Remix clone Hacker News

new | show | ask | jobs Github

▲

AlphaEsponjosus 2 days ago

I wonder if NASA will still existing in 2028.

▲

chgs 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

NasaX, or maybe NAXA or something.

▲

gnarlouse 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Department of Gaia Escape

▲

Dalewyn 2 days ago | parent [-]

Department of Galactic Exploration

	▲	gnarlouse 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Department of Glorious Evolution

▲

Nevermark 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well XASA obviously!

The government would save billions (tens of billions over the long haul), increase cadence, increase mission scope, and cut flight times, by cutting NASA’s build-&-burn rocket manned program in favor of SpaceX’s reusable manned craft and space refueling services.

SpaceX Starship could also reduce the cost and increase cadence of scientific missions, in two ways:

1) By reducing launch costs via greater system reuse.

2) And by increasing available launch volume, eliminate a lot of the design & manufacturing time, cost, complexity and risk created by today’s need to fit craft into toad’s more limited volumes.

Less need for craft miniaturization means (a) fewer risky/complex unfolding maneuvers in flight, (b) much easier radiation mitigation via more shielding, larger more resilient circuits, redundancy, etc. And (c) fewer craft, with more capabilities and higher longevity.

And as with the manned program, increase mission scope, while reducing transfer to target times, via in orbit refueling.

If only we could find someone with the incentives, plan, means and mandate, to cut government space spending while somehow also expanding its manned & scientific space exploration capabilities and scope.

The hardest part is to find such a uniquely capable person, who also has enough slack time to take this on. A rare trait combination, indeed. What are the chances of finding a genius reefer doom scrolling bloviating slacker? Who could put all that disposable time to better use?

▲

Nevermark 2 days ago | parent [-]

In case that all seemed too pro-SpaceX:

1) I think NASA does best when it focuses on the frontier of space, where private industry does not yet have the incentives or capabilities to increase our knowledge and access to space and solar system resources.

2) I think NASA does best, when it takes the greatest advantage of private industry, where ever industry is able to provide lower costs or higher performance.

I think this is more in line with how public money should be spent.

I think it reduces a lot of wasted money spent on unnecessary redundant and obsolete efforts.

I think it results in the greatest bang for the buck, for the government, and the greatest incentive to improve for industry.

At this time, I think the frontier NASA should be focused on (where industry is not yet incentivized enough), is manned space habitats, and unmanned and manned exploration of the solar system's potential manned sites and resources.

Where I think it should have already passed on the torch, is manned and unmanned orbital, lunar and solar system launch capabilities. Industry is already performing and incentivized to provide these capabilities better than NASA. NASA can best contribute to improving those capabilities, with the least investment, by being a demanding customer.

SpaceX happens to have put itself in the center of those principles, due to a lot of fine work. But the principles make just as good sense, regardless of who the industrial innovators are.

▲

deprecative 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

If we actually funded public services to the required levels NASA and so forth would be fine to do things in house. We're just allergic to anything that makes actual sense when we have an oligarchy to support. That's it.

	▲	Nevermark a day ago \| parent [-]
		How do you view the cost effectiveness of the SLS? Couldn't that money be put to better use expanding the boundaries of human and machine exploration, instead of being a less efficient redundant effort? Curious what you think of the SLS.

▲

chgs a day ago | parent | prev [-]

NASA hasn’t run its own rockets for a long time, it is a customer, it chooses the launch vehicle based on the mission requirements.

	▲	Nevermark a day ago \| parent [-]
		The SLS is a massive rocket. Or I should say, rockets, since they are not reusable. They are still building, launching and discarding them.

▲

yencabulator a day ago | parent | prev [-]

X.gov

▲

Dalewyn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

NASA and most of the unmanned space exploration programs will probably be fine.

It's the manned space exploration programs and all the space-as-in-vapid programs that could and should be cut with extreme prejudice.

And in case I need to make myself clear: There is no value in manned space exploration at this point, at least no value that can't be obtained with unmanned programs. I say that as someone who was and will always be fascinated by Apollo, Space Shuttle, et al.

▲

vlovich123 2 days ago | parent [-]

> It's the manned space exploration programs and all the space-as-in-vapid programs that could and should be cut with extreme prejudice.

The main thing on the chopping block is all rocket R&D and forcing NASA to contract out that work. It's unlikely Musk would suggest chopping the programs themselves as those are very lucrative contracts SpaceX would be bidding for.

> no value in manned space exploration at this point

Only if you ignore the value of inspiring the next generation of scientists and explorers.

▲

Dalewyn 2 days ago | parent [-]

>the chopping block is all rocket R&D and forcing NASA to contract out that work.

Nearly everything NASA does outside of operating the missions themselves is contracted out, especially the SLS which is all of it:

* The main stage (aka core stage), essentially a repurposed Space Shuttle external fuel tank with engines bolted on, is contracted out to Boeing, with so far one launch and two completed production units in at least ten years of production.

* The main engines, which are refurbished SSMEs used as throwaways, are contracted out to Aerojet Rocketdyne.

* The SRBs are contracted out to Northrop Grumman, and the first eight launches will all be reusing the old Space Shuttle SRBs.

* The second stage, a repurposed Delta IV second stage, is contracted out to United Launch Alliance which is basically Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

* Finally, the Orion is contracted out to Lockheed Martin and Airbus. Incidentally, this is the only "new" component of the program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)

>Only if you ignore the value of inspiring the next generation of scientists and explorers.

Unmanned programs like Hubble and the other Great Observatories, New Horizons, Spirit/Opportunity/Curiosity, and the two Voyagers inspire the people far more than manned programs.

There was value in manned programs before, we needed to figure out WTF human bodies will do in space. We figured that out at least 20 years ago. Now we need to keep contriving excuses to keep ISS flying and there's barely enough commercial interest in manned space utilization.

No, cut it all. Until we reach the next paradigm shift where we have to send men out into the black again to gain answers, robots can do everything a man could for cheaper, safer, longer, and faster.

	▲	vlovich123 a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Nearly everything NASA does outside of operating the missions themselves is contracted out, especially the SLS which is all of it: Kind of but not quite AFAIK. The design, specification building, and various prototyping happens within NASA. They contract out once they know what they want to build. Musk doesn't have the ability to cancel the SLS. That would require an act of Congress and face all the same obstacles as why the SLS got created in the first place (to save jobs that would have been cut after the cancellation of the shuttle). However, he would be able to cut the design and specification building & prototyping that NASA does and instead force them to contract out for that (preferably to SpaceX). The entire focus of DOGE seems to be to reduce the number of employees, not to cut programs. The reason for that is also tactical sabotage. It's hard to cut programs because politics gets involved. But if you could mass fire employees so that government can't succeed at those programs, then you can follow up later and point to how government is incompetent and the programs need to be cut since they're not meeting their goals. > Unmanned programs like Hubble and the other Great Observatories, New Horizons, Spirit/Opportunity/Curiosity, and the two Voyagers inspire the people far more than manned programs. Unmanned programs inspire people already inclined to science & exploration of the unknown. They do not inspire people who aren't so inclined and who instead look towards heros to show them what's possible or ask "why are we spending any money on space exploration". Said another way, unmanned programs don't inspire people to become astronauts or value spending on research into exploration. Neil Armstrong landing on the moon inspired a lot of people to dream of becoming astronauts and perhaps spark their interest in science in the first place. That's why the Mars program is important even if scientifically it's of limited value. One thing I'll highlight. While Musk is a darling for SpaceX today because SpaceX is competing aggressively, over time SpaceX will inevitably morph into the next Boeing and put us back into the same problems if they're allowed to monopolize the government funds.