5 ms·
Lower cost to orbit, sure. Increased economic activity in orbit? Where does that part come from? It's not like we haven't sent people to the ISS before. And it
by Hamuko 6y ago
Lower cost to orbit, sure. Increased economic activity in orbit? Where does that part come from?
It's not like we haven't sent people to the ISS before. And it's not like SpaceX hasn't managed to reuse hardware before. It's basically just a mix of those two things.
Really the most significant things about this were that astronauts were launched to space from the US and it was a private company. And out of those, the first thing is really more symbolic than anything else.
The ISS is about 400 km from the surface of the Earth. Mars is like what, 225 000 000 km?
- mercer 6y agoWell we're not gonna get to Mars with that attitude!
- bamboozled 6y agoMars is key ! We must get to Mars!!!
- rtkwe 6y agoI'm not so sold on the planetary backup drum beat. If we can live on Mars we can live on an Earth affected by basically anything using the same tech. The only real bonus is there'd be less people there to support, which feels like running away and letting the planet burn.
- monadic2 6y agoSeems like that’s exactly the attitude you need.
- yellowapple 6y ago> Lower cost to orbit, sure. Increased economic activity in orbit? Where does that part come from? Lower cost to orbit translates pretty directly to increased economic activity in orbit, since said economic activity is less expensive to do (and therefore more accessible to more people). But agreed. This ain't a huge achievement... yet. It's essential groundwork for that achievement, though.