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

SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 287 posts

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#221

Post by netfire »

ajmurmann wrote: post #10
mark_element wrote: post #7

Highlights for me: Started ordering stuff for the mars ship now, started facilities construction, possibly hitting a first launch in 2022 and a second launch window in 2024. An extremely aggressive and impressive timeline.

Even if they miss 2022 the next window at 2024 is still incredible. Who would have seriously believed we'd fly something of that size to Mars by that time and have a manned mission two years later?!

Question: Why do the autonomous cargo missions need to be done in the ideal launch window? It doesn't seem like the systems required to operate and navigate in space should require much energy, once your are up to cruising speed (and there's no air resistance in space to slow you down). Does it matter if the cargo takes 6 months to deliver the cargo instead of 3? Am I missing something?

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#222

Post by icc97 »

Osmium wrote: post #59
extrapickles wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats why they show the spaceport out at sea, as it kills the standard NIMBY objections. Also the cities they want to fly out of don’t have enough room to easily build a spaceport.

If you think putting it a little out to sea would kill NIMBY objections .... still, we can but dream. I'm not entirely sure how serious SpaceX are about their E2E idea anyway, I took it as more of a "hey, isn't this neat? totally physically possible and practical too." I imagine it would take a long time to scale up to that point though, probably decades(?) after the Moon/Mars.

E2E seems important as a way of making profit to reduce the cost of the Mars tickets. Also means you get more usage and testing of the rockets.

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#223

Post by mft_ »

krapp wrote: post #196
nickik wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know Elon Musk? He absolutely builds and designs. He is CEO and Chief Engineer at SpaceX and that is not just a title. He knows more about the rocket then probably anybody else. He said that he spends about 80% of his SpaceX time as and engineer.

>He said that he spends about 80% of his SpaceX time as and engineer. Fair enough, but that leads me to believe he needs to hire more engineers. He shouldn't need to be that hands-on, even if he wants to be.

Hum... you wanna tell the guy who's totally revolutionised the space industry, doing things rational people would have thought impossible not so very long ago... that he's doing it wrong?!

I'd hazard that companies which achieve truly impressive things, often do so because of how decisions are made. You need benign (or not so benign) dictators right in the weeds with their teams. Put layers of bureaucracy between Elon and his engineers, turn him into a board-meeting CEO... and SpaceX would lose one of the fundamentals that makes it special.

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#224

Post by dogma1138 »

Diederich wrote: post #64
karterk wrote: post #58

An update from Elon on the pricing[1]: > Fly to most places on Earth in under 30 mins and anywhere in under 60. Cost per seat should be about the same as full fare economy in an aircraft. Forgot to mention that. [1]: https://www.instagram.com/p/BZnVfWxgdLe/

I imagine you can gain a lot of efficiencies with this approach. Just guessing here: 1. You can't leave your seat. Very high seat density. 2. No restrooms. 3. No food or any other services. 4. Very few (if any) cabin staff. 5. Fully automated flight; perhaps no pilot. 6. More reliable flight schedule; only a small bit of earth's weather on either side of the flight matters. Personally, I'd put up with a lot if the wh…

Fuel might also be actually cheaper, CH4 costs about 4$ per 1000 cubic feet, LOX is practically free.

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#225

Post by jeresuikkila »

Asdfbla wrote: post #155
simonh wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand why this argument gets made particularly concerning space exploration. Somehow it’s ok for humans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars per year on each one of entertaining movies, going on holidays, playing computer games, sports events, etc but a few tens of billions of dollars spent on space will imperil the long term survival of the human species and leave millions of people starving in Afri…

Yeah, I'm aware of that. That's why I mentioned in the end that Musk is of course free to pursue his ambitions - in the grand scheme of things money is spent on much more pointless things, so him investing in science and space exploration is surely a comparatively good investment of his money.

I believe the innovations that come from such grand challenges such as becoming interplanetary will help solve other problems we face as well. I'm thinking of new materials, processes and technologies that can be applied in multiple contexts.

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#226

Post by icc97 »

internetionals wrote: post #154

The earth-to-earth idea is nice, and whilst it would be an improvement, I expect the travelling time to be the biggest obstacle. You have to gather the people, check them in and clear them during internation flights. Then you have to load everybody on a boat, ship them to the platform X miles into sea, unload them, take them up the big tower, letting them board and settle and depending on how predicatable this is, wa…

At the moment there's lots of time wasted walking to some gate at the far end of a massive airport. There's only one company here and one or two flights that go straight up and don't need to taxi. So the travel time in the boat won't be much more than the walk from the terminal to the gate.

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#227

Post by icc97 »

Umm was I the only one too assume that BFR meant Big Feckin' Rocket? Oh, no, I see waitbutwhy has a piece on it [0]

I disappointingly see F is for Falcon, but still I really like the lack of marketing in the name.

Plus I like the parallel with Roald Dahl's BFG.

[0]: https://waitbutwhy.com/2016/09/spacexs-big-fking-rocket-the-...

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#228

Post by Diederich »

dogma1138 wrote: post #224
Diederich wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine you can gain a lot of efficiencies with this approach. Just guessing here: 1. You can't leave your seat. Very high seat density. 2. No restrooms. 3. No food or any other services. 4. Very few (if any) cabin staff. 5. Fully automated flight; perhaps no pilot. 6. More reliable flight schedule; only a small bit of earth's weather on either side of the flight matters. Personally, I'd put up with a lot if the wh…

Fuel might also be actually cheaper, CH4 costs about 4$ per 1000 cubic feet, LOX is practically free.

Wow, that's (the price of methane) amazingly cheap.

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#229

Post by Diederich »

bluthru wrote: post #131
Diederich wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree; I can, however, imagine some kind of on-flight technician. Maybe.

Technician / EMT

Zero G but very short term EMT...a high tech hospital is always close by the landing point.

Cool stuff.

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#230

Post by anvandare »

netfire wrote: post #221
ajmurmann wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they miss 2022 the next window at 2024 is still incredible. Who would have seriously believed we'd fly something of that size to Mars by that time and have a manned mission two years later?!

Question: Why do the autonomous cargo missions need to be done in the ideal launch window? It doesn't seem like the systems required to operate and navigate in space should require much energy, once your are up to cruising speed (and there's no air resistance in space to slow you down). Does it matter if the cargo takes 6 months to deliver the cargo instead of 3? Am I missing something?

It is indeed an energy issue, but for the orbital change, not system operations. Every kilogram you have to spend on fuel is a kilogram you can't use for cargo instead. You can use porkchop plots[1] to determine ideal launch windows (least ∆v = least fuel needed). Late summer of 2022, for example, is a good window[2].

For manned missions, you're more interested in the least '∆t' (time spent traveling) since crew sanity/health is more important than fuel. (Yes, astronauts are exceptional and willing to endure a lot of discomfort, but the less time they have to spend in a small tin can, the better.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porkchop_plot

[2] http://www.amssolarempire.com/Programs/porkchop_plot.png

Post reply on HN