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

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#541

Post by noosphr »

Teever wrote: post #537
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack Scaling is still engineering. And the environmental control system, laser-optical communication systems and block-construction heat shields are new. For Artemis III, in-obit propellant transfer will be new and transformational.

All of this stuff is really great but it's not worth the cost that was spent on it. The thing you have to keep asking yourself is "what could 100 billion dollars of non-pork barrel spending have bought instead of what we ended up with?"

A month of war in the middle east.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#542

Post by mchusma »

jgord wrote: post #208

Regardless of whether this particular mission is perfectly planned, this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement. It is a noble endeavor - science, engineering and peaceful exploration hold the keys to our survival and prosperity. It is also important psychologically to our survival - a reminder there is a bigger pie, that we can solve h…

I believe the biggest benefit of going to space, particularly in building space stations, is making humanity focused on building a bigger pie.

This is one step towards this. But once we can build (effectively) infinite land, we will be in true abundance.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#543

Post by GMoromisato »

anonymars wrote: post #279
reimertz wrote: post #271

watched this with teary eyes. it truly shows what we can do when we come together and challenge ourselves for the greater good of humanity.

A real bright spot compared to lately. The messages of positivity and comradery in the live stream were a nice contrast (That being said, I can't believe they cut to people on the ground during SRB separation!) edit: here's better footage from Everyday Astronaut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOsSRRBMNoc&t=24512s

Agreed! I yelled at the screen when I saw that they cut away.

I also loved the shot of stage separation, but they cut away from that way too soon also!

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#544

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

dmix wrote: post #530
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just deterrence. Pax America (used to) mean something much more than that.

When the US stops being the main topic on the internet then you'll know it's over. As it stands everyone is still fully obsessed with America. Their cultural dominance is far from over.

That too is a thing but distinct from what Pax Americana has meant for the last 70 years or so.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#545

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

janalsncm wrote: post #447
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pax Americana must be acknowledged and I shudder at the thought of it shattering. Shudder away! We've already had both Carney and the finance minister of Singapore essentially declare Pax Americana to have ended. Everybody else is just being polite. [EDIT: prime minister of Singapore, not finance minister]

The prime minister of Singapore said something similar. It’s worth a watch, he is very well-spoken. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NXSI4cCm3BM

My mistake, I thought it was their finance minister.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#546

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #501
dingaling wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack. Three of the main engines are refurbished Shuttle engines. The fourth is a clone that cost more than the entire SpaceX Starship stack. The boosters are derived from the Shuttle SRBs. It's a late-60s technology rocket stack with a 2000s-era flight computer. It's such a travesty.

> is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack Scaling is still engineering. And the environmental control system, laser-optical communication systems and block-construction heat shields are new. For Artemis III, in-obit propellant transfer will be new and transformational.

It isn't moving forward. It's an ill-conceived Apollo 1.5 with the MIC calling all the shots and a lander that is MIA. China is doing Apollo 2.0 which is fine considering this is their first attempt. The US needs a modular launch system with orbital booster tugs that can be mixed in various combinations for different mission profiles. One big booster with all of the risk stacked onto billion dollar launches is not the future we should be working toward.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#547

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

The camera work was just terrible. They really need to learn from SpaceX how to do this right. Minus the obnoxious cheering.

SpaceX does these beautiful drone shots and live telemetry so well. Considering that each SLS launch costs in the billions it would be nice to do a little better on production

I felt the commentary during the launch also wasn't good. And I am not too interested in hearing from some Hollywood people before the launch

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#548

Post by feyman_r »

dingaling wrote: post #482
GaryBluto wrote: post #450

It is very disconcerting to see so many completely disregarding incredible technological innovation because other problems exist, especially on HN. If we were not allowed to progress technology until everybody is 100% free of suffering, we'd never be able to create technological that may potentially lead to the alleviation of suffering. It all feels very crabs in a bucket - "I don't feel happy so nobody else should,…

There is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack. Three of the main engines are refurbished Shuttle engines. The fourth is a clone that cost more than the entire SpaceX Starship stack. The boosters are derived from the Shuttle SRBs. It's a late-60s technology rocket stack with a 2000s-era flight computer. It's such a travesty.

Its true that innovation isn't clearly shown in this mission; we also haven't flown humans out that far in more than 50 years either and while we have memories of it, our ability to even execute something like this must be built again. I'd rather see us doing this and 'pick up from where we were last time', than giving up on it or just using a stack that's not currently set to do this.

What Artemis is doing is not impeding innovation: its building our muscle back to work on such things; the discipline, rigor, scale, and attitude needed to execute such missions is unimaginable and orthogonal to the technical innovation and stack used. I also believe that its completely fine to use a 2000s-era flight computer, if that suffices for this purpose. Somehow, for such critical missions, my mental model is to use at least 10 year old technology that has stood the test of time, before going into space. If there's a need for the latest technology - then yes, it should be leveraged.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#549

Post by lapcat »

remarkEon wrote: post #529
lapcat wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the problem inequality or rather poverty ? Because those are not the same thing. According to the OP, inequality: "Regardless of whether this particular mission is perfectly planned, this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement." > What we've done in space has absolutely helped with poverty. It makes weather forecasts possible, whic…

This is a policy decision insofar as the policy isn’t to liquidate entire groups of people over class and status resentment. “Just redistribute the wealth bro, it’ll work this time bro I swear let’s just do a redistribution”.

> “Just redistribute the wealth bro, it’ll work this time bro I swear let’s just do a redistribution”.

Bro, have you considered that NASA, the topic of this submission, is government redistribution of wealth via taxes?

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#550

Post by physicles »

areoform wrote: post #207
dekhn wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troctolite_76535 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt#NASA_career )?

Yes, and more! > Apollo was over three orders of magnitude more efficient in producing scientific papers per day of fieldwork than are the MERs. This is essentially the same as Squyres’ (2005) intuitive estimate given above, and is consistent with the more quantitative analogue fieldwork tests reported by Snook et al. (2007). Scientific papers are a pretty poor measure of productivity so here's another one. We know a…

I’ve wondered for years if this could be quantified. Three orders of magnitude totally justifies the cost, if you care about science.
Post reply on HN