3 ms·

> The Artemis program to the Moon requires a Gateway and separate Human Landing System (HLS) because even the SLS doesn’t have enough lift capacity to be execut

by twic 5y ago

> The Artemis program to the Moon requires a Gateway and separate Human Landing System (HLS) because even the SLS doesn’t have enough lift capacity to be execute the mission on its own. The Artemis programme requires a Gateway because senators decided it would be cool to have a gateway. AFAIK, anyone with actual technical expertise thinks it's stupid. There's a bunch of logic in this piece i just can't follow. Like: > How can the space industry saturate this increased launch supply? It doesn't need to? > What “lunar exploration objectives” can be “fulfilled” with such an architecture? The only objective which has been pursued since the end of the Cold War, that of pumping billions of dollars into politically important states. Who is this guy? Is he new?

DennisP 5y ago
> It doesn't need to? The point there is that if legacy aerospace doesn't do it, new players will, and the legacy companies will be left far behind.
- twic 5y ago
  Why will they? Where is all this demand coming from?
  - dustintrex 5y ago
    Even frivolous applications like space tourism are worth billions if you can send people into orbit for $100k instead of $100M.
ninkendo 5y ago
Is there a name for the rhetorical technique you’re using? When you act as if you’re in an argument with someone who actually agrees with you, simply because they’re making points that you think “everyone knows”? Not everyone is as jaded as you, and some people may actually find it to be interesting reading to hear why our current SLS plans aren’t all that practical. You see it all the time on HN… “Apple changes course by doing something that isn’t very privacy-centric”, responded to with “but this isn’t a change of course because they’ve only ever cared about their bottom line!”… “Facebook does thing that isn’t good for their users” responded to with “no they didn’t, because these people aren’t the users, but the product!”, etc etc. It’s this weird agreement-masked-as-contrarianism that I can only imagine comes from too much time spent debating things online, where you feel you must present everything as an argument of some sort.
cryptonector 5y ago
Why was this downvoted?!

by twic 5y ago

DennisP 5y ago

> It doesn't need to? The point there is that if legacy aerospace doesn't do it, new players will, and the legacy companies will be left far behind.

twic 5y ago
Why will they? Where is all this demand coming from?
- dustintrex 5y ago
  Even frivolous applications like space tourism are worth billions if you can send people into orbit for $100k instead of $100M.

ninkendo 5y ago

Is there a name for the rhetorical technique you’re using? When you act as if you’re in an argument with someone who actually agrees with you, simply because they’re making points that you think “everyone knows”? Not everyone is as jaded as you, and some people may actually find it to be interesting reading to hear why our current SLS plans aren’t all that practical. You see it all the time on HN… “Apple changes course by doing something that isn’t very privacy-centric”, responded to with “but this isn’t a change of course because they’ve only ever cared about their bottom line!”… “Facebook does thing that isn’t good for their users” responded to with “no they didn’t, because these people aren’t the users, but the product!”, etc etc. It’s this weird agreement-masked-as-contrarianism that I can only imagine comes from too much time spent debating things online, where you feel you must present everything as an argument of some sort.

cryptonector 5y ago

Why was this downvoted?!