411–420 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take note of a project that’s about 15 years behind schedule and many multiples over budget finally progressed because we lowered safety standards to just launch? I’m not sure how that’s proof the government isn’t gutted. Let me know what our schedule is for the next one and how that timeline has changed. Ignoring the projects that have been outright canceled… You’re currently the guy saying “ya, all you haters that…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same. I watched Apollo 11 launch in 1969 when I was four. Watched on our neighbor's TV. We didn't have one. Imagine what we could accomplish if we didn't suck.
sending people to the moon was never useful. We can get more done with robots, both cheaper and safer. There are plenty of more useful things we can do instead. okay what is more useful is a matter of opinion. you can disagree, but I stand by it
Most of what people find inspiring doesn't directly provide a lot of objective utility, and is often quite dangerous for the individuals who choose to participate. Reaching the highest peaks in the last century, antarctic expeditions, pushing the limits of racing vehicles, attempting a sub two hour marathon, and athletes defining new tricks and styles in extreme sports are all objectively pretty useless in terms of their direct outputs -- and yet I find it all a whole lot more inspiring than my computer getting twice as fast, even if the latter is of way more objective utility to my life.
Min-maxing ROI in a spreadsheet just doesn't do it for me in the same way. There's absolutely a place for that and in a world of limited resources it should be how we spend most of our effort, and it is! The amount of money spent on efforts like this is _tiny_ at the scale of nations, and is certainly a much smaller and better use of funds than wars and corruption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take note of a project that’s about 15 years behind schedule and many multiples over budget finally progressed because we lowered safety standards to just launch? I’m not sure how that’s proof the government isn’t gutted. Let me know what our schedule is for the next one and how that timeline has changed. Ignoring the projects that have been outright canceled… You’re currently the guy saying “ya, all you haters that…
Don't confuse bureaucracy with "gutted." The federal government is bigger than at most any point in US history. Arguably that fact is -why- it's 15 years behind schedule.
February 2026: 2.693 million, the lowest number since July 1965.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already did Artemis I and the heat shield lost a lot more material than it was supposed to on that flight. "Specifically, portions of the char layer wore away differently than NASA engineers predicted, cracking and breaking off the spacecraft in fragments that created a trail of debris rather than melting away as designed. The unexpected behavior of the Avcoat creates a risk that the heat shield may not sufficient…
Also the fixes weren’t made on this capsule, since it was already built with the old design. So that means this capsule will fly a different re-entry profile to attempt to avoid the issue and Artemis IV will fly with untested fixes for lunar return.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take note of a project that’s about 15 years behind schedule and many multiples over budget finally progressed because we lowered safety standards to just launch? I’m not sure how that’s proof the government isn’t gutted. Let me know what our schedule is for the next one and how that timeline has changed. Ignoring the projects that have been outright canceled… You’re currently the guy saying “ya, all you haters that…
> we lowered safety standards to just launch Aren’t they still well above anything in the history of human space flight? We keep treating these systems in popular discourse as airliners. They’re not. They’re experimental craft. With mass production maybe SpaceX can bring launch closer to general aviation. But the notion that any loss of life is intolerable is (a) unsustainably expensive and (b) not a view shared by t…
[flagged]
Completely agree with you re: climate change being an existential threat, but disagree with your hyperbole about the US being the worst offender. The US should lead because they are supposed to be a world leader - but they alone are not singularly or in majority responsible for climate change.
Mixing fact and hyperbole together weakens your overall message.
Minutes after launch they reached "ten thousand miles per hour". That's 2.78 miles per second. Nuts. No doubt the speeds go even higher later too. I'm sure people here are already familiar with the speeds these things go, but that's the first time I've confronted a fact like that and it blew me away.
I was thinking the exact same thing when they announced the speed. I assume the top speed of Artemis will be at least double that too...
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Global rates of poverty are 83% lower than they were in 1969 when we landed on the moon. So actually, millions of lives have massively benefited from science and technology. To be cynical in the face of all that is a personal take, not a reflection of the facts.
So landing on the moon triggered a reduction in global rates of poverty? do you have any research or citations for this claim?
It's really getting tiring repeating this stuff over and over again to the anti-space crowd.