●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byhazem ( 472289 ) writes:
What possible value is coming from this besides corporate welfare.
They're not even practicing getting into orbit around the moon, which would be needed for a landing. This is just a government sponsored joy ride.
byClickOnThis ( 137803 ) writes:
The hardware needs to be tested incrementally, gradually extending mission goals as you test intermediate ones. That's why Apollo 11 was preceded by four manned missions, two of which went to the moon without landing.
If you go into lunar orbit, there is an added risk, especially if you don't have a lander as a backup for getting out of it. (Apollo 8 didn't have one.) I can respect NASA's decision not to go into orbit on this mission.
byOl Olsoc ( 1175323 ) writes:
The hardware needs to be tested incrementally, gradually extending mission goals as you test intermediate ones. That's why Apollo 11 was preceded by four manned missions, two of which went to the moon without landing.
If you go into lunar orbit, there is an added risk, especially if you don't have a lander as a backup for getting out of it. (Apollo 8 didn't have one.) I can respect NASA's decision not to go into orbit on this mission.
We see a huge difference between the NASA approach and the Spacex Starship approach. The concept of Move Fast and Break Things doesn't apply when the rockets have to be human rated.
byrickb928 ( 945187 ) writes:
Oh, crap. That explains how SpaceX developed the Crew Dragon...
SpaceX blew through 23 cargo missions with the Dragon 1, failing faster and faster.
Then SpaceX blew through the Dragon 2 testing, only 3 test flights to get to a crewed mission, which was successful.
NASA, on the other hand, took 5 years to go from the scheduled first test of SLS to an actual launch. Hey, space is hard.
4 years later, Artemis II is the first crewed launch of the Orion capsule. They launched the unmanned lunar orbital mission 3 or
byOl Olsoc ( 1175323 ) writes:
Oh, crap. That explains how SpaceX developed the Crew Dragon...
SpaceX blew through 23 cargo missions with the Dragon 1, failing faster and faster.
Then SpaceX blew through the Dragon 2 testing, only 3 test flights to get to a crewed mission, which was successful.
NASA, on the other hand, took 5 years to go from the scheduled first test of SLS to an actual launch. Hey, space is hard.
4 years later, Artemis II is the first crewed launch of the Orion capsule. They launched the unmanned lunar orbital mission 3 or so years ago.
And now, the first manned mission, Artemis II, the lunar flyby. Incremental testing - hey, why rush things...
Here's your problem. You apparently don't know the history of rocketry. NASA went through the disaster launch stage heading toward 70 years ago. They learned the curve. At this time, Rockets should seldom do unplanned disassembly.
How about a dissertation on comparing Artemis to Falcon 9, and then a dissertation on Artemis comparing to Starship.
Rocketry is old science, the Nazis developed the systems that are the basis of all modern rocketry. We just tweak it. so many modern people seem to think Musk inv
byrickb928 ( 945187 ) writes:
Oh, and I forgot. Fail fast and iteration was NASA's plan to go to the Moon the first time(s). SpaceX uses similar strategies. It seems.
byOl Olsoc ( 1175323 ) writes:
Oh, and I forgot. Fail fast and iteration was NASA's plan to go to the Moon the first time(s). SpaceX uses similar strategies. It seems.
Right - How many Saturn 5 Rocket launches failed? Now How many Starship launches have failed? Should be a similar number ion your thesis is correct. Damn, we got a live one here folks! Your turn, Binky.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byrickb928 ( 945187 ) writes:
The Saturn project began in 1960. Most accounts describe it as engineering-intensive, focused not on iteration but attention to detail and getting it right before going too far down a set path. Von Braun allegedly considered Jupiter rockets as the concept tests, and the engineering effort paid off. Saturn never had a mission failure. Saturn innovated so many things, big engines to control systems to navigation from before launch.
US Rocketry went through many failures, predictably, there was so much to learn
● threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...