Ther is no mention of the lander. Isn't it supposed to be a version of that thing that SpaceX still has in the "Explodes 100% of the times going up, never mind coming back, and forget about landing" stage?

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

That's just a difference in testing methods. Testing to failure figuring out what went wrong and fixing it is a valid method. If you look at ULA's timeline, their testing and design for Vulcan was done not during flights, but it cost them falling behind in launch orders.

Besides, the lander wasn't going to be used until Artemis III. Whatever delays II isn't caused by SpaceX.

[–] hascat@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Vulcan was delayed because of BE-4 readiness, not because of anything ULA itself was doing

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

Still doesn't invalidate what I said. If their testing was done during flights it could have made it to space sooner.

The BE-4 did look really good though.

[–] Crampon@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hating on the muskman is great. But being so stupid not realising why SpaceX launches vehicles they know gonna explode just makes you the biggest dork on the instance.

SpaceX launches and lands shit every week. Its such a routine it doesn't hit the news. Signalling SpaceX is a failure because of their experimental flights succeed in gathering knowledge while they explode is such a stupid take. I see it way too much here.

[–] tinkeringidiot@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

This. Those weekly rockets are visible from my house. It’s almost a non-event to all but the most avid space fans - people play “was that rumble a rocket or a freight train”. The county EOC is trying to get permission not to activate for Falcon 9 launches because they’re so reliable.

But yeah let’s pretend SpaceX are all idiots because they blow things up in testing.