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

451–460 of 539 posts

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#451

Post by hersko »

usrbinbash wrote: post #337
hersko wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is not going to happen, without technology that currently only exists in Science Fiction, like artificial gravity, for the simple reason that we require 1g to live, let alone thrive. Artificial gravity is easily generated via rotation or thrust. > 1. How does this "immediate access" benefit the aforementioned "very large, permanently spaceborne crafts", which apparently won't be moored to planetary bodies? It…

> Artificial gravity is easily generated via rotation or thrust. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/why-are-there... Sure, "easily". > It will be far easier to get materials into space from the moon than from the much deeper gravity well of earth. No it won't, for a very, very simple reason: Every single kilogram of stuff you launch from the moon, has to be launched FIRST from exactly that "deeper gravity…

>https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1308/why-are-there...

> Sure, "easily".

The top post of the link is talking about building a ship with a diameter of 200m. In reality you would just need a tether and counterweight. So yes, as far as new space technology goes, "easily."

> No it won't, for a very, very simple reason:

> Every single kilogram of stuff you launch from the moon, has to be launched FIRST... etc

That is the entire point of building out the moon. Sure the investment is difficult, but the longterm return makes it worthwhile. Your argument seems similar to saying "why would we build a steel foundry, when we will need steel to build it in the first place."

> How do you see us developing the technology for humans to leave the solar system if we never develop the technology to visit the moon? etc..

The technological difficulty with going to the moon is way more than just rocketry. There's life support systems, shielding, navigation, long term space habitation etc... There are literally hundred if not thousands of technologies that will need to be refined over time, and manned moon missions will go a long way to advancing them.

> But you do need to cheat our current understanding of physics for FTL travel.

My point was that you do not need ftl to travel through space.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#452

Post by JohnCClarke »

Seems to me that the actual, albeit unstated, goal of the Artemis program is to preserve the US's defence industrial base. In that light slow, expensive, progress is not a bug - slow and expensive are features.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#453

Post by Wingman4l7 »

Animats wrote: post #420

Meanwhile, China's moon program keeps plugging along. There's already been a robotic landing and return with samples. Chang'e 6, the second land and return vehicle, is in lunar orbit now, being prepared for landing.[1] This one has a robotic lunar rover. China plans a manned moon landing around 2030. Then, on to the lunar base. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_6

A robotic moon landing with sample return? Luna 16 called, it wants to remind you that the Russians did this in 1970.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#454

Post by Dalewyn »

rockemsockem wrote: post #230
Dalewyn wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

SpaceX doesn't make sense as a business without actually truly thinking space exploration is something worth doing. Rocket companies are bad ways to maximize profits.

SpaceX is a space exploitation business, Starlink being the foremost example but also commercial and governmental launches of Falcon 9 and eventually Starship. Even going to Mars is ultimately a mission of exploitation, not exploration.

Space exploration is the duty of governmental space agencies such as NASA, who (assuming sufficient budgeting) can all literally afford to run red ink for entire projects and not have to give a damn.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#455

Post by causality0 »

9dev wrote: post #161
causality0 wrote: post #76

NASA is excellent at its job. You just have to accept the fact that in 1969, NASA's job was putting astronauts on the moon, and in 2024 NASA's job is distributing taxpayer money to various places that don't deserve it. They're damn good at their job.

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…

I would rather just give poor people money and have a bunch of government agencies that aren't shit.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#456

Post by rockemsockem »

Dalewyn wrote: post #454
rockemsockem wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX doesn't make sense as a business without actually truly thinking space exploration is something worth doing. Rocket companies are bad ways to maximize profits.

SpaceX is a space exploitation business, Starlink being the foremost example but also commercial and governmental launches of Falcon 9 and eventually Starship. Even going to Mars is ultimately a mission of exploitation, not exploration. Space exploration is the duty of governmental space agencies such as NASA, who (assuming sufficient budgeting) can all literally afford to run red ink for entire projects and not have…

Starlink was basically created to get SpaceX's launch cadence up. Which it absolutely succeeded at. SpaceX exists to cause space exploration/colonization/all-activities to occur, specifically going to Mars, but also more generally. Which again, it has absolutely succeeded at.

NASA and other space agencies are indeed picking the missions, but SpaceX has been a huge enabler here.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#458

Post by hackeraccount »

avmich wrote: post #122
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.

This. I scanned through the article saw that part and decided that a lot of the article was playing hard ball.

The other comments in this thread suggest what the author was getting at but it's not in the plain reading of the article.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#459

Post by kragen »

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…

the people who did it once are almost all dead

people in the age range 20–70 in 01970 would be in the age range 74–124 today. different people, who identify with those people, in several different countries, would like to do what those people did. it behooves them to study what those people did and how they did it, not because they can't do anything better, but because it's easy to do worse, and both of these criticisms make a good case that artemis is doing much worse. the ussr at the same time did so much worse that they never landed humans on the moon at all. similarly with contemporary france, the uk, the prc, etc.

you cannot get to the moon and back on a saturn v because there aren't any saturn v rockets in operable condition, and there never will be again. it belongs to history now, like children's chemistry sets that could make rocket fuel, being able to order rocket fuel ingredients without getting a visit from a police agency, drugs being legal by default instead of illegal, new classes of antibiotics being brought to market, and being able to go out in public without your movements being permanently archived for spy agencies to data-mine later on

artemis is on track to follow in the footsteps not of apollo but of the soviet n1/l3 program, which was canceled after losing the race decisively to apollo. it's chang'e that's following in the footsteps of apollo. we'll see if spacex can change that, but i'm not that optimistic

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#460

Post by kristianp »

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…

One thing that boggles the mind is that Blue Origin decided to use liquid Hydrogen fuel in their design. I don't see their lander working early enough to matter to Artemis with that challenge to overcome, given how slowly Blue Origin works.
Post reply on HN