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

Artemis II Launch Day Updates

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#901

Post by specialist »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #848
prohobo wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ughhh, Elon Moosk amirite? Such a fraud, because [???] I don't really understand why these kinds of comments persist except as some pathological cope when confronted with a world that doesn't work the way you want it to. It's not convincing, it immediately outs you as a zealot, it's counterproductive in every single way. Why keep doing it?

> don't really understand why these kinds of comments persist One, you can make money criticizing Elon on the internet. Two, controversy is catnip to the man. DOGE was a disaster. X and xAI look like aborted disasters. And he’s clearly gotten bored with Tesla. It isn’t hard to project that on SpaceX if you don’t know the heritage.

My guess is Tesla's pivoting to batteries and storage. Huge demand, great margins, competitive advantage.

I'm very disappointed Tesla has (seemingly) abandoned its goal of producing 20m Model 2 per year. Forfeiting the mass market is a bummer. More so every passing day.

(I'm bearish on Robotaxi and (Tesla's) self-driving.)

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#902

Post by hagbard_c »

hagbard_c wrote: post #375
briandoll wrote: post #312

This is the first live launch I've seen on TV (well, YouTube in this case) since the Challenger disaster. Was a nice relief to see this one go so smoothly.

You never watched any of the SpaceX launches? The first landing attempts? The massive explosions or 'RUD' - rapid unscheduled disassembly - events? The epic launch and synchronous landing of the twin Falcon Heavy side boosters? Why not? Maybe you're not interested in space launches, in that case I understand. Otherwise I wonder why you did not follow SpaceX in its path to reusable rocketry.

OK, the down-votes were the answer I more or less expected. Sad, really. Sad to see how some of the supposedly intelligent denizens of this site are incapable of separating the aspirational from the personal, how they can not marvel at the achievements of a company like SpaceX only because they are supposed to hate everything the leader of that company does.

Also sad to see that the down-voters - or single down-voter with a few accounts - again down-voted all my recent - totally unrelated - posts. Grow up, man-child, it is high time.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#903

Post by NetMageSCW »

mikkupikku wrote: post #852
SyzygyRhythm wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starship "making LEO" is not a significant challenge--the existing flights have explicitly targeted a (very slightly) suborbital trajectory. They could have done otherwise at any point, but for now it's more important to guarantee that the stage comes down immediately. None of their current objectives require more than ~1/2 of an orbit. Starship v3 flying will be a significant leap, though. It's the first with the Ra…

How do they hope to make prop transfer work without a working heat shield to enable reuse of the tankers? Unless SpaceX pulls a hat trick, Starship is borderline useless.

They have a working heat shield (see last flight). It may not be quickly reusable, but that doesn’t matter at this stage. For the transfer test, just left over fuel in two Starships is enough. They aren’t full blown finished tankers yet. For HLS, if they are unable to get Starship reuse working in time, they can use expendable tankers.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#904

Post by NetMageSCW »

mempko wrote: post #754
SyzygyRhythm wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starship "making LEO" is not a significant challenge--the existing flights have explicitly targeted a (very slightly) suborbital trajectory. They could have done otherwise at any point, but for now it's more important to guarantee that the stage comes down immediately. None of their current objectives require more than ~1/2 of an orbit. Starship v3 flying will be a significant leap, though. It's the first with the Ra…

Their objectives keep shifting and starship is far behind schedule. Sure, it's a success if you keep objectives small. They could have tried for LEO ages ago but didn't. Each launch should maximize learning and having small objectives is anathema to that. And very wasteful.

What would going into LEO have taught them? They have been there hundreds of times.

They don’t have small connectives, or was catching the Super Heavy booster and then reusing it too small for you? Not everything they are doing is public.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#905

Post by pirate787 »

dmurray wrote: post #863
SR2Z wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree with you, but the answer is obviously "because he's a very unpleasant man."

Lots of powerful people are unpleasant, but Musk additionally got involved in politics in a very visible way at a very partisan, polarising time in American history. He didn't attract as much hate before 2024.

Maybe more people should listen to Musk's political message. The Biden Administration was playing nasty games, blocking progress on both SpaceX and AI generally.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#906

Post by NetMageSCW »

muskstinks wrote: post #872
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #300

April 6: flyby April 10: splashdown After that, the exciting work will be in Starship making LEO and testing propellant transfer (a humanity first) [1] and Blue Origin testing its rocket and lunar lander [2], both scheduled for 2026, to enable Artemis II (EDIT: III), currently scheduled—optimistically, in my opinion—for next year. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starship_launches#Futu... [2] https://en.wiki…

They still need to prove that they can fire 33 of them in parallel reliable. Time will show, plenty of ignorant decisions from Musk inbetween so yeah...

They’ve already done that with multiple flights.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#907

Post by sandworm101 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #300

April 6: flyby April 10: splashdown After that, the exciting work will be in Starship making LEO and testing propellant transfer (a humanity first) [1] and Blue Origin testing its rocket and lunar lander [2], both scheduled for 2026, to enable Artemis II (EDIT: III), currently scheduled—optimistically, in my opinion—for next year. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starship_launches#Futu... [2] https://en.wiki…

>> Starship making LEO and testing propellant transfer (a humanity first)

No. We have to stop listing to AI and twitter idiots trying to upsell stories into "firsts". The first propellant transfer, the first refueling of a spacecraft on orbit, was by the soviets nearly 50 years ago.

"Progress 1 was the first of twelve Progress spacecraft used to supply the Salyut 6 space station between 1978 and 1981.[6] Its payload of 2,300 kilograms (5,100 lb) consisted of 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb) of propellant and oxygen, as well as 1,300 kilograms (2,900 lb) of food, replacement parts, scientific instruments, and other supplies. Whilst Progress 1 was docked, the EO-1 crew, consisting of cosmonauts Yuri Romanenko and Georgi Grechko, was aboard the station. Progress 1 demonstrated the capability to refuel a spacecraft on orbit, critical for long-term station operations.[11] Once the cosmonauts had unloaded the cargo delivered by Progress 1, they loaded refuse onto the freighter for disposal."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_1

If SpaceX wants a first, then it would be the first transfer of cryogenic fuel. But even that could be debated as arguably Shuttle "transferred" cryogenic fuel between the tank and the orbiter during the launch process. So SpaceX might get the first of (cryogenic + on-orbit). Any simplification is a denial of what has already been done.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#908

Post by NetMageSCW »

muskstinks wrote: post #875
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Judging by the fact it's 2026 you must be writing this from the Mars base SpaceX was started in 2001. It announced Falcon 9 and messaged its reusability ambitions in 2005. Falcon 1 wasn’t going anywhere because making rockets is too hard. Falcons 5 and 9 weren’t going anywhere because medium lift is a different ball game. Falcon Heavy wasn’t going anywhere because timing that many engines impossible. Reuse is impos…

They are very good in finding money from somewhere to afford all of this. If this doesn't play out to be reducing costs for the avg american, Musk was able to get funded by the american tax payer nicely.

Musk has saved the tax payer (through the government) billions of dollars on every project SpaceX has been involved with. They have earned money by providing vital Internet services to the disconnected and left behind in rural areas all over the world.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#910

Post by NetMageSCW »

jojobas wrote: post #851
prohobo wrote: post #843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That describes basically all founders though, minus the endless money supply. That's how business/sales works: make promises, build product later. Also SpaceX, Tesla, PayPal, OpenAI, Grok and Neuralink aren't vaporware... The claim fundamentally doesn't make any sense.

Cybertruck, Semi, Hyperloop, robotaxi, point-to-point rocket travel, tunnels, the list goes on. Making promises and "it's essentially ready, it's just about regulators" are quite different, if not for Trump he'd be done for securities fraud.

Hyperloop was never a Musk project — it was a back of the napkin suggestion he gave away.
Post reply on HN