Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship' • Hacker News Board

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#111

Post by bvm » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 2:58 PM UTC

lrnStats wrote: post #66

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Orbit is incredibly hard. It's only just possible. A few percent more gravity and we would be permanently earth-bound. Getting to orbit requires hundreds of thousands of components to function together perfectly. Failure requires one to go wrong.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#112

Post by dylan604 » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:00 PM UTC

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…

I love how they borrowed and repurposed that speech in Contact.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#113

Post by rrss » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

throw1234651234 wrote: post #105

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.

I don't think you can call him Musk "master of the dubious marketing promise" anymore now that Tesla is meeting production goals, SpaceX is landing boosters, re-supplying the ISS, and has brought astronauts to the ISS. His promises are far more reliable than most at this point.

Yeah, you definitely can.

1) Tesla driving fully autonomously from LA to NY by the end of 2017 [1][and many others]

2) Tesla producing 10,000 cars per week by the end of 2018 [2][3]

3) "Funding secured" [4]

4) All Teslas produced after Oct 2016 have all the hardware necessary for full self driving [5]. This was apparently before Tesla realized they needed/wanted to design a custom ASIC for full self driving.

Many more.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-two-years-car-20285...

[2] https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tesla-ceo-musk-th...

[3] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1117526382563643392

[4] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776

[5] https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now...

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#114

Post by rsynnott » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

throw1234651234 wrote: post #105

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.

I don't think you can call him Musk "master of the dubious marketing promise" anymore now that Tesla is meeting production goals, SpaceX is landing boosters, re-supplying the ISS, and has brought astronauts to the ISS. His promises are far more reliable than most at this point.

> now that Tesla is meeting production goals

Where's the magic cross-country self-driving car that was meant to show up in 2016? And just how 'self driving ready' are those Model 3s?

> SpaceX is landing boosters

A mere decade or so after promised.

I think both of these are examples of dubious marketing promises, though the Tesla one is more egregious (the SpaceX one is merely extremely late). But either way, I wouldn't depend on any of their timelines going forward.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#115

Post by nothis » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

pansa2 wrote: post #3

> "This is not just twice as difficult as any typical Mars mission; it's twice squared" So, four times as difficult?

Even in the most obnoxiously nerdy interpretation, it would be (2*n)^2, not 2^2.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#116

Post by kspacewalk2 » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:04 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #20

jiofih wrote: post #2

SpaceX Starship is planned for 2024, and with a cargo capacity in the hundreds of tons. Even if it gets delayed by four or five years it will be able to bring back samples before this is is even launched. NASA’s plans seem very slow in comparison.

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.

> Marketing materials aren't plans.

That's right, they aren't. Which is why it's mighty brave of the BBC to call it "first interplanetary cargo ship". We'll see who gets there first.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#117

Post by BurningFrog » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:04 PM UTC

pansa2 wrote: post #3

> "This is not just twice as difficult as any typical Mars mission; it's twice squared" So, four times as difficult?

I see the urge to avid the tired cliche of "exponential", but being creative has risks.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#118

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #87

mabbo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple answer from a space nerd: Rovers are small, light, and have very little energy. So what we can't do is anything that requires a large or heavy device or anything that requires significant energy. They break/fail. They take forever to make happen. Want to burn 20kg of soil to see if there's any trace of specific elements? You'll need a furnace. Those are both heavy and high-energy. You could do a smaller scale…

I think the GP wanted to know what the actual tests an analyses are.

[deleted]

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#119

Post by BurningFrog » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

bufferoverflow wrote: post #41

> The joint American-European project is expected to cost billions and take just over a decade to implement. I'm 99% sure that if SpaceX's starship takes off, it will fly to Mars and back within a few years. But still, competition is good.

> is expected to cost billions

I'm annoyed by this innumerical journalistic habit where imprecise large numbers are only given as "millions", "billions" or "trillions".

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#120

Post by dylan604 » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

ape4 wrote: post #52

The article mentions a "football sized package". Hope there is no confusion between American and European football.

Good gawd, that would be more [sad|funny] than the mm/inch confusion. Can the rover use it's hands or not? Better hope they use American version of Instant Replay than the pathetic VAR implementation as well.