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

511–520 of 839 posts

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#511

Post by wongarsu »

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…

On the ISS you can produce higher quality optical fiber than on earth [1]. A demonstration fabrication unit is already on the ISS, and NASA has recently published prices for using the ISS for commercial tasks such as this. I suspect many other manufacturing methods can also benefit from zero gravity, and as launch costs drop more of these will be explored.

1: https://upward.issnationallab.org/the-race-to-manufacture-zb...

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#512

Post by babesh »

zzzzzzzza wrote: post #435
stickfigure wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, i…

If anything the oil platform is much much more appealing. You can go diving and see a bunch of sea life. That's part of why as a human I'm more excited by sea steading than space exploration.

Would it be exciting to terraform a planet or go to another star system and observe life there?

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#513

Post by est31 »

garmaine wrote: post #496
est31 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still can't launch a rocket on US soil without a permit from the FAA, and for launches from outside of the US, I'm pretty sure that SpaceX's rocket technology is quite export controlled. But yes, it's now a bit more independent from Congress's financial mood.

You also can't fly a plane out of a commercial airport without FAA approval. So what's your point?

My point is that there's still large government involvement. The permits are just one example. Another one would be the military contracts that require contractor employees to maintain clearance levels and create financial dependence, or the government owned launch pads they lease.

All of this combined means that SpaceX is still highly dependent from the goodwill of the US government.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#514

Post by dlhavema »

deadbunny wrote: post #423
bambataa wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but sadly people are still people.. they will take their problems with them.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#515

Post by rossdavidh »

ineedasername wrote: post #454
wolf550e wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That's not because of NASA's poor work though, much of the cost bloat there was due to the legislation that dictated how those programs had to operate, like sole-sourcing components, requiring use of Space Shuttle components furthering vendor lock in, etc. It's not a testament to NASA's failings, its a testament to politicians' self-serving legislation.

True that, but that would point to the need to do this outside of NASA.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#516

Post by somebrody »

greeneggs wrote: post #504
pmorici wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Space tourism to the ISS is just US taxpayers paying for billionaires' vacations. Yes, NASA charges a fee, but it is tiny relative to the cost of the service. If somebody develops a private space station, great. Until then, this isn't an industry that deserves any support.

https://www.space.com/bigelow-spacex-tourist-flights-space-s...

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#517

Post by trothamel »

plerpin wrote: post #453
spopejoy wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many cheeky touches! It's such a different vibe than the NASA launches of old. It's old news but I still was caught off guard by announcers flatly referring to "Of Course I Still Love You" EDIT this is not a criticism, I really like it. Maybe "cheeky" is the wrong term, I'm bad with Anglicisms

The name felt like a nod to Iain Banks' Culture series, whose AI-piloted spaceships had pretty funny names. https://concord.fandom.com/wiki/Iain_M._Banks_Culture_Univer... (ctrl-f for Windward)

It explicitly is.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#518

Post by runarberg »

EamonnMR wrote: post #401
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…

Escaping planet Earth is a reasonable goal.

That goal was reach in the middle of the last century.

EDIT: And so far this goal has been a dead end.. Voyager 1 has proven it self to be a better explorer then Buzz Aldrin or Yuri Gagarin.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#519

Post by trhway »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #481
trhway wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't supersonic airliners. Anyway, let's calculate. Starship having passenger capacity about that of Concord, say 100, would burn 1000 ton, $1M, of fuel and oxygen, per a suborbital transcontinental flight. Capital cost say $100M per Starship. Say amortize over 100 flights. So $20K/ticket. Double for operations. $40K/ticket. I don't see any supersonic in near and mid future coming even close. If I remember co…

That isn’t so far fetched. I pay 5-6k each for several business class trips a year.

that is a tough one, yet lets try to think like an MBA, an exec from RyanAir - with Starship payload to LEO of 100ton+ (and actually we need less than LEO) and pressurized volume of 1000m3, the Boeing 747 would be a close match, so giving the very short flight time we can do a really tight cattle class of like 500 passengers, which brings us into the vicinity of $10K/ticket :) I wonder whether we're reaching the stage where suborbital will start to put out the very long distance passenger air out of business the same way like long distance passenger air put out of business the long distance passenger ships.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#520

Post by Animats »

greeneggs wrote: post #504
pmorici wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Space tourism to the ISS is just US taxpayers paying for billionaires' vacations. Yes, NASA charges a fee, but it is tiny relative to the cost of the service. If somebody develops a private space station, great. Until then, this isn't an industry that deserves any support.

If somebody develops a private space station

Bigelow Aerospace? Looks like they just laid everyone off.

Post reply on HN