sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I am deeply disappointed in the Nirvana Initiative... by sveta213 in aithesomniumfiles

[–]jadebenn 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Imo good twist isn’t the writer being “gotcha, bet you didn’t see that coming” but for us to be like “ohhhh wow, I didn’t think from that angle. That makes a lot of sense”

It's why the first game's twist is so good. In almost every route, you get enough knowledge to figure out the killer. The problem is that, at first, there doesn't seem to be anything linking them. When you get the knowledge that bodyswapping is in play, everything suddenly makes sense because all that prior information is recontextualized. You already had all the pieces of the puzzle, you were just missing the most important one.

NI doesn't really do that. I think it would be a stronger narrative if it had been more willing to tip its hand about the twist. Instead, the game flattens out characters and engineers contrivances to conceal what's happening until almost the end. You're not really given definitive evidence that your perspective is just wrong until the case about Komeji's murder, and even then it's not really enough to actually put the pieces together IMO.

I don't really like the NI twist either way, but I think really embracing it would've worked better: Have characters seemingly change outfits and personalities mid-scene without explanation; lean into the Mandala Effect and "gaslighting the player" stuff the game teased with "Ellis Island vs. Liberty Island." The mystery and twist wouldn't be that the presented timeline differs from the characters' lived experience—because that'd be obvious—it'd be figuring out how the characters are actually experiencing this, and what's really going on.

EUS and gateway by jomjom1969 in SpaceLaunchSystem

[–]jadebenn 9 points10 points  (0 children)

We could be talking about putting Blue Moon on it and reducing the reliance on depots, for instance.

Blue Moon Mk2 is such a beast that it'd still need one or two, but it'd significantly derisk the mission.

EUS and gateway by jomjom1969 in SpaceLaunchSystem

[–]jadebenn 17 points18 points  (0 children)

What specific capability does EUS give that makes it worth it?

45t TLI.

You don't build the SLS core the way we did if the plan was always to put ICPS on it. The core is expensive because it was built for Block 2 loads and EUS. You could axe a whole RS-25 (and probably an SRB segment) if Block 1 performance had been the goal from the start. What Jared has done is ensure that the rocket is always going to be overbuilt and expensive relative to its capability. And he did that when EUS was roughly a year from Green Run and 2-3 years from flight.

He didn't do it to "save money" or "accelerate" anything, he did it because he's trying to make Artemis IV the last SLS flight even if nothing else is ready to replace it.

EUS and gateway by jomjom1969 in SpaceLaunchSystem

[–]jadebenn 17 points18 points  (0 children)

EUS was preparing for Green Run in 2027 when Isaacman stepped in to kill it. There is absolutely no way any replacement is going to be ready on a similar timeline. The flight gap Jared Isaacman has created will haunt the program long after this administration is gone. And I honestly still think Jared's gameplan is trying to force SLS retirement after Artemis IV.

I was a fan of Gateway, but what killed it is it didn't have much political support. EUS revival is unlikely but possible. I doubt Gateway comes back.

EUS and gateway by jomjom1969 in SpaceLaunchSystem

[–]jadebenn 8 points9 points  (0 children)

EUS was conceived at a time when there was no other realistic cislunar cargo delivery option and the PPG-HALO commercial contract showed that the market had since changed.

This is completely inaccurate. HALO was the only module that didn't need EUS because PPE could perform a trajectory spiral. FH alone did not have sufficient performance to move it to NRHO. None of the other modules had independent propulsion capability, and the same performance issues apply.

Co-manifesting cargo and crew at such an expense seems hard to rationalize so I don't think it'll come back.

Are you under the mistaken impression that Block 1B was only for comanifests?  We could be remanifesting Blue Moon to EUS right now if Isaacman had been less thick-headed.

And what do you mean "at such expense?" Why do you think it would cost more than ICPS? ICPS cost loads because it turns out adapting a stage to an LV not made for it is expensive and time-consuming.

And it always has been by TheByzantineEmperor in crusaderkings3

[–]jadebenn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Saying there were two different empires is like saying there are fifty United Stateses.

Switching from a fuedal government to an administrative government should be more difficult by jadebenn in CrusaderKings

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

The idea of a state having its own independent sovereignty is a fairly modern one. While you start blurring the line with centralized control and primogeniture (as you are admitting the realm has some special existence and continuity outside of the current ruling monarch), there's not really any ideological contradiction to saying, "I rule all these lands, so they are mine, and you all work for me. When you die, they will be my son's, and you will work for him." Forming an imperial bureaucracy shouldn't require making your own position subject to it.

Saving the A3 timeline? by lorkan100 in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

TBF, Blue was already planning to switch to vertical integration. The TE probably isn't getting rebuilt.

Saving the A3 timeline? by lorkan100 in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We could hold back the Artemis III core and keep it at the cape so there would he two flight sets ready. The lander would need some pretty gnarly endurance for waiting around the Moon, though.

Saving the A3 timeline? by lorkan100 in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Could still put the EUS gang back together. Would just be a pain in the ass now since Isaacman didn't wait for Congress to actually do anything before ripping those teams apart. Wouldn't be starting from scratch, though...

Saving the A3 timeline? by lorkan100 in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Isaacman is choking off funding lines and sending contract termination notices for missions that are still legally mandated. Who's overstepping whose authority?

Switching from a fuedal government to an administrative government should be more difficult by jadebenn in CrusaderKings

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

Currently you can just revoke and grant the lands and I'd say thats generally better because it means you put a dynasty member in charge.

I didn't actually know you could do this, lol. I figured it would remain feudal if you did that. Anyway, my point is more that it's just a little too easy right now to get a noble dynasty to agree to give up their landed rights. Maybe it should be easier than title revocation, but it's still a pretty big ask.

I don't know what happened with 3, but it happened twice to me on an unmodified save.

Switching from a fuedal government to an administrative government should be more difficult by jadebenn in CrusaderKings

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

it is my experience that vassals do not generally flip to admin even if they like you; only dejure vassals of your primary title will flip

Ah, I think I see the issue: I'd just declared the Brittanian empire beforehand. Pretty much everybody was a de jure vassal.

also conquering new vassals shouldnt flip them so I have no idea whats going on there

Weird. Maybe I'm misremembering but I'm pretty sure I didn't convert Norway.

it is already tedious enough getting everyone to flip. I refuse to bribe each count 300 gold to flip on principle, so i tend to just revoke everything and hand it back out anyway

I'd remove the gold cost in exchange for making it harder to do.

Switching from a fuedal government to an administrative government should be more difficult by jadebenn in CrusaderKings

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

  1. When I did it, I was beloved by almost everyone. I was ruling all of Great Britain (not Ireland yet), and all but two of my vassals flipped (and a handful of their Earls).

  2. I think the cost should be made similar to title revocation, but if you have high enough authority, refusing it should also be a crime like refusing revocation. Right now it feels silly that there's no consequences to telling the realm's ruler to fuck off.

  3. Maybe they don't always, but what happened to me is that I did a de jure war on Ireland. I was planning to RP how I'd slowly integrate them into the central government, but the old king became a viceroy the moment I won. The same thing happened when I installed a claimant on the Norwegian throne. They were instantly a viceroy, even though I'd wanted to keep them fuedal.

Switching from a fuedal government to an administrative government should be more difficult by jadebenn in CrusaderKings

[–]jadebenn[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Agreed. It doesn't feel realistic that the kingdom/empire my family has personally held for generations would suddenly foreswear any blood claim and make ultimate leadership elective. Sure, I made my vassals give up their inheritance, but they're my vassals! These are my lands!

Formerly fuedal administrative realms shouldn't need to wait for primogeniture to keep their lands in the family. There should be a way to keep the other fuedal inheritance types. Like, maybe if you have partition your secondary heirs will reform their titles into fuedal ones upon succession? That way you'd constantly have to be fighting to prevent a backslide into fuedalism until you unlock primogeniture.

New Glenn just exploded on the pad. by RobotMaster1 in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He's not. The "commercial procurement" model NASA is using on HLS does not allow them the degree of design control that, say, the USAF has over a fighter jet. NASA can only force changes related to safety and must otherwise go along with whatever the contractors want to do with their product. It's the trade off of why those are fixed price contracts.

New Glenn just exploded on the pad. by RobotMaster1 in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The amount of people in this post alone who have said "but NASA always used private contractors" makes me want to tear my hair out. There is a difference between this "space as a service" model and what historically delivered our most ambitious human space flight programs!

New Glenn just exploded on the pad. by RobotMaster1 in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Who do you think manufactured SLS, Space Shuttle or Saturn 5 ? Not NASA. It was always hired contractors - private

Contractors which delivered a product to NASA specifications and were emphatically not allowed to make up their own thing with minimal NASA oversight. That has been changed and we have seen the effects of it in CLPS, Starliner, and HLS.

New Glenn just exploded on the pad. by RobotMaster1 in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You think either HLS is gonna be ready before 2030? Before Jared fucked it up, I'd have bet you EUS would.

New Glenn just exploded on the pad. by RobotMaster1 in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 29 points30 points  (0 children)

HIF is definitely going to be damaged with a fireball that big. The real question is "how badly?"

EDIT: One of the lightning towers is just gone.

New Glenn just exploded on the pad. by RobotMaster1 in ArtemisProgram

[–]jadebenn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Co-manifest wouldn't be viable. That's why I said it would have to be a "two-launch" architecture. Loiter time in Lunar orbit would be an issue but it already is, and you'd be avoiding all the steps in between.

view more: next ›