Live data from Hacker News

Artemis II safely splashes down

cbsnews.com

451–460 of 475 posts

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#451
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often think about the shuttle program in relation to all these crazy complicated, wildly expensive, and incredibly fragile space telescopes we're sending to LEO or the Earth-Sun L2. Would be damn useful to be able to repair/upgrade these things like with Hubble. Obviously I realise the shuttle program was pretty far away from being able to head out to the Earth-Sun L2(AB, and wasn't even working towards it. But man…

Really? Seems like it would be cheaper to build extra telescopes (economy of scale). When one of them breaks, just launch another.

You will never build enough to get to economies of scale. Building a second one costs just as much as the first one.

And, when asked, astronomers invariably choose a new different telescope over another of one they already have.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the memories of Apollo are made rosy by hagiography. I even wrote an entire thing to explain why, https://1517.substack.com/p/1-in-30-artemis-greatness-and-ri... (yeah, shameless plug, sorry - it's more for the citations than not. You can read the standards and reports I've linked to) But if I'm allowed to repeat myself from elsewhere in the thread and the meat of the above thing, It's physically not possibl…

I often think about the shuttle program in relation to all these crazy complicated, wildly expensive, and incredibly fragile space telescopes we're sending to LEO or the Earth-Sun L2. Would be damn useful to be able to repair/upgrade these things like with Hubble. Obviously I realise the shuttle program was pretty far away from being able to head out to the Earth-Sun L2(AB, and wasn't even working towards it. But man…

For JWST, for example, besides not being designed for repair, it is incredibly delicate and having a spacecraft approach would likely destroy the heat shield and break it permanently.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#453
post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Waiting on a source!! I have no idea what you mean by this. > It should be SO EASY for you to prove me wrong! As I said, I've already explained upthread the limitations of the "source" you gave. Not sure what else you're looking for.

You cannot post any source that backs up your claim and proves me wrong.

You explained nothing. You didn’t like my source but keep posting incorrect assumptions with nothing to back them up.

Oh, I get it, you’re a bot.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sun’s pull on the ship at the outside limit at the moon, is obviously negligible compared to the pull of the Earth. This should be obvious, because otherwise the moon would have left long ago. Why is this so difficult to understand? Honestly I think that misleading NASA graphic did a lot of damage. You throw in acceleration, which I never mentioned and doesn’t matter. The Artemis II never left Earth’s gravitional…

I wonder if you are replying to a different comment. I never mentioned acceleration in mine.

>11.2 km/s

I’m sorry? Wut?

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#455
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we are a long way along from digging out Dr Feynman to look into why a shuttle exploded. Unless you happen to have some deep links into NASA, in which case please elucidate us all, then why not celebrate a happy and safe return from a sodding dangerous mission that involved things like >25,000 mph relative velocity and some remarkable navigation. When you depart earth (close quarters gravity, air resistance,…

> I think that NASA did a remarkable job of making Artemis II look almost routine and I don't think that was down to behaving as they did in the past. I have been excited for Artemis--yes it's big and expensive and late, but look how it has brought out the best of what humans can be--but, despite all that, the heat shield situation was textbook "normalization of deviance." Just as the O-rings were not designed to hav…

Actually the heat shield was the exact opposite of normalization of deviance. When the Artemis I heat shield behaved in an unmodeled way, they spent two years analyzing the issue, modified their test system to create all conditions of reentry, came up with a new model that took into account more variables and explained the results seen on Artemis I, then duplicated those results in test to confirm. The condition of the Artemis II heat shield is a sign that they were most likely correct.

I still think they shouldn’t have flown astronauts on Artemis II without an unmanned flight to reduce risk, including other systems like ECLSS as well as the heat shield. But it was the opposite of normalization of deviance.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#456
post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To say “because of war”, you would also have to prove we could not do it without war.

That's an absurd statement. By your logic, you can't just say that we have the smallpox vaccine "because of Edward Jenner". Because you would also "have to prove we could not do it without Edward Jenner". What does that even mean??

I can’t elaborate on your example as I’m not very knowledge-able on the smallpox vaccine bit that depends on how close we were to inventing the vaccine anyway - I’ll take your word on we were not and Edward Jenner had a revolutionary advancement. Then we can say we have the vaccine thanks to him.

But when it comes to space technology, if it was possible to produce the same technology by targeting the required technology directly, we can’t say it was because of war only because some of the inventions of war were re-used. It eould be like saying we have a 45th president thanks to Trump - it would be absurd as we’d have a 45th president anyway.

So I do not think there is enough grounds to attribute this mission’s success to war - with some of the war’s budget, NASA could have invented the required technology anyway.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#457

Glad that they're safe and sound. It's worth pointing out that this is the first extremely public, widely acknowledged high risk mission NASA has done in over 50 years. The Shuttle was risky, but it wasn't thought of or acknowledged by NASA as being risky until very late in its lifecycle. According to NASA's OIG, Artemis acceptable crew mortality rate is 1 in 30. Roughly 3x riskier than the shuttle. There genuinely i…

Jared? Sounds familiar, is it a friend of yours? If yes should you not disclose it? The casual first name use basis is a tell. You wouldn't say "glad Bill is cooking something up" about Gates. This kind of parasocial familiarity with billionaires is how PR becomes indistinguishable from fan fiction. Isaacman is a space tourist, not an astronaut. He is the CEO of Shift4 Payments, which processes payments for SpaceX. M…

Almost everything you said is false, but to pick on a couple of issues, on Polaris Dawn he did the same tests and reported results just like the spacesuit engineer that flew with him to test the spacesuits in space. That transparent review was enough to convince skeptical experts, journalists and the astronauts that the issues were understood and the work arounds adequate.

I think your projection is the beam in your eye you are blinded by.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Every mission from then on had a backup plan in case the shuttle wasn't in a state to return to Earth (this wasn't really the case before then, which is kinda wild). Another shuttle was always ready to launch, with a new configuration of seats to allow for sufficient crew space Actually the backup plan almost every time was to just stay on the ISS until another Shuttle could be prepared. They only had another Shuttl…

Was a hole actually punched in the wing, or was it just the tiles that were knocked off (and then the heat melted the leading edge of the wing)?

It was a hole punched in the reinforced carbon-carbon panel that made up the leading edge of the wing.

They didn’t use tiles on highly curved parts of the Shuttle, like the nose and the wing leading edges. Those areas were structural heat shields, so not tiles at all.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#459
post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the Wright brothers’ first flight useless, or did it teach us lessons that lead to the Concorde and 777? Was the first automobile so slow and clunky it was useless, or did it lead to the F1 cars of today? Was Alan Touring’s computer so slow it was useless, or did it lead to this comment being typed on a device that is many orders of magnitude faster and smaller? Going to Mars will teach us a lot. In the future wh…

> In the future when we go further it will be useful in ways we can’t imagine today. There. Is. No. Further. That's my issue with all that. It's pretty basic: check how far the next solar system is (I know you don't: it's 4+ light-years). Check the speeds we get when we send something out of the solar system (e.g. Voyager). Sending something to the next solar system at speeds orders of magnitudes faster than we reach…

That is exactly the point. You simply can’t know what the future holds.

After the Wright brother’s flight do you think people thought we would cross the Atlantic faster than the speed of sound sipping champagne, or go to the moon? “Impossible”

And so on.

You have no idea what will be possible on the future, but I hope we can get there by learning, not sticking our heads in the sand.

Re: Artemis II safely splashes down

#460
post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder sometimes if that’s another thing to toss in the Fermi paradox bucket Here we are, half a century after the first moon landing, doing a flyby of the moon in preparation for landing and supposedly for establishing a base there that makes no sense. We’re not even close to being able to send humans to the nearest planets, and even if we did send people to Mars, in one of the most pointlessly dangerous and exp…

It’s a logical extrapolation if you think life is a natural phenomenon. It would be exceedingly weird to see no evidence for it, but of course we have not been looking long or far. And yes, space flight is brutally hard. Look up the history of sailing. Look up the Polynesian indigenous peoples and how long that took, through multiple waves of exploration, or the people who walked across a land bridge to North America…

> It’s a logical extrapolation if you think life is a natural phenomenon.

No, it really isn't. Taking life on Earth as an example, almost all of our technological signatures are effectively undetectable as little as 5 light years away. See e.g. the paper "Earth Detecting Earth" (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.02614). The maximum detectable distance for unintentional signal leakage is 4 light years - about the distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star. So if we're looking for that kind of signal, we have a population of exactly one star system that we might be able to detect something from, at the maximum end of the detectable range.

The paper also lists a couple of exceptions, which are the highly directional Deep Space Network and planetary radar, theoretically detectable at 65 ly and 12,000 ly respectively. But these only cover small parts of the sky for short periods, making interception of such signals extremely unlikely. Also, signals like that have only been transmitted for decades at most, so there are at most a few thousand star systems that could conceivably have intercepted one of these signals.

All in all, while the probabilities involved can't be calculated with certainty, they do certainly lean towards it being very unlikely for us to have detected another technological civilization. Which is consistent with what we actually observe.

Detecting non-technological signs, like atmospheric gases, is more feasible but also not necessarily definitive. E.g., the recent evidence for dimethyl sulfide in the atmosphere of K2-18b is considered a tentative candidate for a biosignature, but is in no way definitive.

In short, the Fermi "Paradox" mainly confirms what we now know about the difficulty of detecting life beyond our solar system.

As for spaceflight vs. sailing, at some point extrapolation from analogies just breaks down, and interstellar travel is certainly one of those cases. The energy demands, distances, timescales, technological limitations, radiation issues, economic and political issues, etc. all combine to make it an effectively impossible project.

Post reply on HN