this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
172 points (81.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35764 readers
995 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

So I've heard and seen the newest launch, and I thought for a private firm it seemed cool they were able to do it on their own, but I'm scratching my head that people are gushing about this as some hail mary.

I get the engineering required is staggering when it comes to these rocket tests, but NASA and other big space agencies have already done rocket tests and exploring bits of the moon which still astounds me to this day.

Is it because it's not a multi billion government institution? When I tell colleagues about NASA doing stuff like this yeaaaars ago they're like "Yea yea but this is different it's crazy bro"

Can anyone help me understand? Any SpaceX or Tesla fans here?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zer0_F0x@lemmy.world 173 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

Disclaimer: Fuck Elon Musk and all the shady shit he's been pulling off.

That said, this is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen in terms of the potential it holds to shape the future.

Up until 5 short years ago we had:

  • No main booster recovery
  • No rocket nearly as powerful as this one
  • No successful flight of a full-flow stage engine
  • Nobody even considering the catch with chopsticks thing
  • No private company testing super heavy lift vehicles (BO is about to enter the chat as well)
  • No push for reusability at all

This was all built on top of the incredible engineering of NASA, but this one launch today has all of the above ticked.

This is like making the first aeroplane that's able to land and be flown again. SpaceX uses this example as well, like, imagine how expensive any plane ticket would have to be if you had to build a brand new A380 every single time people wanted to fly and then crashing it into the sea.

Going to space is EXPENSIVE. If this program succeeds it will both massively reduce the cost to space and spin off hundreds of companies looking to do the same in various ways.

Look at any new rocket currently in development, they all include some level of reusability in the design and that's all thanks to the incredible engineers of SpaceX paving the way, first with Falcon 9 and now with Starship.

We're talking industrial revolution levels of progress and new frontiers in our lifetimes, which is very, very exciting.

[–] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 28 points 4 weeks ago (11 children)

I hate Musk and his personal everything, but Like SpaceX. However, when people gush about reusability, they seem to forget the 135 Space Shuttle missions (2 fatal failures , yes.). All done with 5 vehicles. Yes expensive etc, but truly amazing.

Also, I really don’t find anything SpaceX is doing revolutionary. Impressive? Yes, but it’s essentially incremental engineering, made possible by ginormous funding, including NASA money, and a private company doing things that NASA can-t politically afford.

Imagine NASA crashing 4 Shuttles before getting landing right. There’d be no NASA by now.

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 53 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, but it’s essentially incremental engineering, made possible by ginormous funding, including NASA money, and a private company doing things that NASA can-t politically afford.

NASA spent about 50 Billion today-dollars developing (not launching) the shuttle program and that went to private contractors (Boeing, Lockheed, United Space, etc.) Starship has a long way to go to hit those numbers.

I really don’t find anything SpaceX is doing revolutionary

Really? Nothing? Many people said what Falcon 9 now does on a regular basis could not be done. No one was even trying. The closest plans were still going to land horizontally and went nowhere. Now, you have to explain why you're not landing your booster, and what your plans are to fix that going forward: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/international/2024/09/11/china-wants-to-replace-jeff-bezos-as-musks-greatest-space-threat/

They quite literally revolutionized the space industry in terms of the cost to launch to orbit.

Imagine NASA crashing 4 Shuttles before getting landing right. There’d be no NASA by now.

Yet another way they've revolutionized the industry. Almost everyone is doing expendable tests now so that they can move forward quickly. Columbia started construction in 1975, launched for the first time in 1981. When they launched it, it was a fully decked out space shuttle and they put the whole thing on the line - including two astronauts. Imagine NASA trying to do that now. They'd be grounded so hard they'd be jealous of Mankind having a table to land on.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 33 points 4 weeks ago (15 children)

The Space Shuttle missions did not recycle the rockets, not to mention that the SpaceX missions were rated super-heavy: Only Apollo has done this before in America.

Imagine NASA crashing 4 Shuttles before getting landing right.

You think they didn’t?

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] sylveon@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Like SpaceX. However, when people gush about reusability, they seem to forget the 135 Space Shuttle missions (2 fatal failures , yes.). All done with 5 vehicles. Yes expensive etc, but truly amazing.

The Space Shuttle was a marvel of engineering. But while it was reusable, it wasn't actually good at it. Reusability was supposed to bring down cost and turnaround time and it did neither. And not just that, it was actually much more expensive than competing expendable rockets. Plus, it had lots of other issues like being dangerous as fuck. You couldn't abort at all for major parts of the ascent and there was the whole issue with the fragile heat protection tiles, both of which caused fatalities.

I think part of the reason why people aren't impressed by the Shuttle anymore is because it flew 135 missions. It's 40 year old technology. And it's not like SpaceX are just doing the same thing again 40 years later, they're reusing their rockets in a completely different way, which no one else had done before. And in doing so they seem to be avoiding most of the disadvantages that came with the Shuttle's design.

Also, I really don’t find anything SpaceX is doing revolutionary. Impressive? Yes, but it’s essentially incremental engineering, made possible by ginormous funding, including NASA money, and a private company doing things that NASA can-t politically afford.

Sure, I wouldn't say that no one else could do this with a similar amount of money (and the will to actually do it). Whether you want to call it revolutionary or not is subjective, but they're definitely innovating a lot more than any other large player in spaceflight. The Falcon 9 is a huge step forward for rocket reusability and SpaceX have also been the first to fly a full-flow staged combustion engine as well as the most powerful rocket ever. They're making spaceflight exciting again after like 40 years of stagnation and I think that's what resonates with people.

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 13 points 4 weeks ago

I think your last sentence answers the OP in a nutshell. There's nothing more to it than that, and there needn't be.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 20 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

The space shuttle wasn't as reusable as it was claimed to be.

Each airframe required massive refurbishment after every flight.

And the "crashes" you're talking about were part of the project process, articles that were never going to be any more than test objects to begin with.

NASA crashed a lot of stuff, unintentionally. Three off of the top of my head, killed 15 astronauts, all which were preventable (not to mention the launch pad failures getting to Apollo).

NASA/NACA/Air Force crashed a lot of stuff along the way.

Ffs they knew Columbia had a tile problem, and said "it'll be OK". They knew it had been too cold for the booster seals on Discovery, and launched anyway.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Ludrol@szmer.info 19 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

A bit of a timeline correction. The falcon 9 started landing succesfully in 2016. So 8 years ago but your argument still stands.

[–] Zer0_F0x@lemmy.world 19 points 4 weeks ago

That can't be right! 2016 was just.... Fuck I'm getting old so fast

[–] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

no rocket as powerful as this one.

So I'm confused on this because people still seem to be using Starships's old estimates of 100 tons to LEO orbit, which the SLS can put 145 tons to LEO.

Then 6 months ago Musk got on stage and updated the specs to Say that Starships's current design can only do 40-50 tons.

This feels awfully familiar for anyone that's seen early Tesla specs/presentations/promises and I can't help but wonder as to the validity of everyone saying SpaceX is mostly insulated from Musk's "influence."

[–] Vlixz@lemmy.world 15 points 4 weeks ago

To be very honest even if Starship is able to only lift 50 tons, which I'm sure they'll be able to hit 100/150 tons eventually. The huge difference in cost would easily cover the extra times Starship would have to fly, compared to SLS. Considering each flight of a SLS will be around 4 billion dollars.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lung@lemmy.world 122 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

My guy they just caught an object falling from space using a pair of giant chopsticks

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 72 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

They caught a building, with a building holding chopsticks.

[–] ClassyHatter@sopuli.xyz 16 points 4 weeks ago

https://youtu.be/b28zbsnk-48?t=412

That thing is about 70 meters long and weights 300 tons and some.

[–] AllOutOfBubbleGum@lemmy.world 13 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Technically not from space since the lower stage never made it past the Karman line, which is 100km above sea level.

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 20 points 4 weeks ago

It reached the altitude of 96km, not space but not far either.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 91 points 4 weeks ago (8 children)

Because they are impressive in the way NASA was. Which is the problem - we should be doing this as a nation and not subsidizing whatever a billionaire fancies at the moment.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 83 points 4 weeks ago

I hate Elon just as much as the next guy, but pretending that this wasn’t a marvel of engineering is really disingenuous. People with intelligence beyond my comprehension made that a reality, and just because the company had his face on it, it doesn’t make it any less impressive

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 75 points 4 weeks ago (9 children)

I've seen so many people grudgingly pretending what they saw wasn't one of the coolest fucking things they've seen all year all because they hate Musk. Like, you know he's not personally involved in the design or manufacture of these things right? By all accounts he's more of a hindrance and these amazing fears of engineering have been accomplished despite him, not because of him.

I personally don't really care how big of a douche Musk is, as long as he's willing to fund these kinds of things.

[–] greedytacothief@lemmy.world 46 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

So I was teaching some kids snowboarding, one kid started talking to me about musk on the chairlift. He tells me that musk is the greatest engineer to ever live. I say that he's really more of a business man buying up companies. Kid is not convinced. I tell him that the only engineering that musk may have done was software engineering on PayPal. Kid thinks that's great support of his claim.

Adults and 11 year olds are pretty much the same, so I would say there's lots of people that think musk is a super genius. Probably a dwindling amount, but there's a lot of people on earth.

[–] turmacar@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago

He bought co-founder status at Paypal too IIRC. He was ousted in part because he wanted to rename it "x.com". Weird that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 4 weeks ago

these amazing fears of engineering

😱

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 68 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

If you ignore Musk for a moment, it is impressive. Maybe not every launch (I wasn't even aware of another one), but a company that's actually pushing for more space exploration. That's cool beans.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 73 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

even if you don't ignore musk...

They've achieved all that despite musk. musk is an idiot and a fool, and he's far from an engineer. Imagine what they could do if his coke-and-ketamine fueled dipshitery decided to take up a different hobby.

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 23 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

SpaceX has a very robust management system that manages musk and keeps him out of the day to day. That's the most impressive thing about them IMO. Tesla used to be better about this as well, but with the whole eDumpster (aka cybertruck) fiasco that system seems to have largely fallen apart.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 16 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

yup.


edumpster is the polite way of describing it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] takeda@lemmy.world 18 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Imagine what they could do if his coke-and-ketamine fueled dipshitery decided to take up a different hobby.

Didn't he just do that with Xitter?

Seems like he is quite isolated in SpaceX and COO is running everything.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 27 points 4 weeks ago

SpaceX success is based on senior management being able to keep musk away from everything to do with the company. He is solely responsible for funding. Everything else, musk has zero credit.

he bought twitter to show what a company ran directly by him would be like. If that was SpaceX there would be far more rockets ploughing into the earth or exploding at launch.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 67 points 4 weeks ago (14 children)

SpaceX is not run by Elon and he's kept from being involved closely by a buffer of people that keep him from getting too close to making any "elon" level changes.

SpaceX is successful despite Musk, not because of. And the woman who runs it knows that and keeps Musk away from any important decisions or impacts.

So the stuff they're doing is legit, cool aerospace stuff.

It's just not something Musk should take credit for. He does/will. But he shouldn't. He's a hack.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] marsokod@lemmy.world 58 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

There are a few things that are different from what NASA has done in the past:

  1. SpaceX Rocket is the most powerful rocket ever, surpassing everything that NASA or anyone else has ever done.

  2. they are landing the rockets, with the aim of being able to recover them. If you skip the technicality that SpaceX first stage is suborbital but is part of an orbital launcher, that makes SpaceX the only entity who has achieved that, with some comparison to the Space Shuttle and Buran, though both were losing significant sections of the initial launcher, with very difficult repairs once on the ground.

  3. the cost of the launcher. In terms of capabilities, NASA's SLS is probably close to Starship. However, it costs around $2B/launch, and nothing is recoverable. Starship is meant for low cost. It is estimated that the current hardware + propellant for a single launch is under $100M. With reusability, a cost per launch under $10M is achievable in the mid term (10 years I would say) once the R&D has been paid ($1.4B/year at the moment, I would guess the whole development for Starship will be $10-20B, so same if not less than SLS).

  4. the aim for high speed reusability - SpaceX aim is to launch as much as possible, as fast as possible, with the same hardware. While it is a bit early to understand how successful they will be (Elon was saying a launch every 1hr, which seem to be very optimistic, I would bet 6-12hrs to be more achievable). That was NASA's original goal for the Space Shuttle, and they failed that.

  5. finally, orbital refueling means you have a single vehicle that can basically go anywhere in the inner solar system without much issues, and minimal cost.

Also, what gets people excited are the prospects of what this enables. A 10-100x decrease in the access to orbit changes completely the space economics and opens a lot of possibilities. This means going to the Moon is a lot simpler because now you don't need to reduce the mass of everything. This makes engineering way easier as you do not need to optimise everything to death, which tends to increase costs exponentially. And as for Mars, Starship is what makes having a meaningful colony there possible. Doing an Apollo like mission on Mars would have been possible for decades, but at a significant price for not much to show for. With cheap launch, you can just keep sending hardware there.

[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 51 points 4 weeks ago

NASA, nor anyone else, has done this before. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say NASA did this already.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 50 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (6 children)

Wait, when did NASA land a fully reusable rocket like fucking Buck Rogers?

Then do it again, but capture it with the freakin' launch tower?

When did NASA even have a reusable rocket? Oh, the shuttle, the bastardized money pit for NSA/NRO/Air Force, that appears to have been designed to orbit a surveillance satellite chassis, which most people know as Hubble (it's one of many, this one being used to surveil the universe, instead of the earth).

And the shuttle was a quasi-reusable orbiter, not a rocket.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 39 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

What you're asking is akin to: why are people impressed by the airplane? We've already reached the Americas and India by boat.

SpaceX, and others actually are not advancing science per se, but are greatly improving/optimising the engineering so that it can be used in cheaper ways by others.

There's also the issue that after the moon landing we didn't really improve that much and much of the knowledge faded

[–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 13 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

There’s also the issue that after the moon landing we didn’t really improve that much and much of the knowledge faded

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 33 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Have you seen their boosters land? It very much IS impressive. They basically made reusable rockets viable, which is a huge step for more affordable space flight.

Also their raptor engine is a marvel of engineering.

[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 32 points 4 weeks ago

For me being impressed with SpaceX is kinda like loving a piece of art even though the creator turned out to be an asshole. Or liking Star Trek, even though Berman was shady af to put it mildly.

What SpaceX does is very impressive from a technical point of view. Even if the rocket never amounts to anything except this one successful test, it's still amazing they pulled it off. It tickles my engineer brain. And I think it's worth to honor all the people that made it happen, despite them having to work for Musk. Combine this with what could be in the future and you can hopefully see why people hail this test flight.

Now I still have serious doubts about Starship in the moon program. The on orbit refueling seems very sketchy and unproven at this point. Sure they will get two rockets into orbit, mate them up and transfer some fuel, that's a given at this point. But how much fuel are we talking? And how fast does the turnaround need to be to prevent losing a lot of it? How many ships and how many launches? Will this completely offset the cheaper launch costs due to reusability? It's a huge unknown and will push back the moon program to well into the 2030s.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 27 points 4 weeks ago (13 children)

Not a fan, but it generally boils down not to where they can fly but how they differ in other aspects, mainly cost.

SpaceX is currently the world pioneer in heavy reusable rockets, which is another way to say they are the only ones to launch big stuff up there so cheap, and it gets even better.

They are essentially doing the good side of capitalism - making stuff cheaper - applied to space, one of the most expensive industries in the world.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 22 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I remember an interview with a former NASA engineer that said NASA would never be able to do anything near what SpaceX (or any other private company) can do. The reason given is that SpaceX spent billions after billions on what were essentially very expensive fireworks until they finally achieved a breakthrough. A breakthrough that wasn't a guarantee. Even Musk himself had said he would have eventually closed SpaceX if they hadn't achieved something and it would have been a multi billion dollar failure. He, and everyone else really, got very lucky.

Imagine NASA asking taxpayers for another billion dollars after blowing up the last billion with no guarantee this next billion would produce anything but another explosion. How many times would the public foot that bill? Not even once. Not while people don't have healthcare and homelessness and hunger exist. The government can't justify it and that's just how it is. The only way we get space travel, with our current system, is to hope someone with a lot of money is willing to bet it on a breakthrough. It sucks but the problem isn't Musk, it's the system that makes us reliant on billionaires for nice things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 21 points 4 weeks ago

Not a Tesla fan and I absolutely despise the cult around Elon. SpaceX is a bit different though. Luckily with Elon's many, many side project misadventures he's pretty hands-off with SpaceX. Ultimately it comes down to being largely engineer driven and given sufficient (but yes, still government) funding to try new things without the scrutiny of direct government agencies. The hours are usually terrible from what I hear, but this varies team to team.

My biggest complaint is that they do lowball engineers using the stock as reasoning for why it's worth accepting. FWIW historically that has been the case, and many engineers there do effectively have golden handcuffs. But expecting infinite golden handcuff level growth forever is unrealistic.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 21 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Here's some solid numbers:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Launch-Cost-Per-Kilogram-to-Low-Earth-Orbit-LEO-US-Thousands_fig1_361415873

The Shuttle was so expensive that it might have been better to keep using the Saturn V. It accomplished a lot, but was ultimately a failure at its original goal of a reusable rocket with a fast turnaround. Some of the old hopes for it were to launch 100 Shuttle missions per year. As problems were found, it was clear it would never be close to that.

Falcon 9 was already an order of magnitude drop from what came before. Being able to grab the Starship booster by the chopstick method means it can quite possibly do the quick turnaround the Shuttle promised. That could mean another order of magnitude drop. Possibly even two orders of magnitude.

That's transformative. It's not just cheaper. It let's things be done that weren't possible before.

One subtle thing that's already come out of this is related to Starlink. Now, this has a whole lot of problems that I won't get into here, but it does have one fascinating effect. A rocket coming back down generates plasma that blocks radio signals to the ground. This means there's a blackout time where everyone in mission control stands by nervously while waiting to hear if it blew up or not.

What Starlink does is provide a high bandwidth link above the rocket, letting them relay data back to the ground. This means that not only do we have full communication during reentry, but even a live video feed of the exterior. This was not possible until fairly recently.

It should also be noted that we SpaceX didn't do this on their own. They benefited from decades of NASA R&D, launch facilities, and funding. Their biggest success comes from working around the pork barrel politics that hangs around NASA's neck.

[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 21 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

Rapidly reusable orbital launch vehicles were unheard-of until Falcon 9. The Space Shuttle was supposed to fill that role, but NASA, ULA, and government elements have made it a horrid overbuilt pile of feature creep that was, at the same time, the crowning achievement of American aeronautical engineering, which was impossible to refurbish quickly. The same thing that is currently happening to SLS.

Propulsive landing of a first stage booster was an insane idea. Even massive space nerds like Everyday Astronaut were skeptical, and I watched him cream his jeans live when the first booster landed. That alone, the ability to reuse both the structure and the engines of the booster, as opposed to ditching them in the ocean (or in China's case, on top of villages), has made access to low Earth orbit significantly cheaper, and affordable to underfunded scientific organizations.

That being said, competition is closing in. Rocket Lab (New Zealand) is targetin the same industry with the Neutron rocket (CEO Peter Beck literally ate his hat when the announcement was made) and is experimenting with recovering its smaller Electron rocket using mid-air capture by a helicopter. Astra (USA) is developing a rapidly deployable small orbital launch rocket that can fit inside a standard shipping container. There's also Jeff Bezos and his massive overcompensation of a dick rocket that can also land propulsively, but not worth discussing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 19 points 4 weeks ago

Because no one else is doing space things as well as spaceX is even if you think they suck.

Rockets are just cool tech. So is space tech. It grabs our imagination in a way that most terrestrial things dont.

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 18 points 4 weeks ago (10 children)

Imagine you want to build a cabin in a very remote place in Alaska.

Getting there is quite difficult, you did it a few times in the 60's but the path is so bad that you had to throw the truck away each time (around $45,000 per trip, for the truck + gas)

You are still planning to build your cabin but having to buy a new truck for each trip is not great, plus the fact that only one company can make this SLS truck so you can't get more than once a year.

Building a cabin in these circumstances is close to impossible.

Now SpaceX makes a new Starship truck that can go all the way AND be reused. The trip from the hardware store to the build site now only costs you around $100 for the gas plus truck expenses AND you can now do the trip to the hardware store multiple times a day !

Now building the cabin becomes way more accessible.

Replace the Alaskan cabin with a scientific base on the moon or Mars and multiply the amounts by 100,000 and you have an approximation of the situation

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] dumbass@leminal.space 17 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)
load more comments
view more: next ›