Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jqpabc123 1017 days ago
Bottom line: Chemical rockets are never going to take us any place interesting in the universe.
4 comments

16-Psyche[1] is finally conquered.

The first remote factory ships arrive, and not long after the pile collectors go out, the machines start building new rockets.

New starships, constructed from the mineralogical ultra-super-mega-wealth that is this remote asteroid treasure, begin to rise among the golden landscape. These are not Earth-rated rockets, but rather planetary transfer super-structures that can move entire cities worth of materials, slowly and surely, out to somewhere great.

We might find a spot to park some of these cities where the weather is always going to be great. We might find a way to build them into mini Dyson-spheres, parked around a bit of fusion, or so.

I think rockets can take us to great places. Imagine a single-pass 3D printed Starship made out of titanium and other such alloys 16 Psyche might provide ..

Its a pretty big universe. A lot of it is interesting.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Psyche

I would argue that the moon, Venus, Mars, Titan, Enceladus, and others are quite interesting :P

But I see what you're saying. Excluding our own solar system, yes, chemical rockets are super limited :)

Even within our own solar system, anywhere beyond the moon is likely to end up as a one way, dead end trip.
Why is it so important to get back? That implies people need to go there, I think? Why?

And would it really not be possible to get to Enceladus and back (w/o people)?

The gravity there is so much less than the moon.

Or is it just the distance to and from Enceladus, and possibly nothing for a slingshot?

I can look at pictures of Machu Picchu on Google Maps but the experience of being there is so much better (from what I hear). That's why we want to send people. Presumably those people want to survive and come back too.
> I can look at pictures of Machu Picchu on Google Maps but the experience of being there is so much better (from what I hear).

Right, but you can't even look at pictures of these other planets because we haven't gone at all.

And if your choice was between spending $4T to go to Macchu Picchu yourself, or look at pictures on Google Maps for free - you would almost certainly not spend $4T "for the experience".

The reality is - Nasa estimates it would cost $4B for another manned moon mission. India just sent a lunar probe to the moon for about 1/100th that price.

Even if we could send someone to Saturn - the price would be more prohibitive than the chemistry.

If it costs 100-1000 times more to send humans than robots - it's probably not worth it.

Chemical rockets are good at escaping a planet's gravity well. We don't currently have a better alternative. Any of the 'low and slow' methods like ion drives are only good for travel between gravity wells.
They seem pretty good for getting to low orbit, and once you're there, lots of possibilities for propulsion open up.