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

61–70 of 219 posts

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#61

Post by sobellian »

kerkeslager wrote: post #37
ben_w wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't need to wonder. Boeing has received much more funding for Starliner than SpaceX has for crewed Dragon.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#63

Post by ta8594505930 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #24
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!).

I am no expert, but I can imagine there are many kinds of laboratory equipment that is way too heavy to pit on a rover, perhaps mass spectrometers, etc. Biological wxperiments is a big one. There is kind of outstanding question of perclorates in martian soil and its toxicity to earth organisms, plants, etc.

The mars rover does have a spectrometer. It's called ChemCam [1], it uses a laser to vaporize a small amount of matter and them captures the spectrographs of the resulting plasma with a camera. That doesn't take away from your point, but it is a cool piece of equipment.

[1] https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/spacecraft/instruments/chemcam/

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#64

Post by ben_w »

rsynnott wrote: post #60
ben_w wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I’m saying everyone else is more guilty of the same sins . Generally with more money behind them, too.

ESA and NASA are the only entities which have much recent operational experience of advanced use of ion drives; they've both launched and operated multiple ion drive propelled probes. And Airbus is the only manufacturer to have made _multiple_ ion drive propelled vehicles. Some commercial satellite companies, including SpaceX, use ion drives for station keeping, but this has been around for about 50 years. Currently,…

Can you go into more depth with this? Because I don’t understand why you consider the experience with satellite station keeping to be unimportant.

What’s importantly different about the more recent ion drives?

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#65

Post by lrnStats »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #62

If NASA really wanted to answer the 'life on Mars' question, Perseverance would have included a microscope. AFAICT, the reason it doesn't is because nobody wants to stake their reputation on the hypothesis.

Really? What's wrong with admitting you were wrong, and that was a discovery in its own?

I recently made an error regarding essential amino acids, and it only improved the quality of suggested foods. Everyone wins.

(Although you still get a few internet haters)

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#66

Post by lrnStats »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #27
Aeolun wrote: post #17

10 years to implement? Aren’t we supposed to have a starship in orbit of Mars by that time?

Thats in Elon time, I would not bet my house on starship being in orbit by 2030. Secondly, there is need to independant access to space free of US technology export rules and foreign policy and sanctions. US administration has forbidden NASA collaboration with China, and as a result they built a separate space station, and are having a separate moon-capable rocket. And i would bet my house that they will get to the m…

Orbit isn't hard. The hard part is landing something that can later return to space.

That said, you can't trust anything Elon says.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#67

Post by skykooler »

ben_w wrote: post #25
_petronius wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe (2n) 2 as difficult?

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...

I figured this out when I discovered hyperoperators and spent a good day or so telling everyone "two and two are always four!"

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#68

Post by kingkawn »

raverbashing wrote: post #58
rsynnott wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think even Musk, master of the dubious marketing promise, has claimed that; the first ones would be one-way jobs AIUI.

Correct, only the crew mission would return, the rest would be several one-way cargo missions

Pretty sure Musk said the crew mission would not return

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#69

Post by ever1 »

growlist wrote: post #42
lumberjack wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want my tax money to go fund SpaceX. SpaceX is American and all their capabilities are practically owned by American entities. Europeans like me cannot even work for SpaceX, so unless we have our own parallel programs we would just have no capability at all in this space.

If ESA were building reusable rockets and not instead persisting with a pork-driven employment programme that happens to have a side effect of producing rockets, I'd agree with you. Until then ESA deserve to be hammered with criticism - and especially by those whose tax money etc. is being spent on an approach that is hurtling towards obsolescence.

What are you talking about ? So far Ariane program seems to be a commercial success. ESA on a scientific point of view too. It is true that Ariane 6 will not be reusable, although cheaper than Ariane 5, just like ALL reliable commercial launchers today (even tomorrow for ULA) outside of space X. It is clear that this is the future. However, these are only the first steps. I am not sure that today space X will be able to be profitable with it. Talking about tax money, note that SLS will not be reusable too...

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#70

Post by ceejayoz »

sandworm101 wrote: post #54
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!).

Better question: What will we learn that we cannot learn from all the Martian rocks we already have on earth . There have been plenty or Martian meteors found in Antarctica, and no doubt many more if we redoubled our efforts to find them. Many once claimed to have found evidence of life in these rocks already. Some of us are even old enough to remember President Clinton's speech on the subject. (That isn't a deepfake…

> Better question: What will we learn that we cannot learn from all the Martian rocks we already have on earth.

These particular samples will be from the present-day surface, with known geographic (aerographic?) origin, not affected by potentially millions of years of interplanetary travel, and not contaminated by sitting around on Earth for who knows how long.

Post reply on HN