4 ms·

It's weird that you seem to believe these analogies you're making with zero examples of the latter. Of course when you're imagining the whole thing and willing

by advael 3y ago

It's weird that you seem to believe these analogies you're making with zero examples of the latter. Of course when you're imagining the whole thing and willing to fudge the details in favor of the conclusion you want, it's really easy to make the argument that it's feasible and worthwhile

inglor_cz 3y ago
This is a very personal attack-like reply (weird, imagining, fudging etc.), and I believe it has no place on Hacker News. Anyway, no vessel that ever left the low Earth orbit was ever lost to cosmic dust. How am I expected to provide examples of something that never happened? As for losses of old wooden ships en route to Australia, there were plenty. Being a sailor was the most dangerous profession in the Age of Sail, and the very reason why sailors got tattos was a chance to be recognized as a drowned corpse.
- advael 3y ago
  I'm not personally attacking you, I'm saying your argument makes no sense, because you're trying to draw equivalences between recorded accounts of history and things that have never happened Like how long it takes to fly humans to mars. It hasn't happened yet, we can only estimate and try to project it, so the case that it might take as long as it took to sail across some particular ocean for some particular group of people with the technology they had at the time is not only kind of irrelevant, but also not a claim that can be supported. This is what's typically referred to as "fudging the numbers" The things you said and the point you are trying to be make by saying them is pretty ridiculous. You may choose to take that personally, but perfectly reasonable people say a lot of crazy shit. It may well be that the fact that internet fora make this a matter of somewhat durable record makes people view their arguments in this context as more tightly coupled with them as a person, but that's still ultimately for you to decide for yourself
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Like how long it takes to fly humans to mars. It hasn't happened yet, we can only estimate and try to project it, so the case that it might take as long as it took to sail across some particular ocean for some particular group of people with the technology they had at the time is not only kind of irrelevant, but also not a claim that can be supported. This is what's typically referred to as "fudging the numbers" OTOH, we have sent robots and we know the underlying physics very well indeed. We have also sent an electric car with a test dummy wearing a flight-suit into a Mars-crossing orbit. If Musk had actually wanted to continue with the Red Dragon concept (which IIRC wasn't planned to be crewed), it could've already landed by now. We also know what it would take to go substantially faster, and that we either don't have the tech (e.g. fusion), or don't want to risk it (e.g. fission), or we can't afford it (e.g. non-rocket launch systems). Even if we had more advanced propulsion, significantly faster trips are more likely to be exceptions than the rule until we have enough infrastructure in space that Mars itself stops being an interesting destination.

by advael 3y ago

inglor_cz 3y ago

This is a very personal attack-like reply (weird, imagining, fudging etc.), and I believe it has no place on Hacker News. Anyway, no vessel that ever left the low Earth orbit was ever lost to cosmic dust. How am I expected to provide examples of something that never happened? As for losses of old wooden ships en route to Australia, there were plenty. Being a sailor was the most dangerous profession in the Age of Sail, and the very reason why sailors got tattos was a chance to be recognized as a drowned corpse.

advael 3y ago
I'm not personally attacking you, I'm saying your argument makes no sense, because you're trying to draw equivalences between recorded accounts of history and things that have never happened Like how long it takes to fly humans to mars. It hasn't happened yet, we can only estimate and try to project it, so the case that it might take as long as it took to sail across some particular ocean for some particular group of people with the technology they had at the time is not only kind of irrelevant, but also not a claim that can be supported. This is what's typically referred to as "fudging the numbers" The things you said and the point you are trying to be make by saying them is pretty ridiculous. You may choose to take that personally, but perfectly reasonable people say a lot of crazy shit. It may well be that the fact that internet fora make this a matter of somewhat durable record makes people view their arguments in this context as more tightly coupled with them as a person, but that's still ultimately for you to decide for yourself
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Like how long it takes to fly humans to mars. It hasn't happened yet, we can only estimate and try to project it, so the case that it might take as long as it took to sail across some particular ocean for some particular group of people with the technology they had at the time is not only kind of irrelevant, but also not a claim that can be supported. This is what's typically referred to as "fudging the numbers" OTOH, we have sent robots and we know the underlying physics very well indeed. We have also sent an electric car with a test dummy wearing a flight-suit into a Mars-crossing orbit. If Musk had actually wanted to continue with the Red Dragon concept (which IIRC wasn't planned to be crewed), it could've already landed by now. We also know what it would take to go substantially faster, and that we either don't have the tech (e.g. fusion), or don't want to risk it (e.g. fission), or we can't afford it (e.g. non-rocket launch systems). Even if we had more advanced propulsion, significantly faster trips are more likely to be exceptions than the rule until we have enough infrastructure in space that Mars itself stops being an interesting destination.