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

131–140 of 168 posts

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

#131

Post by Retric »

greglindahl wrote: post #130
Retric wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The need for microgravity to manufacture these things is demonstrating my point.

Then I totally didn't get your point. These are things that you manufacture in microgravity that are then usable in gravity. Isn't that what you said did not exist?

I am saying testing say crystal formation in space is only relevant for crystal formation in space. If that’s what you’re going to do aka manufacturing in space then sure experimenting in space is required. Getting the economics to look promising for actually manufacturing in space then that’s a separate thing.

Aka Manufacturing would be that larger goal I was referencing.

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

#132

Post by jessaustin »

jbattle wrote: post #118

Given the exponential nature of Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation, I don't understand why its not common to perform multiple launches from the ground to LEO, and then rendezvous in orbit and go to the moon, or mars, or whereever. If I'm understanding the mechanics properly (informed mostly by kerbal space program!) the biggest "expense" in traveling most places is getting into LEO. And every doubling of payload requires…

TNSTAAFL. I think you're misunderstanding that equation?

You're trying to get to orbit, so hold v and delta-v constant. Then you have the ratio of "wet" to "dry" masses constant. So the more you're launching, the more fuel it takes, and that is linear. I don't see how physics would work otherwise?

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

#133

Post by novaRom »

dTal wrote: post #129
wongarsu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Also the Soviet Union was winning most of the relevant milestones in space (first satellite, first animal in orbit, first human, first woman, first space walk, etc), and this was a great source of national pride. Beating them had great propaganda value. I would rather say that the Soviet Union was winning the irrelevant milestones, precisely for the propaganda value. First woman in space means nothing, really - you…

Oh boy, you underestimate the power of feminism. First woman in space is a lot, especially if you go back to 60th of previous century.

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

#134

Post by sprafa »

jdsully wrote: post #80
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.

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.

He loathed Kennedy tho. He might have cancelled it, or changed it. Who knows really.

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

#135

Post by avar »

mikeash wrote: post #78
pgeorgi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 bi…

> [...]rockets like the Saturn V, which was amazing but too big and expensive to be used for much besides Apollo[...]

The cost per launch for the Saturn V was around a $1 billion in today's money. That's lower than some estimates for the per-launch cost for the Shuttle. It wasn't unsuitable, the US could have continued with it just like the Russians continued with the Soyuz.

> 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.

Perfecting the rocket is opportunity cost eating up missions you could be flying today if you just mass produced your existing but flawed rocket. The US could have had something like a hundred moon missions many the ISS's mass many times over in orbit by the start of the 90s if they just continued improving on the Apollo architecture.

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

#136

Post by avmich »

aeternus wrote: post #124
cheeko1234 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finally, a sensical comment. You're exactly right. Given the constraints of politics/funding, NASA can't pull off long-term & ambitious goals like they used to in the 60s-70s, and the administrator of NASA, Jim Bridenstine, knows that. Using your term: ISS on steroids, the next stepping stone would be the Gateway on steroids: an orbiting station around Mars. Here's a cool pdf from NASA that goes into details: https:/…

There are multiple launch systems that will have the payload capacity to go straight to the moon within the next few years. Why not just use those? No one will care about a Lunar space station, it's not enough of a step forward to capture the public's attention. It's sad that NASA's 'futuristic' new proposal is to do half of what we were able to do 50 years ago. People will quickly vote to cut funding for it, and may…

> There are multiple launch systems that will have the payload capacity to go straight to the moon within the next few years. Why not just use those?

Maybe SLS and BFR - but those are not nearly ready, and SLS may not be able to launch directly to the Moon what we may require to launch this time.

Remember that one of the problems of today is significantly lower risk tolerances. We'll want system to be much safer, and that will translate into more mass of the system for all kinds of backups. So Saturn-V or similar payload throwers won't cut it this time. BFR may - but this is much less visible on the horizon.

> No one will care about a Lunar space station... People will quickly vote to cut funding...

I doubt. ISS may be seen as a giant step back from Apollo (even if it has a pile of its own benefits). Comparing to ISS Gateway is a significant step forward. Just imagine: deep space instead of "just" 400 km up, Moon vicinity, flights measured in days and not because one need to synchronize orbits; platform for telescopes which are much more stationary and aren't obscured with Earth every hour...

And launching expedition to the Moon from Gateway can be that much more convenient.

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

#137

Post by jdsully »

sprafa wrote: post #134
jdsully wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He loathed Kennedy tho. He might have cancelled it, or changed it. Who knows really.

The Russians were working on the same problem and were so confident they refused Kennedy’s suggestion they do a joint effort. You can’t blame them either - they beat the US on every milestone except a manned moon landing.

Any attempts to change the game would have been seen for exactly what it was: weakness. He may have hated Kennedy but he loved the US more.

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

#138

Post by rtkwe »

Retric wrote: post #131
greglindahl wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I totally didn't get your point. These are things that you manufacture in microgravity that are then usable in gravity. Isn't that what you said did not exist?

I am saying testing say crystal formation in space is only relevant for crystal formation in space. If that’s what you’re going to do aka manufacturing in space then sure experimenting in space is required. Getting the economics to look promising for actually manufacturing in space then that’s a separate thing. Aka Manufacturing would be that larger goal I was referencing.

It's not though the crystals are used to determine the structure of the molecule itself through XRay crystallography. We have to grow larger crystals that are then used to determine the shape of the individual molecules. Some crystalize easily and we were able to study them using crystals grown here on Earth but others were more difficult and had to be grown in space. Just because the research takes place in space doesn't mean it's only applicable in space!

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

#139

Post by philwelch »

Mvandenbergh wrote: post #13

The thing about the original moon landing programme was that it had a great clarity of outcome and timeline. What: Land a man on the moon and return him safely When: Before the decade is out That meant NASA could really focus and throw out everything that wasn't directly on that path. Reusability - take too long, we'll build each craft from scratch. Permanent mission - Too complicated, keep the missions very short. M…

The flip side of that was that we are left with nothing but fond memories. No space stations or moon bases. No legacy of Apollo-derived manned spacecraft. We're essentially picking up from where we left off in the 1970's...now.

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

#140

Post by philwelch »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #71
toss1 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nixon didn't run in 1964; Goldwater did.
Post reply on HN