SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#741

Post by xwdv » Sun, May 31, 2020, 4:28 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #699

dannyw wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High frequency traders will want the best connectivity humanely possible. It’s a zero sum game. If they can beat a competitor firm’s signals by the smallest fraction of a second, even a nanosecond, they reaps in the profits. So $100m for some better fibre? Go nuts!

Eh, that's a really sad thing to optimise for, don't you think? Revealing of a broken incentive system. I'd prefer if HFT practices were banned.

No you wouldn’t. The development of HFT has created massive liquidity for markets and reduced bid ask spreads in a way that benefits retail investors more than past alternatives.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#742

Post by xwdv » Sun, May 31, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

pms wrote: post #720

TomMarius wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you be more specific about what is so broken about the need for efficient and fast trade?

Volatility is the main concern [1]. Making trading decisions based on microseconds is speculation. How can anyone or anything reach an understanding of something as complex as markets in this short time? Other concerns include unnecessary waste and unfairness [2]. The point is that this is a zero-sum game that makes us invest in infrastructure that will soon get obsolete once someone else builds a faster infrastructu…

> How can anyone or anything reach an understanding of something as complex as markets in this short time?

Computers mostly.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#743

Post by nickik » Sun, May 31, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

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.

Elon doesn't like the Howard Hughes comparisons because Hughes innovations didn't change the everyday experience of people. See this story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNG6ZzDh9C8

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#744

Post by gfodor » Sun, May 31, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

fizixer wrote: post #565

TheDong wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you build it, they will come" suffers from confirmation bias. You can easily look back at things people have built and people have come to (computers, planes, cars, etc)... But there are far more things people built that no one came for, and which we don't even know of because no one wanted them. Solar roadways is an example of something that was an infrastructure project that was built out in a few places, and b…

And the ""If you build it, they will come" suffers from confirmation bias" point-of-view comes from the myopic vision that most scientific minded folks have when it comes to engineering projects. And the worst offenders of this narrow-mindset are, wait for it, no less but the trained scientists themselves (not all, but the ones who didn't have exposure to engineering thought). When we (engineers) say: "If you build i…

The fact that many scientific breakthroughs were happy accidents is no coincidence. Luck favors the prepared mind, and one of the best ways to prepare yourself is to build a lot of stuff that doesn’t work. The only reason it’s so common for breakthroughs to be “stumbled upon” is because those who discover them were, while not realizing it, preparing themselves to be able to have the “that’s funny...” moment countless others missed.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#745

Post by imutemyteam » Sun, May 31, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #377

kerng wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the main priorities is military supremacy. It might not appear as that from a bit away, but that should not be overlooked. NASA's boss really highlighted some of that indirectly today as well with the increased funding to build out Space Force and some of that money goes to SpaceX obviously. So commercial, yes, but not like a car. More like a tank or fighter jet.

With China making plans towards a potential moon landing, there's a chance of a 2nd space race forming, but to Mars. Not speaking to the odds of that, just saying I could see it developing in the next decade.

ngl, not gonna be much of a race when one of the competitor's main business model is to make a duplicate of the winning model.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#746

Post by gdubs » Sun, May 31, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

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…

Totally. Seeing the rocket successfully land is still stirring. I remember the first time I saw SpaceX land those two rockets together, I felt like I was living through history. With all the insanity plaguing the world right now, it’s amazing to have a parallel track of optimistic discovery and exploration.

It gives me hope.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#747

Post by imutemyteam » Sun, May 31, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

mikepurvis wrote: post #508

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?…

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. :)

I think the problem is that we have the ability to wipe out the whole earth many times over, and a lot of the governments and leaders who have that power are extremely unreliable.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#748

Post by TeMPOraL » Sun, May 31, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #736

TeMPOraL wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't see crap now. We need more, bigger, better - and most importantly - space-based telescopes to be able to image interesting objects in anything resembling fidelity. There's e.g. a bunch of exoplanets, or hell, even planets in our own system, that we could image from a distance, if we could put couple hundred tons worth of equipment in space. For the more ambitious future, there are papers showing that you cou…

I’d love to see a citation for one of those papers.

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2020_Phase_...

NASA has a whole page about it now. And here's a rather large paper (I remember reading a shorter version, but with the same pictures inside): https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.11871.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#749

Post by tomatoman » Sun, May 31, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

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.

Imagine your same argument but comparing old computer modems to new ones. I dont get it why is a gigabit connection a big deal? I have my 14.4kps modem and I can download images just as good? ... Now we can do a lot more, for a lot cheaper, and the cheaper it becomes the more we can do in space. We could do mining, better satellites, colonies, better research.. Space is the limit ;)

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#750

Post by giantrobot » Sun, May 31, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

QuesnayJr wrote: post #711

giantrobot wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Space Shuttle was unique in terms of orbital servicing in that it had an airlock, a giant cargo bay, and CanadaArm. The airlock allowed astronauts to go outside the vehicle to work on stuff without de pressuring and repressurizing the whole vehicle. No capsules have that capability and none are really large enough to add the capability. Remember it's not just the airlock but storage of the EMUs and any tools or e…

I wonder if how hard it would be to build a space-only servicing vehicle that stays docked with the ISS.

The challenge is one of delta-v. To get from any orbit to any other orbit requires a change in velocity which requires propellant. Space is notably empty so you can't just go harvest yourself some propellant.

The ISS is in a particularly crappy orbit with respect to servicing satellites so a repair ship docked there would require more propellant than one in a better orbit.

The ISS is a nice destination for people because it's got consumables and room to move around. It's not a good pit stop on the way to somewhere else though. There's no spare propellant stored there so the only reasonable place to go after visiting the ISS is back to Earth.

You could launch another station with blackjack and hookers in a better orbit but there's still the propellant issue. Every time you'd want to service something you'd need to send more propellant from Earth. Just sending a dedicated vehicle up that could do servicing (like the X-37) would be far more efficient.