8 ms·

Truly. I'm not sure why anyone needs to be on the rocket at all, let alone our best and brightest.

by xnx 7mo ago

cogman10 7mo ago
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.
- dannyfreeman 7mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_I
  - cogman10 7mo ago
    Thanks. I should have looked this up before posting.
areoform 7mo ago
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/53/2/2.22/212515 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.
- teraflop 7mo ago
  How does any of that matter for this mission, which will not be landing on the moon?
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > How does any of that matter for this mission This is a fair question. The closest answer I can get is eyes and ears onboard complement sensors.
    - TeMPOraL 7mo ago
      It's also rehearsing/testing/experience gathering for an eventual mission that will land people on the Moon again. Missions don't happen in isolation.
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > Missions don't happen in isolation True. I wasn’t thinking about training the ground crews.
        TeMPOraL 7mo ago
        Only in the last few minutes, the livestream actually covered various goals this mission - explicitly a test mission - is meant to achieve. For example, one they just mentioned is they're going to be doing some docking maneuvers practice. This is not just training the current flight crew and ground crews, but is also generally testing the entire system - including operations and hardware too, with feedback important to logistics and component manufacturers, etc. With possible exception of Falcon 9 launches, space missions are still infrequent enough that each of them is providing knowledge and experience meaningfully relevant to all work in and adjacent to space exploration and space industry.
        JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
techteach00 7mo ago
Because they want to be on the rocket. To see the moon up close with your own eyes? It's spiritual.
- palata 7mo ago
  I understand why they want to fly. I don't understand why the people is fine paying taxes for that.
  - anon291 7mo ago
    Independent of how scientifically awesome this is, this is probably the most cost effective long term propaganda. Why waste money on posters when you can orbit the moon.
  - TeMPOraL 7mo ago
    Some are. Money being fungible and all, the rest can pretend their tax money is going exclusively to their favorite programs, whether that's healthcare or environment or building roads or starting wars or funding more startups or whatever.
  - hn_acc1 7mo ago
    The space program has created some great technology we use every day now.
    - palata 7mo ago
      That we probably could have developed without the space program for a fraction of the cost, if we're being honest.
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > That we probably could have developed without the space program for a fraction of the cost, if we're being honest I don't think so. Some people are good at small tasks and stewardship. Some people want to ambitiouslyl build. If there isn't a space program, the engineers who were inspired to join NASA cannot be assumed to have gone into semiconductors or material science. They probably wound up, in the alternate timeline, bureaucrats or financiers.
sandworm101 7mo ago
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.
InexSquirrel 7mo ago
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.
- Animats 7mo ago
  > I suspect it's the optics of it. That's probably the justification for sending four people. First test flight probably could have been done with one or two pilots.
kube-system 7mo ago
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. :)
randomNumber7 7mo ago
[flagged]

Truly. I'm not sure why anyone needs to be on the rocket at all, let alone our best and brightest.

by xnx 7mo ago

Truly. I'm not sure why anyone needs to be on the rocket at all, let alone our best and brightest.

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.

dannyfreeman 7mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_I
- cogman10 7mo ago
  Thanks. I should have looked this up before posting.

areoform 7mo ago

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/53/2/2.22/212515 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.

teraflop 7mo ago
How does any of that matter for this mission, which will not be landing on the moon?
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > How does any of that matter for this mission This is a fair question. The closest answer I can get is eyes and ears onboard complement sensors.
  - TeMPOraL 7mo ago
    It's also rehearsing/testing/experience gathering for an eventual mission that will land people on the Moon again. Missions don't happen in isolation.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > Missions don't happen in isolation True. I wasn’t thinking about training the ground crews.
      - TeMPOraL 7mo ago
        Only in the last few minutes, the livestream actually covered various goals this mission - explicitly a test mission - is meant to achieve. For example, one they just mentioned is they're going to be doing some docking maneuvers practice. This is not just training the current flight crew and ground crews, but is also generally testing the entire system - including operations and hardware too, with feedback important to logistics and component manufacturers, etc. With possible exception of Falcon 9 launches, space missions are still infrequent enough that each of them is providing knowledge and experience meaningfully relevant to all work in and adjacent to space exploration and space industry.
        JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

techteach00 7mo ago

Because they want to be on the rocket. To see the moon up close with your own eyes? It's spiritual.

palata 7mo ago
I understand why they want to fly. I don't understand why the people is fine paying taxes for that.
- anon291 7mo ago
  Independent of how scientifically awesome this is, this is probably the most cost effective long term propaganda. Why waste money on posters when you can orbit the moon.
- TeMPOraL 7mo ago
  Some are. Money being fungible and all, the rest can pretend their tax money is going exclusively to their favorite programs, whether that's healthcare or environment or building roads or starting wars or funding more startups or whatever.
- hn_acc1 7mo ago
  The space program has created some great technology we use every day now.
  - palata 7mo ago
    That we probably could have developed without the space program for a fraction of the cost, if we're being honest.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > That we probably could have developed without the space program for a fraction of the cost, if we're being honest I don't think so. Some people are good at small tasks and stewardship. Some people want to ambitiouslyl build. If there isn't a space program, the engineers who were inspired to join NASA cannot be assumed to have gone into semiconductors or material science. They probably wound up, in the alternate timeline, bureaucrats or financiers.

sandworm101 7mo ago

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.

InexSquirrel 7mo ago

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.

Animats 7mo ago
> I suspect it's the optics of it. That's probably the justification for sending four people. First test flight probably could have been done with one or two pilots.

kube-system 7mo ago

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. :)

randomNumber7 7mo ago

[flagged]