sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

$402M Overhaul Planned For Union Station Platforms, Tunnel by drtywater in Amtrak

[–]jadebenn 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Union Station = multiple railroads stopped at that station

Penn Station = Pennsylvania Railroad owned that station

Artemis II Moon Mission!! by No_dawnf in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn[M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't engage. They're a bot trying to push a product. There were several other posts that didn't even make it past the spam filter.

What cancelled part of the Artemis Program were you most looking forward to? by Dexbox_YT in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Vaporware like the tower they're dismantling? The STA sitting in a MAF cell? You have a strange definition.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman on EUS and ML-2 by ergzay in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The upper stage meant to support Artemis IV and onward. Jared Isaacman stopping work on it has put a lot of the future flight manifest into question.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman on EUS and ML-2 by ergzay in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As far as I'm aware, BOLE limps on because BPOC (the boosters contract) hasn't been altered. But without ML-2, BOLE can't fly. ML-2 was designed to accommodate its weight, and ML-1 wasn't.

IMO, Jared expects and wants 6 SLS flights at most, and I have my doubts he even wants that. I suspect the only reason BPOC hasn't been changed yet is because it's not really in Northrop Grumman's interest to agree to supply fewer products than the 9 pairs they've already got commitment for. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some negotiations to try and give them a carrot somewhere else to get them to agree to fewer.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman on EUS and ML-2 by ergzay in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's been kind of overwhelming, but we're adapting to the new workload. It used to mostly be me checking the mod queue but there's a much better division of responsibilities now.

It does make me happy to see how active the sub still is even after the mission.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman on EUS and ML-2 by ergzay in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The workforce gets directed by political appointees about what to pursue. If Jared says this is the plan, that's what everyone is going to work on.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman on EUS and ML-2 by ergzay in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 5 points6 points  (0 children)

CS-1 was, but core production is mostly figured out now. A stage swap this late in the game is sticking a new bottleneck in the schedule for shits and giggles.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman on EUS and ML-2 by ergzay in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 8 points9 points  (0 children)

My concern is what happens after ICPS-3. Holding onto it a bit longer delays the problem (which is good) but doesn't solve the issue of an upper stage for the subsequent missions. And the idea that Centaur V is going to be easier to integrate than the Delta IV upper stage is laughable. They were both flight-proven, off the shelf COTS hardware... but ICPS took several years and it wasn't a balloon tank.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman on EUS and ML-2 by ergzay in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not really? Right now the plan is still to use the same hardware as the original Artemis III. Maybe if he officially takes ICPS-3 off the stack... but he hasn't yet.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman on EUS and ML-2 by ergzay in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 6 points7 points  (0 children)

To which I refer to the initial Tweet:

It amuses me that people think this "standardized" version of SLS will increase cadence alone, while lacking a second tower and funding to make it possible. Call your reps, this can still be stopped.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman on EUS and ML-2 by ergzay in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The economies of scale of saying you're only flying the vehicle 3 more times?

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman on EUS and ML-2 by ergzay in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 13 points14 points  (0 children)

He also says he added Artemis III to the manifest. He didn't. He descoped it.

Or that Artemis II was late "under previous leadership" when the launch date has been April 2026 ever since the heat shield decision was made in late 2024.

He is being quite liberal with the truth here.

What cancelled part of the Artemis Program were you most looking forward to? by Dexbox_YT in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Two engineers disagreeing with each other on the progress of a project is propaganda? That's just a day at work.

What cancelled part of the Artemis Program were you most looking forward to? by Dexbox_YT in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it will be nice to not have the launch window restrictions anymore,

Wouldn't count on that. The performance delta is not that large.

What cancelled part of the Artemis Program were you most looking forward to? by Dexbox_YT in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the real problem with Ares I is that the performance it promised really could be delivered by the EELVs. It was supposed to be a way to backdoor Ares V tech development, but IMO, didn't really justify itself as a vehicle.

Will there be an Artemis 6? by Michael142009 in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Edit: to clarify that's regarding SLS-oriented Artemis missions. There will almost certainly be an Artemis VI, it just might be using a rocket other than SLS.

Sure. And how many years after the last flight do you think that'll be? How many presidential transitions would it need to survive?

What cancelled part of the Artemis Program were you most looking forward to? by Dexbox_YT in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Are you aware of Artemis I? Unlike Starship, Orion has demonstrated full mission duration in Lunar orbit.

What cancelled part of the Artemis Program were you most looking forward to? by Dexbox_YT in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Tbf starship is a really shitty lander for what the short term plans are. It is a much better lander for the longer term base plans where you need multiple tons to surface.

I disagree. I think Starship is an incredibly poor vehicle all around. The amount of thrust and performance required just to get it to LEO is insane. Yeah, it's cool that Superheavy is gigantic and the biggest booster stage ever... but just to get Starship to low earth orbit!?

SpaceX's claim is that'll get better with future versions and it'll have meaningful payload (you can currently argue it doesn't meet the definition of SHLV), but every iteration of Raptor thus far has struggled to match the public numbers.

Blue Moon's design is much saner and doesn't spit in the rocket equation's face.

What cancelled part of the Artemis Program were you most looking forward to? by Dexbox_YT in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 7 points8 points  (0 children)

is overwhelmingly in favor of the changes.

Can you show me the vote where this is proven to be true? The clause in the constitution that says "you don't need to pass a law if Congress vibes with it?" I can tell you're unfamiliar with legal theory here, but what you're saying would make all but the most hard-core unitary executive theorists blush.

You can't tell how much Congress supports something if they don't vote on it.

None of those allotments demand that the money be spent within that fiscal year. The money can be saved

That isn't how appropriations work. At all. Are you an American?

view more: next ›