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

571–580 of 839 posts

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#571

Post by cryptonector »

philwelch wrote: post #232
Teever wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now you know why Boeing never bothered to develop reusable rockets.

No, that doesn't make sense. SpaceX can achieve much higher profit margins by reusing rockets, even with lower prices, because their costs are lowered by a much greater proportion thanks to reusability. Also, Boeing doesn't make mistakes as the result of some bizarre conspiracy that turns out to benefit them in the end. Most of Boeing's mistakes hurt Boeing.

u/Teever was making a joke, I think.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#572

Post by paulryanrogers »

cortesoft wrote: post #555
runarberg wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problems you list seem to apply to both fully and semi automatic machines. E.g. wouldn’t human operated mining equipment need just as much lubrication as pre-programmed ones? We never explored the surface of Mars, or landed on an asteroid before we had our machines do it, but we managed it anyway with the human operators still on Earth.

I think the difference is that humans can fix problems and adapt to changing conditions a lot better than machines currently.

Humans plus Earth-like environment. Remember that micro environment has to go with them everywhere, and they die within minutes without it functioning within relatively narrow constraints.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#573

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

wongarsu wrote: post #511
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…

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-…

How pressing of a problem is the quality of optical fiber? Something tells me tells me that even if you imagine that all the capacity already existed, the mere shipping of raw goods up and finished goods down would probably eat any marginal profits over earth-manufactured fiber.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#574

Post by dwaltrip »

BurningFrog wrote: post #416
nickik wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you got downvotes. You are correct. Tourists drive a whole lot of the economy in many nations and its where many people work. At the moment it might be tourism for rich people, but that's how it has to start.

I guess people find it vulgar. Space should be for noble missions in the service of all mankind.

People want to go, and is soon as it is possible, they will. Regardless of how "vulgar" some think that is.

Barring any severe buckling or collapse of civilization (knock on wood), technological development and economic growth will make this a largely inevitable result, whether it be this decade or a century from now. Humanity will venture far and wide into space.

And I must say, it is rather narrow-minded to think that the entire broader universe should be closed off to the unclean masses.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#576

Post by tim333 »

shoulderfake wrote: post #418
sakopov wrote: post #39

It's absolutely incredible to see this. So much work to get us here. So much work just to organize this launch event. Seeing astronauts getting dropped off in one of the most technologically advanced automobiles on Earth and walk into the capsule sitting on top of a rocket which is the Pinnacle of humanity's biggest advancements in technology and space is astounding and goosebumps-enducing. What a time to be alive!

I dont get it, wasnt this already accomplished? Whats the big deal ? The space station already exists, astronauts have gone there before.

I was thinking it seems a bit unfair to go on about how amazing it is while ignoring the Russian rockets that have been doing the same mission for years eg. https://youtu.be/erfXf08tuFg?t=3906

However watching that it's cool to see cutting edge tech rather than the 1960s style stuff. Also hopefully this is just a step for SpaceX on the way to Mars and beyond.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#577

Post by tluyben2 »

runarberg wrote: post #521
avmich wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the goal was for everybody to get into the club. Billionaires wold just get there faster, for a fee. Similarly like it happened with aviation. Sergey Korolev was pretty comfortable with the idea.

Aviation gets us from a place where people live to another place where people live. Everyday people are still not going on tourist visits to Antarctica. There is no reason to believe everyday people will go on rockets that takes them to space in any foreseeable future.

If it would be cheaper and safer they would; I do not know any billionaires but I know a lot of people who went to Antartica as tourists. They would go into space as well, but currently it is not only dangerous (compared to many or all modes of travel we have on earth?), it is only feasible for billionaires.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#578

Post by z3phyr »

kortilla wrote: post #298
TeMPOraL wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's the general problem of infrastructure-like endeavors. "If you build it, they will come" absolutely applies to infrastructure.

Not quite, it’s “If you build it, they might come.” You only need to look to the history of railroad in the US to see how infrastructure frequently didn’t pay off.

Railroads did pay off in most of the old world

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#579

Post by colordrops »

jakswa wrote: post #540
dang wrote: post #231

Other things people have posted, whose threads we've merged hither: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1266812530833240064 https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/30/spacex-makes-history-with-... https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/todays-the-day-weath... If there's a particularly good article, we can swap out the URL above. Edit: beefman suggested the nasa.gov page ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23364975 ), so we'…

livestream still relevant? Docking with ISS tomorrow morning? All the tests they are doing?

Yes, live broadcast until docking at 10:30am EST.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#580

Post by runarberg »

cgriswald wrote: post #556
krapp wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already know what's out there, we have telescopes and probes. We're not going to find jungles on Venus or something like that. We're not going to meet the Vulcans.

> We already know what's out there, we have telescopes and probes. The entire field of astrobiology is a big giant question mark despite our telescopes and probes. If we'd have sent humans to Mars instead of probes, we'd either have proof of past or present life, or we'd have very convincing evidence that it doesn't or never did exist. And we'd have had that relatively quickly. Here, decades later, we know a lot more…

We are still uncovering where and how life is in Antarctica, and we’ve had humans there for decades. What makes you so sure we would be so much quicker to figure out things on Mars?
Post reply on HN