4 ms·

So for ~ the cost of one SLS launch spacex could put more into space that all of history. At this price points this low for mass to orbit it starts being reaso

So for ~ the cost of one SLS launch spacex could put more into space that all of history. At this price points this low for mass to orbit it starts being reasonable to forgo technologies like super light materials, and reclaiming every molecule of water you bring up. You can build payloads for super cheap in a conventional terrestrial fashion and ignore the weight.

dylan604 5y ago
This is similar to the coversation of only having 128k memory forcing extremely tight programming vs multiple GBs of memory where you can do whatever you want and put recommendations on your users to have a minimum amount of memory. Just because you can be lazy doesn't mean it's the best way.
- snek_case 5y ago
  I don't think the software analogy works super well. In the case of software there's been a real performance loss over time as code became generally less optimized. In the case of space hardware or space stations, not having to use ultra-specialized materials means a potentially huge reduction in cost, which will enable plenty of new use cases. Space will become hugely more accessible as launch costs and space hardware costs both go down tremendously. Nobody is really losing here, except maybe the slow, bloated, old school space industry.
- bruce511 5y ago
  Depends on your definition of "best". Programming for 128K takes massive skill. Having multiple gigabytes allows more people to participate, and to prioritize other attributes than "low memory", typically faster and cheaper. So you get say a better UX, with better error handling, for less money. Which one is "best"? Well depends if you are skills & money rich, or skills and money poor. Clearly both are best, depending on what you are optimizing for. Up to now launches have been highly optimized for weight. Optimizing for other priorities (like cost) will change the rules of the game.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    ">Programming for 128K takes massive skill." It does not. What it does not tolerate is mediocre level which seems to be taking over the world lately.
    - larkost 5y ago
      To program simple things, maybe not. But if you are trying to do something complex then having a severe memory limit adds one more area of complexity to the process. If you can remove areas of complexity then you are doing three things: 1. allowing mediocre people to accomplish the same goals as used to take skilled programmers, largely by throwing hardware at the problem (this seems to be the source of your complaint) 2. letting skilled programmers accomplish the same task in less time (again by throwing hardware at the problem) 3. making even more complicated things possible for skilled programmers I certainly see the value in your complaint about things like the Slack app using Electron to make the UI easy to build (at the cost of my hardware performance), but that is a business optimizing for costs, rather than trying to optimize more for quality. Please assign the blame where it belongs.
    - brimble 5y ago
      Concur. I've done some programming for a platform that gave me way less than 128k to work with, and it's not rocket science. In some ways it's a hell of a lot easier than, say, web development. It just forces you to be aware of certain things that are tremendously wasteful of memory and cycles, but which don't matter on "modern" hardware. And by "don't matter" I mean "do matter a whole bunch, but your particular contribution to the problem is likely to be small enough that it won't help much if you spend the time to do it right, so why bother"
  - trasz 5y ago
    Under that assumption, modern software would have a better UX and be more reliable than the software written "back then". And from my experience it's the exact opposite - modern software, like Slack, is not only slower and less functional than old counterparts, like IRC; it's also much less reliable.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The lazy way broadened society's access to computing which has had all sorts of positive knock on effects.
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  For sure, but the best way to program say, a game, now definitely is not to go to the same lengths as people went to on the original Nintendo. There is a happy medium between using Unity and hand tuning every line of assembly.
beamatronic 5y ago
You could use waste water as propellant
dividedbyzero 5y ago
> So for ~ the cost of one SLS launch spacex could put more into space that all of history. Could they? I think they still have to prove they are able to deliver that kind of cadence at that price point. They aim to get there and I hope they do, but spaceflight being as fiendishly hard as it is, I wouldn't take their marketing claims as fact just yet.
- Fatnino 5y ago
  You're right, all this assumes the marketing material is an accurate description of the furure. Sprinkling in a dose of reality we must conclude that with maybe only two launches ever, SLS will turn out to cost much much more per launch.

dylan604 5y ago

This is similar to the coversation of only having 128k memory forcing extremely tight programming vs multiple GBs of memory where you can do whatever you want and put recommendations on your users to have a minimum amount of memory. Just because you can be lazy doesn't mean it's the best way.

snek_case 5y ago
I don't think the software analogy works super well. In the case of software there's been a real performance loss over time as code became generally less optimized. In the case of space hardware or space stations, not having to use ultra-specialized materials means a potentially huge reduction in cost, which will enable plenty of new use cases. Space will become hugely more accessible as launch costs and space hardware costs both go down tremendously. Nobody is really losing here, except maybe the slow, bloated, old school space industry.
bruce511 5y ago
Depends on your definition of "best". Programming for 128K takes massive skill. Having multiple gigabytes allows more people to participate, and to prioritize other attributes than "low memory", typically faster and cheaper. So you get say a better UX, with better error handling, for less money. Which one is "best"? Well depends if you are skills & money rich, or skills and money poor. Clearly both are best, depending on what you are optimizing for. Up to now launches have been highly optimized for weight. Optimizing for other priorities (like cost) will change the rules of the game.
- FpUser 5y ago
  ">Programming for 128K takes massive skill." It does not. What it does not tolerate is mediocre level which seems to be taking over the world lately.
  - larkost 5y ago
    To program simple things, maybe not. But if you are trying to do something complex then having a severe memory limit adds one more area of complexity to the process. If you can remove areas of complexity then you are doing three things: 1. allowing mediocre people to accomplish the same goals as used to take skilled programmers, largely by throwing hardware at the problem (this seems to be the source of your complaint) 2. letting skilled programmers accomplish the same task in less time (again by throwing hardware at the problem) 3. making even more complicated things possible for skilled programmers I certainly see the value in your complaint about things like the Slack app using Electron to make the UI easy to build (at the cost of my hardware performance), but that is a business optimizing for costs, rather than trying to optimize more for quality. Please assign the blame where it belongs.
  - brimble 5y ago
    Concur. I've done some programming for a platform that gave me way less than 128k to work with, and it's not rocket science. In some ways it's a hell of a lot easier than, say, web development. It just forces you to be aware of certain things that are tremendously wasteful of memory and cycles, but which don't matter on "modern" hardware. And by "don't matter" I mean "do matter a whole bunch, but your particular contribution to the problem is likely to be small enough that it won't help much if you spend the time to do it right, so why bother"
- trasz 5y ago
  Under that assumption, modern software would have a better UX and be more reliable than the software written "back then". And from my experience it's the exact opposite - modern software, like Slack, is not only slower and less functional than old counterparts, like IRC; it's also much less reliable.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The lazy way broadened society's access to computing which has had all sorts of positive knock on effects.
gameswithgo 5y ago
For sure, but the best way to program say, a game, now definitely is not to go to the same lengths as people went to on the original Nintendo. There is a happy medium between using Unity and hand tuning every line of assembly.

beamatronic 5y ago

You could use waste water as propellant

dividedbyzero 5y ago

> So for ~ the cost of one SLS launch spacex could put more into space that all of history. Could they? I think they still have to prove they are able to deliver that kind of cadence at that price point. They aim to get there and I hope they do, but spaceflight being as fiendishly hard as it is, I wouldn't take their marketing claims as fact just yet.

Fatnino 5y ago
You're right, all this assumes the marketing material is an accurate description of the furure. Sprinkling in a dose of reality we must conclude that with maybe only two launches ever, SLS will turn out to cost much much more per launch.