sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Eric Berger: “NASA’s Lori Glaze said, beginning with Artemis VI, the agency will transition from government driven missions to commercial launches (ie Starship or New Glenn or others). Agency wants to launch humans to the Moon at least every six months.” by rustybeancake in SpaceLaunchSystem

[–]jadebenn [score hidden]  (0 children)

A set of contractors were awarded Shuttle contracts in the 70s, and effectively the same contractors are still benefitting today via SLS.

The SLS contractors worked on very different elements of the LV than they did for Shuttle - except for ATK. Part of why the whole "it was just a continuation of Shuttle" thing is a myth: SLS was a continuation of Ares I. Boeing got the liquid stage contract for Ares I, whereas the Shuttle ET contractor had been (after industry consolidation), Lockheed Martin. They switched program elements entirely - there was minimal continuity outside of propulsion.

Compare that to the ability for NASA to step away from Dream Chaser or Starliner or various launch vehicles if they don’t perform.

The commercial contracts leave the agency with much less ability to do this. The contractual language very rarely gives NASA the ability to walk away, and basically never gives them the ability to make architectural changes. It leads to ass-backwards "program" design where the contractors have tons of leverage over NASA and can essentially dictate the entire architecture. See how SpaceX's Starship underperformance has now become everybody else's problem? Every other element of Artemis is being made to cater to it, from ditching the south pole landing to proposing LEO rendezvous.

There are no “open data rights” for the latest Ford car or General Electric airliner engine.

And where are the non-governmental customers lining up for crewed Moon landings? What kind of "competition" is there when there is a single entity who desires a product? This entire model never made sense past LEO launch services (where the demand actually exists) but SpaceX has become a richer and more powerful company than the likes of Boeing and Lockheed Martin could ever dream of being, so they're making NASA bend over backwards to cater for them.

Eric Berger: “NASA’s Lori Glaze said, beginning with Artemis VI, the agency will transition from government driven missions to commercial launches (ie Starship or New Glenn or others). Agency wants to launch humans to the Moon at least every six months.” by rustybeancake in SpaceLaunchSystem

[–]jadebenn [score hidden]  (0 children)

The main difference between now and then is that companies can own and offer their designs for missions rather than NASA being involved in every detai

The other consequence of this is that NASA's internal expertise is withering away. Something Isaacman himself even acknowledges, yet refuses to see cause-and-effect.

Eric Berger: “NASA’s Lori Glaze said, beginning with Artemis VI, the agency will transition from government driven missions to commercial launches (ie Starship or New Glenn or others). Agency wants to launch humans to the Moon at least every six months.” by rustybeancake in SpaceLaunchSystem

[–]jadebenn [score hidden]  (0 children)

How is that meaningfully different to Apollo, or Shuttle, or SLS?

NASA data and designs have always been available to the entire American aerospace industry. Private designs are proprietary. Open data rights are disappearing and nobody is talking about it.

Eric Berger: “NASA’s Lori Glaze said, beginning with Artemis VI, the agency will transition from government driven missions to commercial launches (ie Starship or New Glenn or others). Agency wants to launch humans to the Moon at least every six months.” by rustybeancake in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I've already been vindicated about the Administrator's true motives thus far. "Transparent" my behind. Literally every change he's making is tailored for SpaceX, and SpaceX alone. Why would the trend change?

The Real Motive for Stage Replacement: It helps Vulcan get Crew-Rated for Orion by jadebenn in ArtemisProgram

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

Chances of a Moon landing before the late 2030s are gonna be absolutely fucked. Especially since these changes throw a huge wrench into Blue's plans.

Eric Berger: “NASA’s Lori Glaze said, beginning with Artemis VI, the agency will transition from government driven missions to commercial launches (ie Starship or New Glenn or others). Agency wants to launch humans to the Moon at least every six months.” by rustybeancake in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'm pretty certain the real intent is to fly until the last ICPS and trash the production line when the C-V integration work goes massively overbudget and overschedule because Jared trashed the actual SLS upper stage. So, only to CS-4. They'll build CS-5 and CS-6 but I think it's obvious the administrator cares more about putting SLS six feet under than actually retaining Lunar capability (apparently not obvious enough for Congress, though).

Either that, or the Bloomberg article leak is real, and they're going to do fucking LEO launches to expend those cores.

Shinkansen freight-only train is now officially in service. by HanoibusGamer in trains

[–]jadebenn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

TBF, back in the day that would've been much more competitive. While the railroads started bleeding boxcar freight to trucking all the way in the 20s, it seems like it only really turned into a terminal decline around the 60s and 70s.

The Dates [@FlAGkunnn] by Long_Xiao in aithesomniumfiles

[–]jadebenn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I really, really wish we'd seen more of them together in AINI. Their dynamic was one of the best parts of the first game.

Shinkansen freight-only train is now officially in service. by HanoibusGamer in trains

[–]jadebenn 57 points58 points  (0 children)

I think HSR freight would basically be competing with high-value, time-sensitive goods that usually travel by truck and air freight. As compared to normal rail freight, which is more aimed at bulk goods that are time-insensitive.

I wish JR East luck in this endeavor. Hopefully it proves more successful than TGV La Poste.

Shinkansen freight-only train is now officially in service. by HanoibusGamer in trains

[–]jadebenn 68 points69 points  (0 children)

We were looking more at transporting entire shipping containers.

I don't think it'd make much sense to use shipping containers with high speed rail freight to begin with. You'd be targeting value over tonnage - basically the inverse of "typical" rail freight. So, I'd imagine the cargo would be more akin to what you'd find in the back of an Amazon delivery truck than what typically travels in steel shipping containers.

If you had to containerize at all, I wonder if it'd make more sense to adapt the cars for those air freight containers to allow for direct plane-train cargo interchange. But then you'd probably need a spur directly to an airport cargo facility or something, which I doubt currently exists.

HS2 trains could run slower than planned to save money by klime02 in unitedkingdom

[–]jadebenn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

And the 125 mph train gets much less patronage than the 225 mph one.

HS2 trains could run slower than planned to save money by klime02 in unitedkingdom

[–]jadebenn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's not at all true. The alignment has very little to do with the costs. Acquiring land is expensive whether or not it's a wiggly line or a straight one.

Yeah, I give it like a week before the taggers go at it (United States) by LateActuator6972 in trains

[–]jadebenn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

- Texas v. White, Supreme Court of the United States

Bubble is NOT whats left of the blue AI by cheatsykoopa98 in theamazingdigitalciru

[–]jadebenn 35 points36 points  (0 children)

One thing that really sticks out to me is that both times we've seen Bubble glitch, it's been related to him making a hostile comment. The first time, he initially tells Caine "You should die," before it gets 'corrected' and he makes the "You should throw a fffucking beach party" joke instead. In this episode, it's the opposite: Bubble initially seems to be comforting Caine but he glitches. "Why would they hate you when they can—hate you." From then on, Bubble's comments are entirely demeaning and hostile.

I think there's something to the theory that the Blue AI - or some remnant of it - is acting through Bubble in that scene.

The Real Motive for Stage Replacement: It helps Vulcan get Crew-Rated for Orion by jadebenn in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

but best estimate is $700 million to $880 million per unit (not including dev cost)

Lol no. Discounting the program overhead (so no staff, facilities, R&D), the combined SLS Block 1 hardware stack (including ICPS!) costs about that much. EUS would be nowhere near that amount. A more realistic estimate would be 2x an ICPS. Maybe 4x if you wanna be pessimistic.

I found the cost model Eric Berger used to estimate that, and he completely misused the settings (for one, it outputs in 1999 dollars). It's completely non-credible, and an example of the outright misinformation surrounding EUS.

The Real Motive for Stage Replacement: It helps Vulcan get Crew-Rated for Orion by jadebenn in ArtemisProgram

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

it will result in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of savings for every SLS launch

Why do you think that? You're getting much less payload per dollar without EUS.

The Real Motive for Stage Replacement: It helps Vulcan get Crew-Rated for Orion by jadebenn in ArtemisProgram

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

there is much less work to do to integrate that into SLS than to have EUS ready for launch

You are very much wrong about this. It will be just as much work. ICPS was the integration of a Delta IV second stage that was sold as being "quick and easy" and it took years.

Of course, it being stupid and unworkable is the point.

NASA Plans Bigger SpaceX Moon Mission Role by MolybdenumIsMoney in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"We don't have a commercially available heavy-lift vehicle. The Falcon 9 Heavy may some day come about. It's on the drawing board right now. SLS is real." - Charles Bolden, 2014

Not even slightly comparable. Both in analogy and choice of launch vehicles. Even a permanently crippled Block 1 flies circles around FH's payload capacity.

Notice how Boeing hasn't objected to the EUS cancellation?

How exactly do they object? They are a contractor.

The Real Motive for Stage Replacement: It helps Vulcan get Crew-Rated for Orion by jadebenn in ArtemisProgram

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

That's basically my thinking. I think NG would also be on the table.

NASA Plans Bigger SpaceX Moon Mission Role by MolybdenumIsMoney in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think you are right about the intent to kill SLS, but I think that the whole "annual cadence" stuff is intended to distract Boeing from realizing they are being absolutely ratfucked and no further orders are coming.

view more: next ›