Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 219 posts

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#31

Post by rsynnott »

zpeti wrote: post #4

Why don’t they just give the money to spacex? This is such typical French/eu behaviour. Let’s build something that already exists, for 10x the price, 10 years late, so that we can create jobs and have our own... Except the market viability is close to 0. how about using that money for something that’s actually innovative? Or perhaps charge less tax so people can decide on their own what’s worthwhile.

Nothing like this currently exists. The closest would probably be Phobos-Grunt, but that, er, didn’t work.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#32

Post by ClumsyPilot »

I am very haply to see the idea of electric propultion tug finally commited to implementation. This has a lot more utility than delivering samples from Mars - in principle there is a lot of equipment that could use rugging between , and Mars.

I hope this becomes a configurable platform for future missions, nur just a one-off experiment.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#34

Post by qayxc »

ben_w wrote: post #28
qayxc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that the first Starship cannot return anything to Earth, due to the lack of fuel. The first Starship that might be able to return anything wouldn't be able to launch before 2026 either, so...

Are they not even planning to at least try and send a fuel factory on the first Mars launch?

I don't know. But in any case, it's not just the fuel.

Have you seen the proposed Moon-Starship? They'd require some quite impressive crane to even get cargo into the ship.

Additionally, there's the problem of the landing site. It's considerably more difficult to land a rocket on unprepared, rocky terrain than on a carefully prepared landing pad. Plus a suitable area has to be found first, too.

There's simply no guarantee the first Starship(s) even make it to the surface in one piece, let alone ready for refuelling and launch.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#35

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Aeolun wrote: post #23
wastedhours wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely there's evidence they're both trying ?

Europe is trying to build a glorified cargo box. SpaceX is trying to build a starship. I’d be more enthusiastic if we had 2 attempts at a spaceship.

I am tired of spacex fanboys that cant tell the difference between a scientific mission for research and a commercial operation

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#36

Post by growlist »

ever1 wrote: post #18
zpeti wrote: post #4

Why don’t they just give the money to spacex? This is such typical French/eu behaviour. Let’s build something that already exists, for 10x the price, 10 years late, so that we can create jobs and have our own... Except the market viability is close to 0. how about using that money for something that’s actually innovative? Or perhaps charge less tax so people can decide on their own what’s worthwhile.

On the contrary, it would be foolish of the EU to be so dependent on a foreign company, dependent on a foreign law on a subject as strategic as space. It is a crucial choice that, as a EU citizen, I applaud.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that around the same time as the sample returns to Earth, the US could have geologists' boots on the ground on Mars doing actual geology in situ, courtesy of SpaceX/Starship. Kind of puts this effort in perspective.

They should be going all out for reusability, but instead they chose the oldspace pork approach. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#37

Post by kerkeslager »

ben_w wrote: post #29
kerkeslager wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marketing materials aren't plans. Musk has made a strategy of "overpromise, maybe deliver", rebranded as "vision" or "ambitious goals". Some of what his companies have delivered is impressive, but you never know what they're going to actually deliver until there are at least working prototypes.

Yeah, but that’s true for all space companies. The surprising thing about SpaceX is that SpaceX delivers more than other corporations which promise less than SpaceX promises.

You agree with what I said, but the sentiment with which I said it wasn't positive enough, so now you've gotta jump in to defend SpaceX?

That marketing scheme sure does work.

It's no surprise that the best-funded company produces the best results, but it would be interesting to find out if a more honest company could produce better results with equal funding.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#38

Post by emilfihlman »

lt_kernelpanic wrote: post #10

Question for the experts: what are the tests and analysis that we cannot do via a rover-based lab and hence need to send the samples to Earth? Asking out of curiosity (pun not intended!).

Space technology actually does drive technology miniaturisation!

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#39

Post by _Microft »

Tepix wrote: post #33

It will be interesting to see what the situation will be like when this spaceship is ready. By that time we should have Starship and New Glenn flying regularly. Even New Armstrong could be close to ready by then.

New Glenn is not that different from Falcon 9 regarding reusability as they will have to expend the upper stage and fairings every single launch.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#40

Post by ben_w »

MartinMcGirk wrote: post #30
ben_w wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact I realised only recently: 2 ∘ 2 = 4 for any operator ∘ in the Ackermann sequence other than the zeroth (successor) operator. 2+2 = 2×2 = 2² = … = 4 At least, unless I messed up my proof. My highest qualification is two A-levels in maths and half of brilliant.org… https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2020/07/27/hᵤ2-2-4-for...

Tangential to the topic of this post, but how have you found brilliant? I’ve been considering it but don’t know if it’s worth adding another subscription to my monthly spend when I could presumably get a lot of the same knowledge from YouTube (albeit in a less structured way). Any thoughts?

Plus:

Brilliant’s computer science courses cover slightly more than my actual software engineering degree from Aberystwyth university, and their maths courses cover more than I did at A-level.

The various introductions to matrices (in different contexts each time), are better than the introduction I had in my A-levels (with a good teacher!), and I would say they are of comparable goodness to 3blue1brown. Only, all of it is that good.

If you get stuck because a topic assumes knowledge you don’t yet have, they have a course to teach you what you need to learn.

I can’t comment on the levels of Brilliant’s physics, chemistry, or biology as I have only GCSEs in those subjects — but I can say they’re well-described and engaging.

Negatives:

Limited practice materials, e.g. I still suck at probability because I’m not groking the broader implications of their simpler lessons.

Post reply on HN