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

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#101

Post by hparadiz »

runarberg wrote: post #59
bee_rider wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have any questions about a mission to Mars, it is a stupid and pointless trip that I don’t want to ask any questions about. The Moon, I dunno, it’s at least in Earth’s gravity well so it isn’t like we’re going totally the wrong direction when we go there, right? At best it could be a gas station on the trip to somewhere interesting like the Asteroid belt, though.

Whether a moon base is needed or even beneficial is a question I have not heard a convincing answer in favor. And even if moon base is indeed needed and/or beneficial to future space exploration / resource extraction why robots cannot more efficiently build (or assemble) such a moon base is another question I need an answer to. We are sending humans to (or around) the moon now, but it may just turn out to be a wasted…

The moon has about the same make up as the Earth when it comes to distribution of elements in the crust. If it's anywhere near 8% like Earth then it makes sense to mine aluminum and other metals on the moon in order to build megastructures in orbit. Since the moon has no atmosphere you can accelerate things using mechanical mass drivers. Basically rail systems. At 5,300 mph you hit escape velocity and can then move payload somewhere with no rockets. It would keep us from polluting Earth too. This is the precursor to O'Neil cylinder type structures. AI robots will probably be the play but you still want a transportation system that works and frankly building a landing zone would improve overall outcomes regardless.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#102

Post by bregma »

blks wrote: post #96
magicalist wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people are great at self promotion. We're commenting on NASA's live stream that exists to get us pumped up about the tens of billions of dollars we overpaid for this launch. I'm probably much more happy than the next guy about getting to see a flyby of the moon this week even if I really wish we'd gotten here another way, but the accusation is a bit funny in this thread in particular.

What’s the another way?

You could just re-use the studio where they faked the Apollo 11 landing except it was in 7 WTC which was destroyed in a controlled demolition to hide the evidence.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#103

Post by hypeatei »

mikkupikku wrote: post #91
adamsb6 wrote: post #31

It is a bit chilling to watch these astronaut profiles having just read yesterday about the heat shield issues observed on the prior mission, and that this will be the first time we can test the heat shield in the actual pressures and temperatures that it will have to endure. Godspeed crew of Artemis II.

It'll probably turn out fine (in the same way that you'll probably survive one round of Russian roulette.) I am quite nervous about this though.

> in the same way that you'll probably survive one round of Russian roulette

Is that with or without spinning the chamber between rounds? The odds are worse if you spin each time. They get worse as the game goes on if you don't spin.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#107

Post by zorobo »

hypeatei wrote: post #103
mikkupikku wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll probably turn out fine (in the same way that you'll probably survive one round of Russian roulette.) I am quite nervous about this though.

> in the same way that you'll probably survive one round of Russian roulette Is that with or without spinning the chamber between rounds? The odds are worse if you spin each time. They get worse as the game goes on if you don't spin.

> The odds are worse if you spin each time.

How do they get worse if you spin? It’s still 1/6 odds of dying,iid events.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#108

Post by mathieu4v »

I will be watching the launch from Europe, so it will be not earlier than half past midnight for us. My kids (9 and 10) are sleeping on the couch in front of the projection screen, so that they do not even have to get up when I wake them up at midnight, which I promised.

Just wanted to add my grain of positivity here. Godspeed Artemis 2!

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#109

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

openasocket wrote: post #62
CoastalCoder wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, why do you see this as a worthwhile endeavor? My personal perspective is that the resources are better used for other purposes, but it's possible that I just haven't encountered some compelling reason yet.

This argument comes up a lot, about whether a space program is “worth it” in some sense. One problem I’ve found is that these discussions often treat this in the abstract. And then we get into the nature of human endeavor, the economic benefits of that R&D, etc. Let’s talk about this in terms of practicalities. The NASA budget for 2026, per Wikipedia, is $24.4B. I often find it hard to really reason about the size of…

NASA isn't expensive. The science parts and the job creation parts almost certainly return a significant economic multiplier. The spend is very good value for around 0.5% of the federal budget.

That doesn't mean Moon shots are the best possible use of that budget. There are strong arguments for creating more space stations first, and then using them as staging for other projects.

Mars and the Moon are ridiculously hostile environments. Hollywood (and Elon Musk) have sold a fantasy of land-unpack-build. There aren't enough words to describe how utterly unrealistic that is.

Current strategy is muddled, because it contains elements of patriotic Cold War PR fumes, contractor pork, and more than a hint of covert militarisation. Science and engineering are buried somewhere in the middle of that.

They could be front and centre, but they're not.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#110

Post by lukan »

zorobo wrote: post #107
hypeatei wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the same way that you'll probably survive one round of Russian roulette Is that with or without spinning the chamber between rounds? The odds are worse if you spin each time. They get worse as the game goes on if you don't spin.

> The odds are worse if you spin each time. How do they get worse if you spin? It’s still 1/6 odds of dying,iid events.

Erm no. If it goes a round and gets passed without spinning, the chances change of course. It is 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, .. 1
Post reply on HN