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

Starship Update [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 348 posts

Re: Starship Update [video]

#111

Post by fastball »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #22
rtpg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we need to fly 3 months to some inhospitable planet that is in worse condition than Earth would be (even after nuclear wars and global warming) to make progress? I suppose there's an idea we could apply everything done on Mars to Earth, but like... seriously, what we just took all the prep for mars and just put it in the middle of the Empty Quarter, the Saraha, Antarctica? People barely want to live in the arc…

There is loads of people who want to travel to mars for an expedition to look for life, study it's geology and see what it looks like at all - however you are right that living consitions would be crap. I have always maintained that a settlement on the moon makes a lot more sence - fortly you have much better access to space for industry, secondly, help can reach you withing days at any time or you could be in earth…

Starship is literally also slated for missions to the moon. If those go well someone probably will pay to build a moon base.

That being said, there are a number of reasons why Mars is preferable to the Moon if your goal is a totally self-sustaining colony.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#113

Post by Retric »

belter wrote: post #103
Retric wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla autopilot has already been driving during multiple accidents that killed people. Tesla the company isn’t at significant risk from these accidents or related lawsuits as the driver and thus their insurance is still considered legally responsible. Further, car accidents in general have relatively low payouts even when someone is blatantly at fault. Even being held responsible for say 10 fatalities per year would…

A legal theory that might be challenged soon. We will see what comes out of this case: "Two people killed in fiery Tesla crash with no one driving" https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/18/22390612/two-people-kille...

The car wasn’t empty, it’s just nobody was in the drivers seat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L18Jhi84wT8

Aka people did dumb thing in car, and then died. But again even if they are held either 100% responsible or say 50% the payouts on such lawsuits don’t amount to that much.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#114

Post by fastball »

sfblah wrote: post #83
panick21_ wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have enough land on earth already. Land is not actually the solution to any problem on earth. But Mars is the solution to a potentially big problem on earth. And the technology to manufacture fuel from solar and nuclear energy, building advanced life support system, advancing the state of rocket technology, allowing much more use of sat technology, massively advancing science planetary/biology/(and more), controll…

Let's say someone argued instead that we should figure out a way to establish a human settlement inside of a volcano, or at the bottom of the deep ocean. Couldn't you make all the arguments you just made in favor of doing that as well? What makes Mars any different? Why is this specific Quixotic activity more valid than the ones I just mentioned?

Who do you know that is fired up about building a base in a volcano?

But gonna have to disagree with GC here and say that I think a self-sustaining Mars base is worth it entirely for having a backup of intelligent life, which the deep ocean base doesn't deliver.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#115

Post by vardump »

dymk wrote: post #41
belter wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which one of these personalities is he, when making statements about Tesla FSD? Edit: The answer to this question will be highly relevant during the lawsuits that will follow, the first time the Beta FSD kills somebody.

The kind that raises capital, probably

Capital... for SpaceX? Because Tesla is already self-funding, with practically no capital access requirements.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#116

Post by bqmjjx0kac »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #110
sfblah wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then what? What's the use case?

Mass to orbit gives you lots of options: Starlink completed, more telescopes like James Webb but cheaper, a moon base, radio telescope on the far side of the moon, orbital rotational space stations (for G forces), missions to asteroids, Mars, outer planets, are just a few things. Point to point transport on Earth, halfway around the world in less than an hour.

Space mining.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#117

Post by monocasa »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #110
sfblah wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then what? What's the use case?

Mass to orbit gives you lots of options: Starlink completed, more telescopes like James Webb but cheaper, a moon base, radio telescope on the far side of the moon, orbital rotational space stations (for G forces), missions to asteroids, Mars, outer planets, are just a few things. Point to point transport on Earth, halfway around the world in less than an hour.

It also opens up off planet manufacturing in a way that can snowball into self sustaining growth. Which IMO is how we're going to mint the first trillionaire.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#118

Post by jjulius »

fastball wrote: post #99
flyt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, but they are. The average westerner (in the US, at least) is a $400 unexpected bill away from bankruptcy. Also, Musk was not a founder of Tesla.

> Also, Musk was not a founder of Tesla. Lawsuit says otherwise.

The settlement just said that they could call themselves founders. Equally, a settlement could've also been reached that said that everyone involved could call themselves "buttholes".

What doesn't change regardless of that settlement is the fact that Musk didn't actually found (or "start" if folk wanna get all nitpicky bEcAuSe SeTtLeMeNt SaYs So) the company, invested a year after it was founded, and didn't become CEO for another four years.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#119

Post by CharlesW »

panick21_ wrote: post #89
JaimeThompson wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also has a deep understanding of how important government assistance was to getting SpaceX where it is now but that hasn't stopped him from trying to stop others from benefiting from the same. He shows a lack of rational thought in regards too SpaceX that is sometimes rather worrying. Take, for example, the time he smoked a blunt on camera which isn't exactly what one of his largest customers likes to see in their…

> but that hasn't stopped him from trying to stop others from benefiting from the same. That's complete nonsense. Unlike others SpaceX has never really attack other space companies. Musk has been supportive of other space companies. SpaceX busted open the establishment in both DoD and NASA so the contracts are fairly competent, and everybody coming in the industry benefits from that. SpaceX just recently lost a contr…

> Unlike others SpaceX has never really attack other space companies.

I mean, Musk hasn't called Bezos a pedo (yet), but you haven't been paying attention if you believe that.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-mocks-jeff-bezos-aft...

Re: Starship Update [video]

#120

Post by fastball »

jjulius wrote: post #118
fastball wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, Musk was not a founder of Tesla. Lawsuit says otherwise.

The settlement just said that they could call themselves founders. Equally, a settlement could've also been reached that said that everyone involved could call themselves "buttholes". What doesn't change regardless of that settlement is the fact that Musk didn't actually found (or "start" if folk wanna get all nitpicky bEcAuSe SeTtLeMeNt SaYs So) the company, invested a year after it was founded, and didn't become CE…

What is a founder?

If I incorporate a company and then bring my friend onboard a day later, is he a founder? Why or why not?

Post reply on HN