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

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#131

Post by openasocket »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #109
openasocket wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ho…

That’s a very fair point. Frankly I don’t know enough about the Artemis mission and general path, and would like to learn more. I’m certainly open to the argument that NASA’s budget isn’t properly allocated to the right priorities. I was responding just to the classic argument of “why spend money on NASA when we could be spending on …”

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#132

Post by pj_mukh »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #112
nancyminusone wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"returning to the moon in a more sustainable way"

Isn't this the point of this mission? If your point is "it shouldn't take this much money", then I agree. But also point to almost everything else.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#133

Post by fny »

longislandguido wrote: post #128

I find it interesting the MSM is too busy sperging out about Trump to not treat this as page-three news and place it below the cut. It's also the first woman and black guy to go to the moon, for those keeping score at home.

Trump scored an own goal. Military conflict tends to hijack the front page.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#134

Post by foltik »

hypeatei wrote: post #58
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.

It's quite telling that all the replies you're getting are about "hope" and "jobs" with no actual scientific reason. I guess we're taxing people for vanity space missions and jobs programs. Makes sense.

[dead]

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#136

Post by russdill »

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.

I mean, that's how these heat shields work. They aren't reusable, you can't test them and then use them again. Or do you mean the design? We already did Artemis I.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#137

Post by areoform »

xnx wrote: post #83
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.

Truly. I'm not sure why anyone needs to be on the rocket at all, let alone our best and brightest.

Because human beings are remarkably capable, especially the best and the brightest. There's a great paper called the "dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency." https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/53/2/2.22... // https://lasp.colorado.edu/mop/files/2019/08/RobotMyth.pdf

Yes, a robot car that drives on its own will be a better driver than most humans who text and drive, or have 400ms reaction times.

But making a machine that can beat a 110ms reaction time human with 2SD+ IQ, and the ability to override the ground controllers with human curiosity is much harder. Humans have high dexterity, are extremely capable of switching roles fast, are surprisingly efficient, and force us to return back home.

So in terms of total science return, one Apollo mission did more for lunar science and discovery than 53 years of robots on the surface and in orbit.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#138

Post by 4khilles »

russdill wrote: post #136
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.

I mean, that's how these heat shields work. They aren't reusable, you can't test them and then use them again. Or do you mean the design? We already did Artemis I.

The heat shield is a bit different, and the reentry profile is a bit different as well.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#139

Post by cosmicgadget »

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

... 1/0

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#140

Post by runarberg »

pj_mukh wrote: post #132
Rebelgecko wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"returning to the moon in a more sustainable way" Isn't this the point of this mission? If your point is "it shouldn't take this much money", then I agree. But also point to almost everything else.

I think that is the point, but whether this mission will actually do that is rather unconvincing.

After (and if) Artemis III lands on the moon and brings home the astronauts there seems to be very little planned on how we actually get to the moon base which NASA is claiming this will lead to, let alone the manned Mars mission that is also supposed to follow.

In other words, I think NASA is greatly exaggerating, and possibly lying, about the utility of this mission.

Post reply on HN