Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon
https://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2024/feb/22/nasa-odysseus-moon-landing-intuitive-machines
164 comments
Given how much the cost difference typically is between India and the U.S., doing it in the U.S. at only a 50% premium is pretty impressive IMO. Wages alone are so much higher here that I would've expected a larger price tag.
There are differences. From the article it sounds like the falcon took a week to get to the moon. India’s mission took a month.
Second the payload is much bigger.
I don’t think cost comparisons in this case is accurate considering something bigger was delivered faster.
Second the payload is much bigger.
I don’t think cost comparisons in this case is accurate considering something bigger was delivered faster.
Exactly payload size has a lot to do with it. People are making silly surface comparisons
The Guardian writes $118 million from NASA plus $130 million in private funds.
> Nasa contributed $118m to get it off the ground, with Intuitive Machines funding a further $130m
> Nasa contributed $118m to get it off the ground, with Intuitive Machines funding a further $130m
That's to be expected, a dollar in India goes much further than a dollar in the US. https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-p... says a dollar in India can buy you about 23 times as much stuff as that same dollar could in the US, although I'd expect that number to drop significantly for highly technical projects like a moon landing.
It's 23 rupees to a dollar at PPP. The exchange rate is 82, so a dollar goes 3.5 times further in India not 23 :)
Well, they spent 248M and India spent 74M. 74 * 3.5 == 259M so that tracks
[deleted]
[deleted]
Price difference applies only to wages and other non-portable costs. The prices for products and commodities which can be easily moved are roughly equal on global markets due to arbitrage. You can't get the raw materials or computer chips any cheaper in India.
> and other non-portable costs
OK, but there are a lot of these.
OK, but there are a lot of these.
$74m surely?
Yes, of course. Corrected
The post you're replying to is just pointing out that the quoted amount (they THEY were replying to) is missing the "million" abbreviation on the end.
So it looks like the original claim was India did it for US$74.00. ;)
So it looks like the original claim was India did it for US$74.00. ;)
Reminds me of that South Park episode where they go to Mexican counterpart to NASA and get quoted $200 to haul something to the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K_1jqgCjxA&t=40s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K_1jqgCjxA&t=40s
They are extremely resourceful people.
Just proves why off shoring is so cost effective /s
It really depends on the rocket’s cultural fit.
I heard they did it for $3.50
No, you're thinking of a Scottish entity; we're talking about India.
Pretty sure it was about tree fiddy.
https://twitter.com/Int_Machines/status/1760838333851148442
> After troubleshooting communications, flight controllers have confirmed Odysseus is upright and starting to send data. Right now, we are working to downlink the first images from the lunar surface.
> After troubleshooting communications, flight controllers have confirmed Odysseus is upright and starting to send data. Right now, we are working to downlink the first images from the lunar surface.
Does anybody know what kind of software was patched? Some Ada/C++ code?
The 'what' could really be anything since the article is vague, from the sensors themselves to the GNCP software that takes that info and controls the spacecraft. If they were patching the instrument(s) then they could have done anything from uploading a new configuration to memory or the even loading a new FSW build.
Based on the little info in there I'm guessing the LIDAR hardware is their already planned backup system so when the primary sensors didn't function as planned they switched over. In this scenario I'd expect the controllers to want to hold off so they can configure the LIDAR and run its self test procedures as well as configure GNCP and ground control.
I would bet money they are using c++.
Based on the little info in there I'm guessing the LIDAR hardware is their already planned backup system so when the primary sensors didn't function as planned they switched over. In this scenario I'd expect the controllers to want to hold off so they can configure the LIDAR and run its self test procedures as well as configure GNCP and ground control.
I would bet money they are using c++.
Check out NASA cFS
They think it landed sideways now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWEwR8fscFY
dylan604(2)
Huge congratulations to IM. Landing on the Moon is extremely difficult, despite what playing KSP will condition you to think. For them to successfully land on the Moon is a huge milestone.
Now to get people back there... maybe someday.
Now to get people back there... maybe someday.
I still just cannot wrap my mind around how we could get people there, and then all this time later have lost that ability. What happened?
Part of it is cost: In the mid sixties, NASA was about five percent of the federal budget.
Another part is safety: Apollo was extremely dangerous. There were a lot of single points of failure, three astronauts died on the ground, three more were very very narrowly saved over the course of only about ten missions. One of the reasons the program was cut short was the political worry after Apollo 13 of having astronauts die on the moon or something similar. This level of danger was considered acceptable given the mission back then, but I don't think it would be today. Who's right is a worthwhile question.
Another part was that Apollo had superb, hard working, young, smart, energetic people working on it. The nature and ambition of the project just attracted top people. The context of the Vietnam war also meant that there were a lot of engineers that would otherwise be working on weapons but maybe would rather not, and Apollo was a very nice peaceful project to apply all of that technology to.
I think you see a lot of the success of Tesla and SpaceX in the same observations. Both of those companies were super ambitious, and had a goal a lot of people wanted to get behind. Their competition was unattractive to work for, and seemed unlikely to achieve the goal of getting to mars/electric cars. The result was that they were able to hire some of the very smartest, hardest working people in the country. If you get a bunch of people like that together under a common banner, amazing things happen.
Another part is safety: Apollo was extremely dangerous. There were a lot of single points of failure, three astronauts died on the ground, three more were very very narrowly saved over the course of only about ten missions. One of the reasons the program was cut short was the political worry after Apollo 13 of having astronauts die on the moon or something similar. This level of danger was considered acceptable given the mission back then, but I don't think it would be today. Who's right is a worthwhile question.
Another part was that Apollo had superb, hard working, young, smart, energetic people working on it. The nature and ambition of the project just attracted top people. The context of the Vietnam war also meant that there were a lot of engineers that would otherwise be working on weapons but maybe would rather not, and Apollo was a very nice peaceful project to apply all of that technology to.
I think you see a lot of the success of Tesla and SpaceX in the same observations. Both of those companies were super ambitious, and had a goal a lot of people wanted to get behind. Their competition was unattractive to work for, and seemed unlikely to achieve the goal of getting to mars/electric cars. The result was that they were able to hire some of the very smartest, hardest working people in the country. If you get a bunch of people like that together under a common banner, amazing things happen.
> Part of it is cost
The other side to this is we don't build rockets today like we did in the sixties. Yes, some technical know-how here and there was technically "lost"--I've been in North Hollywood scrounging around for old NASA parts so that measurements could be taken and worked backwards from.
But even if we had that know-how, we wouldn't do it the same again. From novel materials to simulations to communications and onboard computing, modern spacecraft deserved to be redesigned. (For the counterfactuals, see ULA and Arianespace.)
So until someone (SpaceX) started eating that node-transition cost, we entered a period of apparent stasis. But that vacuum was energetic, and it wasn't about rediscovering lost knowledge, but inventing new kit.
The other side to this is we don't build rockets today like we did in the sixties. Yes, some technical know-how here and there was technically "lost"--I've been in North Hollywood scrounging around for old NASA parts so that measurements could be taken and worked backwards from.
But even if we had that know-how, we wouldn't do it the same again. From novel materials to simulations to communications and onboard computing, modern spacecraft deserved to be redesigned. (For the counterfactuals, see ULA and Arianespace.)
So until someone (SpaceX) started eating that node-transition cost, we entered a period of apparent stasis. But that vacuum was energetic, and it wasn't about rediscovering lost knowledge, but inventing new kit.
Yep. One thing about manufacturing is that there are economies of scale everywhere. If we had to build a Saturn V from plans, we'd run into tons of problems. For one, the plans don't actually have everything you need to know. Tons of information is in people's heads. For a lot of the manual work, it's not even necessarily something they can explain. Building something with obsolete methods of fabrication is very difficult, but also the Saturn V was so optimized that switching materials or fabrication techniques would be very difficult. On the F-1 for example, they just barely got combustion to be stable. If you started substituting things, it's very possible it would become unstable again and they'd have to go do all the debugging they did out at the Edwards test stands again.
For almost everything, doing something a lot of times over a short period of time is way cheaper than doing something a small number of times, especially if there's a long time between them, and the employees have quit/retired and the tooling/machinery/suppliers have been disposed of, gone out of business, or moved onto other things.
For almost everything, doing something a lot of times over a short period of time is way cheaper than doing something a small number of times, especially if there's a long time between them, and the employees have quit/retired and the tooling/machinery/suppliers have been disposed of, gone out of business, or moved onto other things.
North Hollywood? Looking through prop storage from studios or something?
Some interesting junk and scrap shops in the area. Spent a few weekend afternoons puttering around looking at random stuff.
Some interesting junk and scrap shops in the area. Spent a few weekend afternoons puttering around looking at random stuff.
Isn't that the location of the soundstage where they filmed the Apollo landings? I would think it would be rich in appropriate resources. Flags and golf balls and stuff.
There were/are a couple of aerospace surplus shops in the area. Apex and Norton are the ones I'm familiar with. The supply comes from the SoCal aerospace industrial base and a lot of the demand is indeed for movie props. It's a fortuitous pairing - the prop rental business seems to be keeping them going to some extent whereas a lot of industrial surplus businesses in other parts of the country seem to be struggling these days.
>Yes, some technical know-how here and there was technically "lost"--I've been in North Hollywood scrounging around for old NASA parts so that measurements could be taken and worked backwards from.
Oh, I don't know. I think we've actually made improvements in leaps and bounds over the "lost" tech. Our soundstage, green screen, and post tech has definitely improved /s
I know it's not what you meant, but the NoHo reference made me laugh at the thought
Oh, I don't know. I think we've actually made improvements in leaps and bounds over the "lost" tech. Our soundstage, green screen, and post tech has definitely improved /s
I know it's not what you meant, but the NoHo reference made me laugh at the thought
> the NoHo reference made me laugh at the thought
I can’t remember what it’s called, but it’s a scrapyard with all kinds of space stuff (large and small) that I’m halfway sure isn’t ITAR controlled solely because the guy got it before 1976.
I can’t remember what it’s called, but it’s a scrapyard with all kinds of space stuff (large and small) that I’m halfway sure isn’t ITAR controlled solely because the guy got it before 1976.
[deleted]
Was it run by Andy Griffith?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078681/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078681/
There’s a reason droid parts in OG Star Wars looks like they were pulled off Apollo space suits or something. Practical special effects people raided all the surplus parts after the end of the program.
Relevant Scott Manley video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYGQwgId-Bc
> five percent of the federal budget.
It's impressive to compare five percent and some small fraction, but the total budget also expanded a lot since then. While in constant dollars the current NASA budget is indeed smaller than it was then, it is only about half.
At the end of the day, the kinds of things they spend that budget on make sense to me for a research organization, and it makes sense to me that retracing the moonshot steps happen in the private sector.
It's impressive to compare five percent and some small fraction, but the total budget also expanded a lot since then. While in constant dollars the current NASA budget is indeed smaller than it was then, it is only about half.
At the end of the day, the kinds of things they spend that budget on make sense to me for a research organization, and it makes sense to me that retracing the moonshot steps happen in the private sector.
For comparison the military budget in the 60s was around 9%. Today it's around 3.5%.
5% today would be more than $1tn - a government-funded industry bigger than the entire military budget, comparable to the biggest tech companies.
It made sense in the 60s because the spinoffs from the green field R&D, especially in electronics and computing, are still paying a dividend.
Today? It's hard to see a moon base paying for itself any time soon. There's plenty of science to be done on the Moon, but direct dividends for industrial development are less clear.
5% today would be more than $1tn - a government-funded industry bigger than the entire military budget, comparable to the biggest tech companies.
It made sense in the 60s because the spinoffs from the green field R&D, especially in electronics and computing, are still paying a dividend.
Today? It's hard to see a moon base paying for itself any time soon. There's plenty of science to be done on the Moon, but direct dividends for industrial development are less clear.
Your number "3.5%" refers to US military spending as a proportion of GDP.
The original number "5%" refered to NASA spending as a proportion of the federal budget.
These baselines currently differ by approximately a factor of 4.
The original number "5%" refered to NASA spending as a proportion of the federal budget.
These baselines currently differ by approximately a factor of 4.
"direct dividends for industrial development are less clear"
Were those dividends clear in the 60s? Or are they only clear now that we look back on the venture 50 years later?
Were those dividends clear in the 60s? Or are they only clear now that we look back on the venture 50 years later?
If you were talking about the science mission directorate you’d be right on. They’re doing good work with the money they’re allocated.
The exploration directorate, on the other hand, with their billion dollar rocket to nowhere…
The exploration directorate, on the other hand, with their billion dollar rocket to nowhere…
You mean the billion dollar "cost of doing science in a democratic country" / "jobs program" Senate Launch System?
> Another part is safety: Apollo was extremely dangerous.
See the 'Safire Memo', "In Event of Moon Disaster":
* (PDF) https://www.archives.gov/files/presidential-libraries/events...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In_the_event_of_moon_disa...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Safire
See the 'Safire Memo', "In Event of Moon Disaster":
* (PDF) https://www.archives.gov/files/presidential-libraries/events...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In_the_event_of_moon_disa...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Safire
These are all factors but they pale in comparison with the fact that the US was at war, and was trying to catch up with the phenomenal lead of the USSR. Silicon Valley loves talking about "moonshots", but that parlance gets so much wrong. What is important is not the moonshot moment. It is the sputnik moment that is disruptive.
Interesting thought. I guess in a way AI is having its "sputnik" moment now.
Not in the strategic competition sense though.
Re: who is right
So long as; the participants are willing, the death rate is in the single percents per mission,the mission value add on terms of new capability is high, the risk is probably worth it. At least in my opinion.
So long as; the participants are willing, the death rate is in the single percents per mission,the mission value add on terms of new capability is high, the risk is probably worth it. At least in my opinion.
This makes a lot of sense in one way, but the weird thing is that it's not just the astronaut's own lives that we have to consider. Personally, I've had some risky hobbies. I accepted the risk, and if I'd died doing them, I might have gotten in the local newspaper, but nothing beyond that.
The Challenger explosion was a moment that defined a generation. Some of that was that Christa McAuliffe was supposed to talk to millions of kids once she got into orbit, but some was just what people projected onto the astronauts generally.
When the three astronauts died in the Apollo 1 fire, no one shed a tear for the 30,000 man-years of effort that went into making the rocket that was destroyed. The effect was about the men themselves, who were considered national heroes, and also what it might have said about the United States that those men died.
Maybe we should treat this differently. Maybe in prior ages of exploration, we did. Back then we didn't have live TV or the internet though that could capture our emotion in the same way, and also in prior ages, not all expeditions were as closely connected with the nation itself.
The Challenger explosion was a moment that defined a generation. Some of that was that Christa McAuliffe was supposed to talk to millions of kids once she got into orbit, but some was just what people projected onto the astronauts generally.
When the three astronauts died in the Apollo 1 fire, no one shed a tear for the 30,000 man-years of effort that went into making the rocket that was destroyed. The effect was about the men themselves, who were considered national heroes, and also what it might have said about the United States that those men died.
Maybe we should treat this differently. Maybe in prior ages of exploration, we did. Back then we didn't have live TV or the internet though that could capture our emotion in the same way, and also in prior ages, not all expeditions were as closely connected with the nation itself.
I’m very much a believer in informed consent. The astronauts will tell you, to a person, that they’d take that risk. Who am we to say otherwise?
Are people really that enthused about electric cars? smh
"Lost the ability" is an odd way of putting it. "Lost the budget" is better.
Ideally we wouldn't have to pick and choose, but since I wasn't US Dictator during the 90s, the Hubble Space Telescope + a lot of probes throughout the solar system was probably more impactful for overall scientific discovery than the counterfactual where NASA invested in continued moon landings.
Ideally we wouldn't have to pick and choose, but since I wasn't US Dictator during the 90s, the Hubble Space Telescope + a lot of probes throughout the solar system was probably more impactful for overall scientific discovery than the counterfactual where NASA invested in continued moon landings.
We did lose the capability. Read up on the engineering behind Saturn-V. There are books that go into extensive detail. A lot of the things described there required completely novel approaches that would be very difficult to replicate in deindustrialized United States of 2024. Not to mention that cost of all this would be absolutely astronomical, far more so than it was back then.
> lot of the things described there required completely novel approaches that would be very difficult to replicate in deindustrialized United States of 2024
Give me one example.
> cost of all this would be absolutely astronomical, far more so than it was back then
Inflation adjusted, the Saturn V was a $45bn project [1]. That's a mulitiple of the total capital SpaceX has raised (or been granted).
[1] https://apollo11space.com/the-cost-of-launching-a-saturn-v/
Give me one example.
> cost of all this would be absolutely astronomical, far more so than it was back then
Inflation adjusted, the Saturn V was a $45bn project [1]. That's a mulitiple of the total capital SpaceX has raised (or been granted).
[1] https://apollo11space.com/the-cost-of-launching-a-saturn-v/
I’ll bite. The capability in the US to do large castings and forgings is basically gone. Good luck getting anything with a lead time of less than a couple years. In some cases, it simply can’t be done. That’s why we’re seeing so much investment into large scale additive manufacturing.
It’s interesting how this has become such a problem again. Post WW2, the US dismantled massive, basically building size hydraulic presses in former Nazi Germany and shipped them back to the US because that was a capability we didn’t have.
It’s interesting how this has become such a problem again. Post WW2, the US dismantled massive, basically building size hydraulic presses in former Nazi Germany and shipped them back to the US because that was a capability we didn’t have.
> capability in the US to do large castings and forgings is basically gone
This is true but irrelevant to space flight. We don’t fly big cast or forged parts.
Saturn V contained aluminium cast parts, but nothing we can’t make today [1]. (To my knowledge, no components were built in our WWII-era forges.) Modern carbon composites and aluminium alloys are superior, and we’re in the process of surpassing the Saturn V’s capabilities in SpaceX’s Starship.
[1] https://evergreene.com/pdf/evergreene_saturn-v-rocket.pdf
This is true but irrelevant to space flight. We don’t fly big cast or forged parts.
Saturn V contained aluminium cast parts, but nothing we can’t make today [1]. (To my knowledge, no components were built in our WWII-era forges.) Modern carbon composites and aluminium alloys are superior, and we’re in the process of surpassing the Saturn V’s capabilities in SpaceX’s Starship.
[1] https://evergreene.com/pdf/evergreene_saturn-v-rocket.pdf
Starship is also the biggest rocket to have ever flown, with twice the thrust of the Saturn V!
That’s using a fraction of their budget.
That’s using a fraction of their budget.
As a bonus, Starship should be fully reusable, meaning long-term costs drop drastically to continue the program.
Each flight could cost single-digit millions, mainly in fuel and employees.
Each flight could cost single-digit millions, mainly in fuel and employees.
Eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_forming of upper and lower parts of the fuel and oxidizer tanks with extremely tight restrictions on the weight of the part, and its structural integrity. This is but one example - there’s a great book on this, “Saturn-V, Owner’s workshop manual”. Your mind will be blown literally on every page. Buy it and read it just to see how incredible the engineering was, and how unrealistic it is to reproduce today, when NASA can’t even get humans to LEO on its own.
We’re building lighter and stronger pressure vessels—more reliably, at larger scale and, inflation adjusted, probably cheaper—today than those tanks.
We’re entering a halcyon of American space flight, with multiple teams doing what others cannot and Apollo-era engineers could only dream of. It’s mind-boggling to see the disconnect between a lunar landing alongside a caricature of American industrial decline.
We’re entering a halcyon of American space flight, with multiple teams doing what others cannot and Apollo-era engineers could only dream of. It’s mind-boggling to see the disconnect between a lunar landing alongside a caricature of American industrial decline.
Until we successfully land people on the Moon again we by definition haven’t surpassed the Apollo program. And don’t latch onto just this one example. Read the book. There are a thousand more things like that there.
> Until we successfully land people on the Moon again we by definition haven’t surpassed the Apollo program
That’s an application, not a capability. It would be like arguing iPhones never surpassed ENIAC because mine hasn’t simulated a thermonuclear detonation.
> Read the book. There are a thousand more things like that there.
I asked you to name one. Explosive forming is something (a) we can still do but (b) that nobody does because we have better materials and processes.
The engineering of the Apollo era was remarkable. But the problem with promulgating this myth of lost capability is it stunts our ability to get things done today.
That’s an application, not a capability. It would be like arguing iPhones never surpassed ENIAC because mine hasn’t simulated a thermonuclear detonation.
> Read the book. There are a thousand more things like that there.
I asked you to name one. Explosive forming is something (a) we can still do but (b) that nobody does because we have better materials and processes.
The engineering of the Apollo era was remarkable. But the problem with promulgating this myth of lost capability is it stunts our ability to get things done today.
The reason NASA's current plan is taking a bit longer is it is considerably more ambitious than the Apollo program. If they were only trying to replicate Apollo it would be far easier to do.
Smarter Every Day had a rather interesting video on his concerns with the program. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU and they were more about a program design that requires over 15 fueling launches for every trip to the moon, and concerns about management and transparency.
I don't think anyone is claiming this issues are lost technology though.
Smarter Every Day had a rather interesting video on his concerns with the program. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU and they were more about a program design that requires over 15 fueling launches for every trip to the moon, and concerns about management and transparency.
I don't think anyone is claiming this issues are lost technology though.
The proof is in the pudding. The pudding is that NASA of 2024 has no human space flight capability at all.
> proof is in the pudding. The pudding is that NASA of 2024 has no human space flight capability
Stupidity and ignorance sometimes tread into troll territory.
Nobody has gone back to the Moon since America. That’s not because of a simultaneous global coma. It’s because nobody bothered. If your understanding of aeronautics and mechanics is so base as to propose that we, America, cannot lap what we did in the 60s today, there might be better reading material available than anecdotes [1].
If your complaint is literally a private v public one, that’s beyond me and my cat.
[1] https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Aerospace_Engineering...
Stupidity and ignorance sometimes tread into troll territory.
Nobody has gone back to the Moon since America. That’s not because of a simultaneous global coma. It’s because nobody bothered. If your understanding of aeronautics and mechanics is so base as to propose that we, America, cannot lap what we did in the 60s today, there might be better reading material available than anecdotes [1].
If your complaint is literally a private v public one, that’s beyond me and my cat.
[1] https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Aerospace_Engineering...
NASA of 2024 does not need human space flight capability, because that has been successfully commercialized.
> very difficult to replicate in deindustrialized United States of 2024.
While we might have deindustrialized a lot of commodity electronics and small consumer things, I'm pretty sure we're still totally fine when it comes to aerospace. What with our Air Force and NASA and SpaceX and all that. More than fine, even.
While we might have deindustrialized a lot of commodity electronics and small consumer things, I'm pretty sure we're still totally fine when it comes to aerospace. What with our Air Force and NASA and SpaceX and all that. More than fine, even.
Read up on restarting Stinger production. Retired engineers had to pitch in to train the current generation. So I wouldn't say "totally fine".
How is needing to train young people the same as deindustrialization exactly?
It's the taking engineers out of retirement that's deindustrialization. A properly industrialized nation would have an active program with educators in the prime of their career to do the educating, and not need to pull someone out of retirement because there wasn't a need for them to train their replacements until after they'd retired.
That's not what a "properly industrialized nation" is, and it's an impossibly high bar.
There are always going to be bits of technology and training that seem to no longer be needed for modern products. And sometimes, some new product will need to resurrect one or more of them.
The idea that there's an "active program" to train people on literally every previous engineering practice ever created isn't feasible.
There are always going to be bits of technology and training that seem to no longer be needed for modern products. And sometimes, some new product will need to resurrect one or more of them.
The idea that there's an "active program" to train people on literally every previous engineering practice ever created isn't feasible.
Agreed. For super specialized advanced materials or processes, some Western-aligned country will usually be able to provide it, even if no one in the U.S. can.
They aren't difficult to replicate because of deindustrialization, they're difficult and pointless to replicate because they were based around handcrafting, while modern rocket manufacturing is all computer controlled.
The designs are not optimal for modern production approaches.
As an example, a modernized F-1 engine would have far simplified plumbing, much fewer parts, the injector, which contained hundreds of handcrafted and hand-tuned parts to minimize combustion instability would be replaced with one machine crafted part where the instabilities would be properly cancelled out through computer simulation. But, what's the point?
The F-1s were designed because computer control systems of the time were not good enough to control a large number of smaller, more efficient engines. Nowadays such control systems exist, with Falcon Heavy flying 27 engines, and Starship doing 33. The fuel they used is also not really being seen as the future, with medium and heavy lifters shifting towards Methane for its better efficiency, cleaner combustion aiding reuse and being liquid at similar temperatures to oxygen, simplifying the cryo-tank design.
They simply aren't relevant anymore outside of out of touch Congress critters looking for ways to pour more billions into the dead end of SLS.
The other big point is that Saturn V wouldn't even meet the expectations current lunar landers are expected to meet. Both lander proposals are huge, potentially with the habitable volume of the entire ISS. They could, on their own, serve as small long term lunar bases, if it weren't for Orion being unable to spend an extended time in space.
The designs are not optimal for modern production approaches.
As an example, a modernized F-1 engine would have far simplified plumbing, much fewer parts, the injector, which contained hundreds of handcrafted and hand-tuned parts to minimize combustion instability would be replaced with one machine crafted part where the instabilities would be properly cancelled out through computer simulation. But, what's the point?
The F-1s were designed because computer control systems of the time were not good enough to control a large number of smaller, more efficient engines. Nowadays such control systems exist, with Falcon Heavy flying 27 engines, and Starship doing 33. The fuel they used is also not really being seen as the future, with medium and heavy lifters shifting towards Methane for its better efficiency, cleaner combustion aiding reuse and being liquid at similar temperatures to oxygen, simplifying the cryo-tank design.
They simply aren't relevant anymore outside of out of touch Congress critters looking for ways to pour more billions into the dead end of SLS.
The other big point is that Saturn V wouldn't even meet the expectations current lunar landers are expected to meet. Both lander proposals are huge, potentially with the habitable volume of the entire ISS. They could, on their own, serve as small long term lunar bases, if it weren't for Orion being unable to spend an extended time in space.
I, too, am eager to learn of one example.
NASA has spent more on real dollars on Artemis and its dependencies and precursors than the Apollo program costed, and yet it is no where near comparable in return.
There's also specifically the difference that humans being onboard added much more tolerance when it comes to things like landing. Neil Armstrong was able to fly the lander to get to a safer landing area and was able to sanity check the sensor readings in realtime.
In comparison, these landers have to do everything autonomously, the computer has to figure out where it's safe to touch down, it has to be able to figure out if a sensor is malfunctioning and if so, which is the one that's wrong.
Similarly, previous uncrewed landers were not expected to be that smart, they just aimed for a patch of land believed to be flat and hoped for the best.
In comparison, these landers have to do everything autonomously, the computer has to figure out where it's safe to touch down, it has to be able to figure out if a sensor is malfunctioning and if so, which is the one that's wrong.
Similarly, previous uncrewed landers were not expected to be that smart, they just aimed for a patch of land believed to be flat and hoped for the best.
The best minds of our generation are working on byzantine financial derivatives, making social media more addictive, and turning fake pictures/videos/bots as realistic as possible.
> best minds of our generation are working on byzantine financial derivatives, making social media more addictive, and turning fake pictures/videos/bots as realistic as possible
Ten years ago, maybe. Today, I'm not sure. It's been a long time since I had that "wow, everyone here is ten times smarter than me" feeling at one of the big tech firms.
And to the extent the system works, it's correcting. We're seeing layoffs on one side. And moon landings on another.
Ten years ago, maybe. Today, I'm not sure. It's been a long time since I had that "wow, everyone here is ten times smarter than me" feeling at one of the big tech firms.
And to the extent the system works, it's correcting. We're seeing layoffs on one side. And moon landings on another.
The vanguard of that just isn’t in FAANG anymore. That’s why you’re not seeing it.
Don’t forget the parasocial relationships they form with fans who are increasingly lonely, the new frontier in emotionally manipulative AI chatbots, and surveillance capitalism.
This comment deserves to be on the front page
It's only because of a version of Willie Sutton's quote: "That's where the money is."
Capital allocation.
Capital allocation.
[deleted]
It's largely a matter of incentive. In the sixties, the US had an incentive to prove that it had more advanced technology than the USSR. Once we proved we could land on the moon, the novelty quickly wore off for the public, which influenced Congress's decision to cut funding for the Apollo program.
We also haven't returned to the moon yet because of cost, I would imagine.
We also haven't returned to the moon yet because of cost, I would imagine.
The public was actually never in favor of the Apollo program except for when we actually landed on the moon. The government was just willing to ignore public sentiment for some reason. And I'm very glad they did.
> public was actually never in favor of the Apollo program except for when we actually landed on the moon
Wow, I wasn't aware that the "only point at which the opinion surveys demonstrate that more than 50 percent of the public believed Apollo was worth its expense came in 1969 at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing" [1].
[1] https://launiusr.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/exploding-the-myth...
Wow, I wasn't aware that the "only point at which the opinion surveys demonstrate that more than 50 percent of the public believed Apollo was worth its expense came in 1969 at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing" [1].
[1] https://launiusr.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/exploding-the-myth...
Gil Scott-Heron had a very popular song in 1970 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4&list=RDgoh2x_G0c...
Someone should see about making a few versions for various crew compositions/landing times for the Artemis program. So you'd have one ready to go pretty much whatever happens.
This is one of the reasons I’m glad the US is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy.
But there is plenty of Helium 3 to mine on the Moon, to justify the cost.
Michael Collins' book Carrying the Fire proves that the sixties were vastly different to today.
For example people died while training to become astronauts, because the training was hard. This would be impossible today; the first time someone breaks so much as a leg the whole project would be suspended and several committees would need time to evaluate...
For example people died while training to become astronauts, because the training was hard. This would be impossible today; the first time someone breaks so much as a leg the whole project would be suspended and several committees would need time to evaluate...
> For example people died while training to become astronauts, because the training was hard
I don't think this is correct. Astronauts died due to equipment malfunction (Apollo 1) or from airplane crashes or car crashes. But those aren't the same as dying because the training was too intense.
I don't think this is correct. Astronauts died due to equipment malfunction (Apollo 1) or from airplane crashes or car crashes. But those aren't the same as dying because the training was too intense.
And apparently live video..
I’m not entirely sure that we’ve actually lost it; is it really far fetched to think SpaceX could moon land- if not now but perhaps in a bit?
In SpaceX's case, they'd probably be the "but we've regained it" side of things.
It's not even that easy in KSP!
It's easy enough until your fuel budget gets tight: http://moonlander.seb.ly
Been loving Lunar Lander ever since I played it in the 1980's. That is a very faithful version. I always loved how ti zoomed in when you got close to the terrain. (And that large throttle you used to control the thrust.)
As a kid it was like impossible for me to play. Now it is just ... challenging.
My voxel tribute: https://mooncraft2000.com
As a kid it was like impossible for me to play. Now it is just ... challenging.
My voxel tribute: https://mooncraft2000.com
It’s fun but the performance plummets after only a few minutes even on a desktop computer.
I am not experiencing a change in performance. Curious what browser?
Very nice, bookmarked.
Why does the horizontal speed reduce over time? There is no air friction on the Moon.
Once you get the hang of it, it becomes pretty simple. Just keep pointed retrograde and you'll probably be fine (assuming you start your final landing burn soon enough).
It's easy when you're playing with a mod that calculates time to suicide burn for you. Otherwise, you'd better overbuild the lander, as you'll need that extra Δv for "pumping the brakes", so to speak.
A KSP mod which requires you to put cameras and altimeters with failure modes on your craft would be...interesting, but probably a lot less fun.
It's called "OhScrap!" for the original one and is how I would describe KSP 2 even after the big science update. I would enjoy it a lot more if they could work on adding some precision to the nav points, and I had forgotten how much I enjoyed auto execute mode from MechJeb(not to mention the porkchop plots), but KSP 2 is at least some fun now.
I’ll wager once we get a handle on it it’ll be routine and simple. But it’s been quite some time since we really tried and the efforts so far again have been pretty minimal and laced with pork.
Like that new Starbucks drink!
Once Starship is able to reliably get to orbit and refuel, the payloads we'll be able to get the moon will increase significantly, and hopefully with high frequency.
Developing custom probes where most of the development+weight is to navigate space and land, May quickly become obsolete.
Developing custom probes where most of the development+weight is to navigate space and land, May quickly become obsolete.
Is there a good resource to follow all space efforts?
I have no idea whats coming down the pipe and I used to
I have no idea whats coming down the pipe and I used to
SpaceFlightNow is my old go-to for launch schedules [1]. I also like John Holst's Ill-Defined Space [2].
[1] https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
[2] https://substack.com/@illdefinedspace
[1] https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
[2] https://substack.com/@illdefinedspace
I like the Orbital Index's weekly newsletter. https://orbitalindex.com/
Did you try the simulator from SpaceX for docking the Dragon capsule to the ISS?
Moon will be the first robot colony. Surely they will be friendly...
Supposedly they want a crewed base by 2030...
Does anyone know anything about the possible video of the landing from EagleCam? I would love to see some video of the moon that is not 1960s quality.
Eagle cam or it didn’t happen
On a serious note I’m interested to hear what the measured boil off vs calculated was for their propellant load. Depending which direction it is could mean a huge difference to the Artemis plans.
On a serious note I’m interested to hear what the measured boil off vs calculated was for their propellant load. Depending which direction it is could mean a huge difference to the Artemis plans.
I am super curious to know what kind of software magic they did to bring the NDL system as the primary navigation system after their own system failed to function prior to landing .. From what I understood listening in to the broadcast, NDL was only a demonstration project and folks somehow managed to bring it up on demand and use 2 of the sensors on it (?) iirc .. Like how !? Was NDL set up in the same orientation as their original system ? If not, they updated their guidance system on the fly too !?? Simply amazing
Yes it sounds like they had to do some MacGyver level stuff at the last minute. As I understand it NDL (Navigation Doppler Lidar) was a NASA project bundled aboard the craft as a non-mission-critical demo but when the main naviagation failed they had to send a patch to the craft (about two hours before landing) to activate NDL and use it as the main navigation. Hoping more details come out about this.
I doubt they had the time to pull MacGyver stuff. This scenario was most likely already predicted and tested and it was a matter of changing configurations.
Lots of discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39465230
I notice that the news media are bigging up the *private enterprise* angle for some reason -- marketing of commercial transport services maybe?
But I also note that Odysseus cost NASA a little over $100M on a fixed price contract, per Ars Technica.
By way of comparison, the Indian government's Chandrayaan-3 mission, the lander of which touched down in 2023, cost roughly $90M.
So private space isn't automatically cheaper than 100% government agency-run missions: it just depends on the agency.
But I also note that Odysseus cost NASA a little over $100M on a fixed price contract, per Ars Technica.
By way of comparison, the Indian government's Chandrayaan-3 mission, the lander of which touched down in 2023, cost roughly $90M.
So private space isn't automatically cheaper than 100% government agency-run missions: it just depends on the agency.
$90M goes a lot further in India, though. But yes, you’re still correct that this mission doesn’t prove that private is cheaper. I’m sure that Intuitive Machines took a big loss on this in order to get the deal, and it still cost this much.
Does it? For the person who cleans that restrooms that money goes a lot farther. For the quick boot camp and we will write html it also goes farther. However for the good engineers it doesn't go nearly as far. Great engineers in India are in demand and their prices have gone up to match. I wouldn't attempt a project like this without a lot of great engineers. (Great engineers in India make less than the US equivalent, but the difference is narrowing)
The NASA equivalent pays much less.
But they have perks like chauffeurs and household staff that wouldn't be available to the equivalent in the USA
But they have perks like chauffeurs and household staff that wouldn't be available to the equivalent in the USA
You are correct, the costs of salaries alone should show a significant difference. I wish people would actually have real conversations about what things actually cost per country. It's disingenuous to compare the USA and India without a true cost analysis
A more in-depth article from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/22/us-moon-land...
What will be the legal ramifications? Will we have wars over territory on the Moon?
Not anytime soon. The moons is still expensive to get to, unlikely to even become self sustaining (and thus expensive to support long term), and AFAIK doesn't have any resources we cannot get cheaper on earth. There will likely be constant attempts to go to the moon because it is close, interesting to science, and a good practice for missions to elsewhere - but there is enough space that anyone who cares to go will just go someplace nobody else is.
Mars might - strong might - be able to become self sustaining. If that is the case I would expect to see wars eventually as it becomes settled.
There will of course be the usual crime. This might rise to the level of "cowboy shootouts" but still the police will come in quick and take care of it.
Mars might - strong might - be able to become self sustaining. If that is the case I would expect to see wars eventually as it becomes settled.
There will of course be the usual crime. This might rise to the level of "cowboy shootouts" but still the police will come in quick and take care of it.
Water is one resource of interest. In particular every kilo of it we can find on the moon is a kilo we don't have to drag out of earth's gravity well.
Before I read this comment I would have said there was no way to make the topic of a moon landing boring.
Damn, feeling very happy we're going back to space again. Congratulations IM
<3
<3
Cool, congratulations to IM.
Good Stuff
yawpitch(2)
1propionyl(1)
I might be wrong, but from my research it seem like they did this with $118 million paid by NASA. India did it with around $74 million, for reference.