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

Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 259 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#211

Post by tayo42 »

sterlind wrote: post #78
tayo42 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These companies are just trying to shoot rockets further then each other. They're not science pr research companies. We're not learning more about space and the universe thanks to the them. What spin off tech have we gotten from them?

Starlink? But these companies (well, at least SpaceX) have their focus on making orbit cheap and sustainable, and pushing towards Mars colonization and asteroid mining. Those are engineering and logistics problems more than science problems, but I think they're very important.

How is star link moving the world forward. A small amount of rural people get faster internet is not a big deal. Satellite based internet already exists, it's not ground breaking. It's also at the expense of polluting the orobit around the earth. It's also just profit motivated, the intent isn't to make the world better, just sell more crap to more people

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#212

Post by tayo42 »

AngryData wrote: post #177
tayo42 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to the moon again is pushing the world forward? Why? Humans got there and there's been no reason to go back

Well there is the prospect of mining, refining, and construction in space and on the moon. While all that presents a whole slew of new challenges, it also has many huge benefits. Rockets use like 90% of their fuel just getting their payload into off of Earth, refining fuels on the moon would make going any place else in the solar system super cheap. Building ships already in space would allow much lighter designs and…

Antarctica is a fragile environment, no way we are going on purpose slam an asteroid into it so we can continue to pollute our planet. This isn't realistic at all

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#213

Post by wumpus »

jvanderbot wrote: post #209
wumpus wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... it's pretty clear that the person who said that is unaware of the full scope of NASA's programs. But that's not the person you replied to. You replied to someone specifically criticizing SLS.

Why do I do this? There's a logical train here, that I think you're attempting to work around. 1. Nasa is a jobs program 2. A jobs program that produces good tech? 3. Yeah, but what did SLS produce? 4. You know that SLS is not NASA (is what I should have said). But I actually said was close enough. 3 makes zero sense unless the poster believes NASA ~= SLS. I find it fun that we're saying the same thing (NASA != SLS),…

Given that this was all different people, I'm not sure why you chose to interpret #3 as not knowing that NASA != SLS. As I said, critics focus on SLS. I could easily have made statement 3, and I work at an org with plenty of NASA funding for non-jobs-program projects.

And if I were to go out on a limb, I suspect if you asked person 1 what they were mad about, it's probably the human spaceflight program, not science.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#214

Post by Gwypaas »

tzs wrote: post #152
cronix wrote: post #137

Maybe BO will one day actually do something noteworthy on their own, rather than trying to prevent SpaceX from moving ahead because they actually do things. Bezos also recently tried to block Starlink's modified expansion plans[1] saying it was unfair to his conceptual Project Kuiper (conceptual because it doesn't yet physically exist vs Starlink which is in beta service and expanding). Amazon isn't even using BO to…

> Maybe BO will one day actually do something noteworthy on their own, rather than trying to prevent SpaceX from moving ahead because they actually do things. You don't consider being the first to successfully launch and land a VTOL booster noteworthy [1]? [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/the-f...

You're off by more than 20 years from the flight of the DC-X.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#215

Post by tigershark »

WalterBright wrote: post #146
errantspark wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One pilot died, the other bailed out successfully. Branson didn't fly on the first flights because SpaceShipTwo is a completely different beast to New Shepard. SpaceShipTwo is a pioneering space plane with MANUAL controls. New Shepard is basically the absolute most boring way you could claim to have "gone to space". It's vastly vastly less interesting and ambitious compared to what SpaceX and even Virgin Galactic are…

It didn't have to have manual controls, and in fact the fatal accident was caused by moving the wrong control. Automated controls are more ambitious than manual controls. Note that the Apollo 11 was supposed to be totally automated, but Armstrong saved the mission by overriding it and doing it manually. > most boring Well, until the automation goes wrong, then it is briefly very exciting.

Only because of resources limitation in the ‘60s. He had to shut down some non-essential system to let the main process go on. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/apollo-11s-120...

Nothing to do with the catastrophic bugs in Boeing’s Starliner that caused the failure to reach the ISS and that would have risked the astronauts life if they didn’t fix two issues (literally) on the fly.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#216

Post by WalterBright »

tigershark wrote: post #215
WalterBright wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't have to have manual controls, and in fact the fatal accident was caused by moving the wrong control. Automated controls are more ambitious than manual controls. Note that the Apollo 11 was supposed to be totally automated, but Armstrong saved the mission by overriding it and doing it manually. > most boring Well, until the automation goes wrong, then it is briefly very exciting.

Only because of resources limitation in the ‘60s. He had to shut down some non-essential system to let the main process go on. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/apollo-11s-120... Nothing to do with the catastrophic bugs in Boeing’s Starliner that caused the failure to reach the ISS and that would have risked the astronauts life if they didn’t fix two issues (literally) on the fly.

> Only because of resources limitation in the ‘60s.

Doesn't matter what the excuses were. It was supposed to work, it failed, and Armstrong took over and saved the mission.

> Nothing to do with the catastrophic bugs

Most every software bug today, once rooted out, looks like a mistake only an incompetent programmer would make. Except the best programmers make these mistakes, because humans are fallible.

If I recall correctly, SpaceX had some unintended disassemblies from software problems, too.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#217

Post by meepmorp »

wumpus wrote: post #201
jvanderbot wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"NASA is a jobs agency." is pretty clear.

... it's pretty clear that the person who said that is unaware of the full scope of NASA's programs. But that's not the person you replied to. You replied to someone specifically criticizing SLS.

Excuse me, I am quite aware of the scope of NASA's programs. Perhaps you are unaware of the politicking that's surrounded the space program since its inception and the longstanding history of NASA as a pork funnel.

None of that is a disparagement of the scientific research NASA does. But for congress, the value is a way to send money home.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#218

Post by wumpus »

meepmorp wrote: post #217
wumpus wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... it's pretty clear that the person who said that is unaware of the full scope of NASA's programs. But that's not the person you replied to. You replied to someone specifically criticizing SLS.

Excuse me, I am quite aware of the scope of NASA's programs. Perhaps you are unaware of the politicking that's surrounded the space program since its inception and the longstanding history of NASA as a pork funnel. None of that is a disparagement of the scientific research NASA does. But for congress, the value is a way to send money home.

I've been complaining about human spaceflight on the Internets for 35 years, I think I've got the politicking down.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#219

Post by tigershark »

tayo42 wrote: post #211
sterlind wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink? But these companies (well, at least SpaceX) have their focus on making orbit cheap and sustainable, and pushing towards Mars colonization and asteroid mining. Those are engineering and logistics problems more than science problems, but I think they're very important.

How is star link moving the world forward. A small amount of rural people get faster internet is not a big deal. Satellite based internet already exists, it's not ground breaking. It's also at the expense of polluting the orobit around the earth. It's also just profit motivated, the intent isn't to make the world better, just sell more crap to more people

No. There is a potential user base of millions of people that have no access whatsoever to broadband. And you can’t be serious in trying to compare starlink with the awful current geostationary satellite Internet offering.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#220

Post by tigershark »

WalterBright wrote: post #216
tigershark wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because of resources limitation in the ‘60s. He had to shut down some non-essential system to let the main process go on. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/apollo-11s-120... Nothing to do with the catastrophic bugs in Boeing’s Starliner that caused the failure to reach the ISS and that would have risked the astronauts life if they didn’t fix two issues (literally) on the fly.

> Only because of resources limitation in the ‘60s. Doesn't matter what the excuses were. It was supposed to work, it failed, and Armstrong took over and saved the mission. > Nothing to do with the catastrophic bugs Most every software bug today, once rooted out, looks like a mistake only an incompetent programmer would make. Except the best programmers make these mistakes, because humans are fallible. If I recall co…

SpaceX had no RUD or any problem whatsoever because of software during the commercial crew test missions. Which RUD caused by a software bug are you referring to?
Post reply on HN