Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Artemis II is not safe to fly

idlewords.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 667 posts

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#631

Post by TeMPOraL »

eru wrote: post #590
randallsquared wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a typical argument for state intervention in the marketplace, but it is weaker if one makes different assumptions about the state of the market absent the intervention. In order to show that it was money well spent, you'd have to show that it's better to have more groups digging, and that there wouldn't have been enough diggers without GovDitch.

Well, also that spending on needless digging would have been the best use of the resources. Instead of spending on something more immediately useful (or leaving the money with the taxpayers).

There's really many, many more lower-hanging fruits in tax spend even in science funding alone, that's significantly more of a "waste of resources" than manned space program, and drastically more so in tax spending in general. Why not focus on those more, instead of attacking one of the few remaining things where people still try to do something ambitious, constructive, and forward-looking, and one that has a hugely disproportionate and positive impact on promoting interest in science and engineering?

But I've already noticed that some people think sportsball and adtech salaries are enough to build society's mythos around, so whatever.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#632

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

mmooss wrote: post #627
dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you see a system in which so many fail, then the problem is the system. Nope, it's start off with individuals, often way up above. Calling a system problematic is, essentially saying no one is responsible.

> Calling a system problematic is, essentially saying no one is responsible. That's a great and essential point. I think if we deal with reality, the correlation between system and human behavior is inescapable. And of course leaders and managers have a strong influence on the people they lead/manage (and vice versa to a lesser degree), and peers have a strong influence on each other. Otherwise, leaders might as well…

>My point is, that for the private, we do offload some responsibility to the system

Fair enough.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#633

Post by rhcom2 »

randomNumber7 wrote: post #540
rhcom2 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is jumping on a grenade to save another person suicidal? Or is it just a matter of you not agreeing with the rational?

No. You save another person. An awsome trip isn't the same.

Of course it isn't the same, but it does show it is just a matter of you not agreeing with the rational

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#634

Post by adamsb6 »

MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #624
enoch_r wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this conversation, you have repeatedly referred to "all of the data" and "mountains of data," yet you have posted none. Meanwhile I have posted every major study on both sides of the debate! Your argument seems to be that: - the experts have told people to use car seats - experts wisely base policy on "all of the data" - therefore, "all of the data" must support the claim that car seats save lives If we're going t…

https://www.cdc.gov/child-passenger-safety/publications/inde... Experts almost always set policy better than non-experts doing their own research. Especially on complex topics. There is no point in two amateurs arguing over a topic they don't understand. All I can do is refer to the publicly available reasoning and studies of experts, which have evidence and conclusions opposite of the amateur conclusion above.

Risk tolerance is a value judgment, not an empirical fact waiting to be discovered.

Competent experts could tell you how much safer you would be if you wore a helmet to drive your car. They can't tell you how much you should value that extra bit of safety.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#635

Post by wavemode »

mastermage wrote: post #594
idlewords wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you play a single round of Russian roulette with a revolver, it is likely you will not die, but it is also not safe to do that. The same idea applies here. The foam shedding/impact problem was heavily analyzed throughout the Shuttle program, and recognized as a significant risk. Read the CAIB report for a good history. That report also describes the groupthink dynamic at NASA that made skeptical engineers "come ar…

> If you play a single round of Russian roulette with a revolver, it is likely you will not die, but it is also not safe to do that. The same idea applies here. Fundamentally space travel is not save, it cannot be (atleast at our Technological level) Space is unimaginably hostile to life. We cannot reduce this danger to zero.

This is (no offense) intellectually dishonest. Nobody wants the risk to be zero. What we want is that, if there is a specific KNOWN flaw in a life-critical system, that the flaw is addressed and the shuttle re-tested before humans are placed in it.

There's no good reason not to do this, except as a lazy cost-cutting measure (and, presumably, under time pressure to perform the eventual moon landing mission within the timeframe of Trump's presidency).

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#636

Post by kbelder »

quasistasis wrote: post #199
Grimburger wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you bothered to ask the astronauts on board if they want to risk it? You're getting clicks, they're going to the moon and there's a lot of people on Earth who would happily take any tradeoff for that.

The astronauts are cool with it. They are basically brainwashed to rationalize exceptional trust in all of the people and components so that they are able to focus on the task at hand.

Yeah, the astronauts aren't nearly as rational and clear-thinking as HN posters.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#638

Post by Miraste »

MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #624
enoch_r wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this conversation, you have repeatedly referred to "all of the data" and "mountains of data," yet you have posted none. Meanwhile I have posted every major study on both sides of the debate! Your argument seems to be that: - the experts have told people to use car seats - experts wisely base policy on "all of the data" - therefore, "all of the data" must support the claim that car seats save lives If we're going t…

https://www.cdc.gov/child-passenger-safety/publications/inde... Experts almost always set policy better than non-experts doing their own research. Especially on complex topics. There is no point in two amateurs arguing over a topic they don't understand. All I can do is refer to the publicly available reasoning and studies of experts, which have evidence and conclusions opposite of the amateur conclusion above.

Child car seat regulations are state laws passed by state politicians. They are not experts in any sense of the word, and generally don't bother with evidence or studies when creating said laws.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#639

Post by palata »

mmooss wrote: post #626
palata wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see how those things reconcile. For one, and once again: those people spend most of their life knowing they won't access a position of power. White males who don't have the profile of the "dominant white males" are in a different position: they don't grow up knowing it, they have to realise eventually that they are just the kind of white males who gets power. And if they do, the risk is that they fall back…

Sorry, I didn't quite process your point the first time.

No worries, I'm having a hard time expressing it clearly :)

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#640

Post by palata »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #628
palata wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just saying - my observation: statistically Sounds weird to me. Is it a "just saying - my observation" kind of take, or is it statistics? It cannot be both, can it? Obviously we don't have any statistics about that, first because we don't have any measure that can say who the "most competent" is when it comes to "being in a position of power". The only measure we have is that the person in power was competent enoug…

>Sounds weird to me. Is it a "just saying - my observation" kind of take, or is it statistics? It cannot be both, can it? No, this is not any official statistics. It's personal observation. Just like I can conclude that statistically most men are taller than women based on personal observation. ( you can remove the word statistic if I sound confusing) ( At this point I generally like to ask the person who I am conver…

You say that "white old males" are "statistically the most competent" (without statistics, just "because you see it"), and also "most humble".

And you seem to genuinely believe it. Well I don't, at all.

> what is your real world experience with complex technical projects?

My real world experience with complex technical projects shows completely different "gut feeling statistics". My real world experience with complex technical projects is that those white males who are particularly good at getting in positions of power are generally incompetent at doing anything other than getting in positions of power. More: they are often counter-productive, at least regularly toxic, sometimes downright dangerous. And they systematically believe that they are good people and that everybody loves them, even though my experience being part of "the people" is that it's usually very, very wrong.

So that makes at least one point where they are statistically (from what I see, no actual statistics) incompetent: they don't realise that what they see reflects their position of power (people act as if they respected them) and not reality (people act completely differently when they are safe to do so, e.g. when drinking beers in a safe environment).

Post reply on HN