61–70 of 667 posts
Can't they do a few loops around the planet and skim only the upper atmosphere? always worked well for me on kerbal space program, haha
What I don't get is why the heck are the astronauts willing to risk their lives on something they must know by now is so dangerous? Is it really better to risk death than to risk getting fired?
Neither of these are major risks compared to never being what you want to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A rescue was impractical and potentially riskier no?
Riskier? Didn't they all die. Maybe if you ended up with 2 stranded shuttle crews, but correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am, but couldn't the shuttle fly without any crew?
The outcome doesn’t determine the risk. I agree that this kind of office politics / face savings definitely is the cause of these two things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your link says it failed in testing, not in flight.
Did they demand an unmanned flight just to prove it worked? Or did they accept an entirely new design based on modeling and ground tests and then immediately flew it with crew on board? Then again I'm not one of those people who roots for NASA to fail for some reason.
They had a heat shield on the capsule that failed testing, so they swapped out the interchangeable heat shield for one that passed testing.
There was no entirely new design, there was no new material science, it was the same heat shield that the previous crewed capsules have used without the manufacturing defect.
Can't they do a few loops around the planet and skim only the upper atmosphere? always worked well for me on kerbal space program, haha
I haven't kept up with Artemis development but I've read extensively about Challenger and Columbia. These two parts of the article stood out to me: > Moon-to-Mars Deputy Administrator Amit Kshatriya said: “it was very small localized areas. Interestingly, it would be much easier for us to analyze if we had larger chunks and it was more defined”. A Lockheed Martin representative on the same call added that "there was…
At this point in time, manned space exploration should come out of our entertainment budget. The same budget we use for football or olympic games.
What I don't get is why the heck are the astronauts willing to risk their lives on something they must know by now is so dangerous? Is it really better to risk death than to risk getting fired?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did they demand an unmanned flight just to prove it worked? Or did they accept an entirely new design based on modeling and ground tests and then immediately flew it with crew on board? Then again I'm not one of those people who roots for NASA to fail for some reason.
None of what you’re saying happened. They had a heat shield on the capsule that failed testing, so they swapped out the interchangeable heat shield for one that passed testing. There was no entirely new design, there was no new material science, it was the same heat shield that the previous crewed capsules have used without the manufacturing defect.
I don't know what "new" or "different" or "updated" or "structure" mean then anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am very not brave but I'd volunteer. >> Artemis II could fly just as easily without astronauts on board
I think they were saying they would sign up just for the experience, even if it's unnecessary to the program.