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

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#221

Post by russdill »

glenstein wrote: post #216
russdill wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I've also read material outside of that article from NASA's own staff and literature.

Statements like this:

"Put more simply, NASA is going to fly Artemis II based on vibes, hoping that whatever happened to the heat shield on Artemis I won’t get bad enough to harm the crew on Artemis II."

Are just so intellectually dishonest and completely ignore the extensive research and testing that's gone into qualifying this flight.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#222

Post by whatever1 »

qingcharles wrote: post #38
hghid wrote: post #7

Even though you could question the whole Artemis concept, it's still extremely exciting watching the countdown with my son. I just missed the original Apollo flights and had assumed I would never see a moon landing in my lifetime. We may well not have a landing for quite some time yet, but it's still cool to see a Moon bound rocket standing on the launchpad...

I don't know if it's feasible for you, but if you can, try to take your kid to see a live rocket launch. The TV is grossly unable to display how awesome these things are in person.

The scale really is unfathomable for the human brain.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#223

Post by JumpCrisscross »

runarberg wrote: post #59
bee_rider wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have any questions about a mission to Mars, it is a stupid and pointless trip that I don’t want to ask any questions about. The Moon, I dunno, it’s at least in Earth’s gravity well so it isn’t like we’re going totally the wrong direction when we go there, right? At best it could be a gas station on the trip to somewhere interesting like the Asteroid belt, though.

Whether a moon base is needed or even beneficial is a question I have not heard a convincing answer in favor. And even if moon base is indeed needed and/or beneficial to future space exploration / resource extraction why robots cannot more efficiently build (or assemble) such a moon base is another question I need an answer to. We are sending humans to (or around) the moon now, but it may just turn out to be a wasted…

> Whether a moon base is needed or even beneficial is a question I have not heard a convincing answer in favor

If we want to go to Mars, the Moon is a good place to learn. Simple things like how to do trauma medicine in low g; how to accommodate a variety of human shapes, sizes and fitness levels; how to do in situ manufacturing; all the way to more-speculative science like how to gestate a mammal. These are easier to do on the Moon than Mars. And the data are more meaningful than simulating it in LEO. If we get ISRU going, doing it on the Moon should actually be cheaper.

If we don’t want to colonize space, the Moon is mostly a vanity mission. That said, the forcing function of developing semi-closed ecologies almost certainly has sustainability side effects on the ground.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#224

Post by duped »

foltik wrote: post #120
duped wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think we will learn more from Artemis or the Asteroid Redirect Mission? Because that's a concrete example of how funding this mission caused other experiments to be cancelled.

Fair point, but that’s an argument about prioritization within NASA’s budget (and its size relative to other spending), not the scientific value of the mission.

There's never non-zero value to any challenging engineering problem. The question is whether the finite resources spent to solve it are best spent on it versus other projects.

And in this mission in particular, you can't divorce science from politics. NASA's budget was reined in by Trump 45 and his admin picked Artemis because a manned mission to the moon invokes a particular feeling and memory, not because it benefits science. The moon is a known quantity, and going there is not more valuable than the other projects the government could have spent $100 billion on.

Keep in mind, this is one of the most expensive single launches in history while there is a partial government shutdown and the rest of the federal government that does real research has been gutted by this same administration. So it's tough to talk about "scientific value" when it's obvious that this mission is doing little science at the same time the government has decreed it won't be in the business of paying for science.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#225

Post by NetMageSCW »

ge96 wrote: post #177
vibe42 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can move around after they switch from launch to spaceflight config. Apparently they also have some exercise gear for the journey.

It is just the capsule though? There's no stage under them/another cylinder? Module Trying to imagine how big the thing is like 10x10 feet room

Just the capsule - there is a module but it can’t be reached and is for more engines that they will leave behind.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#226

Post by TeMPOraL »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #218
TeMPOraL wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only in the last few minutes, the livestream actually covered various goals this mission - explicitly a test mission - is meant to achieve. For example, one they just mentioned is they're going to be doing some docking maneuvers practice.

This is not just training the current flight crew and ground crews, but is also generally testing the entire system - including operations and hardware too, with feedback important to logistics and component manufacturers, etc. With possible exception of Falcon 9 launches, space missions are still infrequent enough that each of them is providing knowledge and experience meaningfully relevant to all work in and adjacent to space exploration and space industry.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#227

Post by robotnikman »

ge96 wrote: post #153
dguest wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get nervous in 10 days, they won't need a heat shield until reentry.

10 days? Hope they brought snacks Seriously though I hope they're able to get up and walk around I don't know if I could handle that 10 days in that small room

Seems like its at least bigger than the Apollo Lunar Module from the 70's

And with modern forms of entertainment to make the trip less boring.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#228

Post by areoform »

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?

Because many small steps are required before every giant leap.

I would like to point out that the current misadventure in the ME has cost at least $38,035,856,006 in 32 days. And that won't receive half of the "this is a waste of money" critiques this mission will. And there are a ton of people who are against that excursion.

Most people who will come across this will react with either extreme negativity or indifference. Very few people will react positively. This thread itself is evidence of that. This is a nerdy community filled with people who are deeply positive about space exploration and excluding my comments, the straw poll was,

    ~81 positive (48%), ~43 negative (25%), ~45 neutral (27%).
Only a plurality of comments were positive. 88 comments were neutral or negative.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#229

Post by _DeadFred_ »

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?

In the USA tax payers pay for most stadiums/arenas.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#230

Post by NetMageSCW »

wat10000 wrote: post #161
russdill wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, that's how these heat shields work. They aren't reusable, you can't test them and then use them again. Or do you mean the design? We already did Artemis I.

We already did Artemis I and the heat shield lost a lot more material than it was supposed to on that flight. "Specifically, portions of the char layer wore away differently than NASA engineers predicted, cracking and breaking off the spacecraft in fragments that created a trail of debris rather than melting away as designed. The unexpected behavior of the Avcoat creates a risk that the heat shield may not sufficient…

Also the fixes weren’t made on this capsule, since it was already built with the old design.

So that means this capsule will fly a different re-entry profile to attempt to avoid the issue and Artemis IV will fly with untested fixes for lunar return.

Post reply on HN