I realized I didn't actually "expand" on the points I said I was so let me do so here:
In general Musk's "aim" for SpaceX was initially a LOT more 'conventional' than has been stated. Falcon 1 was always about learning to build rockets and the failures there pretty much forced SpaceX to follow most of the "standard" aerospace company practices instead of being "super innovative" as was suggested. Where the 'innovation' really came into play was the internal economics and organization. The Falcon is a very straight-forward and conventional rocket that has been "iterated" into a reusable vehicle but not really as ground-breaking as it's touted to be. SpaceX took a chance on development but it was nothing another rocket company couldn't do, (as we've seen) it's just that other companies didn't see a reason to take that chance. Kudos to SpaceX.
But the idea to leap from the Falcon 1 to the Falcon 9 and the fact that it succeeded AND lead to a partially reusable rocket has lead many inside and outside of SpaceX to make the assumption that leaping ahead to an even bigger vehicle that is "planned" to be fully reusable should have been just as 'easy' to accomplish. It's not, but even aside from that there's an equal assumption that there are customers out there just 'waiting' for such a vehicle just as customers showed up for the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. There actually aren't but really that would be beside the point since there is assumed to be enough internal (Starlink) demand that would drive the economics of the new launcher to make its development viable. Now with the NASA HSL contract that seems to be a fulfilled prophecy but not really the point. (Nor is it true but I'm not going to get into that)
The "point" was always getting Elon Musk to Mars in the manner and style he is accustomed too. And that's where "Mars Direct" comes in.
Musk's obsession with Mars has always had a very simplistic "space cadet" basis which does not really fit reality and the simple but (pardon the pun) direct nature of "Mars Direct" appeals to that outlook. He believes that there is much more public support for space flight than there really is at this point in time. Hence the early belief that a "simple greenhouse" on Mars would drive enough public demand to force a political shift in space policy. That's not the case at all.
There are a lot of people interested in Mars, but there are a lot of people interested in the Moon, or orbital space colonies or orbital Solar Power and the list goes on BUT all them combined don't make a huge segment of overall society. Enough to get sound-bytes, and vague statements from politicians (we no longer see "March Storms" of space advocates going to Washington for a good reason) but not enough to get budgets and actual support. Certainly not enough to push a general public display of support which is what is required to get actual political support.
There's a lot of background and preparation work that would need to be done to get a general public buy in and "just" putting boots on Mars won't do that, as we've seen with the Moon. But there is a general (and false) idea that "just like Apollo" all we need is:
A) A committed politician (aka President) to propose the bold action and Congress and the people will jump on it.
(VSE, SEI and even Constellation show otherwise)
B) A public spectacle, (like a automated greenhouse on Mars, a private trip around the Moon or around Mars, etc) in Space will blow open the doors of public support.
(Again such plans have always failed due to lack of that very interest in the first place)
C) A combination of the above or a 'rogue' maverick with money than sense coming forward to break the mold and show the way, which will reignite popular interest and open the flood gates of support.
(Err uhm, well that fails due to the interest having to be there FIRST to make it work)
The reality is space is both hard and expensive and most people don't really have an interest beyond direct (and highly visible) benefits they already get. That's not how 'frontiers' work, there are requirements and set ups that need to be done first to actually "open" up to the general public and thereby grow the "interest/support" and even then the majority of people will not actually participate in any direct way. (Which in truth is fine with most advocates since they simply want the majority to support THEM going not take any of those 'stick-in-the-muds' along for the ride
)
There's a very real conflation of the idea of "exploration" being synonymous with "exploitation/colonization" when they are two very different process' and the latter requiring the former to be done before the latter is even viable. But you still have people that 'assume' that sending people to Mars to explore will equate to sending them to exploit/colonize Mars. Or the Moon or even open space. Really you have to build up in both capacity and capability from exploration, outposts, exploitation and then colonization for things to really work but the idea of it being simply to 'get' there and all else will follow is so highly seductive it's been accepted as a "fact" rather than a hope.
We've spent to date a bit more than 80 hours "exploring" the Moon and I doubt anybody would characterize that as sufficient to consider exploitation or colonization on grand scale. Well actually we know there ARE those that would, just as there are those that think one expedition to Mars is sufficient to allow the next flight to be one of colonization.
That's not the reality, but by pandering to that simplistic viewpoint it makes is SOUND like real progress is possible in a short human span of time. And more often than not that bit of false hope ends up hurting the overall effort in the long run.
Really to get where we want to be from where we are you always plan on and accept it will take time and effort and make plans accordingly. You lay the groundwork and set the stage and then you move forward.
Now having said all that I will point out that I my opinion (for what it's worth
) as I pointed out above that the similar time, effort and money spent on Starship could have been spent on making use of the Falcon family and setting the sights on the Moon and likely would have forced a "response" (good or bad would greatly depend on how it was 'sold' but you have to give Musk credit for often being able to 'sell' things well when he sets his mind to it
) out of the government more effectively than what we've seen.
The "problem" is convincing Musk that the path to Mars (for all the obvious and unavoidable political and public reasons) DOES really go through the Moon.
Randy
