NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is unaffordable

Re:NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is u... by Sharlin on Thursday September 07, 2023 @05:40PM (#37425987)

Honestly, that's like asking for a source for the fact that people need oxygen to live. Fuck, they weren't even allowed to finally correct the design flaw in the solid rocket boosters that was the direct cause of the Challenger disaster – namely the fact that they were made of several segments not for any engineering reason but simply the fact that they were manufactured in Utah (due to pork barrel) and could not be transported to Florida in one piece.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is u... by labster on Thursday September 07, 2023 @05:57PM (#37426150)

Water is wet, the Pope is Catholic, the SLS is a boondoggle.

Imagine being told to design Google in 2000, but in order to save money you have to reuse old software: database from Oracle, OS from IBM, and design around the code from AltaVista. That should only take a few hundred man-months, right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

[dead]

Re:NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is u... by hinkley on Friday September 08, 2023 @01:32PM (#37436684)

The attitude of "I've never heard of this before" has been a common internet troll for at least 25 years. At some point it's not on me to educate you about things that are widely common knowledge, and there's an art to asking for citations without sounding like you're being dismissive, or shifting all of the effort onto the other person.

The top level comment did not achieve this art, but I've seen worse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA finally admits what everyone already knows: SLS is u... by Sharlin on Friday September 08, 2023 @06:02PM (#37439914)

Yeah, something like "Where could I read more about this?" or "Could you point me to some discussion on this?" would have been a much more polite way to ask.

[ Parent | on HN ]