8 ms·

1. I am all for space exploration. I consider getting all our eggs out of one basket to be the single highest strategic imperative for humanity. 2. I do not fo

1. I am all for space exploration. I consider getting all our eggs out of one basket to be the single highest strategic imperative for humanity. 2. I do not for a second believe Blue Origin and Boeing can deliver on this. 3. I really want them to prove me wrong.

coldcode 5y ago
Yeah end of decade, as long as you don't specify which decade. I wish I could go into space, but don't expect to become a billionaire or live long enough for it to be cheap.
- kposehn 5y ago
  I'm more pessimistic about BO+Boeing than I am about SpaceX simply because of massive cultural differences between them all. While Elon is...eccentric...he managed to assemble the team led by Gwynne Shotwell at SpaceX which can accomplish massive amounts in very short periods of time. Their success rate is extremely high so I would hesitate to ever bet against them. Blue Origin has for a long time been a side-thing for Jeff. As a result, it apparently suffers from a serious lack of focus, commitment and sheer f'ing will. This is not a judgement of the front-line employees, but of the leadership which has let them all down. Boeing is...well, Boeing. I want to go into space as well. And I'm actually much more optimistic than you about the price and accessibility. At our current rate of change, it'll not just be possible within our lifetimes - it'll be commonplace. Why? Take the example of landing first stage boosters. This was something that had never been successfully done. SpaceX started working on landing in 2013 and successfully did it in 2016. Since then it has become commonplace - sticking the landing isn't even newsworthy. Each tipping point, such as reusability, is happening faster and faster.
  - _joel 5y ago
    I'm 100% in agreement with this. I'm optimistic that we'll have intraplanetary flights by the end of this decade that would at least let me experience micro gravity and take a holiday in Australia at the same time :)
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    > led by Gwynne Shotwell at SpaceX I love Gwynne as much as the next guy and she it clearly, but the team is lead by Elon. Gwynne helps keep the company running, makes the deals and has relations with DoD and NASA, makes sure nothing gets missed and so on. Flat out, Musk is the leader, he says what development happens, when and how. He decides how much money is spent and so on. Gwynne has said as much as well. It seem like people love to use Gwynne to say 'SpaceX is successful despite Musk', you didn't quite go so far, bu t still. This line of reasoning just doesn't work. If Starship is successful, many people will be able to afford to go to space.
  - imglorp 5y ago
    > Take the example of landing first stage boosters. This was something that had never been successfully done. Not so! See Delta Clipper ca. 1996: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z46RiuZvh6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z46RiuZvh6c The SpaceX advancement may be more business than tech. They have a way to thrive without pork contracts paying them to build a new launcher every mission. The fat, complacent, dinosaurs will have trouble dieting down to parity. In fact, maybe that's why Delta Clipper didn't advance to the next stage: not enough fat milk for contractors!
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      The Clipper reached a max altitude of 3KM. SpaceX took the awesome ideas from Clipper and got rid of the stupid ones (SSTO).
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      He didn't say 'first to land propulsive'. He said 'landing first stage booster' and that is correct. Propulsive landing has existed as long as the space industry of course. > The SpaceX advancement may be more business than tech. No it really isn't. This is sort of myth people perpetuate because they don't like SpaceX. Fact is, SpaceX did a huge amount of development to actually achieve a really reusable first stage. Early on data was flowing from NASA to SpaceX, but pretty quickly it was NASA monitoring SpaceX and asking them for data because they simply don't have it. SpaceX had to figure out things like supersonic retropropulsion. The engine SpaceX development achieved things nobody has done before. People point to a few research projects that thought about some individual things SpaceX did, but those never came even close even as a sum of all of them.
muglug 5y ago
> I consider getting all our eggs out of one basket to be the single highest strategic imperative for humanity. Sounds like a good idea, but I don’t think we need to start considering how to execute on that until we’ve made a half-decent attempt to stop ruining our current basket. Maybe add that to the to-do list for the next millennium.
- kposehn 5y ago
  This is an opinion I see more and more, even among HN, and it deeply concerns me because it misses the reality of the situation. Think of it this way: 1. The tree trunk is rotting. 2. There is a very real chance we cannot fix the rot, no matter how much we try. 3. Fixing the rot will not consume 100% of our available resources (fixing our environment is costly but logically cannot consume all we have) 4. Moving some eggs to a new nest in a new tree will not consume even close to 1% of our available resources (assuming a small but self sustaining set of colonies off-world) 5. The outcome of not getting new nests and not fixing the rot is extinction 6. The outcome of getting new nests and not fixing the rot is successfully avoiding extinction A friend of mine put it this way: what is the cost of being wrong? If the cost is extinction, then we must act. Self-sustaining space colonization is the only outcome that guarantees success. Therefore, we absolutely must do both, but not relying on earth is both less expensive and higher priority.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > A friend of mine put it this way: what is the cost of being wrong? 1. substantial new contributions to greenhouse emissions 2. diversion of attention and resources away from other things, that may make your (2) self-fulfilling 3. dilution of sentiment that we have an obligation to try to fix what we've done here. You also missed 7. The outcome of not getting new nests and fixing the rot is that we're much, much prepared to subsequently get new nests.
    - kposehn 5y ago
      You missed: > Therefore, we absolutely must do both, but not relying on earth is both less expensive and higher priority. I was very clear we must do both. Thus: * If we fail at fixing the rot, and we do not gain a new nest, we go extinct * If we fail at fixing the rot, but gain a new nest, we avoid extinction * If we fix the rot, but do not gain a new nest, we avoid extinction * If we do both successfully, we avoid extinction Out of four outcomes, two of the three successful scenarios all involve gaining a new nest.
thinkcontext 5y ago
Boeing did most of the construction of ISS and is the prime contractor supporting its operation. Certainly their Starliner performance casts doubt on their current ability to deliver but they at least have relevant know-how on space stations.
- kposehn 5y ago
  That's fair. I did skip over them, and they have proven ability in several areas.
- panick21 5y ago
  They have 2 gigantic space programs, Starliner and SLS. Both among the worst projects in the last decade. Their experience from ISS is decades ago.
worrycue 5y ago
> I consider getting all our eggs out of one basket to be the single highest strategic imperative for humanity. On a side note, I'm kind of disheartened by all the negativity in this thread. Isn't it good that companies other than SpaceX are trying to go to space too? Why put all our eggs in one company? Especially one run by someone as mercurial Musk? Do people on this site really want Bezos to give up and spend his billions elsewhere so Musk can have a near monopoly on space access? I get that Bezos isn't the nicest guy but Musk is no saint either. I'm starting to get the impression many on this site aren't really pro-space, they are just pro-Musk.
- kposehn 5y ago
  Good point. I'm not pro-Musk, just skeptical of BO. I want them to succeed, but I have doubts.
- panick21 5y ago
  > Do people on this site really want Bezos to give up How about not blocking everybody else constantly suing everybody and delaying the process. If he actually wanted to achieve a goal, that's what he would do. Bezos is driven by pride more then anything else. It was clear that SpaceX was way ahead of them in terms of rockets. Instead of leveraging that and investing in space station or moon lander, they had to 'beat' SpaceX at rockets. BO has been chasing its own tail and then suing everybody and claiming everything is unfair. For a company that has achieved mostly nothing, to claim everybody else shouldn't get contracts and that they would be better is just the hight of arrogance. Not surprising it has left many space fans with a bad taste. Additionally, this is a station that will only be build for a government contract. BO might be willing to spend actual money on idealism, but Boeing and Sierra are not. > I'm starting to get the impression many on this site aren't really pro-space, they are just pro-Musk. Maybe they are pro companies who actually achieve things and are not happy that the can finally sue everybody to 'flex their legal muscle' as BO CEO actually said. Nobody dislikes Firefly, RocketLab, Relativity or any number of other space companies.
  - worrycue 5y ago
    > Bezos is driven by pride more then anything else. I don’t know. If his ego is so wrapped up in it wouldn’t he be putting more effort into Blue Origin? BO is mostly run by people he hired no? Why is he suing? I don’t know. Maybe he does feel his company isn’t given the fair opportunity to participate. Frankly if it’s prideful behavior you have a problem with, Musk isn’t doing too hot in that department either. Remember when he slandered that British guy helping to free kids trapped in a cave in Thailand, damaging the guy’s reputation? All because the guy called him out on his publicity stunt. Or the time he attacked CNN over ventilators although all CNN did was report the news verbatim - imagine being so hard up for recognition over what is supposed to be an act of charity. In the worst case, we have 3 prideful billionaires trying to get into space. Yet Musk is the only one getting good press … while the other 2 get nothing but negativity and equally accomplished but relatively poorly funded companies like ULA, no one really talks about.

coldcode 5y ago

Yeah end of decade, as long as you don't specify which decade. I wish I could go into space, but don't expect to become a billionaire or live long enough for it to be cheap.

kposehn 5y ago
I'm more pessimistic about BO+Boeing than I am about SpaceX simply because of massive cultural differences between them all. While Elon is...eccentric...he managed to assemble the team led by Gwynne Shotwell at SpaceX which can accomplish massive amounts in very short periods of time. Their success rate is extremely high so I would hesitate to ever bet against them. Blue Origin has for a long time been a side-thing for Jeff. As a result, it apparently suffers from a serious lack of focus, commitment and sheer f'ing will. This is not a judgement of the front-line employees, but of the leadership which has let them all down. Boeing is...well, Boeing. I want to go into space as well. And I'm actually much more optimistic than you about the price and accessibility. At our current rate of change, it'll not just be possible within our lifetimes - it'll be commonplace. Why? Take the example of landing first stage boosters. This was something that had never been successfully done. SpaceX started working on landing in 2013 and successfully did it in 2016. Since then it has become commonplace - sticking the landing isn't even newsworthy. Each tipping point, such as reusability, is happening faster and faster.
- _joel 5y ago
  I'm 100% in agreement with this. I'm optimistic that we'll have intraplanetary flights by the end of this decade that would at least let me experience micro gravity and take a holiday in Australia at the same time :)
- panick21_ 5y ago
  > led by Gwynne Shotwell at SpaceX I love Gwynne as much as the next guy and she it clearly, but the team is lead by Elon. Gwynne helps keep the company running, makes the deals and has relations with DoD and NASA, makes sure nothing gets missed and so on. Flat out, Musk is the leader, he says what development happens, when and how. He decides how much money is spent and so on. Gwynne has said as much as well. It seem like people love to use Gwynne to say 'SpaceX is successful despite Musk', you didn't quite go so far, bu t still. This line of reasoning just doesn't work. If Starship is successful, many people will be able to afford to go to space.
- imglorp 5y ago
  > Take the example of landing first stage boosters. This was something that had never been successfully done. Not so! See Delta Clipper ca. 1996: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z46RiuZvh6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z46RiuZvh6c The SpaceX advancement may be more business than tech. They have a way to thrive without pork contracts paying them to build a new launcher every mission. The fat, complacent, dinosaurs will have trouble dieting down to parity. In fact, maybe that's why Delta Clipper didn't advance to the next stage: not enough fat milk for contractors!
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    The Clipper reached a max altitude of 3KM. SpaceX took the awesome ideas from Clipper and got rid of the stupid ones (SSTO).
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    He didn't say 'first to land propulsive'. He said 'landing first stage booster' and that is correct. Propulsive landing has existed as long as the space industry of course. > The SpaceX advancement may be more business than tech. No it really isn't. This is sort of myth people perpetuate because they don't like SpaceX. Fact is, SpaceX did a huge amount of development to actually achieve a really reusable first stage. Early on data was flowing from NASA to SpaceX, but pretty quickly it was NASA monitoring SpaceX and asking them for data because they simply don't have it. SpaceX had to figure out things like supersonic retropropulsion. The engine SpaceX development achieved things nobody has done before. People point to a few research projects that thought about some individual things SpaceX did, but those never came even close even as a sum of all of them.

muglug 5y ago

> I consider getting all our eggs out of one basket to be the single highest strategic imperative for humanity. Sounds like a good idea, but I don’t think we need to start considering how to execute on that until we’ve made a half-decent attempt to stop ruining our current basket. Maybe add that to the to-do list for the next millennium.

kposehn 5y ago
This is an opinion I see more and more, even among HN, and it deeply concerns me because it misses the reality of the situation. Think of it this way: 1. The tree trunk is rotting. 2. There is a very real chance we cannot fix the rot, no matter how much we try. 3. Fixing the rot will not consume 100% of our available resources (fixing our environment is costly but logically cannot consume all we have) 4. Moving some eggs to a new nest in a new tree will not consume even close to 1% of our available resources (assuming a small but self sustaining set of colonies off-world) 5. The outcome of not getting new nests and not fixing the rot is extinction 6. The outcome of getting new nests and not fixing the rot is successfully avoiding extinction A friend of mine put it this way: what is the cost of being wrong? If the cost is extinction, then we must act. Self-sustaining space colonization is the only outcome that guarantees success. Therefore, we absolutely must do both, but not relying on earth is both less expensive and higher priority.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > A friend of mine put it this way: what is the cost of being wrong? 1. substantial new contributions to greenhouse emissions 2. diversion of attention and resources away from other things, that may make your (2) self-fulfilling 3. dilution of sentiment that we have an obligation to try to fix what we've done here. You also missed 7. The outcome of not getting new nests and fixing the rot is that we're much, much prepared to subsequently get new nests.
  - kposehn 5y ago
    You missed: > Therefore, we absolutely must do both, but not relying on earth is both less expensive and higher priority. I was very clear we must do both. Thus: * If we fail at fixing the rot, and we do not gain a new nest, we go extinct * If we fail at fixing the rot, but gain a new nest, we avoid extinction * If we fix the rot, but do not gain a new nest, we avoid extinction * If we do both successfully, we avoid extinction Out of four outcomes, two of the three successful scenarios all involve gaining a new nest.

thinkcontext 5y ago

Boeing did most of the construction of ISS and is the prime contractor supporting its operation. Certainly their Starliner performance casts doubt on their current ability to deliver but they at least have relevant know-how on space stations.

kposehn 5y ago
That's fair. I did skip over them, and they have proven ability in several areas.
panick21 5y ago
They have 2 gigantic space programs, Starliner and SLS. Both among the worst projects in the last decade. Their experience from ISS is decades ago.

worrycue 5y ago

> I consider getting all our eggs out of one basket to be the single highest strategic imperative for humanity. On a side note, I'm kind of disheartened by all the negativity in this thread. Isn't it good that companies other than SpaceX are trying to go to space too? Why put all our eggs in one company? Especially one run by someone as mercurial Musk? Do people on this site really want Bezos to give up and spend his billions elsewhere so Musk can have a near monopoly on space access? I get that Bezos isn't the nicest guy but Musk is no saint either. I'm starting to get the impression many on this site aren't really pro-space, they are just pro-Musk.

kposehn 5y ago
Good point. I'm not pro-Musk, just skeptical of BO. I want them to succeed, but I have doubts.
panick21 5y ago
> Do people on this site really want Bezos to give up How about not blocking everybody else constantly suing everybody and delaying the process. If he actually wanted to achieve a goal, that's what he would do. Bezos is driven by pride more then anything else. It was clear that SpaceX was way ahead of them in terms of rockets. Instead of leveraging that and investing in space station or moon lander, they had to 'beat' SpaceX at rockets. BO has been chasing its own tail and then suing everybody and claiming everything is unfair. For a company that has achieved mostly nothing, to claim everybody else shouldn't get contracts and that they would be better is just the hight of arrogance. Not surprising it has left many space fans with a bad taste. Additionally, this is a station that will only be build for a government contract. BO might be willing to spend actual money on idealism, but Boeing and Sierra are not. > I'm starting to get the impression many on this site aren't really pro-space, they are just pro-Musk. Maybe they are pro companies who actually achieve things and are not happy that the can finally sue everybody to 'flex their legal muscle' as BO CEO actually said. Nobody dislikes Firefly, RocketLab, Relativity or any number of other space companies.
- worrycue 5y ago
  > Bezos is driven by pride more then anything else. I don’t know. If his ego is so wrapped up in it wouldn’t he be putting more effort into Blue Origin? BO is mostly run by people he hired no? Why is he suing? I don’t know. Maybe he does feel his company isn’t given the fair opportunity to participate. Frankly if it’s prideful behavior you have a problem with, Musk isn’t doing too hot in that department either. Remember when he slandered that British guy helping to free kids trapped in a cave in Thailand, damaging the guy’s reputation? All because the guy called him out on his publicity stunt. Or the time he attacked CNN over ventilators although all CNN did was report the news verbatim - imagine being so hard up for recognition over what is supposed to be an act of charity. In the worst case, we have 3 prideful billionaires trying to get into space. Yet Musk is the only one getting good press … while the other 2 get nothing but negativity and equally accomplished but relatively poorly funded companies like ULA, no one really talks about.