|
| ▲ | randomNumber7 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| With humans on board? Even if they are not necessary for the actual mission? |
|
| ▲ | andrewflnr a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah, that's what "untested" means in spaceflight. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent [-] | | > that's what "untested" means in spaceflight Sort of. At a certain threshold, everything is untested. I’d put this closer to modified than untested—the general config was tested in Artemis I and the specific configuration in a variety of ground tests. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 a day ago | parent [-] | | I'd say it's tested. It failed. Then they're flying it anyway. Wonderful stuff. | | |
| ▲ | P-Nuts a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The heat shield on Artemis I didn’t fail in the sense that were there a crew they would have died | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | It failed testing. What you’re describing is the exact same thinking that destroyed Challenger. The O-rings are leaking, they’re not supposed to do that at all, but they’re not leaking enough to cause a failure.... |
| |
| ▲ | randomNumber7 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | And the next flight will use a different design. I wonder why? | | |
| ▲ | treebeard901 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Artemis II is scheduled for re-entry to Earth on April 10th. That is when the heat shield issue will be the most dangerous. If it fails and the mission fails with loss of life while knowing it went ahead despite the IG report about the heat shield... It might be the end of NASA. Hopefully it will return safely. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent [-] | | > It might be the end of NASA If idiots and emotions rein, maybe. Then the centre of gravity for space exploration correctly shifts to Musk and China. | | |
| ▲ | pirate787 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The center has already shifted to Musk, SpaceX is 83% of global lift capacity. Artemis is flying an obsolete rocket at insane cost, and higher risk. | |
| ▲ | wat10000 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | For manned spaceflight, I'd say it already has. NASA itself has launched a grand total of one manned flight since July 2011. China has launched 14 and SpaceX has launched 20. Worse, the NASA vehicle is completely unsustainable. It was obsolete before it ever flew and it's so expensive that the mission launched yesterday likely costs more than the entire R&D cost of SpaceX's rocket and capsule. Probably China's too. The problem is that the purpose of NASA's manned spaceflight program isn't to explore space. It's to make the President look good (and I'm not just talking about the current one here) and funnel money to contractors. In that respect it's doing quite well. |
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | groby_b a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I mean, sure. But that's like equipping a sub with a screen door and claiming that in the grand scheme of things, it's a slightly different door with slightly different permeability characteristics. |
