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

The Lunacy of Artemis

idlewords.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 539 posts

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#121

Post by avmich »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #96
hi_hi wrote: post #78

Out of interest, what do people think is going to happen once humans can semi-reliably get to the moon? I don't often see this part talked about. I read lots about the astronomical (thank you!) cost and effort of getting there, often framed in a way that makes the whole endeavour appear pointless and dumb. Will they just potter about for a few days, grab a handful of rocks, take some jaunty selfies, have a cup of tea…

Not much probably. I think it would be at best, be research station. It will be a bit like Antartica. The moon isn't going to be mined anytime soon. There's nothing there we can't get on Earth, 10x cheaper. If there was a permanent presence there anyway, and in addition, you had something like a mass driver (probably built for other purposes, such as further exploration), then the economics might make sense IF you ca…

> There's nothing there we can't get on Earth, 10x cheaper.

It's not too big a stretch of imagination to consider producing oxygen on the Moon from rocks and sending it to LEO for refueling Starships - this activity might get useful enough if we're going to use Starships to fly someplace more distant than the low Earth orbit. And Moon-originated oxygen has an energy advantage over the Earth-originated one.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#122

Post by avmich »

just_steve_h wrote: post #33

I find this essay to be well-crafted and compelling.

I'm strongly disagreeing with some qualifications there, to the point it's hard to find where to start.

E.g. what this passage mean -

"...this single-use lander carries less payload (both up and down) than the tiny Lunar Module on Apollo 17."

? Can't Starship HLS lift more than 50 kg of rocks from the Moon?.. I'm intentionally simplifying the question.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#124

Post by xarope »

This quote is a doozy too:

"Visionaries at NASA identified a futuristic new energy source (space billionaire egos) and found a way to tap it on a fixed-cost basis"

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#126

Post by jessriedel »

idlewords wrote: post #116
jessriedel wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll defer to people who know more about rocket design about why you couldn't have a huge stretchy bladder holding RP-1 (for example) in a rocket stage. Do you mean you have a cite to this claim? Would love to read. > You either need to accelerate the docked rockets (so the liquids pool at one end) Right, this is what I was referring to as “ullage”. > Engines never have to worry about the microgravity case, there a…

> Do you mean you have a cite to this claim? Would love to read. No, I mean that I have a handwavy explanation for why you can't put 500 tons of kerosene in a big stretchy bladder inside your rocket, but I'm hoping that someone who knows more about rocket design than I do will comment here. > My point was that standard ullage motors can and will be used by SpaceX for the transfer. Why do you think this is harder than…

I agree they have to run longer.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#128

Post by thaumasiotes »

dotancohen wrote: post #49
codewiz wrote: post #42

Unkind quotes, but hilarious and probably well deserved: "SLS looks like someone started building a Space Shuttle and ran out of legos for the orbiter" "But on top of this monster sits a second stage so anemic that even its name (the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage) is a kind of apology." "the minds behind SLS achieved a first in space flight, creating a rocket that is at the same time more powerful and less capab…

Even the title is a creative jest, as Lunacy literally means "Looking at the moon" (via "Lunatic" which is someone who looks at the moon - Luna).

> as Lunacy literally means "Looking at the moon" (via "Lunatic" which is someone who looks at the moon

Literally? There is no "looking" element in the word. You'd need something like "lunavident". In the most literal terms, lunacy is the noun form of "lunate", which is a shape. ("C" is the "lunate sigma", the sigma in the shape of a moon.)

Outside of the shape meaning, "lunacy" is just a relationship to the moon; the form of the relationship is not specified by the form of the word.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#129

Post by perilunar »

When was this published?

The heading says 1.1.2023 but the article URL says 2024/5 ?

Also, in the first sentence "A little over 51 years ago" (referring to Apollo 17 of December 1972) would indicate that that the article was indeed written in early 2023. Yet some of the links in the footnotes seem to postdate this.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#130

Post by BuyMyBitcoins »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #125

Does anyone has a theory why in 60 years no one beats the F-1 engine? How is this possible?

There was a proposal to design an improved F-1B which would be much more simple due to advances in technology and produce 15% more thrust at sea level. From what I can tell the designs got rather far along but NASA ultimately decided to stick with SLS and shuttle derived hardware.

SpaceX is all about reusability and they have determined that having a large number of smaller engines gives them better control of the rocket during boostback and landing burns. F-1 style engines seem best suited for big disposable first stages and no one in the private sector seems to want to do that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrios

Post reply on HN