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

441–450 of 539 posts

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#441

Post by WorldMaker »

fastball wrote: post #154
zefhous wrote: post #45

Destin from Smarter Every Day gave a talk that addresses a lot of these issues that I found pretty interesting too. https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU

My problem with his criticism (and to some extent echoed by Maciej in this article) is that the main takeaway seems to be "we did it once, we can do it again, let's revisit the past instead of re-inventing the wheel". But I don't think anyone actively involved wants to revisit the past. Who wants to go back to the moon just because we can? Nobody. Assuming best intentions: - People at NASA want to go to the moon to b…

> - People at NASA want to go to the moon to build a permanent base there. Maybe this is just to beat China, maybe it will actually be very useful to have a moon base. But that is the stated goal.

> - People at SpaceX want to go to the moon as a way to fund Starship development, so that they can go to Mars.

These seem to be inter-related, too. NASA seems to want Artemis to be a stepping stone to Mars as well (whether or not they are competing or cooperating with SpaceX to get there). Some of the arguments for Gateway in NRHO and/or even a possible permanent base on the Moon from NASA seem to indicate that some of the engineers believe NRHO is a great "launch pad" to Mars.

Some at NASA also clearly don't believe SLS as it exists is capable of getting to Mars and are pushing SpaceX and Blue Origin in the HLS stages of Artemis seemingly to try to get competition going today for whatever rockets can actually make it to Mars. SpaceX's HLS plans being based on Mars plans looks like a feature more than bug, if Mars may be a shared end goal anyway. (Blue Origin also presumably is equally Mars-focused like SpaceX.)

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#442

Post by phoe18 »

kqr wrote: post #180

I didn't live through the early space programmes, but having read about them recently, I'm surprised by how incremental they (and the Soviet Sputnik and Vostok counterparts) were. - The early Mercury flights developed the idea of putting a human in a capsule on top of an ICBM to see what happens at altitude and during re-entry. - Later Mercury flights experimented with de-orbiting techniques. (The early flights didn'…

Would you recommend any books to read on this history?

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#443

Post by rdtsc »

bayindirh wrote: post #158
fastball wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with his criticism (and to some extent echoed by Maciej in this article) is that the main takeaway seems to be "we did it once, we can do it again, let's revisit the past instead of re-inventing the wheel". But I don't think anyone actively involved wants to revisit the past. Who wants to go back to the moon just because we can? Nobody. Assuming best intentions: - People at NASA want to go to the moon to b…

From my understanding, nobody is telling that "We should use Apollo as-is", but "why don't we use the same spirit when we were building these back then?". Everything made/designed in Apollo are no short of marvels. Today we can do much better with lighter, smaller electronics, and should be able to do weight savings or at least cost savings where it matters. Instead Artemis feels like "let's dig the parts pile and pu…

> "why don't we use the same spirit when we were building these back then?".

What if we don't have the same spirit any longer? Nobody is going to acknowledge that publicly at NASA but they are acknowledging it by their actions. What if people who had "spirit" went to make youtube videos, work for Musk, Wall Street or Google? It takes some time to gauge the stickiness and depth of bureaucratic muck, but after a few years people can see it, and move on to other things. Guess who's left? Those who don't have much spirit left.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#444

Post by selimthegrim »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #90
asmithmd1 wrote: post #2

IDK why 81 year old Poli-sci major, attorney, and ultimate NASA executive decision maker Bill Nelson wasn't forced out of office after he incorrectly explained to Congress that the far side of the moon is always dark https://youtu.be/daZyPwCQak8?si=n9KXH-LJFBlpKXUp&t=153

"Dark" in this context could be ambigious. It is possible he meant that the sun didn't shine there (it was literally dark0, which is false. Another possibility its its "dark" to direct communication from Earth, which is what people who know what they are talking about understand it to mean and literally say. What's more troubling is the next statement - "We don't know whats there". Well, we've done tons of imaging on…

He probably thinks libration means a drink.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#445

Post by grecy »

z0r wrote: post #375
grecy wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine being born on an earth where millions of species have gone extinct, where there are hardly any old growth forests left, no bison roaming the central/western US plains and where thousands of water bodies around the world are so toxic they'll kill you if you fall in.

I am an advocate of wildlife conservation efforts, and regularly donate to charities that work to conserve species and their habitats. I am just replying to a single comment, so forgive me for addressing everyone else as well as you here. I think it's very funny that people are making obvious replies to my comment to defend against (the also very obvious) observation that perhaps being born and dying in a tin can on…

Oh, I agree with you 100%, and I'm just pointing out that people probably said exactly the same thing a few hundred years ago about living in 2000 (if they knew what it would be like), and likely will say it again in a few hundred years about living in 3000.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#446

Post by grecy »

phoe18 wrote: post #442
kqr wrote: post #180

I didn't live through the early space programmes, but having read about them recently, I'm surprised by how incremental they (and the Soviet Sputnik and Vostok counterparts) were. - The early Mercury flights developed the idea of putting a human in a capsule on top of an ICBM to see what happens at altitude and during re-entry. - Later Mercury flights experimented with de-orbiting techniques. (The early flights didn'…

Would you recommend any books to read on this history?

From the Earth to the Moon is a brilliant TV series that shows it all really well.

I love the episode where they sit down and list out the ~10 things they'll have to figure out how to do in order to achieve Kennedy's promise of landing within the decade.

Then they just assign teams and get on it, working on each item until they can actually do it.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#447

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

hifromwork wrote: post #428
Animats wrote: post #420

Meanwhile, China's moon program keeps plugging along. There's already been a robotic landing and return with samples. Chang'e 6, the second land and return vehicle, is in lunar orbit now, being prepared for landing.[1] This one has a robotic lunar rover. China plans a manned moon landing around 2030. Then, on to the lunar base. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_6

Interesting name! At first I assumed it's a pun on "Chang" (which looks like a romanized Chinese word) and English "Change". Instead: >the spacecraft is named after the Chinese Moon goddess Chang'e[1] What a great name for a Chinese Lunar spacecraft! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e

The Chang'e 3 lander released a small rover called Yutu, which means "jade rabbit." In Chinese mythology, the moon goddess has a pet rabbit.

Westerners think the dark pattern on the moon looks like a face, but Chinese people think it looks like a rabbit.

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#448

Post by trollerator23 »

kqr wrote: post #180

I didn't live through the early space programmes, but having read about them recently, I'm surprised by how incremental they (and the Soviet Sputnik and Vostok counterparts) were. - The early Mercury flights developed the idea of putting a human in a capsule on top of an ICBM to see what happens at altitude and during re-entry. - Later Mercury flights experimented with de-orbiting techniques. (The early flights didn'…

They were incremental but they were incredibly accelerated and ambitious. From nobody ever been in space to landing on the Moon less in 10 years. It's mind boggling how fast they were, and how many projects were running in parallel that all had to work when integrated or no "landing on the moon before the decade is over".

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#449

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

mglz wrote: post #203
kqr wrote: post #180

I didn't live through the early space programmes, but having read about them recently, I'm surprised by how incremental they (and the Soviet Sputnik and Vostok counterparts) were. - The early Mercury flights developed the idea of putting a human in a capsule on top of an ICBM to see what happens at altitude and during re-entry. - Later Mercury flights experimented with de-orbiting techniques. (The early flights didn'…

The space race likely necessitated NASA to show some improvement frequently. Otherwise the Soviet Union would have filled the large gaps between infrequent launches with their incremental successes.

>The space race likely necessitated NASA to show some improvement frequently.

One could add agile + jira +standup

Re: The Lunacy of Artemis

#450

Post by concordDance »

twothreeone wrote: post #410

> artisanally hand-crafted by a workforce that likes to get home before traffic gets bad. Ouch, that's gotta hurt.. I'm not saying I disagree, but I do wonder if a project is going "right" only when it starts to hit excruciatingly long shifts and burns workforce like coals - especially if it is expected to safely carry humans to the Moon. I think it's more likely a sign of doing something that wasn't planned and budg…

> If you worry about your workforce being motivated, transparently tying compensation to company success does wonders.

That works only if the company is small, otherwise the worker's compensation isn't really tied to the success. And once the direct link is broken all you have is KPIs.

Post reply on HN