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

231–240 of 287 posts

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#231

Post by [deleted] »

nicktelford wrote: post #170
ChelloYello wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same who that believed their timeline for when they would have a human certified rocket?

I suspect the ambitious timelines are political. Musk has repeatedly stated that others would need to work on a lot of the Mars colony infrastructure. SpaceX only appear to be working on the supporting infrastructure for flights (e.g. propellant plant). By telling the world that they'll be ready to fly in five years, they're making a statement that other organisations/companies that want to get involved with this eff…

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#232

Post by dwaltrip »

323454 wrote: post #83
dcsommer wrote: post #73

I wonder what the greenhouse gas emissions will be like for the Earth-to-Earth trips. Ironic that the display showed a snow-capped mountain after the E2E animation.

Earth-bound BFR flights could be net zero emissions if SpaceX uses solar energy to generate methane from atmospheric carbon dioxide, as Musk discussed in the talk.

How much does that cost, compared to existing methane sources? I imagine that is only viable if it is comparable in cost.

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#233

Post by hyperpallium »

Asdfbla wrote: post #142

Making life multiplanetary seems like one of the least important issues of our times to me: either we figure out how to make life on earth sustainable in the medium term (next 50-100 years) or we do not have enough time to become multiplanetary anyway (since that will take centuries, and we will likely never leave the solar system anyway). So it seems a bit premature to concern yourself with interplanetary ambitions…

It's easier to colonize Mars than make life on Earth sustainable, because it involves convincing fewer people.

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#234

Post by dogma1138 »

Diederich wrote: post #228
dogma1138 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What more amazing is that 1000 ft^3 of methane is 12 tons, you need 1900 tons (in orbit) of propellant to get to mars based on the ITS design since it's about 5 trips of the ITS tanker to refuel the ITS that goes to mars (350-380 tons per refueling).

Lets put E2E propellant requirements for the BFR/Booster and the ITS at 10 times that of the martian transfer that would put the CH4 costs of the trip to less than $6500.... At 100 times that it would be about $65,000.

That will still be much cheaper than the most fuel efficient jets we have like the A380 and the 787-9 with the fuel costs of a 15 hour flight being in the range of 150-200,000$ depending on the aircraft.

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#235

Post by rtpg »

simonh wrote: post #148
Asdfbla wrote: post #142

Making life multiplanetary seems like one of the least important issues of our times to me: either we figure out how to make life on earth sustainable in the medium term (next 50-100 years) or we do not have enough time to become multiplanetary anyway (since that will take centuries, and we will likely never leave the solar system anyway). So it seems a bit premature to concern yourself with interplanetary ambitions…

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…

Places people don't want to live in:

- a submarine

- the middle of Death Valley

- the middle of Antarctica

- the (completely lifeless) top of mount Fuji

Living in a Mars colony would be a combination of all these experiences.

If you somehow have the magic sauce to make Mars enjoyable, you could offer this experience in the middle of the desert as well. You could tackle real habitation problems on this planet.

Just building a couple school buses (ISS) to float around the Earth took hundreds of billions.

And to the "what about nuclear war on Earth" argument: are you going to build a lightbulb factory on Mars? Semiconductor fab? Smelter? No Mars colony would be self sufficient for a realllllly long time

EDIT: Earth 2 Earth is interesting, though I don't know how you solve the vomit problem. Or the "sometimes the rockets explode " problem.

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#236

Post by TremendousJudge »

nickik wrote: post #157
igravious wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's key, and it's clever design. Basically space shuttle next edition with the booster on the bottom rather than it being strapped to the side of it and where the booster is reusable. It's a two-part vehicle: booster/shuttle. The original space shuttle had a 40% vehicular failure rate. The SpaceX Shuttle need to have commercial airline rates of failure and reusability. That's a big step up. You know the way we still…

The Shuttle just made the mistake to not be a fully two stage system, it was a strange hybrid. SpaceX also figured out that vertical landing had many advantages compared to a plane.

The Soviet Buran shuttle had the right idea. It didn't have main engines and was launched with the Energia rocket, which could be used independently with other cargo as well. Also, it was capable of fully automated landing, unlike the American Shuttle

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#237

Post by hyperpallium »

audeyisaacs wrote: post #29

Musk's speaking is always a little awkward (in an endearing way), but did he seem significantly more nervous/emotionally affected than usual in the first part of this speech? It seemed that way to me, curious if anyone else interpreted it like that. He calms down when he starts talking about risk and it being the anniversary of a launch. edit: Good and fun presentation regardless! edit2: Thoughts: - Maybe he feels in…

I don't think it was the primary factor, but he did have to fly to Australia later that day to give a (battery) presentation. Which is a very different time-zone. A big day, even for Musk.

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#238

Post by simonh »

rtpg wrote: post #235
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…

Places people don't want to live in: - a submarine - the middle of Death Valley - the middle of Antarctica - the (completely lifeless) top of mount Fuji Living in a Mars colony would be a combination of all these experiences. If you somehow have the magic sauce to make Mars enjoyable, you could offer this experience in the middle of the desert as well. You could tackle real habitation problems on this planet. Just bu…

>Just building a couple school buses (ISS) to float around the Earth took hundreds of billions.

Absolutely, but then just one of these things will dwarf the ISS all on it's own. The old equations of space exploration affordability are being rewritten.

As for people wanting to go, there's a permanent base at the south pole, the peak of Mount Fuji is often a churned up field of mud from all the visitors and Burning Man looks like a ton of fun. Ok so some of that is frivolous. I'm ambivalent about the idea of Martian cities in the next 30 years say, but who can really look further ahead than that?

There's nothing that seems un-achievable about BFR. It seems to me these things will be going to space, and the Moon, and Mars at a ludicrously low cost compared to previous space missions. The real question is what will we do with that capability? I'm guessing we are going to do something with it. Musk's graphics are explicitly aspirational, but we'll do something with these vehicles and its going to be a heck of a lot more than any other plans I've ever seen.

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#239

Post by jcriddle4 »

icc97 wrote: post #227

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-...

I was under the impression that for quite a few people, possibly including the people at SpaceX, the 'F' doesn't stand for Falcon or Friendly or Fantastic or ...

Re: SpaceX: Making Life Multiplanetary [video]

#240

Post by muxator »

igravious wrote: post #139
nickik wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the key is that this rocket will replace the F9/FH/Dragon architecture rather then being a separate line of development.

It's key, and it's clever design. Basically space shuttle next edition with the booster on the bottom rather than it being strapped to the side of it and where the booster is reusable. It's a two-part vehicle: booster/shuttle. The original space shuttle had a 40% vehicular failure rate. The SpaceX Shuttle need to have commercial airline rates of failure and reusability. That's a big step up. You know the way we still…

What do you mean by "40% vehicular failure rate"?

Could you please give some insights / sources?

Post reply on HN