111–120 of 351 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why does it need to be super-large? To simulate gravity? Rocket efficiency scales infinitely with size.
The rocket equation [0] disagrees: "In what has been called 'the tyranny of the rocket equation', there is a limit to the amount of payload that the rocket can carry, as higher amounts of propellant increment the overall weight, and thus also increase the fuel consumption" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
I don't know about the Starship a week but he definitely fulfils his hyperbolic bullshit per day quota. And it's mostly "our" fault, "we" let him getaway with so much shit ( from market manipulation to criminal workplace offences ) because he entertains our egos with the promise of getting all our problems solved ( which is ridiculous at so many levels ). OK let's pretend Elon builds one Starship a week, at which cos…
Humans are not biologically adapted to surviving on Mars, and for that reason, any settlement to Mars is bound to fail in the long term.
We're not biologically adapted for surviving in Siberia, but we manage it. Hell, you'll get hypothermia on the French Riviera in winter without clothes. Technology has always been our way of expanding into spaces we're not otherwise evolved to cope with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rocket equation [0] disagrees: "In what has been called 'the tyranny of the rocket equation', there is a limit to the amount of payload that the rocket can carry, as higher amounts of propellant increment the overall weight, and thus also increase the fuel consumption" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
I'm having a mental blockage on this, as you can always launch 10 rockets at the same time and get 10 times the payload. Having those 10 rockets strapped together should not change the payload of them flying independently. What am I missing here -- I'm sure I'm overlooking something.
I don't know about the Starship a week but he definitely fulfils his hyperbolic bullshit per day quota. And it's mostly "our" fault, "we" let him getaway with so much shit ( from market manipulation to criminal workplace offences ) because he entertains our egos with the promise of getting all our problems solved ( which is ridiculous at so many levels ). OK let's pretend Elon builds one Starship a week, at which cos…
> the promise of getting all our problems solved Where has that been promised? He's working on a rather small set of big problems, which is a far cry from 'all our problems', don't you think?
His media narrative is about being the visionary genius who will propel humanity to the next era--working on the big problems in a flashy way has the side effect of being pretty great for your public regard, and therefore most likely your ego. Being a Reddit manbaby and working on big, next-era goals are not mutually exclusive.
I don't know about the Starship a week but he definitely fulfils his hyperbolic bullshit per day quota. And it's mostly "our" fault, "we" let him getaway with so much shit ( from market manipulation to criminal workplace offences ) because he entertains our egos with the promise of getting all our problems solved ( which is ridiculous at so many levels ). OK let's pretend Elon builds one Starship a week, at which cos…
> the promise of getting all our problems solved Where has that been promised? He's working on a rather small set of big problems, which is a far cry from 'all our problems', don't you think?
I was talking about the general psyche of tolerating abusive assholes ( ie. Steve Jobs ) and eccentric renaissance man who we "know" will crash and burn but we rationalize it like "we'll get some indirect benefits, just like the whole NASA thing" or "at least the trains run on time".
There are justified reasons behind this, but also a lot of excuses. The whole Elon fever is something between Steve Jobs and the usual Hollywood actor talking politics on stage.
What is the benefit of settling on Mars? Until we explain that in some kind of sane way that doesn’t just involve the earth being a crutch for raw materials, it all seems rather stupid to me. Settling an earth-like planet? Sure! Seems logical. Mars? Not really.
We've almost plunged the world into nuclear holocaust a couple times before. India and Pakistan are at each other's throats, and rising ethnonationalist populism and climate change are threatening to strain these tensions further. This is a real risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans are not adapted to live in space either. But because of a couple brave people, we now know a little about how to counteract zero gravity's degradation on the body (Bone and muscle loss -> stricter workout regiment). Bound to fail in the long term is quite the statement to make given our ability to build tools based on data that could increase our chance of survival.
Low gravity is one thing. But the radiation outside the Earth's magnetic field is quite another. People colonizing Mars will need to shield themselves from several types of harmful radiation. Wich means in practice: living underground.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/spaceweather/ind...
It's quite inspiring to see a real goal and drive towards it. Purpose is so hard to come by now because we all don't know what we want. When we do know, we're constantly unsure about it. Such a clear goal makes it easy to have greater purpose that you don't second guess. This isn't a scheme to get rich, a zero sum political movement, or a narcissistic artistic endeavor. It's pretty unique there. There's that whole da…
> Purpose is so hard to come by now because we all don't know what we want. When we do know, we're constantly unsure about it. This statement resonates deeply with me. Whenever I meet someone new or that I might be interested in dating I ask "What are you doing with your life?" or "What are you striving for?" and I find the extreme majority of people don't have an answer beyond "I just go to a job I don't really like…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not in that area, but I struggle to find an analogue of a large pressurized tank on Earth where mass is the dominant cost factor. You might have equally big tanks on Earth, under equal pressures, but it will be more cost-effective to just increase the material used on the shell of the tank to solve your problems. Whereas in space, every kg that can theoretically be removed from the launch vehicle is worth investi…
> So yes it seems reasonable to me that these are groundbreaking challenges. Isn't weld strength something engineers would know/understand in advance, though? How would it come as a surprise that the welds would fail under pressure? It seems strange to me that Musk could be spending so much time working on Starship, and somehow a "badly designed, badly built, and badly checked" rocket makes it to the platform and exp…
They probably designed their tolerances assuming perfect welds and then didn't have them.