7 ms·
Artemis II is competency porn
- daymanstep 6mo agoI can't stop thinking about this article while reading this: https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly.htm https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly....
- moffkalast 6mo agoClearly in retrospect they made the right call to go ahead though. The heat shield held up fine. Arguably NASA played it extremely safe this time round, high first orbit, no direct TLI, no lunar orbit that you can't come back from if the engines don't fire back up. I think they're very aware of the poor quality of modern manufacturing they're working with, which is why it's all the more impressive that everything went as planned, Outlook aside. It's still extremely dumb they're throwing away RS-25 engines for this, but no competence survives contact with political management.
- rbanffy 6mo agoThat NASA’s budget is so influenced by politics is why they can’t take the rapid iteration process of SpaceX - NASA can never fail in public. Any failure (even launch delays, as happened with Challenger) gets blown out of proportion and fuels the risk of further budget cuts, which push them to a “safer”, incremental, but very costly process of refining what is already proven rather than researching the less proven technology.
- mPogrzeb 6mo agoExactly this
- eigenspace 6mo agoJust because the heat shield held up fine does not mean it was the right call. Nobody who knew anything was saying there was a 100% chance of catastrophic heat-shield failure, they weren't even saying there was a 50% chance. They were saying that there was a small chance of failure which was nonetheless unacceptably large. Quote from the blogpost about it being unsafe: "It’s likely—hopefully very likely—that Artemis II will land safely. But do we really have to wait for astronauts to die to re-learn the same lessons a third time?" NASA themselves set a safety target of a 1 in 30 chance of crew mortality for the mission. That's an insanely high risk tolerance for something that'd be so public, and would have been so incredibly demoralizing and tragic if the world had to watch this crew die on re-entry. With everything dark going on in the world right now, a lot of people saw this whole thing as a small glimmer of light and something to just be happy and excited about. Having them burn up and die after inspiring that hope would have been crushing.
- moffkalast 6mo agoSpace travel is not safe and never will be, you can always get randomly sideswiped by a piece of debris in LEO and that's that, even if everything goes perfectly. If the astronauts understand the risks involved then I would say it's their call. Living on Earth isn't safe for that matter, driving has a 1 in 100 chance of death throughout your lifetime, so that margin isn't significantly more given that you get to go to the frickin Moon. I don't really buy the "if they die, it strands human spaceflight for years out of PR reasons" argument since what that argues for and against has the same result: nobody goes space for a while. In the end there will always be someone willing to roll the dice. ESA is already playing it 100% safe, that niche is covered.
- dingaling 6mo agoThere's a difference between quantifiable but unmanageable situational risk and predictable, manageable technical risk. The heatshield issue is the latter. $100 billion has been spent on this project. Ablative heatshield coatings have been used since the Atlas ICBM in 1957. Yet they still flew Artemis with significant technical risk on a political grandstanding mission that delivered no significant science.
- newsclues 6mo agoThey didn’t even land the rockets for recovery. Regressing :(
- quater321 6mo ago[flagged]
- SirFatty 6mo ago[flagged]
- newsclues 6mo ago[flagged]
- nlitened 6mo agoIf you honestly care about these things so much, surely you’re a big Elon Musk and SpaceX fan
- newsclues 6mo agoNo, I care about the only planet I have to live on continuing to exist until I die.
- wookmaster 6mo agoThen you're probably concerned about the Falcon creating easy launches for mass numbers of satellites and the extra carbon footprint that new industry has. NASA here barely compares to the output of that of falcon.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- SirFatty 6mo agoRead what you typed and think about how absurd it sounds.
- quater321 6mo ago[flagged]
- quater321 6mo ago[flagged]
- gaigalas 6mo agoIt sent humans around the moon and back though. Can't say that about those other "advancing" programs yet. Little humility here goes a long way.
- rbanffy 6mo agoI will still wait for the heat shield analysis. Doing a crewed flight was not what I would have done - I’d use a Falcon Heavy to put one or more dummies through different trajectories to make sure we have enough experimental data to extensively model the shield behaviour, especially in non-nominal entries.
- gaigalas 6mo agoFalcon Heavy cannot carry Orion.
- rbanffy 6mo agoIt can carry an Orion capsule to a suborbital trajectory and achieve the same reentry speeds the capsule experiences returning from the Moon. The trick is doing a second burn pointing down. If you don't use an actual Orion but just a mass simulator, you can even do some very off-nominal reentries to test limits. There is ample delta-v for that.
- gaigalas 6mo agoCan you elaborate more on that? I don't understand how the coupling between Orion and Falcon Heavy would be done (can't just put it inside the fairing). I also don't understand how you plan to re-light the engines on the 3 falcon cores for a second burn (required for the delta-v you propose) and the fuel economics. I also don't understand the trajectory you envision. Even if you could re-light the FH engines and couple Orion to it, I don't understand how you would get the re-entry angle correct. Regarding the mass simulator, it's not clear by your description how the shields would be tested in that scenario. Let's not leave it to the reader's imagination. If you're seeing something that I'm not, please, lay out the plan in more detail.
- rbanffy 6mo ago> I don't understand how the coupling between Orion and Falcon Heavy would be done (can't just put it inside the fairing). A mechanical coupling is not that difficult to design. There needs to be no communication between FH and Orion for this use case. It could be mounted with the shield on top to simplify the mechanism. Separation could be purely mechanical, with springs. > I also don't understand how you plan to re-light the engines on the 3 falcon cores for a second burn (required for the delta-v you propose) and the fuel economics. Reignite only the second stage. Instead of putting the payload in orbit, put it on a suborbital trajectory with a high apogee, then boost down to hit the atmosphere at the desired speed and angle. > I also don't understand the trajectory you envision. Even if you could re-light the FH engines and couple Orion to it, I don't understand how you would get the re-entry angle correct. You have the delta-v - just use it in the right orientation. An Orion is lighter than the payload to LEO of the FH, so there will be a lot of propellant for the boost up and the boost down. > Regarding the mass simulator, it's not clear by your description how the shields would be tested in that scenario. The shield doesn't care what's inside the Orion - it cares about mass. You might need some attitude control (you can use flywheels) and parachutes if you want to recover anything, but all the rest is optional.
- HPsquared 6mo agoAre there any big technological advances from this program?
- irdc 6mo agoRight now all I can think of is the toilet. Which is not a small thing by the way.
- rbanffy 6mo agoThey might have found a way of having two versions of Outlook and at least one of them working. A lot of it is relearning what was forgotten after the Apollo and shuttle programs. The technologies changed so much it’s a whole new spacecraft that looks like what existed only because that’s the best possible shape.
- PaulHoule 6mo agoIf I am not careful I wind up with two Outlooks running in my computer. ‘Classic’ is fine, but God forbid I start the other one because when I try to send an email with it is spinner… spinner… spinner… spinner… spinner…
- rbanffy 6mo agoI actually like the new one better, but that's not saying I like either. I would just love if my workplace let me use the normal Apple apps, but there are regulatory constrains Apple tools don't meet (such as spying on me to prevent data exfil)
- Tuna-Fish 6mo agoArtemis II is basically a test mission for Orion. And while flippantly Orion isn't doing anything that Apollo didn't do first, it definitely does it with a lot more margin, more living space, more safety and redundancy, and an actual toilet instead of gross poop bags you had to manipulate your waste into.
- 6mo ago
- sweetheart 6mo agoI didn’t follow the mission much as it occurred, but it’s striking to me how much I understand what the author means. Feels like the first event in many, many years that doesn’t amplify the feeling of being in the absurdist nightmare timeline. Artemis II felt like a 2013 event, not a 2026 event!
- ArcHound 6mo agoI can't believe the comments here. "I could have done it better, it's not a big deal, oh, they had women and non white people on board, what even is the shareholder value of this mission, oh it was almost done 50 years ago..." These people went literally to the moon and back. Furthest anyone has ever been. That's an achievement. I know things suck right now. Even more reasons to appreciate what is possible with technology. I agree with the premise of this article. This achievement is inspiring and re-assuring that competency brings results. The alternative is way too depressing AND it mostly is our reality right know.
- newsclues 6mo agoIt’s a 50 year old achievement. I couldn’t do it personally but as a nation or humanity, we can do better, even if it was hard. What year did nasa land on the moon again?
- ArcHound 6mo agoThanks, edited my comment to reflect this reply.
- saidnooneever 6mo agoyou should not ask why they went to the moon again, but ask about why they went to the moon again NOW. you will see why the whole ordeal was super polished etc. not to the detriment of nasa nor astronauts or anyone involved. they are doing science and pretty epic things. so then maybe you can allow to detach your sentiment from the science and acheivement and place it on the appropriate point. (us leadership and their wars needing to give ppl a bit of dopamine because the populus is getting saturated with bad news). Also, i kinda doubt as a nation or humanity you would do better. i dont know who you are , but this is saying you will be better than some of the brightest minds working at esa, spacex, nasa and chinese, indian, russian equavalents etc as humanity ... yeah. good luck getting people to work together more than they already do... do you think no one is trying it??? what is your grand plan? how would you do it better? you cant just make such claims willynilly..show credentials and proof you can do it.
- 6mo ago
- PaulHoule 6mo agoYeah, but they still don’t have a realistic plan to land astronauts there. Like the space shuttle before it, Artemis proves that nobody can beat the US at spending money on boondoggles. Lunar missions are inconsequential to problems here on Earth like we can’t afford to build high-speed rail and transit, that we can’t build housing affordable or otherwise, that we already lost the next war to Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, won’t build affordable electric cars, etc. What we need is affordability porn!
- splitbrainhack 6mo ago[flagged]
- ArtRichards 6mo agoThis article was a really uplifing take... Happy to see more about how awesome we can be, when we care.
- Chance-Device 6mo agoI haven’t paid any attention to the mission, and there’s something about the framing of this article that I don’t like, as if it’s talking about a soap opera or reality TV or something. It just rubs me up the wrong way.
- dextrous 6mo agoI agree. Even though I thought this mission was interesting, to me the article massively overstates everything. NASA and the crew is SO amazingly competent, the world in recent years is SO totally devoid of competency, everyone has been thirsting for the sense of AWE that we are ALL feeling (or should be feeling now, let me list the reasons!), etc. To me, this was irritating. True competency and things that inspire real awe encapsulate “res ipsa loquitur” — they speak for themselves. Having some internet influencer try to hype me into getting awed, and implying that “we all” are feeling a certain way as she channels our collective zeitgeist is tiresome. And personally, IMO although the mission was nice, it wasn’t groundbreaking technically or particularly awe-inspiring. Ironically, I left feeling a tiny bit disappointed: if everyone is truly thinking this mission is the height of awesomeness or competency, we have a low-ish bar. I bet that when the old-timers with their starched white shirts, pocket protectors, and horn-rimmed glasses that did the 60s missions got together to watch 2026 Artemis they privately had a good laugh about how little state-of-the-art has progressed.
- jdthedisciple 6mo ago[flagged]
- DonHopkins 6mo ago>"the patriarchy is living through it's last tantrum". Enough said... That's more than enough tantrum from you, whining baby. Hush!
- jdthedisciple 6mo ago[flagged]
- DonHopkins 6mo agoYour racist bullshit qualifies as an infantile tantrum. Grow up.
- jdthedisciple 6mo agoRacist too now, interesting. Anyway I see you been fighting people left and right on here recently so I'm gonna assume you're just havin a rough time lately and show some sympathy. Enjoy a fresh drink in the spring sun and breathe a little perhaps, cheers!
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- Simulacra 6mo agoI'm just glad they made it back alive.. Now let's build a moon base!
- jFriedensreich 6mo agoAs a german, seeing you go to the moon under trump feels like celebrating the olympics in the dawn of the german reich, it cannot be taken for what it is. It does not matter what we feel, what we want to feel, we can enjoy it for a second and then swallow it down and not write an article like that.
- thomasdziedzic 6mo ago> under trump feels like celebrating the olympics in the dawn of the german reich Godwin's law... > it cannot be taken for what it is. It does not matter what we feel, what we want to feel, we can enjoy it for a second and then swallow it down and not write an article like that. As an American, I felt extremely proud seeing 4 astronauts (3 Americans, 1 Canadian) come back after 10 days in space and the amount of coordination it takes, regardless of politics.
- verdverm 6mo agoAs an American, I don't understand why we need to waste money to be on the moon. There are better things we could be doing, regardless of politics.
- slumberlust 6mo agoThere's no guarantee that money wouldn't just be allocated to the dod.
- thomasdziedzic 6mo ago> I don't understand why https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/ https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/ tldr: for science and a stepping stone towards a crewed mission to Mars
- ButlerianJihad 6mo agoI was wearing my NASA shirt last Monday when a neighbor quizzed me on the mythical "Crewed Mission to Mars". I told him that it seemed quite absurd and unattainable, at present or near-future levels of technology. I told him, we could probably send a crew, as long as we didn't expect to get them back! Going to LEO with the ISS has been an amazing achievement, and we (mankind) have proven that it's a sustainable thing: to maintain a crewed station in orbit, and send regular resupply missions up there. It's been a landmark of cooperation, even while USA-Russian relations are frosty. Now, getting to the Moon and landing on it is also an achievement. Putting a crewed station in permanent orbit around the Moon, or a permanent crewed Moonbase, would be an important milestone, but we must understand that those goals are orders-of-magnitude harder than what the ISS has done. Humans going to Mars, on the other hand, is absurd, and would be so performative in the first place. You could, hypothetically, send all your cargo up to Mars first, in advance of the crew, and then the crew could utilize the cargo upon arrival. Perhaps. But we simply couldn't count on the survival of a return-crew mission to Mars. It's a full 6 months in transit, one-way! Anyone who has ever seen an ISS Expedition get dragged out of their capsule, loaded onto gurneys, and wheeled into the hospital, you will know that a 6-month weightless journey will incapacitate each and every person who goes. I once heard an ISS astronaut describe the things they're "not allowed to do" by NASA after arriving home. They need to re-learn many gravity-bound skills. They aren't even allowed to go jogging! They would hit Mars and be utterly useless as human beings, much less scientists or explorers. The reality of the mythical Mars mission is that it's a pipe-dream which is sold to us by the military-industrial complex in order to fund their current missions and current science, which achieves achievable things, mostly with robots. And I'm fine with sending robots to Mars and Europa and Uranus. Sending humans is counterproductive.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- b0rtb0rt 6mo agoi hate this “____ porn” terminology