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

111–120 of 1001 posts

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#111

Post by nasretdinov »

WalterBright wrote: post #77
lukan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a real fact?

(I misremembered it slightly, so sue me) From "Apollo The Race to the Moon" pg 102: The joke that made the rounds of NASA was that the Saturn V had a reliability rating of .9999. In the story, a group from headquarters goes down to Marshall and asks Wernher von Braun how reliable the Saturn is going to be. Von Braun turns to four of his lieutenants and asks, "Is there any reason why it won't work?" to which they answ…

Reliability of 4 neins to be precise

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#112

Post by Rebelgecko »

nancyminusone wrote: post #21
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.

Do you watch sports, football, the Olympics? If not I'm sure you know someone who does. Same category as this. Each of the 32 NFL team is worth about the cost of 1-2 Artemis launches. The entire league could fund the whole Artemis program nearly twice. Hosting the Olympics is worth about 3-10 launches. Like sports, the objective is ultimately useless except as a showcase of what humanity has to offer, and people like…

I think in general space exploration is a great use of taxpayer money, but the artemis program doesn't seem great from either a "science per dollar" or "novel accomplishment per dollar" standpoint.

If the goal was just to flex on the rest of the world I would've much rather we focused on going somewhere new or returning to the moon in a more sustainable way

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#113

Post by lukan »

tigerlily wrote: post #55
robotresearcher wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I firmly believe you can have both exciting, inspiring, and factually correct communication if you make that a priority. The experience of hearing factual things presented with passion and obvious expertise is in itself inspiring. Why settle for less?

I for one am begging God that this is merely April fools all the way down.

If it would be, then a fake explosion after start as climax before revealing it, would be quite a joke. Probably will yield mixed reception, though.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#114

Post by coldcity_again »

coldcity_again wrote: post #105

I'm watching it rapt, but also wondering which KIND of leaky will result in a scrub..

Can't understand why there doesn't seem to be much wider excitement at all, around "our Apollo 8", that I've been waiting decades for (late 40s here).

Apparently here in the UK our schools are hardly even hyping it.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#115

Post by [deleted] »

proee wrote: post #41
amykhar wrote: post #32

Fingers crossed that this https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly.... doesn't have any effect.

There is a LOC (Loss of Crew) number that is typically calculated for these missions. I'm curious what that is? Early Apollo missions were on the order of 4%.

[deleted]

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#116

Post by ivanjermakov »

WalterBright wrote: post #50
proee wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a LOC (Loss of Crew) number that is typically calculated for these missions. I'm curious what that is? Early Apollo missions were on the order of 4%.

Before the Apollo launch, von Braun was asked what the reliability of the rocket was. He asked 6 of his lieutenants if it was ready to fly. Each replied "nein". Von Braun reported that it had six nines of reliability.

GitHub taking notes

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#117

Post by mikkupikku »

lukan wrote: post #110
zorobo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

I didn't think of the gun getting passed around. To me, "one round" is pulling the trigger once after spinning the cylinder with one bullet. 1-in-6 chance of dying, you'll probably live. That's how I feel about this mission, I think they'll probably live, but man I'm nervous.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#119

Post by floxy »

glimshe wrote: post #33

I'm just SO HAPPY we can talk about something that doesn't involve the Iran war, ICE etc. This is a really historic moment, I hope that the current and future administrations continue investing in space exploration. I've waited my whole life for this as the entire "action" happened before I was born. Hubble/James Webb/ISS are cool but Artemis is something else!

>we can talk about something that doesn't involve the Iran war, ICE etc.

And yet, you did bring them up.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#120

Post by foltik »

duped wrote: post #99
foltik wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really disagree that it’s advancing science? Surely actually testing hardware, building knowledge on how to run this type of mission, learning to use lunar resources, figuring out how to keep people alive, etc. will teach us things we couldn’t learn any other way. Fwiw do share your concerns about the methods (sending humans on this specific mission is questionable, SLS is questionable compared to SpaceX appro…

Do you think we will learn more from Artemis or the Asteroid Redirect Mission? Because that's a concrete example of how funding this mission caused other experiments to be cancelled.

Fair point, but that’s an argument about prioritization within NASA’s budget (and its size relative to other spending), not the scientific value of the mission.
Post reply on HN