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

NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

#511

Post by antonvs »

allenrb wrote: post #373

There is just so much wrong with this from start to finish. Here are a few things, by no means inclusive: 1. We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting. 2. Nothing based around SLS is remotely serious. The cost and timeline of doing anything with it are unreasonable. It is an absolute dead-end. The SpaceX Super Heavy has been more capable arguably as early as the secon…

> not just to prove we haven’t lost our mojo since Apollo.

Hasn’t that attempt at proof essentially already been lost?

Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

#512

Post by harimau777 »

gpt5 wrote: post #493
timschmidt wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% of those were SpaceX

Exactly. The US private space industry is thriving and profitable. That's exactly what makes it so efficient and dominant.

The private space industry doesn't belong to the US, it belongs to the billionaires.

We might even be better to have no one advancing space travel than to have only the billionaires doing it. At least then they can't find some way to use it to screw us over.

Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

#513

Post by fwip »

paganel wrote: post #491
allenrb wrote: post #373

There is just so much wrong with this from start to finish. Here are a few things, by no means inclusive: 1. We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting. 2. Nothing based around SLS is remotely serious. The cost and timeline of doing anything with it are unreasonable. It is an absolute dead-end. The SpaceX Super Heavy has been more capable arguably as early as the secon…

> 1. We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting. The Portuguese used to have the best sea-worthy ships throughout the 1400s. They were soon followed by the Spanish. It didn't matter, because by the 1600s the Dutch, and then the English, had transformed the world's big seas and oceans into their playground. In other words, if you don't use it you lose it, and right now…

Sailing vessels serve an actual purpose, though. The Dutch didn't build better boats for bragging rights.

Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

#514

Post by Xss3 »

tibbydudeza wrote: post #424
thinkingtoilet wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mars is entirely within reach if we wanted to dedicate the resources to it. If we can get to the moon over 50 years ago, Mars is nothing today. I don't necessarily think it would be worth it given the cost, but it is totally possible if it was a priority.

To what end ?. Mars is a total boondoggle - a colony would require constant supply runs from Earth to support a double-digit population - who is going to field the cost and what are they going to do there ?. "The Martian" was work of fiction. A lunar colony is cheaper and way more feasible.

Even a Venusian colony would be significantly more viable than mars.

Mars sucks. The moon sucks too. We need rotating space habitats. With gravity and hookers.

Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

#515

Post by WalterBright »

05 wrote: post #344
mikkupikku wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dead lines, political pressure to ignore issues and get it done, is how you get astronauts dead. Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia. And of course Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11 / Salyut 1; it's not just a problem for America. I fear it's going to happen again; Orion isn't safe and hasn't been successfully tested. The heat shield started to disintegrate the last time they tested it and instead of testing it again with their change…

To play devil's advocate, the only purpose astronauts serve is PR. Anything that can be done is space could be done cheaper and better with automation/rovers. So it seems that having those astronauts risk their lives for a short term political win is just table stakes, because the alternative for them is to stay on Earth and maybe pay $100K for just an hour in orbit with any of the commercial space tourism companies.

Automation still cannot pick a strawberry.

Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

#516

Post by heavyset_go »

dmvdoug wrote: post #502
heavyset_go wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electronics we're typing these comments on were only rapidly miniaturized originally to be small and light enough to shoot into space. There are second, third, etc order effects to things like a space race.

Nah, that’s false. Miniaturization was already underway before the Space Race. The space program absolutely benefited from it, yes. But NASA wasn’t at the forefront of those developments.

I was talking about rapid miniaturization, not just miniaturization in general, which I agree was underway before any space development.

NASA literally had departments and budgets dedicated to miniaturization.

Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

#518

Post by harimau777 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #505
zdragnar wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America cannot possibly win the space race again, because it has already been won. The first to get there has already happened. The idea that we need to land on the moon once a generation just to say that we are as good at landing on the moon as our parents is absurd.

It’s just as absurd today as it was in the 60s. It’s an artificial challenge that focuses attention, with the goal of exercising government, industries, academics, etc. and maybe learn and invent a few things along the way. Yes, yes, Cold War and all those theories. But it had and can again have this greater effect. It’s kind of like a FIRST Robotics Challenge for nations. The specific goal really doesn’t matter and…

Excellent point! I'd add that it also serves to inspire regular people and get them interested in science.

Unfortunately, I think that's the problem with some of the rhetoric like "the green revolution will be the next space race!" For better or worse, solar panels aren't as inspiring to most people as space is.

Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

#519

Post by dmvdoug »

dotnet00 wrote: post #455
caycep wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the whole space industry is a joke; if it were healthy, there would be an ecosystem of multiple launch providers vs one finicky government-funded-Elon-company

The industry is going through growing pains, New Glenn is almost ready for payloads, Neutron is a year or two away from flying, and other small launch companies are in the process of pivoting to either medium launch or space services. I'm not seeing what makes SpaceX government funded beyond just that it provides services to the government? The same as any other launch provider would be doing? At this point the vast…

> * I'm not seeing what makes SpaceX government funded beyond just that it provides services to the government*

Take away all of SpaceX‘s government contracts. You imagine SpaceX would still be in business?

As you said, every launch provider is basically dependent on government contracts to stay in business because the government is the only entity that has a legitimate need for launch capability such that it’s willing to pay for its development. There are no sufficiently profitable private contracts out there to sustain a launch provider.

Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

#520

Post by cma »

allenrb wrote: post #373

There is just so much wrong with this from start to finish. Here are a few things, by no means inclusive: 1. We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting. 2. Nothing based around SLS is remotely serious. The cost and timeline of doing anything with it are unreasonable. It is an absolute dead-end. The SpaceX Super Heavy has been more capable arguably as early as the secon…

> The SpaceX Super Heavy has been more capable arguably as early as the second flight test and certainly now.

Well except with regard to astronaut travel: very different and controversial launch abort approach and no escape tower like apollo

Post reply on HN