not unexpected, but a bummer

    • Olap@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      for sure, don’t want to see any cuts there. But the number of unknowns still strikes me as too high

  • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    Agency still needs to figure out astronaut fashion

    The auto-read subtitle is weird. They must have scrubbed it from the article, which makes sense as nothing about it indicates anything in regards to fashion, they just still also have improvements with the spacesuits to go through, which isn’t unexpected as the procurement is new to NASA (I suspect previous ones were designed fully in-house).

    • Olap@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      just The Register being El Reg, long may it continue! (it’s written in Perl even…)

  • elucubra@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    Ther is no mention of the lander. Isn’t it supposed to be a version of that thing that SpaceX still has in the “Explodes 100% of the times going up, never mind coming back, and forget about landing” stage?

    • sorghum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      That’s just a difference in testing methods. Testing to failure figuring out what went wrong and fixing it is a valid method. If you look at ULA’s timeline, their testing and design for Vulcan was done not during flights, but it cost them falling behind in launch orders.

      Besides, the lander wasn’t going to be used until Artemis III. Whatever delays II isn’t caused by SpaceX.

        • sorghum@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Still doesn’t invalidate what I said. If their testing was done during flights it could have made it to space sooner.

          The BE-4 did look really good though.

    • Crampon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Hating on the muskman is great. But being so stupid not realising why SpaceX launches vehicles they know gonna explode just makes you the biggest dork on the instance.

      SpaceX launches and lands shit every week. Its such a routine it doesn’t hit the news. Signalling SpaceX is a failure because of their experimental flights succeed in gathering knowledge while they explode is such a stupid take. I see it way too much here.

      • tinkeringidiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        This. Those weekly rockets are visible from my house. It’s almost a non-event to all but the most avid space fans - people play “was that rumble a rocket or a freight train”. The county EOC is trying to get permission not to activate for Falcon 9 launches because they’re so reliable.

        But yeah let’s pretend SpaceX are all idiots because they blow things up in testing.