5 ms·

After watching this video i have serious doubts about the whole moon program https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU

After watching this video i have serious doubts about the whole moon program https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU Reminds me a little of the SLS which makes no sense at all other than preserving some jobs. The Space Shuttle was also ruined by military requirements that never materialized.

dbcurtis 2y ago
> The Space Shuttle was also ruined by military requirements I’ll mostly agree there > that never materialized. I would not say that. There were classified shuttle missions. I would bet that they used all the throw weight and payload bay space.
- cratermoon 2y ago
  In fact, the shuttle, in particular the payload bay dimensions, was designed around a particular generation of spy satellites. Said spy satellites, the KH-11 KENNEN, were very much used as a model for the Hubble Space Telescope. A derivative on the KH-11, code named Misty, did launch on the space shuttle. A total of 11 NROL missions launched on the shuttle.
- rqtwteye 2y ago
  I don’t remember all details but it had to do with launching polar orbits. To land safely from there the wings had to be much bigger which then caused a ton of other problems.
panick21_ 2y ago
The whole video is from somebody who thinks like a very traditional old-space engineer who seems to think what NASA is doing, is just badly executing Apollo. They is not what they are doing and not what they are trying to do. While some of his criticism are fair, he also misses the larger picture and tells the whole story in only a single direction. The timeline he doesn't like is a known fake timeline that everybody from the beginning new wasn't gone happen, it was just politics. What he fails to actually do is compare and accurately assess the good and bad of different approaches. He basically picks everything good about Apollo and ignores all the negatives, and then does the opposite to the current program. There is simply a reality of how space politics happens, he acts in his analysis like NASA can just design whatever plan they want, like the could during Apollo, this just isn't the case. Unless you understand he politics behind the current program, and how it was possible, you will not understand its technical design. And I think his solutions aren't that insightful either. > The Space Shuttle was also ruined by military requirements that never materialized. This is a myth NASA likes to tell. NASA is a perfect glorious organization who never makes a mistake and therefore all problem are the fault of outsiders. Shuttle primary issues are not because of DoD requirements. Even without those, design they had to adopt was very cost constrained and was already highly sub-optimal. To get enough money they went to DoD and that added $ but it also added more constraints. So the straight forward Perfect Shuttle -> DoD -> Bad Shuttle isn't really the case. And anyway it wasn't actually primarily DoD, it was people who advocated for the DoD in the Whitehouse.
- rqtwteye 2y ago
  I know it wasn’t DOD directly. They just had budget that NASA didn’t get from Congress. As far as the moon goes, it seems to me that the current approach is cobbled together like the SLS from different ideas but the overall vision doesn’t look very coherent.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    The vision isn't totally coherent because huge part of NASA budget are simply not in control of what NASA wants to do.

dbcurtis 2y ago

> The Space Shuttle was also ruined by military requirements I’ll mostly agree there > that never materialized. I would not say that. There were classified shuttle missions. I would bet that they used all the throw weight and payload bay space.

cratermoon 2y ago
In fact, the shuttle, in particular the payload bay dimensions, was designed around a particular generation of spy satellites. Said spy satellites, the KH-11 KENNEN, were very much used as a model for the Hubble Space Telescope. A derivative on the KH-11, code named Misty, did launch on the space shuttle. A total of 11 NROL missions launched on the shuttle.
rqtwteye 2y ago
I don’t remember all details but it had to do with launching polar orbits. To land safely from there the wings had to be much bigger which then caused a ton of other problems.

panick21_ 2y ago

The whole video is from somebody who thinks like a very traditional old-space engineer who seems to think what NASA is doing, is just badly executing Apollo. They is not what they are doing and not what they are trying to do. While some of his criticism are fair, he also misses the larger picture and tells the whole story in only a single direction. The timeline he doesn't like is a known fake timeline that everybody from the beginning new wasn't gone happen, it was just politics. What he fails to actually do is compare and accurately assess the good and bad of different approaches. He basically picks everything good about Apollo and ignores all the negatives, and then does the opposite to the current program. There is simply a reality of how space politics happens, he acts in his analysis like NASA can just design whatever plan they want, like the could during Apollo, this just isn't the case. Unless you understand he politics behind the current program, and how it was possible, you will not understand its technical design. And I think his solutions aren't that insightful either. > The Space Shuttle was also ruined by military requirements that never materialized. This is a myth NASA likes to tell. NASA is a perfect glorious organization who never makes a mistake and therefore all problem are the fault of outsiders. Shuttle primary issues are not because of DoD requirements. Even without those, design they had to adopt was very cost constrained and was already highly sub-optimal. To get enough money they went to DoD and that added $ but it also added more constraints. So the straight forward Perfect Shuttle -> DoD -> Bad Shuttle isn't really the case. And anyway it wasn't actually primarily DoD, it was people who advocated for the DoD in the Whitehouse.

rqtwteye 2y ago
I know it wasn’t DOD directly. They just had budget that NASA didn’t get from Congress. As far as the moon goes, it seems to me that the current approach is cobbled together like the SLS from different ideas but the overall vision doesn’t look very coherent.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  The vision isn't totally coherent because huge part of NASA budget are simply not in control of what NASA wants to do.