4 ms·

SpaceX needs to build Starships as often as Boeing builds 737s

13 points by Teever 3y ago

martinky24 3y ago
This article is framing this in the context of hypothetical numbers that Elon threw out "to maintain sustainable trips to and from mars". We are nowhere, I emphasize NOWHERE, near having a colony on Mars. Literal decades away. So the article (and its title) are built on a bit of a false premise.
- engineer_22 3y ago
  Decades away is rapidly approaching. Every Friday I wake up thinking "where did the time go?"
  - chatmasta 3y ago
    2040 is as close as 2008.
    - engineer_22 3y ago
      Stop, I'm already feeling old.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Pretty optimistic timeline. Hopefully a base on Mars is decades away, that would be great. However its depends on when we start to call it colonization. If a base counts then yeah hopefully we are right. But Musk is correct that what they are doing now is gone be vital to make this happen in a couple decades. It takes a while to get those technologies not just tested but mass produced.
zeristor 3y ago
If the aim is for a Starship to fly multiple times a day, I’m guessing they’ll need to build a large fraction of towers and installations. Several thousand to go to Mars? Are there enough volunteers? Or will Elon clone himself 10,000 mini-mes?
- engineer_22 3y ago
  The journey to Mars is similar in relative technical requirements and time-on-ship to the early European colonization of the Americas. Probably the biggest difference is the economic opportunity on Mars. The Americas hold abundant resources and hospitable climates, while Mars is shown to be inhospitable. I'm not aware of the proven reserves of economically viable Martian resources.
  - floxy 3y ago
    > I'm not aware of the proven reserves of economically viable Martian resources. Land? I suppose if you are the first on Mars, you can claim a pretty big chunk as your own.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Not land, water. Being able to do anything useful with that land like turning it into water/fuel/something else is going to be the biggest constraint, probably for centuries unless automation goes far faster than I expect.
  - vik0 3y ago
    >The journey to Mars is similar in relative technical requirements and time-on-ship to the early European colonization of the Americas. I dunno, this seems a bit doubtful. Water vs no air type of deal. I think going to Mars is a tiiiiiny bit more technical than crossing an ocean, even if a bit over 500 years ago that kind of an ordeal was much more difficult than it is today
  - erulabs 3y ago
    Mars is somewhat interesting because it has no valuable resources (at least, not valuable enough to launch back to Earth), but it does create something of political value. "Mars is a harsh Mistress" and all that.

13 points by Teever 3y ago

This article is framing this in the context of hypothetical numbers that Elon threw out "to maintain sustainable trips to and from mars". We are nowhere, I emphasize NOWHERE, near having a colony on Mars. Literal decades away. So the article (and its title) are built on a bit of a false premise.

engineer_22 3y ago
Decades away is rapidly approaching. Every Friday I wake up thinking "where did the time go?"
- chatmasta 3y ago
  2040 is as close as 2008.
  - engineer_22 3y ago
    Stop, I'm already feeling old.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
panick21_ 3y ago
Pretty optimistic timeline. Hopefully a base on Mars is decades away, that would be great. However its depends on when we start to call it colonization. If a base counts then yeah hopefully we are right. But Musk is correct that what they are doing now is gone be vital to make this happen in a couple decades. It takes a while to get those technologies not just tested but mass produced.

zeristor 3y ago

If the aim is for a Starship to fly multiple times a day, I’m guessing they’ll need to build a large fraction of towers and installations. Several thousand to go to Mars? Are there enough volunteers? Or will Elon clone himself 10,000 mini-mes?

engineer_22 3y ago
The journey to Mars is similar in relative technical requirements and time-on-ship to the early European colonization of the Americas. Probably the biggest difference is the economic opportunity on Mars. The Americas hold abundant resources and hospitable climates, while Mars is shown to be inhospitable. I'm not aware of the proven reserves of economically viable Martian resources.
- floxy 3y ago
  > I'm not aware of the proven reserves of economically viable Martian resources. Land? I suppose if you are the first on Mars, you can claim a pretty big chunk as your own.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Not land, water. Being able to do anything useful with that land like turning it into water/fuel/something else is going to be the biggest constraint, probably for centuries unless automation goes far faster than I expect.
- vik0 3y ago
  >The journey to Mars is similar in relative technical requirements and time-on-ship to the early European colonization of the Americas. I dunno, this seems a bit doubtful. Water vs no air type of deal. I think going to Mars is a tiiiiiny bit more technical than crossing an ocean, even if a bit over 500 years ago that kind of an ordeal was much more difficult than it is today
- erulabs 3y ago
  Mars is somewhat interesting because it has no valuable resources (at least, not valuable enough to launch back to Earth), but it does create something of political value. "Mars is a harsh Mistress" and all that.