Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Musk revises Mars ambitions

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 183 posts

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#61

Post by extrapickles »

elorant wrote: post #53
benjaminl wrote: post #22

I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). Given that, it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do somethi…

It's unrealistic because it requires a ridiculous amount of money to go there and establish a colony. The kind of money only states can spend, and probably for an endeavor like this it will require a multinational collaboration. No private company can amass that kind of money because shareholders and investors can't see the ROI in this thing.

SpaceX at the moment just wants to get people to Mars, building the colony beyond a landing pad and propellant depot is left as an exercise for the passengers.

When they land the first two BFRs on Mars, I think we will see enough people willing and have the means to build a colony. Until then, it would be hard to get people to commit the needed capital.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#62

Post by r00fus »

I'm absolutely ecstatic that Musk is talking about the Moon. Mars is great, but Luna is near & here, and honestly, it's a strategic location (not just militarily) as the it's at the top of Earth's gravity well with a minimal well of it's own - great basecamp for interplanetary missions.

If we can't occupy the Moon, why should we shoot for colonizing Mars?

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#63

Post by jawbone3 »

varjag wrote: post #49
kyberias wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why any of that is a huge proof that they can go to Mars.

There are no true proofs outside of realm of math at all. SpaceX odds for going to Mars are, however, better than anyone else's.

Hey, that’s a big unsourced claim to make about an organisation that has no experience of manned spaceflight.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#64

Post by gkya »

dbingham wrote: post #14
danblick wrote: post #8

Sending humans to Mars seems less attractive to me than sending robots to Ceres. Is there an argument for Mars that doesn't include the phrase "multi-planet species"?

Do we really need more of an argument than "multi-planet species"? And in the case that "multi-planet species" is the goal, is there a better target? I'm not aware of one.

> Do we really need more of an argument than "multi-planet species"?

Yes. I don't see what concrete benefits we gain becoming such a species, and I doubt it's possible to send live humans to Mars, or suspend life there. This is the new alchemy.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#65

Post by varjag »

jawbone3 wrote: post #63
varjag wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no true proofs outside of realm of math at all. SpaceX odds for going to Mars are, however, better than anyone else's.

Hey, that’s a big unsourced claim to make about an organisation that has no experience of manned spaceflight.

Before that, it was a big claim about an organization that never achieved reusability/reached GEO/made a space flight at all..

So far SpaceX delivers, and unlike every other player out there, going to Mars is their core mission. So yes they odds are much better than anyone else's, even if by the virtue of none remotely competent pursuing it at all.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#66

Post by Xeoncross »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #50
benjaminl wrote: post #22

I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). Given that, it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do somethi…

> I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. I expect that part may be an attempt to not get their hopes up. One of the things I learned as a child was that if someone told you something that you really wanted to be true, and you believed it, then when it turned out to not be true you felt really really horrible. So instead you disbelieve it, and when it turns out to not…

> Of the choices, disbelieving gives a better future emotional outcome.

However, emotions aside, disbelief slows actions and hinders cooperation. I would rather my feelings be hurt then face the actual barriers disbelief provides.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#67

Post by mhb »

afpx wrote: post #44
kbenson wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, the difference I'm calling out here is not that the cutural norm is stupid, but that it's only enforced in specific contexts for no apparent gain. I wouldn't say a large proportion of people are walking around in public naked, but a large proportion do swear in the course of normal speaking. Really, it's the news agencies which are the worst offenders in this regard, which is doubly bad because they will…

I don't understand why civility revolts so many people these days. I tell my son that he can use the F word whenever it makes contextual sense and also doesn't offend other people. For instance, he can use it around me, because to me it's just a word. I don't care. He can use it around his friends when it makes sense. But, he had better not use it around his grandparents. Is it such a bad thing to ty to empathize wit…

It's offensive when journalists feel they need to dance around particular words. It smacks of white knighting in defense of the putatively large group of sensitive Puritans who will take offense at accurately quoting a naughty word.

Down the slippery slope to trigger words and microagressions.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#68

Post by jasonmaydie »

baq wrote: post #29
jasonmaydie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't see why we should spend $$$ on mars when we have a perfectly good one here millions of light years in any direction. Maybe we should stop treating the only planet that supports life like shit and cherish it.

We should but some people don't care. A wise man hedges his bets.

a nuked earth will probably still be better than Mars after the dust has settled.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#69

Post by mikeash »

agumonkey wrote: post #26
benjaminl wrote: post #22

I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). Given that, it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do somethi…

Me too. Especially after the beginning of the talk, when he mentioned 1) he became spaceX lead because no serious engineer would join beside the team he assembled 2) falcon1 failed 3 times, 4th attempt was their last one before folding I'm not fond of everything Musk, but he achieved something deep and qualitative. Also, even if the end smelled like fund-me marketing, the first half was genuinely simple and factual (…

He didn't mention this in the talk, but the story of how SpaceX came to be in the first place is pretty amazing too. He wanted to land a greenhouse on Mars basically as a stunt, to get people interested in Mars again. He wanted to buy surplus Russian ICBMs as a cheap way to launch the thing. After tough negotiations, the Russians basically gave him the middle finger. He basically said, "Fine, I'll build my own rocket, with blackjack, and hookers!" And thus SpaceX was born.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#70

Post by mkempe »

varjag wrote: post #49
kyberias wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why any of that is a huge proof that they can go to Mars.

There are no true proofs outside of realm of math at all. SpaceX odds for going to Mars are, however, better than anyone else's.

Wouldn't flying to and landing on Mars be a true proof? what other kind of proof can there be?
Post reply on HN