Devin

@BuccoChicago @PebMet1 So you know Dragon exists, but seem to have forgotten what it can do?

@Devintcotter @PebMet1 Has Starship? Don’t get me wrong, Falcon and Dragon have done incredible things. But what they’ve accomplished and what Starship is supposed to do (and it’s supposed to do a lot more than Falcon/Dragon) are two totally different things.

The perfection of SLS and Orion show we have reliable hardware to get us to the moon. For all of the criticism of the two vehicles, they are the only mission ready vehicles we have and did their jobs flawlessly.

@BuccoChicago @PebMet1 Has BO ever: Docked in orbit? Flown a crew to orbit? Built a life support system? Had a successful splashdown?

@Devintcotter @PebMet1 It’s a lot less to develop. A smaller craft that’s not intended for other uses like Starship. Starship has a long way to go for all it’s intended applications.

@BuccoChicago @PebMet1 Why do you think BO is ahead for SpaceX?

@Devintcotter @PebMet1 Blue Moon Mk2

@Simberg_Space SLS & Orion started as a lifeline for an industry at a crossroads. It’s sadly become the fail safe for staff, programs, and facilities that can’t hack it or are not needed in commercial space.

The "insurance policy" was always an insane framing. An insurance policy is where you pay a small amount of money against the potential of an adverse event. This was paying a ridiculous amount of money for a ridiculous launch system and capsule, with no design reference mission.

@StephenClark1 That’s the best move they can make. Launch all the AVs asap and then GSE can be Vulcan only. If only they could get the SRBs reliable before it’s too late.

ULA is burning through its remaining Atlas V inventory with Vulcan effectively grounded. There are three Atlas Vs left for Amazon Leo, including this one. Still, a remarkably fast one-week turnaround from launch to stacking. ULA is going for a record-breaking 23-day turnaround at SLC-41 with this mission.

@lavie154 He was right, what’s your point?

ok

@rpgormley @JaneidyEve @elonmusk You don’t know that for sure. There were early plans for grey & red dragons,aside from landing legs in the heat shield not being included, unless you work at SpaceX you can’t say anything about the heat shield, rad shielding, or any ability for dragon to loiter in lunar orbit.

@JaneidyEve @elonmusk Maybe it can, but the Dragon capsule is not designed for missions beyond low Earth orbit because of limited batteries, lack of sufficient radiation shielding, etc, not to mention an insufficient heat shield for withstanding atmospheric entry from trans lunar speeds.

@elonmusk Could a Falcon Heavy rocket be modified to fit a Crew Dragon to launch astronauts towards the Moon, like Artemis II? Or does the voyage require more power?

@ScottLikedSLS @ManaByte You’re a kid right? You post like a kid.

@Devintcotter @ManaByte your points are mute lol, you won't admit you called Jared Issacman insane and you refuse to acknowledge your original points meaning zilch

The Artemis I shield did not fail. It protected Orion the entire way down. The Avcoat char layer came off in a different pattern than predicted, but the capsule stayed well inside safe limits. NASA has spent two years analyzing that data. The update for Artemis II is not a redesign. It is in how the material is processed and bonded so the gas pockets that caused the flaking do not form the same way. NASA has said repeatedly that the shield did its job and the new one incorporates everything they learned. And here is the part fear posts never mention. NASA has already planned the re-entry angle and corridor to manage heating spikes and reduce peak load on the heat shield. Orion does not just fall back in. It flies a controlled skip re-entry that spreads the heat over time and keeps the vehicle inside comfortable margins. Artemis II is not gambling with four astronauts. It is flying a capsule built for lunar speeds, a heat shield that already survived the worst case test, and a re-entry profile designed to keep it well within limits. Be excited. Do not fall for fear bait.

@ScottLikedSLS @ManaByte I’ll take that as your surrender since you can’t address my actual points. Maybe when you mature you can have an actual conversation.

@Devintcotter @ManaByte lol

@ScottLikedSLS @ManaByte Since you’re obsessed with SpaceX it’s interesting that F9 had to compete multiple successful launches before it could launch astronauts, but that doesn’t apply to SLS/Orion. I bet you weren’t old enough to see the Challenger tragedy live. More tests are better

@ScottLikedSLS @ManaByte Once again, since you’re slow, I think that if a flight test was justified it needs to be repeated until the test passes. If ground models are good to fly crew, then the cost of the flight was a waste. Feel free to keep flinging your insecurities at me for no point.

@ScottLikedSLS @ManaByte It’s sad that you keep bringing up SpaceX when that’s not related at all to the topic. You clearly can’t have a reasonable or intelligent conversation about this. Perhaps you should change your name back to ScottSimpsSLS.

@Devintcotter @ManaByte its incredible you think simply having flight experience avoids any problems lol, it doesn't and in recent times its hardly shown any affect on how reliable something is even with tons of flight experience *cough* Ship *cough*

@ScottLikedSLS @ManaByte And how many test flights did the life support get? How about the toilet? Or docking, or the helium valves? If a test is worth $1b and it doesn’t work then it’s either worth repeating or it was a cash grab.

the Orion dummy flight was literally to check how basic systems functioned and if the new heat shield was a good way to go, which they found wasn't.. which is WHY they redesigned it and tested it uncrewed on Artemis 1 from an actual lunar reentry, of which the Heat shield remained in its operating parameters and 4x inside its safety margins.

@ScottLikedSLS @ManaByte Either the Orion dummy flight was a total stupid waste of money for legacy contractors or it should have been repeated.

@Devintcotter @ManaByte so you are still calling Jared Issacman insane then yeah?

@Oy_Lumo @ManaByte Double checking is checking once, then checking again. What previous mission of Orion flew a heat shield without anomalies? What mission tested life support? What mission tested the toilet? What mission will test the new upper stage? Which launches did these tests?

@Devintcotter @ManaByte Are you illiterate? They are double checking everything. Thats literally what these missions are. Artemis 3 is double checking docking with the LM and the other mission critical stuff before Artemis 4. Artemis 2 was a test and double checking things before we land on the moon

@ScottLikedSLS @ManaByte Either you test like you fly or you don’t. A1 could have flown with way more systems. Docking systems and even the toilet could have been tested on the ISS. Blind faith so why the space shuttle was the deadliest spacecraft to date.

yes because famously the only time things get damaged is in flight... please refer to SpaceX with their COPVs for a lesson on why thats not accurate and congrats on calling Jared Issacman an insane person for Signing off on Artemis II flying crew despite fully reading and knowing about the Artemis 1 Heat shield anomaly and its actionary steps to recertify for flight lol

@Oy_Lumo @ManaByte Are you smoking crack? There are lots of important systems only being tested for the first time on this crewed mission and they still didn’t test mission critical systems because LM couldn’t equip them without more time and lots more money. NASA has not double checked anything

@Devintcotter @ManaByte Redundancy. Make sure everything works and that the ground tests were accurate before an actual manned flight. Almost everything one Artemis 2 worked and nothing essential has broke. Why didnt they just land on the moon instead of doing another mission? To double check everything

@ScottLikedSLS @ManaByte First off, no Orion will be reused so heat shield replacement is not an issue. Most importantly, if a test was warranted and the heat shield did not perform as expected, a sane person would do another test without crew onboard.

@Devintcotter @ManaByte the heatshield type on EFT-1 was found to be significantly too over complex to build fastly and was entirely monolithic which made its extremely hard to repair any damaged sections, and Post EFT-1 they weren't sure if that version of the Avcoat shield was able to take Lunar heat.

@blind_via SpaceX regularly lands on a rocking barge. A slight slope shouldn’t be an issue

SpaceX's HLS is still a big concern of mine. Sure, they demonstrated they can land this thing on propulsive landing already. But having a sufficiently flat surface to have the same degree of confidence there is hard to see going smoothly.