this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2026
122 points (99.2% liked)

Slop.

816 readers
401 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
VILenin@hexbear.net
MiraculousMM@hexbear.net
Hestia@hexbear.net
oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net
Diva@lemmy.ml
Diva@hexbear.net
mathemachristian@hexbear.net
122
That's the market efficiency of insiders (hexbear.net)
submitted 3 weeks ago by plinky@hexbear.net to c/slop@hexbear.net
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

linky

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Flyberius@hexbear.net 28 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

There are all these articles explaining to me why fueling up this rocket is so hard and why NASA just can't get it right and we should cut them some slack, but isn't this rocket essentially just a cut and shut space shuttle? Same engines, same boosters (albeit one quarter larger), same fuel and plumbing. Has NASA simply lost the expertise to handle hydrogen fuel?

[–] Egonallanon@feddit.uk 24 points 3 weeks ago

Could just be the case they handling cryogenic hydrogen is a colossal pain. It does fun things like diffuse through steel pipes and burn completely clear. Probably why most other launches go with methane now days.

[–] TheVelvetGentleman@hexbear.net 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

but isn't this rocket essentially just a cut and shut space shuttle? Same engines, same boosters (albeit one quarter larger), same fuel and plumbing. Has NASA simply lost the expertise to handle hydrogen fuel?

The image on the left is the space shuttle. The right is the SLS leaving the same building. What are you talking about?

[–] Flyberius@hexbear.net 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It uses the same engines, same fuel and same boosters, albeit they added an extension to the booster. That's what I'm talking about.

I appreciate that it's a different shape, but most of the tech is the same.

[–] TheVelvetGentleman@hexbear.net 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So looking at those two images, you seriously don't think that the differently shaped vehicles might have differences that affect all manner of systems?

[–] Flyberius@hexbear.net 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

When it comes to fueling, not really no. This thing is literally just the space shuttle flight hardware rearranged into a stack.

[–] TheVelvetGentleman@hexbear.net 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I have a feeling that you know better.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 2 points 3 weeks ago

If they did they wouldn't be asking about it, now would they?

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I want you to build a new boat exclusively out of 40 year old spare parts for a Ford Pinto.

[–] Flyberius@hexbear.net 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If I did and it was pissing fuel this much I'd be very concerned about the rest of the boat.

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah you probably should be it's a real piece of shit boat