Range is go after they worked to verify the FTS. Great news.
Artemis II Launch Day Updates
191–200 of 1001 posts
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they want to be on the rocket. To see the moon up close with your own eyes? It's spiritual.
I understand why they want to fly. I don't understand why the people is fine paying taxes for that.
Independent of how scientifically awesome this is, this is probably the most cost effective long term propaganda. Why waste money on posters when you can orbit the moon.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 p…
The rocks at the surface of the Moon are richer in metals than the crust of the Earth. They are especially richer in iron and titanium. Without oxidizing air, it is easier to extract metals from the Moon rocks. There is little doubt that it would be possible to build big spaceships on the Moon. However, what is missing on the Moon is fuel. For interplanetary spacecraft, nuclear reactors would be preferable anyway, wh…
I imagine a foundry would use solar power and lasers to heat up the material. No atmosphere means less heat energy wasted. My thinking has been how to get enough actual build material to build something like an O'Neill cylinder. Well you'd need really thick metal plates. And then you'd want to get them into orbit without rockets. And these stations would likely be at the same orbit as Earth or nearby. Mainly because of how much sun energy you get around here. Going out to the outer solar system is a different beast all together.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
The heat shield is a bit different, and the reentry profile is a bit different as well.
I suppose "this will be the first time we can test this slightly modified heat shield in the slightly different pressures and temperatures that it will have to endure." isn't quite as eye catching.
Yeah, that's what "untested" means in spaceflight.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
> She called the top of the ET (well, it's no longer an ET, but it's the stage that was the STS ET) the "upper stage". She said that the propellents are stored at thousands of degrees below zero. And so on. This is a NASA presenter? To be fair to her, she seemed to explicitly refer to what sits on top of the core stage, it just wasn't in the diagram she was gesturing to the top of at the time. To be fair to you, I th…
Jesus! Why is there a presenter? Why isn't it just a livestream of the mission control radio chatter? That sort of shit belongs on some 24/7 news broadcast.
Same reason the livestream mentioned jobs about a dozen times in the 10 minutes I watched, NASA is in a fraught position and this is their way of fighting for some continued funding. A 'mass media' event captures more attention than a minimalist stream of chatter. (And a less cynical interpretation is also that getting the public interested in and engaged with space missions is part of their mandate.)
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#196Mild Space Weather: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
Moderate geomagnetic storm watch until April 2.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude, it's a nerd-snipe conversation derailing attempt. Don't take the bait. Talk about space stuff here, not the statistical nature of Russian roulette.
How about don't tell other people what they can and can't talk about, and just ignore side threads you don't care about? There are about 500 different HN browser extensions that let you collapse threads, btw.
Not parent, but I am genuinely curious: is there a Hacker News browser extension you'd recommend? The text is so small by default that even though I'd like to read on my desktop, I typically only browse it via the Hacki android app.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
See this recent blog post about it (I am not the author): https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly.... It says that it is not safe to fly. They are sending humans without having tested in real conditions that their design was sound, GIVEN that the first time they did that (without humans), it turned out that their design was unsafe.
An article written by a "Polish-American web developer, entrepreneur, speaker, and social critic" says it's not safe to fly. And? What do the astronauts flying on board with significantly more information say?
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 p…
They’ve changed it so III isn’t landing. That will be IV apparently.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are nowhere near the capability to launch robots to the moon that can autonomously build or assemble a moon base for any useful definition of moon base. > We are sending humans to (or around) the moon now, but it may just turn out to be a wasted effort, done solely for the opulence My 4 year old is extremely excited to watch the launch tonight because it’s manned. I’d say a few billion is worth it if all it does i…
And neither are we anywhere near the capability to lunch construction workers to the moon which can build or assemble an equivalent moon base with their human labor. So this answer does not satisfy me one bit. > inspire a new generation of astronauts, engineers, and scientists This is a good point. And I would like it to be true. However when you have to lie about (or exaggerate) the scientific value of the mission,…
The key here is “could be”. But most four (or in my case, six) year olds can’t really grasp the abstract concepts of what JWST is or the data it’s sending back. For that matter most 40 year olds can’t.
A manned mission on the other hand is tangible in a way a probe isn’t. “See the big round thing in the night sky? There are four people going around it in a spacecraft”.
It isn’t a _complete_ argument in favour of manned missions- that has to account for the risk of the endeavour and reward of the science potential of having people there to react in ways robots can’t. But it’s hard to pretend that the inspiration pretty much everyone feels when they see manned missions is somehow achievable purely by robotic ones.