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

Where did all the starships go?

datawrapper.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 369 posts

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#331

Post by jackcosgrove »

themafia wrote: post #278
jackcosgrove wrote: post #225

It's far more practical to adapt life to space and other planets, than it is to adapt space and other planets to human life. The problem with writing a story about artificial life exploring the universe is that it's unrelatable without humans in it. I think humans are stuck on earth permanently because there are no other environments in the solar system we can live in as easily as earth. Traditional sci-fi explained…

> practical to adapt life to space This is not practical in terms of microgravity environments. You just have to read the space shuttle manual to learn how to correct a broken toilet before you understand how poorly equipped we are to handle this challenge. If you can't fix it you're back to the Apollo style bags. The toilet has a 21 day lifetime anyways. Reading the manual further shows why. Turns out lots of holes…

I was using life expansively to refer to artificial, robotic life.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#332

Post by jacquesm »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #330
jacquesm wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, not going there. The physics of the impossible are not for me to take apart but for you to show. I've postulated ways in which you could get to other solar systems, I don't see anything here that would lead to a dragon as it is commonly described in fiction. Fire spewing, heavier than air, intelligent and willing to let themselves be mounted and directed by humans, that's the bar. Archaeopteryx would have you…

Well you've decided that it's impossible but you certainly haven't convinced me of that fact (neither am I certain that it is possible though). I'm not even clear what the criteria are. We've got examples in fiction that run the gamut. Even limited to fairly traditional post-Tolkien western high fantasy examples of creatures with a long neck, two wings, a distinct abdomen, and a tail we've still got concrete examples…

Yes, if you change everything that would make a dragon a dragon then you can have a dragon.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#333

Post by theandrewbailey »

coldtea wrote: post #184
HoldOnAMinute wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, but stop to consider all the things we ARE doing... * Space Station that lasts 25 years * 3,000 satellites providing Internet Service * Mars rovers that run for 10+ years * Flying helicopters on Mars

We call it a "space" station. It's a glorified LEO station.

It's more like a laboratory, and less like a ship/bus/train "station".

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#334

Post by mmooss »

WalterBright wrote: post #243
mmooss wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lots of cheap orbital rockets It's valuable for sure. It's nothing like, "The one person who is advancing our space faring abilities by leaps and bounds". There are many others, and many are doing more (again, NASA, etc.). JPL's homepage says "Our missions have flown to every planet and the Sun ...", and that they've been on Mars for four years, so let's be serious and not throw wild absurd claims at the wall (very…

> There are many others Now that Musk led the way, sure. People laughed at Musk when he started out. > NASA Has sent a handful of probes out, only a handful because they are so costly. Now NASA can send out legions of them. There was a previous discussion here about why only one JWST was made and launched, at a cost of $10B. We all hope and pray it doesn't break down. Now with Musk's rockets we can launch lots of the…

NASA's work has been reduced to a "handful"? What is the point of writing that? And there is far more to cost of missions and their hardware than launching them. How much of JWST's cost was the launch?

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#335

Post by Dylan16807 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #319
Dylan16807 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking less than 2000. One each for the huge machines, a few hundred for the smaller machines, a hundred to few hundred full of people. And you could cut those numbers 10x and still have a huge variety of manufacturing capabilities. I don't see why we would need a near-magic factory box just to build a colony.

Manufacturing is hard, even for something “simple” like a pencil: https://www.amazon.com/Pencil-History-Design-Circumstance/dp... Those big machines have lots of little parts and if you have to wait three years to get a spare part that’s a big problem. (Never mind anything that Earth sends to a Mars colony is a gift because it is inconceivable that it would be profitable to bring anything back) Anyone who starts sket…

You use your pile of lathes and mills to make replacement little parts. Probably skip making integrated circuits on-planet at first, but anything metal or plastic can be done by the huge group of machinists.

And for every fifty people on mars you can have a thousand people back on earth figuring out the best way to make every component.

The hard part is building chemical stocks of all these different things. And while that's a huge task, it's so much less hard than a make-anything machine. Once you have graphite, clay, rubber, and wood, making it into a pencil is simple. Cut, mix, extrude, clamp. Wood (and rubber if that's the easiest way) can be grown on-site, wood can be turned into graphite, and clay shouldn't be amazingly hard to get from martian soil. Oh and glue, we can figure out a glue.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#336

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

watwut wrote: post #104
flohofwoe wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is unfortunately true, but also just illustrates how far science-fiction has fallen - not sure when it started but I guess Star Wars played an important role to remove the 'science' from 'science-fiction'.

I suggest you rewatch star trek. Plot and complexity wise, they are basically childrend stories plus technobable.

Perhaps you should rewatch Star Trek as well. TOS back in 1966 had rather a lot of technical marvels that were ridiculous at the time that became commonplace tech that we take for granted in 2026: electronic tablets, pocketable communication devices that could reach a ship in orbit, a computer that could be talked to and and respond with at least limited intelligence, orbit to surface sensors, etc. Certainly most of the concepts weren't original to Star Trek but the series' popularity embedded them in the global cultural consciousness.

The fear of humans being replaced by computers (TOS: The Ultimate Computer) was speculative but also germane back then and is perhaps even more germane today.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#337

Post by pfdietz »

int_19h wrote: post #229
flohofwoe wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What, you thought early era SF used accurate science? It depends on the author I guess. Stanislaw Lem for instance mostly separated his "silly-fiction universes" (e.g. the Ijon Tichy and 'robot fairytales' novels) from his "hard sci-fi" universes (for instance the Pilot Pirx novels) - and there it was mostly about the restrictions of space travel (where space travel is usually just plain old cargo hauling), Pirx ne…

Early SF would be a couple decades before Lem.

Or more. The War of the Worlds was published half a century before Lem's first novel. And arguably SF goes back farther than that. Jules Verne in 1864. Frankenstein was published in 1818.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#338

Post by AlphaAndOmega0 »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #109
Rodeoclash wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laser accelerate a lightweight probe, probe lands on alien planet and self replicates a receiver and basic robot body. Send mind in the form of information at speed of light and download into robot body. Something roughly along these lines was believable enough for the Altered Carbon universe.

"lightweight probe" and "self replicates" don't go together. Nanobots are just as much fantasy physics as FTL is.

Nanobots are fantasy? Nobody told your cells or bacteria I guess. We have an existence proof right there.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#339

Post by devmor »

WalterBright wrote: post #175
devmor wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think he is a fascist nazi either. But I do think he is happy to support them as long as they make him feel special, and that’s bad enough. The man is deeply unwell and desperate for approval and accolades. From anyone.

I think we can agree that Musk is strongly motivated. He works insanely hard and takes huge personal risks with his fortune. He says why he does it - over and over - to save humanity by spreading it out into space. > desperate for approval and accolades. From anyone. If true, it is rather common behavior, not deeply unwell. Politicians 100% fall into that category. So do movie stars. So does every Olympic athlete. So…

If he wants to save humanity, he certainly doesn't show it. Most of what he's done in life so far has harmed or taken more lives than the vast majority of individuals in history. His actions in "DOGE" vis-a-vis USAID may put him on the very top of that list, in the long run.

> If true, it is rather common behavior.

Wanting approval is normal. Most people would not support nazis for approval.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#340

Post by devmor »

Fargren wrote: post #271
devmor wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think he is a fascist nazi either. But I do think he is happy to support them as long as they make him feel special, and that’s bad enough. The man is deeply unwell and desperate for approval and accolades. From anyone.

I think if you materially support the nazis, you are a nazi, regardless of what might be your internal justification. This is a distinction without a difference.

I think the distinction is important in this case specifically because it shows us that he has no strong conviction towards doing so. He knows it's wrong and does it anyways, it's worse.
Post reply on HN