Live data from Hacker News

Artemis II is not safe to fly

idlewords.com

471–480 of 667 posts

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#471

Why don't they use Starship, seems like Musk's company has a great record overall for designing and operating spacecraft. I asked Gemini, of course Boeing is in the picture: "NASA has contracts with multiple partners (Boeing, Lockheed Martin) for the SLS and Orion, and shifting entirely to Starship would require canceling these expensive, legally binding contracts.".

Starship explodes

Starship has also never launched a payload as heavy as the Orion stack. It's about 60k pounds. Starship has also never even reached orbit yet. I believe it's capable but, like, it would be nice to be demoed first.

Starship has only ever lifted 44k pounds, and most of it's more successful tests operate only with 35k pounds.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#472
post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My kids are going to be legally mandated to be in car seats until they’re about 12 years old.

Oh wow what a tragedy. You think maybe there's reasons for that mandate? Like maybe it saves children's lives? But sure everything would be better if any moron was allowed to decide how to keep their own kids safe.

>allowed to decide how to keep their own kids safe.

This was not the major factor, but when things were still like that, it was not only NASA that made more forward progress than later times.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the odds were only 1% , how did 14 people die ? You’re not including the lives in your risk assessment . There were 135 events and 14 people died . If you were asked to join mission 136 would you say yes or no? Which risk profile fits: 1% fatality or 10%?

By that logic, the fatality rate in NYC skyscrapers on 9/11 was something like 1500%, since there were It doesn't make any sense. Your numerator and denominator need to use the same units. The rate of fatal accidents was 2/135. The rate of crew fatalities was 14/355. The rate for crew-flight fatalities (separately counting multiple flights by the same person) was 14/852. If you were evaluating your risk for another f…

You still haven't explained how so many died and why the program ended.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#475

“…in early 2026, NASA decided to add an additional Artemis mission to the manifest. The new Artemis III would fly in 2027 as a near-Earth mission to test docking with whatever lunar lander (Blue Origin or SpaceX) was available. The first moon landing would be pushed back to the mission after that, Artemis IV. This change removed any rationale for flying astronauts on Artemis II.” Is there truly no engineering or scie…

For today technology, it's as hard as flying an empty crew module with all the live keeping equipment turned on. Add Buster from Mythbuster to get more accurate data about the forces on a human.

I think SpaceX used a piece of cheese in one of their test fliying arround Earth, just to show that the temperature was never outside a confortable range. They could have user the sensor they already had, but using the cheese too is good for PR.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without enough slack to be able to absorb problems if some earlier dependent outcome is unfavorable It's strange because unmanned mission are heavy in the " under promise and over deliver " territory. They may say something like " we are sending a car to Mars for a month ", but everything is over engineered to last for a year. Then it miraculously work for eleven month and it's a huge success.

Are you just now learning about propaganda?

No, it's just strange that different parts of the same organization make oposite decisions for the propaganda.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They asked if the astronauts "want to risk it", not if it was actually safe. Those are very different questions. The astronauts are, in fact, the world's leading experts on whether or not they personally want to risk it, so it's not entirely unreasonable to think that they could answer that question. It just depends on whether you think that the fact that they accept the risks is reason enough to let them fly a poten…

This is a perfect way to put it. Artemis II is not safe, at least by the standards we apply to things. It's the third flight of a capsule, on the second flight of the rocket, and the first flight of things like the life support system. At the end of the day, one of the reasons astronauts are respected is they understand those risks, and go into space anyway. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize risks - but…

Taking a related quote from Dollhouse: "That is their business, but that is not their purpose."

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My kids are going to be legally mandated to be in car seats until they’re about 12 years old.

Your implied frustration at a relatively easy change backed by experts and mountains of data is another point in favor of > humans are so oblivious to safety

We have 4 kids. Before we had our 3rd, we needed to buy a new vehicle solely because we couldn't fit 3 car seats into the back of our old car. And when traveling with kids, carrying 4 gigantic car seats plus your other luggage is not exactly as easy as you might think! It essentially rules out solo parent travel with all 4 kids. Transferring car seats between two cars, or installing car seats in a taxi, is a serious pain.

Furthermore, the evidence that car seats actually benefit safety is significantly less robust than you might think. The "mountains of evidence" that do exist for things like 70% reductions in fatalities, bizarrely enough, generally compare the rate of fatalities for car seats vs completely unrestrained kids. When you compare the rate of fatalities in car seats to kids wearing adult seat belts, the bulk of the evidence suggests essentially no difference. Fatalities happen when the forces involved are catastrophic and sadly a car seat doesn't help much for kids over 2.

Even a back of the envelope comparison makes this extremely plausible: car crash fatalities for kids 9-12 have declined by 72% from 1978-2017. If car seats and car seat laws save significant numbers of lives, you'd expect that the fatality rate for kids 0-8, who are generally in car seats, to have decreased much more. But it hasn't, it declined by 73% over the same period.

Now, car seats and boosters do seem to moderately reduce non-fatal injuries - huge spread of estimates here, most clustering around 10-25%. It's reasonable for most people to use car seats or boosters most of the time based on this alone, IMO, especially for young kids. But do they justify a mandate? IMO: no. Absolutely not.

Worth mentioning that mandates probably do succeed in one thing: they reduce the number of children born at all by at least 57x more than they prevent child fatalities. Roughly 8,000 kids per year, 145,000 kids since 1980. That's with the (unlikely, as discussed above) assumption that car seats do in fact save significant numbers of lives. But it's also entirely possible that they've prevented hundreds of thousands of kids from being born, somewhat reduced the nonfatal injury rate, and saved essentially no lives.

Citations below:

Fatality reduction with car seats or boosters:

- https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/seatbelts.pdf (found that seat belts as effective as car seats for children 2-6)

- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jae.2449 (independent replication of above with different data set)

- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19959729/ (no statistically significant difference between booster seats and seat belt alone for fatalities)

- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16754824/ (the main counter-estimate to the above, with the 28% fatality reduction)

Non-fatal injury reductions:

- https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecinqu/v48y2010i3p521-536.html (no difference in serious injuries, ~25% reduction in least serious injury category)

- https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... (14% reduction in likelihood of injury for boosters)

- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19841126/ (45% estimate)

- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12783914/ (59% estimate)

Reduction in birth rate from car seat mandates:

- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665046 (car seat mandates "led to a permanent reduction of approximately 8,000 births in the same year, and 145,000 fewer births since 1980, with 90% of this decline being since 2000")

Note that both the 45% and 59% estimate for injury reduction and the 28% estimate for fatality reduction all come from one research group using a proprietary data set. Everything that's independently reproducible points towards small or zero effect on fatalities and modest effects on injuries.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#479

Hypothetical to wrap my head around scope: Say we had a spacecraft that was 100% capable of launching from Earth, orbiting the moon, and landing back on Earth, but it also had the docking equipment to be compatible with ISS. Could I decide, while orbiting the moon, that I'd rather dock with the ISS instead? Is that at all feasible or is it one of those, "we're not lined up for any of this. It's basically impossible."…

Your comment is dead for some reason but let me help.

Orbital mechanics are not something you can just intuit, but are pretty simple.

Learn about Delta V. Play some Kerbal space program. View this diagram:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Solar_sy...

The ISS isn't listed but the math doesn't change much for it VS the listed 250km earth orbit.

TL;DR

In space you can think of yourself as captured in an orbit. It takes a lot of energy (fuel) to boost yourself out of that orbit and flying towards some other body. But after that, you have to also expend more fuel to actually be captured by that orbit. The returning craft would have to expend energy to be captured by the earth's orbit to rendezvous with the ISS, rather than just hit earth and land.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The sealant and O-rings did not succeed in keeping the hot gasses inside (evidence: Challenger). They were not adequate No. The whole assembly --joint, sealant and O-rings, -- failed. "They were not adequate" - yet, after the redesign, they kept those same O-rings and declared that boosters are safe to fly, in manifest contradiction to your assertion. So your reasoning is clearly flawed.

> "They were not adequate" - yet, after the redesign, they kept those same O-rings presumably "redesign" means some stuff changed. why is it not possible that the O-rings were inadequate for the old design, but adequate for the new design?

Exactly. They re-designed the tang and clevis joint so that the metal parts of the joint did not spread under gas pressure and the o-ring did not lose compression. They added a heater to ensure that the o-ring remained in it's usable temperature range. And added a superfluous third O-ring.

Speaking of which, has anyone ever adequately explained why Challenger's Right SRB joint temperature was measured as -13 deg C using infrared pyrometers, when the lowest ambient temperature that night was -5.5C, and the Left SRB was measured -4 C? What subcooled the right SRB?

Allan McDonald's "Truth, Lies, and O-Rings" is mandatory reading for anyone who wants to discuss the details of this particular bit of corporate and government malfeasance. It's 600 pages of technical detail and political intrigue. He suggests that a plume from a cryo vent could have impinged on the field joint and cooled the o-ring to lower than ambient temperatures. No proof though.

Post reply on HN