[jug]

I recommend https://issinfo.net/artemis over the surge of vibe coded Artemis II trackers. Seen two others so far and they've all had major inaccuracies either regarding trajectory, current distance, or current mission state. One even said the remaining mission time was over 400 days. They all obviously used Claude Code.

[solsane]

Just to be clear one glance and I can tell issinfo.net also used claude code

[ColinWright]

Absolutely ... https://issinfo.net/artemis is the one I use.

Great sense of scale, lovely to see the Moon apparently a long way from the "intercept" point, and it seems "accurate enough".

[spuz]

Thanks - it's very nice to have a progress bar that you can scrub through to see where and when they have been and will be later in the mission.

[codingmoh]

I did not use claude code, but codex, and I am fetching space weather from NOAA SWPc, trajectory, distance, speed, and comms delay are computed from NASA's published Artemis II mission plan parameters, not pulled live from NASA telemetry. Also, the current discrepancy is likely caused by the orbital phase and reference model being used. tracker shows about 192,000 km, while NASA's AROW shows about 80,000 miles, which is roughly 129,000 km. it is off by around 60,000 km. difference can happen because the spacecraft is in a elliptical orbit and different trackers may be using different assumptions, interpolation methods,... or reference points for the trajectory

[halfblood1010]

I really appreciate the idea and effort you put into building an Artemis 2 tracker dashboard. As an aerospace engineering student, I genuinely appreciate the information, the idea, and the effort that went into building this. The trajectory shape itself is technically a bit off, but honestly that doesn’t really matter here because the vast majority of people using the site aren’t aerospace engineers and aren’t looking for a perfectly modelled trajectory. They are looking for an accessible way to understand all the relevant information.

Also, it’s pretty common to see people immediately label projects as “AI slop.” There are quite a few folks who react that way right away, like @jug did here. That reaction is somewhat expected given how quickly AI has taken off and the existential/job-security concerns many computer engineers are dealing with right now, including the massive layoffs at Google 1-2 years ago.

At the end of the day, using AI to help write code is not that different from hiring a freelancer or contractor to implement parts of a project. The core idea, the decision to build it in the first place, the design choices, the testing, and the overall direction still come from humans. Those parts require thought, effort, and ownership, and that deserves appreciation. Either way, I think projects like this are valuable for sparking curiosity and making technical ideas more approachable to common people, which is always a good thing.