Artemis II Launch Day Updates • Hacker News Board

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#921

Post by prohobo » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:23 PM UTC

specialist wrote: post #900

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?

> confronted with a world that doesn't work the way you want it to Sure. Some of us are just trying to figure out the new rules. What is all this hypercapitalism stuff (aka Muskism) and who are the people (lunatics) pushing us there? So it's natural to kibitz about one of the most powerful people on the planet. Especially when he's also a world-striding shit poster, antagonizing everyone, demanding a response. FWIW:…

So you just hate him. Great. Now stop derailing every thread related to NASA/Spacex launches.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#922

Post by wat10000 » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:24 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #695

treebeard901 wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artemis II is scheduled for re-entry to Earth on April 10th. That is when the heat shield issue will be the most dangerous. If it fails and the mission fails with loss of life while knowing it went ahead despite the IG report about the heat shield... It might be the end of NASA. Hopefully it will return safely.

> It might be the end of NASA If idiots and emotions rein, maybe. Then the centre of gravity for space exploration correctly shifts to Musk and China.

For manned spaceflight, I'd say it already has. NASA itself has launched a grand total of one manned flight since July 2011. China has launched 14 and SpaceX has launched 20. Worse, the NASA vehicle is completely unsustainable. It was obsolete before it ever flew and it's so expensive that the mission launched yesterday likely costs more than the entire R&D cost of SpaceX's rocket and capsule. Probably China's too.

The problem is that the purpose of NASA's manned spaceflight program isn't to explore space. It's to make the President look good (and I'm not just talking about the current one here) and funnel money to contractors. In that respect it's doing quite well.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#923

Post by unethical_ban » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:29 PM UTC

anonymars wrote: post #279

reimertz wrote: post #271

watched this with teary eyes. it truly shows what we can do when we come together and challenge ourselves for the greater good of humanity.

A real bright spot compared to lately. The messages of positivity and comradery in the live stream were a nice contrast (That being said, I can't believe they cut to people on the ground during SRB separation!) edit: here's better footage from Everyday Astronaut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOsSRRBMNoc&t=24512s

I tried watching his video and he is insufferable. I wish him well, glad he's enthusiastic, but this isn't a CS:GO final, it's one of the most widely watched rocket launches in 50 years. You do not need to be screaming at me in the final ten seconds about how the core stage is lit, over the actual professional saying core stage lit. You do not need to repeat to me that this is a momentous rocket launch twice at T-30.

As someone who has watched launches before, it is so much better when the broadcasters keep it mostly together, and know when to be silent for periods of time. He does not know how to do that.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#924

Post by turtlesdown11 » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:35 PM UTC

Larrikin wrote: post #909

turtlesdown11 wrote: post #884

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we of course need the strategic advantage?

Can you explain anything about what you are talking about in more than one sentence?

This is satire. Based on the movie Dr. Strangelove. I'm sarcastically responding to the space race comment. There is an explanation in multiple sentences.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#925

Post by muskstinks » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:38 PM UTC

NetMageSCW wrote: post #915

muskstinks wrote: post #876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that makes sense. Transportships even reduce speed to reduce costs. If the payload doesn't pay for all of this, it was a huge R&D investmen from the american people to Musks scifi ideas

The American people didn’t pay for the R&D if SpaceX, Musk did and then customers did. Customers (including the federal government) that saved millions on every purchase.

NASA gave SpaceX 400 Million just for the development of Falcon 9 and there is a video were Musk said SpaceX was bancrupt if NASA wouldnt have stepd in.

NASA also another 6 Billion upfront to SpaceX for Dragon and HLS.

So yes the american paid for the R&D of SpaceX.

SpaceX took the 'risk' but either succeeding or not in your main business is hardly a risk if you need to succeed anyway to have that business.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#926

Post by muskstinks » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:39 PM UTC

NetMageSCW wrote: post #908

muskstinks wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

9 Million customers. I know a handful of people who use it as a secondary option who were everythign but 'left behind'

Thats not a lot of people.

And with the satelites risk and disruption to astronomy and the co2 usage, it might have affected more people negativly than positivly.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#927

Post by NetMageSCW » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:41 PM UTC

gnatolf wrote: post #752

chromacity wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of money, even if it goes to a single person, doesn't get taken out of the economy. No one puts it under the mattress. It's invested, so it's basically given to other people in exchange for a promise of equity / future returns. It might not be the allocation of capital we like, but it doesn't disappear.

Well, there is a financial 'sink' - stockpiles and ammunition or other non-reusable military gear are basically the definition of money 'destroyed'. Their political value is almost non-existent actual money. If any, at all.

Those stockpiles weren’t created by putting money into a shredder and getting ammunition out. They were created by paying for the materials and labor. At that point the government’s money is frozen and stockpiled, but the economy still has the money that was spent.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#928

Post by NetMageSCW » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:42 PM UTC

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #849

chromacity wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of money, even if it goes to a single person, doesn't get taken out of the economy. No one puts it under the mattress. It's invested, so it's basically given to other people in exchange for a promise of equity / future returns. It might not be the allocation of capital we like, but it doesn't disappear.

> No one puts it under the mattress. It's invested, so it's basically given to other people in exchange for a promise of equity / future returns. You make wealth concentration sound like a good thing somehow. This was publicly collected tax money, that will go on to enrich some already rich douchebag.

How will it go on to enrich someone else?

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#929

Post by muskstinks » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:42 PM UTC

NetMageSCW wrote: post #906

muskstinks wrote: post #872

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With Raptor v3? The one they actually need to meet their payload targets? I thought that will happen in a few weeks.

Whats your source?

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#930

Post by fc417fc802 » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:50 PM UTC

yodsanklai wrote: post #855

fc417fc802 wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy use is the driver. Fossil fuels happen to be cheap. It's effectively a coincidence, nothing inherent to technological progress itself except insofar as something like aviation would never have been a commercial success without an exceedingly cheap, dense, and portable method of energy storage. Solar-syngas and solar-battery would have eventually gotten there but we'd all have been taking trains and ships for t…

Energy and tech are two sides of the same coin

Not really. Most tech doesn't use much energy at all. It's not uncommon for advances to reduce energy usage.

Granted that as something becomes cheaper and easier we tend to scale it up but that's not really a tech thing it's more like a natural force that applies in equal measure to literally everything. It goes beyond humans; all living organisms will exploit available resources to the extent possible provided that doing so increases fitness.