stetrain

19 ms·

301.
by stetrain 1y ago
As far as I know all of the known Artemis mission profiles only use the lunar lander to shuttle from NRHO (lunar orbit / gateway station location) to the lunar surface and back. All crew return is planned to be done with Orion for now.
302.
by stetrain 1y ago
GM claims that this is exactly how their Ultium battery pack architecture works. It is made up of multiple modules each with their own BMS, and supposedly one module can be replaced without having to be a match in chemistry and degradation
303.
by stetrain 1y ago
The water used for irrigation is usually replenished by precipitation.
304.
by stetrain 1y ago
If you think there's no value to returning to the moon, building a base, etc. then fine. But you keep moving the goalposts of what you are taking issue with here.
305.
by stetrain 1y ago
The vehicle that returns to Earth is Orion which stays in NRHO and does not bring its fuel to the lunar surface. Return payload constraints are probably from using Orion as the return vehicle. Mass to the surface is much higher than Apollo
306.
by stetrain 1y ago
> landing all of your return fuel The fuel that is landed is used to get back from the lunar surface to lunar orbit, not to return to Earth. That fuel stays with Orion in NRHO.
307.
by stetrain 1y ago
The Apollo missions landed two crew members in a tin can with extreme limits on what weight they could bring with them in either direction. A single trip launch will always be constrained like this due to the tyranny of the rocket equation.
308.
by stetrain 1y ago
They were talking about Falcon 9, which is absolutely being reused.
309.
by stetrain 1y ago
> I stand by what I said: not happening. I'll believe it when I see it. And it's totally valid for you to have that opinion. But it's your opinion, not "the consensus."
310.
by stetrain 1y ago
> "Why didn't just get it right on their first test", really? People can't even get a regex right the first time. The comment you replied to didn't say that. And this isn't the first test. I think their comm
311.
by stetrain 1y ago
I don't think "plan an explosion" is quite right. They planned a test that would subject various components to stress levels outside of the normal mission profile. The various specific failures that resulted from that may be
312.
by stetrain 1y ago
How did the fuel you put in your car get there? Your car didn't come with all of the fuel for the trip, nor did it spawn at the gas pump. It was pumped, shipped, refined, and trucked to that point using a complex supply chain, enabling
313.
by stetrain 1y ago
I think that understanding of the consensus is incorrect. The mission plan for Artemis 3 is that a specialized Starship upper stage will be refueled in LEO and then transfer to lunar orbit where it will wait for astronauts arriving on SLS&#
314.
by stetrain 1y ago
I wouldn't expect that on the next flight. One option is they can run it again with the data gained from missing tiles etc. and see if there is an improvement. They could also do a similar flight but with an actual orbital insertion an
315.
by stetrain 1y ago
Yes, although it was stated before the flight that they were intentionally flying with some heat tiles removed and with a more aggressive profile to test some outer limits.
316.
by stetrain 1y ago
Yes, you’re absolutely right! Agreeing with the comment and adding my own experience was the point of my comment. Is there anything else I can help you with?
317.
by stetrain 1y ago
Yep, the LLM will happily continue this spiral indefinitely but I've learned that if providing a bit more context and one correction doesn't provide a good solution, continuing is generally a waste of time. They tend to very quick
318.
by stetrain 1y ago
Yes, the quick to correct itself isn't really useful. I would not like a human assistant/intern/pair programmer who when asked how to do X said: > To accomplish X you can just use Y! But Y isn't applicable in this sce
319.
by stetrain 1y ago
Yes, my point is just that the financial feasibility is related to the policy decisions. For example you could say that most people who live in Manhattan would choose to live in a 2000sqft+ detached home if it was financially feasible to do
320.
by stetrain 1y ago
I think that may be a bit of an exaggeration. Yes the financial component is part of it. Building dense walkable urban developments makes car ownership more expensive and non-car options cheaper and more convenient. Some would argue that in
321.
by stetrain 1y ago
> (Unless, of course, you consider parking costs part of city design?) Absolutely. The amount of space taken up by parking, and its related cost, and things like congestion charges, are part of city planning. And you can still significan
322.
by stetrain 1y ago
But those cities do exist. Just mostly not in the US. They also don’t need to make non-car options more convenient for all people, or even most people. The larger the share of non-car trips the better things get even for those who still dri
323.
by stetrain 1y ago
Yes. Letting cities be actually dense would make suburbs work better. But we tend to resist upzoning existing low-density development that is now in the density gravity well of the expanding city, keeping housing prices artificially inflate
324.
by stetrain 1y ago
Self-driving cars don’t really do much to increase density of moving people or decrease infrastructure costs per-passenger-mile. Some parking needs may be reduced, but you still need somewhere for the cars to hang out while waiting for each
325.
by stetrain 1y ago
Yes, I think a lot of people miss that the issue is that we have forced a reduction in variety, options, and market choices by dictating single-family detached zoning in huge swaths of the country, even in congested metro areas. The people
326.
by stetrain 1y ago
It’s also a real, significant, direct hazard to human life. Over 100 people a day in the US die in traffic incidents. And that’s not counting survivable but traumatic injuries.
327.
by stetrain 1y ago
> Car centric society is amazing. Everyone who doesn’t have it desperately wishes they did have it Yes, this is why a small apartment in Manhattan is so cheap and a large house in the middle of Iowa is so expensive.
328.
by stetrain 1y ago
Asking most Americans to go car free isn’t realistic. But I think asking for the kinds of development that reduce the need for and length of car trips, as a choice of place to live, is reasonable. There’s also a vast gulf between a car-free
329.
by stetrain 1y ago
Yes in the sense of suburbs that commute by car into the city, requiring that city to maintain adequate infrastructure, but prefer the lower taxes of the suburbs. If you choose a lifestyle that requires more to be spent per capita on roads,
330.
by stetrain 1y ago
The creator of the video linked in the article talks about Toronto a lot and its major shortcomings on transit and general urban planning. A lot of North American cities are bad places to live without a car, even though the population densi

More ›