Credit to u/Intrepid-Part-9196

  • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    You’d think NASA would have figured out how to handle hydrogen by now. Especially considering they ran into this exact same problem on Artemis I.

    Pro tip: don’t use hydrogen as your rocket propellant.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        They know how to move on from it. Congress privatized next gen rocketry, and then told NASA to go back to the moon before China, but on a minimal budget. The old tech is what they have. Artemis is cobbled together from old space shuttle hardware.

        • burble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I think the problem is more than Congress told them to build a new rocket with shuttle parts. You can’t exactly change your prop if you’re required to use the same engines.

          • Tinidril@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I didn’t say that Congress told them to build a new rocket with shuttle parts. And yeah, a short paragraph isn’t going to capture all the details of decades of interactions between politics, the private space industry, and funding of NASA. There is indeed more to it.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          20 hours ago

          They actually told them to go to the moon, and pretend it’s Mars because they’ll have to take the same rocket to Mars. Oh no wait, never mind the whole Mars bit, but there won’t be any time to change the “pretend it’s Mars” bit.

          Which is why the entire Artemis program is pants on head stupid.