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

111–120 of 183 posts

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#111

Post by yahna »

ericjang wrote: post #9
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…

Is this an American cultural thing, or are other cultures just as averse to public swearing?

Americans love violence but sex and swearing is evil horrible stuff.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#112

Post by godelski »

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…

> Given [their success], it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do something.

There is a saying "Nullius in verba" (On the word of no one). Take nobody's word, take their proof. It is a founding principle in science and engineering. It isn't that we should give them the benefit of the doubt, we should give NO ONE the benefit of the doubt.

> I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic.

We're taught to be extremely skeptical in the scientific community, and I'd say that the rocket community is more skeptical than the general engineering community.

Another factor, is that their prices are not as low as they advertise. And then there is the amount of re-usability they expect. I'm not saying it is impossible, it is just ambitious. So the community is more in a "we'll wait and see. But we are watching very closely".

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#113

Post by aaron-lebo »

always_good wrote: post #108
Nokinside wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those won't be going away when we send humans to Mars.

If that stuff is really a problem, start a colony in Antarctica. It'd be much easier to achieve livable conditions there than Mars, and your life support won't be tens of millions of miles away.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#114

Post by 0xbear »

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…

They’re also mostly doing the kind of work that government aerospace agencies have utterly nailed in the 60s. In fact in some aspects (transporting humans to and fro) they aren’t quite there yet. Reusability just wasn’t a concern when budgets were bottomless. There are Soviet designs where boosters would land much like planes do, wings and all, but those remained on the drawing board.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#115

Post by yahna »

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…

Or we got hit by a big asteroid.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#117

Post by jacquesm »

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…

> Getting into Mars is solvable technological problem.

Unfortunate typo there.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#118

Post by Hextinium »

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…

Musks idea for this is "build it and they will come" that being said all he has to do is create a market and someone else will fill the void of who will make the spacesuits and grow the food and do all the things that will make a colony.

That being said you would have to bootstrap something to get to that point but step one we have to get to Mars before we can even think about those things. That is what musk is trying to do even though it is nearsighted if you think about the long term.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#119

Post by ItsDeathball »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #106
nickparker wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As much as I like the idea of space-based industry, it's likely that the level of self-contained precision required in a vacuum would also render Earth-based industry entirely non-polluting, though probably unprofitable as well.

The argument for space-based industry has to start with economics, where it's cheaper because it's closer to the raw materials (asteroids) or closer to the consumers (Mars, lunar, and orbital habitats). The elimination of dirty industry from Earth would only come about as a far-downstream side effect of a well-developed space economy that makes it cheaper for Amazon to drop a Kindle on your house from orbit that it would be to manufacture it in China.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#120

Post by godelski »

> ...then why not go to other places on Earth as well?

I'm addressing this because I know someone will ask. Honestly my first reaction was to laugh, then I made sense of it.

Economically this does not make sense. Price points do not make sense for this, even from the most ambitious startups. You'd want to use a space plane.

BUT I still think it is a good idea. The reason being is that this is a quick way to get his technology to TRL 8/9 [1]. TRL 7-9 is the hardest progression in this scale. So I'm going to guess that Musk is going to make a loss on these flights because SpaceX needs to prove that the vehicle and related technology is flight ready. What better way then doing a bunch of flights close to home, where you can easily repair and monitor the vehicle? NASA is going to be extremely strict on them sending people to Mars. Earth and Moon are the way to go to show proof (even NASA is planning Moon mission before Mars).

Or I could be off base and this isn't what Musk is planning. But it is my hunch.

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/trl.png

Post reply on HN