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

Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 165 posts

Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon

#61

Post by gibolt »

jiggawatts wrote: post #48
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lot of the things described there required completely novel approaches that would be very difficult to replicate in deindustrialized United States of 2024 Give me one example. > cost of all this would be absolutely astronomical, far more so than it was back then Inflation adjusted, the Saturn V was a $45bn project [1]. That's a mulitiple of the total capital SpaceX has raised (or been granted). [1] https://apollo11…

Starship is also the biggest rocket to have ever flown, with twice the thrust of the Saturn V! That’s using a fraction of their budget.

As a bonus, Starship should be fully reusable, meaning long-term costs drop drastically to continue the program.

Each flight could cost single-digit millions, mainly in fuel and employees.

Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon

#62

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ein0p wrote: post #57
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re building lighter and stronger pressure vessels—more reliably, at larger scale and, inflation adjusted, probably cheaper—today than those tanks. We’re entering a halcyon of American space flight, with multiple teams doing what others cannot and Apollo-era engineers could only dream of. It’s mind-boggling to see the disconnect between a lunar landing alongside a caricature of American industrial decline.

Until we successfully land people on the Moon again we by definition haven’t surpassed the Apollo program. And don’t latch onto just this one example. Read the book. There are a thousand more things like that there.

> Until we successfully land people on the Moon again we by definition haven’t surpassed the Apollo program

That’s an application, not a capability. It would be like arguing iPhones never surpassed ENIAC because mine hasn’t simulated a thermonuclear detonation.

> Read the book. There are a thousand more things like that there.

I asked you to name one. Explosive forming is something (a) we can still do but (b) that nobody does because we have better materials and processes.

The engineering of the Apollo era was remarkable. But the problem with promulgating this myth of lost capability is it stunts our ability to get things done today.

Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon

#63

Post by capitainenemo »

ein0p wrote: post #57
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re building lighter and stronger pressure vessels—more reliably, at larger scale and, inflation adjusted, probably cheaper—today than those tanks. We’re entering a halcyon of American space flight, with multiple teams doing what others cannot and Apollo-era engineers could only dream of. It’s mind-boggling to see the disconnect between a lunar landing alongside a caricature of American industrial decline.

Until we successfully land people on the Moon again we by definition haven’t surpassed the Apollo program. And don’t latch onto just this one example. Read the book. There are a thousand more things like that there.

The reason NASA's current plan is taking a bit longer is it is considerably more ambitious than the Apollo program. If they were only trying to replicate Apollo it would be far easier to do.

Smarter Every Day had a rather interesting video on his concerns with the program. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU and they were more about a program design that requires over 15 fueling launches for every trip to the moon, and concerns about management and transparency.

I don't think anyone is claiming this issues are lost technology though.

Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon

#64

Post by stevenjgarner »

cameldrv wrote: post #11
internetter wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still just cannot wrap my mind around how we could get people there, and then all this time later have lost that ability. What happened?

Part of it is cost: In the mid sixties, NASA was about five percent of the federal budget. Another part is safety: Apollo was extremely dangerous. There were a lot of single points of failure, three astronauts died on the ground, three more were very very narrowly saved over the course of only about ten missions. One of the reasons the program was cut short was the political worry after Apollo 13 of having astronauts…

These are all factors but they pale in comparison with the fact that the US was at war, and was trying to catch up with the phenomenal lead of the USSR. Silicon Valley loves talking about "moonshots", but that parlance gets so much wrong. What is important is not the moonshot moment. It is the sputnik moment that is disruptive.

Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon

#65

Post by gibolt »

crazygringo wrote: post #53
ein0p wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did lose the capability. Read up on the engineering behind Saturn-V. There are books that go into extensive detail. A lot of the things described there required completely novel approaches that would be very difficult to replicate in deindustrialized United States of 2024. Not to mention that cost of all this would be absolutely astronomical, far more so than it was back then.

> very difficult to replicate in deindustrialized United States of 2024. While we might have deindustrialized a lot of commodity electronics and small consumer things, I'm pretty sure we're still totally fine when it comes to aerospace. What with our Air Force and NASA and SpaceX and all that. More than fine, even.

Agreed. For super specialized advanced materials or processes, some Western-aligned country will usually be able to provide it, even if no one in the U.S. can.

Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon

#66

Post by JKCalhoun »

bigiain wrote: post #24
coconutpalms wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even that easy in KSP!

It's easy enough until your fuel budget gets tight: http://moonlander.seb.ly

Been loving Lunar Lander ever since I played it in the 1980's. That is a very faithful version. I always loved how ti zoomed in when you got close to the terrain. (And that large throttle you used to control the thrust.)

As a kid it was like impossible for me to play. Now it is just ... challenging.

My voxel tribute: https://mooncraft2000.com

Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon

#68

Post by iisan7 »

justinclift wrote: post #15
croes wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-india-moon-landing-cost-...

The post you're replying to is just pointing out that the quoted amount (they THEY were replying to) is missing the "million" abbreviation on the end. So it looks like the original claim was India did it for US$74.00. ;)

I heard they did it for $3.50

Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon

#69

Post by egl2021 »

crazygringo wrote: post #53
ein0p wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did lose the capability. Read up on the engineering behind Saturn-V. There are books that go into extensive detail. A lot of the things described there required completely novel approaches that would be very difficult to replicate in deindustrialized United States of 2024. Not to mention that cost of all this would be absolutely astronomical, far more so than it was back then.

> very difficult to replicate in deindustrialized United States of 2024. While we might have deindustrialized a lot of commodity electronics and small consumer things, I'm pretty sure we're still totally fine when it comes to aerospace. What with our Air Force and NASA and SpaceX and all that. More than fine, even.

Read up on restarting Stinger production. Retired engineers had to pitch in to train the current generation. So I wouldn't say "totally fine".

Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon

#70

Post by Vecr »

GeorgeTirebiter wrote: post #45
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> public was actually never in favor of the Apollo program except for when we actually landed on the moon Wow, I wasn't aware that the "only point at which the opinion surveys demonstrate that more than 50 percent of the public believed Apollo was worth its expense came in 1969 at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing" [1]. [1] https://launiusr.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/exploding-the-myth...

Gil Scott-Heron had a very popular song in 1970 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4&list=RDgoh2x_G0c...

Someone should see about making a few versions for various crew compositions/landing times for the Artemis program. So you'd have one ready to go pretty much whatever happens.
Post reply on HN