Hacker News Reader

Comment by codewiz | Hacker News Reader

Unkind quotes, but hilarious and probably well deserved:

"SLS looks like someone started building a Space Shuttle and ran out of legos for the orbiter"

"But on top of this monster sits a second stage so anemic that even its name (the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage) is a kind of apology."

"the minds behind SLS achieved a first in space flight, creating a rocket that is at the same time more powerful and less capable than the Saturn V."

"And SLS is a “one and done” rocket, artisanally hand-crafted by a workforce that likes to get home before traffic gets bad."

"The rocket can only launch once every two years at a cost of about four billion dollars—about twice what it would cost to light the rocket’s weight in dollar bills on fire."

"Early on, SLS designers made the catastrophic decision to reuse Shuttle hardware, which is like using Fabergé eggs to save money on an omelette."

View on HN

I guess you didn’t reach the end, there are more choice quotes later on:

> Where Apollo was built like a roadster, with a small crew compartment bolted onto an oversized engine, Orion is the Dodge Journey of spacecraft—a chunky, underpowered six-seater that advertises to the world that you're terrible at managing money.

> To hear NASA tell it, NRHO is so full of advantages that it’s a wonder we stay on Earth.

> NASA likes to boast that Orion can stay in space far longer than Apollo, but this is like bragging that you’re in the best shape of your life after the bank repossessed your car.

And I’m only halfway through.

And another one:

"Costs on SLS have reached the point where private industry is now able to develop, test, and launch an entire rocket program for less than NASA spends on a single engine"

And a few more on on the Orion capsule:

"Orion, the capsule that launches on top of SLS, is a relaxed-fit reimagining of the Apollo command module suitable for today’s larger astronaut."

"The capsule’s official name is the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle, but finding even a single purpose for Orion has greatly challenged NASA."

"Where Apollo was built like a roadster, with a small crew compartment bolted onto an oversized engine, Orion is the Dodge Journey of spacecraft—a chunky, underpowered six-seater that advertises to the world that you're terrible at managing money."

Even the title is a creative jest, as Lunacy literally means "Looking at the moon" (via "Lunatic" which is someone who looks at the moon - Luna).

> as Lunacy literally means "Looking at the moon" (via "Lunatic" which is someone who looks at the moon

Literally? There is no "looking" element in the word. You'd need something like "lunavident". In the most literal terms, lunacy is the noun form of "lunate", which is a shape. ("C" is the "lunate sigma", the sigma in the shape of a moon.)

Outside of the shape meaning, "lunacy" is just a relationship to the moon; the form of the relationship is not specified by the form of the word.

At the time that the word was coined, there was nothing that one could do with the moon other than observe it.

Considering the sense of the word comes from the idea that the phase of the moon affects people's minds whether they're looking at it or not, this is obviously false.

You can look at the moon, you can look away from the moon, you can hide from the moon, you can worship the moon, you can love the moon, you can describe the moon... but the relationship actually being expressed was just "being affected by the moon". Looking at the moon is no more necessary to this process than it is for the ocean as it's drawn in and out by the tide.

Point being that Moon is the root of the word Lunacy as used in the title.

So "moonness"?

Agree that the criticism is overall well-founded, but this one is a bit strange:

> SLS looks like someone started building a Space Shuttle and ran out of legos for the orbiter

Should the booster look different just for the sake of looking different?

I think the point they're trying to make is that it looks the same for the sake of looking the same.

I was just trying to describe SLS visually. If you've seen a lot of Shuttle stuff then the initial resemblance is very striking.

Part of the reason is that there are plenty of reused and refurbished shuttle parts included!

The initial resemblance really just comes down to 2 fairly pragmatic design decisions. We’ll use 2 side solid propellant boosters and we won’t redesign them from scratch because they work. And, we’ll use the same foam insulation on the rocket that we used on the STS liquid propellant tank because it also works…furthermore, we won’t try to paint over the orange insulation because we know that that doesn’t work very well.

I think the argument is that it should look different for the sake of doing better. By, say, using modern tools and techniques rather than trying to resurrect some old parts designed in the 1970s. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Design_process

> which is like using Fabergé eggs to save money on an omelette

I'm appropriating this!

u/idlewords has a way with words.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com