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

Blue Moon

blueorigin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 236 posts

Re: Blue Moon

#191

Post by negamax »

patagonia wrote: post #189
golergka wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon, the company, is a primary driver of some of the “immediate” social problems Bezos opened with such as poverty What. Amazon as a company have created enormous value for all of its clients, created thousands of jobs and value for it's trading partners. It's one of the forces that work to eradicate poverty in modern world, not the other way around.

Yes, it has created value for its customers and investors. It has also generated enormous externalities. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, and the point is one of the main points of my argument. The other being, this is just uninspired and unoriginal. It’s a presentation by an ex-hedge fund guy on a profit play, that feels more like my know-it-all uncle lecturing the family during Thanksgiving about how we…

Would world had been a better place without Amazon? You may think that it's hurting mom and pop shops. But that's not really true. Without AWS, we would still have 100 people sysadmin teams everywhere and many startups won't see light of the day. Without Amazon fulfillment centers, who get most flak for automation and worker issues, there are many things we won't have in life. Kindle gave me access to books that I would not be able to read otherwise. Alexa save time and energy.

Continue questioning them about employment practices and keep them ethical (they are raising minimum wage to $15/hr) but Amazon hate is often misplaced.

Re: Blue Moon

#192

Post by neuronic »

drusepth wrote: post #60
TimTheTinker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blue Origin is somewhat like the Waymo of space tech. They'll continue plodding methodically, indefinitely. And you can bet their safety/reliability record will be nigh near perfect. Yes, Waymo is the market leader in self-driving technology (unlike Blue Origin). And there's currently no analogue to SpaceX in the self-driving car market. The incredible, complementary leadership duo that Musk and Shotwell present is u…

>And there's currently no analogue to SpaceX in the self-driving car market. Isn't... Tesla analogous to SpaceX in the self-driving car market?

Tesla self-driving is mostly just ADAS + marketing. I'd be very careful to assume anything higher than SAE level 2 in real-life scenarios that are outside of their testing grounds.

Some people paid with their lives for this assumption.

Re: Blue Moon

#193

Post by jcriddle4 »

electriclove wrote: post #58
TimTheTinker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blue Origin is somewhat like the Waymo of space tech. They'll continue plodding methodically, indefinitely. And you can bet their safety/reliability record will be nigh near perfect. Yes, Waymo is the market leader in self-driving technology (unlike Blue Origin). And there's currently no analogue to SpaceX in the self-driving car market. The incredible, complementary leadership duo that Musk and Shotwell present is u…

"And you can bet their safety/reliability record will be nigh near perfect." Why do you believe this to be the case?

I think people believe Blue's much slower approach to space is because of more testing and planning. I am a skeptical person and believe you can learn much more by doing. As long as missions are unmanned then frankly why not take tons of risks and learn and grow lots faster. The approach Blue is taking feels like it should have diminishing returns in regards to safety and maybe even worse safety as the longer timelines may not play well with actual clearer and better thinking.

Re: Blue Moon

#194

Post by jhacker123 »

Now everyone want to bet on future of future, but they forget the real problem like global warming (it's just one example its so many). Steve jobs have vision which is based on reality and solve the real world problem. Hope someone in tech industry solve the real problem instead problem which is never exists.

Re: Blue Moon

#195

Post by cerealbad »

at the rate this is progressing there won't be a permanent moon habitat until the 22nd century. probably a good thing since space humans will need to be genetically modified and quarantined for life.

Re: Blue Moon

#196

Post by nradov »

grey-area wrote: post #165
nradov wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone has to fly and troubleshoot the spacecraft when the inevitable failures occur. Most of the astronauts can be basically passengers but there has to be at least one pilot who knows how to switch SCE to AUX without a moment's hesitation.

Space ships are computer controlled nowadays. You can't fly them in any meaningful sense, and they don't have manual toggle switches like the old moon landers. There will be no pilot except the autopilot.

No that's not how it works at all. Autopilots are generally incapable of coping with unexpected system failures or spacecraft damage.

This is the real world, not Star Trek.

Re: Blue Moon

#198

Post by grey-area »

nradov wrote: post #196
grey-area wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Space ships are computer controlled nowadays. You can't fly them in any meaningful sense, and they don't have manual toggle switches like the old moon landers. There will be no pilot except the autopilot.

No that's not how it works at all. Autopilots are generally incapable of coping with unexpected system failures or spacecraft damage. This is the real world, not Star Trek.

To take a real world example, Falcon 9 is completely autonomous during flight - the controllers on the ground can trigger an abort, and perhaps change the flight plan from a range of preselected options, but they're not going to attempt to take over the rocket and switch it to manual mode or something. They observe, they don't intervene during a normal flight, and if something does go wrong, they're not going to be able to save the situation. There is no pilot.

Re: Blue Moon

#199

Post by nickik »

patagonia wrote: post #189
golergka wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon, the company, is a primary driver of some of the “immediate” social problems Bezos opened with such as poverty What. Amazon as a company have created enormous value for all of its clients, created thousands of jobs and value for it's trading partners. It's one of the forces that work to eradicate poverty in modern world, not the other way around.

Yes, it has created value for its customers and investors. It has also generated enormous externalities. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, and the point is one of the main points of my argument. The other being, this is just uninspired and unoriginal. It’s a presentation by an ex-hedge fund guy on a profit play, that feels more like my know-it-all uncle lecturing the family during Thanksgiving about how we…

You are making a lot of claims without any actual explanation what those things are supposed to be.

> It’s a presentation by an ex-hedge fund guy on a profit play

Yeah, the last 20 years almost of him investing in his dream that he has been talking about since he went to school is clearly a massive for profit play.

Re: Blue Moon

#200

Post by rubinelli »

maccam94 wrote: post #135
sandworm101 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people underestimate the rocket equation. In the last fifty years very little progress has been made on the basic ratios between rocket fuel, size and payload. If you want to land on the moon, in 1960 or 2026, you are still going to need the same amounts of fuel and supplies. Your landers will by necessity be similar too.

Sure, but rocket launch costs are orders of magnitude higher than the cost of fuel to launch payloads. Once we nail down reusability, then we'll see space access become much more affordable. And once we have ships that only operate in space, we'll be able to carry much more fuel along (aerodynamics and structural strength are much less important).

I remember when the Shuttle program was scrapped that the consensus was that reusable vehicles didn't offer the economy they promised, so what has changed since then?
Post reply on HN