| ▲ | Rooster61 6 hours ago |
| I'm very, very concerned for the astronauts piloting this upcoming trans-lunar flight. Given that Boeing, well, does Boeing things, the current state of NASA in this political climate, and the fact that problems keep arising with this current stack, it makes me feel that there is a significant chance of issues mid-flight. Godspeed to them, hopefully I'm being overly dour. |
|
| ▲ | kilroy123 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Sadly, I feel the same way. Here's a great video of Starliner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L96asfTvJ_A |
| |
|
| ▲ | russellbeattie 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You summarized my concerns almost perfectly. My only addition is that you didn't stress enough how much this anti-science administration has destabilized NASA, both directly and indirectly. The institutional decision making has definitely been compromised. Artemis II is a disaster in progress. |
|
| ▲ | unethical_ban 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Sadly, the worst thing I'm worried about is the current president pushing for a landing before he leaves office in order to have that feather in his cap. Isaacman seems competent and this article shows they are responding to the concerns of the plan and are "shortening the steps in the staircase" to a landing. |
| |
| ▲ | lukeschlather 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So far, Isaacman's competence has mostly consisted of (rightfully) throwing is predecessors under the bus. The real test will be if there are problems on his watch, but also it seems likely the result of having backbone will not be good for Isaacman and sycophants will end up running the agency again. | | | |
| ▲ | drstewart 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wow, in the past no presidents pushed for NASA to launch under deadlines. Imagine telling them they need to get to the moon before the end of the decade. Unprecedented. Good thing we have a large number of CRUD SaaS experts to tell us what's wrong with the space program | | |
| ▲ | cloche 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | JFK set the goal 8 years out, not less than three to align with his presidential term to try to make himself look good. He also got a lot of feedback from NASA on the timelines of what was possible so the goal wasn't pulled out of thin air. | |
| ▲ | blackjack_ 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As someone who worked on Orion I find this comment section hilarious. | | |
| ▲ | Rooster61 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How so? Hearing from someone who has worked in this environment would be enlightening. | |
| ▲ | unethical_ban 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We're just going off what we read in the news. I'm sure that informed commentary from someone with first-hand knowledge would be interesting. |
| |
| ▲ | XorNot 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Challenger was pretty directly caused by the Reagan admin pressuring NASA to launch it too, so yes? Politicians have pressured NASA for launches previously and it has killed astronauts. | |
| ▲ | georgemcbay 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | JFK set a goal that NASA managed to meet, but it is kind of difficult to see it as a hard deadline considering JFK was dead for years before any of the Apollo launches took place. But even assuming we do view it as a deadline, the Apollo 1 losses are a pretty good argument that maybe we shouldn't repeat that. | |
| ▲ | unethical_ban 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Re: JFK and the 60s, I think the experts were in charge and had the final say on launch decisions with buy-in from all parties. Space exploration is certainly not risk-free. Then you had Challenger, when experts were not listened to, and people died when they shouldn't have. I don't understand the hostility. | | |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | NASA got astronauts killed during Apollo, for some reason people forget about that or think it doesn't count because they weren't flying when it happened. After that they pumped the brakes and reevaluated their approaches, but the whole program remained extremely risky. | |
| ▲ | cosmic_cheese 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | NASA was also far better funded back then and didn’t have to fight congresspeople and the aerospace giants lobbying them. Things move a lot more quickly when money isn’t a concern and you’re not having to scatter R&D and manufacturing across the four corners of the earth to get congress on board with you. | | |
|
|
|
