4 ms·

Obama space policy was ok though. I think Biden was great in every other respect, but his space policy is a clear step back from Trump's.

adastra22 2y ago
To his credit he didn’t kill Artemis, as everyone had expected.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  To his detriment, he didn’t kill Artemis and replace it with something workable.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - kibwen 2y ago
    Artemis' unworkable design is because of the limitations of Starship. I was all-in on "cool, huge rocket go brr" until I realized that it's going to take between 5 and 20 Starship launches per mission just to get to the moon. That's a clear regression from the Saturn V.
    - marssaxman 2y ago
      If you think that's a boondoggle, wait until you find out about the SLS!
    - gridspy 2y ago
      > 5 and 20 Starship launches per mission That is not actually such a big deal when you realize they are just ferrying fuel on a reusable rocket. They're also doing it well in advance of the mission. There is a massive logistics chain making it possible to buy fuel on your road trip, this is similar. > That's a clear regression from the Saturn V. Not exactly, as the fuel provided in orbit by these other missions will allow a much larger payload to reach the Moon's surface and return. StarShip can already deliver a similar payload to orbit as Saturn V (though a bit less due to reusability) - it is the extra mass to the moon which requires the refuelling.
      - kibwen 2y ago
        > Not exactly, as the fuel provided in orbit by these other missions will allow a much larger payload to reach the Moon's surface and return. Amortized over the number of launches it takes to get a single moonshot. > StarShip can already deliver a similar payload to orbit as Saturn V But Saturn V's purpose was not getting things to orbit. We have plenty of rockets capable of getting to orbit. And given that satellites have differing needs when it comes to orbital trajectories, it's unclear whether we even need that capability. By analogy, we've had jumbo jets for decades, but most air routes are not flying on jumbo jets, because the demand isn't there.
        cryptonector 2y ago
        > But Saturn V's purpose was not getting things to orbit. Yet it was used to put Skylab in orbit.
        gridspy 2y ago
        > Amortized over the number of launches it takes to get a single moonshot. Saturn V was completely destroyed by each launch with only the payload surviving. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison when you compare # launches. Those 10-15 launches of StarShip will be a lot cheaper than a single Saturn V launch because at the end you still have all the StarShips you launched and all you used was some methane and oxygen.
        kibwen 2y ago
        > Those 10-15 launches of StarShip will be a lot cheaper than a single Saturn V launch because at the end you still have all the StarShips you launched and all you used was some methane and oxygen. Minus the maintenance for the wear-and-tear of expending (ahem) astronomical amounts of energy to propel the largest rocket ever built into space and then return through atmospheric re-entry ten or more times. Just because you have built a machine that might, at scale, be more economical than an expendable rocket does not mean that the economics will actually materialize such that it ever makes sense to realize that scale, especially if you dectuple your expected operating costs.
    - adastra22 2y ago
      Starship is the only part of Artemis that is actually working. In any case, a reusable rocket architecture is way ahead of the Apollo model, not a regression.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        None of Artemis is working. Including Starship. (If Starship is working so is Orion.)
        adastra22 2y ago
        Sorry by working I meant more along the lines of “on track, on budget, meeting expectations” etc.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > I meant more along the lines of “on track, on budget, meeting expectations” etc. By that measure has humanity ever even been to space?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Can you expand on that? Biden's space policy was remarkably and suprisingly similar to Trump's. A little bit more money for planetary science, and that's about it AFAICT.

adastra22 2y ago

To his credit he didn’t kill Artemis, as everyone had expected.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
To his detriment, he didn’t kill Artemis and replace it with something workable.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kibwen 2y ago
  Artemis' unworkable design is because of the limitations of Starship. I was all-in on "cool, huge rocket go brr" until I realized that it's going to take between 5 and 20 Starship launches per mission just to get to the moon. That's a clear regression from the Saturn V.
  - marssaxman 2y ago
    If you think that's a boondoggle, wait until you find out about the SLS!
  - gridspy 2y ago
    > 5 and 20 Starship launches per mission That is not actually such a big deal when you realize they are just ferrying fuel on a reusable rocket. They're also doing it well in advance of the mission. There is a massive logistics chain making it possible to buy fuel on your road trip, this is similar. > That's a clear regression from the Saturn V. Not exactly, as the fuel provided in orbit by these other missions will allow a much larger payload to reach the Moon's surface and return. StarShip can already deliver a similar payload to orbit as Saturn V (though a bit less due to reusability) - it is the extra mass to the moon which requires the refuelling.
    - kibwen 2y ago
      > Not exactly, as the fuel provided in orbit by these other missions will allow a much larger payload to reach the Moon's surface and return. Amortized over the number of launches it takes to get a single moonshot. > StarShip can already deliver a similar payload to orbit as Saturn V But Saturn V's purpose was not getting things to orbit. We have plenty of rockets capable of getting to orbit. And given that satellites have differing needs when it comes to orbital trajectories, it's unclear whether we even need that capability. By analogy, we've had jumbo jets for decades, but most air routes are not flying on jumbo jets, because the demand isn't there.
      - cryptonector 2y ago
        > But Saturn V's purpose was not getting things to orbit. Yet it was used to put Skylab in orbit.
      - gridspy 2y ago
        > Amortized over the number of launches it takes to get a single moonshot. Saturn V was completely destroyed by each launch with only the payload surviving. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison when you compare # launches. Those 10-15 launches of StarShip will be a lot cheaper than a single Saturn V launch because at the end you still have all the StarShips you launched and all you used was some methane and oxygen.
        kibwen 2y ago
        > Those 10-15 launches of StarShip will be a lot cheaper than a single Saturn V launch because at the end you still have all the StarShips you launched and all you used was some methane and oxygen. Minus the maintenance for the wear-and-tear of expending (ahem) astronomical amounts of energy to propel the largest rocket ever built into space and then return through atmospheric re-entry ten or more times. Just because you have built a machine that might, at scale, be more economical than an expendable rocket does not mean that the economics will actually materialize such that it ever makes sense to realize that scale, especially if you dectuple your expected operating costs.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    Starship is the only part of Artemis that is actually working. In any case, a reusable rocket architecture is way ahead of the Apollo model, not a regression.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      None of Artemis is working. Including Starship. (If Starship is working so is Orion.)
      - adastra22 2y ago
        Sorry by working I meant more along the lines of “on track, on budget, meeting expectations” etc.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > I meant more along the lines of “on track, on budget, meeting expectations” etc. By that measure has humanity ever even been to space?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

bryanlarsen 2y ago

Can you expand on that? Biden's space policy was remarkably and suprisingly similar to Trump's. A little bit more money for planetary science, and that's about it AFAICT.