In the electric utility world we have a few IEEE standardized metrics (with appropriately IEEE'd acronyms) for tracking service reliability that I like much better and always wish for when I'm looking at a status page. Pie in the sky stuff for sure, nobody wants to do this analysis and publish the results without a regulator telling them have to, but c'est la vie.

SAIDI - System Average Interruption Duration Index. How many minutes an average customer experienced service interruption in a year. This is the big one I'd want to see on your service status page IMHO. For the power grid, we consider any outage longer than five minutes to be an interruption ("non-momentary outage").

SAIFI - System Average Interruption Frequency Index. How many total periods of interruption occurred for the average customer in a year.

CAIDI - Customer Average Interruption Duration Index. How long it takes service to be restored for the average customer when there is an interruption.

For the US, here is what these numbers look like: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_11_03.html. If you're outside the US look up yours and have a good laugh at us. :)

For the "right now" aspect you have probably visited your utility's outage map, but here I would say we do much better than most utilities. The level of detail on the investigation and resolution is often more detailed, and we usually know better than to bother providing much in the way of a concrete estimate for restoration time of a current outage (though this is getting better in the utility space).

But probably more likely is for this to have been a particularly energetic event in the tail of one of the known sources of neutron recoil detection they did model. More events needed!

I'd have liked to have heard more about the decision to checkpoint so frequently that put them on this path though. Presumably that's to keep the WAL tiny for very fast recovery. Trying to mitigate some of the deleterious effects of inserting a DBMS into your network layer, I suppose? Tricky stuff. Wonder how that compares to typical etcd snapshot frequencies too.

Unless folks are hearing that they did this I smell marketing and/or PR as the main driver of the action.

There are streamers who's whole thing is watching these alerts and setting up bobbleheads and glasses of water and stuff to show the shaking. It's so so so cool. Look at what we can do for each other you guys :')

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imH-ZyXwX5Q

Still, it's true that parts of the far side are still unseen by human eyes (if you consider pitch black landscape to be "unseen" which I think is fair given the lack of any significant illumination as you point out).

The thing that is happening for the first time on this mission is humans personally observing much of the far side in daylight. For the Apollo missions the far side was mostly dark because they wanted a high sun angle at the landing site on the near side. Many uncrewed orbiting cameras and even a recent Chinese lander & rover have taken photos of the far side.

It also states that these will be images "from the surface" of the Moon which is wildly off base. Artemis II is not landing... Of course it's true that this O2O technology could be used for high bandwidth livestreams from the surface on future missions, if this test works well.

I don't even think this O2O system will be used for live video during Artemis II. This and several other similar articles all appear to reference a NASA press release that is about the technology in general. The mission-specific NASA reference I found[1] says they will transmit a pre-recorded video "in the lunar vicinity" at 4k using the O2O system, so I would guess this claim of a "livestream" is just misstated.

[1]: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/a2-reference...

The idealist in me says we should still build a simple to use publishing and discovery system for hypertext that can be self-hosted and self-networked for the day the next generations realize they need it (authoritarian control of the Internet, collapse of social media, infrastructure instability, climate apocalypse, whatever). I suppose my idealism is still pretty pessimistic, but then it is Monday.

I'm not sure that's the right answer here, but I think it ticks a lot boxes for the state.

Reading between the lines of the summary a bit, it sure sounds like NASA program leadership was essentially doing pro bono PR for ol' pal Boeing at the expense of crew safety to placate Boeing's feeling of SpaceX being NASA's new favorite. Followed by Boeing again falling on the sea of sharp daggers held by their army of subcontractors.

That said, the announcement of this mishap reclassification does have a certain fleeting, bias-shaped odor, given Isaacman's proximity to Musk.