A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen • Hacker News Board

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#201

Post by netman21 » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 12:52 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #135

anchpop wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a permanent Moon base make Mars easier? Would the idea to build a space elevator or manufacture rockets and fuel there?

Because most of the technology needed on Mars can be proven on the Moon, which is far, far cheaper to reach and resupply. Establishing a moon base and concentrating on making it self-sustaining is critical to any successful space penetration by humanity.

Actually, establishing any self sustaining space colony would do. No need to build it at the bottom of a gravity well.

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#202

Post by ponytech » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 12:53 PM UTC

We were able to land on moon in 1969. How come are we not able to do it again 50 years later with all the technological progress?

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#203

Post by sgillen » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:03 PM UTC

ponytech wrote: post #202

We were able to land on moon in 1969. How come are we not able to do it again 50 years later with all the technological progress?

It’s really about the willpower and desire to have it happen (by which I really mean budget...) .We have the technology to go but it doesn’t make any sense to devote the resources it takes to make it happen. Yes it would take years to put together a manned moon mission again, but I feel confident that if for some reason the US absolutely needed to it could put men on the moon by 2024.

Certainly our knowledge of how to launch Saturn Vs has atrophied. But we do still routinely launch things into space. We put lots of robots on Mars.

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#204

Post by hutzlibu » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:04 PM UTC

hootbootscoot wrote: post #177

trothamel wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The human-driven rover on Apollo 17 drove 35.9 KM in the three days Apollo 17 spent on the moon. Lunkhod 2 went 39 KM, but it took from January to June 1973 to do so. When the distance from Earth increases, machines become slower. Opportunity drove 45 KM, but it took 14 years.

nothing Tesla autopilot can't handle... (less pedestrians on the moon than even a city in arizona!)

Some more craters and layers of light moondust to sink in, though.

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#205

Post by nickik » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:06 PM UTC

No its not. This is a notion that vice president has and NASA would like it. But they will absolutly not get the money from congress. And even more so, Congress only cares about blowing money up Boings ass and literally nothing else.

So any architecture that would actually work and be reasonable quick to deploy, will not be allowed. Congress with force NASA to use lots old technology and force them to use Boing, LM, Northrop. This has just reasently been something were congress published its 'plan' (ie, plan to force 10 billion to Boing and Lockeed).

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#206

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:08 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #128

onionisafruit wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did we throw away everything we learned in the apollo program? They won’t be starting from scratch on the design.

I have a friend who ordered the mechanical drawings for a P-51, intending to make P-51 assemblies. In investigating this, he talked to some P-51 experts who told him that the drawings were nearly useless. The real specification of the airplane was the tools and jigs created to make and assemble the parts. Those are long gone. The mechanical drawings were made after the fact to satisfy some DoD requirement.

Yes. The UK encountered a variant of this with its project to extend the life of the Nimrod recon aircraft, which were built on airframes that had essentially been designed in the 1950s. The aircraft all being individual meant that a conventional waterfall project to build new parts and retrofit them encountered huge cost overruns. Someone described it as more of an "aircraft reenactment society" than a viable aircraft for the 21st century. One caught fire in the air and the project was eventually abandoned.

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#207

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

mattrp wrote: post #141

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you mind elaborating on that first point?

A little tangential but the SLS itself is an attempt to reuse technology off the shuttle... and yet, hundreds of billions later and nothing... the whole concept of technology repurposing is fine on paper... but for some reason NASA can’t even seem to do that right either. It’s a colossal mess...

[deleted]

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#208

Post by nickik » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:20 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #35

No chance. This isn't the 1950s. We don't just throw people atop rockets anymore. These are vehicles, aircraft. There is absolutely no way any of the current crop of space vehicles could be made ready for a trip to the moon anytime before 2024. Going beyond low orbit, away from the sub-45min return time, is something we haven't done in generations. The craft need to be tested, repeatedly. Each test flight then has to…

While true in general, we already have Falcon Heavy, SpaceX Dragon and if it is just 'make the simplest possible moon mission' and you had the budget, you could make it happen.

However that is not how Congress would do it anyway (NASA can not choice).

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#209

Post by jsymolon » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:37 PM UTC

netman21 wrote: post #197

WalterBright wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a friend who ordered the mechanical drawings for a P-51, intending to make P-51 assemblies. In investigating this, he talked to some P-51 experts who told him that the drawings were nearly useless. The real specification of the airplane was the tools and jigs created to make and assemble the parts. Those are long gone. The mechanical drawings were made after the fact to satisfy some DoD requirement.

This. I used to work in automotive engineering. I marveled at the lack of security around drawings for mechanical components. Ford, GM, and Chrysler all used the same design shops to create blueprints. When I went to get the latest drawings they would be sitting out on a big table in the lobby. The rolled up blueprint on top of the 9"mag tape that contained the CAD files. They were clearly marked with the car's model…

chuckle, Classic case of the documentation doesn't match the "code".

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#210

Post by flatfilefan » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:38 PM UTC

ngcc_hk wrote: post #127

azernik wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my Jewish perspective, I think of it as oral tradition vs written tradition (like the pre-Mishnaic distinction between the Written Law and the Oral Law).

It is still surprise to me the switch to woman based Jewish identity and the importance of oral tradition in your culture. Also shocked when Dead Sea Scroll come out, I only knew then the Jewish bible oldest is only 1000 years old.

There’s a theory that all written artifacts are at most 1000 years old. Christian dates (in Roman) got M (1000) infront of all dates and Jewish an V (5000). So we got 2000 years and 6000 claimed history.

Having written the above it appeared to me this could be an ironic illustration of tribal knowledge vs technical documentation issue. Knowing when something happened and reading about it are two separate things.