It would seem the forewarning depends a lot on the distance from the epicentre. This quake, for Tokyoites, was far enough from them that they could beat the earthquake's speed. I'm fairly certain the people on the East Coast near the quake got no notification ahead of the event.
I was in a chat with people in NYC when it hit. They got advance notice, although it was just “why is everything shaking?” Followed by me going silent for a bit, so they didn’t know what was going on until it reached them.
I was thinking of the more recent quake which I very much felt and heard in my older detached home in Queens. I was in Farmingdale out in Suffolk during the 2011 quake. I got up to walk from my desk, took a few steps then suddenly became disoriented for a few seconds as if I was dizzy. Then my coworker shouts "Holy shit did you just feel that? That was an earthquake!"
Why are you only talking about gamers? Apple, the most cautious planners in the whole industry have straight up cancelled their 512gb RAM Mac Studio. Don’t ask; they won’t sell you one.
What does pressing this button even DO? Pressing the floppy disk saves. LLMs cannot be reduced to a mere button, and that's a whole problem with Microsoft's strategy. They seem laser-focused, for financial reasons, to reduce all of AI's myriad possibilities to a single button/identity.
I’d argue it is Microsoft’s own damn fault. They seem to have completely abandoned improving their system, in favour of dumping everything in their apps. Apple has introduced writing tools at the OS level, so you can use their LLM in TextEdit and no one complains.
I'm sorry; I meant no one complains that AI is inside TextEdit specifically. People complain (including me!) about Apple's terrible AI strategy in general.
They absolutely knew that they were making a platform that needed as much hardware independence as possible. The 512k was already in development before they even finished the original, and they had the experience of the Apple II, which for all of Wozniak’s legendary work, was a dead-end because it relied too heavily on hardware hacks.
I’d bet a million dollars that Orion will win every safety metric compared to the shuttle once it is retired. NASA deluded itself in thinking the Shuttle was safe. The reality is that the Shuttle was the most dangerous spaceship anyone ever built.
That's physically not possible due to the distances and energies involved. Even with the Commercial Cargo and Crew Program (C3P), NASA has set the acceptable mortality threshold at 1 in 270 over the entire mission and 1 in 1000 on ascent / descent. If they could set it higher by gaming the math, they would. They can't.
We're a very primitive species, and the forces involved here are genuinely new. And no, Apollo wasn't much better either, at least 10 astronauts were killed in training or burned alive (8 NASA, 2 sister MIL programs), as well as (far worse, because astronauts sign up for the risk) one member of ground staff.
People love to hate the Shuttle, and it ended up being subpar / fail expectations due to the political constraints NASA was under, but the Shuttle was a genuine advance for its time – a nonsensical, economically insane advance, but still an advance. If you look at the Shuttle alternative proposals / initial proposals as well as stuff like Dynasoar and Star Raker, you'll see NASA iterating through Starship style ideas. But those were rejected due to higher up front capital investment at the time.
The Shuttle is an odd franken-turduckling, because it was designed for one mission and one mission only. And that mission never happened. That cargo bay existed to capture certain Soviet assets and deploy + task certain American space assets and then bring them back to Earth.
And that's the bit that's hard to emphasize. The fact that the Shuttle could put a satellite up there, watch it fail, then go back up, grab it, bring it back, repair it, then launch again was an insane capability.
Was the program a giant fuck up at the end? Yes. But does that mean Artemis will be safer than the Shuttle? No. That's not how the energetics, time from civilization, acceptable risk profiles etc. work out.
How could a comparison between such dissimilar programs ever be meaningful? NASA flew 135 Shuttle missions over the course of 30 years; Orion will be doing well to approach a tenth of that number.
I think we are a long way along from digging out Dr Feynman to look into why a shuttle exploded.
Unless you happen to have some deep links into NASA, in which case please elucidate us all, then why not celebrate a happy and safe return from a sodding dangerous mission that involved things like >25,000 mph relative velocity and some remarkable navigation.
When you depart earth (close quarters gravity, air resistance, things in the way), everything moves really fast, really fast and any acceleration becomes an issue really ... fast!
The moon moves, the earth moves: both famously in some sort of weird dance around each other and both orbit around the sun. Obviously the moon affects the earth way less than vice versa but it still complicates things.
I think that NASA did a remarkable job of making Artemis II look almost routine and I don't think that was down to behaving as they did in the past.
> I think that NASA did a remarkable job of making Artemis II look almost routine and I don't think that was down to behaving as they did in the past.
I have been excited for Artemis--yes it's big and expensive and late, but look how it has brought out the best of what humans can be--but, despite all that, the heat shield situation was textbook "normalization of deviance." Just as the O-rings were not designed to have any damage but they retroactively justified it was okay, just as there was not supposed to be any foam or tile damage but they retroactively justified it was okay, so too was the Artemis I heat shield not supposed to come back with damage, but they...
I'm not trying to be negative, and risks are inevitable, but the resemblance to me was uncanny. The lesson with normalization of deviance is that a successful result does not inherently mean a safe decision. After all, most of the time that you play Russian Roulette you will escape unharmed.
Actually the heat shield was the exact opposite of normalization of deviance. When the Artemis I heat shield behaved in an unmodeled way, they spent two years analyzing the issue, modified their test system to create all conditions of reentry, came up with a new model that took into account more variables and explained the results seen on Artemis I, then duplicated those results in test to confirm. The condition of the Artemis II heat shield is a sign that they were most likely correct.
I still think they shouldn’t have flown astronauts on Artemis II without an unmanned flight to reduce risk, including other systems like ECLSS as well as the heat shield. But it was the opposite of normalization of deviance.
That's a fair point: they did tests and made changes to adjust for what they found, and that isn't normalization. That is a contrast to prior experiences
I was drawing the comparison through the lens of using hardware that was known to be flawed for the mission by convincing themselves it was actually fine. Particularly since they did redesign the heat shield based on the analysis, but it was too late to install on Artemis II, so that new shield will debut with Artemis III
I agree that in sum, it would have been nice to be able to do an unmanned test, but that would have been an exceedingly difficult and expensive decision to make. I look forward to seeing the results for the Artemis II heat shield
There will always be issues on something a mad as putting some people on a firework and shooting them at a moving target 100,000 miles away from a moving platform.
The heat shield failure was a test and the result was a working heat shield, when it counted. That's the point of tests. NASA already had several working heat shields from the old missions but the new one needed testing - for the shape of the craft etc. They already had a lot of data from the old efforts (that worked).
I think that exit and re-entry are almost routine now, provided your rocket doesn't explode. The tricky bit is out there in space and trying to make the moon a resource of some sort.
The new one failed in ways it was not designed to fail. In C-compiler terms it was "undefined behavior." In Donald Rumsfeld terms it was an "unknown unknown."
The mere fact that the outcome was successful does not inherently indicate that the decision-making was safe: the O-rings "worked" for 24 missions and the foam/tiles "worked" for 111. Nevertheless there were ample warnings and close calls.
Reentry from the Moon is not routine. Re-entry speed was about 40% faster than from low earth orbit, and kinetic energy goes up by the square, so about double.
Yes, and the four RS-25 main engines on the SLS rocket (Space Launch System) are literally SSME's harvested from the shuttles (Space Shuttle Main Engine). Of course that means they are re-usable. So sad to see them plummet to the ocean floor. Perversely Rocketdyne is building cheaper non-reusable versions of the RS-25 for future missions.
The Artemis SRBs incorporate design changes to address the causes of the Challenger failure. Specifically they changed the joint design, added another o-ring, and they have electric joint heaters to keep the seals warm.
Yes, Challenger - although program management knew they were violating a launch constraint (temperature), and it was the low temperature that produced the conditions necessary for SRB failure.
As with any aerospace mishap, it's a chain of events, not just one cause.
I believe what it destroyed was the strut holding the booster to the tank. When the strut burned through the assembly came apart and aerodynamic forces did the remainder of the destruction.
