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

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#651

Post by mcmcmc »

heresie-dabord wrote: post #189
mathieu4v wrote: post #108

I will be watching the launch from Europe, so it will be not earlier than half past midnight for us. My kids (9 and 10) are sleeping on the couch in front of the projection screen, so that they do not even have to get up when I wake them up at midnight, which I promised. Just wanted to add my grain of positivity here. Godspeed Artemis 2!

> add my grain of positivity The best of science, reason, research, engineering, training, expertise, co-operation... The best of humanity. Le meilleur de l'humanité.

[flagged]

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#653

Post by chromacity »

MarkusWandel wrote: post #583
areoform wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 indiffere…

When I see numbers like that ($38 billion) thrown around I always wonder: Where did that money go? In the best case, it stayed in the economy in the form of salaries and such. In the worst case, it goes directly into an offshore pile of mega-wealth where it won't benefit the economy and likely won't even be taxed. Is there any way to determine where on this continuum this program stands? I'm guessing the 1960s space…

That kind of money, even if it goes to a single person, doesn't get taken out of the economy. No one puts it under the mattress. It's invested, so it's basically given to other people in exchange for a promise of equity / future returns.

It might not be the allocation of capital we like, but it doesn't disappear.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#654

Post by 0xffff2 »

mrexroad wrote: post #458
0xffff2 wrote: post #282

I do hope the doomers who think that the entire US government has been completely gutted will take note of this. The government workforce is in a bad spot for sure, SLS is far from a perfect program, but this still demonstrates that we are doing some real work still.

Have you talked to any actual NASA employees (not just contractors) that work in science? For what it’s worth, I watched today’s Artemis II launch with them. While proud of the mission, they’re likely in your “Doomer” category after a year being devastated and demoralized by having their science budgets slashed, grants/projects cancelled, having been forced to fire good contractors of 10+ years and then watching some…

Yep, I work with them every day, since I am myself a NASA contractor. I'm curious what you think the major distinction is between a contractor and a civil servant in the first place. I work directly as part of a division (used to be "on site" before 2020, but now I'm remote so that doesn't quite fit) doing 80% the same job as any of my civil servant colleagues. I really don't think the range of opinions is all that different on either side of the fence.

I'll repeat that there are a lot of problems, but it's not nearly as bad as some people on the internet make it out to be.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#655

Post by the_af »

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

Forget about the snacks, I wonder about the toilet in 10 days in such cramped living conditions.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#656

Post by BurningFrog »

robotnikman wrote: post #227
ge96 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think I would be bored in this trip!

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#657

Post by esnyder9 »

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.

If we're going to be idealists and say that the money that'd come out of space exploration would go into education, there is an awful lot more money being spent on the business of killing people that you could also say should go elsewhere.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#658

Post by ls65536 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #644
NetMageSCW wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ABC News says 330 habitable cubic feet or about the interior space of two minivans.

> ABC News says 330 habitable cubic feet or about the interior space of two minivans I did lockdown in a ~450 sq. ft. Habitable under 400. Partner. Cat. Me. The astronauts will be fine.

~450 square feet, with how many feet in the third dimension? You probably had an order of magnitude more volume than 330 cubic feet there.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#659

Post by furyofantares »

dylan604 wrote: post #607
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.

My understanding is Artemis II orbits earth for 23.5 hours before heading to the moon while Apollo 8 did so for under 3 hours, so that accounts for some of the difference.
Post reply on HN