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

The Lunacy of Artemis

idlewords.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 539 posts

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#71

Post by marcus_holmes »

wpietri wrote: post #27

As a kid, mainlining Heinlein, I just assumed we'd have a moonbase by now and that it would be up to something important and useful. In my 20s, I assumed that our then-primitive software engineering techniques would be refined until we could make things that were simple, polished, cheap, and reliable. So it's a little wild to me to see software not only get more chaotic, but influence hardware as well. All in service…

Simplicity as a feature.

Like TFA says, if you want something to work reliably, keep it simple.

But simple isn't impressive. Tackling complex problems in complex ways is what gets recognised and rewarded. Humans are weird.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#72

Post by bryananderson »

asmithmd1 wrote: post #2

IDK why 81 year old Poli-sci major, attorney, and ultimate NASA executive decision maker Bill Nelson wasn't forced out of office after he incorrectly explained to Congress that the far side of the moon is always dark https://youtu.be/daZyPwCQak8?si=n9KXH-LJFBlpKXUp&t=153

Like it or not, the job of the NASA administrator is not to actually do science or engineering, it is to fight for the agency’s budget with the President and Congress—a job for which political schmoozer extraordinaire Bill Nelson is eminently qualified, much more so than “real astronaut” Charlie Bolden, who struggled in this role despite being the epitome of the hypercompetent NASA pilot. I know which one I want at the controls of my aircraft, and which one I want on the witness stand on behalf of my government agency.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#73

Post by wpietri »

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 argument is that it should look different for the sake of doing better. By, say, using modern tools and techniques rather than trying to resurrect some old parts designed in the 1970s. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Design_process

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#74

Post by jessriedel »

idlewords wrote: post #40
GlenTheMachine wrote: post #37

One minor quibble: on-orbit refueling has been demonstrated, during the DARPA Orbital Express mission in 2006. Otherwise, if NASA issued stock, you should consider shorting it.

I think I cover this in a footnote? ISS gets refueled, and there have been satellite experiments like Orbital Express, but no one has attempted bulk rocket-to-rocket propellant transfer.

The cryogenic aspect seems much more distinct than whether it's rocket-to-rocket or rocket-to-ISS.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#75

Post by adamomada »

buildbot wrote: post #20
fallingknife wrote: post #3

The real lunacy is using chemical rockets instead of nuclear thermal once the ship is in orbit. That could reduce the fuel requirements for an Earth - Moon transfer by 4x. And this isn't some sci-fi tech. NASA built a working engine in the 70s.

No idea if they did or not, but one immediate issue is that if anything does go wrong, now you have a nuclear incident as well as a tragedy.

I still remember the fears of Cassini. What a different world it would be if that Earth fly-by* fucked up

* edit I knew I got it wrong the first time, it’s not a transfer

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#76

Post by causality0 »

NASA is excellent at its job. You just have to accept the fact that in 1969, NASA's job was putting astronauts on the moon, and in 2024 NASA's job is distributing taxpayer money to various places that don't deserve it. They're damn good at their job.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#77

Post by idlewords »

jessriedel wrote: post #74
idlewords wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I cover this in a footnote? ISS gets refueled, and there have been satellite experiments like Orbital Express, but no one has attempted bulk rocket-to-rocket propellant transfer.

The cryogenic aspect seems much more distinct than whether it's rocket-to-rocket or rocket-to-ISS.

No, they're both pretty significant. In the ISS case you have propellant mass moving around that's just a tiny fraction of the total system mass, while in the rocket case a sizable portion of the total mass gets shifted.

Moreover, in refueling ISS you can use something like a flexible bladder and pressure differential to simplify the job of moving liquid from container A into container B. But in the rocket-to-rocket case, you might be moving propellant from an almost-empty Starship into an almost-full depot rocket. In that case, you're trying to hunt around for liquid in an almost empty fuel tank, and push it into an almost full one.

You can't use a bladder because Starship is too big, and it's hard to maintain a big pressure difference (unless you're willing to vent a lot of propellant in the process).

The problem would be very hard even without cryogens.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#78

Post by hi_hi »

Out of interest, what do people think is going to happen once humans can semi-reliably get to the moon?

I don't often see this part talked about. I read lots about the astronomical (thank you!) cost and effort of getting there, often framed in a way that makes the whole endeavour appear pointless and dumb.

Will they just potter about for a few days, grab a handful of rocks, take some jaunty selfies, have a cup of tea and then head home? Like Wallace and Grommit?

No. They will prepare to strip mine it for all it is worth. Where is that discussion?

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#79

Post by idlewords »

dotnet00 wrote: post #59
bandyaboot wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was just trying to describe SLS visually. If you've seen a lot of Shuttle stuff then the initial resemblance is very striking.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#80

Post by Neywiny »

jessriedel wrote: post #70
zefhous wrote: post #45

Destin from Smarter Every Day gave a talk that addresses a lot of these issues that I found pretty interesting too. https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU

Just skimmed it, but he mostly agrees with the criticisms right? ("Addresses" often suggests a rebuttal.)

I watched the whole thing but a bit ago when it came out. He did better than just that, he frankly humiliated the program in my eyes. The points I took away from his talk were: 1. Stop lying to yourselves and figure out the hard math (mostly in relation to the refueling question) 2. Learn from the past. Apollo kept excruciating notes (I'm still discovering new notes. For example, the lunar rover's manual is publicly online). Like this article, look at what worked and what didn't. Be better not worse.

I've found in my own work I'm always terrified of failure. From what I've seen with the talk and this article, it's as if this program views failure as a selling point for more waste. /Rant

Post reply on HN