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

51–60 of 87 posts

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

#51

Post by adrian_b »

somenameforme wrote: post #38
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…

Extended space spays doesn't really wreck people, it's just that your body adjusts to the new environment so your strength decrease, your bone density decreases, your orientation mechanisms shift to 6 degrees of freedom, and so on. Of course when you get back to Earth you're body again has to go through a readjustment phase because those previous adjustments are now unfit for the new environment, but it's nothing bey…

The results from ISS are much more pessimistic than you say, suggesting some irreversible damage besides the reversible changes, but I am lazy now to search links to the research articles. The weakening of the skeletal muscles is not the worst, but the deterioration of the heart muscle.

However, the research done on mice on ISS suggests that the undesirable effects can be mitigated by creating an artificial gravity (i.e. rotation) lower than on Earth, e.g. of 2/3 of Earth's gravity.

The failure scenarios for rotating spacecraft need not be more severe than for non-rotating spacecraft. For instance if 2 or more spacecraft, which can be also used independently, are connected with cables to enable them to rotate around the common center of mass, if everything is designed carefully the failure of the coupling system should not have any other consequences than the loss of the artificial gravity and from then on the failure risks would be the same as for non-rotating spacecraft.

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

#52

Post by rzerowan »

rcxdude wrote: post #47
somenameforme wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extended space spays doesn't really wreck people, it's just that your body adjusts to the new environment so your strength decrease, your bone density decreases, your orientation mechanisms shift to 6 degrees of freedom, and so on. Of course when you get back to Earth you're body again has to go through a readjustment phase because those previous adjustments are now unfit for the new environment, but it's nothing bey…

It's not just adjustment, there's a decent amount of evidence it's just bad for your health in general, apart from the issues when coming back to earth. Stuff like your circulation also gets messed up.

To expand on that - there are many body systems that depend almost entirely on the 1g glodilocks zone. Lymphatic systems movt , venous blood returning deox blood to the heart and even some digestive processes. Keenly dependent on a g value that allows proper muscle tone/function to the systems at play. Too little or too much and and human life becomes non-viable. Throw in the effect of ping ponging between microgravity and 1g and the issues multiply.

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

#53

Post by gus_massa »

Havoc wrote: post #24
maxerickson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> if they're genuinely out of research ideas to test in space

A bigger problem is lack of expertise. Astronauts are not specialist in whatever is the topic of the current experiment. You need probably like 5 years of training (assume the second half of the undergraduate degree, and perhaps the first half of the PhD). So experiments must be fully automated except for a button to turn they on and off.

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

#54

Post by Lerc »

pfooti wrote: post #49
stogot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Starship is also built to house astronauts for longish trips. It’s not a stretch to think of it as a larger Skylab station. If the can figure out how to attach six or eight of them in a ring with bridges and spin, they could have the artificial gravity station that’s been the stuff of science fiction (and the movie The Martian)

For reasons of gyroscopic precession I suspect that they will remain largely science fiction for the foreseeable future.

Can you elaborate on that. What is the problem for which you do not forsee a near term solution?

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

#55

Post by colordrops »

pfooti wrote: post #49
stogot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Starship is also built to house astronauts for longish trips. It’s not a stretch to think of it as a larger Skylab station. If the can figure out how to attach six or eight of them in a ring with bridges and spin, they could have the artificial gravity station that’s been the stuff of science fiction (and the movie The Martian)

For reasons of gyroscopic precession I suspect that they will remain largely science fiction for the foreseeable future.

So you run two sets spinning in opposite directions.

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

#56

Post by jfengel »

xoa wrote: post #40

It's pretty wild to me that in both the article (written by Eric Berger, who really knows his stuff and did two fantastic books on the history of SpaceX and the rise of new space) and the first 31 comments made here on HN as I write this that a Find for one word has zero results: "starship". That's the overwhelming behemoth elephant in the room. For the purposes of launching/building a space station, it doesn't matte…

I don't think Starship has gotten to orbit yet. It's gotten to altitude but not speed. That's a very big deal, because slowing down from that speed is a massive challenge unto itself.

Orbit is scheduled for the test after next, if all goes well.

They don't really need Starship just for orbit. They've already got ships that get to the ISS and back. They really do need to get Starship to orbit or their plans really will be hosed.

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

#57

Post by youknownothing »

Well, I'm happy about NASA's idea for private space stations. Maybe I'm not happy with the timing, but I definitely think that this is the future. If you make space stations a valid, self-sustaining industry, that frees up budget for NASA to pursue other non-economically viable missions like going to the Moon and to Mars. It's like someone else's comment about the space shuttle: I was sad to see it go, and maybe it was premature, but private space transport is a more economical way of reaching space.

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

#58

Post by jfengel »

Havoc wrote: post #24
maxerickson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Meatbags are versatile but really, really expensive. They require a really vast support system, and it has to be highly redundant because the cost of a loss is so high.

You can send up a lot of less versatile bots for the price of one meatbag.

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

#59

Post by maxerickson »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #45
maxerickson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maintain american capacity to put technicians in low earth orbit. People forget a big part of the shuttle mission for example was to capture and put technicians not just on your satellite but any satellite the shuttle was capable of intercepting and getting into the bay. Consider the fact that the shuttle didn’t really die, in fact the airframe form is still flown but its mission is now classified.

It's cheaper to launch replacements than it is to do maintenance (at least, if you plan it that way).

There are not classified shuttle equivalents launching, not sure what you are talking about there. The X37 has the capability to land, but it is not manned and is tiny compared to the shuttle.

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

#60

Post by hgoel »

xoa wrote: post #40

It's pretty wild to me that in both the article (written by Eric Berger, who really knows his stuff and did two fantastic books on the history of SpaceX and the rise of new space) and the first 31 comments made here on HN as I write this that a Find for one word has zero results: "starship". That's the overwhelming behemoth elephant in the room. For the purposes of launching/building a space station, it doesn't matte…

I think even experts like Eric are now being conservative on Starship because the program is genuinely in a tough spot.

For most satellites/space stations, you need a proper payload deployment mechanism. The pez dispenser mechanism was chosen because opening the entire payload bay and closing it back up for reentry is a tough problem. For now it has been put aside to focus on the goals for Artemis, but that also means not being able to launch stuff other than Starlink.

Starship is currently still stuck in development hell, Musk is already backing off from his Mars plans, SpaceX is moving to distractions and going public (something they previously claimed would not be done).

To me, these moves do not suggest confidence in Starship's ability to live up to its advertised capabilities.

Post reply on HN