required to escape Earth, and by the time it's enough to escape the Moon, it's enough to move away from Earth as well from there.

  • Current, we have every reason to believe we can't survive on either the Moon or Mars without constant resupply from Earth... and a willingness to sacrifice anyone who doesn't get returned to Earth shortly after arrival.

    The only reason to have a manned presence off Earth right now is military, and that means the Moon. And it'll bring some science benefits so why the hell not?

    Other than that, if we're actually serious about living somewhere other than Earth, we need to be doing a lot of medical research tha

    • Military is actually not the best or inky reason to gave a manned presence on the moon, science is, because of the reasons you mention. Military still has no value on the moon, unless we'll have to fight of aliens from another solarsystem.

      • The Moon is far away, but you can chuck stuff off it fairly easily and cause a lot of issues. Gravity might be light compared to Earth, but it's enough to be a solid foundation for whatever else you want to put up there.

        Whoever controls the lunar surface has a LOT of military power over Earth's access to space in general. Whether it makes sense or not - and really, all military spending is a waste except that you have to because the other guy is wasting money too - the Moon is a military issue that can't

  • It's a military base. As Heinlein pointed out, once you have launch capability from the moon you no longer need any nukes at all. And your hits will no longer be radioactive.

    Elon may not see value in the moon, but every military on earth does.

    • It's a military base.

      I doubt that will happen. It's against the Moon Agreement, [nti.org] a supplement to the United Nations Outer Space Treaty. It passed in 1979 and went into effect in 1984. It outlaws military bases on the Moon.

      As Heinlein pointed out, once you have launch capability from the moon you no longer need any nukes at all. And your hits will no longer be radioactive.

      But is it even practical to do that, let alone allowed? Heinlein described it in a book. That doesn't necessariy make it a compelling solution to anything.

      Elon may not see value in the moon, but every military on earth does.

      I doubt any military on earth would see value in such a remote installation that is mind-bogglingly expensive to set up and maintain, and takes three days to

    • think the dinosaurs worked out the flaw in that plan 65 million years ago

  • Lousy nightlife (Score:5, Funny)

    by spaceyhackerlady ( 462530 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @01:36PM (#65064085)

    The nightlife on the Moon is lousy anyway. There's no atmosphere.

    ...laura

  • Nonsense article (Score:3)

    by SuperDre ( 982372 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @01:40PM (#65064093) Homepage
    This is a nonsense article as he is talking about SpaceX plans, not NASA's plans. SpaceX could gave easily chosen to go to the moon first, but they did not, their mission is Mars. But he will still deliver his starship for NASA's artemis moon missions. I'm particularly interested in how he will accomplish the landing on the moon or mars with unknown terrain and floor. A small vehicle like the apollo vehicles aren't really a problem, but keeping a large metal tube upright on unknown grounds is another matter as we've seen failures with flat metal/concrete surfaces already.

  • I don't see the point of a permanent human base on Mars. It is an interesting place in many ways but the environment there is extremely hostile to life. I could understand a faster cadence of increasingly well-equipped robot explorers. Parking a dozen humans in a lava tunnel or some other buried structure there seems like little more than an ego-boosting accomplishment.

    • Send a boring machine to Mars, dig out minerals, set up industry. People will naturally make their living quarters better and better. It could be a realistic endeavour.

    • There's really no point to most human settlements other than as a stepping stone to another settlement. We should be colonizing other planets to preserve humanity. And we should be colonizing Mars because it's close and easy (compared to colonizing any other planet).

  • All his BS is to raise funds for this (Score:3, Insightful)

    by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @02:08PM (#65064185) Journal
    He wants to make tons of money to fund SpaceX and go to Mars. I hope this happens sooner rather than later to show people Mars isn't viable for long term survival. Speaking of which, I hope he's on one of the first trips to demonstrate that. We've evolved for 1g gravity and 24 hour days. Those issues alone will screw up human biology a ton. Then there is the fact there is no geomagnetic field around Mars, so no protection from solar wind. That means two things, dangerously irradiated on the surface, and no chance to rebuild an atmosphere (as much lower gravity and stripping of atmosphere by solar winds are the blockers). Pie in the sky dream, push high metal asteroids into orbit around Mars to form a moon big enough to create crust flexing on Mars to warm up the interior by friction. Maybe that would melt the interior enough to get a rotating core to generate a magnetic field. Wake me up in a million years when that's ready.
    • So, why can't we float a giant magnet in a synchronous orbit between the Sun and Mars? And/or... get solar sails going to block some direct radiation, but reflect IR to to the poles to heat Mars up?
      • Mars does have similar day/night cycles as earth. The gravity thing is interesting. I would love to see a basketball game played there! :-).
      • Because Physics.
        • I would like to have the time to work out what kind of a magnet that needs to be floated to deflect the radiation from the sun, but in my gut, I think it is doable. We can easily put a 500 Tesla magnet between Mars and the Sun, if we chose to.
          • Again....Because Physics.
            • You are probably correct... about physics. I enjoy the mind experiments.
              • About gravity though... I think that any kid who went to a carnival knows the graviton machine, that spins and all of a sudden "up" is horizontal. Building a thing like that on the moon or mars could make 1G for sleeping, and maybe for working too.
                • Again...physics, metallurgy , engineering, etc
                  Exactly where are you going to get the materials from ? The energy from, the oxygen from.
                  Where are the spare parts, the equipment to build things.

    • He wants to make tons of money to fund SpaceX and go to Mars. I hope this happens sooner rather than later to show people Mars isn't viable for long term survival.

      Oh Mars is viable, just not with our current tech.

      Day length is fine (people literally live with 24 hours darkness / light when you go far enough north). Gravity is a bigger question, though we don't really have the data, long term weightlessness would be really bad, but mars might be enough for the gravity to adapt.

      The real issue is that we need a fairly impressive industrial complex to keep even a few people alive up there and we need a ton of people to run an impressive industrial complex.

      You basically n

  • Just a reminder... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zendarva ( 8340223 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @02:12PM (#65064201)

    Elon sounds smart when he talks about subjects you don't know anything about. Elon sounds stupid when he talks about things you do know about.

    Extrapolate.

  • Think this through a minute. If Musk went away then it would be someone else close to Trump or the whims of Trump himself driving things - a far worse situation!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      Citation please.

      Musk is without a doubt one of the worst people on the planet. It is not possible for there to be a far worse situation.

      For years people have said that our saving grace is that Trump is an incompetent moron, that we would be much worse off if someone with the evil intent of Trump and the intelligence to actually do the intended damage were to gain power. Well, here is Musk, literally the same person as Trump but not as incompetent. Here is the "much worse".

  • I'm pretty sure he make this exact comment - with the exact same phrasing - about a decade ago.

  • Since when did /. start hating Elon? Every comment on this thread is hating on Elon in some way. What a bunch of cry babies
    • I have a few "grudges" about Elon, but he is leveraging re-useable, cheap rockets to make money providing internet service to the world, and making a bunch of $$ with it as well. Starship seems brilliant in my humble opinion. Yes, the twitter thing, and him sucking up to Trump kind of makes me sick.. but otherwise... go go go rocket man.

  • China (Score:3)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Sunday January 05, 2025 @04:58PM (#65064701)

    Ultimately, Musk doesn't get to make this call. If China establishes a base on the moon, the US will also be obligated to be on the moon. Musk's rockets will go where they're funded to go. I read this as: "I'm skipping the moon for my own narrow prerogatives." There are other prerogatives in the world.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is a game. Money is how we keep score. -- Ted Turner

Close