Live data from Hacker News

Artemis II is not safe to fly

idlewords.com

411–420 of 667 posts

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#411
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does SpaceX test it? Have they needed to solve this problem?

By having a much higher launch cadence and then analyzing the flight hardware afterwards. Also, they don't have anything human rated going beyond LEO. Coming back from the moon means you're going significantly faster and thus need a better heat shield

... so the real problem is that to get back and slow down nicely would require so much more launch mass, right?

(By slow down I mean to change to an orbit that has more drag and wouldn't take forever to return to Earth.)

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#412
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s fundamentally a human coordination problem that cannot be solved The more populated and complex an organization gets it becomes impossible to maintain a singular value vector (get these people around the moon safely) Everyone finds meta vectors (keep my job, reduce my own accountability) that maintain their own individual stability, such that if the whole thing fails they won’t feel liable

It can't be solved 100%, but it can be _mostly_ solved with systemic buy-in to the safety culture. Commercial aviation is a great example IMO. We've spent the last several decades making sure that every single person trained to participate in commercial aviation (maintenance, pilots, attendants, ATC, ground crew) knows their role in the safety culture, and that each of them not only has the power but the _responsibil…

Did you miss the Boeing 737max?

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX is the only major operator of spaceflights in the US: more than 95% of all satellites launched are launched by SpaceX, not just in the US, but worldwide .

> more than 95% of all satellites launched are launched by SpaceX Another way to look at this number is that they are responsible for 95% of the light pollution caused by orbiting objects.

Lets just ban lightbulbs so we don't have light pollution.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat of a Chinese moon landing keeps the Artemis program alive. As long as Artemis is slowly working towards the goal of eventually landing Americans on the surface of the moon and eventually building a habitat they can be injected with money and manpower whenever geopolitical or ideological demands arise. If it was canceled outright it would be much harder to react to any Chinese success

>The threat of a Chinese moon landing keeps the Artemis program alive. I don't disagree but I also don't really get it. The US performed the feat almost 60 years ago when the technology to do it didn't exist at the beginning of the program, and people didn't even know if it would be possible. Today it's pretty well understood as a funding challenge more than anything. And sending people with the level of automation w…

There's the obvious meme of "the US used to be able to do it, but can they still do it?". That wouldn't stand in question if the US had say a Mars mission, but if all the US can show are some low earth orbit activities while China has astronauts walking the moon that makes for a great propaganda point for the Chinese. Something to the tune of "As the American empire declines, the Chinese empire rises"

But the more impactful point is that the Chinese don't want to stop at what the Apollo program accomplished. They want to build a moon base, turn it into a lunar research station and invite other countries to cooperate. If the Chinese are wildly successful on that front, cooperating with them to get access to their moon base might be very enticing. Both for research about the moon and about low gravity. If the US doesn't answer with their own moon base that might end up in a reversal of the ISS situation (where everyone except China was invited to cooperate on the ISS).

Of course we don't know whether the Chinese will be successful in those points. But so far their space program has a great track record. They did manage to build their own space stations and lunar rovers, everything after that is, as you say, mostly a funding challenge

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about going to the moon. Space-x is over budget and extremely late. It has nothing to do with the management there, only that it is better to come up with a solution without them.

If that was the truth I have a strong feeling your wording would be different.

Please read the https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I literally can’t even continue this thread.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#416
post #321
post #292

I'm literally guest lecturing at a Harvard class tomorrow on systemic failures in decision making, using the Columbia and Challenger disasters as case studies, and changed my slides last night to include Artemis II because it could literally happen again. This broken safety culture has been around since the beginning of the Shuttle program. In 1980, Gregg Easterbrook published "Goodbye, Columbia" in The Washington Mo…

[flagged]

Those astronauts don’t have anyone that loves them at home because no way in hell would any of my loved ones let me be a sacrificial turkey in a fully automated oven.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

``It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.''

Isn't NASA run by the government? Why not pay people to do their job correctly?

The word "government" doesn't magically erase all the same individual & institutional incentives, ambitions, biases, & flaws that exist elsewhere.

And sometimes, the extant magical belief that "government" is different & immune lets those same human factors be ignored until they feed bigger, slower disasters that everyone is afraid to admit, because (ostensibly) "we all did this together".

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat of a Chinese moon landing keeps the Artemis program alive. As long as Artemis is slowly working towards the goal of eventually landing Americans on the surface of the moon and eventually building a habitat they can be injected with money and manpower whenever geopolitical or ideological demands arise. If it was canceled outright it would be much harder to react to any Chinese success

> The threat of a Chinese moon landing Maybe I’m naive, but what is the threat here? > If it was canceled outright it would be much harder to react to any Chinese success I feel like the appropriate reaction would be to congratulate China.

We need more people like you in government

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why because "elon bad" ?? cut your nose off to spite your face if you want but the rest of us will recognize the importance of space-x and be grateful it is here.

This is about going to the moon. Space-x is over budget and extremely late. It has nothing to do with the management there, only that it is better to come up with a solution without them.

I only suggested a Falcon Heavy because the rocket exists, is flight proven, and has enough capacity to shoot an Orion to any trajectory it is expected to encounter.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#420
post #292

I'm literally guest lecturing at a Harvard class tomorrow on systemic failures in decision making, using the Columbia and Challenger disasters as case studies, and changed my slides last night to include Artemis II because it could literally happen again. This broken safety culture has been around since the beginning of the Shuttle program. In 1980, Gregg Easterbrook published "Goodbye, Columbia" in The Washington Mo…

What strikes is not the systemic failures. But the intense culture of secrecy.

Reports are heavily redacted. They aren't shared. Failures aren't acknowledged. Engineering models aren't released. That secrecy eventually causes what we see today.

Post reply on HN