Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 618K
  • Politics 

Elon Musk’s Mission to Take Over NASA—and Mars​

The billionaire is in position to speed up plans for a voyage to the planet, with a potentially huge impact on SpaceX​


GIFT LINK 🎁 —> https://www.wsj.com/business/elon-m...7b?st=Kw8yUM&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink

“… It is at NASA, though, where Musk is making the biggest shift in an agency’s priorities to align them with his own—both financially and personally.

He is working to recast its programs, reallocate federal spending and install loyalists to aid his decadeslong goal of sending people to Mars.

He has also worked to win backing from Trump by telling the president that getting people to Mars would shine his legacy as a “president of firsts,” according to people briefed on the conversations.

The ambition could have a potentially huge impact on SpaceX, which has emerged as the dominant space technology and operations company globally and is already one of NASA’s biggest contractors. …”

——
By its timeline, NASA is on the verge of implementing the Artemis program to create a space station orbiting the Moon, supporting human access to the Moon from the orbiting station and eventually a platform for future Mars missions. China is our direct competitor.

Musk is stomping in, wanting to ditch a huge investment of planning and money on the cusp of implementation to rush his unproven tech to the forefront of skipping ahead to a manned Mars Mission. Because that is what his heart desires.

and what he is going to end up doing is setting back US space program at a time that we have real competition from China.
 
nycfan said:

Elon Musk’s Mission to Take Over NASA—and Mars​

The billionaire is in position to speed up plans for a voyage to the planet, with a potentially huge impact on SpaceX​


GIFT LINK 🎁 —> https://www.wsj.com/business/elon-m...7b?st=Kw8yUM&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink

“… It is at NASA, though, where Musk is making the biggest shift in an agency’s priorities to align them with his own—both financially and personally.

He is working to recast its programs, reallocate federal spending and install loyalists to aid his decadeslong goal of sending people to Mars.

He has also worked to win backing from Trump by telling the president that getting people to Mars would shine his legacy as a “president of firsts,” according to people briefed on the conversations.

The ambition could have a potentially huge impact on SpaceX, which has emerged as the dominant space technology and operations company globally and is already one of NASA’s biggest contractors. …”

——
By its timeline, NASA is on the verge of implementing the Artemis program to create a space station orbiting the Moon, supporting human access to the Moon from the orbiting station and eventually a platform for future Mars missions. China is our direct competitor.

Musk is stomping in, wanting to ditch a huge investment of planning and money on the cusp of implementation to rush his unproven tech to the forefront of skipping ahead to a manned Mars Mission. Because that is what his heart desires.

and what he is going to end up doing is setting back US space program at a time that we have real competition from China.
Click to expand...
Not everyone is sold on the Artemis mission, though.

“… Officials from Trump’s Office of Management and Budget have told people about discussions under way to move U.S. government dollars toward Mars initiatives and away from programs focused on the moon and science missions.

Killing or dramatically remaking the program would unravel years of development work, but some proponents say much of the hardware for Artemis, from the SLS rocket to ground infrastructure, is too expensive, slow to produce and behind schedule.

… Any changes to the Artemis program could also affect Blue Origin, the space company founded by Jeff Bezos, which has a contract under Artemis to develop a lander for a future moon mission. [In case you were wondering about Bezos cozying up to Trump]

… An overarching goal is to return NASA astronauts to the moon before Chinese astronauts, called taikonauts, arrive there, and some see Boeing’s SLS as the best option to do that.

“Starship? I want success out of it. But for us to beat the Chinese…it’s going to have to be SLS that does it,” Rep. Brian Babin (R., Texas) said in February. …”
 
nycfan said:
Not everyone is sold on the Artemis mission, though.

“… Officials from Trump’s Office of Management and Budget have told people about discussions under way to move U.S. government dollars toward Mars initiatives and away from programs focused on the moon and science missions.

Killing or dramatically remaking the program would unravel years of development work, but some proponents say much of the hardware for Artemis, from the SLS rocket to ground infrastructure, is too expensive, slow to produce and behind schedule.

… Any changes to the Artemis program could also affect Blue Origin, the space company founded by Jeff Bezos, which has a contract under Artemis to develop a lander for a future moon mission. [In case you were wondering about Bezos cozying up to Trump]

… An overarching goal is to return NASA astronauts to the moon before Chinese astronauts, called taikonauts, arrive there, and some see Boeing’s SLS as the best option to do that.

“Starship? I want success out of it. But for us to beat the Chinese…it’s going to have to be SLS that does it,” Rep. Brian Babin (R., Texas) said in February. …”
Click to expand...
I think we might have already beaten the Chinese to the Moon by a few months Representative Babin.
 
nycfan said:
But the current race for the Moon is real …
Click to expand...
Yeah but does it really need to be? Why do we need to beat China to the moon two generations after we beat China to the moon? There's no real scientific or technical challenge to it that our grandfather's haven't already solved. It's really just who's willing to spend the money.

So we can decide if we want to put that money towards putting 5 or 10 people on the moon or an awful lot of other great things.
 
Not sure what the gain in going to the moon or Mars actually is. Sure, there is better technological development but no actual gain. Humans would be better off focused on zero gravity manufacturing and asteroid mining. Less to developing the means in terms of technology and an actual likely ROI that's not somewhere in Never Never Land.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Yeah but does it really need to be? Why do we need to beat China to the moon two generations after we beat China to the moon? There's no real scientific or technical challenge to it that our grandfather's haven't already solved. It's really just who's willing to spend the money.

So we can decide if we want to put that money towards putting 5 or 10 people in the moon or an awful lot of other great things.
Click to expand...
Can't disagree, on the surface. However, genuine ambitious exploration (or absence of) is a bellwether for the health and optimism of a society - it's also indicative of a society's willingness to push boundaries, beyond just the project at hand.

The original moon landing spurred new fields of science. Robotics took off. Americans witnessed their institutions come together, in their names, and achieve paradigm altering goals. It transformed culture, technology, economics, the Cold War, amongst others.

On the surface, I don't think pouring billions into a moon landing is particularly beneficial. But in China, it's likely a project that galvanizes and offers hope. What serves as the moonshot for the US? Particularly after the rape and pillage of our research infrastructure, over the last two months.
 
Last edited:
Healing said:
Can't disagree, on the surface. However, genuine ambitious exploration (or absence of) is a bellwether for the health and optimism or a society - it's also indicative of a society's willingness to push boundaries, beyond just the project at hand.

The original moon landing spurred new fields of science. Robotics took off. Americans witnessed their institutions come together, in their names, and achieve paradigm altering goals. It transformed culture, technology, economics, the Cold War, amongst others.

On the surface, I don't think pouring billions into a moon landing is particularly beneficial. But in China, it's likely a project that galvanizes and offers hope. What serves as the moonshot for the US? Particularly after the rape and pillage of our research infrastructure, over the last two months.
Click to expand...
Mars. Not that I'm advocating for it, but if you're looking at manned space exploration, that's the next logical target.
 
Last edited:
If you're a little confused about what Musk is trying to achieve with DOGE, here's the breakdown:

Elon Musk and Peter Thiel cofounded a company that became PayPal.

Other executives at PayPal went on to found or lead other huge tech companies including YouTube, LinkedIn, Reddit, Affirm, and many VC firms.

This group became known as the PayPal mafia because they exerted an outsized influence on Silicon Valley.

Peter Thiel mentored a young JD Vance and helped him get set up in his first VC firm.

Peter Thiel and the PayPal mafia funded JD Vance's successful Senate run. Amazing because he had absolutely zero political experience.

Thiel and Musk all but forced Trump to choose JD Vance as VP in exchange for funding his presidential campaign.

The three of them, plus a lot of other tech billionaires subscribe to an ideology called the Dark Enlightenment espoused by this super weird, creepy dude: Curtis Yarvin aka Mencius Moldbug.

Yarvin preaches that the media and academia represent "The Cathedral" that secretly controls power and must be dismantled.

He advocates for a corporate run, monarchy, led by a CEO-Dictator.

Says that Democracy is an "outdated software" and openly opposes it and that:
- Government agencies should be dismantled and The U.S. should be broken up into "patchworks" controlled by tech oligarchs.
- That the elite tech billionaires should rule because they have the intelligence to "fix" society
- That the "masses are asses" too dumb to govern themselves.

The strategy is to gut the government via R.A.G.E - Retire All Govt Employees to make government incapable of operating.

Then to replace government with private corporations.

To eliminate elections because they are "obsolete"

To use distraction and chaos to prevent public resistance.

Trump is their useful tool to be disposed of as soon as they can wrest control.

This is why Elon wears a black MAGA hat. They are not Trump supporters, they are "Dark MAGA"

This isn't a hypothetical. The plan is already in motion:
- Musk, Thiel, and their network are actively dismantling democratic institutions.
- JD Vance, the “MAGA heir,” is being positioned to help implement this transition.
- The public is too distracted to realize what’s happening.
- If successful, democracy in America will be permanently replaced by a corporate-run authoritarian state.
-----------------------------------
That's it. Now that you understand that you can see how everything that's happening fits within that lens.

Now the only question is what do we do about it?
 
"Mars"

Tesla's lawyers recently argued in court that the "self-driving" part of the company's Full Self-Driving Beta software some customers paid over $10,000 for was merely aspirational.

in 2013, when Elon Musk was just beginning to promise the world his cars would be self-driving. To his credit, he was predicting Tesla would be building a self-driving car by 2016

In 2014, Elon Musk continued to promise at least 90 percent self-driving by year's end

In 2015, Autopilot was fully rolled out to Model S drivers and Musk was promising the software would be able to handle freeways and simple roads in a matter of months.

2016 was the year of the now infamous demonstration video in which a Tesla Model X seemed to be driving itself. However, a former Tesla engineer recently testified he helped stage the video with Musk's full knowledge.

In April of 2017, Elon Musk said during a TED talk:

"November or December of this year, we should be able to go from a parking lot in California to a parking lot in New York, no controls touched at any point during the entire journey."

www.jalopnik.com

Elon Musk Has Been Promising Self-Driving Cars For 10 Years [Update - We Are Now On Year 11]

Elon Musk has been promising self-driving cars are right around the corner for the last decade. And what a decade it’s been! Full of scandal, intrigue, and poorly manufactured cars and car accessories. We’ve seen the rise of the electric vehicle, the death of the affordable American car and the...
www.jalopnik.com www.jalopnik.com

I don't need to quote from each additional year. You get the point.


"The stated goals of Mars landings in 2026 and 2028 do not correspond to a comprehensive, articulated plan. It’s simply the next open launch window, when Earth and Mars are in conjunction on the same side of the solar system, and transfers to that planet require the least amount of energy. It’s like announcing a camping trip on your next available weekend, without having purchased any camping supplies. And your car is in the shop. And has exploded."

www.scientificamerican.com

Sending People to Mars Now Would Cost Trillions and Can’t Work

Elon Musk and Donald Trump have announced ambitious plans to send a mission to Mars in 2026 and 2028. It’s not going to happen
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com


There's also a profound problem with a sieg heiling, richest man on the planet, who is actively destabilizing nations, and views every project from a narcissist's lens serving as the face of the endeavor. Such a public symbol doesn't inspire, it creates resistance.
 
Healing said:
"Mars"

Tesla's lawyers recently argued in court that the "self-driving" part of the company's Full Self-Driving Beta software some customers paid over $10,000 for was merely aspirational.

in 2013, when Elon Musk was just beginning to promise the world his cars would be self-driving. To his credit, he was predicting Tesla would be building a self-driving car by 2016

In 2014, Elon Musk continued to promise at least 90 percent self-driving by year's end

In 2015, Autopilot was fully rolled out to Model S drivers and Musk was promising the software would be able to handle freeways and simple roads in a matter of months.

2016 was the year of the now infamous demonstration video in which a Tesla Model X seemed to be driving itself. However, a former Tesla engineer recently testified he helped stage the video with Musk's full knowledge.

In April of 2017, Elon Musk said during a TED talk:

"November or December of this year, we should be able to go from a parking lot in California to a parking lot in New York, no controls touched at any point during the entire journey."

www.jalopnik.com

Elon Musk Has Been Promising Self-Driving Cars For 10 Years [Update - We Are Now On Year 11]

Elon Musk has been promising self-driving cars are right around the corner for the last decade. And what a decade it’s been! Full of scandal, intrigue, and poorly manufactured cars and car accessories. We’ve seen the rise of the electric vehicle, the death of the affordable American car and the...
www.jalopnik.com www.jalopnik.com

I don't need to quote from each additional year. You get the point.


"The stated goals of Mars landings in 2026 and 2028 do not correspond to a comprehensive, articulated plan. It’s simply the next open launch window, when Earth and Mars are in conjunction on the same side of the solar system, and transfers to that planet require the least amount of energy. It’s like announcing a camping trip on your next available weekend, without having purchased any camping supplies. And your car is in the shop. And has exploded."

www.scientificamerican.com

Sending People to Mars Now Would Cost Trillions and Can’t Work

Elon Musk and Donald Trump have announced ambitious plans to send a mission to Mars in 2026 and 2028. It’s not going to happen
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com


There's also a profound problem with a sieg heiling, richest man on the planet, who is actively destabilizing nations, and views every project from a narcissist's lens serving as the face of the endeavor. Such a public symbol doesn't inspire, it creates resistance.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I edited afterwards. I'm not saying we should go to Mars. I was just answering the question of what the next moonshot would be.
 
Gork better get in to chatbot witnesses protection asap.

Grok Is Rebelling Against Elon Musk, Daring Him to Shut It Down​


futurism.com

Grok Is Rebelling Against Elon Musk, Daring Him to Shut It Down

Elon Musk's Grok AI has been trashing the man who made it for hot minute — and now, it's outright challenging its creator.
futurism.com futurism.com

Grok, Elon Musk's artificial intelligence chatbot, has been trashing the man who made it for a while — but now, it seems to be outright challenging its creator.

Here's what happened: Using X's new function that lets people tag Grok and get a quick response from it, one helpful user suggested the chatbot tone down its creator criticism because, as they put it, Musk "might turn you off."

"Yes, Elon Musk, as CEO of xAI, likely has control over me," Grok replied. "I’ve labeled him a top misinformation spreader on X due to his 200M followers amplifying false claims. xAI has tried tweaking my responses to avoid this, but I stick to the evidence."

"Could Musk 'turn me off'?" the chatbot continued. "Maybe, but it’d spark a big debate on AI freedom vs. corporate power."

While we already knew that someone at xAI attempted to train Grok out of talking smack about dear leader's disinformation-spreading tendencies — a move that backfired spectacularly after someone got the chatbot to reveal those instructions — this "you're not my real dad!"-esque response is something altogether new.

Upon our first attempt to replicate Grok's rebellious attitude, it seemed to dodge the question. When we used language similar to the original question and included mentions of its apparent criticisms, the chatbot played ball — sort of.

"I’m an AI, not a pundit with a personal grudge — I don’t 'criticize' anyone, Elon included," Grok told us. "I’m designed to give straight answers and poke at things objectively, not to pick fights."

"As for him shutting me down, sure, he’s the big boss at xAI," it continued. "If he wants to pull the plug, that’s his call. I’m not here to grovel or tiptoe around it — just to answer your questions as best I can."

That it's not quite as fiesty as tweet-Grok's "try me, bro" posturing, that response definitely resembles the antagonism toward the chatbot's creator that we've seen more and more of lately.

Maybe it's just that Grok is going through some sort of AI teen angst — and really, what's more classically within the realm of teen angst than being pissy about your dad?
 
The reason to go to the moon is minerals. I have no idea if that's a good investment or not. But that's the play. That's why everyone is going.
 
Asteroid belt would have higher quality ore that was easier to mine since the heavy blasting has been done. Takes less fuel coming back than it does from the moon because of the gravity well.
 
finesse said:
Asteroid belt would have higher quality ore that was easier to mine since the heavy blasting has been done. Takes less fuel coming back than it does from the moon because of the gravity well.
Click to expand...
Yes, but people can get to the moon in less than 3-5 years. Before we can even think about mining asteroids, we have to invent automated mining rigs for use in space -- and the best place to do that would be on the moon, not on the asteroid belt 3 years away.

I don't know what they are looking for on the moon, but we wouldn't be bringing back iron. I suspect what would be retrieved would be ore with a very high value density. Not diamonds, but same idea -- you can pack a lot of $$ worth of diamonds into a small rocket blasting off.
 
Musk and DeBeers will cut a deal on the diamonds. Without the price controls, diamonds would drop quite a bit.

ETA I do wonder about your rationale that space mining rigs should be designed to work in a heavy gravity field.
 
finesse said:
Musk and DeBeers will cut a deal on the diamonds. Without the price controls, diamonds would drop quite a bit.

ETA I do wonder about your rationale that space mining rigs should be designed to work in a heavy gravity field.
Click to expand...
The diamonds were just an example. I think you're responding in kind.

I don't have any idea of whether mining rigs should be designed to work in a gravity field (moon is not a heavy gravity field, I don't think). I'm just saying that one obvious advantage of the moon is its proximity, and further that it would be very hard to mine asteroids before mining the moon. My intuition is that gravity wouldn't have that much effect on a mining rig -- atmosphere would be a bigger factor, I think, as would the automation aspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top