Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Artemis II is not safe to fly

idlewords.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 667 posts

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#271

Post by randallsquared »

eru wrote: post #265
goodcanadian wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are actually a lot of really interesting discoveries on that list. I haven't thought deeply about whether it represents value for money, but I would say that that is anything but "a joke of a list."

And 'Stimulating the low-Earth orbit economy' is a joke. Spending money not as a means to an end, but as the end in itself? Apart from the research into the effects of microgravity on humans, pretty much everything else could have been done cheaper and better without humans. Or take this example: > Deployment of CubeSats from station: CubeSats are one of the smallest types of satellites and provide a cheaper way to p…

> Spending money not as a means to an end, but as the end in itself?

Welcome to the macroeconomics practical, where we'll dig a ditch, refill it, and count it as a productive addition to the economy both times!

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#272

Post by pfdietz »

cultofmetatron wrote: post #105
eru wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About the last point: At this point in time, manned space exploration should come out of our entertainment budget. The same budget we use for football or olympic games.

Hard disagree. some of our best technologies came about to solve problems related to space travel which we later found useful for mundane problems at home. gps, digital cameras immediately come to mind. The only other phenomena I can think of with similar effects on human progress is war... I'll take a space race thanks

Space spinoffs are grossly exaggerated.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#273

Post by randomNumber7 »

wolvoleo wrote: post #152
GMoromisato wrote: post #77

This is a more balanced take, in my opinion: https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/nasa-chief-reviews-ori... Camarda is an outlier. The engineers at NASA believe it is safe. The astronauts believe it is safe. Former astronaut Danny Olivas was initially skeptical of the heat shield but came around. And note that the OP believes it is likely (maybe very likely) that the heat shield will work fine. It's hard for me to r…

In the space shuttle disasters the hardware had at least been used more than once. A huge lot of this one is only tried and tested on paper. And the idea that 'if we throw this much money at it, it really must be fine' I don't buy either. Look at how that worked out for Boeing. For all my feelings about Musk I would much rather step into a rocket that has exploded in all kinds of imaginable situations before so they…

> For all my feelings about Musk I would much rather step into a rocket

Definitely, but we still have to figure out if Musk is such a genious or NASA is full of retards.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#274

Post by randallsquared »

withinboredom wrote: post #254
rbanffy wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> test the new heat shield which will replace the Artemis II design in an unmanned re-entry as well. NASA desperately needs more options. They shouldn't need to expend an SLS to launch an uncrewed Orion with a test heatshield on a trajectory equivalent to a moon return. They should be able to launch that on top of a Falcon Heavy. A Falcon Heavy can launch 63 tons to LEO and a fueled Orion plus service module weights…

I'd prefer if we just wrote off space-x and pretend they don't exist.

SpaceX is the only major operator of spaceflights in the US: more than 95% of all satellites launched are launched by SpaceX, not just in the US, but worldwide.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#275

Post by Arodex »

GMoromisato wrote: post #77

This is a more balanced take, in my opinion: https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/nasa-chief-reviews-ori... Camarda is an outlier. The engineers at NASA believe it is safe. The astronauts believe it is safe. Former astronaut Danny Olivas was initially skeptical of the heat shield but came around. And note that the OP believes it is likely (maybe very likely) that the heat shield will work fine. It's hard for me to r…

[flagged]

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#276

Post by shadowofneptune »

A lot of the discussion overlooks or wishes to avoid an uncomfortable problem with the Artemis program: Artemis III's hardware will not be ready for the forseeable future. The program has had multiple shakeups so far. This is a program heading for cancellation.

The flight risk is surely acceptable if this is not the first flight of many but the last.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#277

Post by drfloyd51 »

bregma wrote: post #231
kakacik wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think sociopaths like current 'leader' would change significantly upon such experience? I unfortunately don't share such optimism.

"Houston, this is Golden One. I'm looking down on the big, beautiful, blue world. They love me down there. They all love me. I'm the greatest astronaut ever in the history of mankind. No one has ever orbited like this before." Yeah, you may be right.

Maybe he should ride on the Artemis II mission?

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#278

Post by tonyonodi »

shadowofneptune wrote: post #276

A lot of the discussion overlooks or wishes to avoid an uncomfortable problem with the Artemis program: Artemis III's hardware will not be ready for the forseeable future. The program has had multiple shakeups so far. This is a program heading for cancellation. The flight risk is surely acceptable if this is not the first flight of many but the last.

I understand the point you’re making, but if this is a programme doomed to achieve nothing, that makes the risk even less acceptable.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#279

Post by randomNumber7 »

kelnos wrote: post #192
GMoromisato wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. What was the probability of Loss of Crew during Apollo? There were 9 crewed missions and 1 almost killed its crew (I will omit Apollo 1 for now). I could argue that Apollo had a 1 in 20 chance of killing a crew. Indeed, that was one reason given for cancelling the program. The first Shuttle launch probably had a 1 in 4 chance of killing its crew. It was the first launch of an extremely complicated system and t…

> There were 9 crewed missions and 1 almost killed its crew (I will omit Apollo 1 for now). I could argue that Apollo had a 1 in 20 chance of killing a crew. That's not how risk analysis works. Let's say every Apollo mission had gone flawlessly, and no one even came close to dying. Would you then say that the risk of death for future missions would be zero? No, of course not.

If you only look at this data it would be the most reasonable guess.

Of course one should also analyze the technical sytems involved and then it is clear that 0% failure is not reasonable.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#280

Post by [deleted] »

GMoromisato wrote: post #77

This is a more balanced take, in my opinion: https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/nasa-chief-reviews-ori... Camarda is an outlier. The engineers at NASA believe it is safe. The astronauts believe it is safe. Former astronaut Danny Olivas was initially skeptical of the heat shield but came around. And note that the OP believes it is likely (maybe very likely) that the heat shield will work fine. It's hard for me to r…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN