Submitted by kevindavis338 t3_11bjq8u in space
ithappenedone234 t1_j9zd61y wrote
Reply to comment by Sea_Perspective6891 in NASA's Artemis moon program receives salute from Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin (video) by kevindavis338
I think the entire premise of the current mission design shows that Starship will pick up the ball if SLS drops anything and when SLS is inevitably retired. There will be no landing on the moon without Starship and that fact they plan on Starship getting itself to lunar orbit, it seems NASA is pretty convinced it can do the entire thing itself, you just need to increase stores aboard for a longer period of crew residence.
binary_spaniard t1_j9zv67x wrote
Starship by design is hard to crew rate with current standards, like the Space Shuttle, Starship would not satisfy the requirements that Crew Dragon and Starliner have to satisfy. At least without serious changes.
EDIT: The biggest the escape system.
Ragnar_DanneskjoldSr t1_ja0spgr wrote
Boeings junk? They can't even keep a plane in the sky. They should be removed from any government contract even associated with their subcontractors.
ithappenedone234 t1_ja062hr wrote
Crew Dragon isn’t meant for moon flight and Starliner hasn’t really done a convincing job of staying in orbit, so let’s not start making assumptions it’s going to keep a high rate while Starship fails.
Certainly with cost factored, Starliner and SLS don’t look to be economically viable. Just like Shuttle. Partially because of Shuttle parts they just can’t rid themselves of, culturally at least. Nothing about Shuttle should be repeated. It was a failure in many of its core design concepts and never was inexpensive nor very reusable, with thousands of parts needing refurb in the boosters, the tank being lost and the shuttle providing no capability that a capsule and a supply rocket couldn’t provide; and a lot less expensively.
The cost is going to kill SLS eventually.
binary_spaniard t1_ja07ihm wrote
> Nothing about Shuttle should be repeated.
Like a crew launch system without emergency escape mechanism? It is going to be hard to get NASA to accept one if there are alternatives.
What I mean is that Starship, like the Shuttle, doesn't satisfy that requirement that NASA put on Commercial Crew.
ithappenedone234 t1_ja0ewcc wrote
So criticize Starship on that point. That’s fair.
But the cost to risk ratio is absurd. The risk is nearing commercial airlines and they take the masses who are untrained in emergency anything, and doing so with crews that are nearly equally unable to actually pilot the craft without the computer. Or the back up computer. Or the back up to the back up computer. A trained crew with better systems will handle any issue better, and the reuse of Raptors (it appears so far) increases the assurance of safety, while keeping costs low.
The NASA requirement for escape comes directly from NASA’s own incompetence and bureaucratic inertia leading to multiple fatal errors, one of which at least was likely criminal.
BlueKnight17c t1_ja2mo2x wrote
>The risk is nearing commercial airlines
That's just blatantly not true
ithappenedone234 t1_ja2yyqg wrote
When was the last death in spacefaring?
As aircraft had major accidents from incompetent admins, incompetent engineers and institutional hubris, and only got better from lessons learned; the spacecraft have gotten better and survived NASA’s and the Soviet’s incompetent admins, incompetent engineers and institutional hubris.
Most of the deaths are blood on NASA’s hands for preventable reasons and is not a recommendation of them, it’s an indictment. The admins and engineers killed Komarov with their incompetence.
Maybe having spacefaring institutions that are not beholden to political pressures is the safest thing.
BlueKnight17c t1_ja3x4cl wrote
You could fit every person who's ever been to space on a single Airbus A380 very easily. You simply can not make a comparison with such a tiny sample size.
ithappenedone234 t1_ja4vi18 wrote
Even with different population sizes, you can still draw conclusions. We can still conclude that they are developing along similar paths. The two development timelines parallel each other.
Both suffered from bureaucracy and hubris and bad engineering. They both have seen significant drops in the death rates as the tech progressed and the admin debacles were cut down. We can see that airlines suffered from death rates linked to untrained passengers and spacecraft have not. Comparisons and contrasts can be seen.
We can still see that 0 deaths in decades are 0 deaths.
BlueKnight17c t1_ja5041z wrote
Let me put this another way, according to Wikipedia, the entire history of human space travel is 367 flights. From 2011-2020, there were just 47.
On average, there are almost 10,000 planes in the air carrying over 1.25 million people at any given moment.
A single Boeing 787 is designed to be able to fly 44,000 times in its life.
Even if there were no deaths in the 367 flights, which obviously isn't true, you are still many orders of magnitude away from having enough data to show the safety is the same as air travel.
ithappenedone234 t1_ja51eru wrote
> to show the safety is the same as air travel.
Which I never said was the case. Try again.
BlueKnight17c t1_ja6lfc5 wrote
What? The first comment I replied to, I was replying to this
>The risk is nearing commercial airlines
Wtf does that mean if not that you think the risk of space travel and air travel are similar?
ithappenedone234 t1_ja6oadc wrote
> What? The first comment I replied to, I was replying to this
I know, but you’re vasilating between two phraseologies, which are both different from mine. You’ve said “to show the safety is the same as air travel.” And now you’ve said “the risk of space travel and air travel are similar?” I said “nearing.”
“Nearing” ≠ “the same as.”
“The same as” ≠ “similar.”
Your first use was an absolute comparison that I never made. Your recent phrasing of “similar” is a more fair representation of what I said, but still not right:
Spacefaring is in its tween years and is only nearing commercial travel, as it is so vastly more expensive and technologically difficult. The developmental progress of one does however parallel the other, even if spacefaring is behind the curve for the reasons stated. It took ~a decade after the Wright Flyer for the first airlines to come around. But airlines didn’t get big until ~50 years later. The first “spaceline” is yet to be, 60+ years after the first manned space flight. But we can see how the two modes of travel do relate in terms of “ability to cost” ratio.
We are only now beginning to see mass space travel as a theoretical possibility on the horizon. As the systems improve and the volume of space passengers looks to skyrocket in the mid-term, we can see that spacefaring is on a trajectory to have numbers close to where commercial air was in its tween years. That’s the “nearing“ part.
It’s not there now, but 20 years without a fatality is a good place to be to match commercial airs’ safety rating and the space passenger capacity looks like it will dwarf the current number of those that have been to space.
[deleted] t1_ja0i45n wrote
[removed]
Ragnar_DanneskjoldSr t1_ja0swg4 wrote
The shuttle and F 35 are the biggest political boondoggles in history.
ithappenedone234 t1_ja31qpy wrote
That’s all I’m saying!
It’s fanboy absurdity to think anything else.
kog t1_ja0fwzm wrote
Artemis isn't going to be using Starship for launch any time soon, integrating it into the program would be a massive effort.
ithappenedone234 t1_ja1cjd4 wrote
Integrating? More like replacing.
As NASA currently expects Starship to work, Starship can replace Artemis entirely. Not that either are yet mission capable.
kog t1_ja1eh9e wrote
Artemis 2 is slated for next year, what are you even talking about?
Starship has literally years of testing to go before NASA will consider it human safe for launch and return, and they aren't even working on a human safe launch and return vehicle right now, they're working on launching payload into orbit.
ithappenedone234 t1_ja318p6 wrote
> Artemis 2 is slated for next year, what are you even talking about?
So not mission capable then. Like I said.
> Starship has literally years of testing to go before NASA will consider it human safe
So not mission capable then. Like I said.
- NASA won’t be going to the Moon or Mars without Starship, because their own eval was that it was the best option.
- NASA is not the sole arbiter of what is human safe. We are in an era surpassing the bureaucratic largess and technical incompetence of NASA that has gotten people killed and results in running grossly over budget (again) and running years late (again) and wasting so many repair parts that died on the shelf.
kog t1_ja4ward wrote
Artemis 2 will be launching and returning humans. The vehicle is already mission capable. Starship cannot do that.
NASA is absolutely the sole arbiter of human safety for the Artemis program. If Starship were to be the launch vehicle for Artemis, it would have to meet their standards. Starship HLS will have to meet NASA's human safety standards to be part of Artemis 3.
ithappenedone234 t1_ja516a4 wrote
> will be
Do you know what those words mean?
“Will be” ≠ “is.”
Claiming a system designed to carry humans to the the lunar surface is mission capable when it’s lunar space station isn’t built, it’s lander isn’t ready…. systems haven’t been approved for humans space flight. Calling it mission capable seems a bit of a stretch, when it isn’t actually capable of getting human or even a bot to the the lunar surface.
> NASA is absolutely the sole arbiter of human safety for the Artemis program.
Lol. Nice try. Flip flopping from Starship to Artemis.
You were talking about Starship when you spoke of NASA’s human safety analysis, remember? But who cares? Artemis is another monument to the failures of NASA. It is grossly over budget. Grossly behind schedule. It is a national shame and should be canned.
So, the question is if Artemis will, in NASA tradition, kill its crew on launch AND by burning up in the atmosphere upon reentry, NASA being the only entity to do both. NASA having been so incompetent that they caused both the Challenger and Columbia catastrophes.
kog t1_ja51zdd wrote
I said Artemis is capable of launching and returning humans.
> You were talking about Starship when you spoke of NASA’s human safety analysis, remember?
Yes, what are you confused about? If Starship were to be NASA's launch vehicle, they will have to meet NASA's safety standards. SpaceX recently did this with Crew Dragon.
The rest of your comment is frankly just nuts.
ithappenedone234 t1_ja53voo wrote
> I said Artemis is capable of launching and returning humans.
Well then you sure confused the issue by saying:
> The vehicle is already mission capable.
Because the implication is that it is capable of launching and returning humans during a mission. It is not. Artemis is far from being able to get a person to the Moon and back again.
> Yes, what are you confused about?
Nothing, I’m just pointing out that after talking about Starship not meeting NASA specs, you flipped to saying that Artemis is meeting NASA specs, and now you’ve flopped to talking about Starship again.
You’re not sticking to one topic.
But Starship doesn’t have to meet NASA specs to take people, only if NASA wants their staff to catch a ride. Starship is not beholden to NASA. They don’t even have to launch from the US. It’s quite reasonable to expect Starship to get to lunar orbit from wherever they care to launch from, hem have Starship HLS come get the passengers for the trip to the Moon, and reverse process to get everyone home.
NASA can’t say the same without Starship HLS and Falcon Heavy. And why? Because NASA thought Starship HLS was the best option. Finally, they’ve picked a system not from their cronies and it might actually work in the longterm. NASA needs to get out of the spacecraft game and just pay for rides to where they want to go.
kog t1_ja54v12 wrote
> Well then you sure confused the issue by saying:
I said Artemis 2. You're so confused.
> Because the implication is that it is capable of launching and returning humans during a mission. It is not. Artemis is far from being able to get a person to the Moon and back again.
Artemis 2 is going to be doing that.
> you flipped to saying that Artemis is meeting NASA specs, and now you’ve flopped to talking about Starship again.
I haven't flipped at all, you're just extremely confused.
> Starship doesn’t have to meet NASA specs to take people
You're the one talking about NASA using Starship. You said:
> As NASA currently expects Starship to work, Starship can replace Artemis entirely.
EDIT: LOL he blocked me after realizing that he said NASA would use Starship and I was responding to that.
ithappenedone234 t1_ja5c7k5 wrote
You can’t remember what you said.
You said “Starship has literally years of testing to go before NASA will consider it human safe for launch and return”
I then explained that NASA is not the sole arbiter of ‘human safe.’ Then you flipped and said Artemis was. Then you flipped and said Starship will have to comply.
> Artemis 2 is going to be doing that.
But hasn’t. It’s not yet mission capable.
> You’re the one talking about NASA using Starship. You said:
As NASA currently expects Starship to work, Starship can replace Artemis entirely.
Which is an incontrovertible fact that NASA currently expects to Starship to work. That’s why they contracted for the Starship HLS.
A series of non HLS models can replace the rest of the Artemis program. If NASA wanted to be timely and on budget.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments