>To address your question, what is the incentive for going to Mars
To occupy it. Just look at Musk's t-shirt. Isn't the entire point of SpaceX to go to Mars? Everything else they do is just steps in achieving the occupation of Mars.
To occupy it. Just look at Musk's t-shirt. Isn't the entire point of SpaceX to go to Mars? Everything else they do is just steps in achieving the occupation of Mars.
What? No, it is to concentrate public wealth into the hands of one man.
SpaceX has always complied with the regulations and timings needed by regulatory bodies. This isn't a thing.
Most CEOs presumably do want their companies to succeed and do good things in the abstract, but a lot of them would happily have them fail if it made them a huge pile of cash.
To be honest I don’t understand this argument of “no one can’t spend billions in a lifetime so no one should have billions at all”. Why do we set a limit on billions? Why do we use the idea of “can’t spend in a lifetime”?
I have no argument about limiting anyone's money. I'm just wondering if there is a (real, useful) feat he can pull off now with $500B, but that he couldn't do with a mere $200B.
The company raised money? I could not find any article that states that, only some rumors about the intent to do so.
Regardless, when company raises money its company's money, not Elon's.
I would assume that aggressive scaling of rocket building capabilities would require capital, but I have no idea what is the figure needed for that.