Hacker News Reader

Comment by sabareesh | Hacker News Reader

Loved the most of the presentation but i felt he lacked the big picture, it is no longer about just going to the moon but this time we want to potentially settle and expand to other planets. Because of this we are not just trying to replicate how we went there but it is such an invaluable document to do what we want to do.!!

View on HN

I felt the same. In the apollo program literally every step along the way had never been done before, and the problems were solved by smart people putting in good work and the result is that we developed a ton of new technologies and skills as a country.

He seems to be saying: don't try new things, keep in simple and just do what we did 50 years ago again. Keep funding the old aerospace giants (Boeing, Lockheed, ULA, and a hundred different contractor companies) rather than giving money to companies that are developing new technologies. This partially makes sense, since he and his dad and many friends work for those old companies and are probably threatened by the new comers.

He clearly implies that politically-driven contracts have made the launch system overly complex, and that SpaceX could do the job for a fraction of the cost with better results compared to the old aerospace giants.

He paused on slide showing Starship on the moon to drive the point home.

I didn't get the impression that he was saying "don't try new things". It was more "practice good engineering". He ask people how many refueling launches it would take for the moon landing. No one knew. The engineers responsible for the project couldn't provide a number for one of the most critical things that needs to occur in the next couple of years. It took a government watchdog agency to come up with an evidence based number. That looked really bad for the program.

We are changing how things are being done. Before NASA was responsible for everything and more hands on approach but now it is hands off approach with fixed cost contract. Because of this you can expect things to work the same way as before but that doesn't mean it is good to keep the tabs on.

The big picture is that instead of sending 16 moon-capable rockets to refuel one moon-capable rocket, just send 16 rockets to the moon.

You can build a lot of infrastructure with 16 rockets to the moon.

Wait, are they not using Starship to refuel? If they are then that's 1 Crew ship (SLS?) + 1 Starship with 16 round trips. Considering we don't know the failure rate for refueling with Starship, they might need 2-3 Starship rockets.

Actually, are they going to be refueling in orbit with crew on board? Or are they launching a rocket into orbit and refueling it, then launching another rocket with the crew to dock with the fueled rocket?

> NASA says SpaceX’s next Starship flight could test refueling tech

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38612585

> In 2020, NASA announced agreements with four companies—Lockheed Martin, United Launch Alliance, SpaceX, and a Florida-based startup named Eta Space—to prove capabilities in the area of refueling and propellant depots using cryogenic propellants.

Ah, it's first come first served.

> without astronauts onboard. Once that is successful, NASA will clear Starship for a crew landing on the agency's Artemis III mission, marking the astronauts' return to the lunar surface for the first time since 1972.

So it seems they'll use a Starship for crew as well?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com