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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#801

Post by ben_w »

remarkEon wrote: post #529
lapcat wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the problem inequality or rather poverty ? Because those are not the same thing. According to the OP, inequality: "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." > What we've done in space has absolutely helped with poverty. It makes weather forecasts possible, whic…

This is a policy decision insofar as the policy isn’t to liquidate entire groups of people over class and status resentment. “Just redistribute the wealth bro, it’ll work this time bro I swear let’s just do a redistribution”.

> “Just redistribute the wealth bro, it’ll work this time bro I swear let’s just do a redistribution

Literally 100% of taxes work like this, it happens every monthly paycheck.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#802

Post by jojobas »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #800
jojobas wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by the fact it's 2026 you must be writing this from the Mars base.

> Judging by the fact it's 2026 you must be writing this from the Mars base SpaceX was started in 2001. It announced Falcon 9 and messaged its reusability ambitions in 2005. Falcon 1 wasn’t going anywhere because making rockets is too hard. Falcons 5 and 9 weren’t going anywhere because medium lift is a different ball game. Falcon Heavy wasn’t going anywhere because timing that many engines impossible. Reuse is impos…

> But they’re ridiculously good at not persisting with stupid.

They are persisting with HLS though.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#803

Post by IshKebab »

dingaling wrote: post #497
ssl-3 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard, but Everyday Astronaut had a manually-operated camera with a 2,000mm lens that captured everything from engine start all the way through a reasonably-clear view of SRB separation. In 4k, at 720fps. (I didn't bother with watching the NASA feed.)

I wish we'd known this before the launch Both myself and my 12yo were disappointed by the NASA feed, it was more like the matter-of-fact coverage of 'routine' Shuttle launches of the 1980s than something worthy of this historic mission.

Yeah I watched the official feed because SpaceX's official feeds are always the best thing to watch for their launches and I guessed the same would be true for NASA. Especially since this whole program is essentially a PR exercise. Oh well.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#804

Post by bdamm »

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)

Going to the Moon or Mars is a trojan horse.

Starship's true purpose is to compete with airlines in trans oceanic flights.

Musk has said so many times but then he intentionally obfuscates it with all the Mars and Moon talk.

But remember that you heard this before it was widely realized to be true; Starship isn't about going to Mars. Starship is about going to China.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#805

Post by askl »

bdamm wrote: post #804
ActorNightly wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Going to the Moon or Mars is a trojan horse. Starship's true purpose is to compete with airlines in trans oceanic flights. Musk has said so many times but then he intentionally obfuscates it with all the Mars and Moon talk. But remember that you heard this before it was widely realized to be true; Starship isn't about going to Mars. Starship is about going to China.

That sounds even stupider than using it to go to mars. I really hope it stays a fantasy like most musk projects.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#806

Post by bluescrn »

bdamm wrote: post #804
ActorNightly wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Going to the Moon or Mars is a trojan horse. Starship's true purpose is to compete with airlines in trans oceanic flights. Musk has said so many times but then he intentionally obfuscates it with all the Mars and Moon talk. But remember that you heard this before it was widely realized to be true; Starship isn't about going to Mars. Starship is about going to China.

Far too dangerous and noisy for that to ever happen, surely.

And too fragile/explodey for niche military uses (long range troop drops?)

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#809

Post by chickenbig »

gnatolf wrote: post #752
chromacity wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> stockpiles and ammunition or other non-reusable military gear are basically the definition of money 'destroyed'

Goods like longer-lasting food, medical supplies or a strategic oil reserve are not wasted. The money that went into supplying them has gone back into the economy, and they serve a more strategic purpose than the market participants could have borne (i.e. societal insurance policies). The same could also be said of military stockpiles, and continuing to buy them sustains a capability that is hard to get back once lost.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#810

Post by bdamm »

bluescrn wrote: post #806
bdamm wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to the Moon or Mars is a trojan horse. Starship's true purpose is to compete with airlines in trans oceanic flights. Musk has said so many times but then he intentionally obfuscates it with all the Mars and Moon talk. But remember that you heard this before it was widely realized to be true; Starship isn't about going to Mars. Starship is about going to China.

Far too dangerous and noisy for that to ever happen, surely. And too fragile/explodey for niche military uses (long range troop drops?)

If you're thinking of passenger service, perhaps it is a bit unattractive in the short term. No good launching and landing spots.

But for military use - think logistics. Rapid delivery of equipment to unusual places. This applies to civilian purposes as well. All kinds of use-cases for speeding up cargo.

The entire economics of Starship and rapid reusability was presented at the beginning of the Starbase work, way back when Hoppy was a thing. He's been sticking to the plan since then. You might want it to be fiction, but he's been very good at figuring out business plans to leverage his ultimate goals.

Post reply on HN