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

Lunar Flyby

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 262 posts

Re: Lunar Flyby

#101

Post by icegreentea2 »

thegrim33 wrote: post #89
icegreentea2 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The absolute cost isn't the problem, it's the value that we're getting from it. SLS and Artemis are both incredibly expensive and ramshackle programs, and regardless of how bad the rest of the USG might be in terms of their cost, or value, if you are a true space fan and a true American space fan, you should want this little corner of humanity to hold itself to a higher standard. Acceptance of over costing and under…

>> is exactly why the US is stuck with SpaceX For the last 20 years NASA has intentionally run their Commercial Crew Program, which has the stated goal of developing/fostering/funding the development of commercial providers for launch vehicles. They, by plan they explicitly laid out and implemented, decided to rely on American commercial providers. And that's what they got. And in doing so, the program ended up produ…

SpaceX is an amazing success story, both as a commercial story, and as a story of government-industry cooperation. NASA should be proud and commended for fostering SpaceX.

The question is why does SpaceX stand alone? Why did ULA stagnate? Why can't NG make SRBs that don't have nozzles that fall off? Why can't Betchel build a launch tower on time? What is it about government contracts in these other areas that led to all of this under performance?

The US benefits by having SpaceX around. It would benefit even better by having many SpaceXs around.

Oh, and also I believe it's generally understood that NASA provided very little funding for New Glenn. They gave BO a lot of money for HLS, but that's relatively recent (2023). New Glenn has been in the works since 2013 and was mostly bankrolled by Bezos, with some USAF/DoD money kicked in.

Re: Lunar Flyby

#102

Post by JdeBP »

kshacker wrote: post #52
written-beyond wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moon is tidally locked to earth, we only ever see one side.

Is it 2-way? I guess moon see all around earth, or no?

It may one day be, far in the future, although that's predicted to be so far off that Sol might have become a red giant by then, making the issue moot.

But only Luna is tidally locked at the moment. Terra is not, and its rotation still has a long way to slow down before it becomes so.

Re: Lunar Flyby

#103

Post by Gagarin1917 »

kube-system wrote: post #76
madrox wrote: post #22

There is something uncanny about the bandwidth and quality of all the artifacts coming from this mission. I've subsisted on photos from the Apollo missions and artistic renditions for so long that seeing the modern, high resolution real thing to be quite stirring in a way I didn't expect. It actually does make me believe that the future could be quite cool.

I cannot wait until we get 4k video of people walking on the surface, kicking up dust.

The existing 16mm film from Apollo is roughly equivalent to 2K, and you can see dust kicked up pretty nicely!

Re: Lunar Flyby

#104

Post by raspasov »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #101
thegrim33 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> is exactly why the US is stuck with SpaceX For the last 20 years NASA has intentionally run their Commercial Crew Program, which has the stated goal of developing/fostering/funding the development of commercial providers for launch vehicles. They, by plan they explicitly laid out and implemented, decided to rely on American commercial providers. And that's what they got. And in doing so, the program ended up produ…

SpaceX is an amazing success story, both as a commercial story, and as a story of government-industry cooperation. NASA should be proud and commended for fostering SpaceX. The question is why does SpaceX stand alone? Why did ULA stagnate? Why can't NG make SRBs that don't have nozzles that fall off? Why can't Betchel build a launch tower on time? What is it about government contracts in these other areas that led to…

>>> SpaceX is an amazing success story

100%, and something that is underappreciated and often taken for granted nowadays, especially on our little forum here.

>>> It would benefit even better by having many SpaceXs around.

That made me chuckle, sounded to me a bit like "our house would benefit from having a few cats around". Perhaps the reason why there aren't too many SpaceX-like companies around is that it's truly among the hardest companies to ever create.

Re: Lunar Flyby

#105

Post by jrmg »

dylan604 wrote: post #31

I listened to pretty much the entire fly by yesterday, and I was imagining how I would have spent my time at the windows with a camera. Listening to the comms made me think of that episode from From The Earth to the Moon where they take the astronauts out and give them geology lessons so they could be more productive with their descriptions. I was also very curious of their descriptions during the eclipse where the E…

It was amazing listening to it in real time.

If I had any doubt about crewed missions, this Artemis moon flyby is extinguishing them.

Hearing the crew discussing observations with Mission Control, moving cameras around, describing what they see, reacting to events and to curiosity and changing what they’re doing accordingly. And obviously just SO EXCITED to be doing it all. It was just amazing.

They’re still live streaming. It’s not as exciting anymore - ‘just’ on the way home now - but you can just put it on in the background and experience a tiny bit of what it’s like to be in the capsule. They’re exercising right now.

https://www.youtube.com/live/m3kR2KK8TEs

Re: Lunar Flyby

#107

Post by NooneAtAll3 »

I've been thoroughly disappointed in NASA's handling of "public relations" part of the mission

every significant achievement point became a publicity stunt of lowest quality, with forced line reads and little practicality

I'm eagerly awaiting future engineering challenges and science results - but I'd want NASA to concentrate on that first, and farce show-making second

Re: Lunar Flyby

#108

Post by mememememememo »

dylan604 wrote: post #37
Almondsetat wrote: post #21

We're so not accustomed to moon pictures taken with "normal" cameras. These almost look like 3D renders to me, it's incredible

Why is normal in quotes? Do you mean visible light vs filtered monochrome with false-color outputs or infrared/radio/x-ray like some other telescopes use? Would that be the abnormal you are referring? The Apollo images were taken with Hasselblad film cameras that were "normal" cameras[0]. [0] https://www.hasselblad.com/about/history/hasselblad-in-space...

A camera you can order on Amazon in the next 5 minutes
Post reply on HN