|
He should know better than to expect you to keep your word to the letter of the law.
(rim-shot)
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Non-crew mission, but run to certify human rating of vehicle. Next Artemis will have crew to moon. Yes.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
modified 12-Dec-22 14:22pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Yet very little of this capsule will be reused and none of the rocket used to send it around the Moon will be reused. This is seriously backwards thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
This is the first sign of a meaningful manned space program in almost exactly 50 years[^] and you're bitching about that? 
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
As a taxpayer, I'm all for human space flight. I just don't want it to be so expensive that Congress cuts it out of the budget again. Each Artemis launch runs $2 to $4 Billion, which is enough to get Congress to look at it first (as opposed to all the other crap they should be cutting) when it comes to budget cuts. Reusability would reduce this cost.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually Orion is the name of capsule (not an Irish name  ).
The delivery system and the NASA program name as Artemis.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
This vehicle was fully instrumented for massive amounts of test data to be used for a human rated vehicle. Reuse of vehicle was not the goal, but they may reuse some of it. It was to provide a crew rating for the next vehicle. Not a trivial process. SLS system does use shuttle parts. I would say a success for the next gen of engineers.
When you are flying folks, the odds better be good. Space-X does not have that much experience with crewed vehicles. NASA does.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
So why not keep the recording and telemetry stuff in the capsule? This is useful information for every flight. Also, SLS doesn't actually use anything from the Space Shuttle. It was supposed to but the challenges of increasing the thrust were such that engineers basically had to start from scratch again while kowtowing to the party line that they were using leftover shuttle boosters and main engines. This is why it's a decade late and over $100 Billion over the original budget estimates.
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve heard about this guy on Twitter who can do it for way less than that!
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that guy also does fail fast and many iterations in parallel, which is nice for prototyping, but I don't think he properly accounts for churn.
What if the wrong person quits or get burnout? Wouldn't that compromise his entire company structure?
He needs to pivot right about now, but he seems to busy burning himself out to notice.
|
|
|
|
|
This concern is true with any organization with top tier talent. That is where it is important to build in redundancy of personnel as much as possible and to build an internal system that preserve corporate knowledge. And while this "guy" is so busy "burning himself out", he is accomplishing some pretty remarkable things. There have been a handful of people throughout history that seem to be able to push themselves to the threshold of burn-out, and then stay at that point for an ungodly amount of time. This guy appears to be one of those people. Multiple iterations usually moves a system toward higher quality, less errors, more stability, and higher levels of dependability. Design, Test, Fail Fast, Learn, Repeat.
|
|
|
|
|
He's working on it. Long term, we need to move away from the capsule form.
|
|
|
|
|
Keep the recording and telemetry stuff in the capsule? I do not understand your question.
99.9% all the data is down-linked live. That which is not, is deemed not important or redundant.
Where are you getting your information?
Old news that budget estimates were too low. Duh! It's the U.S. Gov't. and their contractors.
The bookkeeping errors in DOD's budget for one year could cover NASA's budget for a year.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
modified 11-Dec-22 21:47pm.
|
|
|
|
|
While all that is true, NASA is talking about removing the equipment that actually provides this data. Also, SLS was sold as a cost effective way to get back to the Moon and it's turned out to be anything but cost effective. My fear, since it's proven to not be cost effective, is that once the shiny rubs off after two or three manned missions, Congress will see SLS as an easy way to cut the federal budget even though it's a very small part of the budget. I've seen this happen twice before - once with Apollo, and once with the Shuttle.
Finally, SLS is actually less capable than the Saturn V rocket and depends on third party (SpaceX) for the actual moon landing. On the flip side, now that SLS has flown unmanned maybe the FAA will get off their collective red tape and authorize SpaceX to start testing the Starship booster, since that is needed for SpaceX to complete their portion of the SLS system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
#Worldle #324 1/6 (100%)
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🎉
https://worldle.teuteuf.fr
easy one
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
charlie "tremendous" jones “You will be the same person in five years as you are today except for the people you meet and the books you read.”
I read a number of books this year, but there were two that stood out as the absolute best.
One technical book in particular was fantastic: clearly written & covered the topic (& went beyond the topic) very well:
Microservices in .NET, Second Edition[^]
Many of you may have rolled your eyes bec of the word microservices, but this is a very balanced look & explains details of .NET Core really well. If you're building (or wanting to ) WebAPIs you'll really like this one.
The other book I read this year which was absolutely amazing was Do Hard Things: Why We Get Resilience Wrong and the Surprising Science of Real Toughness[^]
It's about maximizing performance.
This book was so good I listened to it once then went out and bought the kindle version of it so I could make notes and started listening to it and reading it again.
What books did you read (or listen to) this year?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't remember. Probably none.
At times I have looked at Kindle, but...
0) They seem to charge cover price (or nearly), which is insane
1) They now make you use the website to buy the book rather than buying through the app
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: They now make you use the website to buy the book rather than buying through the app
Yeah that is kind of crazy, I think it was a advertising regulation thing because they somehow got an unfair trade advantage. I don't think it was their idea. Not sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Right, I suspect it's to avoid the bad rep of "in-app purchases", but this is not the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: but this is not the answer.
I agree. It's really annoying when you actually have made a conscious decision and you want to buy the book.
|
|
|
|
|
Google raised the cut they take from "in-app" purchases so Amazon changed their Kindle App to now allow in-app purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
obermd wrote: Google raised the cut they take from "in-app" purchases
Ok, now that makes sense. I new their couldn't actually be reasons for helping consumers. 
It's a really annoying "feature" (bug).
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: They seem to charge cover price (or nearly)
Not here in the UK. I got the entire works of Dickens for £0,99. Most Kindle versions are very cheap.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
