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

121–130 of 183 posts

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#121

Post by semi-extrinsic »

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…

> Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is no profit motive.

This is so very true. We can do it for Science, and for fun, but not much else.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#122

Post by iamcreasy »

godelski wrote: post #120

> ...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 t…

Here is what Elon said on instrgram, "Fly to most places on Earth in under 30 mins and anywhere in under 60. Cost per seat should be about the same as full fare economy in an aircraft. Forgot to mention that."

Source : https://www.instagram.com/p/BZnVfWxgdLe/?hl=en&taken-by=elon...

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#123

Post by gervase »

ChrisBland wrote: post #103

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)…

If SpaceX is able to realize its ambitions, I think it could certainly be a modern-day East India Company [0,1], if not more influential.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

[1]: Some sources have estimated that, adjusted for inflation, the East India Company would have had an equivalent market cap of $7.6 trillion.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#124

Post by Xeoncross »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #85
Xeoncross wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

> someone on the net is in no way going to hinder Musk

Depends. Is that `someone` the future employee or investor that would otherwise have played a critical role in the company achieving this task?

My point is that disbelief can stop the right person from taking the right action the company needs.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#125

Post by branchan »

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.

You mean besides all the agencies that have already gone to Mars?

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#126

Post by toephu2 »

hacking_again wrote: post #99
toephu2 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't any real swear words in Japanese. So no it's not just an American thing.

How do you explain this? http://www.youswear.com/index.asp?language=Japanese

Fakku? That's a transliteration from English. Most Japanese speakers generally agree that Japanese doesn't "really" have any of its own swear words. Yes if you get technical there are some like those listed on that site, but generally there are not, it is a very polite language.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#127

Post by adventured »

traverseda wrote: post #32
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.

His predictions are a measure of his ability to predict things . Ability to predict things is really important for running large scale projects. There are a number of reasons why he might give less-accurate predictions, like keeping mars in the public conversation.

Primarily it's his ability to predict things on a very accurate timeline that he routinely fails at.

Musk functions by a system of eventual correctness, with a time margin for error of perhaps between 3 and 20 years.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#128

Post by reilly3000 »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #121
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…

> Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is no profit motive. This is so very true. We can do it for Science, and for fun, but not much else.

What happens when earth goes to actual shit and rich people want out?

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#129

Post by aerovistae »

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 think he'll accomplish everything he described Friday and fail to colonize Mars anyway.

It really doesn't matter how brilliant he is or how successful he is with SpaceX's plans. No amount of human brilliance can circumvent the fact that mars has 38% of Earth's gravity.

I fear that this will prove an insurmountable barrier. If living in that environment renders you unable to survive in Earth gravity due to the strain on your heart, and it will take hundreds of years to make Mars be like Earth, who is going to want to live in that land of barren nothing for centuries, unable to visit the lush homeworld?

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#130

Post by adventured »

gkya wrote: post #64
dbingham wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> and I doubt it's possible to send live humans to Mars ... This is the new alchemy.

By the actual definition of alchemy, sending living people to Mars can't qualify as such: we know for a scientific fact that it's possible. It's not even particularly challenging to successfully send (and land) living people there, it's extremely dangerous and risky to their well-being to do so. The idea is to not kill a lot of people in the process of attempting it.

Post reply on HN