Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kog t1_ja54v12 wrote

> Well then you sure confused the issue by saying:

I said Artemis 2. You're so confused.

> Because the implication is that it is capable of launching and returning humans during a mission. It is not. Artemis is far from being able to get a person to the Moon and back again.

Artemis 2 is going to be doing that.

> you flipped to saying that Artemis is meeting NASA specs, and now you’ve flopped to talking about Starship again.

I haven't flipped at all, you're just extremely confused.

> Starship doesn’t have to meet NASA specs to take people

You're the one talking about NASA using Starship. You said:

> As NASA currently expects Starship to work, Starship can replace Artemis entirely.

EDIT: LOL he blocked me after realizing that he said NASA would use Starship and I was responding to that.

1

ithappenedone234 t1_ja5c7k5 wrote

You can’t remember what you said.

You said “Starship has literally years of testing to go before NASA will consider it human safe for launch and return”

I then explained that NASA is not the sole arbiter of ‘human safe.’ Then you flipped and said Artemis was. Then you flipped and said Starship will have to comply.

> Artemis 2 is going to be doing that.

But hasn’t. It’s not yet mission capable.

> You’re the one talking about NASA using Starship. You said:

As NASA currently expects Starship to work, Starship can replace Artemis entirely.

Which is an incontrovertible fact that NASA currently expects to Starship to work. That’s why they contracted for the Starship HLS.

A series of non HLS models can replace the rest of the Artemis program. If NASA wanted to be timely and on budget.

1