661–670 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they want to be on the rocket. To see the moon up close with your own eyes? It's spiritual.
I understand why they want to fly. I don't understand why the people is fine paying taxes for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Acceleration is change in speed, so it is, by its very nature, relative just like speed is. If I fall, I might accelerate at G meters per second, relative to the earth, but I don't absolutely accelerate. If the earth decelerates at the same time, I'm now both accelerating an decelerating. It's relative.
It’s absolute in the sense that you can determine your acceleration without any external reference. You feel a certain force (like what you feel in an elevator). That’s your acceleration. You don’t accelerate relative to Earth, or relative to anything else. You accelerate relative to when you wouldn’t be accelerating (your inertial rest frame, a state of free fall). If you are in space accelerating and the Earth woul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that's what "untested" means in spaceflight Sort of. At a certain threshold, everything is untested. I’d put this closer to modified than untested—the general config was tested in Artemis I and the specific configuration in a variety of ground tests.
I'd say it's tested. It failed. Then they're flying it anyway. Wonderful stuff.
It's been 54 years since humans last visited the Moon. Hopefully, in a few years we will get boots back on the surface.
Out of curiosity, why do you see this as a worthwhile endeavor? My personal perspective is that the resources are better used for other purposes, but it's possible that I just haven't encountered some compelling reason yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Artemis II won't fly by the moon until Day 6, but it only took Apollo 8 to Day 4 to get to the moon. Looking at the wiki for Apollo 8, it shows the moon was 218k miles at launch while they said the moon is currently 240k, so it still looks like Apollo was moving faster than Artemis.
My understanding is Artemis II orbits earth for 23.5 hours before heading to the moon while Apollo 8 did so for under 3 hours, so that accounts for some of the difference.
It's kind of said that we are having to do all of this repeated work just to get to where we've already been even if we are doing it on a much more accelerated schedule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> add my grain of positivity The best of science, reason, research, engineering, training, expertise, co-operation... The best of humanity. Le meilleur de l'humanité.
[flagged]
It is very disconcerting to see so many completely disregarding incredible technological innovation because other problems exist, especially on HN. If we were not allowed to progress technology until everybody is 100% free of suffering, we'd never be able to create technological that may potentially lead to the alleviation of suffering. It all feels very crabs in a bucket - "I don't feel happy so nobody else should,…
This is such a strawman argument because nobody expects nobody expects all wealth to be redistributed absolutely equally. What many of us would like however is a sufficient baseline. I've recently seen a seris of Tiktoks from a 50 year old woman who lives in rural China on ~$1/day. She works in a shoe factory and makes ~$11/day. Her husband is a truck driver. Thing is, she has a house, a phone, an electric scooter, e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just deterrence. Pax America (used to) mean something much more than that.
When the US stops being the main topic on the internet then you'll know it's over. As it stands everyone is still fully obsessed with America. Their cultural dominance is far from over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An article written by a "Polish-American web developer, entrepreneur, speaker, and social critic" says it's not safe to fly. And? What do the astronauts flying on board with significantly more information say?
There is also an old article written by a professional bongo player about the Challenger explossion. He has other hobbies, but he was not a Rocket Scientist https://www.nasa.gov/history/rogersrep/v2appf.htm The takeaway, is that the software was fine, but other systems like the main engine used too much cutting edge technology and have a lot of unexpected failure modes and too many problems like partialy broken parts…