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

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#751

Post by botiomez »

After spending years as a kid seeing footage of these things on TV outside living outside of America, I finally got to see it live!

Brought my camera and got a few good pics too! Very invested in this entire mission!

Someone behind me kept whisper crying "That's it! Go baby, go baby go" like it was his child and was encouraging them on. Very emotional, loved it.

Also when that engine sparked it really hit me just how many hours of deep thought and technical innovation goes not only into getting us as humanity to that point, but also the crews at NASA planning, building and executing these missions

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#752

Post by gnatolf »

chromacity wrote: post #653
MarkusWandel wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, there is a financial 'sink' - stockpiles and ammunition or other non-reusable military gear are basically the definition of money 'destroyed'. Their political value is almost non-existent actual money. If any, at all.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#753

Post by p-e-w »

Larrikin wrote: post #709
p-e-w wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange that SpaceX doesn’t seem to be suffering from that limitation. Could it be that the real problem is pork barrel spending and government wastefulness?

Which mission went to the moon?

Why would they go to the moon? They’re far too busy doing things that actually matter, such as slashing launch costs by 80% or more, while achieving the highest reliability of any launch system ever.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#754

Post by mempko »

SyzygyRhythm wrote: post #681
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #300

April 6: flyby April 10: splashdown After that, the exciting work will be in Starship making LEO and testing propellant transfer (a humanity first) [1] and Blue Origin testing its rocket and lunar lander [2], both scheduled for 2026, to enable Artemis II (EDIT: III), currently scheduled—optimistically, in my opinion—for next year. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starship_launches#Futu... [2] https://en.wiki…

Starship "making LEO" is not a significant challenge--the existing flights have explicitly targeted a (very slightly) suborbital trajectory. They could have done otherwise at any point, but for now it's more important to guarantee that the stage comes down immediately. None of their current objectives require more than ~1/2 of an orbit. Starship v3 flying will be a significant leap, though. It's the first with the Ra…

Their objectives keep shifting and starship is far behind schedule. Sure, it's a success if you keep objectives small. They could have tried for LEO ages ago but didn't. Each launch should maximize learning and having small objectives is anathema to that. And very wasteful.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#755

Post by anonymous_user9 »

WalterBright wrote: post #154
anonymous_user9 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are SpaceX rockets a loser for society? That remains to be seen. By giving Musk the prominence to set up DOGE and destroy USAID, they've indirectly led to the deaths of almost a million people. By launching starlink, they're also increasing the amount of aluminum in the upper atmosphere, which may have catastrophic effects on the ozone layer.

Do government non-profit spacecraft not use aluminum? SpaceX rockets also are re-usable, which is environmentally better. They also cost about 10% of what non-profit rockets cost to launch. > they've indirectly led to the deaths of almost a million people. DOGE is a non-profit entity. Besides, why can't other non-profit governments pick up the aid?

The problem is the amount of aluminum. Government non-profit spacecraft do not use very much aluminum, because they don't launch thousands of LEO satellites per year. By building the first megaconstellation and kicking off competition, SpaceX is exposing humanity to different risks, namely ozone depletion and new mechanisms of climate change:

[1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL10...

[2] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD04...

> DOGE is a non-profit entity

You seem to be saying that non-profit entities are incapable of killing people? Or that it's fine if non-profit entities do kill people?

> Besides, why can't other non-profit governments pick up the aid?

I think you're being obtuse. An analogy: "Sure I turned off the circuit breaker that was powering the life support machines, but why couldn't someone else bring in a UPS and plug them in to that?"

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#756

Post by kuerbel »

mcmcmc wrote: post #706
healthworker wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you prefer that we not even try to spread beyond our one planet, when an entire galaxy, or maybe even the neighboring ones, might be in reach if we try? What if someday at the very end of the lifetime of our sun and similar stars, we look back, and regret not trying?

Exactly what I mean. People who obsess over space are so egotistical they can’t imagine someone not thinking it’s “the best”. It’s interesting, but no more important than any other science or field of study. And no, I’d prefer we take care of our home planet and make it a sustainable place to live first. It’s ludicrous to think we have any chance of surviving elsewhere if we can’t stop ourselves from making our natur…

I don't agree with you. An endeavour like this is bringing humanity closer together. After the moon landing people all over the world said "we landed on the moon", not "the US landed on the moon". After they released the photograph of earth as seen from the moon people started to see earth differently, and a flurry of environment protection laws followed.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#757

Post by pseudohadamard »

the_af wrote: post #655
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

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

Toilet fan has already jammed. Not sure if this means the shit has, or hasn't, hit the fan.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#758

Post by justinator »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #717
WaterRun wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’d prefer to cheer for something that’s primary objective isn’t killing people. So there’s that, too.

Just a friendly reminder that midterms are this year.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#759

Post by ActorNightly »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #300

April 6: flyby April 10: splashdown After that, the exciting work will be in Starship making LEO and testing propellant transfer (a humanity first) [1] and Blue Origin testing its rocket and lunar lander [2], both scheduled for 2026, to enable Artemis II (EDIT: III), currently scheduled—optimistically, in my opinion—for next year. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starship_launches#Futu... [2] https://en.wiki…

Starship is just obscene. The thing is never going to work for its designed purpose once you understand what the mission looks like (basically insane amount of refuel dockings while the thing is in orbit)

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#760

Post by eru »

ActorNightly wrote: post #759
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #300

April 6: flyby April 10: splashdown After that, the exciting work will be in Starship making LEO and testing propellant transfer (a humanity first) [1] and Blue Origin testing its rocket and lunar lander [2], both scheduled for 2026, to enable Artemis II (EDIT: III), currently scheduled—optimistically, in my opinion—for next year. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starship_launches#Futu... [2] https://en.wiki…

Starship is just obscene. The thing is never going to work for its designed purpose once you understand what the mission looks like (basically insane amount of refuel dockings while the thing is in orbit)

What makes you think so?
Post reply on HN