My problem with his criticism (and to some extent echoed by Maciej in this article) is that the main takeaway seems to be "we did it once, we can do it again, let's revisit the past instead of re-inventing the wheel".
But I don't think anyone actively involved wants to revisit the past. Who wants to go back to the moon just because we can? Nobody. Assuming best intentions:
- People at NASA want to go to the moon to build a permanent base there. Maybe this is just to beat China, maybe it will actually be very useful to have a moon base. But that is the stated goal.
- People at SpaceX want to go to the moon as a way to fund Starship development, so that they can go to Mars.
- People at Lockheed Martin / Aerojet Rocketdyne / etc just want to get paid. I am going to ignore this cohort for the purposes of my argument.
These motivations are not served by doing what the Apollo missions did. Can you get to the moon and back on a Saturn V with a single rocket launch, making for a much simpler mission plan? Absolutely, we did it 6 times. Can you build a moon base using a series of Saturn V launches? Absolutely not. Would SpaceX (clearly the most competent launch provider available in 2024) get anything out of building a much smaller HLS / not using methalox / anything else that would be more practical if your only purpose was to go to the moon? Also no – SpaceX doesn't really care about the moon. So a mission profile that is actually optimized for the moon does little for them.
So while I think overall Artemis is a dumpster fire of spending, I don't think pointing at the Apollo missions is the gotcha that critics seem to think it is.
From my understanding, nobody is telling that "We should use Apollo as-is", but "why don't we use the same spirit when we were building these back then?".
Everything made/designed in Apollo are no short of marvels. Today we can do much better with lighter, smaller electronics, and should be able to do weight savings or at least cost savings where it matters.
Instead Artemis feels like "let's dig the parts pile and put what we have together, and invent the glue required for the missing parts", akin to today's Docker based development ecosystem.
Yes, the plan might be to carry much more equipment in fewer launches, but if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If this amount of people are saying that something is lost in spirit and some stuff is not done in an optimal way, I tend to believe them.
people in the age range 20–70 in 01970 would be in the age range 74–124 today. different people, who identify with those people, in several different countries, would like to do what those people did. it behooves them to study what those people did and how they did it, not because they can't do anything better, but because it's easy to do worse, and both of these criticisms make a good case that artemis is doing much worse. the ussr at the same time did so much worse that they never landed humans on the moon at all. similarly with contemporary france, the uk, the prc, etc.
you cannot get to the moon and back on a saturn v because there aren't any saturn v rockets in operable condition, and there never will be again. it belongs to history now, like children's chemistry sets that could make rocket fuel, being able to order rocket fuel ingredients without getting a visit from a police agency, drugs being legal by default instead of illegal, new classes of antibiotics being brought to market, and being able to go out in public without your movements being permanently archived for spy agencies to data-mine later on
artemis is on track to follow in the footsteps not of apollo but of the soviet n1/l3 program, which was canceled after losing the race decisively to apollo. it's chang'e that's following in the footsteps of apollo. we'll see if spacex can change that, but i'm not that optimistic
This is probably the most relevant take. “Going to the moon” is primarily a PR facade on “testing and development of technologies required to expand human space presence and begin the process of colonization of the moon and eventually mars”
“Going to the moon” appeals to the Everyman ego.
As for the obscene fraud/waste by the encumbent defense contractors, that is something we need to deal with. If we don’t make them compete dollar for dollar with spacex we will never see them evolve back into functioning organizations that will deliver real value to US strategic dominance. Having them as fat, lumbering slop-hogs hobbles the strategic and economic progress of the US MIC.
> - People at NASA want to go to the moon to build a permanent base there. Maybe this is just to beat China, maybe it will actually be very useful to have a moon base. But that is the stated goal.
> - People at SpaceX want to go to the moon as a way to fund Starship development, so that they can go to Mars.
These seem to be inter-related, too. NASA seems to want Artemis to be a stepping stone to Mars as well (whether or not they are competing or cooperating with SpaceX to get there). Some of the arguments for Gateway in NRHO and/or even a possible permanent base on the Moon from NASA seem to indicate that some of the engineers believe NRHO is a great "launch pad" to Mars.
Some at NASA also clearly don't believe SLS as it exists is capable of getting to Mars and are pushing SpaceX and Blue Origin in the HLS stages of Artemis seemingly to try to get competition going today for whatever rockets can actually make it to Mars. SpaceX's HLS plans being based on Mars plans looks like a feature more than bug, if Mars may be a shared end goal anyway. (Blue Origin also presumably is equally Mars-focused like SpaceX.)
> My problem with his criticism (and to some extent echoed by Maciej in this article) is that the main takeaway seems to be "we did it once, we can do it again, let's revisit the past instead of re-inventing the wheel".
> But I don't think anyone actively involved wants to revisit the past.
I think that's fair... but then we should make systems that are at least as good as the ones from the past.
And SLS, even in the fully upgraded "Block 2" state is not as good a rocket as the Saturn V. One of the core problems is: we can't build Saturn V. It's Greek fire - we've lost the ability. There are schematics and plans, but apparently there was enough custom work and deviations by the actual welders and machinists that the plans are ... insufficiently specified.
And needless to say, those same workers are either dead or have forgotten the necessary details.
Frankly I do think the whole point from the government's perspective is to beat China back to the Moon. And "Apollo style" short moon visit should be enough to give America a propaganda victory. SpaceX like Lockheed just wants to get paid (albeit so they can put that money into R&D instead of their shareholders.) The rank and file at NASA probably have some romantic notions of a Moon base but there are always a few dreamers to get disappointed by reality (Congress pulling funding once the propaganda victory is secured.)
>My problem with his criticism (and to some extent echoed by Maciej in this article) is that the main takeaway seems to be "we did it once, we can do it again, let's revisit the past instead of re-inventing the wheel".
The problem is that this re-invention creates a square wheel made of marshmallow (with the road-trustiness one would imagine from the above design and materials), that costs 10x what a rubber wheel does.
The problem is that Artemis is in many ways inferior to Apollo. It is less safe, more expensive (which is to say something!), less capable,... If the goal is to build a moon base, it should be able to do what Apollo did with ample margins, but from the look of it, it doesn't appear like there is much margin. It is complexity for complexity sake, it doesn't translate into more payload, more scientific potential, or lower costs.
The only breakthroughs with Artemis is the part with Starship, the refueling in space part could change the deal for future mission, for the Moon, Mars, or elsewhere. And finding an excuse to write a blank cheque to SpaceX is, I think, not too bad an idea despite all the Elon Musk bullshit. SpaceX actually launches rockets, they are even pretty good at it, a rare thing. But do we really need all that baggage with SLS, Orion, and convoluted orbits? Just have SpaceX send a Starship to the moon (which is one of the last points in the article).
I watched the whole thing but a bit ago when it came out. He did better than just that, he frankly humiliated the program in my eyes. The points I took away from his talk were:
1. Stop lying to yourselves and figure out the hard math (mostly in relation to the refueling question)
2. Learn from the past. Apollo kept excruciating notes (I'm still discovering new notes. For example, the lunar rover's manual is publicly online). Like this article, look at what worked and what didn't. Be better not worse.
I've found in my own work I'm always terrified of failure. From what I've seen with the talk and this article, it's as if this program views failure as a selling point for more waste.
/Rant
fastball|1 year ago
But I don't think anyone actively involved wants to revisit the past. Who wants to go back to the moon just because we can? Nobody. Assuming best intentions:
- People at NASA want to go to the moon to build a permanent base there. Maybe this is just to beat China, maybe it will actually be very useful to have a moon base. But that is the stated goal.
- People at SpaceX want to go to the moon as a way to fund Starship development, so that they can go to Mars.
- People at Lockheed Martin / Aerojet Rocketdyne / etc just want to get paid. I am going to ignore this cohort for the purposes of my argument.
These motivations are not served by doing what the Apollo missions did. Can you get to the moon and back on a Saturn V with a single rocket launch, making for a much simpler mission plan? Absolutely, we did it 6 times. Can you build a moon base using a series of Saturn V launches? Absolutely not. Would SpaceX (clearly the most competent launch provider available in 2024) get anything out of building a much smaller HLS / not using methalox / anything else that would be more practical if your only purpose was to go to the moon? Also no – SpaceX doesn't really care about the moon. So a mission profile that is actually optimized for the moon does little for them.
So while I think overall Artemis is a dumpster fire of spending, I don't think pointing at the Apollo missions is the gotcha that critics seem to think it is.
bayindirh|1 year ago
Everything made/designed in Apollo are no short of marvels. Today we can do much better with lighter, smaller electronics, and should be able to do weight savings or at least cost savings where it matters.
Instead Artemis feels like "let's dig the parts pile and put what we have together, and invent the glue required for the missing parts", akin to today's Docker based development ecosystem.
Yes, the plan might be to carry much more equipment in fewer launches, but if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If this amount of people are saying that something is lost in spirit and some stuff is not done in an optimal way, I tend to believe them.
kragen|1 year ago
people in the age range 20–70 in 01970 would be in the age range 74–124 today. different people, who identify with those people, in several different countries, would like to do what those people did. it behooves them to study what those people did and how they did it, not because they can't do anything better, but because it's easy to do worse, and both of these criticisms make a good case that artemis is doing much worse. the ussr at the same time did so much worse that they never landed humans on the moon at all. similarly with contemporary france, the uk, the prc, etc.
you cannot get to the moon and back on a saturn v because there aren't any saturn v rockets in operable condition, and there never will be again. it belongs to history now, like children's chemistry sets that could make rocket fuel, being able to order rocket fuel ingredients without getting a visit from a police agency, drugs being legal by default instead of illegal, new classes of antibiotics being brought to market, and being able to go out in public without your movements being permanently archived for spy agencies to data-mine later on
artemis is on track to follow in the footsteps not of apollo but of the soviet n1/l3 program, which was canceled after losing the race decisively to apollo. it's chang'e that's following in the footsteps of apollo. we'll see if spacex can change that, but i'm not that optimistic
K0balt|1 year ago
“Going to the moon” appeals to the Everyman ego.
As for the obscene fraud/waste by the encumbent defense contractors, that is something we need to deal with. If we don’t make them compete dollar for dollar with spacex we will never see them evolve back into functioning organizations that will deliver real value to US strategic dominance. Having them as fat, lumbering slop-hogs hobbles the strategic and economic progress of the US MIC.
WorldMaker|1 year ago
> - People at SpaceX want to go to the moon as a way to fund Starship development, so that they can go to Mars.
These seem to be inter-related, too. NASA seems to want Artemis to be a stepping stone to Mars as well (whether or not they are competing or cooperating with SpaceX to get there). Some of the arguments for Gateway in NRHO and/or even a possible permanent base on the Moon from NASA seem to indicate that some of the engineers believe NRHO is a great "launch pad" to Mars.
Some at NASA also clearly don't believe SLS as it exists is capable of getting to Mars and are pushing SpaceX and Blue Origin in the HLS stages of Artemis seemingly to try to get competition going today for whatever rockets can actually make it to Mars. SpaceX's HLS plans being based on Mars plans looks like a feature more than bug, if Mars may be a shared end goal anyway. (Blue Origin also presumably is equally Mars-focused like SpaceX.)
nordsieck|1 year ago
> But I don't think anyone actively involved wants to revisit the past.
I think that's fair... but then we should make systems that are at least as good as the ones from the past.
And SLS, even in the fully upgraded "Block 2" state is not as good a rocket as the Saturn V. One of the core problems is: we can't build Saturn V. It's Greek fire - we've lost the ability. There are schematics and plans, but apparently there was enough custom work and deviations by the actual welders and machinists that the plans are ... insufficiently specified.
And needless to say, those same workers are either dead or have forgotten the necessary details.
lijok|1 year ago
lupusreal|1 year ago
Dalewyn|1 year ago
SpaceX is a business, SpaceX doesn't care about the Moon because there are no customers interested in going to the Moon.
If market forces shift and companies start wanting to go to the Moon, you bet SpaceX will care about the Moon because there's money to be made.
coldtea|1 year ago
The problem is that this re-invention creates a square wheel made of marshmallow (with the road-trustiness one would imagine from the above design and materials), that costs 10x what a rubber wheel does.
GuB-42|1 year ago
The only breakthroughs with Artemis is the part with Starship, the refueling in space part could change the deal for future mission, for the Moon, Mars, or elsewhere. And finding an excuse to write a blank cheque to SpaceX is, I think, not too bad an idea despite all the Elon Musk bullshit. SpaceX actually launches rockets, they are even pretty good at it, a rare thing. But do we really need all that baggage with SLS, Orion, and convoluted orbits? Just have SpaceX send a Starship to the moon (which is one of the last points in the article).
jessriedel|1 year ago
Neywiny|1 year ago
I've found in my own work I'm always terrified of failure. From what I've seen with the talk and this article, it's as if this program views failure as a selling point for more waste. /Rant
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]