this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
127 points (91.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

41831 readers
878 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
127
How did we get humans on the moon in 1969 and are still struggling to get the Starship rocket to launch properly? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 131 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Different design paradigms. In 1969, they had one shot to get everything right, and prepared accordingly (not to mention, they had a massive budget since the space race was all part of the cold war).

SpaceX is taking a different approach, fail fast and cheap. They are taking an iterative approach that allows them to learn from previous failures, rather than anticipating what all those failures could be and then over engineering the rocket to prevent that.

They are different approaches, and each has their own pros and cons. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That's a great summary, I appreciate it. Do you think the new approach has been worth it so far? The Artemis 1 launch was successful first try.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Artemis 1 launch was also staggeringly expensive, and yet to be repeated.

In the time it's taken to develop that rocket, SpaceX has gone from it's very first real flight (by which I mean actually achieving something, rather than a pure test flight) to launching far more every year than the entire rest of the world combined. Note that by that definition, Artemis hasn't had a single "real" flight yet.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

They have completely different goals. If SpaceX wanted to throw out the Starship and Booster sections every time, they're already as capable as the Artemis launcher. But they are looking longer term, and want to also be 1000x cheaper.

It took them dozens of launches to be able to re-use a Falcon9. They'll get there eventually.

Nobody thought they'd get Falcon 9 to launch, and they did. Nobody thought they'd get Falcon 9 to land, and they did. Nobody thought they'd be able to re-use a Falcon 9 enough to make it worth the investment, and they did.

Doesn't mean they'll succeed, but it does mean they have a good track record.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

To put it in context, Artemis did many fully destructive tests but typically on the ground. Artemis had and spent an overhaul budget that was likely close to a hundred times that of what SpaceX is spending in today's dollars.

And even better representation, all the fully destructive tests of SpaceX have carried out have costs less than a single successful shuttle launch. And it has a much larger payload.

Even with the destructive tests, of which are planned this way, not only is SpaceX is far cheaper than any past space program, they are advancing fairly rapid.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Easy answer. Far less money is being given today to NASA:

Further, that NASA budget includes all the extra planetary science happening (multiple Mars rovers, Deep Space network, LEO space station operations, deep space probes like DART, Juno, OSIRIS-REx, etc, plus all of the atmospheric flight stuff like the low noise supersonic flight experiments. This also includes all of SLS which is a SECOND rocket being made for Moon exploration.

To answer your second question: yes, reuse is worth it. We didn't do it during Apollo because it would have been even more expensive. Because we didn't have it, any flight was just as expensive as the first. So we had to stop going unless the crazy amount of money would stay, which it wouldn't.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Plus SpaceX squanders far less money than the contractors that have sucked off the government teat via NASA for 50+ years.

Those bloated companies are part of the military-industrial complex and finance lobbying to push projects (especially cost-plus) which they can then "compete" for.

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame NASA, this is a problem of politicians and grubby bastards in companies like Boeing, General Dynamics, etc. NASA is controlled by congress and whoever is providing financing - the shuttle development history demonstrates these problems very clearly (competing requirements from Air Force, NSA, etc, who were providing funding).

At a high level, NASA, (like many government projects) have traditionally used more of a "Waterfall" project management approach, while SpaceX has used an iterative Agile-like approach. This means SpaceX can be more nimble while learning along the way, enabling them to change direction when they discover a fundamental misunderstanding. The first launch of Starship demonstrates this approach perfectly.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

NASA was also different in 1960's.

People said they could have meeting with supplies and make changes in the meeting. Now it seems like everything is a huge ballache to change anything.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Remember how Reagan and Thatcher told your parents that private corporations are (somehow) "more efficient" than state run organisations?

Yeah... they lied.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They are more efficient.

  1. They are more efficient moving money from the bottom to the top and making investors and CEOs rich.

  2. They are more efficient at making the minimum product for the price while suppressing labor, reducing customer service, and enshittifying the product as the lifespan of the company progresses in order to do #1.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Well... since you put it that way - I'll just have to concede.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago

We privatized anything related to space exploration.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

To add on to what everyone else is saying, compared to the Apollo capsules, Starship is fucking HUGE. Apollo 11's capsule was 10 feet tall by 13 feet in diameter. Starship is 180 feet tall not including the launch vehicle.

Edit to add: Mercury was literally just an ICBM with a dude strapped on top, with Saturn V being based on that design. We're only now beginning to make designs that are actually made just for space travel.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

Also... Starship absolutely got into orbit, and could have completed the orbital insertion part of an Apollo style single use mission.

They just haven't finished troubleshooting the re-use part yet. It's already more powerful and cheaper than a Saturn V.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The technology from the Apollo program is gone. It was destroyed and can be developed again but that takes time. Now couple that with the fact that private companies are trying to create a completely new tech with reusable rockets that return to earth intact and you have several engineering hurdles to say the least.

I have to admit it's a beautiful thing seeing it happen! We're going to get there again! We must explore space or become stagnant as a species.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What do you mean the tech was destroyed?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

There was no need to produce the items in question, so we lost the expertise and the underlying manufacturing facilities/experience/etc. Stuff like: The company that made the windows no longer exists. The company that made the panels still exists, but they can no longer source the strictly defined % alloys as that company no longer exists. Stuff like that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Also to add to the other person the literal paper files were accidentally destroyed when they were in storage in NASA.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Other commentor answered very well. I'll just add that if China or Russia starts sending successful ships to the moon/mars and/or starts making real steps for a moon base, then you can bet your ass the US government will pour all their resources into our space program. In other words, the Cold War boosted the space program in the 60s because Russia scary. During "peace-time", the US government purposely under funds the living shit out of NASA. That's why private corporations are doing it now, like SpaceX.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I agree, but I'm afraid these days they'd just farm it out to a private business instead of doing it themselves with the goal of doing it right like they did in the 60's. Today they'd overpay some billionaire hugely for worse results because greed for profit = overcharging and substandard parts and oversight.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

I don't know for sure but if it started to suck after 1980, it was Reagan's fault.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Safety, scope of mission, budget

The first moon missions were extremely risky. Many people died during development and/or during those missions. As NASA evolved, they reprioritized safety and that changed the demands of the vehicle.

The scope of the missions are also different. The first moon missions were, mostly, about just getting there. Taking moon samples back and doing science experiments were limited. The mission now is for a larger group of people to stay on the moon for week/weeks.

Budget has been a huge issue since the 80s. Once the allure of new and exciting space things died down after the first landing on the moon, public perception and federal budgets got moved to other things. The reason NASA is using the SpaceX rocket isn’t because they couldn’t make something better. But SpaceX has done a lot of the development on their own dime. Getting a moon-worthy rocket without an additional decade of funding and research ensures reasonable timeframes for the new moon missions.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In the early 70s it was a risky and expensive one-time deal. Starship is doing it sustainably and will completely revolutionize space travel. I wouldn't say they're struggling they're just still developing it.

The capabilities of starship are orders of magnitude more payload and for orders or magnitude less money at the same time.

Turns out it's a bad idea to totally scrap a billion dollar rocket every time you use it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

modern companies use "Agile" development

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I may have missed it in another comment, but I believe part of it is the cost of lives. During the space race someone dying would've just been part of the risk. Now we are using more automation and a human fatality might risk a company's ability to continue its pursuit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Musk wants to reinvent the wheel, essentially

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because politicians cared more about it back then, nowadays they're too concerned about making the other political party "lose" than doing stuff to actually benefit the country's citizens

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Apollo was a huge government project. It was affectively a military, science, geopolitical and political project that had a lot of backing by the public.

I would argue Apollo is the great project ever and it's kind of unfair to compare anything to it.

But the real crux of this matter here is if you get your info from Lemmy or reddit (and not one of the places filled by experts). It's full of "Lol Elon bad" circlejerking. "Haha the rocket blew up they so stupid". It's really cringe. In fact SpaceX, NASA, the FAA, astronauts who will go on the ships, other space companies, experts they all expected this to happen. This is the plan. (Though the FAA did have some issues).

Ignore the "Elon is an idiot" memes and what you actually find is Elon's SpaceX is probably the greatest rocket company in the world and all rocket agencies including governmental ones though that SpaceX has already achieved was impossible. People don't like seeing that and outright ignore the facts.

Anything could go wrong with this project but I don't think people would be overly concerned if rockets failed all throughout this year. (But it is expected to be better than that.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lost me at the second paragraph, Elon most certainly can be a complete moron while SpaceX remains a competent launch provider with, but to ignore his track record and business dealings in considering HLS would be a lapse in judgement.

Aside from the man, the plan of starship is vague at best, and given 2 billion in public funds is planned to be spent on starship this year alone, I would certainly like to know more details.. as NASA does too:

20 launches, up from musks initial 8, will be needed to fuel the craft

Contracts have deadlines and astronauts need assurances

It's really cringe

If NASA is to a point healthy critique is considered cringe, then I doubt we'll be on the moon for long. Sure there's some rashness, but in the publics eye, do you think Apollo could've succeeded if they had dismissed hardware failures as RUDs?

Apollo 1 nearly ended the program, yes it was the deaths of those astronauts that prompted that, but its necessary rigor that prevents another such accident. An inherent con of the trial-by-fire method SpaceX has had is the potential to miss something that wasn't an immediate issue. This can be mitigated, but is a valid source of concern for the engineer.

I however am not nearly qualified to make a call. But I feel as though this video from the channel SmarterEverDay (whose family was involved in Apollo) sums up a set of valid concerns that I think anybody with interest in these this should at least hear.

I want us to go back to the moon just as the next person, but remember: Apollo cost some $200B in todays money, part of that cost was the extensive checks needed to avert tragedy, we must be sure we're not cutting that its only a natural concern. And we can't make heroes of men while we're at it, nobody is infallible, if the proposal is solid it will be the one to take us regardless who's running the show. Or if its not, we cannot afford to make mission proposals personal.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If NASA is to a point healthy critique is considered cringe, then I doubt we'll be on the moon for long.

You're being intentionally obtuse. I'm obviously not calling NASA cringe and that's not even remotely implied.

NASA is running the project, set the tenders and observing the suppliers. No one would expect anything else. Smartereveryday was largely on about culture at NASA from what I remember from that video. That and the lack of hypergolics. If NASA wanted hypergolics on the moon they could have put a requirement "must use hypergolics on the moon". But they didn't. That's why all the relighting tests are being done. If the engines relight to the needed reliability then everything is fine, they have set the standards.

The Apollo project was tested live. They did all the lab tests but the real world tests were largely done with people in them. Apollo was risky as fuck and would never ever be allowed to happen now. I think some of the astronauts thought there was as high as a 50% of death. The fact you don't know how risky Apollo was to the astronauts shows you don't know much about this because you are using the safety of Apollo as a benchmark. Look I love Apollo but it wasn't a high benchmark of safety.

With things like this. Testing to failure is pretty norm. NASA uses falcon 9 rockers for crew which was largely tested the same way. They obviously have faith in SpaceX because they out humans in their rockets.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

.