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

201–210 of 539 posts

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#201

Post by Culonavirus »

nativeit wrote: post #165

I’m seeing Starship discussed in terms that suggest I’ve missed something. When did it accomplish even the most base level demonstration of its required capabilities? How could anyone have any certainty in Starship at this stage, and how could anyone possibly compare it with anything?

Vulcan is not yet rated to fly National Security missions (needs at least a second successful launch), yet it already has 60% of these contracts going forward.

Why? Because there is confidence in the company and its ability to deliver based on past performance. It's not rocket science. (Pun not intended :) ...)

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#202

Post by delusional »

Perseids wrote: post #199

Given that the Artemis program is motivated by space settlement, I'm surprised nobody has referenced "A City On Mars" by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith (of https://www.smbc-comics.com/ acclaim) yet. I went into the book with lots excitement for extraterrestrial colonies, and finished it being convinced to better wait. They argue that if you actually look into the details, especially into the "dry" political, legal and so…

That's a very engineering way to approach the problem. The issue it runs into is that the question "should we go to mars" isn't a settled matter that leads into the question of "how do we go to mars". The first question is as flexible as the second.

Getting to mars means that the question "can you have babies on mars" now becomes highly emotionally charged, which means the answer to "should you have babies on mars" becomes obvious. Without any pressure, the former question will always be answered by asking the latter.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#203

Post by mglz »

kqr wrote: post #180

I didn't live through the early space programmes, but having read about them recently, I'm surprised by how incremental they (and the Soviet Sputnik and Vostok counterparts) were. - The early Mercury flights developed the idea of putting a human in a capsule on top of an ICBM to see what happens at altitude and during re-entry. - Later Mercury flights experimented with de-orbiting techniques. (The early flights didn'…

The space race likely necessitated NASA to show some improvement frequently. Otherwise the Soviet Union would have filled the large gaps between infrequent launches with their incremental successes.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#204

Post by AlexAndScripts »

jojobas wrote: post #149
O5vYtytb wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People seem to miss the forest for the trees here. The goal is to get a base on the moon, and this is the first step. Starship will eventually be bringing lots and lots of cargo to the moon for this purpose. Bringing people there for a few days and then bringing them back is a very short term goal.

[flagged]

Falcon 9 launches every three days. It's not even fully reusable and it burns kerolox, requiring the engine be cleaned.

I doubt they'll have that cadence ready for Starship within NASA's ambitious timeframe, but if they can get orbital refuelling and full reuse working (which are big ifs) high cadence should only be a matter of time. And when you're just refueling it every flight, rather than building a bespoke new rocket (as with SLS), the cost for twelve launches would likely be significantly lower than one SLS launch.

The internal cost for a Falcon 9 is approximately 15 million, and that's including a thrown away second stage, drone ship usage, fairing recovery, and engine refurbishment.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#205

Post by kqr »

mglz wrote: post #203
kqr wrote: post #180

I didn't live through the early space programmes, but having read about them recently, I'm surprised by how incremental they (and the Soviet Sputnik and Vostok counterparts) were. - The early Mercury flights developed the idea of putting a human in a capsule on top of an ICBM to see what happens at altitude and during re-entry. - Later Mercury flights experimented with de-orbiting techniques. (The early flights didn'…

The space race likely necessitated NASA to show some improvement frequently. Otherwise the Soviet Union would have filled the large gaps between infrequent launches with their incremental successes.

Sure, that's probably true.

As the saying goes, the Apollo program was one of the greatest scientific accomplishments of the Soviet Union.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#206

Post by philipwhiuk »

ssijak wrote: post #188
philipwhiuk wrote: post #187

People forget that NASA's portion of the federal budget during Apollo was more than an order of magnitude higher than today. NASA does the most ambitious thing it can get funding from Congress for.

If this article was correct, then what you said is not true. Seems like NASA went with a bad plan from the start to refurbish the old tech and made a costly, inefficient and risky tech-franken-zilla.

They were required, by Congress, to use Shuttle engines and SRBs to build a vehicle capable of deep space transportation.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#207

Post by coldtea »

p_l wrote: post #193
coldtea wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The political climate in the 1960s was far more tense than it is today, which fueled the space race in ways that forced both sides to give their absolute best efforts to move space exploration forward. Well, money wise they now spend much more budget (inflation adjusted) it seems. Technology wise, one would expect they have more of it now, than back then. So, what, they lack some mystery motivation factor? I'd say…

Apollo program got to the point that NASA budget was >4% of total federal budget. And Apollo program itself was, IIRC, over half of it. Never since NASA had such funding and political will to just let them try to get a stated goal. History of projects since Apollo is full of every attempt at making things simpler and more reusable either getting canceled, blown with congressional requirements for pork-barrel (SLS), d…

>Apollo program got to the point that NASA budget was >4% of total federal budget

Given the figures in TFA, that points to a much smaller federal budget and much smaller government expenditures in general, than to less absolute (inflation adjusted) money for this over Apollo.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#208

Post by philipwhiuk »

KasianFranks wrote: post #184

This person is forgetting the entire operation is based on space biosciences, not just space. Vector Space Biosciences presents at DeSci London March 2024 - Min: 4:27:33 https://youtu.be/fbnFEvfKRO8?t=16052

This is just a pitch for your company hamfisted into unrelated content.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#209

Post by philipwhiuk »

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #130
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 ro…

> decided

That's putting way more control in NASA's wheelhouse than really belongs there.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#210

Post by philipwhiuk »

ein0p wrote: post #8

Finally someone is saying it like it is. Sadly this someone isn’t a bigwig at NASA. NASA still can’t take humans to/from orbit on its own. To believe that in 18 months we’re going to have a successful lunar landing is batshit grade insanity.

The leap of logic that requires this means NASA didn't take humans to the Moon either.

Grumman built the Apollo Lunar Module (lunar lander).

Post reply on HN