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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by [deleted] »

heisenbit wrote: post #813
rayiner wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is - a lot of the achievements over the past decades were the result of investments of foreign nations in terms of education and capital. And now the one key capital of experience namely the integration of foreigners is deliberately destroyed.

[deleted]

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

#842

Post by 05 »

WalterBright wrote: post #515
05 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It can't cost effectively pick a strawberry when compared to underpaid workers. It can definitely pick a strawberry cheaper when you take cost of lifting oxygen up from a gravity well into account. And with Moon 'ping' time of 2.6 seconds RTT, direct teleoperation is always an option.

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

#843

Post by mortarion »

floating-io wrote: post #84
ACCount37 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blue Origin is explicitly named in Duffy's statement. And if SpaceX's Starship HLS catches enough delays, they can slide into Blue Origin's Blue Moon HLS timeline - which is now being developed for Artemis 5, in 2030. On top of working on a HLS lander, Blue Origin has a pretty large rocket developed already - New Glenn. They just don't have the reusability or the launch cadence, and their HLS needs at least two launc…

> Blue Moon HLS is considerably less complex than Starship HLS That's the one thing in your comment I disagree with. Starship-based HLS has basically one base vehicle, modified into three variants (tanker, depot, and the lander itself). Refueling is done in LEO. Blue Origin's HLS has three completely unique vehicles with no commonality (New Glenn, Transporter, and the lander), and refuels in multiple orbits, one of w…

> Refueling is done in LEO.

Look up how many refueling launches are required and you'll see the problem, especially because no matter if Elon says so, the upper stage will never be reusable, even if caught.

Every moon mission will require that they pre-build a HLS and probably 15 full stacks.

Ridiculous.

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

#844

Post by MSFT_Edging »

rayiner wrote: post #587
Waterluvian wrote: post #442

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…

> if overdone, it can lead to complacency.

Oh boy we're already there

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

#845

Post by rob74 »

bahmboo wrote: post #227

"The president and I want to get to the moon in this president's term" - Sean Duffy NASA administrator. A scary way to set a schedule on a complex project with lives at stake. They don't care though.

Yeah, I'm sure astronauts will be thrilled to know that the thing that should bring them to the moon (and back!) was not only built by the lowest bidder (as that famous quote of uncertain origin states), but also by the one who managed to build it fastest so an arbitrary deadline could be kept. Ok, TBF Kennedy also set an arbitrary deadline when he said that Americans should land on the moon before the end of the decade (meaning the 1960s)...

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

#846

Post by selimthegrim »

robocat wrote: post #720
zm262 wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is to avoid "China can do this feat but US is no longer capable"

Small sample, but in New Orleans, the US isn't even capable of maintenance. I'm a tourist at the moment and everything looks like it is falling apart. The existing roading infrastructure is crumbling (apparently there's an Instagram about the worst examples). Everywhere I've driven, the roads are worse than earthquake hit Christchurch. Yet there is so much amazing old infrastructure that reeks of massive past investm…

I live in New Orleans (happy to meet for a coffee!) one thing to keep in mind is that the roads cost $7 million a mile to pave because of the subsurface.

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

#847

Post by andai »

Waterluvian wrote: post #442
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…

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…

>Today’s America scores zero points for its accomplishments of the past.

By the same logic, also no moral burden for its transgressions?

(Not making a claim one way or the other, just noting an asymmetry.)

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

#848

Post by roody15 »

This makes me think of Intels decline over the last decade or so. It feels to me like a canary in a coal mine. Perhaps of a failing in the US system as a whole. It is possible we are not quite the world leader we once were, despite bailouts, despite legislation like the CHIPS act, despite a CEO dedicated to a roadmap to regain technical superiority … maybe we cannot win this race. Have we reached a point where managing public perception is more important than truth, where wealth inequality has reached a point of a new feudal like caste system, where our institutions now function to primarily manage and preserve an unhealthy society that is primarily exploitative and does not have the needs of the populace first and foremost. Where economic indicators, economic lingo and policy just uses a vernacular to hide its direct purpose to provide safety for the haves at the expense of the have nots. I realize this is a negative take but looking at Lockheed Martin , looking at Boeing, on and on. Maybe we cannot get back to the moon, maybe we cannot design the best new modern passenger jet, maybe just maybe China has already surpassed or at least equaled the US as a superpower.

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

#849

Post by ben_w »

mortarion wrote: post #837
qwerpy wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the company gets things done but the CEO is unpopular with certain crowds. Seems better than Boeing, which is bad at getting things done. At least their CEO is inoffensive, and that’s what is important?

They haven't gotten anything done in regards to HLS. They can build their HLS and even launch it into orbit next year but then what? HLS requires on-orbit refueling. Anything from 10 to 20 refueling launches will be required. Did you think it required one refueling launch? The SH+SS stack will never be reusable or reliable enough to accomplish the refueling operation in time and on budget. This means one moon mission…

While I agree with anyone saying that Musk himself is "detached from reality", and also that the Superheavy/Starship timelines are unrealistically optimistic, given how bad basically everyone else in this sector is I have no specific reason to expect that Superheavy/Starship* will be what delays anything.

Not that this actually helps with any thesis of "Yee Haw, look at Us! We're America! We're number one!"

* And now I'm worrying the initials might have been deliberate on his part; hadn't even considered that before seeing your comment…

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

#850

Post by dotnet00 »

Laremere wrote: post #798
dotnet00 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were serious, they'd properly look into ending SLS after the ones that are being built are launched, cancel the upgrade, go after the company that spent the entire launch tower budget before even starting construction, open up bids for rockets to fly Orion (probably Vulcan or New Glenn IIRC), and sort out their space suit issues. Maybe also seriously threaten Boeing with cancelations and restrictions for thei…

Payload capacities to trans-lunar injection (source wikipedia): SLS Block 1: >27,000 kg (59,500 lb) SLS Block 1B: 42,000 kg (92,500 lb) SlS Block 2: >46,000 kg (101,400 lb) Vulcan Centaur: 12,100 kg (26,700 lb) New Glenn: 7,000 kg (15,000 lb) Orion crew module by itself weighs 10,400 kg (22,900 lb), the service module is 15,461 kg (34,085 lb). Orion is a heavy spacecraft. SLS, like or not (I don't), it has a lot of l…

New Glenn at least claims to eventually be able to put 45,000kg to LEO. Once in orbit, refueling or docking boost stages can come into play. With Vulcan, I have mainly heard of proposals involving modifying Orion to dock the service module in orbit after separate launches.

Supposedly, as of a week ago, LM sees at least some possible routes to having Orion without SLS to not outright give up on the idea, but doesn't have specifics for now: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/10/once-unthinkable-nasa-...

Post reply on HN