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

121–130 of 475 posts

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#121

Post by bombcar »

atonse wrote: post #101

I had to explain to my wife and kids (not that I'm in this field, but I also have to remind myself) that we are able to pinpoint where the craft will land, when it will land down to the minute, because of ... just ... math. And we're able to get them there and back because of science. It all boils down to equations that describe the world accurately, and a way of experimentation, iteration, thinking that gets us all…

The analogies for these things like "hitting a golf ball into a hole in one 5,000 miles away" are always fun.

I like starting from the fact that Ptolemy was able to get the accuracy of the "motions of the heavens" down so well that it took more than a thousand years to get observations that showed discrepancies. The math, it maths.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#122

Post by bombcar »

allenrb wrote: post #67
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.

My friends and I have been deriving much amusement from the comms issues. We can fly people around the moon, talk with them, send back high res video, but talk to the boat that’s close enough to swim to? Forget about it! Note: next time, pack a walkie talkie. ;-)

They missed the chance to reply "Main screen turn on."

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#123

Post by [deleted] »

stackghost wrote: post #107
Ifkaluva wrote: post #98

Can somebody help me understand why this does a water landing, like the old Apollo missions, instead of like the space shuttle that lands like a plane?

Aerospace engineer here: The simple answer is that the Shuttle form factor is unnecessarily complex for this mission. A small Apollo-style capsule that parachutes into the ocean has a simpler mission profile, which allows for simpler technical and operational requirements, which in turn reduces program cost.

[deleted]

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#124

Post by _moof »

BitsAndObjects wrote: post #110
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buoyancy is an easier equation to solve than lift.

So why do they need to use helicopters and a risky airlift to return the astronauts to the main vessel? Why not just use the speedboats to take them back? Seems really odd and I can’t find any reasonable explanation.

Helicopter -> large boat is much easier, and much faster, than small boat -> large boat. And it's not riskier. I know the inherent risk in flight is greater, but it's also much more managed, so the actual risk is less.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#125

Post by chrisweekly »

allenrb wrote: post #67
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.

My friends and I have been deriving much amusement from the comms issues. We can fly people around the moon, talk with them, send back high res video, but talk to the boat that’s close enough to swim to? Forget about it! Note: next time, pack a walkie talkie. ;-)

No joke, VHF has been saving sailors' lives for a long time now.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#126

Post by stackghost »

BitsAndObjects wrote: post #110
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buoyancy is an easier equation to solve than lift.

So why do they need to use helicopters and a risky airlift to return the astronauts to the main vessel? Why not just use the speedboats to take them back? Seems really odd and I can’t find any reasonable explanation.

>Why not just use the speedboats to take them back?

They actually covered this in the broadcast: Helicopters are faster to get the astronauts to medical, smoother in rough seas, and there's less risk of being swamped by a rogue wave. Plus, since the astronauts might have fatigue/muscle atrophy/whatever, it complicates potential boat transfers.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#128

Post by bombcar »

Ifkaluva wrote: post #98

Can somebody help me understand why this does a water landing, like the old Apollo missions, instead of like the space shuttle that lands like a plane?

The space shuttle landed like something resembling a plane, but it is more accurate to say it landed like a concrete brick traveling faster than the speed of sound.

Splashdown-style landings are the simplest and safest, parachutes are always good but adding water makes for another layer of safety (and of risk, to be fair, it could sink).

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#129

Post by da_chicken »

mgfist wrote: post #74
ggm wrote: post #60

Dear NASA. Please dial back the poetics and rhetoric. Be more like ATC than Shakspear.

I think we've all become to numb and jaded. This is the first moon mission in 50 years and the furthest any human has ever been from Earth.

More than that, people today seem to be saturated with sarcasm.

It's especially tragic with younger people who seem to have no experience with handling genuine sincerity. They laugh nervously at it, as if they're unfamiliar with how to handle someone saying what they actually think and feel.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#130

Post by [deleted] »

stackghost wrote: post #107
Ifkaluva wrote: post #98

Can somebody help me understand why this does a water landing, like the old Apollo missions, instead of like the space shuttle that lands like a plane?

Aerospace engineer here: The simple answer is that the Shuttle form factor is unnecessarily complex for this mission. A small Apollo-style capsule that parachutes into the ocean has a simpler mission profile, which allows for simpler technical and operational requirements, which in turn reduces program cost.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN