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

81–90 of 183 posts

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#81

Post by Chathamization »

owyn wrote: post #39
bad_alloc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Publicity * Human capability >> robotic capability * Mars as a very long term "Backup Earth" * If you can go to Mars with humans you can go to the Moon with humans as well. * Human capable systems can also carry robots, the reverse is not always true.

If things on earth get to the point where we need a "backup earth" I'm pretty sure one of these things will be true 1) If we can live on mars, we can live on whatever state earth would be in, even if it was mars-like. 2) If earth becomes unlivable, the exhaustion of resources would mean we'll never be able to get to mars in the first place. Either way, I just don't see a mars colony happening as anything except a tem…

And if we're talking about self-sustaining Mars colonies, we're talking about something that's relatively far off in the future. If we talk about terraforming, we're talking about something much, much further off. It's worth considering the potential future that a Mars colony would exist in. For example, it doesn't seem impossible that we'll have something like brain uploads in the next 200 years. When that happens, what's the point of trying to keep human bodies alive on Mars? It would make about as much sense as trying to use horses to ship freight across the U.S.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#82

Post by curtis »

castis wrote: post #11
curtis wrote: post #4

I think the new, smaller BFR is still too big. It seems to me like a rocket about the size of the New Glenn [1] would more sense. But then I'm not a rocket scientist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn

In defense of the idea, it's not called the Moderately Sized Rocket.

Ha! But in that vein, I suggest we start referring to New Glenn as the "Moderately Sized Rocket", or "MSR" for short.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#83

Post by agumonkey »

mikeash wrote: post #69
agumonkey wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oh yeah I read that elsewhere too. Think about how SpaceX would be different if the Russian deal went through..

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#84

Post by varjag »

mkempe wrote: post #70
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.

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

Thought the GP solicited the proof now, without the advantage of hindsight from 2026 or whatever it takes.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#85

Post by aaron-lebo »

Xeoncross wrote: post #66
ChuckMcM wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The skepticism of someone on the net is in no way going to hinder Musk from getting to Mars. It might, however, prevent them from wasting their time on another failed promise, and there are many of those.

My default reaction is disbelief (I'd prefer skepticism) especially when someone is trying to sell something because that's their whole goal, they are selling you something.

Not to mention, if you are a US citizen you're already supporting him whether you want to or not through government funding.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#86

Post by wwweston »

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 fucking word.

There's a lot of words that require some sort of care in their use lest some of the potential connotations carried offend or don't communicate intended meaning.

You might not care about this word -- or, more likely, you care very much about its use, otherwise you wouldn't be fucking talking about it like fucking pedant who is so fucking proud of his fucking adolescent pretensions of having thought about language -- but you probably care about some words and how their varied and overloaded use can affect communication.

(There's a much more diplomatic way I could have my little apositive screed up in the last paragraph. That's part of the point.)

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#87

Post by elihu »

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"?

Robots are expensive and not very self-sufficient. (They can't usually fix themselves or build more robots using resources from the environment.) For now, getting a Mars base going is hard but it's probably a more attainable goal with current technology.

Mars is also a more hospitable place; it has gravity, atmosphere, water, etc.. It's possible to create methane fuel on Mars.

There are also more reasons for people to want to visit Mars that aren't motivated by becoming a multi-planetary species. For instance: science, tourism, entertainment (sports, movies, reality TV, whatever), and low-gravity benefits for people with mobility issues who would be stuck in a wheelchair in Earth gravity.

That isn't to say we can't or shouldn't go to Ceres as well.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#88

Post by boznz »

jasonmaydie wrote: post #12
georgeecollins wrote: post #3

Who cares if Musk's predictions are realistic? He is doing us all a tremendous service by keeping Mars in the public conversation.

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.

Like moving to electric cars and using solar power...

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#89

Post by Malice »

kilroy123 wrote: post #74
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 rese…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#90

Post by nwah1 »

kilroy123 wrote: post #74
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 rese…

They already designed the space suits.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/23/16188658/elon-musk-reveal...

Post reply on HN