Riley Markley

@KenKirtland17 Dude it wasnt a success. If you count the fuselage as the whole rocket, then yes, but Raptor 3, a part of the starship system, gets an F for that flight.

Starship V3 100% success rate btw

How is this an Indian Gem? This is the exact opposite.

The whole AI datacenter in space discourse is so bad. You have illiterate AI bros being dunked on by people who took high school physics (space is not cold! vacuum in an insulator!). Themselves being dunked on by STEM graduates (Stefan-boltzmann! only 100m^2 of radiators!). 1/2

@ZacksJerryRig This is a much better point than the radiator one. It is remarkably expensive, irreparable in orbit, and much more risky than a warehouse of computers.

Yeah - sure guys - Elon is totally going to load up his $20,000,000 dollar untested AI space satellite onto his Starship rocket that blows up 41.7% of the time. Instead of just building it on the ground for 1/10th the cost and zero risk. Go give him your entire life savings.

It still ticks me off that he only says Tung twice. Like it wouldnt have been that hard to say it thrice.

Starting with some energy, and my inability to write brief updates, I am just extremely proud of the NASA crew, our industry, and our international partners. We are getting into a rhythm here at NASA. Earlier this year, setbacks put the Artemis II rocket back in the VAB for repairs, and we determined it was necessary to add another mission, Artemis III in 2027. Since then, we have unveiled the Ignition plans to build a Moon Base and nuclear-powered spaceships, launched a highly successful mission around the Moon, brought the crew home safely, and now watched the torch pass to Artemis III. There will be no shortage of major milestones to celebrate in the months ahead as we build the Moon Base and launch the Nancy Grace Roman telescope. I am beyond proud of the team and all the momentum and excitement around the space program. I do want to take this moment to address two of the questions I have been seeing since the crew announcement. Why are there no women assigned to Artemis III? I have seen reactions ranging from disappointment to outrage. I have personally been to space twice with 50% female crews. My closest advisors and some of the smartest engineers I know are women. In our latest NASA leadership organization, nearly 50% of the Center Directors and Mission Directorate leadership are women. The last astronaut candidate class selected under this Administration was majority female because they were the best of the best, including one astronaut I previously went to space with. In a world with so much controversy, I hope this can be a moment where we celebrate the astronauts selected, respect the integrity of the process, and recognize the extraordinary depth of talent across the entire corps. The crew selection does not involve any political appointees. The Astronaut Office assigns the crew that gives the mission the best chance of meeting its objectives, taking into account many factors, including the background and expertise of the astronauts, such as test pilot experience, development work on specific programs, and availability. For example, those raising this concern may not be aware of the pipeline of crews already preparing to launch to the Space Station, or those who have been undergoing lunar-specific training that would be a better fit for a future surface mission. The Artemis III astronauts are experienced, qualified, and deserve to be celebrated for the mission they have been assigned, just as the crews that follow will be celebrated when their time comes. We have an extraordinary astronaut corps, and every mission and every crew is part of a larger campaign to get America back to the Moon and to build the future we all dreamed about as children. What are the objectives for Artemis III if both landers will not be fully ready? Coming off a highly successful lunar mission like Artemis II, it is not surprising that the bar is set high for Artemis III. I think it is important to understand how difficult and dangerous it is to land astronauts on the Moon. We have not done it in a very long time, and we want to draw from a past playbook for success. That means getting into a cadence of launching, learning, and rolling improvements into the next mission. First and foremost, it is imperative for SLS to be flying with some frequency for operational currency and, honestly, safety. Earlier this year, it was very clear across NASA leadership that an additional mission was necessary in 2027. It is also imperative to gain interoperability data from rendezvous and docking with landers in Earth orbit. We do not need those landers that are still in development to be fully capable and certified for landing on the Moon on Artemis III, but we do need to test certain systems and controllability. Not to mention, we are moving quickly into a future where we do not require a single rocket to bring everything necessary for a mission to space, and as such, gaining experience with multi-launch campaigns and on-orbit assembly is directionally correct. The Blue Origin test lander for Artemis III will incorporate many of the most important systems and subsystems that have not previously been operated by the provider, including ECLSS in a crew cabin, and other avionics. With SpaceX, they have demonstrated many of those capabilities continuously on Crew Dragon, but other controllability tests are important based on the negative-X axis acceleration that will be necessary when Starship undertakes the TLI burn to the Moon with a docked Orion. After Artemis III, we will learn a lot and roll in further improvements, be that hardware, software, or procedural updates, as both providers undertake end-to-end uncrewed demonstrations to the surface in 2028, in advance of Artemis IV, where NASA astronauts will finally complete the grand return to the Moon. As I said in my remarks yesterday, when Gene Cernan left the lunar surface on Apollo 17, he said, “We leave as we came, and, God willing, we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.” We are returning, and we are doing so with the fire carried forward from Apollo, the lessons learned from Artemis II, the crew of Artemis III, and all those who will follow. NASA will send the very best crews for the right missions. If the composition of our astronaut corps and our latest class of candidates says anything, it is that we have exactly the talent required to get the job done. Godspeed Artemis III, and all those who will follow.

@Truthful_ast I get that theres progress but V3 so far is still worse than peak V2. Theres a long way to go.

?

@otherside_X42 I genuineley think this could be better than the current Starship plan.

One sec Imma build it in juno

@mweinbach Holy glaze. Let the sausage dry out a little bro its getting soaked

Apple sandbagged These prompts are faster in practice. These are worst case scenario speeds.

@mweinbach Bro thinks the foundation models are not just copied straight from gemini. Last time Apple tried to develop AI themselves they fell flat on their face.

Gemini DOES NOT power Siri Apple foundational models power Siri Those models are based on Gemini technology. It is not Gemini. Apple and Google have been clear about this since January.

@space_stations Ive long been a fan of abandoning the traditional EVA suit architecture and going for some kind of hardshell design which is basically just a small spacecraft with robotic arms. Its clear current EVA suits are not even close to economical.

Anybody who thinks we can conquer the moon and the solar system with handmade artesanal $250m each space suits is delusional. There's no reason we can't build build Pods for $250k each. 1000 EVA/MoonPods for every Axiom space suit.

@rah_66_comanche Dude one launch every 4 hours is still insane. Its so much faster than Falcon 9 turnaround time that the translated experience is basically nonexistent.

The largest rocket ever designed specifically to do exactly that, from all the experience of years of launching Falcon 9s at the highest cadence in history

@thunderf00t Normally I dont agree with you on alot of things, but yes this is a great point. Theres no reason we should pursue one avenue of being civilized while ignoring the rest.

musk.... 'how would an alien civilization know how civilized we are other than how much power we generate' also musk 'Im glad I cut the funding that provides food and medical care to the worlds poorest children 'into a woodchipper' '

Hey @espn…this isn’t the original audio If you’re gonna post it, play the actual audio So soft, man

New Siri AI can’t even set an alarm without going online. #privacy @JoannaStern

@Kaynouky Yeah thats totally fair.

@RileyMarkley I don’t see why space stations shouldn’t count, it’s very much the same thing. And spacecrafts launching to the same orbit and docking, even in a short time span like a couple of weeks, has happened dozens of time. If Starship or Blue Moon cant wait that long, it’s their fault.

This weird claim that this would be one of history’s most complex missions is very puzzling, even only considering NASA’s own record. Most of the Shuttle-ISS missions were far more complex, usually including several EVAs, same goes for the Hubble ones. And almost all Apollo.

@nothing Why does Carl keep repeating how much money I have?

Another day at Nothing HQ.

@holisticnut33 Yeah sure a shockwave that travels through a vaccum.

This experiment proves that a rocket cannot propel in a vacuum.

@SecDuffy @UnionPacific @POTUS @Freedom250 @NASA Bro tryna still be involved with NASA lmao. Crawl back in your hole.

🚂 THE TRUMP TRAIN IS ROLLING 🇺🇸 Check out @UnionPacific’s stunning locomotive No. 4547, honoring @POTUS and America’s 250th birthday @Freedom250 It’s currently on its FIRST MISSION: hauling solid rocket motor segments for @NASA’s Artemis III lunar exploration program 🚀 These tools will power NASA’s mission to explore deep space and land humanity back on the Moon!