/sci/ - Science & Math

F

>>12256955
Which is a shame. Long ago SLS supporters had a good argument for not using new tech in SLS because the rocket was advertised as being quick to develop by reusing Shuttle parts, but now development has dragged on for so long that new tech could've been used. Now it's just "well, we're too far into it to stop now". Meanwhile the piss poor management that has caused the delays is left unaddressed just like when that same kind of management killed seven astronauts.

>>11736977
OOPS

On this day 34 years ago, Space Shuttle Challenger tragically exploded during STS-51L. All seven astronauts on board were killed by the accident.

>>11189280
>I am not OP you stupid autistic monkey, why in the fuck would you think I am OP?
when did i say you were OP, retard?

>The red herring is the value to trick morons like you because the value doesn't matter
classic low IQ response. suppose you need 7 tiles, the big box has 40+ tiles and the small box has 6?
i guess you'd apply your """logic""" and buy 1 big box because smol box 2 smol?

shitty undergrads with 0 real world experience just don't understand that in good engineering, precise decision-making is a habit, not just something you apply when you think you need it, otherwise you end up with pic related

NASA focusing on PR rather than practicality has never caused any problems before right?

Me: 1st year eng student who transferred out of biology.

I just joined my uni's rocket team and I have no idea what I am doing, I couldn't tell you how many fins a rocket has.

I wanna build a reusable rocket that goes to either 10,000 ft or 30,000 ft. How the hell does someone go about teaching themselves this stuff?

Do I just read random introductory textbooks to rockets?

I know my multivariable calculus and ordinary diff equations if that counts for anything.

>>9508507
>Just saying that no LAS/abort modes = death is silly