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

Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#41

Post by lordnacho »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #40
lordnacho wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah there's nothing bizarre about it. Moore's law could as well be applied to space travel, why shouldn't you expect that a field that was new would reduce costs exponentially over the next few decades? Turned out to hit a wall but there were reasons to be optimistic at the time. And the demand side of that business is still there. Who wouldn't book a hotel in space for a few days if the price came down to an annual…

Why would you expect a Moore's law in a new field? Gordon Moore only stated his thesis almost two decades after the start of the semiconductor era. It was an empirical observation based on the history of integrated circuits. Why would you assume a Moore's law in fields that have never shown anything resembling Moore's law?

Maybe not the constant but the idea that things will get cheaper. Like batteries.

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#42

Post by messe »

Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #38
JPLeRouzic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RP-1 is much less toxic than Hydrazine, but toxicity is not the same thing than pollution. One is qualitative, the other both qualitative and quantitative. Burning a huge amount of kerosene is polluting. For comparison a Boeing 747 (4 engines) consume 2,8 kg per second, while a Saturn V 1 first stage burns 13,600 kg per second, nearly 5000 times the amount of the Boeing 747. I hope for a breakthrough in rocket engine…

Yes, but the Merlin engine doesn’t burn hydrazine, it burns RP-1 just like the F-1. I fail to see the environmental benefit. Also, how energy efficient is the production of hydrazine? Non-fossil processes for making fuels tend to be pretty wasteful, take hydrogen from methane compared to hydrogen from electrolysis for instance.

SpaceX’s starship and superheavy are planned to use Methane rather than RP-1. The exhaust is much cleaner. It’s not as clean as just using Hydrogen, but that’s quite difficult to store at cryogenic temperatures, far less dense, and not as suited to long duration missions.

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#44

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

TMWNN wrote: post #9
JKCalhoun wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would a manned Mars mission really have been feasible? Is it feasible now? I have no idea, myself. The shuttle might have been fine if it weren't twisted into the boxcar-like thing the Air Force insisted upon. And if the other parts came along with it: space tug, lunar-orbiting station, etc. Instead we got a starter salad and then were shown the door. Perhaps it was a lack of money. The U.S. worrying so much about (S…

>Would a manned Mars mission really have been feasible? Is it feasible now? I have no idea, myself. No less than Michael Griffith, * the NASA Administrator* , said in 2007 that the shuttle was a mistake ( https://aviationweek.typepad.com/space/2007/03/human_space_e... >), and that NASA should have instead continuing launching Saturn rockets: >If we had done all this, we would be on Mars today, not writing about it as…

I don't think we would be on Mars. The hard part isn't getting there, it's creating a sustainable semi-independent habitat that will get you there and keep you alive there between resupply runs.

This is not a "Oh, we'll just deal with that when we need to" problem. It's absolutely critical for long-term missions. And there's been shockingly little research done on it.

The ISS is trivial in comparison because you can send up stuff and take stuff down almost instantly with relative ease. Mars is seven months away. So your mission has to be self-sustaining for at least that long. And it's going to need a steady stream of resupply runs - with a seventh month lead time if have an accident or start running out of stuff.

And all of that - for what? Mars is not a pleasant or easy environment. Aside from unpleasant, difficult, and hostile living space it has no obvious resources.

"Because we can" is a good enough reason for an initial exploration, but it's not a sustainable project without a long-term goal.

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#45

Post by iamgopal »

MicahKV wrote: post #2

I don't see the bizarre part. Wikipedia says Barron was born in 1927 when we were still figuring out the basics of aviation, and just a few decades later he was making these plans in the midst of the space race. Considering the rate of progress he had witnessed in his time, it's not very surprising that he expected us to aggressively colonize space in his lifetime. Maybe I have overly romanticized notions of what cou…

And we have achieved what ? 99 other ways to share naked women’s photos. I hope young people get bored with this stupidity real soon and dream about the bigger space future. Elon is on right path with that one too.

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#46

Post by scrollaway »

iamgopal wrote: post #45
MicahKV wrote: post #2

I don't see the bizarre part. Wikipedia says Barron was born in 1927 when we were still figuring out the basics of aviation, and just a few decades later he was making these plans in the midst of the space race. Considering the rate of progress he had witnessed in his time, it's not very surprising that he expected us to aggressively colonize space in his lifetime. Maybe I have overly romanticized notions of what cou…

And we have achieved what ? 99 other ways to share naked women’s photos. I hope young people get bored with this stupidity real soon and dream about the bigger space future. Elon is on right path with that one too.

You're using the internet wrong.

I'd say if you're watching star trek or some other sci-fi show from earlier than the 90s, we may not have achieved FTL or teleportation, but the whole "magic device that contains all knowledge and can communicate with anyone at any time" thing we actually did pretty well on.

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#48

Post by loloquwowndueo »

lordnacho wrote: post #41
oldgradstudent wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you expect a Moore's law in a new field? Gordon Moore only stated his thesis almost two decades after the start of the semiconductor era. It was an empirical observation based on the history of integrated circuits. Why would you assume a Moore's law in fields that have never shown anything resembling Moore's law?

Maybe not the constant but the idea that things will get cheaper. Like batteries.

Like gold. We are constantly mining more of it, stands to reason it would become cheaper over time. /s

Re: Hilton's 1967 plan for a space hotel

#50

Post by xwdv »

scrollaway wrote: post #46
iamgopal wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we have achieved what ? 99 other ways to share naked women’s photos. I hope young people get bored with this stupidity real soon and dream about the bigger space future. Elon is on right path with that one too.

You're using the internet wrong. I'd say if you're watching star trek or some other sci-fi show from earlier than the 90s, we may not have achieved FTL or teleportation, but the whole "magic device that contains all knowledge and can communicate with anyone at any time" thing we actually did pretty well on.

I remember reading Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy when I was young and thinking how amazing it’d be to have a such an all knowing device that could look up anything, but didn’t think it was possible, never imagined everyone would have one in their pocket someday.
Post reply on HN