Hacker News Reader

For context, that's over twice the size of the Gates Foundation. You have to compare that to all other possible investments, including energy startups that could pay off a lot sooner.

Note that SpaceX is set up as a business, not a charity; Musk may talk a lot about Mars but that's not really where the money goes.

View on HN

The money funding SpaceX could hardly be allocated towards sustainable colonization of Mars in a more efficient manner. If you can think of one, please email Elon.

Sure, SpaceX has good business plan. That's the point. Building rockets only for a future Mars voyage and not making any money along the way would be a bad way to do it.

By contrast, fusion will only be a scientific research project for many years and many billions.

That's just the way it works. It cost a lot of money to develop rockets in the first place. Your comparison is simply not very meaningful.

My point is there is a big difference in how much money gets tied up for how long. (Capex.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com