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

161–170 of 219 posts

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#161

Post by gspr »

BurningFrog wrote: post #119
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".

I agree about general journalistic innumeracy, but in this case it may well be the best estimate available. It's no different from the order of magnitude estimates highly numerate people make for good reason all the time.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#162

Post by kanox »

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.

> 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.

This is not true, SpaceX was consistenly cheaper than the competition for launches and ISS resupply.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#163

Post by Robotbeat »

raldi wrote: post #142
Robotbeat wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX isn’t planning to enter orbit around Mars but instead do direct entry.

How do you retrieve a surface sample on a direct-entry mission?

You land on Mars. Refuel. And launch again direct to Earth.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#164

Post by freeopinion »

whatshisface wrote: post #107
sputr wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get that logic. So what if they have liabilities? They also had experiance, proprietary knowledge, tested supply chains, tooling etc. etc. I think the problem is that everyone is buying into the Musk==SpaceX story, which I think is wrong. He is a marketing gimmick that secures funding and cheap labor (through hype) and maybe some clients. If you ask me, from what I've seen the actual person responsible for Sp…

"Idiot boss/genius lieutenant" pairs don't work in real life. The idiot boss will always get fooled by politickers and before long the genius lieutenant will be replaced by an upwardly charismatic lieutenant. There's no way to conquer the principal agent problem without enough domain knowledge to understand what the agent is doing, even if the domain knowledge is never used to do anything but understand what the agen…

Just because the straight man is a genius doesn't mean the partner is an idiot. Can you say who was more brilliant between Abbott and Costello? They each had different roles. Which Smothers Brother was the brains of the outfit? Why not both?

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#165

Post by kanox »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #84
sobellian wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Boeing has liabilities which a new company doesn't.

This makes no sense? You can compare SpaceX and Boeing performance on the commercial crew contracts which have very similar deliverables and nothing to do with other businesses.

Boeing received considerably more money for commercial crew and delivered worse results, they'll refly the demo mission at their own cost putting them ~1 year behind SpaceX.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#166

Post by antonvs »

Robotbeat wrote: post #72
itsoktocry wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm 99% sure that if SpaceX's starship takes off, it will fly to Mars and back within a few years. Define "a few years" and I'll bet you it won't, with whatever odds you want.

2031 is when the Sample Return Mission is supposed to return the samples back to Earth. Keep in mind slips happen in ALL sorts of space projects, not just SpaceX. I’ll take your bet. I want 2:1 odds: SpaceX returns a vehicle from Mars by the end of 2035 (UTC), and before the NASA-ESA sample return mission has returned its samples. I’ll buy you a beer/beverage (value not to exceed $10) if you win, and you’ll buy me 2…

Don't know about the person you replied to, but none of the dates you mention qualify as what I would call "a few years."

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#167

Post by spacemark »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #98
dividedbyzero wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe those people would have accumulated enormous radiation dosages over the duration of the flight, they might not have a long life left and a return voyage would shorten that even more. Might as well stay put for the remaining time on Earth, err, Mars, stay in deep lava tubes and help build that colony.

> those people would have accumulated enormous radiation dosages over the duration of the flight What is this based on? One of the chief contributors to the mass of a Mars voyage is shielding.

You can't really shield against galactic cosmic rays (too high energy, would require far too much mass), which make up approximately 95% of the dose.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1080.abstrac...

*Edit - but the comment higher up isn't right either, that most Mars-bound astronauts will have decreased lives. The paper linked above estimates 3% of astronauts to die from cancer caused by the trip (assuming no exposure on the surface of Mars, meaning they're in the ground).

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#168

Post by Robotbeat »

raldi wrote: post #143
Robotbeat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A SpaceX vehicle returning from the surface of Mars.

You're saying the vehicle will bring all the fuel needed for a return flight to Earth down to the surface of Mars and then back up again? Do you have a link with a description of how they're going to do this?

No. It will make the fuel from Martian resources like water ice and the CO2 atmosphere. Using solar power. First to split the water to oxygen and hydrogen using electrolysis, then use the hydrogen with CO2 to make methane (& some water which is cycled back to the electrolysis step) using the Sabatier reaction. This is done on the International space Station today, by the way. The methane on ISS is simply vented (as the point on ISS is to recover the oxygen from the CO2, which is most of CO2’s mass). It takes a lot of energy, so there will need to be very large solar arrays on Mars, but it’s possible.

This page describes the process: https://medium.com/spaceinmylifetime/how-spacex-will-refuel-...

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#169

Post by raldi »

mLuby wrote: post #157
raldi wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Returning from orbit is "easy", you just go into a free-return trajectory and don't even do much of a burn at Mars, if any at all. Getting a sample from the surface basically means you need to do a deceleration burn to get into orbit, and then the reverse after grabbing the sample (which itself must be accelerated to orbital speed). No small thing.

A free-return trajectory doesn't enter orbit around a body, indeed its appeal is that if your propulsion fails while on such a course, you'll coast home "for free" rather than enter orbit around your target or drift into deep space. Entering orbit almost always requires an orbital insertion burn, and in the case of an Earth-Mars Hohmann transfer definitely does. Your point stands though: returning from a fly-by (incl…

Correct, I misspoke: My first use of "orbit", I should have said "the area up around the planet, not down on the surface.

The difference in difficulty (mainly, fuel requirements) between a flyby and an orbit is a crucial distinction often overlooked.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#170

Post by mhh__ »

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.

What hypothesis?

If you found life on Mars you're going to be rendered immortal as long as knowledge survived. No one is refusing out of pride.

Post reply on HN