4 ms·

> is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack Scaling is still engineering. And the environmental control system, laser-optical communication systems

> is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack Scaling is still engineering. And the environmental control system, laser-optical communication systems and block-construction heat shields are new. For Artemis III, in-obit propellant transfer will be new and transformational.

NetMageSCW 8mo ago
The block construction heat shield was new on Artemis I. Now we just know that it is an unfixed problem that will be done differently on future missions. And Artemis III has nothing to do with in-orbit propellant transfer, that will be SpaceX and Blue Origin testing independently of Artemis III.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > block construction heat shield was new on Artemis I. Now we just know that it is an unfixed problem Unfixed problems on a new technology mean it’s still new. > Artemis III has nothing to do with in-orbit propellant transfer I may have fucked this up—isn’t the depot supposed to be up for III? Or is that punted to IV?
Teever 8mo ago
All of this stuff is really great but it's not worth the cost that was spent on it. The thing you have to keep asking yourself is "what could 100 billion dollars of non-pork barrel spending have bought instead of what we ended up with?"
- noosphr 8mo ago
  A month of war in the middle east.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > All of this stuff is really great but it's not worth the cost that was spent on it It’s building towards a system. If we get Starship and in-orbit propellant depots and a lunar nuclear reactor and then kill the programme, it will probably be judged by history as a success. > what could 100 billion dollars of non-pork barrel spending have bought instead of what we ended up with? Rien. This is the system we have, and it’s unclear such a program could have survived sans pork.
  - Teever 8mo ago
    It may be building towards a system. Or it could all be cancelled in 3-4 weeks after these four explorers burn up on reentry. And then all these hopes and dreams that you have will be gone, like that $100 billion dollars just up in smoke. I can tell that you're as passionate about space exploration and colonization as I am, but this isn't the way my friend. This program is coming at the cost of the Aldrin Cyclers and Von Braun Wheels that you and I know could and should have existed decades ago and while you may think that those things will come from this program I think you should consider the fact that root cause of this program's dysfunction is what is denying us this reality of humanity spreading across the stars.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > It may be building towards a system It may build. It is building. > it could all be cancelled in 3-4 weeks after these four explorers burn up We’d have wasted money. But we’d still be ahead. Artemis has funded a lot of development. > can tell that you're as passionate about space exploration and colonization as I am, but this isn't the way my friend In a perfect world? No. Is it a legitimate way? Absolutely. We’re still moving forward. > This program is coming at the cost of the Aldrin Cyclers and Von Braun Wheels Nobody is funding these. We’re beating the Chinese to land. That clicks. That sells. Space-based infrastructure is hallucinated competition. > that root cause of this program's dysfunction is what is denying us this reality The alternative is we spend NASA’s Artemis budget on Medicaid billing at autism centers in Indiana. I’d prefer the vision you painted. But I won’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. This program moves us forward and funds roads to alternatives. Starship, for example.
- idiotsecant 8mo ago
  What a simultaneously cynical and boring and completely useless attitude. Is it your position that if this hadn't happened 100b of otherwise more important spending would have happened?
  - Teever 8mo ago
    I think that $100 billion, spent effectively could have resulted in Von Braun Wheels in LEO. I think that it could have resulted in teleoperated lunar mining and smelting that would be allowing us to build human bases on Earth now instead of a single fly by that may end in the death of these four amazing explorers.
    - NetMageSCW 8mo ago
      There is no world in which lunar mining and smelting economically produces anything useful on Earth.
      - Teever 8mo ago
        I was describing a scenario where the teleoperated machines were used to build a base on the Moon with in situ produced materials, not one where materials are sold as export to Earth. But I'm curious to hear why you think that it will always be uneconomical to produce refined metals on the Earth and transport them to Earth for further manufacturing? It seems like a logical near term thing that we're going to have to do to reduce carbon emissions and other environmental damage. Mining and refining ores are both energy intensive and highly ecologicaly damaging.
kevin_thibedeau 8mo ago
It isn't moving forward. It's an ill-conceived Apollo 1.5 with the MIC calling all the shots and a lander that is MIA. China is doing Apollo 2.0 which is fine considering this is their first attempt. The US needs a modular launch system with orbital booster tugs that can be mixed in various combinations for different mission profiles. One big booster with all of the risk stacked onto billion dollar launches is not the future we should be working toward.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > US needs a modular launch system with orbital booster tugs that can be mixed in various combinations for different mission profiles This is what the propellant depot is building towards.
dylan604 8mo ago
> in-obit propellant transfer I'm hoping they can do it in-orbit. We've had enough NASA obits
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  Hehe. Obits to be avoided in obisular orbits.

NetMageSCW 8mo ago

The block construction heat shield was new on Artemis I. Now we just know that it is an unfixed problem that will be done differently on future missions. And Artemis III has nothing to do with in-orbit propellant transfer, that will be SpaceX and Blue Origin testing independently of Artemis III.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> block construction heat shield was new on Artemis I. Now we just know that it is an unfixed problem Unfixed problems on a new technology mean it’s still new. > Artemis III has nothing to do with in-orbit propellant transfer I may have fucked this up—isn’t the depot supposed to be up for III? Or is that punted to IV?

Teever 8mo ago

All of this stuff is really great but it's not worth the cost that was spent on it. The thing you have to keep asking yourself is "what could 100 billion dollars of non-pork barrel spending have bought instead of what we ended up with?"

noosphr 8mo ago
A month of war in the middle east.
JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> All of this stuff is really great but it's not worth the cost that was spent on it It’s building towards a system. If we get Starship and in-orbit propellant depots and a lunar nuclear reactor and then kill the programme, it will probably be judged by history as a success. > what could 100 billion dollars of non-pork barrel spending have bought instead of what we ended up with? Rien. This is the system we have, and it’s unclear such a program could have survived sans pork.
- Teever 8mo ago
  It may be building towards a system. Or it could all be cancelled in 3-4 weeks after these four explorers burn up on reentry. And then all these hopes and dreams that you have will be gone, like that $100 billion dollars just up in smoke. I can tell that you're as passionate about space exploration and colonization as I am, but this isn't the way my friend. This program is coming at the cost of the Aldrin Cyclers and Von Braun Wheels that you and I know could and should have existed decades ago and while you may think that those things will come from this program I think you should consider the fact that root cause of this program's dysfunction is what is denying us this reality of humanity spreading across the stars.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > It may be building towards a system It may build. It is building. > it could all be cancelled in 3-4 weeks after these four explorers burn up We’d have wasted money. But we’d still be ahead. Artemis has funded a lot of development. > can tell that you're as passionate about space exploration and colonization as I am, but this isn't the way my friend In a perfect world? No. Is it a legitimate way? Absolutely. We’re still moving forward. > This program is coming at the cost of the Aldrin Cyclers and Von Braun Wheels Nobody is funding these. We’re beating the Chinese to land. That clicks. That sells. Space-based infrastructure is hallucinated competition. > that root cause of this program's dysfunction is what is denying us this reality The alternative is we spend NASA’s Artemis budget on Medicaid billing at autism centers in Indiana. I’d prefer the vision you painted. But I won’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. This program moves us forward and funds roads to alternatives. Starship, for example.
idiotsecant 8mo ago
What a simultaneously cynical and boring and completely useless attitude. Is it your position that if this hadn't happened 100b of otherwise more important spending would have happened?
- Teever 8mo ago
  I think that $100 billion, spent effectively could have resulted in Von Braun Wheels in LEO. I think that it could have resulted in teleoperated lunar mining and smelting that would be allowing us to build human bases on Earth now instead of a single fly by that may end in the death of these four amazing explorers.
  - NetMageSCW 8mo ago
    There is no world in which lunar mining and smelting economically produces anything useful on Earth.
    - Teever 8mo ago
      I was describing a scenario where the teleoperated machines were used to build a base on the Moon with in situ produced materials, not one where materials are sold as export to Earth. But I'm curious to hear why you think that it will always be uneconomical to produce refined metals on the Earth and transport them to Earth for further manufacturing? It seems like a logical near term thing that we're going to have to do to reduce carbon emissions and other environmental damage. Mining and refining ores are both energy intensive and highly ecologicaly damaging.

kevin_thibedeau 8mo ago

It isn't moving forward. It's an ill-conceived Apollo 1.5 with the MIC calling all the shots and a lander that is MIA. China is doing Apollo 2.0 which is fine considering this is their first attempt. The US needs a modular launch system with orbital booster tugs that can be mixed in various combinations for different mission profiles. One big booster with all of the risk stacked onto billion dollar launches is not the future we should be working toward.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> US needs a modular launch system with orbital booster tugs that can be mixed in various combinations for different mission profiles This is what the propellant depot is building towards.

dylan604 8mo ago

> in-obit propellant transfer I'm hoping they can do it in-orbit. We've had enough NASA obits

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
Hehe. Obits to be avoided in obisular orbits.