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

771–780 of 839 posts

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#771

Post by TeMPOraL »

stickfigure wrote: post #760
TeMPOraL wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Light lag is one reason for humans to go. Until we crack robotics and AI to the point science can do itself (which I doubt it'll happen in the next 30-50 years), we'll still need humans micromanaging the robots remotely, and it's much easier to do with HD video streams and with millisecond RTT when you're on a science ship orbiting the body in question, vs. using occasional photos that take hours to send, on top of 3…

which I doubt it'll happen in the next 30-50 years I have to ask, why the rush? Why not wait 30-50 years until the robots are smart enough? Or we can bioengineer humans that are better adapted to that harsh environment? This feels a bit like a real time strategy game, where someone at the start of the game wants to spend all their resources on big expensive research projects near the end of the tech tree. You're alwa…

This is building the relevant aspects of the economy. Sitting on our butts, playing zero-sum games to squeeze more money out of each other with ads and products increasingly optimized to be as fragile as possible... that isn't getting us anywhere.

(Note that RTS economy is based around acquiring new resources. You can't make minerals by advertising, speculating, or even having your soldiers trade with each other. There are games that try to simulate trade, e.g. Stellaris, but even there it behaves more like a mine than like an economy.)

(Also: the rush is because our lifespans are finite, and I'd like to at least see some of that before I die.)

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#773

Post by nicoburns »

xwdv wrote: post #741
andrepd wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does it benefit society though? I'd argue that increased liquidity in markets is a net negative. That means it's easier for investors to sell their assets quickly, which is exactly what you don't want if you want to encourage long-term investment.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#774

Post by nicoburns »

TomMarius wrote: post #727
pms wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is a speculation, yes. That does not mean it is not useful, or is harmful to the society.

How is it useful?

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#775

Post by sabas123 »

ReticentVole wrote: post #593
kharak wrote: post #102

I'm glad that the space age has been rekindled. I wish Europe would do something similar.

Tech in Europe is far behind, because huge sums of money are spent on pensions and welfare, supported by huge taxes on income and consumption. Plus, the continent speaks 20+ different languages. There is no room or encouragement for individual entrepreneurs like Elon Musk. They are regulated and taxed to death. Europe faces labor shortages in farms and factories, and their solution has been to import labour, illegall…

You know that taxes are a major part of research funding in the EU right?

Also Europe does has a nack for immense projects like LHC or ITER.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#776

Post by stickfigure »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #771
stickfigure wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which I doubt it'll happen in the next 30-50 years I have to ask, why the rush? Why not wait 30-50 years until the robots are smart enough? Or we can bioengineer humans that are better adapted to that harsh environment? This feels a bit like a real time strategy game, where someone at the start of the game wants to spend all their resources on big expensive research projects near the end of the tech tree. You're alwa…

This is building the relevant aspects of the economy. Sitting on our butts, playing zero-sum games to squeeze more money out of each other with ads and products increasingly optimized to be as fragile as possible... that isn't getting us anywhere. (Note that RTS economy is based around acquiring new resources. You can't make minerals by advertising, speculating, or even having your soldiers trade with each other. The…

The leading self-driving vehicle company was bankrolled by ad money, so I think your cynicism is misplaced.

Also, in terms of bettering our lives... I'd bet advertising beats the ISS. What has the ISS given us? I know hundreds of small businesspeople that would never have gotten off the ground without modern advertising. There are people out there that click on ads and buy things, and that makes them happy.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#777

Post by mikepurvis »

adrianN wrote: post #690
nearbuy wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm thinking about colonies that are (eventually) self-sufficient. I agree that it's easier to have a small crew of people living at the bottom of the ocean because it's generally cheaper to get stuff down there. But a self-sufficient colony is pretty much impossible, I think. Building structures that can withstand pressure, never fail catastrophically, and can be repaired is really hard. In contrast on Mars you only…

Self sufficient on the bottom of the ocean is IMO no more difficult than self sufficient on Mars, _particularly_ when you consider how much infrastructure you could establish there with even a fraction of the cost of bootstrapping a Mars colony.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#778

Post by xwdv »

nicoburns wrote: post #773
xwdv wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does it benefit society though? I'd argue that increased liquidity in markets is a net negative. That means it's easier for investors to sell their assets quickly, which is exactly what you don't want if you want to encourage long-term investment.

No, if people need access to their money they need to be able to sell off their investments damn near instantly. This isn’t real estate.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#779

Post by scottLobster »

nicoburns wrote: post #773
xwdv wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does it benefit society though? I'd argue that increased liquidity in markets is a net negative. That means it's easier for investors to sell their assets quickly, which is exactly what you don't want if you want to encourage long-term investment.

People buy and flip houses, despite the fact that it takes months. What timeline would you think would discourage short-term investment?

Ultimately I'd rather place the responsibility for long/short term investing on the investor. The fact that most retail investors should be investing passively and long term is well known at this point, the issue is one of education.

Don't dumb down the system when it's easy to make people stronger.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#780

Post by hutzlibu »

jotm wrote: post #763
londons_explore wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has nobody considered sending an older astronaut and not bothering with a return trip? I could imagine a lot of volunteers if you promised 5 years worth of dried food, comms back to earth and lots of fame.

I'd volunteer. It would be the adventure of a lifetime (literally). But this is something that's not going to be allowed. Look at all the safety measures they're putting in spacecraft to ensure people live. No way is anyone going to approve a one way trip to Mars. I sometimes wish people were more comfortable with their own mortality and death in general, but that's how all the humans with "warrior genes" died off.

"No way is anyone going to approve a one way trip to Mars."

If you would have the rockets and equipment and a place in a small state to launch the rockets: who do you need to approve it?

Post reply on HN