| ▲ | stackghost 15 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>Buoyancy is an easier equation to solve than lift. That's a snappy one-liner but it doesn't address the real concerns. First of all, subsonic lift is well understood and has been for decades. The answer is much more mundane: The Artemis mission profile does not require payload doors that open, no Canadarm, no requirement to service, launch, and/or capture satellites in orbit, and so like good engineers they designed the minimum vehicle that satisfies the requirements. Also, the Shuttle was actually much more expensive to reuse than originally predicted. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 15 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> subsonic lift is well understood and has been for decades I said easy. Not well understood. I can fly planes. It’s hard, and has limited room for fucking up. (It’s also hyperbole to suggest we understand lift. We don’t.) Piloting a boat is easier and more forgiving. Hence, splashdown. You don’t need direction. You don’t need lift. Parachute physics is a backbreaker, but it’s symmetrical. Same for splash. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||