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

Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

ansto.gov.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#41

Post by hydrogen7800 »

Tangurena2 wrote: post #39
hydrogen7800 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't been actively looking for them, but a friend sent me something about the launch tower escape zipline/gondolas and how that somehow indicated something fraudulent. He is not a denier, but works with one and is always asking me to refute that person's claims.

If your friend is trying to "cure" the denier, then it might be helpful for them to learn some of the tactics for reaching/deprogramming cult members. One that might be helpful is "street epistemology". Link: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Street_Epistemology

That's a bit too much to ask of these folks, I'm afraid, but I did boil it down for him by saying that the real question is understanding why he is inclined to believe its a hoax, rather than trying to pile up evidence in front of him. I suppose that's what "street epistemology" is, though. Nice to have shorthand terms for these ideas.

I also included a thought experiment for him:

Imagine you take a conspiracy influencer and actually put them in the spacecraft with the astronauts so they could see the whole thing with their own eyes and wouldn't be able to deny it. They return to earth to tell their followers that it's all real. Do you think everyone will be convinced, or would they say he's now in on the conspiracy and find a new person to lead the conspiracy theory?

(I wonder if there is a sociological shorthand term for this?)

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#42

Post by mwigdahl »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #25
voidUpdate wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we protecting the person with the cookies, or everyone else? I'm struggling to think of the best answer Alpha: In the hand held away from the body would be reasonably safe. In a pocket of a lab coat might provide a little more shielding from the body with the coat material, but it is physically closer. Eaten would be very bad for the user, but protect the outside world the best Beta: Medium penetration, would lik…

Can these cookies be weaponized? Are there secret cookie enrichment factories? Would weapons-grade cookies still be good with milk?

Only weapons-grade milk.

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#43

Post by thecommakozzi »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #30
voidUpdate wrote: post #6

I enjoy how moon-landing deniers will use the van Allen belts as a reason for why the astronauts could not have made it to the moon because of radiation exposure. Like, you don't believe NASA that they went to the moon, but you believe NASA that the van Allen belts exist?

Any entertaining “Artemis II is a hoax” takes?

[dead]

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#44

Post by pgalvin »

hydrogen7800 wrote: post #41
Tangurena2 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your friend is trying to "cure" the denier, then it might be helpful for them to learn some of the tactics for reaching/deprogramming cult members. One that might be helpful is "street epistemology". Link: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Street_Epistemology

That's a bit too much to ask of these folks, I'm afraid, but I did boil it down for him by saying that the real question is understanding why he is inclined to believe its a hoax, rather than trying to pile up evidence in front of him. I suppose that's what "street epistemology" is, though. Nice to have shorthand terms for these ideas. I also included a thought experiment for him: Imagine you take a conspiracy influe…

> Imagine you take a conspiracy influencer and actually put them in the spacecraft with the astronauts so they could see the whole thing with their own eyes and wouldn't be able to deny it. They return to earth to tell their followers that it's all real. Do you think everyone will be convinced, or would they say he's now in on the conspiracy and find a new person to lead the conspiracy theory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Experiment_(expediti...

"The participating flat Earthers all admitted that the midnight sun was a real phenomenon. The larger flat Earth community has largely rejected the results and accused the participants, including the flat Earthers, of having faked the expedition and of being part of a larger conspiracy to promote the spherical Earth model."

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#45

Post by BuyMyBitcoins »

mwigdahl wrote: post #42
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can these cookies be weaponized? Are there secret cookie enrichment factories? Would weapons-grade cookies still be good with milk?

Only weapons-grade milk.

Heavy milk (whole) is required for cookie enrichment. But depleted milk (skim) still has value.

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#46

Post by adrian_b »

gambiting wrote: post #16
adrian_b wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat of radiation is not overblown at all. The errors caused by radiation are extremely frequent and you definitely must guard against them, otherwise anything will fail immediately in space. However that does not necessarily require hardware measures. It may be more efficient if instead of a slow antique CPU with hardware redundancy you use a fast modern CPU, even if it is more sensitive to radiation and even…

>>The errors caused by radiation are extremely frequent and you definitely must guard against them, otherwise anything will fail immediately in space. I asked this in another thread but I will repeat it here - how come that their bog standard iPhones that they use for taking pictures with are still operating fine then? If like you said, "anything will fail immediately" - doesn't sound like that's the case? They have…

As other posters have said, the personal devices of the astronauts are already used in spaces that are much better shielded against radiation than a typical satellite or the Mars helicopter.

Radiation shields add mass and volume, so it helps if the electronics is somewhat resistant to radiation, allowing for less efficient shields.

Even with the enhanced shielding, the personal devices experience errors from time to time, e.g. the photographs taken may have some wrong pixels and they sometimes have to reboot their laptops or smartphones, if weird behavior happens. Like others have said, these kinds of errors are not important, unlike in the computers that control the spacecraft, where errors are not acceptable, so those must use either hardware or software means to combat the effects of radiation errors.

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#47

Post by atrus »

rsynnott wrote: post #32
voidUpdate wrote: post #6

I enjoy how moon-landing deniers will use the van Allen belts as a reason for why the astronauts could not have made it to the moon because of radiation exposure. Like, you don't believe NASA that they went to the moon, but you believe NASA that the van Allen belts exist?

Strictly speaking, their existence was verified by Sputnik 2 (though the Soviets only released data on it after the fact, corroborating data from Explorer 1), so if you have a highly _specific_ conspiracy theory, around NASA rather than space stuff in general, that _could_ still work, I suppose?

No, because the Soviets have to in on faking the moon landing. They were also landing a spacecraft at the same time as the landings. To fake the moon landing you'd also have to fake the entire cold war.

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#48

Post by adrian_b »

gambiting wrote: post #37
samus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these devices are mission-critical. Worst case they have to be restarted; then they are fine again and the world moves on.

Yes, but that wasn't the question. OP said anything that's not radiation hardened will fail immediately - to which I ask ok, what about all the stuff they brought up with them which doesn't seem to be instantly failing.

The radiation levels are much lower where humans live, otherwise they would not live for long. Without humans, thinner and lighter radiation shields are used, to reduce costs.

Theoretically, one could use the same electronic devices that are used on Earth, if one would add thick enough shields, but this is impractical, so one must make a compromise, by combining some less efficient shielding with devices more resistant to radiation.

The Mars helicopter had essentially no shielding, as it had to be extremely light to be able to fly in the Martian atmosphere.

Moreover, as explained in the parent article, the radiation levels are not constant. A great part of the radiation comes from the Sun, and that part fluctuates continuously (i.e. the so-called "space weather"). The electronic devices must be designed to withstand the peaks of solar radiation, even if the radiation levels are less than that much of the time.

The astronauts can shut down their personal devices, preventively, when there is a peak of solar radiation, or when they pass through the radiation belts.

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#49

Post by testing22321 »

gambiting wrote: post #37
samus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these devices are mission-critical. Worst case they have to be restarted; then they are fine again and the world moves on.

Yes, but that wasn't the question. OP said anything that's not radiation hardened will fail immediately - to which I ask ok, what about all the stuff they brought up with them which doesn't seem to be instantly failing.

Sounds like Microsoft have a credible excuse for two outlook instances ruining

“Ticket closed, not a bug, caused by radiation bit flip”

Re: Artemis II and the invisible hazard on the way to the Moon

#50

Post by hydrogen7800 »

pgalvin wrote: post #44
hydrogen7800 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit too much to ask of these folks, I'm afraid, but I did boil it down for him by saying that the real question is understanding why he is inclined to believe its a hoax, rather than trying to pile up evidence in front of him. I suppose that's what "street epistemology" is, though. Nice to have shorthand terms for these ideas. I also included a thought experiment for him: Imagine you take a conspiracy influe…

> Imagine you take a conspiracy influencer and actually put them in the spacecraft with the astronauts so they could see the whole thing with their own eyes and wouldn't be able to deny it. They return to earth to tell their followers that it's all real. Do you think everyone will be convinced, or would they say he's now in on the conspiracy and find a new person to lead the conspiracy theory? https://en.wikipedia.or…

Ha of course! Entirely predictable.
Post reply on HN