• afc@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    A spacex ally is appointed chairman and guts a project that would’ve outshone them. Tired of the blatant corruption happening in this country.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Probably for the best under the current administration. They’d try to build an ICE detention center with Trump’s face large enough to be seen from Earth.

    • fizzle@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 hours ago

      As much as I’d love to see someone on the Moon, I’d happily wait until Trump is dead just to avoid allowing him to claim it as his personal achievement.

      I swear he would issue some kind of bs executive order saying they had to wear MAGA hats in the orbiter or something fucking stupid.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        And they would put some fucking flat earther in charge of the project, resulting in some additional ecological disaster of epic proportions.

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I don’t follow this subject, but I can only imagine this is in part due to the DOGE cuts?

    Whatever the reason, I don’t think that going back to the moon at this time is a good idea. Especially if all we’re going there for is to exploit whatever resources it has.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      No. The SLS program has been a complete shitshow from the start and getting people to the moon in Artemis III was never a realistic prospect. If anything, Isaacman is trying to salvage the project by injecting some realism.

        • Mihies@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Nah, we won’t see anybody on Mars in our lifetime, unless there is somebody with a death wish. While Moon is within reach. Probably by Chinese at this point.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      10 hours ago

      It’s also due to the fact that Boeing seems to no longer be capable of building a spacecraft that doesn’t constantly fucking break, and the regime is conscious of the fact that killing the entire crew of the first manned mission to the moon in nearly a half century would be Very Bad Optics.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        And if that wasn’t bad enough SpaceX is basically dead in the water. Presumably because Musks general radiation of incompetent malice has probably purged anyone who could’ve made their shitty rockets work without being spread across the fucking gulf.

          • Thorry@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            5 hours ago

            A lot of the Moon mission hinges on Starship being a reliable machine that does all of the things Musk promised. I have no doubt that SpaceX in time could build something good, they do have a lot of good people working there. But the time lines given by Musk to the government in order to get the contracts weren’t viable. And as usual Musk overpromised about the capabilities.

            One of the biggest doubts at the moment is about Starship being able to go to the Moon. The plan was to send up a Starship into LEO, then send up another Starship to refuel the first one. That way it would have enough fuel to go to the Moon and work as a lander there. It doesn’t need to do much, just get to the Moon, take the people to the surface and get them back into Lunar orbit.

            The issue with this is, a lot of things need to go right in order for this to work. You’d need two functioning Starships, they need to both launch into the correct orbit and rendezvous. Then they need to dock and transfer fuel, undock and separate. This is pretty much never been done, so they would be doing something new, but in theory it can be done. Hard and experimental, but in principle achievable.

            However when calculations were made, it turns out once you put a Starship in the right orbit it’s not possible for it to have enough fuel to fully refuel another Starship. So Musk said they would simply stretch a Starship and use it as a fuel station. Nobody is really sure if this stretching is even possible, as this wasn’t part of the original design, but let’s say it is. Now the mission become more complicated still, you’d need the Starship that does the Moon mission. Then you’d need the fuel station ship and another ship to fuel that station. And all of this has to work and be timed properly for the Moon mission to work.

            But then further calculations were made and nobody is sure how many Starship launches would be required to fill up that fuel station. Partly because Starship isn’t finalized, so the exact specs are unknown. But back of the napkin calculations put the figure at something like 6 launches. A big problem is the fuel used is very hard to store for any amount of time. As it’s cryogenic, it needs to be kept cold. On Earth this is done by using very thick and sturdy pressure vessels, combined with a bunch of machinery and off-gassing. But in space this gets harder, since the pressure vessels need to be light, they can’t be as sturdy. And there isn’t room (both in volume and weight) for all of the cooling machines, which would require too much power and cooling themselves to even work. So we end up with only off-gassing to maintain temperature. This usually doesn’t matter, on Earth the fuel that’s lost gets replaced right away up to the point of liftoff. After that the fuel is used to fly the mission and usually the rocket’s main fuel tank is empty after that. This puts a lot of time pressure on the whole thing, that fuel station in orbit is losing fuel all of the time. So it’s a race to fill it up faster than it’s losing fuel. So those 6 missions need to be flown within a day or maybe two. And if it turns out the amount of fuel being delivered is lower than expected or the loss is higher, there would need to be 12 fueling missions within a day. Not strictly impossible, but not exactly easy. And the not knowing is making people nervous.

            They are so far behind schedule, on a system that hasn’t been finalized, let alone tested, it’s very doubtful they could do it anywhere in the near future. Nasa has since asked other companies if they could build a lander if SpaceX can’t do it. But canceling the whole landing part is an option as well.

            • affenlehrer@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              4 hours ago

              I think it’s not one Starship in LEO to refuel the one going to the moon but 8 to 12, depending on how much fuel they loose. It’s super complicated and error prone.

              • Thorry@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                3 hours ago

                Yes, it was sold as being one Starship in LEO, one Starship to refuel it and off it went. But now they’re onto this plan with a ship to do the mission, a ship with a different design to act as a fuel station and then at least 4 fueling missions, but more likely 8 to 12. It’s ridiculous really, to expect all of this to work out.

                At the same time Nasa can’t get SLS to do what they want and that’s just a single mission. A more complicated one for sure, but still a single mission, not a dozen within two days.

            • A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 hours ago

              You had me in the first sentence.

              tl;dr: SpaceX might be good enough to launch relatively cheap equipment into space but that’s about it.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 hours ago

            They seem to either be incapable or unwilling to revise their design to stop the damned rockets from constantly exploding. If NASA had the same failure rate for a new rocket back in the 50s of 60s they’d have been canned. Hell if the Soviets had a similar failure rate the entire team wouldve been sent to the gulag.

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              8 hours ago

              What are tou talking about?

              Falcon 9 is fine.

              Starship & Booster are continuously improving. When you see that a starship blew up, what’s probably conveniently left off from the headlines you read is its a major revision. New engines, longer, different flaps etc. The last one went up and down wonderfully. The next one launching is v3 and has the latest engines and hundreds of changes and will probably go boom.

              In no way is SpaceX messing up here though.

              • A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                The pic reminds me of a youtuber who debunks SpaceX bullshit almost exclusively. I don’t remember the specifics, but he claimed that the v3 seen here is basically a fantasy.

                Seriously, do not trust Musk to build something that works reliably under high stress. Esp. do not entrust human beings to anything Musk builds.

              • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Nobody has ever developed a rocket in the open like this before

                dude, please read up on the space race. we have designed rockets in the open before. they blew up far less frequently.

                • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  None of that was like what SpaceX is doing.

                  There were failures in the race and they were testing things, but failures weren’t the expected outcomes and part of the planned development cycle.

                  SpaceX has built a manufacturing line to churn these things out and is like we think this might work, let’s try it in flight hardware. Oh okay that didnt work, let’s try something else. Oh okay that did work now, but if we do this does it still work because if it does we can eek out 2% more performance. Oh shit now we have a brand new mark 2 engine. Does it sill work?

                  Starships blowing up is part of how they are iterating. No one else has done it this way.

                  The government cant handle things like this because people like you look at it as a failure and shit gets shut down. If they IPO its also going to cause issues for the same reason.

                  Meanwhile SpaceX has designed, built, flew and landed two orbital boosters before anyone landed one. They fucking caught it in chopsticks.

    • fizzle@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Other countries are gearing up too though right?

      If the US isn’t there, China and others will be.

      IDK what resources are on the moon itself, but asteroids seem to have loads of accessible minerals.

      Honestly, I’d prefer these were harvested from asteroids rather than delicate ecosystems on Earth.

    • Arancello@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I think one of the reasons they wanted to go back to the moon was to find the 30,000 missing Epstein files that name drumpf. When drumpf found out the mission objectives, he cancelled the mission.

    • RainbowHedgehog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      It looks like they just got a bit too ambitious too soon. They’ve been struggling with glitches and stuff. They still want to, they just need more time.

  • zzz711@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I guess killing the project outright is likely not an option without angering Congress. There has been so many issues and delays with this rocket that I really hope the capsule heat shield holds up during re-entry and the astronauts all survive.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I guess killing the project outright is likely not an option without angering Congress.

      You miss some headlines over the last year?