this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
2 points (75.0% liked)

Technology

69391 readers
3916 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Australis13@fedia.io 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The crew should come back on the Dragon and Boeing be required to solve the problems and carry out another test flight. It is unacceptable that Boeing wants to bring the astronauts back without understanding some of the failures on the Starliner.

[–] YourAvgMortal@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I’m sure they understand the problems, and they understand that solving them would eat into their profits

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 months ago

Another test flight will be a bit of a problem. There are no spare Atlas V rockets. They will either have to convince Amazon to give up one of theirs or they will have to launch one of the missions on Vulcan Centaur, which is not currently crew rated.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Will those Astronauts get overtime pay?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Unfortunately they’ve been moving backwards across the time zones, resulting in them owing NASA money

[–] RangerJosie@sffa.community 0 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Step 1. Fire Boeing.

Step 2. Fucking FUND NASA.

Step 3. NASA builds space stuff that works.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

To be fair, some work has always been outsourced.

Like the o rings…

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (10 children)

NASA contracting stuff to space X has probably be the most amazing and sound financial decision they have made.

People on this website are so biased because Elon runs it but he genuinely built one of the most amazing companies in the world. Government including the US are miles behind them and struggling to play catch up and they are only trying because Space X has become so much better than them they have to.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It's arguably not even him that it really running it

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Seems like he's more involved with starship now than falcon or dragon.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Don't care. He built the company, he's the face of it. People hate the company and live in a dreamland where it's failing because they want what Elon owns to be shit.

It isn't and they are wrong because they can't see past their bias.

[–] vinyl@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

From what I see Gwynne Shotwell is the one that's really doing the heavy lifting in the company.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Seriously what is going on here?

Okay? If that is or isn't correct what did I say that was wrong?

Are you saying. People think Spacex is a failing company (when it isn't) because of Shotwell?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

They're just adding context. Calm down you have a real victim complex going on, and it's boring.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

It's not context because it's irrelevant to the point at hand. It's an adjacent point but it isn't related.

I'm talking about people perception of SpaceX. The actual inner workings of the company is an irrelevant point.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] vanontom@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, Musk has made people hate anything he's involved in, or that enriches him. It's only natural; Actions have consequences. He's a severely mentally ill billionaire, increasingly detached from reality. And now his politics and disinformation are a danger to millions of people. If SpaceX or Tesla wants to feel the love, they know what to do. Until then, I can only assume they accept the consequences.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I'm not sure how peoples delusions are a logical outcome.

If I don't like America that doesn't mean it suddenly isn't the richest country in the world just because I don't like it.

People really need to understand their bias, wanting SpaceX to be shit doesn't make it so. That's what we are talking about. Nothing else. SpaceX rockets aren't powered on feels.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

They tried being more actively involved with the Aries I and Aries V rockets, but they got really bogged down to the point where Obama started commercial crew. Aries V eventually evolved into SLS, but with low capability and a very long schedule. And for better or for worse, SLS is getting lots of funding.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Program

[–] mbirth@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Step 4. NASA builds planes that work (on the side).

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

If BASA build aircraft they would have to throw it all away at the end of the flight.

Need better funding but they absolutely shouldn't be building spacecraft, they are too scared of getting yelled at to innovate, and innovation is required.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Their idea of building a new rocket is by reusing as much of the 1970's shuttle tech as they can.

reusing as much of the 1970's shuttle tech as they can

And reusing the tech, but not the hardware. NASA are throwing four RS-25 shuttle engines (some of which flew multiple shuttle missions) into the ocean with every SLS launch.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We need to support and upgrade sls

Do we? It's already years behind schedule, billions over budget, and doesn't really have a use beyond Artemis. Also, the Exploration Upper Stage (one of the major planned upgrades) is being developed by... Boeing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (9 children)

Shitty Boeing aside, how are they eating up there? I don't know anything about space station food logistics, but if a planned week has turned into ten weeks, surely there must be a resource strain.

Edit: Google search says they can regularly send up unmanned supply ships.

[–] model_tar_gz@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Can’t wait to see this project too in Google’s graveyard.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ah, the old lemmy switcharoo

[–] Evil_incarnate@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Hold my Reddit account I'm going in!

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 1 points 8 months ago

Cygnus, last mission launched on 4 August 2024.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›