The Lunacy of Artemis • Hacker News Board

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#51

Post by kemotep » Mon, May 20, 2024, 1:57 AM UTC

xt00 wrote: post #15

I think we all can understand the situation here unless people are really dense.. the Artemis program was setup at a time when the private space companies were still very new. SpaceX will soon be quite close to technically doing the entire mission themselves without Artemis at all. SpaceX took the money from NASA to help fund their Starship development and probably for other reasons as well. Net result is that by the…

SpaceX’s Starship allegedly needs up to 12 additional Starship launches to refuel the lander after getting into orbit so it can complete the mission. SLS can get from the ground to the moon and back with just the one rocket.

I don’t think it’s clear that SpaceX can “do it by themselves” any time soon, they haven’t done an entire mission yet, of which the lunar lander Starship is only one small part of.

Artemis is a dumpster fire of a NASA mission but like all of it is, including Starship.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#52

Post by bandyaboot » Mon, May 20, 2024, 1:59 AM UTC

codewiz wrote: post #42

Unkind quotes, but hilarious and probably well deserved: "SLS looks like someone started building a Space Shuttle and ran out of legos for the orbiter" "But on top of this monster sits a second stage so anemic that even its name (the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage) is a kind of apology." "the minds behind SLS achieved a first in space flight, creating a rocket that is at the same time more powerful and less capab…

Agree that the criticism is overall well-founded, but this one is a bit strange:

> SLS looks like someone started building a Space Shuttle and ran out of legos for the orbiter

Should the booster look different just for the sake of looking different?

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#53

Post by shkkmo » Mon, May 20, 2024, 1:59 AM UTC

LargeTomato wrote: post #26

We are going to The moon for two reasons. First, we want to set up a more permanent base. Nasa refers to this as "we're here to stay" The second reason we are going to the moon so that we can put the first person of color and the first woman on the moon. That is explicitly an Artemis mission purpose. Only time will tell if either of these two missions were actually worth it. One more point > Early on, SLS designers m…

Which is the explanation for some of the paradoxes rasied in the article.

SLS was foisted on NASA by politicians. The design of Artemis seems set to take advantage of that political will to fund the private development of the next stage of space flight by pretending that funding supports a role for SLS instead of making it completely obsolete.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#54

Post by 77pt77 » Mon, May 20, 2024, 2:01 AM UTC

codewiz wrote: post #42

Unkind quotes, but hilarious and probably well deserved: "SLS looks like someone started building a Space Shuttle and ran out of legos for the orbiter" "But on top of this monster sits a second stage so anemic that even its name (the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage) is a kind of apology." "the minds behind SLS achieved a first in space flight, creating a rocket that is at the same time more powerful and less capab…

> which is like using Fabergé eggs to save money on an omelette

I'm appropriating this!

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#55

Post by Yossarrian22 » Mon, May 20, 2024, 2:03 AM UTC

LargeTomato wrote: post #26

We are going to The moon for two reasons. First, we want to set up a more permanent base. Nasa refers to this as "we're here to stay" The second reason we are going to the moon so that we can put the first person of color and the first woman on the moon. That is explicitly an Artemis mission purpose. Only time will tell if either of these two missions were actually worth it. One more point > Early on, SLS designers m…

There’s also the unstated purpose of beating China to setting up a base.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#56

Post by asmithmd1 » Mon, May 20, 2024, 2:08 AM UTC

Tao3300 wrote: post #39

asmithmd1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you watch the video? He also says, “we don’t know what’s on the back side of the moon” I guess we have decided to elect political representatives are just egotistical camera whores, but why should the top decision maker at a technical agency be a complete idiot who is ignorant about many things the agency he runs has done? It would be like the head of the air force saying airplanes fly because of flubber

Do we have something in place to monitor the far side? We don't have a visual on it like we do the near side. Yeah, we've flown around it, imaged it in the past. Nothing ongoing though. If you think about it in a national security sense instead of an astronomical one, the question is "what is a rival power up to", then indeed it is dark and unknown. Mind I only watched from the timestamp, I might have missed somethin…

Yes, this has been observing the moon, both near and far side since 2009

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter

I don’t see how any NASA employee, who ultimately work for him, could have any respect for his ability to make strategic decisions for NASA

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#57

Post by dotnet00 » Mon, May 20, 2024, 2:09 AM UTC

kemotep wrote: post #51

xt00 wrote: post #15

I think we all can understand the situation here unless people are really dense.. the Artemis program was setup at a time when the private space companies were still very new. SpaceX will soon be quite close to technically doing the entire mission themselves without Artemis at all. SpaceX took the money from NASA to help fund their Starship development and probably for other reasons as well. Net result is that by the…

SpaceX’s Starship allegedly needs up to 12 additional Starship launches to refuel the lander after getting into orbit so it can complete the mission. SLS can get from the ground to the moon and back with just the one rocket. I don’t think it’s clear that SpaceX can “do it by themselves” any time soon, they haven’t done an entire mission yet, of which the lunar lander Starship is only one small part of. Artemis is a d…

SLS cannot get from the ground to the moon and back with just the one rocket. Orion is too heavy to land and return from the Moon. That's why the plan, even before Starship's involvement, was to transfer from Orion to the lander in lunar orbit, either directly or via the Lunar Gateway spacestation.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#58

Post by kemotep » Mon, May 20, 2024, 2:12 AM UTC

dotnet00 wrote: post #57

kemotep wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX’s Starship allegedly needs up to 12 additional Starship launches to refuel the lander after getting into orbit so it can complete the mission. SLS can get from the ground to the moon and back with just the one rocket. I don’t think it’s clear that SpaceX can “do it by themselves” any time soon, they haven’t done an entire mission yet, of which the lunar lander Starship is only one small part of. Artemis is a d…

SLS cannot get from the ground to the moon and back with just the one rocket. Orion is too heavy to land and return from the Moon. That's why the plan, even before Starship's involvement, was to transfer from Orion to the lander in lunar orbit, either directly or via the Lunar Gateway spacestation.

I understand it didn’t land on the moon but it flew to the moon and back (which is what my comment was saying) in 2021. The mission wasn’t perfect but their half of Artemis was demonstrated. Starship has not yet shown to be capable of completing its half.

Artemis 2 and 3 should be delayed until NASA can fix their shit.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#59

Post by dotnet00 » Mon, May 20, 2024, 2:13 AM UTC

bandyaboot wrote: post #52

codewiz wrote: post #42

Unkind quotes, but hilarious and probably well deserved: "SLS looks like someone started building a Space Shuttle and ran out of legos for the orbiter" "But on top of this monster sits a second stage so anemic that even its name (the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage) is a kind of apology." "the minds behind SLS achieved a first in space flight, creating a rocket that is at the same time more powerful and less capab…

Agree that the criticism is overall well-founded, but this one is a bit strange: > SLS looks like someone started building a Space Shuttle and ran out of legos for the orbiter Should the booster look different just for the sake of looking different?

I think the point they're trying to make is that it looks the same for the sake of looking the same.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#60

Post by O5vYtytb » Mon, May 20, 2024, 2:13 AM UTC

xt00 wrote: post #15

I think we all can understand the situation here unless people are really dense.. the Artemis program was setup at a time when the private space companies were still very new. SpaceX will soon be quite close to technically doing the entire mission themselves without Artemis at all. SpaceX took the money from NASA to help fund their Starship development and probably for other reasons as well. Net result is that by the…

People seem to miss the forest for the trees here. The goal is to get a base on the moon, and this is the first step. Starship will eventually be bringing lots and lots of cargo to the moon for this purpose. Bringing people there for a few days and then bringing them back is a very short term goal.