591–600 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re: 1. I think the America of Theseus mindset is a bit troubling. A lot of people like to identify with achievements that they played no role in. Based on zero expertise whatsoever, I have a sense that this is a bit self defeating. To be born a winner, to be taught you’re a winner… how can that be healthy? Today’s America scores zero points for its accomplishments of the past. But I think one way it can be a good thi…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re: 1. I think the America of Theseus mindset is a bit troubling. A lot of people like to identify with achievements that they played no role in. Based on zero expertise whatsoever, I have a sense that this is a bit self defeating. To be born a winner, to be taught you’re a winner… how can that be healthy? Today’s America scores zero points for its accomplishments of the past. But I think one way it can be a good thi…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting Of course, but there a few things to consider. 1. This is a new race. The olympics happen every four years to see which nation is the current best. It seems it’s time to find out again. 2. The last time the US was dominant was 56 years ago. That’s three generations. Based on SLS and the comments here, it seems extremely unli…
>Based on SLS and the comments here, it seems extremely unlikely the US is still dominant. Literally every other nation is trying to catch up to Space-X and is nowhere close. An American company, based in American, primarily staffed by American engineers. I don't know by what measure you'd say that the US isn's still far, far ahead but I don't know of any other country currently re-using rockets dozens of times. What…
The whole point of this article, and the NASA admin steps to open up the contract and all of Berger’s recent reporting is that it’s almost a certainty China will beat the US back to the moon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>It’s just as absurd today as it was in the 60s. Nah. You can argue that the goal "land on the moon" is artificial, but it being artificial doesn't make it fake or abstract. If you're the first to achieve it then you're the first, and that's it. What does it prove if you're able to repeat it fifty years later? You didn't have to invent anything new (obviously), and you're certainly not learning anything new. Now, if…
Despite you throwing the word "obviously" at it, that is an extremely untrue claim. Even if we hadn't forgotten a lot of the details, we're solving new engineering challenges with modern material science and manufacturing, and learning a lot of new things about spacecraft design. There is a ton of invention in doing another landing after so long.
why?
"it's 10 years from now and they're behind schedule", what kind of schedule is this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Complexity vs. Tedium. There's a difference. The SpaceX approach requires a lot of launches, but they're already proven experts at that. They've launched something like 130 rockets this year alone. That's one every couple of days. High launch cadence is not complexity for SpaceX. It's normal for them. After the first half dozen or so refuels, it will be second nature, just like delivering satellites with Falcon is. A…
I think the main problem for Starship is that they need to do a large number of tanker launches (about 20 I believe) in a timeframe in which the propellant in the LEO depot doesn't boil off. I assume they need to develop some good sun shielding for that. 20 launches could take quite a long time (multiple months? a year?) since it will probably take quite a few years till Starship, especially the upper stage, is rapid…
They're known for moving fast, and they're building multiple pads. They're also building enormous mass manufacturing facilities in the background of all this (Gigabay and whatever). Not sure how many ships they'll be able to produce per month once the design is nailed down, but I'll bet it will surprise everyone.
SH Boosters are already effectively reusable for the purposes of this discussion; a couple of them have already re-flown. That's half the battle right there.
Boiloff prevention is presumably one of the main modifications needed for the depot. I think it's supposed to be easier with methalox than with hydrolox (which BO is using), but I have no idea the particulars of what they'll have to do there to achieve effectiveness. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they try to cut that corner at least once; should be interesting.
The big risk that I see is neither launch nor boiloff, but rather simple fuel availability. Can they get that much methane and LOX shipped around the country that fast? I have no idea, but it seems concerning to me. Logistics...
Thing about the deadline, though, is who's going to do it faster? Blue has worse issues with their current crewed lander proposal. Nobody else has even started on one AFAIK.
My prediction is that nobody can build and fully qualify a safe moon lander with a more or less clean-sheet design in three years.
On the other hand, I can easily see Starship succeeding in a moon landing in three or four years if things go well with V3 and the refuelling research. It's a stretch -- things aren't likely to go completely smoothly -- but it's conceivable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re: 1. I think the America of Theseus mindset is a bit troubling. A lot of people like to identify with achievements that they played no role in. Based on zero expertise whatsoever, I have a sense that this is a bit self defeating. To be born a winner, to be taught you’re a winner… how can that be healthy? Today’s America scores zero points for its accomplishments of the past. But I think one way it can be a good thi…
My first job out of law school was at a 176 year old law firm. New lawyers were socialized to identify with the past achievements of the firm, like helping J.P. Morgan build the railroads. There was a good reason for that: it socializes people to adhere to a culture and practices that have proven to be effective. You’re right that, if overdone, it can lead to complacency. But if you treat every generation as a blank…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX and to a much lesser extent Tesla are good examples. Excluding those for a minute, what else does the US have world-leading manufacturing of? Semiconductors? Nope. High speed rail? Nope. Auto industry? Nope. Major infrastructure projects like bridges, tunnels, airports, etc? Nope. Electronics (phones/laptops/etc)? Nope. ????? The US is not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse.
Why mention Tesla in here? They produce 1.8M cars/year while GM and Ford produce 6M and 4M, respectively. (2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automotive_manufacture... )
If the Chinese EV tariffs are dropped, or if BYD start manufacturing at scale in the US, all the old US auto manufacturers are dead.