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

NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 168 posts

Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea

#71

Post by Ididntdothis »

toss1 wrote: post #69
Ididntdothis wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Apollo was lucky that Johnson came in after Kennedy. I think if a republican had won in 1964 probably there wouldn’t have been a moon landing. By the time Nixon came in there was already too much momentum to cancel it.

Except that he did cancel it and effectively disbanded what was at the time arguably the greatest engineering team ever assembled. Apollo 18, 19 20, never launched due to Nixon.

Correct. If he had been voted in four years earlier I bet there wouldn’t have been Apollo 11 either.

Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea

#72

Post by jessriedel »

> Aware of such criticisms, NASA is defending the Gateway. In May, the agency quietly distributed a white paper titled “Why Gateway?” [PDF] that makes the case for the space station.

Casey Handmer's take on that document, the best I know and strongly critical, is here:

https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/05/05/the-lunar-gate...

Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea

#73

Post by PaulHoule »

Polls show that ordinary people don't care about the Moon and Mars.

There is actually more support for planetary protection from asteroids, space-based observation of both Earth and Sky (people love the Hubble), resource utilization in space, etc... That is, the real Gerard K. O'Neil stuff.

If it were me I would set a goal of building a sunscreen at the Earth-Sun L1 point (e.g. planetary protection) using lunar or asteroid materials -- something like the lunar gateway would be an ideal crossing point for that. Space-solar power could be a byproduct of these efforts. This should have the urgency of Space Battleship Yamato (aka Star Blazers.)

The lunar gateway is also essential to long-term deep space exploration. One place where Obama was totally wrong was going to Mars without going to the Moon first. Since a Mars mission is going to be isolated from Earth for so long, we need to know that all of the technology is completely reliable and the best way to do that is get it to the point where going to the Moon is like riding the bus.

Radiation exposure in deep space is a known problem with the known solution of using space resources to build a radiation shield. This could be lunar or asteroidal rock and ought to be an early goal.

I am also very curious about Lunar geology and also the possibility that the moon has hidden sources of volatiles. People talk about the water, but you also need Carbon and Nitrogen as well as Phosphorous and Potassium to grow plants and run an economy. (Also you can't breath pure oxygen unless you want to end up like the Apollo 1 astronauts)

Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea

#74

Post by mcguire »

Retric wrote: post #63
rtkwe wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also a lot of value in the research NASA/JAXA/ESA/Roscosmos does in space. Some experiments are only really doable under long term microgravity The US runs it as a national lab and many companies use it for experiments. Maintaining it that way makes it way easier for companies to run experiments in space, with out the ISS each company would have to design, build and launch their own satellite for each experim…

The catch 22 is any experiment that you can only do in microgravity is also only really relevant in microgravity. That’s fine if we have a larger goal, but not really useful on it’s own. Sure simply learning this stuff is interesting, but the costs are so extreme it’s effectively a vanity project.

You could say the same thing about experimental high-energy physics.

Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea

#75

Post by jandrese »

wongarsu wrote: post #47
BurningFrog wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other cynical view is that the moon program was really military. As in, if the Soviets got to control the ultimate "higher ground", they could rule the world from it. Apollo made sure no one could control space, and we now have peace in space. I kinda believe in this, though I don't know how historically verified it is. It's of course not what you ever say in your rousing speeches to the nation and the world!

There was fear that if the Russians got to the moon first they might set up a base, and having a base they could shoot down any other landing attempt (literally, with guns mounted in their moon base). Thus the moon could become Russian domain, which would not just grant them great research opportunities but also a virtually unreachable weapons platform. (Remember that the first crewed space station was 2 years after…

Shooting people from the moon is probably the least practical military endeavor ever seriously contemplated, and that is saying a lot.

The Cold War resulted in a lot of really nutty thinking so I can't rule it out entirely, but it's hard to imagine what such a base would look like, especially with 1960s tech.

Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea

#76

Post by mcguire »

chasingthewind wrote: post #6
lettergram wrote: post #3

It’s kind of ridiculous how often NASA has to reallocate their focus. Personally, I’d like to see a longer term 5 - 10 year plan that is voted on by congress and basically the funds are deposited in an escrow. It’s insane the waste that occurs from random political moves like this. I understand the need to be able to direct NASA, but that should be in addition to the described 5 - 10 year plans. This would give the f…

I was talking with my daughter about this yesterday and it really occurred to me that it's probably important to look at NASA through a realist lens. Here's their Vision and Mission statement: [0] Vision: We reach for new heights and reveal the unknown for the benefit of humankind Mission: Drive advances in science, technology, aeronautics, and space exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic v…

Don't forget the employment project for aerospace engineers.

Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea

#77

Post by mcguire »

yellowapple wrote: post #35
lettergram wrote: post #3

It’s kind of ridiculous how often NASA has to reallocate their focus. Personally, I’d like to see a longer term 5 - 10 year plan that is voted on by congress and basically the funds are deposited in an escrow. It’s insane the waste that occurs from random political moves like this. I understand the need to be able to direct NASA, but that should be in addition to the described 5 - 10 year plans. This would give the f…

> Shouldn’t we listen to the experts here? When have politicians ever actually listened to experts?

The brilliant thing about experts is that you can pretty easily find one to say anything you want said.

Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea

#78

Post by mikeash »

pgeorgi wrote: post #27
mikeash wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand, this got everyone to focus and things happened fast. On the other hand, the result was only what was asked for. We went half a dozen times and then that was it. You want bigger missions? A base? Mars? Nope, not what we’re going for. Without JFK’s challenge, I’m sure we would have taken longer, but maybe it would have been more sustainable.

> You want bigger missions? A base? Mars? Nope, not what we’re going for. Could be specified as well: "Internationally organized base station (ISS style) on the Moon by 2030, permanently staffed after 2032, an experimental ecosystem to work towards self-sustaining O2 and food generation set up by 2037, usable as launchpad for Mars missions by 2045" That would at least provide clarity on priorities but it's risky: the…

I’d rather see a focus on projects that are doable with existing capabilities, and separately an effort to develop new capabilities.

It seems like if you immediately aim for something you can’t do, then you develop a bunch of technology and infrastructure that isn’t very good for other tasks. You end up with a stunt that doesn’t really go anywhere. That gets you rockets like the Saturn V, which was amazing but too big and expensive to be used for much besides Apollo. We’re doing it again with SLS: a big, catastrophically expensive rocket built to achieve a specialized goal. It’s not going to be very useful and it might not even fly.

Compare with SpaceX’s BFR. It has much more general capabilities. At first blush this might look bad: why lug a heavy heat shield all the way to the surface of the moon and back? Why all this focus on reusability if your goal is to send just a few missions? But at the end of the day you’re much better off with a rocket that’s ok for a bunch of stuff than one that’s really good at one thing.

Or just look at the space vehicles of the era. Many of them are still flying today, with lots of evolutionary improvements. How many Apollo-derived vehicles are flying today? I don’t think there are any.

Apollo makes me imagine a Roman emperor declaring a program to send an expedition to the South Pole. They can’t even get there! You need to work on your ships before you set such a specific goal.

As a bonus, steady, incremental improvement is the sort of thing you can sustain across political changes, if you can just get to the point where people stop asking for moonshots.

Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea

#79

Post by [deleted] »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #60
wongarsu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That won't happen again for political reasons. The moon landing is seen as Kennedy's achievement. He died six years before it happened, but that doesn't seem to matter. It's his legacy. No president (or congress) would let that happen again. When a president of party 1 sets such a goal the next president of party 2 will shift the goal to make it his achievement instead. Repeat ad infinitum.

I think Apollo was lucky that Johnson came in after Kennedy. I think if a republican had won in 1964 probably there wouldn’t have been a moon landing. By the time Nixon came in there was already too much momentum to cancel it.

[deleted]

Re: NASA’s Lunar Space Station Is a Great/Terrible Idea

#80

Post by jdsully »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #60
wongarsu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That won't happen again for political reasons. The moon landing is seen as Kennedy's achievement. He died six years before it happened, but that doesn't seem to matter. It's his legacy. No president (or congress) would let that happen again. When a president of party 1 sets such a goal the next president of party 2 will shift the goal to make it his achievement instead. Repeat ad infinitum.

I think Apollo was lucky that Johnson came in after Kennedy. I think if a republican had won in 1964 probably there wouldn’t have been a moon landing. By the time Nixon came in there was already too much momentum to cancel it.

Everything I’ve learned about Nixon tells me he would have kept it to avoid losing to the USSR. This is exactly why he escalated Vietnam despite campaigning on withdrawal - they weren’t going to lose on his watch.
Post reply on HN