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

251–260 of 348 posts

Re: Starship Update [video]

#251

Post by TwoFerMaggie »

nickpp wrote: post #238
sillysaurusx wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, he's always like this. See his Neuralink presentations. He got to where he is through a combination of hard work and luck (a large part of which was the birth lottery), like everyone. Imagine if Woz was intensely interested in building Apple, and had Jobs' judgement. As far as I know, he's planning on a time frame of 200 years to build a sustainable city. He's also intending on building thousands of Starships,…

> birth lottery Elon Musk was born in South Africa so compared to anyone born in the USA or EU he has lost the birth lottery, I guess.

I would argue that it doesn't just depend on which country. Being born into a privileged class in a less developed country is often times better than an average family in, let's say, US.

The inequality is much more severe meaning that you might actually have access to more resource and power.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#252

Post by donpott »

ByThyGrace wrote: post #250
donpott wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on this comment alone, I can tell you would enjoy "The moon is a harsh mistress" by Robert Heinlein. Recommended if you haven't read it already!

Or the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, which is a fabulous sci-fi take on this matter. Can't recommend it enough if you're an avid reader.

That's next on my list now. Thank you!

Re: Starship Update [video]

#254

Post by chriswarbo »

HWR_14 wrote: post #158
toomuchtodo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m unsure there’s much to discuss in that specific regard? If you believe in cheap heavy lift and humans colonizing Mars, you agree this project has merit (and the costs and human effort involved reasonable). If you don’t, you see this project as superfluous and wasteful. Is that interpretation inaccurate? It’s somewhat, but not entirely, binary. From the presentation, development costs will be 5-10% of the Saturn V…

What if I believe in government run Mars colonies, but don't believe in private ones like one run as Musk's empire? Am I not allowed a nuanced opinion?

> private ones like one run as Musk's empire

Where have you got this idea from?

SpaceX are a haulage company: they currently haul crew and cargo to and from Earth orbit (plus a few deep-space probes, and one deep-space car); Starship will extend this further through the solar system (Moon, Mars, asteroids, etc.).

At the moment, their main "destination" is the government-run ISS. There are no off-world colonies (public or private); there aren't even any private space stations yet. (NASA recently funded some private space station proposals; SpaceX made a token effort, which was rejected).

Musk himself has stated that he wants humans to be multi-planetary, and doesn't care who does it; that he would be happy for someone to out-compete SpaceX, since that would mean the goal has been achieved. SpaceX will gladly help governments set up off-world colonies; in fact, that seems like the only feasible way to build them. The problem is the cost was too high, even for government; the point of Starship is to reduce that cost.

The only reason Musk started SpaceX was because the Boeings/Lockheed Martins/etc. were happy to keep prices high; and Russia wouldn't sell him a Mars-capable rocket.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#255

Post by XorNot »

timeon wrote: post #234
nickpp wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The utopia is that humanity is not stuck on a single planet anymore, with all eggs in one basket - so to speak. The rest I find just realistic though. I do not expect humans in space to behave much differently from humans on earth.

If I sum your two paragraphs new title can be: Swarm Of Locusts.

I mean sure but who cares? It's a big empty universe - we owe it no moral consideration.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#256

Post by ralfd »

sfblah wrote: post #84
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…

I completely agree with this line of reasoning, which is why I called the fixation with Mars Quixotic elsewhere in the thread. I was discussing this with some friends. Why not just pick some other totally inhospitable environment and try to live there instead? I mentioned inside a volcano lower in the thread. It seems to me you'd get all the same side-benefits of technological development.

But the utopian end goal is to make Mars hospitable. For Musk a Mars city is not the end goal but the first step. For example one could make a magnetic shield in L1 Mars Orbit. There was a speculative Nasa study (Wikipedia):

> If constructed, the shield may allow the planet to restore its atmosphere. Simulations indicate that within years, the planet would be able to achieve half the atmospheric pressure of Earth. Without solar winds stripping away at the planet, frozen carbon dioxide at the ice caps on either pole would begin to sublimate (change from a solid into a gas) and warm the equator. Ice caps would begin to melt to form an ocean. T

Of course there is much difficulty and unkown unknowns. Maybe this is truly impossible. Maybe this will take a million years. Maybe Mars soil is too toxic for plant growth.

But the upshoot of terraforming Mars is so fantastical, that it is at least worth dreaming about.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#257

Post by chriswarbo »

garbagetime wrote: post #58
irrational wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basic idea is to not have all your eggs in one basket. We are one asteroid strike away from losing all human life on earth. Having 2 habited planets spreads the risk. Obviously having those planets in different solar systems would be even better, but we don’t have the technology for that, yet.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. Our options aren't only (a) live only on Earth, and (b) live on Earth and Mars and potentially other planets. There is, for example, (c) live in man-made structures orbiting the sun at a distance of 1AU, which is debatedly much more sensible than trying to live on Mars.

Your proposed alternative would also benefit from something like Starship.

Of course, we can (and should, eventually) do both.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#258

Post by onion2k »

fireflymetavrse wrote: post #247
onion2k wrote: post #222

The numbers on mass to orbit are fascinating. To date humans have sent 15,517 tons of stuff into space. SpaceX wants to be able to send 15,500 per year with a single Starship, and Elon wants a fleet of 10. That's amazing. That really is "we can have a moonbase now" levels of ambition.

>15,517 tons What is the source for this and how was this calculated?

The source is SpaceX's presentation in the video. How it was calculated ... Elon guessed?

Re: Starship Update [video]

#259

Post by __s »

PicassoCTs wrote: post #246
nickpp wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer to think of The Expanse instead. It seems a much more likely future to me. There are countless dystopic futures (they sell better) we already avoided so I prefer optimism.

Can't wait to have 9/11 but with disenfranchised people up in the gravity well pounding down on us well-dwellers..

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Re: Starship Update [video]

#260

Post by Retric »

belter wrote: post #133
Retric wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is called the Ford Pinto theory... "Ford Pinto" https://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-matteson/module-1-why-do... "...Thus, Ford knew that the Pinto represented a serious fire hazard when struck from the rear, even in low-speed collisions. Ford officials faced a decision. Should they go ahead with the existing design, thereby meeting the production timetable but possibly jeopardizing consumer safety? Or should the…

I know, but just because it’s unpleasant does not mean it’s untrue.
Post reply on HN