NASA officials sidestepped questions on Artemis II risks–there's a reason why | Hacker News Reader

NASA officials sidestepped questions on Artemis II risks–there's a reason why

arstechnica.com

10 pointsrbanffy6 comments

They have also refused to explain what caused a Dragon 8 crew member to be hospitalized, and what the private warning to SpaceX was for.

Why do you feel it's your business to demand the details of a private citizen's health?

Hmm I understand the issue but these guys choose to do this job. To work in an environment with life support systems the taxpayer paid millions for. They choose to go up there to do very public work for scientific benefit and finding out the way their health is affected is precisely one of the reasons we send people to the ISS in the first place. It's part of the experiment.

There should be some kind of clarity on this, not necessarily the details on the person's health situation but on anything related to the life support system, their activities in space etc. If it's something that's hereditary and would have been the exact same on earth ok. But otherwise there's at least a point to be made for some clarity. It should be part of the deal of going into space IMO. And it's not like anyone's asking to see their warts or rashes. But the issue was grave enough to prompt an emergency return. I don't blame people asking questions.

I am an engineer, I grew up dreaming about space, reading stories about the Apollo program and all. I would give up a lot to train as an astronaut and go to the Moon, so I totally understand why the people involved (including the astronauts, of course) love the idea.

But this is all paid by the public, and I don't get why the public would want to pay for that in 2026. Ok, it was exciting in the 60s. But now we know "it's just an expensive engineering problem", and it's virtually not bringing anything useful that couldn't be developed without wasting so much money into sending a handful of enthusiast humans in space.

I mean, by 2050 (or probably earlier, look at the news these last few years) it's likely that we will all have global instability issue: global warming, mass extinction, end of abundant fossil energy. Individually, each of those problems is life threatening. But somehow the people is agreeing to paying billions for... sending a handful of enthusiasts to Mars?

I just don't get it.

Feel exactly the same way.

All of the public money spent on going to the moon is really just a way to funnel $$ to a few sub-contractors the actual science value of going BACK to the moon is pretty low.

It takes such a huge amount of people time, effort, resources AND has an environmental impact to launch a payload into space, we should be expending these resources to help solve our societal/environmental issues, not for "showboat science".

> But this is all paid by the public, and I don't get why the public would want to pay for that in 2026.

The public never decided they wanted this.

Some senators decided they wanted to keep the old space shuttle jobs in their states. That's how this came to be.

The public didn't want it, NASA didn't want it. They could have had many automated actual science-delivering missions for the price of one rocket that's too expensive to even use more than a couple times and that will send a few people to a rock we've already been to for a photo op.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com