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

511–520 of 539 posts

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#511

Post by usrbinbash »

hersko wrote: post #451
usrbinbash wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> In reality you would just need a tether and counterweight.

And a ship that still maintains its course, and can still be steered when bound to such a contraption. Oh, and a tether material that can actually hold against that strain under conditions found in space reliably. The temperature differential between in- and out-of-sun would destroy most materials under such a stress. And a way to deploy the whole thing, start its rotation, and keep it stable over time.

So no, as far as any technology is concerned, this is not done "easily".

And all this effort STILL doesn't get you gravity. It gets radial acceleration over a short distance. Just imagine, for a moment, the difference in "gravity" experienced between the feet and the head of a person in such a contraption, and what that will do to their brains, skeleton, muscles, circulatory system, etc.

Oh, and: While the whole "rotating thingamabob" idea works theoretically in space, there is no practical way to use in on the surface of a low-gravity planetary body. So, what's the plan for keeping people alive against 1/6th gravity on a permanent Moon Base?

> That is the entire point of building out the moon

Building out what exactly, foundries and factories? On the moon? You know, the place where the dust alone is enough to kill almost any machinery exposed to it?

Let me ask you a question: If oil is found in antarctica, where would we build the refinery? I think we both know the answer to this one. And building machinery as comparatively simple as an oil refinery in antarctica is a cakewalk compared to building even a simple ore-smelter on the Moon.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#512

Post by usrbinbash »

wtetzner wrote: post #374
usrbinbash wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's about building and living in habitats beyond low orbit And what for if I may ask? And please don't say "technological development" or "colonizing space". ad Development): Most of the tech that needs to be developed for this, is what is commonly called space plumbing: Figuring out ways to make human bodily functions not immediately fail in space. Next to none of these technologies benefit humanity at large in a…

> Figuring out ways to make human bodily functions not immediately fail in space. Next to none of these technologies benefit humanity at large in any way. What a weirdly confident statement. I could imagine all kinds of technology coming from that that would benefit life on Earth.

Really? Please, name some. Because we have had space toilets, space showers, etc. for quite some time now. What specific advancement to the tech that everyday people here on earth use in their daily lives have come from these developments?

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#513

Post by vaguba »

hifromwork wrote: post #378
usrbinbash wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the enormous amount of international credibility and resulting soft power You know what is giving China soft power? Funding projects around all of Africa. You know what is not giving western countries soft power? Burning Billions on Space Programs that serve zero purpose and could achieve more with much less investments, if we just continued sending robots. Again, I know where I would allocate my resources if I had…

I'm not a geopolitics expert, and I assume you're not either, so I'll just say what I feel. As an European, deep down my unconscious mental picture of the situation here is probably this: USA is a geopolitical and economic power, China is a far away country that assembles parts and devices for western companies. This mental picture is wrong and hilariously oversimplified (I know rationally that it's wrong), but this…

you are correct.

that's because the US and the rest of the west pretty much decided after 1990 that history had ended, even as their societies crumbled from the costs of the cold war.

the example of china's rise and eventual dominance disturbs that narrative but doesn't demolish it entirely. sinking a US carrier or building a moon base before white countries do would be concrete examples that they can't explain away.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#514

Post by vaguba »

Wingman4l7 wrote: post #453
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.

did they do it on the dark side of the moon?

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#515

Post by wpietri »

eru wrote: post #162
iJohnDoe wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> until we could make things that were simple, polished, cheap, and reliable. That was the original Apollo mission. We went to the moon 6 times.

Apollo wasn't exactly cheap.

As the article explains, Apollo was cheaper per mission than this.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#516

Post by watersb »

watersb wrote: post #469
Aeolun wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s so much cool stuff that was rejected before I was even born. It’s kinda bizarre how the space program is so in the dumps now. The space shuttle, while expensive, was at least an icon. I grew up with it as a symbol of US spaceflight hegemony. Now NASA is just a really expensive organisation achieving very little.

> NASA is just a really expensive organization achieving very little. Granted, human spaceflight is crazy expensive. And yet... Jet Propulsion Labs, to pick a single NASA site, has never been more busy. I counted 30 spacecraft listed as "active" on their Current Missions page, but I think I missed a couple of them. https://www.nasa.gov/jet-propulsion-laboratory-current-missi...

(two days later)

NOTE: I don't think that web page of 'Current' missions is up to date.

For instance, the VSOP project is still on there; that was using a spacecraft designed mostly by JAXA, I believe, as an element of the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA).

I was still attending the VLBA Operations meetings, early 2000's, and at that time it seemed that they were winding that project down. Data reduction and analysis of VLBA itself had been difficult to implement and wasn't totally integrated into the standard software package. Adding a telescope that was moving at orbital velocity made things quite spicy. I found it to be a profoundly humbling experience.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/space-very-long-baseline-i...

(The VLBA is still very much alive, was part of Event Horizon Telescope, for example. But I don't think it uses the satellite.)

I have no experience with the other projects, most of which I am pretty sure are indeed still active.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#517

Post by pfdietz »

usrbinbash wrote: post #508
pfdietz wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it could be. All sorts of things could be. Making that observation is not an argument that something is .

You mean like it could be that launch costs will become so low the differential will not matter any more?

Good thing the argument wasn't that this will necessarily happen, just that the case can be made that it could happen, and therefore human spacelight is not necessarily a bad idea.

Note that I'm not proposing abandoning robots in space. Your whataboutism assumes a symmetry that's not there.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#518

Post by pfdietz »

usrbinbash wrote: post #510
pfdietz wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is not a single activity in space exploration right now, that humans can do better than robots. This is clearly false. If you mean "there is no activity for which a robot could be developed at great expense to do that activity", then that's closer to the truth, but that cost is part of the argument why humans might still do the activity if launch costs are much lower.

> there is no activity for which a robot could be developed at great expense to do that activity That expense is still orders of magnitude lower than sending humans. And even IF launch costs go lower (and that's a big if), it wouldn't change the equation: If I can send more into space for my money, then sure, I could launch astronauts and their water supply and space toilets...or I could use that capacity to launch m…

So, that explains why the private effort to service the HST wants to send up a robot.

Oh wait. That's totally wrong. They're proposing a mission to send up people to do the maintenance. Because that's far cheaper than developing robots to do it would be.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#519

Post by pfdietz »

usrbinbash wrote: post #509
pfdietz wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Automation outperforms astronauts for (say) Hubble Telescope Repair? Or for that matter for doing maintenace on robots? Your assertion only makes sense if the set of activities we do in space is sharply circumscribed. It's a mindset that comes from the "space is extremely expensive" environment.

> Automation outperforms astronauts for (say) Hubble Telescope Repair? The last hubble repair mission was in 2009. Robotics have come a long way since then. And the Hubble was still pretty close to earth. I can guarantee you that no human hand will ever touch the James Webb telescope ever again. If things go wrong at the 2nd lagrange point, its either robots-to-the-rescue, or bye-bye-telescope. Comparing a short, lim…

Your assertion can be reality checked by looking at the proposed private mission to service HST. This mission would use crew to do manual maintenance, not develop robots to try to do the servicing.

Yes, HST is close to Earth. It's still in space. This is a demonstration that when costs of getting the people there are low enough, people > robots.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#520

Post by _Tev »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #497
dotnet00 wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way to shift the goalposts

I don't see how this is the case. We still have neither an F-1 capable engine not a Saturn V capable ticket, both statements are correct.

Wanting F-1 capable engine is like wanting exact recreation of combat performance of F-4. No one involved has cared about that for more than 40 years. Just people who don't understand the tradeoffs so they judge stuff based on silly heuristics.
Post reply on HN