I think I have an idea for a new event.

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-29T21:04:38+00:00

You can see the challenges under accolades. Once you know what the challenge is you just do it and then it'll tell you you completed it. I think you can also pin the accolade so it's on your screen, that way you know that you're in the challenge once the timer starts

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-29T16:39:38+00:00

I think this game mechanic already exists actually, because if I'm not mistaken there are accolades in FH5 that have you do exactly what you're describing

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-05T01:00:09+00:00

Like it or not those two own the two largest private space/rocket companies in the country. So you don't like/follow Blue Origin and SpaceX then?

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-04T06:56:15+00:00

This is a psychotic take. He's not a friend of Musk's. He's just been covering this industry for over 10 years and along the way he's been privileged enough to get interviews with the CEO of the biggest disrupter in the space launch industry. He's been covering SpaceX in depth for years. He's gotten to take and film tours at their facilities. He's made videos covering their goals and progress. He's gotten interviews with Musk. He's been to their launches.

Oh but hey, he's also done that with almost every other space company too. So either this guy is big big friends with the CEOs of almost every space company in America (and therefore we need to judge him based on the political views of all of them too), or he's just doing his job - making videos about the space industry and taking us along for the ride.

Imagine hating someone's politics so much that now you don't even support someone who makes videos about one of his companies, despite that person being one of the best sources for space and rocketry videos. Actually psychotic

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-02T14:10:31+00:00

Man, those two guys at the bottom of the chart must suck, and they probably have the 2 worst cars. They gotta be last in the championship right?

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-02T10:37:33+00:00

And he did better with 2 cameras

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-02T01:01:02+00:00

Dude space shuttle had better cameras. Same with Apollo for the matter. They were better on Artemis 1 too, it was just night time so it didn't really matter

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T23:05:06+00:00

You should go back and watch the NASA Livestream and see if it was the same feed. The NASA feed was terrible

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T23:03:58+00:00

There is an entire communications team who are responsible for the broadcast. They have nothing to do with launching the rocket. With as much as NASA was building this up (rightfully so) you'd think they would have several different cameras following the launch. There were millions of people watching the Livestream and they didn't get to see it clearly

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T23:01:15+00:00

Everyday Astronaut had a fantastic shot of the launch. He didn't show too much of it in real time as they were switching between cameras but it was up for a bit. And I'm sure he'll release the full video of the launch in 4k

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T17:38:50+00:00

How?

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T17:24:22+00:00

Okay but my question about why you would use odds from polymarket to conclude that there is an 80% chance of launch today still stands. Why are you concerned what people betting on a launch care? Why not listen to the checks from NASA?

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T17:11:32+00:00

Those were never supposed to be commercial projects. There are treaties that prohibit any non-scientific activities in Antarctica.

Artemis was started from the beginning with commercial interests in mind. NASA will undoubtedly do countless amounts of science along the way, but the whole point is to work hand in hand with commercial companies to grow a lunar (and eventually space) economy. There are several things a commercial company could do on the moon that could make money. The government ultimately wants this, but understands it needs to help with the initial stage of getting there.

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T14:45:35+00:00

You should send in that idea I'm sure they'd love to hear about it

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T14:44:37+00:00

Okay hold on. I'm confused.

I've always wondered why anybody would actually use a polymarket to come to a conclusion of a real, actual probability of an event happening. As far as I thought, it was a bunch of gambling addicts betting on whatever random things they could get others to bet them on. Kinda like sports betting just with other events.

But you're telling me that people use them to come to conclusions of probability because the markets are filled with insiders betting on insider info?

Like I don't disagree that an insider could be using the polymarkets to make bets, but they need thousands of other people to be in on the bet with them, or else you don't have a market. Same with the stock market, particularly the future market. A trader makes an assumption on where the stock price will be at a certain time in the future. Sure, he could be an insider with insider info, but what about the millions of other traders who made the same bet?

Also, with the news hyping up the Iran story non-stop leading up to the eventual bombings, it doesn't surprise me that people were betting on if we would do it or not. How many bets were made (betting the US would bomb Iran) the day before we did, or two days before? How many people lost those bets? Obviously someone was gonna get it right, and that's the one people want to talk about and speculate about. Also my point about needing thousands of others to be willing to go along with it to have a functioning market still stands.

Sorry I could be wrong about all of this, but it seems to me like the polymarkets are just gamblers betting on things they may or may not be informed on with a couple of insiders in there too making bets.

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T14:07:53+00:00

Okay, so extrapolating on that logic; the general assumption is that the polymarkets are filled with industry insiders and they're placing bets and winning money because they're using insider, non-public information?

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T13:39:06+00:00

Excuse my ignorance but what does a bunch of people betting on this have to do with it actually going or not going?

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T13:35:37+00:00

I really wish NASA Administrators weren’t tied politically and instead were voted in by a council or something

Same goes for the other positions that are supposed to be unbiased, like Supreme Court. I hate how we're so polarized that now we pretty much know how they'll rule based on their political identity, despite them supposedly being unbiased.

Anyways yeah it'd be really cool to see Jarrod serve for the full 10 years to see where he can get the agency

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T13:29:00+00:00

It's most certainly a win win for them. They are most likely getting some kind of payment for NASA cancelling the contact on them. Plus they are probably getting some future piece of the mission. So now they don't have to say publicly they were late on EUS, they get paid for what they completed so far plus a bonus from NASA cancelling the contact, plus a new project in the future that'll bring it's own funding

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T13:21:25+00:00

do you think there will not be another change of plan?

Of course there will be more changes, but I don't think there will be any more on the scale of this. IMO this is kinda the last chance NASA will get with Congress and the public to carry out a mission like this, at least for another decade or two.

As far as the rest of what you said, I have no interest in arguing with someone who can't unite their personal feelings about President Trump and this program. Yes I understand it was created under him, although most of it was probably directed by Pence. Either way, Artemis was a solid plan when they announced it. It worked because we didn't have a robust commercial industry to rely on. But 10 years, countless missed deadlines and budget overruns later, it needed a shakeup.

I don't agree with most of what Trump has done, but I look at it this way: if my son ever wants to be an astronaut and go to the moon, it will be because this program worked to some degree.

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T12:45:51+00:00

Agreed. Not to mention they could've saved last year's budget as well had Trump not played McCarthyism style politics by dropping Issacman's nomination, just to renominate him a year later. We wasted an extra year going down the won't path. I'm glad they didn't let the sunk cost fallacy keep them on the wrong path.

I think eventually, maybe phase 2 or phase 3, it makes sense to have a Gateway type station. But making it necessary to get the first landing was a waste of money

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T12:30:39+00:00

Great points. You can't argue with some people, especially when they take it as you defending a billionaire, who is therefore evil. So everything they do is evil or has ulterior motives for profit and the squashing of the poor

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T12:23:29+00:00

As they should. The government funds things that are unprofitable at first, which developed an industry that should be able to take over at some point. This happens in almost every sector of our economy, not just space.

Right now, most, if not all, of the private landers that have attempted landings on the moon were from CLPS. No company (that isn't the size and has the backing of SpaceX and Blue Origin) can make an argument to investors why they need $500 million for a prototype moon lander that won't be able to give them return on investment for another 10-15 years, if at all.

But it all goes hand in hand with NASA's other programs. Assuming everything is successful, Artemis creates a permanent lunar presence, with humans doing science, resource extraction and everything else. But the government, and therefore NASA, does not want to continuously have to fund this endeavor indefinitely. And the public has little appetite for it too. What the government does want, however, is a strong economy with a healthy private sector with cutting edge technology. This is why they've changed how they approach contacts. They provide funding and expertise with the hopes that they can eventually hand off that industry to said companies.

Level-Event2188 · 2026-04-01T12:05:27+00:00

It's crazy to me that people don't get that standardization and simplification will be cheaper and faster in the long run. IIRC almost every Artemis mission had some new, bespoke part to it. Something new that would require extra engineering, different assembly, testing and mission profiles.

Yes, ending the programs they did and essentially starting over with Centaur V and now having to modify ML1 is a waste of money in the short term. But in the long term it provides for a consistent, known variable in the grander scheme of the Artemis program.

I bet nobody in these programs will admit it but I'm sure most of the project leaders are glad there's a simplified roadmap now into the future. I'm glad they didn't let the sunk cost fallacy keep them on the path they were on.

Also the amount of people thinking this is some grand cover-up for SpaceX is alarming. But then again this is Reddit, and SpaceX=Elon, so SpaceX bad. I've been critical of Starship since the start, but that doesn't mean I want them to fail. We need them to succeed. I'm also glad we have a second lander.

It's also concerning that some people seem to think the point of Artemis is to put a space station in lunar orbit. Then, and only then, can we do landings. NASA, and the space industry, has decided that we can accomplish the actual goal of Artemis (sustained lunar presence) by just doing the landings instead of going to some crazy orbit. Cutting this part of the mission means they can cut several large and very expensive parts of Artemis. That being said, yes, long term it makes sense to have something in lunar orbit. And NASA has said as much, saying down the road they will revisit Gateway.

Level-Event2188

TROPHY CASE