User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 4:57:45 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: +1 SLS is already obsolete. The entire thing needs to be shitcanned (again) but this time forever. But I guess they need to test fire their 50 year old rocket engines to get the rust out of them. More heavy and super heavy lift rockets > relying on spacex fanboyism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:01:01 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cancelling the Constellation program was the dumbest thing they ever did. S/SH is easily 5-10 years from operational human flights. Especially with that 'we're going to catch the booster' idea. Catching the booster has zero to do with human safety. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:04:14 PM EDT
[#3]
Hold. Might fire later, maybe. Check back and see if it's been lit or not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:04:23 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Constellation wouldve never been cancelled. Ares 1 was deving the bigger SRBs, J2X (I think), Orion, and was a stop gap for commercial crew. From there Ares V was going to use the same upper stage, SRB's, and Orion. From there it moves to construction of a Mars transfer vehicle with NERVA propulsion. Wouldve been less expensive and more consistent than trying to dev it all in one shot like with SLS. Im not a SpaceX fan boy like most here, I just like rockets. Of course, SLS would be cancelled and then a new system would start development. At which point you would recycle your argument, rinse, repeat. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Agreed. If there was any actual fiscal responsibility involved, SLS would have been cancelled by now. Constellation wouldve never been cancelled. Ares 1 was deving the bigger SRBs, J2X (I think), Orion, and was a stop gap for commercial crew. From there Ares V was going to use the same upper stage, SRB's, and Orion. From there it moves to construction of a Mars transfer vehicle with NERVA propulsion. Wouldve been less expensive and more consistent than trying to dev it all in one shot like with SLS. Im not a SpaceX fan boy like most here, I just like rockets. Of course, SLS would be cancelled and then a new system would start development. At which point you would recycle your argument, rinse, repeat. Ares V was cool, and I wish they would have stayed with that program. The problem with SLS is not the concept per se - it is the grotesque incompetence on the part of NASA and the main contractors in implementing it. It should have been cancelled as soon as it became apparent that they were completely unable to keep costs under control - especially since that was the rationale for the cancellation of Constellation. The entire reason to just re-use old technology and re-use existing equipment was to save money and time. If SLS could have been built on schedule, and on budget, it would obviously still have been old tech (and the approach of just throwing away half a billion $ in engines for each launch is insane) - but it could still have been a reasonable stop-gap approach that could have been realistic for the short term. But given just how ludicrously expensive it has gotten (is the launch cost up to $2 billion per launch now?) that train has left the station long, LONG ago. Had they cancelled SLS, they should NOT have started development of a new system. NASA and their contractors have demonstrated how mired they are in a completely unrealistic outdated and financially unsustainable model. Instead, they should have adopted the principles of the Commercial Crew/Cargo programs, and partnered with commercial vendors on specific cost contracts to build the hardware, specifying the mission goals and specs, but not the hardware itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:08:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I love how it still "costs" over $100 million per engine to build something that was designed in the 1970s.  Meanwhile, Musk claims that it costs about $1 million to build a Raptor engine. Granted, Musk is probably Quote HistoryQuoted: I love how it still "costs" over $100 million per engine to build something that was designed in the 1970s. Meanwhile, Musk claims that it costs about $1 million to build a Raptor engine. Granted, Musk is probably Doesn’t surprise me at all that an engine designed in the 1970s would cost more than one designed for more modern manufacturing methods. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:17:55 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ares V was cool, and I wish they would have stayed with that program. The problem with SLS is not the concept per se - it is the grotesque incompetence on the part of NASA and the main contractors in implementing it. It should have been cancelled as soon as it became apparent that they were completely unable to keep costs under control - especially since that was the rationale for the cancellation of Constellation. The entire reason to just re-use old technology and re-use existing equipment was to save money and time. If SLS could have been built on schedule, and on budget, it would obviously still have been old tech (and the approach of just throwing away half a billion $ in engines for each launch is insane) - but it could still have been a reasonable stop-gap approach that could have been realistic for the short term. But given just how ludicrously expensive it has gotten (is the launch cost up to $2 billion per launch now?) that train has left the station long, LONG ago. Had they cancelled SLS, they should NOT have started development of a new system. NASA and their contractors have demonstrated how mired they are in a completely unrealistic outdated and financially unsustainable model. Instead, they should have adopted the principles of the Commercial Crew/Cargo programs, and partnered with commercial vendors on specific cost contracts to build the hardware, specifying the mission goals and specs, but not the hardware itself. SLS under Obama and under Trump are almost night and day. Though it doesnt help that weather, manufacturing mistakes, and a pandemic hurt the program. Under Obama they not only had no deadlines they had no real mission so they did things VERY slowly. With deadlines, a mission, etc, things have been moving much better. Core 1 had a welding issue so they put it to the side to be repaired later and core 2 was then built (Artemis 1). Other delays are damage sustained due to hurricanes and the Green Run was delayed due to the pesky WuFlu. Had Obama and his administrator actually created a real goal/deadline like Jim and Trump did we would be talking about launch number 2 or 3 right now of the system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:24:26 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I love how it still "costs" over $100 million per engine to build something that was designed in the 1970s. Meanwhile, Musk claims that it costs about $1 million to build a Raptor engine. Granted, Musk is probably Quote HistoryQuoted: I love how it still "costs" over $100 million per engine to build something that was designed in the 1970s. Meanwhile, Musk claims that it costs about $1 million to build a Raptor engine. Granted, Musk is probably Yes, that was point although not mentioned in my post. Old $$$$$$$$$$ Tech. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:25:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I doubt that's coincidence. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Burning it at 4:20, eh?  Are you daring to imply that NASA is trying to invoke marijuana magic? Because Elon beat them to that too.   Lindsey Stirling Performs Artemis at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center But at least they're trying? Oh and EricS... I wish you weren't right about the total disassembly before flight. But, that's a price that someone is going to have to pay, at least as long as this... Program is in its current form. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:34:06 PM EDT
[#9]
T- ~20 min
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:37:42 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you daring to imply that NASA is trying to invoke marijuana magic? Because Elon beat them to that too.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0oclM1Yw2ABut at least they're trying? Oh and EricS... I wish you weren't right about the total disassembly before flight. But, that's a price that someone is going to have to pay, at least as long as this... Program is in its current form. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Burning it at 4:20, eh? Are you daring to imply that NASA is trying to invoke marijuana magic? Because Elon beat them to that too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0oclM1Yw2ABut at least they're trying? Oh and EricS... I wish you weren't right about the total disassembly before flight. But, that's a price that someone is going to have to pay, at least as long as this... Program is in its current form. LOL! Their video probably cost more than a successful SpaceX Launch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:39:13 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SLS under Obama and under Trump are almost night and day. Though it doesnt help that weather, manufacturing mistakes, and a pandemic hurt the program. Under Obama they not only had no deadlines they had no real mission so they did things VERY slowly. With deadlines, a mission, etc, things have been moving much better. Core 1 had a welding issue so they put it to the side to be repaired later and core 2 was then built (Artemis 1). Other delays are damage sustained due to hurricanes and the Green Run was delayed due to the pesky WuFlu. Had Obama and his administrator actually created a real goal/deadline like Jim and Trump did we would be talking about launch number 2 or 3 right now of the system. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ares V was cool, and I wish they would have stayed with that program. The problem with SLS is not the concept per se - it is the grotesque incompetence on the part of NASA and the main contractors in implementing it. It should have been cancelled as soon as it became apparent that they were completely unable to keep costs under control - especially since that was the rationale for the cancellation of Constellation. The entire reason to just re-use old technology and re-use existing equipment was to save money and time. If SLS could have been built on schedule, and on budget, it would obviously still have been old tech (and the approach of just throwing away half a billion $ in engines for each launch is insane) - but it could still have been a reasonable stop-gap approach that could have been realistic for the short term. But given just how ludicrously expensive it has gotten (is the launch cost up to $2 billion per launch now?) that train has left the station long, LONG ago. Had they cancelled SLS, they should NOT have started development of a new system. NASA and their contractors have demonstrated how mired they are in a completely unrealistic outdated and financially unsustainable model. Instead, they should have adopted the principles of the Commercial Crew/Cargo programs, and partnered with commercial vendors on specific cost contracts to build the hardware, specifying the mission goals and specs, but not the hardware itself. SLS under Obama and under Trump are almost night and day. Though it doesnt help that weather, manufacturing mistakes, and a pandemic hurt the program. Under Obama they not only had no deadlines they had no real mission so they did things VERY slowly. With deadlines, a mission, etc, things have been moving much better. Core 1 had a welding issue so they put it to the side to be repaired later and core 2 was then built (Artemis 1). Other delays are damage sustained due to hurricanes and the Green Run was delayed due to the pesky WuFlu. Had Obama and his administrator actually created a real goal/deadline like Jim and Trump did we would be talking about launch number 2 or 3 right now of the system. I definitely believe it was mis-managed under the Obama administration, I just find it so bizarre that the reason for the cancellation of Constellation was because it was over-budget and behind schedule, and then the go ahead and end up with SLS as perhaps the worst example of being over-budget and behind schedule.  I think it's as much an issue of a completely dysfunctional NASA culture. I am not an expert, but I have developed this suspicion that when NASA got really good at the smaller-scale stuff, like the Mars rovers (which I think are some of the most impressive and amazing technological achievements by mankind) and all sorts of small and amazing probes, then they somehow lost or forgot their project management skills for the really big stuff, and so when they started big new projects like Constellation and later SLS, they just completely fucked it up. I honestly don't know WHY they suck so badly now, or if it's that their contractors just got amazingly good at milking them and abusing the system. I just think it's tragic, and I have hated seeing this happening to NASA. The last couple of times that my wife and I have been at KSC, it's almost sad to walk through their displays. It's like it's a history museum, with an homage to the past ... and then some wishful thinking and fantasies about what they would LIKE to do in the future, but you know it's never going to happen. It feels like NASA is just this old geezer in the nursing home on life support, reminiscing about the good old days. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:40:53 PM EDT
[#12]
I used to work at a hydrogen plant that supplied Stennis.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:42:43 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When I first heard it, I thought it sounded goofy - but when you look at just how ridiculously accurate SpaceX has gotten in landing Falcon cores, and how accurate the SN8 prototype was (even without directional thrusters, and just using the engine gimbal) when it was coming in for its (crash) landing , I am not even very skeptical any longer. I bet they can figure it out pretty quickly. Figure out what , how to land it without it blowing up ? What was it , 6 or 8 months ago that fanboys were gloating that Starship(s) would be doing orbital flights THIS MONTH ? Does SpaceX not have to build and test and make reliable a booster first before it gets a Starship in to space ? Maybe a reliable Starship should come first , Yes / No ? They have along way to go before they get that glorified grain silo in to space and it would not shock me if Artemis beats them to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:50:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Waiting on T minus 10 hold release.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:53:33 PM EDT
[#15]
Ah did hu just call yonder Starship a glorified grain silo?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 5:55:21 PM EDT
[#16]
Yep !!!
I expect to see them popping up in farmers fields this coming Summer too !!! Going to be awesome. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:03:51 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you daring to imply that NASA is trying to invoke marijuana magic? Because Elon beat them to that too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0oclM1Yw2ABut at least they're trying? Oh and EricS... I wish you weren't right about the total disassembly before flight. But, that's a price that someone is going to have to pay, at least as long as this... Program is in its current form. That video is embarrassing as hell and I can't imagine why they keep doing this stupid shit. The disassembly before flight is not true, fake news. unless it comes apart on it's own during this
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:11:54 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Figure out what , how to land it without it blowing up ? What was it , 6 or 8 months ago that fanboys were gloating that Starship(s) would be doing orbital flights THIS MONTH ? Does SpaceX not have to build and test and make reliable a booster first before it gets a Starship in to space ? Maybe a reliable Starship should come first , Yes / No ? They have along way to go before they get that glorified grain silo in to space and it would not shock me if Artemis beats them to it. I agree completely. That said, if the Starship program had been handed $20 BILLION and had been handed free engines that were already fully developed (and all of the previous Ares development), and given ten years of time - I am pretty confident that Starship would have landed on the moon by now, and would probably be well on the way to Mars.  Artemis will be neat - but the costs have been completely ridiculous, given that we are talking about merely replicating something we already did 50 fucking years ago, and doing so using proven an existing technology (and in fact re-using a bunch of parts sitting in warehouses). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:12:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep !!! I expect to see them popping up in farmers fields this coming Summer too !!! Going to be awesome. If I was a farmer, I would totally want a grain silo that looked like Starship. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:13:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree completely. That said, if the Starship program had been handed $20 BILLION and had been handed free engines that were already fully developed (and all of the previous Ares development), and given ten years of time - I am pretty confident that Starship would have landed on the moon by now, and would probably be well on the way to Mars. Artemis will be neat - but the costs have been completely ridiculous, given that we are talking about merely replicating something we already did 50 fucking years ago, and doing so using proven an existing technology (and in fact re-using a bunch of parts sitting in warehouses).  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:16:42 PM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:17:45 PM EDT
[#22]
Hold over. Inside terminal count. ~t-8 minutes
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:18:09 PM EDT
[#23]
Inside terminal count now , about 9 minutes to hot fire.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:20:03 PM EDT
[#24]
6 minutes!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:21:18 PM EDT
[#25]
Two weeks...!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:26:08 PM EDT
[#26]
2 Minutes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:29:37 PM EDT
[#27]
Early shutdown prior to gimbling.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:31:47 PM EDT
[#28]
huh. they still work. GOOD JOB NASA! Better test them SRBs again to make sure they still work.
Just call them "need more funding" tests |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:33:43 PM EDT
[#29]
800TB of data in just over a minute.
Holy crap ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:33:57 PM EDT
[#30]
Seriously?
It was supposed to be an 8-minute test, and they had to shut down after what? 2 minutes? Did they even get 2 minutes? These are engines that have literally been to space many times already! For fuck's sake, NASA. Get your shit together. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:34:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Only 67.7 seconds, hopefully the failed component can be quickly repaired and will see another test soon.
Is another test fire within 30 days possible? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:34:29 PM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:35:17 PM EDT
[#33]
I'll be at Port Canaveral when that core stage comes in by barge , that bitch is huge !
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:38:22 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll be at Port Canaveral when that core stage comes in by barge , that bitch is huge ! I am certain my wife and I will fly down for the SLS launch. Watching that launch is probably going to be like watching a Saturn V. ... although based on this test, we should probably schedule a couple of extra days after the scheduled launch day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:39:11 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only 67.7 seconds, hopefully the failed component can be quickly repaired and will see another test soon. Is another test fire within 30 days possible? How high in the air would SLS have made it after 67.7 seconds of burn? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:41:22 PM EDT
[#36]
It is impressive that they were able to shut that monster off without blowing it to smithereens.
"One does not simply..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:43:02 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yay |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:44:03 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How high in the air would SLS have made it after 67.7 seconds of burn? I'm guessing at about 50k ft |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:45:10 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yay Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:
Yay I'm sure if we just throw another billion or two at them, they'll have it figured out in no time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:51:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only 67.7 seconds, hopefully the failed component can be quickly repaired and will see another test soon. Is another test fire within 30 days possible? If this was SpaceX, it would be replaced and hot firing by Tuesday at the latest. NASA? A month at the earliest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:52:21 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not quite a RUD but may have been. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:52:33 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How high in the air would SLS have made it after 67.7 seconds of burn? That about where the Challenger disaster happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:53:40 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am certain my wife and I will fly down for the SLS launch. Watching that launch is probably going to be like watching a Saturn V. ... although based on this test, we should probably schedule a couple of extra days after the scheduled launch day. We should get together for a beer , along with Riverswine and MrHold. No fighting though , so far we have been able to avoid a Donnybrook. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:57:35 PM EDT
[#44]
Lol.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 6:59:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only 67.7 seconds, hopefully the failed component can be quickly repaired and will see another test soon. Is another test fire within 30 days possible? Absolutely possible. There are 4 backup engines standing by. That is assuming it wasn't a core stage thingy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 7:00:17 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I definitely believe it was mis-managed under the Obama administration, I just find it so bizarre that the reason for the cancellation of Constellation was because it was over-budget and behind schedule, and then the go ahead and end up with SLS as perhaps the worst example of being over-budget and behind schedule. I think it's as much an issue of a completely dysfunctional NASA culture. I am not an expert, but I have developed this suspicion that when NASA got really good at the smaller-scale stuff, like the Mars rovers (which I think are some of the most impressive and amazing technological achievements by mankind) and all sorts of small and amazing probes, then they somehow lost or forgot their project management skills for the really big stuff, and so when they started big new projects like Constellation and later SLS, they just completely fucked it up. I honestly don't know WHY they suck so badly now, or if it's that their contractors just got amazingly good at milking them and abusing the system. I just think it's tragic, and I have hated seeing this happening to NASA. The last couple of times that my wife and I have been at KSC, it's almost sad to walk through their displays. It's like it's a history museum, with an homage to the past ... and then some wishful thinking and fantasies about what they would LIKE to do in the future, but you know it's never going to happen. It feels like NASA is just this old geezer in the nursing home on life support, reminiscing about the good old days. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ares V was cool, and I wish they would have stayed with that program. The problem with SLS is not the concept per se - it is the grotesque incompetence on the part of NASA and the main contractors in implementing it. It should have been cancelled as soon as it became apparent that they were completely unable to keep costs under control - especially since that was the rationale for the cancellation of Constellation. The entire reason to just re-use old technology and re-use existing equipment was to save money and time. If SLS could have been built on schedule, and on budget, it would obviously still have been old tech (and the approach of just throwing away half a billion $ in engines for each launch is insane) - but it could still have been a reasonable stop-gap approach that could have been realistic for the short term. But given just how ludicrously expensive it has gotten (is the launch cost up to $2 billion per launch now?) that train has left the station long, LONG ago. Had they cancelled SLS, they should NOT have started development of a new system. NASA and their contractors have demonstrated how mired they are in a completely unrealistic outdated and financially unsustainable model. Instead, they should have adopted the principles of the Commercial Crew/Cargo programs, and partnered with commercial vendors on specific cost contracts to build the hardware, specifying the mission goals and specs, but not the hardware itself. SLS under Obama and under Trump are almost night and day. Though it doesnt help that weather, manufacturing mistakes, and a pandemic hurt the program. Under Obama they not only had no deadlines they had no real mission so they did things VERY slowly. With deadlines, a mission, etc, things have been moving much better. Core 1 had a welding issue so they put it to the side to be repaired later and core 2 was then built (Artemis 1). Other delays are damage sustained due to hurricanes and the Green Run was delayed due to the pesky WuFlu. Had Obama and his administrator actually created a real goal/deadline like Jim and Trump did we would be talking about launch number 2 or 3 right now of the system. I definitely believe it was mis-managed under the Obama administration, I just find it so bizarre that the reason for the cancellation of Constellation was because it was over-budget and behind schedule, and then the go ahead and end up with SLS as perhaps the worst example of being over-budget and behind schedule. I think it's as much an issue of a completely dysfunctional NASA culture. I am not an expert, but I have developed this suspicion that when NASA got really good at the smaller-scale stuff, like the Mars rovers (which I think are some of the most impressive and amazing technological achievements by mankind) and all sorts of small and amazing probes, then they somehow lost or forgot their project management skills for the really big stuff, and so when they started big new projects like Constellation and later SLS, they just completely fucked it up. I honestly don't know WHY they suck so badly now, or if it's that their contractors just got amazingly good at milking them and abusing the system. I just think it's tragic, and I have hated seeing this happening to NASA. The last couple of times that my wife and I have been at KSC, it's almost sad to walk through their displays. It's like it's a history museum, with an homage to the past ... and then some wishful thinking and fantasies about what they would LIKE to do in the future, but you know it's never going to happen. It feels like NASA is just this old geezer in the nursing home on life support, reminiscing about the good old days. For me it is like walking through the Henry Ford Museum… |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 7:00:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll be at Port Canaveral when that core stage comes in by barge , that bitch is huge ! I'll be at the turn basin unloading it, it is huge bitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 7:02:09 PM EDT
[#48]
Pathetic
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 7:02:35 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We should get together for a beer , along with Riverswine and MrHold. No fighting though , so far we have been able to avoid a Donnybrook. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I am certain my wife and I will fly down for the SLS launch. Watching that launch is probably going to be like watching a Saturn V. ... although based on this test, we should probably schedule a couple of extra days after the scheduled launch day. We should get together for a beer , along with Riverswine and MrHold. No fighting though , so far we have been able to avoid a Donnybrook. I'm in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 7:02:50 PM EDT
[#50]
I think they had a sensor failure. Engine guy said telem was fine before the engines shut down
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
