Hacker News Reader

Comment by verytrivial | Hacker News Reader

I confess I hope this programme is quietly shelved. From everything I've read it is at best refining decades old tech, not really pushing to whole new areas. This launch is literally re-using Shuttle engines. And I can't seem to find a good, non-hand-wavey explanation as to why we should be going to the Moon at all. I'd personally trade this whole thing for an autonomous rover on Venus that lasts a month.

View on HN

Reusing shuttle engines only to throw them into the sea. The RS-25s are engines that were designed for the shuttle program to be able to be refurbished and reused after each flight. Using them on this disposable rocket stage is like using a Stradivarius as firewood because you happen to have one lying around.

The reason for going to the Moon is that it's close to impossible to launch a manned expedition to any other planet directly from earth. Hope this explanation is not too hand wavy.

On top of that, have people forgotten all the scientific progress that the first moon shot ignited?

It stands to reason that the the next step (a semi-permanent moon base, progress towards being able to launch more stuff into deeper space) will provide similar benefits.

Most people are not against going to the moon.

What they are against is giving untold billions to old Shuttle contractors to fly a overpriced single use rocket.

We will not get advanced technology from a moon program unless the moon program FINANCES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. This moon program is the opposite, it tries to keep old technology alive.

If you want a moon program that finances advanced technology, what you should do is build large reusable rockets that deliver small modular nuclear reactors to the moon. And also some drone/robots that build habitats autonomously. That would actually be providing technology benefits on earth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com