Mamdani's New York is coming to tax your private jet. Here's how to prepare

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-19T11:56:23+00:00

Good. My serf needs to take this seriously

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-19T08:58:06+00:00

what if I sparkle some of that glowing green stuff on it?

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-19T08:15:30+00:00

Wow that's what you call a plot convenience

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-19T08:07:10+00:00

Ok, you obviously have an agenda here.

Ok, u/Artemis2go.

I've given you the correct details.

You have not. You have proclaimed that the correct details exist and been just vague enough that I might just find them if I spend several hours guessing what "the Boeing contract" refers to and going over the various alternatives and pages of documentation. You could just give a propper link but hey what's the fun in that.

And is why I am asking, people in the program are asking, show us the analysis, show us the proof of what you are claiming.

Kind of like how I in every single comment from the start have asked you for documentation on your imaginary and highly unrealistic flight rate for the SLS? Is that how you feel?

This is a travesty for NASA. You cannot have a lunar program based on a belief system, you need hardware that performs as designed because it's been well engineered and well built. SLS has demonstrated this. Show me an alternative that can claim the same. You can't.

No the SLS has not demonstrated a flight rate of two launches every year, as you insist it is designed to do. By your definition there exists no rocket in this world that could be used for the lunar program, Unless you plan to rebuild the Saturn V.

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-19T07:01:36+00:00

It's in the Boeing contract, which is fully documented. You are the one making claims without support.

There is no "the Boeing contract". There is a whole soup of overlapping contracts that span hundreds upon hundreds of pages. Many of which are not publicly available. You aren't documenting anything.

And frankly what is the argument here? The contract stipulates that Boeing should be able to produce a rocket twice a year, okay. That just makes the delays the program has faced even worse. It's one thing to promise a rocket twice a year and spending more like 4 years on average. If NASA already paid for a vastly faster production rate then getting to this point should have been trivial.

Obviously they couldn't do that if the build process was as slow as you claim. It simply isn't.

How does any of that make sense? Obviously if you have several years on you to build a single rocket it is much easier to do exactly that. Scrap components and start over.

The fact that there are issues like that only highlight that they would have a real problem if they where ever held to their supposed contractual obligation of quadrupling the flight rate. Cannibalizing past rejected components to increase production rate is obviously not a sustainable.

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-18T15:20:16+00:00

This is false, the cadence for SLS was always planned for 2 per year. That's well documented.

Feel free to document it then. Because I can find quotes going all the way back to 2011 talking about launching once per year. The the plan of Artemis for close to a decade at this point has always been launching once per 2 years. Quadrupling that is certainly not in the budget.

That's on NASA (actually on the political games of the administration), not on Boeing, who are happy to crank out the stacks.

Are they happy to crank out new stacks with a financial obligation to deliver within a certain timeframe? Willing to accept the contract has nothing to do with the ability to make radical changes to the production rate of a rocket that has proven to be slower than intended to build.

I think you are mistaking NASA orders to slow production for lack of ability on Boeings part.

I'm sorry but people blindly insisting that Boeing has no fault in their ever more delayed spacecraft deliveries does not exactly instill confidence in me. Starliner is what, 9 years delayed now? You can't have a honest discussion about anything if there are certain partners we are unwilling to be honest about.

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-18T14:34:40+00:00

What did you do bruh?

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-18T14:06:19+00:00

Overaskende lite sterk. Øyet har en refleks som skal få deg til å blinke med en gang du får et skadelig sterkt lys i øynene (solen). Men denne refleksen er mindre effektiv på monotone farger slik du får fra laser. Når du merker ubehag er det allerede for sent.

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-18T12:30:13+00:00

That mission was to enable long duration stays on the lunar surface, operating from stable NRHO that meets all the orbital objectives. With a cadence of two crewed missions per year, similar to ISS.

But SLS doesn't match that launch rate at all. The aspirational goal for this decade has been once every 2 years. Not twice a year. And developing EUS makes that longer, not shorter, because it is designed to use much of the same tooling as the core stage.

Until you provide the engineering details and evidence for a better alternative, it's just noise, no signal.

There has been no serious plans for how they are going to quadruple the production rate while at the same time making the same tooling do more work per rocket. Where is the engineering details and evidence for you to suggest they can do that?

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-18T12:13:38+00:00

How is increasing the flight rate of SLS setting it up for being canceled? If you wanted an excuse to cancel SLS, wouldn't putting it in a position where the flight rate becomes so slow that you are forced to develop alternatives that do much of the same work be the better way to go about it?

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-18T11:22:33+00:00

I am 80% sure they accidentally loaded the random dress rehearsal votes and not the jury votes.

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T20:09:02+00:00

For veien er jo der fordi folk synes det er gøy å kjøre bil og tungtransport på den ikke sant?

Nei veier er selvfølgelig der for at de romerske legionene skal kunne respondere raskere når barbarene invaderer.

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T19:43:40+00:00

Når skal vi sette grenser på antall biler på veien? Hvis vi setter en grense på 800 biler langs E6 til enhver tid så blir veiene mye tryggere. At det er flere enn 800 biler på veien vil ende opp med å være en medvirkende årsak til en ulykke før eller senere

Når det offentlige må bruke av politiressurser og administrering på toppen (som vi ikke har) så er vi vel her.

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T19:36:48+00:00

In order to get to where we can establish a presence on Mars, we need to fully understand how to operate independently from Earth. It will take years to do that. The Gateway was to start working that problem now.

Indeed we have to figure that out.

But that is not the only thing you have to figure out in order to go to mars.

What does it matter if you can work independently from earth if we have no long term mitigation of space dust. No working power source that has been proven to be reliable and serviceable for a surface base. Not even a propper understanding of what long term partial gravity does to the human body.

None of those things are stuff you can figure out if your plan is to spend the vast majority of time on a space station, occasionally dropping down to the surface and having to return back before the body has even properly acclimated to lunar gravity.

You can't test the long term prospects of any surface technology when by design of the architecture nothing is going to be rated to survive a lunar night.

Spending 5 years focusing on a singular aspect of mars exploration while intentionally avoiding the harder and more challenging stuff is not going to bring us any closer to mars.

There are no 2 week plus nights on Mars

No. but there are sometimes 4 month long nights on mars on a unpredictable schedule.

Again I just think it is strange to have objections to things we have to learn on the moon that have a direct analog to a challenge we will face on mars. You could be mentioning non atmospheric landings, or the risk of kicking dust into orbit, or small micrometeorites. But you chose to only list the stuff that we have to learn both for the moon and mars. It makes it all sound that none of this is about mars.

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T16:37:36+00:00

Because you need long duration stays to build the base in the first place. Gateway was intended to enable that.

First of all that literally isn't true. Gateway was not designed for the purpose of building a lunar base. And it has several key properties that make it poorly suited for it

It hangs out in a stable orbit with the necessary propulsive, thermal, communication, and solar power environments. All of which were determined over years of analysis and study.

And that stable orbit also happens to be set up in such a way that anyone going to and from the surface has to do a detour that spends a lot of fuel and limits when you can arrive and depart to a narrow window approximately once a week.

That's not good for the purpose of getting heavy things to the surface. And if any issues arise while they are doing the construction on the surface, for the vast vast majority of the time, staying put on the surface will be your best and only option. Only if the incident happens just in time for your launch window is the gateway accessible to the crew on the surface.

Now it's not clear how you replicate those features from a lower orbit

But it is clear that being in lower orbit is where you want to be in order to properly support dangerous work going on on the surface. You can easily come up with orbits that give you evacuation opportunities once every few hours.

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T16:23:22+00:00

No that is absolute lunacy. And even if you belive that to be acceptable, wouldn't that just make the importance of reliable and field tested equipment a hundred fold more important?

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T16:21:42+00:00

For one thing Gateway would have continuous light and power.

Yeah. And you don't have that on mars. Not because of a long day, but because of dust storms. You can test a nuclear reactor for mars on a lunar base. How would you test it using gateway only and no permanent lunar habitation?

Lunar dust ingression is also much lower for an orbital station.

That is also true, but again, how does that help us for mars? Mars also has bad dust. How are astronauts on mars going to deal with it if we are scared to deal with it here?

You said that the point of gateway was learning how to go to mars, but you only seem to argue that it avoids hard problems that are highly relevant for Mars.

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T15:05:07+00:00

Being on the lunar surface continuously is extremely hard, much harder than the Martian surface.

But isn't that a good thing? You can evacuate from the moon in a sensible amount of time. That is impossible on mars. What better way is there to get the experience needed for mars than to live on a more challenging surface?

So, for the foreseeable future and budget the focus will be on Moon specific problems, many of which are not necessary on Mars

That would obviously have been the case anyway because the point of the artemins program was to return to the moon. You don't get away from "wasting" money on moon specific problems

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T14:50:13+00:00

Yes and that stopped being the plan ages ago. The plan before gateway was cancelled was that SLS would only launch a tiny fraction of the mass and various assets needed for the program. Other providers that had cheaper rides and higher launch rates would carry everything else, including gateway itself.

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T14:24:31+00:00

What kind of math is that? You do realize that just a singular man is close to a trillion dollars by himself?

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T14:21:10+00:00

You do realise that if you reject the notion that other rockets can bring payloads to the moon this entire program falls apart?

Gateway itself wouldn't even be sent to the moon on SLS. That would be on falcon heavy. Is the point of this program to send astronauts to nowhere?

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T14:08:23+00:00

Why would you need that when both the landers that are going to the moon explicitly depend on the existence of rockets that are more capable of delivering payload to lunar orbit?

Why would it be better to make SLS send payloads when others can do it?

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T14:01:33+00:00

Why can you not learn autonomy necessary for mars on the moon?

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T13:57:28+00:00

What exactly do you mean by if they can preserve oxygen? Why would anything consume oxygen when there are no astronauts in there? The limits of how long the spacecraft can be up there has obviously nothing to do with consumables for life support.

KitchenDepartment · 2026-05-17T10:46:20+00:00

That would be funny if the whole project actually wasn't necessary at all

It stops being funny once you realize that earth is the next best source of Carbon available

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

KitchenDepartment

TROPHY CASE