3 ms·
Perhaps, although not obvious that it's cash starved. NASA's slow but meticulous approach has had a few failures, but also incredible successes such as the sky
by HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
Perhaps, although not obvious that it's cash starved.
NASA's slow but meticulous approach has had a few failures, but also incredible successes such as the sky crane martian rover landing - got to get it right first time, tough to move fast and break things when the test environment is 100 million miles away!
Edit: Same goes for 1969's lunar lander - had to work first time.
- fallingknife 3y agoSeems to be great for deep space missions but not launch vehicles.
- sbuttgereit 3y agoMore like it's better with little-noticed science programs which can get by with a minimal amount of politics involved... which to be fair includes the details of deep space missions. Big, flagship projects which attract more attention are where things fall to crap for the most part.
- thmsths 3y agoAnd NASA can be fast too. If I recall the Genesis of the Voyager missions correctly, someone noticed the once in a lifetime opportunity where the planet would align properly for a probe to visit a lot of them in using clever gravity assists. And from there NASA acted quickly to get funding, design and launch 2 probes that are still active today!