?Elon Musk pivots SpaceX to moon from Mars as IPO approaches?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from- mars-as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once SpaceX's
(SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the moon rather than Mars.
The pivot comes as the company's initial public offering (IPO) fast approaches.?
"In a Sunday post on X.com right before the Super Bowl, the SpaceX and
Tesla (TSLA) CEO said the rocket company "shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon," arguing that doing so on Mars would take "20+years.""
Reality is hitting hard.ÿ However, a self supporting city on the Moon is probably not possible.
Lynn
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from-mars-as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once SpaceX's
(SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the moon rather than
Mars. The pivot comes as the company's initial public offering (IPO)
fast approaches.?
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 17:15:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire wrote:
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once
SpaceX's (SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the
moon rather than Mars. The pivot comes as the company's
initial public offering (IPO) fast approaches.?
Bum. If anybody deserved to be eaten by the Mysterons, it
would have to be Elon Musk ...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 17:15:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire wrote:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from-mars-as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once SpaceX's
(SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the moon rather than
Mars. The pivot comes as the company's initial public offering (IPO)
fast approaches.?
Bum. If anybody deserved to be eaten by the Mysterons, it would have
to be Elon Musk ...
In article <xn0plv2uygxf610002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Lawrence DOliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 17:15:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire wrote:https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from-mars-as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once
SpaceX's (SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the
moon rather than Mars. The pivot comes as the company's
initial public offering (IPO) fast approaches.?
Bum. If anybody deserved to be eaten by the Mysterons, it
would have to be Elon Musk ...
Did the Mysterons actually eat people?! I must have missed that
episode! ;-)
Well, there were 96 Tears!
BTW, the number one problem with a self supporting city on the Moon (or
in space) is the lack of nitrogen for the air. Two books have been
written about this that I know of are ?Fallen Angels? by Pournelle,
Niven, et al, and ?Artemis? by Andy Weir.
https://www.amazon.com/Fallen-Angels-Larry-Niven/dp/067172052X
https://www.amazon.com/Artemis-Novel-Andy-Weir/dp/0553448145
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
BTW, the number one problem with a self supporting city on the Moon (or
in space) is the lack of nitrogen for the air. Two books have been
written about this that I know of are ?Fallen Angels? by Pournelle,
Niven, et al, and ?Artemis? by Andy Weir.
https://www.amazon.com/Fallen-Angels-Larry-Niven/dp/067172052X
https://www.amazon.com/Artemis-Novel-Andy-Weir/dp/0553448145
Artemis had a grand finale that... well, you're a chemical engineer, *spoiler*
you probably know about selectivity when making chlorinated methane derivatives. It does *not* come out as 100% chloroform. The air
ventilation system on that base was also something to behold -
everybody gets a high enough chloroform to get unconcious at the
same time, nobody dies from an overdose.
Anything producing large amounts of chloroform would also have produced
a large amount of HCl, wrecking the base through corrosion, even
discarding its effect on people.
?Elon Musk pivots SpaceX to moon from Mars as IPO approaches?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from-mars-as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once SpaceX's
(SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the moon rather than Mars.
The pivot comes as the company's initial public offering (IPO) fast >approaches.?
"In a Sunday post on X.com right before the Super Bowl, the SpaceX and
Tesla (TSLA) CEO said the rocket company "shifted focus to building a >self-growing city on the Moon," arguing that doing so on Mars would take >"20+years.""
Reality is hitting hard. However, a self supporting city on the Moon is >probably not possible.
Lynn
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 17:15:52 -0600, Lynn McGuireMars.
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
?Elon Musk pivots SpaceX to moon from Mars as IPO approaches?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from-mar s-as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once SpaceX's >>(SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the moon rather than
takeThe pivot comes as the company's initial public offering (IPO) fast >>approaches.?
"In a Sunday post on X.com right before the Super Bowl, the SpaceX and >>Tesla (TSLA) CEO said the rocket company "shifted focus to building a >>self-growing city on the Moon," arguing that doing so on Mars would
is"20+years.""
Reality is hitting hard. However, a self supporting city on the Moon
probably not possible.
Lynn
Musk probably wants objectives that can be met in our lifetime. I hope
to see a permanent Moon base in my lifetime - but no way is a Mars
base happening in my timeframe - my 3 year old granddaughter probably
but not me.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 23:52:18 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 17:15:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
?Elon Musk pivots SpaceX to moon from Mars as IPO approaches?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from-mars-as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once SpaceX's
(SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the moon rather than Mars. >>> The pivot comes as the company's initial public offering (IPO) fast
approaches.?
"In a Sunday post on X.com right before the Super Bowl, the SpaceX and
Tesla (TSLA) CEO said the rocket company "shifted focus to building a
self-growing city on the Moon," arguing that doing so on Mars would take >>> "20+years.""
Reality is hitting hard. However, a self supporting city on the Moon is >>> probably not possible.
Lynn
Musk probably wants objectives that can be met in our lifetime. I hope
to see a permanent Moon base in my lifetime - but no way is a Mars
base happening in my timeframe - my 3 year old granddaughter probably
but not me.
I suppose it all depends on what is wanted.
A permanent Moon base -- which, in my mind, would be staffed at all
times, just with different people at different periods -- would be
possible until, of course, Congress falls into the hands of people who
want to cut the fat. Imagine what would have happened if such a base
already existed ... and was DOGEd.
But what /I/ want is a /colony/. Staffed by breeding couples earnestly producing new colonists at the rate of, say, one every 2 years for at
least 20 years (for each couple).
And the same for Mars: a colony, not just a scientific research base,
however well-staffed.
On 2/24/2026 11:26 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 23:52:18 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 17:15:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
?Elon Musk pivots SpaceX to moon from Mars as IPO approaches?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from-mars-as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once SpaceX's
(SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the moon rather than Mars. >>>> The pivot comes as the company's initial public offering (IPO) fast
approaches.?
"In a Sunday post on X.com right before the Super Bowl, the SpaceX and >>>> Tesla (TSLA) CEO said the rocket company "shifted focus to building a
self-growing city on the Moon," arguing that doing so on Mars would take >>>> "20+years.""
Reality is hitting hard. However, a self supporting city on the Moon is >>>> probably not possible.
Lynn
Musk probably wants objectives that can be met in our lifetime. I hope
to see a permanent Moon base in my lifetime - but no way is a Mars
base happening in my timeframe - my 3 year old granddaughter probably
but not me.
I suppose it all depends on what is wanted.
A permanent Moon base -- which, in my mind, would be staffed at all
times, just with different people at different periods -- would be
possible until, of course, Congress falls into the hands of people who
want to cut the fat. Imagine what would have happened if such a base
already existed ... and was DOGEd.
But what /I/ want is a /colony/. Staffed by breeding couples earnestly
producing new colonists at the rate of, say, one every 2 years for at
least 20 years (for each couple).
And the same for Mars: a colony, not just a scientific research base,
however well-staffed.
The demographic profile would be disastrous, with non-working kids
greatly outnumbering adults, and half the adults working full time
on childcare.
Unless you've gotten to a very much post-scarcity society, its not >sustainable.
pt
On 2/24/2026 11:26 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
But what /I/ want is a /colony/. Staffed by breeding couples earnestly
producing new colonists at the rate of, say, one every 2 years for at
least 20 years (for each couple).
And the same for Mars: a colony, not just a scientific research base,
however well-staffed.
The demographic profile would be disastrous, with non-working kids
greatly outnumbering adults, and half the adults working full time
on childcare.
Unless you've gotten to a very much post-scarcity society, its not >sustainable.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 11:26 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
But what /I/ want is a /colony/. Staffed by breeding couples earnestly
producing new colonists at the rate of, say, one every 2 years for at
least 20 years (for each couple).
And the same for Mars: a colony, not just a scientific research base,
however well-staffed.
The demographic profile would be disastrous, with non-working kids
greatly outnumbering adults, and half the adults working full time
on childcare.
Unless you've gotten to a very much post-scarcity society, its not
sustainable.
THAT is the first step... getting to a post-scarcity society. That is not impossible.
--scott
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 17:15:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
?Elon Musk pivots SpaceX to moon from Mars as IPO approaches?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from-mars-as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once SpaceX's
(SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the moon rather than Mars.
The pivot comes as the company's initial public offering (IPO) fast
approaches.?
"In a Sunday post on X.com right before the Super Bowl, the SpaceX and
Tesla (TSLA) CEO said the rocket company "shifted focus to building a
self-growing city on the Moon," arguing that doing so on Mars would take
"20+years.""
Reality is hitting hard. However, a self supporting city on the Moon is
probably not possible.
Lynn
Musk probably wants objectives that can be met in our lifetime. I hope
to see a permanent Moon base in my lifetime - but no way is a Mars
base happening in my timeframe - my 3 year old granddaughter probably
but not me.
On 2/24/2026 11:36 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 11:26 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
But what /I/ want is a /colony/. Staffed by breeding couples earnestly >>>> producing new colonists at the rate of, say, one every 2 years for at
least 20 years (for each couple).
And the same for Mars: a colony, not just a scientific research base,
however well-staffed.
The demographic profile would be disastrous, with non-working kids
greatly outnumbering adults, and half the adults working full time
on childcare.
Unless you've gotten to a very much post-scarcity society, its not
sustainable.
THAT is the first step... getting to a post-scarcity society. That is not
impossible.
--scott
Yes, a post scarcity society is impossible. There is infinite demand
for free stuff.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/24/2026 11:36 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 11:26 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
But what /I/ want is a /colony/. Staffed by breeding couples earnestly >>>>> producing new colonists at the rate of, say, one every 2 years for at >>>>> least 20 years (for each couple).
And the same for Mars: a colony, not just a scientific research base, >>>>> however well-staffed.
The demographic profile would be disastrous, with non-working kids
greatly outnumbering adults, and half the adults working full time
on childcare.
Unless you've gotten to a very much post-scarcity society, its not
sustainable.
THAT is the first step... getting to a post-scarcity society. That is not >>> impossible.
--scott
Yes, a post scarcity society is impossible. There is infinite demand
for free stuff.
Actually, a post scarcity society is certainly possible. It won't
be based on friction, consumption or private equity. The current
belief that consumption can grow infinitely will eventually find
a hard stop.
On 2/24/2026 1:52 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 17:15:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
?Elon Musk pivots SpaceX to moon from Mars as IPO approaches?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from-mars-as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once SpaceX's
(SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the moon rather than Mars. >>> The pivot comes as the company's initial public offering (IPO) fast
approaches.?
"In a Sunday post on X.com right before the Super Bowl, the SpaceX and
Tesla (TSLA) CEO said the rocket company "shifted focus to building a
self-growing city on the Moon," arguing that doing so on Mars would take >>> "20+years.""
Reality is hitting hard.ÿ However, a self supporting city on the Moon is >>> probably not possible.
Lynn
Musk probably wants objectives that can be met in our lifetime. I hope
to see a permanent Moon base in my lifetime - but no way is a Mars
base happening in my timeframe - my 3 year old granddaughter probably
but not me.
I suspect that Musk finally did the back of the envelope calculations
for fuel and realized that all of the trips from Earth to Mars are one
way.
On 2/24/2026 2:02 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/24/2026 11:36 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineerÿ <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 11:26 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
But what /I/ want is a /colony/. Staffed by breeding couples
earnestly
producing new colonists at the rate of, say, one every 2 years for at >>>>>> least 20 years (for each couple).
And the same for Mars: a colony, not just a scientific research base, >>>>>> however well-staffed.
The demographic profile would be disastrous, with non-working kids
greatly outnumbering adults, and half the adults working full time
on childcare.
Unless you've gotten to a very much post-scarcity society, its not
sustainable.
THAT is the first step... getting to a post-scarcity society. That
is not
impossible.
--scott
Yes, a post scarcity society is impossible.ÿ There is infinite demand
for free stuff.
Actually, a post scarcity society is certainly possible.ÿ It won't
be based on friction, consumption or private equity.ÿ The current
belief that consumption can grow infinitely will eventually find
a hard stop.
Nope.ÿ That way lies madness and mass killings like every other wannabe utopia that has existed to date.
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/24/2026 1:52 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 17:15:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
?Elon Musk pivots SpaceX to moon from Mars as IPO approaches?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from-
mars-as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once SpaceX's
(SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the moon rather than
Mars.
The pivot comes as the company's initial public offering (IPO) fast
approaches.?
"In a Sunday post on X.com right before the Super Bowl, the SpaceX and >>>> Tesla (TSLA) CEO said the rocket company "shifted focus to building a
self-growing city on the Moon," arguing that doing so on Mars would
take
"20+years.""
Reality is hitting hard.ÿ However, a self supporting city on the
Moon is
probably not possible.
Lynn
Musk probably wants objectives that can be met in our lifetime. I hope
to see a permanent Moon base in my lifetime - but no way is a Mars
base happening in my timeframe - my 3 year old granddaughter probably
but not me.
I suspect that Musk finally did the back of the envelope calculations
for fuel and realized that all of the trips from Earth to Mars are one
way.
More likely he read calculations done by other people.ÿ Done repeatedly, over the past few decades, and until now ignored by Musk.
On 2/24/2026 12:10 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/24/2026 2:02 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:I think its more likely that what will prevent a post-scarcity society
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/24/2026 11:36 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineerÿ <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 11:26 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
But what /I/ want is a /colony/. Staffed by breeding couples
earnestly
producing new colonists at the rate of, say, one every 2 years
for at
least 20 years (for each couple).
And the same for Mars: a colony, not just a scientific research >>>>>>> base,
however well-staffed.
The demographic profile would be disastrous, with non-working kids >>>>>> greatly outnumbering adults, and half the adults working full time >>>>>> on childcare.
Unless you've gotten to a very much post-scarcity society, its not >>>>>> sustainable.
THAT is the first step... getting to a post-scarcity society. That
is not
impossible.
--scott
Yes, a post scarcity society is impossible.ÿ There is infinite demand
for free stuff.
Actually, a post scarcity society is certainly possible.ÿ It won't
be based on friction, consumption or private equity.ÿ The current
belief that consumption can grow infinitely will eventually find
a hard stop.
Nope.ÿ That way lies madness and mass killings like every other
wannabe utopia that has existed to date.
is that some people don't WANT everyone to have what they want.ÿ Too
many want to control everyone else and having a post-scarcity society
makes that much more difficult if not impossible.
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/24/2026 1:52 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 17:15:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
?Elon Musk pivots SpaceX to moon from Mars as IPO approaches?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from-
mars-as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once SpaceX's
(SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the moon rather than
Mars.
The pivot comes as the company's initial public offering (IPO) fast
approaches.?
"In a Sunday post on X.com right before the Super Bowl, the SpaceX and >>>> Tesla (TSLA) CEO said the rocket company "shifted focus to building a
self-growing city on the Moon," arguing that doing so on Mars would
take
"20+years.""
Reality is hitting hard.ÿ However, a self supporting city on the
Moon is
probably not possible.
Lynn
Musk probably wants objectives that can be met in our lifetime. I hope
to see a permanent Moon base in my lifetime - but no way is a Mars
base happening in my timeframe - my 3 year old granddaughter probably
but not me.
I suspect that Musk finally did the back of the envelope calculations
for fuel and realized that all of the trips from Earth to Mars are one
way.
More likely he read calculations done by other people.ÿ Done repeatedly, over the past few decades, and until now ignored by Musk.
William Hyde
On 2/24/2026 7:22 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 2/24/2026 12:10 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/24/2026 2:02 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:I think its more likely that what will prevent a post-scarcity society
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/24/2026 11:36 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineerÿ <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2026 11:26 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
But what /I/ want is a /colony/. Staffed by breeding couples
earnestly
producing new colonists at the rate of, say, one every 2 years >>>>>>>> for at
least 20 years (for each couple).
And the same for Mars: a colony, not just a scientific research >>>>>>>> base,
however well-staffed.
The demographic profile would be disastrous, with non-working kids >>>>>>> greatly outnumbering adults, and half the adults working full time >>>>>>> on childcare.
Unless you've gotten to a very much post-scarcity society, its not >>>>>>> sustainable.
THAT is the first step... getting to a post-scarcity society. That >>>>>> is not
impossible.
--scott
Yes, a post scarcity society is impossible.ÿ There is infinite demand >>>>> for free stuff.
Actually, a post scarcity society is certainly possible.ÿ It won't
be based on friction, consumption or private equity.ÿ The current
belief that consumption can grow infinitely will eventually find
a hard stop.
Nope.ÿ That way lies madness and mass killings like every other
wannabe utopia that has existed to date.
is that some people don't WANT everyone to have what they want.ÿ Too
many want to control everyone else and having a post-scarcity society
makes that much more difficult if not impossible.
No, in a post scarcity society, I want to get a few dozen model S Teslas
and give them to my neighbors so that we can all drive model S Teslas
and look cool. And I want them for free.
Lynn
On 2/24/2026 11:26 AM, Paul S Person wrote:https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from-mars- as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 23:52:18 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 17:15:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
?Elon Musk pivots SpaceX to moon from Mars as IPO approaches?
Mars.
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once SpaceX's
(SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the moon rather than
andThe pivot comes as the company's initial public offering (IPO) fast
approaches.?
"In a Sunday post on X.com right before the Super Bowl, the SpaceX
aTesla (TSLA) CEO said the rocket company "shifted focus to building
takeself-growing city on the Moon," arguing that doing so on Mars would
Moon is"20+years.""
Reality is hitting hard. However, a self supporting city on the
hopeprobably not possible.
Lynn
Musk probably wants objectives that can be met in our lifetime. I
to see a permanent Moon base in my lifetime - but no way is a Mars
base happening in my timeframe - my 3 year old granddaughter probably
but not me.
I suppose it all depends on what is wanted.
A permanent Moon base -- which, in my mind, would be staffed at all
times, just with different people at different periods -- would be
possible until, of course, Congress falls into the hands of people who
want to cut the fat. Imagine what would have happened if such a base
already existed ... and was DOGEd.
But what /I/ want is a /colony/. Staffed by breeding couples earnestly
producing new colonists at the rate of, say, one every 2 years for at
least 20 years (for each couple).
And the same for Mars: a colony, not just a scientific research base,
however well-staffed.
The demographic profile would be disastrous, with non-working kids
greatly outnumbering adults, and half the adults working full time
on childcare.
No, in a post scarcity society, I want to get a few dozen model S Teslas
and give them to my neighbors so that we can all drive model S Teslas
and look cool. And I want them for free.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:32:16 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo -- too bad this is not what the Wikipedia article cited
elsewhere says it means, but I'll go with this for now>
No, in a post scarcity society, I want to get a few dozen model S Teslas
and give them to my neighbors so that we can all drive model S Teslas
and look cool. And I want them for free.
Fusion energy. In every home.
Matter transformers. In every home.
And that, and a bunch of matter (which is, of course, a bunch of
energy -- why has no one responding to the "God created the world out
of nothing" statement pointed out that "nothing" could mean "energy"
with very little nudging?), is all you would need to achieve your
goal.
The tech is conceivable. The problem, of course, is acquiring it.
There we do indeed have a problem.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:32:16 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo -- too bad this is not what the Wikipedia article cited
elsewhere says it means, but I'll go with this for now>
No, in a post scarcity society, I want to get a few dozen model S Teslas
and give them to my neighbors so that we can all drive model S Teslas
and look cool. And I want them for free.
Fusion energy. In every home.
Matter transformers. In every home.
And that, and a bunch of matter (which is, of course, a bunch of
energy -- why has no one responding to the "God created the world out
of nothing" statement pointed out that "nothing" could mean "energy"
with very little nudging?), is all you would need to achieve your
goal.
The tech is conceivable. The problem, of course, is acquiring it.
There we do indeed have a problem.
On 2/25/2026 2:28 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:32:16 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo -- too bad this is not what the Wikipedia article cited
elsewhere says it means, but I'll go with this for now>
No, in a post scarcity society, I want to get a few dozen model S Teslas >>> and give them to my neighbors so that we can all drive model S Teslas
and look cool.ÿ And I want them for free.
Fusion energy. In every home.
Matter transformers. In every home.
And that, and a bunch of matter (which is, of course, a bunch of
energy -- why has no one responding to the "God created the world out
of nothing" statement pointed out that "nothing" could mean "energy"
with very little nudging?), is all you would need to achieve your
goal.
The tech is conceivable. The problem, of course, is acquiring it.
There we do indeed have a problem.
I suspect the laws of thermodynamics will also want a word or two.
Probably two.ÿ "Waste heat" at a guess.
I suspect the laws of thermodynamics will also want a word or two.
Probably two. "Waste heat" at a guess.
On 2/24/2026 4:03 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/24/2026 1:52 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 17:15:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
?Elon Musk pivots SpaceX to moon from Mars as IPO approaches?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pivots-spacex-to-moon-from- mars-as-ipo-approaches-152228074.html
?Elon Musk is moving the goalposts back to what was once SpaceX's
(SPAX.PVT) top target, with sights now set on the moon rather than
Mars.
The pivot comes as the company's initial public offering (IPO) fast
approaches.?
"In a Sunday post on X.com right before the Super Bowl, the SpaceX and >>>>> Tesla (TSLA) CEO said the rocket company "shifted focus to building a >>>>> self-growing city on the Moon," arguing that doing so on Mars would >>>>> take
"20+years.""
Reality is hitting hard.ÿ However, a self supporting city on the
Moon is
probably not possible.
Lynn
Musk probably wants objectives that can be met in our lifetime. I hope >>>> to see a permanent Moon base in my lifetime - but no way is a Mars
base happening in my timeframe - my 3 year old granddaughter probably
but not me.
I suspect that Musk finally did the back of the envelope calculations
for fuel and realized that all of the trips from Earth to Mars are
one way.
More likely he read calculations done by other people.ÿ Done
repeatedly, over the past few decades, and until now ignored by Musk.
William Hyde
However, everything that Musk has built: electric cars, spaceships,
tunnel borers, solar power, batteries, etc, translates to the Moon from Mars.ÿ All of the aforementioned are needed in either place.
Lynn
On 2/25/2026 4:28 PM, Paul S Person wrote:Teslas
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:32:16 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo -- too bad this is not what the Wikipedia article cited
elsewhere says it means, but I'll go with this for now>
No, in a post scarcity society, I want to get a few dozen model S
and give them to my neighbors so that we can all drive model S Teslas
and look cool. And I want them for free.
Fusion energy. In every home.
Matter transformers. In every home.
And that, and a bunch of matter (which is, of course, a bunch of
energy -- why has no one responding to the "God created the world out
of nothing" statement pointed out that "nothing" could mean "energy"
with very little nudging?), is all you would need to achieve your
goal.
The tech is conceivable. The problem, of course, is acquiring it.
There we do indeed have a problem.
I've got a 38 kW gennie in my back yard that cost me $25K installed in
2021. It uses $30 of natural gas a day when it runs for 24 hours. I >suspect that the fusion generator is going to cost WAY more.
On 2/25/2026 2:28 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:32:16 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo -- too bad this is not what the Wikipedia article cited
elsewhere says it means, but I'll go with this for now>
No, in a post scarcity society, I want to get a few dozen model S Teslas >>> and give them to my neighbors so that we can all drive model S Teslas
and look cool. And I want them for free.
Fusion energy. In every home.
Matter transformers. In every home.
And that, and a bunch of matter (which is, of course, a bunch of
energy -- why has no one responding to the "God created the world out
of nothing" statement pointed out that "nothing" could mean "energy"
with very little nudging?), is all you would need to achieve your
goal.
The tech is conceivable. The problem, of course, is acquiring it.
There we do indeed have a problem.
I suspect the laws of thermodynamics will also want a word or two.
Probably two. "Waste heat" at a guess.
On 2/25/26 17:35, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 2/25/2026 2:28 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:32:16 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo -- too bad this is not what the Wikipedia article cited
elsewhere says it means, but I'll go with this for now>
No, in a post scarcity society, I want to get a few dozen model S Teslas >>>> and give them to my neighbors so that we can all drive model S Teslas
and look cool.ÿ And I want them for free.
Fusion energy. In every home.
Matter transformers. In every home.
And that, and a bunch of matter (which is, of course, a bunch of
energy -- why has no one responding to the "God created the world out
of nothing" statement pointed out that "nothing" could mean "energy"
with very little nudging?), is all you would need to achieve your
goal.
The tech is conceivable. The problem, of course, is acquiring it.
There we do indeed have a problem.
I suspect the laws of thermodynamics will also want a word or two.
Probably two.ÿ "Waste heat" at a guess.
No problems with waste heat in a cold fusion reactor and we have
had more that one scientist confirm it happen, (cold fusion).
But core taps drawing on the heat of the deep earth are much
simpler to implement. I envisage a multi-stage setup using the nasty
stuff from deep to heat exhangers closer to the surface to bring up
to a steam turbine generator condensed steam recycled..
However, everything that Musk has built: electric cars, spaceships,
tunnel borers, solar power, batteries, etc, translates to the Moon
from Mars.ÿ All of the aforementioned are needed in either place.
Lynn
Yeah. Given Musk's penchant for spontaneously disassociating spacecraft,
his safety record and utter disregard for things like proper disposal of hazardous waste, letting him anywhere near a space colony is a
guaranteed catastrophe. I'd make sure I was on the opposite side of the asteroid belt from any colony he was involved in.
Chris
On 2/25/2026 11:01 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
...
However, everything that Musk has built: electric cars, spaceships,
tunnel borers, solar power, batteries, etc, translates to the Moon
from Mars.ÿ All of the aforementioned are needed in either place.
Lynn
Yeah. Given Musk's penchant for spontaneously disassociating
spacecraft, his safety record and utter disregard for things like
proper disposal of hazardous waste, letting him anywhere near a space
colony is a guaranteed catastrophe. I'd make sure I was on the
opposite side of the asteroid belt from any colony he was involved in.
Chris
Wow, what a load of horse manure.ÿ Prove me wrong.
Lynn
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/25/2026 11:01 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
...
However, everything that Musk has built: electric cars, spaceships,
tunnel borers, solar power, batteries, etc, translates to the Moon
from Mars.ÿ All of the aforementioned are needed in either place.
Lynn
Yeah. Given Musk's penchant for spontaneously disassociating
spacecraft, his safety record and utter disregard for things like
proper disposal of hazardous waste, letting him anywhere near a space
colony is a guaranteed catastrophe. I'd make sure I was on the
opposite side of the asteroid belt from any colony he was involved in.
Chris
Wow, what a load of horse manure.ÿ Prove me wrong.
Lynn
"Environmental regulations are, in my view, largely terrible."
- - Elon Musk
Now there's an attitude you really want on a space colony, especially a domed one.
Utter disregard for proper waste disposal in the Nevada tunnel:
https://www.propublica.org/article/elon-musk-boring-company-violations- fines-vegas-loop
And I guess you missed those 5 Space-X rockets that blew up. Don't go on about how much you learn from an exploding rocket. Those projects should have been well out of the sandbox stage.
He's a legend in his own mind.
Chris
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/25/2026 11:01 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
...
However, everything that Musk has built: electric cars, spaceships,
tunnel borers, solar power, batteries, etc, translates to the Moon
from Mars.ÿ All of the aforementioned are needed in either place.
Lynn
Yeah. Given Musk's penchant for spontaneously disassociating
spacecraft, his safety record and utter disregard for things like
proper disposal of hazardous waste, letting him anywhere near a space
colony is a guaranteed catastrophe. I'd make sure I was on the
opposite side of the asteroid belt from any colony he was involved in.
Chris
Wow, what a load of horse manure.ÿ Prove me wrong.
Lynn
"Environmental regulations are, in my view, largely terrible."
- - Elon Musk
Now there's an attitude you really want on a space colony, especially a domed one.
Utter disregard for proper waste disposal in the Nevada tunnel:
https://www.propublica.org/article/elon-musk-boring-company-violations-fines-v
egas-loop
And I guess you missed those 5 Space-X rockets that blew up. Don't go on about how much you learn from an exploding rocket. Those projects should have been well out of the sandbox stage.
On 2/25/2026 11:01 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
Yeah. Given Musk's penchant for spontaneously disassociating spacecraft,
his safety record and utter disregard for things like proper disposal of
hazardous waste, letting him anywhere near a space colony is a
guaranteed catastrophe. I'd make sure I was on the opposite side of the
asteroid belt from any colony he was involved in.
Wow, what a load of horse manure. Prove me wrong.
On 2/26/2026 10:21 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/25/2026 11:01 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
...
However, everything that Musk has built: electric cars, spaceships, >>>>> tunnel borers, solar power, batteries, etc, translates to the Moon
from Mars.ÿ All of the aforementioned are needed in either place.
Lynn
Yeah. Given Musk's penchant for spontaneously disassociating
spacecraft, his safety record and utter disregard for things like
proper disposal of hazardous waste, letting him anywhere near a
space colony is a guaranteed catastrophe. I'd make sure I was on the
opposite side of the asteroid belt from any colony he was involved in. >>>>
Chris
Wow, what a load of horse manure.ÿ Prove me wrong.
Lynn
"Environmental regulations are, in my view, largely terrible."
- - Elon Musk
Now there's an attitude you really want on a space colony, especially
a domed one.
Utter disregard for proper waste disposal in the Nevada tunnel:
https://www.propublica.org/article/elon-musk-boring-company-violations- fines-vegas-loop
And I guess you missed those 5 Space-X rockets that blew up. Don't go
on about how much you learn from an exploding rocket. Those projects
should have been well out of the sandbox stage.
He's a legend in his own mind.
Chris
I like how you ignore the hundreds of safe flights that SpaceX has run.
ÿÿ https://spacexnow.com/stats
Starship is in an intense experimental phase.ÿ Call me when someone gets hurt.ÿ Building a spaceship to go to outer space or another planet is
not easy, ask NASA.
Lynn
Someone got hurt, I'm calling you. The worker is no longer in a coma
(that lasted more than 2 years) but is unable to work or live independently.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/wife-sues-spacex-husband-coma
Other articles detail hundreds of accidents and injuries at SpaceX,
along with pressure on the injured to not report them. The reason, of
course was pressure from the top because they were so far behind schedule.
Chris Thompson <the_thompsons@earthlink.net> schrieb:
Someone got hurt, I'm calling you. The worker is no longer in a coma
(that lasted more than 2 years) but is unable to work or live independently. >>
https://futurism.com/the-byte/wife-sues-spacex-husband-coma
This is where I like the German system very much.
As an employer has to take mandatory liability insurance for
workplace accidents, through the "Berufsenossenschaften" (BG),
which are part of the public system of insurance.
A worker who is injured at the workplace or on his way from or
to work gets the best possible medical care (much better than
standard medical insurance) with the aim of full restitution.
This is why medical practicioners like these cases very much.
It is also an incentive that, after an accident, for the worker
to have this treated as a BG case.
It is not possible for a worker to sue his company (unless his
case has been thrown out), so the employer is protected as well.
If the worker is unable to continue working after the accident,
he gets a lifelong pension.
HOWEVER, this does not mean that employers can act with impunity.
if they have lots of accidents, or if their practices are found
to be unsafe in inspection, the insurance premiums go up, A LOT.
On the whole, it works quite well.
Other articles detail hundreds of accidents and injuries at SpaceX,
along with pressure on the injured to not report them. The reason, of
course was pressure from the top because they were so far behind schedule.
The sheer number of accidents does not mean a lot, it is the number
per work hours that counts.
At the company I work for, the target is 0.3 recordable accidents
per 200 000 employee-hours. At 1600 hours of work per year,
that makes one recordable accident every 400 years per worker,
approximately. That number is LOW, and also difficult to reach.
Are there numbers for SpaceX to compare against?
On 2/28/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
The sheer number of accidents does not mean a lot, it is the number
per work hours that counts.
At the company I work for, the target is 0.3 recordable accidents
per 200 000 employee-hours. At 1600 hours of work per year,
that makes one recordable accident every 400 years per worker,
approximately. That number is LOW, and also difficult to reach.
Are there numbers for SpaceX to compare against?
I feel the need to remind people of all the fatal accidents with Tesla's
in "self-drive" mode. Which Musk kept claiming for years was really for real this time coming in the next update. That is when he couldn't
cover the incidents up anymore.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:Tesla's
On 2/28/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
The sheer number of accidents does not mean a lot, it is the number
per work hours that counts.
At the company I work for, the target is 0.3 recordable accidents
per 200 000 employee-hours. At 1600 hours of work per year,
that makes one recordable accident every 400 years per worker,
approximately. That number is LOW, and also difficult to reach.
Are there numbers for SpaceX to compare against?
I feel the need to remind people of all the fatal accidents with
forin "self-drive" mode. Which Musk kept claiming for years was really
real this time coming in the next update. That is when he couldn't
cover the incidents up anymore.
Again, number comparisions. Do they have more or fewer accidents
than people who drive for themselves? Are there statistics?
On 2/28/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Chris Thompson <the_thompsons@earthlink.net> schrieb:
Someone got hurt, I'm calling you. The worker is no longer in a coma
(that lasted more than 2 years) but is unable to work or live
independently.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/wife-sues-spacex-husband-coma
This is where I like the German system very much.
As an employer has to take mandatory liability insurance for
workplace accidents, through the "Berufsenossenschaften" (BG),
which are part of the public system of insurance.
A worker who is injured at the workplace or on his way from or
to work gets the best possible medical care (much better than
standard medical insurance) with the aim of full restitution.
This is why medical practicioners like these cases very much.
It is also an incentive that, after an accident, for the worker
to have this treated as a BG case.
It is not possible for a worker to sue his company (unless his
case has been thrown out), so the employer is protected as well.
If the worker is unable to continue working after the accident,
he gets a lifelong pension.
HOWEVER, this does not mean that employers can act with impunity.
if they have lots of accidents, or if their practices are found
to be unsafe in inspection, the insurance premiums go up, A LOT.
On the whole, it works quite well.
Other articles detail hundreds of accidents and injuries at SpaceX,
along with pressure on the injured to not report them. The reason, of
course was pressure from the top because they were so far behind
schedule.
The sheer number of accidents does not mean a lot, it is the number
per work hours that counts.
At the company I work for, the target is 0.3 recordable accidents
per 200 000 employee-hours.ÿ At 1600 hours of work per year,
that makes one recordable accident every 400 years per worker,
approximately.ÿ That number is LOW, and also difficult to reach.
Are there numbers for SpaceX to compare against?
I feel the need to remind people of all the fatal accidents with Tesla's
in "self-drive" mode.ÿ Which Musk kept claiming for years was really for real this time coming in the next update.ÿ That is when he couldn't
cover the incidents up anymore.
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 12:06:18 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
On 2/28/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
The sheer number of accidents does not mean a lot, it is the number
per work hours that counts.
At the company I work for, the target is 0.3 recordable accidents
per 200 000 employee-hours. At 1600 hours of work per year,
that makes one recordable accident every 400 years per worker,
approximately. That number is LOW, and also difficult to reach.
Are there numbers for SpaceX to compare against?
I feel the need to remind people of all the fatal accidents with Tesla's >>> in "self-drive" mode. Which Musk kept claiming for years was really for >>> real this time coming in the next update. That is when he couldn't
cover the incidents up anymore.
Again, number comparisions. Do they have more or fewer accidents
than people who drive for themselves? Are there statistics?
You appear to be falling into the trap of believing that /any/
fatalities from self-driving cars can be acceptable.
The whole /point/ of self-driving cars has to be that they cannot kill
or injure anyone [1]. Any lesser standard is simply a marketing
gimmick.
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 12:06:18 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
<tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
On 2/28/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
The sheer number of accidents does not mean a lot, it is the number
per work hours that counts.
At the company I work for, the target is 0.3 recordable accidents
per 200 000 employee-hours. At 1600 hours of work per year,
that makes one recordable accident every 400 years per worker,
approximately. That number is LOW, and also difficult to reach.
Are there numbers for SpaceX to compare against?
I feel the need to remind people of all the fatal accidents with Tesla's >>> in "self-drive" mode. Which Musk kept claiming for years was really for >>> real this time coming in the next update. That is when he couldn't
cover the incidents up anymore.
Again, number comparisions. Do they have more or fewer accidents
than people who drive for themselves? Are there statistics?
You appear to be falling into the trap of believing that /any/
fatalities from self-driving cars can be acceptable.
The whole /point/ of self-driving cars has to be that they cannot kill
or injure anyone [1].
Any lesser standard is simply a marketing
gimmick.
On 3/1/2026 12:00 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
The whole /point/ of self-driving cars has to be that they cannot kill
or injure anyone [1]. Any lesser standard is simply a marketing
gimmick.
Says who? If deaths are reduced even 50%, isn't that a good and
desirable result.
You're moving the goalposts to an infinite distance, and not
arguing in good faith.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
On 2/28/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
The sheer number of accidents does not mean a lot, it is the number
per work hours that counts.
At the company I work for, the target is 0.3 recordable accidents
per 200 000 employee-hours. At 1600 hours of work per year,
that makes one recordable accident every 400 years per worker,
approximately. That number is LOW, and also difficult to reach.
Are there numbers for SpaceX to compare against?
I feel the need to remind people of all the fatal accidents with Tesla's
in "self-drive" mode. Which Musk kept claiming for years was really for
real this time coming in the next update. That is when he couldn't
cover the incidents up anymore.
Again, number comparisions. Do they have more or fewer accidents
than people who drive for themselves? Are there statistics?
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2026 12:00 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
The whole /point/ of self-driving cars has to be that they cannot kill
or injure anyone [1]. Any lesser standard is simply a marketing
gimmick.
Says who? If deaths are reduced even 50%, isn't that a good and
desirable result.
Says the market, unfortunately. People don't want to hear that it's
safer than the average human, because everybody driving is convinced
that they are much safer than the average human driver,
You're moving the goalposts to an infinite distance, and not
arguing in good faith.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Unfortunately this is the way the market is.
On 3/1/2026 5:23 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineerÿ <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2026 12:00 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
The whole /point/ of self-driving cars has to be that they cannot kill >>>> or injure anyone [1]. Any lesser standard is simply a marketing
gimmick.
Says who? If deaths are reduced even 50%, isn't that a good and
desirable result.
Says the market, unfortunately.ÿ People don't want to hear that it's
safer than the average human, because everybody driving is convinced
that they are much safer than the average human driver,
You're moving the goalposts to an infinite distance, and not
arguing in good faith.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Unfortunately this is the way the market is.
The market is such that as soon as self driving cars are
demonstrably safer than humans, the insurance companies
will start hiking premiums for people foolhardy enough to
insist on driving themselves.
pt
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
On 2/28/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
The sheer number of accidents does not mean a lot, it is the number
per work hours that counts.
At the company I work for, the target is 0.3 recordable accidents
per 200 000 employee-hours. At 1600 hours of work per year,
that makes one recordable accident every 400 years per worker,
approximately. That number is LOW, and also difficult to reach.
Are there numbers for SpaceX to compare against?
I feel the need to remind people of all the fatal accidents with Tesla's
in "self-drive" mode. Which Musk kept claiming for years was really for
real this time coming in the next update. That is when he couldn't
cover the incidents up anymore.
Again, number comparisions. Do they have more or fewer accidents
than people who drive for themselves? Are there statistics?
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
On 2/28/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
The sheer number of accidents does not mean a lot, it is the number
per work hours that counts.
At the company I work for, the target is 0.3 recordable accidents
per 200 000 employee-hours. At 1600 hours of work per year,
that makes one recordable accident every 400 years per worker,
approximately. That number is LOW, and also difficult to reach.
Are there numbers for SpaceX to compare against?
I feel the need to remind people of all the fatal accidents with Tesla's >>> in "self-drive" mode. Which Musk kept claiming for years was really for >>> real this time coming in the next update. That is when he couldn't
cover the incidents up anymore.
Again, number comparisions. Do they have more or fewer accidents
than people who drive for themselves? Are there statistics?
I think that what's more important than the number of accidents is the pressure brought to bear on the injured workers to not report the
accident. I cited an article that detailed that upthread.
On 3/1/2026 5:23 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineerÿ <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2026 12:00 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
The whole /point/ of self-driving cars has to be that they cannot kill >>>> or injure anyone [1]. Any lesser standard is simply a marketing
gimmick.
Says who? If deaths are reduced even 50%, isn't that a good and
desirable result.
Says the market, unfortunately.ÿ People don't want to hear that it's
safer than the average human, because everybody driving is convinced
that they are much safer than the average human driver,
You're moving the goalposts to an infinite distance, and not
arguing in good faith.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Unfortunately this is the way the market is.
The market is such that as soon as self driving cars are
demonstrably safer than humans, the insurance companies
will start hiking premiums for people foolhardy enough to
insist on driving themselves.
On 3/1/2026 12:00 PM, Paul S Person wrote:Tesla's
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 12:06:18 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig
<tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> schrieb:
On 2/28/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
The sheer number of accidents does not mean a lot, it is the number
per work hours that counts.
At the company I work for, the target is 0.3 recordable accidents
per 200 000 employee-hours. At 1600 hours of work per year,
that makes one recordable accident every 400 years per worker,
approximately. That number is LOW, and also difficult to reach.
Are there numbers for SpaceX to compare against?
I feel the need to remind people of all the fatal accidents with
forin "self-drive" mode. Which Musk kept claiming for years was really
real this time coming in the next update. That is when he couldn't
cover the incidents up anymore.
Again, number comparisions. Do they have more or fewer accidents
than people who drive for themselves? Are there statistics?
You appear to be falling into the trap of believing that /any/
fatalities from self-driving cars can be acceptable.
Why do you feel this is a 'trap'? The goal is to reduce
road fatalities as much as possible.
The whole /point/ of self-driving cars has to be that they cannot kill
or injure anyone [1]. Any lesser standard is simply a marketing
gimmick.
Says who? If deaths are reduced even 50%, isn't that a good and
desirable result.
You're moving the goalposts to an infinite distance, and not
arguing in good faith.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
On 3/1/2026 5:23 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:kill
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2026 12:00 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
The whole /point/ of self-driving cars has to be that they cannot
or injure anyone [1]. Any lesser standard is simply a marketing
gimmick.
Says who? If deaths are reduced even 50%, isn't that a good and
desirable result.
Says the market, unfortunately. People don't want to hear that it's
safer than the average human, because everybody driving is convinced
that they are much safer than the average human driver,
You're moving the goalposts to an infinite distance, and not
arguing in good faith.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Unfortunately this is the way the market is.
The market is such that as soon as self driving cars are
demonstrably safer than humans, the insurance companies
will start hiking premiums for people foolhardy enough to
insist on driving themselves.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> schrieb:<snippo>
You appear to be falling into the trap of believing that /any/
fatalities from self-driving cars can be acceptable.
Why is it a "trap" to accept a reduction in fatalities? Do you
prefer that more people are killed[1] rather than fewer, because
you insist on perfection?
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 13:37:19 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Why do you feel this is a 'trap'? The goal is to reduce
road fatalities as much as possible.
The whole /point/ of self-driving cars has to be that they cannot kill
or injure anyone [1]. Any lesser standard is simply a marketing
gimmick.
Says who? If deaths are reduced even 50%, isn't that a good and
desirable result.
You're moving the goalposts to an infinite distance, and not
arguing in good faith.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I am not "moving the goalposts". I am stating the only goal that can
justify the tech.
You are siding with the FAA analysts who, faced with a new Boeing
plane model dropping out of the sky on its own initiative, used
statistics to show that only 10 more of these would happen before the
pilots figured things out -- and that that was an acceptable price.
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 20:15:54 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2026 5:23 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2026 12:00 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
The whole /point/ of self-driving cars has to be that they cannot kill >>>>> or injure anyone [1]. Any lesser standard is simply a marketing
gimmick.
Says who? If deaths are reduced even 50%, isn't that a good and
desirable result.
Says the market, unfortunately. People don't want to hear that it's
safer than the average human, because everybody driving is convinced
that they are much safer than the average human driver,
You're moving the goalposts to an infinite distance, and not
arguing in good faith.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Unfortunately this is the way the market is.
The market is such that as soon as self driving cars are
demonstrably safer than humans, the insurance companies
will start hiking premiums for people foolhardy enough to
insist on driving themselves.
Thus begging for the regulators to regulate them even more.
Particularly during the period that the "self-drive" cars are priced
so that most people cannot afford them without starving their families
or living in the street.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:kill
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 13:37:19 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Why do you feel this is a 'trap'? The goal is to reduce
road fatalities as much as possible.
The whole /point/ of self-driving cars has to be that they cannot
areor injure anyone [1]. Any lesser standard is simply a marketing
gimmick.
Says who? If deaths are reduced even 50%, isn't that a good and
desirable result.
You're moving the goalposts to an infinite distance, and not
arguing in good faith.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I am not "moving the goalposts". I am stating the only goal that can >>justify the tech.
Please elaborate on why zero deaths is the only goal that can justify
the self driving technology?
There are many factors that play into fatalities (a percentage of which
the fault of the driver or an external factor such as another
driver or even a deer, not the car).
"Traffic fatality rates in the U.S. have generally declined
over the long term, with a 95% reduction in deaths per 10,000
registered vehicles since 1913, falling from 33 to 1.57 by 2023."
You are siding with the FAA analysts who, faced with a new Boeing
plane model dropping out of the sky on its own initiative, used
statistics to show that only 10 more of these would happen before the >>pilots figured things out -- and that that was an acceptable price.
Cite please.
(His other success was the pandemic vaccine program)
Trump had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the
success of the pandemic vaccine program.
On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 18:10:38 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
I am not "moving the goalposts". I am stating the only goal that can >>>justify the tech.
Please elaborate on why zero deaths is the only goal that can justify
the self driving technology?
There are many factors that play into fatalities (a percentage of which = >are
the fault of the driver or an external factor such as another
driver or even a deer, not the car).
"Traffic fatality rates in the U.S. have generally declined
over the long term, with a 95% reduction in deaths per 10,000
registered vehicles since 1913, falling from 33 to 1.57 by 2023."
Blah blah blah.
You are siding with the FAA analysts who, faced with a new Boeing
plane model dropping out of the sky on its own initiative, used >>>statistics to show that only 10 more of these would happen before the >>>pilots figured things out -- and that that was an acceptable price.
Cite please.
Sorry, it is from memory. Note that I did not even venture to give the
model number, since that would be from memory and possibly wrong.
(His other success was the pandemic vaccine program)
Trump had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the
success of the pandemic vaccine program.
I didn't say he had anything to do with it's success, merely that he
deserves credit for having started it.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 18:10:38 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >wrote:
You are siding with the FAA analysts who, faced with a new Boeing
plane model dropping out of the sky on its own initiative, used >>>statistics to show that only 10 more of these would happen before the >>>pilots figured things out -- and that that was an acceptable price.
Cite please.
Sorry, it is from memory. Note that I did not even venture to give the >model number, since that would be from memory and possibly wrong.
The issue to which you refer was an issue with latest version
of the 737-8 (aka 737 MAX).
Boeing needed to respond to the new Airbus A321neo (New Engine
Option) which was eating their lunch on the high-end. Rather
than a new design, they decided to update the 737 (first flight
1967) with new engines. The original 737 was designed to
allow use on short runways using external stairs (airport jetways were
rare in the 1960s) with the turbofan engines available at
the time (low-bypass, minimal diameter). The resulting design
had minimal ground clearance to support the airstair requirement.
The fuel efficiency requirements for the MAX8 required a modern
high-bypass turbofan engine to get the required range and
fuel efficiency to be competative with the A321neo. Unfortunately,
the diameter of such engines was large enough that they would
not fit under the wing. The options to Boeing were:
1. Clean sheet design of a new single-aisle airliner
2. New landing gear and associated structural reinforcements
3. Move the engine forward on the pylon to create clearance
Boeing management (leftovers from the McDonnell Douglas
acquisition), being financially strong but engineering
weak, chose option 3 as the most expediant option.
Option (3) changed the center of gravity of the aircraft
which changed the flight characteristics adversely. To
ameliorate this, new flight control software (MCAS) was developed
to monitor (and correct if necessary) the pitch of the
aircraft (the new engines had a tendency to cause the pitch
to go up in certain flight regimes, so the new software
would automatically pitch down to correct).
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 18:10:38 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>wrote:
You are siding with the FAA analysts who, faced with a new Boeing
plane model dropping out of the sky on its own initiative, used >>>>statistics to show that only 10 more of these would happen before the >>>>pilots figured things out -- and that that was an acceptable price.
Cite please.
Sorry, it is from memory. Note that I did not even venture to give the >>model number, since that would be from memory and possibly wrong.
The issue to which you refer was an issue with latest version
of the 737-8 (aka 737 MAX).
Boeing needed to respond to the new Airbus A321neo (New Engine
Option) which was eating their lunch on the high-end. Rather
than a new design, they decided to update the 737 (first flight
1967) with new engines. The original 737 was designed to
allow use on short runways using external stairs (airport jetways were
rare in the 1960s) with the turbofan engines available at
the time (low-bypass, minimal diameter). The resulting design
had minimal ground clearance to support the airstair requirement.
The fuel efficiency requirements for the MAX8 required a modern
high-bypass turbofan engine to get the required range and
fuel efficiency to be competative with the A321neo. Unfortunately,
the diameter of such engines was large enough that they would
not fit under the wing. The options to Boeing were:
1. Clean sheet design of a new single-aisle airliner
2. New landing gear and associated structural reinforcements
3. Move the engine forward on the pylon to create clearance
Boeing management (leftovers from the McDonnell Douglas
acquisition), being financially strong but engineering
weak, chose option 3 as the most expediant option.
Option (3) changed the center of gravity of the aircraft
which changed the flight characteristics adversely. To
ameliorate this, new flight control software (MCAS) was developed
to monitor (and correct if necessary) the pitch of the
aircraft (the new engines had a tendency to cause the pitch
to go up in certain flight regimes, so the new software
would automatically pitch down to correct).
The flight manual was updated with instructions to the
pilot on how to handle MCAS intervention during flight.
The FAA certified this system (although at the time, most
of the certification was done by Boeing and the FAA was
rather hands-off, sadly).
There were subsequently two 737 MAX-8 crashes caused by
the MCAS system with loss of life. While the MCAS system
was the primary cause, the lack of pilot training
contributed to the two crashes.
The aircraft was grounded until certified fixes to the
flight control software could be fully tested, approved and
documented.
There were many failures on both Boeing's part as
well as the FAA, starting with Boeing's top executives
prioritizing profit ahead of safety.
(His other success was the pandemic vaccine program)
Trump had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the
success of the pandemic vaccine program.
I didn't say he had anything to do with it's success, merely that he >>deserves credit for having started it.
Both Moderna and Pfiser had the basic vaccines in development,
primarily funded by Europe.
"The development of the Pfizer- BioNTech COVID vaccine began
when BioNTech founder and CEO U\u011fur \u015eahin while at
his home in Mainz on Friday 24 January 2020, was checking out
his regular websites when he noted a report in the science
section of Der Spiegel website about a novel respiratory
illness that had affected approximately 50 people in Wuhan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-19_vaccine
Trump is most noted for suggesting intraveneous bleach and using
an anti-parasite drug called Ivermectin, which has no effect on
Covid-19. To his credit, he did not veto congress funding the
vaccine development.
He did nominate RFKjr, which erases _all_ the good he might
have accomplished in 2020/2021.
On Tue, 03 Mar 2026 17:28:08 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Option (3) changed the center of gravity of the aircraft
which changed the flight characteristics adversely. To
ameliorate this, new flight control software (MCAS) was developed
to monitor (and correct if necessary) the pitch of the
aircraft (the new engines had a tendency to cause the pitch
to go up in certain flight regimes, so the new software
would automatically pitch down to correct).
The system was not "new". It was a scaled-down version of a sysem
developed for the military. Civilian-grade rather than military-grade.
The flight manual was updated with instructions to the
pilot on how to handle MCAS intervention during flight.
There were subsequently two 737 MAX-8 crashes caused by
the MCAS system with loss of life. While the MCAS system
was the primary cause, the lack of pilot training
contributed to the two crashes.
No pilot training was supposed to be needed.
And solutions like "grab an axe, sever this cable, and fly manually"
are not really solutions at all.
The actual problem was that one of the sensors was acting badly, and
the system could neither ignore it on its own or be instructed to do
so. IIRC.
The aircraft was grounded until certified fixes to the
flight control software could be fully tested, approved and
documented.
But, in the USA, only after Trump so directed.
As I said, this is one of Trump's true achievements in his first term.
There were many failures on both Boeing's part as
well as the FAA, starting with Boeing's top executives
prioritizing profit ahead of safety.
That's what top executives are paid to do: maximize dividends for the >stockholders under the direction of the Board.
Are you sure you know how capitalism works?
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2026 17:28:08 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>wrote:
The flight manual was updated with instructions to the
pilot on how to handle MCAS intervention during flight.
It's worth noting that Boeing petitioned the FAA to allow
them to remove MCAS from the flight manual. Something
that should never have been allowed, but was allowed and
a proximate cause of the two accidents.
profitThat's what top executives are paid to do: maximize dividends for the >>stockholders under the direction of the Board.
Piffle. They're paid to ensure survival of the company, above all
other considerations. In this case, they were prioritizing short-term
at the expense of long-term sales (in other words, due to the lack
of a 737 successor, Airbus will be eating Boeing's lunch for quite
some time in terms of absolute sales numbers).
The current Boeing management doesn't agree with this either,
as the new CEO has an engineering background, which before
the McD acquisition, was the norm at Boeing.
Are you sure you know how capitalism works?
A great-uncle wrote the book "Marketing: the Firm's viewpoint"
of which I have a copy. Somewhat depressing, really. Gems like:
"Launching a new product with a high price is an efficient device
for breaking the market up into segments that differ in price
elasticity of demand. The initial high price serves to skim
the cream of the market [*] that is relatively insensitive to price.
Subsequent reductions in price tap successively more elastic sectors
of the market."
[*] great uncle Skike grew up in a small diary farming
village in the first decades of the 20th century,
the son of a general store owner/operator, hence the
cream reference. It's not unlikely that he skimmed
a bit of cream himself on his Uncle Sam's farm.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2026 17:28:08 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>wrote:
Are you sure you know how capitalism works?
A great-uncle wrote the book "Marketing: the Firm's viewpoint"
of which I have a copy. Somewhat depressing, really. Gems like:
"Launching a new product with a high price is an efficient device
for breaking the market up into segments that differ in price
elasticity of demand. The initial high price serves to skim
the cream of the market [*] that is relatively insensitive to price.
Subsequent reductions in price tap successively more elastic sectors
of the market."
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 249:20:39 |
| Calls: | 207 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 83,512 |