101–110 of 588 posts
Would be really curious to learn more about how rocket scientists are using (or not using) LLMs.
Honestly, why? I can't speak for BO, but at NASA, we're all learning what the technology can and can't do just like everyone else. You can bet your ass that no one is vibe-coding any part of the rocket without thorough review of every line of code and thorough testing at multiple levels though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX had to blow up plenty to get to where they are.
Yeah, but the vast majority of those were planned, and at least most exceeded expectations. Was this an expected outcome? It doesn’t sound like it, but I’ve not really investigated it deeply.
There are massive machines filled with reactants under high pressure and cryogenic temperatures. It is amazing that this doesn't happen more often.
It looks like the explosion starts from the second stage
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But pretty much everyone thinks Artemis is Starship HLS or bust. Right now it seems like it's Axiom or bust, with their suits. The suits have missed a lot of milestones, and there's not much point in going to the Moon without suits. Latest NASA OIG report put them somewhere in the 2030s at best...
Can always use the existing ISS suits modified for the moon.
Shame. I would love to see a competitor rein in SpaceX.
I would guess this puts a big dent in NASA's moon plans. I think Blue origin was _just_ selected to be the first moon lander mission. Now they are going to be grounded _again_. They just got off grounded status last week! And this is not even going to mention the significant ground equipment damage they have to deal with. Very unfortunate all around. I hope BO finds a way to keep the timelines.
> Blue origin was _just_ selected to be the first moon lander mission Just a rover [1]. Blue Moon is one of the two lander contractors. But pretty much everyone thinks Artemis is Starship HLS or bust. Does Blue Origin not have another pad? (Did they blow up a pad or a test stand?) [1] https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-selects-blue-origin-t...
The explosion happened at their only completed pad.
They reportedly have a second pad under construction (for the larger "9x4" variant of New Glenn) but I've not seen a lot of detail about how far along it is.
Would not be surprised to see them accelerating construction of the new pad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely not as favorable for the IPO as SpaceX’s own recent explosion and multiple engine failures?
The entire point of SpaceX’s recent launch was an explosion. They were aiming for that outcome. They wanted that outcome. The fact they did it with pinpoint accuracy even with engine issues and an in tact heat shield is a monumental success for a test flight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blowing up on the pad is incredibly worse from a design data collection perspective, a risk to life perspective, and a downstream impact to future launches perspective (nobody can use that site for a couple of months).
To be fair the last Starship to blowup on launchpad/ground was less than a year ago. It is a set back but it appears nobody has avoided this issue yet. https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/spacexs-...
Vastly different destroying each of those.