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

The Lunacy of Artemis

idlewords.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 539 posts

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#31

Post by Tao3300 »

idlewords wrote: post #25
Tao3300 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though there's a sense of the word "dark" that means it's unseen or that we are ignorant of it. Like "to leave someone in the dark", to "go dark" in communication, or a "dark match" in pro-wrestling (it happens but isn't broadcast and doesn't effect storylines). Might be too much to hope for, but he could just mean it's always dark to us. I'm getting of a kick out of this Trone calling it the "backside of a moon" and…

The linked clip is pretty unequivocal, if you watch it. Nelson says: "They are going to have a lander on the far side of the moon, which is the side that is always in dark. We're not planning to go there."

Yeah, I watched it. I can hear it both ways. I don't know his mind or lack thereof, only that he hasn't necessarily spoken wrongly in that phrase

I could see governmental types having a colloquial use of the word at times like these that doesn't mean "it's always in the literal absence of light".

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#32

Post by dotnet00 »

ein0p wrote: post #8

Finally someone is saying it like it is. Sadly this someone isn’t a bigwig at NASA. NASA still can’t take humans to/from orbit on its own. To believe that in 18 months we’re going to have a successful lunar landing is batshit grade insanity.

>NASA still can’t take humans to/from orbit on its own

They can buy seats on Crew Dragon though?

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#34

Post by idlewords »

LargeTomato wrote: post #26

We are going to The moon for two reasons. First, we want to set up a more permanent base. Nasa refers to this as "we're here to stay" The second reason we are going to the moon so that we can put the first person of color and the first woman on the moon. That is explicitly an Artemis mission purpose. Only time will tell if either of these two missions were actually worth it. One more point > Early on, SLS designers m…

Note that the first reason you give is tautological.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#35

Post by nine_k »

asmithmd1 wrote: post #17
nine_k wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we earthlings see a new moon, we see one dark side turned towards us, while another dark side is the far side; Moon is completely in the Earth's shadow. During a solar eclipse, the far side is brightly lit, while the side turned towards us is dark. Most of the time the dark side does not match the far or the near side, we see a part of both the dark and lit sides as a crescent. I don't see how "the far side" and…

Uh, no. The ONLY time we see a new moon is during an eclipse. Other times the moon is above or below the sun and is too dim to see. A lunar eclipse is when the moon passes into the earth’s shadow and they happens during full moons

OK, we don't actually get to recognize the shape of the new moon with a naked eye because it's dark against the sky. It's still hot enough for some time to be visible in IR pretty well.

The point is that the lit part of the Moon moves widely, while the far / near sides don't due to the tidal lock. Hence they can't be used interchangeably.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#36

Post by marcinzm »

fallingknife wrote: post #3

The real lunacy is using chemical rockets instead of nuclear thermal once the ship is in orbit. That could reduce the fuel requirements for an Earth - Moon transfer by 4x. And this isn't some sci-fi tech. NASA built a working engine in the 70s.

I would say using an engine around Earth that emits radioactive exhaust that travels at less than Earth escape velocity is the real lunacy.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#38

Post by lyu07282 »

ein0p wrote: post #8

Finally someone is saying it like it is. Sadly this someone isn’t a bigwig at NASA. NASA still can’t take humans to/from orbit on its own. To believe that in 18 months we’re going to have a successful lunar landing is batshit grade insanity.

This has been well known for years, it's just NASA operating for decades with it's hand tied behind it's back by neoliberal mandated public private partnerships embezzling it for tax dollars.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#39

Post by Tao3300 »

asmithmd1 wrote: post #30
Tao3300 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though there's a sense of the word "dark" that means it's unseen or that we are ignorant of it. Like "to leave someone in the dark", to "go dark" in communication, or a "dark match" in pro-wrestling (it happens but isn't broadcast and doesn't effect storylines). Might be too much to hope for, but he could just mean it's always dark to us. I'm getting of a kick out of this Trone calling it the "backside of a moon" and…

Did you watch the video? He also says, “we don’t know what’s on the back side of the moon” I guess we have decided to elect political representatives are just egotistical camera whores, but why should the top decision maker at a technical agency be a complete idiot who is ignorant about many things the agency he runs has done? It would be like the head of the air force saying airplanes fly because of flubber

Do we have something in place to monitor the far side? We don't have a visual on it like we do the near side. Yeah, we've flown around it, imaged it in the past. Nothing ongoing though.

If you think about it in a national security sense instead of an astronomical one, the question is "what is a rival power up to", then indeed it is dark and unknown.

Mind I only watched from the timestamp, I might have missed something and this guy is a complete shit for brains.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#40

Post by idlewords »

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #37

One minor quibble: on-orbit refueling has been demonstrated, during the DARPA Orbital Express mission in 2006. Otherwise, if NASA issued stock, you should consider shorting it.

I think I cover this in a footnote? ISS gets refueled, and there have been satellite experiments like Orbital Express, but no one has attempted bulk rocket-to-rocket propellant transfer.
Post reply on HN