lets_bang_blue

lets_bang_blue t1_j6o072p wrote

If it's so hugely beneficial. It would be done or in the works but it's not? So we need to consider there are reasons. Your asking why it's not being done and I am giving you answers which your now saying are not valid. OK so your trying to argue thay the ISS is in desperate need or large steel structures? For what and how will it be assembled?

Water is a valid point but do you think designing an entirely new launch system just to bring water into space is economical.

"It's hugely beneficial for Artemis mission". Can you go into some details here about why Artemis needs to have a massive amount of stuff launched along side it? Does the mission not already have everything needed for success loaded onto a single rocket?

1

lets_bang_blue t1_j6nlush wrote

25 years from now sure. But what value would raw materials be in space currently? Need to have an assembly team up there, which no one has. Or a robot to assemble, which no one has. The concept or something similar will eventually be used for raw materials but we are not at that stage of space exploration where we can fabricate our structures in space

5

lets_bang_blue t1_j6niz5y wrote

Your missing the massive accelerations needed to shoot something that starts on land and makes it into space. Spin Launch is doing something similar but taking time to spin things up so not crazy high gs. Secondly the air resistance of going so fast at low atmosphere provides heat shield issues. Generally speaking when rockets are going their fastest, they are in thin or no atmosphere. When they are in the thick sea level atmosphere, they are going extremely slow relatively speaking.

18

lets_bang_blue t1_j1ko5lq wrote

It's the truth. I started thinking about this shit a few days ago and it's all fun and games until the anxiety kicks in. Gota get it outa your mind and go e joy your life as best you can. All we can do right?

Chances are, questions like this will never be answered in our lifetime just due to the shear amount of stuff out there and frankly to even be confident, we would probably want to watch the universe evolve for a few thousand years to study our theories and see if they hold true. Measure once now, measure again in a thousand years kinda stuff. So like I said, you gota just live

2

lets_bang_blue t1_j095oh8 wrote

That's the issue with small companies. You have 40 hours of work for one employee but now one day you grow and you have 50 hours of work that needs to be completed. Do you hire a new guy and give them each 25 hours or have that one guy do 50 hours? Neither option is great. At a large company, you have 10 employees doing 400 hours of work. You now get 420, ok everyone now works 42 hour weeks and no big deal. Once you hit 440 hours of work, you get a new employee and everyone is back to 40 hour weeks.

All we as employees can expect from a small company is they recognize your additional work and treat you accordinly and importantly, hire when it becomes completely unreasonable workload for one person. Sucks, but it's the nature of small companies and hopefully the benefits of a small workplace outweigh this downside

1

lets_bang_blue t1_j08jta3 wrote

Your in management which, imo, means your signing up to do the job that needs to get done. If the company is changing/growing and there are new responsibilities, it falls on management. Now as a manager maybe you need to make the determination to hire someone else because of how much extra work it is. But yea changing responsibilities or adding responsibilities doesn't seam like something you can fight back against.

1