this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024

127 points (91.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35881 readers

3676 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.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

127

How did we get humans on the moon in 1969 and are still struggling to get the Starship rocket to launch properly? (self.nostupidquestions)

submitted 7 months ago by 3volver to c/nostupidquestions

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 131 points 7 months 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⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[–] 3volver 24 points 7 months 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 7 months 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] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

SLS did a lap around the moon flawlessly and returned safely.

Starship, a scale model of the empty shell that HLS might one day sit in, when it is finally developed, can't even land without exploding.

According to a recent speech by musk, it wasn't even the real shell. IFT3 was a 40ton-to-LEO craft, where HLS will have to be around 100, which would take the as of yet unflown and (mostly?) unbuilt "Starship 2".

And where SLS will simply have to do a repeat of what it has already done for Artemis 2.

HLS will have first be actually built, get launched, get refueled by a tanker craft that also doesn't exist yet, an unknown number of times (probably 12), fly to the moon, land there, take off, come back, land on earth and then do ALL of that again in time for Artemis 3 where it will have people on board.

SLS is 1 for 1, and if Starship IFT4 does everything right tomorrow, HLS is still at 0. And if it does everything right, I will buy a hat and eat it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

SLS is also ridiculously expensive. They hope, with time, to bring the cost down to $1 billion per launch. And the first one took 6 years longer than expected. If we're going to get to the moon more than one more time before I die, this isn't the vehicle I'm going to pin my hopes on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

SLS is currently priced at 4b per launch, based on its one launch.

Starship-HLS has cost at least the 2.9b from the NASA contract, and doesnt exist yet.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

SLS is a disposable product based on existing technology. Starship intends to be reusable and is an evolution based on tech developed in the last 20 years.

Neither private companies nor the DoD is interested in using the SLS once it has been proven in the Artemis project, and given the project is based on the time-honored tradition of government pork, it's doubtful it will ever be economical. Every indication I can see is that the Blue Origin and SLS contract are to hedge bets in case Starship fails. After all, we know SLS will work, but it will always be cost-ineffective just based on the nature of the beast. Blue Origin might work out, but they've been around as long as SpaceX and have achieved suborbital flights so far. Meanwhile, SpaceX has had 332 successful launches in 14 years, with 2 failures. Their team seems to know what they're doing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

As I say elsewhere, Starship is a scale model of an empty shell into which the HLS might one day be built. HLS has not been built. HLS doesn't even exist as a non-functioning mockup. HLS has not even been designed. The vehicle to carry HLS into space has not been built. The vehicle that will refuel HLS when it eventually has been built, has not been built.

HLS has so far cost 3 billion, and doesn't exist even slightly. All that exists is a scaled down model of an empty shell and a scaled down model of the booster that has not lifted even a single pound of simulated cargo off the ground.

I'm not saying Starship won't be a great heavy-lift craft for LEO or maybe GEO cargo one day, but HLS does not exist in any way other than CGI renders, and it has cost 3 billion government dollars so far, and many more other funds.

And that's not to say I don't think Falcon isn't a great machine. It's a machine that runs entirely on unsustainable artificial demand, but I'm a massive proponent of burning the private venture capital of overly-rich idiots to fund useful spacetravel.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Well, that dollar value seems to be a big deal to you, but you brush aside the costs of SLS, and completely ignore the many billions spent to make the SLS components even possible. This has sunk cost fallacy vibes to me.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] mipadaitu 13 points 7 months 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.

[–] Zippy 8 points 7 months 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)

[–] partial_accumen 57 points 7 months 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 7 months 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 7 months 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] 34 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Several reasons.

1 - SpaceX is a startup company. They run on venture capital, and unlike NASA who gets a big bag of taxpayer money, SpaceX has to promise new investors something better every year. And since SpaceX hasn't come close to turning a profit, they need to do it by making spectacle. Launching Rockets is spectacle. Traditional companies can take their time to get it right, but SpaceX can't draw in the venture capital they need to survive based on one succesful launch every other year. But they can get money with slightly less shitty failures.

2 - SpaceX is using an entirely new type of engines, burning liquid methane instead of kerosine or hydrogen, and making rocket engines is... well.. rocket science. The problem is mostly that it's really really hard to get engines to relight when you don't have gravity, and especially hard when it's methane you're burning. This is why Apollo used hypergolic engines (fuel that will burn when it touches, instead of needing to be lit) for everyone but the main launch.

3 - SpaceX only got the contract for the lunar lander because the head of the lunar lander program, Kathy Lueders, gave them (and not the other parties) a private call to tell them the exact budget available. Then she awarded the contract to SpaceX, for being the only party to submit a bid within the budget. (Source: https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021cv1695-77-0 the court opinion where they spell out this was legal, and say nothing on wisdom or ethics, pdf alert). Incidentally she now has a cushy and well-paid job at SpaceX.

4 - NASA recently paid a second party, blue Origin, to also develop a lunar lander, so feel free to take that as you will. It's probably not a sign of trust in SpaceX... so I'm willing to say that point 5 is that either SpaceX is shit at this (unlikely, since Falcon 9 is pretty awesome) or they're just not taking it seriously.

[–] Bimfred 6 points 7 months ago (8 children)

Point 1: SpaceX's entire development philosophy is "test early, test often and learn from failures". This is a much quicker pace than simulating every imaginable failure scenario and leads to faster progress in development. With the Falcon 9, that process proved wildly efficient and successful, culminating in a launch vehicle so reliable that it's cheaper to insure a payload on an F9 that already has multiple launches under its belt than a brand new booster. And they're turning enough of a profit to develop the Starship largely on internal funds, seeing how the early Raptor flight tests were before the HLS contract.

Point 2: Just adding, the Raptor engine is the first full-flow staged combustion engine to ever get off a testing stand and actually fly. The engineering complexity of these things is on the level of the Shuttle's RS-25.

Point 3: SpaceX were the only ones with more than designs and mockups to present, and they had a reliable track history from working with NASA on the commercial resupply and crew projects. And I see no problem with awarding a contract to a bid that actually fits into the budget.

Point 4: Multiple options was always part of the plan. NASA wants redundancy, so that if one of the providers runs into problems, the other provider can continue (and perhaps even take up the slack) instead of everything coming to a grinding halt. For a perfect example, look at the Shuttle and Commercial Crew programs. The Shuttle got grounded and since it was NASA's only manned launcher, they had to bum rides from the russians. In contrast, the CC contract was awarded to Boeing and SpaceX. With Starliner's continued issues, SpaceX has picked up the slack and fulfilled more than their initial contract in launches, instead of NASA having to bum rides from the russians again. The initial HLS contract was supposed to go to two providers, until the budget got cut. Blue's bid was always the favorite for the second pick.

[–] assassin_aragorn 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

SpaceX’s entire development philosophy is “test early, test often and learn from failures”. This is a much quicker pace than simulating every imaginable failure scenario and leads to faster progress in development.

This is a catchy statement, not an actionable philosophy. There's many ways to do it, and it's entirely possible that SpaceX is doing it poorly.

There's a lot of value in brainstorming every imaginable failure scenario. It's industry standard to do so in fact with HAZOPs. There's failures that you may not necessarily see in testing -- especially those that are rare but catastrophic. This is a field that should be acutely aware of that given past events.

There's also a right way to do testing and a wrong way to do testing. You typically consolidate tests and do several at a time, depending on the stage in the project. And you don't typically risk precious equipment in doing so.

From the sounds of it, they don't have a robust safety program, and they're hemorrhaging money and resources through poor testing philosophies.

[–] Bimfred 1 points 7 months ago

There's a point at which you learn more from actually building something and putting it through its paces than simulating. It's a tough balance to strike , no argument there. Simulating until you've covered every conceivable edge case and failure mode is ludicrously costly and time consuming. Relying entirely on yeeting shit and seeing how it fails risks missing the edge cases. But so far, I've seen little reason to doubt that SpaceX has found a working balance between simulation and practical testing. They're certainly progressing faster than the industry historically has and the F9 has had no failures, even partial ones, in over 200 flights. That's a track record that most launch vehicles can't meet. It's definitely possible there's a 1/1000 flaw in the Falcon 9, but until it actually happens and they lose a rocket and/or a payload (gods willing it won't be crew), it's nothing but a hypothetical "but what if..." scenario.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] Xeroxchasechase 26 points 7 months ago

We privatized anything related to space exploration.

[–] masquenox 26 points 7 months 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.

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 22 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

They are more efficient.

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

[–] masquenox 7 points 7 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months 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.

[–] mipadaitu 21 points 7 months 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.

[–] mechoman444 22 points 7 months 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.

[–] tamal3 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What do you mean the tech was destroyed?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months 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.

[–] mechoman444 3 points 7 months 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 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months 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 7 months 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 7 months ago

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

[–] Ballistic_86 13 points 7 months 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.

[–] april 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months 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.

[–] swankypantsu 6 points 7 months ago

modern companies use "Agile" development

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months 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.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 2 points 7 months ago

Musk wants to reinvent the wheel, essentially

[–] RightHandOfIkaros 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months 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 7 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months 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.)

[–] bbuez 2 points 7 months ago (4 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.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments