10 ms·
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
by adamsb6 6mo ago
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.
- willis936 6mo agoThat 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.
- propagandist 6mo agoSome people are great at self promotion.
- magicalist 6mo ago> Some people are great at self promotion. We're commenting on NASA's live stream that exists to get us pumped up about the tens of billions of dollars we overpaid for this launch. I'm probably much more happy than the next guy about getting to see a flyby of the moon this week even if I really wish we'd gotten here another way, but the accusation is a bit funny in this thread in particular.
- hluska 6mo agoAre you actually surprised that a livestream paid for my NASA would promote NASA? Geez, that’s innocent.
- propagandist 6mo agoNo, we're referring to the piece that was posted here on the previous day. You can search for Artemis on this site and read that piece.
- Betelbuddy 6mo agoThis is a NASA cover up: https://youtu.be/pzZWs7CexYI?t=78 https://youtu.be/pzZWs7CexYI?t=78 https://youtu.be/Wuao1LgO66w?t=218 https://youtu.be/Wuao1LgO66w?t=218
- xnx 6mo agoTruly. I'm not sure why anyone needs to be on the rocket at all, let alone our best and brightest.
- cogman10 6mo agoYeah. 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.
- dannyfreeman 6mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_I
- cogman10 6mo agoThanks. I should have looked this up before posting.
- areoform 6mo agoBecause 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/53/2/2.22/212515 https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/53/2/2.22... // https://lasp.colorado.edu/mop/files/2019/08/RobotMyth.pdf 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.
- mikkupikku 6mo agoIt'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.
- hypeatei 6mo ago> 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.
- zorobo 6mo ago> The odds are worse if you spin each time. How do they get worse if you spin? It’s still 1/6 odds of dying,iid events.
- lukan 6mo agoErm no. If it goes a round and gets passed without spinning, the chances change of course. It is 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, .. 1
- mikkupikku 6mo agoI didn't think of the gun getting passed around. To me, "one round" is pulling the trigger once after spinning the cylinder with one bullet. 1-in-6 chance of dying, you'll probably live. That's how I feel about this mission, I think they'll probably live, but man I'm nervous.
- cosmicgadget 6mo ago... 1/0
- hypeatei 6mo agoIt's 6/11 overall chance of dying if spinning, no? From a quick search, this page explains it: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/RussianRoulette.html https://mathworld.wolfram.com/RussianRoulette.html
- ck2 6mo agoI 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
- TeMPOraL 6mo agoThe 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.
- DrBazza 6mo agoSame. 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_2701000/2701693.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_2701000/27...
- russdill 6mo agoI 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.
- 4khilles 6mo agoThe heat shield is a bit different, and the reentry profile is a bit different as well.
- russdill 6mo agoI suppose "this will be the first time we can test this slightly modified heat shield in the slightly different pressures and temperatures that it will have to endure." isn't quite as eye catching.
- groby_b 6mo agoI mean, sure. But that's like equipping a sub with a screen door and claiming that in the grand scheme of things, it's a slightly different door with slightly different permeability characteristics.
- andrewflnr 6mo agoYeah, that's what "untested" means in spaceflight.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago> that's what "untested" means in spaceflight Sort of. At a certain threshold, everything is untested. I’d put this closer to modified than untested—the general config was tested in Artemis I and the specific configuration in a variety of ground tests.
- wat10000 6mo agoI'd say it's tested. It failed. Then they're flying it anyway. Wonderful stuff.