Return to the moon
Discussion
Cupramax said:
Am I the only one looking at this and seeing after all this time all they’ve managed is to build a new Saturn V which went to moon originally, meanwhile Musk is landing rockets after use 
if I was the head of NASA I’d be too embarrassed to even let it take off.
It might look like a Saturn but my understanding is that it's significantly more advanced than those used in the Apollo days. if I was the head of NASA I’d be too embarrassed to even let it take off.I don't think any of SpaceX's (or Blue Origin's) launch systems are capable of TLI to the Moon, and certainly not with the load capabilities of this new NASA system (which I think is anywhere from 30-45 tonnes).
Terminator X said:
Trying to leave the planet seems pure folly to me when they are so many pressing problems down here to sort first.
TX.
Indeed, maybe we shouldn't have come down from the trees in the first place.TX.
Not a big fan of Satnav, international phone calls, television, internet etc then?
Cupramax said:
Am I the only one looking at this and seeing after all this time all they’ve managed is to build a new Saturn V which went to moon originally, meanwhile Musk is landing rockets after use if I was the head of NASA I’d be too embarrassed to even let it take off.
If you thinking like this are it's because you do not know an awful lot about the technology behind the Artemis/Space Launch System hardware. First of all, it has virtually nothing to do with the Apollo/Saturn technology of the 1960s. It is very much based on the Space Shuttle system of the 70s and 80s and uses significant Shuttle derived components - such as the External Tank (modified to be the core booster) and the Solid Rocket Boosters, which have been extended and made more powerful. if I was the head of NASA I’d be too embarrassed to even let it take off.The size and thrust rating of the Space Launch System (SLS) is in a similar capacity of the Saturn V for the simple reason that it has a similar job to do i.e lift around 100 metric tonnes into low earth orbit or send 30 plus tonnes out of earth orbit to the moon and beyond. Physics and orbital mechanics dictates the size of the rocket you need and the amount of fuel you need.
Musk's current rockets, even though they are proving to be reliable and are, of course, reusable, have nowhere near the capability to do what SLS will do. Of course, SpaceX is working on its own reusable heavy lift booster (Starliner) but it is still some way from making its first spaceflight.
Having heavy lift alternatives will be a good thing - if they both work
Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 23 August 11:52
Eric Mc said:
Cupramax said:
Am I the only one looking at this and seeing after all this time all they’ve managed is to build a new Saturn V which went to moon originally, meanwhile Musk is landing rockets after use if I was the head of NASA I’d be too embarrassed to even let it take off.
If you thinking like this are it's because you do not know an awful lot about the technology behind the Artemis/Space Launch System hardware. First of all, it has virtually nothing to do with the Apollo/Saturn technology of the 1960s. It is very much based on the Space Shuttle system of the 70s and 80s and uses significant Shuttle derived components - such as the External Tank (modified to be the core booster) and the Solid Rocket Boosters, which have been extended and made more powerful. if I was the head of NASA I’d be too embarrassed to even let it take off.The size and thrust rating of the Space Launch System (SLS) is in a similar capacity of the Saturn V for the simple reason that it has a similar job to do i.e lift around 100 metric tonnes into low earth orbit or send 30 plus tonnes out of earth orbit to the moon and beyond. Physics and orbital mechanics dictates the size of the rocket you need and the amount of fuel you need.
Musk's current rockets, even though they are proving to be reliable and are, of course, reusable, have nowhere near the capability to do what SLS will do. Of course, SpaceX is working on its own reusable heavy lift booster (Starliner) but it is still some way from making its first spaceflight.
Having heavy lift alternatives will be a good thing - if they both work
Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 23 August 11:52
Beati Dogu said:
I doubt there will be any ROI on Artemis since it’s all established technology. It was purely built as a massive boondoggle at the insistence of certain US politicians whose districts include big aerospace contractors. It’s not something NASA was given a choice about.
There will be... If nothing else it keeps the scientists and engineers current. The cost of relearning how to build a hugely comicated machine far exceeds that of keeping current.
Ask Westinghouse and Hitachi based on their nuclear experiences.
Cupramax said:
Am I the only one looking at this and seeing after all this time all they’ve managed is to build a new Saturn V which went to moon originally, meanwhile Musk is landing rockets after use
I'll take the moon anytime over the 'landing a rocket after use'.A brief summary of manned spaceflight:
1961: First man in orbit
1969: First men on the moon
1972: Last men on the moon
Nobody's left Earth orbit for 50 years.
Terminator X said:
Trying to leave the planet seems pure folly to me when they are so many pressing problems down here to sort first.
TX.
Suggest you read Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan.TX.
Basic premise is this - extinction of mankind is inevitable unless we become a spacefaring species. Either through self annihilation or through a catastrophic planet destroying event a la dinosaurs - ultimately, the sun will explode and take our entire solar system with it.
Depressing but true, therefore at some point we need to make moves to colonise the rest of space or we just accept our fate. If not now, then when?
What are these 'pressing problems' you speak of?
dukeboy749r said:
There is always ‘some problem down here’ to deal with.
At which point, of technological advancement, would you suggest we look upwards and say ‘let’s go out there’?
Surely all that effort of technological advancement can be prioritised on earth for the good of humanity? At which point, of technological advancement, would you suggest we look upwards and say ‘let’s go out there’?
Chamon_Lee said:
dukeboy749r said:
There is always ‘some problem down here’ to deal with.
At which point, of technological advancement, would you suggest we look upwards and say ‘let’s go out there’?
Surely all that effort of technological advancement can be prioritised on earth for the good of humanity? At which point, of technological advancement, would you suggest we look upwards and say ‘let’s go out there’?
Advances that are good for us are quite often spun off from inventive ways to kill each other.
People assume that money disappears into thin air once spent, or disappears off into space with a spacecraft.
That 99.999% money is spent here on Earth, the majority of the cost is R&D, i.e. Managers and engineering salaries. Which feed an economy. The resources that head off into space are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, I cannot find exact figures, but of the mass launched into space (thus far), that would never return, I would guestimate is IRO of a few thousand tons.
Just because something isn't important to you, doesn't make it less important to others or humanity.
Bleeding edge technologies are where we (as a species) tend to make the radical advances that move us forward and may (in some way), help fix some of the issues we have here.
E.g. a lot of the advancements in Solar panels are coming from the space sector.
While we need to fix the climate change situation here on Earth (and other issues), the majority of the issues with this are not technological (although technological in origin), they are socio-political.
They could fix a lot of issues, with economic pain, they won't for various reasons.
But blaming space research when large swathes of society "waste" much more is just another form of gaslighting
That 99.999% money is spent here on Earth, the majority of the cost is R&D, i.e. Managers and engineering salaries. Which feed an economy. The resources that head off into space are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, I cannot find exact figures, but of the mass launched into space (thus far), that would never return, I would guestimate is IRO of a few thousand tons.
Just because something isn't important to you, doesn't make it less important to others or humanity.
Bleeding edge technologies are where we (as a species) tend to make the radical advances that move us forward and may (in some way), help fix some of the issues we have here.
E.g. a lot of the advancements in Solar panels are coming from the space sector.
While we need to fix the climate change situation here on Earth (and other issues), the majority of the issues with this are not technological (although technological in origin), they are socio-political.
They could fix a lot of issues, with economic pain, they won't for various reasons.
But blaming space research when large swathes of society "waste" much more is just another form of gaslighting
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff