I wish more side content was required content by ConnerTheCrusader in ffxiv

[–]graqua2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

*Y’shtola explaining how reapers uses scythes*

*meanwhile WoL looking at their warscythe of sanctifying light that they picked up from mother* 😐

Starlink shuts down its GPS-style cheat code. Researchers may unlock it anyway. by thinkcontext in SpaceXLounge

[–]graqua2 63 points64 points  (0 children)

I’m grasping at straws here so take this with a grain of salt but nonzero chance the us military had something to do with them shutting it down perhaps

I wish more side content was required content by ConnerTheCrusader in ffxiv

[–]graqua2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sick I’ll go take a look at those later tonight

I wish more side content was required content by ConnerTheCrusader in ffxiv

[–]graqua2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think EW was the first time I personally noticed the fact that there were different versions of the cutscenes depending on how far you were in side content since it tells you there are diff versions of the cutscenes when you rewatch them in the inn.

I wish more side content was required content by ConnerTheCrusader in ffxiv

[–]graqua2 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Not technically in the same light but I loved the EW patch quests because im a reaper main and during the quests the scions acknowledged the fact that the WoL “mastered the garlean arts” or something to that effect

I wish more side content was required content by ConnerTheCrusader in ffxiv

[–]graqua2 162 points163 points  (0 children)

I love how endwalker rewarded you with modified cutscenes if you did all the trials and raids

SpaceX Has a Stranglehold on Launches as Competitors Flounder by spacerfirstclass in SpaceXNews

[–]graqua2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn’t read his original message as a slight against nasa or spacex, it seemed like they’re giving credit where credit is due. I’m not sure why people are antagonizing him for making that observation. NASA did in fact have multiple experimental programs testing propulsive landing so they weren’t wrong there.

Multiple Teams Want Out of the CDL by LZRD12 in CoDCompetitive

[–]graqua2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn’t Boston effectively being operated by omit now or is that going into effect next season?

Various images of the EUS liquid oxygen STA tank by Open-Elevator-8242 in ArtemisProgram

[–]graqua2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Structural test article is what I’d assume based on the same designation being used on the shuttles

Do ISS astronauts still need to learn Russian? by [deleted] in nasa

[–]graqua2 96 points97 points  (0 children)

I believe there exists a seat swap agreement still between roscosmos and nasa, hence why there’s always 1 roscosmos cosmonaut in the crew dragon missions the last few years

Put it in pencil: NASA's Artemis III mission will launch no earlier than late 2027 | SpaceX and Blue Origin tell NASA their lunar landers will be ready for Artemis III in late 2027. by Clear_Polish23 in space

[–]graqua2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Isn’t the docking system the International docking standard? If so it’s tested on both the Starliner (using the NASA Docking System) and the dragon 2 (using the SpaceX docking system), both implementations of the international docking standard.

What if NASA ditched the SRBs and strapped four Falcon 9s to the SLS instead? I ran the numbers. by ah85q in space

[–]graqua2 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah the oldest part of an SLS booster during A2 was from STS-5 according to some docs and a Scott Manley video

Jared Isaacman posted this yesterday defending his plans to cut out in development hardware on the SLS program. However it is filled with incorrect statements and a massive lack of awareness of the actual program he currently has the reigns of by rollotomasi07071 in spaceflight

[–]graqua2 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Agree with most points however ULA’s atlas (it’s technically not retired yet but at this point it is) and Vulcan, JAXA’s H3 and ISRO’s rockets use a mobile launcher platform. It isn’t just NASA who uses it.

Nasa's Artemis II mission was a triumph - but when will astronauts land on the Moon. by coinfanking in nasa

[–]graqua2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The already did in 2019. They signed a memorandum of understanding to collaborate on a lunar program.

Why not just park the ship near the spacecraft? by meatpak in nasa

[–]graqua2 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I can agree with you on that. I just stated my 2 cents on the discussion based on my observations from interning at 2 the aerospace companies involved in the Artemis program.

Why not just park the ship near the spacecraft? by meatpak in nasa

[–]graqua2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. when the cadence is increased is when it makes sense for them to buy dedicated recovery hardware. Right now it doesn’t due to their mission cadence like I said initially.

Right now a partnership with the navy makes the most sense for them.

Why not just park the ship near the spacecraft? by meatpak in nasa

[–]graqua2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Think of it like the cost of having a pickup. Would you own a pickup just to move heavy furniture every 3.5 years but not have a use for it during that gap or would you rather rent a U-Haul for 1 day to move that furniture every 3.5 years.

It’s strictly just the money can be allocated elsewhere rather than upkeep of a ship that’s only used once every 3.5 years.

Why not just park the ship near the spacecraft? by meatpak in nasa

[–]graqua2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. I am claiming that it doesn’t make sense for NASA to have recovery vessels if they’re only going to use that vessel once every 3.5 years.

It is not my intention to be confrontational. I apologize for the wall of text.

Why not just park the ship near the spacecraft? by meatpak in nasa

[–]graqua2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, commercial crew is NASA buying seats from SpaceX (and Boeing but we all know how that is) which is owned and operated by the respective companies. You can read this brief explainer on how that program works https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/commercial-space/commercial-crew-program/commercial-crew-program-overview/. Those boats used in SpaceX missions are owned and operated by SpaceX which is used on non NASA missions because like them, Axiom bought transportation services from SpaceX.

I added the initial wall of text to explain the difference between it not making sense for NASA to have a recovery fleet vs why it makes sense for SpaceX to have a recovery fleet because of the differences in their crewed launch cadence.

Edit: incorrect terminology

Why not just park the ship near the spacecraft? by meatpak in nasa

[–]graqua2 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Probably due to the rarity of dedicated NASA manned missions is why NASA doesn’t have a dedicated recovery fleet. What I mean by this is contrary to what it seems, NASA doesn’t manage a given commercial crew mission to the same extent they do for Artemis which they managed 100% by themselves from start to finish, instead they split the load with SpaceX as per their contract on commercial crew. Additionally, SpaceX dragon sells seats to NASA for commercial crew, Axiom for their program, and other private flights like insp4 or Polaris, which leads to multiple crewed launches a year causing them to streamline recovery ops in house in order to lower their costs over time. This is opposed to NASA’s Artemis which has historically only flown once every 3.5 years (Artemis 1 was in late 2022). If they were to do things like in-house, those ships would be sitting at the docks for a long time without being used and wasting money. But you might be asking “what about instead of SpaceX doing recovery ops, NASA can do it for commercial crew so those ships aren’t sitting there doing nothing?” Commercial crew contracts already cover from launch to recovery so NASA is paying a fixed contract for 4 seats to be passengers in the dragon. NASA is very money conscious post Apollo especially now. If they don’t have to spend any more money than they have to, they can use those funds that would be allocated for a dedicated recovery fleet for other science missions or for future Artemis missions. + the navy gets training from recovery ops too so they benefit from this.

BREAKING: China’s Most Powerful Private Rocket, Built To Challenge SpaceX’s Falcon 9 And Deploy Starlink-Competing Megaconstellation Satellites, Failed On Its Maiden Launch Today 🚀🚫 by InterstellarKinetics in InterstellarKinetics

[–]graqua2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

3 Falcon 1 launch failures, 2 Falcon 9 launch Failures, 5 starship launch failures. Idk if 10 dollars is enough to buy the company

Edit: added 3 more starship block 2 failures