Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of Mars

Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of... by nickparker on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @12:16AM (#13226958)

There's a very enjoyable discussion in the comment section with my (brilliant) former colleague Max Fagin. He points out that Casey's first draft of this post neglects the curvature of Mars, and when you account for it Casey's model predicts the craft punching out the other side of the atmosphere.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of... by chandmer on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @01:39AM (#13227248)

Always appreciate careful criticism! It turns out the ratio of centrifugal-gravitational force to aerodynamic force is about 10:1, so punching through the atmosphere is a solvable problem. I love Max's videos! -C

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of... by nickparker on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @08:17PM (#13234037)

Oh man, I hadn't seen those videos before. That's gold.

Off-topic, but your post popping up with the Hyperloop One name attached helped me decide[1] to sign w/ you folks instead of another company for Summer 2017, so see you in a few months!

[1] I was probably picking Hyperloop anyway, a cool Mars post + vague affiliation with Max just made it easier :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of... by aedron on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @04:22AM (#13227825)

Can't see those comments. Were they deleted?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of... by chandmer on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @11:30AM (#13230350)

They're on the ITS post.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of... by chandmer on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @11:29AM (#13230342)

They shouldn't be!

[ Parent | on HN ]