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

Artemis II Launch Day Updates

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#211

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #148
pj_mukh wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"returning to the moon in a more sustainable way" Isn't this the point of this mission? If your point is "it shouldn't take this much money", then I agree. But also point to almost everything else.

Each Artemis launch costs something like $4b (that's the incremental cost of a new rocket, it's much higher if you amortize the design costs). IMO the program is not optimized for cost or sustainability, it's optimized for creating jobs in various congressional districts. Of course that provides a certain amount of political sustainability to the so-called Senate Launch System. I just don't see a future where NASA ca…

> Each Artemis launch costs something like $4b

Early launches, yes, because SLS is a garbage heap. Later ones, almost certainly not.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#212

Post by TeMPOraL »

palata wrote: post #167
techteach00 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they want to be on the rocket. To see the moon up close with your own eyes? It's spiritual.

I understand why they want to fly. I don't understand why the people is fine paying taxes for that.

Some are.

Money being fungible and all, the rest can pretend their tax money is going exclusively to their favorite programs, whether that's healthcare or environment or building roads or starting wars or funding more startups or whatever.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#213

Post by tekla »

teraflop wrote: post #150
areoform wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because human beings are remarkably capable, especially the best and the brightest. There's a great paper called the "dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency." https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/53/2/2.22... // https://lasp.colorado.edu/mop/files/2019/08/RobotMyth.pdf Yes, a robot car that drives on its own will be a better driver than most humans who text and drive, or have 400ms reaction times. Bu…

How does any of that matter for this mission, which will not be landing on the moon?

To test the stuff that will allow to land humans on the moon

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#214

Post by JumpCrisscross »

runarberg wrote: post #140
pj_mukh wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"returning to the moon in a more sustainable way" Isn't this the point of this mission? If your point is "it shouldn't take this much money", then I agree. But also point to almost everything else.

I think that is the point, but whether this mission will actually do that is rather unconvincing. After (and if) Artemis III lands on the moon and brings home the astronauts there seems to be very little planned on how we actually get to the moon base which NASA is claiming this will lead to, let alone the manned Mars mission that is also supposed to follow. In other words, I think NASA is greatly exaggerating, and p…

> there seems to be very little planned on how we actually get to the moon base

There is a lot of research going into in situ construction methods and even nuclear power plants on the moon [1]. (Which would be necessary to bootstrap eventual indigenous panel production [2].)

To me it’s encouraging to see this fundamental work being attacked than an endless sea of renderings. The reason you aren’t seeing heavy detailing, despite construction slated to begin with Artemis V, is we’re waiting for the launch vehicles. (“Any exploration program which "just happens" to include a new launch vehicle is, de facto, a launch vehicle program” [3].)

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-department-of-energy-...

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00971-x

[3] https://blog.matt-rickard.com/p/akins-laws-of-spacecraft-des...

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#215

Post by sandworm101 »

xnx wrote: post #83
adamsb6 wrote: post #31

It is a bit chilling to watch these astronaut profiles having just read yesterday about the heat shield issues observed on the prior mission, and that this will be the first time we can test the heat shield in the actual pressures and temperatures that it will have to endure. Godspeed crew of Artemis II.

Truly. I'm not sure why anyone needs to be on the rocket at all, let alone our best and brightest.

It is a test of the spacecraft. They need people onboard to test all the human systems. But yes, if this was a purely scientific flyby and not part of a larger manned program, machines would do it fine.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#216

Post by glenstein »

russdill wrote: post #198
palata wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See this recent blog post about it (I am not the author): https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly.... It says that it is not safe to fly. They are sending humans without having tested in real conditions that their design was sound, GIVEN that the first time they did that (without humans), it turned out that their design was unsafe.

An article written by a "Polish-American web developer, entrepreneur, speaker, and social critic" says it's not safe to fly. And? What do the astronauts flying on board with significantly more information say?

Did you read it? They're prolific here and the essence of the post is a bunch of citations and quotes from Nasa's own staff and literature.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#217

Post by JumpCrisscross »

runarberg wrote: post #126
nancyminusone wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that we hope to get some new tech with this whereas sports aims for nothing is just icing on the cake. I think big space missions are worth it every now and then on a humanitarian level; even if no new discoveries are made, a new generation of engineers will become fluent in what we have already discovered. Humanity's education is not "done" when the last fact is written in a book, it needs to be constantly…

> a new generation of engineers will become fluent in what we have already discovered. We seem to have lost the technology of going to the moon we gained from Apollo. So without an actual follow-up and a tangible long term plan I suspect the exact same will happen this time around.

> We seem to have lost the technology of going to the moon we gained from Apollo

Some of it. Much for good reason. What are you referring to that we’ve lost that we would want?

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#218

Post by JumpCrisscross »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #206
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does any of that matter for this mission This is a fair question. The closest answer I can get is eyes and ears onboard complement sensors.

It's also rehearsing/testing/experience gathering for an eventual mission that will land people on the Moon again. Missions don't happen in isolation.

> Missions don't happen in isolation

True. I wasn’t thinking about training the ground crews.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#219

Post by foltik »

palata wrote: post #185
foltik wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really disagree that it’s advancing science? Surely actually testing hardware, building knowledge on how to run this type of mission, learning to use lunar resources, figuring out how to keep people alive, etc. will teach us things we couldn’t learn any other way. Fwiw do share your concerns about the methods (sending humans on this specific mission is questionable, SLS is questionable compared to SpaceX appro…

It's not science, it's engineering. I don't think it's advancing science in a way that wouldn't be possible with a fraction of the cost without sending humans there.

The distinction is kind of meaningless, advancing our engineering capabilities in space is advancing the science.

And as I said, agreed on the concerns about cost and sending humans.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#220

Post by JumpCrisscross »

palata wrote: post #186
nancyminusone wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you watch sports, football, the Olympics? If not I'm sure you know someone who does. Same category as this. Each of the 32 NFL team is worth about the cost of 1-2 Artemis launches. The entire league could fund the whole Artemis program nearly twice. Hosting the Olympics is worth about 3-10 launches. Like sports, the objective is ultimately useless except as a showcase of what humanity has to offer, and people like…

The difference being that sports are not exclusively paid by taxes, I guess?

> difference being that sports are not exclusively paid by taxes

Space isn’t financed “exclusively” by taxes, either.

Post reply on HN