For the commenters who predicted / expected / desired / were emotionally invested in a huge failure, please try this:
:format(webp)/www.instacart.com/assets/domains/product-image/file/large_54170c37-7c4f-40ee-943b-87ba4cca59da.jpeg)
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Artemis I launch picture perfect: Bombastic predicters of failure hardest hit |
| 2022-11-16 |
| [MSN] See the article at the link. For the commenters who predicted / expected / desired / were emotionally invested in a huge failure, please try this: |
| Posted by:M. Murcek |
| #18 but does using the TOUCH command on the file containing the post maybe do the same thing as opening it in the content management system? M. darlingest, I know what all those words mean, but that particular combination makes no sense to me whatsoever, unless it’s a fancy way to say black box. Perhaps Fred or one of the moderators will poke their head in with the answer. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2022-11-16 17:27 |
| #17 There’s no procedure for man rating. It’s just a label nasa sticks on stuff. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2022-11-16 17:08 |
| #16 For the fanbois, save some of the Prep H. You may need it in 1H23 if things don't go right at the Boca Chica Fireworks Emporiumâ„¢ |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-11-16 13:46 |
| #15 Falcon Heavy, BTW is not man-rated and SpaceX itself does not seem interested in getting it so rated. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-11-16 13:44 |
| #14 In case you hadn't noticed, SpaceX is not building any more Dragon capsules. Meat to LEO has no real future. Of course, we are not going to the stars in person on chemically fueled rockers either. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-11-16 13:43 |
| #13 Billions aside, it's proof of concept. If something needs to be nudged, now you can launch early and cheap with commercial boosters at lower cost. And you don't need a fancy penetrator, just mass. Hell, radioactive waste makes a good heavy cue ball to send something on another path. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2022-11-16 12:50 |
| #12 So you spent multiple billions to launch, once on an expendable booster, about one and a half times the payload of a 120 million or so falcon heavy launch. Oorah? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2022-11-16 12:40 |
| #11 Ethernet switch problem was at a ground station, not a problem with the rocket. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-11-16 11:21 |
| #10 I noted the article said today's two delays were due to a fuel leak (again) and a computer/internet connection. So they launched it before anything else broke! I am happy for the progress on the space exploration front. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2022-11-16 11:12 |
| #9 Billions wasted!! |
| Posted by: Ho Chi Squank7858 2022-11-16 11:08 |
| #8 TW, I have no idea what the back room of Rantburg looks like, but does using the TOUCH command on the file containing the post maybe do the same thing as opening it in the content management system? |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-11-16 09:32 |
| #7 Congrats on a successful launch! The original date was 2019, so close enough for government work. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2022-11-16 09:23 |
| #6 It's the sort of heavy industry we have almost forgotten how to do. So, it is good to see it still being done. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-11-16 09:21 |
| #5 I had fears with all the fucks ups it had that there would be a rapid deconstruction at the end. I am very glad it didn't end that way. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2022-11-16 09:19 |
| #4 not sustainable Lunar tourists? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2022-11-16 08:48 |
| #3 $4 billion-plus per launch is simply not sustainable |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2022-11-16 08:45 |
| #2 For some reason, sometimes image-related thingies need the published post to be opened then closed without any changes whatsoever by a moderator. Done. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2022-11-16 08:41 |
| #1 Image lost from post above - For the commenters who predicted / expected / desired / were emotionally invested in a huge failure, please try this:  |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2022-11-16 06:01 |