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

No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 87 posts

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#21

Post by pfdietz »

Muromec wrote: post #7
metalman wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right! And because China has a good chance of pulling of a moon and then mars landing first, they are lurching into, hmmmm,ok,they are lurching flat out trying to bluster up a program without disturbing the space grift industry, ie: SLS , Shuttle Leftover Systems and the whole thing disolves into cringe

Disbanding NASA would be one of those symbolic things thay people will associate the dusk of American empire.

Avoiding something for such symbolic reasons is negative cargo cult thinking.

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#22

Post by le-mark »

ACCount37 wrote: post #9
mikkupikku wrote: post #2

Nobody can even come up with a coherent reason for any of these proposals to exist. Even the ISS is more of a political instrument than a real science thing. NASA likes to say its about studying how to help humans live in space, but those results were in decades ago: more than a few months in zero-g wrecks people. So why are we still trying to build old modular Salyut/Mir derivatives instead of trying to figure out t…

I agree that a "long term fractional g spin test" is one of the most valuable things a LEO station can do. But there are others too. For example, medical interventions against zero-g decay can be tested in any microgravity, spin or no spin. Development of in-space manufacturing and assembly can happen on any sufficiently capable space station. All of that, however, requires a good amount of ambition. And I'm not sure…

> For example, medical interventions against zero-g decay

This seems obvious but I’ve never heard of anyone working on a drug to address it. Strapping astronauts to a treadmill yes, pills no.

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#23

Post by le-mark »

It seems obvious to me there will be methods and techniques using solar energy to disassemble asteroids and output large structures such as cylinders or spheres that will then become habitats. Example given a spherical grid one kilometer in diameter, apply a charge to it, place several tons of steel at the the center. Focus a mirror at the steel, vaporize and electro deposit the steel on grid. Voila steel sphere.

I’d like to see someone working on this, could be done in LEO.

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#24

Post by Havoc »

maxerickson wrote: post #11
Havoc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At risk of crassness - human lives are pretty cheap and there are plenty of people willing to take the hit for a chance to be in space for an extended timeframe. Meanwhile building something with enough spin and shielding is a huge ask

If manned stations aren't doing any particularly unique research, especially research that couldn't be done with automation, why spend huge resources on them?

I'd be very surprised if they're genuinely out of research ideas to test in space. If that is actually true then humanity has a problem.

>research that couldn't be done with automation

I'd think there is room for both. Automation makes sense, but don't think the versatility of meatbags is entirely there yet.

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#25

Post by ambicapter »

Loughla wrote: post #15
cl0ckt0wer wrote: post #4

It's liability laundering. If an openclaw blackmails a politician while hosted in space, what's the legal recourse?

Why would the chatbot be liable instead of the person who instigated that process?

The person will argue since it was in space, no laws were broken. You think the type of guy busy trying to put data centers in space right now is gonna say “mea culpa”?

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#26

Post by Supermancho »

pfdietz wrote: post #21
Muromec wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disbanding NASA would be one of those symbolic things thay people will associate the dusk of American empire.

Avoiding something for such symbolic reasons is negative cargo cult thinking.

> Avoiding something [disbanding NASA] for such symbolic reasons [???] is negative cargo cult thinking.

Cargo-cult requires a rigid through-line.

What criteria would you use, to choose to avoid something in order to preemptively avoid hindsight analysis? It's a nonsensical line of thinking.

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#29

Post by pennomi »

maxerickson wrote: post #11
Havoc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At risk of crassness - human lives are pretty cheap and there are plenty of people willing to take the hit for a chance to be in space for an extended timeframe. Meanwhile building something with enough spin and shielding is a huge ask

If manned stations aren't doing any particularly unique research, especially research that couldn't be done with automation, why spend huge resources on them?

An entirely different form of research could be done by sending large quantities of normal people into space. Astronauts are such a small sample size (and so thoroughly vetted) that you get a different statistical view.

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#30

Post by mikkupikku »

Havoc wrote: post #10
mikkupikku wrote: post #2

Nobody can even come up with a coherent reason for any of these proposals to exist. Even the ISS is more of a political instrument than a real science thing. NASA likes to say its about studying how to help humans live in space, but those results were in decades ago: more than a few months in zero-g wrecks people. So why are we still trying to build old modular Salyut/Mir derivatives instead of trying to figure out t…

At risk of crassness - human lives are pretty cheap and there are plenty of people willing to take the hit for a chance to be in space for an extended timeframe. Meanwhile building something with enough spin and shielding is a huge ask

We don't even know how much spin we'd need, and this is an important question to answer if lunar or martian habitats are something we're serious about. Maybe enough spin to match lunar gravity is enough, maybe less, maybe a lot more.
Post reply on HN