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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#961

Post by SR2Z »

pirate787 wrote: post #905
dmurray wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Biden admin was TRYING to slow down AI. It did not work for them.

As for SpaceX I'm not sure what you mean seeing as how the government is easily its largest customer...

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#962

Post by specialist »

prohobo wrote: post #921
specialist wrote: post #900

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Citations, please.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#963

Post by cruffle_duffle »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #800
jojobas wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by the fact it's 2026 you must be writing this from the Mars base.

> 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…

To paraphrase, spacex is "making the impossible merely late"

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#965

Post by gus_massa »

ActorNightly wrote: post #766
gus_massa wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also an old article written by a professional bongo player about the Challenger explossion. He has other hobbies, but he was not a Rocket Scientist https://www.nasa.gov/history/rogersrep/v2appf.htm The takeaway, is that the software was fine, but other systems like the main engine used too much cutting edge technology and have a lot of unexpected failure modes and too many problems like partialy broken parts…

Anyone can write an article when the hindsight is 20-20. You can make all sorts of justifications about what happened. Much different than predicting future.

The in the article I linked has a lot of other qualifications. Someone wrote a comment complaining about my misscharacterization, but deleted it before I could say sorry. Sorry for the joke!

If you have 2 or 3 spare hours, it's worth reading.

The guy got a lot of first hand information about the Challenger disaster. He analyzed not only what went wrong, that is in the 20-20 category, but also what could have gone wrong, that is in the speculation category.

But if you read that report after the Columbia disaster, it's almost a premonition. He didn't identify the exact problem that caused the explosion, but the decisions that made that posible were quite similar.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#966

Post by sarchertech »

NetMageSCW wrote: post #939
sarchertech wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The entire mission is “risking astronaut’s lives”. 2. NASA employees don’t have criminal immunity.

Who went to jail for the STS deaths?

Who was criminally negligent beyond a reasonable doubt? And how often do you see execs go to jail for product safety issues?

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#967

Post by devilbunny »

colechristensen wrote: post #707
devilbunny wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew someone who knew someone, so I got to see STS-133 from the VIP area. Nine minutes after launch, it was in orbit. Nine minutes .

Yup, that's how long it takes. There are a bunch of competing requirements and 9 minutes to orbit is the sweet spot, you can't change it much in either direction. If you go slower you waste all of your fuel just holding yourself up against gravity ("gravity drag" which is a bit of a tongue in cheek engineering term) If you go much faster you're accelerating too hard for your passengers or your structure. To understan…

I get the physics and engineering intellectually, but it’s very different to be standing there, still watching the smoke clear, and hear the announcement.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#968

Post by Silamoth »

gus_massa wrote: post #242
russdill wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An article written by a "Polish-American web developer, entrepreneur, speaker, and social critic" says it's not safe to fly. And? What do the astronauts flying on board with significantly more information say?

There is also an old article written by a professional bongo player about the Challenger explossion. He has other hobbies, but he was not a Rocket Scientist https://www.nasa.gov/history/rogersrep/v2appf.htm The takeaway, is that the software was fine, but other systems like the main engine used too much cutting edge technology and have a lot of unexpected failure modes and too many problems like partialy broken parts…

Calling Richard Feynman a “professional bongo player” is hardly an honest description. He was a Nobel prize winning physics professor renowned for his problem-solving abilities. He was certainly qualified to analyze the Challenger explosion.

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#969

Post by 4887d30omd8 »

sd9 wrote: post #320

Minutes after launch they reached "ten thousand miles per hour". That's 2.78 miles per second. Nuts. No doubt the speeds go even higher later too. I'm sure people here are already familiar with the speeds these things go, but that's the first time I've confronted a fact like that and it blew me away.

Your comment inspired me to vibe code https://calcubest.com/other/shuttle to see how fast the space shuttle travels between world cities. Pretty darn fast.

(also my first time trying to vibe code with Gemini as opposed to Claude and I don't know if I noticed a big difference, which probably makes sense for such a simple project).

Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates

#970

Post by dmix »

ViscountPenguin wrote: post #669
dmix wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the US stops being the main topic on the internet then you'll know it's over. As it stands everyone is still fully obsessed with America. Their cultural dominance is far from over.

I'd expect the US to be the main topic on the English speaking internet far after its global dominance ends. I highly doubt that Canada or Australia (let alone the UK) are going to take English speaking dominance any time soon.

The Pax thing generally covers economic, military, and cultural dominance in a hegemonic way (the "peace" part is very relative, especially if you consider Britannica and Romana times). China might compete on some of those but still pretty far, they have little cultural export and lack global trade/influence. Europe is pretty far behind in everything but it'd be cool if they got their shit together.
Post reply on HN