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

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#611

Post by idiotsecant »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #571
feyman_r wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 im…

> our ability to even execute something like this must be built again Why? Because "dreams"? "Reach for the stars"? You know what I remember from the shuttle launches as a kid? I remember my school not being able to afford textbooks but apparently we had enough to spend billions on putting people in space for no reason.

I guess probably we should stop spaceflight until we can go back in time and buy you a textbook.

Spaceflight is cool. Its a awesome thing that people can exist outside our gravitational well. We don't need to solve every possible problem before we do anything cool.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#612

Post by krapp »

WaterRun wrote: post #599
KennyBlanken wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> our ability to even execute something like this must be built again Why? Because "dreams"? "Reach for the stars"? You know what I remember from the shuttle launches as a kid? I remember my school not being able to afford textbooks but apparently we had enough to spend billions on putting people in space for no reason.

Developing something like this would push the frontiers of human technology. Without the Apollo program, not to mention anything else, the personal computer boom in the 1970s might have been delayed by a long time.

We're redoing things we did before most people in this thread were even born, how would any of this "push the frontiers of human technology?"

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#613

Post by V99 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #322
robotnikman wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And with modern forms of entertainment "We're sorry, your Prime subscription appears to have cancelled. Would you like to renew it? We can send you a text message to get this started ..."

This capsule isn't part of your Netflix Household. Create an account to enjoy your own Netflix today.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#614

Post by nandomrumber »

lapcat wrote: post #313
oceanplexian wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Global rates of poverty are 83% lower than they were in 1969 when we landed on the moon. So actually, millions of lives have massively benefited from science and technology. To be cynical in the face of all that is a personal take, not a reflection of the facts.

> Global rates of poverty are 83% lower than they were in 1969 when we landed on the moon. Obvious post hoc fallacy

It’s only a fallacy if the purported facts are fallacious.

And in the case of lifting most of humanity out of poverty, two things are responsible: capitalism and technology.

You can argue that China is a communist state, but it’s the allocation of capital to things that matter that has enable China to thrive.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#615

Post by JumpCrisscross »

runarberg wrote: post #386
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

We don‘t want to colonize space. Colonizing space is science fiction, not a serious goal for humanity, and certainly not an engineering challenge. There is no reason for humans to live anywhere other then on Earth. We have more reasons to live on Antarctica or the deep ocean then on the Moon, Mars or Alpha Centauri. What I really want is for us to send a lander and a launcher to Mars capable of returning to earth the…

> We don‘t want to colonize space

I do. Plenty of people do. Plenty of people also think exoplanet science is useless. I disagree with them. It the arguments are symmetric to those against human spaceflight.

> certainly not an engineering challenge

…how? We don’t have the technology to do this.

> There is no reason for humans to live anywhere other then on Earth. We have more reasons to live on Antarctica or the deep ocean then on the Moon, Mars or Alpha Centauri

Strongly disagree. You’re describing disrupting biospheres.

> None of these would benefit from having a moon base

Of course it does. ISRU (and baseload launch demand) decreases costs of access to deep space.

> diverting funds away from missions with more chance of success and more scientific value

The science slakes our curiosity. The engineering slakes our needs. And they both benefit from each other. Claiming Starship and in-orbit refueling won’t benefit scientific missions is myopic.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#616

Post by hdivider »

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,…

I agree entirely. HN tends to be incredibly nitpicky and dystopian. I think it's because so many HNers work in dystopian software-only companies, not doing much in the physical world, away from the algorithms.

Incredible technological innovation is on the horizon. That's why we are not doomed this century. We can make it.

*hits 'reply', knowing there will be nitpicky comments because of course on HN these days, no positive point shall be left standing.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#617

Post by bdangubic »

mullingitover wrote: post #574
partiallypro wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's per 100k (which just says it's mostly flat per 100k), net spending of the federal government is more than ever, and actual workforce is bigger than ever. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is stubbornly high despite us being in "peace time," and not recession spending. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W068RCQ027SBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USGOVT https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S…

> That's per 100k No, it's a plain headcount. Your first link is a chart of non-inflation adjusted spending. Your second link is all government, not just federal employees so it's not really germane to the discussion, and your third link includes things like Social Security, and frankly... good . Without the government stabilizing spending the economy would be even more of a dumpster fire of random investor panics. I…

> No, it's a plain headcount

> They're brilliant, they do great work and they aren't paid what they're worth

The headcount of such wonderful people you are describing has been reduced but then replaced by 3x+ times the rates Gov is paying for the contractors that were hired (I am one of them). so this headcount being low is a nothing more than political smokescreen that will probably be used in campaigns leading up to November election (not probably, certainly cause there is nothing else to run if you are member of the ruling party)

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#618

Post by dylan604 »

whatever1 wrote: post #222
qingcharles wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's what I thought standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon. Pictures just do not do it justice. Same thing with Starship. My brain knows it's massive, yet feels underwhelmed looking at it on video. Musk should let his ego build replica Saturn V and a Shuttle next the Starship launch pad so there will be proper perspective available

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#619

Post by nandomrumber »

oceanplexian wrote: post #420
turtlesdown11 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So landing on the moon triggered a reduction in global rates of poverty? do you have any research or citations for this claim?

Vaccines, Mobile Phones, Internet, GPS (How do you think container ships navigate), High yield seeds/fertilizers and the Green Revolution, Weather Satellites, I could go on. It's really getting tiring repeating this stuff over and over again to the anti-space crowd.

It’s not the anti-space crowd.

You’re arguing against the misanthrops. To them, nothing humans could do would be good enough. We could end slavery in the West and they’d accuse us of not ending slavery enough.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#620

Post by idiotsecant »

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?"

What a simultaneously cynical and boring and completely useless attitude. Is it your position that if this hadn't happened 100b of otherwise more important spending would have happened?
Post reply on HN