6 ms·

Destin from Smarter Every Day gave a talk that addresses a lot of these issues that I found pretty interesting too. https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU https://youtu.

Destin from Smarter Every Day gave a talk that addresses a lot of these issues that I found pretty interesting too. https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU

jessriedel 2y ago
Just skimmed it, but he mostly agrees with the criticisms right? ("Addresses" often suggests a rebuttal.)
- Neywiny 2y ago
  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
  - nutrie 2y ago
    I disagree that he humiliated the program, or the people behind it, which such a statement implies (although I do respect your conclusion). I've been following Destin for years and this guy genuinely cares. It's incredibly difficult to come up with a constructive criticism without offending people and he did a great job doing just that. He was humble, yet firm, well prepared and brought a fresh perspective to the table. Whether the stakeholders will acknowledge that is up to them. Hats off to the guy!
    - CraftingLinks 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - Neywiny 2y ago
      I respect your disagreement. It was certainly a word I debated a few minutes
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    The refueling risk and cost is being borne by SpaceX, not the taxpayer. The SpaceX HLS portion of Artemis (aka the refueling) is a fabulous deal for the taxpayer.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
fastball 2y ago
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.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  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.

Destin from Smarter Every Day gave a talk that addresses a lot of these issues that I found pretty interesting too. https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU

jessriedel 2y ago

Just skimmed it, but he mostly agrees with the criticisms right? ("Addresses" often suggests a rebuttal.)

Neywiny 2y ago
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
- nutrie 2y ago
  I disagree that he humiliated the program, or the people behind it, which such a statement implies (although I do respect your conclusion). I've been following Destin for years and this guy genuinely cares. It's incredibly difficult to come up with a constructive criticism without offending people and he did a great job doing just that. He was humble, yet firm, well prepared and brought a fresh perspective to the table. Whether the stakeholders will acknowledge that is up to them. Hats off to the guy!
  - CraftingLinks 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - Neywiny 2y ago
    I respect your disagreement. It was certainly a word I debated a few minutes
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  The refueling risk and cost is being borne by SpaceX, not the taxpayer. The SpaceX HLS portion of Artemis (aka the refueling) is a fabulous deal for the taxpayer.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

fastball 2y ago

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.

bayindirh 2y ago
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.