6 ms·

Even though this is not impressive compared to SpaceX, it is still essential that we have multiple actors building rockets. The competition makes sure that Spac

Even though this is not impressive compared to SpaceX, it is still essential that we have multiple actors building rockets. The competition makes sure that SpaceX needs to push the boundaries. Our future as a multi-planetary species is not dependent on a single actor. I'm hoping for some space race. It would be great if the United States would transfer a part of MIC funding to space exploration.

amelius 2y ago
I don't think it is that impressive anymore. We've been building rockets for decades. Making them return to Earth is peanuts compared to building a self driving car. You can even make a simulation that is 99% accurate without much effort. Also, rocket science is just Newtonian physics. Of course, building a rocket requires a shit-ton of resources, so if anything is impressive then it's the management of those resources.
- ur-whale 2y ago
  > Also, rocket science is just Newtonian physics. Disagree. The newtonian physics part of flying a rocket is indeed the boring part of rocket science in these days of Ghz computing. But all the engineering (an altogether different - if related - discipline) required is anything but simple. And engineering and all of its sub-disciplines (materials science, propellant research, iterative refinement, operational research, logistics, 3d printing, computing, simulation, structural engineering, etc...) is both where the complexity lives and where the greatest progress in rocket science has been made. The devil is in details, as usual.
  - amelius 2y ago
    I view the things you mention as incremental improvements on stuff that basically worked since the 60s.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      If we want to get real pedantic, the Chinese invented rocket powered flight around 1000AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huo_Che https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huo_Che
    - dotnet00 2y ago
      They're only incremental improvements in the sense that developing LLMs is an incremental improvement on stuff that basically worked in the 60s.
  - VagabundoP 2y ago
    Yup, as an engineer the "nuts and bolts" of all this stuff is the really hard part. The stresses, forces, environment etc that these machines face mean that it is always impressive the don't blow up. And its silly talk to say that the ESA shouldn't have its own rocket programmes.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    There was no way to solve hypersonic retropropulsion without doing it.
- flohofwoe 2y ago
  > Also, rocket science is just Newtonian physics. Spoken like a true software engineer ;)
  - amelius 2y ago
    Software engineers have a lack of self-esteem when comparing to other STEM disciplines. The reason we see more fuck-ups in software than in other fields is not because software engineers are stupid, but because software is inherently difficult.
    - nick__m 2y ago
      Rockets and drugs discovery seems harder but failure is part of those discipline and they are managed accordingly. It's rarely the case in software.
    - dotnet00 2y ago
      Software engineers are not stupid, but in other STEM disciplines they have a reputation of making themselves look stupid because of beliefs like "it's just newtonian physics".
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it is still essential that we have multiple actors building rockets. The competition Twice the cost and at a small fraction of the frequency is competition in the way a rubber duck competes with a battle ship. Ariana 6 isn’t meaningful competition. ArianeSpace’s sole value is in its potential of becoming competition if one day sensibly managed.
- isodev 2y ago
  It needs to start somewhere, right? We can't "just build" a NX-class starship without sciencing it out and R&D.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > needs to start somewhere, right? Not here. If you’re bootstrapping a modern navy you don’t start by building galleons. Ariane 6 is the prettiest space galleon there ever was. That doesn’t translate into meaningful R&D for a reusable booster. (For example, cryogenic fuels aren’t great for reuse. So dump the engine. Their production cycles are artisan versus assembly line. Et cetera.) This isn’t a story of European incompetence. It’s one of excellent engineers being wasted by an extractive monopoly. We had the same problem in America in ULA; we never figured out how to reform them. We got lucky in a reboot.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      > cryogenic fuels aren’t great for reuse. Which is why Starship doesn't... wait a second!
- moffkalast 2y ago
  Yeah this is ESA's see-we-have-domestic-launch-capability pointless SLS tier project basically, my tax dollars at work. I'm really puzzled at the lack of investment into any kind of reusable launch vehicle that could even come close to competing with SpaceX. Launching on this expensive relic of the past makes zero sense unless your payload is a military spysat.
wongarsu 2y ago
We do have a minor space race between the Artemis program and the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program. It's not as high-profile as the race to the first moon landing, but America's new ambitions to returning to the Moon are at least in part fueled by not wanting to be upstaged by the Chinese. Now both are aiming for putting humans on the moon again before 2030, and both have plans for at least one moon base (that each originally announced to happen before 2030)

amelius 2y ago

I don't think it is that impressive anymore. We've been building rockets for decades. Making them return to Earth is peanuts compared to building a self driving car. You can even make a simulation that is 99% accurate without much effort. Also, rocket science is just Newtonian physics. Of course, building a rocket requires a shit-ton of resources, so if anything is impressive then it's the management of those resources.

ur-whale 2y ago
> Also, rocket science is just Newtonian physics. Disagree. The newtonian physics part of flying a rocket is indeed the boring part of rocket science in these days of Ghz computing. But all the engineering (an altogether different - if related - discipline) required is anything but simple. And engineering and all of its sub-disciplines (materials science, propellant research, iterative refinement, operational research, logistics, 3d printing, computing, simulation, structural engineering, etc...) is both where the complexity lives and where the greatest progress in rocket science has been made. The devil is in details, as usual.
- amelius 2y ago
  I view the things you mention as incremental improvements on stuff that basically worked since the 60s.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    If we want to get real pedantic, the Chinese invented rocket powered flight around 1000AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huo_Che https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huo_Che
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    They're only incremental improvements in the sense that developing LLMs is an incremental improvement on stuff that basically worked in the 60s.
- VagabundoP 2y ago
  Yup, as an engineer the "nuts and bolts" of all this stuff is the really hard part. The stresses, forces, environment etc that these machines face mean that it is always impressive the don't blow up. And its silly talk to say that the ESA shouldn't have its own rocket programmes.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  There was no way to solve hypersonic retropropulsion without doing it.
flohofwoe 2y ago
> Also, rocket science is just Newtonian physics. Spoken like a true software engineer ;)
- amelius 2y ago
  Software engineers have a lack of self-esteem when comparing to other STEM disciplines. The reason we see more fuck-ups in software than in other fields is not because software engineers are stupid, but because software is inherently difficult.
  - nick__m 2y ago
    Rockets and drugs discovery seems harder but failure is part of those discipline and they are managed accordingly. It's rarely the case in software.
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    Software engineers are not stupid, but in other STEM disciplines they have a reputation of making themselves look stupid because of beliefs like "it's just newtonian physics".

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> it is still essential that we have multiple actors building rockets. The competition Twice the cost and at a small fraction of the frequency is competition in the way a rubber duck competes with a battle ship. Ariana 6 isn’t meaningful competition. ArianeSpace’s sole value is in its potential of becoming competition if one day sensibly managed.

isodev 2y ago
It needs to start somewhere, right? We can't "just build" a NX-class starship without sciencing it out and R&D.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > needs to start somewhere, right? Not here. If you’re bootstrapping a modern navy you don’t start by building galleons. Ariane 6 is the prettiest space galleon there ever was. That doesn’t translate into meaningful R&D for a reusable booster. (For example, cryogenic fuels aren’t great for reuse. So dump the engine. Their production cycles are artisan versus assembly line. Et cetera.) This isn’t a story of European incompetence. It’s one of excellent engineers being wasted by an extractive monopoly. We had the same problem in America in ULA; we never figured out how to reform them. We got lucky in a reboot.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    > cryogenic fuels aren’t great for reuse. Which is why Starship doesn't... wait a second!
moffkalast 2y ago
Yeah this is ESA's see-we-have-domestic-launch-capability pointless SLS tier project basically, my tax dollars at work. I'm really puzzled at the lack of investment into any kind of reusable launch vehicle that could even come close to competing with SpaceX. Launching on this expensive relic of the past makes zero sense unless your payload is a military spysat.

wongarsu 2y ago

We do have a minor space race between the Artemis program and the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program. It's not as high-profile as the race to the first moon landing, but America's new ambitions to returning to the Moon are at least in part fueled by not wanting to be upstaged by the Chinese. Now both are aiming for putting humans on the moon again before 2030, and both have plans for at least one moon base (that each originally announced to happen before 2030)