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

Artemis II safely splashes down

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 475 posts

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#51

Post by irjustin »

areoform wrote: post #11

Glad that they're safe and sound. It's worth pointing out that this is the first extremely public, widely acknowledged high risk mission NASA has done in over 50 years. The Shuttle was risky, but it wasn't thought of or acknowledged by NASA as being risky until very late in its lifecycle. According to NASA's OIG, Artemis acceptable crew mortality rate is 1 in 30. Roughly 3x riskier than the shuttle. There genuinely i…

> Artemis acceptable crew mortality rate is 1 in 30.

This seems insane to me. That X decades later we accept, with all our advancements in tech, a weaker system than ever before. That if we send 30 people we _accept_ that one is possible to die.

That's the starting point? That's what we document as acceptable?

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#52

Post by llbbdd »

philistine wrote: post #18
loloquwowndueo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything. No radio signals make it in or out of the capsule due to ionization from the heat and plasma of reentry.

I’ll note, since it is supremely interesting to me, that Starship is able to communicate with the ground during its whole reentry due to its sheer size and ability to connect with Starlink satellites. I assumed loss of signal due to reentry was a given for any spaceship!

Would this capsule had been been able to communicate if it was integrated with starlink or is the size more important? I'd imagine if they could have achieved communication via Starlink they would have done it, but just curious.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#53

Post by gct »

pictureofabear wrote: post #46
areoform wrote: post #11

Glad that they're safe and sound. It's worth pointing out that this is the first extremely public, widely acknowledged high risk mission NASA has done in over 50 years. The Shuttle was risky, but it wasn't thought of or acknowledged by NASA as being risky until very late in its lifecycle. According to NASA's OIG, Artemis acceptable crew mortality rate is 1 in 30. Roughly 3x riskier than the shuttle. There genuinely i…

An error in any of the orbital math may have seen them flung out into space with no chance of recovery.

Orbits do not work that way

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#54

Post by brcmthrowaway »

pwndByDeath wrote: post #49

As a long time space nerd, I'm not sure what this accomplishes by repeating the previous stunts that failed to usher in the promised space frontier. Apollo was, IMO, not successful at changing the course of human history. A really cool footnote, sure, but everything else that was to follow, nope, just a bunch of neat, interesting but ultimately meh science missions. An exciting change would be more like Delta-V/Criti…

What is delta v/critical mass?

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#55

Post by adamsb6 »

pwndByDeath wrote: post #49

As a long time space nerd, I'm not sure what this accomplishes by repeating the previous stunts that failed to usher in the promised space frontier. Apollo was, IMO, not successful at changing the course of human history. A really cool footnote, sure, but everything else that was to follow, nope, just a bunch of neat, interesting but ultimately meh science missions. An exciting change would be more like Delta-V/Criti…

They can't just build Apollo 18 and resume the program as if there weren't a 50 year hiatus.

Imagine if your employer wanted to start using a software system it retired in 1972. What would you do?

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#56

Post by TomatoCo »

philistine wrote: post #18
loloquwowndueo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything. No radio signals make it in or out of the capsule due to ionization from the heat and plasma of reentry.

I’ll note, since it is supremely interesting to me, that Starship is able to communicate with the ground during its whole reentry due to its sheer size and ability to connect with Starlink satellites. I assumed loss of signal due to reentry was a given for any spaceship!

The space shuttle, too, was able to communicate. I imagine the smaller the craft the smaller the angle you can "speak" out of and, below a certain size, it just doesn't work.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#57

Post by ggm »

gct wrote: post #53
pictureofabear wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An error in any of the orbital math may have seen them flung out into space with no chance of recovery.

Orbits do not work that way

The craft has aerodynamics and speed. It might be figuratively true "unrecoverable" but if it takes e.g. 2 weeks to complete a return, their oxygen and food and batteries ran out. Alternatively if it enters too fast they return ... in pieces.

I think you're being a pedant, if your point is a grazing entry causing rebound skip ultimately returns to some orbital path downward.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#58

Post by 627467 »

irjustin wrote: post #51
areoform wrote: post #11

Glad that they're safe and sound. It's worth pointing out that this is the first extremely public, widely acknowledged high risk mission NASA has done in over 50 years. The Shuttle was risky, but it wasn't thought of or acknowledged by NASA as being risky until very late in its lifecycle. According to NASA's OIG, Artemis acceptable crew mortality rate is 1 in 30. Roughly 3x riskier than the shuttle. There genuinely i…

> Artemis acceptable crew mortality rate is 1 in 30. This seems insane to me. That X decades later we accept, with all our advancements in tech, a weaker system than ever before. That if we send 30 people we _accept_ that one is possible to die. That's the starting point? That's what we document as acceptable?

> That X decades later we accept, with all our advancements in tech, a weaker system than ever before

how do you keep past performance while stop performing it for XY decades?

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#59

Post by nodesocket »

wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #37
echoangle wrote: post #20

Wild that they manage to fly to the moon but still seem to be having those comms problems. Asking the astronauts if they’re really pressing the PTT button is wild.

Cellphone coverage notoriously flaky in the Pacific.

Umm it's a satellite phone.
Post reply on HN