News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SpaceX Revenue Doubled to $4.6B in 2022 Versus 2021 by pfdietz on Thursday August 17, 2023 @05:13PM (#37168164)
SLS is needed only because they were not allowed to adopt on-orbit propellant transfer. With rockets like the Falcons, propellant (which is most of the mass needed to get something to the moon) is launched in smaller quantities and accumulated.

What sort of future in space do those advocating SLS imagine for us if moving a liquid from one tank to another is too challenging?

Re:SpaceX Revenue Doubled to $4.6B in 2022 Versus 2021 by pclmulqdq on Thursday August 17, 2023 @05:49PM (#37168637)
One where we just launch one rocket instead of building a giant orbital bomb slowly (accumulating fuel) and transferring all those explosives through a complex series of difficult rendezvous maneuvers? One rocket is risky enough.

There's a huge amount of extra risk involved in that sort of idea, which is why NASA isn't doing it, which can just be avoided with SLS and Starship.

Re:SpaceX Revenue Doubled to $4.6B in 2022 Versus 2021 by pfdietz on Thursday August 17, 2023 @06:45PM (#37169243)
It's actually less risky. Most of the launches are of propellant, which is completely replaceable. Reliability of a launcher is achieved by using it many many times, exposing all the gotchas. SLS will launch so infrequently it will be extremely risky.

And you didn't answer my question, so I will answer it for you. If simply transferring a liquid from one tank to another is too risky, then there is no future in space. No activities of any significance could ever be done there. With that established, we can shut down the human space program and lose nothing of value.

Re:SpaceX Revenue Doubled to $4.6B in 2022 Versus 2021 by pclmulqdq on Thursday August 17, 2023 @07:24PM (#37169627)
There is plenty of future in space by limiting propellant transfers to times when they are absolutely necessary. We can do them today, and have been able to for 30 years, and yet we rarely do, and never for the volumes of fuel you are proposing.
Re:SpaceX Revenue Doubled to $4.6B in 2022 Versus 2021 by mcpackieh on Thursday August 17, 2023 @07:06PM (#37169456)
There's no reason to have humans on board while transferring fuel, the risk to human life from this "giant orbital bomb" (ridiculous fear mongering) is nonexistent. Anyway, the whole thing is a pointless waste of time and money. The only non-pork reason to return to the Moon is to blunt the impact of the PRC doing the same (should that happen.)
Re:SpaceX Revenue Doubled to $4.6B in 2022 Versus 2021 by fnordpiglet on Thursday August 17, 2023 @08:27PM (#37170110)
A “giant orbital bomb” is part of the Lunar Starship plan. Starship will launch tankers

> Starship HLS requires in-orbit propellant transfer in its mission profile. Prior to the launch of the HLS vehicle from Earth, a Starship variant configured as a propellant depot would be launched into an Earth orbit and then partially or fully filled by between four and fourteen Starship tanker flights carrying propellant. The Starship HLS vehicle would then launch and rendezvous with the already-loaded propellant depot and refuel before transiting from Earth orbit to Lunar orbit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS

I’m a little confused why you call it a giant orbital bomb. It wouldn’t be particularly giant. Four reusable flights could only bring 600T of propellant to LEO. A single starship is fueled with 4600T of propellant, or 18400T of propellant to get that 600T into LEO. I would argue the starship itself is a much more giant bomb with all sorts of fire and stress and chances to explode. 600T of fuel exploding in orbit might not even be visible. But there’s been a number of tests of in orbit refueling and it doesn’t seem much more complex than, say, docking with a space station and transferring bags of mostly water without damaging them.

Re:SpaceX Revenue Doubled to $4.6B in 2022 Versus 2021 by Dylan16807 on Friday August 18, 2023 @01:30AM (#37171666)
One giant rocket would also be a "bomb", and it would have to take a more dangerous path.

Docking isn't a safety risk.