5 ms·
SLS is super heavy class like Starship. It deploys about 100 tons to orbit in Block 1 configuration. New Glenn deploys half that. Closer to a Falcon Heavy. Yo
by someperson 2y ago
SLS is super heavy class like Starship. It deploys about 100 tons to orbit in Block 1 configuration.
New Glenn deploys half that. Closer to a Falcon Heavy.
You can't really do a moon program without a super heavy rocket.
- SoftTalker 2y agoWhy do we need a moon program?
- vFunct 2y agoGrow the economy through the advancement of technology. A good way to be poor is to not advance technology.
- SoftTalker 2y agoWhy should the government pay for it? If there’s an economically viable reason to have a moon program, let private enterprise take that on.
- Spartan-S63 2y agoThat’s a great way to never expand the frontier of knowledge. We don’t know the returns on the investment of a Moon program ahead of time, but exploration drives human knowledge forward. If we only ever funded things that had a clear economically viable reason, we would have never progressed past steam technology. Think of space exploration as basic research. It’s fundamental to moving human knowledge forward and that should be worth any price.
- vFunct 2y agoPrivate enterprise doesn’t advance advanced technology because they are constrained by profit requirement. It’s impossible for private enterprise to do so because of that. That’s why we rely on government to advance literal moonshot programs. Space-X can’t even do this without government funding.
- Dalewyn 2y agoIt is important to remember that the Space Race was a front of the Cold War, the "Why do we need a Moon program?" question was squarely answered by "Because we are at war." Today we are not at war, at least not one that concerns space or the Moon. China is in a fierce self-imposed race to land on the Moon and Do The Other Things because it (probably correctly) views the West as an enemy to overcome. The US has not reciprocated that sentient, we've just shut them out of our space programs and then left them be. For the US government to fund another Moon program we definitely need an answer to the question of Why. So far we don't have one other than THE PRESTIGE and OUR SCIENCE GRANTS as evidenced by many other threads on similar subject matter here. That's not going to convince the taxpayers.
- avmich 2y agoIt's important to remember that USA cannot fly men to the Moon. USA had that ability some 50 years ago. Since then companies changed, technologies were replaced, knowledge transformed and people got interested with other things, not to mention that risk threshold grew a lot. As a result, right now USA can't fly men to the Moon. US government, however, doesn't want to give China the ability to say "yes, we're on the Moon - and we're the only nation which can do it today". And because of that, we have a rather similar conditions today as we had some 60 years ago - US government can't really allow China to fly men to the Moon without showing that Americans are also doing that, at the very same time. Taxpayers, of course, are and were different - somebody doesn't care, somebody else cares a lot. I doubt US government want to assume those who care aren't that important.
- toasterlovin 2y agoSo far the American system has been for the government to fund basic research and private industry to commercialize it. This has worked stupendously well. We should be very cautious about moving away from this arrangement.
- Dalewyn 2y ago>So far the American system has been for the government to fund basic research and private industry to commercialize it. In that case SLS definitely needs to be cancelled. We are well beyond "basic research" into how a Moon program could be executed, private companies are already doing it and the only question left is how to commercialize it.
- toasterlovin 2y agoSure, I agree, but the person I was responding to was not talking about SLS specifically. They said that a moon program should be strictly up to commercial interests to pursue and that the government shouldn't purse one at all.
- Dalewyn 2y agoI agree with that assessment, neither NASA nor the country has the money nor time to waste on another public Moon program. There is no justifiable reason for another Apollo. Leave it to the commercial world, and if they can't figure out a sustainable business model then it simply isn't meant to be (yet?).
- toasterlovin 2y agoYou not agreeing with the reasons is not the same as there being "no justifiable reason" for another moon program. There absolutely are justifiable reasons and those reasons have worked out very well for the U.S. in the past. And as to whether we have the money for it, the U.S. is the wealthiest it has ever been and certainly much wealthier than we were in the 60s.
- trilbyglens 2y agoSo we can have corporations and shitty billionaires also own the moon? No fucking thanks.
- silotis 2y agoThis is just a variation on the broken window fallacy. There are any number of engineering projects one could embark on that would stimulate R&D and provide a productive output in their own right.
- sho_hn 2y agoIt'd be nice if we had a good one, alas ... https://idlewords.com/2024/5/the_lunacy_of_artemis.htm https://idlewords.com/2024/5/the_lunacy_of_artemis.htm
- filoeleven 2y agoThat's a fun read. Also the first time I've heard of the company Aerojet Rocketdyne. Did they come up with that one while playing beer pong? Smarter Every Day gave a talk directly to NASA that raises some of the same issues. It's a good one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU
- Animats 2y agoThose are very old aerospace companies. They predate NASA. Aerojet was von Kármán's rocket company, founded in 1936. Rocketdyne was founded in 1955. Both are now owned by L3Harris.
- sixothree 2y agoI have to admit that while this stuff has absolutely fascinated me for 40+ years, I have zero interest in seeing these vehicles succeed. I remember writing to NASA in the early days of the shuttle and getting back packets and packets of information. Not only is that interest missing, but part of me hopes they either fail miserably or stop getting government funding altogether.
- cubefox 2y agoBecause manned space flight is a frivolous waste of money?
- geor9e 2y agoTo practice for the Mars program.
- Dylan16807 2y ago> You can't really do a moon program without a super heavy rocket. Use two parts like Apollo but launch them separately?
- bryanlarsen 2y agoA moon program requires a super heavy booster or on orbit rendezvous, not both. The reports from the sixties determined that on orbit rendezvous would be easier and cheaper, but take longer, making it more likely to miss their deadline of 1969.
- pinewurst 2y agoSupposedly, the former Senator from Alabama personally intervened on a continous basis to stomp any NASA efforts towards in-orbit refueling.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- readthenotes1 2y ago"It deploys about 100 tons" What's the cost per ton? Make sure to include failure rate.
- Animats 2y agoHow about a robotic moon program? An all-robot base, with lots of rovers exploring and digging. They could work for years, rather than short visits by humans. The moon is close enough that you can teleoperate robots, although the 2.5 second lag means you have to have autonomy for at least balance. That's where Tesla's robots are now.
- defrost 2y agoAs you're very likely already aware; Tank on the Moon (2007) is a French documentary film about the development, launch, and operation of the Soviet Moon exploration rovers, Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 in the period from 1970 to 1973. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_on_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_on_the_Moon on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_0K2-Tf3Ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_0K2-Tf3Ko A bit of sometimes overlooked history. It's about time for a larger scale robot base .. good trial run for elsewhere at even greater distances.
- ianmcnaney 2y agoTell that to the Apollo program people. Maybe two parts that stick together in orbit could actually reach the moon. I guess we’ll never know..