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

71–80 of 183 posts

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#71

Post by mikeash »

Osmium wrote: post #33
kbenson wrote: post #7

Last year, it was the Interplanetary Transport System, but now Musk has regressed to using the original, cheeky "code name" BFR, in which the B stands for big, the R stands for rocket, and the F stands for fun. (Not really). I'm always astounded that apparently we still can't say fuck lest some bogeyman (real or imaginary) jump out and make you regret it. It's a fucking word. For fuck's sake. I mean, at the point whe…

It's a big world out there, and we're all just trying to get along. I'm not in the least bit offended by swearing and swear liberally amongst friends, but curse words (taboo words) do exist, and some people are bothered by them. It's not an expensive courtesy to just not swear to strangers, so why not extend that courtesy? I'm a big believer in the right to offend, but that doesn't mean we should do so needlessly.

I agree about "needlessly," but in this case they're providing sub-par information because they don't want to write the word.

If the actual name is Big Fucking Rocket, maybe that's what media should report.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#72

Post by mkempe »

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…

Remember the fate of Prometheus, who brought fire to mankind. Opposition to creators and innovators is not a new thing.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#73

Post by mikeash »

Perfect_Pitch wrote: post #55

It still seems rather ambitious to me. 2022 is coming up pretty quick. If I were a betting man I'd bet they will push back to 2025-2027.

He outright said that the 2022 timeline was "aspirational." That's basically an "if everything goes perfectly" date. We know everything won't go perfectly, and so does he, but he still likes to start with that.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#74

Post by kilroy123 »

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 is because it will be extremely expensive to do this. Plus there are a ton of issues to be worked out before this is possible.

Here is just a small list:

- What food will people eat on Mars?

- What space suits will they all use?

- Who will train all the astronauts to go there?

- Who will build the habitats?

- Who is building the equipment to make fuel on mars? How much will this cost?

This is far from a fully researched plan. Look, I really hope it happens and I'm seriously rooting for SpaceX, but there is much more to figure out and plan to make this a reality.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#75

Post by Nokinside »

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 the colonizing Mars part

Getting into Mars is solvable technological problem. Colonizing Mars is more economical and sociological problem than technological problem.

Everyday living in high-tech place where everything is safety critical (like in a nuclear submarine or ISS) is extremely expensive. Productivity would have to be beyond everything that has ever existed for that becoming possibility.

If Elon Musk can crack Mars colonization economy, he has also invented something that can be used to drop F-35 fighter, nuclear submarine and aircraft carrier maintenance costs to level where they are negligible.

There is always counterarguments that are based on post-scarcity economy. I accept that argument. But we get faster into Mars if we first develop post-scarcity economy here on earth first. Then those who want to leave just move there. Those who want to go Mars now are thinking it wrong.

--- EDIT:

In case I didn't make myself clear, I believe that Musk can get into Mars in his lifetime. There can be small research station and we can explore little.

But it will be a money sink. We will do some research and then leave and probably it takes another 50 years until someone visits in person again.

All the science fiction thing humans have achieved, microchips, computers, mobile phones, commercial air travel increase productivity and there is massive demand for them. Combined R&D over decades can be trillions and it's profitable. Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is no profit motive. Getting into orbit is profitable business and that's what SpaceX is doing.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#76

Post by kbenson »

dragonwriter wrote: post #56
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…

> Really, it's the news agencies which are the worst offenders in this regard, which is doubly bad because they will actually sacrifice clarity and accuracy to avoid these words. News agencies do not sell clarity and accuracy, they sell advertising views. Enough of the suppliers of advertising views will stop supplying that good for news agencies to sell if they encounter a “fuck”, even in a context where it wouldn't…

Yeah, I understand the chain that causes this, but the root is the same. The advertisers are only upset because of those same bogeyman.

The problem is ultimately those people that care that the word is used, but not why or how.

To me that feels like something society is struggling with lately. People looking for something to belong to, and attaching themselves to groups and causes without fully understanding the cause. Promoting civility is good. Condemning certain words in all contexts is not about civility. It's about proving you belong.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#77

Post by fnord123 »

toephu2 wrote: post #31
fnord123 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's largely an American thing.

False. The Japanese language itself doesn't really have any swear words let alone the culture being averse to using any swear words in public.

GP asked if only Americans are averse to swearing. Japanese don't have swearing so they're not averse to it. So this is not a counterexample as far as I can see.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#78

Post by twentythree »

kbenson wrote: post #7

Last year, it was the Interplanetary Transport System, but now Musk has regressed to using the original, cheeky "code name" BFR, in which the B stands for big, the R stands for rocket, and the F stands for fun. (Not really). I'm always astounded that apparently we still can't say fuck lest some bogeyman (real or imaginary) jump out and make you regret it. It's a fucking word. For fuck's sake. I mean, at the point whe…

I'm sorry I can't find a link to the study right now (I'll add a link if I find it), but one of the most fascinating lectures in my college linguistics class was about swear words, and this exact question. The lecturer claimed that hearing or seeing a swear word has a physiological effect on most people, not unlike being slapped in the face. However, when you replace the text with asterisks or beep it out, the effect is diminished, even if the audience knows exactly what's being replaced.

In that context, it makes sense to avoid using swear words in more professional settings if you want to avoid giving the audience the associated emotional reaction; it's distracting at best and offensive at worst, and it's easier just to find another way to communicate which word was meant.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#79

Post by gozur88 »

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…

Might have something to do with the fact that SpaceX's ambitions seem to undergo major revisions on a monthly basis. The things they've accomplished to date have been pretty impressive, but they're not even in the same league as a jaunt to Mars.

Besides, everything SpaceX has done is sustainable in the sense that it helps them make money, either commercially or through a government contract. There's no commercial market for Mars, and a government contract would have to be so large large enough I doubt there would be enough political support.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#80

Post by mkempe »

r00fus wrote: post #62

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?

Another interesting aspect of a moon base -- would it be easier and/or cheaper to produce propellants there instead of sending four rockets up to fuel each Mars-bound ship?
Post reply on HN