Sorry if this is off-topic, but does anbody have a link to the TedTalk?
Quote from: richie2k3 on 04/17/2018 01:37 pmSorry if this is off-topic, but does anbody have a link to the TedTalk? As mentioned upthread - but it's $25 to access.
Sorry i missed this - are they usally chargable? I thought TED was 'Not for profit' --- for the greater good' etc...
I see Gwynne's interstellar remark as both a glib throw away and a personal fantasy but known to her, an engineer, as being fantasy.
Quote from: philw1776 on 04/16/2018 06:24 pmI see Gwynne's interstellar remark as both a glib throw away and a personal fantasy but known to her, an engineer, as being fantasy.I see it as vision.Like most things, it will boil down to economics. Once they're flying thousands of people to Mars on a regular basis, building a massive interstellar ship may not be that much of a stretch.The problem will be volunteers. At least initially, you'll need people that are willing to spend their entire life on the ship, and have their offspring be the ones to explore other solar systems. So the ship will need to be the size of a small city, something like a modern cruise ship, assembled in space. Something big enough, and with enough other people that it would be comfortable to spend a lifetime there.After Mars has been settled, I see that as the next big thing.And with a huge fully reusable launcher, it may not be fantasy. Remember, BFR will cost less to launch than Falcon 1.
"Not for profit" doesn't mean free. It means lowest possible cost. I am sure they have lots of expenses to cover.
Quote from: richie2k3 on 04/17/2018 02:03 pmSorry i missed this - are they usally chargable? I thought TED was 'Not for profit' --- for the greater good' etc... "Not for profit" doesn't mean free. It means lowest possible cost. I am sure they have lots of expenses to cover.
I have never had to pay to watch a TED talk - ever. Is this new?
How does TED make money?TED makes money through conference attendance fees, sponsorships, foundation support, licensing fees and book sales, and we spend it as soon as we get it — on video editing, web development and hosting for TED Talks and TED-Ed videos (ideas are free, but bandwidth is expensive…); support for community-driven initiatives like TEDx and the TED Fellows, and of course, paying fair salaries to staffers and interns.Everyone who buys a pass to attend a TED conference is helping share free TED Talks video with the world, as well as supporting the TEDx program, the TED Prize, free TED Fellowships, TED-Ed video lessons and more great stuff that is shared with the world for free. For this reason, a percentage of the attendance fee is a charitable contribution.TED Talks on the web are also supported by partnerships with carefully selected organizations; their ads on the videos and website support making TED Talks available to the world for free in many languages and on many platforms. We are very selective in the organizations we partner with. Other projects and initiatives are supported by foundation funding and individual donors.And of course we're also supported in kind by tens of thousands of volunteers — like all the amazing translators with the Open Translation Project, TEDx organizers, TED.com conversation moderators, organizations and individuals that support the TED Prize, and everyone who ever shares a TED Talk with someone else. (Thank you!)
SpaceX so far as we know is an engineering firm, not a basic technology R&D firm.
Quote from: Dave G on 04/17/2018 08:04 pmAnd with a huge fully reusable launcher, it may not be fantasy. Remember, BFR will cost less to launch than Falcon 1.Only if it comes back. If it's heading out into the void, it'll be nice and pricey.
And with a huge fully reusable launcher, it may not be fantasy. Remember, BFR will cost less to launch than Falcon 1.
SpaceX so far as we know is an engineering firm, not a basic technology R&D firm.Everything built so far including to-be-built BFR is based on engineering; it's not new R&D like interstellar propulsion would be. Not even exotic interplanetary propulsion. SpaceX does push and extend the state of the art (engineering) more aggressively than their stolid aerospace competitors or NASA. Rockets landing on their tails, carbon composite all extensions of what's been done but taken aggressively to another level that the timid eschew.I see Gwynne's interstellar remark as both a glib throw away and a personal fantasy but known to her, an engineer, as being fantasy.
Quote from: llanitedave on 04/17/2018 08:28 pmQuote from: Dave G on 04/17/2018 08:04 pmAnd with a huge fully reusable launcher, it may not be fantasy. Remember, BFR will cost less to launch than Falcon 1.Only if it comes back. If it's heading out into the void, it'll be nice and pricey.Unless you've invented a magic drive that can take a BFS to the stars from LEO, BFS once you get about 10km/s from earth isn't what you want to use, and even very cheap solutions dramatically outperform it.Getting BFS back is cheap, with perhaps the exception of if you're going to try a large gravity well manoever right next to jupiter.Any semi-plausible interstellar precursor mission is not going to be dragging along 85 tons of dead weight.For example, assuming BFS is $100M and launch cost to spacex is $10/kg as implied by P2P. With $100M, you can launch ten thousand tons of simple balloon tanks and engines capable of throwing 2 tons to 30km/s.