Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Private company landing on the moon today

intuitivemachines.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 286 posts

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#181

Post by jjkaczor »

dylan604 wrote: post #19
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels unnecessary cynical. I could understand if the spacecraft said "Drink Ovaltine" or something else just advertising with paid placement, but the brand marks on it are just highlighting the organizations the actually built the thing . I was originally confused/skeptical about Columbia, but they did actually contribute to the design and construction of the lander, even if this press release is a little puffed…

Eventually, spacecraft will look like a NASCAR paint job.

Back when I used to help organized and run a technology-specific usergroup, where we were constantly working corporate sponsors for donations to pay for food/beverages, I joked that on meeting nights I would gladly wear a NASCAR style jumpsuit, emblazoned with every sponsor brand logo/slogan. At least we would be honest shills. Sigh... no one took me up on the offer.

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#182

Post by TeMPOraL »

adastra22 wrote: post #136
Someone wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but even that isn’t simple, I think. They’d not want to land on top of it, so they’d have to push it out from the lander or have it propel itself away from the lander. If they push it out and it doesn’t have a way to stabilize itself, keeping the lens pointing upwards then will require tight control over that push. So, I guessed (see below) you’d need power to make the sat orient itself. However, I googled a bit…

Have two. One on each side. Doesn't matter if one ends up in the regolith.

Have three, 120 degrees apart. They'll double as backup landing legs.

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#183

Post by dylan604 »

jjkaczor wrote: post #181
dylan604 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually, spacecraft will look like a NASCAR paint job.

Back when I used to help organized and run a technology-specific usergroup, where we were constantly working corporate sponsors for donations to pay for food/beverages, I joked that on meeting nights I would gladly wear a NASCAR style jumpsuit, emblazoned with every sponsor brand logo/slogan. At least we would be honest shills. Sigh... no one took me up on the offer.

I still think that politicians should wear a jumpsuit with all of their corporate sponsors

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#184

Post by TeMPOraL »

lukan wrote: post #179
sdwr wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an impressive school project! First university to land on the moon

Unless they would have build and operated the rocket themself (and not SpaceX), I would consider that a false clickbait headline.

A decade ago, maybe. Today? SpaceX is commoditizing access to space - we're at the point we can start treating Earth-orbit delivery as a given, i.e. just a service you pay money for.

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#185

Post by TeMPOraL »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #102
Someone wrote: post #90

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitive_Machines_Nova-C#Eagl... : “EagleCam to record lunar landing Just before landing, at approximately 30 m (98 ft) above the lunar surface, the Odysseus lander will eject the EagleCam camera-equipped CubeSat, which will drop onto the lunar surface near the lander, with an impact velocity of about 10 m/s (22 mph). From the surface the EagleCam will attempt to capture the first third…

I always assumed that space was noisy enough that things like wifi wouldn't work on the lunar surface.

Noise you can correct for with directional antennas, filters, and/or more signal processing voodoo. Meanwhile you benefit from space being actually empty - no pesky atmosphere in the way to attenuate signals (though also no layers to bounce the signal off), and no other transmitters in your area. Inverse square law works to your advantage in this context.

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#186

Post by redavni »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #163
adastra22 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because of different frequencies and power caps that are enforced by the FCC. If your WiFi broadcast with the same power, the frequency space would be unusable by your neighbors for their WiFi. The range of WiFi is very purposefully sabotaged to make it useful for more than just you.

Assuming you are talking about FCC Part 15 regulations for 2.4 GHz, you couldn't be more wrong. There is no 'sabotage' The EIRP is 4 watts in 2.4 GHz band. More than enough to wipe out your neighbors. Also more than enough to get absolutely tremendous range in line of sight conditions. I can purchase and install an unlimited number of 2.4 GHz Part 15 devices, rendering the band useless to anyone so long as I am attem…

> Note: one of my neighbors does this, by having an AP on every 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channel.

Sounds like a fun and ethical excuse to DOS some WIFI routers.

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#187

Post by dylan604 »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #177
dylan604 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we have a basic misunderstanding of private vs public ownership. When we all own it, you can't just do whatever you want like build a house, but withe proper permit, you can use it. If it was private, I could never do something with what you owned.

In the case of public ownership, I don't own it though. The entire public does. I'm willing to say "the people own" these telescopes, but that isn't what you originally said. You said "as an American, you own them" which isn't true.

pedants going to pedant

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#188

Post by imtringued »

ethanbond wrote: post #28
bko wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All postings for software engineers are on-site, in Texas. Not moving my family to Texas, Florida, or Alabama, for anything. Beautiful states, but I have a daughter. what does this mean?

That these states are antagonistic to women's health. See: Alabama's ruling that frozen embryos for IVF are actually children with all the rights thereof, immediately ceasing IVF procedures. See also: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/05/us/texas-woman-high-risk-preg... This woman in Texas having to sue to avoid a very dangerous birth of a child who will she will end up having to watch die within a few days. > It states Co…

Frozen embryos are children with all rights? What's next? Women who have periods are serial killers and must be kept pregnant at all times? Most of those frozen embryos are less than a dozen stem cells. You lose far more skin cells every second.

There is no way to describe this other than religious crankery.

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#189

Post by spiderfarmer »

ctrlp wrote: post #159
spiderfarmer wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I visited all states in the western half and it was shocking to see that the infrastructure outside of the cities is more or less comparable with the poorest parts of eastern Europe. It did not change my opinion of the US for the better.

Your comment was about the treatment of women, though, not infrastructure. You probably know that Florida and Alabama are not in the western half of the US. Texas is so big it's often considered its own place, but much of Texas is considered part of the American South in culture and geography. Did you visit Texas? If so, which parts? Much of Europe can fit comfortably within the landmass of Texas, so maybe you just d…

You’re right. While the state of the infrastructure shocked me, it doesn’t say anything about the backwards policies you have in your book burning, women hating states.

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#190

Post by fnordpiglet »

lukan wrote: post #179
sdwr wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an impressive school project! First university to land on the moon

Unless they would have build and operated the rocket themself (and not SpaceX), I would consider that a false clickbait headline.

Flying to the moon is the easy part. Landing is the trick.
Post reply on HN