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

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#601

Post by WaterRun »

dylan604 wrote: post #579
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.

While that might be true, it is on course to the moon now . Starship hasn't really done anything close. So while cheaper might be on the way, it doesn't exist now . When Starship can do now , we can talk about if the Shuttle Leftover System is ready to be retired

Starship is not designed for high-orbit deep-space missions; it is more like a cargo truck for low Earth orbit.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#602

Post by neya »

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.

Yeah, fuck the engineers who worked full time and ran many simulations tirelessly and worked out the best stack for this mission, right?

Most of the combustion engines in your car are still from designs late 60s - 80s (Eg. Renault). Does that mean it's a travesty too?

Let me guess, a bunch of dudes sitting in SF in a garage could have made a better rocket that runs on ReactJS, right? Because NASA BAD.

Give me a break.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#603

Post by fc417fc802 »

yodsanklai wrote: post #275
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…

> this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement. Is that irony or plain naiveness? historically and technically, conquest of space is inseparable from warfare. As for climate change, one can argue that technology is one of the primary driver: aviation alone is estimated to 4% of global temperature rise.

Energy use is the driver. Fossil fuels happen to be cheap. It's effectively a coincidence, nothing inherent to technological progress itself except insofar as something like aviation would never have been a commercial success without an exceedingly cheap, dense, and portable method of energy storage. Solar-syngas and solar-battery would have eventually gotten there but we'd all have been taking trains and ships for the past 80 years while riding electrified public transit.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#604

Post by throwatdem12311 »

dylan604 wrote: post #589
throwatdem12311 wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war Just a reminder that even the Utopia of the 23rd century and beyond envisioned by Gene Roddenberry for Star Trek - the Federation and Starfleet are still at their core military institutions. Even war was very much still a thing in his utopic vision, despite the fact that scarcity basically no longer exists so what hell was every…

Wasn't war on Earth not the issue but war with other species in the galaxy the issue? Sure, there were some sympathizers trying to sabotage peace, but that's because they wanted to continue warring.

There is the Maquis which are basically insurrectionists/terrorists and Starfleet also has Section 31 for doing wet work.

Sisko poisoned a planet’s atmosphere, allowed political assassinations and even Picard did things that could be considered questionable once or twice, even Kirk.

Earth is peaceful because well…in a show about exploring space nobody really wants to see conflicts on Earth (there are a few exceptions where it worked though). And they have enough big guns and secret assassins to keep up appearances.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#605

Post by roarcher »

api wrote: post #265
rdedev wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope it does. But every day that goes by I feel that the future is just going to be like what's shown in the expanse series

My personal take for a long time has been that the primary driver of most war today is boredom. War today is undertaken for entertainment. It's a special kind of entertainment that taps into deep brain stem circuits and provides a false but deeply resonating sense of purpose and meaning. When you hear that "people don't have a sense of meaning," it means their brain stem is not feeling the tribal loyalty emotions con…

I think the primary drivers of war come from the top--powerful people motivated by greed and ego. Those are the spark that starts wars.

Boredom works from the bottom, providing fuel for wars in the form of soldiers. More specifically, young men in particular are easily appealed to by offering them a part in some great heroic endeavor, and a promise to mold them into someone whose manhood and courage may never again be questioned.

Of course, as many former soldiers have found out, you usually receive none of those things. The endeavor was bullshit, you were only a cog, and there is no badge of honor in the world that exempts you from the human experience of being made to feel small.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#606

Post by WaterRun »

sd9 wrote: post #320

Minutes after launch they reached "ten thousand miles per hour". That's 2.78 miles per second. Nuts. No doubt the speeds go even higher later too. I'm sure people here are already familiar with the speeds these things go, but that's the first time I've confronted a fact like that and it blew me away.

ICBMs also have a similar speed at the terminal warhead stage — only the direction is different.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#607

Post by dylan604 »

sd9 wrote: post #320

Minutes after launch they reached "ten thousand miles per hour". That's 2.78 miles per second. Nuts. No doubt the speeds go even higher later too. I'm sure people here are already familiar with the speeds these things go, but that's the first time I've confronted a fact like that and it blew me away.

Artemis II won't fly by the moon until Day 6, but it only took Apollo 8 to Day 4 to get to the moon. Looking at the wiki for Apollo 8, it shows the moon was 218k miles at launch while they said the moon is currently 240k, so it still looks like Apollo was moving faster than Artemis.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#608

Post by kelipso »

dylan604 wrote: post #596
anon291 wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy to believe that people who believe in one holy book are killing people over another holy book in countries like (but certainly not limited to) Nigeria, while another country launches people to the moon. But, alas, I agree with you. There's no way out but through I guess.

You seem to be forgetting that the country launching people to the moon is primarily of one holy book and is currently bombing the people of another holy book.

And mainly in the name of these holy books too lol. The forgetfulness of people when they see news like this is always funny to me.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#609

Post by kelnos »

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.

The amount of my taxes that went toward people flying on this trip is so small to be not worth considering.

I'm much more concerned about my tax dollars going toward the US military, especially with Trump wanting another $200B so he can murder more people in Iran while making the world and the US measurably less safe.

Post reply on HN