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

671–680 of 839 posts

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#671

Post by yellowapple »

thu2111 wrote: post #656
cortesoft wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But there'll still be humans. Just not necessarily physically at the mine or factory. All you really need is a robotic chassis that has sufficiently good AI to use hands and follow basic instructions, perhaps helped by a guy in a VR suit back on earth or in a nearby spaceship. Perhaps aided by simulations to ensure low latency - things in space should be easier to simulate without the outside world interfering much.

> perhaps helped by a guy in a VR suit back on earth or in a nearby spaceship.

Definitely not "back on earth". Lag is an issue with VR as-is with mere milliseconds of it, and you'd be calling for minutes of latency there.

And "in a nearby spaceship" would, definitionally, involve getting humans most of the way there; might as well get them all the way there at that point.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#672

Post by TeMPOraL »

yellowapple wrote: post #669
akiselev wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Exactly. I can't remember which NASA official I'm paraphrasing here (I think Gene Cernan?), but humans are the cheapest, most abundant, and most "fully automated" machines known today.

And self-replicating.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#673

Post by elcritch »

yellowapple wrote: post #663
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 just don't see any commercial reason to launch people into space Asteroid mining comes to mind. And sure, we can do that with robots, but it's incredibly convenient to have actual sapient personnel in close proximity to coordinate things, perform repairs, etc. And Ceres is a reasonable choice for such a colony (more so than Mars, IMO, though I know plenty of people might disagree), given the low escape velocity a…

There’s a story by sci-fi writer Daniel Suarez about that very idea of human mining an asteroid [1]. It’s actually a well thought out thought experiment. I suspect it’d almost require shenanigans like described in the book as modern society is so cautious as to be bordering on paranoid. Space won’t get colonized without significant risk for significant rewards.

1: https://www.marketplace.org/2019/04/24/sci-fi-delta-v-daniel...

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#674

Post by TeMPOraL »

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.

We can do both. We should do both, as both will provide technology for creating and maintaining artificial, closed environments for long-term habitation.

(Though in all honesty, I want to see both happen because I loved both Star Trek and SeaQuest DSV as a kid.)

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#675

Post by dwd »

api wrote: post #490
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…

Howard Hughes feels like a better comparison to Elon Musk.

Brunel would be my pick as a predecessor who Musk emulates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel

Brunels' achievements spanned both civil and naval engineering projects, and much like Musk he didn't so much invent something completely new, but innovated on existing systems. His work on propeller screws is very much in the same vein as Musk and the Raptor engine. Probably fair to say he was a larger than life figure in his day and a driving force during the industrial revolution.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#676

Post by TeMPOraL »

jacobush wrote: post #462
deadbunny wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They will of course invent a new racism, off-Worlders. But I'll take that as a slight improvement to our current situation anyways.

Look no further than to The Expanse, welwala[0]. It's all fun and games until (spoiler alert) someone decides to drop some space rocks on your home.

That said, I think it's still worth the risk.

--

[0] - A slur that roughly translates to "lover of planets and culture that comes from them".

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#677

Post by nearbuy »

adrianN wrote: post #604
mikepurvis wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of inhospitable places here on earth where you could set up your anthropology experiment— deep under the ocean, for example, heck there was even a series of videogames made about this exact scenario. :)

Deep under the ocean is a lot more difficult than Mars.

How do you figure?

You need to build structures that can withstand pressure, but that's not a problem. We sent people to the deepest parts of the ocean 80 years ago.

Bottom of the ocean is on average about 3.5 km deep. You can pump air in from the surface, which isn't an option on Mars. You have abundant water, which can be desalinated, or pumped in from elsewhere. You can communicate with the rest of Earth virtually instantly. Resupplying your underwater base is infinitely faster, easier and cheaper than resupplying Mars. In an emergency, getting to or from the underwater base from a major city is only a few hours compared with potentially years for Mars depending on the launch windows.

Colonists of the underwater base don't have to worry about health problems from low gravity, nor do they need to worry about cancers from the deadly radiation on Mars.

Sea base modules can be built on the surface and simply lowered into the sea. We have ample experience with underwater construction from thousands of deepwater oil rigs and other underwater projects. We also have experience from building many underwater habitats for research purposes.

I would guess building a deep underwater base is many orders of magnitude easier than sustaining humans on Mars.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#678

Post by yellowapple »

hesk wrote: post #498
runarberg wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not the 1910s any more. We don’t risk other peoples lives on exploration. Heroic though it might seem, it is ultimately foolish. We are already exploring the solar system with machines. And there is no reason to risk the explorers life for a more limited and more expensive ways to explore.

Carl Sagan disagrees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH3c1QZzRK4

That video never fails to give me chills.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#679

Post by TeMPOraL »

jhgb wrote: post #596
dleslie wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely a hindsight is 20/20 moment. In an age where radio was new, where televisions were even newer, where transcontinental news took hours, days or even weeks to travel, the knowledge that the Nazis were engaging in mass murder was not readily available. When allied troops liberated the concentration camps they filmed everything that they saw because they were concerned that without footage no one would…

Wait, are you saying that people didn't notice that Nazis were mass-killing people until 1945? What had they been doing since 1939?

Yup. In fact, there are various stories of people in late 1930s who tried to get the word out to the wider world about what's starting to happen in Germany, and they were generally ignored. The world truly didn't learn about the camps until Nazi Germany was conquered.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#680

Post by api »

dwd wrote: post #675
api wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Howard Hughes feels like a better comparison to Elon Musk.

Brunel would be my pick as a predecessor who Musk emulates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel Brunels' achievements spanned both civil and naval engineering projects, and much like Musk he didn't so much invent something completely new, but innovated on existing systems. His work on propeller screws is very much in the same vein as Musk and the Raptor engine. Probably fair to say he was a larger t…

Fascinating! He even helped get a pneumatic railway built, which failed, and reminds me a bit of hyperloop. If I had to bet on a Musk project that would fail it would be that one. Something about it just feels wrong to my engineering intuition... too tight of tolerances for a civil engineering project.
Post reply on HN