91–100 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not being a hater, but we landed on the moon 55+ years ago and now we're doing a flyby with 35+ year-old engine tech. It's good that we're doing something but we should be doing better.
In 2-3 years we should expect a Starship mission to Moon, at a much more sensible scale, as in the amount of scientific gear and actual researchers delivered to the surface (and then back).
edit: knee jerk reaction was wrong Still think what he said is worth hearing. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWvRjeEgecb/?igsh=MXZoYjZobDM...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the hell does that have to do with anything
the comment i'm replying to is saying that the moon mission is morally dubious because we haven't solved domestic poverty
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's amazing, but I'll refer you to Gil Scott-Heron for my feelings on the matter A rat done bit my sister Nell With whitey on the moon Her face and arms began to swell And whitey's on the moon I can't pay no doctor bills But whitey's on the moon Ten years from now I'll be payin' still While whitey's on the moon The man just upped my rent last night Cause whitey's on the moon No hot water, no toilets, no lights But w…
Yes, I remember that nihilistic piece of race rage bait and I remember it well. Now that 'non-whitey' is gliding past the moon and has shown he is past all that race-rage baiting by stating that [1] this is just — this is human history ... It’s the story of humanity — not black history, not women’s history I hope that the like of Scott-Heron and those who like to push this type of narrative are willing to finally tak…
Am I losing it? They can’t be seeing the far side of the moon right now, because they haven’t adjusted course to go round the far side of the moon yet… So does this suggest the BBC is wrong and it’s the side of the moon we’re used to seeing, but just it’s “dark”? But then the astronauts are saying it’s weird seeing the moon in a whole new light (excuse the paraphrasing pun). I don’t understand.
They’re far enough out that they can see some stuff you don’t see from Earth. They aren’t seeing the entire far side yet. Illustrated: https://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/comments/1sd797j/the_moon...
So, let's make some guess, but IANAA. Orion is in the middle of the trip going to the meeting point to the Moon in a quite straight line but the Moon is still not there. It will be there in 2 or 3 days, that is like 45° of the orbit.
O . . o
Earth > . . . . Moon
Orion in 3 days
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
Moon
now
I actually can't tell the difference in the photo to save my life, but I have a friend that is astronomer and I'm sure that if I show the photo to him, he could use a sharpie to mark the difference on my screen without any problem.
I'm going to be VERY disappointed if there's no Pink Floyd music or commentary from the Artemis mission. Particularly now. Life's short, and one can't be serious all the time... Wallis and Gromit would be a partial substitute, but the boomers are still around.
I like how most people's reactions at this point are "yeah, whatever", as if it's every day that humans observe the far side of the moon with a naked eye through a window :). We do know what it looks like and we have photos from the surface, yes, but seeing the reaction from real people who're actually there does hit different, at least for me
Speaking for myself (who has been fascinated with the space program since I was a small child), any joy I might feel around Artemis II feels tainted, by the immense amount of pork involved (SLS is called "Senate Launch System" for good reason) to the point where Artemis is more corporate welfare that happens to involve the Moon than a real space program, and by my belief that it is intended to be little more than a q…
Florida is because there's no other safe place in the US to launch a big rocket on an easterly trajectory* than Florida. Or the extreme southern tip of Texas, which SpaceX uses.
Houston is because NASA needed LBJ's support. They even named the place after him.
* Why easterly? Because that's the direction Earth rotates. If you orbit in that direction you get some free momentum from the planet itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just came across this poem a few days ago and had the opportunity to think about it. It’s a valuable perspective to hear. As someone prone to getting caught up in the breathless excitement about science, progress, human achievement, etc., it is a hard truth that these things are abstract and not relevant for people who are struggling with day-to-day life, particularly when those struggles are a result of the same g…
Kind of a false dichotomy. How about medical care as a right for a big abstract concept? He's not anti-science here, he's against the inequality of its distribution.
That’s precisely my point. Some stanzas in the poem suggest that there’s a direct connection between the moon mission and his poverty.
> The man just upped my rent last night > cause Whitey’s on the moon
> Was all that money I made last year > For Whitey on the moon?
And my point then was that I can see and empathize with his frustration, but I don’t feel it’s a singularly correct perspective to the exclusion of the perspective that the missions were of great value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I ran across this video[0] yesterday with Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about how it’s always been political. The first moon landing was more about global politics than science. As a child you likely weren’t concerned about that side of it, or were shielded from it. It isn’t always the purist motivations that push the human race forward, but forward it moves us. [0] https://youtu.be/j_AlXChA9F4
I don't think OP's problem with it is that it's "political" but that it's a product of pork and corporate welfare. The political thrust of the Apollo program was more "beat the Russians" and less "funnel money into dozens of already-rich corporations in favored districts." Even thought there was a lot of that, too. Modern space (and defense) projects seem to be almost 100% "pork funnel" and zero anything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why they decided on that timing? If it were better illuminated by the sun, couldn't they get some better photography?
My guess is that this mission is not about imaging the far side of the Moon at all as that has been done already.