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

241–250 of 539 posts

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#241

Post by leoedin »

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'…

Iterative development is the only way you can do R&D. That truth was clearly known by NASA leadership in the 60s in a way that clearly isn’t today.

I think it’s probably a symptom of wider culture. In the 60s every major industry was in the middle of a massive improvement cycle, a lot of the engineers would have learned their skills during the R&D boom of the Second World War, and everything was still manufactured locally. It was the perfect environment for rapid engineering improvement.

Most of that has gone today. The major physical technologies we use - vehicles, appliances, manufacturing technology, have largely been solved. Improvement is incremental. If you did a survey of 100 engineers across the aerospace industry you’d probably find a handful who had any experience of boundary pushing R&D - most of the work is in documenting changes and making slight tweaks. SpaceX is definitely an exception.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#242

Post by RobotToaster »

LargeTomato wrote: post #26

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…

It seems crazy to me they've managed to use shuttle parts to make a design that seems older and worse than the shuttle.

People called the shuttle a truck, but they've used parts from it to make something that looks like a Ford model-T in comparison.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#243

Post by imiric »

rockemsockem wrote: post #227
imiric wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd say the climate is as tense today, and it is getting tenser. I think that all the examples you mentioned pale in comparison to the terror of global annihilation from nuclear weapons, a couple of decades after the bloodiest war in human history, during the peak of the Cold War. Conflicts exist today as well, and there is an increasing risk of a global conflict, but there is no urgency of beating an adversary ide…

I certainly agree with the lack of political support, but the American public never supported Apollo. There was a brief moment, right when Apollo 11 landed on the moon, when just over 50% of Americans thought Apollo was a good idea. The rest of the time it was a majority opinion that it wasn't worth it.

You're probably right. I wasn't alive nor in the US during that period, so can only infer from what I've seen and read, but I would wager that even the staunchest opponents of the US space program back then couldn't have helped but feel pride of what their country accomplished in such a short time.

And even if the majority opposed it, I still think that overall the amount of supporters then would've been greater than the amount of people who support it today. We're living in a time of ignorance and public disinterest in science that Carl Sagan predicted in the '90s[1], which didn't exist in the '60s. That spirit of optimism was partly what enabled such grand scientific projects, and I think most Americans were deeply moved by the words of JFK in that historic 1962 speech[2].

[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/632474-i-have-a-foreboding-...

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZyRbnpGyzQ

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#244

Post by K0balt »

geertj wrote: post #239
throwawayffffas wrote: post #213

> 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…

Why is cryogenic propellant transfer any more difficult than other difficult things SpaceX have already done (eg landing a rocket, and building a full flow staged combustion engine)? They do this on earth every time they fuel the rocket. I understand it will be more difficult in space, but I don’t see why specifically this problem is the real engineering target over say, reuse.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is the “real” engineering target, but it is a foundational capability that underpins the ability for humans to explore beyond the earth-moon system, and it is fraught with difficulty and uncertainty.

Fuel transfer and storage in orbit is problematic in many respects.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#245

Post by GuB-42 »

geertj wrote: post #239
throwawayffffas wrote: post #213

> 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…

Why is cryogenic propellant transfer any more difficult than other difficult things SpaceX have already done (eg landing a rocket, and building a full flow staged combustion engine)? They do this on earth every time they fuel the rocket. I understand it will be more difficult in space, but I don’t see why specifically this problem is the real engineering target over say, reuse.

From the article:

> Like a lot of space technology, orbital refueling sounds simple, has never been attempted, and can’t be adequately simulated on Earth.[18] The crux of the problem is that liquid and gas phases in microgravity jumble up into a three-dimensional mess, so that even measuring the quantity of propellant in a tank becomes difficult.

And for cryogenic propellents specifically:

> Getting this plan to work requires solving a second engineering problem, how to keep cryogenic propellants cold in space. Low earth orbit is a toasty place, and without special measures, the cryogenic propellants Starship uses will quickly vent off into space.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#246

Post by imiric »

gcanyon wrote: post #235
imiric wrote: post #176

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?". 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…

For anyone interested in this, Apple TV's "For All Mankind" is a wonderful exploration of what could have happened if the space race never ended. It's not a historical treatise or anything, but it's still a fascinating take and makes me hope we see real progress in the coming years.

Thank you. From a more historical perspective, I would also recommend the 2018 movie "First Man".

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#247

Post by p_l »

Symmetry wrote: post #240
p_l wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's important to remember that Apollo was one of Kennedy's signature political projects at the time he was assassinated, which was an important factor in its political viability.

It had considerable impact on why it had so much leeway compared to pretty much any later work by NASA.

When Apollo ended, "space race" ended for USA and it decided to stop on laurels.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#248

Post by K0balt »

fastball wrote: post #154
zefhous wrote: post #45

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…

This is probably the most relevant take. “Going to the moon” is primarily a PR facade on “testing and development of technologies required to expand human space presence and begin the process of colonization of the moon and eventually mars”

“Going to the moon” appeals to the Everyman ego.

As for the obscene fraud/waste by the encumbent defense contractors, that is something we need to deal with. If we don’t make them compete dollar for dollar with spacex we will never see them evolve back into functioning organizations that will deliver real value to US strategic dominance. Having them as fat, lumbering slop-hogs hobbles the strategic and economic progress of the US MIC.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#249

Post by objclxt »

geertj wrote: post #239
throwawayffffas wrote: post #213

> 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…

Why is cryogenic propellant transfer any more difficult than other difficult things SpaceX have already done (eg landing a rocket, and building a full flow staged combustion engine)? They do this on earth every time they fuel the rocket. I understand it will be more difficult in space, but I don’t see why specifically this problem is the real engineering target over say, reuse.

> They do this on earth every time they fuel the rocket. I understand it will be more difficult in space, but I don’t see why specifically this problem is the real engineering target over say, reuse.

The article goes into this in some detail. In particular:

* You have to get the propellant into space. This is going to take a large number of flights (~15) at a pace that has not been done before for a vehicle of that size (a launch every six days)

* You need to launch at pace because otherwise the propellant will boil off, which is another issue - you need to shade or insulate the propellant for a much longer period of time in much harsher conditions

* There is no gravity: whereas on earth the propellant separates relatively cleanly into liquid and gas this isn't the case in space

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#250

Post by thombat »

rockemsockem wrote: post #229
golol wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the spirit of Apollo - unsustainable one off dlag planting missions - lead to human spaceflight stagnating for the subsequent half century.

Nixon cancelling Apollo early is what led to stagnation.

NASA had only contracted for 15 Saturn V stacks, and in 1968 declined to start the second production run. Nixon only assumed office in 1969, at which point the only question was how many of the remaining ten stacks would fly as part of Apollo. Under Nixon the final three Apollo lunar missions were cancelled, with one of those Saturn V stacks being used for Skylab instead. But even if all three had flown to the moon stagnation was inevitable as NASA's focus had already been directed to the shuttle.
Post reply on HN