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

Artemis II crew see first glimpse of far side of Moon [video]

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 480 posts

Re: Artemis II crew see first glimpse of far side of Moon [video]

#241

Post by Eisenstein »

remarkEon wrote: post #133
izzydata wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are struggling to afford every day life and we are surrounding by crazy things every day like cellphones talking to satellites in space. On any objective measure it is definitely amazing to send humans to the moon, but there are more pressing issues for most people right now. If we as a species had more of our ducks in a row we may be able to better celebrate this as the achievement for humankind that it is.

I see that "whitey on the moon" is back. If it makes you feel better, the amount of money the United States spends on space is a very small percentage compared overall entitlement spending. There is always going to be some level of inequality, so your maxim that we should only spend money on space exploration when those problems are solved just isn't workable. The enormous amount of money the United States spends on…

1. Do you think that it is the mission that is misguided, or the methods, in "solving" inequality and poverty?

2. What would you rather the money be spent on?

Re: Artemis II crew see first glimpse of far side of Moon [video]

#242

Post by YZF »

throwaway132448 wrote: post #235
YZF wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there really less "fat on the bone" though? What metric are you tracking for that and what are the historical norms? "forcing them to live on a shorter and shorter term outlook" -> social media? Rather than assigning blame I think it's fair to ask the people here to behave. Maybe it's not their fault they spend their day doom scrolling and have the attention span of a cat but they do have agency to change that. [E…

> Is there really less "fat on the bone" though? What metric are you tracking for that and what are the historical norms? It’s just my experience over the last 15 years. If it doesn’t align with yours, that’s nice to know. > "forcing them to live on a shorter and shorter term outlook" -> social media? Sure, but it could be lots of other things like 24hr news or the emergence of the gig economy. > Isn't "Focus on the…

> It’s just my experience over the last 15 years. If it doesn’t align with yours, that’s nice to know.

I know it's the narrative that times are bad. But me, my coworkers, my neighbors, my local mall, etc. all seem to be doing really great. And look, moon mission! I would think that there are a lot of people in tech who are doing better than ever. We've also seen layoffs and I know it's hard for people to find a job. This is why I'm asking for metrics because I don't think it's actually as clear as the narrative that this is the worse over 15 years. The pandemic was pretty bad? We had the financial crisis? Gas prices were a lot higher in 2021 ... I guess as they say perception is 99% of reality ...

Re: Artemis II crew see first glimpse of far side of Moon [video]

#243

Post by JumpCrisscross »

anjel wrote: post #211
oceanplexian wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my belief that it is intended to be little more than a quick, dirty, and vainglorious Apollo repeat by a failing government. If the USA successfully sends people to the Moon, achieves all of NASA's technical goals, and the astronauts make it back in one piece, isn't that literally the opposite of failure? It might be expensive and you can argue that it's wasteful. But even to that point, the $11B cost of SLS is not…

Its not Pork and its not science. Its a strategically costly land grab rather than a political vain-glorious stunt. Same as Mercury/Gemini/Apollo except this time China instead of Russia.

> its not science. Its a strategically costly land grab

Step away from your screens. Framing everything exclusively in these hard terms isn’t healthy (or true).

Re: Artemis II crew see first glimpse of far side of Moon [video]

#244

Post by JumpCrisscross »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #102
GolfPopper wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking for myself (who has been fascinated with the space program since I was a small child), any joy I might feel around Artemis II feels tainted, by the immense amount of pork involved (SLS is called "Senate Launch System" for good reason) to the point where Artemis is more corporate welfare that happens to involve the Moon than a real space program, and by my belief that it is intended to be little more than a q…

I know the RS-25 engines[0] (aka SSME, Space Shuttle Main Engine) were "reusable" in an academic sense (needing a ton of refurbishment after each use) but it hurts my heart that we're dropping them in the ocean and it makes it hard for me to feel good about the Artemis program. It's irrational but it makes the kid who loved the Space Shuttle (which, itself, was a political pork barrel and a jack-of-all-trades-master-…

> it hurts my heart that we're dropping them in the ocean

They are functionally obsolete. Chances that we’re still using SLS in ten years is slim. Any resources going towards refurbishment are better spent on Starship and Blue Moon.

Re: Artemis II crew see first glimpse of far side of Moon [video]

#245

Post by TimTheTinker »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #139
jedberg wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it was arguably the Christian value system which forged the government and institutions that made these achievements possible. Many of the founders were specifically anti-Christian. They were deists, and believed in a higher power, but specifically rejected the idea of a divine intervention of God or Jesus. Christians do not own the idea of being nice to others and trusting others.

Of the 45 delegates to the continental congress, only two (Benjamin Franklin and another) were known to be deists. One's membership records couldn't be found. The other 42 were active members and on the books in their churches.[0] Jefferson also was a deist, but he wasn't present at the constitutional convention of 1787 (though he earlier authored the Declaration of Independence). [0] M. E. Bradford. Founding Fathers…

typo - *55 delegates attended the constitutional congress, 52 of which were on the church registers as active church members.

note: only 39 delegates signed the resulting document

Re: Artemis II crew see first glimpse of far side of Moon [video]

#246

Post by JumpCrisscross »

onraglanroad wrote: post #119
raverbashing wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah your life must really suck if you only care about immediate hurdles and pains without making room for hope or creativity

Well yes. For too many people, life does suck for that very reason. That's not something to mock people for; it's a problem to apply your mind to and fix.

> it's a problem to apply your mind to and fix

In kids, sure. In adults, not sure it’s worth the effort on a society wide basis.

Re: Artemis II crew see first glimpse of far side of Moon [video]

#247

Post by _moof »

herodotus wrote: post #18

I am curious. If it is on the far side, where does the light come from for the photos? Other stars?

The sun. The moon always shows the same side to Earth, so the far side has phases just like the Earth-facing side does. When we see a full moon from Earth, the far side is a "new moon"; when we see a new moon, the far side is full. And so on for the other lunar phases.

Re: Artemis II crew see first glimpse of far side of Moon [video]

#248

Post by [deleted] »

xoac wrote: post #121
rybosome wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kind of a false dichotomy. That’s precisely my point. Some stanzas in the poem suggest that there’s a direct connection between the moon mission and his poverty. > The man just upped my rent last night > cause Whitey’s on the moon > Was all that money I made last year > For Whitey on the moon? And my point then was that I can see and empathize with his frustration, but I don’t feel it’s a singularly correct perspec…

But he's not blaming his poverty on "whitey on the moon" but the lack of healthcare. There is an opportunity cost to war, Moon/Mars missions etc.

[deleted]

Re: Artemis II crew see first glimpse of far side of Moon [video]

#249

Post by JumpCrisscross »

beacon294 wrote: post #134
dotancohen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author of this poem went to great lengths to show his racism. It reminds me of a post, probably on Reddit, of a similar racist nature. Just when it's going in the other direction it's clearer. The post was by a man, supposedly white, who had to pull his child or children from private school because he could not pay for it. His frustration was based on the fact that his taxes were higher than the school tuition, a…

He could be expressing the generational frustration of being black in America. When things are so segregated you feel you are looking across at a different country landing on the moon, you might write such a poem.

> He could be expressing the generational frustration of being black in America

I’m sure that’s how the racist young Republicans would defend themselves too. It’s hard being a young man in America today.

Re: Artemis II crew see first glimpse of far side of Moon [video]

#250

Post by nemo44x »

al_borland wrote: post #65
GolfPopper wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking for myself (who has been fascinated with the space program since I was a small child), any joy I might feel around Artemis II feels tainted, by the immense amount of pork involved (SLS is called "Senate Launch System" for good reason) to the point where Artemis is more corporate welfare that happens to involve the Moon than a real space program, and by my belief that it is intended to be little more than a q…

I ran across this video[0] yesterday with Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about how it’s always been political. The first moon landing was more about global politics than science. As a child you likely weren’t concerned about that side of it, or were shielded from it. It isn’t always the purist motivations that push the human race forward, but forward it moves us. [0] https://youtu.be/j_AlXChA9F4

It’s a weak take and here’s why. Huge tasks like going to the moon are made up of many different individuals that have different goals. Some are rocket scientists that want to innovate on the science of rocketry. Others are government admins with political goals.

So to call the entire thing “political” ignores the purpose of those involved and critical to the outcome at the expense of just labeling it all “political”.

Post reply on HN