231–240 of 539 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My problem with his criticism (and to some extent echoed by Maciej in this article) is that the main takeaway seems to be "we did it once, we can do it again, let's revisit the past instead of re-inventing the wheel". But I don't think anyone actively involved wants to revisit the past. Who wants to go back to the moon just because we can? Nobody. Assuming best intentions: - People at NASA want to go to the moon to b…
>SpaceX doesn't really care about the moon. SpaceX is a business, SpaceX doesn't care about the Moon because there are no customers interested in going to the Moon. If market forces shift and companies start wanting to go to the Moon, you bet SpaceX will care about the Moon because there's money to be made.
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?
Also, one thing I'm not seeing mentioned is that Congress did not give NASA enough money to pay for any of the initial human lander system contract bids. SpaceX lowered their bid to accommodate this.
We are going to The moon for two reasons. First, we want to set up a more permanent base. Nasa refers to this as "we're here to stay" The second reason we are going to the moon so that we can put the first person of color and the first woman on the moon. That is explicitly an Artemis mission purpose. Only time will tell if either of these two missions were actually worth it. One more point > Early on, SLS designers m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my understanding, nobody is telling that "We should use Apollo as-is", but "why don't we use the same spirit when we were building these back then?". Everything made/designed in Apollo are no short of marvels. Today we can do much better with lighter, smaller electronics, and should be able to do weight savings or at least cost savings where it matters. Instead Artemis feels like "let's dig the parts pile and pu…
> From my understanding, nobody is telling that "We should use Apollo as-is", but "why don't we use the same spirit when we were building these back then?". 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. While arguably today there are comparable tensions, countries…
Destin from Smarter Every Day gave a talk that addresses a lot of these issues that I found pretty interesting too. https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU
My problem with his criticism (and to some extent echoed by Maciej in this article) is that the main takeaway seems to be "we did it once, we can do it again, let's revisit the past instead of re-inventing the wheel". But I don't think anyone actively involved wants to revisit the past. Who wants to go back to the moon just because we can? Nobody. Assuming best intentions: - People at NASA want to go to the moon to b…
> But I don't think anyone actively involved wants to revisit the past.
I think that's fair... but then we should make systems that are at least as good as the ones from the past.
And SLS, even in the fully upgraded "Block 2" state is not as good a rocket as the Saturn V. One of the core problems is: we can't build Saturn V. It's Greek fire - we've lost the ability. There are schematics and plans, but apparently there was enough custom work and deviations by the actual welders and machinists that the plans are ... insufficiently specified.
And needless to say, those same workers are either dead or have forgotten the necessary details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I can gather, they largely distribute money to lots of places in the USA, thereby pouring money into regions that wouldn’t have it otherwise, creating jobs that wouldn’t exist otherwise, and raise the baseline income overall. If anything, this should have a beneficial effect where more people can spend more, don’t require social services, slide into drug abuse or homelessness. Some part of the government ha…
This is a dangerous path (assuming it is the case, I don't know about NASA internals). If you want to improve people's living or help them; just do that and help them by putting money in their bank accounts no strings attached.
I'm not to say this is the only true answer, other approaches exist, like the (so far unproven) unconditional basic income, or just social security services. But I would definitely argue that it has positive effects for an economy to keep people busy, to give them purpose and secure jobs.
Edit: Having said all that, of course I'm neither an authority on NASA internals here, but the strategy would make sense and definitely is applied in other areas and countries, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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; th…
At the time that the word was coined, there was nothing that one could do with the moon other than observe it.
You can look at the moon, you can look away from the moon, you can hide from the moon, you can worship the moon, you can love the moon, you can describe the moon... but the relationship actually being expressed was just "being affected by the moon". Looking at the moon is no more necessary to this process than it is for the ocean as it's drawn in and out by the tide.
> Conversely, if SpaceX and Blue Origin can’t make cryogenic refueling work, then NASA has no plan B for landing on the moon. If SpaceX and Blue Origin can't. Then Nasa will find someone who can. Cryogenic refueling is the projects real engineering target. Landing on the moon in the twenty twenties just isn't that impressive anymore. The Artemis program is nominally about going to the moon, but it really isn't. It's…
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…