Live data from Hacker News

Musk revises Mars ambitions

arstechnica.com

41–50 of 183 posts

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#41
post #8

Sending humans to Mars seems less attractive to me than sending robots to Ceres. Is there an argument for Mars that doesn't include the phrase "multi-planet species"?

I don't think so. In terms of room and resources we could just as well colonize Antarctica.

There's a lot of undersea real estate, too. Both environments are less hostile than Mars, practically speaking. But of course neither cover the 'backup planet' scenario - and they don't put you out of reach of regional political struggles.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#42

I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). Given that, it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do somethi…

I don't understand why any of that is a huge proof that they can go to Mars.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#43
post #7

Last year, it was the Interplanetary Transport System, but now Musk has regressed to using the original, cheeky "code name" BFR, in which the B stands for big, the R stands for rocket, and the F stands for fun. (Not really). I'm always astounded that apparently we still can't say fuck lest some bogeyman (real or imaginary) jump out and make you regret it. It's a fucking word. For fuck's sake. I mean, at the point whe…

Yeah, fuck your opinion about the word fuck in particular!

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#44
post #34
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything can be trivialized if you detest social norms enough. Fake examples: > It took me forever to find a good font for my webcomic that wasn't comic sans. I'm astounded that apparently we can't use a perfects good font, lest some bogeyman jump out and make you regret it. It's a font! For Microsoft Bob's sake. How bad can it really be and why do we need to penalize the usage so? > John Smith, 56, was arrested for…

To be clear, the difference I'm calling out here is not that the cutural norm is stupid, but that it's only enforced in specific contexts for no apparent gain. I wouldn't say a large proportion of people are walking around in public naked, but a large proportion do swear in the course of normal speaking. Really, it's the news agencies which are the worst offenders in this regard, which is doubly bad because they will…

I don't understand why civility revolts so many people these days. I tell my son that he can use the F word whenever it makes contextual sense and also doesn't offend other people. For instance, he can use it around me, because to me it's just a word. I don't care. He can use it around his friends when it makes sense. But, he had better not use it around his grandparents.

Is it such a bad thing to ty to empathize with others and avoid offending when it's clear that an action or speech probably will? Maybe it's because these days speech is often read by potentially millions of people. And, in those cases, it's almost impossible to not offend someone. So, since it's probably impossible to not offend someone, one might as well just let loose and not worry if you offend everyone? Is that the logic - to avoid overthinking and cognitive overload?

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#45

I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). Given that, it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do somethi…

[deleted]

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#46

I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). Given that, it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do somethi…

Just want to point out some misconceptions here: Arguably, the Space Shuttle was the first launch system to reuse the first stage, and the first to prove retro-propulsion landing was the Delta Clipper (on Earth anyways, supersonic retro-propulsion was used on other planetary bodies earlier). First private company to refly a spacecraft was probably SpaceShipOne, although this was suborbital not orbital.

Not saying what SpaceX achieved isn't impressive, it just needs some context.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#47
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Publicity * Human capability >> robotic capability * Mars as a very long term "Backup Earth" * If you can go to Mars with humans you can go to the Moon with humans as well. * Human capable systems can also carry robots, the reverse is not always true.

If things on earth get to the point where we need a "backup earth" I'm pretty sure one of these things will be true 1) If we can live on mars, we can live on whatever state earth would be in, even if it was mars-like. 2) If earth becomes unlivable, the exhaustion of resources would mean we'll never be able to get to mars in the first place. Either way, I just don't see a mars colony happening as anything except a tem…

The new manifest destiny

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#48
Consolidating all their effort behind a single vehicle makes sense, but is there a large risk of the same thing that happened to the A380? Could the BFR end up being too big for servicing the existing market? Or does the existing market end up as 1/1000 the new market opened up by having the BFR?

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#49

I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). Given that, it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do somethi…

I don't understand why any of that is a huge proof that they can go to Mars.

There are no true proofs outside of realm of math at all.

SpaceX odds for going to Mars are, however, better than anyone else's.

Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions

#50

I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). Given that, it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do somethi…

> I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic.

I expect that part may be an attempt to not get their hopes up. One of the things I learned as a child was that if someone told you something that you really wanted to be true, and you believed it, then when it turned out to not be true you felt really really horrible. So instead you disbelieve it, and when it turns out to not be true you feel satisfied that you knew it wasn't true. If it turns out to be true after all, then you are surprised (in a good way) and excited because its a great thing. Of the choices, disbelieving gives a better future emotional outcome.

That said, the older version of me has come to appreciate people who are sincere even if they aren't able to deliver on their promises. Elon is pushing the edge of space travel at a rate that is much more exciting than NASA and other governments were. As a result I can cheer him on in the hopes he will be successful without becoming so invested in that success that it would crush me if it didn't come to pass. As a kid I really believed NASA when they said we'd have a lunar colony in 2001 after the lunar landing in 1969, and their inability to come close to delivering was really painful[1].

The launch of Falcon Heavy is going to be a significant milestone for SpaceX. If they can pull it off, they will have proven they can tame the complexity of adding rockets in parallel to tune their mass fraction to space. No one has done that yet. And if they can recover a second stage, and do so in a way that they can re-use its engines at least, it will demonstrate that the economics of such an effort can be managed as well.

High hopes, realistic expectations.

[1] Yes, I know that if they had kept their funding they would have made better strides, and yes I know that isn't there fault. But neither reality mitigated the impact of NASA essentially "giving up" on the moon.

Post reply on HN