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

Artemis II is not safe to fly

idlewords.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 667 posts

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#501

Post by rhcom2 »

randomNumber7 wrote: post #454
Havoc wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suicide ideation and someone willing to take massive risks for something awesome are very different things

> The trip is far more awesome than anything I have planned for the rest of my life. If you would give your live for a single awsome trip (and you would still have multiple years to live), then you are likely suicidal. Even if it is rational because your live sucks so hard, I would still have to classify you as suicidal.

Is jumping on a grenade to save another person suicidal? Or is it just a matter of you not agreeing with the rational?

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#502

Post by randomNumber7 »

cromwellian wrote: post #217
throw-23 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not seem like it, but I really am on your team. What you're missing and Sabine understands is that there is no such thing as spending that's insignificant, and whether we're talking cash or mission bandwidth, everything has opportunity costs. Exactly how many possible missions are thrown out every time we decide to send squishy humans instead of robots? As for defense spending, to be clear I'm all for swappi…

Sabine got her wish. DOGE cut NSF by 40%. Tons of scientists out of work including physicists. But she'll be ok, she only needs to pimp another ad for Brilliant.com

And? What significant development in the last decades came out of science and not out of industry labs?

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#503

Post by anon291 »

eru wrote: post #66
oritron wrote: post #25

I haven't kept up with Artemis development but I've read extensively about Challenger and Columbia. These two parts of the article stood out to me: > Moon-to-Mars Deputy Administrator Amit Kshatriya said: “it was very small localized areas. Interestingly, it would be much easier for us to analyze if we had larger chunks and it was more defined”. A Lockheed Martin representative on the same call added that "there was…

About the last point: At this point in time, manned space exploration should come out of our entertainment budget. The same budget we use for football or olympic games.

No no no. Space will be colonized. At least our local solar system will see sustained human exploration and inhabitation. This requires physical presence. This is one of those black swans which seem silly when looking forward, but obvious in retrospective. The future belongs to those who do seemingly silly things today. The first industrialists often faced ridicule because they spent time designing machines instead of doing the task and making the immediate money. Set aside your need for immediate gratification. Hard things lead to good outcomes.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#505

Post by sfn42 »

enoch_r wrote: post #492
sfn42 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh wow what a tragedy. You think maybe there's reasons for that mandate? Like maybe it saves children's lives? But sure everything would be better if any moron was allowed to decide how to keep their own kids safe.

The evidence that car seats save lives is significantly weaker that you probably believe, as I detailed in another comment in this thread. But look: even if car seats make sense for a typical 5 year old on a typical drive in their typical car (which is a higher evidentiary burden than you might think), a mandate imposes a huge logistical tax that makes many normal things completely infeasible or impractical: - travel…

Here's what I found doing a basic Google search:

> Car seats and booster seats significantly reduce the risk of fatal injury in crashes by 71% for infants and 54% for toddlers (1-4 years old), saving over 11,000 lives in the US since 1975

> Booster seats reduce the risk of serious injury for children aged 4-8 by 45% compared to seatbelts alone.

It's from the AI summary because it was the most quotable but the articles I found say pretty much the same thing. Seems pretty solid to me.

> If you haven't experienced this, it's hard to describe - and I think it's absolutely a case where tradeoffs like "how will this affect quality of life?" are completely overridden because "well, if it just saves one life..."

If you haven't experienced your children dying unnecessarily because it was inconvenient to make them safe it's hard to describe..

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#507

Post by sfn42 »

anon291 wrote: post #499
sfn42 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh wow what a tragedy. You think maybe there's reasons for that mandate? Like maybe it saves children's lives? But sure everything would be better if any moron was allowed to decide how to keep their own kids safe.

The evidence on car seats is extremely weak and they prevent only a handful of injuries. You'd be better off redesigning roads or having more collision protection systems in cars. As self-driving cars get better to the point where they can communicate and eliminate many human errors, there's probably no need for car seats at all. In many situations they make things more dangerous, not less.

Seems strong to me, can you support this claim?

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#509

Post by [deleted] »

NewsaHackO wrote: post #500
gbgarbeb wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have analyzed the problem with 1D non-coupled models that are so poorly matched to reality they would receive an F in a high school science class. They are YOLOing it. It is insulting that clowns like yourself continue to cover for them. NASA lowers its standards every time an accident happens. When they designed Shuttle, they intended for a failure rate of 1 in 10,000 or thereabouts. Remember, it was meant to f…

The issue with arguments like this is that people who make the claim "it's not safe!" never feel the negative consequences when everything goes to plan. They just slink away, and then when the next event happens, they cry wolf again. When they happen to be right 2 of ~130 times, they get to say "see I told you so!" and go on speaking tours about how they figured it out but NASA wouldn't listen, say they should be con…

[deleted]

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#510

Post by dabluecaboose »

gambiting wrote: post #157
idlewords wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It couldn't, for a funny reason. Everything on a Shuttle flight could be automated except lowering the landing gear just before touchdown, which had to be done by hand from inside the cockpit. There are rumors (that I've never been able to run down) that the astronaut corps insisted on this so the Shuttle could not be flown unmanned.

And Buran(soviet copy of the shuttle) could and in fact did fly completely unmanned. In a way it's a shame the collapse of the soviet union killed that program, because a crew less shuttle would have been a huge asset to have.

I'm not surprised more people don't know about the X-37, but it's in effect the distillation of the Shuttle program to a very effective vehicle: Crewless, reusable, cheap, and effective.

Bureaucratic requirements and institutional jockeying largely ballooned the Shuttle into something it was never supposed to be.

Post reply on HN