5 ms·

NASA Names Astronauts to Next Moon Mission

40 points by radley 4y ago

areukiddingme 4y ago
[flagged]
cs702 4y ago
They look like they came out of a Hollywood movie set, but they're the real deal. They're going out there (or should I say "up there"?) to do important work, for the benefit of humankind: > The approximately 10-day Artemis II flight test will launch on the agency’s powerful Space Launch System rocket, prove the Orion spacecraft’s life-support systems, and validate the capabilities and techniques needed for humans to live and work in deep space. Congratulations to all of them!
- burkaman 4y ago
  I think that's just the results of a good photographer. They look like normal people to me but in very good lighting.
- zokier 4y ago
  For more hollywoodism, NASA also released a short video clip. Especially the intro definitely captures that "dramatic" look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPyl6d2FJGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPyl6d2FJGw
- tcmart14 4y ago
  Well not to mention, looking at their patches. They are military (active/retired), speculation would be military aviators. Reading the article a little, some are former fighter pilots, so it makes sense they look like they came off a movie set. Military aviators tend to be quiet fit. Niel Armstrong and many early astronauts were fighter pilots, Hollywood makes their actors look like the fighter pilots who went on the early missions. Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy? But yes, congrats to them all! Look forward to seeing this mission happen!
aero-glide2 4y ago
Very unpopular opinion : every dollar spent on SLS is a dollar spent on pushing back Spaceflight. Artemis 2 is not a milestone but a monumental mourning.
- pc86 4y ago
  As someone completely unfamiliar with SLS: why?
  - nickff 4y ago
    SLS is extremely expensive, has taken a long time, and will have a low mission frequency (if successful at all).
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    It's not perfectly efficient because it spends some of the budget on preventing congressional tampering and getting average americans interested in space. Apparently, if the government can't make a commercially competitive space program, we should just not have one at all.
    - pdabbadabba 4y ago
      > not perfectly efficient That's a bit of an understatement! It's estimated to cost $4.1 billion per launch--about double the already impressive $2 billion per launch that was originally budgeted. https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-22-003.pdf https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-22-003.pdf
    - Dig1t 4y ago
      If anyone has done the job of getting Americans interested in space, it has to be SpaceX. They have a huge following of young nerds who are getting into aerospace engineering because they do such a good job publicizing their development efforts. SLS is so embarrassingly outdated when compared to SpaceX, it has done the opposite for me, it just made me realize how antiquated and bloated government projects are. Maybe it's more a reflection on how poorly the contracts were managed, idk. But comparing SpaceX vs SLS launches, SLS is a marvelous failure by every metric.
cuteboy19 4y ago
>So you think they possibly saved 9950 lives, yet a vastly greater number live in poverty and a huge proportion of them are children with no access to healthcare and education, many of them begging in the streets. But yes let's give India a round of applause for finding a minor benefit to their $2bn spending on space exploration (also ignoring the fact that they are not really achieving new science that is not or could not be done by more developed nations). perhaps the time has come to ask a similar question. why is there a need to spend $93 billion on a vanity project when so many are begging in the streets?
simonblack 4y ago
An unpopular opinion I know, but NASA and the US is so broke that "NASA's Next Moon Mission" will never happen. Still, it's pleasant to dream.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

40 points by radley 4y ago

[flagged]

They look like they came out of a Hollywood movie set, but they're the real deal. They're going out there (or should I say "up there"?) to do important work, for the benefit of humankind: > The approximately 10-day Artemis II flight test will launch on the agency’s powerful Space Launch System rocket, prove the Orion spacecraft’s life-support systems, and validate the capabilities and techniques needed for humans to live and work in deep space. Congratulations to all of them!

burkaman 4y ago
I think that's just the results of a good photographer. They look like normal people to me but in very good lighting.
zokier 4y ago
For more hollywoodism, NASA also released a short video clip. Especially the intro definitely captures that "dramatic" look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPyl6d2FJGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPyl6d2FJGw
tcmart14 4y ago
Well not to mention, looking at their patches. They are military (active/retired), speculation would be military aviators. Reading the article a little, some are former fighter pilots, so it makes sense they look like they came off a movie set. Military aviators tend to be quiet fit. Niel Armstrong and many early astronauts were fighter pilots, Hollywood makes their actors look like the fighter pilots who went on the early missions. Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy? But yes, congrats to them all! Look forward to seeing this mission happen!

aero-glide2 4y ago

Very unpopular opinion : every dollar spent on SLS is a dollar spent on pushing back Spaceflight. Artemis 2 is not a milestone but a monumental mourning.

pc86 4y ago
As someone completely unfamiliar with SLS: why?
- nickff 4y ago
  SLS is extremely expensive, has taken a long time, and will have a low mission frequency (if successful at all).
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  It's not perfectly efficient because it spends some of the budget on preventing congressional tampering and getting average americans interested in space. Apparently, if the government can't make a commercially competitive space program, we should just not have one at all.
  - pdabbadabba 4y ago
    > not perfectly efficient That's a bit of an understatement! It's estimated to cost $4.1 billion per launch--about double the already impressive $2 billion per launch that was originally budgeted. https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-22-003.pdf https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-22-003.pdf
  - Dig1t 4y ago
    If anyone has done the job of getting Americans interested in space, it has to be SpaceX. They have a huge following of young nerds who are getting into aerospace engineering because they do such a good job publicizing their development efforts. SLS is so embarrassingly outdated when compared to SpaceX, it has done the opposite for me, it just made me realize how antiquated and bloated government projects are. Maybe it's more a reflection on how poorly the contracts were managed, idk. But comparing SpaceX vs SLS launches, SLS is a marvelous failure by every metric.

cuteboy19 4y ago

>So you think they possibly saved 9950 lives, yet a vastly greater number live in poverty and a huge proportion of them are children with no access to healthcare and education, many of them begging in the streets. But yes let's give India a round of applause for finding a minor benefit to their $2bn spending on space exploration (also ignoring the fact that they are not really achieving new science that is not or could not be done by more developed nations). perhaps the time has come to ask a similar question. why is there a need to spend $93 billion on a vanity project when so many are begging in the streets?

simonblack 4y ago

An unpopular opinion I know, but NASA and the US is so broke that "NASA's Next Moon Mission" will never happen. Still, it's pleasant to dream.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]