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

421–430 of 839 posts

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#421

Post by reaperducer »

sandworm101 wrote: post #160
ChuckMcM wrote: post #86

It is hard to convey how "sustainable" this feels to me. For the first time, humans have gone into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up to be a commercial venture. All of the NASA missions prior to this have an ambience of "uneconomical but useful". Even the shuttle, which was supposed to be this cost effective space truck, turned out to be not even close. And the last thing I'm feeling is the a…

>> 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 hold off on the "commercial" designation until the customer funding the mission actually intends profit.

There are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of commercial ventures that only have governments as their customers. This seems no different.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#422

Post by emiliobumachar »

speedgoose wrote: post #183
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've already seen conspiracy theorists online who claimed that loss of signal during every first stage landing is a proof that it's all a hoax. Like, they switch footage to another droneship with a rocket that was always there. I wonder if these people believe in flat Earth, too?

I read that the loss of the connection is very likely hardware related but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX simply doesn't want to livestream something that may crash with a high probability. Nothing to do with the anti-science flat earth movement.

They don't seem to have a problem showcasing the landing failures, see their video "How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster", which made HN front page back in the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#423

Post by deadbunny »

bambataa wrote: post #396
bouncycastle wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building a moon-base or mars-base would be an interesting experiment for humans. 1. Have a backup of our species in case something happens to Earth. 2. A great experiment in anthropology! It could help us rethink how we organize life on earth. As far as I see, a moonbase would be a "greenfield project" on land that doesn't belong to any nation, where they have to build everything from scratch. How will they organize?…

Won't they just recreate Earth's social structures on the Moon? Possibly with divergence over time but why would they suddenly abandon racism and nationalism?

I would assume/hope the fact there are only a very small number of you living on an inhospitable rock would bond people together in the effort needed to survive.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#424

Post by yakz »

wolf550e wrote: post #373
jorblumesea wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

SLS and Orion were developed in the 21st century, when there was no need for new basic science research, and their development costs are staggering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_hi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)#Funding_his...

Those also act as jobs programs, though.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#425

Post by icelancer »

nutjob2 wrote: post #393
lazyjones wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope we can move away from the "elon sucks" v.s. "elon is a genius" dichotomy and into a culture of acknowledging accomplishment while insisting claims in other areas be fully justified. Until then, I'll happily consider Elon's or even John Carmack's opinion over those of Elon's numerous, noisy but otherwise uninteresting critics on the Internet and elsewhere.

How much weight should I give the opinion of someone who calls someone who disagrees with him "the pedo guy"? It's a serious question. Elon may run some successful companies, but beyond that his credibility has taken a beating on any number of fronts. How much credit should Elon get for heading companies full of other people who do the actual work? Could another leader do a better job, given Elons unsteady behaviour?

Perhaps our opinions - positive and negative - are relatively meaningless?

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#426

Post by icelancer »

arnaudsm wrote: post #412
aeturnum wrote: post #205

How wonderful! Congratulations to the entire Space X team, this is a real accomplishment and I'm sure not one that came easily. It's exciting to see relatively small companies fulfilling roles that people thought might require massive military contractors. Elon is an interesting figure. He is, I think, a paradigmatic example of the imperfect creator. His undeniable success in difficult endeavors can create an aura of…

Elon's speech pertinence was exceptional in the 2010s, but his last 12 months were really chaotic (pedo-sub, tesla-tweets-420 and "it's just a flu" scandals). I guess that working 100h weeks takes a toll on your brain. Fortunately his companies can live without him now.

>> Fortunately his companies can live without him now.

This seems quite unlikely in both cases.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#429

Post by akiselev »

hk__2 wrote: post #382
cortesoft wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but machines seem to like it just fine. I think you are underestimating the challenges they have to overcome to get machines to work in space.

> I think you are underestimating the challenges they have to overcome to get machines to work in space. Even if it’s hard, it’s still a lot easier than getting humans to work in space.

You don't understand the challenges. Sending humans up with semi-automated machines would actually be a lot easier than fully automated machines. The human race's entire experience so far has been with machines in 1g. We have almost zero experience making self repairing factories in any gravity. We have zero experience mining in low or zero gravity. It might take several generations of engineers and miners in space to figure out all of the problems, slowly automating each step at a time through trial and error like we've been doing for centuries.

The critical point you're missing is that any mining and processing equipment will require their own life support that will already be able to support humans. Machines are significantly more complicated without a gas to convect heat away from all surfaces, they'll need massive fluid handling and filtering systems for lubricants and cooling fluid, the mining operations will need tons of oxygen and scrubbing for their chemistry, and clean water will be required by pretty much every process. The only way we'll pull this off is by using our existing experience on this planet and that requires the same conditions that support life.

That sounds like I'm exaggerating but we've already spent more than a generation in space studying the effects of zero-g and we just barely got a working 3D printer on the ISS a few years ago. No advanced mining, processing, or other manufacturing equipment to speak of beyond lab scale R&D devices. We have one lab capable of continuous zero g research and a few 747s capable of achieving it a a few minutes at a time.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#430

Post by natch »

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.

> they have the "better" more reliable design.

It’s easy to claim that vapor is better. Making it into non-vapor, not so easy.

I do see that you at least put “better” in quotes... good call.

Post reply on HN