Live data from Hacker News

Artemis II is not safe to fly

idlewords.com

551–560 of 667 posts

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#551
post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 article…

See my comment summarizing the evidence as I understand it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47590700 What articles did you find, exactly? What primary evidence are they basing their claims on? Many of the numbers you'll find with a google search are unclear about what they're comparing to - I believe both of the fatality numbers above (71% and 54%) are relative to completely unrestrained kids, which is not…

I think this was one of the ones I looked at: https://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/safety-topics/child-s...

It notes this, which might be pertinent to your comment regarding how the overall statistics don't show the trends you expect:

> A NHTSA study found that while most parents and caregivers believe they know how to correctly install their car seats, about half (46%) have installed their child’s car seat incorrectly.

Here's a more quotable one that directly addresses your claim that it's compared with unrestrained: https://www.cdc.gov/child-passenger-safety/prevention/index....

> Car seat use reduces the risk for injury in a crash by 71–82% for children, when *compared with seat belt use alone*.

Here's another one specifically concerning booster seats: https://www.childrenshospitals.org/news/childrens-hospitals-...

> Children in booster seats in the back seat are 45% less likely to be injured in a crash than children *using a seat belt alone*.

That's about as much effort as I'm willing to put into this conversation. I'll finish off by saying I'm not American and these rules exist outside the US as well - I have a hard time believing so many countries would separately implement this (or similar) mandate if it was as unfounded as you claim.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#552

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?

Because the correct answer is politically unacceptable.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think your analysis is fair, but pointing out details I disagree with misses the forest for the trees. Look at what lengths you went to in order to justify and defend what is, by your own arguments, the demonstrably less safe option.

Do you think that car seat mandates (up to age 12 in my state) are good policy if the net effect is: - a small reduction in minor injuries, - worse childhoods and parenting experiences (difficult to quantify, but real), - and a few hundred thousand fewer children being born in the first place, - very few, if any, lives saved? If yes, then cool - but I strongly disagree. If no - then I think the evidence and details v…

In the hypothetical scenario where car seats have only downsides, then of course I’m against a mandate.

There is a difference between cherry picking studies that back up your view point and how medical experts set policy though.

Experts review all of the data, and ignore outliers like a paper published in a law journal that suggests car seats are the primary reason families have shrunk from having three to two kids since the 80’s

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the controversy over the heat shield is obscuring the much bigger safety issue: Artemis has had only a single unmanned test flight. By contrast, the Saturn launch system had seven successful unmanned tests before being trusted with a crew, including two unmanned flights of the complete Saturn V stack. And even then, three astronauts were lost during ground testing of the crew capsule due to a critical design f…

> Artemis's closest modern counterpart, the SpaceX Starship, has had 11 test flights, several of which resulted in loss of the vehicle. I don't think you can compare the two. Starship's risks are so high failure is almost the expected outcome, it's a trial and error based process. Starship and Artemis is an apples/oranges comparison with respect to how the programs approach risk tolerance.

Until Artemis actually flies a comparable number of missions, any advantage in reliability is pure speculation. Which is not a good way to approach crewed spaceflight. I don't think the two programs are as different as you think, prospectively: both take great care to ensure that their vehicles don't fail. Starships may be cheaper than the SLS, but they're still very expensive. SpaceX doesn't go into a flight expecting to lose a vehicle. The difference in culture is more in the reaction to failure. As a private company, SpaceX moves very quickly in the wake of failure, whereas NASA has in recent decades become much more cautious once a failure has occurred. And while you say SpaceX is more tolerant of risk, I would note that they've never flown a crew on a launch vehicle that had only one previous unmanned launch. Falcon 9 had 85 unmanned launches before there was a crew aboard. And they expect to launch 100 unmanned Starships before they fly one with a crew.

Now which program seems the more risk tolerant?

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#555
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.

But sure everything would be better if any moron was allowed to decide how to keep their own kids safe. Yes, I think that we'd all be better off if every person was allowed to have their own personal values, deciding what's more important to themSELVES, rather than piling on and trying to force every one into a one-size-fits-all solution. For my part, I'd much rather have people wishing me "have a rich and fulfilling…

I don't think you should be allowed to recklessly endanger your children.

You can endanger yourself all you like, I couldn't care less but you don't get to endanger others even if you made them.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#556
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…

[dead]

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same explaination. When the SRB joints flexxed the o-rings were meant to stay in place, but the joints were defective and NASA knew the o-rings were moving. However NASA also believed the o-rings could still take the abuse, because although they were moving they were getting shoved deeper into the joint, in a way that wasn't intended but was nonetheless at least marginally effective at stopping exhaust blow-…

> However NASA also believed the o-rings could still take the abuse, because > although they were moving they were getting shoved deeper into the joint, Why would they be "shoved deeper," when the problem is that the joint opens wider under load?

Two directions.

Let's examine a slice of the booster. Going vertically you have one segment, then the joint, then the next segment. The O-rings were in that joint and had some ability to move horizontally.

As designed the joint would always be in compression, the O-rings sandwiched between two big pieces of metal. If they moved horizontally in the space they had it made no difference, their job was simply to keep the 1000psi inside the booster inside it. Going inward there was a layer of putty that could stand up to the heat but was useless for sealing.

Unfortunately, when the engines lit the whole booster stack twanged a few inches. A joint meant to always be in compression was suddenly for a moment in tension--the two pieces of metal moved slightly apart--gas could now go above/below the ring. If the rings were pliable enough they got slammed against the outside of their groove where the pressure against the joint stopped the escape of gas--examination of the boosters showed blow-by but it cut off soon enough that the mass of metal was enough to absorb enough heat to avoid catastrophe.

But that night was very cold. And it was very calm--the boil-off from the LOX tank was simply dumped overboard and the booster that failed was downwind. The point of maximum chilling was between the booster and the tank, the lowest segment joint got the worst of it. And that's where it failed.

When the stack twanged the ring didn't slam against the outside quite fast enough--some exhaust leaked past and tore up the ring. But the gas still had to go out the joint--and the shuttle fuel used aluminum. The ring wasn't sealing the joint but enough aluminum solidified out against the still-cold metal of the joint that it sealed the gap and Challenger roared into the sky. But as it went faster and faster the vibrations grew stronger--and eventually the really sloppy weld let go. Even that didn't doom the mission, there was enough fuel to tolerate the pressure loss. But the leak was pointing at a strut and the tank with a whole bunch of LH2 in it. Neither was designed to stand up to that.

There was also a second failure that got little attention: the putty. As intended, it should have covered the entire gap, the force would have been evenly applied and it probably would have made it. But the putty was spread and the segments placed together--in atmosphere. Air was trapped and compressed--and the putty gave way letting it out. What had been an even layer now had holes in wherever the weakest spots were--and that concentrated the escaping gas from the booster. And why wasn't that caught? Because in the static testing someone had gone inside and made sure the putty job was good. Easy enough in a booster laying on it's side, but the Shuttle was stacked vertically.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#558
post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Challenger: no gasses were supposed to make it past the o-rings no matter what, > but when it became clear that gasses were escaping and the o-rings were being > damaged, there was a push to suggest that it's an acceptable level. Interestingly, the article https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddi792xdfNXcBwF8qpDUxmZz... > by heat shield expert and Shuttle astronaut Charles Camarda, the former Director of Engineering…

>>I find that highly surprising, because "it was the O-rings" explanation seems universally believed and sanctified by no lesser authority than the Nobel prize laureate Richard Feynman. Essentially you are mischaracterizing what Feynman did or say, although this is also Feynman fault :-), by doing the famous public demonstration, with the ice water in a glass [2], although even there he only said it has "significance…

Yeah--people don't get it that while it was the failure of the O-rings that doomed that flight that they failed because they were subjected to forces they were never designed to take. The fact that they got that many flights before it blew actually says they were doing an admirable job of covering up the design flaw.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#559
post #546
post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who make it into management are often egoists > they were incapable of accepting humiliation I agree mostly but here is a different take on it: I think these are normal human feelings and behaviors - not the best of us, but not unusual either. If we want to get good things done, we need to work with and through human nature. Power corrupts everyone and shame is generally the most painful thing for humans. Pu…

> Putting people in a position where they need to treat their power with absolute humility or accept humiliation (and a major blow to their careers) in order to do the right thing is going to fail 99% of the time. I don't know... we select those people. Usually not for their ability to treat their power with humility, though. That's my argument in favour of quotas (e.g. for women): the way we select people in power n…

I think we already have quotas and affirmative action for white (Christian) males. Not long ago and maybe still true, more Fortune 500 CEOs were named John than were women. Though the policy is sometimes unstated (not always, especially in private, and the current administration is pretty clear about it), I think the data on the outcomes is overwhelming and undeniable.

I think also that gender or skin color doesn't make anyone more or less susceptible to these problems. We will find much better leaders by broadening our search beyond ~25-30% of the population, and we may find them better able to handle the challenges of power, but it won't be because of their gender or skin color.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprised? One of the engineers was literally on the phone with NASA the morning of the disaster begging them not to launch. He was overruled by management.

Surprising for the management. If you are a spoiled brat who always got what it wanted if you just asked/cried you don't expect reality to come and hit you.

Actually, not surprising.

The engineering was clear: don't fly. But given political realities had they said that they probably would have lost the contract to build the rockets--and that was a big part of their business.

They made the human choice: chose the option with a chance of success vs the option that was a certain failure.

Post reply on HN