Live data from Hacker News

Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

nature.com

291–300 of 351 posts

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#291
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Admittedly my knowledge on this matter derives from KSP, but I've found that rendezvous is much trickier outside of gravity wells. And there's still the problem of ISRU.

We have ISRU right here, right now.

You can't do ISRU in orbit. I don't know of any resources available on the Moon that would allow you to do ISRU there either. Ceres might work, but the inclined orbit may make that impractical as a stop.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#292
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any fuel you could generate on Mars would be overwhelmingly easier and cheaper to ship in from Earth; and you wouldn't need to land a million tons of freight on Mars first. A million tons of fuel delivered to LEO would take you quite a long way, and you could start immediately. If you want to go somewhere beyond Mars, stopping there and then starting again just sets you back. (Same goes for the moon, or lunar orbit.)…

A million tons of fuel doesn't cut the delta v requirements down. You'd have to ship the required fuel to Mars orbit (or wherever you plan on doing refuelling) still.

[deleted]

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#293
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any fuel you could generate on Mars would be overwhelmingly easier and cheaper to ship in from Earth; and you wouldn't need to land a million tons of freight on Mars first. A million tons of fuel delivered to LEO would take you quite a long way, and you could start immediately. If you want to go somewhere beyond Mars, stopping there and then starting again just sets you back. (Same goes for the moon, or lunar orbit.)…

A million tons of fuel doesn't cut the delta v requirements down. You'd have to ship the required fuel to Mars orbit (or wherever you plan on doing refuelling) still.

If you need to refuel, send the fuel where it would be useful to get home with, i.e. where you are really going. Dumping it at Mars does no good. You would then have to stop at Mars to collect it.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#294
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A million tons of fuel doesn't cut the delta v requirements down. You'd have to ship the required fuel to Mars orbit (or wherever you plan on doing refuelling) still.

If you need to refuel, send the fuel where it would be useful to get home with, i.e. where you are really going. Dumping it at Mars does no good. You would then have to stop at Mars to collect it.

That's assuming you have enough fuel to reach those destinations from Earth, let alone make it from Earth to there with enough payload for a return voyage.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#295
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have ISRU right here, right now.

You can't do ISRU in orbit. I don't know of any resources available on the Moon that would allow you to do ISRU there either. Ceres might work, but the inclined orbit may make that impractical as a stop.

We do ISRU all day, every day right here, in the millions of tons.

"A stop" is not just useless, but is actively harmful in space transportation. You go, for free, until you get there, and then use up fuel stopping. Starting and stopping are exactly what costs. Stopping halfway makes the whole trip cost literally twice as much.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#296
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't do ISRU in orbit. I don't know of any resources available on the Moon that would allow you to do ISRU there either. Ceres might work, but the inclined orbit may make that impractical as a stop.

We do ISRU all day, every day right here, in the millions of tons. "A stop" is not just useless, but is actively harmful in space transportation. You go, for free, until you get there, and then use up fuel stopping. Starting and stopping are exactly what costs. Stopping halfway makes the whole trip cost literally twice as much.

It's also 'for free' to continue from LEO to anywhere else, but it can still make sense to refuel in LEO rather than launch with all the fuel requirements you need for the mission from Earth surface. The delta v required from LEO to another body is lower than that from Earth surface there. Delta v required from lunar orbit to some non-terrestrial body is also lower than that from LEO, and it could potentially make sense to do refuelling from there in order to get the maximum possible delta v leaving Earth's gravity well. Finally, the delta v required to reach the belt and Jupiter from low Mars orbit is lower than that to reach them from Earth. That means bigger payloads can be sent to these destinations, or even potentially any payload at all; it is only barely possible to reach a Hohmann transfer to Jupiter from Earth with SpaceX's Starship's claimed delta-v, whereas from Mars there should be several km/s of extra delta-v to spare.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#297
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need to refuel, send the fuel where it would be useful to get home with, i.e. where you are really going. Dumping it at Mars does no good. You would then have to stop at Mars to collect it.

That's assuming you have enough fuel to reach those destinations from Earth, let alone make it from Earth to there with enough payload for a return voyage.

I see you are finding this very hard. Try to think it through:

If you can't get there without a stop at Mars, then you really, really can't get there with a stop at Mars. Stopping at Mars costs extra.

If you will need extra fuel to get home with, sending it to Mars is completely useless, because where you need it to be is not at Mars, but at the place where you will be at the time when you need it. That place is not Mars.

Is this really so difficult? Stop, breathe, and think.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#298
post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's assuming you have enough fuel to reach those destinations from Earth, let alone make it from Earth to there with enough payload for a return voyage.

I see you are finding this very hard. Try to think it through: If you can't get there without a stop at Mars, then you really, really can't get there with a stop at Mars. Stopping at Mars costs extra . If you will need extra fuel to get home with, sending it to Mars is completely useless, because where you need it to be is not at Mars, but at the place where you will be at the time when you need it. That place is not…

> If you can't get there without a stop at Mars, then you really, really can't get there with a stop at Mars. Stopping at Mars costs extra.

This simply isn't true. From Mars to Jupiter is a little over 6 km/s of delta-v. From Earth to Jupiter is almost 9. The latter is just barely possible with SpaceX's Starship. The former allows for not only some breathing room, but more payload.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#299
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is there to break on a lifeless planet?

Whether there's life on this planet is not known, it's in the inhabitable zone so that possibility cannot be discarded.

It's just worth keeping in mind that by the standard used to call this planet Earth-like, we have four habitable Earth-like worlds in our solar system.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#300
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably an optimist on Mars travel. I think, with a fuck ton of starships, you could get people living on Mars. But there's some big asterisks on that. You'd more or less have to live in the starships, dependent on shipments from earth, with self sufficiency failing on pretty much every category. Over a very long period, most people would probably die a bit earlier from radiation and dust. Not much would be prod…

The suspicion I have about self sufficiency pessimism is that it's an apples to oranges comparison. Are there any modern analogies? As near as I can tell, it hasn't been required after the 16th century, due to access to relatively timely transportation. And if it hasn't been required, then how are we to look at existing practice and say we're bad at or incapable of it?

Comparison to what? We don't need an analogy. This is a novel environment and it can be evaluated on its own.
Post reply on HN