How did we get humans on the moon in 1969 and are still struggling to get the Starship rocket to launch properly?
How did we get humans on the moon in 1969 and are still struggling to get the Starship rocket to launch properly?
You're viewing a single thread.
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.)
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.
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.
Well you offhandedly gave "elon bad" memes precedence over actual critiques being offered, nobody who actually cares about this moon thing gives a damn about elon memes,, so I expect to discuss the merits of the mission plan off its merits alone.
Smartereveryday was largely on about culture at NASA from what I remember from that video. That and the lack of hypergolics.
It may be a long watch but please actually watch the whole thing, he's very well spoken and ultimately optimistic (as am I) about going back. But I am certain he had more to mention that just hypergolics. I can list a few
- astronaut access to the surface
- stability on landing with a high COM
- number of refuels necessary given nominal boiloff
- lack of a mockup vehicle for astronaut training
- undemonstrated orbital refueling (no bleeding the header tank is not a fuel transfer as per flight 3)
- yes the hypergolics, you don't want to be stuck on the moon.
If these are "intentionally obtuse" points, well then welcome to aerospace engineering, its called rocket science for a reason.
And Destins point about the culture? People aren't speaking their critiques when they're most necessary to hear, people are afraid to speak. How does that contribute to a program which may or may not have flaws (that could be remedied), when no flaws are at least pointed out? Well look at Boeing for one.
The fact you don't know how risky Apollo was to the astronauts shows you don't know much about this
I mentioned Apollo 1, right? Im pretty sure I mentioned Apollo one and how they perished on the pad and it nearly stopped the program. Now if you're going to be intentially obtuse, then I bid you a good day.
If these are "intentionally obtuse" points, well then welcome to aerospace engineering, its called rocket science for a reason.
Haha lol you are being intentionally obtuse again. I never said anything bad about NASA I never said they was being obtuse and I never said they were being cringe. You are arguing at a wall because I never made those points.
A lot of people say a lot of stupid things about Elon and SpaceX and that vastly out weighs the actual issues with this project. Of which there are real issues. Everything NASA says is assumed to be a valid issue. Again intentionally obtuse because I'm not arguing anything else
I watched that video when it came out and I can't really be bothered watching it again.
Haha good day mate. You are trying to make a conversation out of something I'm not saying, you're not worth talking to. If you want an imaginary conversation please have it with yourself.
Work on that reading comprehension, it'll do you well.