Hacker News Reader

Comment by ck2 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Eh? It's litterally designed to ferry people back and fourth from mars. Just because it can also launch satellites it doesn't stop it being an interplanetary vehicle.

Then the name "Planetship" would be appropriate, not "Starship". Maybe they should have kept BFR (Big Falcon Rocket), where the "F" can be interpreted creatively.

Mars isn't at another star. But it's just an attention-grabbing name.

Well another possible interpretation of the naming scheme is:

- (Planet-)ship gets you around different places on the same planet.

- Starship gets your around different celestial bodies in the solar system.

- Galaxyship gets your around different star systems in the galaxy.

The way "starship" was used so far is that it is a spaceship which flies to the stars, that is, to other star systems, not just inside the solar system. They probably should have called it "Spaceship".

You're right. It's marketing. (The other replies with new accounts are missing your point.)

Unless we consider it a ship for our star, rather than a ship to the stars. Though in a certain sense, it could lead to a ship to the stars.

By the time we will be have technology to travel between stars, current starship will be forgotten and name could be reused.

Calling an inedible handheld microcomputer "Apple" is weird too, no? Ever tried biting one?

It's clearly not seaworthy yet they call it a ship! What a farce, I want my money back.

Mr Theseus, a letter from the council. It reads, "at what point in a ships construction-"

I do wonder why we decided to reuse the maritime nomenclature instead of coming up with a new one. Why would a space armada be considered a navy?

Space fleets will be relegated to the conceptual world of delivery trucks and Greyhound soon enough. Let people be grandiose while the novelty lasts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com