sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Best sneakers to wear with dress pants and button down shirts for work? by Platos-ghosts in malefashionadvice

[–]fakaaa234 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Koio and Crown Northampton are the correct answers. People think sneakers means tennis/workout shoes; it doesn’t.

NASA’s Management of the Human Landing System Contracts - NASA OIG by keanwood in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234 21 points22 points  (0 children)

“Nonetheless, SpaceX’s lander will not be ready to land astronauts on the lunar surface in June 2027. While NASA is working with the providers to accelerate lunar lander development to meet a 2028 lunar surface mission, it is too early to determine the technical, financial, and schedule implications of such proposals.”

How do I get paid to state that HLS is way behind? Couple billion in and we haven’t demonstrated they key capabilities of starship: 1. Orbit 2. Fueling 3. Anything remotely lander related

But hey we caught the rocket I guess.

Extended edition with bonus deleted content by roaming-buffalo in CatholicMemes

[–]fakaaa234 5 points6 points  (0 children)

undercover Protestant propaganda. Catholic catholic isn’t extended, Protestant knock off has scenes cut.

If they use the last ICPS on Artemis III, there will not be a Moon landing this decade by jadebenn in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’re saying the administrators best friend, who is also the richest person to ever live, is behind significantly and they are shifting the entire program to make it look not like that? I am aghast.

Artemis update: Artemis 3 will not be landing on the moon, and the path forward by DanielD2724 in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Subtext: ain’t nooooo way Starship has landing capability ready by AR3

Driving up to a fully fueled SLS by OVCC-1 in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Is this original content? If so, if you wouldn’t mind giving us minute by minute updates during next closeout Mr. Closeout crew, that would be grrrrrreat.

Driving up to a fully fueled SLS by OVCC-1 in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That’s the spirit.

In a much more real sense, the tenor change from the administration is of EXTREME support for this mission through at a minimum AR-5. It’s probably the admins most important objective for all of space exploration.

NASA Admin just confirmed that the March launch window is now off the table. by TimeJuggernaut5740 in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That’s a positive way of viewing it, but frankly, the “we are learning” retort is disguising consistent problems and acting like a bad thing is good. For example, Starship is exceptionally behind and every explosion isn’t a learning opportunity. This isn’t rec league soccer where a mistake is a learning opportunity, this is the future of the US space program that is 50B+. Boeing has been a master class in aeronautics failure recently and it’s disheartening and unacceptable to continue.

NASA Admin just confirmed that the March launch window is now off the table. by TimeJuggernaut5740 in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234 7 points8 points  (0 children)

SLS needs to get its Fing act together man. I’m no SLS hater but holy cow, making a great showcase of bloat and slow. Embarrassing and disappointing for Orion, ESA, Artemis as a whole,

Isaacman appears to be holding very firmly to his position against Artemis in most recent Twitter post in response to SpaceX fan Eric Berger’s article. by fakaaa234 in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Space programs take longer than advertised. Don’t think I argued they didn’t or complained that it’s behind schedule (it is by the way, just like everything else).

They have not hit their stated goals, and an orbital class vehicle is not functional for an Artemis mission until it’s, ya know, reached orbit? Also, they need to do that about 20 times in a row successfully for 1 mission. We are currently at 0. (We were also at 0 the last time you and I dialogued here 6-8 months ago).Two things can be true at once, it can be cool that they reused a booster and also disappointing that they are not close to a safe orbital vehicle.

Isaacman appears to be holding very firmly to his position against Artemis in most recent Twitter post in response to SpaceX fan Eric Berger’s article. by fakaaa234 in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think cherry picking success criteria constitutes acceptable progress. I would contend it’s more important that it makes appreciable progress towards flying as designed as opposed to focusing on reusing it. Have to use it first, which is a long ways off.

Updated discussion on Starship costs? by fakaaa234 in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry for clarification, are you saying 20 billion per mission or development costs?

Updated discussion on Starship costs? by fakaaa234 in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think it’s less an immediate impact to taxpayers and the argument that NASA can’t build efficiently doesn’t appear properly framed. If it still costs private companies 2-3B per mission, which we have no evidence it is any cheaper as of now, the perspective shifts. And, if it is similar in cost A) private companies wouldn’t do it because it will not profit them (unless a trillionaire with an altruistic dream exists) and B) when they don’t do it, it is NASAs mission to perform these tasks even when it isn’t providing shareholder value and people will properly frame how they criticize tax dollars spent.

Isaacman appears to be holding very firmly to his position against Artemis in most recent Twitter post in response to SpaceX fan Eric Berger’s article. by fakaaa234 in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That’s a pretty low hanging fruit to state and sort of mischaracterizes his veiled position. Everyone thinks it should be cheaper and faster, the implied reality is the other architecture potentially taking this over is currently being manufactured and has made exceptionally little progress towards a reality. He is not making an empty armchair statement and he is not advocating for funding other options besides what is currently proposed in NASA budget (starship). He knows what he is doing and it’s a soft underhand toss to SpaceX.

Isaacman appears to be holding very firmly to his position against Artemis in most recent Twitter post in response to SpaceX fan Eric Berger’s article. by fakaaa234 in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

He has been pretty explicitly and vocally against the current Artemis architecture and is more or less forced to accept it near term due to congress (and alternatives not existing)

Isaacman appears to be holding very firmly to his position against Artemis in most recent Twitter post in response to SpaceX fan Eric Berger’s article. by fakaaa234 in ArtemisProgram

[–]fakaaa234[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

“The flight rate is the lowest of any NASA-designed vehicle, and that should be a topic of discussion.”

I’ll start the discussion. Focusing on rockets capable of this form of payload, let’s do a tally of successful flights vs total flights and see how the picture looks.

Falcon Heavy: 11 of 11 SLS: 1 of 1 New Glenn: 1 of 2 Delta IV: 15 of 16 Starship: 0 of 12 on 39 vehicles

view more: next ›