Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#71

Post by ceejayoz »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #34
Muromec wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person who wrote the prompt, the person who spawned the instance, the person who provided the access to infra, the person who launched it. At the end of the day, there is somebody who profits from it or could have prevented it

My worry is that networks can be established on and orbiting the moon which become extremely difficult to get data from if someone decides to abuse it. You can raid a data center if bad actors are utilizing it to break the law, but if some billionaire is using a moon relay to do bad stuff, the best you can do is de-allocate their bandwidth on the spectrum since you can't just hop over to the moon. Or to some craft in…

> if some billionaire is using a moon relay to do bad stuff, the best you can do is de-allocate their bandwidth on the spectrum

Or you arrest them, or drone strike them.

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#72

Post by somenameforme »

rcxdude wrote: post #47
somenameforme wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extended space spays doesn't really wreck people, it's just that your body adjusts to the new environment so your strength decrease, your bone density decreases, your orientation mechanisms shift to 6 degrees of freedom, and so on. Of course when you get back to Earth you're body again has to go through a readjustment phase because those previous adjustments are now unfit for the new environment, but it's nothing bey…

It's not just adjustment, there's a decent amount of evidence it's just bad for your health in general, apart from the issues when coming back to earth. Stuff like your circulation also gets messed up.

I'm active in this topic and have never heard anything similar to what you've mentioned. And in looking this up, there's a very recent study [1] that's quite relevant. They studied the cardiovascular health of astronauts for 5 years after their return from long-duration stays on the ISS. They were all perfectly healthy.

[1] - https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysio...

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#73

Post by Gud »

gus_massa wrote: post #53
Havoc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be very surprised if they're genuinely out of research ideas to test in space. If that is actually true then humanity has a problem. >research that couldn't be done with automation I'd think there is room for both. Automation makes sense, but don't think the versatility of meatbags is entirely there yet.

> if they're genuinely out of research ideas to test in space A bigger problem is lack of expertise. Astronauts are not specialist in whatever is the topic of the current experiment. You need probably like 5 years of training (assume the second half of the undergraduate degree, and perhaps the first half of the PhD). So experiments must be fully automated except for a button to turn they on and off.

We don't really need to send "astronauts"(highly trained operatives) to space anymore. SpaceX has made that happen.

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#74

Post by ACCount37 »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #31
le-mark wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, medical interventions against zero-g decay This seems obvious but I’ve never heard of anyone working on a drug to address it. Strapping astronauts to a treadmill yes, pills no.

Because that’s like saying you’ll develop a fuel additive to stop the body from rusting. Physical damage and weakness can’t be stopped by a pill.

"Body" is a pile of elaborate biochemistry. The muscles don't somehow evaporate when you stop exercising - it's the processes of the body itself that trim the "excess" muscle tissue.

And if it's the body doing that, you can, in theory, find a biochemical way to make it stop doing that.

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#75

Post by mikkupikku »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #45
maxerickson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If manned stations aren't doing any particularly unique research, especially research that couldn't be done with automation, why spend huge resources on them?

Maintain american capacity to put technicians in low earth orbit. People forget a big part of the shuttle mission for example was to capture and put technicians not just on your satellite but any satellite the shuttle was capable of intercepting and getting into the bay. Consider the fact that the shuttle didn’t really die, in fact the airframe form is still flown but its mission is now classified.

If the shuttles ever tinkered with any satellites they weren't meant to, it was relatively boring ones in low inclination orbits, not the really cool ones in earth observing polar orbits. We know this because the shuttles never went to those orbits.

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#76

Post by mikkupikku »

pfdietz wrote: post #32
Supermancho wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Avoiding something [disbanding NASA] for such symbolic reasons [???] is negative cargo cult thinking. Cargo-cult requires a rigid through-line. What criteria would you use, to choose to avoid something in order to preemptively avoid hindsight analysis? It's a nonsensical line of thinking.

Cargo cult requires a confusion of cause and effect. Airplanes carrying cargo didn't land because there was a control tower; they landed because of prior causes that also caused the construction of a control tower. And here, the US does not decline because of some symbolic action, but rather decline causes the action. This confusion of cause and effect is literally a kind of magical thinking.

You're broadly right, but I think you're missing the part where perception of reality feeds back into reality, e.g. through economic effects. Demoralized Americans with less hope for the future stop caring, stop trying, and this in turn hastens that same decline.

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#77

Post by sbuttgereit »

jfengel wrote: post #56
xoa wrote: post #40

It's pretty wild to me that in both the article (written by Eric Berger, who really knows his stuff and did two fantastic books on the history of SpaceX and the rise of new space) and the first 31 comments made here on HN as I write this that a Find for one word has zero results: "starship". That's the overwhelming behemoth elephant in the room. For the purposes of launching/building a space station, it doesn't matte…

I don't think Starship has gotten to orbit yet. It's gotten to altitude but not speed. That's a very big deal, because slowing down from that speed is a massive challenge unto itself. Orbit is scheduled for the test after next, if all goes well. They don't really need Starship just for orbit. They've already got ships that get to the ISS and back. They really do need to get Starship to orbit or their plans really wil…

They've pretty clearly demonstrated the ability to get to orbit but have, quite reasonably, not actually put the thing into orbit. Given the size of the rocket they've been needing to demonstrate things like the relight for control after achieving orbit and have prioritized other issues like figuring out reentry.

So yes, you are literally correct in that they haven't put one in orbit, but it's more out of caution than capability. What they've only demonstrated in the most recent tests is that they have good reason to believe to believe that they can deorbit in a controlled fashion. But... now they've upgraded everything: raptor 3, booster v3, starship v3. Those need to prove out those capabilities again.

So I wouldn't be surprised if they continue the suborbital program for the next 3 or 4 tests. Given all the redesign, they aren't exactly at the beginning, but they have to show that they haven't broken what they previously fixed.

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#78

Post by gessha »

patmorgan23 wrote: post #12
Muromec wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What law?

The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int...

I don’t think rules and regulations are popular nowadays

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#79

Post by kjkjadksj »

maxerickson wrote: post #59
kjkjadksj wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maintain american capacity to put technicians in low earth orbit. People forget a big part of the shuttle mission for example was to capture and put technicians not just on your satellite but any satellite the shuttle was capable of intercepting and getting into the bay. Consider the fact that the shuttle didn’t really die, in fact the airframe form is still flown but its mission is now classified.

It's cheaper to launch replacements than it is to do maintenance (at least, if you plan it that way). There are not classified shuttle equivalents launching, not sure what you are talking about there. The X37 has the capability to land, but it is not manned and is tiny compared to the shuttle.

X37 is what I am talking about. Same form: big flying satellite workshop. Just reduced footprint, and obviating the human so it could spend years in orbit and maximize cargo. But if they decided they needed a bigger X37 for larger bay space seems it could be done pretty trivially given shuttle experience. Or one stocked with a couple of those robots that just goosewalked with Melania Trump contorted into some packaging.

Re: No one is happy with NASA's new idea for private space stations

#80

Post by ceejayoz »

gessha wrote: post #78
patmorgan23 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int...

I don’t think rules and regulations are popular nowadays

If someone puts a CSAM data center in space, I suspect you'll find quite a few rules become briefly popular.
Post reply on HN