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.
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 Raptor v3 engines and has many other improvements as well, such as updated grid fins and hot staging ring. It will be the first that achieves close to the intended capacity of ~100 tons.
Propellant transfer is indeed a significant challenge. They have already demonstrated internal transfers between tanks, but not between spacecraft.
> Starship "making LEO" is not a significant challenge
Of course it is. I say this as someone who sturdied astronautics.
You’re broadly correct, though. My point is the action shifts to Hawthorne and West Texas for the next year or so. Then pivots back to NASA for Artemis IV.
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.
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.
>> 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."
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.
Starship is just obscene. The thing is never going to work for its designed purpose once you understand what the mission looks like (basically insane amount of refuel dockings while the thing is in orbit)
> insane amount of refuel dockings while the thing is in orbit
What's wrong with this? Lots of launches is fine until we build the scale required to make a proper depot worthwhile. (Which, by the way, is part of Artemis's plans. Though currently it looks like a bunch of glued-together Starship tankers.)
I will be watching the launch from Europe, so it will be not earlier than half past midnight for us. My kids (9 and 10) are sleeping on the couch in front of the projection screen, so that they do not even have to get up when I wake them up at midnight, which I promised.
Just wanted to add my grain of positivity here. Godspeed Artemis 2!
Even though you could question the whole Artemis concept, it's still extremely exciting watching the countdown with my son. I just missed the original Apollo flights and had assumed I would never see a moon landing in my lifetime. We may well not have a landing for quite some time yet, but it's still cool to see a Moon bound rocket standing on the launchpad...
I don't know if it's feasible for you, but if you can, try to take your kid to see a live rocket launch. The TV is grossly unable to display how awesome these things are in person.
Concur. My kids and watched a “small” Falcon 9 launch from the mainland park nearest the pad at Cape Canaveral. The noise alone was astonishing; bring binoculars to see detail.
It is one of the things I regret not ever getting to see a shuttle launch. The closest I ever got was when I flew over Florida while a shuttle was on the pad.
I lived in Port Orange FL until i was 12, during night launches my dad would take the family to New Smyrna Beach or some where a short drive South where we watched the shuttles come up over the water somehow. I can't remember the details it was a lonnnng time ago haha. I do remember the launches sounding like popcorn popping.
I live in Dallas now and will be turning 50 soon, i want to catch the next Starship launch live but would have to time it perfectly to get time off of work ahead of time.
80 miles for me! I was a Space Shuttle era kid though. Saw the Challenger disaster during my lunchtime. And then on perpetual replay for the rest of the week on WESH/WCPX/WFTV most likely. Even still, just knowing we were launching all those people into space was awe-inspiring.
It's even more exciting when you realize that the last crewed mission beyond Low Earth Orbit was 1972 and each person on that spacecraft today are younger than that.
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.
Escape velocity is 25,020 mph (6.95 mps), so not completely surprising.
Note that escape velocity applies to a situation without continued propulsion and also without air resistance, but still you can imagine that the order of magnitude is similar.
Thank you for that precision "without continued propulsion", because when talking about rockets, physics teachers always talk about escape velocity, as if it was an absolutely necessary condition to escape earth's gravity.
But can't you escape gravity slower, just by going higher and higher at lower speed? Like a plane? (ie not vertically, but at an angle)
Exactly. Your rocket can escape the earth at the speed of a slow elevator if you burn the engines continuously and you can carry an infinite amount of fuel and your fuel weighs nothing.
Since those constraints are impossible to meet in the real world, we have to get going fast enough to coast most of the trip on inertia after the fuel runs out.
Artemis II won't fly by the moon until Day 6, but it only took Apollo 8 to Day 4 to get to the moon. Looking at the wiki for Apollo 8, it shows the moon was 218k miles at launch while they said the moon is currently 240k, so it still looks like Apollo was moving faster than Artemis.
Apollo put a lot more burden on the Service Module than Artemis plans to put on the Orion. Apollo put the CSM/LM into a low lunar orbit while Artemis plans to put Orion into a high lunar orbit and make the Starship carry a lot more delta-V to land from a much higher velocity (and then accelerate back up to that velocity when coming back).
On top of that there weren’t really solar panels in the 1960s so the Service Module had to carry tons of chemicals to produce electricity, as well as extra fuel for all of that weight. As a result it was massively overbuilt compared to anything we’d try today and even so had to take an expedited flight path to the moon of 3 days in order to conserve operational lifetime. Artemis does not have nearly as severe constraints on either the Orion or the future Starship and so can afford to take a more fuel efficient 5 day coast up to the Moon and make the design tradeoffs on Orion that that entails.
My understanding is Artemis II orbits earth for 23.5 hours before heading to the moon while Apollo 8 did so for under 3 hours, so that accounts for some of the difference.
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 understand gravity drag think about the rocket firing just hard enough to hover 1 meter above the pad, you burn out all your fuel in 10 or 15 minutes and go nowhere...
In the other direction if you want to accelerate harder you need to make your structure stronger so you need to burn more fuel per second and have to displace some fuel in exchange for more structure and you keep doing that until you're so heavy you can't produce any more acceleration and you're all engine and structure and no fuel.
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).
The acceleration of a rocket is slower than a normal car at lift off. It's pulling about 1.2G, but 1G of that is fighting gravity, so effective acceleration is only 0.2G. Almost any car can do that at low speeds.
But a car's acceleration slows almost instantly. The rocket just keeps accelerating faster as the tank empties and it gets lighter. By main engine cut off it might be pulling 5G.
One fact that I found unintuitive (while we're at cars doing things they can't):
If you could drive your car straight up vertically, you'd have to cruise just for an hour or so at 100 km/h (<65 mph) until you reached space. It's not that far.
Well, notions of speed are a little tricky for spaceships, but yeah, Artemis's top speed is going to be right when it starts reentry: about 25,000 MPH.
It is a bit chilling to watch these astronaut profiles having just read yesterday about the heat shield issues observed on the prior mission, and that this will be the first time we can test the heat shield in the actual pressures and temperatures that it will have to endure.
> in the same way that you'll probably survive one round of Russian roulette
Is that with or without spinning the chamber between rounds? The odds are worse if you spin each time. They get worse as the game goes on if you don't spin.
Same. I watched last night, UK time, and I couldn't shake the worrying feeling. I was relieved that they got into orbit. Now I can be a little bit excited until re-entry. That worries me for the same reason.
In the UK as a kid, when Challenger happened, our children's news programme reported it before the mainstream TV.
The event itself was a few years before my time, but after reading about it and eventually watching the historical news footage, the phrase "go at throttle up" also seared itself into my brain, and ever since I flinch when I hear it.
Yes, a robot car that drives on its own will be a better driver than most humans who text and drive, or have 400ms reaction times.
But making a machine that can beat a 110ms reaction time human with 2SD+ IQ, and the ability to override the ground controllers with human curiosity is much harder. Humans have high dexterity, are extremely capable of switching roles fast, are surprisingly efficient, and force us to return back home.
So in terms of total science return, one Apollo mission did more for lunar science and discovery than 53 years of robots on the surface and in orbit.
Because the goal of the program is to return humans to the moon. Artemis I was the unmanned test. This is the first manned test, and what they learn will support the subsequent missions that eventually land humans on the moon.
This is the same way that all manned spaceflight programs are conducted. You iterate and learn a little bit at a time. "Move fast and break things" doesn't work here. :)
If you can fly people around the moon, then landing people on the moon is a more reasonable next step.
I agree that it may not be entirely logical, but keeping public and funding opinion positive & invested _is_ important.
edit: I thought RocketLab flew their elecron rocket around the moon a few years ago? So it's definitely doable... so again I think it's about the optics.
It is a test of the spacecraft. They need people onboard to test all the human systems. But yes, if this was a purely scientific flyby and not part of a larger manned program, machines would do it fine.
Yeah. Doesn't really make sense. The entire mission could be done remotely.
Even with a goal of eventually putting humans on the moon, it'd be better to do an automated run, measure everything in the cockpit, and put in sandbags and/or something to consume O2 to make sure the CO2 scrubbers are working correctly. It's maybe cruel, but a few dogs would work fine for that sort of thing. A flame would be better, but it's pretty dangerous.
The first mission in decades doesn't need to have humans in it.
I mean, that's how these heat shields work. They aren't reusable, you can't test them and then use them again. Or do you mean the design? We already did Artemis I.
It says that it is not safe to fly. They are sending humans without having tested in real conditions that their design was sound, GIVEN that the first time they did that (without humans), it turned out that their design was unsafe.
They've changed the AVCOAT to be less permeable and altered the re-entry profile.
One of the findings of Artemis I is that lack of permeability led to trapped gas pockets which expanded and blew out pieces of heat shield. The reason for the change to be less permeable is to make it easier to perform ultrasonic testing, not to improve performance.
> Another chart which the Artemis Tiger Team did not intend to show on Jan. 8th, was the figure showing the spallation events as a function of time during the skip entry heating profiles (Figure 6.0-4 of NESC Report TI-23-0189 Vol. 1). In this figure, it was quite clear that the Program narrative they were feeding to the press, that it was the dwell time during the skip which allowed the gases generated to build up and cause the delta pressures which caused most of the spallation was, again, patently false. In fact, during the first heat pulse (t ≈ 0 to 240 sec), approximately 40-45% of all the medium to large chunks of ablator spalled off the Artemis I heatshield.
> Hence, varying the trajectory would do little to prevent spallation during Artemis II. I was never shown the new, modified trajectory at the Jan. 8th meeting.
We already did Artemis I and the heat shield lost a lot more material than it was supposed to on that flight. "Specifically, portions of the char layer wore away differently than NASA engineers predicted, cracking and breaking off the spacecraft in fragments that created a trail of debris rather than melting away as designed. The unexpected behavior of the Avcoat creates a risk that the heat shield may not sufficiently protect the capsule’s systems and crew from the extreme heat of reentry on future missions."
Fixes have been made to the design, but they haven't been tested in flight.
After spending years as a kid seeing footage of these things on TV outside living outside of America, I finally got to see it live!
Brought my camera and got a few good pics too! Very invested in this entire mission!
Someone behind me kept whisper crying "That's it! Go baby, go baby go" like it was his child and was encouraging them on. Very emotional, loved it.
Also when that engine sparked it really hit me just how many hours of deep thought and technical innovation goes not only into getting us as humanity to that point, but also the crews at NASA planning, building and executing these missions
I watched the livestream and at one point (several points, i guess) they cut to the crowd watching and the thing that stood out the most to me was that every single person was staring at their phone pointed at the rocket. Nevermind the fact that better quality videos will live forever on the internet available to anyone who wants to watch them, but I cannot fathom having that opportunity and not watching it with my own eyes with my full attention.
Of course it's not "safe"! We put a ton of explosives into a huge can, put a small can with humans on top of it, set it on fire and try to control what happens and get the humans into space, and then we try to drop the same can from the space, while it's traveling at miles per second, and land it on the ground. It's not "safe" and won't likely be "safe" in our lifetimes, there's always big risk, that's why astronauts get so much respect - they take a lot of risks. These risks become smaller with time, but still they are quite serious. And of course anything that reduces risks - while not disabling the whole program - is good, but I don't think "safe" is the word that is justified when talking about those things.
What he means and you're interpreting a bit too literally is that this [heatshield] is one subsystem where the risks are not well understood or quantified as, say, the propulsion system, for which we have a lot more experience and flight heritage.
There is a LOC (Loss of Crew) number that is typically calculated for these missions. I'm curious what that is? Early Apollo missions were on the order of 4%.
Before the Apollo launch, von Braun was asked what the reliability of the rocket was. He asked 6 of his lieutenants if it was ready to fly. Each replied "nein". Von Braun reported that it had six nines of reliability.
In 2014 an independent safety panel estimated 1:75, but I think it's slightly better now. The shuttle program officially had a limit of 1:90 but in practice achieved 1:67.
The politicization of everything and constant doomerish on here sure has echoes of early 2000s Slashdot. That's not a compliment. Reading the comments here is actually depressing. Human progress is never all at once, we can't even celebrate this triumph? Life is almost never "one or the other," the program could be scrapped to a junk yard and that wouldn't solve global hunger or global conflicts. Setting human eyes forward is good.
I pray to never reach a point of cynicism where my response to watching humans leave the planet on a rocket is immediately "meh, whatever, here's my political complaint of the week"
Global hunger's a great example. When we last left the moon (1972) 35% of the global population was undernourished. Today it's ~8%. Optimism is a choice, and generally a more rational one. That doesn't mean we don't have real issues.
In many ways I agree with you, but you have to acknowledge that things change when the _benefits_ of going forwards are funnelled to fewer and fewer people. That is what colors people’s view of what is happening in the way you are seeing.
On your parenthetical point, I also agree: some really weird camera selections, and frustrating dropouts, during the crucial moments of the launch.
Nevertheless, a real triumph, and I particularly enjoyed the "full send" remark from (I think) the commander. I also really enjoy the fact that the livestream is relatively light on commentary and that most of what you hear is from mission control and the crew.
I was cussing at the director of that video stream during that. It was a totally useless shot as well that they lingered on that already had me bothered, and then to cut back to the SRBs fully separated had me in full contempt. Nothing to see here and everything to miss. It's like music videos showing the singer doing nothing while the guitarist is shredding a solo. Like WTF. You have one job, and you totally botched the hell out of it. You get what you pay for I guess. Lowest bidding contractor???
It was probably deemed a relatively high-risk moment which they did not want to broadcast in case of failure like it was when the Challenger mission exploded.
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.
sending people to the moon was never useful. We can get more done with robots, both cheaper and safer. There are plenty of more useful things we can do instead.
okay what is more useful is a matter of opinion. you can disagree, but I stand by it
I tuned in for 60 seconds, the presenter got everything wrong, and I just tuned out until liftoff.
She called the top of the ET (well, it's no longer an ET, but it's the stage that was the STS ET) the "upper stage". She said that the propellents are stored at thousands of degrees below zero. And so on. This is a NASA presenter?
> She called the top of the ET (well, it's no longer an ET, but it's the stage that was the STS ET) the "upper stage". She said that the propellents are stored at thousands of degrees below zero. And so on. This is a NASA presenter?
To be fair to her, she seemed to explicitly refer to what sits on top of the core stage, it just wasn't in the diagram she was gesturing to the top of at the time.
To be fair to you, I think the cryogenic comment was worse and she actually said "thousands of degrees below Fahrenheit".
The problem is they're trying to run hours of programming leading up to this launch for some reason, but aren't willing to force the experts to come in to do the commentary. They should have given her a script.
You are not the target audience for this sort of presentation. Media directed at the laity is more about being directionally than quantifiably correct, and is full of metaphor and embellishment to capture the imagination rather than communicate something with precision.
People who want the actual details and numbers will read.
I feel like they really fumbled the video feeds, it was a mess. Rapid shifting of camera angles as it left the pad, black video, switching to a grainy video of the crowd during booster separation, and a hasty switch back well after they separated.
Come on guys. You're going to the moon. You couldn't plan the launch camera / video feed better? This is how the world sees it, gets excited about it.
Quality just looked so poor too it honestly felt 90s quality on some of the feeds, will be criminal if they don’t sort their cameras out before the moon landing
Found a stream on YouTube earlier (which presumably wasn't an official one because it disappeared 15 minutes later after a claim by "FUBO TV") and it had a poll attached: "Will the Artemis astronauts land on the moon?"
40% of people had voted yes. Which is somewhat worrying given the mission plan and hardware.
Regardless of whether this particular mission is perfectly planned, this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement.
It is a noble endeavor - science, engineering and peaceful exploration hold the keys to our survival and prosperity.
It is also important psychologically to our survival - a reminder there is a bigger pie, that we can solve hard problems, that progress can be made, that competence and education counts, as does courage, and that we can work together for a common cause.
This is the best of America, and for a while we can be proud of the human race.
I think these space projects are great, can create much good will, and give people dangerous things to do that are worth risking the danger for. But war, inequality, and climate mismanagement are political problems that are not going to be solved (if they need to be solved) by science and engineering (the first two at least).
My personal take for a long time has been that the primary driver of most war today is boredom. War today is undertaken for entertainment. It's a special kind of entertainment that taps into deep brain stem circuits and provides a false but deeply resonating sense of purpose and meaning. When you hear that "people don't have a sense of meaning," it means their brain stem is not feeling the tribal loyalty emotions connected to warfare.
It would be cheaper to solve resource shortages in almost any other way. I don't really buy that explanation, at least for most wars. I think most wars today have roots that are far less rational.
Note that this applies IMO to all participants on all sides insofar as they had any role in starting or sustaining the war.
The expanse future isn't that bad - even at the start of the series we've already made it to the asteroid belt and Jupiter moons, and the civilization consists of several sovereign self-governed entities with individual entrepreneurship and private enterprise allowed. It means we didn't annihilate ourself in a nuclear war, nor our civilization collapsed into allways-fully-connected ant colony (or one global fascist/communist/religious regime).
> this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war
Just a reminder that even the Utopia of the 23rd century and beyond envisioned by Gene Roddenberry for Star Trek - the Federation and Starfleet are still at their core military institutions. Even war was very much still a thing in his utopic vision, despite the fact that scarcity basically no longer exists so what hell was everyone fighting over anyway?
Starfleet is only a few steps removed from the regime in Heinlen’s Starship Troopers. At least Heinlen didn’t pretend that they were enlightened post-imperialists. He was honest about what it was.
Wasn't war on Earth not the issue but war with other species in the galaxy the issue? Sure, there were some sympathizers trying to sabotage peace, but that's because they wanted to continue warring.
I hope so, but if this goes awry in any way, especially if – god forbid – they lose the crew, my fear is it’ll be a blow to the American hegemony that will be very hard to recover from. Orange man is bad, but I think something like that would add a whole other dimension to the US’s loss of face. I’m as anti-american as they come, but despite everything Pax Americana must be acknowledged and I shudder at the thought of it shattering.
> Pax Americana must be acknowledged and I shudder at the thought of it shattering.
Shudder away! We've already had both Carney and the finance minister of Singapore essentially declare Pax Americana to have ended. Everybody else is just being polite.
[EDIT: prime minister of Singapore, not finance minister]
> this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement.
Is that irony or plain naiveness? historically and technically, conquest of space is inseparable from warfare. As for climate change, one can argue that technology is one of the primary driver: aviation alone is estimated to 4% of global temperature rise.
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 the past 80 years while riding electrified public transit.
I believe that folks in the US are, by a large margin, the most highly propagandized group of people in history. It's hard to watch stuff like this.
It's not that I don't understand that comparatively space exploration is small compared to the associated costs of the boots that might hit the ground today.
>Regardless of whether this particular mission is perfectly planned, this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement.
You watch too much Star Trek. This is precisely the kind of thing that will benefit the military industrial complex, enrich billionaires at the expense of everyone else, and justify the government raping natural resources like it's a little girl locked in a cage.
No one cares about space any more and no one engaging in space travel is doing so for science anymore. Those days, if they ever really existed, are over. NASA has been cleansed and gutted and purged of wrongthink and now only exists to further the cause of American propaganda and be parasitized by SpaceX and intelligence agencies.
The key phrase is "kind of thing". It certainly does matter what kinds of things we focus our attention on as a species. I think you would have to be quite cynical to think that progress in spaceflight over the past 60+ years hasn't had a positive impact.
Global rates of poverty are 83% lower than they were in 1969 when we landed on the moon.
So actually, millions of lives have massively benefited from science and technology. To be cynical in the face of all that is a personal take, not a reflection of the facts.
You don't solve these problems in a single step, but notice how space imagery and analogies pop up every time people try to talk about peace, global problems, mutual empathy, understanding, etc. The Pale Blue Dot, images of Earth from orbit or the Moon, etc. Those are anchors in public consciousness, competing in memetic space with usual divisive, dystopian, hope-draining pictures and soundbites - we need more of them to improve on the big problems, and we absolutely would not have them if not for people actually flying to space.
Or, put differently, space exploration is one of the few things "feeding the right wolf" for humanity at large.
> Regardless of whether this particular mission is perfectly planned, this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement.
More likely, it is precisely the kind of thing that will be managed specifically to keep people distracted, so that the people who have a near term benefit from the dark age of war, inequality, and climate mismanagement can continue realizing that benefit without interruption by people taking action right up until there is no one left to distract or benefit.
The SpaceX cameras of live launches are way better. This NASA stream is mostly all computer generated art after the initial pad launch. Hardly any live space feeds from the ship.
Does anyone know of a good status tracker for the mission? I'm watching the official feed on Youtube and it's great for commentary but I'd love a live Kerbal-style UI I could poke around.
Unfortunately the UI seems pretty busted. The tour is trying to point out a bunch of UI elements that don't exist and the mouse interaction just doesn't work at all.
but it's not accurate. it claims TLI (trans lunar injection burn) happens two hours after launch when in reality that is going to happen about a day after launch
As someone who watched the Apollo 11 launch live on TV, this is no less awe-inspiring. This transcends nations, languages, and politics. This is of and by all humanity.
(If anyone managed to get the perfect shot of the spark-filled separation feed, please share. That was... incredible.)
Out of curiosity, why do you see this as a worthwhile endeavor?
My personal perspective is that the resources are better used for other purposes, but it's possible that I just haven't encountered some compelling reason yet.
Do you watch sports, football, the Olympics? If not I'm sure you know someone who does. Same category as this. Each of the 32 NFL team is worth about the cost of 1-2 Artemis launches. The entire league could fund the whole Artemis program nearly twice. Hosting the Olympics is worth about 3-10 launches.
Like sports, the objective is ultimately useless except as a showcase of what humanity has to offer, and people like to see that.
This argument comes up a lot, about whether a space program is “worth it” in some sense. One problem I’ve found is that these discussions often treat this in the abstract. And then we get into the nature of human endeavor, the economic benefits of that R&D, etc.
Let’s talk about this in terms of practicalities. The NASA budget for 2026, per Wikipedia, is $24.4B. I often find it hard to really reason about the size of federal budgets, and the impact on tax payers, but I have a thought experiment that I think helps put it into perspective. Suppose we decided to pay for the NASA budget with a new tax, just for funding NASA. And we did that in the simplest (and most unfair) possible way: a flat rate. Every working adult in the US has to pay some fixed monthly rate (so excluding children and retirees). Again, per Wikipedia, that’s around 170M people. Take the NASA budget, divide by 170M, and you get … $11.96/month.
Obviously, there’s lots of flaws in this. That’s not we pay for NASA, we have income tax as a percentage with different tax brackets. But it is a helpful way to frame how much a country is spending, normalized by population. And I think it puts a lot of things in perspective. $11.96/month is comparable to a streaming service. And we talk a lot about whether NASAs budget is better used for other purposes, but we don’t do the same thing for a streaming service.
Hell, look at US consumer spending: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm (note that that spending is in dollars per “consumer unit,” which is I think is equivalent to an adult US worker, but there might be some caveats). Based on that, the average US consumer spends around $26.17/month on “tobacco products and smoking supplies”. I just feel it’s a little silly to worry about the NASA budget when the US consumer spends twice that on what is objectively a luxury good. At least NASA won’t give you cancer.
> Out of curiosity, why do you see this as a worthwhile endeavor?
to me it's inspiring and gives people something to cheer for. It also keeps a lot of people employed, productive, and at least has the possibility for new innovation. When looking at the mountains and mountains of wasted taxpayer dollars I dislike these the least.
The moonshot is a halo program that, when executed in a non-profit form, ends up benefiting society as a whole due to smart people being cornered and forced to solve hard problems that typically have applicability elsewhere on Earth.
Edit: remember the Kennedy speech — We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because we thought it would be easy.
Because humans are destined to colonize space, and this is just an early step in a journey that will take hundreds or thousands of years.
More importantly, challenges like space exploration help drive knowledge and our economy; and are critical for national prestigue.
(And, most people don't focus on this, space exploration is a way for the US to demonstrate its military technology in a non-antagonistic way. There's a lot of overlap in space exploration technology and miliary technology.)
It is great to advance of what is humanly possible. Sending a robot? Great! Good data. If it dies, who cares, it does not live anyway. All abstract.
But sending a human? That feels more real. If we have the power to go alive to the moon, we also have the power to go even further. And we lost it, now we are reclaiming it.
And it doesn't matter to me what I think of the US government - this is progress for all of humanity. Also the comment section on the youtube stream is interesting - lot's of different flags are posted, sending good wishes from all around the world, low effort comments otherwise of course, but largely positive. (Very rare I think)
So, more rockets into space please and less on earth.
> My personal perspective is that the resources are better used for other purposes, but it's possible that I just haven't encountered some compelling reason yet.
Well, people are often obsessed with rationality, and seek reasons to do something, but there is one reason that works almost for anything: just because. If we want to go forward, we'd better try a lot of things, including those that do not look very promising. We don't know the future, the only way to uncover it is to try. Did you hear about gradient descent? It is an algo for finding local maxima and to do its work it needs to calculate partial derivatives to choose where to go next. In reality doing things and measuring things are sometimes indistinguishable. So society would better try to move in all directions at once.
A lot of people believe that to fly to the Moon is a good idea. Maybe they believe it due to emotional reasons, but it is good enough for me, because it allows to concentrate enough resources to do it.
> the resources are better used for other purposes
It is much better use for $$$ than the war with Iran. I believe that the war have eaten more then Artemis already, and... Voltaire said "perfect is an enemy of good". The Moon maybe not the perfect way to use resources, but it is good at least.
Because it is good for humans to have a thing to do. Not sure why this is not considered a valid reason. A lot of these 'it would be better to do X' assumes everyone has the same psychological profile as you. They don't. Many people are driven to explore and would go mad otherwise.
I want humanity to continue to be explorers. The Moon is a good next thing, then asteroid mining, humans on Mars and Venus, and eventually colonizing the Milky Way.
It's quite telling that all the replies you're getting are about "hope" and "jobs" with no actual scientific reason. I guess we're taxing people for vanity space missions and jobs programs. Makes sense.
Man I’m tired of people only caring about money when it comes to space. Meanwhile they lose their shit when someone suggests that tax payers shouldn’t pay for people’s Coca-Cola.
Because one day, far far in the future, the humanity would reach out to the stars, and these are the first tiny steps to enable this. There's always the question of directing the resources, and this program is not that expensive, really - around $100bn. Given that fraud at COVID time alone is estimated to have cost the Treasury twice as much, seems like a worthy investment into the future.
I do much better with things to look forward to, or when I have a feeling that progress can be made. An interesting movie coming out, new music coming out. Or even better reminding me what humans are capable of above just grinding to get by or grinding to exploit others. Haven't been many moments of feeling progress lately.
Sure, if we lived in a purely utilitarian world, there's some merit to the argument that space exploration is a waste of resources that could be more efficiently used elsewhere. We don't live in a utilitarian world though, and instead we have the same (and in reality much, much larger) amounts of money and resources that get spent on this moon mission being spent instead on bombing the Middle East with nothing to show for it other than an impending global economic crisis.
Could the money spent on Artemis be spent somewhere better? Probably, but how about we start with not burning through 38 billion (and rising!) on a farcical boondoggle of a military operation whose only effects so far are increases in the cost of literally everything? The first WEEK of the war cost 11 billion[1], but when it comes to NASA we're suddenly penny-pinching?
And that's talking pure monetary expenditure, without even going into the human lives lost, the lessening of sanctions on Russia (which will in turn cause even more suffering in Ukraine), or the halting of trade through the Suez, etc. etc. etc.
From where I'm standing, even if Artemis turns out to be a complete and utter disaster with not a single benefit of any kind coming out of it, the worst possible case scenario is a few astronauts die and we wasted a few billion (and I guess NASA gets shut down). That's of course us working under the assumption that there won't be a single novel scientific discovery of any kind, or that we will learn absolutely nothing from these missions.
The current unjustified war the US is waging on the other hand has already killed thousands of people, and will continue harming every single person on this earth through the economic fallout alone. The US is quite literally setting money on fire with every single bomb they drop over Iran. And the true worst case scenario that I can easily imagine happening is nukes getting dropped and all the consequences that follow from that.
Hopefully, in a few years we will figure out that hydrogen rockets can not reliably launch on time and we'll switch to less leaky fuels. Then maybe we won't need to pull 40 year old engines out of museums to dump in the ocean.
I'm all for human spaceflight, but the Senate Launch System seems the best argument for shutting down human spaceflight programs.
But they need to convince the people that it's worth the money, and the people are more excited when humans risk their lives, even if it is for nothing.
I do hope the doomers who think that the entire US government has been completely gutted will take note of this. The government workforce is in a bad spot for sure, SLS is far from a perfect program, but this still demonstrates that we are doing some real work still.
Take note of a project that’s about 15 years behind schedule and many multiples over budget finally progressed because we lowered safety standards to just launch?
I’m not sure how that’s proof the government isn’t gutted. Let me know what our schedule is for the next one and how that timeline has changed. Ignoring the projects that have been outright canceled…
You’re currently the guy saying “ya, all you haters that said I’d lose my house if I stopped paying my mortgage, who’s laughing now?” - one month into not paying your mortgage.
We’ll still be dealing with the after effects of doge 20 years from now.
Aren’t they still well above anything in the history of human space flight?
We keep treating these systems in popular discourse as airliners. They’re not. They’re experimental craft. With mass production maybe SpaceX can bring launch closer to general aviation. But the notion that any loss of life is intolerable is (a) unsustainably expensive and (b) not a view shared by the lives actually at risk.
Remember when DOGE tried to cut out the inefficiencies and failed miserably? The "inefficiencies" and "bloated budgets" are there for a reason.
If Elon ran this project "without bloat", there is probably a 70% chance that the vehicle would have exploded, much in the way of his Starship and early Falcon vehicles.
Indeed. The GSA with 10k employees is going to fall apart without the 40k unused winzip licences DOGE so cruelly took away from them in their senseless spree of madness.
Don't confuse bureaucracy with "gutted." The federal government is bigger than at most any point in US history. Arguably that fact is -why- it's 15 years behind schedule.
I have a really hard time telling if this is despite the current administration’s best efforts, because the current administration’s policies, or just an artifact of government inertia.
Top level: Super excited to witness this in my lifetime.
Edit: Also, my 40 years of life leads me towards the latter category.
For sure this is 90% inertia, although like Bridenstein in the first administration, who turned out to actually be a pretty good administrator in the grand scheme of things, I'm cautiously optimistic that Isaacman is working in good faith to make NASA the best it can be. (Which isn't to say that I agree with him 100% mind you.)
NASA has been well treated by both parties in general, with their budget rising faster than inflation most years. This administration also appointed Isaacman to be the NASA administrator which I think is a 10/10 choice for that job.
Have you talked to any actual NASA employees (not just contractors) that work in science?
For what it’s worth, I watched today’s Artemis II launch with them. While proud of the mission, they’re likely in your “Doomer” category after a year being devastated and demoralized by having their science budgets slashed, grants/projects cancelled, having been forced to fire good contractors of 10+ years and then watching some of the most knowledgeable/skilled folks take early retirement. Don’t let the awe or Artemis fool you — NASA, especially when it comes to science, has been gutted and functionally degraded. For what it’s worth, they’re not focused on earth/climate science.
Yep, I work with them every day, since I am myself a NASA contractor. I'm curious what you think the major distinction is between a contractor and a civil servant in the first place. I work directly as part of a division (used to be "on site" before 2020, but now I'm remote so that doesn't quite fit) doing 80% the same job as any of my civil servant colleagues. I really don't think the range of opinions is all that different on either side of the fence.
I'll repeat that there are a lot of problems, but it's not nearly as bad as some people on the internet make it out to be.
While the current administration has multiple areas of improvement and isnt really taking feedback in an adult manner, the federal workforce has some of the most competent people working for it inside certain parts of the organization. im thinking especially of NASA and NASA JPL.
This is true, but a lot of the top positions are being replaced with unqualified loyalists. It's only a matter of time, if this continues, that the competent workforce gets eroded
JPL has been strangled by both parties. They had huge staff cuts in 2024, and then more in 2025. They've gone from ~6,500 to ~4,500. Trump closed their research library[1].
Of course this is a drop in the bucket, the entire science research apparatus of the United States is being burned to the ground[2]. This administration is doing to the future of scientific research what the Mongols did to Baghdad.
NASA also has some of the most incompetent people working for it, and a lot of them are responsible for overseeing SLS and Orion. JPL hasn’t been doing to well lately either (Mars Return?).
> Orion that’s dodgy as fuck not the booster. I.e the new thing
I mean, newly shaped and partly reformulated.
Avcoat was “originally created…for the Apollo program” [1]. (“A reformulated version was used for the initial Orion heat shield and later for a redesigned Orion heat shield.”) The new things are Orion’s size and weight and the size of the tiles. All of which has precedented flight in Artemis I.
At the end of the day, I’m going to trust the astronauts. This issue was openly discussed, despite NASA’s original—and fair to criticize—instinct to cover it up. While any manned reëntry is a nail biter, I don’t think this one is especially so.
I certainly hope the mission goes as planned but it does feel like SLS is the wrong approach in the time of reusable rockets, even if this specific mission profile would probably have demanded the booster be expendable. Using the Shuttle main engines - designed and made to be 'refurbishable' rather than 'reusable' but still dumped into the ocean after each mission - and the SRBs (solid boosters) still gives the impression of the booster design being dictated (at least in part) to accommodate the needs of former Shuttle contractors. If either Starship+Superheavy or some other fully reusable heavy left vehicle comes on-line it will be hard for NASA to justify spending billions of $ on, well, a flying pork barrel. Sure, it has been proven time and time again that canned pigs can in fact fly but that does not make them the go-to transport.
Not entirely a doomer, but I would wait to grandstand until after the crew is returned safely, considering the allegations regarding the capsule heat shield.
"That this Artemis launch is happening in the lead-up to America’s 250th birthday has heightened the sense that it’s a nostalgia act for the Baby Boomer gerontocracy. All the more so because Donald Trump, the oldest person ever to be elected to the White House, is presiding over the whole affair. His administration has sought to sabotage NASA’s scientific missions, but the president seems delighted to have the agency gin up a national spectacle on his behalf, just as he was happy to have a military parade on his birthday."
The camera work was just terrible. They really need to learn from SpaceX how to do this right. Minus the obnoxious cheering.
SpaceX does these beautiful drone shots and live telemetry so well. Considering that each SLS launch costs in the billions it would be nice to do a little better on production
I felt the commentary during the launch also wasn't good. And I am not too interested in hearing from some Hollywood people before the launch
I thought the same thing - hopefully by the time Artemis III launches they'll remember the gaps and blank screens from this launch. Even the live telemetry model at the core stage separation seemed to not match what the on-board cameras showed. Artemis I's camera work was better. Why???
I'm having trouble finding a simple tracker of whereabouts the craft is at in terms of the path to the moon? Might just be me but the fancy 3-d rendering thing on the NASA page just shows me a close-up of the craft and not much else?
Wish them all the best and safe travels. I’ll be tuning in as you never know when the next crewed mission will be, probably not another 50 years if advancements in space travel happen.
> “the expert evidence we have heard strongly suggests that the use of autonomous robots alone will very significantly limit what can be learned about our nearest potentially habitable planet” (Close et al. (2005; paragraph 70).
>
> Putting it more bluntly, Steve Squyres, the Principal Investigator for the Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity, has written:
>
> “[t]he unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol [i.e. a martian day] a human explorer could do in less than a minute” (Squyres, 2005, pp. 234-5).
Yes, a robot car that drives on its own will be a better driver than most humans who text and drive, or have 400ms reaction times.
But making a machine that can beat a 110ms reaction time human with 2SD+ IQ – and the ability to override the ground controllers with human curiosity – for exploration is much harder. Healthy, smart humans have high dexterity, are extremely capable of switching roles fast, are surprisingly efficient, and force us to return back home.
So in terms of total science return, one Apollo mission did more for lunar science and discovery than 53 years of robots on the surface and in orbit.
They are not going to land on the Moon! They are just going to sit in a can for two weeks and take photos. (OK. Tthe can is on top of a lot of burning explosive material and if they don't aim correctly they will get in a weird trajectory that will kill them. Not for the faint of heart.)
I'm not sure if they can override the commands send from Earth, but turning on and off the engines like in the Apollo XIII movie is like 100 times less accurate than the automatic orders. It's not 1969, now computer can play chess and aim to go around the Moon better than us.
Also, there is still Artemis III to test the live support equipment with humans inside, before Artemis IV that is spouse to attempt landing on the Moon.
I desperately hope so too. It will be absolutely terrible if there were to be an issue, and moreso if people can say “We knew about it beforehand but still went ahead”.
It's good to see NASA finally do something beyond navel gazing. Nonetheless, calling this flight historic is a stretch. Other than flying a few miles further than Apollo 13, it will actually accomplish less than Apollo 8 did 57 years ago.
Apollo 8 actually went into orbit around the moon. This flight is more similar to Apollo 13, hopefully without the life threatening problems. The risk on this flight is far less than on Apollo 8 obviously. Still, it's more than time for the US to step up and have an actual space program. The shuttle program and ISS fall far short of the trajectory of the US space program at the end of 1972.
Doesn't mean a thing in the grand scheme of things. Nor does having a woman, a minority, and a Canadian. Those are irrelevant. It makes some people feel good and others virtuous, but it doesn't further the mission one iota. Show me technical accomplishments, regardless of the crew composition and the agencies involved. The crew can all be women or minorities, I don't care. I'm looking for progress and accomplishments, not virtue signaling.
Is there any website that gives me updates mirroring the livestream but in plain text? I won't be able to tune in for the launch but this is exciting and I'd like to follow the developments! I'm sure the answer is "Twitter" but I don't understand how that platform works.
Just listened on the radio driving the kids to swim class! I'm curious, does anyone think the show For All Mankind provided any peer pressure or influence to help propel NASA to this moment?
It’s a fun idea to consider, but I suspect the true push is due to how capable China is proving to be in spaceflight. They’ve got plans for a manned mission to the moon and are eyeing the same craters at the Lunar South Pole as we are.
While the outer space treaty forbids claiming territory in space, it doesn’t forbid building a base and putting a “Keep Out” sign on the airlock.
As a huge fan of Ron D. Moore’s shows, and especially For All Mankind, I don’t see how it could possibly have (or have had) any meaningful impact on NASA or NASA-adjacent efforts. Especially Artemis.
Is anybody aware of audio-only coverage of this mission? I'd have loved to just tuned into most of the launch like radio, rather than having my unwatched youtube running.
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.
What’s the margin of error on a free return orbit burn though? Isn’t there a scenario of being pointed slightly in the wrong direction or burning for too long throwing them off?
Really it’s all the primes and sub contractors. NASA is more like a management layer. The difference between this and what commercial space companies do comes down to who’s paying and what’s the penalty for poor performance.
Not much motivation to get things done in a timely manner with cost-plus programs.
I'm just SO HAPPY we can talk about something that doesn't involve the Iran war, ICE etc. This is a really historic moment, I hope that the current and future administrations continue investing in space exploration. I've waited my whole life for this as the entire "action" happened before I was born. Hubble/James Webb/ISS are cool but Artemis is something else!
I get that not everyone, even on HN, thinks crewed-spaceflight is worth doing. And I certainly get that launching people to the moon doesn't makes up for the latest crap thing Trump is doing to the world.
But I really think that space exploration could be the thing that unites everyone, and the more unified we are--the more we feel like we have a common purpose--the easier it will be to solve our other problems.
I for one pledge to support space exploration (crewed or uncrewed) regardless of who is running the government. I will cheer Artemis II even though I voted against Trump. I will cheer if/when China sends people to the moon. I will even cheer if Russia does something cool in space.
It is very disconcerting to see so many completely disregarding incredible technological innovation because other problems exist, especially on HN.
If we were not allowed to progress technology until everybody is 100% free of suffering, we'd never be able to create technological that may potentially lead to the alleviation of suffering. It all feels very crabs in a bucket - "I don't feel happy so nobody else should, and nothing should happen unless it is things that directly, immediately do things I want and solve problems I care about."
Its true that innovation isn't clearly shown in this mission; we also haven't flown humans out that far in more than 50 years either and while we have memories of it, our ability to even execute something like this must be built again. I'd rather see us doing this and 'pick up from where we were last time', than giving up on it or just using a stack that's not currently set to do this.
What Artemis is doing is not impeding innovation: its building our muscle back to work on such things; the discipline, rigor, scale, and attitude needed to execute such missions is unimaginable and orthogonal to the technical innovation and stack used. I also believe that its completely fine to use a 2000s-era flight computer, if that suffices for this purpose. Somehow, for such critical missions, my mental model is to use at least 10 year old technology that has stood the test of time, before going into space. If there's a need for the latest technology - then yes, it should be leveraged.
> is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack
Scaling is still engineering.
And the environmental control system, laser-optical communication systems and block-construction heat shields are new. For Artemis III, in-obit propellant transfer will be new and transformational.
It's silly to say there's no innovation here. These aren't legos that you just snap together. I'm sure there are innovations up and down the whole thing, using the old technology they have easily available to them.
No, it's not the most modern Rocket Lab or SpaceX project but they have immense drag on their process that those companies don't have and they still got the dang thing up and headed toward the moon.
It's not about the Orion unit specifically but the fact that this is happening in the first place. This is simply a precursor to future missions and the construction of the Artemis Base Camp.
IIRC there are some hydrogen powered APUs on the SLS core stage, replacing the Hydrazine powered ones used on Shuttle (both on orbiter & SRBs). The solar panel control on the Orion also seems coo and useful, not to mention having cameras on the arrays for self-inspections.
I am sure there are more subtle innovations like this that would hopefully be useful on more sensible rockets and space vehicles in the future. :)
While that might be true, it is on course to the moon now. Starship hasn't really done anything close. So while cheaper might be on the way, it doesn't exist now. When Starship can do now, we can talk about if the Shuttle Leftover System is ready to be retired
Well what are they suppose to do other than continue where they left it? As far I understand purpose of Artemis mission it is to build a pernamently occupied base on the moon not to build better and better rockets now. I mean, it's not the best solution but it is proven to work and they perceive it as enough for now. I think it's very similar to some critical systems still running code written in cobol sixty years ago.
It’s interesting to compare to Apollo 8 (circumlunar Apollo mission). That mission culminated a year that saw escalation of the Vietnam War and the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy.
> It's much more popular to be doomer and a critic on the internet
Is it more popular? Or is it just easy? Dismissive “reads” are done by the picosecond; there is just much more to choose from than constructive thinking, which takes work.
Why is pessimism, virtue signalling, doomerism, etc. so prevalent on the internet these days?
It wasn't always this way, was it? Am I misremembering "the golden years"?
Is it the failing economy? The K-shaped economy? The political and news cycle?
I'm excited for all of this stuff, and I can't imagine being downtrodden and pessimistic about our outlook. The only thing I'm down about are authoritarianism and monopolies, but those are outside of my control. Modern science and engineering rock.
Going to the moon is amazing. All this AI stuff is amazing. It feels like the future again.
This is such a strawman argument because nobody expects nobody expects all wealth to be redistributed absolutely equally. What many of us would like however is a sufficient baseline.
I've recently seen a seris of Tiktoks from a 50 year old woman who lives in rural China on ~$1/day. She works in a shoe factory and makes ~$11/day. Her husband is a truck driver. Thing is, she has a house, a phone, an electric scooter, enough to eat, electricity and overall all her basic needs are met.
That's the baseline for modern China.
In the US, you'd end up homeless, eventually lose your car, find it impossible to keep your car, probably end up self-medicating with drugs, get harassed by police and ultimately your status will be criminalized and you'll end up being convict labor.
I don't need Jeff Bezos to have the same amount of money as everyone else but I do want, in the wealthiest country on Earth in particular, everyone to have secure housing health insurance, food, clothing and utilities.
There are other reasons too to criticize the SLS program: it's incredibly wasteful and is just another welfare program for defense contractors. The Artemis/SLS programs have cost ~$100 billion in the last 2 decades. That's staggeringly inefficient. Likewise, each Artemis mission costs ~$4 billion. That's ridiculous.
I, for one, would be much happier seeing these Moon missions if it wasn't such a giant scam to steal $100 billion from the government coffers.
Well said.
I find it interesting that a single proton-m total cost per launch is about 70 million. Of course its lift capacity is much smaller, but if the 4 billion figure is correct, it does seem like a ridiculous amount. But then again things are no different from the defense expenses.
I agree entirely. HN tends to be incredibly nitpicky and dystopian. I think it's because so many HNers work in dystopian software-only companies, not doing much in the physical world, away from the algorithms.
Incredible technological innovation is on the horizon. That's why we are not doomed this century. We can make it.
*hits 'reply', knowing there will be nitpicky comments because of course on HN these days, no positive point shall be left standing.
How dare we want to fix the existential threats on the planet before we spend billions on a publicity stunt.
No, there's no possible way we "save humanity" with space exploration. The whole "eggs in more than one basket" thing is insane.
The resources required to establish a colony, get it self-sufficient, then able to grow, and then put enough people on it will take half a century and the planet is burning up today.
Do you think that had this not launched that it would have been spent on something else that would have "saved humanity" better?
US spends 4x as much on just nuclear bombs as the NASA budget for some perspective. Nuclear bombs are only 10% of the military budget, and as big as the military spending is, all of that is still only 15% of the federal budget.
It seems a bit ridiculous to be thinking NASA spending is in any way meaningfully holding us back from whatever "save humanity" spending we could be doing.
why pick on space exploration which has such a small budget and provides with a lot of hard science, technology, boosts the economy, etc and not pick on many other things we do that make no sense? why not pick on the military? or fossil fuel subsidies? or the entertainment/sports industry? or ads? why not pick on bureaucracy or war or billionaires? ... all of those have way bigger budgets and ain't fixing any "existential threats", arguably making them worse
It's so easy to pick on the few remaining industries and science that invest on a future that is not the next quarter and doesn't just make the same people richer. Make no mistake, the little money spent on space exploration (or science in general) is not what's causing or keeping us from solving existential threats.
> the agency said it was confident that a change to the re-entry trajectory would be more than adequate to offset any spalling issues. Somewhat confusingly, they also announced their intention to switch to a new heat shield design, starting with Artemis III.
It's fine to be concerned, but this kind of take is why public agencies are damned no matter what they do. In the private sector, operating with the suboptimal resources you have while working on a better iteration is standard practice, even in industrial settings. But when you're a public organization, if anyone can find anything that is less than 100% optimal, the same people who complain about how slow the public sector is will complain that you're cutting corners, or that you're inept.
> the agency said it was confident that a change to the re-entry trajectory would be more than adequate to offset any spalling issues. Somewhat confusingly, they also announced their intention to switch to a new heat shield design, starting with Artemis III.
This is not confusing in the least. Engineers don't talk about safety in binary terms. It's not "safe" vs. "not safe". Instead, it's all about the probability of a bad outcome. At NASA, they compute the probability of Loss of Crew (LoC) and the probability of Loss of Mission (LoM).
For Artemis II, a change to the re-entry trajectory brings the LoC/LoM back to an acceptable level. For Artemis III, which a new shield design, they can get to the same LoC/LoM with a different trajectory (which gives them other benefits).
Stop thinking in terms binary terms. Everything is a probability.
Yeah the whole production of the launch broadcast was pretty lousy compared to what SpaceX does. Their mission tracker website isn't working either. Considering that this broadcast and the other public affairs stuff is essentially the deliverable of the mission, it's not too great.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. The camera work was atrocious.
It's not just frilly video, it's how the world sees it, emotionally connects to it, and grows up loving it, and wanting to support more.
We had black screens as it left the pad, they didn't know what camera to switch to and kept changing feeds every 2-3 seconds, they switched to a grainy feed of the crowd just looking up while booster separation happened, so we missed that, and hastily switched back after they separated.
All the prep and they couldn't come up with a media plan? Maybe it was technical problems and their camera indexing was off or something.
They had the longest reaction shot of some people filming it with their phones (maybe they got a good shot) and when they switched back to after the booster separation I said at the time, “that would have been cool to see.”
I suspect that they might have switched away from the booster separation on purpose. That's probably a risky moment of the launch, and they may have wanted to avoid televising a disaster like in the Challenger launch.
Aside from that, agreed that the camera work was awful.
But it isn't speeding by, it's heading away following a closely predetermined trajectory. A better analogy would be filming a high-altitude aircraft flying away from you, using a gear-driven tripod mount.
It is hard, but Everyday Astronaut had a manually-operated camera with a 2,000mm lens that captured everything from engine start all the way through a reasonably-clear view of SRB separation.
Well, yes, we certainly can as is shown by the coverage of SpaceX launches. I guess NASA is just not as focused on publicity as commercial launch operators are. They should have read The Right Stuff and learned the mantra No bucks, no Buck Rogers. Next time, better I hope.
Sometimes we need to disconnect from the internet and realize we can't solve all the world's problems. The best thing you can do is solve things in the communities you are in.
The entire world's problems is too much for one human.
There’s not a lot of sweet left in the world of bitter. But there are far more people that want peace than war, and the powerful are not as protected and immune from concequences as they think.
Well. You are getting down voted but here I am in later stages in life watching this Moon launch, and unlike other times in past, I didn’t feel any inspiration.
Honestly, it’s a waste of money. That’s my final answer, there’s kids that need food. I am no longer inspired by this stuff.
I’ve seen enough advanced technology for many lifetimes, we need something else as a species (more of that humanity thing).
I understand your side to some extent. It helped watching my 11yo watch the launch - for him it's more meaningful, more imminent than it can be for a jaded person like myself.
I don't think it's mutually exclusive with food aid, though. If anything, it's taking money that probably would have gone into bombs and aeroplanes instead if we didn't have a space program. Honestly, it feels like we could redirect the entire military-industrial complex into space travel... retain the same pork spending but use it for rockets that aren't designed to land on our neighbours. Nice compromise.
> Honestly, it’s a waste of money. That’s my final answer, there’s kids that need food
NASA has a tiny budget - 0.35% of the US Federal budget. Kids aren't going hungry because of Artemis II. There are much better candidates to be upset about in that regard.
I find it crazy how whenever space stuff or even fundamental science stuff in general gets talked about, the its a waste of money crowd comes out. Everyone is totally fine with the AI bullshit of the day or the people spending millions on a start ups whose pitch is so stupid it sounds like something that would have been rejected from silicon valley the tv show, but suddenly if its for science its a bridge to far.
You want to save the world? by all means have at it. But let the science peeps do science things. Its not like the world would be any more saved if they weren't doing these things.
We're literally only doing it to beat the Chinese back. As a Gundam fan, I can't help but feel (likely misplaced and misguided) enthusiasm for the development of space, but objectively, this is a stunt, through-and-through. Trump-y on the Moon.
Yeah. I've been excited about Artemis since the very start and have been following everything very closely. And of course I was excited about this launch.
But I'm gonna be honest, I'm not feeling any positive feelings here in the moment. It's an insane achievement, but it kind of means nothing for humanity. A nation's representatives literally popping champagne because they passed a law that will allow them to hang their hostages, just a day ago.
The engineering advancements that have been made during Artemis will be used to kill children tomorrow and the day after that. I have spent a large amount of my life in pursuit of knowledge about space exploration. I would give up any chance of ever knowing anything about space for the safety of those children. None of this hubristic rocket crap really matters in the end.
And I know, NASA and the military have always been intertwined, same coin, etc etc. But it stings harder specifically today. All tenets of the so-called "civilized western world" thrown out for greed and evil. We don't deserve space exploration right now.
@dang i know this is not super HN-friendly stuff here, delete if you must
It's being marketed like it's a vanity project, but it's not. This has been in the works for some time and so many people have given everything they have to make it happen.
Completely agree with you re: climate change being an existential threat, but disagree with your hyperbole about the US being the worst offender. The US should lead because they are supposed to be a world leader - but they alone are not singularly or in majority responsible for climate change.
Mixing fact and hyperbole together weakens your overall message.
I didn’t mean to be hyperbolic, for carbon footprint I’m looking at cumulative footprint since 1750 and not only recent annual footprint. I’m glad we agree, I take your notes.
Really hoping those of us who think NASA has jumped the shark won't have to keep ourselves from saying "I told you so" next week out of respect for the dead.
This is four people putting their lives at risk for poor engineering and bad project management.
The "right stuff" applies to the engineers too, but they've all unfortunately left Boeing and NASA.
This opinion may be unpopular here but it's hard to get excited about a colossal waste of taxpayer money after all the damage DOGE did. I don't understand how these NASA missions with questionable scientific value and obscene budgets get off the ground.
I mean I do understand, NASA funding is important to oligarchs. But still.
I personally find the grind easier when there also big things happening. You can't just cook the same, most basic, cheapest meal every day for your family and expect them to be happy. Who wants to join a club that doesn't do anything interesting? Same with society. It sometimes needs to dream, to aspire and inspire. To lift peoples head from the toil and look up.
Artemis was already set in stone well before DOGE came about and IMO if the federal government is going to set mountains of cash on fire I'd rather it be to NASA than half the crap the government wastes every year.
My point is that DOGE killed a bunch of government programs that help people while saving no money, yet this giant waste of money survived. Cancelling Artemis II alone in favor of III would save a billion dollars by itself.
That's your own thing. Think about it to applause the dedicated work of people who have spent their life building these missions and have to do this work through multiple different administrations.
What a sad, disappointing instinct. It completely divorced from reality to assume that "enjoy[ing] anything that comes from [the] USA" implies any sort of political allegiance to whoever happens to sit in the Oval office at that particular point in time.
There's no way you're "a big space fan" if the first thing you think of when you see a rocket launch that was announced 9 years is Donald Trump.
Finally something interesting. I'm familiar with dead Internet theory, the whole Lindy thing where culture died in the early 2010's etc. Economy stinks, global violence everywhere.
Going back to the moon is really acceptable distraction. I mean that seriously. I know it's technically not new but it will be amazing to see modern video and photographic pictures of the moon close up.
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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Moon_Pathfinder_Mission_1
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 Raptor v3 engines and has many other improvements as well, such as updated grid fins and hot staging ring. It will be the first that achieves close to the intended capacity of ~100 tons.
Propellant transfer is indeed a significant challenge. They have already demonstrated internal transfers between tanks, but not between spacecraft.
Very exciting times ahead!
> Starship "making LEO" is not a significant challenge
Of course it is. I say this as someone who sturdied astronautics.
You’re broadly correct, though. My point is the action shifts to Hawthorne and West Texas for the next year or so. Then pivots back to NASA for Artemis IV.
12 replies →
I was curious since I hadn't heard from Starship in a while, but by the looks of it they plan to launch the first V3 later this month!
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.
2 replies →
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.
2 replies →
[dead]
I was asking this myself just an hour ago, thank you
>> 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.
I think you meant Artemis III in your comment. Good info though, didn't realize they were relying on those two other projects for the next one.
This mission is Artemis II. Is Artemis III the one with a lander?
> Is Artemis III the one with a lander?
Not anymore. Artemis III is now a LEO systems check [1]. Comparable to Apollo 9.
(Side note: when did we switch from Arabic to Roman numerals?)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_III
4 replies →
HLS isn't going anywhere.
> HLS isn't going anywhere
I've been hearing this about every SpaceX project for the last twenty years.
33 replies →
[dead]
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.
1 reply →
Starship is just obscene. The thing is never going to work for its designed purpose once you understand what the mission looks like (basically insane amount of refuel dockings while the thing is in orbit)
> insane amount of refuel dockings while the thing is in orbit
What's wrong with this? Lots of launches is fine until we build the scale required to make a proper depot worthwhile. (Which, by the way, is part of Artemis's plans. Though currently it looks like a bunch of glued-together Starship tankers.)
2 replies →
What makes you think so?
Going to the Moon or Mars is a trojan horse.
Starship's true purpose is to compete with airlines in trans oceanic flights.
Musk has said so many times but then he intentionally obfuscates it with all the Mars and Moon talk.
But remember that you heard this before it was widely realized to be true; Starship isn't about going to Mars. Starship is about going to China.
18 replies →
I will be watching the launch from Europe, so it will be not earlier than half past midnight for us. My kids (9 and 10) are sleeping on the couch in front of the projection screen, so that they do not even have to get up when I wake them up at midnight, which I promised.
Just wanted to add my grain of positivity here. Godspeed Artemis 2!
> add my grain of positivity
The best of science, reason, research, engineering, training, expertise, co-operation...
The best of humanity. Le meilleur de l'humanité.
[flagged]
10 replies →
My kids are exactly the same age. The younger already ordered Lego Nr 42221 for his Easter present.
Even though you could question the whole Artemis concept, it's still extremely exciting watching the countdown with my son. I just missed the original Apollo flights and had assumed I would never see a moon landing in my lifetime. We may well not have a landing for quite some time yet, but it's still cool to see a Moon bound rocket standing on the launchpad...
I don't know if it's feasible for you, but if you can, try to take your kid to see a live rocket launch. The TV is grossly unable to display how awesome these things are in person.
Concur. My kids and watched a “small” Falcon 9 launch from the mainland park nearest the pad at Cape Canaveral. The noise alone was astonishing; bring binoculars to see detail.
And a landing! S Padre is great for kids and rockets.
For the more adventurous and/or bilingual the beaches on the Mexican side seem to have awesome views too.
It is one of the things I regret not ever getting to see a shuttle launch. The closest I ever got was when I flew over Florida while a shuttle was on the pad.
4 replies →
The scale really is unfathomable for the human brain.
7 replies →
[dead]
We lived ~60 miles North of the Cape when I was a young boy, and watching the Saturn V's go on the way to the moon was a forming experience.
I lived in Port Orange FL until i was 12, during night launches my dad would take the family to New Smyrna Beach or some where a short drive South where we watched the shuttles come up over the water somehow. I can't remember the details it was a lonnnng time ago haha. I do remember the launches sounding like popcorn popping.
I live in Dallas now and will be turning 50 soon, i want to catch the next Starship launch live but would have to time it perfectly to get time off of work ahead of time.
1 reply →
80 miles for me! I was a Space Shuttle era kid though. Saw the Challenger disaster during my lunchtime. And then on perpetual replay for the rest of the week on WESH/WCPX/WFTV most likely. Even still, just knowing we were launching all those people into space was awe-inspiring.
1 reply →
It's even more exciting when you realize that the last crewed mission beyond Low Earth Orbit was 1972 and each person on that spacecraft today are younger than that.
Its going to be a first for me and my son as well. Looking forward to tonight to make an even over it.
> I just missed the original Apollo flights and had assumed I would never see a moon landing in my lifetime.
The PR Chinese might want to go for a significant landing, too, just for the prestige?
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.
Escape velocity is 25,020 mph (6.95 mps), so not completely surprising.
Note that escape velocity applies to a situation without continued propulsion and also without air resistance, but still you can imagine that the order of magnitude is similar.
Not surprising if you know that. Pretty surprising to me who didn’t.
31 replies →
Thank you for that precision "without continued propulsion", because when talking about rockets, physics teachers always talk about escape velocity, as if it was an absolutely necessary condition to escape earth's gravity.
But can't you escape gravity slower, just by going higher and higher at lower speed? Like a plane? (ie not vertically, but at an angle)
4 replies →
Exactly. Your rocket can escape the earth at the speed of a slow elevator if you burn the engines continuously and you can carry an infinite amount of fuel and your fuel weighs nothing.
Since those constraints are impossible to meet in the real world, we have to get going fast enough to coast most of the trip on inertia after the fuel runs out.
Artemis II won't fly by the moon until Day 6, but it only took Apollo 8 to Day 4 to get to the moon. Looking at the wiki for Apollo 8, it shows the moon was 218k miles at launch while they said the moon is currently 240k, so it still looks like Apollo was moving faster than Artemis.
Apollo put a lot more burden on the Service Module than Artemis plans to put on the Orion. Apollo put the CSM/LM into a low lunar orbit while Artemis plans to put Orion into a high lunar orbit and make the Starship carry a lot more delta-V to land from a much higher velocity (and then accelerate back up to that velocity when coming back).
On top of that there weren’t really solar panels in the 1960s so the Service Module had to carry tons of chemicals to produce electricity, as well as extra fuel for all of that weight. As a result it was massively overbuilt compared to anything we’d try today and even so had to take an expedited flight path to the moon of 3 days in order to conserve operational lifetime. Artemis does not have nearly as severe constraints on either the Orion or the future Starship and so can afford to take a more fuel efficient 5 day coast up to the Moon and make the design tradeoffs on Orion that that entails.
1 reply →
My understanding is Artemis II orbits earth for 23.5 hours before heading to the moon while Apollo 8 did so for under 3 hours, so that accounts for some of the difference.
1 reply →
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 understand gravity drag think about the rocket firing just hard enough to hover 1 meter above the pad, you burn out all your fuel in 10 or 15 minutes and go nowhere...
In the other direction if you want to accelerate harder you need to make your structure stronger so you need to burn more fuel per second and have to displace some fuel in exchange for more structure and you keep doing that until you're so heavy you can't produce any more acceleration and you're all engine and structure and no fuel.
1 reply →
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).
A Dodge Challenger SRT Demon can also reach 10,000mph in 4 minutes if it held its 0-60 acceleration over the whole span.
So yes, you can buy a car today that'll let you feel the G's like you're a space pilot.
The acceleration of a rocket is slower than a normal car at lift off. It's pulling about 1.2G, but 1G of that is fighting gravity, so effective acceleration is only 0.2G. Almost any car can do that at low speeds.
But a car's acceleration slows almost instantly. The rocket just keeps accelerating faster as the tank empties and it gets lighter. By main engine cut off it might be pulling 5G.
One fact that I found unintuitive (while we're at cars doing things they can't):
If you could drive your car straight up vertically, you'd have to cruise just for an hour or so at 100 km/h (<65 mph) until you reached space. It's not that far.
1 reply →
ICBMs also have a similar speed at the terminal warhead stage — only the direction is different.
I’d prefer to cheer for something that’s primary objective isn’t killing people. So there’s that, too.
3 replies →
NASA uses metric units even under Trump. So this is 16093 km/h or 4.474 km/s .
I was thinking the exact same thing when they announced the speed. I assume the top speed of Artemis will be at least double that too...
Well, notions of speed are a little tricky for spaceships, but yeah, Artemis's top speed is going to be right when it starts reentry: about 25,000 MPH.
It will be slower, eventually. The moon orbits at about 2300 mph, and as Artemis gets further from Earth, it will slow down to a similar speed.
[dead]
[flagged]
It is a bit chilling to watch these astronaut profiles having just read yesterday about the heat shield issues observed on the prior mission, and that this will be the first time we can test the heat shield in the actual pressures and temperatures that it will have to endure.
Godspeed crew of Artemis II.
It'll probably turn out fine (in the same way that you'll probably survive one round of Russian roulette.) I am quite nervous about this though.
Get nervous in 10 days, they won't need a heat shield until reentry.
33 replies →
> in the same way that you'll probably survive one round of Russian roulette
Is that with or without spinning the chamber between rounds? The odds are worse if you spin each time. They get worse as the game goes on if you don't spin.
9 replies →
I had to watch "go at throttle up" on replay on the news in 1986 for the entire year, like almost every newscast
I was only a teenager and it burned into my brain badly
To this day cannot watch any launch with people onboard live
Same. I watched last night, UK time, and I couldn't shake the worrying feeling. I was relieved that they got into orbit. Now I can be a little bit excited until re-entry. That worries me for the same reason.
In the UK as a kid, when Challenger happened, our children's news programme reported it before the mainstream TV.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_2701000/27...
The event itself was a few years before my time, but after reading about it and eventually watching the historical news footage, the phrase "go at throttle up" also seared itself into my brain, and ever since I flinch when I hear it.
Truly. I'm not sure why anyone needs to be on the rocket at all, let alone our best and brightest.
Because human beings are remarkably capable, especially the best and the brightest. There's a great paper called the "dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency." https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/53/2/2.22... // https://lasp.colorado.edu/mop/files/2019/08/RobotMyth.pdf
Yes, a robot car that drives on its own will be a better driver than most humans who text and drive, or have 400ms reaction times.
But making a machine that can beat a 110ms reaction time human with 2SD+ IQ, and the ability to override the ground controllers with human curiosity is much harder. Humans have high dexterity, are extremely capable of switching roles fast, are surprisingly efficient, and force us to return back home.
So in terms of total science return, one Apollo mission did more for lunar science and discovery than 53 years of robots on the surface and in orbit.
29 replies →
Because the goal of the program is to return humans to the moon. Artemis I was the unmanned test. This is the first manned test, and what they learn will support the subsequent missions that eventually land humans on the moon.
This is the same way that all manned spaceflight programs are conducted. You iterate and learn a little bit at a time. "Move fast and break things" doesn't work here. :)
I suspect it's the optics of it.
If you can fly people around the moon, then landing people on the moon is a more reasonable next step.
I agree that it may not be entirely logical, but keeping public and funding opinion positive & invested _is_ important.
edit: I thought RocketLab flew their elecron rocket around the moon a few years ago? So it's definitely doable... so again I think it's about the optics.
1 reply →
Because they want to be on the rocket. To see the moon up close with your own eyes? It's spiritual.
22 replies →
It is a test of the spacecraft. They need people onboard to test all the human systems. But yes, if this was a purely scientific flyby and not part of a larger manned program, machines would do it fine.
[flagged]
Yeah. Doesn't really make sense. The entire mission could be done remotely.
Even with a goal of eventually putting humans on the moon, it'd be better to do an automated run, measure everything in the cockpit, and put in sandbags and/or something to consume O2 to make sure the CO2 scrubbers are working correctly. It's maybe cruel, but a few dogs would work fine for that sort of thing. A flame would be better, but it's pretty dangerous.
The first mission in decades doesn't need to have humans in it.
2 replies →
I mean, that's how these heat shields work. They aren't reusable, you can't test them and then use them again. Or do you mean the design? We already did Artemis I.
See this recent blog post about it (I am not the author): https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly....
It says that it is not safe to fly. They are sending humans without having tested in real conditions that their design was sound, GIVEN that the first time they did that (without humans), it turned out that their design was unsafe.
21 replies →
I mean the design.
They've changed the AVCOAT to be less permeable and altered the re-entry profile.
One of the findings of Artemis I is that lack of permeability led to trapped gas pockets which expanded and blew out pieces of heat shield. The reason for the change to be less permeable is to make it easier to perform ultrasonic testing, not to improve performance.
They altered the re-entry profile on the theory that the skip period contributed to spalling, but Charles Camarda disagrees in this doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddi792xdfNXcBwF8qpDUxmZz...
> Another chart which the Artemis Tiger Team did not intend to show on Jan. 8th, was the figure showing the spallation events as a function of time during the skip entry heating profiles (Figure 6.0-4 of NESC Report TI-23-0189 Vol. 1). In this figure, it was quite clear that the Program narrative they were feeding to the press, that it was the dwell time during the skip which allowed the gases generated to build up and cause the delta pressures which caused most of the spallation was, again, patently false. In fact, during the first heat pulse (t ≈ 0 to 240 sec), approximately 40-45% of all the medium to large chunks of ablator spalled off the Artemis I heatshield.
> Hence, varying the trajectory would do little to prevent spallation during Artemis II. I was never shown the new, modified trajectory at the Jan. 8th meeting.
1 reply →
We already did Artemis I and the heat shield lost a lot more material than it was supposed to on that flight. "Specifically, portions of the char layer wore away differently than NASA engineers predicted, cracking and breaking off the spacecraft in fragments that created a trail of debris rather than melting away as designed. The unexpected behavior of the Avcoat creates a risk that the heat shield may not sufficiently protect the capsule’s systems and crew from the extreme heat of reentry on future missions."
Fixes have been made to the design, but they haven't been tested in flight.
2 replies →
The heat shield is a bit different, and the reentry profile is a bit different as well.
14 replies →
That was the intent of the piece. It is impossible to assess the true intent of such a piece when it so blatantly is asking for attention.
Some people are great at self promotion.
6 replies →
This is a NASA cover up:
https://youtu.be/pzZWs7CexYI?t=78
https://youtu.be/Wuao1LgO66w?t=218
After spending years as a kid seeing footage of these things on TV outside living outside of America, I finally got to see it live!
Brought my camera and got a few good pics too! Very invested in this entire mission!
Someone behind me kept whisper crying "That's it! Go baby, go baby go" like it was his child and was encouraging them on. Very emotional, loved it.
Also when that engine sparked it really hit me just how many hours of deep thought and technical innovation goes not only into getting us as humanity to that point, but also the crews at NASA planning, building and executing these missions
I watched the livestream and at one point (several points, i guess) they cut to the crowd watching and the thing that stood out the most to me was that every single person was staring at their phone pointed at the rocket. Nevermind the fact that better quality videos will live forever on the internet available to anyone who wants to watch them, but I cannot fathom having that opportunity and not watching it with my own eyes with my full attention.
That’s awesome! I want to go watch IV in person
Fingers crossed that this https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly.... doesn't have any effect.
Of course it's not "safe"! We put a ton of explosives into a huge can, put a small can with humans on top of it, set it on fire and try to control what happens and get the humans into space, and then we try to drop the same can from the space, while it's traveling at miles per second, and land it on the ground. It's not "safe" and won't likely be "safe" in our lifetimes, there's always big risk, that's why astronauts get so much respect - they take a lot of risks. These risks become smaller with time, but still they are quite serious. And of course anything that reduces risks - while not disabling the whole program - is good, but I don't think "safe" is the word that is justified when talking about those things.
What he means and you're interpreting a bit too literally is that this [heatshield] is one subsystem where the risks are not well understood or quantified as, say, the propulsion system, for which we have a lot more experience and flight heritage.
1 reply →
Recent and related:
Artemis II is not safe to fly - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47582043 - March 2026 (598 comments)
There is a LOC (Loss of Crew) number that is typically calculated for these missions. I'm curious what that is? Early Apollo missions were on the order of 4%.
Before the Apollo launch, von Braun was asked what the reliability of the rocket was. He asked 6 of his lieutenants if it was ready to fly. Each replied "nein". Von Braun reported that it had six nines of reliability.
8 replies →
After the moon landing, Armstrong allowed that he had estimated the survivability at 50%.
In 2014 an independent safety panel estimated 1:75, but I think it's slightly better now. The shuttle program officially had a limit of 1:90 but in practice achieved 1:67.
1 reply →
The official minimum standard is 1:270
1 reply →
The politicization of everything and constant doomerish on here sure has echoes of early 2000s Slashdot. That's not a compliment. Reading the comments here is actually depressing. Human progress is never all at once, we can't even celebrate this triumph? Life is almost never "one or the other," the program could be scrapped to a junk yard and that wouldn't solve global hunger or global conflicts. Setting human eyes forward is good.
I pray to never reach a point of cynicism where my response to watching humans leave the planet on a rocket is immediately "meh, whatever, here's my political complaint of the week"
Global hunger's a great example. When we last left the moon (1972) 35% of the global population was undernourished. Today it's ~8%. Optimism is a choice, and generally a more rational one. That doesn't mean we don't have real issues.
In many ways I agree with you, but you have to acknowledge that things change when the _benefits_ of going forwards are funnelled to fewer and fewer people. That is what colors people’s view of what is happening in the way you are seeing.
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 completely agree on all points.
On your parenthetical point, I also agree: some really weird camera selections, and frustrating dropouts, during the crucial moments of the launch.
Nevertheless, a real triumph, and I particularly enjoyed the "full send" remark from (I think) the commander. I also really enjoy the fact that the livestream is relatively light on commentary and that most of what you hear is from mission control and the crew.
I was cussing at the director of that video stream during that. It was a totally useless shot as well that they lingered on that already had me bothered, and then to cut back to the SRBs fully separated had me in full contempt. Nothing to see here and everything to miss. It's like music videos showing the singer doing nothing while the guitarist is shredding a solo. Like WTF. You have one job, and you totally botched the hell out of it. You get what you pay for I guess. Lowest bidding contractor???
I couldn’t believe it when that happened. Intern at the controls maybe.
I took that to be the most dangerous part and they didn’t want to televise a Challenger II.
1 reply →
It was probably deemed a relatively high-risk moment which they did not want to broadcast in case of failure like it was when the Challenger mission exploded.
4 replies →
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.
Agreed! I yelled at the screen when I saw that they cut away.
I also loved the shot of stage separation, but they cut away from that way too soon also!
Same. I watched Apollo 11 launch in 1969 when I was four. Watched on our neighbor's TV. We didn't have one.
Imagine what we could accomplish if we didn't suck.
I’m not American. The Artemis launch feels to me like a beacon that the America the rest of us looked up to isn’t gone.
sending people to the moon was never useful. We can get more done with robots, both cheaper and safer. There are plenty of more useful things we can do instead.
okay what is more useful is a matter of opinion. you can disagree, but I stand by it
9 replies →
[flagged]
I did. I designed an asic in the navigation avionics. I’m glad this inspires people to do the next thing.
Why are you homeless?
3 replies →
[flagged]
1 reply →
Direct livestream link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf_UjBMIzNo
I tuned in for 60 seconds, the presenter got everything wrong, and I just tuned out until liftoff.
She called the top of the ET (well, it's no longer an ET, but it's the stage that was the STS ET) the "upper stage". She said that the propellents are stored at thousands of degrees below zero. And so on. This is a NASA presenter?
> She called the top of the ET (well, it's no longer an ET, but it's the stage that was the STS ET) the "upper stage". She said that the propellents are stored at thousands of degrees below zero. And so on. This is a NASA presenter?
To be fair to her, she seemed to explicitly refer to what sits on top of the core stage, it just wasn't in the diagram she was gesturing to the top of at the time.
To be fair to you, I think the cryogenic comment was worse and she actually said "thousands of degrees below Fahrenheit".
The problem is they're trying to run hours of programming leading up to this launch for some reason, but aren't willing to force the experts to come in to do the commentary. They should have given her a script.
2 replies →
You are not the target audience for this sort of presentation. Media directed at the laity is more about being directionally than quantifiably correct, and is full of metaphor and embellishment to capture the imagination rather than communicate something with precision.
People who want the actual details and numbers will read.
4 replies →
i'm sure the whole talk track was piped through an AI for clarity and excitement and the presenters were told to read the script.
I feel like they really fumbled the video feeds, it was a mess. Rapid shifting of camera angles as it left the pad, black video, switching to a grainy video of the crowd during booster separation, and a hasty switch back well after they separated.
Come on guys. You're going to the moon. You couldn't plan the launch camera / video feed better? This is how the world sees it, gets excited about it.
Quality just looked so poor too it honestly felt 90s quality on some of the feeds, will be criminal if they don’t sort their cameras out before the moon landing
Launch at around 5h 35m
[dead]
"We have a beautiful moon rise, we're heading right at it" got me a little choked up. Here's to the ever unfolding adventure of mankind.
Orbiter, the space simulation predecessor to KSP, has exactly such a mission where you see the moon in front of you as you ascent into the sky.
You're supposed to have peanuts, not popcorn, tonight:
https://science.nasa.gov/missions/what-are-jpls-lucky-peanut...
Found a stream on YouTube earlier (which presumably wasn't an official one because it disappeared 15 minutes later after a claim by "FUBO TV") and it had a poll attached: "Will the Artemis astronauts land on the moon?"
40% of people had voted yes. Which is somewhat worrying given the mission plan and hardware.
If these astronauts land on the moon, something has gone seriously, seriously wrong.
Maybe they'll just stop for some pictures on the way back. I mean, it's a shame to go all that way and not at least get a cool selfie!
1 reply →
Regardless of whether this particular mission is perfectly planned, this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement.
It is a noble endeavor - science, engineering and peaceful exploration hold the keys to our survival and prosperity.
It is also important psychologically to our survival - a reminder there is a bigger pie, that we can solve hard problems, that progress can be made, that competence and education counts, as does courage, and that we can work together for a common cause.
This is the best of America, and for a while we can be proud of the human race.
I think these space projects are great, can create much good will, and give people dangerous things to do that are worth risking the danger for. But war, inequality, and climate mismanagement are political problems that are not going to be solved (if they need to be solved) by science and engineering (the first two at least).
If AGI stages a hostile takeover of all the governments of the world would that count as a technological solution to war and inequality?
For that matter I suppose the terminator timeline also counts. Can't have war and inequality if you don't have humans.
They can absolutely be solved by science and engineering, people just need to stop being so fucking afraid to break the rules to do whats right.
5 replies →
I hope it does. But every day that goes by I feel that the future is just going to be like what's shown in the expanse series
My personal take for a long time has been that the primary driver of most war today is boredom. War today is undertaken for entertainment. It's a special kind of entertainment that taps into deep brain stem circuits and provides a false but deeply resonating sense of purpose and meaning. When you hear that "people don't have a sense of meaning," it means their brain stem is not feeling the tribal loyalty emotions connected to warfare.
It would be cheaper to solve resource shortages in almost any other way. I don't really buy that explanation, at least for most wars. I think most wars today have roots that are far less rational.
Note that this applies IMO to all participants on all sides insofar as they had any role in starting or sustaining the war.
7 replies →
The expanse future isn't that bad - even at the start of the series we've already made it to the asteroid belt and Jupiter moons, and the civilization consists of several sovereign self-governed entities with individual entrepreneurship and private enterprise allowed. It means we didn't annihilate ourself in a nuclear war, nor our civilization collapsed into allways-fully-connected ant colony (or one global fascist/communist/religious regime).
4 replies →
> this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war
Just a reminder that even the Utopia of the 23rd century and beyond envisioned by Gene Roddenberry for Star Trek - the Federation and Starfleet are still at their core military institutions. Even war was very much still a thing in his utopic vision, despite the fact that scarcity basically no longer exists so what hell was everyone fighting over anyway?
Starfleet is only a few steps removed from the regime in Heinlen’s Starship Troopers. At least Heinlen didn’t pretend that they were enlightened post-imperialists. He was honest about what it was.
Wasn't war on Earth not the issue but war with other species in the galaxy the issue? Sure, there were some sympathizers trying to sabotage peace, but that's because they wanted to continue warring.
2 replies →
I hope so, but if this goes awry in any way, especially if – god forbid – they lose the crew, my fear is it’ll be a blow to the American hegemony that will be very hard to recover from. Orange man is bad, but I think something like that would add a whole other dimension to the US’s loss of face. I’m as anti-american as they come, but despite everything Pax Americana must be acknowledged and I shudder at the thought of it shattering.
Godspeed!
As far as I am concerned "Pax Americana" ended (if I understand what it means correctly) when they mixed up the best picture at the Oscars!
But may be things have improved since...
> Pax Americana must be acknowledged and I shudder at the thought of it shattering.
Shudder away! We've already had both Carney and the finance minister of Singapore essentially declare Pax Americana to have ended. Everybody else is just being polite.
[EDIT: prime minister of Singapore, not finance minister]
8 replies →
> if – god forbid – they lose the crew, my fear is it’ll be a blow to the American hegemony that will be very hard to recover from
This has zero impact on American hegemony. That mission is being prosecuted in Iran and with respect to NATO.
1 reply →
[flagged]
> this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement.
Is that irony or plain naiveness? historically and technically, conquest of space is inseparable from warfare. As for climate change, one can argue that technology is one of the primary driver: aviation alone is estimated to 4% of global temperature rise.
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 the past 80 years while riding electrified public transit.
2 replies →
This is a new space race. From a geopolitical level, a nation that has a better presence on the moon will have a better strategic advantage.
What about the mineshaft gap though?
4 replies →
I believe the biggest benefit of going to space, particularly in building space stations, is making humanity focused on building a bigger pie.
This is one step towards this. But once we can build (effectively) infinite land, we will be in true abundance.
I think it's rather the opposite. That space exploration can only possiblly inspire a nation when there is peace, prosperity and justice for all.
Did someone skip 1968-2026 in their history books?
On the contrary, Whitey on the Moon still rings true.
Yeah, that's the take I have been looking for a spot to drop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4
I believe that folks in the US are, by a large margin, the most highly propagandized group of people in history. It's hard to watch stuff like this.
It's not that I don't understand that comparatively space exploration is small compared to the associated costs of the boots that might hit the ground today.
Space Force would disagree.
The talk of taking the Moon would belie.
Old is new again! :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Horizon
Next stop - defending the base with claymore sticks! :-)
https://www.sandboxx.us/news/featured/project-horizon-nukes-...
Well said. I'd be lying if I didn't get that little flutter inside watching the launch. It felt like "oh, there's still a flicker in the soul!"
[dead]
>Regardless of whether this particular mission is perfectly planned, this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement.
You watch too much Star Trek. This is precisely the kind of thing that will benefit the military industrial complex, enrich billionaires at the expense of everyone else, and justify the government raping natural resources like it's a little girl locked in a cage.
No one cares about space any more and no one engaging in space travel is doing so for science anymore. Those days, if they ever really existed, are over. NASA has been cleansed and gutted and purged of wrongthink and now only exists to further the cause of American propaganda and be parasitized by SpaceX and intelligence agencies.
I guess we should collectively give up on space. The people at NASA are all doing hard science for that notoriously bloated government salary.
3 replies →
> this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement.
How do you figure? The previous Moon missions certainly didn't accomplish that.
The key phrase is "kind of thing". It certainly does matter what kinds of things we focus our attention on as a species. I think you would have to be quite cynical to think that progress in spaceflight over the past 60+ years hasn't had a positive impact.
1 reply →
Global rates of poverty are 83% lower than they were in 1969 when we landed on the moon.
So actually, millions of lives have massively benefited from science and technology. To be cynical in the face of all that is a personal take, not a reflection of the facts.
12 replies →
You don't solve these problems in a single step, but notice how space imagery and analogies pop up every time people try to talk about peace, global problems, mutual empathy, understanding, etc. The Pale Blue Dot, images of Earth from orbit or the Moon, etc. Those are anchors in public consciousness, competing in memetic space with usual divisive, dystopian, hope-draining pictures and soundbites - we need more of them to improve on the big problems, and we absolutely would not have them if not for people actually flying to space.
Or, put differently, space exploration is one of the few things "feeding the right wolf" for humanity at large.
20 replies →
Sparked the environmental movement, to name but one major impact.
10 replies →
> Regardless of whether this particular mission is perfectly planned, this is precisely the kind of thing that will help humanity outgrow the dark age of war, inequality and climate mismanagement.
More likely, it is precisely the kind of thing that will be managed specifically to keep people distracted, so that the people who have a near term benefit from the dark age of war, inequality, and climate mismanagement can continue realizing that benefit without interruption by people taking action right up until there is no one left to distract or benefit.
The engineering was done in the 70's and 80's. This rocket is built out of leftover shuttle hardware.
The exploration in this mission was done 50 years ago.
I fail to see how this mission is noble. It's biggest accomplishment is keeping the NASA beurocratic apparatus in tact.
This spectacle of a mission is precisely the kind of distraction which enables complacency and allows the "dark age of war" to remain dark.
The SpaceX cameras of live launches are way better. This NASA stream is mostly all computer generated art after the initial pad launch. Hardly any live space feeds from the ship.
The lack of NASA live feeds from space is very disappointing. Our tax dollars at work.
SpaceX can also reuse their rockets by landing them backwards.
Does anyone know of a good status tracker for the mission? I'm watching the official feed on Youtube and it's great for commentary but I'd love a live Kerbal-style UI I could poke around.
Ah, I found the official one: https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis-ii/arow/
Unfortunately the UI seems pretty busted. The tour is trying to point out a bunch of UI elements that don't exist and the mouse interaction just doesn't work at all.
Here is the official one from NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis-ii/arow/
but I admit that it isn't what I would really want.
The official one doesn't work for me on mobile but this does: https://artemistracker.com/
but it's not accurate. it claims TLI (trans lunar injection burn) happens two hours after launch when in reality that is going to happen about a day after launch
1 reply →
I don't think I'll ever not get chills when watching a crewed launch. Godspeed!
There is also a stream on ESA Web TV https://watch.esa.int/
Liftoff! The planning that went behind this is mind boggling. Well done
I can’t deploy a stupid little app at work without something breaking.
Im impressed when people can build something so complex that works on the first try.
As someone who watched the Apollo 11 launch live on TV, this is no less awe-inspiring. This transcends nations, languages, and politics. This is of and by all humanity.
(If anyone managed to get the perfect shot of the spark-filled separation feed, please share. That was... incredible.)
It's been 54 years since humans last visited the Moon. Hopefully, in a few years we will get boots back on the surface.
Out of curiosity, why do you see this as a worthwhile endeavor?
My personal perspective is that the resources are better used for other purposes, but it's possible that I just haven't encountered some compelling reason yet.
Do you watch sports, football, the Olympics? If not I'm sure you know someone who does. Same category as this. Each of the 32 NFL team is worth about the cost of 1-2 Artemis launches. The entire league could fund the whole Artemis program nearly twice. Hosting the Olympics is worth about 3-10 launches.
Like sports, the objective is ultimately useless except as a showcase of what humanity has to offer, and people like to see that.
58 replies →
This argument comes up a lot, about whether a space program is “worth it” in some sense. One problem I’ve found is that these discussions often treat this in the abstract. And then we get into the nature of human endeavor, the economic benefits of that R&D, etc.
Let’s talk about this in terms of practicalities. The NASA budget for 2026, per Wikipedia, is $24.4B. I often find it hard to really reason about the size of federal budgets, and the impact on tax payers, but I have a thought experiment that I think helps put it into perspective. Suppose we decided to pay for the NASA budget with a new tax, just for funding NASA. And we did that in the simplest (and most unfair) possible way: a flat rate. Every working adult in the US has to pay some fixed monthly rate (so excluding children and retirees). Again, per Wikipedia, that’s around 170M people. Take the NASA budget, divide by 170M, and you get … $11.96/month.
Obviously, there’s lots of flaws in this. That’s not we pay for NASA, we have income tax as a percentage with different tax brackets. But it is a helpful way to frame how much a country is spending, normalized by population. And I think it puts a lot of things in perspective. $11.96/month is comparable to a streaming service. And we talk a lot about whether NASAs budget is better used for other purposes, but we don’t do the same thing for a streaming service.
Hell, look at US consumer spending: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm (note that that spending is in dollars per “consumer unit,” which is I think is equivalent to an adult US worker, but there might be some caveats). Based on that, the average US consumer spends around $26.17/month on “tobacco products and smoking supplies”. I just feel it’s a little silly to worry about the NASA budget when the US consumer spends twice that on what is objectively a luxury good. At least NASA won’t give you cancer.
4 replies →
> Out of curiosity, why do you see this as a worthwhile endeavor?
to me it's inspiring and gives people something to cheer for. It also keeps a lot of people employed, productive, and at least has the possibility for new innovation. When looking at the mountains and mountains of wasted taxpayer dollars I dislike these the least.
The moonshot is a halo program that, when executed in a non-profit form, ends up benefiting society as a whole due to smart people being cornered and forced to solve hard problems that typically have applicability elsewhere on Earth.
Edit: remember the Kennedy speech — We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because we thought it would be easy.
13 replies →
Because humans are destined to colonize space, and this is just an early step in a journey that will take hundreds or thousands of years.
More importantly, challenges like space exploration help drive knowledge and our economy; and are critical for national prestigue.
(And, most people don't focus on this, space exploration is a way for the US to demonstrate its military technology in a non-antagonistic way. There's a lot of overlap in space exploration technology and miliary technology.)
It is great to advance of what is humanly possible. Sending a robot? Great! Good data. If it dies, who cares, it does not live anyway. All abstract.
But sending a human? That feels more real. If we have the power to go alive to the moon, we also have the power to go even further. And we lost it, now we are reclaiming it.
And it doesn't matter to me what I think of the US government - this is progress for all of humanity. Also the comment section on the youtube stream is interesting - lot's of different flags are posted, sending good wishes from all around the world, low effort comments otherwise of course, but largely positive. (Very rare I think)
So, more rockets into space please and less on earth.
> My personal perspective is that the resources are better used for other purposes, but it's possible that I just haven't encountered some compelling reason yet.
Well, people are often obsessed with rationality, and seek reasons to do something, but there is one reason that works almost for anything: just because. If we want to go forward, we'd better try a lot of things, including those that do not look very promising. We don't know the future, the only way to uncover it is to try. Did you hear about gradient descent? It is an algo for finding local maxima and to do its work it needs to calculate partial derivatives to choose where to go next. In reality doing things and measuring things are sometimes indistinguishable. So society would better try to move in all directions at once.
A lot of people believe that to fly to the Moon is a good idea. Maybe they believe it due to emotional reasons, but it is good enough for me, because it allows to concentrate enough resources to do it.
> the resources are better used for other purposes
It is much better use for $$$ than the war with Iran. I believe that the war have eaten more then Artemis already, and... Voltaire said "perfect is an enemy of good". The Moon maybe not the perfect way to use resources, but it is good at least.
Go take a look at how much this costs compared to the rest of the federal budget. I think you'll be surprised by how little money NASA gets.
Now, the military...
1 reply →
Because it is good for humans to have a thing to do. Not sure why this is not considered a valid reason. A lot of these 'it would be better to do X' assumes everyone has the same psychological profile as you. They don't. Many people are driven to explore and would go mad otherwise.
I want humanity to continue to be explorers. The Moon is a good next thing, then asteroid mining, humans on Mars and Venus, and eventually colonizing the Milky Way.
It's quite telling that all the replies you're getting are about "hope" and "jobs" with no actual scientific reason. I guess we're taxing people for vanity space missions and jobs programs. Makes sense.
1 reply →
It encourages kids to study science.
It unites Americans towards a cause.
The engineering advancements have commercial applications.
And at the most basic level, it's a jobs program. Look at how many Americans are working because of this.
You're right. The future of humanity is not in space, but in venture-backed smartphone apps.
Man I’m tired of people only caring about money when it comes to space. Meanwhile they lose their shit when someone suggests that tax payers shouldn’t pay for people’s Coca-Cola.
Think of all that cheese.
1 reply →
Because one day, far far in the future, the humanity would reach out to the stars, and these are the first tiny steps to enable this. There's always the question of directing the resources, and this program is not that expensive, really - around $100bn. Given that fraud at COVID time alone is estimated to have cost the Treasury twice as much, seems like a worthy investment into the future.
I do much better with things to look forward to, or when I have a feeling that progress can be made. An interesting movie coming out, new music coming out. Or even better reminding me what humans are capable of above just grinding to get by or grinding to exploit others. Haven't been many moments of feeling progress lately.
Successful space travel is one of the few big news events where nobody has to be unhappy.
Most of the other big news events are ones where people get severely hurt, and political ones where one partly loses.
With this, we can look up at the moon, and say "Humanity did that."
Simply because Earth is too small a place for humanity to limit itself to.
Because inevitably the Earth will have yet another ELE. And it's a better use of tax dollars than warmongering, YMMV.
How many days of a war with Iran could be funded with the Artemis budget?
It's a better thing to strive for than war.
I always found this framing interesting.
Sure, if we lived in a purely utilitarian world, there's some merit to the argument that space exploration is a waste of resources that could be more efficiently used elsewhere. We don't live in a utilitarian world though, and instead we have the same (and in reality much, much larger) amounts of money and resources that get spent on this moon mission being spent instead on bombing the Middle East with nothing to show for it other than an impending global economic crisis.
Could the money spent on Artemis be spent somewhere better? Probably, but how about we start with not burning through 38 billion (and rising!) on a farcical boondoggle of a military operation whose only effects so far are increases in the cost of literally everything? The first WEEK of the war cost 11 billion[1], but when it comes to NASA we're suddenly penny-pinching?
And that's talking pure monetary expenditure, without even going into the human lives lost, the lessening of sanctions on Russia (which will in turn cause even more suffering in Ukraine), or the halting of trade through the Suez, etc. etc. etc.
From where I'm standing, even if Artemis turns out to be a complete and utter disaster with not a single benefit of any kind coming out of it, the worst possible case scenario is a few astronauts die and we wasted a few billion (and I guess NASA gets shut down). That's of course us working under the assumption that there won't be a single novel scientific discovery of any kind, or that we will learn absolutely nothing from these missions.
The current unjustified war the US is waging on the other hand has already killed thousands of people, and will continue harming every single person on this earth through the economic fallout alone. The US is quite literally setting money on fire with every single bomb they drop over Iran. And the true worst case scenario that I can easily imagine happening is nukes getting dropped and all the consequences that follow from that.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/11/world/middleeast/iran-war...
Hopefully, in a few years we will figure out that hydrogen rockets can not reliably launch on time and we'll switch to less leaky fuels. Then maybe we won't need to pull 40 year old engines out of museums to dump in the ocean.
I'm all for human spaceflight, but the Senate Launch System seems the best argument for shutting down human spaceflight programs.
Oh, don't worry, we did figure that out. What we haven't figured out yet is how to stop Congress from involving themselves in engineering decisions.
1 reply →
NASA is risking the Astronauts lives, and could have done the mission uncrewed to test what is being tested for the first time with humans:
Artemis II is not safe to fly - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47582043
But they need to convince the people that it's worth the money, and the people are more excited when humans risk their lives, even if it is for nothing.
1 reply →
That was awesome!
it's better to invest in human progress than in war
Gonna watch with my son if it doesn’t get postponed.
I’m so glad they lifted off safely. I hope they re-enter safely too.
Heat shield is the concerning part, yeah. I'm thrilled the launch went well but that's the thing to watch for, AFAIK
Mission commander made the call himself I believe if it should go ahead, after talking to the engineers.
I do hope the doomers who think that the entire US government has been completely gutted will take note of this. The government workforce is in a bad spot for sure, SLS is far from a perfect program, but this still demonstrates that we are doing some real work still.
Take note of a project that’s about 15 years behind schedule and many multiples over budget finally progressed because we lowered safety standards to just launch?
I’m not sure how that’s proof the government isn’t gutted. Let me know what our schedule is for the next one and how that timeline has changed. Ignoring the projects that have been outright canceled…
You’re currently the guy saying “ya, all you haters that said I’d lose my house if I stopped paying my mortgage, who’s laughing now?” - one month into not paying your mortgage.
We’ll still be dealing with the after effects of doge 20 years from now.
> we lowered safety standards to just launch
Aren’t they still well above anything in the history of human space flight?
We keep treating these systems in popular discourse as airliners. They’re not. They’re experimental craft. With mass production maybe SpaceX can bring launch closer to general aviation. But the notion that any loss of life is intolerable is (a) unsustainably expensive and (b) not a view shared by the lives actually at risk.
2 replies →
If it's 15 years behind budget and many multiples over budget, it wouldn't be DOGE's fault then?
2 replies →
Remember when DOGE tried to cut out the inefficiencies and failed miserably? The "inefficiencies" and "bloated budgets" are there for a reason.
If Elon ran this project "without bloat", there is probably a 70% chance that the vehicle would have exploded, much in the way of his Starship and early Falcon vehicles.
2 replies →
[flagged]
5 replies →
Indeed. The GSA with 10k employees is going to fall apart without the 40k unused winzip licences DOGE so cruelly took away from them in their senseless spree of madness.
1 reply →
Don't confuse bureaucracy with "gutted." The federal government is bigger than at most any point in US history. Arguably that fact is -why- it's 15 years behind schedule.
6 replies →
I have a really hard time telling if this is despite the current administration’s best efforts, because the current administration’s policies, or just an artifact of government inertia.
Top level: Super excited to witness this in my lifetime.
Edit: Also, my 40 years of life leads me towards the latter category.
For sure this is 90% inertia, although like Bridenstein in the first administration, who turned out to actually be a pretty good administrator in the grand scheme of things, I'm cautiously optimistic that Isaacman is working in good faith to make NASA the best it can be. (Which isn't to say that I agree with him 100% mind you.)
NASA has been well treated by both parties in general, with their budget rising faster than inflation most years. This administration also appointed Isaacman to be the NASA administrator which I think is a 10/10 choice for that job.
3 replies →
How exactly would you interpret this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Redefinition_a...
Definitely despite.
Have you talked to any actual NASA employees (not just contractors) that work in science?
For what it’s worth, I watched today’s Artemis II launch with them. While proud of the mission, they’re likely in your “Doomer” category after a year being devastated and demoralized by having their science budgets slashed, grants/projects cancelled, having been forced to fire good contractors of 10+ years and then watching some of the most knowledgeable/skilled folks take early retirement. Don’t let the awe or Artemis fool you — NASA, especially when it comes to science, has been gutted and functionally degraded. For what it’s worth, they’re not focused on earth/climate science.
Yep, I work with them every day, since I am myself a NASA contractor. I'm curious what you think the major distinction is between a contractor and a civil servant in the first place. I work directly as part of a division (used to be "on site" before 2020, but now I'm remote so that doesn't quite fit) doing 80% the same job as any of my civil servant colleagues. I really don't think the range of opinions is all that different on either side of the fence.
I'll repeat that there are a lot of problems, but it's not nearly as bad as some people on the internet make it out to be.
1 reply →
While the current administration has multiple areas of improvement and isnt really taking feedback in an adult manner, the federal workforce has some of the most competent people working for it inside certain parts of the organization. im thinking especially of NASA and NASA JPL.
This is true, but a lot of the top positions are being replaced with unqualified loyalists. It's only a matter of time, if this continues, that the competent workforce gets eroded
JPL has been strangled by both parties. They had huge staff cuts in 2024, and then more in 2025. They've gone from ~6,500 to ~4,500. Trump closed their research library[1].
Of course this is a drop in the bucket, the entire science research apparatus of the United States is being burned to the ground[2]. This administration is doing to the future of scientific research what the Mongols did to Baghdad.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/climate/nasa-goddard-libr...
[2] https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-026-00088-9/index.ht...
NASA also has some of the most incompetent people working for it, and a lot of them are responsible for overseeing SLS and Orion. JPL hasn’t been doing to well lately either (Mars Return?).
Let's not jinx them; let them get home safe before we take a victory lap.
Exactly. The heat shield problems and lack of full disclosure are quite troubling.
It’s Orion that’s dodgy as fuck not the booster. I.e the new thing. Not the decades old, proven, launch engines.
Let’s wait for the back patting when they splash down.
I genuinely hope not but i am worried about this craft.
>Not the decades old, proven, launch engines.
Which are, I will note, being expended on this single launch, despite being designed, built, and functioning over decades as re-usable engines.
Just like to point out the a SRBs aren’t really the same.
> Orion that’s dodgy as fuck not the booster. I.e the new thing
I mean, newly shaped and partly reformulated.
Avcoat was “originally created…for the Apollo program” [1]. (“A reformulated version was used for the initial Orion heat shield and later for a redesigned Orion heat shield.”) The new things are Orion’s size and weight and the size of the tiles. All of which has precedented flight in Artemis I.
At the end of the day, I’m going to trust the astronauts. This issue was openly discussed, despite NASA’s original—and fair to criticize—instinct to cover it up. While any manned reëntry is a nail biter, I don’t think this one is especially so.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCOAT
6 replies →
Go look at the amount of grants getting funded this year and tell me we aren't completely gutting the national research apparatus.
I just need to look locally and see we're in trouble. NIST, NCAR. Super Drought conditions forming in the West.
This isn't good.
But hurray Moon missions, I guess. Pity we're causing the entire World Economy to collapse with a unneeded war.
7 replies →
I certainly hope the mission goes as planned but it does feel like SLS is the wrong approach in the time of reusable rockets, even if this specific mission profile would probably have demanded the booster be expendable. Using the Shuttle main engines - designed and made to be 'refurbishable' rather than 'reusable' but still dumped into the ocean after each mission - and the SRBs (solid boosters) still gives the impression of the booster design being dictated (at least in part) to accommodate the needs of former Shuttle contractors. If either Starship+Superheavy or some other fully reusable heavy left vehicle comes on-line it will be hard for NASA to justify spending billions of $ on, well, a flying pork barrel. Sure, it has been proven time and time again that canned pigs can in fact fly but that does not make them the go-to transport.
Conversely SLS is ready now. Starship and Super Heavy are not and cannot do this mission today.
Not entirely a doomer, but I would wait to grandstand until after the crew is returned safely, considering the allegations regarding the capsule heat shield.
We are basically going this to funnel more tax payer dollars to musk or bezos. What a moment for humanity
Wrong in every way.
1 reply →
April 1; I see what you did there, well played.
"That this Artemis launch is happening in the lead-up to America’s 250th birthday has heightened the sense that it’s a nostalgia act for the Baby Boomer gerontocracy. All the more so because Donald Trump, the oldest person ever to be elected to the White House, is presiding over the whole affair. His administration has sought to sabotage NASA’s scientific missions, but the president seems delighted to have the agency gin up a national spectacle on his behalf, just as he was happy to have a military parade on his birthday."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/2026/04/artemis-moon-lau...
[flagged]
not to be a pedant, but would cutting costs not make healthcare cheaper?
do you mean cutting funding to healthcare?
1 reply →
[flagged]
[flagged]
We'd look better if there was still a USAID.
[flagged]
2 replies →
The camera work was just terrible. They really need to learn from SpaceX how to do this right. Minus the obnoxious cheering.
SpaceX does these beautiful drone shots and live telemetry so well. Considering that each SLS launch costs in the billions it would be nice to do a little better on production
I felt the commentary during the launch also wasn't good. And I am not too interested in hearing from some Hollywood people before the launch
I love listening to the cheering because it really drives home what an accomplishment it is for the people who work on it.
Starlink launches don't get the cheering, so it's not like it's a laugh track.
I thought the same thing - hopefully by the time Artemis III launches they'll remember the gaps and blank screens from this launch. Even the live telemetry model at the core stage separation seemed to not match what the on-board cameras showed. Artemis I's camera work was better. Why???
[flagged]
I'm having trouble finding a simple tracker of whereabouts the craft is at in terms of the path to the moon? Might just be me but the fancy 3-d rendering thing on the NASA page just shows me a close-up of the craft and not much else?
Longest trip since 1972.
54 years.
I hope we as humanity never stop again.
Good luck!
From here on the space coast of Florida: GODSPEED THE CREW OF ARTEMIS II
Wish them all the best and safe travels. I’ll be tuning in as you never know when the next crewed mission will be, probably not another 50 years if advancements in space travel happen.
Praying for these astronauts to have a safe return. The heat shield stuff has me really rattled. These folks are really brave to go through with this.
There are tons of comments here that say, "this could have been a robot." And no, it really couldn't have.
The best of humanity is remarkably capable as compared to the best physical machines / robots. There's a great paper called the "dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency." https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/53/2/2.22... // https://lasp.colorado.edu/mop/files/2019/08/RobotMyth.pdf
Yes, a robot car that drives on its own will be a better driver than most humans who text and drive, or have 400ms reaction times.
But making a machine that can beat a 110ms reaction time human with 2SD+ IQ – and the ability to override the ground controllers with human curiosity – for exploration is much harder. Healthy, smart humans have high dexterity, are extremely capable of switching roles fast, are surprisingly efficient, and force us to return back home.
So in terms of total science return, one Apollo mission did more for lunar science and discovery than 53 years of robots on the surface and in orbit.
They are not going to land on the Moon! They are just going to sit in a can for two weeks and take photos. (OK. Tthe can is on top of a lot of burning explosive material and if they don't aim correctly they will get in a weird trajectory that will kill them. Not for the faint of heart.)
I'm not sure if they can override the commands send from Earth, but turning on and off the engines like in the Apollo XIII movie is like 100 times less accurate than the automatic orders. It's not 1969, now computer can play chess and aim to go around the Moon better than us.
Also, there is still Artemis III to test the live support equipment with humans inside, before Artemis IV that is spouse to attempt landing on the Moon.
I really hope the report from a few days ago about the heatshield not sustaining earth reentry does not turn out to be true.
I desperately hope so too. It will be absolutely terrible if there were to be an issue, and moreso if people can say “We knew about it beforehand but still went ahead”.
I'd like to see views of the moon and the earth from the spaceship on every hour. Is there any link for that?
It's good to see NASA finally do something beyond navel gazing. Nonetheless, calling this flight historic is a stretch. Other than flying a few miles further than Apollo 13, it will actually accomplish less than Apollo 8 did 57 years ago.
What did Apollo 8 accomplish more than Artemis 2?
Apollo 8 actually went into orbit around the moon. This flight is more similar to Apollo 13, hopefully without the life threatening problems. The risk on this flight is far less than on Apollo 8 obviously. Still, it's more than time for the US to step up and have an actual space program. The shuttle program and ISS fall far short of the trajectory of the US space program at the end of 1972.
what about the fact that it is a joint effort between different agencies?
Doesn't mean a thing in the grand scheme of things. Nor does having a woman, a minority, and a Canadian. Those are irrelevant. It makes some people feel good and others virtuous, but it doesn't further the mission one iota. Show me technical accomplishments, regardless of the crew composition and the agencies involved. The crew can all be women or minorities, I don't care. I'm looking for progress and accomplishments, not virtue signaling.
1 reply →
Is there any website that gives me updates mirroring the livestream but in plain text? I won't be able to tune in for the launch but this is exciting and I'd like to follow the developments! I'm sure the answer is "Twitter" but I don't understand how that platform works.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47601017
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4g4ygw0r02t
An okay unity app for tracking:
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis-ii/arow/
Just listened on the radio driving the kids to swim class! I'm curious, does anyone think the show For All Mankind provided any peer pressure or influence to help propel NASA to this moment?
It’s a fun idea to consider, but I suspect the true push is due to how capable China is proving to be in spaceflight. They’ve got plans for a manned mission to the moon and are eyeing the same craters at the Lunar South Pole as we are.
While the outer space treaty forbids claiming territory in space, it doesn’t forbid building a base and putting a “Keep Out” sign on the airlock.
As a huge fan of Ron D. Moore’s shows, and especially For All Mankind, I don’t see how it could possibly have (or have had) any meaningful impact on NASA or NASA-adjacent efforts. Especially Artemis.
I doubt it, SLS and Artemis predate 'For all mankind' by many years.
True but they have been drag-assing for years.
I think spacex and now blue origin lit a fire under their butts.
Is anybody aware of audio-only coverage of this mission? I'd have loved to just tuned into most of the launch like radio, rather than having my unwatched youtube running.
Safe trip to the crew. I do hope that they have ironed out all the issues.
24/7 coverage here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3kR2KK8TEs
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.
1 reply →
Mild Space Weather: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
Moderate geomagnetic storm watch until April 2.
If the crew were to be lost into deep space or something, is there a protocol for self euthanization?
They will be in a free return orbit so that can’t happen - just other bad things.
What’s the margin of error on a free return orbit burn though? Isn’t there a scenario of being pointed slightly in the wrong direction or burning for too long throwing them off?
I'm watching it rapt, but also wondering which KIND of leaky will result in a scrub..
Can't understand why there doesn't seem to be much wider excitement at all, around "our Apollo 8", that I've been waiting decades for (late 40s here).
Apparently here in the UK our schools are hardly even hyping it.
glad to have been wrong on this one!
KSP irl. I still dont know how they keep the framerate so high with so many parts.
Why do this? Why look to space and understand Earth's smallness? So we can understand reality as Carl Sagan explains in his pale blue dot speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g
Range is go after they worked to verify the FTS. Great news.
And NASA proves that it's still got game!
Really it’s all the primes and sub contractors. NASA is more like a management layer. The difference between this and what commercial space companies do comes down to who’s paying and what’s the penalty for poor performance. Not much motivation to get things done in a timely manner with cost-plus programs.
I'm just SO HAPPY we can talk about something that doesn't involve the Iran war, ICE etc. This is a really historic moment, I hope that the current and future administrations continue investing in space exploration. I've waited my whole life for this as the entire "action" happened before I was born. Hubble/James Webb/ISS are cool but Artemis is something else!
>we can talk about something that doesn't involve the Iran war, ICE etc.
And yet, you did bring them up.
... federalized voting, birthright citizenship... it is amazing how space exploration can be a unifying moment of positivity.
too windy outside for this to happen imo
You better run over there and let them know.
What is your opinion based on?
licked my finger and stuck it in the air
walking outside, and the surf report... they cancel all the time for less wind shear
2 replies →
Good luck to the astronauts
https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly....
Godspeed AI-I
4.5hrs to go
17 minutes to go now!
God speed
I get that not everyone, even on HN, thinks crewed-spaceflight is worth doing. And I certainly get that launching people to the moon doesn't makes up for the latest crap thing Trump is doing to the world.
But I really think that space exploration could be the thing that unites everyone, and the more unified we are--the more we feel like we have a common purpose--the easier it will be to solve our other problems.
I for one pledge to support space exploration (crewed or uncrewed) regardless of who is running the government. I will cheer Artemis II even though I voted against Trump. I will cheer if/when China sends people to the moon. I will even cheer if Russia does something cool in space.
Neil Armstrong 2: A New Moon?
Oh hell... Thanks for this reminder, I have almost forgot about it with all the problems I'm trying to solve now.
Somebody needs to say that:
What was the AI usage in this endeavour?
Zero, huh?
Gods peed
It is very disconcerting to see so many completely disregarding incredible technological innovation because other problems exist, especially on HN.
If we were not allowed to progress technology until everybody is 100% free of suffering, we'd never be able to create technological that may potentially lead to the alleviation of suffering. It all feels very crabs in a bucket - "I don't feel happy so nobody else should, and nothing should happen unless it is things that directly, immediately do things I want and solve problems I care about."
There is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack.
Three of the main engines are refurbished Shuttle engines. The fourth is a clone that cost more than the entire SpaceX Starship stack.
The boosters are derived from the Shuttle SRBs.
It's a late-60s technology rocket stack with a 2000s-era flight computer.
It's such a travesty.
Its true that innovation isn't clearly shown in this mission; we also haven't flown humans out that far in more than 50 years either and while we have memories of it, our ability to even execute something like this must be built again. I'd rather see us doing this and 'pick up from where we were last time', than giving up on it or just using a stack that's not currently set to do this.
What Artemis is doing is not impeding innovation: its building our muscle back to work on such things; the discipline, rigor, scale, and attitude needed to execute such missions is unimaginable and orthogonal to the technical innovation and stack used. I also believe that its completely fine to use a 2000s-era flight computer, if that suffices for this purpose. Somehow, for such critical missions, my mental model is to use at least 10 year old technology that has stood the test of time, before going into space. If there's a need for the latest technology - then yes, it should be leveraged.
22 replies →
> is no technological innovation in the Artemis stack
Scaling is still engineering.
And the environmental control system, laser-optical communication systems and block-construction heat shields are new. For Artemis III, in-obit propellant transfer will be new and transformational.
15 replies →
It's silly to say there's no innovation here. These aren't legos that you just snap together. I'm sure there are innovations up and down the whole thing, using the old technology they have easily available to them.
No, it's not the most modern Rocket Lab or SpaceX project but they have immense drag on their process that those companies don't have and they still got the dang thing up and headed toward the moon.
3 replies →
It's not about the Orion unit specifically but the fact that this is happening in the first place. This is simply a precursor to future missions and the construction of the Artemis Base Camp.
This read like one of those "I could've done this in a weekend" replies to app launches.
IIRC there are some hydrogen powered APUs on the SLS core stage, replacing the Hydrazine powered ones used on Shuttle (both on orbiter & SRBs). The solar panel control on the Orion also seems coo and useful, not to mention having cameras on the arrays for self-inspections.
I am sure there are more subtle innovations like this that would hopefully be useful on more sensible rockets and space vehicles in the future. :)
While that might be true, it is on course to the moon now. Starship hasn't really done anything close. So while cheaper might be on the way, it doesn't exist now. When Starship can do now, we can talk about if the Shuttle Leftover System is ready to be retired
5 replies →
We'll be sure to give you a ring when the Moon base needs food delivery apps in the year 2347.
I believe the fourth is actually built from left over STS engine parts and they haven’t gotten to the clones yet.
Well what are they suppose to do other than continue where they left it? As far I understand purpose of Artemis mission it is to build a pernamently occupied base on the moon not to build better and better rockets now. I mean, it's not the best solution but it is proven to work and they perceive it as enough for now. I think it's very similar to some critical systems still running code written in cobol sixty years ago.
It's in orbit. I for one love the fact they recycled some well-designed engines and made this mission a success (so far).
The Artemis was a pork barrel project to feed federal tax money to all the states that had huge space shuttle contracts.
That and NASA is pathologically terrified of anything resembling innovation.
So, are you suggesting we should not misunderstand “just business” as “glorious human achievement”?
Yeah, fuck the engineers who worked full time and ran many simulations tirelessly and worked out the best stack for this mission, right?
Most of the combustion engines in your car are still from designs late 60s - 80s (Eg. Renault). Does that mean it's a travesty too?
Let me guess, a bunch of dudes sitting in SF in a garage could have made a better rocket that runs on ReactJS, right? Because NASA BAD.
Give me a break.
It’s interesting to compare to Apollo 8 (circumlunar Apollo mission). That mission culminated a year that saw escalation of the Vietnam War and the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy.
The Apollo 8 book I read once ended with a letter to NASA thanking them and saying “You saved 1968.”
1 reply →
It's much more popular to be doomer and a critic on the internet. Virtue signalling etc.
> It's much more popular to be doomer and a critic on the internet
Is it more popular? Or is it just easy? Dismissive “reads” are done by the picosecond; there is just much more to choose from than constructive thinking, which takes work.
6 replies →
Why is pessimism, virtue signalling, doomerism, etc. so prevalent on the internet these days?
It wasn't always this way, was it? Am I misremembering "the golden years"?
Is it the failing economy? The K-shaped economy? The political and news cycle?
I'm excited for all of this stuff, and I can't imagine being downtrodden and pessimistic about our outlook. The only thing I'm down about are authoritarianism and monopolies, but those are outside of my control. Modern science and engineering rock.
Going to the moon is amazing. All this AI stuff is amazing. It feels like the future again.
This is such a strawman argument because nobody expects nobody expects all wealth to be redistributed absolutely equally. What many of us would like however is a sufficient baseline.
I've recently seen a seris of Tiktoks from a 50 year old woman who lives in rural China on ~$1/day. She works in a shoe factory and makes ~$11/day. Her husband is a truck driver. Thing is, she has a house, a phone, an electric scooter, enough to eat, electricity and overall all her basic needs are met.
That's the baseline for modern China.
In the US, you'd end up homeless, eventually lose your car, find it impossible to keep your car, probably end up self-medicating with drugs, get harassed by police and ultimately your status will be criminalized and you'll end up being convict labor.
I don't need Jeff Bezos to have the same amount of money as everyone else but I do want, in the wealthiest country on Earth in particular, everyone to have secure housing health insurance, food, clothing and utilities.
There are other reasons too to criticize the SLS program: it's incredibly wasteful and is just another welfare program for defense contractors. The Artemis/SLS programs have cost ~$100 billion in the last 2 decades. That's staggeringly inefficient. Likewise, each Artemis mission costs ~$4 billion. That's ridiculous.
I, for one, would be much happier seeing these Moon missions if it wasn't such a giant scam to steal $100 billion from the government coffers.
Well said. I find it interesting that a single proton-m total cost per launch is about 70 million. Of course its lift capacity is much smaller, but if the 4 billion figure is correct, it does seem like a ridiculous amount. But then again things are no different from the defense expenses.
I agree entirely. HN tends to be incredibly nitpicky and dystopian. I think it's because so many HNers work in dystopian software-only companies, not doing much in the physical world, away from the algorithms.
Incredible technological innovation is on the horizon. That's why we are not doomed this century. We can make it.
*hits 'reply', knowing there will be nitpicky comments because of course on HN these days, no positive point shall be left standing.
How dare we want to fix the existential threats on the planet before we spend billions on a publicity stunt.
No, there's no possible way we "save humanity" with space exploration. The whole "eggs in more than one basket" thing is insane.
The resources required to establish a colony, get it self-sufficient, then able to grow, and then put enough people on it will take half a century and the planet is burning up today.
Do you think that had this not launched that it would have been spent on something else that would have "saved humanity" better?
US spends 4x as much on just nuclear bombs as the NASA budget for some perspective. Nuclear bombs are only 10% of the military budget, and as big as the military spending is, all of that is still only 15% of the federal budget.
It seems a bit ridiculous to be thinking NASA spending is in any way meaningfully holding us back from whatever "save humanity" spending we could be doing.
why pick on space exploration which has such a small budget and provides with a lot of hard science, technology, boosts the economy, etc and not pick on many other things we do that make no sense? why not pick on the military? or fossil fuel subsidies? or the entertainment/sports industry? or ads? why not pick on bureaucracy or war or billionaires? ... all of those have way bigger budgets and ain't fixing any "existential threats", arguably making them worse
It's so easy to pick on the few remaining industries and science that invest on a future that is not the next quarter and doesn't just make the same people richer. Make no mistake, the little money spent on space exploration (or science in general) is not what's causing or keeping us from solving existential threats.
Waiting to see what happens to the heat shield on reentry...
https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly....
https://theconversation.com/heat-shield-safety-concerns-rais...
> the agency said it was confident that a change to the re-entry trajectory would be more than adequate to offset any spalling issues. Somewhat confusingly, they also announced their intention to switch to a new heat shield design, starting with Artemis III.
It's fine to be concerned, but this kind of take is why public agencies are damned no matter what they do. In the private sector, operating with the suboptimal resources you have while working on a better iteration is standard practice, even in industrial settings. But when you're a public organization, if anyone can find anything that is less than 100% optimal, the same people who complain about how slow the public sector is will complain that you're cutting corners, or that you're inept.
In the private sector, risking astronaut’s lives when you know a problem exists can result in jail time - what will happen to NASA?
3 replies →
> the agency said it was confident that a change to the re-entry trajectory would be more than adequate to offset any spalling issues. Somewhat confusingly, they also announced their intention to switch to a new heat shield design, starting with Artemis III.
This is not confusing in the least. Engineers don't talk about safety in binary terms. It's not "safe" vs. "not safe". Instead, it's all about the probability of a bad outcome. At NASA, they compute the probability of Loss of Crew (LoC) and the probability of Loss of Mission (LoM).
For Artemis II, a change to the re-entry trajectory brings the LoC/LoM back to an acceptable level. For Artemis III, which a new shield design, they can get to the same LoC/LoM with a different trajectory (which gives them other benefits).
Stop thinking in terms binary terms. Everything is a probability.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[dead]
There was an interesting thread on HN yesterday about the safety of the heat shield.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47582043
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
given you are new, check out HNs guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[flagged]
[flagged]
Yeah the whole production of the launch broadcast was pretty lousy compared to what SpaceX does. Their mission tracker website isn't working either. Considering that this broadcast and the other public affairs stuff is essentially the deliverable of the mission, it's not too great.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. The camera work was atrocious.
It's not just frilly video, it's how the world sees it, emotionally connects to it, and grows up loving it, and wanting to support more.
We had black screens as it left the pad, they didn't know what camera to switch to and kept changing feeds every 2-3 seconds, they switched to a grainy feed of the crowd just looking up while booster separation happened, so we missed that, and hastily switched back after they separated.
All the prep and they couldn't come up with a media plan? Maybe it was technical problems and their camera indexing was off or something.
They had the longest reaction shot of some people filming it with their phones (maybe they got a good shot) and when they switched back to after the booster separation I said at the time, “that would have been cool to see.”
1 reply →
Even in the 1960s with 1960s technology they made better broadcast video of the Apollo launches than this.
I suspect that they might have switched away from the booster separation on purpose. That's probably a risky moment of the launch, and they may have wanted to avoid televising a disaster like in the Challenger launch.
Aside from that, agreed that the camera work was awful.
1 reply →
Yeah, missing the booster sep was a real bummer
Everyday Astronaut's tracking was perfect.
1 reply →
It's hard enough to train a camera on race cars speeding by at 250+ kilometers an hour.
But it isn't speeding by, it's heading away following a closely predetermined trajectory. A better analogy would be filming a high-altitude aircraft flying away from you, using a gear-driven tripod mount.
It is hard, but Everyday Astronaut had a manually-operated camera with a 2,000mm lens that captured everything from engine start all the way through a reasonably-clear view of SRB separation.
In 4k, at 720fps.
(I didn't bother with watching the NASA feed.)
3 replies →
I can get a gimble for my phone that can follow me running. What could NASA do?
SpaceX manages it for their launches
2 replies →
Well, yes, we certainly can as is shown by the coverage of SpaceX launches. I guess NASA is just not as focused on publicity as commercial launch operators are. They should have read The Right Stuff and learned the mantra No bucks, no Buck Rogers. Next time, better I hope.
[flagged]
[flagged]
polymarket or gtfo :)
My opinion is 60/40 in favor of launch today. It's not unusual at all for something to come up in the final 10-30 minutes.
Kalshi is more optimistic. https://kalshi.com/markets/kxartemisii/artemis-ii-launch-dat...
[flagged]
Sometimes we need to disconnect from the internet and realize we can't solve all the world's problems. The best thing you can do is solve things in the communities you are in.
The entire world's problems is too much for one human.
There’s not a lot of sweet left in the world of bitter. But there are far more people that want peace than war, and the powerful are not as protected and immune from concequences as they think.
Well. You are getting down voted but here I am in later stages in life watching this Moon launch, and unlike other times in past, I didn’t feel any inspiration.
Honestly, it’s a waste of money. That’s my final answer, there’s kids that need food. I am no longer inspired by this stuff.
I’ve seen enough advanced technology for many lifetimes, we need something else as a species (more of that humanity thing).
I understand your side to some extent. It helped watching my 11yo watch the launch - for him it's more meaningful, more imminent than it can be for a jaded person like myself.
I don't think it's mutually exclusive with food aid, though. If anything, it's taking money that probably would have gone into bombs and aeroplanes instead if we didn't have a space program. Honestly, it feels like we could redirect the entire military-industrial complex into space travel... retain the same pork spending but use it for rockets that aren't designed to land on our neighbours. Nice compromise.
2 replies →
A waste of money to explore the cosmos? It’s our duty is it not? What exactly are you doing about kids starving?
2 replies →
> Honestly, it’s a waste of money. That’s my final answer, there’s kids that need food
NASA has a tiny budget - 0.35% of the US Federal budget. Kids aren't going hungry because of Artemis II. There are much better candidates to be upset about in that regard.
1 reply →
I find it crazy how whenever space stuff or even fundamental science stuff in general gets talked about, the its a waste of money crowd comes out. Everyone is totally fine with the AI bullshit of the day or the people spending millions on a start ups whose pitch is so stupid it sounds like something that would have been rejected from silicon valley the tv show, but suddenly if its for science its a bridge to far.
You want to save the world? by all means have at it. But let the science peeps do science things. Its not like the world would be any more saved if they weren't doing these things.
1 reply →
We're literally only doing it to beat the Chinese back. As a Gundam fan, I can't help but feel (likely misplaced and misguided) enthusiasm for the development of space, but objectively, this is a stunt, through-and-through. Trump-y on the Moon.
> there’s kids that need food…I’ve seen enough advanced technology for many lifetimes
I’m sure folks said the same before the Green Revolution. “Plants have always grown one way!”
A rat done bit my sister Nell. With Whitey (and Blackey) on the Moon...
Yeah. I've been excited about Artemis since the very start and have been following everything very closely. And of course I was excited about this launch.
But I'm gonna be honest, I'm not feeling any positive feelings here in the moment. It's an insane achievement, but it kind of means nothing for humanity. A nation's representatives literally popping champagne because they passed a law that will allow them to hang their hostages, just a day ago.
The engineering advancements that have been made during Artemis will be used to kill children tomorrow and the day after that. I have spent a large amount of my life in pursuit of knowledge about space exploration. I would give up any chance of ever knowing anything about space for the safety of those children. None of this hubristic rocket crap really matters in the end.
And I know, NASA and the military have always been intertwined, same coin, etc etc. But it stings harder specifically today. All tenets of the so-called "civilized western world" thrown out for greed and evil. We don't deserve space exploration right now.
@dang i know this is not super HN-friendly stuff here, delete if you must
JYNX, go read my comment!
1 reply →
[flagged]
The coming nuclear winter will solve climate change.
If your read is that this is a vanity project, I guess that's a take.
It's more of a DEI/Jobs program
It's being marketed like it's a vanity project, but it's not. This has been in the works for some time and so many people have given everything they have to make it happen.
Completely agree with you re: climate change being an existential threat, but disagree with your hyperbole about the US being the worst offender. The US should lead because they are supposed to be a world leader - but they alone are not singularly or in majority responsible for climate change.
Mixing fact and hyperbole together weakens your overall message.
I didn’t mean to be hyperbolic, for carbon footprint I’m looking at cumulative footprint since 1750 and not only recent annual footprint. I’m glad we agree, I take your notes.
You are right. China should be ashamed of itself.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I find it interesting the MSM is too busy sperging out about Trump to not treat this as page-three news and place it below the cut.
It's also the first woman and black guy to go to the moon, for those keeping score at home.
Trump scored an own goal. Military conflict tends to hijack the front page.
Did anyone else even know this was happening?
Really hoping those of us who think NASA has jumped the shark won't have to keep ourselves from saying "I told you so" next week out of respect for the dead.
This is four people putting their lives at risk for poor engineering and bad project management.
The "right stuff" applies to the engineers too, but they've all unfortunately left Boeing and NASA.
This opinion may be unpopular here but it's hard to get excited about a colossal waste of taxpayer money after all the damage DOGE did. I don't understand how these NASA missions with questionable scientific value and obscene budgets get off the ground.
I mean I do understand, NASA funding is important to oligarchs. But still.
I personally find the grind easier when there also big things happening. You can't just cook the same, most basic, cheapest meal every day for your family and expect them to be happy. Who wants to join a club that doesn't do anything interesting? Same with society. It sometimes needs to dream, to aspire and inspire. To lift peoples head from the toil and look up.
Artemis was already set in stone well before DOGE came about and IMO if the federal government is going to set mountains of cash on fire I'd rather it be to NASA than half the crap the government wastes every year.
My point is that DOGE killed a bunch of government programs that help people while saving no money, yet this giant waste of money survived. Cancelling Artemis II alone in favor of III would save a billion dollars by itself.
4 replies →
Good idea, we should divert taxpayer money to offshore wind and AI-powered food delivery startups instead.
Kelon Mus is surprised that the rocket didn't explode at all. “You can't learn anything from a rocket that doesn't explode,” Mus said.
Even I'm a big space fan, at moment I just can enjoy anything that comes from USA. I just can't applause to a super bully.
That's your own thing. Think about it to applause the dedicated work of people who have spent their life building these missions and have to do this work through multiple different administrations.
What a sad, disappointing instinct. It completely divorced from reality to assume that "enjoy[ing] anything that comes from [the] USA" implies any sort of political allegiance to whoever happens to sit in the Oval office at that particular point in time.
There's no way you're "a big space fan" if the first thing you think of when you see a rocket launch that was announced 9 years is Donald Trump.
Finally something interesting. I'm familiar with dead Internet theory, the whole Lindy thing where culture died in the early 2010's etc. Economy stinks, global violence everywhere.
Going back to the moon is really acceptable distraction. I mean that seriously. I know it's technically not new but it will be amazing to see modern video and photographic pictures of the moon close up.