Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 246 posts

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#211

Post by Pigo »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #195
Pigo wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish more people were inspired by Gene Roddenberry's vision of an ideal human society. I know it's a science fiction pipe dream because we're always held back by the lowest common denominator, but if mankind moved past the need for acquisition and power all that would be left is working together to achieve goals that make everyone's life more meaningful. We have to wait for meaningful goals to intersect with acquis…

I for one am in full cognitive dissonance about that. On the one hand, I understand how much of a pipe dream Star Trek is, and on the other hand, I strongly believe it sets a standard worth aiming for.

I guess that's how I feel too. I would never preach this gospel, but I find it inspirational.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#212

Post by logfromblammo »

baursak wrote: post #197
logfromblammo wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any fan of "modern monetary theory" should look at entities like the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela. No government has an infinite capacity to print fiat money, and a theory based upon that as a premise is, in my opinion, complete bunkum. I highly recommend exploring other macroeconomic theories. It is depressing how many of them amount to tricking productive firms and the labor workforce into believing a big…

Looks like you're not very familiar with it. Again, I highly recommend taking a close look and see if any of your questions are already answered/addressed.

It's your responsibility to support your own claim.

It won't do me any good to read more of your favored economic theory if I disagree with its fundamental premises. And I do disagree with them. Therefore, I will also disagree with all conclusions logically derived from them.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#213

Post by rtkwe »

polartx wrote: post #138
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's a very good summary of what happened. I'm aware of those factors, but I still think we took a wrong turn. Maybe not in the US due to the population sparsity and sprawl, but in Spain and many other European countries, if we could connect every town or city of more than 10K people by either rail, light rail or tram (instead of having spent billions on highways), that would cover 80% of the population. A lar…

> that would cover 80% of the population. A large majority wouldn't need a car, and could instead use Uber-like services for the last mile I'm sensing a bit of a Catch-22 in this hypothetical: How would the success of Uber-like services been impacted if 80% of the population no longer needed cars?

I still have the urge to put an asterisk by success for Uber because they're just burning piles of money still.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#214

Post by frangipane »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #133
frangipane wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safety. Back then it was basically part of the Cold War. Today, what are you asking the people to risk their lives for? Making things civilian-safe is expensive.

People risk their lives all the time for sillier reasons than going to space, sometimes without even getting paid for it.

Sure, so we might not stop an eccentric rich adventurer from self-funding an effort like this. But that doesn't necessarily mean the government would sponsor it, or allow people to be employed to do it.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#215

Post by maccam94 »

sytelus wrote: post #70
maccam94 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's recently gotten way cheaper. Cost per kilogram delivered to LEO: Saturn V (used for the Moon landing mission): $8,250 Falcon 9: $2,700 (price for an expendable launch) BFR (hypothetical, in development rocket): $500

In inflation adjusted dollars? I would have still thought its 10X cheaper now because of all the learnings plus much lower cost computing and other engineering enhancements. Back in 1973, the total cost of the Apollo program reported to Congress was $25.4 billion. By far the most expensive parts of the mission were the Apollo spacecraft (the Command Modules, the Lunar Modules) and the monstrous Saturn V launch vehicl…

I pulled the Saturn V and Falcon numbers from Wikipedia, which were in 2016 dollars.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#216

Post by bdowling »

Robotbeat wrote: post #121
paulus_magnus2 wrote: post #103

Economy. If Moon was made of gold it wouldn't be worth going there for it [1]. Perhaps reusable spacecraft can change that. For strategic / military reasons (money no objective) we can achieve much more than if profit is the only motivation. [1. need a better source?] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/22059/if-the-moon-... Edit: Elon Musk: With New SpaceX Tech, Rocket Costs Will Drop By A Factor of 100 https:…

But we ARE talking about retrieving stuff from Mars: the BFS must be returned to Earth to be reused. It's also capable of bringing people back from Mars, and that's supposed to be included in the $200k/person ticket price. Assuming at least 200kg of human plus consumables per person for the trip back, that implies that anything worth at least $1000/kg would be worth sending back. So I think Musk is actually wrong whe…

How about this: We legalize cocaine, but only cocaine manufactured on Mars. Investors (and engineers) will figure out the most economical way to get there, manufacture the cocaine, and get it back to Earth. The side effect will be that we will have figured out economical interplanetary space travel.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#217

Post by maccam94 »

IdeaHamstir wrote: post #163
lmm wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Falcon 9 isn't human-rated, and cost per kilogram doesn't cover everything - putting together 10 pieces in orbit would be really expensive.

Falcon 9 was designed to be human rated, hence the Dragon capsule. The lag in certification is probably largely due to Russian/USA politics.

I think the lag in certification partly came from NASA's risk assessment of some of SpaceX's plans. NASA increased focus on the risk of micormeteorite damage to the Dragon capsule while it is docked to the ISS, which has required additional shielding. Also NASA wants to see multiple Dragon flights with identical booster hardware before certifying the platform, and so far SpaceX has been iterating on Falcon a lot. Falcon 9 Block 5 is supposed to be the final iteration, so Dragon V2 certification has also been blocked on that.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#218

Post by maccam94 »

valuearb wrote: post #92
maccam94 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's recently gotten way cheaper. Cost per kilogram delivered to LEO: Saturn V (used for the Moon landing mission): $8,250 Falcon 9: $2,700 (price for an expendable launch) BFR (hypothetical, in development rocket): $500

Space Shuttle $50,000 SLS: $15,000 Falcon Heavy: $700

Wow, I had no idea the Shuttle was so crazy high. Wikipedia says it ranged from $16.5k - $50k, not sure on what basis. I guess the drastic cut in launch rate must have really tanked the efficiency of the program.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#219

Post by PatchMonkey »

WaitWaitWait... Nasa had its peak funding during those Moon landing years. We've let that equipment dryrot, switched to new versions, run those into the ground, slashed the budget repeatedly (and again over NASA's climate change research), privatized everything possible, let the best engineers retire, underpaid and underutilized their replacements until they left...

And somehow we have the gaul to wonder "why is going to the moon not working?"

Its almost like we're asking for something for nothing. Scientists and Engineers need to eat too. We need to buy new hardware. Train new people. If we wait too long, Musk will buy Cape Canaveral. We've already let Houston get turned into a museum rather than a launch pad.

I dont care how much you're gonna blame bureaucracy for this - this is poor leadership at the helm of our nation to gaslight folks this way.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#220

Post by valuearb »

maccam94 wrote: post #218
valuearb wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Space Shuttle $50,000 SLS: $15,000 Falcon Heavy: $700

Wow, I had no idea the Shuttle was so crazy high. Wikipedia says it ranged from $16.5k - $50k, not sure on what basis. I guess the drastic cut in launch rate must have really tanked the efficiency of the program.

actually I was a little high. It’s cost per launch was $1.5B in 2011 dollars ($193B over 133 flights). It’s cargo capacity was only about 40,000 lbs, so around $37,000 per lb.

The truth was it’s stack had massive launch capacity, over 200,000 lbs. but it was almost all used up by lifting that space plane. A higher launch rate was never really possible. The solid boosters weren’t reusable without a huge amount of work, and the shuttles needed lots of maintainance between flights.

The BFR is designed with theses lessons in mind. It’s fully reusable and it’s seconf stage should be way more efficient. But we will have see how much maintenance it will require between flights.

Post reply on HN