Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 839 posts

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#281

Post by Ankaios »

thePunisher wrote: post #161
thoraway1010 wrote: post #154

Quick note: Boeing got the big bucks at $5B or so for their crewed services because they have the "better" more reliable design. SpaceX only got $3B or so. Boeing running roughly 60%+ more per seat as well. So a real accomplishment so far for SpaceX to pull this off.

But Boeing is forever crooning: "Yeah, but we put a man on the Moon." So NASA will lick their boots anytime and pay them whatever they want. Off course, if Boeing messes up again, the carpet will be pulled from under their feet.

NASA recently selected three teams to start development of new human lunar landers. Boeing's proposal was not one of the three selected.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#282

Post by andy_ppp »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #276
runarberg wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not super well informed on this, but is there any reason for sending humans to space at this moment in time (or for the next 20 years for that matter). The only reason my layperson understanding can think of is mining minerals in space, but I fail to see why robots wouldn’t be able to adequately do the job. In fact wouldn’t sending humans make future space ventures even more costly and put people into unessisary…

> I fail to see why robots wouldn’t be able to adequately do the job. Because they can't adequately do the job, even now, on Earth. Maybe they will, in 20 years. Right now, there are whole classes of missions for which the choice isn't between humans and robots, but between humans and not doing them at all .

Even when robots can do this, the defiance of our physical limitations is beyond something we should be able to do. It’s the best of us as a species risking our lives for progress and similarly to something like free solo, even if I’m not capable of doing something so death defying it makes me feel alive to see people who push the boundaries of what’s possible so far.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#283

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

catalogia wrote: post #254
philwelch wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the better precedent for Elon's eccentricities might be someone like Henry Ford. Ford was an undeniable genius and innovator in a way that inspired broad admiration, but he was also troublingly paternalistic with his workers--providing above-market pay and benefits but expecting them to live up to his moral standards in their personal lives. He was also a massive sponsor of anti-Semitic publications and, prior…

I think the comparison between Elon Musk and Henry Ford starts to break down a bit towards the end of your comment. Elon Musk tweets plenty I don't like, but he's far from a Nazi.

I think that's an ungenerous interpretation of the parent comment. Saying they are comparable are not saying they have the exact same vices. But while they both did great things, IMO they also have done some pretty awful things, but more importantly, the awful things they did were given undue deference because of their greatness in other areas.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#284

Post by jorblumesea »

tectonic wrote: post #209

This is a huge success for NASA's Commercial Crew Program. Both the total development costs ($1.7B and $2.8B for Crew Dragon and Starliner, respectively) and the per-seat costs ($60-67M and $91-99M) have outperformed all other NASA crewed programs since the early days of the agency. For comparison, development costs for the Space Shuttle were $27.4B, while Orion is estimated at $23.7B. (From https://orbitalindex.com…

But how much of that cost was initial R&D vs what SpaceX was doing?

It's hard to compare costs given that it feels like much of NASA space development was science research into how to actually do it, paving the way for future projects.

There are many examples of successful commercial programs that could only exist because of huge ("unprofitable") government R&D behind it. Google maps, the entire internet, commercial space flight, commercial aviation...

I'm not arguing against their success, it's remarkable. I just wonder if this is more nuanced.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#285

Post by fma »

war1025 wrote: post #184
emit_time wrote: post #182

I'm surprised how I almost ended up tearing up and was close to crying while watching this. Saying this as someone who is not a huge NASA or space enthusiast. I did study physics, and I'm more into science than the average person though.

I made my wife and kids sit and watch it with me. Oddly enough, I think the first time they landed the rocket booster felt more significant to me. SpaceX launches have made space flight ordinary in a way that is pretty remarkable.

Yeah same with me...first booster landed was significant. I was hoping to see it this time as I was watching it with my family and they never saw it before...and it's too bad both live feeds (on the rocket, and boat) cut out...and the next shot the rocket magically is there.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#286

Post by mr_spothawk »

barbegal wrote: post #270
babesh wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just need to look further. You get access to rare materials that can be immensely valuable. Read https://www.amazon.com/Case-Space-Revolution-Spaceflight-Pos... Also with that short term outlook you wouldn’t have many things. The Internet was not initially commercial. It was designed to provide communications in the event of a nuclear attack. Yet here we are now and we have reaped immense benefits from that inves…

> It’s blindingly obvious that spaceflight makes sense to invest in. The issue is that the level of investment is large and the time horizon before a return is long. Sometimes government takes that role. Are you invested in spaceflight then? I don't see it being very obvious at all. Yes, some precious metals can be recovered in large quantities but they aren't intrinsically valuable. These materials are used in thing…

> they aren't intrinsically valuable

perhaps not, but materials in space can be assembled to functional components in space. functional components beget more things happening in space.

> remove the dependence on them

cool. you can beam electricity from space, too...

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#287

Post by JshWright »

pmorici wrote: post #200
sandworm101 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up to be a commercial venture. If we are talking pure commercial travel, it is a vehicle without a destination. The ISS is definitely not a commercial project. There are lots of reasons for the ISS to exist, and they have changed over time, but it has never been a money-making venture. While the dragons certainly do come in under budget, they are a more…

They said during the launch live broadcast that SpaceX intends to fly paying tourists by next year. Apparently many tourists have also visited the space station. https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-will-fly-space-tour...

I'm not sure I would call seven people "many".

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#288

Post by stickfigure »

babesh wrote: post #187
sandworm101 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up to be a commercial venture. If we are talking pure commercial travel, it is a vehicle without a destination. The ISS is definitely not a commercial project. There are lots of reasons for the ISS to exist, and they have changed over time, but it has never been a money-making venture. While the dragons certainly do come in under budget, they are a more…

You just need to look further. You get access to rare materials that can be immensely valuable. Read https://www.amazon.com/Case-Space-Revolution-Spaceflight-Pos... Also with that short term outlook you wouldn’t have many things. The Internet was not initially commercial. It was designed to provide communications in the event of a nuclear attack. Yet here we are now and we have reaped immense benefits from that inves…

> You get access to rare materials that can be immensely valuable.

Why would you want to send humans to get it? Space is really inhospitable for humans, but machines seem to like it just fine.

Offshore oil and gas mining is rapidly being automated, and if they could, they would eliminate humans from the process altogether. Nobody wants to go out and live on a frozen windblown metal can full of industrial machinery, in the middle of an ocean, that could sink at any time. That's why you have to pay people a lot of money to do it.

After you get over the romantic narrative of space, it really doesn't sound any more appealing than the oil platform. I mean, sure, I'm curious. But I wouldn't want to live there.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#289

Post by BurningFrog »

runarberg wrote: post #269
sandworm101 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up to be a commercial venture. If we are talking pure commercial travel, it is a vehicle without a destination. The ISS is definitely not a commercial project. There are lots of reasons for the ISS to exist, and they have changed over time, but it has never been a money-making venture. While the dragons certainly do come in under budget, they are a more…

I’m not super well informed on this, but is there any reason for sending humans to space at this moment in time (or for the next 20 years for that matter). The only reason my layperson understanding can think of is mining minerals in space, but I fail to see why robots wouldn’t be able to adequately do the job. In fact wouldn’t sending humans make future space ventures even more costly and put people into unessisary…

> is there any reason for sending humans to space at this moment in time?

Well, tourism, if nothing else!

Some people don't see that as a sufficiently serious reason to go. Those people are wrong.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#290

Post by philwelch »

catalogia wrote: post #254
philwelch wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the better precedent for Elon's eccentricities might be someone like Henry Ford. Ford was an undeniable genius and innovator in a way that inspired broad admiration, but he was also troublingly paternalistic with his workers--providing above-market pay and benefits but expecting them to live up to his moral standards in their personal lives. He was also a massive sponsor of anti-Semitic publications and, prior…

I think the comparison between Elon Musk and Henry Ford starts to break down a bit towards the end of your comment. Elon Musk tweets plenty I don't like, but he's far from a Nazi.

That's certainly true and I don't think you can compare magnitudes.
Post reply on HN