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

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#191

Post by valuearb » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 7:42 PM UTC

mabbo wrote: post #26

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!).

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…

These are all reasons why sending humans is so important. They will explore more of Mars in a week than rivers have in 50 years. They will arrive with a testing lab and do all sorts of tests immediately.

If Starship meets its performance targets, it’s first missions will bring hundreds of scientists to a Mars, with thousands of tons of equipment and supplies. In-orbit and in-situ refueling are game changing technologies that will literally reduce the cost of deep space manned missions by a thousandfold.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#192

Post by valuearb » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 7:44 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…

Great, get me some samples from the bottom of Valles Marineris, preferably from the dry river beds.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#193

Post by valuearb » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #153

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!).

Looking at a rock with our own eyes, and feeling it with our own senses can provide context and meaning that a robot might have trouble conveying.

Having humans on Mars means we can find the best sample rocks in a tiny fraction of the time, and test them right there.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#194

Post by knodi123 » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

adrianmonk wrote: post #176

Are they going to have to change their name to Vacuumbus? Although, it is a cargo ship, so maybe Vacuumtruck would be more accurate.

It doesn't exactly roll trippingly off the tongue, does it?

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#195

Post by valuearb » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 7:47 PM UTC

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.

Is this a joke post? Boeing has the greatest pool of experienced space engineers on the planet, all funded by 70 years of government projects.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#196

Post by valuearb » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 7:51 PM UTC

itsoktocry wrote: post #59

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.

> SpaceX Starship is planned for 2024, and with a cargo capacity in the hundreds of tons. And Full-Self-Driving will be available in the summer of 2015, and a cross country autonomous drive will happen in 2017, and this year we'll have 1,000,000 autonomous Robotaxis on the streets. Let's go!

And Falcon 9 is nearing its 100th flight, and has made first stage recovery normal, and a Starship prototype has already flown with the new engine. Based on SpaceX typical cadence, full Starship prototypes will fly this year and achieve orbit next year. That’s three years to work out the kinks for the first Mars attempts.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#197

Post by valuearb » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 7:57 PM UTC

thinkcontext wrote: post #78

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.

Though I would very much like to see Starship succeed, it must be understood just how risky a project it is. Just having the rocket be able to work in Earth orbit is a risky proposition, given its novel design and materials challenges. Add to that the many novel challenges returning Starship would entail, refueling in space, landing and taking off from Mars, setting up multi megawatts of solar, mining, methane produc…

FH was done on a shoestring budget for a small market and nearly canceled when it became clear Starship was the better path.

But I agree with you that Starship has some challenges, specifically proving it can handle re-entry, be easily refurbed between launches, and be easily refueled in low earth orbit.

But Super Heavy is just a bigger Falcon 9, using the same landing technology. Even if a Starship Reusability falls short, it’s very clear that the combo is going to put bigger payloads than the the SLS into orbit at 1/20th the cost.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#198

Post by valuearb » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

qayxc wrote: post #34

ben_w wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 guar…

Have you heard how weak gravity is on Mars? The crane can be made out of LEGO’s.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#199

Post by valuearb » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

ever1 wrote: post #69

growlist wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ariane 6 will still be significantly more costly that expendable Falcon 9s. It’s a terrible design that learned nothing from SpaceX breakthroughs before reuse was even possible.

Re: Airbus to build 'first interplanetary cargo ship'

#200

Post by hef19898 » Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 8:05 PM UTC

nscalf wrote: post #148

throw1234651234 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Currently listening to the biography on Musk, he jokingly accepts that his timelines are all off, but he doesn't feel too bad about it because he eventually hits the goals. When asked about comments that a timeline for an electric car took a couple years longer than he had predicted (like a 1 year prediction, and it took 3.5 years, or something like that) he said roughly "Oh yeah, that's crazy. But I didn't know that…

You can try doing the same thing in your job and see how that will end. The mere fact that he doesn't just get away with it, but also gets funding every singel time, and has a huge cult following, makes all of my BS whistle ring.