191–200 of 262 posts
> No, the Artemis II mission will not land on the moon. It is a 10-day crewed, deep-space flyby test flight designed to verify spacecraft systems before future landing missions. The crew will circle the moon before returning to Earth, serving as a critical step toward landing later in the decade.
Don't get mad at me. My question is, why did we have to send this mission? This is not the first time we are going to land on the moon, so why this prerequisite?
From Google AI Review: > No, the Artemis II mission will not land on the moon. It is a 10-day crewed, deep-space flyby test flight designed to verify spacecraft systems before future landing missions. The crew will circle the moon before returning to Earth, serving as a critical step toward landing later in the decade. Don't get mad at me. My question is, why did we have to send this mission? This is not the first ti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The absolute cost isn't the problem, it's the value that we're getting from it. SLS and Artemis are both incredibly expensive and ramshackle programs, and regardless of how bad the rest of the USG might be in terms of their cost, or value, if you are a true space fan and a true American space fan, you should want this little corner of humanity to hold itself to a higher standard. Acceptance of over costing and under…
Compared to the absolute baffling amount of money spent for military purposes, knowing more about the moon is well worth it.
Now thinking about Mars, sending astronauts there is actually a net negative for science because it risks contaminating Mars.
We send astronauts there because it's cool, period. Science has nothing to do with it.
Are full size/larger images available somewhere? 1920x1280px seems low. Edit: Found 'em: https://images.nasa.gov/search?page=1&media=image&yearStart=...
There is something uncanny about the bandwidth and quality of all the artifacts coming from this mission. I've subsisted on photos from the Apollo missions and artistic renditions for so long that seeing the modern, high resolution real thing to be quite stirring in a way I didn't expect. It actually does make me believe that the future could be quite cool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 20.8 megapixel 5568 x 3712 pixels is not a shitty image. When we get to see those images, they will be much better than the GoPro images we're seeing
They also have a 46 megapixel Nikon Z9 which they don't appear to have used for some odd reason...
There are some very bright noise pixels on the dark area, which is different from the noise in similar photos taken with D5 (much darker and uniform).
Are full size/larger images available somewhere? 1920x1280px seems low. Edit: Found 'em: https://images.nasa.gov/search?page=1&media=image&yearStart=...
Try this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/ I don’t see TIFFs, so I assume the originals were JPEG.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/ I don’t see TIFFs, so I assume the originals were JPEG.
If anything the originals would be RAW files.
Could be, we see TIFFs, after they get back.
I have to admit, I've been an Artemis hater ($4 billion per launch lol) but the experience of watching people go back around the Moon has been incredibly inspiring, and it proves to me that maybe we can still do hard things
I have to admit, I've been an Artemis hater ($4 billion per launch lol) but the experience of watching people go back around the Moon has been incredibly inspiring, and it proves to me that maybe we can still do hard things
> $4 billion per launch If Trump gets his $1.5T military budget, that would be about the military spend per day I think?