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

101–110 of 183 posts

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#101

Post by ChuckMcM »

Hypx wrote: post #46
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…

Just want to point out some misconceptions here: Arguably, the Space Shuttle was the first launch system to reuse the first stage, and the first to prove retro-propulsion landing was the Delta Clipper (on Earth anyways, supersonic retro-propulsion was used on other planetary bodies earlier). First private company to refly a spacecraft was probably SpaceShipOne, although this was suborbital not orbital. Not saying wha…

Let's look at the claims from the parent:

   * re-usability of the first stage of an 
     orbital class rocket,
I think the shuttle argument has some merit, it was certainly designed to be re-usable. However the first stage was a blend of the SSME's and the SRB's. While the SRB's were "refurbed" it really was re-manufactured. The shuttle and its SSMEs were closer to what F9 does today.

   * the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion
Here the key is supersonic retro-propulsion. They really were the first people to light up a rocket engine facing the 'wrong' way of a supersonic spacecraft. NASA's interplanetary systems have all used parachutes to get into the sub-sonic regime before firing retro-rockets. Neither retro-propulsion in orbit (nominally a vacuum) or on the Moon count as supersonic.

   * and the first private company to re-fly a 
     spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule).
If you add 'orbital' spacecraft then it does work (private company, orbital craft). If you consider suborbital flights like Spaceship One then all of the sounding rockets that are fired doing ionosphere research probably count too.

With luck, next month they will be the first company ever to launch and recover a rocket with 27 engines in the first stage.

They are also the first company to launch two rockets into orbit in a single weekend.

So at what point would SpaceX's achievements become "impressive" for you without having to add context?

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#102

Post by [deleted] »

Hypx wrote: post #46
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…

Just want to point out some misconceptions here: Arguably, the Space Shuttle was the first launch system to reuse the first stage, and the first to prove retro-propulsion landing was the Delta Clipper (on Earth anyways, supersonic retro-propulsion was used on other planetary bodies earlier). First private company to refly a spacecraft was probably SpaceShipOne, although this was suborbital not orbital. Not saying wha…

[deleted]

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#103

Post by ChrisBland »

As a little kid at Space Camp in the late 80s/90s we would 'dream' about what a moon base or a mars base would look like. I grew up thinking that it would be something my grandchildren would see. To even have this as a possibility now is something I think few fathom how important it is. Amazon & Google may not matter in 100 years, (go back 100 years and look up who the biggest companies were and how long they lasted) but getting to another planet and colonizing is a step that will forever be in the books as one of the crowning achievements of humanity. I applaud Musk and all he is doing, if my skill set ever fit what SpaceX needed, I would join in a heartbeat.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#104

Post by the_af »

Nokinside wrote: post #75
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…

> here on earth first

I think that's the core of the objections. At least mine, anyway.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#105

Post by rothbardrand »

ravirajx7 wrote: post #96

Musk is truly an inspiration for each one of us. He is the one who dreams big and works even harder. Musk's idea of connecting different parts of Earth using rockets is truly astounding and it would be great if all the government and private agencies come together and try to remove border barriers. It is inevitable that the days of flying cars and jetpack will come very soon and there may be drastic effects if border…

The funny thing is, there's nothing really new with the idea of suborbital planetary transport-- this was widely expected in the 60s and 70s. The problem was NASA was given a monopoly on space access, and many companies would never get permission to fly, or do any projects, without NASA approval, and NASA would never approve anything competitive with its own ambitions. (Always using "safety" as an excuse, but if you can't fly you can't prove safety.)

It was the X Prize and Scaled Composits that broke the logjam with their "we can launch from anywhere with a runway" system, which combined with the failure of the shuttle system and lack of funding for NASA has forced them out of a stranglehold position to the point where they basically funded much of SpaceX's early work.

But don't under estimate the effect of the X Prize-- because Virgin Galactic can launch from anywhere, NASA and the politicians had to decide if they were going to lose access to the space tourism business.

They still were kinda silly-- at one point Richard Branson who funded Virgin Galactic was blocked from seeing the designs for the Virgin Galactic ship due to the fact that he is a "foreign national" and the work was considered a "national security" issue.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#106

Post by SubiculumCode »

nickparker wrote: post #60
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"?

A couple points: First off, in the 'backup' argument Mars isn't meant as a bomb shelter for the human species. It's a shelter for human civilization, which is a higher level and much more fragile thing. Think about the libraries of the Arab world, not "The Arabs have to exist or humanity could die out when Rome falls!" The other argument is as a launchpad. Mars is halfway to anywhere in the same way low earth orbit i…

It would be kind of ideal to have dirty manufacturing processes occur on a moon or asteroid where they would not pollute our water and air.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#107

Post by neuromancer2701 »

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

But there are rumors of the New Armstrong that will rival the BFG so Bezos is not stopping at the New Glenn.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#108

Post by always_good »

Nokinside wrote: post #75
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…

Earth has too much baggage (humanity, politics) to suggest that it's self-evidently prudent to develop something on earth first.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#109

Post by erikb »

zaroth wrote: post #48

Consolidating all their effort behind a single vehicle makes sense, but is there a large risk of the same thing that happened to the A380? Could the BFR end up being too big for servicing the existing market? Or does the existing market end up as 1/1000 the new market opened up by having the BFR?

Well, as the presentation shows he's also increasing the market, attacking traditional public air transportation, as well as increasing the amount of space missions by a margin.

And in the end if the repeated flight is cheaper than a traditional rocket it will still pay off, as long as it flies enough missions to refinance its initial investment.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#110

Post by ridgeguy »

lutorm wrote: post #98
jff wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They presumably call it the Big Fucking Rocket at SpaceX. But if Musk says "Big Fucking Rocket" on stage, TV news can't quote him. That's counterproductive to his goals, but using a heavy implication both allows him a broader audience and lets every adult know they've got the 'cheeky' name for it.

It's the Big Falcon Rocket.

Big Flaming Rocket.
Post reply on HN