51–60 of 71 posts
I don't like this link. I've never heard of "forth.news" and the article is extremely brief and weird looking. Here's the official NASA channel video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5KnOtI4fS3U Also NYTimes and CBS News articles: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/science/nasa-moon-suit-as... https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/nasa-axiom-space-spacesuit-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=forth.news - 6 links total, all uploaded by OPs account
Is there any specific reason why the suit is not white/reflective? It looks like that would be thermally not ideal, and a departure from all previous designs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't understand is why is the SLS being used to transport the humans to lunar orbit but the Starship HLS is supposed to take them to the surface? Why not just ride the Starship the whole way?
Because then there would be no reason for SLS, and all the jobs it creates. At this point it's widely accepted the SLS design is already obsolete with no reuse, is wildly expensive, and is extremely delayed. But it creates a lot of jobs in areas where congressmen want to get reelected, so they keep it going. Sooner or later it will die and Starship will take over, but it's going milk many more billions before then.
Then again, most of it that wasn't run-down and/or broken just felt like a big, ugly, defense contractor trade show (complete with the kind of hilariously-terrible graphical collages & infographics that end up in military powerpoint slides), so that's in keeping with the rest of the vibe. Gross, definitely do not recommend. If you can convince them to let you into just the Saturn V hangar at half-off the normal ticket price, that'd be worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't understand is why is the SLS being used to transport the humans to lunar orbit but the Starship HLS is supposed to take them to the surface? Why not just ride the Starship the whole way?
Because then there would be no reason for SLS, and all the jobs it creates. At this point it's widely accepted the SLS design is already obsolete with no reuse, is wildly expensive, and is extremely delayed. But it creates a lot of jobs in areas where congressmen want to get reelected, so they keep it going. Sooner or later it will die and Starship will take over, but it's going milk many more billions before then.
Is there any specific reason why the suit is not white/reflective? It looks like that would be thermally not ideal, and a departure from all previous designs.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/spacesuit-for-nasa-s-artemis-ii...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because then there would be no reason for SLS, and all the jobs it creates. At this point it's widely accepted the SLS design is already obsolete with no reuse, is wildly expensive, and is extremely delayed. But it creates a lot of jobs in areas where congressmen want to get reelected, so they keep it going. Sooner or later it will die and Starship will take over, but it's going milk many more billions before then.
I'm not sure if there really is any difference between milking the taxpayers by SpaceX or Boeing/ULA/NG/AR.
[flagged]
There were plenty of ways to ask “why haven’t we been back in 50 years” without dragging in conspiracies, or even “how do I refute the conspiracy theories” without saying “this one has a ton of logical sense backing it up”.
It didn’t sound like a good faith question, and it’s an extraordinarily tired argument, so you got downvoted.
[flagged]
I'll be the first to talk shit about the SLS, but we've spent about 1/5 as much money so far, inflation-adjusted, and public projects in general are way more expensive now. We're also way worse at building subway tunnels—slower and less efficient per dollar spent. Like, a lot worse. It's a pretty worrisome trend, but isn't confined to NASA.
[EDIT] My point is, our burn-rate in costs is far lower, and that money, even inflation-adjusted, doesn't go as far these days when we try to use it to build Real Things, so it's not that surprising it's taking longer, even with better tech. It also seems to have been mis-managed more than a little, to a degree that Apollo wasn't—but Apollo was far more high-profile, so was less likely to be allowed too much mis-management.
I don't like this link. I've never heard of "forth.news" and the article is extremely brief and weird looking. Here's the official NASA channel video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5KnOtI4fS3U Also NYTimes and CBS News articles: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/science/nasa-moon-suit-as... https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/nasa-axiom-space-spacesuit-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=forth.news - 6 links total, all uploaded by OPs account
Yes, this is my site -- though I am not the author. We are a news feed for news, trying to recreate the social media experience (brevity, following who you want, etc) with a feed populated exclusively by journalists.
You can click on any author's name to see their bio, affiliations, and other threads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reasons we never went back: 1) It was principally a national pride competition between the US and USSR so when the US succeeded there wasn't much of a reason to go there. We gathered loads of rocks for all the science we could want to do for a long time (they're still cracking open fresh samples to this day). 2) There's not that much economically or scientifically on the moon to really investigate that needs people t…
We did it last time in a lot less time taking far more risks. I think the majority is the lack of political or economic incentives, but there is something to the idea that our current culture is much more risk averse, and probably less good at "just make it work" projects than it used to be.