A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen • Hacker News Board

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#61

Post by NikolaeVarius » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:02 AM UTC

melling wrote: post #54

njarboe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone dying is devastating if you have a connection to that person. People die every second and if everyone was devastated by every death then the world would grind to a halt. The first people going into deep space dying would be devastating to billions because billions of people will feel a personal connection to the person dying. This is a grave thing causing so much pain, but hopefully space travel can become a…

Yes, that was covered six years ago too. The Alaskan fishery example is a modern comparison. We retired the Space Shuttle because it was too dangerous. One accident every hundred flights. We live in a different world than we did hundreds of years ago. One accident will require a review board and many expensive changes. Flights will be grounded. The point that I really want you to get is this: “In 100 years, more huma…

NASA/US Govt retired the space shuttle since it was extremely expensive to operate and there was funding competition for next generation vehicles/missions.

Safety might have had a impact, but it was not the reason the shuttle was retired.

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#62

Post by kunglao » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:02 AM UTC

First let's get the space suits and things that actually matter ready this time eh? :p

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#63

Post by NikolaeVarius » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:09 AM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #58

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm constantly "impressed" (not in a good way) at how good some people are at saying completely unfounded statements as fact. There is literally no reason to believe either premise of most bases being underground, nor is there to believe nuclear power will be the dominant power source. We have a hard time getting RTGs inside steel boxes capable of surviving disasters into orbit.

You don't need the reactor working, or assembled, on the way to the destination. Consider a pebble-bed design. Digging underground is a reasonable way to get a massive layer of radiation protection without carrying it with you. This is important when you are just starting a long-term habitat. Later designs can of course be different.

1) The issue isn't limited to the existence of the reactor. It is linked to the public perception of anything nuclear being launched into the air. A commercial/proven pebble-bed reactor doesn't even exist yet, and last I heard they only started the first design in 2018.

Digging underground is reasonable if your only requirement is "block radiation". Its less reasonable when requirements also include 'get the digging machines into space', 'have it survive landing', and 'learn all the new fun techniques required to dig into lunar regolith in a low g environment with never before tested or used techniques and equipment'

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#64

Post by NikolaeVarius » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

onionisafruit wrote: post #60

Someone wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, combine ”NASA says contracts to build a lunar lander could be awarded in late February or March.” with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#History . For the LM, the contract was awarded in September 1962, and first flight (unmanned) was in January, 1968. So, even Apollo’s aggressive schedule needed more time to first flight than what NASA would have now between awarding the contract and landing hu…

Did we throw away everything we learned in the apollo program? They won’t be starting from scratch on the design.

A good chunk of Apollo knowledge isn't very useful for various reasons.

1) The tribal knowledge to even implement Apollo era technology is pretty much gone

2) Apollo flight hardware doesn't exist, probably couldn't even be manufactured without extremely expensive tooling and build up to recreate outdated hardware.

3) Lots of Apollo era designs don't exist on paper. The F1 engine doesn't really even have a standard design, since every iteration was changed to be "better" by throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticked.

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#65

Post by avmich » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:19 AM UTC

thombat wrote: post #56

bernardopires wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the entire Apollo program cost $145 billion. This is one mission to the moon with much better technology and lower costs. You just can not compare costs like this.

According to the per-year costing in [0], about 80% of the entire Apollo program cost was accrued before the first moon landing. That suggests that even just one mission will come with a substantial price ticket, even if no hardware is built for subsequent missions. [0] https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3737/1

Yes, but analogous 80% of the entire Artemis cost are also already spent and the results are there. Engines, launchers, spacecrafts (Apollo analog maiden LEO flight is expected this spring), electronics, power, communications...

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#66

Post by mandelbrotwurst » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:19 AM UTC

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #64

onionisafruit wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did we throw away everything we learned in the apollo program? They won’t be starting from scratch on the design.

A good chunk of Apollo knowledge isn't very useful for various reasons. 1) The tribal knowledge to even implement Apollo era technology is pretty much gone 2) Apollo flight hardware doesn't exist, probably couldn't even be manufactured without extremely expensive tooling and build up to recreate outdated hardware. 3) Lots of Apollo era designs don't exist on paper. The F1 engine doesn't really even have a standard de…

Would you mind elaborating on that first point?

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#67

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:21 AM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #35

No chance. This isn't the 1950s. We don't just throw people atop rockets anymore. These are vehicles, aircraft. There is absolutely no way any of the current crop of space vehicles could be made ready for a trip to the moon anytime before 2024. Going beyond low orbit, away from the sub-45min return time, is something we haven't done in generations. The craft need to be tested, repeatedly. Each test flight then has to…

[deleted]

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#68

Post by wyxuan » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:21 AM UTC

njarboe wrote: post #7

'"I am more interested in maximizing the odds of success for this bold undertaking and making it as safe as any human journey into the deep space can be, than I am in having NASA meet arbitrary deadlines," Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson — a Democrat from Texas and the chairwoman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology — said at a recent hearing.' Waiting to make a journey until it is "as safe as can be"…

safety first doesn't mean no risks can be taken, but rather that concerns like publicity or money don't become a primary concern for NASA the way it of was with the challenger disaster

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#69

Post by Aloha » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:23 AM UTC

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #66

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good chunk of Apollo knowledge isn't very useful for various reasons. 1) The tribal knowledge to even implement Apollo era technology is pretty much gone 2) Apollo flight hardware doesn't exist, probably couldn't even be manufactured without extremely expensive tooling and build up to recreate outdated hardware. 3) Lots of Apollo era designs don't exist on paper. The F1 engine doesn't really even have a standard de…

Would you mind elaborating on that first point?

The people who did it are dead or dying, the tribal knowledge wasn't written down.

Re: A moon landing in 2024? NASA says it'll happen

#70

Post by mandelbrotwurst » Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 1:26 AM UTC

johnchristopher wrote: post #36

mattigames wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Safe as can be" is completely subjective, maybe in 1000 years it will be 100% safe due new technological advances and improvements in simulations, so "as safe as can be" is likely to be way after we are no longer alive.

"Safe as can be" is objective, it means that considering what we know, our tech and what may go wrong we can say "we are not going to be able to make it safer before a long time, we have eliminated random threats we can foresee but we can't prevent what we don't know that could happen from ever happening". That's what `as safe as can be` mean. `As safe as can be` doesn't mean 100% safe. You are conflating the unknown…

I'm not so sure that the phrase necessarily means exactly what you are saying it does.

Specifically, does it mean "as safe as can be given our actual budgetary constraints" or "as safe as can be given a 1000x increase in funding that would make it marginally safer but certainly not be worth the additional investment" ?