21–30 of 33 posts
Video of the Earthrise he's talking about in the article - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE-vOscpiNc I just finished Andrew's A Man on the Moon book a couple of weeks ago and I throughly enjoyed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_Earth_to_the_Moon_(mi...
Just to clarify, the earth does not rise on the moon (just wobbles). The earth appears to rise because the orbiter circling the moon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. I just remember the first time I ever saw that footage, couldn't believe what I was hearing, and haven't forgotten it. My own objection isn't even about government/state promotion of religion - though I'm not particularly a fan of that - it's that a scientific body like NASA comes out with "God created Earth". And I wouldn't even mind that if NASA stated it was their official position.…
You are conflating the official position of the organization with a statement made by one of its employees on company time. The linked decision thoroughly considers this point as well, and finds it unconvincing. NASA's official allegiance in matters of faith was found to be as nonexistent as befits a US government agency. The court recognizes that sometimes people say things of their own accord, for which they alone…
1. It was not one person, it was everyone on board.
2. Describing NASA trained professionals, paid by NASA, in their NASA gear and NASA hardware, representing NASA on a monumental, history-making, multi-billion dollar NASA mission into deep space as mere "employees on company time" is beyond ridiculous, frankly.
Why are there no visible stars in the background?
I'm glad they got the Earthrise Photo, because otherwise, six months before Apollo 11 gave the world a line which even impressed the Soviets, Apollo 8 would be remembered for this cringey, inane stuff[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToHhQUhdyBY [1] To avoid misunderstanding: this isn't an atheist/anti-religion post, it's about the aptness of such an utterance by personnel on a top scientific mission, from one of…
You're definitely coming off as an edge-lord for calling this inane. Today, I'm sure Twitter would melt because of it (you can't even have a shirt people don't like without causing outrage), but the country was very different back then. Plus these missions were more than a scientific endeavor, because it took more than science to put everything in place for it. It was the biggest accomplishment by us as a species, so…
And you're definitely coming off as an idiot using a term like "edge-lord".
> Today, I'm sure Twitter would melt because of it (you can't even have a shirt people don't like without causing outrage)
I have no interest in Twitter - so unfortunately I don't know which particular chip on your shoulder you're rambling on about - but you should probably save your hot take on the issue for a relevant thread.
> but the country was very different back then.
Yes, instead of melting Twitter people merely filed lawsuits.
> Plus these missions were more than a scientific endeavor, because it took more than science to put everything in place for it.
Did it take God creating Earth in the first place?
> It was the biggest accomplishment by us as a species, so they wanted mark it with what they considered the most important thing in their lives.
So it's the biggest accomplishment by us as a species, but really all about what three guys in a can want?
> To me it's cringey that you can't look at it objectively without taking some kind of offense to it. But hey, that's just me.
Good for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We see stars during solar eclipses, so it is the scattering of the light of the sun that obscures them. It really _is_ the exposure issue, since the surface brightness of the Earth is that of full daylight and so full daytime exposures were needed. Stars will never show up unless longer exposures are used. Here is an over exposed photo of Earth by Apollo 16 from the lunar surface, with stars visible: https://en.wikip…
I may not have been so clear (English is not my native tongue, etc), but you repeat what I wrote: * it is the scattering of the light of the sun that obscures them * On some pictures, stars are visible (I even provided a link) However having said that you also say "It really _is_ the exposure issue" but it has nothing to do with light scattering?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are conflating the official position of the organization with a statement made by one of its employees on company time. The linked decision thoroughly considers this point as well, and finds it unconvincing. NASA's official allegiance in matters of faith was found to be as nonexistent as befits a US government agency. The court recognizes that sometimes people say things of their own accord, for which they alone…
> You are conflating the official position of the organization with a statement made by one of its employees on company time. 1. It was not one person, it was everyone on board. 2. Describing NASA trained professionals, paid by NASA, in their NASA gear and NASA hardware, representing NASA on a monumental, history-making, multi-billion dollar NASA mission into deep space as mere "employees on company time" is beyond r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are conflating the official position of the organization with a statement made by one of its employees on company time. 1. It was not one person, it was everyone on board. 2. Describing NASA trained professionals, paid by NASA, in their NASA gear and NASA hardware, representing NASA on a monumental, history-making, multi-billion dollar NASA mission into deep space as mere "employees on company time" is beyond r…
Three employees, then. Did you have a substantive response to make? I mean, I understand that you're not satisfied with how the events of Apollo 8 played out. What I don't understand is whence comes the belief, which you seem to cherish quite strongly, that your satisfaction or lack thereof is of any relevance to those events.
Did you?
> I understand that you're not satisfied with how the events of Apollo 8 played out. What I don't understand is whence comes the belief, which you seem to cherish quite strongly, that your satisfaction or lack thereof is of any relevance to those events.
I understand that you're not satisfied with my posts about how Apollo 8 played out. What I don't understand is whence comes the belief, which you seem to cherish quite strongly, that your satisfaction or lack thereof is of any relevance to anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three employees, then. Did you have a substantive response to make? I mean, I understand that you're not satisfied with how the events of Apollo 8 played out. What I don't understand is whence comes the belief, which you seem to cherish quite strongly, that your satisfaction or lack thereof is of any relevance to those events.
> Did you have a substantive response to make? Did you? > I understand that you're not satisfied with how the events of Apollo 8 played out. What I don't understand is whence comes the belief, which you seem to cherish quite strongly, that your satisfaction or lack thereof is of any relevance to those events. I understand that you're not satisfied with my posts about how Apollo 8 played out. What I don't understand i…
I'm glad they got the Earthrise Photo, because otherwise, six months before Apollo 11 gave the world a line which even impressed the Soviets, Apollo 8 would be remembered for this cringey, inane stuff[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToHhQUhdyBY [1] To avoid misunderstanding: this isn't an atheist/anti-religion post, it's about the aptness of such an utterance by personnel on a top scientific mission, from one of…
The concern has been raised before: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/3... (eta: Nothing earns downvotes on Hacker News like complaining about downvotes does. If getting downvoted here bothers you - and God alone knows why it would - then complaining about downvotes is a habit worth avoiding.)
We can't all be carefree souls who have definitely not hung on to a throwaway for two years because of the massive amount of upvotes it received.
While I'm sure there must be an absolutely infinite number of reasons why a post about Apollo 8 in a thread about Apollo 8 is immediately downvoted, while the top post is about farts in a spacesuit, and even a Moon hoax reference is ultimately considered more legit by top minds here, I complain when downvotes seem like auto/bot votes.
> complaining about downvotes is a habit worth avoiding.
If complaints about downvoting bother some people - and God alone knows why they would - then maybe giving someone more reason to complain about downvotes is a habit worth avoiding.