[flagged]
Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon
101–110 of 165 posts
Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon
#102[flagged]
Please keep the snide jabs on Reddit
Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon
#103[flagged]
Those are outlawed by international treaties.
Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
They were concerned about not landing upright in the live stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg2ffigGcYM&t=5678s "looks like we had excellent pitch and yaw control throughout, but I did see a little bit of a roll excursion. could it be that we landed off-angle in roll in the final phase?"
That would have lined up with the signal issues too. Glad it wasn’t the case.
Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon
#105Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still just cannot wrap my mind around how we could get people there, and then all this time later have lost that ability. What happened?
Part of it is cost: In the mid sixties, NASA was about five percent of the federal budget. Another part is safety: Apollo was extremely dangerous. There were a lot of single points of failure, three astronauts died on the ground, three more were very very narrowly saved over the course of only about ten missions. One of the reasons the program was cut short was the political worry after Apollo 13 of having astronauts…
Are people really that enthused about electric cars? smh
Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon
#107Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Part of it is cost The other side to this is we don't build rockets today like we did in the sixties. Yes, some technical know-how here and there was technically "lost"--I've been in North Hollywood scrounging around for old NASA parts so that measurements could be taken and worked backwards from. But even if we had that know-how, we wouldn't do it the same again. From novel materials to simulations to communicatio…
>Yes, some technical know-how here and there was technically "lost"--I've been in North Hollywood scrounging around for old NASA parts so that measurements could be taken and worked backwards from. Oh, I don't know. I think we've actually made improvements in leaps and bounds over the "lost" tech. Our soundstage, green screen, and post tech has definitely improved /s I know it's not what you meant, but the NoHo refer…
There’s a reason droid parts in OG Star Wars looks like they were pulled off Apollo space suits or something. Practical special effects people raided all the surplus parts after the end of the program.
Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of it is cost: In the mid sixties, NASA was about five percent of the federal budget. Another part is safety: Apollo was extremely dangerous. There were a lot of single points of failure, three astronauts died on the ground, three more were very very narrowly saved over the course of only about ten missions. One of the reasons the program was cut short was the political worry after Apollo 13 of having astronauts…
> five percent of the federal budget. It's impressive to compare five percent and some small fraction, but the total budget also expanded a lot since then. While in constant dollars the current NASA budget is indeed smaller than it was then, it is only about half. At the end of the day, the kinds of things they spend that budget on make sense to me for a research organization, and it makes sense to me that retracing…
If you were talking about the science mission directorate you’d be right on. They’re doing good work with the money they’re allocated.
The exploration directorate, on the other hand, with their billion dollar rocket to nowhere…
Re: Intuitive Machines successfully lands on the Moon
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of it is cost: In the mid sixties, NASA was about five percent of the federal budget. Another part is safety: Apollo was extremely dangerous. There were a lot of single points of failure, three astronauts died on the ground, three more were very very narrowly saved over the course of only about ten missions. One of the reasons the program was cut short was the political worry after Apollo 13 of having astronauts…
Re: who is right So long as; the participants are willing, the death rate is in the single percents per mission,the mission value add on terms of new capability is high, the risk is probably worth it. At least in my opinion.
I’m very much a believer in informed consent. The astronauts will tell you, to a person, that they’d take that risk. Who am we to say otherwise?