Message-ID:

Never make any mistaeks. -- Anonymous, in a mail discussion about to a kernel bug report

tech / sci.astro.amateur / Re: the new automated shuttle. U.S. going backwards?

Re: the new automated shuttle. U.S. going backwards?

<upigac$2iglb$1@dont-email.me>

http://rslight.i2p/tech/article-flat.php?id=11534&group=sci.astro.amateur#11534

copy link Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur

Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!news.neodome.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: the new automated shuttle. U.S. going backwards?
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:31:40 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <upigac$2iglb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <31550803-639c-46fd-b58f-6cde6eec2fafn@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7395a4626f839299ff0b353c8e241222";
logging-data="2704043"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wqLo/niYPYecluX3S+JWG"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZUgOBgcR2m48waS+Y7y70Wmbvy4=

by: Mikko - Fri, 2 Feb 2024 10:31 UTC

On 2024-02-02 05:05:22 +0000, Rich said:

> First, they decide (at taxpayer's massive expense) to go back to the
> moon, though honestly why isn't clear. So, instead using old, PROVEN
> technology, they decide to go from a cold-start and do it all again, 50
> years later.

The technology of the Moon missions 50 years ago is by modern standards
too risky and too expensive.

Mikko

Re: the new automated shuttle. U.S. going backwards?

<6ajsri9b554cfi4h914gphu65b8bdjhb8b@4ax.com>

copy mid

http://rslight.i2p/tech/article-flat.php?id=11539&group=sci.astro.amateur#11539

copy link Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.hispagatos.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clp@alumni.caltech.edu (Chris L Peterson)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: the new automated shuttle. U.S. going backwards?
Message-ID: <6ajsri9b554cfi4h914gphu65b8bdjhb8b@4ax.com>
References: <31550803-639c-46fd-b58f-6cde6eec2fafn@googlegroups.com> <upigac$2iglb$1@dont-email.me> <06f72892-d4ab-4701-8611-8e302bbc5e06n@googlegroups.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 20
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2024 07:28:16 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 1874

by: Chris L Peterson - Sat, 3 Feb 2024 14:28 UTC

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:15:08 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday 2 February 2024 at 05:31:44 UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-02 05:05:22 +0000, Rich said:
>>
>> > First, they decide (at taxpayer's massive expense) to go back to the
>> > moon, though honestly why isn't clear. So, instead using old, PROVEN
>> > technology, they decide to go from a cold-start and do it all again, 50
>> > years later.
>> The technology of the Moon missions 50 years ago is by modern standards
>> too risky and too expensive.
>>
>> Mikko
>
>Compared to what? Space-X's self-nuking starship or the Virgin Galactic debacle, or the two Shuttles that through complexity and
>human incompetence blew-up/disintegrated? The Apollo ships, even though the entire program was really a second choice worked very well. 1 problem in all the launches. Pretty good for the Stone-Age electronics they had to work with then.

The Space-X rockets are much more reliable than any of the old NASA
rockets. Not so much electronics, but materials.

Subject	Author
Re: the new automated shuttle. U.S. going backwards?	Mikko
Re: the new automated shuttle. U.S. going backwards?	Chris L Peterson